The Human Rights Campaign

October 1996 [Articles]

The Human Rights Campaign

Controversial endorsements put group under increased scrutiny
by Peter Freiberg
It began more than 16 years ago as a one-desk operation in the office of a now-extinct gay political group. It grew steadily, often spectacularly. And today, there is no debate: with a $10 million budget, 60 full-time staffers, and 175,000 members, the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) is the largest -- and most influential -- national gay political organization.
As such, it gets considerable attention from socially liberal politicians, who seek endorsements from HRC in the hope that a nod from the group will sway local gays and lesbians in their favor. In a close election, such support could mean the difference between winning and losing.
In many cases, deciding which candidate gets an HRC endorsement -- and the money, human resources, and potential votes an endorsement can bring -- is easy. Picking Democratic challenger Harvey Gantt over Republican incumbent Jesse Helms in North Carolina's Senate re-election battle, for instance, wasn't difficult. But at least three controversial endorsements this year -- two of which were in Massachusetts races -- have left many gay and lesbian activists, Democrats and Republicans alike, questioning the HRC endorsement process.
The endorsement of Republican US Representative Peter Torkildsen over his pro-gay Democratic challenger, John Tierney, and the endorsement of Democratic US Senator John Kerry over Republican Governor William Weld angered many Bay State gay activists, who feel their opinions were not taken into account.

Ahead of the pack

In addition, HRC's early endorsement of President Bill Clinton this February, before the Republicans had even selected a presidential nominee, was viewed by some activists as foolhardy. "If HRC hadn't endorsed so early," says Sean Strub, a gay business owner, former political consultant, and longtime Democratic activist, "Clinton ... probably would have ended up supporting [the Defense of Marriage Act], but he wouldn't have treated it as an opportunity to save face with conservatives and kick the gay community in the face."
But William Schneider, a political commentator on CNN and an analyst at the American Enterprise Institute, doesn't think HRC gave up potential leverage with its early endorsement of Clinton. If Clinton is re-elected, says Schneider, the White House will appreciate HRC's decision to support him early despite what Schneider calls Clinton's "betrayals" of gays on the military debate and on same-sex marriage.

Who qualifies for an endorsement?
Congressional endorsements, says HRC political director Daniel Zingale, are decided on by the group's political staff, with Executive Director Elizabeth Birch participating in decisions on higher-profile races.
Decisions, Zingale says, are based on specific criteria: the candidate's record on AIDS, abortion, and gay issues, as well as his or her chances of winning. The goal, HRC says, is to elect as many supportive candidates as possible from both parties, not to help one party gain control of Congress.
Asked why HRC does not make endorsements with an eye toward helping the Democrats gain control of Congress -- which, since the Democrats are more pro-gay, could at least help ensure that anti-gay bills don't get out of committees -- Birch replies, "The reason is November 1994," a reference to the election that gave the GOP control of Congress.
"There's no question the Democratic Party is a better institution for gay people," she says, but HRC must be prepared for power shifts like the one that occurred in 1994. "It's important to have people in both parties," she says, asserting that help from pro-gay Republicans has also been crucial to staving off anti-gay legislation in the current Congress.
HRC compiles its scorecard ratings for members of Congress near the end of each session. For the just-completed 1995-'96 House ratings, Zingale says, the members' positions on the following issues were evaluated in making endorsements (though not necessarily for this election year, since some of the votes in question came after the 1996 endorsements were made):

AIDS training for federal workers

the bill that repealed a law requiring expulsion of HIV-antibody-positive service members

the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which seeks to ban anti-gay job discrimination

the DC domestic partners law

housing opportunities for people with AIDS

non-discrimination against gays in the legislator's own office hiring

the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

For the Senate, the issues were:

the Ryan White Care Act

Medicaid funding for people with HIV/AIDS

an amendment to the Department of Defense reauthorization bill reversing a ban on privately funded abortion services in overseas military hospitals

the Defense of Marriage Act

the Employment Non-Discrimination Act

non-discrimination in office hiring

the bill that repealed a law requiring expulsion of HIV-antibody-positive service members

the hate crimes statistics act, which tracks hate crimes related to sexual orientation.

