Preservation through Politics
  Politics has played a large role in the preservation of Ellis Island and it was around the time of the Civil Rights movement when Ellis Island was added to the National Park Service.  Both the Statue of Liberty and Ellis Island have been “instrumentalized.”  According to Michael Schudson “instrumentalization [is] the past put to work...The present interest may be narrowly defined in an instrumental fashion to support some current strategic end.” (Schudson  351) This means using a public memory to your advantage.  Judith Smith found that “By 1965 the same political pressures that forced reconsideration of the old immigrant quota system also reclaimed Ellis Island as a particular part of America’s ethnic heritage.  The passage of a new immigration law which removed the older racial quotas reflected a broadening consensus that these racially based quotas were an affront to the civil rights movement.” (“Celebrating Immigration History at Ellis Island.”  84)  This was also at the time of the Cold War, when the immigration laws were changed to allow more political refugees to flee from Communist governments.  The Statue of Liberty became part of Lyndon B. Johnson’s instrumentalization because he signed the 1965 immigration act on Liberty Island where the Statue of Liberty could dramatize the act’s importance.  Johnson also instrumentalized Ellis Island; the addition of the island to the Statue of Liberty National Monument was merely symbolic of the change in immigration policy.  The island still received little attention.  (Holland  5)  To the NPS it became just another of their many acquisitions; without an increase in appropriations the NPS could do little to prevent further deterioration of the island.  The NPS has many acquisitions and “Today, more than 100 years after the first national park was created, the national park system has grown to include 368 units.” (Difficult Choices Need to Be Made About the Future of the Parks: Testimony.)

Ellis Island Restoration Committee
Politicians had little interest in Ellis Island both before and after the island was added to the NPS.   After the island was closed, attempts to sell it were unsuccessful because there was little interest in preserving the island or the history of immigration; the buildings continued to fall into ruin.  In the 1970s ethnicity and diversity were emerging as increasingly important aspects of peoples’ lives, and the existence and importance of these aspects was being continually reasserted. (Smith  85)  During this time, Peter Sammartino, the son of immigrants and founder and chancellor of Fairleigh Dickinson University became interested in Ellis Island.  He learned of NPS official, Luis Garcia Cubello’s, statements that a historic site commemorating Ellis Island and its theme of immigration should be constructed on the island.  Sammartino formed the Ellis Island Restoration Committee, and lobbied Congress for restoration money, receiving one million dollars.  The appropriation was used to repair the Main Building until it was deemed safe for limited visitation tours through some sections.  An additional seven million dollars was appropriated for the repairs of the sea wall that practically held the island, composed mostly of landfill, together. (Holland  5)
Sammartino’s attention, along with the increased interest in ethnicity, led to the NPS receiving proposals from many groups interested in preserving and restoring both the Statue of Liberty and Ellis Island.  The Ellis Island Restoration Committee discussed its fundraising proposal with the Secretary of the  Interior and an agreement was drafted, but was halted because the NPS wanted to assess the worth of competing proposals. (Holland  5)  Although many groups wished to raise funds for the causes of restoration and preservation, there were numerous delays which pushed back the actual initiation of fundraising.  The NPS was very careful in planning the restoration and preservation actions and in its decision making.

Raising Funds for Preservation under the Carter Administration
Many of the fundraising groups were focused--not on Ellis Island--but on the Statue of Liberty which drew additional attention after two men were discovered climbing the Statue.  A closer inspection revealed that there were many holes in the Statue of Liberty which were initially attributed to the men’s climbing gear.  This heightened concern about the Statue’s condition.  Because the Statue’s deterioration had not been tracked, a study was initiated.  Based on the study, the NPS determined that the Statue was not in dire need of repairs and was structurally sound. (Holland  6)  Utah resident Robert Grace had been stating that he was going to raise money to repair the holes and remove the Statue’s patina, leaving it shining like a penny.  The NPS determined that the patina was acting as a protective cover against the elements and, if removed, the Statue would become dull gray in color.  Grace tried to circumvent the authority of the NPS in his restoration attempts while also, apparently, asserting “I’m going to get rich off this project.” (Holland  8)  Because of such statements, and his unwillingness to cooperate with the government, Grace soon disappeared from the movement to restore the Statue.  Next, Richard Rovsek, head of a marketing firm, approached the NPS with a proposal focusing on raising funds for the celebration of the Statue of Liberty’s 100th anniversary.  Rovsek “saw the restoration of the Statue and Ellis as being ‘the ultimate statement that the private sector could accomplish work that the Government had traditionally done and that it could accomplish it better.’” (Wallace, Hijacking History  120)  His proposal was halted because the NPS felt that with so many groups wishing to raise funds there should be some control so that all these fundraisers did not “confuse the market.”  At least one corporate head was confused when he received two written requests asking for restoration donations from different fundraising groups.  A commission was needed to oversee the events and was first addressed in 1977 but was denied because the Carter administration felt that all commissions were expensive.

