Mr. Podesta, founder of the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank with close ties to the White House, was among seven people that the president nominated in June 2010 to fill vacancies on the national-service board. The nominations were approved by a Senate committee in July but have still not been confirmed by the full Senate.

Andrea Purse, vice president for communications at the Center for American Progress, said in a statement: “Like many of Mr. Obama’s other nominees, Mr. Podesta got tired of waiting for the Senate to act and got busy with other projects and asked for his nomination to be withdrawn.”

A White House spokesman, Eric Schultz, echoed that Mr. Podesta had requested the move because of the long wait for confirmation, adding, “This is one more example of the unfortunate obstructionism in the Senate.”

Mr. Podesta was an unpopular selection with some Republicans. A group of conservative leaders included him on a list of “controversial” and “egregious” presidential nominees in a letter they sent to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in 2010.

The national-service board, which is supposed to have 15 members from both political parties, is now down to just six. President Obama’s nominee to serve as chief executive of the corporation, Wendy Spencer, is also waiting Senate confirmation.

Note: this story originally reported incorrectly that Mr. Podesta had been re-nominated to the national-service board last month.

Send an email to Suzanne Perry.

Previously, the IRS released information about groups that had lost their tax-exempt status only by state, which made it difficult to find groups by other criteria. The new Exempt Organizations Select Check is updated monthly and is on the same Web page as the agency’s main database of all nonprofits that can accept tax-deductible donations.

The tax agency in June unveiled a list of 275,000 organizations that had lost their tax-exempt status for failing to file tax returns for three consecutive years. Since then, about 125,000 more have been added to the list.

Most of the groups—63 percent—were charities. Eleven percent were nonprofit advocacy groups, and 7 percent were social and recreational clubs.

Groups can apply to get their tax-exempt status reinstated, but even if they regain charity recognition, their names stay on the list of those that have lost their tax exemptions, says Lois G. Lerner, director of the IRS tax-exempt organizations division.

“Organizations are going to stay on the list for now and forever,” Ms. Lerner said during a Webinar conducted by Independent Sector, a coalition of charities and foundations. “The list is the IRS’s historical record, and we will not be taking names off unless we find that they were erroneously put on the list.”

That poses a challenge for anyone wanting to find out if a charity’s tax-exempt status has been lost and then reinstated, which would require searching both databases. But The Chronicle has developed a shortcut: a database, below, that includes only the 3,500 groups that appear on both lists.

So far, about 9,500 of the 400,000 groups that lost their exemptions have applied for reinstatement, Ms. Lerner said.

Critics have accused Independent Sector and other nonprofit advocates of spending a disproportionate amount of energy protecting the charitable tax break, given other critical issues facing the nation, especially those affecting vulnerable people.

Diana Aviv, the group’s chief executive, said Independent Sector’s board “sympathized with that point of view.” It adopted a series of “guiding principles” last week, saying it plans to promote policies to cut the nation’s deficit and overhaul the tax code that do not “exacerbate income inequality or increase poverty.”

The principles, which were sent to the organization’s members today, also say deficit-reduction plans should include both tax increases and spending cuts, the tax code should remain progressive, and changes to entitlement programs like Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid  should not increase burdens on those “least able to care for themselves.”

What’s more, it says, “those who can most afford to contribute more should be asked to do so.”

President Obama has proposed numerous times limiting the charitable deduction for people earning at least $200,000 (for couples, $250,000) as way to raise money for federal coffers, a move nonprofit leaders have warned would dampen giving.

Ms. Aviv said her board, which had struggled a long time to fine-tune the new principles, wants the organization to continue speaking out about the charitable-giving incentive since “that’s our bread and butter.”

However, she said, “if we only deal with the charitable deduction and don’t place it against the backdrop of much larger issues that we should focus on as well, we would be remiss in our responsibilities.”

The new principles say that the tax break for charitable donations should be preserved or modified only in ways that strengthen incentives to give and “respect the freedom of individuals to determine the causes and organizations they participate in and support, and treat those choices equitably.”

The statement about freedom is designed to show how the group will respond if policy makers, for example, propose giving a bigger tax break for gifts that help low-income people than for those going to wealthy institutions like universities—an idea that has been floated several times in the past two decades.

Ms. Aviv said Independent Sector would emphasize the issues outlined in the new principles in its dealings with Congress and the White House.

In his most recent comments on the issue, President Obama said in his State of the Union address last month that he wanted wealthy people to pay at least 30 percent of their income in federal taxes but that his plan would not disadvantage big donors.

Send an email to Suzanne Perry.

The bill, introduced by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, aims to put into effect the so-called “Buffett Rule” that was championed by President Obama in his State of the Union address.

It would require taxpayers with adjusted gross incomes of more than $2-million, including capital gains and dividends, to pay at least 30 percent in federal taxes. The minimum tax would be phased in for people earning more than $1-million but less than $2-million under a formula that is spelled out in the legislation.

