HRC Back Story

Since we announced our first round of U.S. Senate endorsements on Monday, questions have been asked about why some names appear on the list and others do not, and others have questioned HRC’s endorsement decisions.   

It’s our goal to be forthright throughout this process. We certainly don’t make these decisions arbitrarily or in a vacuum, and we have a thorough endorsement process in place that helps us ensure that our support goes to those elected officials and candidates who are genuinely working for us.  On the other hand, we fully understand that there will be some who will disagree with us -- even vehemently at times -- on which candidates HRC should support or endorse.

It’s no secret that HRC is a bipartisan organization.  This is not an empty principle or a meaningless nod to an ideal we do not follow.  Due to the policy positions of many members of the GOP, by and large, our endorsements go to Democrats.  However, there are Republicans on Capitol Hill who have earned our support.  It would compromise our effectiveness and undermine our relationships on both sides of the aisle if we put partisan politics before the goal of achieving our policy agenda. In that regard, we’re on par with many other powerful and effective organizations that have recognized the importance of working across party lines to best move their agendas forward including: AFL-CIO, SEIU, UNITE HERE, NARAL Pro-Choice America, League of Conservation Voters and Sierra Club.

OREGON:

Federal Marriage Amendment - Since HRC’s inception in 1980, the HRC Political Action Committee never had a litmus test for endorsement until the issue of the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA) surfaced. The HRC Board made clear in October 2003 that HRC would not support or endorse any candidate that would vote to write discriminatory language into the U.S. Constitution.

Sen. Gordon Smith voted for the FMA twice (108th and 109th Congresses), which disqualifies him for an endorsement by HRC. He has, however, demonstrated leadership on critical GLBT issues important to HRC.  Therefore, we will be neutral in the 2008 Senate race in Oregon.

Hate Crimes -  Sen. Gordon Smith and Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) have been the lead sponsors of federal hate crimes legislation since 1999, a bill that would add sexual orientation and gender identity to existing hate crimes law. Smith was instrumental in moving this bill, even while the Senate was under a GOP leadership hostile to GLBT rights.  And in 2007, Smith’s championship of this bill was crucial in breaking a filibuster -- as he helped garner nine Republican votes to meet 60 votes total.
 
HIV/AIDS Funding - Sen. Smith is the lead author of the Early Treatment for HIV Act (ETHA), which would allow low-income persons with HIV to access medications before developing full-blown AIDS, and has cosponsored the Ryan White CARE Act. In November 2001, Smith joined just four other GOP Senators in voting to allow DC to fund its needle exchange program. As a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, Smith has sponsored lifesaving programs to combat AIDS across the globe. Sen. Smith is the lead Republican of legislation to lift the ban on HIV-positive individuals from entering the U.S. Just this week, Sen. Smith authored a letter with Senator Kerry criticizing a Peace Corp decision to fire an HIV positive volunteer -- calling it workplace discrimination.  Additionally, when George Bush was inaugurated, Smith lobbied him to keep open the Office of National AIDS Policy.

Employment Fairness - Sen. Smith was a co-sponsor of the Employment Non-discrimination Act (ENDA) in the last Congress it had been introduced, and is an advocate for its passage. He also has a written non-discrimination policy in his office, stating that he will not consider sexual orientation or gender identity in the hiring, firing or promotion of staff. Additionally, Smith vocally supported openly gay nominee James Hormel when other GOP Senators blocked his nomination to be President Clinton’s ambassador to Luxembourg.

Equal Benefits and Protections - Sen. Gordon Smith is the lead author of the Tax Equity for Domestic Partner Health Plan Beneficiaries Act, a bill that would treat same-sex couples equal to married couples in relation to employer-provided healthcare benefits.  And his seat on the Senate’s tax-writing Finance Committee is key as negotiations for this bill move forward.  Smith is also the lead Republican on the Domestic Partners Benefits and Obligations Act, legislation that would provide domestic partner benefits to the 1.4 million members of the civilian federal workforce, and extension of these benefits to DC employees. 

MAINE:

Federal Marriage Amendment - On the critical issue of writing discrimination into the US Constitution against same-sex couples, Sen. Susan Collins has always opposed the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA) and has been public with her opposition.  She voted against amending the Constitution on July 14, 2004, and again on June 7, 2006. 

Hate Crimes - Sen. Collins is a longtime supporter and cosponsor of federal hate crimes legislation.   This year, Sen. Collins was among the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster to kill the hate crimes bill.  The other two times (in 2000 and 2004) that the hate crimes legislation has been considered by the Senate, Sen. Collins voted for it.  In 2002, Collins voted to invoke cloture on the bill, limiting debate and preventing opponents from offering unrelated amendments.  In 2001, she sent a letter to then Majority Leader, Trent Lott, urging him to consider a Senate vote on the bill.

HIV/AIDS Funding - Collins is an original cosponsor of the Early Treatment for HIV Act (ETHA), which would allow low-income persons with HIV to access medications before developing full-blown AIDS.  She is an advocate for the Ryan White CARE Act, and cosponsored the same legislation in 2002, 2004, and 2006.

