Connect with us

National

Meet Baldwin’s opponent: Tommy Thompson

Former Wis. guv wins Republican nomination

Published

on

Former Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson (photo public domain)

The build up over whom lesbian U.S. Senate candidate Tammy Baldwin will face in the general election came to an end Tuesday night when Wisconsin voters gave the GOP nomination to former Gov. Tommy Thompson.

The Associated Press called the election for Thompson at around 11:30 in the evening. According to WisconsinVote.org — a project of Wisconsin Public Radio and Wisconsin Public Television — Thompson had around 34 percent of the vote.

The GOP candidate who came closest was hedge fund manager Eric Hovde, who had 30.9 percent of the vote. Former U.S. Rep. Mark Neumann had 22.8 percent while Wisconsin Assembly Speaker Jeff Fitzgerald had 12.4 percent.

SEE WHO MAY BE FILLING TAMMY BALDWIN’S HOUSE SEAT NEXT YEAR.

On the same night, Baldwin officially claimed the Democratic nomination in her pursuit of the seat that Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wis.) is vacating at the end of this year, putting her in a position to become the first openly gay person elected to the Senate.

Thompson has a long history of service in public office. He served as Wisconsin’s governor from from 1987 to 2001 and was secretary of health and human services under former President George W. Bush. In 2008, Thompson sought the Republican nomination to run for the White House, but dropped out early in his bid.

Thompson’s victory in the Republican primary is probably the worst outcome for Baldwin because the former governor is popular in his state and was seen as a moderate candidate with the greatest appeal to the mainstream voters. Still, he didn’t have the self-financing capability of Hovde, who funded 92 percent of his campaign with millions of his own money.

In a statement issued on the night of the primary, Baldwin tore into Thompson, saying he’ll “stand with those who already have too much power and influence in Washington.”

“I will fight to do what’s right for the middle class and Thompson will put those at the very top and the big monied special interests in Washington ahead of Wisconsin’s hard working families,” Baldwin said. “I will take on these powerful interests in Washington, and in the Senate, I will stand up for Wisconsin’s middle class, as I always have.”

Among the policies that Baldwin said she’ll push for include a “Made in Wisconsin” manufacturing economy; tax cuts for small business to fuel job creation; ending tax breaks for outsourcing and giving companies tax incentives to create jobs within the United States.

“Tommy Thompson supports the policies of the past,” Baldwin said. “Policies that have failed. Policies from the past that crashed our economy, and got us into our fiscal mess in the first place. He believes we should slash the very investments we need to move our economy forward, in education, innovation, and infrastructure — all while cutting taxes for those at the very top.”

Recent polls have put Baldwin either dead-even with Thompson or him with a single-digit lead. In a CBS/NYT/Quinnipiac poll published last week, Baldwin ties Thompson, 47-47. In a Marquette University poll, Thompson leads Baldwin 48-43.

Still, Baldwin is in good position to take on Thompson in terms of fundraising; she’s nearly trebled the funds the GOP candidate has raised. According to Federal Election Commission reports, Baldwin has $7.1 million in net receipts, $4.7 million in net expenditures and $3.2 million in cash on hand. None of her net receipts are the result of self-financing.

In comparison, Thompson has $2.5 million in net receipts, $2.1 million in net expenditures and $198,000 in cash on hand. Around $133,000, or five percent, of his net receipts are the result of contributions to his own campaign.

The Republican primary fell on the same day that LPAC, the lesbian Super PAC launched by Chicago Cubs co-owner Laura Ricketts, announced it has endorsed Baldwin and would match every dollar that individuals give to her campaign through the Super PAC up to $50,000. That means the group has a goal of raising $100,000 for Baldwin.

Arguably, Thompson was the least opposed to LGBT rights of the four major Republican candidates in the running. During an interview with Wisconsin’s CBS 58 earlier this year, he said marriage should be left to the states and he backs the Defense of Marriage Act, but stopped short of endorsing a Federal Marriage Amendment for the U.S. Constitution.

