2012 Election | Barack Obama | Gay Marriage | Mitt Romney | NY marriage equality | Paul Singer | Republican Party

Top Republican Fundraiser Starts Marriage Equality Super PAC

Paul E. Singer, billionaire and massively influential Republican donor and fund-raiser, has committed $1 milion to creating a pro-marriage equality "super PAC."

From the New York Times's Frank Bruni:

Named American Unity PAC, its sole mission will be to encourage Republican candidates to support same-sex marriage, in part by helping them to feel financially shielded from any blowback from PaulESinger
well-funded groups that oppose it.

In an interview on Tuesday, [Singer] told me that he’s confident that in Congressional races, which would most likely be the super PAC’s initial focus, there are more than a few Republicans “who could be on the verge of support” or are “harboring and hiding their views.”

“And this kind of effort could be catalytic in generating some more movement,” he said.

As Andy previously reported, Singer is straight, but has a married gay son. Singer has contributed massive sums to pro-equality efforts before -- he was instrumental in bringing Republican support to the cause of marriage equality in New York -- but he's also contributed to the campaigns of anti-gay political candidates. He's a big Mitt Romney fan, and last month hosted a Romney fundraiser which brought the candidate $5 million.

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. My, what an expensive fig leaf...

    Posted by: BobN | Jun 9, 2012 2:41:40 PM


  2. Statistics show that a significant percentage of Republicans support civil unions, and a portion actually support gay marriage. Those who support no legal recognition of gay relationships at all are in the minority. So it may not be long before the "somewhat pro-gay Republican majority" starts to make its presence felt in terms of organization. And this is GOOD news.....right?

    Posted by: Mary | Jun 9, 2012 2:43:21 PM


  3. thing is, the best way to make a party change its historically-bigoted stances is to defund it.

    broke groups have no power.

    Posted by: LittleKiwi | Jun 9, 2012 2:55:16 PM


  4. This is good news. Anything to help move the clicker in our direction is good. We should not be so partisan to write off the GOP altogether. Although there are major elements within the GOP that will forever oppose all gay rights, there is also a major element that could and does support us. But they can't for a variety of reasons.

    If you want to rely solely upon the Dems, you will be waiting forever for your rights. Even with a Democratic majority in both houses and the White House, we still don't have ENDA and DOMA was not repealed. We repealed DADT only because of a massive push from all of us.

    We need people from the GOP to support us. We don't need everyone, but we need some. There are some that are willing to support us, and I believe we should support them in return.

    For any truly progressive legislation to last, we need support from both sides of the aisle. If gay rights is seen strictly as a liberal or Dem cause, then it gives the haters more to rally about. But if it is seen as bi=partisan, then we gain much more support from both sides, and there will be far less chance that the GOP will attempt to undo our gains.

    It's just good political sense to keep our eyes on the prize. We must get the votes we need, and we must keep those votes under significant challenges. It's the only way to get this done.

    Posted by: Randy | Jun 9, 2012 3:03:59 PM


  5. You can call me jaded, and paranoid, or whatever else, but I simply cannot trust that some Republicans are "coming around" on issues concerning rqual rights for gay and lesbians. Despite the Presidents recent support of equal marriage rights, there are still many LGBT and str8 allies who are on the fence about voting for him this November, if they even vote at all. Things like this seem to me like attempts at swaying some votes away from the Democratic Party or at least make it so that some folks feel comfortable with the Republican Party who now suddenly seems to be starting accept us. It won't matter what they say or do now - once that party controls ALL sections of government it will all go back to "Gay who? Gay what? No you CAN'T get married you silly silly gays! Gotcha!"

    Posted by: natamaxxx | Jun 9, 2012 3:06:26 PM


  6. as long as people continue to financially and "socially" support people and institutions that work AGAINST equality and PROMOTE bigotry and prejudice, those individuals and groups will never change.

