New York State Assembly Republicans who bucked their party leaders and voted to legalize same-sex marriage in New York have been rewarded with an outpouring of donations from gay rights advocates across the nation, according to the New York Sun, which references in particular the efforts of the Gill Action Fund. The paper reports:
The money has flowed in at such a rapid pace that these Republicans have seen more than half of their individual contributions in the latest filing cycle come from donors with addresses outside the state.
I applaud this effort, as it helps break down the vicious cycle: (A) Republicans get money from anti-gay activists and vote against gay legal equality; (B) gay PACs don't give money to Republicans, because (see A). Repeat.
More. Also, it's not necessarily only Democratic Party-linked lobbies that can be allies to gays fighting to protect their constitutional rights.
Furthermore. Are Republicans more tolerant of gays than gays are of Republicans? The Politco reports that the board of Manhunt, a gay hookup site, forced its chairman to resign after it became known that he gave $2,300 to John McCain.
8 Comments for “There Are Two Parties that Can Be Influenced”
posted by Rob on
Two parties only?
posted by Richard on
I am certainly glad to see what some ‘moderate’ Republicans who voted for gay rights are getting financial support.
Maybe if some did so at the federal level, the same thing would happen. Can you imagine a bunch of House or Senate Republicans voting for civil unions or same-sex marriage federally?
As an Independent, I should point out that most LGBT groups tend to ignore us and ignore third parties…
posted by Craig2 on
Rob:
Unfortunately, as the United States still has a first past the post electoral system, pragmatic organising needs to encompass both parties.
Incidentally, IGF, is there any chance of listing liberal Republican PACS, lobby groups and candidates so that the Republican Party gets the message that not all LGBT rights supporters tend left?
Craig2
Wellington, NZ
posted by RIchard II on
Craig2. The first-past-the-post is no doubt a big factor. However, many people seem to misunderstand what a two-party system really is. It does not mean that their are only two parties or two particular parties or that only two parties can win.
American had a multi-party system until the rise of restrictive ballot access rules. In two-party nations with fair and equitable ballot access laws, their is at least one strong third party.
posted by Jorge on
The NRA story was very intruging. The guy who’s suing is saying exactly what I was thinking when the Supreme Court decision was handed down.
posted by Craig2 on
Until 1993, New Zealand had a first past the post electoral system itself. There were some interesting twists and turns in our electoral reform debate- social conservatives had become a liability to our centre-right National Party, and as a result, libertarianism was dominant in the early nineties.
The NZ Christian Right therefore shrugged its shoulders when it came to the retention of ‘tradition’ when it came to the retention of FPP, and urged militant fundamentalists to vote for MMP. Conversely, because of this, the electoral reform debate was mostly silent within the LGBT communities of the time.
Two party systems can work quite well, and of course, some FPP systems are also multipartisan, due to ethnic cleavages, class differences and strong regionalism. Canada is an excellent example- the Liberals and Conservatives dominate, but the New Democrat Party has won power in some provinces, and the current Conservatives are an amalgam of two centre-right parties, the Progressive Conservatives and Reform. The Tories aren’t assured of a second term, primarily because they’re seen as too beholding to Western Canada.
One would also have to say FPP has worked in LGBT interests in Britain, forcing the Conservative Party back toward the centre and re-engineering it
into a pluralist centre-right political party under David Cameron.
As for the single transferable vote, Ireland is the best example of that- and it’s on the verge of introducing civil partnerships.
For New Zealand, MMP has still meant that we were able to attain civil unions, despite the presence of a fundamentalist party, United Future, during that term of Parliament. That party’s fundamentalist bias was
not well-received by the general public, and its surge was only temporary.
Craig2
Wellington, NZ
posted by Richard II on
It does seem strange that the American LGBT community often does not see electoral reform as a gay rights issue.
We would probably benifit from have more competitive, freer and fair election laws. I would think.
Gay Republicans talk alot about the need to compete for the gay vote, instead of blindly supporting Democrats, but get tight lipped when someone suggests applying that to our electoral system.
posted by Richard II on
Giving money to a candidate who probably wants to shut down your ‘sexually explicit’ web page or, at least, appoint people to the bench who want to do so or keep it all nice and illegal is probably not the best career move…
At any rate, it only might prove that some gay people at that particular group are somehow ‘intolerant’.