“I believe very strongly in the Defense of the Marriage Act,” Thompson said. “Marriage is one man and one woman. I support that. That’s the federal law. I’m a little gun shy of people saying, ‘We got to have constitutional amendments for this or that. I happen to like our Constitution, and, I think, you should not be going around amending constitutions.”

During a 2008 Republican presidential debate, Thompson said “yes” when questioned whether employers should be able fire people if they’re gay, but later said he answered the question incorrectly and doesn’t believe in discrimination. Thompson said he backs Wisconsin’s statewide law against discrimination against gays — enacted in 1982 and the first-ever in the country — but stopped short of saying he’d support the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.

“I didn’t hear the question properly and I apologize,” Thompson said. “It’s not my position. There should be no discrimination in the workplace and I have never believed that. And, in fact, Wisconsin has one of the first laws, which I supported.”

As secretary of health and human services, Thompson headed Bush’s domestic effort against HIV/AIDS, renewing the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS, announcing approval of rapid testing and directing funds to confront the epidemic. But Thompson also worked for a president who touted abstinence-only education and remained silent on gay men and condoms for much of his administration.

On the other hand, as the first non-incumbent openly gay person elected to the U.S. House, Baldwin not only supported, but has taken the lead on pro-LGBT legislation and helped guide it through Congress. Baldwin voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2004 and 2006. In later years, she voted for hate crimes protections legislation, a sexual orientation-only version of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal.

CORRECTION: An initial version of this article incorrectly referred to Tammy Baldwin as the first openly gay person to have a major party nomination in a bid for a U.S. Senate seat. That distinction actually goes to Ed Flanagan of Vermont, whom the Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund endorsed in 2000. Flanagan lost his bid to incumbent Jim Jeffords, who was a Republican at the time. The Blade regrets the error.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

State Department

Rubio mum on Hungary’s Pride ban

Lawmakers on April 30 urged secretary of state to condemn anti-LGBTQ bill, constitutional amendment

Published

on

Secretary of State Marco Rubio during his confirmation hearing on Jan. 15, 2025. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

More than 20 members of Congress have urged Secretary of State Marco Rubio to publicly condemn a Hungarian law that bans Pride events.

California Congressman Mark Takano, a Democrat who co-chairs the Congressional Equality Caucus, and U.S. Rep. Bill Keating (D-Mass.), who is the ranking member on the House Foreign Affairs Committee’s Europe Subcommittee, spearheaded the letter that lawmakers sent to Rubio on April 30.

Hungarian lawmakers in March passed a bill that bans Pride events and allow authorities to use facial recognition technology to identify those who participate in them. MPs last month amended the Hungarian constitution to ban public LGBTQ events.

“As a NATO ally which hosts U.S. service members, we expect the Hungarian government to abide by certain values which underpin the historic U.S.-Hungary bilateral relationship,” reads the letter. “Unfortunately, this new legislation and constitutional amendment disproportionately and arbitrarily target sexual and gender minorities.”

Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s government over the last decade has moved to curtail LGBTQ and intersex rights in Hungary.

A law that bans legal recognition of transgender and intersex people took effect in 2020. Hungarian MPs that year also effectively banned same-sex couples from adopting children and defined marriage in the constitution as between a man and a woman.

An anti-LGBTQ propaganda law took effect in 2021. The European Commission sued Hungary, which is a member of the European Union, over it.

MPs in 2023 approved the “snitch on your gay neighbor” bill that would have allowed Hungarians to anonymously report same-sex couples who are raising children. The Budapest Metropolitan Government Office in 2023 fined Lira Konyv, the country’s second-largest bookstore chain, 12 million forints ($33,733.67), for selling copies of British author Alice Oseman’s “Heartstopper.”

Former U.S. Ambassador to Hungary David Pressman, who is gay, participated in the Budapest Pride march in 2024 and 2023. Pressman was also a vocal critic of Hungary’s anti-LGBTQ crackdown.