Raising Funds for Preservation under the Reagan Administration
Under the Reagan administration The Statue of Liberty--Ellis Island Centennial Commission was formed.  Reagan, like President Johnson, “instrumentalized” the Statue of Liberty and Ellis Island because “The Reagan administration wanted the nostalgic imagery embedded in the centennial celebration of the Statue of Liberty on Liberty Island to enhance its media and military campaigns to reassert American supremacy.” (Smith  86)  The Celebration was to be a display of America’s strength.  According to Mike Wallace,
“The Reagan Administration seized on the rededication ceremony as a superb opportunity vehicle.   For all the rumors about possible Libyan terror attacks, it was the Reaganites who, as it were,  hijacked the Statue in order to make use of its popular appeal and symbolic potency.  The entire  occasion can best be seen as one of an ongoing series of skirmishes in a much larger war over  popular historical consciousness.  The degree to which interventions around the public memory have  been central to Reagan’s presidency has been perhaps insufficiently appreciated.  He has spent a  good deal of political capital trying to reconstruct an edifice of historical explanation--perhaps  structure of myths is the better name for it--that was largely shattered in the 1960s and ‘70s.”  (Hijacking History  120)  At the actual rededication ceremony, Reagan “had three goals in mind: first, to legitimize various of his current policies; second, to refurbish a particular reading of the history of immigration; and third, to reawaken a Christian millenarian vision of America’s manifest destiny, a rough beast that has been slumbering of late.” (Hijacking History  120)  Reagan’s efforts are a prime example of the distortion of history. (For more on that,  see “Hijacking History: Ronald Reagan and the Statue of Liberty” by Mike Wallace.)

Lee Iacocca and the Statue of Liberty--Ellis Island Centennial Commission
A figure respected by President Reagan, Lee Iacocca, was chosen as the The Statue of Liberty--Ellis Island Centennial Commission’s chairman.  Iacocca, the son of Ellis Island immigrants, had worked his way up the corporate ladder, saving the Chrysler Corporation from bankruptcy, and becoming its president. (Holland  12)  Iacocca was a well-known and prominent public figure who had been seen in Chrysler commercials; it was felt that he would attract considerable attention--as well as donations--as chairman.  Iacocca, as chairman, made the wise decision of asking the heads of several of the more prominent would-be fundraising groups to serve in his commission.  Rovsek’s foundation became the commission’s working arm, The Statue of Liberty--Ellis Island Foundation.  (Holland)
Before the creation of The Statue of Liberty--Ellis Island Centennial Commission, the French--who had given the Statue to the U.S.--were involved in the restoration of their gift through the French-American Committee.  After its creation, a relationship problem between the Centennial Commission and the French-American Committee ensued.  The problem was resolved by ending the involvement of the French-American Committee, which also wanted to raise funds and restore the Statue.  Although the Commission began with a humble start of a $500,000 interest-free loan from Coca-Cola, it began never-the-less. (Holland  13)
From the start, Iacocca was confident that sufficient funds would be raised and said he would raise whatever it took, but--because he despised having to personally solicit funds--he did not actively participate in recruiting fundraising leaders or calling donors.  There is some feeling that Iacocca’s unwillingness to take a more direct role in fundraising hurt the Commission’s ability to raise funds.  Bill May was chosen as the foundation’s president and proved instrumental in motivating the fundraising staff.  (Holland  80)  The fundraising’s emphasis was on the Statue of Liberty, because a survey showed that 75% of those surveyed recognized the Statue of Liberty while only 20% recognized Ellis Island.  But the foundation never ignored or tried to hide Ellis Island; some donors even specified that their donation be used at Ellis Island.  In fact, more money was used at Ellis Island than on the Statue and it would have been unwise to hide Ellis Island’s involvement.  Funds were going to be raised from all possible sources and according to Holland “The strategy was to appeal to all fundraising sources, from the grass roots to corporations; the main emphasis of the campaign was to be the Statue of Liberty; and appeals for corporate donations were to focus on the corporation’s advertising budget, not on its charitable funds.” (80)