Employment Fairness - Sen. Collins is the lead Republican with Sen. Kennedy supporting federal legislation to ban workplace discrimination.  In past years, Sen. Collins cosponsored the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which would have added sexual orientation to protections in federal employment law.

In 2002, as a member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, Sen. Collins voted to send ENDA to the Senate floor.  During this committee markup, Collins stated:

I have reached the decision to support ENDA because, in the final analysis, I simply do not believe it is fair to allow discrimination in the workplace against men and women solely because of their sexual orientation.  The fact is, as we wait for states to act, discrimination against gay men and lesbians continues and is legal in nearly 3 out of 4 states.  By enacting a federal gay rights law, I believe we can not only prevent discrimination but also, I hope, promote acceptance of the principles of tolerance and fairness embodied by this bill…The right to work free from discrimination is fundamentally American.  It is an essential element of our nation’s belief that hard work holds the key to success, not just for the privileged few, but for every citizen.

In 2004, when she served as Chairwoman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Sen. Collins wrote a letter to Special Counsel, Scott Bloch, urging him to enforce protections for federal workers against discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Judicial Nominations - Although we do not agree with her votes on some judicial nominations, the Senator’s support for pro-GLBT legislation is an example for senators of both parties. Sen. Collins was by no means the deciding vote in these judicial nominations.  For example, Chief Justice Roberts was confirmed by a vote of 78-22, with Senators Russ Feingold (D-WI), Ron Wyden (D-OR), Chris Dodd (D-CT), Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and other Democrats voting for him. Judge Southwick was confirmed  by a vote of 62-35 (three not voting), with Senators Akaka and Feinstein among the yeas. And not to be forgotten, Senator Collins voted against the Bush Administration when she opposed the appointment of anti-gay, federal judicial nominee Bill Pryor.

We commend Rep. Tom Allen for his continued commitment to equal rights even as we stand by our endorsement of Sen. Susan Collins.

NORTH CAROLINA:

Because there are two pro-GLBT candidates in the Democratic Senate primary, HRC did not take a position in this race.

While we understand the value of having openly-GLBT people in public office, that factor is not a sole criterion in our endorsement decisions.  Our mission is to pass legislation that advances GLBT rights and, in service of that mission, to elect fair-minded leaders who will champion those rights. The presence of more than one pro-equality candidate in a primary is a testament to how far our movement and our community have come.

HRC is neutral in this race.  Moreover, it appears that no other state or national GLBT organizations that have taken a position prior to the primary. Similarly, HRC generally does not make an endorsement in primary elections with more than one pro-GLBT, viable candidate, such as in the North Carolina Democratic Primary for US Senate.

Both candidates have taken pro-equality positions, and support key provisions of HRC’s legislative agenda.

The GLBT community in North Carolina is backing both of these candidates, with many supporters in each camp.

HRC will endorse a general election candidate who supports GLBT equality and could pose a serious challenge to incumbent Senator Elizabeth Dole, who scored an abysmal ZERO on HRC’s 109th Congress scorecard, voting for the discriminatory Federal Marriage Amendment and against hate crimes legislation.

Incumbent Sen. Dole has raised over three million dollars.  To date, Neal has raised $360,000, of which $120,000 was his own.  Hagan has raised $1.5 million.  Keeping an eye on the general election, it is important to be able to go toe-to-toe with this formidable anti-GLBT opponent and secure a fair-minded Senate seat.

FINAL THOUGHTS:

To understand why HRC and groups like it support political candidates, it is helpful to step back and look at why we make these endorsements.

In HRC’s case, that means influencing members of the U.S. House and Senate to support HRC on many issues.  In a two-year session of Congress, HRC will ask Members of Congress to vote with us on 5-10 core bills and amendments; write letters on our behalf to the Administration; speak out in support of equality; meet with GLBT constituents; lobby other Members; strategize with us and more.

To help Members support GLBT equality we deploy:  top-notch lobbyists educating on the issues, grassroots pressure from our membership in their Districts, in-depth legal analysis, exceptional educational publications, savvy media outreach and more. 

And every two (or six) years, many Members of Congress will ask HRC for help. They will ask for an endorsement and a contribution from our PAC. (And when our friends ask for help, HRC stands up and helps.)

This means Republicans who work with HRC get endorsements the same as Democrats do, and we tend to favor incumbent members who have worked with us over the years.

To refuse to endorse pro-GLBT Republicans undermines our legislative work. It says to Republicans that if they stand for equality, the nation’s largest GLBT PAC will oppose you any way. It says to Democrats that they needn’t stretch their support too much because HRC has no other choice.

Unfortunately, our efforts to promote a fair-minded judiciary have fallen short of our goals.  This part of our advocacy has been an uphill battle, in large measure because this president has put forth so many judges who are far out of the mainstream.  Rather than blame any one senator for this president’s track record on judges, we believe that it’s important to put a fair-minded president in the White House; someone who understands that our constitution was designed to protect all Americans and that “We the People” means GLBT people too.