“Along with years of democratic backsliding in Hungary, it flies in the face of those values and the passage of this legislation deserves quick and decisive criticism and action in response by the Department of State,” reads the letter, referring to the Pride ban and constitutional amendment against public LGBTQ events. “Therefore, we strongly urge you to publicly condemn this legislation and constitutional change which targets the LGBTQ community and undermines the rights of Hungarians to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly.”

U.S. Reps. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), Sarah McBride (D-Del.), Jim Costa (D-Calif.), James McGovern (D-Mass.), Gerry Connolly (D-Va.), Summer Lee (D-Pa.), Joaquin Castro (D-Texas), Julie Johnson (D-Texas), Ami Bera (D-Calif.), Mark Pocan (D-Wis.), Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas), Becca Balint (D-Vt.), Gabe Amo (D-R.I.), Ted Lieu (D-Calif.), Robert Garcia (D-Calif.), Dina Titus (D-Nev.), Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.), Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) and Mike Quigley (D-Ill.) and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) signed the letter alongside Takano and Keating.

A State Department spokesperson on Wednesday declined to comment.

Continue Reading

Federal Government

HRC memo details threats to LGBTQ community in Trump budget

‘It’s a direct attack on LGBTQ+ lives’

Published

on

President Donald Trump (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

A memo issued Monday by the Human Rights Campaign details threats to LGBTQ people from the “skinny” budget proposal issued by President Donald Trump on May 2.

HRC estimates the total cost of “funding cuts, program eliminations, and policy changes” impacting the community will exceed approximately $2.6 billion.

Matthew Rose, the organization’s senior public policy advocate, said in a statement that “This budget is more than cuts on a page—it’s a direct attack on LGBTQ+ lives.”

“Trump is taking away life-saving healthcare, support for LGBTQ-owned businesses, protections against hate crimes, and even housing help for people living with HIV,” he said. “Stripping away more than $2 billion in support sends one clear message: we don’t matter. But we’ve fought back before, and we’ll do it again—we’re not going anywhere.”

Proposed rollbacks or changes at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services will target the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program, other programs related to STI prevention, viral hepatitis, and HIV, initiatives housed under the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, and research by the National Institutes of Health and Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

Other agencies whose work on behalf of LGBTQ populations would be jeopardized or eliminated under Trump’s budget include the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, the U.S. Department of Justice, the U.S. Small Business Administration, and the U.S. Department of Education.

Continue Reading

U.S. Supreme Court

Supreme Court allows Trump admin to enforce trans military ban

Litigation challenging the policy continues in the 9th Circuit

Published

on

The Supreme Court as composed June 30, 2022 to present. Front row, left to right: Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., Associate Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., and Associate Justice Elena Kagan. Back row, left to right: Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Associate Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, Associate Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, and Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. (Photo Credit: Fred Schilling, The Supreme Court of the U.S.)

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed the Trump-Vance administration to enforce a ban on transgender personnel serving in the U.S. Armed Forces pending the outcome of litigation challenging the policy.

The brief order staying a March 27 preliminary injunction issued by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington notes the dissents from liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

On the first day of his second term, President Donald Trump issued an executive order requiring Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth to effectuate a ban against transgender individuals, going further than efforts under his first administration — which did not target those currently serving.

The DoD’s Feb. 26 ban argued that “the medical, surgical, and mental health constraints on individuals who have a current diagnosis or history of, or exhibit symptoms with, gender dysphoria are incompatible with the high mental and physical standards necessary for military service.” 

The case challenging the Pentagon’s policy is currently on appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The lead plaintiff is U.S. Navy Commander Emily Shilling, who is joined in the litigation by other current transgender members of the armed forces, one transgender person who would like to join, and a nonprofit whose members either are transgender troops or would like to be.

Lambda Legal and the Human Rights Campaign Foundation, both representing the plaintiffs, issued a statement Tuesday in response to the Supreme Court’s decision:

“Today’s Supreme Court ruling is a devastating blow to transgender servicemembers who have demonstrated their capabilities and commitment to our nation’s defense.

