Commentary: Congressionally Mandated Fundraiser?
Posted in Current Events by John E. Pannell on May 21st, 2008 at 12:03 am The Online Journal has written an editorial critical of a bill that has recently passed the US House of Representatives, Congress’s $3.5 million “bake sale” for the Boy Scouts.
All right, it isn’t actually a bake sale, but it might as well be. On May 15, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 5872, an act “To require the Secretary of the Treasury to mint coins in commemoration of the centennial of the Boy Scouts of America, and for other purposes.” The other purposes? The sale of the coins by the Secretary of the Treasury, with a surcharge on each coin sold to “be paid to the National Boy Scouts of America Foundation.” In other words, this is a congressionally mandated fundraiser for the Boy Scouts.
The bill passed the House by a vote of 403-8. Chris Rodda, Online Journal guest writer, praises the 8 Democrats ( Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Barney Frank (D-MA), Luis Gutierrez (D-IL), Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), Barbara Lee (D-CA), Jim McDermott (D-WA), Pete Stark (D-CA), and Lynn Woolsey (D-CA)) who voted against this legislation.
The opening paragraph makes clear to all those who have eyes to see what the writers politics are. Most of these representatives should be well known to those who pay attention to Congressional politics. They are not friends of traditional principles of God, country and family that the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) seeks to inculcate in its members. Their vote is almost certainly based upon their deep dislike of the BSA and what it stands for. However — God help me for saying this! — Mr. Rodda may have a point here. The basis of Rodda’s criticism of this act is that it is unconstitutional since the BSA discriminates on the basis of religion.
I won’t rehash the BSA’s statements and policies on religion. They should be familiar to those familiar with the BSA’s programs. Mr. Rodda also quotes many of the religion related requirements in his editorial.
In mathematics there is the concept of the universal set. This is the set of all items including itself. This definition leads to a few mathematical paradoxes, but this is not a post about mathematics! Logically, it also includes the set of no elements. Likewise if the BSA was to be open to boys of all religions — ie. non-discriminatory on the basis of religion — it would have to be also be open to those boys who follow the religion of “no religion”. It isn’t.
Additionally, from a libertarian standpoint there is also the question of whether it is proper for the US government to be in the business of raising funds for any private organization. The centennial of the BSA is a significant historical event worthy of commemoration, but it is the place of the US Mint or the Department of the Treasury to become professional fundraisers for a private organization?
So, given current laws and legal decisions, is it appropriate for the US mint to issues coins whose proceeds help fund the BSA? What do you all think?
Before getting too excited either way about this, please remember your basic US civics. I do not yet know whether similar legislation has been introduced in the Senate. Until passed by the Senate and signed into law by the President no commemorative coins will be minted. It could well be possible that the overwhelming support from those more likely to oppose the Boy Scouts of America was based upon the belief that this will not pass the US Senate.
There are almost a dozen commemorative coin bills, only two coin “sets” can be approved each year, and one was already approved this year. So we are hoping that the Senate passes one of the other bills instead, or at least drops the inappropriate surcharge. U.S. Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., and U.S. Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., introduced legislation Thursday to create the $1 silver coin to recognize the 100th anniversary of the Boy Scouts of America. Presumeably, their bill includes the $10 per coin surcharge.
Y’all:
In a tongue-in-cheek response, one could say that the $10 surcharge could be in lieu of paying to become an official BSA vendor, for the usage of protected BSA logos, trademarks, and/or wordmarks. Or, maybe the US government has learned something from the Friends of Scouting (FO$) council strips.
But the more realistic reason is simpler. Go to the website of the United States mint (usmint.gov), and look at the history of the modern commemorative coin program:
“Congress authorizes commemorative coins that celebrate and honor American people, places, events, and institutions. Although these coins are legal tender, they are not minted for general circulation. Each commemorative coin is produced by the United States Mint in limited quantity and is only available for a limited time.
“As well as commemorating important aspects of American history and culture, these coins help raise money for important causes. Part of the price of these coins is a surcharge that goes to organizations and projects that benefit the community. For example, surcharges on the Capitol Visitor Center commemorative coins will help build a new visitor center under the U.S. Capitol’s East Plaza.
“Since the modern commemorative coin program began in 1982, the United States Mint has raised over $418,000,000 in surcharges to help build new museums, maintain national monuments like the Vietnam War Memorial, preserve historical sites like George Washington’s home, support various Olympic programs, and much more.”
Think of it like this: The US government, through the Mint, turns about 50 cents of base metal and another 50 cents for packaging, and turns it into a $1 coin that will never be used, but will instead be sold for a premium. Should the US government be expected to produce commemoratives for their own fundraising purposes, without sharing the proceeds with the subject of the commemoration? Policital considerations or not, the answer is yes.