It is possible D.C. politicians will approve a plan to allocate an estimated $20 million and likely more every four-year election cycle, and additional millions in government administrative costs, for their re-election campaigns and those of other candidates.
Previous proposals to provide campaign financing with tax dollars went nowhere in 2013 and 2015. A new attempt introduced earlier this year, however, is sponsored by a majority of legislators who may put District politicians on the public dole in financing their campaigns.
Most astoundingly audacious about this effort is the prospect that officials may approve taxpayer funding of campaigns for elections in which a sizable percentage of registered voters are barred from voting.
If public funds are to be distributed to candidates for their personal campaigns, the public must be allowed to fully participate in the election process. Current D.C. law, unlike surrounding states and across the country, does not allow independents, self-enrolled as “No Party,” to vote in primary elections restricted to those registered with an individual party.
Nearly one-in-five on the voter rolls citywide, and in some areas comprising fully or nearly one-quarter of those registered, are prohibited from participating in primaries. In the District, the eventual winner is almost always determined in advance of the general election due to single party domination.
Before considering this self-aggrandizing scheme, reforming the city’s increasingly archaic “closed primary” system must first occur. There are a variety of options for correcting this anomaly – whether utilizing open primary, non-partisan primary, proportional voting, run-off election, other models or a combination.
Until the city’s outlier election set-up is revised, D.C. Council members should be shamed from benefiting themselves with public funds.
Perversely, by encouraging potentially larger numbers of candidates, a touted goal of distributing public monies to candidates, the current D.C. election system will produce winners accruing an even smaller minority of votes among an expanded multiplicity of contenders.
The reality is incumbents greatly benefit from public financing, as they are most competent and capable of raising voluminous donations for which matching funds of up to 600 percent would be bestowed under the proposed law.
When examining jurisdictions with public funding, the actual effect is notably nominal – most incumbents are re-elected and the voting patterns of elected officials do not change. Sure, a socialist or two may win an election here or there, and there are arguable merits to public financing of campaigns, yet the benefits are vastly overstated and don’t alter the political landscape as hoped-for by self-interested proponent groups and candidates eager for funding.
Independent PACs also proliferate, while labor unions and small special interest policy groups manipulate the rules, and carve-outs, for outsized influence.
What is most jaw-dropping is the suggestion that a city election board incapable of enforcing existing rules governing campaign finances will suddenly acquire the ability to administer a massive new public funding program without merely replacing one set of abuses for another.
Rather than eliminating the perception of “pay to play” politics, achievable by simpler means and enactment of both improved transparency and competent enforcement of existing regulations, a range of new problems are created.
Based on past performance, government will prove incapable of ferreting out fraud and preventing criminality. The minority of states and few cities with public financing are plagued with fraud, abuse, and new forms of corruption as candidates game the system or conspire to illegally acquire taxpayer monies.
There’s also outrage when candidates espousing unpopular positions are fueled by the tax dollars of disapproving residents. In New York City this year a Council candidate campaigning against “greedy Jewish landlords” qualified for $100,000 in public funds. Will LGBT taxpayers countenance giving tax monies to anti-gay candidates, those opposing transgender protections or attempting to weaken equality measures?
Public financing will only further expose and exacerbate an indefensible voting process in the nation’s capital. The D.C. Council should abandon public funding until they fix the city’s election system.
Politicians should stop using children as political punching bags
Let us hold leaders accountable for their vicious self-centeredness
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’s recent signing of the “Don’t Say Gay” bill was a body blow to the LGBTQ+ community — particularly for those of us who trust in our schools to provide a safe and welcoming space for our children.
But it was what the governor’s press secretary, Christina Pushaw, tweeted earlier in March that made my heart leap into my throat. “If you’re against the Anti-Grooming bill, you are probably a groomer.”
As the former executive director of GLSEN, I know a dog whistle when I hear it. And I also know that politicians who have ambitions of running for higher office, like DeSantis, choose their words extremely carefully.
DeSantis is deliberately activating a cultural fear tactic to scare schools and educators away from providing LGBTQ+ children and their families with potentially life-saving support. And unfortunately he is far from alone in going down this dangerous path of spouting hate for political leverage.
Throughout the historic Supreme Court confirmation hearings of Ketanji Brown Jackson, we saw Sens. Ted Cruz, Josh Hawley, and others bring the specter of child indoctrination into the national discussion in the context of race. In doing so, they were following the lead of Christopher Rufo, a conservative activist-journalist known for creating an all-purpose header for all things controversial out of the label “critical race theory” (CRT).
