Withholding donations to a political party because they are "not doing enough" for your cause.

On one LGBT-related blog that I regularly read, there is currently a debate about whether people in that community should withhold donations from the DNC and HRC due to the relative lack of progress on queer issue since Obama took office with a Democrat majority. Here in an overview of the various blog posts: http://pamshouseblend.com/diary/1669...-and-the-gaytm

I have mixed feelings on this. Apparently the plan for those who are withholding their donations to the DNC is that they will instead handpick pro-equality candidates to give their money to. This seems like a good strategy at first glance, but on the other hand as one blogger points out in the first post listed there, the RNC will be receiving millions upon millions of donation dollars from groups that are actively opposing equality-related issues. And it is better, I suppose, to have a political party in power that ignores you rather than one that is actively trying to screw you over.

Thoughts?

The current Republican party will do no favors for the LGBT community. It would be foolish to not donate to the Dems. The Dems might be (extremely) inept and slow moving but you know the Repubs as a party will actively fight the LGBT community.

I'm torn on this, but thankfully broke and thus spared the trouble of having to make up my mind. I can see both sides of the argument, they both make good points IMO.

However, I've heard enough bad things about the HRC throwing us under the bus the moment we become a 'burden', so screw that.

I'm torn on this, but thankfully broke and thus spared the trouble of having to make up my mind. I can see both sides of the argument, they both make good points IMO.

However, I've heard enough bad things about the HRC throwing us under the bus the moment we become a 'burden', so screw that.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by What Exit?

The current Republican party will do no favors for the LGBT community. It would be foolish to not donate to the Dems. The Dems might be (extremely) inept and slow moving but you know the Repubs as a party will actively fight the LGBT community.

---

This is pretty much how I feel about it. I'm pretty disgusted with the Democrats, but at least they're just a shitty, wimpy, wishy-washy "ally" instead of an active enemy. They do no good, but supporting them can help prevent active harm.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by What Exit?

The current Republican party will do no favors for the LGBT community. It would be foolish to not donate to the Dems. The Dems might be (extremely) inept and slow moving but you know the Repubs as a party will actively fight the LGBT community.

---

This is basically my feeling. With a side order of "we're making excellent progress right now". Obama's not exactly fighting for us (nor did he say he would) but we're going forward with things like marriage rights, a likely end to the military ban, etc. Rapidly. We're in a time of immense social change on LGBT issues. (Well, LGB at least. :()

A political party that's not standing in our way is what we need right now. A party that devotes time and energy to stop us, which the GOP probably would, is a big problem. Obama not going to the mat on queer issues is at least not stopping progress.

To me this seems like one of the problem of an (effective) two-party system. You should not owe allegiance to the lesser evil.
Pragmatically not supporting one side will just shift the balance towards the other one.

Does anyone have anything thoughts, though, on the concept of donating to specific Dem candidates instead of the party as a whole?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Feirefiz

To me this seems like one of the problem of an (effective) two-party system. You should not owe allegiance to the lesser evil.
Pragmatically not supporting one side will just shift the balance towards the other one.

---

I know, I know, I know. :911:

Here in Memphis, Tennessee, the Democratic primary for the Tennessee 9th district congressional seat is pretty much the de facto general election. The incumbent, Steve Cohen, is a career legislator who served the city as as a state senator and supports most of the things I believe in. He's being opposed by our odious former mayor, W.W. Herenton, whose campaign platform is pretty much "That goddamn white boy can't support black folks. Plus he's a Jew, and we don't like Jews. Plus God wants me to be Congressman just like he wanted me to be mayor."

So yes, I've donated to Cohen.

ETA: As for the party as a whole: well, the party is feckless. But as others have pointed out, the Republicans are actively opposed to many things I support, including true fiscal discipline, no matter what they claim. So I'll support the Democratic party as a whole too, if only to minimize GOP gains this year.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Taumpy

Does anyone have anything thoughts, though, on the concept of donating to specific Dem candidates instead of the party as a whole?

