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 didnā€™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 donā€™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 didnā€™t use all they received. It would then be interesting to see a comparison with any candidate who didnā€™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

Opinions

Proposed Medicaid rule may hurt people with HIV

A freeze on drug development would be a crushing blow

Published

on

We’re fortunate to exist in a world where it’s possible to live for a long time with HIV. Medical science has made astounding progress since the 1980s, when a positive diagnosis was considered a death sentence. Queer activism helped bring about the shifts in policy and attitude that made this success possible.

But our job isn’t over yet.

HIV isn’t spread evenly across the United States. In urban areas with high poverty, it’s as prevalent as it is in low-income countries with generalized HIV epidemics, like Ethiopia and Burundi. This means that almost 40% of Americans with HIV get their health coverage through Medicaid, the government insurance plan for low-income people. And recently proposed changes to the program could halt future progress toward finding a cure.

Under the current Medicaid Drug Rebate Program, Medicaid receives a sizeable manufacturer rebate on brand-name drugs ā€” calculated in part based on either 23.1% off the average price of the drug, or the best price available to another purchaser if that discount is higher.

But now, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), the federal agency that runs Medicaid, has proposed a new rule. It would require calculating a medicine’s best price by stacking the rebates and discounts on a single unit of drug that a manufacturer provides to different eligible purchasers.

Due to the interplay with other recent changes to Medicaid, in some cases, the total markdown could exceed 100% of the average price of the drug ā€” meaning manufacturers would be forced to effectively sell the medications at a loss to Medicaid.

This could mean trouble for drugs whose largest market is Medicaid, like those that treat HIV. If manufacturers and their investors decide that it’s no longer financially viable to make drugs that primarily serve disadvantaged patients, then those medications might not be developed at all.

That’s concerning, given that many groundbreaking HIV therapies stemmed from private sector research and development. And with research inching ever closer to a cure, a freeze on HIV drug development would be a crushing blow to those of us living with the disease.

The proposed rule change also threatens the search for a cure with policies that target cell and gene therapies, areas in which scientists have recently made promising HIV-related breakthroughs. When cell and gene therapies come to market after years of research, they can often have high up-front costs ā€” sometimes more than $1 million per patient. That’s in part because the field is so cutting edge and the therapies deliver long-term benefits, and in part because research failures in drug development are far more common than successes.

One CMS policy change would require manufacturers to report their research and development costs for specific high-price medicines to the agency. The government could make such information public, and use it to challenge drug prices. In addition, the rule proposed to specifically target accelerated approval drugs, a pathway that has allowed many patients with HIV/AIDS early access to lifesaving treatments.

The problem is that for every drug candidate in clinical trials that succeeds, nine fail. Sometimes they fail after years of research and hundreds of millions of dollars invested. To keep  the research money flowing, that one success needs to make up for the cost of the nine that washed out.

If Medicaid drives drug mandatory rebates so low that companies can’t recoup their investments, it will discourage them from pursuing the most cutting-edge avenues of research ā€” and put some of them out of business. Biotech investors will abandon gene therapy and seek out more stable markets, and HIV research will suffer. Ultimately, patients living with HIV who rely on Medicaid will miss out on potential cures that never get developed. They may also lack access to therapies that do get created, given that the companies behind them could pull out of the Medicaid market altogether.

Forty percent of Americans living with HIV are Black, and 63% are gay and bisexual men.

As a queer Black man with HIV myself, I know all too well how devastating it is to receive that diagnosis, especially when you’re underinsured and living in poverty. But I also know that effective treatment can vastly improve quality of life. Without the sacrifices and the activism of those who came before us, HIV might still be a death sentence.

It’s up to us to continue the fight now. Our community deserves a shot at a cure. CMS officials urgently need to reverse course on this disastrous proposal. And if they fail to do so, it’s incumbent on HIV activists to push for the federal government to adopt policies that support affordable HIV treatments and research funding.