Donors would be able to deduct their charitable gifts from their adjusted gross incomes to lower their tax bills, thus preserving a giving incentive that has been fiercely defended by many nonprofit leaders. As in the current system, the tax break would be available only to people who itemize their deductions.

Nonprofit advocates welcomed the legislation as another sign that the White House, which has previously proposed limiting the value of the charitable deduction for wealthy people, may be changing its tune.

Mr. Obama said when proposing the “Buffett Rule” last week that he wanted to ensure his efforts did not disadvantage “individuals who make large charitable contributions.”

“They are backing away from the previous often-stated view that the incentive to charitable giving from the tax deduction is de minimis,” says William Daroff, vice president for public policy at the Jewish Federations of North America, citing discussions he has had with administration officials.

He points to a Twitter exchange between one of his colleagues and Jason Furman, principal deputy director of the National Economic Council, during a “White House Office Hours” chat last week. When asked whether the charitable deduction would be preserved in any overhaul of the tax code, Mr. Furman said: “Millionaires don’t need tax incentives 4 homes, healthcare & retirement. But incentive 4 charity is impt.”

Mr. Obama has previously proposed limiting to 28 percent the amount that families earning over $250,000 can write off on itemized deductions, including those for gifts to charity—first to raise money for the health-care overhaul and then to help rein in the federal deficit.

The new legislation would reinstate one limit to the charitable deduction, however,  says Evan Liddiard, a tax consultant in Washington. That measure—which was phased out in 2010 as part of the Bush-era tax cuts—reduced itemized deductions by 3 percent of the amount that a person’s income exceeded certain thresholds.

Regardless of what happens to the “Buffett Rule,” the 3-percent reduction would return if  Democrats succeed in their plan to repeal the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest taxpayers.

Mr. Obama has named his tax plan after billionaire Warren Buffett, who has complained he pays a lower share of his income in taxes than his secretary.

Mr. Romney, the Republican candidate for President, had been facing mounting public pressure to release his tax returns. Newt Gingrich, who is challenging Mr. Romney and others for the Republican nomination, disclosed recently that he had donated 2.6-percent of his income to charity in 2010.

According to the records released by the Romney campaign, the couple reported $21.6-million in income in 2010 and gave $3-million to charity. In 2011, they reported $20.9 million in income and made $4-million in charitable gifts.

Most of the Romneys charitable contributions over the two years were cash donations that totaled $4.1 million to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. They also gave $500,000 to their family foundation, the Tyler Charitable Foundation.

The Romneys also gave about $2.4 million in noncash gifts to their foundation in 2010 and 2011, most of which were shares of Domino’s Pizza and the pharmaceutical company Warner Chilcott.

For more information on Mr. Romney’s record and positions, see The Chronicle’s examination of the charity records and views of the Republican presidential candidates.

The Gingriches, who reported adjusted gross income of about $3.1-million, said they donated $9,540 to the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception, $3,100 to miscellaneous causes, and $68,493 in unspecified cash contributions through their business operations.

The Gingrich Foundation reported revenue of $152,609 in 2010, all from one of the candidate’s companies, Gingrich Holdings—which shares the same address as the foundation in Washington. The grant maker gave money to 14 cultural, educational, and health charities, including the Alzheimer’s Association, the Atlanta Ballet, and Luther College.

The tax form said Ms. Gingrich is the foundation’s president and Mr. Gingrich, the former House speaker, is a board member and manager, and the organization had $97,834 in assets.  The only compensation reported was $1,800 for the foundation’s treasurer, Sonya Harrison.

For more information on Mr. Gingrich’s record and positions, see The Chronicle’s examination of the charity records and views of the Republican presidential candidates.

The National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy study examined 110 charities in 13 states and found that work such as pushing for more aid to schools and housing for the poor resulted in $26.6-billion in benefits to communities over five years. Money for the campaigns came from foundations and other donors.

The study comes as the watchdog group is urging foundations to step up their spending on efforts to influence public policy and running a campaign called Philanthropy’s Promise, which asks grant makers to commit to devoting at least 25 percent of their grants each year to advocacy.

Altogether, the report said, the charities spent $231-million on efforts to influence policy makers and the public, meaning every $1 spent led to a $115 benefit to communities, the report says.

Some philanthropy experts say the estimates are not a reliable measure of what charities can achieve. William Schambra, director of the Bradley Center for Philanthropy and Civic Renewal at the Hudson Institute says it’s too hard to say that it was precisely the work of the charities that led to the policy changes.

“Any time you try to relate a very specific cause to a very large effect, you’re running into trouble,” Mr. Schambra says. “The notion that a foundation investing X amount of dollars led to this incredible piece of legislation overlooks a few other things, like most of politics, most of economics, and most of culture.”

