HRC Has Some Bad Political Advice For Gay People

The Human Rights Campaign (HRC) is an inside the Beltway advocacy group for gay people. I was very proud in 1997 when they gave me a leadership equality award for my work at fostering equality in the workplace at Warner Brothers. I even wrote them into my will.

But what opened my eyes to what HRC has become -- an insider establishment bunch of kiss-asses -- was their endorsement of Holy Joe Lieberman over Ned Lamont in 2006. After I learned more about them, I smashed my award and removed them from my will. HRC is one of those inside the Beltway organizations that has long ago lost sight of its original idealistic mandate. Instead of fighting for gay equality, they fight to win DC status games and to enhance the future career prospects of the top staffers. When it comes to electoral politics, you can almost always expect the worst from them.

This past February their in-house magazine, Equality, prominently featured Republican rubber stamp and fake moderate Susan Collins (R-ME), in a 2 page spread giving the false impression that Collins is a friend of the gay community. One of the more outrageous parts of their interview with Collins is a bit about the Gang of 14. They make it sound like her membership in it should be praised, but that's pretty naive considering that one of the only accomplishments of the gang was to ensure the confirmation of viciously homophobic, right-wing crazies on the federal bench like Janice Rogers Brown, Priscilla Owen, and Bill Pryor. But that's exactly what HRC has turned into -- an organization so concerned with looking "mainstream" and "adult" inside the Beltway, that they will give aid and comfort to people who work against the gay community.

Today HRC announced its endorsements for Senate races around the country. They are asking the gay community to donate money to 10 cash-rich incumbents and four Democratic challengers, Jeanne Shaheen (DLC-NH), Mark Udall (D-CO), Tom Udall (D-NM), and Al Franken (D-MN). Among the incumbents is Collins, of course, who is running against a Democratic congressman, Tom Allen, who's voting record on gay issues is excellent and who is a true friend of the gay community and someone who, again, unlike Collins, will never, ever vote to confirm rabid homophobic judges. Among the other incumbents they endorsed are some outstanding senators like Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), John Kerry (D-MA), Tom Harkin (D-IA), and Jack Reed (D-RI) and at least one with a spotty voting record, Louisiana's conservative Democrat, Mary Landrieu, who, like Collins, routinely rubber stamps homophobic judges the Bush regime pushes for lifetime appointments.

This morning I called Tom Allen and asked if I missing something about why HRC has endorsed Collins. Tom, the most positive campaigner I've ever met, never wants to say a negative word about anyone. Instead he wanted to talk about his own record of support for gay people. "My record of fighting discrimination on all levels and for standing up for equality is consistent. When I was on the Portland City Council in Maine, we led the state in nondiscrimination practices by banning bias based on sexual orientation for housing, credit and employment. As a member of Congress, I have consistently supported fairness and equality measures while opposing discrimination. As a member of the Senate, I will continue to do what is right for all people. Specifically, I will not support judicial nominees who don't understand fairness and equal rights." It would have been nice if HRC could have at least wrung something like that out of Collins before sending a confusing signal to gays and lesbians in Maine.

HRC's own scorecard for the 109th Congress -- the 110th isn't out yet -- gave Tom Allen a 100% rating and gave Collins a 78% although that rating doesn't reflect her votes and maneuvering for anti-gay judges. (She voted for both Alito and Roberts). None the less, aside from fundraising against Tom on her behalf, they claim they are also doing "on-the-ground organizing [and] GOTV efforts" and pushing her at gay pride events.

But it was a Senate race they chose to ignore that is the most shocking and disappointing element of their announcement today. North Carolina has two extreme right wing senators, Elizabeth Dole and Richard Burr, each of whom can always be counted on to do whatever they can to make the lives of gay men and women less palatable and less safe. One, Elizabeth Dole, is up for re-election in November. There are two Democrats in a neck and neck primary battle to take her on, Republican-lite establishment-backed Kay Hagan and grassroots progressive Jim Neal. Frankly, I don't know where Hagan stands on gay issues (although North Carolina blogger Pam Spaudling sure does). I do know where Neal stands-- 100% with the gay community, of which he is an upfront member. Yes, one of the first times that an uncloseted gay man is running for the U.S. Senate -- in a race he can win -- and HRC is... abstaining. When we reached Jim this morning, he seemed disappointed. "There's no question their endorsement would have helped in fundraising and I certainly would have liked to have had it. People look to the HRC to encourage participation and promote change in the political system. Is it doing that? That's a valid question, and after this election is over, I think we need to look at groups like HRC and their endorsement process." Amen!

Tom Allen and Jim Neal have both been endorsed by Blue America. If you're a member of HRC how about skipping your HRC dues this year and sending the money to where it will do some good instead? Like here, for Tom and Jim. By the way, the first five donations today of at least $30 get, as a thank you, an autographed copy of Al Franken's book The Truth.

