06/16/2008
HRC Responds to Accusations of Candidate Bias During Primaries
Earlier today I posted a link to items by Andrew Sullivan and Michael Petrelis suggesting personal contributions by executives at the Human Rights Campaign during the primary campaign season exhibited bias in favor of the Clinton campaign.
Sullivan referenced Petrelis' research that top executives at HRC overwhelmingly contributed to the campaign of Senator Hillary Clinton while offering the Obama campaign nothing. Late this afternoon I received an email from HRC containing a statement from David Medina, former national political director for Sen Edwards' campaign and a member of HRC's board of directors, responding to the claims. Medina responds that one of the reasons for the disparity is that Sen. Edwards and Sen. Obama both had policies that their campaigns would not accept contributions from federal lobbyists and that many at HRC were excited and passionately supportive of the Obama campaign during the primary season. HRC has now endorsed Obama.
You can read it, AFTER THE JUMP...
***Statement from David Medina, former national political director for Sen Edwards' campaign and a member of HRC's board of directors***
There's a story percolating online today regarding HRC's alleged bias toward the Clinton campaign during the Democratic primaries this year. As the national political director for Sen. John Edwards' campaign, and as a member of HRC' board of directors, with a seat on HRC's Public Policy Committee, I'd like to put those assertions to rest.
First off, Sen. Edwards and Sen. Obama both had policies that their campaigns would not accept contributions from federal lobbyists. Sen. Clinton did not have a policy like that in her campaign, so it makes sense that FEC reports would show that some HRC staff, in their own private giving separate from the organization, would have given financial support to her - and not to Edwards or Obama.
Regarding the other issue at hand -- were there many people within HRC's staff and board who were excited and passionate about Sen. Clinton's campaign? You bet. Can the same be said for Sen. Edwards, and Sen. Obama, who has now been endorsed by HRC for the general election? Absolutely.
HRC is reflective of our community in that people saw a great deal to be excited and energized about this primary season. Throughout the campaign season, I think it's very fair to say that the staff, the boards and the membership of the HRC were split among the top three candidates, as was the rest of the country.
During the most recent HRC Board meeting, I addressed the staff and board, and personally thanked them for the way they approached the primary season, supporting a robust and genuine dialogue among a fantastic pool of candidates.
Now that HRC has endorsed Sen. Obama, the staff and boards are one hundred percent behind his candidacy and are working to elect him president.
Finally, as I write this today, the communications team of HRC is not in DC in their regular offices, but in California helping manage the surge of media around the historic marriages that will begin taking place this afternoon. That kind of work, along with keeping an eye toward the elections in the fall, is where their energy – and the rest of ours - should be right now, not in this kind of community infighting.
***End of Statement***
Sphere: Related ContentPosted 5:51 PM EST by Andy in Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, News | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Ah, well that explains it then. No harm done I suppose.
Posted by: Chas | Jun 16, 2008 5:55:57 PM
HRC = Human Rights Campaign
HRC = Hillary Rodham Clinton
Maybe they just made out their checks to HRC and mailed them to the wrong place? :-)
Posted by: seattle mike | Jun 16, 2008 6:00:21 PM
first..why would anyone care what michael petrelis has to say. that guy tries to create drama where none exists. that's what gives the man a purpose to live. hell, we don't need anyone to tear us down. people (our own) like petrelis do it every day.
Posted by: kerry | Jun 16, 2008 6:20:06 PM
Oh come on! Do they think people are that stupid to fall for their shitty explaination? They (HRC)claimed that the donations were made by the staff as individuals. Therefore, they could have donated to OB's campaign had they wanted to. No ambassadorships or cabinet positions for Little Joe and his posse. HA!
Posted by: Marky Mark | Jun 16, 2008 6:45:21 PM
"the communications team of HRC is not in DC in their regular offices, but in California helping manage the surge of media around the historic marriages that will begin taking place this afternoon," or
"Our flacks are in California today trying to take credit for the grassroots efforts to legalize of same-sex marriage - they'll be back in DC tomorrow for the usual beltway insider spin-doctoring."
Posted by: mp | Jun 16, 2008 6:52:42 PM
This is a good explanation for the employees registered as lobbyists in 2008 (Joe Solmonese, David Smith, Susanne Salkind, Allison Herwitt, Christina Finch, Brian Moulton, Lara Schwartz, Mike Mings, David Stacy, Andrea Lavario, Dena Wigder Feldman, and Jonathan Monteith--add Antonio Agnone, Robert Kearney, and Courtney McCall from the 2007 records), but other employees gave most of the donations in the story.
Of the donations in the referenced data, 12 went to Presidential campaigns. Of these 12 donations, two were from a registered lobbyist. Those were both David Smith's contributions of $1000 to Dodd and $2300 to Clinton.
Of the remaining 10 donations (from people who are and were free to give to any campaign by virtue of not being registered lobbyists), the breakdown is as follows:
Senator Clinton: $2000
Senator Dodd: $2000
Senator Edwards: $750
Governor Richardson: $500
Senator Obama still got $0, of course.
