From The Dartmouth:

Wither the Reasonable Republican?

By Jonathan Pedde, Contributing Columnist
Published on Monday, October 25, 2010

Reading the op-ed pages of America’s left-of-center newspapers, it would seem that the Republican Party is being overrun by angry, homophobic, anti-immigrant crackpots. For centrists like me who believe in the importance of having two sane national parties, this would be a terribly depressing prospect. But, just when one could be forgiven for thinking that all hope is lost, Fred Karger comes to the rescue.

Who is Fred Karger? That’s exactly what I asked when I first heard of him. He is a former political consultant who is considering running for president as an independent Republican in 2012. He got his start in politics in 1964 working for Nelson Rockefeller. Most recently, Karger founded the watchdog group Californians Against Hate and was active in the campaign to stop California’s Proposition 8, which outlawed gay marriage. If he decides to run in the 2012 Republican primaries, he will be the first openly gay person to run for president.

While there are many adjectives that could describe Karger’s outlook on life, angry is not one of them. Karger spoke at Dartmouth on Oct. 14. Including myself, about 40 people attended. During his speech, Karger emphasized how he wants to bring a sense of optimism back to America. He particularly admires Ronald Reagan’s ability to remain optimistic, even during the depths of the nasty recession of the early 1980s. For pragmatists like myself who are looking for more than mere sentimentality in a politician, there is also a very important practical side to Karger’s optimism: When the economy is deeply depressed and interest rates are stuck at zero, consumer and business expectations of future prosperity (or lack thereof) can become self-fulfilling. Perhaps a president who irrationally maintains a sense of optimism in the worst of times wouldn’t be such a bad thing right now.

More importantly, I think that Karger may actually be a politician who will be able to reach across the increasingly polarized partisan divide. For starters, unlike some of our current elected officials who sold themselves as “post-partisan” candidates, Karger is willing to criticize members of his own party. In fact, during his speech at Dartmouth, Karger had more bad things to say about Mike Huckabee alone than all of the Democrats combined. I agree with some of Karger’s criticisms of Huckabee (especially on Huckabee’s comparison of homosexuality to drug abuse and polygamy) and disagree with others (that we need to be tougher on crime than Huckabee was a governor). But the fact that Karger is actually willing to look at his own party with just as critical an eye as he does for his opponents is an important quality nonetheless.

Furthermore, Karger is actually willing to break with his party’s orthodoxies when his conscience dictates. Not only does he support immediate repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell as well as the legalization of gay marriage, he also supports immigration reform. He wants a path to citizenship for immigrants already living in the country as well as improved border security to discourage future law-breaking. When asked how he would go about “improving” border security, Karger replied that he wasn’t sure, but had an open mind on the issue. As the grandson of German refugees, I especially appreciate Karger’s statement that immigrants are not here for a hand-out, but for the opportunity to succeed by working hard. Likewise, Karger is excited about wind and solar energy as well as energy conservation. To him, the possibilities seem obvious: “Why do people wear sweaters in their air-conditioned homes during the summer?” he queried during the speech.

Actually, Karger’s ability to reach across the partisan divide isn’t just hypothetical. During the 2008 California elections, Karger and Californians Against Hate sided with organized labor — not exactly the kind of organizations with whom you would expect a Republican to be working — in the campaign against Proposition 8.

Karger is exactly the kind of Republican that I would like to see succeed: Optimistic, willing to engage in serious self-examination and able to work for the good of the country even if that means working with the Democrats. It is very telling that, during the 2008 presidential elections, he supported Hillary Clinton, but no Republican candidates. He knows that he “probably won’t win” the primaries, but a Rockefeller Republican like Karger is exactly what the country needs right now.

Fred Karger, who is considering a run for president, founded Californians Against Hate, an independent group that waged a media campaign disclosing what Karger called a secret effort by the Mormon Church to bankroll Prop 8 and similar measures in other states. (Photo by and courtesy of Adam Bouska)

Gay Republican weighs run for president in 2012

By Lou Chibbaro

A longtime GOP political operative who is credited with helping to develop the political attack ads that sunk the 1988 presidential campaign of Democrat Michael Dukakis says he’s seriously considering running for president in 2012 as an openly gay Republican.

Laguna Beach, Calif., resident Fred Karger, 60, has formed a presidential campaign exploratory committee and is “testing the waters” by campaigning in Iowa and New Hampshire, the first two states to hold a presidential nominating caucus or primary.

“My thirty-five years of experience as a fighter in politics places me in a unique position to run,” Karger said in an April news conference when he announced his interest in running for president.

“I have worked on nine presidential campaigns. This would be my tenth,” he said. “I have managed dozens of other campaigns all over the country, and would bring that wealth of experience to my own candidacy.”

Should Karger officially declare his candidacy, his status as an out gay presidential contender is likely to pose a dilemma for many gay activists aligned with both the Republican and Democratic parties.

In his campaign literature he makes it clear he would be a strong and vocal advocate for the entire LGBT movement’s agenda. Among other things, he favors same-sex marriage equality, passage of a congressional non-discrimination bill for LGBT people, and repeal of both the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ law and the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act, which bars the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages.

But for years, before coming out as gay, Karger helped Republicans – some who opposed LGBT-related legislation — win elections as a behind-the-scenes operative with the Dolphin Group, a California-based GOP campaign consulting firm. The firm specialized in creating negative TV ads targeting Democrats.

In 1986, Karger played a key role in a media campaign targeting three liberal California judges by lining up grieving parents whose children were murdered by death row inmates, according to a report by the Sacramento Bee. The three judges, who had a record of overturning death sentences, lost their re-election bids under California’s system of electing judges, with the campaign orchestrated by Karger and his firm being credited for their defeat.

Two years later, in the midst of the 1988 presidential election, Karger worked with the campaign of then Vice President George H.W. Bush to develop the now famous “Willie Horton” campaign against Democratic challenger Michael Dukakis, the then governor of Massachusetts.

Sacramento Bee senior editor Dan Morain reported in a profile of Karger earlier this year that Karger lined up family members of victims of Horton, a convicted murderer who committed a rape while released on furlough from the Massachusetts prison system during Dukakis’s tenure as governor.

“Karger used the Horton story to help to thwart Dukakis’ presidential bid and elect George H.W. Bush,” Morain wrote in his profile.

Karger says he remained deep in the closet during those years. Although he considers himself a moderate Rockefeller-style Republican, he acknowledges his work helped elect conservative Republicans across the country, including President Ronald Reagan.

Now he says he’s poised to become an outspoken advocate for LGBT causes through the national platform of a presidential campaign.

Karger became involved in gay rights causes in 2006 following his retirement from the political consulting business. And when anti-gay leaders launched their campaign to kill California’s same-sex marriage law in 2008 through Proposition 8, Karger jumped head first into the fray — this time on the side of LGBT advocacy groups that opposed the marriage ballot measure.

Using his skills as a campaign organizer, Karger pored over campaign finance records for the committee leading the campaign in favor of Prop 8 and discovered huge amounts of campaign funds for the committee came from people with links to the Mormon Church.

