Connect with us

Opinions

Victory Fund: Rethinking for the future

Amid historic election, some concerns about organization’s direction

Published

on

There is no question that the Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund had a great election cycle and the LGBT community had a fantastic night on Nov. 6. But as we build for the future and look to many more such cycles some would question whether the Victory Fund has retreated a little from what many believe was its initial mission. It was seen as the organization supporting and promoting LGBT candidates even when other organizations wouldn’t because they didn’t see the value in promoting them. The Victory Fund was building a strong bullpen of LGBT candidates — the future leaders at all levels of government.

Today the Victory Fund coordinates with and sometimes determines whether to support candidates partially based on what groups like the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) do. I would assume since they are non-partisan they look at what the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee thinks as well. It appears they may be more concerned with their percentage of winning candidates rather than building for the future. Many of our finest politicians lost their first campaigns and went on to have stellar political careers. First time potentially viable LGBT candidates need our support and most believe it is the Victory Fund’s mission to provide that support and encouragement.

A recent congressional race in Michigan’s 3rd District is a prime example of where the Victory Fund has gone astray. Trevor Thomas, a gay man running in the primary asked for a Victory Fund endorsement early in his campaign. The Victory Fund turned him down suggesting that if he could raise $100,000 on his own and prove he was a viable candidate it would reconsider. Trevor did that and the Victory Fund turned him down again. A Victory Fund board member recently told me that the group decided not to endorse Thomas because they thought even if he could win his primary he couldn’t win the election. That board member also told me that the Victory Fund looked at the DCCC and saw that it wasn’t supporting Trevor in the primary but instead supported a self-funded candidate.

Thomas raised a lot of money on his own in the primary. He received the endorsement of two current members of Congress early in his campaign. About a month before the primary, the DCCC realized that in the pre-primary reporting period his opponent raised a weak $4,000, while Thomas pulled in nearly $40,000 in less than 15 days without a single dollar coming from PACs. The DCCC then gave the green light for other sitting members of Congress to endorse, including Barney Frank. He received endorsements from two former members of Congress, including Patrick Murphy, the leader in repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” Still, the Victory Fund wouldn’t endorse. Thomas found support from former Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm; from the state’s former lieutenant governor who had just run for governor; a progressive PAC dedicated to veteran’s issues and Cecile Richards of National Planned Parenthood. The chair of the Congressional Pro-Choice Caucus, Rep. Diana DeGette, along with Frank, started raising money for him. What he didn’t ever get was support from many big LGBT donors who told him they only contribute to candidates endorsed by the Victory Fund.

Trevor Thomas wasn’t an unknown quantity. He was deputy communications director at HRC and communications director for SLDN during the final fight for repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” The executive director of the SLDN was an active supporter and fundraiser for Thomas.

Thomas raised about $400,000 for his campaign and had an independent group backed by veterans chip in another $150,000. He got 45 percent of the vote against a competitor not particularly friendly to the LGBT community, who spent $700,000. If only Thomas had had the early support of the Victory Fund, he might have either kept his opponent out of the race or gone on TV earlier to get his message out. Democratic pollster Mark Mellman shared a poll early in the campaign with the Victory Fund showing if Thomas had the money to get his message out he could win big — with one test showing a win by as much as 20 percent. Thomas’s story was compelling, including the fact that he was a product of the auto-industry, both his parents working the line for more than 30 years.

In Trevor’s case it wasn’t the mere $5,000 the Victory Fund gives to endorsed candidates but rather making people aware of his candidacy so they would give. While the Victory Fund wasn’t even interested in listing him on its website, National Planned Parenthood and a national veterans group, along with Jennifer Granholm, didn’t blink. They knew Thomas, knew his talents, but then so did the silent Victory Fund.

The time has come for the Victory Fund to take a look in the mirror and perhaps rethink their mission. The Victory Fund is based on ground broken by EMILY’s list whose name stands for Early Money Is Like Yeast. Early money is often primary money for an LGBT candidate. It allows them the chance to grow and get their message out. I fully understand having a set of criteria for an endorsement but it is clear that if Trevor Thomas didn’t qualify there is a problem with the current criteria. In Michigan it was EMILY’s List that stood early with Jennifer Granholm when others stood with her primary opponent in her race for governor.  The source and power of EMILY’s List is clear; they stand loyal in oftentimes divided primaries, going up against the DCCC if needed and they fight like hell and win. That’s a lesson to be learned.

Maybe it’s time to develop another organization so LGBT candidates can get their names out to the broader community; a place where every “out” candidate can list themselves, their bios, their positions and an analysis of how they see themselves winning. If the Victory Fund doesn’t feel it necessary to review its current criteria maybe they shouldn’t be the only gatekeeper to funding for LGBT candidates. We need the Victory Fund but if they don’t feel this is their role then we also need an organization dedicated to building that bullpen of LGBT candidates who will become the leaders of the future.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

Opinions

Corporate LGBTQ Pride 2026 on life support

A rainbow washout as marketing dollars disappear

Published

on

(Photo by insidestudio/Bigstock)

Terrified of becoming targets of right wing media and activists, businesses and brands are fleeing Pride support in 2026. The fear of boycotts and retribution have seen Pride sponsorships plummet to previously unseen levels. Further, there is now a complete corporate reevaluation of marketing and advertising activities in the LGBTQ consumer sector writ large. 

