May 17, 2001 | Read Time: 4 minutes
By ELIZABETH SCHWINN
Some charities fear campaign-finance legislation being considered by Congress would go too far in limiting their ability to advocate for their causes.
The groups are fighting to change provisions in two campaign-finance bills pending in the House of Representatives that would bar labor unions, corporations, charities, and certain other nonprofit groups from running commercials in which a political candidate is mentioned by name within two months of a general election. One bill would prohibit all forms of advertising, including print displays, direct mail, and broadcast spots, that mention a specific candidate within that time frame (H.R. 380). The other bill is similar to a bill passed by the Senate last month (S. 27) that would restrict broadcast advertising within 60 days of a general election and 30 days of a primary.
Many nonprofit groups hope to persuade members of the House to exclude charities and some other types of nonprofit groups from the provisions because they say such restrictions would unduly limit their free speech and could prevent them from weighing in on issues they care about just as they are heating up. Said Kay Guinane, a manager at O.M.B. Watch, a Washington research and advocacy group: “Congress doesn’t stop voting on bills before an election.”
Independent Sector, a national coalition of major nonprofit groups and grant makers that also opposes the provisions, said that the bills, as currently written, would have serious consequences for nonprofit groups. For example, the coalition said the bills would prevent a group that supports stronger drunk-driving penalties from running television ads urging the public to contact named members of Congress in support of legislation two weeks before a primary election in which some of the members are running. The legislation would also prevent a civil-liberties group that invited presidential candidates to speak at its national meeting from advertising that meeting on the radio if it occurs within a month of the national party conventions, Independent Sector said.
But supporters of the legislation said at a House hearing earlier this month that the provisions are needed to end thinly veiled attacks by nonprofit groups and others on political candidates that are intended to sway an election.
Celia Wexler, a senior policy analyst at Common Cause, which is lobbying for the campaign-finance legislation, said her group is sympathetic to the concerns of some charities. But Ms. Wexler also noted that a recent study issued by the Brennan Center for Justice, in New York, found that of all the ads run last year that would have been limited by the bill, less than 1 percent could be described as true “issues ads” — those not intended to generate support for or opposition to a particular candidate.
“In the real world, you don’t see a lot of nonprofits running around buying broadcast ads that close to the election,” said Ms. Wexler. She added that while charities may have concerns about one provision in the bills, she hopes the organizations will support the overall goal of lessening the power of money in politics. “Anything that levels the playing field so that money doesn’t have this incredible influence on federal policymaking is a boon for nonprofits,” she said.
The nonprofit coalitions that oppose the restrictions on charities say that while they support many of the goals of the campaign-finance legislation, they hope that the bill that eventually goes to the full House for a vote will avoid what they see as the problems contained in the Senate version.
In addition to the issues-ad provision, those groups worry that another provision in the Senate bill would mean that a charity’s contacts with a candidate could be considered “coordination” on activities that would support the candidate’s campaign, making them subject to federal election laws.
After nonprofit groups and others complained to senators about a provision that would have defined coordination very broadly, the Senate substituted a more general provision, leaving the rules up to the Federal Election Commission to determine. Some nonprofit officials say this new provision is so vague that charities won’t know whether they are within the law or not.
John Pomerantz, nonprofit advocacy counsel for the Alliance for Justice, an association of advocacy organizations, says that even contacting a candidate in connection with a nonpartisan voter-registration effort could be barred under the provision. The issue also could be raised if a charity or other nonprofit group and a candidate hire the same consulting company, such as a pollster, he said.
Jim Forbes, spokesman for the House Administration Committee, which is currently considering the campaign-finance bills, says the committee is scheduled to vote on the legislation by July.