He quickly founded Californians Against Hate, an independent group that waged a media campaign disclosing what Karger called a clandestine effort by the Mormon Church to bankroll Prop 8 and other campaigns across the country opposing same-sex marriage and LGBT rights legislation.

Among Karger’s targets was the anti-gay National Organization for Marriage, which he described as a Mormon front group aimed at killing same-sex marriage through ballot measures in California, Maine and other states.

Although voters approved Prop 8 and the Maine ballot measure, Karger has been credited with forcing NOM to spend large sums of money to fight off campaign finance investigations and complaints initiated by Californians Against Hate before governmental bodies that monitor campaign financing.

NOM leaders denied Karger’s allegations during the Prop 8 campaign and later subpoenaed him to testify in proceedings called to determine whether NOM was required to disclose the names of its contributors. Karger called the subpoenas an attempt to intimidate him.

Like all of the well-known prospective GOP presidential candidates, such as former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, and 2008 vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, Karger has yet to officially declare his candidacy. Due to Federal Election Commission rules, he – like the others – must walk a fine line between expressing interest in running and saying openly that he will run.

However, Karger has appeared many times this year in Iowa and New Hampshire. Last month, he ran a TV commercial on New Hampshire’s largest television station introducing himself as a possible GOP candidate.

His immediate strategy, he says, is to build up enough name recognition to gain access to the GOP presidential debates and forums in Iowa and New Hampshire, where he would be observed by a nationwide TV audience alongside the better-known candidates.

An official with the New Hampshire Republican Party said TV stations and civic groups in the state historically have used their sole discretion in choosing which candidates to invite to appear in debates during the presidential primaries. An independent bipartisan commission determines which candidates to invite for presidential debates in the general election, but no such body exists for the primaries and caucuses.

Karger compares his possible run for the presidency to the 1972 presidential candidacy of Rep. Shirley Chisholm (D-N.Y.), who became the first serious black and female candidate for president.

“Her campaign paved the way for Jesse Jackson’s presidential campaigns in 1984 and 1988, and the election of Barack Obama as our 44th president in 2008,” Karger said.

“Our movement, I think, needs new blood and I think it needs somebody at that level, someone to be in those debates who is openly gay, not just a fierce advocate, someone who has walked the walk,” he said.

“And I will be in those debates. I’m a fighter and I have a strategy and it’s being implemented.”

Christian Berle, deputy executive director of the national LGBT group Log Cabin Republicans, said the group welcomes Karger’s candidacy but could not comment on whether the group would consider endorsing him. Berle noted that Karger is a Log Cabin member.

“His presence in the race will raise the level of discourse on equality issues in the Republican primary,” Berle said. “When Fred joins the Republican debates in Iowa and New Hampshire, he will represent the core conservative principles of individual liberty and freedom for all Americans on which our party was founded.”

NOM Files Yet Another Lawsuit Challenging Disclosure Laws

By Michael Cole

As part of its radical nationwide efforts to dismantle state laws that provide transparency about who is funding political campaigns, the National Organization for Marriage this week filed suit in Rhode Island seeking to have their disclosure laws ruled unconstitutional. The suit comes the same week as NOM lost in federal court in Minnesota on a similar case.

The case – National Organization for Marriage v. John Daluz – was filed in U.S. District Court in Rhode Island on September 21. Daluz is the named defendant in his official capacity as Vice Chairman of the state board of elections.

This new lawsuit brought by NOM’s lawyers is similar to other public disclosure challenges they have made across the country including in Minnesota and New York. In Maine NOM remains under investigation by the Maine Ethics Commission for failing to register with the state as a ballot question committee and disclose the donors to its campaign to overturn Maine’s marriage equality law in 2009. In Washington State, NOM’s lawyers fought the state’s public records law all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court – and lost. A federal court in California has similarly rejected NOM’s efforts to hide its donors in the wake of Proposition 8.

Human Rights Campaign Vice President of Communications and Marketing Fred Sainz remarked in a release: “One thing’s for sure – NOM feels like they have something to hide. In yet another state, NOM is trying to eviscerate the fair and open process that governs election spending in this country. What lengths won’t they go to in order to shield themselves from public scrutiny?”

In Wake of Ballot Initiatives, Questions About the National Organization for Marriage’s Funding

Catholic Groups Funneled Millions to Fund Anti-Gay Marriage Initiatives in California, Maine

By JESSE ZWICK 9/20/10 8:32 AM

People protest extending marriage rights to gay couples in Washington, D.C. (Flickr/Fibonnaci Blue)

The Knights of Columbus, a Catholic fraternal society founded in New Haven in 1881, does a lot of good work. In a report detailing its charitable giving during 2009, the organization noted that while the “Knights and their families are hardly immune to the economic downturn,” they had once again furthered their proud 128-year tradition of service — a tradition including “helping the widows and orphans of the late 19th century” and “providing coats to poor, cold children.”

Add to that list a donation of a whopping $1.4 million in 2009 to the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), a nonprofit group dedicated to fighting same-sex marriage through the ballot initiative system in California, Maine and other states. While NOM hasn’t yet made public its 2009 fundraising numbers, the amount of charitable contributions it received in 2008 totaled approximately $2.9 million.

The NOM donation eclipses what the Knights’ Supreme Council spent on some of its own charitable programs — such as its new effort supporting food banks or its total spending on education initiatives — in the same year, much to the outrage of some observers, including Catholic groups.

“It was a fairly simple, straightforward decision,” says Patrick Korten, vice president for communications for the Knights. “We are pro-family, and believe strongly in the defense of marriage. NOM is the single most important group engaged in defending marriage.”

Less straightforward is the fact that NOM has adopted a policy of refusing to disclose its donors to state election boards, and has sued in the courts rather than complying with existing law — thereby prompting much speculation as to the organization’s sources of funding. (NOM did not respond to repeated requests for comment.) The Knights of Columbus, however, freely disclosed its donation in its August 3 report. The amount was enough to have funded most of NOM’s successful $1.9 million effort to repeal Maine’s same sex marriage law in 2009.

Gay-rights activists have long speculated that the Mormon Church was the primary benefactor behind NOM. But the Knights of Columbus disclosure shows the Catholic group played a pivotal role in funding NOM’s efforts to deny marriage rights to gay and lesbian couples.

Since its founding in 2007 and after its banner moment in 2008 — the passage of Proposition 8 in California, defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman — NOM has fought vigorously against requests from various states to disclose its donor rolls. After some donors to NOM’s Prop 8 campaign received nasty emails from political opponents, the group sued the state of California, comparing itself to the NAACP in the 1950s South. It argued that the state’s disclosure laws had prompted harassment of Prop 8 donors and thereby curbed their constitutional right to free speech.

The case in California is still awaiting a trial date next year, but in the intervening months gay rights activists have openly speculated that NOM was used in the state as a front group for the Mormon Church. The allegation, put forth most prominently by activist Fred Karger, has been vehemently denied by NOM.

