Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRESOLUTIONS-1987-017-R-870 • n U '1 i 17-R-.87 A RESOLUTION i Encouraging the Withdrawal of I.R.S. Rules Imposed to Restrict Lobbying by Non -Profit Groups I) J� WHEREAS, rules proposed by the U. S. Internal Revenue Service on ;November 5, 1986 (Lobbying by Public Charities) would greatly .restrict 'j communications between elected officials and non-profit public charities; and WHEREAS, participation by public charities in the legislative process provides a benefit for the nation and the City of Evanston and is recognized as a right by U. S. law (Lobbying by Public Charities Act, Section 1307 of P. L. 94-455, the Tax Reform Act of 1976); and WHEREAS, the proposed IRS rules go beyond the intent of the Lobbying by Public Charities Act of 1976; and i WHEREAS, the proposd IRS rules redefine as lobbying many traditional activities undertaken by public charities, thereby penalizing them with new `taxes; and WHEREAS, the proposed IRS rules could reclassify as lobbying public policy research and debate that may pertain to or lead to future legislation; and WHEREAS, the proposed IRS rules put unreasonable burdens on private i :foundations and other donors so as to restrict their own activities and (discourage their support for public policy research and advocacy; and WHEREAS, portions of the proposed IRS rules are retroactive to I�January 1, 1977: �I NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of 'Evanston that the U. S. Internal Revenue Service should withdraw its :proposed rules, Lobbying by Public Charities; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the U. S. Department of the Treasury ':Ishould consult with public officials and public charities to help IRS .i ;develop fair and reasonable regulations that are consistent with the law; !,and BE. IT FURTHER RESOLVED that copies of this Resolution be sent to Congressman Sidney R. Yates, Senator Paul Simon, Senator Alan J. Dixon, and Ito the Commissioner of the U. S. Internal Revenue Service. i i (� Mayor Attest - City Clerk Adopted: ,�i! �G/ c)-31987. PROPOSED IRS "LOBBYING" RULES: A Summary Ten years ago, Congress reaffirmed the rightful role of nonprofit groups to get involved in legislative matters. In fact, Congress encouraged charitable organizations to speak out about government programs and policies. That was then. This is now. Ten years later, proposed Internal Revenue Service (IRS) rules would chill public advocacy by nonprofit groups —and stifle their participation in legislative issues and policy debates. This is not what Congress intended! THEY DO WHAT? Reclassify many traditional nonprofit activities as "grassroots lobbying. " Only up to 5% of nonprofit funds can be spent for grassroots lobbying. Counting more activites as "lobbying" forces a harsh choice on nonprofits: Either give them up or get pushed over the 5% limit — and face stiff penalty taxes, possible loss of tax exemption, mailing permits, and government grants. WHAT WOULD BECOME "LOBBYING?" •• Fundraising or advertising that mentions legislation. • Most communications with elected officials — even when not about pending legislation. • Activities that "pertain to" pending legislation — even if not attempting to influence it. • Newsletters, conferences, workshops, etc. that address legislative proposals, if they reach people who "share a common view" — even if no position is advocated. • Nonpartisan research if its presentation favors one side or other "in any manner" even if no view is expressed. WHO IS AFFECTED? All charitable 501(c)(3) organizations and their donors, such as foundations. IRS' rules expressly cover nonprofits choosing an option from the 1976 Tax Reform Act to lobby with up to 20% of their funds. But IRS' definitions of "lobbying" will inevitably apply to all charitable organizations, not just those choos- ing the 20% option. IF THAT'S NOT BAD ENOUGH ... IRS' rules would be retroactive to January 1977 for nonprofits. Many groups could already owe back taxes. And the rules will likely inhibit foundations from giving grants for advocacy activities. This is because foundations will be penalized for grants to nonprofits exceeding lobbying limits — as defined by IRS. WHAT CAN BE DONE TO STOP IRS? Write to IRS and Congress before April 3, 1987 urging: 1. IMMEDIATE WITHDRAWAL OF IRS' PROPOSED RULES ON LOBBYING BY PUBLIC CHARITIES. The proposed rules already are having a chilling effect. . 2. Creation of an advisory committee allowing nonprofits to recommend fair and reasonable rules. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Your Senator(s) Your Representative Attention: CC:LR:T:EE-154-78 U.S. Senate U.S. House of Reps. Washington, DC 20224 Washington, DC 20510 Washington, DC 20515 For More Information: The IRS Coalition (Independent Sector is the secretariat) (202) 223-8100 CHAPTER IV. CASE EXAMPLES What this chapter is about: The following examples show some of the many ways IRS' rules may hurt non- profit groups. For explanations, see Chapter III. We strongly urge putting examples from your own experi- ence in letters you write to IRS, Congress, state and local officials, and the media. IRS is certain to get plenty of learned legal arguments about its rules. Those kind of com- ment letters are important. But what's most needed are "real life" examples of normal and traditional nonprofit activities which everybody would say are legitimate -- but which IRS' rules reclassify as "lobbying" or make uncertain. The following case examples published by Independent • Sector are useful guideposts. They can help you spot activ- ities of your own organization that IRS' proposal may force you to drop or cut back: o Some activities may be affected because IRS' proposal . clearly targets them; o Others because it leaves you uncertain about whether activities are covered or not. If you're not sure about what the rules allow, say so. Rules that people don't understand are just as unfair and "chilling" as ones that make such restrictions all too clear. 1. An organization working to promote mental health care launches a direct -mail. fundraising.drive. The fundrais- ing effort will solicit contributions from a "prospect" list of persons who have contributed to other health groups in the past. The four -page solicitation letter sumarizes the organization's work, and the need for mental health services. One paragraph briefly mentions that the organization supports pending legislation to establish mental health clinics in rural communities. Despite the fact that the sole purpose of the letter is fundraising, and only a tiny portion even mentions • legislation, all expenditures for the letter count as grass -roots lobbying. Indeed, even if the letter merely stated that such legislation is pending or about to be introduced, without reflecting a view on the merits of the legislation, the entire communication would count as grass -roots lobbying because.it was sent to persons who could reasonably be expected to share a common view of the legislation. 