Finding The Words That Support The Arts

In an article for TheNew York Times (September 10, 2013), art critic/reviewer Roberta Smith reports on the proposed sale of art works in the collection of the Detroit Institute of Arts. She decries the city managers in Detroit who raised the idea of selling works, “as if the institute were a goose whose golden eggs included art by Rembrandt, Van Gogh, Caravaggio, van Eyck and Breughel”. She makes it clear that the loss of this institution would be a disaster for Detroit and a great loss for culture.

In the final paragraphs of her article, Smith says, “One reason such cuts are tolerated is America’s shortsighted separation of education and economics.  If the United States aims to produce more and import less, it needs designers and inventors of things to be produced.  Such skills require just the kind of imagination and ingenuity that are nourished by art training from an early age and by museums.”

She concludes, “Detroit has survived many losses, but the destruction of this museum would leave a wound that would be impossible to bear.  It would mean not only the loss of a great civic achievement and of a beacon, but also of an essential life tool.” 

Smith's eloquence speaks for a non-profit sector that regularly struggles to find new words to convince a dubious public that the arts are worth the money we spend on them. Sure there are arguments for social service causes and many of these pull at the heart. But the arts are vital. As Smith points out: they nourish the imagination and ingenuity that fuel our progress and our dreams.

Transparency Versus Privacy

The IRS regulates its taxation of non-profit organization under the designation 501(c). Charitable organizations are tax-exempt if they follow the rules of their 501(c)(3) status. And organizations that lobby legislatures must obey the stipulations of their 501(c)(4) status.

Now, apparently in response to the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision that permits organizations to donate any amount of money to political candidates, some state legislators have passed laws requiring lobbying groups to reveal the sources of their money.

In other words, by law in some states, contributors to lobbyists must be named.

Naturally the enforcement of these laws poses a threat to organizations that have been targeted by hate groups. Naral Pro-Choice of New York, for instance, asked for an exception because its pro-abortion agenda makes it a target of violent protests. The legislature of New York State has granted them the exception, but not without a fight with Republicans who felt that it was special treatment for a liberal cause.

The issue comes down to one of transparency versus privacy. Groups like Naral fear not only that their contributors may become targets, but that as a result, their contributions may dry up. The public may have a right to know, but it also has a right to be safe from harassment.     See The New York Times article