I was interested in Mr. Finch's comments about the Istook Amendment
     and I agree that the paperwork would be burdonsome.  I am not sure how
     enforcable that act would be. (Perhaps AAM would run ads stating
     "Certified non-15%-er vendor.")

     HOWEVER, I also see that the congress's point of view.  If an
     organization takes money from the government, it has an obligation to
     spend it for the purpose it was intended, which is to improve the
     museum.  Lobbying is not the purpose of the grant.  It is illegal to
     use federal monies to lobby the federal government.  For example, we
     all know that we cannot deduct political contributions from our
     federal income taxes.

     I strongly disagree with Mr. Finch that this prohibition is somehow a
     threat to free speech.  The Constitution prohibits the restriction of
     free speech by the federal government, it is not an entitlement to a
     government subsidy.  If a museum wants to support an advocacy
     organization such as the American Arts Alliance, it sould use
     non-government funds, although I suspect that the money would be better
     spent at home.

     ***The opinions here represent my personal opinion and are not
     necessarily those of the National Museum of Health and Medicine or the
     Department of Defense.***

                             Alan Hawk
                             National Museum of Health and Medicine, AFIP
                             [log in to unmask]