Follow the Money

Whether we are discussingal-Qaeda or Enron, the advice remains the same: follow the money. Of course, that is sometimes easier said than done. Both these organizations have good reason to want to kick over the traces, and both have shown considerable ingenuity in their efforts to hoodwink auditors and investigators. With the American Library Association (ALA), things are, of course, quite different. This is a reputable professional body, one that is publicly committed to the principles of openness and the free flow of information.

So, during a lighthearted dinner table conversation with a sometime president of ALA, I took the opportunity to ask whether, and to what extent, membership dues were being used to underwrite the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA) legal fund. As I recall, I considered his response "fuzzy," and my appetite for more information was immediately whetted.

The reason for my interest is simple: many public (and other) librarians are opposed to the inflexible and inconsistent stance taken by ALA on the issue of digital pornography in libraries (see my Pulp Friction, Scarecrow, 2003), yet their professional association uses funds generated directly and indirectly by the membership to support an ideologically repellent position.

In 2002, ALA's executive director stated that CIPA-related "legal fees [were] expected to top $1.7 million" and that "the sustained commitment of librarians from across the profession" would be vital to the campaign's success. Individual ALA members are encouraged to make donations to the CIPA Legal Defense Fund, while various divisions and affiliated organizations have dedicated funds to the national effort.

For example, both the Public Library Association and the Freedom To Read Foundation have committed $100,000 to the cause, while the American Association of Law Libraries recently authorized a $5000 donation, and the New Hampshire Library Association—to offer a grass-roots illustration—made a more modest $2000 pledge. I find it especially rich that the Association of Library Service to Children dedicated $25,000 to challenge a law designed to protect…children.

Additional contributions came from the parent body. At the 2001 ALA Midwinter Meeting, the Executive Board "voted to approve designation of ALA General Fund Net Assets in the amount of $250,000 and approve withdrawal from the ALA Future Fund of $250,000; with a repayment plan, including a repayment schedule, to the Future Fund approved by Fall 2001 to support the legal action to overturn the Children's Internet Protection Act." At its November 2002 meeting, the board noted that ALA "had already incurred costs of $1,434,596 since the inception of the CIPA lawsuit" and "committed $500,000 to the bill and…raised donations of $371,048" (Library Hotline 11/25/02). I may be quite wrong, but I am guessing that members' dues constitute part of the association's general fund, in which case members should be clearly informed they are contributing to an action of which they may disapprove.

Even if it can be shown that membership dues are not used to support the anti-CIPA campaign, it is nonetheless the case that the funds being depleted have been generated, directly or indirectly, by members, who buy ALA publications and attend ALA-organized conferences, training courses, and so forth. Any other interpretation would amount to sophistry. For a very helpful overview of the costs associated with not only CIPA but also the Communications Decency Act and Child Online Protection Act, I recommend you take a look at Mary Minow's article "Who Pays for Free Speech?" (American Libraries, 2/03, p. 34–38).

There is another minor though revealing dimension to this topic. Both ALA and the U.S. Department of Justice used a number of expert witnesses in mobilizing their positions. (Admission: I was an expert witness for the Department of Justice in the CIPA case, and I was cited in the brief submitted to the Supreme Court.) Some, myself included, received payment, and, as is the norm, we were required to reveal our hourly remuneration rate as part of the public record. I was struck by two things: some ALA witnesses contributed their expertise pro bono (kudos to all concerned), and, secondly, the other ALA experts were being paid considerably more than the Department of Justice's consultants.

It would be instructive if the rank-and-file membership, not least those making modest but hard-earned personal contributions to the cause, were able to see the hourly rates of some of those representing their position. You might be less than thrilled to learn that the $100 check you sent to the fund got you about half an hour's worth of professional expertise.