---

On reflection, I've donated to specific candidates in the past but I've never donated to the DNC. I've even canvassed for those candidates. Those few that got elected didn't become champions of LGBT rights after being elected, regardless of rhetoric. I'll probably keep doing it, but it has nothing to do with trying to support LGBT rights by snubbing the Dems as a whole, since I hadn't even realized what I was doing until just now.

Despite that, I'm not sure if the LGBT community and its allies donating to specific candidates instead of the DNC will help all that much. Most people are more likely to toss off some coinage to the party than to carefully research candidates they want to support monetarily. I'd rather have people take the easy route than stop donating entirely, which seems like the more likely outcome.

I tend to look at all my politics through a lens of local elections and affairs. This isn't because I don't think that national issues aren't important, but simply a belief that I'm more likely to be able to influence things in a local manner than I am on the national stage. So, my inclination from the beginning will be to support individual candidates, rather than the national committee.

The problem I have with donating to any national committee is that strategically their support seems to me that it's going to be focused upon those races, across the nation, that are most likely to be influenced by large scale spending. The so-called key races argument. Which isn't necessarily a bad rubric for such committees, but if I were going to be pushing for LGBT issues here in NY, I'd be pushing to try to influence which Dems are getting elected to the NYS legislature. What's worse is that since I believe that LGBT issues are outside the core of the issues that the DNC cares about, the DNC is going to be much more likely to throw them under the bus in an effort to get things that it feels more strongly about accomplished.

In the end, I think it comes down to how much you can afford to donate, and where you want your voice to be counted. I can see the reasoning behind both positions, but overall, I'd focus on local races, myself.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Feirefiz

To me this seems like one of the problem of an (effective) two-party system. You should not owe allegiance to the lesser evil.
Pragmatically not supporting one side will just shift the balance towards the other one.

---

Sad but true, but then as mentioned I voter for Nader in 2000 as I could not vote for Bush/Cheney and Gore and Droopy Dog did nothing to win me over. I often vote third party candidates. I did it again this year for Governor and even made a small donation to the third party candidate.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Taumpy

Does anyone have anything thoughts, though, on the concept of donating to specific Dem candidates instead of the party as a whole?

---

I don't donate to parties and I rarely have. I put in money and effort for Reagan and Obama (yep, I know that looks odd). I have made specific contributions to specific candidates over the years in either party and the Green Party.

Most of my donations are to activist groups and mostly Green activist groups rather than to politicians.

So I would say donating to specific candidates is fine. It makes sense from the point of view of only directly supporting those you believe in.

I don't donate to politicians, myself, so the only thing I have to withhold is my vote.

The Democratic Party really doesn't pursue many issues as aggressively as I would like, but doing anything assists the Republicans in getting more power and influence is really cutting off your nose to spite your face.

If this country could move away from a two party system, it would be good, but I don't see how that will ever happen.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Orual

If this country could move away from a two party system, it would be good, but I don't see how that will ever happen.

---

I support third parties, but I don't expect them ever to replace or seriously affect the balance of the two party system. For me winning when I support a narrow issue third party is when one of the major parties co-opts that position to include it into their platform.

I don't see the two party system ending here in the US anytime soon. It would be more believable for me to see a third party supplant one of the current major parties, but even that seems very unlikely.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by OtakuLoki

I support third parties, but I don't expect them ever to replace or seriously affect the balance of the two party system. For me winning when I support a narrow issue third party is when one of the major parties co-opts that position to include it into their platform.

I don't see the two party system ending here in the US anytime soon. It would be more believable for me to see a third party supplant one of the current major parties, but even that seems very unlikely.

---

I had some small hopes that the Tea Baggers/TheoCons would splinter the Repubs and cause a short term third party that results in a moderate Republican party more like the Ike/Nixon type Repubs. However the Democrats ineptitude has allowed the Republican party to regroup and the small shining moment I though I saw appears to already be gone.

I donate only to animal rescue type organizations and secretly wish that we'd have another plague.

I never give money to the party, I only give money to particular candidates. Money given to the party is free money for their agendas and they don't actually have to concern themselves with making the source happy. A candidate on the other hand is going to be much more aware of where their support is coming from.