Sponsors

Focus on Your Local Focus on the Family Email Print

Anti-gay politics is at the center of American life these days. Some argue that many Republican successes are predicated on the idea of "turning out the base" with this "wedge issue."  While it is not always clear that this tactic is as successful as some say, there is no question that it is taking place. Anti-gay politics is a staple of American life. So, who exactly is behind this?

Well, there are many actors, of course.  But I want to focus on just one, multidimensional player: Focus on the Family headed by Christian radio psychologist James Dobson. And I want to zero in on one aspect in particular -- Focus on the Family political operations in the states.

Several years ago, I wrote a study about state level conservative think tanks and advocacy groups, published by Political Research Associates (pdf file). There were two, related networks started in tandem in the late 1980s. One emphasized the business/libertarian part of public policy, and the other emphasized the policy issues dear to the religious right. The latter, was the network of Family Policy Councils affiliated with Focus on the Family.  The details have changed since I published that study, but the general trajectory remains the same. Most importantly, these groups are at the forefront of antimarriage equality campaigns nationwide, and their roles as fronts for Focus on the Family are not widely understood. It is no small thing to get one's mind around the idea that Dobson's organization has active tentacles in 34 states, in addition to his radio program which is available just about everywhere.

For example, the point group in the recently defeated effort to repeal anti-discrimination laws in Maine, was the FOF affiliate, the Christian Civic League of Maine.

In defeat, the Maine FOF group immediately announced that they will now seek to amend the state constitution to ban marriage equality.  When they do, they can draw on the experience of many other FOF-led efforts from around the country. For example, the point group in seeking to get an anti-marriage equality measure on the ballot in Massachusetts, is the Massachusetts Family Institute.  

Some already existing local groups grafted onto FOF as state level affiliates, and others were started from scratch. And some groups have come and gone.  But whatever their genesis, they are joined at the hip with Focus on the Family, just as the Family Research Council serves as the group's de facto political lobby in Washington, DC.  The Family Research Council merged with FOF in 1988, but later decoupled in order to give it more flexibility politically without necessarily reflecting on the Focus on the Family. However, the distinction has always been pretty thin. Among other things, James Dobson has remained on the board of directors all these years.

Similarly, although the FOF states that the State Family Councils "have no corporate or financial relationship with each other or with Focus on the Family," this is disingenuous, since an organization must meet certain criteria to become affiliated with Focus on the Family; and must behave in certain ways in order to maintain it's standing. Some groups have been dropped over the years. Even a casual examination of the web sites of these groups will show, they have similar, although not uniform, structures,procedures, and policy agendas. But all are deeply involved in state politics, and thier activities often include voter mobilization and even distribution of voter guides.

There are currently FOF affiliated state policy councils in 34 states:  Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii,  Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin.

Have you focused on your local Focus on the Family?

[via FrederickClarkson.com.]


KEYWORDS: , ,

Sign up for a Complimentary Member Account... Join the community! It's fast. And it'll allow you to take advantage of all this site's great features!

< Iraq Folly Will Haunt Republicans For Decades | GOP Congress Running Against Itself >
 Display:
is formidable -- but not nearly as well understood as it should be.

by Frederick Clarkson on 11/10/2005 03:59:52 AM EST

Exposing Dobson and his network is critical. But the people who should really get this are those in the MSM who blindly spew these 'expert's' talkiing points.

Oy!

Political Cortex -- Brain Food for the Body Politic

by Tom Ball on 11/10/2005 11:14:43 AM EST

[ Parent ]
if its the MSM that should be getting this, why not email it to them, using that handy little icon next to the title? ;-)

by Frederick Clarkson on 11/12/2005 01:06:44 AM EST

[ Parent ]
  1. Do all these affiliated spin-offs get tax breaks as churches/religious institutions?

  2. Is there anything in this model that liberal churches could set up just as effectively? Or, for that matter, progressive groups in general?

by SusanG on 11/10/2005 08:57:33 AM EST

The tentative answer is that, as long as they don't outrightly advocate a political party or candidate, they are free to advocate an ideology.

Political Cortex -- Brain Food for the Body Politic

by Tom Ball on 11/10/2005 11:11:31 AM EST

[ Parent ]
American Progress and The RockRidge Institute are both non-profits (I believe) despite their obvious ideological leanings.

Such groups are constantly under watchful eye from the opposition for a slip up so they can rip the non-profit rug out from under them.

Political Cortex -- Brain Food for the Body Politic

by Tom Ball on 11/10/2005 11:11:55 AM EST

[ Parent ]
One of these days, I'll have to do a diary on tax law. But generally, none of the FOF empire is a religious organization under IRS rules, to my knowledge. (That's one reason why people need to focus on thier local FOF front group! To find out!)

Focus itself is a 501(c)(3), non-profit, tax exempt organization.

The Family Research Council, and the state-level advocacy groups are 501(c)(4)s which means that they are non-profit, but not tax-exempt.  They are free to do considerable political work, including endorse candidates. The general rule is that they cannot expend more than 50% of their income on poliitcal stuff, such as lobbying and ballot initiatives.  And they cannot make donations to candidates. To my knowledge, these groups are playing by the rules. In my PRA study, I discussed an instance in which one former FOF affiliate in Ohio broke the rules and got called on it by American United for Separation of Church and State -- and they were forced to pull thier voter guides that year.

501(3) organizations are under considerable constraints regarding political activity of all kinds.

So in other words, all of these groups are very much within thier rights to do what they do and it has nothing to do with religion.

The point of the diary is that people need to know who the opposition is; what they are about; what their capacities are; thier strengths and weaknesses. Anyone who doesn't, is handicapping themselves and the efforts to defend and advance the things about which they say that they care most deeply.

Most liberal political groups are c(4)s. There are no lessons to be learned in terms of tax status. That's pretty ho hum stuff.

What is interesting is the network of state level think tanks and advocacy groups. There are probably some things that can be learned from the FOF model. Whether it is the right model for liberal groups, whether religious or non-religious, I don't know.

But one of the main points of my original study was that the Reagan revolution was about devolving policy and the dispensing funds, from the federal government to the states. The purpose of the networks of conservative think tanks and advocacy groups was to focus on the opportunities presented by this; and to do so in a reasonably coordinatetd and cooperative fashion.  The way FOF has handled, and continues to handle marriage issues is a good example.

by Frederick Clarkson on 11/10/2005 12:24:07 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Great information. I looked up the PA branch, and yes indeed, they're talking anti-gay marriage amendment. They have a new website Pennsylvania For Marriage.

I guess the PA version of the Defense of Marriage Act just isn't discriminatory enough for them.

Looks like it's time to get back to work.

by astraea on 11/10/2005 12:27:39 PM EST

As it happens, I wrote quite a bit about the PA group in my PRA study -- follow the link in the diary for what I think you'll find is some useful background.

by Frederick Clarkson on 11/10/2005 12:59:08 PM EST

[ Parent ]
in the Administration.

Don't forget that Dobson and his crew tried to blackmail Dubya on the SS privatization scheme regarding his agenda on the gay marriage amendment.

They backed off (probably since privatization was going down anyway), but they'll keep coming back on this.

Time to circle the wagons. Let's focus on THEM.

Seems to me I recall someone had filed a complaint against this group with the IRS a while back, but I haven't done a search lately.

Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle. FDR

by btyarbro on 11/10/2005 02:39:06 PM EST

 Display: