Bil Browning

Behind the Veil: Is GetEqual the New HRC?

Filed By Bil Browning | June 02, 2010 8:00 PM | comments

Filed in: The Movement
Tags: accountability, behind the veil, Get Equal, GetEqual, Heather Cronk, HRC, Human Rights Campaign, Jonathan Lewis, Kip Williams, Paul Yandura, Robin McGehee

Yesterday I took a look at the finances behind the new direct action group GetEqual and asked, "Is GetEqual the new HRC?" Today I'd like to take a look at who holds GetEqual accountable for their actions.

Many of yesterday's commenters pointed out that a major difference between HRC and GetEqual is that HRC constantly duns the LGBT community for donations while GetEqual doesn't. gethrc.jpgInstead, GetEqual is mostly funded by wealthy Progressive Insurance heir Jonathan Lewis and his financial adviser Paul Yandura.

According to HRC's latest annual report, only 40% of their budget comes from small donations while the rest is made up of large donations, bequests, grants and merchandise sales. The overwhelming majority of their board members have seats because they either donate large sums of money to the org or they can fundraise significant amounts from other sources. These are the people that make the important decisions about HRC's actions and that hold the group accountable.

With any organization, whoever holds the pocketbook is who's in charge. With only two major funding sources, who sets GetEqual's goals and priorities? As many readers pointed out, the way GetEqual is currently set up, they don't have to answer to anyone - there are no members, there is no board, and Lewis told The Advocate he doesn't help plan direct actions although Yandura "helps where [he] can."

This begs the question of who's accountable for GetEqual's actions? Let's the lift the veil a bit and see if we can figure it out.

The Major Donors

Jonathan Lewis, by all accounts, is GetEqual's largest donor - including a recent donation of a quarter of a million dollars. According to The Advocate article, GetEqual's co-directors Kip Williams and Robin McGehee approached Lewis and Yandura before last year's National Equality March in their capacity as co-directors of the march.

The two asked the men for $25,000 to fund youth outreach for the march, but Yandura, a critic of the march, declined. Once the march was a success, however, the men were willing to reconsider. Williams and McGehee flew to Miami to meet with the two funders and start discussing the formation of a new direct action organization.

Lewis admits to The Advocate that a large part of his motivation to fund the upstart org was his frustration with Democrats' political homophobia after feeling snubbed by the administration when the President sent a senior official to address a group of major progressive political donors instead of coming himself. Yandura told the magazine, "The final break for me is when I heard them using the same excuses that myself and Brian Bond and Andy Tobias made during the Clinton administration."

Yandura, who worked in President Clinton's LGBT office, is known for his outspoken criticism of the Democratic Party. The gay Democrat has never been afraid to hold the party's feet to the fire in an attempt to force the group to live up to their pro-gay rhetoric.

In 2006, Yandura's partner, Donald Hitchcock, sued the DNC after he was fired from his job as director of the group's Gay and Lesbian Leadership Council less than a week after Yandura publicly criticized the party for not fighting anti-gay ballot measures playing out in several states. Former DNC chairman Howard Dean, openly gay party treasurer Andrew Tobias, and former Gay and Lesbian Leadership Council Executive Director Brian Bond, now the Obama administration's Deputy Director of the Office of Public Engagement, were all deposed for the lawsuit and the public exposure of many internal memos and statements deeply embarrassed the party. The DNC decided to settle out of court for an undisclosed amount.

Yandura was quickly enchanted with Williams and McGehee's charisma and energy and soon was deeply involved with the two activists. While Yandura casually told the Advocate he "helps where [he] can" to plan actions, he also admits that he owns the DC home where GetEqual plans actions and members regularly sleep.

Nothing says "I have power over you" than "I own the house you sleep in while you work for the organization I fund." While the intentions are more than likely positive, the power dynamic is undeniable and uncomfortable.

The Lone Wolf

Yandura's well-known feud with the party combined with Lewis' money and Williams and McGehee's lust for quick movement on LGBT issues has combined with fiery codependency. When GetEqual paints itself as the lone wolf organization that has no masters and flies independent of the other groups' agendas, keep in mind that they still have to pay the piper.

While the organization has heckled President Obama twice at fundraisers for California Senator Barbara Boxer, a Democrat, they have yet to protest any Republicans. While a local Arizona group has protested outside of Senator John McCain's office and credit was originally given to GetEqual, the group has only protested Democrats who are, at least nominally, considered friends and haven't voted against any LGBT legislation.