This began to take shape last year with the intentional mischaracterization of schools implementing diversity, equity and inclusion programs as attempts to indoctrinate our kids with divisive leftist ideals. Starting with Hawley’s attacks on Judge Jackson, they upped the ante by accusing schools of “grooming” children to be anti-racist — this time drawing from the QAnon playbook.
Radical politicians push legislation like the “Don’t Say Gay” bill, or vile rhetoric like the insinuations about Judge Jackson, in order to further their agenda of dismantling our children’s access to a good, truly multicultural public education by sowing confusion and distrust, as was openly stated by Rufo at a speaking event at Hillsdale College earlier in April. All the while, they create a deeply dangerous environment for some of our most vulnerable children.
And their timing could not be more dire. This deluge of bad policymaking and shrill rhetoric is happening at the exact moment when we are experiencing a national mental health crisis among our youth. Nearly four out of 10 teens reported feeling “persistently sad or hopeless,” according to CDC data — a 40 percent increase from pre-pandemic levels.
Black and LGBTQ+ students in particular are more likely than their peers to have attempted suicide, and when politicians use them as political chips to be played, it compounds those risks. Never mind the fact that schools’ efforts to undo racism and anti-LGBTQ+ bias and violence is itself an investment in these children’s survival. Black adolescents experience multiple instances of racial discrimination every day, one study found, with real consequences for their mental health. Schools need to play an active role in rectifying that.
In my 20 years at GLSEN, I wrote far too many condolence letters to parents who lost a child to suicide. Some politicians see no harm in shaming and stigmatizing vulnerable children.
We’ve seen lately this onrush of harmful, self-centered behavior from those in a position of public trust. But on the other end of the spectrum, is Spencer Cox: the Republican governor of Utah who recently issued a brilliant letter explaining his veto of an anti-trans sports bill passed by the state legislature.
Vetoing the bill, which would have banned trans girls from participating in women’s sports in public schools, was surely a politically unpopular move in a deep-red state. But after thoughtfully considering the issues, reviewing key research, and weighing the competing needs of stakeholders, Cox took a stand in defense of some of Utah’s most vulnerable children.
For all those who rise to the calling of public service, there’s a choice to be made. Gov. Cox made the choice to safeguard the most vulnerable youth in his state despite the political implications. I sincerely hope that in this critical moment, more of our country’s leaders will follow his example.
And should it take more than their own consciences to do so, let us all hold leaders accountable for the impact of their cynical/vicious/immoral self-centeredness on all of our children.
Eliza Byard is a senior adviser to the Campaign for Our Shared Future, a leading global expert on LGBTQ+ issues in K-12 education and youth development, and served as executive director of GLSEN from 2008-2021.
Where does wrongful detention of Brittney Griner go from here?
She will inevitably be labeled a hostage
It seems like years rather than weeks ago that American political prisoner, Trevor Reed, was released from Russia in a prisoner swap. It also seems like years since an American citizen, basketball superstar Brittney Griner, was taken into custody in Moscow’s Sheremetyevo airport for allegedly having hashish oil in her possession.
We now know what many of us believed all along – that Brittney Griner was, in the far too late proclamation by the U.S. government, “wrongfully detained.” In diplomacy-speak, wrongfully detained is synonymous with politically detained, which is super close to what will soon enough inevitably happen – calling Brittney Griner a hostage.
Since the beginning of Griner’s detention, I have done dozens of print, radio, TV, and related interviews, and I have a pretty clear view of how and why we got here.
As I wrote around six weeks ago, if we read between the lines of what’s being said in traditional and social media, we can extract three key reasons why the Griner situation isn’t getting the attention that it should be and would be if it was a different athlete.
The first reason is that Brittney Griner is not a terribly high-profile athlete.
This is patently untrue. As I have been commenting from the minute we learned that she was taken into custody by the Russians, Griner was absolutely the highest-profile American athlete that Russia could have taken into custody as they were preparing for their brutal invasion of Ukraine.
The only other high-profile athletes playing in Russia or transiting through at that time were the very few American players in Russia’s top hockey league, the KHL. None are superstars in their sport, as Griner is.
The second argument for why Griner isn’t getting the attention she should be is that she is LGBTQ.
I have argued that this is a reasonably good hypothesis. It just seems that a straight athlete would be getting a lot more attention and public sympathy than Griner has, in part, yet not in full, because of her sexual orientation. That’s a remarkably harsh position to have to take in 2022, yet it’s clear that Griner doesn’t fit the mold of what many Americans see as that all-American athlete. That one’s sexual or gender orientation should drive the American public’s level of sympathy for one of their own top athletes is a shame, but here we are.
