beckwith@sierra.STANFORD.EDU (beckwith) (07/20/90)
In response to the postings regarding The Fund For The Feminist
Majority (here after called "The Fund"):
I have not worked for The Fund, but I have, up until about a year ago,
been active with NOW, so I know how The Fund was started.
The Fund was founded in 1987 or 1988 by Eleanor Smeal, shortly after she
served her final term as National NOW President. In the NOW bylaws there is a
limit to two consecutive terms of office for the office of Co-ordinator/
President. Smeal is the current President of the Fund, and is
extremely active in NOW at the national level, hence the common goals
of NOW and the (probable) sharing of the mailing lists.
The Fund supports the Feminist Agenda: equality, reproductive freedom,
peace & disarmanent, civil rights, lesbian and gay rights, economic
justice, homemaker's rights, elimination of poverty, rights of the
disabled, human services, elimination of violence, preservation of
the environment, and equality/affirmative action, etc. in the arts,
humanities, & media.
The Fund believes that these ideas can be brought about best by
electing feminist women to public office. They ask their contributors
to take a pledge: "I pledge not to work for, nor support with my
vote, money, or time, any candidate who does not support and work for
women's rights and feminist principles." This is NOT a membership
organization nor is it a PAC. I believe they maintain their tax
exempt status under the heading "educational organization".
Smeal has taken the Fund "show" on the road, holding rallys in major
cities in the USA, raising "support" for feminist candidates and
encouraging feminist women to consider running for office.
The Fund was not a NOW splinter group. I think Larry E. Carroll was
most correct when he stated: "It [The Fund] was [/is] a vehicle [for Smeal]
to retain national power in the feminist movement that would have been denied
her because of NOW's two-term limit on the presidency...".
While I support everything The Fund supports, I do not contribute time
or money to The Fund either, and here is why:
1. This group is trying to collect money from the same people being
hit up by NOW, NARAL, the ACLU, EMILY's List and the Democratic Party.
Smeal should have merged The Fund with the NOW Educational Fund. Why
start yet another organization competing for the same money? Money
that is not abundant.
2. As far as I know, ALL the money collected by The Fund is used
to keep The Fund going. PLEASE check this out if you intend to send
money. Write them a letter and ask them what they do with their contributions.
3. I wonder what good it does to have unqualified women running for office.
Encouraging women to run for national office when they have never been
active in politics seems a bit far fetched, and off the mark.
If you want to help feminist women get elected I would suggest the following
actions:
1. Volunteer your time to help out during the campaign (make phone
calls, walk precincts, help at fundraisers, stuff and lick envelopes
for mailings, do whatever needs to be done), there are never too many
volunteers! Just voting on election day isn't enough. Besides, it's
fun! AND you learn a lot.
2. Give your money DIRECTLY to the candidate, bypass PACs!
3. Join EMILY's List. Expensive, but if you are serious about
electing feminist women to office, this is the way to do it.
EMILY's List is not a PAC, it is orders of magnitude better!
A PAC can legally only give $5,000. to a candidate in each election
(this would mean a total of $10,000; $5,000 in the primary and $5,000
in the general election). EMILY's List can raise an unlimited amount
of money for a candidate. Plus, with EMILY's List YOU choose who gets
your money.
EMILY stands for "Early Money Is Like Yeast". In politics there is much
smoke and many mirrors. Candidates are judged by the media (like it
or not this aspect is very important) on their "viablity" (how likely
is it this candidate can win) by primarily two factors: how much
early money the candidate can raise and how much "support" (who is
backing this candidate) the candidate has.
The first Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) report (telling
how much money has been raised) submitted can make or break a candidate.
Here is how EMILY's List works:
1. You give EMILY's List a $100. contribution, this keeps the
organization going. For this, you get an extremely well researched
list (and "resume" for each candidate) of VIABLE feminist candidates
running for national office. These candidates must be Democrats,
pro-choice and pro-ERA. You then choose which candidate you want to
support and write a check directly to that candidate using the
candidates FPPC campaign name.
You mail the checks to EMILY's List and each week the people at
EMILY's List mail a packet of checks to the candidate. It is a very
powerful way to raise money. I know this from working on an extremely
exciting Congressional campaign in 1988 (Anna Eshoo, 12th CD).
When you join EMILY's List you sign a pledge to "consider making gifts
of at least $100. to two or more Democratic women candidates selected
by EMILY's List". So, if you figure there is an election every two
years, you will end up spending $150. each year ($100. to EMILY's
List, $200 to candidates = $300/2 years) on political campaigns.