Who is calling the shots on GetEqual's actions if Lewis doesn't participate and Yandura is only minimally involved? According to new Managing Director Heather Cronk, there's been no one responsible at the helm.

"'Calling the shots' makes it sound as if there is no community input on GetEQUAL's work. There are many volunteers across the country who suggest actions and who come up with creative campaign ideas. We are currently in the process of coming up with a better system for hearing that feedback and acting on it, to be sure, but there's no 'Wizard' behind the curtain."

Who decided on the group's mission and purpose? The org has a mission statement published on their website, but it's incredibly vague and puffed full of grievances on behalf of the community and a paragraph touting the success of the National Equality March - a march that Williams and McGehee produced but Yandura, at least, opposed.

"Our mission is to empower the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) community and our allies to take action to demand full legal and social equality, and to hold accountable those who stand in the way," the statement says.

Cronk says that the basics for the organization were left up to Williams and McGehee. "The group's mission, vision, and purpose was created before I came on board, but was created primarily by Robin and Kip -- again with input from volunteers, community members, and other activists," she said.

"There haven't been nationwide community meetings or house parties or the like, but there have been conversations with folks in Dallas, Fresno, New York, DC, and a few other places -- mainly to garner feedback from a broad cross-section of folks -- but those have been informal," Cronk said.

"Many of the folks who who have provided input have been folks who were involved with and took an active role in the National Equality March. Those folks have been solicited for input because they represent a diversity of ideas and identities and geographies -- and have largely not been reached by other national orgs."

At the End of the Day

There's only so long you can rely on the excuse that your organization is new to differentiate you from the status quo. Once again there's been plenty of action with minimal organizational input or energy.

Williams and McGehee promised there would be a plan after the National Equality March and one wasn't needed until after since it was just a campaign and the organization would follow. The implosion of Equality Across America soon followed and the two jumped ship citing concerns about financial security and the leadership of the new organization.

Eventually a responsible organization takes the steps to make themselves accountable for their actions. GetEqual has started this process, including installing some form of oversight by an organization board, but unfortunately the transparency levels so far haven't been up to par. Installing a handpicked board made up of large donors and fundraisers is the way many of the largest progressive orgs - HRC included - operate.

The group says they have invited six people to join the org's board but won't disclose who they are until after an upcoming staff retreat because some are still unconfirmed. These mysterious individuals will be charged with shaping the group's direction and tactics, funding sources, tax status, and executive hiring decisions, but GetEqual has already made many of those decisions without them.

Williams and McGehee have handpicked their counsel from friends and allies from their days with the National Equality March. Many former Equality Across America board members jumped ship with the two so it'll be interesting to see who they've picked to sit on the GetEqual board. Will it be packed with cronies and allies or will it consist of a respectable and diverse mix of seasoned and new activists?

After billing themselves as a grassroots organization meant for the common queer activist, so far what I'm seeing is wealthy funders giving two recently successful organizers quite a bit of cash to raise hell with no concrete strategy, deliverables, standards or apparent benefit to the LGBT community. While the group seems to know their place in this insiders/out strategy they're playing with HRC, some of the similarities are still too obvious to be overlooked.

The majority of the orgs' money comes from large donors, we've got no input into the direction of the orgs, the leadership is self-selective, and they both purport to represent our community while making important decisions on our behalf without permission or serious regard to the effects their actions can have on the rest of us.

I am friends with many of the GetEqual leaders. I have no doubt that Williams, McGehee, Cronk, Yandura and Lewis are good people who sincerely want to help push the movement forward. But so does Joe Solmonese.

The Entire Series

Part 1: Follow the Money: Is GetEqual the New HRC?
GetEqual's Managing Director: GetEqual: A Response & Clarification
Part 2: Behind the Veil: Is GetEqual the New HRC?
GetEqual's Managing Director: Part 2: GetEqual responds again
Part 3: Through a Glass Darkly: Is GetEqual the New HRC?


Recent Entries Filed under The Movement:

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.


I know a high-ranking Pentagon official who has been fairly involved in the DADT repeal issue…. The other day he told me that in his dealings with LGBT advocacy groups he has found our reps to be “like dealing with a bunch Afghan Warlord,” with everyone looking to protect their turf as the foremost consideration.