2. A women's organization presents a seminar on working women, including a full and balanced discussion of a parental leave act pending in Congress. At the begin- ning and end of the discussion, the organizations empha- sizes that the views expressed by the participants were not necessarily those of the organization. The seminar is open to the public, but most of the -work to publicize it was done with women's organizations that generally have supported the proposed act, and a major- ity of the audience are members of such groups. The entire cost of the parental leave discussion would be considered grass -roots lobbying., because it was directed to non-members who could reasonably be expected to share a common view favoring the proposed act. 3. A state historical society has gone on record favoring increased legal protection for a historic site in the state. The staff person who is assigned to lobby that • cause in the state capital also works over the next several months on a scholarly study of the site. The study, which does not mention, much less take a position onthe desirability of, or legal protection for, the site, is published in the organization's journal. Several months later, the director of the organization quotes from -the study at a meeting with state legisla- tors on the need for legal protection for the site. The. proposed [IRS] regulations strongly suggest that all expenditures for the study will count as lobbying. 4. A local social service organization has a general budget of $3 million annually. A local private foundation gives it a $25,000 general support grant. The organization sets up a special $20,000 project for a new facility, of which $500 will be spent'to get,.city council approval of a municipal contribution. If the foundation gives any money to the new project, it will be treated as making a taxable lobbying expenditure. (The same result would apply if a group of four local foundations agreed to- gether to grant $5,000 each to the.'special project.) 5. -An arts organization publishes.a newsletter that is aim- ed primarily at members (including contributors), but half of the copies go to prospective contributors and to • libraries and museums for free distribution to the public. One of the four pages of an issue reports a legislative proposal in a way that reflects the view that the legislation is undesirable -- but does not' encourage readers to take any action. Nonetheless, 12 1/20 (half of a quarter of the costs of the newsletter) count as grass -roots lobbying. 6. A general health organization sponsors a comprehensive study on a complex new high-tech surgical procedure. The study concludes that the procedure is highly effec- tive. When the study is published in a medical journal, a summary in laymen's language is released to the press. The study is briefly reported on a network news show, which comments that the study will strengthen the case of people favoring a. bill to provide special public funding for the procedure. Neither the study nor the press release mentions the bill. But because the study is publicized and implies -- to someone -who knows about the bill -- that the bill is a good thing, the proposed regulations would treat the cost of the study as grass- roots lobbying. 7. The organization in the prior case does not announce the study to the media, but does publish a summary of the study in the newsletter of an independent organization • of victims -of the illness treated by the procedure. The article states that the procedure is too.expensive for most people, and mentions, without expressing any opin- ion on the issue, that legislation is pending to pay for the procedure. Because the article is distributed to persons reasonably expected to share a common view of the legislation, the entire cost of the article counts as grass -roots lobby- ing by the health organization. In addition, it is also likely that the [IRS] regulations would treat as lobby- ing expenditures the cost of the study as well. 8. An organization formed to -stop drunk driving runs a newspaper advertisement as part of its public education campaign. The advertisement features four points: The percentage of accidents in which alcohol was a factor; the cost to the community of care for victims; informa- tion for teenagers about a new "safe ride" program; and a workplace training program on reducing drunk driving. At the very end of the advertisement, a paragraph about the organization mentions that it supports pending state legislation imposing mandatory sentences upon convicted drunk drivers. Because the advertisement contains some grass -roots • lobbying, the whole cost'of the advertisement, probably including the costs of conducting the statistical study needed for the percentage and cost figures, is grass- roots lobbying, even though the thrust of the ad was an effort to affect private behavior. 9. A national organization is a federation of some 200 in- dependent local groups. The locals are not required to follow the national's lead on legislative issues,,but they have agreed to "respect the principles." of the overall group. 'Since this language implies the locals should take account of national legislative positions, all, the locals' lobbying expenditures count against the national's limits. 10. At its national convention, an organization runs a work- shop for members on advocacy skils. No specific bills are mentioned, only effective techniques of policy advo- cacy. Later in the year, the, organization contacts those who attended the workshop to form a network to support a bill of interest to the organization. The costs of the workshop then become a lobbying expense. 11. A college politics department funds a research study of • election campaign finance. The study report does not make any express reference to any proposed legislation, but expresses the conclusions that such measures as free access to television time, fuller disclosure of contrib- utors, and public financing would reduce the power of single -issue pressure groups. The university issues a press release to announce the results; and the media briefly and accurately report the conclusions. Since the study asserts that presumably desirable results would follow from. steps that would take legisla- tion, its costs are grass -roots lobbying, even though it does not expressly call for legislative.action. 12. A public policy institute does a lengthy and scholarly study of NATO defenses,.concluding that the U.S. could withdraw half its troops from Europe without serious risk to national security. The study does not mention, much less call for action about, any of several compet- ing legislative proposals in this field. The resulting report is available at nominal cost to all, but is sent free only to the institute's mailing list, largely composed of people associated with the peace movement. Because the distribution favors in some way persons interested solely in one side of the particular issue, • the entire cost of the study is a lobbying expenditure, even though the study itself presents a detailed and analytical case for its conclusion and does not call for any legislative action.