Return-Path: <nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id h74Kev700691; Mon, 4 Aug 2003 16:40:57 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2003 16:40:57 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <000501c35ac9$10fabce0$804cdc42@f0e9v3> Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov Reply-To: nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: "Ken Taber" <kentaber@inetgenesis.com> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-POVRACELIT:1214] Re: advocacy issues again X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2720.3000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; Status: O Content-Length: 12623 Lines: 278 The laws on non-profits need to be more flexible and not more restricted. The government will need the support of many non-profit organizations support during this recession. To pick a fight with non-profits over free speech is a shameful act and should not continue. The law used to be that as long as you did not use federal funds then any advocacy group was allowed under the law and since e-mails do not use federal funds then any advocacy on the internet was allowed. For the government to regulate free speech to further their propaganda and not allow dissent is un-American and a violation of our right to free speech. Every American should have the right to dissent from any policy position otherwise we have no free speech. The great part amount the internet is that you don't have to put a stamp on your letters. Even letter-writing use to be allowed as long as it was your personal money and not federal funds that paid for the stamp. The last time I checked we still live in a democracy. If the only form of debate that the current administration can win is one where they silence their opponents and attack non-profit organizations, then we are no longer living in a free society. How are these policies any different from those in Cuba? -Ken Taber ----- Original Message ----- From: <kmccook@tampabay.rr.com> To: "Multiple recipients of list" <nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov> Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 11:20 AM Subject: [NIFL-POVRACELIT:1213] advocacy issues again > DEATH BY A THOUSAND CUTS: OMB WATCH REPORT > Instead of a single legislative or regulatory proposal that > would limit nonprofit speech, the Bush administration and > conservative allies have proposed or begun implementing a > number of proposals that are akin to a "death by a thousand > cuts." These "cuts," which have suddenly accelerated in the > last year, come in three areas: > 1) Attacks on nonprofit advocacy, particularly when > there > are disagreements with Bush administration policies; > 2) Limits imposed by government on nonprofit speech, > particularly targeted to those working on issues -- such as > reproductive rights, HIV/AIDS, and international development > -- where there may be ideological differences with the > administration; and > 3) Changes made by nonprofits resulting from fear of how > > laws such as the USA Patriot Act are being implemented. For > full report see: http://www.ombwatch.org/ > > Attacks on Nonprofit Advocacy > > * Head Start: HHS sent a letter to Head Start programs > that contained inaccurate, confusing and vague information > about federal laws governing their right to lobby, and > threatened sanctions for programs that violate the law. The > letter was a ham-handed effort to stop advocacy in > opposition to the President's plan for Head Start > reauthorization. A court chastised HHS and made the agency > send a new letter to grantees, noting that federal grantees > can lobby with their non-federal funds. > > * Parent Centers Serving Families of Children with > Disabilities: A bill to reauthorize the Individuals with > Disabilities Education Act contained a provision that would > prohibit nonprofits from receiving grant funds to run parent > centers if the organization engages in any "federal > relations," if any board members (even in their capacity as > citizens or other work situations) do "federal relations," > or if staff serve on boards of other organizations that > engage in "federal relations." "Federal relations" was not > defined, but the bill also prohibited lobbying; so it was > clear that "federal relations" was much broader than > lobbying. After a firestorm of protest the provision was > dropped, but it is clear that some in the Bush > administration and Congress support this type of proposal. > > * IRS Selected Audits of Charities that Lobby: After > several > charities, who elected to fall under the IRS "expenditure > test" for lobbying purposes, received phones calls regarding > tax audits, many become concerned about whether IRS was > targeting charities that lobby or those that "elected." At a > meeting with IRS officials, they denied that the audits were > targeted to those who elected to lobby under the expenditure > test, but acknowledged that lobbying was factor in selecting > the groups for audits. But they also said they were halting > the program pending a review. > > Government Control of Speech > > * General fears: Many nonprofits with differing > perspectives from those of the Bush administration, such as > those working on reproductive rights and HIV/AIDS, fear the > government is taking actions to silence them. Some talk > about targeted audits; others about being put on a > blacklist; others claim they have been told not to apply for > further grants: that the funds will be going to faith based > organizations instead of them. Some believe the government > and others are combing through their websites to find > objectionable words to shut them down. Building off some > written communications from government agencies, some > groups > feel it does not matter to government that the > "objectionable" activities are not paid for with federal > funds. > > * Stop AIDS: The San Francisco-based group has been > the > subject of a HHS Inspector General examination and CDC > reviews: all resulting in a clean bill of health. CDC > recently sent a letter to Stop AIDS noting that materials > announcing workshops may be in violation of laws > encouraging > sexual activity. A panel that was set up by law to insure > that grantees were not encouraging sexual activity or other > impermissible activities, however, cleared the workshops. > Stop AIDS, moreover, notes that no federal funding is > involved with the workshops. Yet CDC claims that is > irrelevant and intends to increase oversight of other > HIV/AIDS grantees. > > * Targeting Protestors at the Barcelona AIDS Conference: > > Twelve House Republicans urged HHS to launch an inquiry > concerning a dozen