0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

Always a Trendsetter, The Walker Art Center Hosts A Political Fundraiser

by Corinna Kirsch on March 21, 2012 · 8 comments


First Lady Michelle Obama held a fundraiser at the Walker Art Center this past Friday, raising over $90,000 for Barack Obama's 2012 reelection campaign. This, despite the Walker Art Center's policy that it won't rent out any of its space to political events.

Most museums—and universities—don't throw political fundraisers for Republicans or Democrats for reasons that are probably self-evident: there's a fifty-fifty chance they'll pay the price if the opposing party is elected. SFMoMA, LA MOCA, and MoMA/MoMA PS1 are just a few of the bigger names that refrain from renting out their spaces for any political cause.

So why is the Walker standing out from the crowd? I spoke with Christopher James, Associate Director of Public Relations at the Walker Art Center, who told me that Friday's political fundraiser was in keeping with the museum's policies.

“Political events can be permitted here if it is a completely private, invitation-only situation that is not open to the general public.”

It appears that Obama's reelection campaign fundraiser took place due to a technicality. Still, Friday's fundraiser for Obama was open to the public and tickets for the event were available for purchase on President Obama's website.

Further clarification was provided by Phillip Bahar, Chief of Operations and Administration, who mentioned that although this was the first political fundraiser held at the Walker during his tenure, the museum has hosted partisan events. During the 2008 Republican National Convention in Minneapolis/St. Paul, delegates held meetings at the museum.

Regardless of the official response from the Walker's PR department, the Walker's choice to host a fundraising event for President Obama's reelection campaign is striking. The Walker has thrown implicit support to a candidate who champions the arts, and by doing so, they've stood up for the participation of art institutions within the political process.

I'll be interested to see if, over the several months leading up to the election, other museums take up a political stance. After all, these events help shape the future.

Tagged as: barack obama, Michelle Obama, museums, politics, walker art center

Abstract Animated Lines! The Whitney’s New Logo, and Other Applications NSFW: This Week’s Must-See Art Events: Wish In One Hand

Powered by Facebook Comments

  • http://twitter.com/BrianSherwinArt Brian Sherwin

    What exactly has Obama done for the arts? 

    • http://hereisafantasy.com Corinna Kirsch

      Isn’t the NEA budget larger or something? J/k

  • http://twitter.com/BrianSherwinArt Brian Sherwin

    “When it comes to arts policy, the Obama administration has been a
    disappointment. It has helped to eliminate arts-related jobs by proposing spending cuts
    for the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for
    the Humanities. After saying that art education would be a top
    arts-policy focus, the Obama administration has allowed art education funding to be slashed. Obama has failed to pursue most of the arts-related campaign promises he made in 2008. Instead, tokenism: The White House has been good at letting us know when it’s hung some new art.” — Tyler Green

    • Will Brand

      Green’s right, but it’s a little more complicated than that. Some organizations, in particular the Smithsonian, are doing better. The LA Times had a piece on this: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/culturemonster/2011/02/obama-budget-proposal-slashes-cultural-agencies-by-13.html

      That said, I’d agree that Obama’s been a disappointment. On the other hand, his likely opponent (Romney) has said this: 

      “First, eliminate every government program that is not absolutely essential. There are many things government does that we may like but that we do not need. The test should be this: “Is this program so critical that it is worth borrowing money to pay for it?” The federal government should stop doing things we don’t need or can’t afford. For example:
      …

      -Enact deep reductions in the subsidies for the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and the Legal Services Corporation.”

      http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/story/2011-11-03/mitt-romney-budget-plan/51063454/1 

      If we’re assuming some measure of partisan interest on the museum’s part–and I’m not totally onboard there–maybe this is just the lesser of two evils.

  • whut

    Maybe it’s time that the arts community identifies itself as a voting base instead of standing in the wings and hoping we get chosen to dance all the time.

  • Gary Bexter

    What exactly is the relation with Michelle Obama and the Art ? that is the question…..

    Art Paint King

  • Auldante

    Artists present to the public blank canvases, expensively curved pieces of steel, repetitive silk-screens, christ figurines in jars of urine, color fields,  formaldehyde floating animal corpses, abstract ideologies with less rationality than phrenology, and countless piles of rubble. They shit all over their consumers–rich and poor–for not getting it, for lacking the necessary educational apparatus, or–most egregious–for being rubes. To the rich it’s no matter, as they’ll quickly Ponzi someone else. To the hard-working poor it is another classist lashing not soon forgotten.

    One can forgive Hickey for the intellectual indulgence of a 20-minute “Borehol” movie for the new approaches it may have opened up. But enough. Repeating the Crying Game plot twist isn’t just bad narrative, it’s like copying a unicorn out of Myst for use in Grand Theft Auto.No wonder people get lost in the Impressionists wing–if only because of its historical distance. It’s a place where the uninitiated don’t feel stupid for seeing beauty, or feel ridiculed for not getting it. Today even the Diogeneses of our pathetic guild are sheepy famesters, a la Powhida. Enough i say. Enough post- post- postings, enough manquish, hope-springs eternal fame-soaked internet “projects,” enough grave, slogan-laced instrumentalism, enough empty mockery. If you want to know why Going Hutu on the NEA is a political touchstone for half the country look no further than yourselves. Art viewers should stop crying about funding and try to valorize something people-not-living-in-major metropolitan america might gladly view.   

