the gay mogul who has done more to change politics in a few years than HRC has in two decades. From what I hear, major donors are reacting accordingly. - AS
This is wrong in so many ways, it's hard to know where to start. The important points, in a nutshell:
- I don't see an either/or competition between these two groups, but AS does, maybe because he's out further to malign the HRC;
- the Time article doesn't support the contention that more has been done in a few years than in decades;
- the Gill Foundation has something like $150+ million more than the HRC and does a lot of other good things besides gay-rights, including support of the arts and various other projects that Gill is interested in.
THIS BOGUS 'COMPETITION'
I'll let these quotes speak for themselves (AS's thinly masked, divisive, serially uninformed, and disgustingly angry attitude is not just a bore, but a positive detriment to all). As a peon in the matter, I continue to believe that two strong organizations can only be a good thing, with few exceptions. One thing that is unexplained to the 'helpees' is why Gill hired directly, rather than work through the Log Cabin Republicans:
HRC President Joe Solmonese met with [Gill hire Patrick] Guerriero recently and said Gill Action [PAC] has brought an unprecedented level of funding to gay rights causes. He also said Gill Action is looking at ways to play a bigger, more helpful role. Solmonese added that he is not worried about HRC, the Task Force and Gill Action duplicating efforts, especially since they all talk to each other.
“At the HRC there are so many things to focus on,” Solmonese said. “We help lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people on a daily basis. There are so many challenges to our resources. To have another partner is incredibly helpful to our historic gains from the last election.”
And others:
For gay rights organizations, however, Gill is a savior.
Marty Rouse, national field director of the Human Rights Campaign, calls Gill "an American hero."
"He's a visionary because he doesn't just donate money. . . . He is using his money to build political power in a way that brings everybody together. He wants everybody to work together toward that end. So he's lifting up all of us."
Evan Wolfson, executive director of Freedom to Marry, a national group advocating gay marriage, said Gill is approaching his political goals with urgency.
"Some people invest in things knowing that they will unfold over generations. Here you have somebody who has the opportunity to make a difference in his lifetime."
MORE CHANGE THAN EVER?
What's the reason that state referendums have taken center stage in the past few years? Marriage. So politics has changed, but that does not mean the need for national legislative action has gone away. Fighting state actions is hardly an activity exclusive or "better".
Rita Healy (out of Denver) writes for TIME, "In 2004, Gill's money helped send Democrat Ken Salazar to the U.S. Senate." Well, what I found out is that HRC gave $10,000 to Democrat Ken Salazar in 2004. If Gill gave more, it may be because he, like others, used indirect ways to support the campaign. Nor has it gone unnoticed (see below), implying that there might be diminishing returns to such strategies. On the other hand, if one wants 527 expertise, then the third largest 527 committee in the nation is ... EMILY's List, former employer of HRC's Exec Director! Who'd have thought, huh?
Billionaire heiress Pat Stryker, Internet entrepreneur and state Board of Education Chairman Jared Polis, software rich guys Tim Gill and Rutt Bridges used the loopholes [not exactly "loopholes", IMO] of Colorado's loopy Amendment 27 to pump millions into races via independent political committees. These four constitute Colorado's Axis of Ego.
While most [Boulder Daily] Camera readers will be pleased with the liberal takeover of Colorado's Legislature, should they like the way it happened? The empty promise of campaign finance reform was to limit the influence of a handful of motivated rich interests. Instead, it empowered them.
Let's be clear, this axis did nothing illegal or wrong. In fact, it played the game superbly.
FACTS AND FIGURES
Unlike the HRC, the Gill Foundation does not have a 2006 Annual Report yet on its website. Unlike the transparency of the HRC, the Gill Action Fund, as a PAC, has fewer disclosure requirements (that I know, at least), and they have not provided the salary of their poached Exec Director. (In 2004, the Exec Director of GMHC was paid $198,000 according to IRS filings. The former GMHC director is now with the Gill foundation).
"WHERE'S THE BEEF"?
Guerriero has not said exactly what is next, except watch and see. He hasn't explained in any "town meeting", blog, or other medium, that I know, exactly how they intend to run a 50-state, grass-roots-lead, counter-referendum program, which is obviously highly labor intensive and time-consuming, assuming you have to fund an organization in every target state, with the risks of uneven leadership and competence skills across the board. He doesn't "speak for everyone" and isn't responsible or accountable to any board (that I know). I have no idea how many "members" the Gill Action Committee has (which is odd, since that was the top priority question of AS).
MORE, BUT NOT IN THAT WAY
At the end of their last reported year (2005), the Gill Foundation had $154 million more than the HRC did at the end of their last reported (2006). Why Andrew thinks they need more is not obvious, but then nothing much has been for the matter, excepting his "feelings" about Hillary. In fact, read their site. They appear to have worked hard on what they hoped would be an influential study that indicates they prefer that all philanthropic organizations donate more to LGBT causes, rather than the 0.1% that they have been. In other words, their focus is not really AS's continued b.s.
HEY, MOM, LOOK AT ME!
Also unexplained is why the Foundation needs (a costly?) new office in Washington for Guerriero et. al., when they already own buildings in Denver and the cost of living is less there (the reporting in the Blade doesn't say where the offices will be located ... I guess their former chief didn't teach "who", "what", "where", etc. O.k., that's a really cheap shot, but you guys get away with too much, too...). Assuming that running a lot of grass-roots efforts requires a lot of travel (not that LCR didn't have a significant travel line-item), wouldn't it make sense to centrally locate? In terms of giving people information, the new office didn't merit a press release.
A PARTISAN STATEMENT
Looking at all these facts, figures, and questions, it's plain that all AS is after is a partisan statement, when he says, "From what I hear, major donors are reacting accordingly."
Who knows what to say to such an assertion, except that, "From what I hear, people are sick of Washington-style partisanship and are starting to cancel their subscriptions to the cliquey Atlantic and to all the organizations." Of course, I haven't "heard" any such thing, but you know it's fair game and someone is going to suggest it sooner or later, given the continuation of the Daily b.s.
