Blatant Berry: The Toll of ALA's IRS Muzzle

Once again, the American Libray Association (ALA) has been muzzled by the cautious warnings of its leaders regarding Section 501(c)(3) of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code. Under that law, ALA receives tax exemptions as a “charitable organization.”

Political debate has been silenced to the usual ALA Council chorus of self-congratulation, and political comment was moved to an electronic list of ALA's shadow affiliate, the memberless Allied Professional Association.

One zealous member of Council was moved to write the following attack on a colleague who spoke out against the IRS muzzle:

I trust that [he] will be as passionate about rallying the workers if we are reduced to selling pencils on Chicago's Michigan Avenue to support the survival of our former 501(c)(3) organization. Aberrant and anti-social actions can be courageous, and they can be silly and self-serving. I'll leave it to each councilor to decide in this case....

The ban on “political speech” was added to Section 501(c)(3) in 1954. Under it the IRS can revoke tax exemptions and now aggressively monitors compliance. It has “zero tolerance” for violations according to a letter to the ALA Council from ALA president James Rettig, who says the law requires no warnings from the IRS and the exempt status has often been revoked. “The loss of our 501(c)(3) status would have a catastrophic impact,” according to Rettig.

Based on data on theIRS web site for the 2006 election cycle, however, Rettig may have overstated the likelihood of such a revocation for ALA. The IRS received 237 referrals and selected 100 (44 churches, 56 nonchurches) for examination. More than half of these cases are still under investigation. However, the IRS substantiated improper political activity in 26 cases and issued written advisories. So far, no revocations have been recommended.

For four decades, however, ALA leaders and lawyers have used the threat of that move to stifle actions and expression from ALA members. In all that time, ALA has never provided any data or estimates of the cost to ALA if it had to pay taxes under one of the many varieties of tax status an organization can be awarded under the law. ALA's caution seems to be based on incomplete information.

The IRS muzzle on “political speech” is especially frustrating in an election year. During their earlier political careers, one party's top two candidates have actually expressed interest in limiting the services and censoring the collections of public libraries. Of course, candidates from both parties will take economic positions, and one party's nominee will attempt to lead the nation out of the current economic crisis as President. How that is done can, and probably will, have a huge impact on library funding.

We librarians need the right to speak out as a profession through ALA, our professional association, about any politician who might threaten library services and support. IRS differentiates between “political speech” and lobbying, although it places limits on both. Currently, under IRS rules, ALA spends $1 million to lobby Congress on behalf of libraries. ALA ought to use some of that money to lobby for less stringent IRS prohibitions on “political speech.”

At the very least, ALA ought to find out how frequently the IRS has revoked the 501(c)(3) status. We need much deeper and better understanding of exactly where the line is drawn on “political speech” and precisely how great the danger is to ALA.

It is just as important that ALA inform its leaders and members what it would cost the association if it were to accept a tax status that allowed “political speech.” ALA members need to know whether it is the price of ALA's tax exemptions or the caution of its leadership that is excessive. Either way, we should tear off the IRS muzzle that renders our professional association impotent.