Now we have just one more warlord in the game… with GetEqaul looking for their piece of the action.


I've found Afghan warlords to be at least straight forward as to their intentions and demands.

Can the same be said, in the end, about our "leadership?"

Michael@LeonardMatlovich.com | June 2, 2010 10:12 PM

"I have no doubt that Williams, McGehee, Cronk, Yandura and Lewis are good people who sincerely want to help push the movement forward. But so does Joe Solmonese. But so does Joe Solmonese"?????

As proven by what? Because he SAYS so?

Sorry, you've written a lot more but still haven't made a LOGICAL case for your "one size fits all" let alone self-appointed indictment.

Since the main burr under you saddle is allegedly money and "accountability," let's consider other models.

Should non-profits be treated the same way for-profits are? The IRS doesn't think so. The latter has to pay taxes on their income, the former doesn't.

In fact, they don't apply a "one size fits all" rule to non-profits. There are different 28 different categories of IRS recognition depending on what you want to do, with two getting the most attention publicly: 501(c)3s and 501(c)4s.

Limitations vary, chiefly being that 501(c)(4) organizations are not deductible as charitable contributions, can be more directly political, are not required to disclose their donors publicly.

The Federal Elections Commission doesn't apply anything like your "one size fits all" attitude either. Individual donors to political campaigns are treated one way and group and corporate donors other ways.

Neither does criminal law. If I call 911 saying I've killed someone, what happens to me depends entirely on what I can convince the police and DA the circumstances were. I might be charged with first degree murder, manslaughter, or never charged because I acted in self defense. The other person is no less dead, but....

Civil law, Bilerico and other blogs should thank Goddess, doesn't subscribe to "one size fits all" either. When they do catch up to print and "broadcast" media standards, I'd imagine that a number of your official contributors, not to mention posters, might consider thinking again before so cavalierly demonizing various people.

Sorry, but you haven't changed my perspective: that what a group like GetEqual does with its money is no more anyone else's business than what you and Jerame do with yours.

Again, Bilerico, like other LGBT blogs with such a large margin of their day-to-day material devoted to LGBT politics, is ALSO an arm of the Movement. When do we get to vote on what you choose to do? I don't actually think we should, but it's the logical extension of your assertion that you have a right to demand "accountability" of a group like GetEqual.

During the lead up to the NEM, there was a kind of grassroots dictatorship that contributed nothing to its success. San Francisco's B.A.R. has had multiple hissy fits about not being allowed into every meeting of various groups AS IF they had some divine right to be there.

Finally, with respect, until you suggest that no less "good" and "sincere" Joe Solmonese accept no more money than anyone in GetEqual for his services, again, I think you might want to stop straining at the gnat while swallowing the camel, particularly when many still principally blame it for having enabled the Administration's inaction, abandonment, or betrayal of most of its promises to the LGBT community.

Thank you.

The questions raised have to do with GetEQUAL's strategy and purpose. Those questions are important and should be answered.

Stop the misplaced aggression and encourage GetEQUAL to grow up and answer these questions.

Their radical publicity stunts have not been well received and may actually be hurting our Movement. And, of course they need to get their house in order. They should have done that before they began making trouble.

I heard this joke on TV yesterday; I forget where:

There is no I in team.

If GetEqual purports itself to be an advocacy group that strives for equality, then people need to know whether their definition of equality means being equal to the HRC, or that they are sincere about their intentions on behalf of the entire community.

That's it.

"The group says they have invited six people to join the org's board but won't disclose who they are until after an upcoming staff retreat because some are still unconfirmed."

I am not one of the six.

"After billing themselves as a grassroots organization meant for the common queer activist, so far what I'm seeing is wealthy funders giving two recently successful organizers quite a bit of cash to raise hell with no concrete strategy, deliverables, standards or apparent benefit to the LGBT community."

Well said. It is imperative that GetEQUAL define their purpose before any more of their counterproductive and "crazy shenanigans." That is the least they can do. Too many people have worked too hard, for too long, to have "angry demands" fuck it up.

Bill Perdue Bill Perdue | June 2, 2010 11:50 PM

"I am not one of the six."

Oh no! That must sting. Ouchie.

Bill Perdue Bill Perdue | June 2, 2010 11:18 PM

"While the organization has heckled President Obama twice at fundraisers for California Senator Barbara Boxer, a Democrat, they have yet to protest any Republicans."

