How Charities Can Try to Influence Politicians Without Crossing the Line

As the November elections grow closer, more nonprofits will be attempting to make the case for their issues with candidates. Here are some tips from experts to help keep those advocacy drives from swerving into illegal partisan campaigning.

Send research results and information to all candidates in a race.

If a candidate asks an organization to create specific materials, and especially if the effort requires research and staff time, the move could be interpreted as a campaign contribution, says Abby Levine, legal director of advocacy at Alliance for Justice, which trains other charities in the protocol of nonprofit advocacy. If the material is not already available and needs to be created, it should be sent to all candidates. “You can’t serve as [a candidate’s] staff,” she says.

One common “gift” that must be avoided: polling data for which the nonprofit has paid, adds Nancy McGlamery, a San Francisco lawyer who advises nonprofits.

Sponsor candidate forums.

Questions at a forum should be about a broad range of issues, Ms. Levine says. Make that easier by asking other nonprofit groups to co-sponsor the event, with each suggesting questions. Candidates will be more likely to attend if the forum is sponsored by several groups, she says.

Ms. Levine points out that Internal Revenue Service rules are clear that such forums can’t pose questions intended to make a particular candidate look bad. Ask open-ended questions that invite nuanced replies, not those intended to elicit yes or no answers, or those that could serve as a litmus test.

Send out questionnaires.

Open-ended questions on a broad range of topics ensure fairness and won’t raise concerns by the IRS, says Ms. McGlamery. Invite all candidates to respond—it doesn’t matter if some choose not to reply, she says. She adds, however, that if only two or so candidates out of 30 respond, think hard about whether to publish the results because it might be perceived as favoritism.)

Set a word limit for responses.

Otherwise, the epic reply written by one candidate might create the appearance of favoritism when published beside another contender’s terse one, says David Levitt, a San Francisco lawyer who advises nonprofits.

Treat all candidates equally.

If so many candidates for one office want to participate in a forum that it would render the event unwieldy, narrow the invited list of candidates with a clear and fair rule. For example, limit participation to those who have raised more than a certain financial threshold or have achieved support from at least 10 percent of people participating in reliable polls.

Invite candidates separately to visit your organization.

Give them a chance to explain their positions, but give all the candidates a similar opportunity. Be careful, says Mr. Levitt, not to create an impression that the charity prefers one candidate over another. On the organization’s Web site, post photos of all candidates who visit, not just one.

Don’t endorse candidates.

This applies not just at the state and national levels, but even for local school-board and judicial elections, says Ms. Levine.

“Don’t rank or compare candidates, or give them check marks or smiley faces,” she says. She suggests not writing a follow-up report after a candidate forum because bias may inadvertently seep into it.

However, it’s acceptable to publish an incumbent’s voting records, Ms. McGlamery says, as long as it is done without adding a comment or ranking.

It’s also fine, she says, to ask candidates to add something to their party platforms. But don’t ask them to sign pledges promising that they will vote a certain way after the election. While it may seem like a coup to get candidates to pledge a commitment to a cause, it could look like an endorsement by the charity.

Don’t use social media to boost or knock candidates.

So far, the IRS has not weighed in on the use of social media for advocacy of charities. But Ms. Levine sees it as risky to “like” certain candidates on Facebook or follow them on Twitter. Social-media language, such as the terms “like” and “friend,” presents a problem for charities even when they try to remain nonpartisan, she says.

Mr. Levitt cautions that social-media connections can have unintended effects. Facebook friends of a charity could post partisan comments to their walls. “So you have to be vigilant about that,” he says.

On Twitter, tweeting a link to an article or blog that talks about a candidate’s position could make it appear that the charity supports (or abhors) those views, notes Ms. McGlamery. However, following all of a race’s candidates on Twitter, rather than a single person, seems reasonable, she says.

“There is a difference between that and actively tweeting about a candidate,” she says.

Don’t give money to candidates.

Staff members, volunteers, and board members can contribute, but if they are publicly identified, it must be made clear that the contributions are from individuals and not given on behalf of the organization, Ms. Levine says. Because the leaders of charities and foundations are often perceived as the faces of their organizations in their communities, they need to be especially careful.

Don’t allow candidates to use the nonprofit’s resources.

Office space, equipment, mailing lists, and other resources cannot be shared with campaign hopefuls unless they are made equally available to all the contestants in a race. If an organization has a meeting room that is available to anyone in the community, then it can be rented to a candidate, but the rate must be the same for all candidates, Ms. Levine says.

If a charity is selling sponsorships for a fundraising event, ads from anyone interested in placing one must be accepted, or none at all. The charity cannot pick and choose, she says.

Don’t publicize which candidates share the charity’s view on certain issues.

Such comparison, Ms. Levine says, implies which candidates the nonprofit favors and those it doesn’t, which is tantamount to an endorsement.

Ms. McGlamery says it’s safer to provide information to the public about candidates through questionnaires, debates, and forums. She says, “Let the audience connect their own dots.”