Countdown

Home > Interviews > Jon Hoadley

Jon Hoadley

Jon Hoadley is the executive director of the National Stonewall Democrats, a 501(c)(4) organization of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT), and allied Democrats. Prior, he worked for Gill Action Fund and South Dakotans Against Discrimination.

Josh Israel interviewed Hoadley on March 6, 2008.

Jon, would you just give us some background? You’ve been leading National Stonewall Democrats for several months now?

Well, I’m still relatively new over at National Stonewall Democrats. I took over the position October 1, 2007. So I guess we’re coming up on month five or six now?

That’s long enough to have some sense of what you’re doing there. Before that you were at Gill Action and South Dakotans Against Discrimination?

That’s correct.

What brought you to this position?

Well, it’s funny, I was just thinking about this earlier today. I’ve always been interested in how political change happens. And partially because of my self-interest as an LGBT person, as a gay man, I’ve always been thinking about how do we fight for our equality so that LGBT people are treated the same as everybody else? I was always drawn to the political process as a result. Originally when I went to South Dakota to do work, it was about how do we create a message that translates into popular support, or opposition in this case, to a ballot initiative?

A couple of the lessons that I learned from that was when I was thinking about political organizing, I wanted to reject the model that secondary goals and baby steps are OK. I want to play to win. I think that the LGBT movement needs to play to win when we’re thinking about our equality. So, from that mindset, it brought me over to Gill Action, which is an incredibly smart team of people who are thinking about how they can make the most change in the shortest amount of time as possible.

When I was approached by National Stonewall Democrats to run the organization, I wanted to bring those lessons that I’ve learned along the way to the work that was happening across the country. One of the things that appeals to me about National Stonewall Democrats is that it’s made up of people who love grassroots organizing, who want to see change happen on a local level, and then working collectively can have a national impact. When I took over the position five or six months ago, my thought was how do we harness this playing to win power? How do we focus on local chapters, then collectively be able to make a national impact because of the work that’s happening across the country?

I assume in five or six months you’ve been able to do all you’ve wanted to and gotten everything totally in place.

Exactly. No, I think it’s taken a bit of time to get to where we need to be. National Stonewall Democrats, it’s our 10-year anniversary. I think we’re sort of reflecting on projects that worked well and projects that didn’t. I think we’re trying to emulate, of course, the success of those best projects. Things like the work that was happening with the Young Voter Alliance in 2004, the early investment in places like Pennsylvania and the “Stop Santorum” campaign, which really leveraged national resources into local work, early investments into ballot initiatives in red states.

In these first five or six months, it’s been really thinking about, as an organization, how do we focus down onto those specific points again? How do we take those gems of success and emulate them for all of our chapters? There is still a lot of work to do but I’m confident that we’re going to get there.

How would you describe in two sentences what the National Stonewall Democrats is?

National Stonewall Democrats works to elect pro-equality Democrats across the country and improve the Democratic Party’s position on LGBT issues.

Roughly, how big is the organization?

We have approximately 90 chapters across the country and tens of thousands of members. At the moment, we’re largely a chapter-based organization. The main way for an individual to connect to the organization is through a local chapter. However, one of the things that we’re implementing is really creating a home that brands us as the national place for LGBT Democrats to come together and work to improve the party and elect pro-equality Democrats.

Are you a 501(c)(4)?

We are a 501(c)(4). We also have a 527 and a PAC.

Is there an affiliated (c)(3) also?

Not at this time, but you should talk to me in a few months.

I imagine you sort of have a dual role as you described of trying to make the party more pro-LGBT and make the LGBT community more pro-Democratic. How do you try to do that?

Well, I think that the duality comes in the balancing role that we play which is centered around accountability. We support Democratic candidates and we’re made up of Democrats. There’s a key component where people are excited about the Democratic Party. But our job has to balance between what we need to praise the party for good things that they’re doing — and they are. The inclusion role in LGBT people in the delegate selection process is a great example of where, through joint pressure by National Stonewall Democrats and the GLBT Americans Caucus, we’re able to make sure our community is integrated at all levels of the delegate selection process, integrated across state parties. That’s huge for impacting policy. We should lavish praise when things go well.

The dual role happens in making sure that we can provide alternatives between just a Democrat and a Republican. At the end of the day, in 99 percent of the cases, the Democrat is going to be better than the Republican. We don’t need to just accept that as our level of our voting criteria. I think we, as an organization, and as a community, have an obligation to push Democratic candidates. When they’re falling short on their promises to us or standing up for our values, then we need to have an option to do primaries, to engage in public education campaigns that specifically target Democrats. This is sort of the next phase of where we’re going, not accepting what we have but asking and demanding our full equality.

You were a board member in 2004?

At the end of 2004, yes.

Was that before the presidential election or after?

I joined in September 2004, I believe.