Karger, however, did manage to prove through public records that Mormon families contributed a large amount of the $40 million raised for the California ProtectMarriage.com campaign, and that the LDS Church, despite making extensive non-monetary contributions to the cause, had failed to report anywhere near the full amount of its efforts to the state of California. At Karger’s insistence, the California Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) investigated the case and found the Mormon Church guilty of 13 counts of late reporting, fining them more than $5,000.

Negative press prompted NOM to dive further underground. In fundraising endeavors following Prop 8, the group’s president Brian Brown encouraged supporters of efforts to ban gay marriage to donate to NOM as a means of keeping their names undisclosed. The group would act as a middle man of sorts, raising funds from individuals and turning them over to state-based campaigns in lump sums, all the while pledging to keep its donor names a secret.

“And unlike in California, every dollar you give to NOM’s Northeast Action Plan today is private, with no risk of harassment from gay marriage protesters,” Brown wrote in one fundraising appeal. “Donations to NOM are not tax-deductible and they are NOT public information, either,” another one read.

As promised, NOM ran political campaigns in Maine and Iowa in 2009 without disclosing its donors, promptly suing the state of Maine after it opened an ethics investigation against the group and challenging the state’s campaign finance laws as unconstitutional. (That case, too, is awaiting a final verdict.)

NOM continues to spend millions on its legal challenges in Maine, its deep pockets apparently dictating a strategy to challenge and delay disclosing its donors’ names in the courts as long as possible. But the Knights of Columbus’s role in funding NOM — as well as more overt forms of support for Maine’s Amendment 1 initiative from the Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland, Maine – are prompting Catholics opposed to the Church’s involvement in marriage equality issues to organize and speak out.

“You’ve got this really interesting funnel of tax-free money coming from the Dioceses and the Council of Bishops and the Knights of Columbus directly to these campaigns,” notes Phil Attey, executive director of the newly launched organization, Catholics for Equality. “Why are groups like NOM hiding where they’re getting their money? If it turns out to be a front group for the conservative side of the church, Catholics have the right to know because the majority of American Catholics, and we can show you heaps of polls, don’t support that [kind of spending].”

Knights’ spokesman Patrick Korten sees NOM’s noncompliance with disclosure laws in a different light. “The fact of the matter is that those who favor same sex marriage are working hard to intimidate individuals and groups that support our cause, but [the Knights] are big enough that intimidation doesn’t work on us.”

In addition to the opacity of NOM’s funding, some Catholic activists have also taken offense to the fact that, in an economic downturn, the Knights of Columbus Supreme Council’s funding for anti-gay marriage causes has outstripped the amount of funds it supplied for several deserving charitable programs it highlights in its 2010 report.

“As the recession has continued to make it difficult for people who have become unemployed or underemployed, or otherwise get by on lower incomes, the Knights of Columbus has stepped in to help,” notes the Knights’ 2010 report. It highlights a $1 million fund set up by the Supreme Council to supplement the efforts of local councils to support food banks through its new “Food For Families” program, and it touts its Coats for Kids program, which distributed coats to needy children.

But the Supreme Council’s spending on the two programs together still represents less than the $1.4 million it donated to NOM’s anti-gay marriage efforts in 2009. And the Council also donated an additional half million to NOM and $1.15 million to the California ProtectMarriage.com campaign the year prior. The Supreme Council’s total spending on community projects in 2009 (which include soup kitchens, homeless shelters, well drilling projects, and other forms of relief worldwide) totals approximately $3.5 million — an amount that exceeds its giving to anti-gay marriage proposition campaigns, but not by much. The Council’s spending on educational programs in 2009 totaled barely more than $1 million.

Korten nonetheless contends that the Supreme Council’s donations do not paint a full picture of the Knights of Columbus’ annual giving, calling its donations to organizations like NOM “a very small percentage” of the group’s charitable donations. “The vast majority of our charitable work is raised by local councils and that’s always been the case,” he adds.

But other Catholic activists predict that such spending on conservative causes will provoke a backlash among the faithful. “Do you think someone in New Mexico thought their donation was going to this effort in Maine, as opposed to aiding the sick and feeding the hungry?” asks George Burns, an attorney in Maine who fought NOM’s campaign to pass Amendment 1.

“If Catholics find out that while their parishes are closing, and charity work is being underfunded, that our church hierarchy is playing political games with their money, we believe that they’ll be as concerned as we are,” argues Attey.

The Knights, meanwhile, have come a long way from a lone fraternal council in New Haven to governing over 13,000 councils and 1.8 million members worldwide. “Their heritage was as an insurance company because Catholics were discriminated against and couldn’t get insurance,” observes Rev. Dr. Joseph Palacios, founding board member of Catholics for Equality. These days, however, they’re better known for fighting against the marriage rights of gays and lesbian citizens. Add to that list a donation of a whopping $1.4 million in 2009 to the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), a nonprofit group dedicated to fighting same-sex marriage through the ballot initiative system in California, Maine and other states. While NOM hasn’t yet made public its 2009 fundraising numbers, the amount of charitable contributions it received in 2008 totaled approximately $2.9 million.

The NOM donation eclipses what the Knights’ Supreme Council spent on some of its own charitable programs — such as its new effort supporting food banks or its total spending on education initiatives — in the same year, much to the outrage of some observers, including Catholic groups.

“It was a fairly simple, straightforward decision,” says Patrick Korten, vice president for communications for the Knights. “We are pro-family, and believe strongly in the defense of marriage. NOM is the single most important group engaged in defending marriage.”

Less straightforward is the fact that NOM has adopted a policy of refusing to disclose its donors to state election boards, and has sued in the courts rather than complying with existing law — thereby prompting much speculation as to the organization’s sources of funding. (NOM did not respond to repeated requests for comment.) The Knights of Columbus, however, freely disclosed its donation in its August 3 report. The amount was enough to have funded most of NOM’s successful $1.9 million effort to repeal Maine’s same sex marriage law in 2009.

Gay-rights activists have long speculated that the Mormon Church was the primary benefactor behind NOM. But the Knights of Columbus disclosure shows the Catholic group played a pivotal role in funding NOM’s efforts to deny marriage rights to gay and lesbian couples.

Since its founding in 2007 and after its banner moment in 2008 — the passage of Proposition 8 in California, defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman — NOM has fought vigorously against requests from various states to disclose its donor rolls. After some donors to NOM’s Prop 8 campaign received nasty emails from political opponents, the group sued the state of California, comparing itself to the NAACP in the 1950s South. It argued that the state’s disclosure laws had prompted harassment of Prop 8 donors and thereby curbed their constitutional right to free speech.

The case in California is still awaiting a trial date next year, but in the intervening months gay rights activists have openly speculated that NOM was used in the state as a front group for the Mormon Church. The allegation, put forth most prominently by activist Fred Karger, has been vehemently denied by NOM.

Karger, however, did manage to prove through public records that Mormon families contributed a large amount of the $40 million raised for the California ProtectMarriage.com campaign, and that the LDS Church, despite making extensive non-monetary contributions to the cause, had failed to report anywhere near the full amount of its efforts to the state of California. At Karger’s insistence, the California Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) investigated the case and found the Mormon Church guilty of 13 counts of late reporting, fining them more than $5,000.