    Posted by: LittleKiwi | Jun 9, 2012 3:10:43 PM


  7. Totally agree with Randy. Gay rights should not be a wedge or party-political issue. This PAC will have an impact that benefits all of us. Money matters.

    (Although I have to ask, I thought super PACs can't contribute to a specific candidate. If so, do they just "support" the candidate by running ads in favor of the candidate's issues?)

    Posted by: Dan | Jun 9, 2012 3:12:41 PM


  8. Kiwi, the point is that increasingly the VOTERS are changing. This is why increased support from people like Singer may encourae Republican candidates who truly want to support equality but are afraid of the consequences financially. The polls all show growing support for marriage equality, including among evangelicals themselves. Even people who are still anti-gay politically can change due to non-political factors. My change was initially started by viewing the portrayal of a gay love triangle on a soap opera.......Yes, I know people will say "A soap opera, WTF?".....but it's true!

    Posted by: Mary | Jun 9, 2012 3:29:17 PM


  9. Would like to know what was said by Mitt to encourage Singer. Especially in view of Mitt's record with ALL anti gay causes! Just to be a "good" Mormon is to be against marriage equality. The general Public would be surprised at what a "good" Mormon Mitt has been even finically, yet the press continues to give him a pass for some strange reason.

    Posted by: Mike | Jun 9, 2012 3:41:57 PM


  10. here's the GOP's actual problem - once they can no longer use the wedge-issues of GAYS! and ABORTIONS! and JEEBUS! as part of their party-platform, they'll be forced to have to...you know...actually talk and explain in detail their fiscal plans and such.

    which, as anyone with anything resembling a functioning brain knows, would spell doom for their party's success.

    the GOP is a party that succeeds in convincing millions of Americans to vote against their own financial best interests. fact. how do they do it? jingoistic rah-rah nationalism and pandering to Americas Bigots by being anti-gay.

    once those cards are off the table..... they'll have to say "oh, yeah. well, our plan is for the wealthiest to get tax breaks, and to allow their companies to outsource jobs to third-world countries, because it's cheaper for us. sorry. oh, and healthcare is still just for those who can afford it."

    this is why it's just incredibly unlikely that the GOP will ever adopt anything remotely RESEMBLING a pro-Equality stance. even neutrality isn't enough.

    to get the votes of their base they need to lie about others because they're incapable of telling the truth about themselves.

    Posted by: LittleKiwi | Jun 9, 2012 3:52:19 PM


  11. @Mary
    Why bother? It can't understand you. It doesn't speak 'rational' like people do. It be brain dead. Don't feed it.
    Of course this is great news. This is a material response to the leaked memo suggesting this very thing. The more reasonable Rep.s will move in our direction now and we will win soon. After that, for 20 years and more the Rep.s will be trying to repair their image like they did after segregation ended and people will forget slowly how hatefull they were. Strom Thurmond died in office. After they stop vociferously opposing us, few will care that they once did. It will cost them little. They don't call this 'The United States of Amnesia' for nothing.

    Posted by: NullNaught | Jun 9, 2012 4:08:33 PM


  12. @LittlePeepee your hatred is disgusting.

    Posted by: Alan | Jun 9, 2012 4:26:13 PM


  13. While more pro-gay GOPers would be great, helping them get elected to Congress will hurt us. They vote for anti-gay leadership. Even if enough Republicans in the House supported repealing DOMA, or enacting a non-discrimination law, for example, do you think Boehner/Cantor would ever let it get to the floor for a vote? Suspending the rules to circumvent them takes a 2/3 vote. So I think on a congressional level this could be counterproductive.

    Posted by: Tyler | Jun 9, 2012 4:39:57 PM


  14. Republicans will use the three G's this election
    Guns, God and Gays to win. I don't have faith that pro gay republicans will vote against the anti gay leadership. the same happens on my side, D's vote against pro gay legislation against leadership.

