Connect with us

Opinions

D.C. public funding for elections must be transparent

Hold candidates accountable for money received and spent

Published

on

public funding, gay news, Washington Blade

The D.C. City Council in its wisdom passed The Fair Elections Amendment Act of 2018 to provide public funds (taxpayer money) to those who decide to run for office in the District. Those eligible to participate in the program are candidates for Mayor, Attorney General, Chairman and Members of the Council, At-Large and Ward (13), and Members of the State Board of Education (9). This public money is available for both primaries and the general election.

From what I have observed it is a generous program and fairly easy for candidates to access, maybe even too easy to qualify for. Recently, a candidate who announced as an independent for a Ward Council seat tweeted he qualified for the program within 11 hours. My initial thought on seeing the tweet is any program that gives out city funds to candidates who qualify in less than a day may be worth taking a second look at.

This year we are having a three-stage contest for the Ward 2 council seat. First, there was a Democratic primary to see who would run for the full four-year term in November and then a special election to fill the remaining term of a member who had resigned. There were about 10 people running in those elections and from a cursory review the city gave out more than $1 million to those candidates to fund their races. As it turned out the winner of both the primary and special election was the one candidate who self-funded and didn’t participate in the program.

In the upcoming general election to take place on Nov. 3, there are 25 candidates who have filed to run for the two at-large seats open and 14 for the four Ward seats up. If they all apply and qualify for money from the program that will cost D.C. taxpayers a lot of money. One requirement for a candidate for an At-Large Council seat to qualify for the program is to get contributions from at least 250 small dollar contributors, which in the aggregate, total $12,000 and that will qualify them for $40,000 from the program. They can then continue to get matching funds up to about $308,000. Considering there are 25 potential candidates and even if they all don’t end up on the ballot this could get very expensive. The city could be paying out a lot of money for candidates who it is clear have no legitimate chance of winning.

If a candidate decides not to join this public financing scheme there are still limits on what they can raise from individuals or businesses. I am not sure they can raise enough from any individual or business to be considered bought.

All that being said I am in favor of public financing for campaigns. The issue for me is how it is done and how much money we give to candidates. To determine how this program is working it will be necessary for a full report to be submitted to the Council and available for the public to see on what the costs were for the entire scope of the 2020 election cycle. It needs detail on each candidate, their contributions to qualify for the program, how much they received, how much they spent and what they spent it on. Then we need to see if any money was returned to the system from candidates who didn’t use all they received. It would then be interesting to see a comparison with any candidate who didn’t enter the system and rather self-funded by raising their own contributions without matching funds. That will be the only way we can judge how successful the Fair Elections program is.

We have to also take into consideration this was an unusual year because of the pandemic so we will need to continue to follow this on a regular basis and then make adjustments to the program as necessary.

D.C. is clearly an interesting case study as there are only 24 major offices we contest elections for. Other offices we hold elections for, our congressional representative who has no vote, shadow offices, and the members of the local ANCs are not covered by this act.

Peter Rosenstein is a longtime LGBTQ rights and Democratic Party activist. He writes regularly for the Blade.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

Commentary

Adoption under suspicion

Italy and the US are two case studies

Published

on

The Coliseum in Rome on July 12, 2025. Italy is a case study of what can happen when the legal framework for adoption rights for same-sex couples is uncertain. (Washington Blade photo by Michael K. Lavers)

A right does not need to be banned to be restricted. Sometimes it only needs to be made uncertain.

That is what emerges from a closer examination of adoption access for same-sex couples across different countries. There is no broad legal rollback. What appears instead is a more subtle pattern: rights that remain on paper but become fragile, conditional, and uneven in practice.

Italy provides a clear example.

Since 2023, under the government of Giorgia Meloni, administrative decisions have limited the automatic recognition of both mothers in female same-sex couples, particularly in cases involving assisted reproduction abroad. In practice, many families have been forced into additional legal proceedings to validate relationships already established.

At the same time, Italy has intensified its opposition to surrogacy, extending penalties even to those who pursue it outside the country. Human rights organizations have warned that these measures disproportionately affect LGBTQ families, particularly male couples.

The judiciary, however, has pushed back.

In 2025, the Constitutional Court ruled that a non-biological mother cannot be excluded from legal recognition when there is a shared parental project. It also removed a long-standing restriction that prevented single individuals from accessing international adoption.

