|from the Nonprofit Times
Law Vs. Regulation - 08/01/2012
Legislation in Oregon last year would have threatened tax deductibility of donations to charities that didn’t meet administrative spending thresholds for three years got a lot of attention. Other moves targeting nonprofits have been brought by governors or in some cases administratively, outside the purview of state legislatures.
In Kansas, the Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services (KDSRS) has started to include language in contracts with services providers that they may not use funds “directly or indirectly” for lobbying purposes.
Tim Delaney, president and CEO of the National Council of Nonprofits (NCN), said the effort by the Sunflower State adds to federal standard boilerplate language about not using federal funds to try to influence federal legislation. Some nonprofits already have questioned the measure, unclear about the new language, and don’t plan to renew contracts with the SRS in the next fiscal year (which began July 1).
It’s another in a list of recent moves by states that seems to often target not just nonprofits but especially human services providers. Connecticut and Massachusetts have placed restrictions on reimbursement rates under contracts for some human services providers. New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo has proposed a cap on executive compensation at organizations that contract with the state, an effort not dissimilar from an attempt by his neighbor, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie. Christie last year proposed a cap on how much the state is willing to pay toward CEO salaries and employee benefits for nonprofit social service agencies with which the state contract