Foremost, the majority of advocacy organizations are organized as 501(c)4 organizations; this tax code labels them as a non-profit but does not allow donations to be tax deductible. These organizations are involved in lobbying as they represent an interest and making them political in nature. The majority of these groups advocate on social and civil rights issues. They may advocate on gay and lesbian rights, on behalf of senior citizens, or on issues such as abortion. Both 501(c)3 and 501(c)4 organizations are prohibited from advocating for or against candidates, they must keep their campaigns focused on issues. 501(C)3 organizations are not allowed to make advocacy the main purpose of their organization and are subject to the expenditure test. Many organizations such as Planned Parenthood have both 501(c)3 and 501(c)4 organizations. If you were to donate, you can check a both whether the money should go towards social services or for the right to choose; this determining which tax status the money goes towards.
The article "The Power of Non-Profits" noted that our constitution reserves the "freedom of association" (assembly) and "right to petition" (lobbying). It has been rooted in the historical traditions of the United States to challenge and influence government. Farmers used the grange hall to take collective action against railroad rates and taxes for example. Further, abolitionist groups worked to free the slaves, this a contributing to the emancipation proclamation. While the article gives a number of positive examples, it is important that advocacy exists on both sides of issues, and a number of issues can exist. Organizing a group such as into a teachers union could create an unfair advantage for that group and make it difficult to regulate this group. Next, a group could use misinformation to make an issue more complex. Using the equal rights amendment during the 60's as one example, this was not passed, it rather became a partisan issue due to interest groups misleading voters. While the idea was to promote gender equality, conservatives made it seem that it have drastic effects, forcing women into combat positions in Vietnam and making them eligible for the draft. It made it seem that a loss of rights would occur such as maternity leave. The religious right became stirred up with contentious issues of Roe v Wade at the time and blocked the issue as a whole. It shows how groups can organize on both sides. I personally agree that advocacy should not be tax deductible, and that while speech is free, the government should not subsidize it. Bob brought up an interesting point when we were studying religious non-profits, he stated that while they do advocate on lifestyle choices, they could lose non-profit status if this speech became political in nature.
One point I wanted to note on was the role of 527 groups and Political Action Committees (PAC). While non-profits cannot legally advocate for a candidate, these 527 groups serve that function, and now with unlimited donations thanks to the recent Citizens United case. Campaign donations are free speech and while 501(c)4 organizations cannot advocate for a candidate these same organizations may organize PAC's and 527 organizations to meet that niche. This article makes the distinction between the two groups.
Non-profit nation makes the point that "Art" is not a money maker while "entertainment" generally does generate revenue. Government support for the arts is important as it has created a number of museums and art gallery's. The national endowment for the arts reports 1.5 billion spent annually by government on the arts. The United States spends far less than other industrialized countries on the arts but still faces criticism from conservatives. It is important to note the growth of the arts over the last 50 years as more wealthy individuals have chosen to donate. It is interesting to see where the funding comes from, many foundations such as the Carnegie Foundation bean giving in the later part of the 20th century. Further, corporations such as At&t have began donating. I feel like small donations are important as well such as funding local efforts such as theater and concert halls.
The Bloomburg article "Art Groups Pumped $166.2 Billion Into U.S. in 2005" makes the point that funding for the arts may actually stimulate the economy. It makes up an entire sector alone and provides 5.7 million jobs. It leads wealthy individuals to spend rather than horde their money. It has a great effect on local economies as many travel to see the arts. The article stated that "the typical arts patron spends $27.79 per event, in addition to the price of admission, the study found. That figure is higher -- $40.19 -- among attendees who travel to an event from a different county". Using the small mountain town of Colorado for example, it could draw in tourists from the City of Denver, and this could stimulate local business such as restaurants and hotels. This small town of 10,000 is able to host small events such as the Salida Aspen Concert series which helps positively impact the city center and leading to higher growth rates. Having a presence in arts helps the city justify beautification efforts such as keeping a waterfront and city park clean. Without the arts a small town like this would cease to exist in its current form, as it is the city is highly desirable, and those who live their take pride in their city.
I agree that art, particularly civil/civic art is really important in terms of providing a sense of place for cities. Without civic art cities become monotonous and you can't really tell one from another, art in this regard is good for providing a uniqueness that will likely attract more people to the city.
ReplyDeleteI found your argument against SB40 compelling I never really looked at it like that. I always sort of figured that the bill was just trying to cut down on inefficiencies and be a whistle-blower for non-profits that weren't responsibly handling their tax credits.
The Citizen's United case is frightening, I have to say that it is probably the biggest blow to the court system in at least 20 years. I can't disagree more with clumping "content" and "speech" in the same category -- money obviously is not speech nor should it be treated that way in a legal sense. This really changes the face of the way that advocacy groups are mobilized and the effect that they can have on politics. It also can make it so 501(c)(4)'s (like Citizen's United) will likely have a much larger effect on politics and tax organization in the future.
(http://www.afj.org/connect-with-the-issues/citizens-united-chart.pdf)
In the video you included a couple people who were interviewed mentioned the fact that the National Endowment for the Arts primarily gives grants to artists who often need need them the least, and that is an issue that I had not thought of. I read the NEA's website and looking at a few articles trying to find out the role the NEA plays in funding education for children or at public schools, and I could not find anything. It seems the smartest investments that the NEA could make would be in next generation work. That is, if they want the arts to be a lasting and respected area, then they should focus most of their funding and energy on getting children and schools involved, not solely on artists who are already successful. Much controversy surrounds the NEA, however, since the NEA is a government organization, I see little problems rising from them investing in public education.
ReplyDeleteMany of the articles I came across in my search were critical of the fact the No Child Left Behind Act did not focus considerable efforts in regards to arts education, noting that arts (such as the Poetry Speaks program) can be big contributors to getting students involved in and excited about school. The fact that NCLB excludes a focus on arts education is interesting since it was proposed by George W. Bush, who the video you included depicted as a supporter of the arts because he increased the budget of the NEA.