Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

$2 million gay marriage push announced

Posted in:

Illinois

* From a press release…

Today, Illinois Unites for Marriage announced a renewed strategy designed to win the freedom to marry in Illinois, including hiring a Campaign Manager, Field Director, and Faith Organizer. The strategic plan also includes a new statewide field program, a coordinated House party engagement program, and a robust earned and paid media campaign.

The $2 million dollar campaign will include 15 field organizers placed throughout the state to engage with the ‘silent majority’ of voters who support marriage equality. The field organizers will be supported by mail and phone programs targeting legislators who don’t currently support the freedom to marry. The campaign will also reach out to the statewide LGBTQ community through a series of house parties designed to educate people about how they can be involved in passing marriage equality. Additionally, Illinois Unites is planning a robust media campaign, featuring Illinois residents who are currently being denied the federal benefits they could get outside of their home state.

“I’m excited to lead this already strong leadership team. Our expanded leadership structure brings together labor, political, community and religious organizing, creating a ground-game that directly engages voters to win the freedom to marry in Illinois.” said John Kohlhepp, the newly-tapped Campaign Manager for Illinois Unites.

Funds for the stepped-up campaign will come from a broad range of organizations and individuals, including:

• Human Rights Campaign
• Freedom to Marry
• Lambda Legal
• Equality Illinois
• The Civil Rights Agenda
• ACLU of Illinois
• Thousands of Individual organizations and donors

“With the recent Supreme Court ruling on DOMA, Illinois families need marriage more urgently than ever, and they shouldn’t have to travel outside of our borders to get it. Illinois Unites will bring same-sex couples and their children the protections and responsibilities of marriage as soon as possible,” Kohlhepp said.

John Kohlhepp, a labor lobbyist on leave from AFSCME Council 31, comes to Illinois Unites with over ten years of lobbying experience, having run statewide field efforts during the Responsible Budget Coalition’s campaign to increase the income tax. Additionally, he has directed field efforts in multiple Congressional and legislative districts in every election cycle since 2004. Field Director Keron Blair, an organizer on leave from the Midwest Academy, worked in New Orleans post-Katrina and, while at Interfaith Worker Justice, engaged religious leaders in healthcare, immigration and labor campaigns. Faith Organizer Reverend Benjamin Reynolds joins Illinois Unites with a vast amount of pastoral experience and recently served as the Director of the LGBTQ Religious Studies Center at Chicago Theological Seminary.

“The next few months are critical. Representatives in Springfield have said they want to hear from their constituents, a growing majority of whom believe in the freedom to marry. We are expanding our field plan to make sure their voices are heard,” said Jim Bennett, Chair of the Illinois Unites Coalition. “This team has a track record of getting things done, and they know how to pressure from the outside while working to get the 60 votes we need and get this bill called. Marriage is coming to Illinois.”

Is it enough?

Discuss.

posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Jul 16, 13 @ 9:01 am

Comments

I’m sure this has already been asked, so I apologize in advance. Does the bill now need 71 votes to pass during the veto session?

Comment by Pardon Joe Kotlarz Tuesday, Jul 16, 13 @ 9:04 am
Is it enough? I think that marriage equality would pass even without a $2 million push. Given the DOMA decision, there’s enough “cover” out there for legislators to jump on board. The fact that Illinois citizens are getting screwed out of benefits that citizens of other states get should make reasonable legislators want to make the change.

Comment by ChicagoR Tuesday, Jul 16, 13 @ 9:12 am
If that isn’t enough, then maybe they can use all that people power to get a progressive income tax passed.

Comment by Dan Bureaucrat Tuesday, Jul 16, 13 @ 9:15 am
===Is it enough?===

It will be enough if it provides the necessary “cover” for the HDems worried about being Primaried.

If this push does not allow the wavering HDems the necessary “cover”, or is seen as just very expensive window dressing, with no bite behind the moines being spent, it will not be even close enough to get reaction from those HDems members who they need to sway most of all.

Further,

As this organization leans, the fight for the “middle”, bringing in Moderate Republicans, or Conservative Dems, the fight to bring in a more welcoming face to the “middle” is something the group may have to fight off as well.

The more you push the agenda, will the push make the issue more about partisan politics, or more about society and social equality benefitting all, no matter the party you belong to.

Tough “Ask” to try to walk a very fine line of partisanship, and societal mores, while lobbying a finite number of legislators. The goal is “60″, the map to get there is not complete.