For what it's worth, David Medina hasn't given any reportable donations (more than $200) this cycle. Joe Solmonese has given, but not to any presidential campaigns.
Here are my thoughts:
1) Medina's explanation is weak at best and misleading at worst. It's not even a good attempt at redirecting the argument when the data on giving is available at the link above, and the lobbying database is available at ldsearch.house.gov.
2) It's amazing that HRC would try to deflect the story when this is really not very much money at all. 12 reportable donations to all presidential campaigns from HRC staff isn't very much. $4300 is just a drop in the bucket as well. But HRC is now making this another kerfuffle it doesn't need.
3) I don't think "HRC Leadership" really applies to all of the people who donated, some who work in development or field operations. So that's an overblown charge, but I'm still amazed it rose to the need for an official statement from an HRC board member.
Posted by: Adam | Jun 16, 2008 7:02:21 PM
People, let's face it.
Those HRC honchos were so far up Hillary's cooch for one reason - they bought into her presumptive victory and wanted their 'night in the Lincoln bedroom.' They wanted jobs in her admin, favors repaid, etc.
And this sort of baloney cronyism - on which we've overloaded with BushCo. - is I HOPE something in which Obama won't engage. Likely he will to some degree - they're politicians after all and we the people don't hold them to harder standards as we should! - but I can hope he won't.
You KNOW Captain Meltyface will. Hague and all those other nutjobs of his. Ugh.
Posted by: Ben | Jun 16, 2008 8:42:21 PM
Maybe they donated to Senator Clinton because they supported her candidacy? Just a thought...
If Obama's supporters think that they are helping their candidate by constantly bashing or questioning the motives of those of us who enthusiastically supported Senator Clinton, they are wrong.
So far, I have received two emails from the Obama campaign asking for money, and two emails from the DNC asking for money for Obama. Since they apparently have my email address, you'd think that Obama would start by sending an email asking for my support. Is this tactless money-grubbing the type of change that Obama promised?
It might be easy to organize a bunch of activists to win a caucus with a 2% voter turnout, but it is going to be a lot more difficult for Senator Obama to get the votes of the majority of Americans who aren't inspired by his speeches, which quite frankly are full of the type of bullshit we'd expect from any politician... especially if his supporters act like bitter losers even though their guy won the nomination.
Posted by: Ian | Jun 16, 2008 8:59:47 PM
God, you Obamabaters should eat it. Jesus. Oh god they didn't give him money! Whatever will we do? HRC has been irrelevant for a few years now...move on.
And as for Andrew Sullivan, need we remind him that he voted for Bush in 2000 and therefore his thoughts on who people support has become absolutely irrelevant, just like the HRC.
Who gives a SHIT what he thinks?
Posted by: Jeanluc | Jun 16, 2008 9:02:51 PM
This whole thing is ridiculous. Petrelis and Sullivan are just trying to pick a fight and get attention. Sullivan despises HRC and will say anything to attack them. As a number of folks have pointed out - the actual numbers given were pretty minimal. I'm pretty involved as a volunteer with HRC and hosted 2 field workers at my house during the primaries - both of whom supported Obama. I personally donated to him as well, as did a lot of other HRC folks I know. This is a much ado about nothing, and HRC probably had to respond because the story got picked up by sites like this and Queerty.
But at this point: who cares?! It is beyond me why folks are intent on trying to pick fights when we all need to be working together to get Obama elected. If you need motivation, I've got two words for you: Supreme Court!
Posted by: John | Jun 16, 2008 11:37:27 PM
The HRC supported Republican, anti-gay marriage Mary Bono for the house in the last election over a Democrat who was for gay marriage. Their brilliant reason? Mary B was "electable". So was Hitler. THE HRC CAN SUCK IT AND DOES.
Posted by: dezboy | Jun 17, 2008 12:40:06 AM
HRC sucks anyway!
Posted by: RS | Jun 17, 2008 11:44:08 AM
QFT. MP said, "Our flacks are in California today trying to take credit for the grassroots efforts to legalize of same-sex marriage - they'll be back in DC tomorrow for the usual beltway insider spin-doctoring."
Seriously, this isn't making sense. He's saying they wanted Obama to win but only donated to Hillary because she'd take their money? Yeah. As if!
Posted by: queendru | Jun 17, 2008 11:50:14 AM
Andy Towle is once again and still licking the Log Cabin boots and HRC haters Chris Crain/Andrew Sullivan and harpy Michael Petrilis with this non story. Which is badly reported but hey...no one says this blog has to be acurate or factual...just profitable...how many ads DO I have to go through.
But hey lets give Sully his due he is a personal advocate for unsave sex (barebacking IS his game) and hey AIDS is so over according to him anyway....but Obama will let the states allow him to visit his partner in the hospital and transfer property rights as long as it's not called "Marriage".
Posted by: MCnNYC | Jun 18, 2008 1:02:42 AM