So you had at least a little sense of what was going on with the 2004 presidential race?

Sure.

What sort of role did the organization play?

In 2004, the National Stonewall Democrats did some really innovative work on the youth vote. 2004 marked the first time where we sort of saw a reversal in young voting trends from where they were tapering off to where we saw a significant number — I believe it was 3 million — of new young people voting. National Stonewall Democrats partnered with other organizations to create the Young Voter Alliance. Specifically, we put field staff on the ground in a total of 12 states and National Stonewall Democrats was responsible for five of those specifically. They were targeting young voters to get them educated on our issues and turn out to vote.

The model looked at a broader youth organizing model and then found ways to incorporate LGBT issues into it. I think that was really cutting-edge work both in terms that they were targeting young voters in ways that actually increased turnout, and that we were delivering a message of equality for LGBT people in a way that wasn’t just LGBT-focused. I think, for one of the first times, we were making LGBT issues really accessible from a young voter’s perspective, from an ally, from a non-LGBT person. When we’re thinking about how we’re going to win and get to that 50 percent-plus-one on our issues, we need to make sure that we’re finding ways to reach our allies. I was really proud of the work that happened under [then-executive director] Dave Noble in 2004.

Did the organization back John Kerry?

Yes, they did.

Has the organization endorsed anyone in 2008?

No, we have not at this point. Partly that’s because, at this point, we have two great candidates that are fantastic on LGBT issues. There’s still room for improvement and we’re happy to work with them to get there. This is an example of where whatever the Democrat is, it’s going to be better than John McCain, especially when John McCain took such a vocal role in advocating for the discriminatory “Marriage Amendment” [Proposition 107] in Arizona, which ultimately was defeated and became one of our community’s brightest moments in 2006.

The other reason that we haven’t endorsed at this point in 2008 is because we are moving to that chapter-based model. We’re trying to empower our chapters to meet with the candidates and their surrogates, make informed decisions locally and then if they would like, to make local endorsements that really reflect what LGBT Democrats on the ground in their area are seeing.

Do you expect, regardless of which of the two ends up as the nominee, that there will be an endorsement for the general?

We will talk to our chapter leaders and our board of directors and make a decision on that, but I assume there will be.

Have any of the individual clubs endorsed?

Yes, a number have, although I don’t know the number off the top of my head.

Have they endorsed on both sides — or, before that, other candidates?

We saw endorsements for John Edwards, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton. I think that the last couple of ones in Texas were for Senator Clinton, and I think there were a couple for Senator Obama in Ohio; I’m not totally sure. I can go back and find that data, but we’re seeing it spread out across the candidates.

Can you talk a bit about the presidential town halls that Stonewall Democrats have been hosting?

Sure. I’m actually very proud of these town halls that we’ve been able to work on with our local chapters. Again, part of what we’re trying to do is direct more resources to local chapters. A national organization providing contacts and the logistics to local chapters so they can host these types of events is a resource that we’re trying to provide. So far we’ve done three. We did one in Dallas, one in Houston, and one in Cleveland. All three of them were incredibly successful. They all had more than 100 people present. We had top-ranked LGBT policy experts for both campaigns talking to our community in a very genuine way and our community was asking hard questions.

Of course, we had the sort of, “What do you think about civil unions versus marriage?” sort of questions, but we also had people asking about the alternative minimum tax, talking about health care, talking about immigration. These are issues that really show the breadth of concern our community has. When thinking about where we want to move forward in the future, I think it’s important not only that we’re asking candidates to talk about LGBT issues in non-LGBT audiences, but that we as a community are talking about other progressive issues, bread-and-butter issues, besides LGBT issues.

I seem to recall somewhere a 2004 election statistic that LGBT donors have become one of the most generous groups of campaign contributors on the Democratic side. Has this changed the way the community is perceived and treated by presidential candidates and candidates in general?

There is a track record of extreme generosity amongst the LGBT community across the country. I think it’s because many of the members of our community have become aware of the need for our community to participate in politics so that we can make sure that the candidates that are standing up for equality and standing up for our community have the resources that they need to win. I would not be surprised that the LGBT community is probably one of the largest donor communities in the country. I think that with the work of other giving circles and the Democratic Party and organizations, conferences like OutGiving, it’s educating our community on good candidates to invest in and why we need to be investing in those candidates.

So, I expect that, and I think we’ve seen it continue in 2008. I think that it’s good for our community to be involved in that way. However, even if you can’t write a $2,300 check or you can’t attend the fancy black-tie dinner, I think that there’s always going to be a role for boots on the ground. Stonewall chapters have historically been the boots on the ground that get campaigns started and get the work done. I think, across the county now, we need to find ways for individual LGBT people and our community to track not only the money we’re giving, but the time we’re spending.

