Nonprofits fight Istook amendment

National Catholic Reporter, Sept 22, 1995 by Robin T. Edwards

WASHINGTON - U.S. Catholic church officials have launched a letter-writing campaign to defeat an amendment that would restrict the ability of some church and other nonprofit agencies to speak out on public policy matters.

The legislation, proposed by Rep. Ernest Istook, R-Okla., states that any nonprofit agency that receives federal grant money cannot use any of those funds for political advocacy activities and places restrictions on the use of private funds for that purpose as well.

The legislation; dubbed by opponents as the "Silence America Amendment," passed in the House of Representatives Aug. 4. It was headed for debate before the Senate Treasury, Postal and General Government Subcommittee at press time and is likely to go before the full Senate in coming weeks.

A statement issued by OMB (Office of Management and Budget) Watch, a Washington-based watchdog agency on budget and regulatory issues, said the Istook plan "would cut off the ability of nonprofits to provide commentary to local, state and federal governments and would have a chilling impact on the entire nonprofit sector. And although House Republican leadership has spoken of strengthening public charities and the voice of the grassroots, the message of the amendment is clear: You should be seen (and do the work), but not heard."

First Amendment questions have been raised as a result of the legislation's broadly defined restrictions on "political advocacy" and "attempts to influence legislation or agency action."

Catholic church officials and others contend that the legislation may be unconstitutional, infringing on their rights to free speech. Would it, for example, restrict agencies such as Catholic Charities USA, the nation's largest private network of local social service organizations, from lobbying on behalf of poor children or controversial welfare issues?

"It talks about political advocacy so broadly, we don't know if we would be violating this [Istook] amendment or not," said Msgr. Frank Maniscalco, spokesman), for the U.S. bishops.

If the legislation passes, its impact could be severe for Catholic Charities, which has long been a strong vocal Presence on such legislative issues as welfare, housing and child care on local, state and national levels.

The organization relies heavily on the government for its financial support. In 1993, the latest year for which figures are available, 65 percent of Catholic Charities' income was provided by state, local and federal governments.

"If this amendment passed we would have to choose between taking government money to help pregnant teenagers or our advocacy," said Sharon Daly, deputy director of Catholic Charities USA. "This amendment would severely limit the ability of our local organizations to speak out on behalf of the poor and unborn."

In a Sept. 13 letter to Sen. Richard Shelby, D-Ala., chairman of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal and General Government, Jesuit Fr. Fred Kammer, president of Catholic Charities USA, said, "This plan appears designed to `muzzle' the voices of churches and charities that have a responsibility to stand up for the poor and vulnerable. These are the same groups that are to be the `safety net' for individuals and programs gouged by budget cuts."

He added: "It is unjust and undemocratic to limit federal funds for low-income programs, shift additional responsibilities for serving the poor and vulnerable to churches and charities and limit charitable organizations' abilities to ensure that the health and dignity of the most vulnerable are protected."

The legislation places restrictions on nonprofits that use private money to engage in political advocacy. Under the Istook amendment, nonprofits would be ineligible for federal grants if more than 5 percent of their non-grant-related funds are used for public advocacy.

"So if we go to testify on the Hill or if we issue a statement, is that political advocacy? Are we on the meter for that?" asked Maniscalco. He added that the church and other nonprofit agencies would be likely to wind up with an overwhelming level of bookkeeping.

The penalty for exceeding the specified limit includes having to return funds to the government and ineligibility for future grants.

Many nonprofit agency representatives contend the legislation is unnecessary because current laws already impose strong limits on lobbying. Under 501(c)(3) requirements of the internal Revenue Code, church agencies that receive federal grant moneys are prohibited from lobbying for or against political candidates or engaging in political campaign activities.

Proponents of the amendment argued before the House that nonprofit agencies were using federal grant funds to finance lobbying activities. However, Independent Sector, a nonprofit coalition of 800 corporate, foundation and voluntary organization members, issued a statement saying that the level of compliance with existing laws prohibiting the use of grant funds "appears to be quite high."

"There is simply no justification for imposing more restrictive rules and burdensome new administrative requirements at a time when nonprofits are being called on to expand their services to help offset cuts in federal spending," the statement said. "This is particularly true when no similar restriction is proposed for federal contractors, who would remain free to lobby with their nongovernment funds."