Negative press prompted NOM to dive further underground. In fundraising endeavors following Prop 8, the group’s president Brian Brown encouraged supporters of efforts to ban gay marriage to donate to NOM as a means of keeping their names undisclosed. The group would act as a middle man of sorts, raising funds from individuals and turning them over to state-based campaigns in lump sums, all the while pledging to keep its donor names a secret.

“And unlike in California, every dollar you give to NOM’s Northeast Action Plan today is private, with no risk of harassment from gay marriage protesters,” Brown wrote in one fundraising appeal. “Donations to NOM are not tax-deductible and they are NOT public information, either,” another one read.

As promised, NOM ran political campaigns in Maine and Iowa in 2009 without disclosing its donors, promptly suing the state of Maine after it opened an ethics investigation against the group and challenging the state’s campaign finance laws as unconstitutional. (That case, too, is awaiting a final verdict.)

NOM continues to spend millions on its legal challenges in Maine, its deep pockets apparently dictating a strategy to challenge and delay disclosing its donors’ names in the courts as long as possible. But the Knights of Columbus’s role in funding NOM — as well as more overt forms of support for Maine’s Amendment 1 initiative from the Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland, Maine – are prompting Catholics opposed to the Church’s involvement in marriage equality issues to organize and speak out.

“You’ve got this really interesting funnel of tax-free money coming from the Dioceses and the Council of Bishops and the Knights of Columbus directly to these campaigns,” notes Phil Attey, executive director of the newly launched organization, Catholics for Equality. “Why are groups like NOM hiding where they’re getting their money? If it turns out to be a front group for the conservative side of the church, Catholics have the right to know because the majority of American Catholics, and we can show you heaps of polls, don’t support that [kind of spending].”

Knights’ spokesman Patrick Korten sees NOM’s noncompliance with disclosure laws in a different light. “The fact of the matter is that those who favor same sex marriage are working hard to intimidate individuals and groups that support our cause, but [the Knights] are big enough that intimidation doesn’t work on us.”

In addition to the opacity of NOM’s funding, some Catholic activists have also taken offense to the fact that, in an economic downturn, the Knights of Columbus Supreme Council’s funding for anti-gay marriage causes has outstripped the amount of funds it supplied for several deserving charitable programs it highlights in its 2010 report.

“As the recession has continued to make it difficult for people who have become unemployed or underemployed, or otherwise get by on lower incomes, the Knights of Columbus has stepped in to help,” notes the Knights’ 2010 report. It highlights a $1 million fund set up by the Supreme Council to supplement the efforts of local councils to support food banks through its new “Food For Families” program, and it touts its Coats for Kids program, which distributed coats to needy children.

But the Supreme Council’s spending on the two programs together still represents less than the $1.4 million it donated to NOM’s anti-gay marriage efforts in 2009. And the Council also donated an additional half million to NOM and $1.15 million to the California ProtectMarriage.com campaign the year prior. The Supreme Council’s total spending on community projects in 2009 (which include soup kitchens, homeless shelters, well drilling projects, and other forms of relief worldwide) totals approximately $3.5 million — an amount that exceeds its giving to anti-gay marriage proposition campaigns, but not by much. The Council’s spending on educational programs in 2009 totaled barely more than $1 million.

Korten nonetheless contends that the Supreme Council’s donations do not paint a full picture of the Knights of Columbus’ annual giving, calling its donations to organizations like NOM “a very small percentage” of the group’s charitable donations. “The vast majority of our charitable work is raised by local councils and that’s always been the case,” he adds.

But other Catholic activists predict that such spending on conservative causes will provoke a backlash among the faithful. “Do you think someone in New Mexico thought their donation was going to this effort in Maine, as opposed to aiding the sick and feeding the hungry?” asks George Burns, an attorney in Maine who fought NOM’s campaign to pass Amendment 1.

“If Catholics find out that while their parishes are closing, and charity work is being underfunded, that our church hierarchy is playing political games with their money, we believe that they’ll be as concerned as we are,” argues Attey.

The Knights, meanwhile, have come a long way from a lone fraternal council in New Haven to governing over 13,000 councils and 1.8 million members worldwide. “Their heritage was as an insurance company because Catholics were discriminated against and couldn’t get insurance,” observes Rev. Dr. Joseph Palacios, founding board member of Catholics for Equality. These days, however, they’re better known for fighting against the marriage rights of gays and lesbian citizens. Add to that list a donation of a whopping $1.4 million in 2009 to the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), a nonprofit group dedicated to fighting same-sex marriage through the ballot initiative system in California, Maine and other states. While NOM hasn’t yet made public its 2009 fundraising numbers, the amount of charitable contributions it received in 2008 totaled approximately $2.9 million.

The NOM donation eclipses what the Knights’ Supreme Council spent on some of its own charitable programs — such as its new effort supporting food banks or its total spending on education initiatives — in the same year, much to the outrage of some observers, including Catholic groups.

“It was a fairly simple, straightforward decision,” says Patrick Korten, vice president for communications for the Knights. “We are pro-family, and believe strongly in the defense of marriage. NOM is the single most important group engaged in defending marriage.”

Less straightforward is the fact that NOM has adopted a policy of refusing to disclose its donors to state election boards, and has sued in the courts rather than complying with existing law — thereby prompting much speculation as to the organization’s sources of funding. (NOM did not respond to repeated requests for comment.) The Knights of Columbus, however, freely disclosed its donation in its August 3 report. The amount was enough to have funded most of NOM’s successful $1.9 million effort to repeal Maine’s same sex marriage law in 2009.

Gay-rights activists have long speculated that the Mormon Church was the primary benefactor behind NOM. But the Knights of Columbus disclosure shows the Catholic group played a pivotal role in funding NOM’s efforts to deny marriage rights to gay and lesbian couples.

Since its founding in 2007 and after its banner moment in 2008 — the passage of Proposition 8 in California, defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman — NOM has fought vigorously against requests from various states to disclose its donor rolls. After some donors to NOM’s Prop 8 campaign received nasty emails from political opponents, the group sued the state of California, comparing itself to the NAACP in the 1950s South. It argued that the state’s disclosure laws had prompted harassment of Prop 8 donors and thereby curbed their constitutional right to free speech.

The case in California is still awaiting a trial date next year, but in the intervening months gay rights activists have openly speculated that NOM was used in the state as a front group for the Mormon Church. The allegation, put forth most prominently by activist Fred Karger, has been vehemently denied by NOM.

Karger, however, did manage to prove through public records that Mormon families contributed a large amount of the $40 million raised for the California ProtectMarriage.com campaign, and that the LDS Church, despite making extensive non-monetary contributions to the cause, had failed to report anywhere near the full amount of its efforts to the state of California. At Karger’s insistence, the California Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) investigated the case and found the Mormon Church guilty of 13 counts of late reporting, fining them more than $5,000.

Negative press prompted NOM to dive further underground. In fundraising endeavors following Prop 8, the group’s president Brian Brown encouraged supporters of efforts to ban gay marriage to donate to NOM as a means of keeping their names undisclosed. The group would act as a middle man of sorts, raising funds from individuals and turning them over to state-based campaigns in lump sums, all the while pledging to keep its donor names a secret.