So what? Obama is in the WH, not McCain.

It's a given that Republicans are our enemies, and open about it. Democrats are less honest, particluarly Obama, who sabotaged the effort to retain same sex marriage in California.

We should make going after Democrats a priority because they're the party in power, they're th party that tosses us under the bus and they're the party whose electoral strategy, like that of the Republicans, is based on pandering to the religious right.

Bigots, militarists and the looter rich much prefer working with Democrats like Obama and the Clintons - they're greedier, they fool more people and they're able to get away with a lot more than Republicans.

So, we don't have any Democratic friends? Are they all "make believe?" Or do you just think slapping them, embarrassing them or trying desperately to "heckle" them is effective?

You're one of the "six," aren't you?

Bill Perdue Bill Perdue | June 2, 2010 11:47 PM

I think equating GetEQUAL with the Westboro Baptist thugs to any degree or in any way is a vicious anti-LGBT slander.

"Imitating Westboro Baptist is not an acceptable strategy."

"Yeah, by imitating Westboro Baptist." Bilerico - Wednesday, June 2nd, 2010.

Hello Bill --

Do you know of any cures for constipation?

I can't seem to stop thinking that everyone disapproves of something that they really don't seem to disapprove of and yet the thoughts won't go away. It's like I've got something hard and dry lodged in my colon and I just can't get it out.

Do you think I need more roughage in my diet?

Yours
Patrick

Bill Perdue Bill Perdue | June 3, 2010 5:13 AM

Hey Patrick.

Observing the ever expanding consequences of the terms of service I'll leave your question alone.

A lot of this back and forth between groups and factions seems like bickering in a school of sardines while the sharks - Democrats, Republicans, the religious right - circle.

Like many, I await the deepening of the radicalization for the time when internally democratic, mass action militant groups that are clear about the Democrats - they're our enemies - emerge and transform our struggle.

What's most encouraging in all this is that the sharp reaction to our defeat in California and the Democrats contempt for us are waking people up in droves. The days when the rightwing - LCR, Stonewall, HRC, EQCA - ran the movement are very nearly over.

Bill, you are ABSOLUTELY right. There is no need to protest the Republicans.

A few years ago I was on a panel at the national conference of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State. My panel was preceded by a debate between Skip Porteous, of the now defunct Institute for First Amendment Studies and Califoria's leading anti-gay bigot, The Reverend Louis P. Sheldon of the Traditional Values Coalition.

Several times during his replies to Porteous he said, "When you are the party in power you can do anything you want. That's the way the cookie crumbles."

The Democrats ARE the party in power. They, through the leader of their party, i.e., The President of the United States, have made certain promises to the GLBT community which they have more than dragged their feet to deliver.

Nancy Polosi finally acted like the party in power with the vote on the DADT amendment to the defense appropriation bill by limiting the debate on the amendment to 5 minutes on each side.

The Republicans screamed "foul!" "When you are the party in power you can do anything you want. That's the way the cookie crumbles."

That is the way ALL of our proposed legislation should be handled by the Democrats.

Bill Perdue Bill Perdue | June 3, 2010 6:14 AM

Not the truth. "Bill, you are ABSOLUTELY right. There is no need to protest the Republicans." We should go after the Republicans.

The truth. "We should make going after Democrats a priority because they're the party in power, they're the party that tosses us under the bus and they're the party whose electoral strategy, like that of the Republicans, is based on pandering to the religious right.

Bigots, militarists and the looter rich much prefer working with Democrats like Obama and the Clintons - they're greedier, they fool more people and they're able to get away with a lot more than Republicans."

-------------------

The DADT scam wasn't really a good example, Jerry. You should've thought it out before posting.

The DADT amendment doesn't repeal Clinton's DADT or limit its destructive and violent effects on LGBT folks in the services. It might, but as with all of the Democrats promises, that's all very, very iffy.

5 minutes, 5 hours - who cares? It doesn't really matter how much time was spent on a meaningless amendment that doesn't change squat, does it?

Repeal of Democrat Clinton's DADT and DOMA are part of our agenda, not the Pelosi-Reid-Obama scam. ENDA is our agenda and even with super majorities the Democrats seem to have ignored us again. Etc.