No more rainbow washing. For the past 30 years, corporations have literally wrapped their brands in rainbow colored monikers during the month of June. This practice, know as “rainbow washing,” sought to ingratiate companies with the over $1 trillion LGBTQ consumer segment. From rainbow filled Oreos to rainbow wrapped Burger King Whoppers, brands actively engaged in developing relationships with this coveted consumer. Now, it’s considered taboo. 

No more multi-million dollar beer sponsorships in the aftermath of the Bud Light disaster. For the first time since the over 100 Pride festivals accepted marketing opportunities, major brands including Bud Light, Miller and Corona have decided that reputational risk, boycotts and the like are more dangerous than the commercial reward. Their non-participation and the significance of this loss cannot be overstated. 

When right-wing bloviators co-opted the meaning of the word woke, they turned a positive definition into a pejorative. Now, corporations and brands are petrified of being labeled as woke, and in turn, are curtailing marketing outreach to niche consumer segments, LGBTQ included.

Anti-woke legislation has now appeared in a multitude of states, primarily around transgender issues. Bathroom bills, as they are known, are ubiquitous. Boys playing in girls sports,is portrayed as a national emergency.  These issues are a constant presence on social media as well as at every level of government, and have had a major impact on LGBTQ-related corporate activities.

But perhaps most devastating, is the federal government effort to enact elements of the right-wing’s Project 2025 agenda, seeking to eradicate DEI at every level. Companies, universities, and nearly all institutions that previously championed diversity, equity, and inclusion, have rapidly and radically disbanded and defunded all DEI efforts and activities within their organizations. Discontinuing supplier diversity initiatives, defunding support for internal ERG’s (employee resource groups), and decamping from participation in HRC’s (Human Rights Campaign) Equality Index. Importantly, this index is considered  the gold standard for corporate DEI evaluation, and its repudiation is having a profound effect on corporate behavior.  

DEI is now in the ICU on life support, with little chance of resuscitation. Companies that once embraced DEI have retreated in fear, in spite of critical positive facts. In 2023, McKinsey and Company, no bastion of liberalism stated, “that for five years, our research has shown a positive, statistically significant correlation between company financial outperformance and diversity, on the dimensions of both gender and ethnicity.”

What happens next is unknown. We have entered uncharted territory where the confluence of so many factors is having negative effects. June 2026 has seen many companies severely curtail or fully exit partnerships with Pride organizations and LGBTQ marketing programs in general, citing among other things, economic concerns. However, no company can honestly deny that overall fear and the increasingly hostile climate for DEI and LGBTQ issues have prompted brands to rethink their overall support and initiatives. This, despite pressure from stakeholders and shareholders, and vital employee recruitment and retention efforts. 

Political winds have outcomes. It would be naïve to think that there might be an immediate rethinking should the Congress or presidency change parties. Business cycles, though more agile than government, take longer to work through. Years, not months. So just as quickly as “rainbow washing” has come to a precipitous end, so too is the arrival and reckoning with the blistering Rainbow Washout.


Andrew A. Isen is the founder and president of WinMark Concepts, a D.C.-based marketing and communications firm. For 35 years, WinMark has been advising companies and brands on defining and developing effective LGBTQ business strategies. 

Continue Reading

Opinions

Cowardly corporations abandon LGBTQ America

Execs are hiding in the closet this Pride season. Should we ever welcome them back?

Published

on

(Photo by Meni Photos/Bigstock)

I had a thought provoking conversation with Billy Porter over Memorial Day weekend. The talented and opinionated star asked me how things were going at the Blade and in D.C. given the current administration in the White House.

It was a loaded question. The short answer is that things in D.C. are pretty terrible these days — the economy is down, inflation and gas prices are up; small businesses and non-profits are struggling amid widespread government funding cuts; and, yes, media outlets large and small are also feeling the pinch. Even the aesthetics of our once beautiful city are suffering (see the White House lawn).

For queer-identified businesses, the news is worse, as major corporations across the country have reduced or eliminated support for anything deemed “DEI,” which includes LGBTQ causes and support for Pride celebrations. 

When I explained all of this to Porter, he replied with a quick and definitive comment that has left me thinking for weeks: “And when the pendulum swings back, don’t let those companies back in. Ever.”

There are certainly some big companies that continue to live their values and stand by the LGBTQ community — Absolut, Marriott, Walmart, Coca-Cola. But so many others have abandoned us at a challenging time — Target, Bud Light (and most beer brands), PepsiCo, Accenture, among a long list.

