Senate Rejects Funds Ban on Controversial Artworks

The Senate, laying to rest an intense First Amendment controversy that has preoccupied Congress and the arts community for more than two months, voted early today to reject a ban on federal funding of works of art deemed to be indecent, offensive or sacrilegious.

On a roll call vote of 62 to 35, the Senate rejected a provision authored by Sen. Jesse Helms (R-N.C.) that had passed the chamber by voice vote on July 26--sparking a nationwide debate that has attracted more public attention than most other issues currently before the Congress.

Ironically, the vote against the ban came just hours after a House-Senate conference committee had agreed on a tentative plan that would have given Helms at least some of the restrictions that he sought on arts funding by the National Endowment for the Arts.

But the North Carolina senator said that he decided to bring the issue to the Senate floor for a showdown because his original proposal was “about to be emasculated” by the conference committee. He did not want to accept anything less than a complete ban on federal funding of art works that he considers offensive.

The controversy grew out of an outraged congressional reaction to a series of photographs by Robert Mapplethorpe depicting homoerotic and sadomasochistic acts and another photograph by Andres Serrano depicting a crucifix in a bottle of urine--all of them funded by NEA.

Copies of the photos were passed among the senators as the proposal was debated and Helms advised women and children to leave the chamber during the debate to avoid being offended by the discussion.

Helms’ amendment said that no federal funds should be spent for “obscene or indecent materials, including but not limited to depictions of sadomasochism, homoeroticism, the exploitation of children or individuals engaged in sex acts; materials which denigrate the objects or beliefs of the adherents of a particular religion or nonreligion, or material which denigrates, debases or reviles a person, group or class of citizens on the basis of race, creed, sex, handicap, age or national origin.”

It did not say who would judge which materials violate the ban.

Supporters of the defeated amendment argued that, while the nation’s artists have every right under the First Amendment to produce any kind of picture they want--no matter how obscene--they should not receive federal funds to do it.

“If artists want to go into the men’s room and write dirty things on the wall, let them purchase their own crayon,” declared Helms. “No tax funds shall be used for garbage.”

But opponents insisted that the amendment was too broad and would also rule out government subsidy of many revered works of art and literature ranging from Shakespeare to “The Color Purple.” As Sen. John C. Danforth (R-Mo.), a lawyer and an Episcopal minister, put it: “It’s not just about Mapplethorpe; it’s also about Shakespeare.”

Sen. Wyche Fowler Jr. (D-Ga.) said that the Helms amendment would also open up the question of whether the government should fund libraries containing controversial books or allow a tax deduction for gifts of such art works to museums and galleries.

The outcome of the vote was a surprise to many because it had been assumed that even those senators opposed would vote in favor of it, fearing that a potential election opponent might try to portray them as supporters of pornography. Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) explained their fears this way: “If you vote against this, can’t you see the 30-second ad they will use against you saying, ‘Senator So-and-So voted for pornography’?”

Friday morning’s vote undermined efforts by conservatives to salvage some part of the Helms ban on NEA funding of “obscene” materials. The House-Senate conference committee has been trying to find a compromise as part of a bill funding the Interior Department. The conference committee will meet again later today to discuss the issue.

The Senate originally attached the Helms amendment to the Interior Department funding bill on July 26. The House has never voted on the Helms proposal and House leaders recently blocked an effort by conservatives to bring the matter to a vote in that chamber. Nevertheless, the controversy actually began with a House vote on July 12 to trim the NEA’s $171.4-million budget by $45,000--the exact sum spent on the Mapplethorpe and Serrano photos.

While the committee’s proposed compromise would have dropped some of the restrictions, it nonetheless castigated the NEA for funding the Mapplethorpe and Serrano photographs.

Even before Helms brought his amendment up for a second vote, it was uncertain whether conservatives would fully accept the tentative settlement offered by Rep. Sidney Yates (D-Ill.). Sen. James A. McClure (R-Ida.) said that he would hold out for specific restrictions in the bill that would bar grants for pornography artworks.

The compromise would eliminate Helms language that would have barred government money for “obscene or indecent materials,” or art that “denigrates the objects or beliefs” of any “religion or nonreligion” or any “person, group or class of citizens.”

The tentative agreement also calls for creation of a 12-person board with four members each appointed by the House, Senate and President. The House version of the NEA bill includes a $100,000 appropriation to support the work of such a study group.

Staff writer Allan Parachini contributed to this story from Los Angeles.