  • Worried in NJ

     

    ARE YOU INADVERTENTLY PUTTING THE WALKER ART CENTER AT RISK?

    Two days ago, I found your March story while doing a Google search about IRS  limitations for a small Newark NJ nonprofit organization I support. The search was related to the legal limitations for a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization related to (a) endorsing politicians, (b) hosting political fundraisers, and/or (c) asking elected officials for public support.  

    Note that I am not talking about politicians once they have become elected officials with the appropriate legal authority to consider public funding support for worthy 501(c)(3) nonprofits.    

    My question is focused solely on the legal limits regarding 501(c)(3) nonprofits’ allowable relationships with such elected officials while they are also political candidates running for re-election.

    Why has there been no comment by your website’s readers about the potential risk to the Walker’s status as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization?  Perhaps it is because they believe that your writer may have read too much into the story.  Neither of your Walker Art Center interviewees said that the Walker endorsed this campaign, yet your writer describes the event taking place there as an implicit endorsement — and then gives the Walker kudos for doing so, even in your headline.  

    Are you potentially putting the Walker at risk by praising it for being a “trendsetter” that “has thrown implicit support to a candidate who champions the arts, and by doing so, they’ve stood up for the participation of art institutions within the political process.  I’ll be interested to see if, over the several months leading up to the election, other museums take up a political stance. After all, these events help shape the future.” 

    You seem to be doing the opposite of damning with faint praise.  Are you inadvertently harming the Walker with excessive and inappropriate praise?

    http://www.artfagcity.com/2012/03/21/always-a-trendsetter-the-walker-art-center-hosts-a-political-fundraiser/

    Another news outlet indicated that the event may have been at the Walker but was actually hosted by the Obama for America campaign and the Democratic National Committee.

    http://m.startribune.com/politics/?id=143065056&c=y

    I was so concerned about the risks for the Walker or any other 501(c)(3) organization in being portrayed as (and being praised for) endorsing a particular candidate that I did some more digging about museums and candidates — either for election or re-election.

    I spotted this timely story about the Henry Ford Museum hosting a political fundraiser for the 2012 Obama campaign this week.

    http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/04/18/obama-to-raise-campaign-cash-in-michigan-once-romneys-home-turf/

    That story states, “The president is expected to attend two events in the Detroit area Wednesday evening, according to an Obama campaign official. The first will be held at the Henry Ford Museum in Dearborn, Michigan, where 600 people, who have each paid at least $250, will be on hand.  The Ford Museum has played host to national politicians in the past. Most notably, it was where Romney announced his first bid for president in 2008.” 

    Both the Ford and the Walker file IRS Form 990 tax returns as 501(c)(3)’s.  This info is available to the public at www.guidestar.org, an organization that provides accessible information for current or potential donors about all tax-exempt organizations registered with the IRS.

    There is a difference between endorsing a candidate and “merely” renting space to candidates and their campaign organizations (to generate always-needed revenue for the nonprofit’s general operating expenses).  The article about the Ford indicates that they have chosen to make their space available for rent to both Republicans and Democrats.  But many nonprofit museums explicitly state on their websites that they will not rent space to political or religious entities, presumably to avoid the inferences that your writer chose to draw and then broadcast about the Walker.  

    Some museums even avoid hosting any fundraising-for-other-nonprofits events.  Presumably such self-imposed rules are not done merely to avoid breaching the barrier around their 501(c)(3) status but to avoid the potential perception problem with current and potential donors who might favor a different candidate.  While your writer may possibly view this caution as a failure to stand up in the political process, others might see such discretion as sound judgment by the museum’s leadership — including their board members who bear a fiduciary responsibility to the museum and all of its stakeholders.

    I am not an attorney. But I was told many years ago that endorsing candidates was forbidden for tax-advantaged 501(c0(3) organizations, whether art centers, museums, legal services organizations, or soup kitchens.  I was warned that doing so could lead the IRS to take a very close and appropriate look at whether the organization had put at risk its status as a 501(c)(3) organization.

    Can your writer or your readers offer some facts and related insights regarding what is and what is not legally allowed for 501(c)(3) organizations that want to ensure that they continue to be legal entities that can seek tax-deductible donations — regardless of who has been elected?  

    I ask this as someone who has been doing voluntary development and fundraising work for 501(c)(3) organizations for many years.  

    If I am wrong about the “deadline” for 501(c)(3) nonprofits regarding getting involved in electoral politics, I will be delighted to learn about the current rules for 501(c)(3)’s.  To be clear, I am referring to “deadline” in its original meaning during the Civil War — a line that marked the limitations where a prisoner could go before being shot on sight.  

    If you have inadvertently inferred that the Walker has crossed such an IRS “deadline,”  I hope that you will take appropriate steps to clarify that the Walker actually never left the safe side of that line ASAP. 

    FYI, I have visited the Walker as a tourist in the Twin Cities.  It is an extraordinary place that chooses to educate and inspire visitors — sometimes about broader issues that  have appropriate political ramifications (e.g., their terrific 2008 outdoor exhibit called “Design for the Other 90%).http://www.walkerart.org/calendar/2008/design-for-the-other-90

Previous post:

Next post: