2012 Election | Barack Obama | News

CNN: 1 in Every 16 of Obama's Bundlers (Major Fundraisers) is Openly Gay

CNN has done an analysis of Obama's bundlers ahead of another LGBT fundraiser in L.A. on Wednesday which shows how important gay donors are to the President's campaign:

B_obamaA CNN analysis of President Obama's biggest fundraisers, known as bundlers, shows that at least 33 -- or about one in every 16 bundlers -- is openly gay. Together, they have raised at least $8 million for the campaign between January and the end of March.

By contrast, in the same period, bundlers from the television, movie and music industry, some of whom attended a recent high-profile fundraiser hosted by actor George Clooney, raised $6.8 million, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Only bundlers who are openly gay were counted in CNN's analysis:

The Washington Post has reported that as many as one in six bundlers supporting Obama are gay. The Advocate Magazine estimates one in five.

Glancing down the names on the bundlers list released by the Obama campaign for the first quarter, it is easy to find people known for their work on behalf of the LGBT community.

Tim Gill, a software entrepreneur who runs a large Colorado-based foundation that backs gay rights projects, has already contributed $672,800 with his partner Scott Miller to the Obama for America campaign. Fred Eychaner, who owns the Chicago-based Newsweb Corp., has donated $1,220,550 so far.

He co-hosted a $35,800-per-person LGBT organized fundraiser for Obama in February. Kathy Levinson, the former president and CEO of the Menlo Park, California-based Etrade, gave $202,150. The LA Gay and Lesbian Center Women's Night named Levinson a "Community Role Model" in 2000. She was instrumental in raising money to stop the anti-same-sex marriage law in California.

Read the full piece here.

Feed This post's comment feed


  1. How sad. Obama has treated me and my boyfriend like a cash cow, milking it when he needs funds and hiding us in the barn when he fears it might offend the neighbors.

    SHAME. I am done with that liar. He gets NOTHING from me. NOTHING.

    Posted by: Alan | Jun 5, 2012 10:38:05 AM

  2. @Alan: That's great. Vote for Romney and if he wins, you and your boyfriend won't be hidden in a barn. You'll be rounded up behind an electrified fence, with no food or water until you croak. How does that suit you?

    Posted by: Ron | Jun 5, 2012 10:46:59 AM

  3. Ohmigod, 16 out of 16 Romney bundlers are straight.

    Posted by: homer | Jun 5, 2012 10:47:41 AM

  4. @Alan, you're not very smart...i doubt he needs your 20 bucks anyway.

    Of course he has a large group of power gays bundling funds for his campaign. They know the only chance we have is with Obama, a hopefully more democratic house and Obama judicial appoinments.

    Posted by: DRG | Jun 5, 2012 10:51:48 AM

  5. Alan, I can assure you that Romney never spoke about or put me or my partner in an electrified pen while Gov. of MA. We did become the first state to institute gay marriage while he was in office. Please stop all the hysteria about politics, you sound like axle grease. Neither candidate changes anything while in office without the help of Congress. If you want to give more of your money away to politicians then by all means give as much as you want. Just please don't get all hysterical.

    Posted by: Name: | Jun 5, 2012 10:54:19 AM

  6. And the Oscar for Best Actress in a Hissy Fit role goes to Alan! (We picture Alan artfully pouting amid shattered vases on the floor.)

    The more interesting question would be how many of Romney's Bundlers are Closetedly Gay? You know, the kind who don't really care that his official policy supports the undoing of the marriages of all same-sex couples in the US, including those in MA. (Marriage happened in MA despite Mittens, in case anyone is confused. He's more determined to be anti-gay now, since his base is Liberty University.)

    Posted by: Ernie | Jun 5, 2012 11:08:20 AM

  7. It's amazing how many single issue gay voters there are.
    This is NOT a "Lesser of Two Evils" election. Any vote not for Mr Obama IS a vote for Romney.
    The Republicans have made it quite clear that any and all of the hard work for equality WILL BE REVERSED IMMEDIATELY.
    So... get all whiny about whatever. Our President has done so much, for ALL Americans, and has made great strides in fixing the quagmire that Bush and Co spent 8 years creating. Anyone who thought EVERYTHING would be taken care of in 1 term is delusional.
    And DO NOT mention Hillary. She was never any more Pro-Gay (at least verbally). She NEVER said she supports Marriage Equality.
    She may have been a good, or great President. She's done amazing work. But I'm TIRED of the whining about Hillary. She lost. Move on.
    Also: IF Romney wins... I will NOT participate equality fundraisers any more. Been there. Done that. We are sooooo close to winning equality. If everything is made null and void? I refuse to start from scratch.
    If people want to throw ALL the work of the past few DECADES away just because the President didn't fill everything on everyone's wish list... well... live with the consequences.

    Posted by: JimmyD | Jun 5, 2012 11:08:56 AM

  8. Well that's not far from the (safe) estimate of the gay portion of the population. It's not really surprising. Just reinforces the well-known fact that the majority of gay people are supporting Obama.

    Posted by: Winston | Jun 5, 2012 11:11:04 AM

  9. " We did become the first state to institute gay marriage while he was in office."

    And he sure isn't bragging about that now.
    Unlike that Romney this current Romeny has to kiss Tea Party azz.

    I wanna' a new ETCHASKETCH, Daaaaaaddy.

    Posted by: Derrick from Philly | Jun 5, 2012 11:13:39 AM

  10. @Name

    Romney may have been in office when MA legalized gay marriage, but he had nothing to do with it. It was legalized by the state's Supreme Court.

    Don't get hysterical? How about don't be misinformed?

    Posted by: joest | Jun 5, 2012 11:18:33 AM

  11. Alan, I've said this many times on here before, but you shouldn't think about the election as one individual versus another.

    You can hate President Obama's guts, but you ought to be VERY thankful for his appointments of Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

    DOMA and Prop 8 are making their way to the SCOTUS soon - the rulings that will set precedent so you and your boyfriend can some day be federally recognized husbands if you so choose. A 5-4 victory doesn't provide a lot of room for error.

    Many people think Ginsburg is next to retire. Vote for Romney, vote third party, or don't vote at all and you're helping another Thomas or Roberts take her place.

    Posted by: kpo5 | Jun 5, 2012 11:23:43 AM

  12. "We did become the first state to institute gay marriage while he was in office."

    Yes, in a decision by the state supreme court with which Romney vehemently disagreed and against which he campaigns to this day. Not to mention trying to block the effects of the decision in any way he could.

    People forget that TENS OF THOUSANDS of other gay couples would have gotten married if he hadn't blocked out-of-staters from getting married in MA.

    Posted by: BobN | Jun 5, 2012 11:27:23 AM

  13. "The Republicans have made it quite clear that any and all of the hard work for equality WILL BE REVERSED IMMEDIATELY"

    Speaking of hysteria. Dubya was President for 8 years and had Republican majorities in Congress for part of that time and no real damage was done to us.

    DOMA and "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", on the other hand, were both products of the Clinton Administration.

    And I don't know what major accomplishments there have been under Obama other than DADT repeal, which admittedly was big, but he did not lead that effort and the bill that ultimately passed was introduced in the Senate by a Republican and an Independent and passed with 7 Republicans voting for it. And there is ZERO chance of that being repealed, as long as there are 40 Senators who would not go along with it, as there always will be.

    Romney is like all Republican Establishment Presidential candidates--he pays lip service to anti-gay factions and then, if the candidate wins, he ignores them completely once in office.

    I am sure Romney would do the same if elected.

    I plan to vote for Obama, but those of you pretending that either the sky will open for us if he is re-elected or the sky will fall if he is not are, yes, behaving hysterically.

    Posted by: Rick | Jun 5, 2012 11:52:35 AM

  14. Alan is a troll. Usually if an utterly ridiculous post is the first after a blog entry, it's somebody trolling and possibly even paid to post a negative comment.

    Posted by: Gregoire | Jun 5, 2012 12:03:04 PM

  15. @Rick: although DADT repeal was enacted by Congress (which is how things work in our government), it never would have happened without a President calling for it to happen. And more importantly, it never would have happened without a president willing to sign the bill. George Bush would not have signed it; Mitt Romney would most assuredly not have signed it--he said it should be kept in place "until conflict is over." So it's absurd to say "Romney would do the same if elected."

    As for your not knowing what other major accomplishments there have been under the President other than DADT repeal? Here are just a few:

    --the Justice Department is not only no longer defending DOMA, they are actively arguing against it in briefs filed in lawsuits. They are working on behalf of LGBT families to get it removed. That order came from the President.

    ---the first federal hate crimes law to include sexual orientation and gender identity. Would Mitt Romney have signed that law? Absolutely not.

    ---the HIV travel and immigration ban was lifted per order of the President.

    --a President of the United States saying on TV that he supports marriage equality is huge. It is not legislation, but in some ways it's just as important--it helps change people's minds. We are already seeing a change in support among African Americans in the short time since the President did the interview. And think of the effect around the world of an American president saying what he said. What does Mitt say? He says he wants a constitutional ban on same sex marriage. Of course it's not likely to happen, but think how damaging it is every time he says it.

    That's just a few of his many LGBT-specific accomplishments. And I thik the health care reform, the order to kill Bin Laden, and the rescue of the auto industry (vs Mitt's Let Detroit Go Bankrupt) are what would be called major accomplishments.

    And finally, there will absolutely be two, and maybe three vacancies on the Supreme Court in the next 4 years. Which person is appointing those replacements will make a HUGE difference in marriage equality and other LGBT-related laws.

    Posted by: Robert | Jun 5, 2012 12:28:03 PM

  16. Ah, you have to love it when gay people pretend that DADT ended BECAUSE of Republicans, rather than in spite of all the Republican votes against repeal. (As if the Democratic majority and a supportive President didn't exist.) It would not have ended during a Republican presidency. It only ended legislatively because a Democrat was President.

    And the fate of DOMA could very well depend on who the next President is because the President's DOJ is involved in the Court cases (President Obama's DOJ is helping us, President Romney's DOJ would be helping our opponents) and, duh, in selecting SC justices who will affect gay civil rights progress for years. So, yes, without being at all "hysterical" it matters who the President is in practical as well as philosophical terms.

