MUSEUM-L Archives

Museum discussion list

MUSEUM-L@HOME.EASE.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Andy Finch <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Museum discussion list <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 8 Mar 1996 10:35:34 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (34 lines)
By way of followup to yesterday's alert:

The US House yesterday *passed* a stripped-down (but still objectionable)
version of the Istook amendment.  The vote was 211-209 -- Istook's
narrowest margin of victory to date.

The language that passed would require recipients of grants to state
the dollar value and percentage of federal and non-government funds in
any documents that describe a project that received federal funds.  So
exhibit guides, for example, would have to include such information.

Worse, recipients would also have to report to granting agencies how much
they spend on lobbying.  The objections to this requirement are:

1)  we already have to report this information to the IRS
2)  we would have to use different definitions from the IRS, so in effect
    we would be required to keep two sets of books
3)  we were allowed by the new Lobbying Disclosure Act to choose *one*
    accounting method.  Istook would effectively end this privilege.
4)  as always, contracts (as opposed to grants) are exempt.

Unlike earlier versions, however, this amendment doesn't actually limit
what we can say or how much we can spend.

The main fear now is that, objectionable as it still is, the amendment is
watered-down enough that the Senate might accept it.

Stay tuned.

Andy Finch
AAM Government Affairs
[log in to unmask]
202-289-9125

ATOM RSS1 RSS2