At the end of the day, candidates appreciate checks. They appreciate that sort of resource. But when you can come back with a canvas sheet in your hand and say I just got another 10 people to vote for you, that’s another part of the equation that candidates value maybe above anything else. At the end of the day, it’s the votes that get them elected. Our community should be involved in that, we should track that, and Stonewall is the perfect place to do that.

I guess there’s sort of a two-part change process. On the one hand, there are people who are with you on everything or just about everything. As an activist organization, you want to help them get elected so they can do the things that they would already do. Do you see also that people who may not be all the way there or may not have been all the way there are sort of pushed in the direction? Do you try to push them by the financial and activist support?

Definitely. Over the past 10, 15, 20 years, just the climate and culture of America has changed so that we’ve become more accepting of LGBT people. I don’t think it’s unreasonable that politicians have come with the rest of the American population on that journey. Now, what we need to do though is make sure that the national attitudinal change translates into their district. I think that’s part of the process that we have at Stonewall Democrats.

Of course, if we can elect someone who’s going to be right there on our issues, that’s great. If at the other part we have to work to push people [and show] that we can identify contacts in their district, that we can put volunteers on campaigns, that we can do fundraisers for them, and then show them that their district supports the LGBT issues. That’s the second part of that two-part process. I feel like that’s the next sort of step in terms of how we think smarter about political strategy as a community.

I’m not asking for your trade secrets or a lot of great detail on this, but how does a group like yours raise money to function?

We do that in a couple of ways. We are a membership-based organization. Members can join at their local or through the national. We also then have fundraising events, individual donors and grants from other organizations. There are a lot of ways that we raise the money that we need to operate. Of course, if anyone wants to write us a check, I’m more than happy to take it, assuming that they agree with our values. The other part to that is finding ways to leverage legally appropriate bundling money to make sure that candidates are getting the resources they need.

You mentioned that you have an affiliated PAC, an affiliated 527, and at some point down the road may have an affiliated 501(c)(3). How do you make sure that the right entity does each task?

We have very smart lawyers that tell us how to do that. It’s sort of looking at our programming for the year and then determining which entities are best suited to achieve the goals that we set out.

Does it take a lot of time?

It does. This is my first year doing that, so it’s been a learning process for me, but I’m very excited about it. It’s money well spent. It makes our community smarter about how we can be the most efficient and make the most change.

Do you think the way the restrictions exist in the law on each of these types of entities allows you to do all the sorts of things that organizationally you want to do?

We haven’t had a problem yet. I think that the restrictions serve a purpose. I think the purpose of campaigns in democracy should involve as many people as possible. When we give undue influence to a few individuals based on their financial position, that’s not good for democracy, that’s not good for campaigns, that’s not good for America or the goals we’re trying to achieve. There is a point where sometimes it’s a hassle and it means extra monitoring of our spending and making sure that we’re cutting the right check from the right account. But I think that’s for the best because it keeps our politics cleaner.

And you’re able to do what you need to do and what you want to do as long as you make a little bit of effort.

Exactly.

One final area I want to ask you about. The 2008 election has seen a lot of firsts with — not so much now in some of the cases, but along the way — the possibility of the first female president, the possibility of the first African-American president, the possibility of the first Latino president, the possibility of the first Mormon president. The obvious question to ask is do you think now, do you think down the road, an openly-LGBT candidate could mount a serious run for the presidency?

Sure. If you look at the pace of change that we’re seeing happening from the state level upward, it’s just amazing. When you look at the map and you say how many electoral votes do we need to win and where is this change happening the fastest and then even in the reddest of states, we can point to victories that are focusing on LGBT issues. Do I think we’re going to see one this cycle or the next cycle?

It’s probably a little too late for anyone to jump in now.

You’re right. Maybe not in the next four years or maybe not even in the next eight years, but down the line, and by down the line I mean sometime in my lifetime, I would not be surprised if there was a serious candidate running who is openly gay. That’s just a part of his profile or her profile that really speaks to why they would be the perfect leader for America.

And sort of a corollary question to that, identity politics plays some role in fundraising. Certainly not all the people who are donating to Senator Clinton are women, but a lot of women have been especially motivated by that. Do you think the same holds true in the LGBT community for a gay or lesbian presidential candidate or gay or lesbian candidates in general?

I don’t think it’s always the number one reason someone gives to a campaign. Regardless of the identity group, I do think politics plays a part in peoples’ giving priorities. Just like we’re talking about making history in this cycle from a number of demographic perspectives, when we see serious LGBT candidates poised to make history, whether that’s being the first openly-gay mayor of a major city or whether that’s the first openly-gay person in the state legislature, our community rallies around it because we know the importance of having openly-LGBT people at the table.

From a Stonewall Democrats’ perspective, that’s incredibly important as well as for our community that when those openly-LGBT people get there, they have pro-equality allies that are willing to help them pass legislation that’s going to improve and protect our community.