Specific problems with language in the House version of the Corporate Auditing, Accountability, Responsibility and Transparency Act of 2002 HR 3763 calling for disclosure of corporate ties to nonprofits, along with possible solutions. For background on disclosure of corporate ties to nonprofits, click here. Problem: Donor Privacy. Could disclose donations of private individuals, as well as family members. Suggestion: Explicity cover only those contributions from the corporation or those that are reimbursed by the corporaton. Disclosure of corporate donations over a certain threshold may make sense, but private donations by individuals who are serving on a nonprofit board are viewed as very different. Individual donors are disclosed to the IRS on Form 990, but are not disclosed to the public in order to protect donor privacy. There is concern that Sec. 7(a)(2) reaches beyond donations from the corporation. There is also confusion about whether immediate family members of directors would also have to disclose donations since the provision is not clear on this point. If the intent was to capture those personal contributions that are being reimbursed by the corporation, including those contributions made by immediate family members, we would be supportive. But it is very important to protect individual donor privacy. Problem: "Executive Officer" Definition in Section (7)(2)is Vague. Suggestion: Clearly define who is covered under the legislation. Is "executive officer" a term of art under laws governing the SEC? How far does this reach into a corporation? For example, would bank vice presidents at various branches be covered? There also is some confusion over the language using the term "executive officer" in certain places and "director" in other places. Is the intent to define "director" the same as "executive officer" or something different? Problem: "Material benefit" is too vague, and has no threshold. Suggestions: Apply the same threshold to tangible benefits as cash contributions. The requirement to disclsose actvities that provide material benefit to the nonprofit is vague, and there is concern that board members may have to keep records in order to disclose everything from selling raffle tickets to providing pro bono professional services. Again, we believe volunteer time and activity should not be subject to disclosure. Some nonprofits believe that mere voluntary service on a nonprofit board could provide "material benefit", necessitating disclosure. This might make it more difficult for nonprofits to recruit or retain board members. The real issue is the disclosure of non-cash benefits, such as computers, vehicles or office space. Problem: Lobbying is singled out at a "material benefit" with no minimum. Suggestion: Remove lobbying under "material benefit" definition, or apply a threshold. The tax code (Section 501(h)) allows 501(c)(3) organizations to measure all their lobbying by expenditures only, so that lobbying by volunteers, including board members, is encouraged, and only disclosed when money is spent. This provision promotes greater civic participation by encouraging people to associate in nonprofits and allowing unlimited voluntary lobbying. (Expenditures are limited by the tax code.) Depending on the problem this provision is seeking to solve, it may be better to enhance search capability for information already reported under the Lobbying Disclosure Act. As it relates to this provision, lobbying should not be included as a "material benefit".