The report combines the findings of seven studies by the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy. The three-year project was paid for by $1-million in grants provided by many foundations.

The groups told the court, which is set to hear oral arguments on the case in March, that the health-insurance provision, known as the “individual mandate,” is critical to making the new law work effectively.

“Without that requirement, healthy people tend to avoid buying insurance until they need it, leaving insurance plans to cover a sicker population and driving up costs for everyone in the health care system,” said the American Cancer Society, the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, the American Diabetes Association, and American Heart Association, which filed a “friend of the court” brief last week.

They said the new law will bring many advantages to patients with chronic diseases by guaranteeing health coverage to people with pre-existing conditions, prohibiting insurance companies from charging more for people with health problems, and introducing measures to help low-income people afford coverage.

In a separate brief, the American Association of People with Disabilities, the March of Dimes Foundation, the National Organization for Rare Diseases, and 11 other patient-advocacy groups said that some states have required insurers to cover individuals with pre-existing conditions without the individual mandate, and the results were “disastrous.”

The insurers, they said, increased premium rates and in some cases stopped offering individual health plans.

A U.S. appeals court ruled in August that Congress overstepped its authority by requiring individuals to “enter into contracts with private insurance companies for the purchase of an expensive product from the time they are born until the time they die.”

But the California Endowment, a health grant maker, filed a brief arguing that without that requirement, nearly 1.4 million Californians would remain uninsured.  That would affect insurance companies and health-care providers—for example prompting people to seek care in emergency rooms without having the means to pay, it said.

Thus, it argues, Congress has the authority to impose the individual mandate under its constitutional right to regulate interstate commerce.

More than 385,000 nonprofits were knocked off the tax-exempt rolls after they failed to file their tax returns with the IRS for three consecutive years. But while the IRS allows groups to regain their tax-exempt status, Nina E. Olson, the tax agency’s national taxpayer advocate, says the process is marred by bureaucracy.

She says under the current process, groups can’t challenge whether the IRS was wrong to take away their status. Instead, they are simply told to send in the same form they originally submitted to seek tax-exempt status.

That form can take as long as seven months to process, and groups must then wait several more months before the IRS offers a decision, Ms. Olson said.

Ms. Olson, who operates independently of other IRS offices, recommended in her annual report that Congress require the tax agency to allow direct challenges, rather than relying solely on the process it uses now. She also recommends that the IRS create an easy form to fill out for those seeking reinstatement and increase the number of staff members who handle those forms.

To help groups avoid the hassle of losing their status at all, she urged the agency to send a warning to groups that have failed to file a tax form for two consecutive years that they are at risk.

In a response to Ms. Olson’s report, the IRS said its procedures simply follow a federal law that requires it to revoke automatically the tax-exempt status of  groups that fail to file their tax forms.

The IRS said about 5,500 groups—less than 1.5 percent of the organizations that lost their tax-exempt status under the law—had applied for reinstatement as of October. Groups that had been improperly included on the list of revoked organizations were immediately reinstated, it said.

Congress cut the office’s budget from $7.7-million to $4-million in the 2012 spending bill it approved last month.

“This budget reduction caught me and my executive staff by surprise,” Kenneth C. Bach, the corporation’s deputy inspector general, wrote in a letter this week to more than a dozen House and Senate members.

He said the 48-percent cut was in “stark contrast” to the 3-percent reduction in the corporation’s overall budget—and “will substantially inhibit me from performing my duties.”

The inspector general’s office monitors federal volunteer and national-service programs, including AmeriCorps, Senior Corps, and Vista. Mr. Bach said the budget cut could leave it without enough money to conduct any new audits or investigations in 2012—even the legally required audit of the agency’s financial statements.

Three Republican senators—Susan Collins of Maine, Michael Enzi of Wyoming, and Charles Grassley of Iowa—have responded to his letter by asking Congress to authorize a transfer of $4-million from the corporation’s general budget to the inspector general’s office.

“It is vital that inspectors general have the funding necessary to carry out their important mission,” they wrote in a letter to Senator Tom Harkin, Democrat of Iowa, who chairs the Senate subcommittee that oversees spending on the national-service agency.

The reduction was introduced as the House and Senate worked to reconcile vastly different versions of a budget for the corporation. The House Appropriations Committee proposed gutting the agency, leaving just $280-million for a skeleton operation. The Senate voted to increase the agency’s budget slightly from almost $1.08-billion to $1.09-billion, allocating $7.7-million for the inspector general’s office.

In the end, Congress agreed to spend $1.05-billion.

“There is no question where this funding cut originated,” said Kate Cyrul, spokeswoman for Senator Harkin. “Just look at the U.S. House’s proposal as compared to the Senate proposal.” She said Mr. Harkin was reviewing the letter from the three senators.

A spokeswoman for the House Appropriations Committee did not respond immediately to a request for comment.