Nipping it in the Bud
I read this Atlantic article several weeks ago, and just stumbled upon it again. It discusses a political philanthropy project that the article describes as “stopping the Rick Santorums of tomorrow before they get started.”
[Iowa state Rep.] Carroll was among the dozens of targets of a group of rich gay philanthropists who quietly joined forces last year, under the leadership of a reclusive Colorado technology mogul, to counter the tide of antigay politics in America that has generated, among other things, a succession of state ballot initiatives banning gay marriage.
The new project is the brainchild of former Colorado software mogul, Tim Gill. Gill is a long-time “quiet” gay activist and a member of Forbes 400 list of world’s wealthiest people.
Selling his company, Gill is now completely dedicated to philanthropy. His political donations have risen steadily over the years. Get this: in 2004 he personally donated almost $15 million to state and local races. His final 2006 numbers appeared to be even higher. Wow.
Two new tactics stand out with Gill’s approach: (1) a focus on state and local elections instead of national battles, and (2) stealth, without fanfare, media, or excessively large, “flashing sign” donations.
This makes a lot of sense, and I’m surprised I haven’t heard of anything like it before. Gill has clearly put a lot of thought into his ferocious political project, and his long-term plans have the potential to bring about real results. The strategy:
Trimpa cited the example of Barack Obama: an attractive candidate, solid on gay rights, and viscerally exciting to donors. It feels good to write him a check. An analysis of Obama’s 2004 Senate race, which he won by nearly fifty points, had determined that gays contributed more than $500,000. “The temptation is always to swoon for the popular candidate,” Trimpa told me, “but a fraction of that money, directed at the right state and local races, could have flipped a few chambers. ‘Just because he’s cute’ isn’t a strategy.”
Common sense activity like this will undoubtedly prove more effective than bulky national meanderings from other gay-rights groups, most dubiously, the Human Rights Campaign.
Needless to say, I like this development. A lot.
I have been incredibly disappointed with the social conservative focus on anti-gay marriage initiatives. Misguided, unnecessary, disgraceful. A political cheap shot. A distortion of true conservatism. It needs to end. It will soon. Thank the Lord. Oy.
Sorry for the digression…
What are your thoughts on the potential success of this strategy?
How would it play in Illinois?
The state of the GOP has been a hot topic here recently, could something like this bump off a few of the extreme righties and help push the party back to historic conservatism?
Is this a lost cause, and I’m just an uninformed rookie?
5 comments:
Tim Gill's guerrilla campaign shows a lot of potential, especially when you start considering how many DINK lgbt folks there are.
Now whether or not it could work in Illinois? Not sure. I do wonder whether or not western US style little l republicans could survive here.
Good post paul
Gay marriage is not a popular idea. EVERYWHERE (I think 19 or so states at last count including relatively liberal states like Oregon and Colorado) ALL past "anti" gay rights initiatives and/or banning gay marriage.
This has a lot of support. It is proven in referendum after referendum at the ballot box.
Gill and the Gill Foundation are pretty savvy in general, and focusing resources on building up future candidates is a savvy move. The real variation here is that Gill is also focused on defeating candidates with whom he disagrees at an early stage.
It's a clever variation of a strategy used effectively in the past by the social conservatives. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, the Christian Coalition (it was a powerhouse in those days) encouraged its members to run "stealth campaigns" for school boards. Before 1994, Newt Gingrich created a PAC specifically to help promising conservatives win local offices as a stepping stone to challenging Democratic incumbents in Congress.
The strategy works if there is a commitment from a well funded source to finding and developing new talent. Gill is obviously well-funded, so this strategy might work long term. Plus, he doesn't have to answer to a large number of stakeholders with different goals.
The other thing that's necessary is that the initiative fully develop candidates, i.e., that it not be one-issue. One of the big problems with some organizations that recruit new candidates is their focus on one or two issues. So, you'll have a pro-choice candidate in the suburbs who also wants to raise taxes -- or perhaps has no other issue on which to run.
For Gill to succeed, he has to invest in candidates that can address a broad range of issues in their communities. He has a better chance precisely because he doesn't need to answer to a lot of stakeholders, who often will pressure an organization to go with an unelectable candidate.
Gill and others may find the unpleasant by product of donating on a single issue is that you get candidates that pander to any special interest, and not just individual rights.
Need a tariff on imported Ethanol? Call Barack Obama.
Support for the Bridge to Nowhere? Call Barack Obama.
Some landscaping from Tony Rezko? Call Barack Obama.
You can put Rod Blagojevich or Jan Schakowsky's name in the Obama slot and get much the same results.
Getting support on one issue gets you the whole package with this type of for-sale candidate.
How about some independent decision making skills from our politicians?
JBP
Barack Obama is a typical politician. and soooo overrated
Post a Comment