Corporate Sponsorship and Fundraising
Corporate sponsorship was not as successful as a fundraising source as anticipated, raising $66 million--less than from other sources.  The sponsorship by corporations led to some controversies and many people felt that the corporations “would sully the image of the national symbol for their own ends.” (Holland  84)  Washington Post columnist, Richard Cohen, “wrote in September 28, 1985, objecting to corporate sponsors’ using the statue in their advertising because it was like selling the statue.  ‘The price for her survival,’ he noted, ‘should not be her virtue.’” (Cohen quoted in Holland  85)  Some felt that the Statue might, in essence, be put on the market.  Contributing corporations were allowed to advertise their involvement with the project and produce products displaying that involvement.  Inventive companies such as the winery Chateau Ste Michelle gave away free copies of their cookbook (retail value $45) to those who donated $20 to its Liberty Centennial firm.  The Chateau’s president is quoted as saying “It’s not altruism in its purest form, but it’s altruism in its most honest form.” (Chateau Ste Michelle’s president quoted in Holland  85)  This idea reflects Adam Smith’s economic theory that self-interest leads to public benefit.  There were conflicts that involved the misuse of advertising, such as nondonor companies advertising as though they had contributed.  According to Holland, the foundation brought law suits where it could but could not be completely effective since rights to use the image of the Statue belonged to no one.  If an unaffiliated corporation used the Statue’s image in advertising, the foundation could do little unless the corporation infringed on the foundation’s logo. (86)

Fundraising Sources
The most successful fundraising source was the “grass roots” campaign.  It was successful because it involved so many people and segments of our society.  The campaign had many aspects and “included direct mail, school children, ethnic groups, civic and patriotic organizations, unions, and company employee donations.” (Holland  88)  There were stories of school children doing whatever they could to raise money.  Donations from foundations were not as fruitful as possible because foundations generally want to know the specific aspect their funds will benefit, but at the time the planners and designers were far behind in their work and were unable to respond fully.

There were several fundraising techniques that were utilized.  Three other fundraising projects were the stamp, coin, and National Geographic book program.  While the stamps only produced $500,000, the coins produced $83 million, and the book, $3.5 million.  There were several less successful programs; one involved regional offices nationwide.  According to Holland “Regions raised more than enough to pay for themselves, they did not raise enough to justify their existence.” (Holland  96)  Party dinners and galas did not have a big part in fund raising and a “sure-fire” 1-800 number, in which most calls were pranks, paid for little more than its costs.  One fundraising program which was, and continues to be very successful, is The Wall of Honor, Lee Iacocca’s brainchild.  Because of the hard work and good planning, the patriotic Statue of Liberty--Ellis Island fundraiser has been of this country’s most successful and “the campaign had been an important element in lifting the American people out of the Vietnam syndrome and making them once again feel good about themselves as people.” (Holland  98)

Illegal Fundraising Activities
Although there was some suspicion of possible illegal fundraising activities, the GAO--at Congress’s request--inspected the foundation and commission and found it to be legitimate.  According to GAO, during the hearings in June 1985 “a former official of the Interior Department testified that Interior was exercising little control over the project. [and the GAO] looked into the allegations he made and...[they] obtained information about other aspects of the restoration project as well.  To address the issues, [the GAO] grouped them into three broad questions: 1) Has the project met its restoration and fundraising goals? 2) How has the project operated compared to with how it was intended to work? 3) Has Interior monitored and maintained oversight of the project?” (Restoration of the Statue of Liberty Monument  1)  The GAO took appropriate measures to answer these questions, and compared the foundation’s financial records with those of the Interior, IRS, and New York State, finding no discrepancies.  The GAO found “the effort to restore the Statue of Liberty and parts of Ellis Island is exceeding its original fundraising and restoration goals, although the project has operated differently than Interior planned.  Contrary to the allegations, Interior has monitored and [3] maintained oversight of the project, although this was not always done well.” (Restoration  2) The GAO found no major problems with the project.  (For more information see United States General Accounting Office.  Restoration... report on 4/22/86)  The news media also inspected matters but also found no serious problems.  For the most part, the media, as well as the American people, were very supportive of the project.