Finally,

Where is Greg Harris in all this? No snark, not even close to berating, I am just asking the question.

If this new group is in concert with Rep. Harris, then they will be cooking with some gas. If this new $2 million effort has an agenda of, “Between Harris and Speaker Madigan, they got nothing done, so we will sho them!”, then how much of a coalition are we talking about here? As purely a legislator, any group sponsoring any bill would be greatly served having Rep. Harris sponsoring their legislation, and if the tone and tenor seems more about “going around” Greg Harris, that will be very disappointing and short-sided to what Mr. Harris has brought to the table, and the water Mr. Harris has carried on this issue.

===Is it enough?===

The structure and design seems to say “yes”, but will the execution of the plan, and the manner by which the plan will be presented be “enough” to sway HDems to reach 60, or alienate too much “middle” ground to make the plan viable to the public, and acceptable to those in the public applying the pressure against their cause.

the second part will be the “proof in the pudding” for me.

Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Jul 16, 13 @ 9:19 am
Black Chicagoans are holding up the show

Comment by Gribble Tuesday, Jul 16, 13 @ 9:23 am
===Black Chicagoans are holding up the show===

One HGOP members is a solid “yes”, out of 47.

One.

To blame this solely on the House Black Caucus is lazy, and too simplistic.

Are you also saying all of white Chicago favors SSM? I doubt you are saying that …

Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Jul 16, 13 @ 9:27 am
@Oswego Willy is right on the money here. Several Black Caucus members support the bill. Chris Mitchell, Ken Dunkin, LaShawn Ford etc. The bill did very well with Af-Ams in the Senate. On the other hand, only two Republicans (not one) have come forward in support — Sullivan and Sandack. That is disgraceful.

Comment by Roland the Headless Thompson Gunner Tuesday, Jul 16, 13 @ 9:34 am
Had “2″ for a long time, but wanted to make sure “2″ was the correct number, especially after the “non-vote” occuring.

Two out of 47 is still pretty weak…if you are into counting votes and all.

Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Jul 16, 13 @ 9:40 am
No matter how good he is and I expect he is very capable and dedicated, I’d question whether a labor lobbyist on loan from AFSCME is the really elusive missing piece that is needed here.

Comment by Responsa Tuesday, Jul 16, 13 @ 9:42 am
Let’s see 15 organizers 2 million approx $133k each. I wonder if they will be legislators?

Comment by Empty Suit Tuesday, Jul 16, 13 @ 10:13 am
Nice to see them doing today what they should have done back in February and March.

And Oswego Willy nailed it:
“If this new group is in concert with Rep. Harris, then they will be cooking with some gas. If this new $2 million effort has an agenda of, “Between Harris and Speaker Madigan, they got nothing done, so we will sho them!”, then how much of a coalition are we talking about here? As purely a legislator, any group sponsoring any bill would be greatly served having Rep. Harris sponsoring their legislation, and if the tone and tenor seems more about “going around” Greg Harris, that will be very disappointing and short-sided to what Mr. Harris has brought to the table, and the water Mr. Harris has carried on this issue.”

Comment by Northsider Tuesday, Jul 16, 13 @ 10:17 am
The SSM folks need to flip a handful of black votes and a few conservative dems or moderate republicans. I’m not sure if an ideologically-driven labor lobbyist is the best person to do that.

Then again, if this move is about building grass roots support in a half dozen targeted districts, while the hired guns work the Reps one-on-one behind the scenes, then John is a good choice.

Still, this movement needs a black or Republican face out front.

Comment by Ted Tuesday, Jul 16, 13 @ 10:21 am
===Black Chicagoans are holding up the show===

Way too simplistic and the math doesn’t support it, as others have pointed out.

The hierarchy of the Catholic Church is staunchly opposed. GOP members have not got on board, despite cover from Justice Kennedy and Sen. Kirk.

I hope the new effort can build a resounding bi-partisan coalition in the House. It would be good for Illinois and the Republican Party.

Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Jul 16, 13 @ 10:25 am
I think this group would benefit from running a campaign similar to a statewide election, not necessarily an issue campaign. Polling can find which districts are in play, TV and Mail can persuade people to get involved, and the organizers can put the volunteers into action. If I’m a State Rep and see a bunch of people knocking doors in my district, I’d feel the heat.

This group needs people who have worked on actual campaigns. There is plenty of political talent in this state and the people heading it up are an AFSCME lobbyist, and someone who organized in New Orleans. I just don’t think that team gets it done.