Rome wasn't built in a day. Andrew and Bil seem intent on insuring that Get Equal doesn't even have a chance to pull it together. The only reason you know anything ABOUT this money is BECAUSE THEY'VE BEEN TRANSPARENT ABOUT IT. When they don't invite you to their party, you whine line children and demand a place at the table. But when they tell you how much money they have and how much they're paying everyone, you scream that it's too much.

There are no AIDS patients withering away from lack of antiviral medication because Get Equal has money. They're not out there taking money out of the mouths of babes. No one's starving while Get Equal gets their house in order. Chill the F out for a minute.

Ahhh, GetEQUAL is not "building Rome," but they may be tearing down our Movement.

The issues outlined by Bil should have been explored and resolved BEFORE they started their self-described "crazy shenanigans." That's called being responsible and respecting the decades of hard work that have gone into the struggle for equality.

They still haven't responded to these important questions or suggested any rationale for their crazy publicity stunts. They need to.

What movement? The HRC movement? The AndrewW movement?

As far as I'm concerned, Get Equal and Dan Choi are the only reason DADT is as far along as it is. Can you prove they aren't the reason?

You attribute all the progress on DADT to Dan Choi and GetEQUAL? That's crazy. Pure crazy.

Can you prove they're not the reason? What's so crazy about it?

You keep harping on this "effective results" thing. But technically, results have occurred - DADT is very close to being passed, isn't it? So can you prove that Get Equal is NOT reason its so close?

Correlation is not causation, and that is your problem. You want to draw a line between one person's actions and the direct results. It doesn't work that way.

There are no AIDS patients withering away from lack of antiviral medication because Get Equal has money. They're not out there taking money out of the mouths of babes. No one's starving while Get Equal gets their house in order. Chill the F out for a minute.

The reason why there effective antiretrovirals is because there were effective advocacy groups two decades ago that won changes in how the drug approval process worked.

More critically, if Get Equal does not learn from the past as to what tends to work and what tends to not work, then their choices will portend very real and negative ramifications for all of us. In that sense, it is our business what Get Equal does and how they do it, if they would speak for our communities without first securing the legitimation to do so.

Hint: convincing rich people to part with money is not the same as community rootedness.

-marc

Chris Daley | June 3, 2010 12:40 AM

"With any organization, whoever holds the pocketbook is who's in charge."

Bil, this may be a simple bit of hyperbole that snuck itself into your piece. If so, all is good. However, if you truly believe this, I have to share that it doesn't reflect my experience working at, helping to run, and collaborating with LGBT advocacy orgs.

Again, if there are folks that truly believe this statement as wholly true (instead of true in some cases, partially true in some, and untrue in others), I think this is the kind of misunderstanding within the community that it would be helpful to clear up.

Best,
Chris

Thanks for looking into all this, Bil. It was actually making me lose the will to live when I heard what these "grassroots" types will be earning.

I'm sorry, but anyone earning anything close to 90k a year doesn't represent me and I have a hard time believing they have any idea about employment discrimination.

That was always my problem with the HRC. And $300k a year vs $90k a year? In my world, that's like talking about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. And by the way, I know plenty of people who've raised two children on far less than $90k a year. Talk about taking a hetero talking point "Oh, it's about supporting my kids" BARF. Nobody's forcing you to shop at Baby Gap.

It might be worth finding out what the start-up salaries were for the HRC.

I used to wonder why everyone called liberals "elitists"... I wonder no more.

Thanks for the info, Bil. Even though some people are in the "I just want to close my eyes and ears and hope for the best so don't give me information about these benevolent actors" the rest of us choose to live in the real world and think information is good.

When I read this comment, the first thing I thought of was:

"Information GOOD! Napster BAD!"

:-)

Rev. Donna Tara Lee | June 3, 2010 8:31 AM


There is still a Equality Across America tjhat is grass roots funded. We are still planning actions like Harvey Milk Day which was one of our initiatives. We are planning a summer canpaign also. And we are still reaching out to grass roots activists to join us and are committed to working with other groups where we have a common goal. I know because I am a member of EAA's National BOD.

Rev. Donna Tara Lee, Transgender Activist, Member, EAA Interim BOD

We are still planning actions like Harvey Milk Day which was one of our initiatives.
Uh no, it wasn't.

The whole issue I see here, and I know my perspective is limited, is that most of you seem to think that there is only one right way to get things done. Everyone is acting like there is no room for any variety in this "movement. This is especially true of people like Andrew W.

