Comments on: Gay Facebook co-founder criticized for failing to give to N.C. fight

By: Michael Heron

Michael Heron — Wed, 02 May 2012 18:18:59 +0000

@Steven:

If there is no difference b/t a 20 point loss and a 2 point loss and there is no impact on morale on our adversaries from dramatic underperformance, then it would be the first time in politics that such distinctions didn’t matter. Right now, NOM is crowing over a NY special election that they are likely to lose in NY. Why? Because they claim that their involvement turned an expected lopsided win for the Dem into at best a narrow win. They claim momentum even in a defeat. So no, not all losses are equal.

By: Steven

Steven — Wed, 02 May 2012 14:42:39 +0000

Michael Heron – a loss is a loss in NC. Shrinking the spread does nothing to demoralize our enemies from going into other states. Their hatred isn’t moderated by the results of any election.

By: Michael Heron

Michael Heron — Wed, 02 May 2012 04:44:19 +0000

One response to those who say that Hughes’s meager giving is excusable because we are likely to lose in NC. There is more than one way to lose. You can lose by 25 percent and be devastated for a generation or you can lose narrowly (as happened in CA and ME) and be energized for a rematch. In the case of NC, a solid conservative state in the Bible belt, it would be a serious blow to the other side if we kept their vote in the 50s. They won South Carolina with over 70 percent and numerous other southern states such as LA and MS with over 80 percent. If they “win” NC with, say, 55%, that would be an outcome that would chill their bones and prove the point that opposition is eroding everywhere. It will boost our side for the other 4 fights, even though the amendment itself would have passed.

By: Michael Heron

Michael Heron — Wed, 02 May 2012 04:36:09 +0000

I applaud the Blade for covering this. Hughes is worth anywhere from $500 million to $1 billion, depending upon the valuation of Facebook. And he gave $10,000 and now does nothing but “hopes it is defeated”? Disgraceful. It is absolutely newsworthy and you are right to cover it. It is time for the gay press to look at the actions of key individuals and organizations to determine whether and to what extent they are truly helping and are worthy of the veneration that they have enjoyed.

I strongly urge the Blade to do a story on the role of HRC and NGLTF in these campaigns. There is a discernible pattern to this involvement. In each case, these groups provide limited cash and “loaners” of staff. But it is always kept at a level that is insufficient for the local campaign to achieve a decisive edge. In Maine for example, the two groups donated several hundred thousand dollars (out of a total campaign effort of $4.5 million). There is no question that this was helpful, but did this really reflect what these 2 groups could have done? It certainly didn’t match NOM’s efforts to help the other side.

The 2 groups together bring in approximately $50 million. What was so terribly important in 2009 that all they could do for Maine was several hundred thousand dollars? The end result was that while our side did outraise the other side, there was no decisive advantage. At the end of the day, we achieved only a 1.5:1 fundraising edge, not enough to win.

We are seeing the same pattern in NC: limited help, staff loaners and a less-than-decisive fundraising edge. There is every reason we will see the same pattern repeat in the other 4 batleground states later this year. These groups need to open up their treasure chests and actually make use of the money that is sent their way. Please cover this story.

By: Willy Braxton

Willy Braxton — Wed, 02 May 2012 02:46:38 +0000

Stop counting other people’s money! Chris Hughes’ September 9th letter drew national attention to what was happening in North Carolina while the gay press/blogs slept.

Now that the Amendment One vote is too close to call, people are trying to setup gay leaders who didn’t give money for blame. When the vote comes out to be 51/49, reporters will be ready to say “If only Chris Hughes gave X amount, we would have won.

By: Adam Feldman

Adam Feldman — Tue, 01 May 2012 19:21:19 +0000

Chris Hughes has been an incredibly generous supporter of gay causes, and has already given time and money to this. If he now chooses to put his resources elsewhere, well, they’re his resources and that’s his decision. This would-be public shaming reflects poorly on the campaign and the blade. Pick on our enemies, please, not our best friends.

By: Steven

Steven — Tue, 01 May 2012 19:02:00 +0000

This is a dangerous road to head down thinking you have the right to direct how someone spends their money. Most major donors have lost a significant amount on ALL 30 ballot measures that have failed to help the LGBT community. Let’s face it, most people would have agreed that NC had no chance. I certainly hope they do defeat Amendment 1 so we can export the strategy to other states. In the interim, incendiary articles attacking donors will accomplish nothing. Tim Gill, the most generous donor to gay causes hasn’t given either. Are we going to attack him to, despite the hundreds of millions of dollars he’s given? He’s by far the most strategic thinker in the movement. The polling must be worse than the referendum in Alaska which he gave money to for him to pass this one up.

By: mark davis

mark davis — Tue, 01 May 2012 18:44:41 +0000

Not only is it in poor taste but it’s also poor politics to bite the hand that has fed and will feed again. That alone tells me that the organization running the fight is not worthy of political dollars. We lost prop 8 in California due primarily to poor organization. You couldn’t have beat the money out of me near the when they told all the doubled degree people begging to help to go stand out in the middle of boystown with flyers preaching to the choir.

By: Aaron

Aaron — Tue, 01 May 2012 18:34:39 +0000

Chris Johnson, you’re an [EXPLETIVE REMOVED]. Shame on you and the Blade for publishing this trash.

By: Bruce Majors

Bruce Majors — Tue, 01 May 2012 17:39:56 +0000

This is the second such article. An earlier article detailed Stryker’s, who did donate to this, and his Arcus Foundation’s, shift in giving away from many of the gay charities they have given to before.

I suspect they would all do better to follow Peter Thiel’s example. Instead of funding the gay political class, give money to very young entrepreneurs and inventors, even artists and social entrepreneurs, so they can start businesses and careers even without or before going to college. Or start gay friendly alternative schools and home schooling or on line GED programs, so gay kids bullied at state monopoly schools would have school choice denied them by the educrat cartel and the government school system.

Fewer teen suicides, more gay millionaires. Fewer gay bureaucrats.