By Suzanne Perry

A new campaign-finance bill pending in Congress aims to lift the curtain on who is paying for advertisements and other communications that could influence elections. The bill, created in response to a Supreme Court ruling earlier this year, would require nonprofit groups organized under 501(c)4 of the federal tax code -- along with wealthy corporations -- who issue political communications to reveal their top donors.

The proposal, approved by the House Administration Committee last week, has some nonprofit experts worried.

The legislation's goal is to prevent advertisers from funneling money through shell groups to mask their identities.

But nonprofit groups should look "long and hard" at that provision, says Ronald M. Jacobs, a nonprofit and campaign-finance lawyer in Washington. "There are many legitimate reasons why contributors to organizations might not want to be disclosed."

Michael B. Trister -- a lawyer in Washington who briefed participants in a recent teleconference sponsored by the Alliance for Justice, an association of environmental, civil rights, mental-health, and other advocacy groups -- agrees.

"Some nonprofits are engaged in controversial work, and their donors wouldn't want their support plastered over the airwaves," he says, adding that he wonders how the law would treat donors who make their contributions anonymously.

Watching Closely

Some nonprofit leaders are taking a wait-and-see approach to the House measure -- and a companion bill introduced in the Senate. Abby Levine, deputy director of advocacy programs for the Alliance for Justice, says her group supports the aims of the legislation but wants to be sure it "does not unduly restrict 'issues' speech."

"I wouldn't say we have concerns, but we are watching it very closely," said David Willett, a spokesman for the Sierra Club, an environmental advocacy group.

The American Society of Association Executives -- which represents nonprofit trade and professional associations, groups also affected by the legislation -- is more blunt.

The donor disclosure requirements, it said in a letter to the House Administration Committee, go far beyond those that apply to political candidates who purchase ads themselves and aim to discourage spending that the Supreme Court said was protected under the First Amendment.

Nonprofit groups like Common Cause and Public Campaign, however, praise the Congressional effort and say lawmakers need to go even further to curtail the influence of special-interest money in political campaigns.

Citizens United Decision

The House bill -- the Disclose Act, H.R. 5175 -- was designed as an antidote to the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission. The court ruled 5 to 4 that a law barring corporations from using money from their general treasuries for “express advocacy” -- to urge that a candidate for federal office be elected or defeated -- was unconstitutional.

It also struck down rules that prohibited corporations from spending money on “electioneering communications” -- TV or radio ads that mention a specific federal candidate -- within 30 days before a primary election or 60 days before a general election.

Corporations and other groups affected by the ruling are still barred from contributing directly to political campaigns or coordinating with them.

Among provisions in the House bill that would affect 501(c)4 nonprofit groups:

• Organizations that spend more than $10,000 on political communications during a calendar year must report all donors who have given them a minimum amount -- either $600 or $1,000, depending on the type of communications they have issued. They do not have to disclose donors who specify that their money may not be used for political activity.

• Groups may create a separate account to pay for political communications. In that case, they must disclose all donors who have contributed a minimum amount -- either $6,000 or $10,000, depending on the type of communication -- to the organization's general fund.

• Both the head of an organization that pays for a TV or radio political ad and the top financial backer of the ad must record statements that they approve the message. Television ads, as well as political mailings, must also list the top five contributors to the organization.

• Current rules prohibit organizations from coordinating "express advocacy" communications with political candidates. The new language would define that more broadly, barring coordination on communications that could be interpreted as advocating a candidate's election or defeat, even if they do not specifically use those words -- language that worried some nonprofit groups. But the bill adopted by the House committee clarifies that organizations would not violate the law simply by discussing legislation or policy with a political candidate.