With that in mind, I think Benjamin Reynolds is a brilliant mind and could be a great pick for faith outreach.

Comment by Crazy Like A Fox Tuesday, Jul 16, 13 @ 10:36 am
“The next few months are critical. Representatives in Springfield have said they want to hear from their constituents, a growing majority of whom believe in the freedom to marry.”

Yes, those people believe in the freedom for a man and woman to marry.

I think some people are spending too much time in the Chicago/Progressive echo chamber. That’s why they are shocked when this bill has trouble passing.

Comment by Sacajawea Tuesday, Jul 16, 13 @ 10:42 am
It should be enough, but the pro-SSM lobby has shown itself to be very disorganized and naive. Booing Greg Harris, robo calling in “yes” vote districts, not having a strategy for dealing with the ministers, attacking the Speaker of the House, so on and so forth. They couldn’t effectively manage their resources last time. I hope something has changed so that they do not let it slip by again.

Personally, I would be stunned if this passed in veto and somewhat surprised if it were to be addressed during a constitutional election year session. This was their fight to lose and they did. The consequence of which may be having to wait until 2015 to see the bill again.

But I think Sullivan is right. “Chin up, Representative.” This isn’t over.

Comment by Dirty Red Tuesday, Jul 16, 13 @ 10:48 am
Why the HECK would you issue this press release?

Countdown to opposition’s memes on all-powerful gay lobby trying to “buy” legislation….

Comment by Juvenal Tuesday, Jul 16, 13 @ 11:39 am
So they finally got a gay black minister. Seems a day late and a dollar short.

Comment by Precinct Captain Tuesday, Jul 16, 13 @ 11:45 am
There doesn’t seem to be much reporting about where the gay lobby money goes or the bigger agenda from these groups.

Comment by Liberty First Tuesday, Jul 16, 13 @ 12:06 pm
Oh good, only 21 posts before we got to allegations of a “bigger agenda” from the “gay lobby”. I thought we were falling asleep at the switch.

Comment by ChicagoR Tuesday, Jul 16, 13 @ 12:48 pm
The only logical solution is electing more Democrats.

See, the Dems. need more than a veto-proof majority in both chambers and the Governorship to get this done.

It’s the only way to make more progress on progressive issues.

It would have been nice to see this effort months ago.

Comment by Formerly Known As... Tuesday, Jul 16, 13 @ 1:10 pm
@ChicagoR -

See my earlier post.

Comment by Juvenal Tuesday, Jul 16, 13 @ 1:22 pm
They need money to put in campaign chests and an on the ground organization to help drive votes. basuically they need to be abkle to go to memebrs and say we can either suppiort you, or work to defeat you, and have the presence and dollars to back that up.

This is not enough. There is no ground game here for canidates who will need assistance if they stikc their necks out, and they need more cash to prop up campaigns for those who support them

Comment by Ghost Tuesday, Jul 16, 13 @ 1:34 pm
It’s enough if they use it right, after all, they are only a couple votes short/house seats short.

Comment by Ahoy! Tuesday, Jul 16, 13 @ 3:51 pm
“The Silent Majority” supports SSM?

Wasn’t “the Silent Majority” a slogan devised by Pat Buchanan to benefit Richard M. Nixon?

Try another angle…

Comment by Tone Deaf Tuesday, Jul 16, 13 @ 5:12 pm
–Wasn’t “the Silent Majority” a slogan devised by Pat Buchanan to benefit Richard M. Nixon?–

Nixon made it famous, but I think Buchanan nicked it from George Meany.

All used it to describe those who were silent and not vocally in protest of American genocide in Southeast Asia.

Because, as they knew in the late 60s and early 70s, if Vietnam ever went Communist, we’d all be in deep trouble today.

That’s a relief.

Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Jul 16, 13 @ 6:59 pm
Shouldn”t that money be used for AIDS medicine?

Comment by dan5454 Tuesday, Jul 16, 13 @ 9:07 pm
I suspect we won’t be seeing dan5454 around here much from now on.

Comment by ChicagoR Tuesday, Jul 16, 13 @ 9:10 pm
If the Feds decide that where you get married trumps where you reside for the purposes of Federal benefits it will take some of the inequity out of the SSM equation, and may make it more difficult to pass SSM. Opponents to SSM will be able to say “just go get married in Minnesota and come back and live in Illinois”. The irony will be that a more “liberal” Federal interpretation may shore up arguments NOT to pass SSM.

Comment by wishbone Wednesday, Jul 17, 13 @ 12:44 am