See article here

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/28/AR2008092802365.html

I was wondering what museum professionals thought of this.

33 pastors, in violation of IRS regulations, explicitly advocated to their parishioners that should vote for a specific presidential candidate. They did this to violate the law, be charged by the IRS in order to overturn the regulation that they cannot, as non-profits with tax exempt status participate in partisan politics. They believe it interferes with their first amendment rights. 

I think this could potentially have huge effects on how museums and other non-profits do business and how we are percieved by the public. I think this regulation, while annoying at times, does shield us from the worst of partisan politics and from being used by local politicians as part of their machines and fund raising. Think about how we would approach a politician for support on anything knowing that politician could ask us to openly support, advocate, and raise money for him/her. Since charitable giving is tax deductible and political donations are not, could non-profits, including museums, be used to "launder" donations to political campaigns?

But then maybe I am wrong and this is not a huge issue for museums or maybe it could be a benefit.

And any discussion of this issue, assuming we want to keep it civil, should steer clear of exactly which churches these are and who they advocate for. That seems less important than the implications of this as a legal and ethical  matter.

Some questions:

Assuming this goes to court, will museums support the removal of this restriction or its retention? Should our professional organizations file amicus briefs for or against this move?

Is this regulation more of a help or a hinderance in fulfilling our missions?

What if it is overturned, but only for religions? What would museums think about this?

What if it is overturned, how would museums adapt? Would we jump into partisan politics or retain some neutrality? 

Would politicians allow us to remain neutral if we didn't have to be?

How would this effect, if at all, the movement of museums to become more civically engaged and even open advocates on issues. Would this change the cost-benefit analysis at all?

Would the public see us differently if we could no longer be counted on to be neutral?

I am really curious what people here think.

Matt White

=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:

The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).

If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).