April 30, 1990

speakout

Write the checks, but demand more for your money

by Eric Resnick

Every subculture in America needs a lobby in Washington looking out for its interests. The gay, lesbian, and bisexual community is fortunate to have the Human Rights Campaign, which has become one of the most powerful and influential lobbying groups in Washington.

HRC serves two purposes. There is the foundation side, which is an advocacy organization that funds worthwhile projects such as the Coming Out Project and the Youth College. They aired the employment discrimination ad during the Ellen coming-out episode last year.

The other side of HRC is the political action committee, or PAC, whose function is to give us the most gay-affirming U.S. Congress possible. For the purpose of this column, I will deal specifically with the group's PAC side.

HRC's PAC is considered a "heavy hitter" in Washington, which is important. But we are at a point in our movement where we need to carefully examine how that perception has been created and ask if we want to continue down that path.

Being a "heavy hitter" in Washington means the organization's director, Elizabeth Birch, gets invited to all the great parties and social functions. It also means that other PACs look to you as an authority.

But in the case of HRC, being a "heavy hitter" has not necessarily produced much in terms of gay-affirming legislation. HRC could not stop the ill-named Defense of Marriage Act in 1996. And they have failed to influence enough votes to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act over two sessions, despite overwhelming public support.

In the 105th Congress of 1997 and 98, HRC failed to get either ENDA or the Hate Crimes Prevention Act to the floor for a vote. Even openly gay Rep. Barney Frank is skeptical that either will come to a vote in the current session.

One reason this affluent, "heavy hitter" PAC has such difficulty with legislation is the way it conducts itself through the electoral process. Often, HRC chooses to impress the Washington elite instead of putting its wealth behind candidates whose votes can actually influence legislation. HRC does this by taking few electoral risks.

In 1998, HRC endorsed 194 candidates for the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate and contributed over $1 million to those campaigns. Attendees at the Cleveland and Columbus HRC dinners will likely hear Birch or another HRC staffer proudly state something to the effect that 85% of the candidates HRC endorsed were winners.

That sort of statistic really impresses Washington types, but a more appropriate reaction from the source of all that money

should be "So what?" if it does not translate into enough votes to pass pro-gay legisla-

tion.

Ohioans are a major source of HRC's money. Each year, between the Cleveland dinner, the Columbus dinner, and Ohio Federal Club contributions, HRC raises roughly $300,000. In 1998, HRC made endorsements and contributions to six Ohio candidates running for the U.S. House of Representatives, and none running for U.S. Senate. A total of $19,000 was spent.

Is it any wonder that HRC can claim to support winners when their endorsed candidates have no real opposition?

A simple look at what we got for our money reveals why we don't have the votes to move our legislation.

There are two reasons why PACs give money to candidates. The first is as a reward for past support. The second is to buy future influence. The goal is to make sure your money elects friends and defeats enemies. In other words, the money spent should bring a gain in gay-affirming votes. Yet in Ohio in 1998, HRCs money made little, if any, difference in the outcome of elections-and it could have.

In U.S. House races in Ohio, four incumbents received contributions. Rep. Sherrod Brown received $2,000; Rep. Dennis Kucinich, $4,500; Rep. Tom Sawyer, $2,000 and Rep. James Traficant, $500.

One challenger, Cincinnati Mayor Roxanne Qualls, received $5,000. And Stephanie Tubbs Jones received $5,000 to run for an open seat in Cleveland.

In my opinion, the most effective contribution was made to Roxanne Qualls, who didn't win. As a challenger, Qualls had fewer opportunities than the incumbent, Rep. Steve Chabot, to raise PAC money. Qualls is also a great voice for our community, and Chabot is so contemptuous of gay people he wouldn't even sign a non-discrimination policy in his own office.

The contributions made to Kucinich and Tubbs Jones were wasted--not because they are not great supporters of GLBT issues and worthy of our support, but because their elections were foregone conclusions. They didn't need the money!

The contribution to Traficant is a mystery.

He had no real opposition, and according to HRC's own data, only voted with us 38% of the time in 1997 and 1998.

Contributions to Sawyer and Brown were appropriate. Both had opponents with fat war chests, both were 100% with us in the most recent session of Congress, and both had fine gay-affirming records in previous sessions.

Is it any wonder that HRC can claim to support winners when their endorsed candidates have no real opposition? More importantly, is this any way to pass legislation?

HRC missed opportunities to support gayaffirming Ohio candidates. These were people who spoke to us and for us during their entire campaign and needed HRC's money to get their message out.

Most noteworthy was U.S. Senate candidate Mary Boyle. There was no question that Boyle was the most gay-affirming candidate ever to run for the U.S. Senate from Ohio.

I served on the finance staff of Boyle's campaign and I had contact with HRC in the early stages of the campaign. More importantly, I saw the effect of no HRC endorsement firsthand. Not having an HRC endorsement, even for a vocal supporter, was demoralizing to the campaign and embarrassing for gay people who wanted to help Boyle.

Not having HRC's endorsement cost the Boyle campaign the endorsements of other PACs who are impressed by HRC and tend to follow their lead. Lesbian and gay contributors withheld tens of thousands of needed

dollars waiting for HRC's endorsement, which never came.

HRC's refusal to endorse Boyle made it appear that her opponent, former Cleveland mayor, Ohio governor and now U.S. Senator George Voinovich, wasn't so bad. But the truth is, Boyle was a sure vote for both ENDA and the Hate Crimes Prevention Act. Voinovich is a vote against both.

Early on, HRC told me they were not likely to endorse Boyle because "funds were tight." In fact, the reason Boyle was not endorsed was that, unlike some other HRC endorsements, she had a powerful opponent. Her election was not a foregone conclusion. So, a Boyle endorsement may have meant that HRC might have only picked, say, 79% winners--and we can't have that.

Time spent at the Cleveland and Columbus HRC fundraising dinners is not just another social evening. They are serious business. As we have learned this year, the funds raised there may just mean the difference between life and death.

I am not advocating that we do away with HRC or stop writing checks. I am stating the importance of an HRC which is not only a "heavy hitter," but an organization able to move legislation and truly win elections not just jump on winners' bandwagons.

Campaign money should be spent in such a way that our agenda moves forward. Our friends should be supported and our enemies defeated. Nothing else matters.

Your Healthcare Shouldn't be a Hassle

ช

Colette R. Willins, MD

Board Certified in Family Practice

Rainbow Weddings

Planning Your Same-Sex Wedding

4-Session Workshop Tuesday's 7-9 p.m. May 4, 11, 18, 25 $50 per couple

Workshop facilitator, Reverend Mary E. Grigolia, of Urban Hope (far right), has been marrying same sex couples since 1988. Her workshop covers why to marry when it's not yet legal, types of ceremonies possible, how to get families on board, and what to do next.

Call 216 221-4949 for registration & info

STRAIGHT BUT NOT NARROW Specializing in comprehensive "family care"; Women's health including GYN, newborns, pediatrics, adolescents, men's health, geriatrics, health risk assessments, and an emphasis on preventative health care.

Provider On Most Medical Plans ACCEPTING NEW PATIENTS Evenings and Saturdays Available

COMMUNITY FAMILY MEDICINE 29325 Health Campus Dr., Suite 1 Westlake 440-899-4400