Vanity Fair recently featured an article about a new commemorative coin. It was issued by the U.S. Mint, part of the United States Treasury, for the benefit of The Lion's Club. The legislator who advocated approval of this coin represents the part of Ohio in which The Lion's Club is headquartered. In other words, The Lion's Club is among this Congressman's constituents.
Why is there any objection to issuing commemorative coins?
Congress has authorized issues of commemorative coins in the past. In the past, the cost of making the coins was to be defrayed by sales of the coins. That's the proper way of doing things, the fair and legal way. Note that with each coin there is a $10 to $35 surcharge, depending on denomination. This is also fair and legal. Those surcharges go to the organization that is being commemorated.
In the past, organizations included
- The Smithsonian Institution, which was formed by charitable bequest, and has been fully owned by the U.S. government since the museum's founding in 1825 or so, with free admission to the public
- The Winter Olympics, whose associated commemorative coin surcharge went to Salt Lake City when the Winter Olympics was held there, if there were additional costs not covered otherwise
Surcharge as a form of entitlement
Historically, money generated by coin surcharges went to government entities i.e. entities run for the benefit of the people. Commemorative coins for the Smithsonian, or the Abraham Lincoln National Monument, clearly are appropriate. For the Winter Olympics, the funds went to city government, not a private organization.
The Lion's Club is not a public sector entity. It is inappropriate for The Lion's Club to receive surcharge funds as a result of government production and sales of commemorative coins. Representative Amash (R-MI) says exactly why this is wrong:
"It’s far beyond the proper scope of the federal government to act as a sales agent for a private group.”
Not politics as usual
The Ohio legislator who looked after the best interests of The Lion's Club is not a Democrat. It isn't an issue of partisanship. He is a Republican. Objections were voiced by his own fellow Republican party members.
This situation makes me feel a loss of confidence in our elected government, quite unlike anything I have experienced before.