Comments

[Aquinas]

It seems to me that the HRC advice made a lot of sense. We don't vote for a candidate just because he/she is gay. No more that we would because she's female or he's black.
Qualifications and character matter especially in these times when integrity and honesty are so much in need.

[LiberalBuzz]

I remember as well a few years ago when HRC no longer was an actual gay rights promoting outfit and rather one that wanted to be invited to the best parties and support rich republican folk. They lost their way years ago and the support for Tailgunner Joe Lieberman was the lat straw.

I told them to take me off their mailing list and although I contributed small amounts I told them that was gone too. I actually continued to get requests for money and told them to go to hell.

As for the idiocy mentioned that just because they "understand" politics they should still be supported???

Sorry but that is exactly what I am sick to death of. Outfits that "understand political realities". Sorry but a lot of the people they support would just as soon see being gay turned back into a crime and see them all put in prison and ostracized from society.

One has to believe their leadership has become a self loathing entity intent on it's own destruction. To EVER support a republican who votes anti gay or even the cowardly democrats who do is NOT being politically realistic, it's PANDERING for parties and invites to special social function all for the glam of it all and NOT for the people it's supposed to be helping.

[marignymitch]

Welcome to the throng of ex-HRC members. The Lieberman endorsement was the last straw. I already had begun to see a deep divide between the agenda of HRC execs and that of the gay and lesbian American beyond the Beltway; HRC exists to further the political careers of its leaders, while the community at large seeks legal parity.

Its abstention in the N.C. Senate race is in character with HRC. The organization has declined to support Jim Neal, political outsider, because Elizabeth Dole, political insider, is the one with the power at the moment. (This power includes the right to vet DC dinner party invitations.)

Now that I'm safely out of HRC with my conscience intact I'd really like it to stop calling and sending letters with money pitches. They refuse to take my name off the calling and mailing lists, despite my repeated pleas for them to do so. I'm done.

[ProudLiberalDan]

I am proudly gay and politically active, and I won't give the HRC one more penny since they endorsed Joe LIEberman for reelection.

At the Pride festival in 2006, I expressed my anger to the HRC representatives there about endorsing LIEberman. The twink told me, "Well, we have to focus on "our" issues." I told the little twirp that "the Iraq War IS a gay issue". Gays and lesbians were able to live closetedly in Iraq, but they were able to LIVE. Now the the secular society is gone, gays and lesbians are killed outright.

When the HRC endoresed Al D'amato in 1998, I knew their organization was a sham. The HRC also ignore all minor party or independent candidates who are better on gay issues than the major party candidates.

There are too many other good and useful gay organizations like GLAM and NGLTF and Lambda Legal and the Trevor Project to financially support that don't lend their name and support to politicians like Al D'amato and Joe LIEberman.

I saw we individually band together to starve the HRC of financial resources and support gay organizations who do something constructive instead.

[jruff]

Why is it that whenever HRC doesn't endorse exactly who someone wants (Jim Neal, Susan Collins opponent) or exactly what they want (trans-inclusive ENDA), writer like this go off on a screed? The beauty of HRC and its "inside the beltway" mentality is that it understands how elections and politics work - and realizes that sometimes you have to make hard decisions for your long-term goals. Susan Collins opponent may be super-pro-GLBT, but does he have a good chance of winning? I suspect not -she's a popular incumbent who votes the "right" way on most GLBT issues (far more than most of her Republican brethren). It's about making smart choices on who to support, and I think HRC does a good job of that.

As to the usual foolishness of "black tie dinners" and "awards to straight people" - at least know what you are talking about. Those dinners are fundraisers because, quite frankly, a lot of the GLBT community is too damn lazy to contribute on their own. And why is it wrong to give awards to straight allies?

I know the folks at HRC well and volunteer a lot for HRC and it is an organization absolutely dedicated to advance GLBT rights. HRC may not always do what others think they should (or hell, always what I think they should), but to question its motives and the motives of folks who are working their asses off to advance GLBT issues is counterproductive and disingenuous.

[sk7326]

Sure -- but it seems weird that the HRC would not openly embrace the cause of, oh, I don't know, a legit breakthrough candidate. I can't imagine anything that would do the movement more good than a gay man winning that senate race (which he probably wouldn't anyway). I am surprised the HRC does not advocate for him.

[nyboomer]

When a group begins to look long term at its original goals and setting them aside, it becomes like all bureaucracies, more importnat than its mission. Setting aside one's goals to get some potential advantage is rewareded in much the way GW Bush rewarded the Log Cabin Republicans. He took their money and endorsements and then sicced the ultra rightwing religious nuts on them. He stood by and smiled as the righties screamed and flung mud at them. He had what he wanted but knew he would never give them anything they wanted after he got his.