Italy has not eliminated these rights. But it has made them unstable.

When a right depends on litigation, judicial timelines, or shifting interpretations, it is no longer fully guaranteed.

In the United States, the structure differs, but the outcome converges.

At the federal level, same-sex couples can adopt. Yet the system varies widely across states.

Data from the Movement Advancement Project show that while some states explicitly prohibit discrimination in adoption, others provide no clear protections. In several states, licensed agencies can refuse to work with same-sex couples based on religious objections.

Access, therefore, is shaped not only by law, but by geography, institutions, and applied standards.

Research from the Williams Institute further complicates the narrative. Same-sex couples adopt and foster children at higher rates than different-sex couples.

The contradiction is clear.

Child welfare is invoked, yet the pool of available families is reduced. Faith is cited, yet it is used as a filter within publicly funded systems.

The consequences are tangible
children remain longer in care
processes become more complex
families face unequal scrutiny

What is happening in Italy and the United States is not isolated. Across parts of Europe, conservative governments have advanced legal frameworks that reinforce traditional definitions of family while limiting recognition of diverse ones.

Adoption is not always addressed directly. But the impact accumulates.

Options are restricted while the language of protection is used to justify it.

There is no need to soften it.

This is not only a debate about family models. It is a decision about who is recognized as family and who must continue asking for permission.

That is not neutral.

It is political.

And when a right depends on where you live, who evaluates you, or how hard you are willing to fight for it, that right is already being weakened.

Continue Reading

Opinions

ROSENSTEIN: Chavous for Democratic D.C. Council-at-Large

Committed to fighting for statehood for our 700,000 residents

Published

on

(Blade file image by Aram Vartian)

Kevin Chavous said, “I’m running for D.C. Council At-Large because Washingtonians deserve leadership focused on improving their everyday quality of life. Throughout my career, I’ve worked on the practical business of city government, and public policy, focused on solving real problems, and making government work better for the people it serves.”  

Kevin’s experience spans safer streets, affordable housing, early education and school readiness, workforce and economic opportunity, support for seniors, and the day-to-day operations of city government. The knowledge he brings to the office is grounded in experience, clear-eyed oversight, and a commitment to delivering results. His platform outlines his priorities and approach, but as he has said, “it’s not the end of the conversation. I believe the best solutions come from listening and working together.”

Kevin believes safe streets are the foundation of strong neighborhoods. He is committed to having Washingtonians feel secure in their neighborhoods, and working to ensure all public safety efforts are smart, fair, and effective. To Kevin that means an approach focusing on enforcement that works, prevention that matters, and a range of services to stop crime before it happens. Kevin supports smart, effective policing, with a focus on violent crime, and getting repeat offenders off the streets. To do this he will work to strengthen community policing with the aim of rebuilding trust in every community, which will improve neighborhood-level safety. He will introduce legislation to expand targeted mental health and crisis-response services. The goal again, to prevent violence before it occurs. He will work to see government coordinates youth diversion, workforce, and support programs, which can intervene early, and reduce recidivism.

Kevin understands housing stability is essential for families, seniors, and workers, to stay and thrive in D.C. His housing priorities focus on increasing the supply of affordable housing, helping people build long-term stability in the neighborhoods they call home. He will work to increase the affordable housing supply through zoning updates, ADUs, and adaptive reuse of vacant properties. He will submit legislation to strengthen programs that help first-time, and longtime homeowners, buy and then stay in their homes. He will work to expand permanent supportive housing and targeted rental assistance for vulnerable residents, and protect tenants ensuring housing laws are enforced clearly, and consistently. 

Kevin believes “every child should enter school ready to learn, with the support needed to succeed from day one. Early investment pays lifelong dividends – for families and for the District.” He will work on the Council to expand early childhood education, and school-readiness programs, citywide. He supports quality and affordable childcare for all children, birth to three, including seeing students begin the school year healthy, by supporting access to medical and dental screenings for all children. 