This attitude is exactly why nothing gets done.

Nobody here has a clear plan regarding repeal of DODT, or getting an inclusive ENDA passed, or any of it.

We, as a group, have goals that need to be met. Why are we not focusing our efforts to get these things done? Why are we arguing about how one org does things, when the truth is we need or
gs like GetEqual to be doing exactly what they're doing? This place is like the fingers saying to the thumb "we don't need you".

We need to spell out the things we want. Yes, we need to make a demand.

We need a clear message to both those that oppose us, and those who are allied with us.

We need to find a way for those who oppose us or are reticent to help uso be able to swallow the pill we're selling, And by that I mean our elected "representatives".

We also need to unify around certain issues. Things cannot continue to be lopsided, with no place at the table for those of us who are more marginalized by society at large.

Until these things happen, the TLGB communities will continue to be splintered, and we all will continue to be less than equal.

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm tired of it.

Well said.

This author is TOXIC.

So the Equality March was a success? How would one figure that?

In 1993, one million of us descended on DC. This was before a majority of Americans supported workplace and housing protections. My recollection was that there were still people streaming out of the Metro near the WH the start of the march while there was a solid mass of humanity all the way down the mall to the capitol, where people were streaming into the metro to leave.

Most notably, a het friend of ours picked up Phred Felps' bible from the sidewalk across from the WH, preacher had left it too close to satan for his own comfort, gifted it to me, and I made a day out of wadding up pages and throwing them at christian protesters along the route.

In 2000, fewer attended a controversial millenium march in DC. Notable then were the first stirrings of anti-HRC sentiment. Typically milquetoast, the HRC had one "memorable" sign that read "Elect Fair Minded Leaders." Indeed. Several hundred queers and freaks of all flavors marched to the chant of "HRC Don't Speak for Me!" That alone made up for the disappointment in turnout.

Now that we've blown past the 50%+1 support mark and then some, one would expect that the crescendo of support would be reflected in a much larger, more politically compelling march. But that was not so.

It would be a mistake to conclude that 2009 was a success, and as such, an error to use that as a base for further action.

It is also a mistake to allow those with money to chart the course of our liberation. One might note that the same sex marriage campaign that has set our community back so much did not arise from grassroots queers demanding equality. To the contrary, conservative moneyed homosexuals financed lawsuits in states seeking equality.

The problem was that they did not have consensus within the community that this was a good idea. Many progressive queers still look askance at gays in the military and same sex marriage as we do not want to replicate het relationships, rather forge queer specific modes of relationships. And by getting ahead of our communities and focusing on issues divisive to the electorate, they spurred a backlash that they were not prepared for, a massive backlash that they did not recognize and recalibrate for as it grew stronger through DOMA up until Prop 8.

If the nonprofity queers could not win a campaign with $45m that enjoyed high enough polling before the campaign to sail, then they need to be replaced. Again, those with money were afraid to finance queers in places outside their comfort zone to approach their communities on their terms to make the case for marriage equality, and that is why we lost.

Similarly, gays in the military was another initiative sponge that took focus only after a hetero candidate for president made a glib remark on MTV to end the ban.

Shall we do the math:

% of LGBT in the military 1.5
% of LGBT who would get married 15
% of LGBT who need to compete in the marketplace for housing and work > 90

What does it mean that our "leaders" have subjugated themselves to the impulses of hetero politicians like Newsom or Clinton rather than asserting our own trajectory on our own terms?

And is the notion of a leadership-centered nonprofit really the appropriate one for liberation? The system has figured out how to neutralize nonprofits. We would do well to abandon nonprofits as a primary vehicle for change. ACTUP was quite successful in a very short time in fast tracking protease inhibitors and getting PWAs seats at the appropriate tables; it had no budget, no staff.

As Mark Rudd from the Weather Underground said: "Movements make leaders, leaders do not make movements." Whenever you see individuals taking center stage for an organization instead of leaders facilitating the creativity and productivity of their asserted constituency to be effective and make change, we're seeing political action supplanted with ego salve. Without that connection, there is no leadership.

Folks can organize how they want to, but when they're taking actions on behalf of tens of millions of LGBT Americans, actions that can make or break our lives, then they'd damn well make themselves accountable or we'll make them accountable, dig it?

-marc