Guy Anthony is the president and CEO of Black, Gifted & Whole.

Continue Reading

Commentary

BookMen DC: Still going strong at 25

Celebrating the longest-running LGBTQ literary group in the area

Published

on

On May 11, 1999, what was originally known as the Potomac Gay Menā€™s Book Group convened for its first meeting. A lot has changed over the ensuing quarter-century, starting with our name. But our identity remains true to the description on our blog: ā€œan informal group of men who are interested in gay literature (both fiction and non-fiction).ā€

Our founder, Bill Malone, worked at the Whitman-Walker Clinic and started the group using donations of remainder books from a wholesaler in New York. Soon after that, members decided to get their own books, and began purchasing them through Lambda Rising, which offered a discount for such orders until it closed in 2010. The group later renamed itself BoysnBooks, and then became BookMen DC in 2007, which is also when we started our blog

Following Billā€™s tenure, Tom Wischer, Greg Farber and Tim Walton (who set up our blog) have served as our facilitators. I succeeded Tim in that role in 2009, and am grateful to him and all my predecessors for laying such a solid foundation for our group. 

Twenty-five years after our founding, we are the longest-running LGBTQ literary group in the DMV. So far, we have discussed nearly 400 books, ranging from classics like Platoā€™s Symposium to graphic novels, gay history and memoirs, and novels by James Baldwin, Michael Cunningham, E.M. Forster and Edmund Whiteā€”to name just a few of the many authors and genres weā€™ve explored.

Currently, we have more than 120 names on our mailing list, of whom about a quarter attend meetings at least occasionally. (Average attendance at our meetings is about 10.) Our members variously consider themselves gay, queer, bisexual, or transgender, and those varying perspectives enhance our discussions. I would be remiss if I didnā€™t acknowledge that, like many LGBTQ organizations, we are not nearly as diverse as I wish we were. Although we do have young members and people of color within our ranks, we are predominantly white and middle-aged or older. We have tried various forms of outreach to further diversify our membership, and will keep working on that.

How has BookMen DC not just survived, but thrived, when so many other book clubs and LGBTQ groups have foundered? I would identify several factors.

First and foremost, we are welcoming. We have no minimum attendance requirements and charge no dues. And we expressly encourage members to join us at meetings even if they havenā€™t finished the selection weā€™re discussing.

We are also collaborative. Each fall, members nominate titles for the next yearā€™s reading list; I then compile those suggestions into a list for members to weigh in on, and the results of that vote determine what we will read. 

Finally, we are flexible and adaptable. Over the years, we have met in locations all over the District. Currently, we meet on the first Wednesday of each month at the Cleveland Park Library (3310 Connecticut Ave. NW) from 6:30-7:30 p.m. to discuss entire books; afterward, those interested go to dinner at a neighborhood restaurant.

When the pandemic struck four years ago, we took a break for a couple of months before moving operations online. (Thank God for Zoom!) Even after the venues where weā€™d been meeting reopened, we have continued to meet virtually on the third Wednesday of each month, from 7-8 p.m. During those Zoom sessions, we discuss sections of anthologies of poetry and short stories, as well as short standalone works (e.g.,  plays and novellas).

If you enjoy LGBTQ literature and would like to try us out, visit our blog: https://bookmendc.blogspot.com/ and click the link to email me. Weā€™d love to meet you!

Steven Alan Honley, a semi-retired musician, editor, and writer, has been a member of BookMen DC since 2000 and its facilitator since 2009.

Continue Reading

Opinions

Rosenstein: Vote for Angela Alsobrooks and April McClain-Delaney

Two strong, accomplished women for Maryland

Published

on

I am endorsing two strong accomplished women for Maryland. The first is Angela Alsobrooks, for United States Senate. Second is April McClain-Delaney for Congress in Marylandā€™s 6th District. Both women are superbly qualified, and will fight hard for, and be a credit to, the people of Maryland.