Kevin knows economic opportunity allows families and communities to thrive. He will fight to see D.C.’s growth creates real pathways to good jobs, strong local businesses, and long-term stability for residents in every ward. His approach connects workforce training, worker protections, and neighborhood investment, so that growth benefits the people who live here. He will work to expand job training, apprenticeships, and career pipelines tied to high-demand fields, including construction, healthcare, and infrastructure. He will fight to strengthen First Source and local hiring requirements, so D.C. residents benefit directly from major development projects such as the new RFK site. He will demand the government protect workers by enforcing wage, safety, and labor standards, and holding bad actors accountable. He will introduce legislation to invest more in neighborhood-based economic development, including small businesses, BIDs, and commercial-to-residential revitalization. 

Kevin has spoken out for the seniors in our city saying, “seniors built this city – and D.C. must ensure they can age with dignity, security, and independence.” Kevin will work to expand property tax relief and housing supports, so seniors can age in place. He will work with the AG to strengthen protections against fraud, exploitation, and predatory practices targeting seniors. He will support and work to expand nutrition, transportation, and community-based programs, that reduce the isolation many seniors face.

Kevin’s experience working for the Council, in the oversight role he had, gives him a practical understanding of what works, what doesn’t, and how to fix it – without delay. He will use that experience as he works to strengthen agency oversight to ensure laws are implemented as intended, and to improve service delivery by fixing bottlenecks, and outdated processes. Ensuring clear standards and accountability in inspections, enforcement, and permitting. Kevin will demand government use technology responsibly to improve efficiency, while protecting residents from fraud and abuse.

For all these reasons and more, I support Kevin Chavous. The more includes the fact Kevin has spoken out clearly, about the need to fight the antisemitism, Islamophobia, racism, sexism and homophobia, all once again rearing their ugly heads in our society. He will fight to keep ICE out of our city, and to keep immigrants safe. He is committed to fighting for statehood for the 700,000 residents of the District of Columbia, while fighting for budget and legislative autonomy as we work toward statehood.  

Again, I urge the voters of D.C. to cast their ballot for Kevin Chavous for DC Council-at-Large.


Peter Rosenstein is a longtime LGBTQ rights and Democratic Party activist. 

Continue Reading

Opinions

Tennessee’s Charlie Kirk Act is harmful

Free speech doesn’t always go both ways

Published

on

Tennessee State Capitol Building (Photo by SeanPavonePhoto/Bigstock)

The state of Tennessee has a long history of political discrimination against its 225,000 LGBTQ citizens. In 2019, a district attorney remarked that gay people should not receive domestic violence protections, and in 2023, for five months in Murfreesboro, homosexual acts in public were illegal, prompting a federal judge to have the ordinance removed.

In 2022, I briefly lived in Tennessee and played rugby with the LGBTQ-inclusive Nashville Grizzlies, who welcomed me with open arms as an ally, teaching me that rugby isn’t always about winning or losing – it’s about creating a safe, inclusive, and joyful space for people looking to feel welcome.

In Tennessee, where 87% of the LGBTQ community has experienced workplace discrimination, and where, each year, countless bills that target their identities are introduced, it can be difficult to feel welcome. The Nashville Grizzlies played rugby with the exuberance of newly liberated people who were finally able to be their authentic selves. I was inspired by their brotherhood. 

When I read about the Charlie Kirk Act being passed last week, I felt a visceral need to write about it. 

While the bill is presented as legislation that strengthens free speech and encourages greater public discourse on campuses, it would effectively allow a school to expel a student who felt compelled to walk out on a speaker with hateful views, forcing marginalized groups to sit through existentially harmful rhetoric. 

And ironically, it doesn’t seem like free speech goes both ways — a Tennessee University administrator lost their job last year for sharing negative views on Charlie Kirk, and countless LGBTQ books have been banned not only in schools, but even in adult libraries.

We like to think that as time moves forward, progress is inevitable, but this isn’t always the case. In a 2023 study, 27% of LGBTQ Tennesseans and 43% of transgender people in the state have considered relocating, forcing them to reckon with leaving home in pursuit of a better life. Nashville Grizzlies Captain Ethan Thatcher told me, “I’ve thought about leaving Tennessee. Hard not to when the government does not want you here. What has kept me here is the Grizzlies community, and the thought that existence is resistance.”

Everybody in our country deserves to feel safe. I thought that was a core value of the American ethos, but apparently, in some states, certain groups are welcome while others are ostracized. 

Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee should reject the Charlie Kirk Act.


Tyler Kania is a 2025 IAN Book of the Year nominated author and civil rights activist from Columbia, Conn.

Continue Reading

Popular