Write to them for more information: EMILY's List
Suite 412
2000 P Street, NW
Washington, DC 20077-6039
Your contribution to EMILY's List is not tax deductible.
Well, I have gone on far too long. I hope this clarifies The Fund
questions and gets people thinking about supporting Feminist women
candidates in a meaningful way.
Sharleenw25y@vax5.cit.cornell.edu (07/23/90)
In article <141@sierra.STANFORD.EDU>, beckwith@sierra.STANFORD.EDU (beckwith) writes: > The Fund supports the Feminist Agenda: equality, reproductive freedom, > peace & disarmanent, civil rights, lesbian and gay rights, economic If "peace & disarmament" is somehow a feminist issue, what of those women who are trying to build military careers? Are they barred from being feminists? Or conversely, if feminism <-> peace & disarmament, does this mean that feminists are not qualified to serve in the military? -- Paul Ciszek W25Y@CRNLVAX5 Bitnet W25Y@VAX5.CIT.CORNELL.EDU Internet UUNET!CORNELL!VAX5!W25Y UUCP "The trouble with normal is it always gets worse." --Bruce Cockburn
wilber%nunki.usc.edu@usc.EDU (John Wilber) (07/31/90)
In article <141@sierra.STANFORD.EDU> beckwith@sierra.STANFORD.EDU (beckwith) writes: >The Fund supports the Feminist Agenda: equality, reproductive freedom, >peace & disarmanent, civil rights, lesbian and gay rights, economic >justice, homemaker's rights, elimination of poverty, rights of the >disabled, human services, elimination of violence, preservation of >the environment, and equality/affirmative action, etc. in the arts, >humanities, & media. Think it is an agends that lumps feminism, socialism, and an odd grab-bag of other isms together that has stalled the feminist movement. I very much support women's rights, but I am absolutely opposed to pacifism, socialism, environmentalism (as practiced these days), and affirmative action. By lumping together the good positions of feminism with these other (and might I say *wrong*) ideologies, the feminist movement looses the support of the majority of the population. >The Fund believes that these ideas can be brought about best by >electing feminist women to public office. Isn't this a sexist perspective? Can't a man promote policies that are fair to women? My point is not that women don't belong in government (I consider sex irrelevant), it is that claims that "Only a woman can do X." are just as sexist as "Women can't do X, only men can.". >They ask their contributors >to take a pledge: "I pledge not to work for, nor support with my >vote, money, or time, any candidate who does not support and work for >women's rights and feminist principles." If "feminist principles" are the same as the list above, then I assume that you think that someone cannot be both a feminist and a capitalist/ hawk/industrialist/anti-affirmative actionist. This is a ridiculous and self-destructive idea for that organization.
ag1v+@andrew.cmu.EDU ("Andrea B. Gansley-Ortiz") (07/31/90)
Question. Why isn't EMILY's list tax deductible? I thought any contribution to a political party or a particular canidate was tax deductible. Andrea Gansley-Ortiz
Betsy Manlove (EEM103@PSUVM.PSU.EDU) (08/01/90)
In article <0ahNem_00WB6MPAboF@andrew.cmu.edu>, ag1v+@andrew.cmu.EDU ("Andrea B. Gansley-Ortiz") says: >Why isn't EMILY's list tax deductible? I thought any contribution to >a political party or a particular canidate was tax deductible. On the contrary... Contributions to political parties and candidates are never deductable in the USA. Similarly, contributions to organizations which are specifically used for lobbying are not deductable, although donations for non-lobbying purposes may be deductable. The only "tax deducatble" political contribution I know of is the $1 you can give to the presidential election campaign by checking off the box on your Internal Revenue Service form. Betsy Manlove
gazit@lear.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) (08/01/90)
In article <11103@chaph.usc.edu> wilber%nunki.usc.edu@usc.EDU (John Wilber) writes: >If "feminist principles" are the same as the list above, then I assume >that you think that someone cannot be both a feminist and a >capitalist/ hawk/industrialist/anti-affirmative actionist. This is a >ridiculous and self-destructive idea for that organization. I can't see what's wrong if feminist organization want to behave in self-destructive ways. It is *their* (feminists') organizations, and they can destroy them as *they* (feminists) like. Hillel gazit@cs.duke.edu "The continuation of earnings gap between men and women, the decimation of affirmative action in order to protect white men from `reverse discrimination', the rise of male victories in child custody cases - all of these attest to the need for a way to galvanize women's opposition and women's power in the 1980s." -- ("Caught Looking", Kate Ellis, Barbara O'Dair & Abby Tallmer)