Advocacy, Lobbying, Campaigns, and Public Resources

Community leaders speak in several capacities. Confusion begins when the audience cannot tell which institution, authority, money, or role stands behind the message.

Four speech lanes

Government communication

Explains public programs, safety, services, law, budgets, decisions, and proposals through authorized channels. It creates public records and must respect constitutional, statutory, ethical, and local constraints.

Nonprofit communication

Advances charitable mission through education, research, convening, public comment, advocacy, and limited lobbying under applicable rules. A 501(c)(3) may conduct some lobbying but may not intervene in candidate campaigns ¹.

Personal speech

An individual may express personal political views, subject to employment, fiduciary, confidentiality, ethics, and other applicable obligations. The speaker should not imply institutional endorsement.

Campaign communication

Seeks election or defeat, raises/spends campaign funds, recruits volunteers, and communicates as a candidate or committee under campaign-finance and attribution rules.

The same sentence can be lawful in one lane and improper in another because of speaker, audience, timing, resources, and context.

Advocacy is larger than lobbying

Nonprofit advocacy can include:

• public education and research;
• sharing program evidence with officials;
• administrative comment;
• coalition participation;
• nonpartisan voter education;
• litigation where appropriate;
• community organizing;
• legislative lobbying within limits.

Lobbying definitions and reporting depend on the governing tax framework and election, including whether an organization has made a 501(h) election. Schedule C instructions explain federal reporting categories ². Confirm the nonprofit’s actual status and policy with tax counsel.

Candidate campaign intervention is different

For a 501(c)(3), organizational intervention for or against a candidate is prohibited ³. Risk can arise through:

• endorsement or opposition;
• contributions or in-kind support;
• selective mailing lists, space, staff, equipment, or publicity;
• biased candidate events;
• ratings or voter guides that favor candidates;
• issue messages shaped by timing, targeting, language, history, and coordination;
• social-media activity through institutional accounts.

Do not treat “we never used the word vote” as a safe harbor.

Neutral candidate-event checklist

Before an event:

• written charitable/nonpartisan purpose;
• objective, preexisting invitation criteria;
• equal opportunity for qualifying candidates;
• broad, nonpartisan subject coverage;
• independent questions and moderator;
• no fundraising, endorsements, campaign signs, or preferential links;
• equal time and comparable format;
• opening/closing neutrality statement;
• accessible venue and communication;
• recording/publication rules applied equally;
• no campaign control over audience or content;
• board approval and qualified legal/tax review;
• plan if a candidate declines.

Inviting only candidates for a nonpartisan policy forum may still be possible under carefully structured facts, but election-season activity should not be improvised.

The officeholder-candidate split

An incumbent mayor running for reelection remains mayor. Separate:

Do not use public staff, equipment, data, access, events, or authority to advantage the campaign. Wisconsin ethics standards prohibit use of public position for improper substantial benefit ⁴.

City records should not be quietly transferred into campaign systems. Publicly available information may be used under the same rules available to others, but privileged access and staff-created campaign work are different issues.

The nonprofit-director-candidate split

If a Shake Rag director runs for local office:

• disclose the candidacy and likely conflicts;
• stop using title where it suggests endorsement;
• do not request lists, staff, learner stories, venues, equipment, photographs, or donor introductions for campaign use;
• let disinterested leaders manage any city/candidate matter;
• recuse where policy/law requires;
• separate social accounts and signatures;
• avoid discussing confidential board business in the campaign;
• resign from a role if conflicts become unmanageable, after thoughtful governance review.

Dual service may be possible; ungoverned dual use is not.

Advocacy to the city

A nonprofit may communicate public evidence:

“Our 2026 program served 416 unique learners, paid 18 artists, and used six historic campus buildings. The attached methods define each measure. The organization requests that the city include accessible pedestrian connection and cultural-resource data in the planning scope.”

Then identify:

• is specific legislation involved?
• who approved the position?
• which grant or donor restrictions apply?
• how are staff time and expense tracked?
• is the claim nonpartisan and factual?
• is a board member also a city decision-maker?
• what public meeting/record will capture the request?

Submitting the statement through a noticed city process can make the advocacy more transparent and useful ⁵.

Government communication about a nonprofit

A mayor may explain an adopted city grant or public partnership. Avoid:

• implying personal ownership of council action;
• soliciting donations with city systems without authority;
• endorsing one private organization outside policy;
• promising permits, contracts, votes, or appointments;
• using the nonprofit as campaign validation;
• releasing protected information;
• turning a city event into campaign content.

Use:

“The Council approved a one-year $25,000 services agreement after the published selection process. The nonprofit will deliver the listed workshops and quarterly reports. The agreement and vote are public. I supported the project for the reasons in the meeting record; the first performance review is scheduled for October.”

Issue-campaign scenario

A nonprofit launches “Save Our Studios” two months before a mayoral election. One candidate champions the issue; another questions cost. The nonprofit:

• uses a candidate’s quote;
• links to that campaign’s site;
• emails its donor list;
• schedules a rally beside the candidate’s event;
• says it is only discussing policy.

Red flags include timing, targeting, linkage, candidate reference, coordination, use of institutional resources, and one-sided presentation. Stop and obtain counsel. A safer charitable advocacy campaign would be designed around the issue and legislation/administrative decision, use factual evidence, maintain independence, avoid candidate preference, apply neutral event rules, and track lobbying where applicable.

Personal-capacity footer is not magic

“Views are my own” helps clarify role but does not cure:

• use of institutional resources;
• disclosure of confidential information;
• prohibited official action;
• campaign intervention by a 501(c)(3);
• a reasonable appearance of endorsement;
• duties attached to title or position.

Context controls.

Build a role card

For every public-facing leader:

Review before campaign season, major city decisions, grant announcements, and joint events.

Working rule

Before speaking, name the hat, authority, audience, resources, record, and desired action.

When those are clear, leaders can advocate vigorously without converting public or charitable trust into private political capital.