“And unlike in California, every dollar you give to NOM’s Northeast Action Plan today is private, with no risk of harassment from gay marriage protesters,” Brown wrote in one fundraising appeal. “Donations to NOM are not tax-deductible and they are NOT public information, either,” another one read.

As promised, NOM ran political campaigns in Maine and Iowa in 2009 without disclosing its donors, promptly suing the state of Maine after it opened an ethics investigation against the group and challenging the state’s campaign finance laws as unconstitutional. (That case, too, is awaiting a final verdict.)

NOM continues to spend millions on its legal challenges in Maine, its deep pockets apparently dictating a strategy to challenge and delay disclosing its donors’ names in the courts as long as possible. But the Knights of Columbus’s role in funding NOM — as well as more overt forms of support for Maine’s Amendment 1 initiative from the Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland, Maine – are prompting Catholics opposed to the Church’s involvement in marriage equality issues to organize and speak out.

“You’ve got this really interesting funnel of tax-free money coming from the Dioceses and the Council of Bishops and the Knights of Columbus directly to these campaigns,” notes Phil Attey, executive director of the newly launched organization, Catholics for Equality. “Why are groups like NOM hiding where they’re getting their money? If it turns out to be a front group for the conservative side of the church, Catholics have the right to know because the majority of American Catholics, and we can show you heaps of polls, don’t support that [kind of spending].”

Knights’ spokesman Patrick Korten sees NOM’s noncompliance with disclosure laws in a different light. “The fact of the matter is that those who favor same sex marriage are working hard to intimidate individuals and groups that support our cause, but [the Knights] are big enough that intimidation doesn’t work on us.”

In addition to the opacity of NOM’s funding, some Catholic activists have also taken offense to the fact that, in an economic downturn, the Knights of Columbus Supreme Council’s funding for anti-gay marriage causes has outstripped the amount of funds it supplied for several deserving charitable programs it highlights in its 2010 report.

“As the recession has continued to make it difficult for people who have become unemployed or underemployed, or otherwise get by on lower incomes, the Knights of Columbus has stepped in to help,” notes the Knights’ 2010 report. It highlights a $1 million fund set up by the Supreme Council to supplement the efforts of local councils to support food banks through its new “Food For Families” program, and it touts its Coats for Kids program, which distributed coats to needy children.

But the Supreme Council’s spending on the two programs together still represents less than the $1.4 million it donated to NOM’s anti-gay marriage efforts in 2009. And the Council also donated an additional half million to NOM and $1.15 million to the California ProtectMarriage.com campaign the year prior. The Supreme Council’s total spending on community projects in 2009 (which include soup kitchens, homeless shelters, well drilling projects, and other forms of relief worldwide) totals approximately $3.5 million — an amount that exceeds its giving to anti-gay marriage proposition campaigns, but not by much. The Council’s spending on educational programs in 2009 totaled barely more than $1 million.

Korten nonetheless contends that the Supreme Council’s donations do not paint a full picture of the Knights of Columbus’ annual giving, calling its donations to organizations like NOM “a very small percentage” of the group’s charitable donations. “The vast majority of our charitable work is raised by local councils and that’s always been the case,” he adds.

But other Catholic activists predict that such spending on conservative causes will provoke a backlash among the faithful. “Do you think someone in New Mexico thought their donation was going to this effort in Maine, as opposed to aiding the sick and feeding the hungry?” asks George Burns, an attorney in Maine who fought NOM’s campaign to pass Amendment 1.

“If Catholics find out that while their parishes are closing, and charity work is being underfunded, that our church hierarchy is playing political games with their money, we believe that they’ll be as concerned as we are,” argues Attey.

The Knights, meanwhile, have come a long way from a lone fraternal council in New Haven to governing over 13,000 councils and 1.8 million members worldwide. “Their heritage was as an insurance company because Catholics were discriminated against and couldn’t get insurance,” observes Rev. Dr. Joseph Palacios, founding board member of Catholics for Equality. These days, however, they’re better known for fighting against the marriage rights of gays and lesbian citizens.

Federal judge approves most of Maine’s campaign law

Group opposed to same-sex marriage optimistic about appeal

A U.S. District Court judge on Thursday delivered a ruling that protected the core of Maine’s campaign finance laws against a challenge from a national marriage advocacy group regarding their constitutionality.

U.S. District Judge D. Brock Hornby, however, did find parts of state’s campaign finance laws as “unconstitutionally vague.”

Thursday’s decision is viewed as critical, as it sets the possible statutory parameters by which the National Organization Marriage will become involved in politicking for, or against, candidates for statewide office this fall.

Judge Hornby struck down rules requiring 24-hour disclosure of independent expenditures over $250 — not just before an election, but whenever they occur — saying the rule “has not been justified … is impermissibly burdensome and cannot be enforced.”

He also declared “Maine’s use of the words ‘influence’ and ‘influence in any way’ … are unconstitutionally vague.”

“Otherwise,” Hornby wrote, “Maine’s laws governing PACs, independent campaign expenditures, and attribution and disclaimer requirements are constitutional, and survive NOM’s challenges that they are unconstitutionally vague and overbroad.”

The National Organization for Marriage had contested the constitutionality of Maine’s campaign finance laws, prior to perhaps engaging in activity to influence outcomes of upcoming legislative elections.

The group, which supported the repeal of same-sex marriage legislation in Maine in 2009, has said it would work against the re-election efforts of Maine lawmakers who voted to support same-sex marriage in the Legislature.

Attorney General Janet Mills applauded the ruling on Thursday, saying it upholds the state’s campaign reporting and disclosure law.

Jonathan Wayne, executive director of the Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices, called the ruling mostly positive.

“Mostly, the decision appears to be very good news from the standpoint of the public understanding of who is raising and spending money to influence elections,” Wayne said. “There are a couple of aspects of the disclosure law that the judge found to be vague and have been severed from our statutes. Mostly it’s a clean bill of health for the disclosure laws.”

Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage, said Thursday his group is disappointed in the ruling, but feels its arguments will hold sway with an appeals court.

NOM will pursue an expedited appeal to the U.S. First Circuit Court in Boston, he said, because of the short time before the upcoming election season.

Though Thursday’s decision will delay NOM’s plans for political activity in Maine, Brown said, the group is reviewing the decision to gauge a potential timeline for action.

NOM plans activity in Maine both on behalf of candidates that support “redefining marriage,” said Brown, and on candidates that support traditional marriage. He declined to say whether NOM would be active in the state’s governor’s race, as well as the legislative races.

Brown also expressed frustration at the legal hurdles spurred by what he called “frivolous” lawsuits filed by their political opponents, one of which, Californians Against Hate [now Rights Equal Rights], asked the Maine ethics commission to investigate NOM.

That group, one of the primary advocates for preserving California’s gay marriage law that was repealed by voters there in 2009, questioned whether NOM raised more than $5,000 to directly repeal Maine’s same-sex marriage law.