    But who knows maybe they will. People's suspicions about this is 100% understandable

    Posted by: GeorgeM | Jun 9, 2012 5:10:12 PM


  15. I don't care for this man's politics, but he seems to be a great dad.

    Posted by: Mike in the Tundra | Jun 9, 2012 5:25:48 PM


  16. Contradictions make for a most intriguing human being.

    Posted by: Jesse Archer | Jun 9, 2012 6:39:08 PM


  17. Romney supports a Federal Marriage Amendment -- an amendment to the United States Constitution to ban same-sex marriage -- which of course is an extremely offensive notion, and is directly and completely counter to Mr. Singer's super-PAC.

    According to the article, Mr. Singer is raising money for Romney.

    Dude, EITHER YOU ARE WITH YOUR SON, OR YOU AREN'T.

    I hope you make the right choice.

    Posted by: not x does not equal x | Jun 9, 2012 6:52:03 PM


  18. In a representative democracy, elected leaders reflect their constituents.

    If you claim that you don't know Republicans that genuinely are pro equality, you've lived a sheltered life at best, and at worst are a partisan hack, and a liar.

    Why is it so many gay media whores are so attached to the idea that any political party is so static that it can not reflect the *changing* views of it's constituents ?

    It defies reality and historical fact.

    It also reveals a neurotic attachment to perpetual victim-hood.

    Not that I'm unsympathetic that so much of certain gay media whores identities hinge upon defining themselves based on their perceived bugaboos of others, it's just very ironic and amusing. And more than a little bit pathetic and gay ghetto.

    Posted by: NVTodd | Jun 9, 2012 6:53:42 PM


  19. There do seem to be the occasional member of the GOP who is pro-equality. However, that stance has yet to trickle upward to the GOP leadership in any significant way. As long as the GOP line up consists of people like Romney, McCain, Santorum, Gingrich etc. these alleged "Pro-Equality Republicans" will be pissing into the wind.

    Posted by: Roscoe | Jun 9, 2012 8:23:22 PM


  20. If Singer raised $5 million for Romney does that mean behind closed doors, Romney's actually pro gay marriage????

    Posted by: Name: | Jun 9, 2012 8:53:27 PM


  21. Romneys not pro gay marriage, the two of them disagree on that topic yet he still stands by him

    Posted by: GeorgeM | Jun 9, 2012 9:13:13 PM


  22. I think if the republicans could finally shake the grip of the evangelicals, we would start to see a major shift. This has always confused me because being gay isn't a political left or right thing. There must be as many of us born to conservative families as liberal. In fact we know there are. The fear of coming out as gay, or of supporting gay friends or family is just still much harder to do because of the fear of a evangelical political backlash.

    My personal opinion is that with the changing times and the changing demographics, it won't be much longer before we see a change like we did withing the black community after Obama came out in favor. A group mentality shift for those who either backed us and where afraid to speak up, or just didn't care one way or another so backed the group mentality. Let more big conservstive donors or mover and shakers come out in support of family or friends and they'll give cover to those who have been too afraid to do so. Big names like this could be game changers.

    That's my hope. We'll see.

    Posted by: Michaelandfred | Jun 9, 2012 9:27:23 PM


  23. @ GeorgeM
    How do you know? Do you have facts that he told Singer?

    Posted by: Name: | Jun 9, 2012 9:33:54 PM


  24. It's entirely possible to be gay and fiscally conservative. Maybe someday I'll be able to register Republican. Who'd have thought that African Americans would one day predominately choose the party that once stood for the right to own slaves? Political Parties can change and evolve. That's a good thing right?

    Posted by: Bri | Jun 9, 2012 9:49:00 PM


  25. Name
    I don't remember where the was but when singer endorsed Romney it noted that the two did not see eye to eye on gay marriage and I think it said singer made his belief known.
    I can try and find it

    Posted by: GeorgeM | Jun 9, 2012 9:59:17 PM


  26. 1 2 »

Post a comment







Trending


« «A Fabulous, Countrified 'It Gets Better': VIDEO« «