Some Constitutional Implications of Denying NEA Subsidies to Arts Projects under the Yates Compromise

Authors

Karen Faaborg

Abstract

The 1989 funding legislation for the National Endowment for the Arts is constitutiQnally infirm for at least two reasons. First, it politicizes the grant-making process by inserting a government official as censor. Second, it allows subject matter discrimination to occur without the strict scrutiny safeguards designed to avoid illicit prior restraints and the chilling of first amendment rights. Passed as a form of compromise between two warring factions-the Jesse Helms set who would severely restrict NEA funding and the freedom-of-speech set who would impose no restrictions whatsoever-the so-called Yates compromise would nonetheless find a friendly audience at the Supreme Court if recent opinions are accurate predictors.

Recommended Citation

Karen Faaborg, Some Constitutional Implications of Denying NEA Subsidies to Arts Projects under the Yates Compromise, 12 UC Law SF Comm. & Ent. L.J. 397 (1990).
Available at: https://repository.uclawsf.edu/hastings_comm_ent_law_journal/vol12/iss3/5