If it had, it would have been required to file campaign finance reports with the state and disclose who donated the money.

The state is seeking a list of donors so it can determine whether the group asked for money specifically to help repeal gay marriage in Maine. The group filed suit in state and federal court to try to stop the investigation, saying it fears disclosure would lead to harassment of donors.

In response, the group has said that although it donated nearly $2 million to Stand for Marriage Maine, the political action committee that worked to repeal Maine’s same-sex marriage law in 2009, it did not ask donors to give specifically to help in Maine.

That case remains pending.

---

Staff Writer Betty Adams and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

NOM challenges orders to report donor names

Frank Schubert, campaign director for Stand for Marriage Maine, claims victory for Yes on 1 on Nov. 3, 2009, in Portland, Me.
(Source:Robert F. Bukaty (AP))

The National Organization for Marriage is going to court in two states to prevent revealing its list of donors to campaigns against marriage for gays and lesbians.

It was among the litigants that filed Protect Marriage v. Bowen, a lawsuit against the California secretary of state challenging the Golden State’s election laws requiring the reporting of names of contributors of at least $100, last December. And NOM joined with two other conservative groups this month to challenge Maine’s ten-year-old Clean Elections law in federal court. The plaintiffs contend the law is unconstitutional because it infringes on First Amendment free speech rights.

NOM has been fighting elections commissions in both states, which have ordered it to reveal donor names and addresses.

The organization contributed millions to campaigns that successfully overturned, through ballot referendums, legalized marriage for gays and lesbians in both states. Voters passed Proposition 8 in California in 2008 and Question 1 in Maine in 2009.

A U.S. District Court judge in San Francisco ruled on Aug. 4 Prop. 8 is unconstitutional, but the case is expected to go the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Maine suit, filed by NOM, the Maine Heritage Policy Center and the James Madison Center for Free Speech of Terre Haute, Ind., focuses on matching funds provided to publicly financed candidates. The suit seeks to halt such payments.

James Bopp, Jr., the attorney NOM hired in its fight with the Maine Ethics Commission over revealing donor names, is representing all three organizations in the case.

In late June, the ethics commission once again rejected NOM’s attempt to block an order requiring it to reveal donors. And a U.S. District Court judge earlier this year overruled NOM’s request that it not have to comply with the commission’s order. The lawsuit appears to be the latest tactic to avoid compliance.

Maine Citizens for Clean Elections called the lawsuit “an attack on the will of the people” and claimed it’s the “latest attempt in a national strategy to buy influence and bypass the will of the people in Maine and around the country.”

The organization termed the suit to be frivolous. “Mainers have spoken, and Maine people overwhelmingly support Clean Elections,” said co-chair Alison Smith in a statement.

The law “keeps big-money special interests at bay and keeps Maine citizens at the table when decisions are made about what is best for our state,” she added. “Clean Elections requires campaigns to be open, fair and honest. This lawsuit is meant to undermine the will of Maine people.”

Maine was the first state in the nation to pass a Clean Elections law, which a federal court found to be constitutional in a challenge 10 years ago.

Fred Karger, founder of Californians Against Hate (now called Rights Equal Rights), began the controversy over campaign funding by marriage opponents when he filed complaints with the California and Maine ethics commissions.

As part of the California lawsuit, plaintiffs have subpoenaed all of Karger’s records that led to his complaint with the state ethics commission. He is fighting the subpoena.

Karger is exploring running for the Republican nomination for president in 2012. He would be the first openly gay presidential candidate in history if he decides to seek the nomination.

“The super-mysterious National Organization for Marriage is relentless in its desire to intimidate and harm people through its mean, untruthful and potentially illegal activities,” Karger told EDGE in e-mail when asked to comment on the lawsuits. “The ones hurt the most by NOM are the very ones they claim they want to protect, our LGBTQ youth. A Congressional Investigation is needed of the National Organization for Marriage.”

Peter Cassels is a recipient of the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association’s Excellence in Journalism award. His e-mail address is pcassels [at sign] edgepublications [dot] com.

Fred Karger is gay, Republican and running for president in 2012. If you think
that’s cool, you ain’t seen nothing yet. Video: TheNewGayTV.

The New Gay:

Fred Karger is just your average gay, republican presidential hopeful. Oh wait, that makes him not average at all. Here you can see his views on politics, gay inc and why the hell gay repubs exist in the first place. After that you, can decide whether or not you’ll vote for him. Have fun!

To link to the announcement about Fred Karger’s appearance on the Fallon Forum, click here.

Fred Karger will be on Ed Fallon’s radio program tonight. Karger is originally from Chicago, who worked for over 20 years with leading national Republicans, including Reagan, Bush, and Dole. In recent years he’s been an outspoken activist for LGBT equality, leading efforts to expose questionable campaign finance activities on the part of anti-gay organizations. Make plans to tune in tonight from 7:00- 8:00 p.m. on 98.3 WOW-FM or online. Please consider including your voice in the conversation by calling 515.312.0983 or 866.908.8255 (TALK). If you miss the show, podcasts are available.

To link to the podcast, Click Here. Or, click the arrow to listen now.

GOProud, Tammy Bruce Break the Manchester Hyatt Boycott Saturday – A Closer Look

GOProud, the Washington D.C.-based conservative gay Republican group, is holding a private reception Saturday at the Manchester Hyatt hotel, which has been the target of a boycott by the LGBT community and the UNITE HERE! Labor union since July 2008.

The LGBT/labor coalition Sleep With The Right People plans to protest the event starting at 4:30 at the Manchester Grand Hyatt, 1 Market Place in San Diego. The GOProud event runs from 5pm to 7pm.

Cleve Jones, friend of Harvey Milk and founder of the NAMES PROJECT AIDS Memorial Quilt, is a UNITE HERE organizer trying to remedy the drastic conditions for workers and lack of job security at the hotel. Cleve says:

“The solidarity between the labor movement and the LGBT movement is a powerful coalition. In San Diego, the owner of the Manchester Grand Hyatt—the second largest Hyatt in North America—gave $125,000 to put Proposition 8 on the ballot. Our union and the LGBT community are boycotting the Manchester Grand Hyatt, because there is power in the union and there is power in coalition.”

Pause for a second and consider this: Manchester’s $125,000 came in February 2008 at a time when the antigay campaigners did not have enough money to put the measure on the ballot. That money not only paid for the signature-gathering campaign but also gave the then-lackluster Gail Knight-led ProtectMarriage fiscal viability that brought in new money and support. Equality for All countered with a Decline to Sign effort.

Equality for All was non-partisan and reached out to gay Republicans and independents, as well as progressives to fight Prop 8. Political consultant Scott Schmidt of the Los Angeles chapter of the Log Cabin Republicans, later created Republicans Against Prop 8 to specifically target Republicans after the measure qualified. Log Cabin has also honored the boycott.

So why is GOProud holding their Tea Party-sounding “Don’t Tread on Us” reception at the Manchester Hyatt hotel? I don’t think it’s because they need the (CORRECTION) $16,000 ($6,000 was cash from Manchester Financial Group and $10,000 was hotel credit from Manchester Grand Hyatt) to break the boycott and fund their 527.