According to Zingale, "there isn't any set minimum" a member of Congress must score in order to be endorsed. Endorsees, he says, are "either supportive on a sufficient number of issues or moving toward supportiveness on a sufficient number of issues."
The House and Senate votes approving DOMA will not be a "litmus test" for future endorsements, Zingale adds, and it is "highly unlikely" that any endorsements will be withdrawn because of a Yes vote for the anti-gay marriage legislation. About half the House members whom HRC had already endorsed for re-election voted for the act, Zingale notes, as did three of the four senators endorsed by HRC.
"All [the scorecard issues] are important," Zingale says, "but ... none of them will be used as a single-issue litmus test. It's necessary to look at the overall record of the member of Congress." Using a litmus test for any issue, he says, might eliminate someone who "is important for us." And Congress, he says must be shown that gays are "a community with a broad range of interests."

The search for endorsable GOP candidates
So far this year, HRC has endorsed more than 150 congressional candidates -- 14 Republicans, one independent candidate, and the rest Democrats.
HRC says it searches long and hard for Republicans to endorse. In a letter in the current Harvard Gay and Lesbian Review, Tim McFeeley recalls that, when he was HRC executive director during the 1990, '92, and '94 federal election cycles, the group "held Republicans to lower standards, gave supportive Republicans more money per capita than comparable Democrats, and generally made these contributions more valuable by giving the money earlier . . . when it was needed most."
HRC's Zingale says that while the same yardstick issues are used for rating Republicans and Democrats, the GOP candidates HRC is backing this year still tended "to get endorsed earlier and receive on average larger contributions."
"It's driven by a genuine desire to make inroads [on gay issues] into a party that desperately needs inroads," Zingale says. Earlier donations, he says, also "encourage [the endorsed Republicans'] legislative cooperation" earlier in the congressional session.
Nevertheless, Log Cabin national vice chair Abner Mason insists that HRC is "struggling to maintain a [nonpartisan] fig leaf."
The organization's "overwhelmingly Democratic" orientation, Mason says, puts HRC in an awkward position when it tries to work with and educate Republicans who are not currently pro-gay.
But a Republican senator's gay aide, who agreed to speak only if not identified, says that even though HRC shows what the aide considers favoritism to Democrats and reluctance to reach out to Republicans, the group has the potential to become a "huge player" in Washington.
"Most Republicans view HRC as an arm of the Democratic Party," says the GOP aide, "but that doesn't mean Republicans won't sit down with them and talk. Republicans view them as the most mainstream and knowledgeable of all the [gay] groups."
But criticism of HRC has also come from gay Democrats, most notably US Representative Barney Frank, who in a much-publicized flap disagreed with the group's contribution of $5000 last year to the National Republican Congressional Committee.
And some prominent activists, like Sean Strub, believe HRC is overplaying the presidential race and underemphasizing the importance of Congress. The result, they say, is that resources that could go to congressional campaigns and local races are being diverted to the presidential race.
But re-electing Clinton is, indeed, HRC's top priority.
"The presidency," says Elizabeth Birch, "provides a safety net to the gay and lesbian community . . . and let's face it, in 90 percent of cases, we can rely on President Clinton."
But Birch says Congressional races are "a pretty close second" in importance. In North Carolina, HRC has mounted a special campaign that Zingale says will funnel "substantial" funds in a drive to defeat vehemently anti-gay US Senator Jesse Helms.
The organization has disbursed a total of about $600,000 to all but three of the candidates it has endorsed (those three do not accept money from PACs); it has contributed another $80,000 to national and state party organizations -- mostly Democratic -- and other PACs. Eventually, says Zingale, HRC expects to be involved in 150 races this year and to spend about $1 million.
Under the law, HRC can give a total of no more than $10,000 in the primary and general elections to any candidate. It would be "very unusual," Zingale says, for an endorsed candidate who accepts PAC money not to receive contributions; but how much often depends on the candidate's "need" and how important the race is.
Once it endorses a candidate, says Zingale, HRC sends out press releases to local media if the candidate thinks that will be helpful; sometimes, it assigns HRC staff to the candidate's campaign to help with voter registration and get-out-the-vote efforts. This year, HRC is training 26 young people whom it will pay stipends and place in crucial campaigns.