    Anyone who thinks the Republicans are "ignoring" the anti-gay factions in their party has been living in a cave of delusion. The 2012 Republican Establishment is actively anti-gay.

    Posted by: Ernie | Jun 5, 2012 12:30:51 PM

  17. Then why is the Democratic National Convention meeting in North Carolina, one of the most anti-gay states in the union? Why should money raised by gay people be spent in that hateful state. The convention should be moved immediately to a city in a state that welcomes gay people.

    Posted by: John | Jun 5, 2012 1:20:00 PM

  18. John, those things are planned far in advance.

    Posted by: MateoM | Jun 5, 2012 2:27:22 PM

  19. The Democratic Convention was scheduled to take place in North Carolina because the President narrowly won the state in 2008, and although he can win again without NC, Mitt Romney can't win the electoral college without it.

    The convention location was chosen long before the recent anti-gay amendment vote. The planning takes years. It would be logistically impossible for the DNC to change locations now. More importantly, it would be a public relations nightmare for the President and the party to pull the convention out of a swing state. Can you imagine how the Republicans would attack the President? Think of the economic impact of pulling the convention out of the state--it would be a disaster politically.

    Life, and politics, are not as simple as moving the convention to a place that welcomes gay people. Of the current states where same sex marriage is legal, only Iowa is a swing state. The Democrats having their convention in a state the President is already going to win (Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, etc) serves no purpose.

    I would much rather have my gay money that I donate on a regular basis spent for the President to try to win North Carolina.

    Posted by: Robert | Jun 5, 2012 2:35:54 PM

  20. Anyone who has been alive for the last few decades and thinks that there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans with respect to gay issues has not been paying attention.

    Fortunately, most gay people are fully aware of what is at stake and know which party will help them the most.

    Those who don't get it, simply don't get it. They are clueless.

    Posted by: if the shoe fits | Jun 5, 2012 3:04:56 PM

  21. @Robert

    a) When I said Romney would do the same, I meant that he would do the same thing that previous Republican Presidents have done and ignore the anti-gay factions once in office; I did not mean that he would have done the same things Obama has. The point is, he might not do us any good, but I seriously doubt he would damage us in any way, either

    b) None of the conservatives on the Supreme Court will retire as long as Obama is President and I doubt any of the liberals would retire if Romney were elected, unless their health absolutely forced them to (as might be the case with Ginsburg), so I think that is kind of a roundabout argument in favor of Obama

    c) I honestly think Obama finally endorsed same-sex marriage because he thought it was the most politically expedient thing for him to do at this point--it re-energized the gay portion of his base and was not all that risky a move with Independents, since the majority of them now seem to favor same-sex marriage. If it were not a political move, then why the timing of the announcement?

    Posted by: Rick | Jun 5, 2012 3:08:26 PM

  22. "it is easy to find people known for their work on behalf of the LGBT community."

    There is no "LGBT community." All of these bundlers are gay, lesbian or bi. There are no trans people on the list because trans activists contribute nothing to the so-called "LGBT" movement. Instead, they have their own separate organizations, which are mostly funded by more gay money. There is no better example of a parasitic relationship.

    Posted by: Steven | Jun 5, 2012 3:17:28 PM

  23. you show me an anti-trans gay man and i'll show you a wimp who never succeeded in convincing his father that he was a "real man"

    steven, you're a sad cowardly little waste.


    Posted by: LittleKiwi | Jun 5, 2012 3:21:20 PM

  24. "There is no better example of a parasitic relationship."

    And none as harmful to the host, as parasitic relationships always are.

    Posted by: Rick | Jun 5, 2012 3:29:15 PM

  25. @Rick

    I now understand what you meant, but I don't share your feelings re Mitt. What I fear about him that due to his complete lack of a core & convictions, he will go along with the far-right of his party--which is increasingly becoming the norm of his party--far more than Bush. Mitt can't even distance himself from crazy Donald Trump and his birtherism. I disliked Bush enormously, but at least he had some convictions. Also, I don't think George Bush personally dislikes gays and probably doesn't care one way or another about gay rights. I don't believe that about Mitt. He gave $10,000 to the Prop 8 campaign. I think there is good potential for a Romney presidency, combined with a Republican house and senate, to do great damage to gay rights.

    Ginsburg is extremely likely to retire soon. She's 79, has had colon and pancreatic cancer, and she has said her goal is to retire at 82 like Louis Brandeis. She likely won't make it that far, but even then that's under the next administration.

    The President is a politician--that's not a surprise. So of course political calculation goes into all things, and he'd be incompetent if it didn't. That doesn't mean that what he said is any less important or significant. It's a true moment in history, and I think history books will record it as such.

    The timing was forced on him by Joe Biden saying more than he was supposed to on Meet the Press. I still think that while motivating the base it could still cost him some votes here and there, and in some states where it will be super close that could be very important.

    Posted by: Robert | Jun 5, 2012 3:41:47 PM

  26. 1 2 »

Post a comment


« «West Coast Performance of Prop 8 Play to Hit Radio Airwaves« «