Friday, December 18, 2009

HRC: $10K to Dem Congressional
Cmte in 2009 - Why?

The executive director of the Human Rights Campaign, Joe Solmonese, in recent days issued a year-end letter to his board that has not been posted to HRC's site, in which he assesses the progress for gay Americans in 2009. The letter is available over at Pam Spaulding's blog, and I wish she and others would ask why HRC can't post the letter on their own site, but is instead dependent on bloggers to disseminate it, but I digress.

One group that isn't mentioned in HRC's assessment is the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. I thought that was very odd, considering the DCCC is the largest recipient of HRC PAC money so far this year, and if our biggest gay org is giving our dollars to such a group, we should have substantive things to show for it. Right?

According to HRC PAC records at for the 2010 election cycle, they made two donations of $5,000 to the DCCC in June and September this year. And what did the gays get in exchange for that $10,000? The answer is not provided in HRC's year-end letter.

The progressive site in early November explained some of the problems with the DCCC, who gets a lot of money from it, and how a few of the recipients vote on liberal matters:

Last night, 23 Democrats voted against providing 36 million Americans with health insurance while reducing the deficit, but in favor of the Stupak amendment to restrict reproductive rights for low-income women. [...]

In 2008, more than $1 out of every $12 the DCCC spent on electing Democratic House members went to electing one of these Democrats. [...]

These Democratic members of Congress are a net drag on progressive efforts. Not only do they vote to pass regressive legislation, and not only to they vote against any meaningful progressive legislation, but they vacuum up Democratic money in the process. [...]

If you donate to the DCCC, then your money is being spent to restrict reproductive rights for low-income women, and against health care reform.

Also angry at the DCCC, and refraining from giving the org any money, is AmericaBlog contributing writer Timothy Beauchamp:

Well, it finally happened. The DCCC called asking for money and were shocked...SHOCKED I wouldn't give.

The founders of AmericaBlog, John Aravosis and Joe Sudbay, launched a boycott against the Democratic National Committee over the party's refusal to move pro-gay legislation forward this year, but they excluded the DCCC, however, they're not troubled at all by their colleague's action:

We didn't specifically include the DSCC and the DCCC, but we're certainly not going to stop anyone from sending a loud and clear message to those party organizations as well.

I'd love to know exactly what it was the DCCC promised to do for HRC this year that warranted contributions totaling $10,000. Further, if HRC plans any future giving to the DCCC, how about demanding Solmonese get a few items of substance first from Congressional Democrats, such as expedited movement on passing ENDA and repealing DOMA and DADT?


AndrewW said...

In this Memo HRC desperately tries to take credit for things they had nothing to do with. Nothing.

HRC will receive $50 million this year (added to the $500 million they've already received) and they have nothing to show for it.

Well, those stickers for our cars. My math says each of those stickers cost us about $1,100 each.

David said...


"23 Democrats voted against providing 36 million Americans with health insurance while reducing the deficit, but in favor of the Stupak amendment to restrict reproductive rights for low-income women"

One doesn't restrict a right (for low-income folk or anyone else) by refusing to pay for it. One simply refuses to pay for it.

And they want us to believe the House's proposed reforms are going to save money? Please.

Nonsense like this is why people don't take the left seriously.

The Gay Species said...

I have HUGE problems with the Senate Bill, namely, it COERCES for the first time by government fiat and IRS enforcement that ALL AMERICANS buy private health insurance, from one of basically six providers (most states have only one or two).

Imagine if Congress passed a law requiring all Americans to buy only FORD and GM vehicles? The analogy is almost true of private insurance.

This bill sets the most illiberal precedent since Plessy. It must be defeated in its current form -- not merely for its inadequacy -- but quite likely its unconstitutionality.