Once again legislation that would restrict nonprofit advocacy has reared its ugly head in the House of Representatives. The legislation is reminiscent of the Istook amendments that would have silenced the advocacy voice of charities, but was stopped by a firestorm of protest by nonprofits across the country. That firestorm may be needed once more. Rep. Michael Castle (R-DE) has introduced legislation reauthorizing the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (H.R. 1350), a law that requires the education of children with disabilities. Buried in the bill, which could be marked up in subcommittee as early as March 27, under a section that authorizes grants to parent and community training and information centers, is a provision that prohibits all advocacy of parent center grantees, even when that advocacy is paid for with private funds. Section 672 of the bill prohibits a nonprofit organization from becoming a parent center if:

• That organization or an affiliated organization “conducts, in whole or in part, Federal relations;” or
• A board member or paid staff of the parent center serves on the board of directors of any organization (nonprofit or for-profit) that “conducts Federal relations in whole or in part.”

The definition of “Federal relations” is not defined, but certainly would be very broad. This may include commenting on federal proposed regulations, meetings with federal government employees, attending federal hearings, or writing a newsletter piece about IDEA issues. It may also include encouraging others to do such activities. In fact, it is hard to imagine what type of activities would not constitute “federal relations.” The bill provides a specific prohibition on a parent center lobbying at the federal level on IDEA issues, even if such activities are paid for with private funds. Similarly, no board member or paid staff can serve on the board of directors of another organization that lobbies at the Federal level on IDEA issues. But this is small potatoes compared to the entire prohibition on “federal relations.” It has been reported that House subcommittee staff indicate that this restriction on free speech may be extended when reaching the full committee to cover more than grants to parent centers. At least one staff person has suggested that the full committee will extend these restrictions to all grants authorized under Part D of the IDEA. Others in the nonprofit community are worried that this is a shot across the bow for all nonprofits. It was not long ago that Rep. Ernest Istook (R-OK) and former Reps. David McIntosh (R-IN) and Robert Ehrlich (R-MD) proposed restrictions on federal grantees such that they had to choose between receiving federal grants or speaking out on behalf of the people they serve. The various “Istook amendments,” as they became known, would have prohibited use of private funds for “political advocacy,” a term that was very broadly defined. The Istook amendments were defeated after thousands of nonprofits across the country joined in a coalition, Let America Speak, to stop them. Today, Rep. Istook, who remains in the House, is on the Appropriations Committee, which was the site of the last round of fights over the Istook amendments. Disabilities rights advocates say H.R. 1350 contains a host of problematic provisions in addition to this direct attack on the right of federal grantees to spend their private dollars as they wish. The bill was introduced on March 19, 2003. A press release about the bill is available at here. OMB Watch, along with other nonprofit leaders that fought the Istook amendments, such as Independent Sector, Alliance for Justice, National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy, National Council of Nonprofit Associations, and Charity Lobbying in the Public Interest, will be tracking this closely, and will provide more detailed information as the bill moves forward.