AOTL  TOPICS 

ARTICLES
ADVOCACY
LINKS
SPEECHES

ARTSLYNX
DEPARTMENTS

Sponsor TWO bills on a topic and then remove your name from ONE of these sponsorships.

• Representative Chrysler (R-MI) tried THIS one a few years ago. He is no longer in Congress! It may also explain why Jesse Helms (R-NC) sponsored two identical bills to end the NEA this year. By signing on to one such bill and voting against the other Congressmen can play both sides of any issue, especially where voters are not as informed as they should be. The scheme also can thwart the watchdog groups with their vote tallies. In congress not every vote is equal, so percentage based voting tallies may not be showing things quite as they are.

Vote one way KNOWING (and loving the fact) that you will Lose the vote!

• A favorite strategy in DC! This was the exact tactic used when Congress voted themselves their last pay raise. KNOWING the public was against the pay raise, here's what Congress conspired to do. First they did a straw vote. Yup, they all pretty much wanted a pay raise, they just didn't want to ADMIT to same. Then they did a count of who was up for that year's reelection. Simple arithmetic showed that if all those who were up for re-election were to vote AGAINST the raise (no matter their REAL feelings) the bill would still be able to PASS. So....in TRUE bi-partisan fashion, this is EXACTLY what transpired and the pay raise was enacted into law -- without hurting anyone's chance for re-election! No one can claim that THESE folks are dumb! In the arts this is what transpired with the last block grant proposal of 7/97. It allowed the necessary cover for key legislators to vote out the NEA while still claiming to care about the arts and the wishes of the citizenry.

Vote for an alternative measure knowing that IT will lose!

• It may be illegal for BUSINESSES to use bait and switch tactics but Congress??? .Hey you don't like a bill, substitute your OWN which does the opposite but perhaps with even the same type of title! OR... substitute a bill that will give cover to those who oppose the first, knowing that EVERYONE will then vote down the substitute. This was the REAL function of the 1997 NEA blockgrant proposal and it also explains why BOTH sides voted it down. Those FOR arts funding voted no to the sham bill and those AGAINST arts funding voted it down as well. This was a fascinating case of both extremes voting together on a controversial bill.

Speak (or write) One Way and then Vote the Other Way.

• For the last two years a valiant Republican from NY, Rick Lazio has shown his leadership in SUPPORT of the Arts through an open letter written to the Speaker in support of the NEA. Each time many fellow Republicans signed on to the letter proclaiming THEIR support for the NEA as well. But this year was different. Many SIGNED the letter and later voted AGAINST the NEA. The new Arts Congressional Member Organization shows the same trend with some very legitament support of the arts.....and others ducking for cover under the CMO umbrella.
  
• When your legislator claims a support of the arts, First check the record to see exactly what this means in that legislator's case. Listen carefully as well, to what FOLLOWS the initial statement of support. At a citizen's meeting in Colorado in 1997, a representative of Colorado's newest Senator claimed the Senator to be a great supporter of the arts. But the staffer went on to add that that is why The Senator wants a massive tax cut: "so that people will have more money to SPEND on the arts".

Set a trap!

• Being eager to please legislators the arts community has been easy prey. First say you can't support the NEA because the money goes to little dubious organizations, when it REALLY should be funding the biggest and most important and most well established of our institutions.
  
• BUT.....when the NEA follows your suggestion, switch the argument 180 degrees, complaining that the money goes mostly to America's big arts centers like New York, Boston, and Los Angeles. Complain that YOUR rural district gets nothing so why should ANY district!?
  
• OR..... first cut the NEA by 40% and then in the next cycle say something like "Hey so little money goes to the arts why the big fuss about ending the NEA anyway". Many in Congress had supported the initial cut since "we all have to pull together in times of crisis". They did NOT support abolishment. But a year later memories are fuzzy.

Create a false crisis and then call the NEA "controversial".

• We hear this all the time. But the "crisis" is artificially manufactured by those with no scruples just so they can say "see it's controversial". Never mind the fact that the bulk of the charges made have been false. In May Rep Doolittle (R-CA) said we can't fund the NEA because it spends it's money on such travesties as a one word poem. He even held up the "poem" to show all the world. What he DIDN'T tell the Representatives was that this project was funded IN 1968. Time after time these so-called watchdogs of our moral character use such tactics to make their case. To those seeking the truth, these tactics reflect more on Representatives like Doolittle than they do on The NEA. Always remember: Maplethorp was DEAD at the time of his so-called NEA funding.

Pretend we are in a time of financial crisis and then yell: "We need to put our funding in perspective!"

• WHAT crisis? On Wall Street? In the Job Market? With the lowest deficit since the 1960s? In Corporate profits? If THIS claim is not BOGUS, then what is? Are people who MAKE such claims to be trusting in OTHER claims?
  
• Indeed let's put our spending in perspective. To see how our Federal Arts spending compares to OTHER pet projects check out: Putting Arts Spending In Perspective You'll be shocked when things are REALLY put in perspective AND context.

Avoid saying YOU support something by saying a RELATIVE supports it.

• It gets WORSE. On an actual survey form last year, one nameless state legislator on a nameless state actually wrote "of course I support the arts, two years ago my brother was on the cover of the [state arts] magazine." Too bad we didn't elect this guy's BROTHER!

If you don't want to support something -- but want to avoid critics, merely prevent the vote in the first place!

• You can first pass a bill that makes most anything passed on the floor to be "out of order" and then follow this with another "rule" saying that points of order can't be raised EXCEPT on those things you want to eliminate. Cool!
  
• You can forget, in your "rule", to allow those who disagree with you the right to have their own amendments or bills considered for a vote or debate.
  
• You can take the amendment you DON'T like and substitute for it one you DO like, while keeping the same title or introduction so that it looks like the original plan was voted down. Clever, no?
  
• Similar to the previous strategy. If it looks like the amendment you DON'T like might be popular enough to pass, and you have control of the floor, you can substitute a measure that LOOKS the same but has enough flaws to guarantee it will FAIL. This is why BOTH arts SUPPORTERS AND DETRACTORS agreed to vote DOWN the Ehlers' block grant proposal of 7/97!

Propose a measure and then give it a title that purports to be doing the OPPOSITE!

• Say you wanted to propose a bill allowing children to murder their parents. There is nothing to prevent you as a legislator from doing this but with a title like "The American Family Protection Act." THEN, you can accuse critics of your plan of being against American Families! Capiche? Watch out for those acts designed to do things like "Protect the Arts"!

Cleverly SPLIT the issue.

• First cut all or most funds to a program, and then the next year say something like "hey these funds are a drop in the bucket, they do you little good anyway". But then if someone ELSE uses this argument to support continued funding say: "I'm outraged. To YOU a couple of million may be peanuts, but it's big money to the American People".

And . . . When ALL else fails..... say it's for "THE CHILDREN".

Send mail to rfinkels@msn.com with questions or comments about this web site. Copyright © 2004  Last modified: December 27, 2003