The Rogue Scholar

Political Speech and the ALA

Letter from ALA president

Dear Colleagues:

Over the last several weeks, there has been  considerable discussion and
many questions raised about the constraints  imposed by federal law on
ALA as a nonprofit charitable organization. On the  other hand, there has
also been considerable interest in having a forum  available where ALA
members could freely discuss political topics and the  current election
in relation to library issues.

ALA, because of its  501(c)(3) tax exempt status, is expressly and
absolutely prohibited by the  U.S. Internal Revenue Code from engaging in
"political speech." This means  that ALA resources, including electronic
discussion lists, blogs and wikis,  cannot be used for "the support of,
or opposition to, a candidate for public  office". Political speech is
different from "lobbying," which seeks to  influence legislation or
regulation (ALA continues to lobby aggressively for  libraries within
federal guidelines).

The consequence of violating  this legal prohibition is the revocation of
tax exempt status. No warnings  are required, and the IRS has repeatedly
revoked the 501(c)(3) status of  organizations considered in violation of
these regulations. The absolute  prohibition on political speech by
associations like ALA is serious - and the  "zero tolerance" enforcement
policy of the IRS has been upheld by the courts,  including the Supreme
Court. We - ALA officers, staff and members - are  required to comply
with these laws until such time as Congress changes them.  In doing so,
we protect the interests of the Association and its members -  present
and future - and preserve ALA's ability to advocate aggressively  on
behalf of libraries and the public. Simply put, the loss of  our
501(c)(3) status would have a catastrophic impact on the  Association.

For more information about the IRS prohibition on political  speech by
501(c)(3) tax exempt organizations, as well as links to  additional
information, please see the Marginalia blog posting at
http://discuss.ala.org/marginalia/2008/03/12/election-year/

Some  members have inquired about challenging this prohibition. Given
that the  Supreme Court has upheld this IRS regulation, a legal challenge
would not be  a wise use of ALA resources. Other members have pointed out
that there are  exemptions for universities and that churches appear to
be granted more  latitude by the IRS.  Both of these statements are true,
but do not affect  the rules for charitable organizations such as ALA.

Notwithstanding this  prohibition, many ALA members have expressed an
interest in discussing the  election and the candidates in relation to
library issues. While this  discussion cannot legally occur within the
ALA 501(c)(3) structure, the  501(c)(6) ALA-Allied Professional
Association does open up new opportunities  for such discussions. As a
501(c)(6), operating under different IRS rules,  ALA-APA can legally
provide a forum for such discussions.

To this end,  the ALA-APA Board has authorized the creation of an ALA-APA
Forum discussion  list to discuss mutual issues of interest to librarians
and other library  workers, including political issues and candidates.
This list is open to ALA  members and others. To subscribe to the APA
Forum, go to:. http://lists.ala-apa.org/sympa/info/apaforum

Questions  have also been raised about the limitations placed upon
American Libraries  and AL Direct. While stories that may be construed as
supporting or opposing  any candidate for public office are prohibited by
the IRS as political  speech, AL and AL Direct will continue to provide
factual information and  breaking current news on library-related issues,
including those involving  candidates for public office, as it occurs.

In closing, I would encourage  you to distribute this information to any
and all ALA discussion lists and  member forums. Also, if you have any
questions, please contact Karen Muller,  the ALA Librarian, at
kmuller@ala.org.

Sincerely,

James  Rettig
ALA President
ALA-APA President

Remember Howard Beale

This past Friday beheld the start of the third National Conference over Media Reform in Memphis. Bill Moyers was one of the main speakers, and being Moyers, he let the media establishment have it point blank:

Veteran journalist Bill Moyers on Friday challenged 3,000 progressive activists and communicators to take back the telling of America’s story at the National Conference of Media Reform in Memphis. He put his finger squarely on the deep vein of discontent with the way mainstream media is ill-serving American democracy.

Moyers, who is president of the Schumann Center for Media and Democracy, went through a sordid litany of corporate media malfeasance, from the lackluster and largely non-skeptical reporting of the Bush administration’s launch of the war in Iraq to the lack of attention paid to a domestic landscape of increasing economic disparity and racial segregation. Virtually uncontrolled media consolidation over the past decade, he said, has meant a loss of independent journalism and created “more narrowness and homogenization in content and perspective, so that what we see on our couch is overwhelmingly the view from the top.”

It is in this environment that the Bush administration can, for example, can “turn the escalation of a failed war and call it a surge, as if it were a current of electricity through a wire instead of blood spurting from the ruptured veins of a soldier,” Moyers said.

On the domestic front, “the question of whether or not our economic system is truly just is off the table for investigation and discussion, so that alternative ideas, alternative critiques, alternative visions never get a hearing,” he said.

“It is clear what we have to do. We have to tell the story ourselves,” he said.

One thing I noticed much further down in the article (the last paragraph, in fact) was a reference to Sidney Lumet's Network, possibly one of the best movies ever made about the broadcast television industry:

The intense interest in this conference is a reflection of the thousands of Howard Beales on the left who are as mad as hell and are not going to take dumbed-down, homogenized, corporatized, power-subservient media any more.

Everyone remembers Howard Beale telling people to stick their heads out their windows and scream their ire at the world, possibly because that scene happens early in the movie.  Nobody remembers that by the end of the film, Howard has become "the only prime time anchorman to ever have been killed over lousy ratings."  So my meager advice to those who would defend the world from the main stream media might be this: the machine is plenty bigger than you, has no morals whatsoever and has an enormous head start.  In other words, both strive for change and  watch your back.  Always.   

SLAPPed Libraries?

Molly Ivins has a piece in today's Alternet.org on the issue of free speech (as in guaranteed by the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution) and the growing use of the  Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (aka "SLAPP"). The idea behind the SLAPP is that a large (or merely well-funded) corporate entity can bring these suits against people who publicly disagree with them, with the intention of the SLAPPed party shutting up due to lackof money to successfully defend against the suit. Trouble is that it works more often than not especially in major David vs. Goliath situations.

So I wonder if these suits have ever been used against a library or librarian. It wouldn't take much, and it it's not that different from folks merely stealing the books they don't like out of libraries or resorting to political pressure to have books banned in libraries, schools, etc. Just wondering on this.

Meanwhile, Lara is on her way to the offices of the Queens Chronicle to talk about her book.