CHARITIES SUE OVER ANTITERRORISM CERTIFICATION REGULATION

A group of charities, including the Natural Resources Defense Council, the
American Civil Liberties Union and Amnesty International, is suing the
government over a requirement that any nonprofit organization in the
federal employees' fund-raising campaign certify that it has not knowingly
hired anyone whose name is on watch lists of suspected terrorist supporters.

The 13 charities contend that the requirement violates federal law that
governs administrative procedures and the First and Fifth Amendments of the
Constitution, and they say it imposes unreasonable burdens on nonprofit groups.

"We are charities, not law enforcement agencies," said Kathleen M. Guinane,
counsel of OMB Watch, a nonprofit organization that seeks to improve
government accountability and is a plaintiff in the suit filed yesterday in
Federal District Court for the District of Columbia.

A spokesman for the Office of Personnel Management, which administers the
charity drive and was named in the suit, referred questions to the Justice
Department. A spokesman for the department, Charles Miller, said the
government would respond to the accusations in court.

The Combined Federal Campaign, an annual charity drive for federal
employees and military personnel that raised $250 million for thousands of
nonprofit groups last year, has required participating charities to certify
that they do not employ anyone on the watch lists since October 2003.

"This is coming right in the middle of their campaign, which may raise
serious doubts among government employees about how their money is being
administered," said Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the A.C.L.U.

Nonprofit organizations have struggled over the last two years to interpret
and comply with the provisions of the USA Patriot Act and other regulations
intended to stop the flow of money to terrorists.

Foundations and other grant-making organizations that send money abroad
responded first, setting up elaborate systems to check recipients against
the lists and adding language to their agreements that required
beneficiaries to certify that money would not be used to promote terrorism,
employ terrorists or otherwise support nefarious activities.

Domestic charities with no overseas operations were slower to understand
the effects of the regulations, apparently thinking that they applied just
to organizations with overseas activities. The domestic groups have been
somewhat taken aback by demands from some of their financial backers that
they use the lists to police their employees and, in some cases, refused to
acquiesce.

The Drug Policy Alliance, for example, has ended its efforts to obtain a
two-year $200,000 grant from the Ford Foundation because it has not come to
an agreement on certification language. Ford's standard grant agreement
says, "By signing this grant letter, you agree that your organization will
not promote or engage in violence, terrorism, bigotry or the destruction of
any state, nor will it make subgrants to any entity that engages in these
activities."

Charities also contend that the agency adopted the certification
requirement without posting it for comment, as required by law, and that
the requirement amended eligibility and accountability standards governing
the charity drive in violation of law.