Florida’s extreme right-wing governor Ron DeSantis vetoed all funding for the arts from the Florida state budget in late June. The action eliminated $32 million in grants that help fund a host of museums, theaters, symphony orchestras, cinemas, zoos, botanical gardens and other programs. This is part of a national and, in fact, global assault on the arts and artists.
The arts funding represented a minuscule portion of the $116.5 billion dollar state budget already approved by the state legislature and was less than half the sum recommended by the state Division of Arts and Culture. Even so, the various recipients of grants had adjusted their budgets in accordance with the reduced levels of funding.
Over 600 grant recipients will see their financial position worsened. Although no single recipient relies exclusively on state funds for its operations, nearly every group either must reduce programming, cut staff or secure funds from private donors—i.e., grow more dependent on the whims of millionaires and billionaires—to make up the difference.
DeSantis sought to justify his veto in a press conference on June 27: “You have tax dollars being given in grants to things like the Fringe Festival, which is a sexual festival where they’re doing all this stuff … I can’t sell the Fringe Festival to taxpayers, nor would I want to try to sell the Fringe Festival to taxpayers.”
The Orlando Fringe Festival is an annual theatre event that stages hundreds of live performances from different genres, some of which are rated for adults only. The festival was due to receive $150,000 in funds from the state. A smaller sister event, the Tampa Fringe Festival, was set to receive a $15,000 dollar grant.
DeSantis’ characterization of the Fringe Festivals as pornographic is blatantly false and idiotic, but that is almost beside the point. The governor’s veto is an assault on culture and the arts in Florida as a whole, and the Fringe Festival is merely a pretext. He offered no initial justification when he eliminated the grants June 12, likely anticipating the media would rally to his defense. When that support apparently failed to live up to his expectations, he retroactively justified his veto by selecting a single grant recipient whose programming he mischaracterized.