The third and most commonly cited reason for Brittany Griner getting less attention than another athlete in a similar situation is that she’s Black.
This argument holds little weight with me. Yes, it makes sense that in comparison to a high-profile white athlete, some people are simply going to care less about a Black athlete. Again, that’s a harsh analysis, yet not unaligned with many things going on in the nation today.
But I think this is a reductive argument that crumbles under the weight of the analogy that I usually use during TV and radio broadcasts about the Griner case – and that is, what if this was Kyrie Irving?
I like to use Kyrie Irving as an analogy because he is a highly controversial Black athlete. Obviously, NBA players don’t have to have second jobs in places like Russia, Turkey, and China, to make ends meet, as the WNBA women do. But just imagine that Kyrie Irving was traveling alone through Moscow airport. If Irving had been taken into custody by the Russians, I can guarantee that this would be front-page news not just in the sports section but on the front page of all significant papers practically every day. That simply hasn’t been the case with Brittney Griner.
Every day, I am asked where this goes from here. With Griner’s May 19 hearing delayed “one month” (though at the time of writing, no date has been set), I remained convinced of two things: that this goes to a worse place than we are now and that it progresses painfully slowly.
As to the first point, to maximize leverage over the United States, it’s likely that Griner will end up somewhere like a Russian labor camp before she ever steps back into the United States. While Russia does not follow the Rule of Law, it would be neither legally nor politically expedient to just hold Griner in a Moscow jail or prison indefinitely. They need to make her situation worse to turn up the urgency of the case for the American government.
But this indeed won’t happen overnight. As I’ve also been saying all along, the next hearing date will also be delayed, OR we will learn through a TASS Russian media release that Griner was tried, found guilty of all charges, and sentenced (see labor camp, above).
As to what each of us can do, my advice remains the same: Keep talking about it. Make this Brittney as viral as Britney Spears was a year ago. Just as Britney Spears’ freedom from her conservatorship was turbo-charged by the #FreeBritney hashtag, let’s #FreeBrittney now.
This is significantly less trite than it sounds. There is no indication that the American government doesn’t want you to forget about Brittney Griner. As former hostage Jason Rezaian discussed on an excellent recent Washington Post podcast, he always “calls BS” on those parties, saying we should keep detentions such as Griner’s out of the public spotlight. He advocates being as loud as we can be on this, which is why I keep doing interviews on this issue as much as possible.
Ultimately, Brittney Griner will be a political prisoner until the United States and Russia can decide, in crass basketball terms, on a fair player trade. On Friday, we learned that the two sides might actually be in discussions now for a trade involving Griner for notorious convicted arms trafficker Viktor Bout, aka the “Merchant of Death.”
Unless this can re-enter and remain in the public spotlight, along with any pressure on the government, Britney Griner will not get the treatment she deserves as one of the greatest basketball players of her generation. That the massive disparity between how NBA and WNBA players are compensated laid the foundation for her to be in this position is the harsh reality these leagues face today. Yet it pales compared to the uncertain reality Griner faces today in a Moscow jail.
A Pulitzer Prize-nominated writer, Aron Solomon, JD, is the chief legal analyst for Today’s Esquire. He has taught entrepreneurship at McGill University and the University of Pennsylvania, and was elected to Fastcase 50, recognizing the top 50 legal innovators in the world.
Leave no one behind: Building an LGBTQ+ movement for all
A just society is only achievable by investing in dignity of the marginalized
Despite the expansion of LGBTQ+ civil rights and liberties in D.C., some of which we proudly attribute to GLAA’s stalwart activism for the past 51 years, the most vulnerable members of our community continue to suffer from poverty, homelessness, criminalization, discrimination, social isolation, and preventable death. A jaw-dropping 40% of homeless youth in the U.S. identify as LGBTQ+, LGBTQ+ people experience hunger at twice the rate of straight people, and right here in D.C., the Office of Human Rights reports that employers are more likely to interview a less-qualified cisgender job applicant than a more-qualified transgender applicant.
So for our 2022 candidate ratings, GLAA decided to emphasize that racial and economic justice are LGBTQ+ justice issues. While we recognize the importance of openly LGBTQ+ candidates, we know one’s identity does not indicate where they stand on critical issues. Something many of us have learned the hard way, and something GLAA leadership recognizes not championing sooner as a mistake. What matters most is a candidate’s demonstrated record and vision to support the LGBTQ+ community in its entirety.