I think this is a PR move aimed at a larger, conservative audience – not the LGBT community. Indeed, this is the gay version of the fight within the Republican Party itself between the ultra-conservatives, exemplified by Dick Armey, Karl Rove, and Mike Pence – and more moderate conservatives such as Arnold Schwarzenegger, Chris Shays, Allan Simpson and Christie Todd Whitman. In Whitman’s wrote a book “It’s My Party Too,” she explains: “The trend we’re seeing in my party, in particular, is the growing influence of people who want to define what it means to be a good Republican in an ever-narrowing way.”

Bottom line: Log Cabin Republicans are Republicans in the traditional sense – focus on the individual, lower taxes, limited government, national security, keep the government out of the bedroom. But LCR is also focused on LGBT equality – the best example of which is their go-alone, six-year federal lawsuit to have Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell declared unconstitutional.

GOProud, on the other hand, is a more currently conservative GOP group with an agenda that strongly mirrors the ultra-conservative Congressional Republican agenda – though GOProud supports repeal of DADT and opposes a federal constitutional marriage amendment.

Reporting on the split among gay Republicans after executive director Patrick Sammon left in January, Politico’s Ben Smith on April 10, 2009 quoted Christopher Barron, a former Log Cabin political director who broke with LCR:

“Essentially, there’s no voice for gay Republicans or gay conservatives in particular in D.C. right now. Log Cabin has been completely and totally absent here in D.C. for months and months,” Barron said.
”It has simply moved way too far to the left and is basically indistinguishable from any other gay left organization.”
[cut]
“If your main issue is hate crimes or [federal anti-discrimination legislation] or marriage, you’re probably not a Republican,” Barron said, saying that while he backs gay groups on those other issues, they shouldn’t be federal priorities.”

Ironically, as Kerry Eleveld noted in her reporting for The Advocate for May 19, the accusation about LCR being weak in DC came around the same time as their national convention at which Republican presidential nominee John McCain’s daughter Meghan and his campaign manager, Steve Schmidt, came out in support of marriage equality. Although the revelations, Eleveld wrote, “may fall short of a conservative revolution, I dare say it’s the first salvo in a battle for the soul of the party.”

But, Eleveld wrote:

“even with the advent of this new conservative gay group, the state legislatures will be the sole domain of Log Cabin. GOProud will focus on federal issues, Chris Barron said at their Wednesday press conference. Their 10-point legislative agenda did not, however, include hate crimes, employment nondiscrimination, or relationship recognition. Barron — who was a political director for Log Cabin and worked on hate crimes and ENDA legislation — called those “laudable goals” but, added his counterpart Jimmy LaSalvia, “there are two dozen groups downtown already working on ENDA and hate crimes.”

But employment nondiscrimination? What a loss — for a Republican who knows the issue inside and out — not to be lobbying GOP members of Congress on behalf of LGBT people who work in 30 states across the country with no legal protections.”

I asked LaSalvia about the 14-month old organization and the boycott. He said GOProud is starting to hold events around the country to “raise awareness” about the group.

“We wanted to hold an event this summer in Southern California, and we chose to do our first event in California in San Diego because of its large population of conservatives. You probably know that that there are very few properties in the world of the stature of the Manchester Hyatt, so it would be an obvious place to consider for an event in San Diego.

As far as the boycott goes, Mr. Manchester has apologized for his support of Proposition 8, and has generously offered financial support to the LGBT community.”

Well, let’s look at that for a moment. Even the San Diego Union Tribune suspected that Manchester’s throwing of a “serious chunk of change at gay and lesbian causes” was nothing “but an attempt to derail that pesky boycott…. The $125,000 total matches what he gave to Proposition 8. So it would be even-steven.

“He’s trying to clarify his views,” Kelly Commerford, director of marketing for the Grand Hyatt, one of the largest hotels on the West Coast, told the paper. “He’s not discriminatory. He’s supportive of this community. He realizes he offended people.”

Commerford confirmed the money to me, though he would not discuss whether Manchester is trying to sell the Hyatt. He wrote via email:

Doug Manchester offered a $125,000 donation ($25,000 in cash and $100,000 in in-kind services) to LGBT organizations as tangible proof of his regret for his original donation and as a re-commitment to the LGBT community in San Diego and beyond. An application and selection process was put in place, to which several organizations applied. This pledge has been fulfilled.”

Indeed, a website was set up especially to present the apology, the application and other PR overtures from Manchester. Some thought the apology was “hollow.”

But in talking about the boycott, LaSalvia moves into what language more closely associated with Dick Armey, who called openly gay Rep. Barney Frank “Barney Fag:”

“We lost the Prop 8 battle in California, and if we ever want to win then our community needs to be in the business of making new friends not enemies. The reason the boycott is still in effect is because of unrelated issues raised by labor unions. Unlike other gay organizations, GOProud does not take its marching orders from union thugs. (Emphasis LaSalvia’s)

Mr. Manchester has generously offered financial support to a variety of LGBT organizations, including GOProud. I couldn’t care less if others accept the support or reject the support.”

LaSilvia also said:

“Our mission is to represent gay conservatives and our allies. The traditional “gay agenda” has been defined by the left and treated as if it’s the top priority for all gay people. We work on a much broader agenda and that conservative policies are good for all Americans, but especially gay and lesbian Americans.”

Potential gay GOP presential contender Fred Karger, who founded Californians Against Hate – which just changed its name to Rights Equal Rights – thinks that’s just spin:

“GOProud should not even be considered a gay Republican group, and should not be called so. They are a Republican ultra conservative group, apparently made up of only a handful of members. They don’t even support pro gay Republicans. In California last month they endorsed the same candidate in the U. S. Senate race as the most anti-gay organization in the country, the dreaded National Organization for Marriage, against former Republican Congressman Tom Campbell, who supports full LGBT equality.

They instead should be called GOEmbarrassment.”

Karger notes that while the California Republican Party is holding its semi-annual convention at the Hyatt the end of August, “California Log Cabin is for the first time not holding their reception at the host hotel, but has moved it to another property in San Diego, and thus honoring the boycott. They of course endorsed [pro-gay US Senate candidate]Tom Campbell and gave him money, I believe.”

Karger helped organize the boycott:

“The Boycott Manchester Hotels, organized 2 years ago by numerous LGBT groups and our labor allies, has been so successful, that Manchester’s own estimates are that it is costing his Manchester Grand Hyatt property alone $1 million per month in lost business. All real LGBT organizations including HRC and Equality California have turned down any money from Manchester, and many other LGBT and allied organizations have endorsed the boycott including the Courage Campaign and the Equality Federation.”

So why break the boycott? While everyone is focusing on the rivalry between GOProud and LCR, I started thinking about openly gay radio talk show host and author Tammy Bruce, who chairs GOProud’s Advisory Council. My hunch is that this stunt is a way for GOProud to prove to the Tea Party and other ultra-conservatives that they are more Republican than gay.