There’s a lot of cynicism about so-called “rainbow capitalism,” or the practice of companies profiting off of the LGBTQ community especially during Pride month. We’ve seen all sorts of silly pandering in recent years — rainbow Oreos and Doritos come to mind.

But corporate America has frequently been called upon to play an important role in advancing equality. From implementing inclusive and affirming hiring and workplace practices (especially in places lacking legal protections) to using their influence to advance public policy, our corporate allies have helped us in myriad ways. To suggest we don’t need them ignores the many accomplishments corporate leaders have made on our behalf. They stepped up to fight bathroom bills in North Carolina and they successfully blunted Mike Pence’s notorious “license to discriminate” law in Indiana.

That was then. Fast forward to 2026 and under pressure from the corrupt Trump administration, our former corporate allies have run for cover. They are cowards. Their cynical abandonment of the LGBTQ community has grave consequences. New York City Pride ran $800,000 short last year after major sponsors like Mastercard and Nissan pulled out, according to a recent report in the Wall Street Journal. San Francisco Pride fell $300,000 in debt last year when Anheuser-Busch and others pulled out, the Journal noted. Phoenix Pride has filed for bankruptcy. There will be many other casualties. 

The topic of how to respond if and when the pendulum swings back is a popular one right now in the LGBTQ movement. Do we replace corporate sponsorship dollars with grants and individual donations? That’s easier said than done. Do we take their money and forgive these transgressions? Or do we follow Porter’s advice and tell them to fuck off? 

Nonprofits, Pride organizations, and queer media outlets like the Blade have some thinking to do about this. No one is in business to turn away sponsors and ad dollars. But we have a responsibility to our customers, readers, and community to operate ethically. An ad in the Blade carries a lot more subtext and meaning than an ad in the Washington Post. 

To those companies and executives hiding in the closet this Pride season: Shame on you. To the companies standing with us: Our sincere gratitude. Our community’s memory is long and we will not forget those who resisted Trump’s anti-DEI crusade to stand on the right side of history.


Kevin Naff is editor of the Washington Blade. Reach him at [email protected].

Continue Reading

Opinions

Confronting homophobia at school

Queer students should feel comfortable and safe in the classroom

Published

on

(Screen capture via DC News Now/YouTube)

A couple weeks ago, I was walking into my school’s cafeteria, about to get lunch. As I navigated around groups of students, I heard a student shouting “ fa**ot!” over and over again at one of his friends, as some kind of joke or playful insult. How do I know it was a joke? Because I’ve seen countless amounts of people at my school call each other this slur, or other homophobic language while bantering with their friends. The prevalence of homophobia in my school, even if it’s not directed at queer people, is troubling.

As an openly queer student, I’ve experienced homophobia in school since middle school. During middle school, I was teased, bullied, and ostracized just because I tried to live as my authentic self. My classmates knowingly asked me uncomfortable and invasive questions about my sexuality, and I was called all types of dehumanizing names. The bullying was so bad that I would frequently isolate myself during school, just so I could get a break from all of the harassment I went through. I felt like I was an outcast, so I’d constantly hide myself behind books or my computer. I started to develop depressive and suicidal thoughts, and every day I had to go to school was a nightmare for me. 

When I eventually graduated middle school and started high school, I was elated to discover that there were many more queer students at my school, some of whom I’d eventually get to know and become friends with. However, the homophobia I faced did not go away, but instead took a new form. Instead of hearing homophobic slurs directed at me, they’re now used as if they were another insult, like “stupid” or “idiot,” despite the fact that they carry much more weight. I still have to face the effects of the normalization of homophobia and homophobic language in schools, and it isn’t just my school that has this problem.

According to the District of Columbia Public Schools Panorama Survey, only 45 percent of gay and lesbian students, 37 percent of bisexual students, and 39 percent of transgender or nonbinary students in DCPS schools say that students in their school show them respect. Across the entire district, over half of LGBTQ students feel as if they are not respected in school which is both heartbreaking, yet not surprising to see as a queer student myself. And this is a consistent trend across all of America. According to Glisten’s 2025 National School Climate Survey, which polls LGBTQ youth about their school climate, two-thirds of LGBTQ students said they felt unsafe at school due to their sexual orientation or gender identity. In addition, 63 percent of students reported hearing homophobic remarks from peers, and 62 percent and 68 percent of participants experienced harassment or assault based on sexual orientation or gender identity respectively. 

School should be a place where queer students should feel comfortable and safe, a place where they can learn and prosper. Instead, so many are mistreated and abused, and feel as if they’re an outsider in their own community. Teachers and administrators should be striving to create a LGBTQ+ friendly space where all kinds of students can work toward their goals in an environment where they feel accepted and loved. 

(This work is part of a partnership between the Washington Blade Foundation and Youthcast Media Group, funded through the FY26 Community Development Grant from the Office of D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser. Quinn McPherson is a rising sophomore at Benjamin Banneker Academic High School, one of Youthcast Media Group’s journalism class partners. YMG founder, former USA Today health policy reporter Jayne O’Donnell, contributed to this report.)

Continue Reading

Popular