It is not enough for candidates to respond only to the needs of those who historically have held the most power in the LGBTQ+ community, particularly white cisgender gay men, in order to tout support of the entire community. The LGBTQ+ community is so many different people, and it is time we push candidates to consider and address us in our entirety. For too long, many LGBTQ+ people have felt rejected and betrayed by our community’s movement priorities, narratives about what our community stands for, and decisions on who is valued and who is selected to represent or lead us. And, while GLAA understands no one politician or organization can erase these community divides, we aim to be intentional in our approach to dismantle that which stands in our entire community’s way toward liberation. That is why, in 2022 we decided to rate candidates on their responses and records of support on issues that impact the most marginalized members of the LGBTQ+ community. None of us is free until all of us are free.
Throughout GLAA’s history we have focused on securing LGBTQ+ rights, which have mostly strengthened the legal protections of people privileged enough to take advantage of them. GLAA decided to focus the Leave No One Behind: 2022 Election Guide and questionnaire on racial and economic justice with an LGBTQ+ lens. We did this to build on our victories, such as successfully advocating for the defunding of the Metropolitan Police Department’s vice squad in the 1970s, and to learn from our mistakes.
It is our belief that a just, peaceful, and vibrant society is only achievable by actively investing in the security and dignity of the poor and marginalized members of all our communities. Our questionnaire intentionally acts in solidarity with D.C. anti-poverty, anti-stigma, and anti-overdose campaigns, which are largely led by trans and queer people of color.
Ratings are on a scale of +/-10 points: yes/no responses on questionnaire (+/-2); substance of response (+/-4); and candidate’s public record (+/-4). Candidates earned partial credit for the yes/no category if they partially agreed with the question. Four issues received more than 91% agreement: increasing the affordable housing stock for the poorest residents, housing people using government funded vouchers, fully funding the Office of Human Rights, and better oversight to improve conditions in the DC Jail.
Three issues received 70-79% candidates’ support, and over 90% when including candidates who issued partial support: Repealing the sub-minimum wage, decriminalization of drug use, and reducing the population of D.C. jail by 30%.
Finally, the least supported policies were decriminalization of consensual sex work and divesting from the Metropolitan Police Department and investing in violence prevention and recidivism prevention programs. Even still, there was remarkable consensus: over 2/3 or 66% of candidates who issued total or partial support.
We are encouraged by the remarkable level of consensus on all of our issues, signaling that D.C. is ready for transformative change that at its core addresses the District’s current poverty, unaffordable housing, community and police-based violence, and overdose crises.
GLAA is excited to see more LGBTQ+ people on ballots. More exciting, however, is the number of politicians with fully realized and integrated LGBTQ+ policies in their platforms. Policies that extend across race and class lines. GLAA firmly believes all people, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity, can be stewards of LGBTQ+ liberation. It is our hope that readers find these ratings not as endorsements, but as a starting point to imagine what is possible if local officials are guided by D.C. residents to use their elected power to create new possibilities that leave no one behind.
This opinion piece was signed by the 2022 Gay and Lesbian Activists Alliance board of directors.
Gay man shot to death on NYC subway train
Vandals target 2 Rehoboth Beach LGBTQ-owned businesses
Pride Run returns after two-year hiatus
Mattachine Society of D.C. donates documents to William & Mary
Lesbian couple hopeful Md. law requires Christian school to enroll son
Republican Pa. governor nominee opposes LGBTQ rights
How a pro-transgender memo sneaked through the Trump administration
Consider buying a beach house with a group of friends
U.S. Army considers allowing LGBTQ troops to transfer from hostile states
Diputado salvadoreño habla públicamente su homosexualidad
Sign Up for Blade eBlasts
Pennsylvania7 days ago
Brian Sims, four other LGBTQ candidates lose races in Pa.
Arts & Entertainment6 days ago
Rehoboth Beach summer 2022: ‘Let’s choose joy!’
News7 days ago
Karine Jean-Pierre on her firsts: ‘I am a Black, gay, immigrant woman’
Florida6 days ago
“Don’t Say Gay” student leader says school stopping run for student leadership
Opinions6 days ago
GLAA has lost its way and should close
Travel5 days ago
‘A piece of heaven’ awaits in Easton, Md.
District of Columbia7 days ago
Capital Stonewall Democrats backs Robert White over Bowser
Opinions6 days ago
Leave no one behind: Building an LGBTQ+ movement for all