“By allowing this discriminatory ban to take effect while our challenge continues, the Court has temporarily sanctioned a policy that has nothing to do with military readiness and everything to do with prejudice.

“Transgender individuals meet the same standards and demonstrate the same values as all who serve. We remain steadfast in our belief that this ban violates constitutional guarantees of equal protection and will ultimately be struck down.”

U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer noted that courts must show “substantial deference” to DoD decision making on military issues.

“The Supreme Court’s decision to allow the military ban to go into effect is devastating for the thousands of qualified transgender servicemembers who have met the standards and are serving honorably, putting their lives on the line for their country every single day,” said GLAD Law Senior Director of Transgender and Queer Rights Jennifer Levi. “Today’s decision only adds to the chaos and destruction caused by this administration. It’s not the end of the case, but the havoc it will wreak is devastating and irreparable. History will confirm the weight of the injustice done today.”

“The Court has upended the lives of thousands of servicemembers without even the decency of explaining why,” said NCLR Legal Director Shannon Minter. “As a result of this decision, reached without benefit of full briefing or argument, brave troops who have dedicated their lives to the service of our country will be targeted and forced into harsh administrative separation process usually reserved for misconduct. They have proven themselves time and time again and met the same standards as every other soldier, deploying in critical positions around the globe. This is a deeply sad day for our country.”

Levi and Minter are the lead attorneys in the first two transgender military ban cases to be heard in federal court, Talbott v. Trump and Ireland v. Hegseth.

U.S. Rep. Mark Takano (D-Calif.) issued a statement on behalf of the Congressional Equality Caucus, where he serves as chair.

“By lifting the lower court’s preliminary injunction and allowing Trump to enforce his trans troop ban as litigation continues, the Supreme Court is causing real harm to brave Americans who simply want to serve their nation in uniform.

“The difference between Donald Trump, a draft dodger, and the countless brave Americans serving their country who just happen to be trans couldn’t be starker. Let me be clear: Trump’s ban isn’t going to make our country safer—it will needlessly create gaps in critical chains of military command and actively undermine our national security.

“The Supreme Court was absolutely wrong to allow this ban to take effect. I hope that lower courts move swiftly so this ban can ultimately be struck down.”

SPARTA Pride also issued a statement:

“The Roberts Court’s decision staying the preliminary injunction will allow the Trump purge of transgender service members from the military to proceed.

“Transgender Americans have served openly, honorably, and effectively in the U.S. Armed Forces for nearly a decade. Thousands of transgender troops are currently serving, and are fully qualified for the positions in which they serve.

“Every court up to now has found that this order is unconstitutional. Nevertheless, the Roberts Court – without hearing any evidence or argument – decided to allow it to go forward. So while the case continues to be argued, thousands of trans troops will be purged from the Armed Forces.

“They will lose their jobs. They will lose their commands, their promotions, their training, pay and benefits, and time. Their units will lose key players; the mission will be disrupted. This is the very definition of irreparable harm.”

Imara Jones, CEO of TransLash Media, issued the following statement:

“The Supreme Court’s decision to uphold Trump’s ban on transgender soldiers in the military, even as the judicial process works its way through the overall question of service,  signals that open discrimination against trans people is fair game across American society.

“It will allow the Trump Administration to further advance its larger goal of  pushing trans people from mainstream society by discharging transgender military members who are currently serving their country, even at a time when the military has struggled recently  to meet its recruiting goals.

“But even more than this, all of my reporting tells me that this is a further slide down the mountain towards authoritarianism. The hard truth is that governments with authoritarian ambitions have to  separate citizens between who is worthy of protection and who’s not. Trans people are clearly in the later category. And this separation justifies the authoritarian quest  for more and more power. This  appears to be what we are witnessing here and targeting trans people in the military is  just a means to an end.”

Continue Reading

Popular