Is anyone else here bothered by corporatization of LGBT groups?

I received a phone call a couple of months ago.

HRC fundraiser.

He said (I swear it) that I was the longest-standing supporter on his call list. I can't really believe that but I do go back to probably 1990 or so.

Maybe a little bit before. ( I think I donated when it was still a "Fund". As in "Human Rights Campaign Fund". Someone do the math)

OK. Long time.

He asked me to ante up again. The usual spiel about can we count on you for a monthly donation of 99$ per month. I used to just laugh at the conclusion of this brazen display of chutzpah before re-upping w. my annual re-up fee: 50 dollars per annum, more or less.

This time, though I cut him off . I asked about HRC "partnerships" w. certain corporate entities. He didn't know anything about that. I didn't know much more than that myself, but I did decline to re-up until such time that I could look into the question of with whom my 50 bucks was.... ehhhh.... *partnering*.

Well it's here. Have a look. This is what disturbs me:

http://www.hrc.org/the-hrc-story/corporate-partners

Citibank. Coca Cola. Bank of America. Microsoft. ( Gates!. Ugh.) Goldman-Fucking-Sachs.

And on and on it goes.

OK... let's say these corporate monsters have ok policies on lgbt rights; but they may at the same time be trying to union-bust, privatize public education, promote Tea-Party type takeovers of states like North Carolina and Wisconsin, and collaborate w. people who "disappear" union activists in Colombia and elsewhere around the world.

I do a lot of work currently on issues related unionism, democracy in the workplace and public education. And, less intensively these days , on LGBT matters. Sometimes the lines do cross though, in interesting ways. Why do Gates' Common Core States Standards, for instance, exclude mention of LGBTs? (Every other demographic is easily searched for and found.) How does micromanaging classroom instruction, weakening tenure and creating hostile, authoritarian work environments, enable teachers, for instance to take the risks necessary to teach the science and history re. homosexuality in a situation in which there is a rigid, heteronormative , scripted curriculum...in other words: Common Core.... created by such as Gates and his empire of thousands of foundation-dependent hirelings... that is mandated by the state? ( And by the "state", I mean the state legislators who are up to their eyeballs in corporate cash to begin with.)



Ditto, the relationship between the rest of the corporate cabal that is nominally supporting lgbts thru HRC. Seems to me, *democracy* meshes best with the ethos on which *real* lgbt equality will eventually rest. And what I'm seeing on that HRC site is NOT democracy. ( I'm not sure what it is , exactly, but it ain't democracy.)

Brandeis said famously, "We can have democracy, or we can have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few. But we can't have both. " Seems to me real democracy jibes infinitely more closely w. the foundational philosophy of lgbt equality than does relying on .. or even accepting.....corporate largesse.

For one thing, a democratic and non-corporate HRC would likely be a more energetic and effective advocate on other issues... like income inequality, for example... were it to get out of the business of "partnering" with Goldman Sachs and the like.

I still haven't sent HRC any money; and am leaning toward NOT doing so. (BTW.. if they have all these megabillionaires lined-up, what do they want with my 50 bucks?)

Thoughts?

Am I short sighted? Crazy? Am I conflating matters that ought to remain distinct? Should I just shut up and send them the money?

Thoughts?