Angela Alsobrooks is county executive of Prince Georgeā€™s County. She was born and raised in Maryland. She is a graduate of Duke University, and the University of Maryland, School of Law. She was the first full-time Assistant Stateā€™s Attorney to handle domestic violence cases in Prince Georgeā€™s County. She made history as the youngest, and first woman, to be elected Prince Georgeā€™s County Stateā€™s Attorney where she stood up for families, taking on some of Marylandā€™s worst criminals, while treating victims and the accused with dignity and respect. Under her tenure, violent crime dropped by 50 percent.  

Alsobrooks has said, ā€œThis year we know the rights of women to control their own bodies and healthcare, is at the top of the list of concerns for so many Marylanders, and decent people across the country, both men and women.ā€ Because of this Maryland must elect a strong woman to ensure we win the fight on this issue. There are many reasons to support Alsobrooks. One is if we look at the United States Senate, what is clearly missing, is an African-American woman. That is a disgrace. Marylanders have the ability to make that right by voting for Angela Alsobrooks. 

But there are other reasons to vote for Angela. She understands how federal policy impacts states and counties, directly impacting her constituents, because she has dealt with the issues that arise from the bills Congress passes. Angela is a pragmatic progressive, and will work across the aisle to get things done. Nothing prepares you more for negotiating with Republicans in Congress, than negotiating with a county council and community activists, and she has done both successfully for many years. She will continue to fight for LGBTQ equality having named the first LGBTQ liaison in PG County. She supports legislation to fight climate change, and supports student loan forgiveness. Maryland leaders know Alsobrooks is the right candidate. She has been endorsed by Gov. Wes Moore, Lt. Gov. Aruna Miller, Sen. Chris Van Hollen and former Sen. Barbara Mikulski, Congressmen Jaimie Raskin, Steny Hoyer and Glenn Ivey; and an overwhelming number of local legislators and leaders in PG County. They all know how good she is, and how much she will do for Maryland, and the nation. I urge a vote for Angela Alsobrooks in the Democratic Senate primary.

I also join a hero of mine, former Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Congressmen Steny Hoyer and Dutch Ruppersberger, along with a host of Maryland legislators and office holders, who have endorsed April McClain-Delaney. She has more than 30 yearsā€™ experience in communications law, regulatory affairs, and advocacy, across a broad spectrum of government, private sector, and non-profit engagements. She has served as the Washington director and a board member of Common-Sense Media, a leading non-profit dedicated to how media impacts kids health and wellbeing. Her policy and advocacy efforts have spanned digital citizenship, bridging the digital divide, and tech equity issues, privacy matters, spectrum, and internet governance. She has served as assistant general counsel and regulatory affairs director at Orion Satellite where she oversaw domestic and international regulatory efforts in approximately 20 countries, and served as one the founding board members of the International Satellite Association.

In addition to her professional endeavors, she has served on numerous boards and councils. These include the Meridian Womenā€™s Leadership Council; Georgetown Institute for Women, Peace and Security; Georgetown Law Center (past chair); Northwestern University Board of Trustees; the International Center for Research on Women; Innocents at Risk; and the Sun Valley Community School. She is a graduate of Northwestern University and has her JD from Georgetown Law Center.  Delaney is the best candidate to win the 6th District for Democrats. Delaney understands rural Maryland having grown up on a farm in Iowa. She understands government today, serving as the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information, U.S. Department of Commerce, in the Biden administration. 

When it comes to the issue of protecting a womanā€™s right to control her own body and healthcare, no one will match April in her vigilance. She is a mother fighting for the rights for her four daughters. She is a strong supporter of LGBTQ rights, and will support policies to fight climate change, support debt relief for students, and will work to protect our national security. She understands what it means to work across the aisle without giving up any of her principles. She is the kind of person we need in Congress. I urge a vote for April McClain-Delaney in Marylandā€™s 6th Congressional District, Democratic primary.Ā 

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

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement

Sign Up for Weekly E-Blast

Follow Us @washblade

Advertisement

Popular