When someone tells you to act grown up, it is a DO AS I SAY NOT AS I DO game. It is how children learn that their parents have no comunctions about lying to them. It is how members of our society lose faith in it.

If you know your parents use drugs, use foul language or cheat on their taxes how do you square the lectures about always being honest and clean?

[ProudLiberalDan]

I appreciate the volunteers who work at an organization like the HRC. I would encourage them to use their time and money to benefit an organization that doesn't endorse candidates like Al D'amato and Joe LIEberman.

There are just too many other good gay rights organizations around to waste one's time, energy and money with the HRC.

[mcnairbo]

Y'know black churches preach the same hatred of gays as white ones and I'm sure Obama's isn't an exception.

[Dave01]

You are absolutely 100% WRONG about Obama. The entire UCC organization is VERY pro-gay rights, including TUCC. Obama is not in favor of gay marriage, but IS in favor of strong Civil Unions which extends the SAME right, responsibilities and benefits as heterosexual married couples.

If you were to listen to Obama, his message and at the very least go to his website and look under "people" click on LGBT you would realize this, but I'm sure your hatred for him will prevent you from do so.

Clinton is in favor of ONLY rolling back the federal provisions in DOMA where Obama is in favor of rolling back DOMA in its entirety.

Obama is the most pro-gay rights candidate to have come along since Barry Goldwater. I am NOT a Republican, but when it comes to gay-rights, Barry Goldwater was WAY ahead of his time.

[Vern58]

That is not the truth, not in any way. Trinity UCC, like all of the members of the United Church of Christ-black or white- have been in the forefront of equal theological inclusion of Gay Men and Lesbians. They are the least discriminatory of any major Christian denomination in the US. While my own Episcopal Church is shredding itself apart over the issue the UCC has long ago made sexual orientation of both it's ministers and parishoners a non issue.

[IsobelDeBrujah]

You're wrong. In fact UCC has a great record on gay issues.

[Jeffersonian1]

I began to question the effectiveness and wisdom of (and suspended my financial gifts to) the so-called Human Rights Campaign in 1998 when its leadership decided to endorse Al D'Amato rather than Chuck Schumer.

I repeat (and can barely refrain from doing so in all capital letters) that the "HRC" endorsed Al D'Amato over Chuck Schumer.

I write this as someone who disagrees with Schumer about who Democrats should nominate for the presidency this year and who agrees with the oft-repeated statement that the most dangerous place in DC is between Chuck and a camera. That being said, even a blind hog with a sinus infection could have found the truffle in the race between D'Amato and Schumer. And, it sure won't Al.

In 2000, after the then-President of the HRC (whose proxies and protegees still govern the organization) viciously and falsely attacked Senator Bill Bradley, I decided I was done with them completely -- realizing that funds contributed were more about securing the HRC leaderships' invitations to fancy DC parties (more than a few hosted or co-hosted by Mark Foley) than securing the passage of progressive legislation.

If you want to give your money to get somebody else into a dinner at the Vice President's house, then please contribute to the HRC. If you want to elect candidates committed to passing laws that will promote and achieve equality, then do the research, find those candidates and contribute to them individually.

[hopeforchange]

Amazing how much hate the Huffington bloggers feel-isnt it.

[Vern58]

The comment above is not inspired by hate, any more than mine is. HRCF does not exactly practice the line they preach, and have not for several years. It is a reflection of the truth.

[ProudLiberalDan]

Right on. You are absolutely right.

[steamboathunter]

Whatever happened to promoting a truly progressive brand of gay rights based in principle rather than dirty dealing and politics as usual.

I says amen to that. I shur hope obomba an hilary beleve in gay rites.

[ruleoflaw66]

Clinton has championed federal funding of faith-based social services, which she embraced years before George W. Bush did; Marci Hamilton, author of God vs. the Gavel, says that the Clintons' approach to faith-based initiatives "set the stage for Bush." Clinton has also long supported the Defense of Marriage Act, a measure that has become a purity test for any candidate wishing to avoid war with the Christian right.

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2007/09/hillarys-prayer-3.html

[itmaybetoolate]

I gave up on HRC when they endorsed joe liarman. I have never looked back. I support the statewide equality group!

[mikekev58]

You do what you can do when you can do it.
Indeed, Bill Clinton disappointed with his backing off the unrealistic promise to issue an executive order permitting gays to serve openly in the military. And the "compromise" don't ask, don't tell policy has, by all accounts, resulted in even more gay people being give the boot, although I'm not so sure that's happening as widely these days given the shortages.Bill Clinton signed the reprehensible DOMA, and Hillary (and Obama) continues to oppose gay marriage.

Maybe the HRC is the evil institution as described.