groups responsible for a protest during > the XIV International AIDS Conference in Barcelona in July > 2002; they wanted to know if the groups receive federal > funding. Participants encouraged conference attendees to > heckle HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson during his speech > at the > conference for not pledging more money for international > HIV/AIDS efforts. According to conservatives, those who > engage in such actions "should expect to get some blowback > and some additional attention from Congress." Groups > working > on HIV/AIDS see the retaliatory actions as chilling. As one > group said, "Anybody who hears what's happened is going to > think twice about signing another flier or planning another > demonstration." > > * AIDS Programs in Africa and the Global Gag Order: This > > year, House Republicans included two religious amendments > in > the $15 billion bill to help stop the spread of AIDS in > Africa, which passed on May 1, 2003. The first provision > would require one third of the money to be used to promote > abstinence (a favorite cause of the religious right). The > second would permit religious organizations that receive > funding under the program to reject AIDS prevention > strategies they find objectionable (such as instruction in > the use of condoms). This action, combined with the "global > gag rule," creates a double standard in the degree of > control the U.S. government seeks to assert over activities > and speech that it does not fund. > > * Iraq Reconstruction Efforts ? In May 2003, the U.S. > Agency for International Development awarded $7 million in > grants for "critical reconstruction and development needs" > in Iraq. USAID said each grantee must agree to clear any an > all publicity or media-related matters through USAID and > consistently publicize the U.S. government's funding. The > head of USAID said that he would "personally tear up their > contracts and find new partners [for NGOs that do not > comply]? [NGOs] are an arm of the U.S. government." > > * Spotty and Unequal Enforcement of Disclosure Rules: > Section 507 of the Labor, HHS, Education appropriations bill > carries a requirement that all recipients of money from the > bill must disclose on all statements, press releases, bid > solicitations and other documents describing things funded > in whole or in part with federal the amount and percentage > of program costs paid for with federal funds. Some grantees, > who have different viewpoints that the current > administration, report being questioned why they are not > providing such statements. They feel this is becoming an > excuse to not renew grants. > > * NGOWatch: A new web-based effort by the American > Enterprise Institute and the Federal Society for Law and > Public Policy Studies will monitor the influence of NGOs > engaged in multi-national activities. NGOWatch reflects a > belief that NGOs are suddenly proliferating to an alarming > degree in developing and developed nations, with a level of > influence and visibility that extends far beyond their > grassroots origins and organizational missions. > > The USA Patriot Act > > * The Patriot Act Grants Enormous Surveillance Powers: > The Patriot Act creates opportunities for the government to > seize assets of nonprofits. It also allows the government to > spy on nonprofits with a low threshold of probable cause. In > doing the surveillance, the government can search and tack > records without having to notify the organization. It can > search an organization's records for information about third > parties and the organization may not tell anyone that the > search is happening. The government can also "trap and > trace" various types of Internet communications. While they > can't read our emails, they can track web searches and > monitor emails and their subjects. > > * From Citizens to Nonprofits: Challenging Dissent: Many > > citizens have already had visits from the FBI and other > government officials because they said bad things about the > president or used unchoice words. One women who > protested > against the war through actions taken by Women in Black: a > nonprofit organization nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize > -- received calls from the FBI asking her to "name names" > and was threatened with a subpoena. > > * The Chilling Impact on Nonprofits: There are at least > three reasons nonprofits should be deeply concerned: > concern > for the privacy of the people we serve; concern over the > potential of seizing assets or key resources within the > organization; and concern over the concern we have, which > chills participation. A survey of libraries in > January-February, 2002, found that government agents had > asked 8.3 percent for information about patrons. At least > one library has tried a solution to "beat the system" by > regularly informing the board of directors that there are no > investigations. If the director does not notify the Board > that there are no investigations, it can serve as a clue > that something may be happening. Additionally, the Treasury > Department, which has the authority to seize assets, issued > guidelines on voluntary "best practices" for charities. The > "best practices" will prove to be quite troubling, given > that most nonprofits will likely be out of compliance. The > bottom line is that many nonprofits are worrying about the > impact of the Patriot Act. Some may be changing legitimate > work they do in order to insure they aren't targeted under > the Patriot Act. > > Conclusion > > It is to be expected that a President will push his or her > policy agenda and use the tools at hand to do so. However, > it is not appropriate for a President to attempt to silence > those that disagree with him. In a democracy, the issues > should be decided on the merits, and not on the basis of > one-sided, unanswered facts or analyses. The more the > public > and our elected representatives hear from the nonprofit > sector, including views from right to left, the better the > resulting decisions. > > The examples above, taken together, paint a mosaic that > should cause great concern for every nonprofit: and should > be a rallying cry for nonprofit sector leaders. This > administration -- and its conservative allies: is stifling > free expression and using the heavy hand of government to > quash dissent. Even when proposals have been dropped or > stopped, they leave in their wake a chill on nonprofit > speech. > > For full report see: > http://www.ombwatch.org/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------ > > > > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Mar 11 2004 - 12:18:11 EST