Tammy Bruce is something of a star on the conservative right wing C-List, introducing herself as a gay, gun-owning former liberal Democrat who bucked the oppressive liberal political correctness and now makes money talking about it. Judging from her website, she’s also a big Sarah Palin fan.

Tammy used to be the head of the NOW chapter in Los Angeles in 1989/early 1990s, when she worked in coalition with progressive LGBT groups. I covered her at that time and watched as she used her celebrity status as a local radio show host to help raise money for HIV/AIDS organizations and other causes.

But by the mid-90s, she had become a controversial lightening rod. In 1995, NOW President Patricia Ireland condemned Tammy at a news conference for making insensitive remarks during the OJ Simpson trial. Tammy said she was trying to keep domestic violence instead of race in the spotlight. Marc Lacey reported in the LA Times Dec. 7, 1995:

“Bruce was quoted in an Associated Press report as saying she did not want to discuss the O.J. Simpson case on a TV program because she did not want “to argue with a bunch of black women.” Bruce later said she had been misquoted on the matter.

Ireland said the comments caused grave concerns among many black women in the organization and raised the false impression that NOW does not regard racism as a problem.

As a sign of how the comments were received, Ireland said leading national civil rights leaders contacted her to complain about Bruce’s outspoken views, while white supremacist groups praised the comments in calls to NOW leaders in one rural state.”

Tammy fought back:

“There is nothing to retract. I have made it clear that this issue affects all women, including women of color. Of course, this issue is colorblind.”

Tammy’s biggest contretemps with the liberal and African American communities came in 1998 when she was fired from her radio gig at KFI for making racially insensitive remarks about Bill and Camille Cosby. On July 8, the day after a 19 year old Ukrainian immigrant had been found guilty of murdering Ennis Cosby, USA Today published an op-ed by Camille Cosby entitled “Camille Cosby: America Taught My Son’s Killer To Hate Blacks.” In it she wrote: “After Mikail Markhasev killed Ennis William Cosby on Jan. 16, 1997, he said to his friends, `I shot a nigger. It’s all over the news.’”

Though many of us missed what Tammy actually said, some of the offensive remarks came to light during KFI program director David G. Hall’s profuse apology (using the royal “we”) for what the usually very smart Tammy said in response to the op-ed. This is from the LA Times:

“Noting that Bruce’s opinions began to “overtake the facts,” Hall called various comments by the KFI host “unfounded, mean-spirited and simply inappropriate.”
[cut]
“Specifically,” Hall said, “Mrs. Cosby was characterized as ‘incredibly unstable, crazy, paranoid, delusional, just nuts’ and the like. It was suggested that Mrs. Cosby seek therapy. We had no information about Mrs. Cosby’s mental health. . . . We wish to apologize.
[cut]
“Similarly, in challenging Mrs. Cosby’s assertion that her son’s killing was racially motivated, we suggested that Mrs. Cosby caused her son’s death by giving him access to an expensive car. Those comments were remarkably insensitive. . . . Ours were cruel statements to make to parents whose son had recently been murdered.”

Hall said Tammy’s statements about Bill Cosby were “false, offensive and unnecessarily hurtful. And they too need to be retracted.” Hall cited “our statements” that Cosby had “multiple illegitimate children as a result of multiple extramarital affairs with white women,” and another that he “secretly funded the criminal defense of O.J. Simpson.”

(In 1997, Cosby admitted to one extra-martial affair after a woman tried to extort him for money.)

But as the Daily Howler reported in late 2003, Tammy was out. She re-emerge in 2001 The New Thought Police in which she wrote that Rosa Parks had “pushed us into the maze of Thought Police totalitarianism that we face today.”

In The Death of Right and Wrong, Tammy writes that Bill Cosby and Kweisi Mfume are Black Elitists —people who are “motivated, whether consciously or unconsciously, by a deep-rooted hatred for their country and themselves, which leads them to attempt to destroy the future of their own people and, indeed, everyone else.”

You get the gist. After her run-ins with Patricia Ireland and being called a racist by the Cosbys (a charge with which I publically disagreed-thinking Tammy insensitive but not a racist) – Tammy launched a new lucrative career as a conservative darling.

I asked LaSalvia to put me in touch with Tammy to ask why she was breaking the boycott – but she never contacted me.

So standing back to look at the two organizations – GOProud made headlines at the recent CPAC convention, may make headlines breaking the boycott and is now associated with the policy leadership of Tammy Bruce. LCR, on the other hand, has a new executive director, former diplomat and soldier R. Clarke Cooper, who expressly wants to reconnect with the National Republican Committee. Along those lines, LCR announced that conservative Texas GOP Sen. John Cornyn is attending the LCR PAC reception prior to their big dinner in September. Cooper himself outlined the distinctions last June:

“LCR has a political action committee (PAC) to support Republican candidates. GoProud does not have a PAC. LCR has member-run chapters throughout the United States. GoProud does not have a membership base. LCR has an office with full time staff. GoProud does not have a fixed address. LCR has in-house registered lobbyists with Hill experience. GoProud does not have any presence on Capitol Hill. Finally, LCR has active litigation challenging the Obama Administration to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”. GoProud does not have a presence in the courts.
[cut]
“By virtue of our lobbying activity, growing relationship with the RNC, and regular contributions from our PAC, LCR is the influential entity on the Hill.”

Charles Moran, Vice-Chairman, Log Cabin California, was less diplomatic:

Log Cabin Republicans was asked to apply for some of the food & beverage credit being offered by Mr. Manchester’s hotel. Log Cabin Republicans declined the invitation to apply. Log Cabin Republicans understands the profound impact that Mr. Manchester’s financial contribution made to the Prop 8 campaign. Mr. Manchester’s right to make that contribution is just as valid as our decision to not patronize his hotel and encourage our members to make the similar decision. As good Republicans, we financially support those who support us.

GOProud is its own organization with its own set of goals and values.

Given that they openly support and endorse candidates who support criminalization of sodomy and believe banning gays and lesbians from teaching in public schools, their decision to take Mr. Manchester’s money
comes as no surprise.”

We’ll see what happens. Just as with the Democratic political and lobbying groups – the proof is in what is accomplished. Which raises the question: what, exactly, does breaking the boycott accomplish?

A gay Republican president?

Fred Karger, a gay civil rights activist and a Republican, has been dropping not-so-subtle hints that he may seek the GOP nomination for president in 2012. This week, Karger let reporters know he will be spending some more time in New Hampshire, home of the first-in-the-nation primary election in January 2012.

“I have been in New Hampshire for nearly a month so far this year, and will be spending a lot more time there over the next year and a half,” Karger said in a statement. “Lots to do.”

Karger has dubbed the potential, long-shot presidential campaign “Fred Who?”

Karger founded Californians Against Hate in reaction to Proposition 8, the successful California ballot measure that overturned gay marriage in the state in 2008. He filed complaints against the LDS Church for under-reported donations in the “Yes on 8″ campaign.

In June, the California Fair Political Practices Commission fined the church $5,539 for $36,928 in contributions that were not reported on time.

Karger recently changed the name of Californians Against Hate to Rights Equal Rights to reflect a new national scope and direction.