Three tough endorsements
Most of HRC's endorsements don't cause much controversy within the gay community. But some do, as demonstrated when a few activists interrupted a speech by Birch outside the GOP convention in August to chant "Dump Bilbray" -- a reference to HRC's backing of Republican Representative Brian Bilbray of San Diego.
In Long Beach, California, some activists say HRC was initially inclined to endorse only Republican Representative Steve Horn, an ENDA co-sponsor, for re-election until a local outcry convinced the organization to give its first-ever dual endorsement to both Horn and openly gay Democrat Rich Zbur.
Zingale says HRC's policy of backing supportive incumbents -- a policy designed to convince legislators that they will be rewarded for a pro-gay record -- "might have led" to an endorsement of Horn but that HRC was "so impressed" with Zbur's candidacy and "his promise as a candidate that we gave him our endorsement as well."
But Roberta Bennett, a Southern California lesbian activist and Zbur supporter, says that while local activists intellectually understand the reasons for HRC's action, "the emotional reality is that everybody out here is very disappointed, if not downright angry."
HRC has no formal process for seeking local groups' endorsement recommendations, but Zingale says the organization is "always open to input." Bennett says she is sure HRC was aware of local sentiment through a group to which both she and HRC board member Diane Abbitt belong -- ANGLE (Access Now for Gay and Lesbian Equality), which supports pro-gay candidates in Southern California.
"I don't believe in a dual endorsement," Bennett says, "because it's a lose-lose. You either pick Horn and take the heat, or pick Zbur and take the heat, and at least win on one of them. Now everybody's unhappy."
Zbur says the dual endorsement was a "creative way" out of HRC's dilemma.
"Frankly," says Zbur, "I understand the need they have to retain credibility on Capitol Hill."
But Rich Tafel, executive director of Log Cabin Republicans, says that since HRC usually backs pro-gay incumbents, the dual endorsement demonstrated a "double standard" for Republicans.
Zingale says that sometimes HRC actively solicits the views of local groups when making endorsement decisions but that HRC is best able to evaluate candidates based "on what they're doing today in Washington."
Another controversial endorsement for HRC this year was the nod for Torkildsen over Tierney. That, again, drew criticism from gay Democrats who cited Torkildsen's subsequent vote for DOMA.
Mark Merante, co-chair of Bay State Gay and Lesbian Democrats, says HRC is supporting Torkildsen even though Tierney's stance is better on gay issues -- for example, on same-sex marriage.
Dena Lebowitz, chair of the Lesbian and Gay Political Alliance of Massachusetts, which endorsed Tierney, says her group was never called by HRC.
Zingale says Torkildsen has been an invaluable supporter, organizing the first-ever hearing on ENDA and "leading the charge" against Republican US Representative Bob Dornan's attempt to oust service members with HIV infection.
"It would be a mistake for us," says Zingale, "to walk away from someone with a record of leadership like Torkildsen . . . because a challenger says he can do better."
Some activists -- and not just gay Republicans -- back HRC's position on Torkildsen.
In an on-line communication, New York activist Art Leonard wrote, "HRC's role as a combined endorsement and lobbying group is to employ a long-term strategy to get as good a climate for gay rights as possible in Congress.
"This may mean being supportive of moderate Republicans who will vote the right way on gay/AIDS issues much of the time," he wrote, "over Democratic challengers whose votes on gay issues will be correct even more frequently but whose chances of election are not as good."
Perhaps the most controversial choice HRC has made to date was the September endorsement of Kerry over Weld. The move drew sharp criticism from gay Republicans -- some of whom withdrew their support for the group. At least five Weld supporters have ended their membership in the Federal Club circle (donations of at least $1200 per year) because of the endorsement, according to Mark Goshko, president of the Massachusetts Log Cabin Club.
"HRC's failure to issue a dual endorsement in this race settles once and for all what many have always suspected -- that HRC is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Democratic National Committee," Goshko says. "I think that [the dual endorsement in the Horn/Zbur race] was a very smart thing to do and that's what they should have done here."
But Zingale says that HRC followed "established guidelines" when it issued a sole endorsement of Kerry. "John Kerry met our highest standards for endorsing an incumbent. He earned a 100 percent voting record -- including the fact that he was the only senator who was up for re-election to vote against DOMA," Zingale says. "Just as Peter Torkildsen earned our endorsement, so did John Kerry."
And HRC's endorsement seemed to be in step with the majority of gay and lesbian activists in Boston -- given the October 9 endorsements of Kerry by the Alliance, the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus, Bay State Democrats, and US Representative Gerry Studds. Despite the controversy, Zingale adds, "For me, this race, better than any in the country, illustrates how far we've come politically as a community. It is so clearly a win-win situation. Our hope is that more and more races . . . will look like this one."

Ahead of the pack

A version of this article originally appeared in the Washington Blade; it is reprinted by permission of the Blade.