Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., 473 U.S. 788 (1985) concerned a charity drive, aimed at federal employees, that was held each year in a federal government workplace, during work hours. Representatives of various non-profit health and welfare charities participated, displaying information about themselves, handing out literature, and soliciting contributions from the federal employees in attendance. By Executive Order, as implemented by the Director of the Officer of Personnel Management, charitable organizations whose purpose was to attempt to influence public policy through political activity, advocacy, lobbying, or litigation were not permitted to participate. In a suit in federal court, a number of excluded organizations challenged the government restriction against their participating in the charity drive. They argued that the charity drive was a limited public forum, and the federal government was violating their First Amendment rights by excluding them without a compelling government interest. Ultimately, the case reached the Supreme Court. The Court identified the forum in question as the charity drive, not the federal workplace generally. It observed that "the government does not create a public forum by inaction or by permitting limited discourse, but only by intentionally opening a nontraditional forum for public discourse." Cornelius, 473 U.S. at 802. To determine the government's intention in creating the forum, the Court looked to the policies and practices of the program, the nature and character of the property, and whether the property was compatible with expressive activity. From the program's inception, the practice had been to limit the participating charities to health and welfare organizations not involved in political activities, lobbying, and such. That practice suggested that the government did not intend to create a public forum for expressive activity. The nature of the property also militated against any such intention. Like most workplaces, the federal workplace exists to accomplish the business of the employer. And, although the program was not incompatible with expressive activity, the fact that that activity took place there did not imply that the program was a public forum. The Court held that the charity drive was a nonpublic forum and that the restrictions imposed were reasonable.