Sometime around when HRC came up with the “=” sign logo and went about trying to become “THE” LGBT rights organization is where they went “bad” in my mind. Liz Birch–one of the poorest public speakers I ever had to endure–kept showing up as the “spokesperson” for the movement. HRC became more and more a BRAND–they didn’t just start selling Equal Sign T-shirts, they opened frigging RETAIL STORES filled with “=” crap. Because Bill Clinton pretended to care about us and attended HRC dinners, their “legend” grew and they started believing their own press releases as everything snowballed.

It was a perfect storm and the organization knew that it had to keep showing growth. They did start sending out field staff on campaigns that already had a lot of attention–leaving the Task Force and state organizations to work on the real grassroots campaigns. They ignored the Marriage issue in the early 1990s (running away from it) until the pre-DOMA build up when they finally took a stand. They pushed from the beginning for a (less-threatening) transgender-exclusive ENDA. They ignored gays-in-the-military until it became “chic.”

They bought the B’nai B’rith building at 1640 Rhose Island Ave. for $20+ million (plus millions more to fix it up) after devoting much of their fund-raising to “capital” instead of using it for either field ops or lobbying. I don’t even want to guess what percentage of their fundraising gross goes to building upkeep.

HRC used to lead and now they only follow. And only if they can get their name on top–even if other organizations have been doing the real work for many years prior. I view HRC as leeches now–draining money and time from the community that could be used more effectively elsewhere.

As bad as I feel doing so, I usually lecture the poor kids canvassing the streets in NYC trying to get people to sign up for HRC. When they approach with, “Do you support Marriage equality?” I will explain that I sure do, that’s why I actually give my money and time to organizations like the Task Force and Lambda Legal to actually achieve that instead of to HRC.

(and how do you really feel??? ;)

Jeff,

These celebs (and others) fight/fought very hard and raised a sh*tload of money for EFFECTIVE (not bloated) AIDS service/research organizations. I can recall pictures of all three personally volunteering in AIDS hospices and food programs.

Aside from marching/speaking behind a HUGE “HRC” banner (gotta get the brand out there) or attending cocktail parties with politicians, when have you seen any of HRC’s A-Listers in the trenches? I will give them credit for putting Candace Gingrich to work, but I can’t think of a single other one.

Priya,

Because those who can afford to go to their dinners are just as awed by celebrities and being in their midst and taking their photos in tuxes with said celebrities as most Americans in that tax bracket. I also think they happen to be very good at this type of fundraiser.

HRC takes a “corporatist” approach. I’d guess that half of those attending the dinner in NYC are there because their companies (mostly Wall Street, Huge Law/Lobby Firms & Phrama) pay for them to be there and be seen and get their companies recognized. In fact, the ONLY people I know who attend go as part of a corporate table. No one I know personally pays their own way to the NYC dinner.

While I am a big fan of HRC’s corporate scorecard, you can’t help but think about the incestuous nature of the corporations with high scores also patting themselves on the back and basking in the adulation.

But when it comes to spearheading movements and giving fiery speeches, maybe we can have them make the introductions for Lt Choi. Because that boy’s got it.

Richard – What sources are you reading? Since about halfway through the Bush administration the drum people keep banging is “hey celebrities, shut up!” for the Dixie Chicks, it was “shut up and sing”. Virtually every time I see an actor, singer, reality star, or anyone else “speak out” on a topic I hear more people saying “shut up” than I hear saying “oh, well if Roger Moore feels that way, I’ll have to rethink this…” Certainly they have SOME influence, but today it’s a mixed bag. Celebrity endorsements only work if the person ALREADY likes the celebrity and I’m sorry, Kathy Griffin has been a gay icon for at least a decade now. Anyone who gives a fig what Kathy says is likely to be gay or gay-positive themselves. She’s preaching to the choir. Whereas someone like Bruce Willis, who’s fanbase skews straight (and older) might make a bigger difference if he were to speak out on our behalf. It’s not really enough to just have a celebrity endorsement anymore, we can get that without even trying. I think Jim is right, we don’t need them to speak on our behalf, and even if we did Kathy Griffin isn’t going to win anyone over who wasn’t already on our side to begin with.

But Lt. Daniel Choi is a hero.

Kathy Griffin is about well-meaning and essentially well-behaved (though not necessarily polite) white collar people, like journalists and lawyers.

I don’t say that to say one is better than the other- both have an important part in what develops. But Choi is probably right in that blue collar people and their kinds of gestures and opinions is what DADT is in essence about, and therefore more popularly relevant.

We have an opportunity to get some significant things accomplished and HRC refuses to put proper pressure on the White House and Congress. I no longer contribute to them, because they appear to be betraying my interests in favor of Mr. Obama’s. Now, I voted for and contributed to Obama’s campaign. But in my book, that means that he owes me some loyalty, not the other way around.

Celebrities are magnets for growing membership, attracting media, and raising money. They made a business decision and I can’t really fault them for it.