But then again, maybe there are just a variety of ways to bring about change, including signing laws like don't ask, don't tell and DOMA. Perhaps they serve to highlight the injustices gays experience. They say the younger generation is more open minded, so perhaps it will be straight younger people who will ultimately usher in equality under the law.

I see a lot of people hacking away at each other and as a result progress is slowed. When Barney Frank is condemned because he takes the 3/4 loaf he can get, we are pretty much through the looking glass.

A deep breath might be in order.

[standforpeace]

Anybody who signed off on DOMA worked to set human rights for gays and lesbians back instead of moving the agenda forward. And that includes Bill Clinton who threw gays and lesbians under the bus when he signed this bill. This was not a back door way of giving exposure to injustice; it was the perpetration of injustice.

[klmebane]

even with the troop shortages the military is still aggressively pursuing and discharging people for being gay... great idea, right?? getting rid of people with skills that could be very helpful to the military because they don't like who those people date... i'm really starting to be embarrassed by being an american.

[robotfog]

Transpeople have understood for a while that the HRC is not an organization of any real meaning to us.

[DANOSC]

The HRC only has meaning for the DC members of the HRC. It has no meaning or relevance to the rest of gays and lesbians living elsewhere. I used to be a member of the HRC. I still get its solicitations for membership and money. But after years of sending in my check and following where the gay and lesbian community was heading, it dawned on me that the only thing the HRC did with my donations is to throw black tie dinners and give awards to--you guessed it, members of the HRC. I have yet to see where any effort of the HRC has generated anything of substance. The HRC acts as if every gay man and lesbian lives in DC, New York, Los Angeles or San Francisco and that the essential battles have been won (maybe if you live in those cities, but not if you live in almost all small, medium and even some big cities in the US). Note to HRC--we do not all live in DC. Venture beyond the beltway and you might find out that there are other things than giving yourselves parties, awards and a leg up on the next political gig.

[morgagni]

Hmm..I clicked on the link, thinking it was about the OTHER HRC. But it seems they have quite a bit in common...I am disappointed in both HRC's.

[standforpeace]

Great post. I knew that the HRC had taken a turn for the darkside when they announced right after the 2004 elections that they would be willing to consider Bush's privatization of social security in exchange for the extension of social security benefits to same sex partners. Not only was this never going to happen, since the social conservatives in Bush's coalition would never have gone for such a deal, but the mere offer by HRC showed a amazing willingness to throw the working and middle class under the bus (and last time I checked there were lots of working and middle class gays and lesbians). Whatever happened to promoting a truly progressive brand of gay rights based in principle rather than dirty dealing and politics as usual.

[wutzhappn]

No different than Obama throwing gays under the bus when he signed Donnie McClurkin and company to campaign for him in South Carolina. And why is it that Obama didn't want his photo taken with gay-friendly Mayor Gavin Newsom at the height of the gay marriage controversy in San Francisco? Not exactly a profile in courage when it comes to standing up for gays when it counts.

[nohobear]

give it a rest. HILLARY WILL NEVER BE PRESIDENT. re-read your history from the 90's. The Clintons threw the LGBT community under the bus several times.

[vernonbc]

Oh stop it. Obama has an excellent record on gay rights. He walks the walk, doesn't just talk the talk. He's adamantly for equal rights for everyone regardless of gender or race or sexual preference.

[devadasi]

What you fail to mention wutzhappn, is that Barack Obama frequently mentions equality for gays while he's out campaigning, no matter what the make-up of his audience. I have never heard Sen.Clinton, not once since she's been campaigning mention anything about gays.

[standforpeace]

WTF? I get so tired of everyone pointing to everyone else when they get called on their crap. Obama and Clinton both need to take a stronger stand in support of gay rights. In particular, they should adopt the position put forth by Al Sharpton in the 2004 elections and more recently by Al Gore that the right to marry is a fundamental human right. However, their failure to do so doesn't excuse the HRC for taking such a regressive position on social security and basically abandoning the interests of the members of the gay and lesbian community that are most at risk -- the working class.

[Vern58]

Obama threw nobody under the bus. He made a calculated political decision that, he admitted later, was not in line with his own support of equal GLBT rights.
Gavin Newsom is an unabashed "Star F*#%er" of the highest magnitude.. His nose was out of joint because at the time Obama was in a race for Senate in Illinois, where he might loose the vote downstate, where people are much less broadminded than they are in Chicago. I will not blame him for that. Newsom is a political opportunist.
HRC and her Hubby themselves threw their Gay support under the bus when it really counted with DOMA and DADT. I lived through the fallout of those broken promises, and swore i would never vote for a Clinton again. And i have kept that promise.
If you really want to know how Barack Obama sees our struggle, check it out here
http://www.advocate.com/print_article_ektid53285.asp