National
Gay congressional candidates raking in cash
Contenders in R.I., Calif. doing well, experts say


U.S. Rep. Tammy Baldwin attended a congressional campaign fundraiser Tuesday at Mova for David Cicilline, the gay Democratic mayor of Providence, R.I. (DC Agenda photo by Michael Key)
Non-incumbent gay candidates running for Congress are generally doing a good job of raising money, according to the reported receipts the Federal Election Commission made public after the first quarter of this year.
For the first quarter of 2010, David Cicilline, the gay Democratic mayor of Providence, R.I., has had marked success in fundraising to support his congressional bid. After announcing his candidacy to represent Rhode Island’s 1st congressional district earlier this year, Cicilline has raked in $725,078 for his war chest.
Comparatively, Bill Lynch, a former Rhode Island Democratic Party chair who’s challenging Cicilline for the party nomination, has raised $230,485. John Loughlin, a Republican candidate, has raised $333,763.
Sean Theriault, a gay government professor at the University of Texas, Austin, said Cicilline “looks to be in great shape” heading into the election.
“I would be surprised if he isn’t welcomed into the [LGBT Equality] Caucus after the November elections,” he said.
Denis Dison, spokesperson for the Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund, said the amount of money Cicilline has raised is “hugely significant.”
“This is an open seat and part of the calculus about who’s going to be considered a frontrunner is the ability to fundraise,” Dison said.
For cash on hand, or the amount of money remaining after expenditures in the race, the margin between Cicilline and his Republican opponent is even more pronounced: the Providence mayor has $713,346; Loughlin has $187,537.
“That’s a sign to other donors and to the political establishment that Mayor Cicilline is prepared to fight and win this,” Dison said.
Notable donations to Cicilline’s campaign include $2,400 from the Victory Fund as well as $1,000 from gay lawmaker Rep. Jared Polis’ (D-Colo.) political action committee.
The Human Rights Campaign, which has endorsed Cicilline, also contributed to the campaign. Michael Cole, an HRC spokesperson, said his organization has made $6,000 in direct contributions to the campaign.
“Additionally, we are likely to contribute the full $10,000 allowed by law through a combination of direct and in-kind contributions by the election,” Cole said.
Cicilline’s campaign didn’t respond to a request for comment on his fundraising numbers.
In the race for California’s 45th congressional district, the gay Democrat running for office has also amassed a sizeable war chest, although not as much as the Republican incumbent he’s trying to oust.
Steve Pougnet, the mayor of Palm Springs, Calif., has raised $867,614 in his bid to unseat Rep. Mary Bono Mack (R), who’s raised $1,330,183 to hold on to her seat.
Notable donors to Pougnet include the Victory Fund, which gave $2,400 to his campaign, and Polis, whose PAC contributed $2,000.
Jordan Marks, Pougnet’s campaign manager, said he thinks the fundraising numbers place the candidate in a “great position.”
In the first quarter of 2010, Marks said Pougnet raised about the same amount that Bono Mack raised for her campaign, even though she’s an incumbent. Marks noted that Pougnet raised $304,000 and Bono Mack raised around $320,000 in that time period.
“This quarter is, by far, our best quarter so far,” Marks said. “This quarter proved that for certain we will have the resources that we need to run a really credible campaign, talk about the differences between us and our opponent, and really give the voters an opportunity to make a clear choice.”
Based on the fundraising numbers, Theriault said Pougnet would “be in the hunt” to claim Bono Mack’s seat. But given the challenges that Democrats are expected to face in this year’s election, Theriault wasn’t optimistic about Pougnet’s chances.
“If this were 2006 or 2008, Congresswoman Bono [Mack] would be in serious trouble,” Theriault said. “I suspect that the political winds may save her this time.”
Support for Pougnet among LGBT groups isn’t universal. The Log Cabin Republicans is backing Bono Mack in the race and last year contributed $1,500 to her campaign.
Charles Moran, a Log Cabin spokesperson, said his organization is supporting Bono Mack because the Republican lawmaker voted with the LGBT community when her support was needed. Bono Mack twice voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment and voted in favor of hate crimes legislation and the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.
“We’ve got longstanding relationships with Mary Bono Mack and she’s backed [us] up on a lot of different issues when we’ve needed it,” he said. “We’re proud and have no problem supporting Mary in this race. It was a no-brainer.”
Still, Bono Mack has been criticized for not taking a position on California’s Proposition 8 when it came before state lawmakers and for refraining from endorsing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal.
Noting that Bono Mack amassed more than $1 million in campaign funds, Moran said the lawmaker is “doing well” and that she’s among the best people in the country working to raise money for her campaign.
“It doesn’t really surprise me that her numbers came out so strongly in the fundraising world,” Moran said.
Moran said he expects to see another contribution from Log Cabin to Bono Mack as the general election approaches — although he’s unsure of the amount — and that members of Log Cabin are making individual contributions to her campaign.
HRC hasn’t made an endorsement in the race for California’s 45th congressional district.
Another gay Democrat is running to represent New Jersey’s 7th congressional district in the upcoming election. Ed Potosnak, a former schoolteacher and staffer for Rep. Mike Honda (D-Calif.), is attempting to oust Rep. Leonard Lance (R-N.J.) from his seat.
The first quarter filings reveal that Potosnak has raised $81,007, while Lance has received $772,440 in fundraising. The difference between the two candidates is less pronounced for cash on hand: Potosnak has $64,397 and Lance has $473,880.
Potosnak said he’s “extremely energized and proud” of the support his campaign has received.
“I project a strong showing in the second quarter to advance our positive message,” Potosnak said. “I’m pretty confident that with additional support from our community, we can and we will make up for that difference.”
Noting that he’s unopposed in his Democratic primary, Potosnak said Lance has several challengers in his Republican primary that would “likely deplete his campaign funds” as Lance progresses toward the general election.
The Victory Fund hasn’t made a decision to endorse Potosnak. Dison said he couldn’t comment on the candidate’s fundraising numbers because his organization hasn’t made an endorsement.
Theriault said Potosnak’s numbers don’t bode well for his prospects.
“In today’s political climate, a Democratic challenger needs at least $500,000 to be even a legitimate candidate against a Republican incumbent,” Theriault said. “Mr. Potosnak is about six times short that amount.”
State Department
Rubio mum on Hungary’s Pride ban
Lawmakers on April 30 urged secretary of state to condemn anti-LGBTQ bill, constitutional amendment

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.
Federal Government
HRC memo details threats to LGBTQ community in Trump budget
‘It’s a direct attack on LGBTQ+ lives’

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.
U.S. Supreme Court
Supreme Court allows Trump admin to enforce trans military ban
Litigation challenging the policy continues in the 9th Circuit

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.”
-
The Vatican3 days ago
American cardinal chosen as next pope
-
a&e features3 days ago
Your guide to the many Pride celebrations in D.C. region
-
U.S. Supreme Court5 days ago
Supreme Court allows Trump admin to enforce trans military ban
-
District of Columbia4 days ago
WorldPride permits for National Mall have yet to be approved