I don't exactly disagree with Dale's conclusion in his post below on when California should move to repeal Prop. 8. I'm still not convinced one way or the other.
But one of the arguments being articulated misstates a very important point. Prepare to Prevail says this:
Any successful "vote-yes" campaign will require generous support from pro-LGBT institutional donors. These donors give based on evidence of likely success, which for 2010 is filled with grave doubts. It is unlikely that we will be able to raise the necessary funds to undertake an effective electoral campaign until after 2010. . . .
Remember, the original estimates for Prop. 8 spending, in total, were in the range of about $40 million -- for both sides combined. Particularly during extremely heated and close campaigns, people and institutions find resources they wouldn't otherwise have identified. That happened far beyond anyone's expectations during Prop. 8.
It may or may not happen again, whether it's in 2010 or 2012 (I am not waiting for 2014). But whenever it does happen, the campaign will be an extraordinary event. Unless something momentous happens in another state, I expect California will be the first to actually have the voters repeal a constitutional amendment they, themselves, passed banning same-sex marriage. That will certainly draw resources from a lot of places. But I don't think anybody could reasonably be putting that funding into place prior to the election itself -- at least not in the amounts spent during Prop. 8.
Prepare to Prevail's argument strikes me more as an excuse to delay, rather than a sound argument. There are some good reasons to wait until 2012. This isn't one of them.
7 Comments for “2010 Foresight”
posted by Dale Carpenter on
I actually think we would probably raise more money than the anti-SSM side in another campaign, whether it’s 2010 or 2012. But simply raising more money before election day is not good enough, as last November demonstrated. *Timing* is key, especially when the burden is on you and not the other side. We need lots of money up-front to get a repeal on the ballot, do the strategizing, prepare the marketing campaign, roll it out first, and have a campaign structure with lots of workers ready to go. Yes, once the campaign hits the panic button again in October we might be able to scare donors. But by then the game is over.
The pro-Prop 8 forces had been organizing for years by the summer of 2008. I have no confidence we will have the groundwork for a successful campaign in place by, say, next June or July. The economic problems right now will only add to the difficulty in raising the money ahead of time. We simply need more lead time before another ballot fight. That’s why I find Prepare to Prevail’s reasoning on this point quite sound.
posted by Jerry on
The Prepare to Prevail statement is very well argued. I find it persuasive, unlike your post. I don’t see that you have rebutted PtP at all, except to say “Don’t worry, the money will appear.” That’s a vain hope, not an argument.
Further, you somewhat incoherently say:
“That will certainly draw resources from a lot of places. But I don’t think anybody could reasonably be putting that funding into place prior to the election itself — at least not in the amounts spent during Prop. 8.”
If you mean to say that it is somehow against the laws of physics to be able to raise money several years in advance of an election, I don’t think there is any evidence to support such a statement. It would be logistically and politically feasible for the appropriate PAC to set up an account which could begin accumulating funds this year. That pot could grow, enjoying proceeds from benefits, institutional donations, and individual contributions. Obviously, fundraising would increase dramatically as the election drew near, but we would begin the race with a huge head start, something we lacked in 2008. And as Dale Carpenter points out above, we will need a head start to compensate for the increased expense of conducting the petition drive.
There may be good rebuttals to PtP, but this wasn’t one of them.
posted by David Link on
Jerry, you’re quite right about the PAC strategy. However, this then calls into play the Mutually Assured Destruction theory of gay rights. When either side sees its opponents collecting money (and this is publicly reportable), it uses that as its own fund-raising appeal. It works equally well for either side.
This even applies to non-fundraising. Now that the right has seen us doing a door-to-door strategy here in Sacramento and Fresno, they have used that to marshal resources for their own counter door-to-door efforts to talk to people directly.
No matter how I figure it, I can’t see how it will be money that will decide a Prop. 8 repeal. I agree with Dale that I think we’ll be able to raise more than they will next time out, but they won’t be shy of cash. It will be other kinds of efforts, broader social change (which is in our direction) and the whims of fortune (maybe next time around we’ll have a Gavin Newsom moment from their side that we will be able to exploit).
posted by The Gay Species on
First of all, we should let the challenge in the Supreme Court occur before another plebiscite. If there is a positive right to marriage, only the Supreme Court can determine that. To the best of my knowledge, no such right exists. The legal decisions have, with two exceptions (MA, IA), been based on “discrimination” by using different names for the same institution (CT, CA).
If and when Californians are asked to reconsider the merits, let’s have COMPETENT political leadership, NOT the fumbling of EQCA, that lost what was already won. The ad campaign was abysmal, and Mayor Facist’s “whether you like it or not” playing in every living room went over like a lead balloon. That ad did more to sell Prop 8 than anything. Wait till they bring out his “kink,” “alcoholic philandering,” and “no donuts” policy. Gestapo alert: Mayor Fascist also tried to impose the first-ever “gross receipts tax” on San Francisco. The man is a loon. Even his kinky studio can no longer distribute, because its photos make Abu Grahib look mild.
Now, it is INTERESTING that GOV. Schwarzenegger OPPOSED Prop. 8, but EQCA opposes the Gov. They should take a play book from former-governor Reagan who single-handedly defeated Proposition 6 in 1978. Don’t look gift horses in the mouth. The Radical and Queer Fairies tiptoeing through the tulips is not SMART politics, not a “kiddie porn” advocated your best salesman.
posted by Jerry on
David:
There is some legitimacy in the MAD theory of fundraising. However, in this case I don’t think it applies. We saw in Prop 8 that our opponents bucked the usual pattern in which the pro-gay side outspends the anti-gay side by a substantial margin. They did so by relying on an extraordinary appeal by the LDS to which many thousands of LDS members and LDS businesses responded. The outraised us and the intial numbers shocked everyone.
After that appeal, that LDS surge had tapped out by the end of the campaign and we eventually overtook them. However, since our fundraising efforts did not go into high gear until late Sept. and October, we only overtook them by a slight margin. What all this shows is that we have the fundraising edge, and that that edge is magnified the longer the fundraising operations continue. They can count on a significant one-time surge if the LDS puts out a special plea, but eventually slow and steady wins the race. Thus, a longer race is in our interest.
In CA, we lacked the initiative. We lacked a field operation. We lacked a GOTV operation. Volunteer coordination was a joke. These things need to be built from scratch. That requires time and money. These are all things we can be doing now -today and every day. We don’t have to wait to begin the fight, but we should wait for the final phase.
posted by Jerry on
David, one other thing:
I’d appreciate it if you would address the following 2 scenarios:
1. We lose in 2010 by the same or a greater margin than we lost Prop 8. Do you honestly see the voters embracing marriage equality any time in the following decade after rejecting it twice in succession?
2. We win in 2010 by 50.1%. Would you prefer this outcome, to be followed by another repeal fight in 2012, or would it be preferable to win with 55% in 2012 or 2014, with much less likelihood of a follow-on repeal effort?
posted by dalea on
Another factor to keep in mind is that in 2008 we were pretty much on our own with very little support from most likely organizations. The Obama campaign sucked all the energy out of California. In 2010 we will have a much wider pool of institutional support and assistance to draw from.
Plus, the people who ran the last campaign have promised not to be involved in this, which is a major plus.
Boxer will be on the ballot and she is a firm supporter. Her campaign will be willing to back us, and she draws enormous numbers of people to the polls.