More Than 300 Nonprofit Groups Protest a Federal Proposal on Advocacy

More than 300 nonprofit groups have urged the Federal Election Commission to reject a proposal that they say would make it harder for them to express opinions on public-policy issues.

An advisory opinion drafted by the commission’s legal staff proposed that any communication that “promotes, supports, attacks, or opposes” any federal candidate must be paid with funds raised in compliance with campaign-contribution rules, which limit individuals from contributing more than $5,000. The proposal was designed to clarify enforcement of campaign-finance laws.

Lawyers for the nonprofit groups said the language of the opinion is so far-reaching that it could cover a newspaper ad urging people to ask their congressional representatives to oppose federal budget cuts, or a fund-raising appeal that mentions a senator’s efforts to put money for a program into an appropriations bill.

If the commission formally issues the opinion and uses it as the basis for federal regulations, nonprofit groups could be barred from using any foundation or corporate grants or individual donations of more than $5,000 to pay for such advocacy or fund-raising efforts. The commission was scheduled to vote on whether to issue the advisory opinion at its February 5 meeting, but after receiving a letter signed by 324 groups opposing it, the commission decided to delay action until this week. The commission would not comment on the matter while it is still pending.

Response to Question

The draft opinion was written in response to questions raised by a Republican-backed political-advocacy group — Americans for a Better Country — that wanted to know whether it could run advertisements praising President Bush without running afoul of federal campaign-finance rules.

Nonprofit leaders said the proposal would cripple the ability of charitable groups to engage in advocacy work. “It would paralyze every nonprofit group,” said Elliot Mincberg, legal director of People for the American Way, one of the organizations leading the effort to block the opinion. “It would have a terrible chilling effect.”

The protest letter sent to the commission, signed by such nonprofit groups as the Sierra Club and the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, states, “Just in the past few months, the organizations represented here have criticized Congress’s and the administration’s policies and actions concerning such issues as tax cuts for the rich, Medicare and prescription drugs, oil exploration in the Arctic, nominations to the federal judiciary, abuses of civil liberties in connection with the war on terrorism, and numerous other issues.” Based on the draft opinion, it adds, those comments could be viewed as opposing President Bush, and thus subject to campaign-finance restrictions.

Criticism Is Widespread

While the letter is signed by organizations that define themselves politically as progressives, conservative groups should be equally adamant in opposing the draft, said James Bopp Jr., general counsel to the James Madison Center for Free Speech, a conservative advocacy group in Washington.

“The danger is that the FEC, through fiat, is going to apply the restrictions on fund raising by political parties to all other advocacy groups,” Mr. Bopp said. “There would be no way for anyone to do grass-roots lobbying, and access to a tremendous amount of information about what Congress does would be shut off.”

The draft advisory opinion, entitled Advisory Opinion Request 03-37 — Americans for a Better Country, and comments from the nonprofit groups are available online at the commission’s Web site, http://fecweb1.fec.gov/aoreq.html.