Corporate identity crisis.

Some of the most gay-friendly companies find it still makes sense to bankroll Washington's most antigay politicians

The next time you are searching for a gas station, consider the corporate practices of Chevron. The multinational oil and gas company offers both antidiscrimination protections and domestic-partner benefits to its gay and lesbian employees. Its philanthropic program includes grants to gay- and AIDS-related causes, including the AIDS Walk in San Francisco, where the company's headquarters are located. And its gay employee group has more than 100 members.

But before you label Chevron or any company pro-gay, you might want to check out the giving patterns of its political action committee. During the 1998 congressional election, Chevron gave nearly 84% of its $331,529 in political donations to Republican candidates, including $6,999 to antigay stalwart Sen. Don Nickles (R-Okla.) and $1,000 each to gay rights foes Rep. Helen Chenoweth (R-Ida.) and former senator Lauch Faircloth (R-N.C.).

Confused? Welcome to the strange world of corporate politics, where socially progressive employment policies are often at direct odds with the ideological thrust of corporate political donations.

With a Republican majority in both houses, a bias toward GOP incumbents is to be expected. The energy industry, in particular, relies on members from conservative-leaning regions of the country to do its legislative bidding. And Republicans have been more likely to oppose environmental regulations and land-management policies that could cut into oil production and profits.

But this trend is hardly limited to the energy industry. More traditionally liberal high-tech firms with pro-gay employment policies, such as giants Bell Atlantic and AT&T, also heavily favor Republicans. Of course, these corporations are simply doing what corporations do--following their bottom line. But some activists are beginning to question if anything can be done to bring these corporate political donations more in line with the companies' gay-positive policies.

"You certainly can't ask corporations to go against their own self-interest," says Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), who is also the recipient of corporate largesse, having received $49,000 from corporate PACs in the 1998 campaign. "But you can ask them to cut off the Bob Barfs, Dan Burtons, and Jesse Helmses. The problem is that it's still more legitimate to be a gay basher than a racist or an anti-Semite. But I think it's fair to start asking corporations to consider how their political contributions are being used against the gay community."

But Dawn Soper, a spokeswoman for Chevron, says that's unlikely to happen any time soon. "The company gives political contributions only with the interests of Chevron as a corporation," she says. "What we can do is make our work environment as free of discrimination as possible. [But] so many issues are debated publicly that we could never take sides on them all."

But corporations do have the power to send an unmistakable message. In the 1980s, business leaders helped hasten the end of apartheid in South Africa by refusing to do business with the country (although some took this step largely because of pressure from activists). Today, business is in a similar position to send a message to the far right--which wields considerable power in the Republican Party and spent much of the past year preoccupied with antigay politics--because of its dependence on PAC money to help the GOP maintain its narrow majority in both houses.

"It may be time for the socially responsible investment movement to take a closer look at political action committees," says Shelley Alpern, senior research analyst at Trillium Asset Management, an investment firm that deals primarily with socially progressive companies. "A lot of corporations simply divvy up their giving equally between the two parties, but if politicians who don't respect human rights are being supported, maybe we should start looking at that problem."

The right-wing slant of many PACs comes at a time when corporations also are adopting policies many consider ultraliberal. Almost 500 employers, including dozens of Fortune 500 companies, offer health benefits to the same-sex partners of their gay and lesbian employees. With low unemployment rates creating competition for qualified workers, employers are going to great lengths to make once-shunned minorities, including gay men and lesbians, feel comfortable.

Activists such as Alpern have little leverage with which to pressure these corporate behemoths. Combined, the PACs of the Human Rights Campaign, a gay lobby, and the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund distribute hundreds of thousands of dollars to candidates at the national and local level every election cycle, but their efforts are dwarfed by the tens of millions distributed by business PACs. And neither HRC nor the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force monitor the ideological patterns of corporate giving. (HRC's PAC donated $711,400 to Democrats last year and $89,725 to Republicans.)

Grant Lukenbill, author of the forthcoming Smart Spending: The Gay and Lesbian Guide to Socially Responsible Shopping and Investing, insists that politics is best left to voters. "The most prudent way to deal with industries is to work on them sector by sector," he says. "As gay consumers we should support those who have progressive internal policies and pressure those that don't. That's how we ended Anita Bryant's career."

Such is the case with AIDS. When Republicans won majorities in both houses in the 1994 election, activists worried that lobbying by newly empowered religious conservatives would decimate the Ryan White Act, which distributes money to state and local programs in areas hardest hit by the epidemic. Thanks in part to an educational and government-relations effort that involved the careful deployment of politically moderate GOP governors and wealthy pharmaceutical PACs, that scenario never materialized. In fact, AIDS spending has seen some of its biggest increases under the GOP majority and Democratic White House.

"What we did was work with the corporations and state governors, who have an interest in continued high levels of AIDS funding, to make sure that the right [congressional] committee members got the message," says Kevin Ivers, director of public affairs for Log Cabin Republicans, a gay lobbying group that helped develop the strategy. "It's not a quid pro quo, but the reality is that money does provide some access. The end result is that the GOP leadership kept the religious right largely out of health care policy. If the pharmaceuticals had not been so careful about where they put their money, the consequences for AIDS funding could have been dire."

One of the few archconservative recipients of pharmaceutical largesse has been Rep. Tom Cobum (R-Okla.), who has remained a vocal supporter of AIDS funding. Glaxo Wellcome, the maker of the antiviral drug AZT, donated $5,000 to Coburn's successful 1998 reelection campaign. "I'm sure the Family Research Council [a religious conservative group] is furious at Coburn because he has effectively kept them out of the AIDS funding discussion," Ivers says.

The question remains, however, whether the AIDS strategy can be applied to other legislation, such as the federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would outlaw sexual orientation discrimination in the workplace. "What we have to do is convince the business community that in the long run the religious right is bad for business," Ivers says, "and that the gay community is good for business."

The price of politics

The following corporations, which are among those that give big campaign donations to right-wing candidates, are finding themselves at odds with their gay employees and their own pro-gay corporate to policies. Here are some of their 1998 contributions:

                  SE. TRENT   REP. STEVE   REP. BOB  SEN. DON
                    LOTT       LARGENT      BARR     NICKLES
                  (R-MISS.)   (R-OKLA.)    (R-GA.)   (R-OKLA.)

AT&T                 $5,000     $6,500      $2,500     $4,000
Bank of America      $2,500                 $2,000     $5,000
Bell Atlantic                   $1,000      $1,500     $4,000
Chevron                $200     $1,000                 $6,999
GlaxoWellcome        $5,000       $500                 $3,000
Disney               $1,000

                  REP. TOM   REP. DICK   REP. HELEN
                   DELAY       ARMEX     CHENOWETH
                  (R-TEX.)   (R-TEX.)     (R-IDA.)

AT&T                $2,000
Bank of America     $7,000      $5,000
Bell Atlantic       $4,000      $3,500       $5,000
Chevron             $2,000                   $1,000
GlaxoWellcome       $2,000
Disney

                  SEN. JESSE   SEN. RICHARD
                    HELMS         SHELBY
                   (R-N-C.)      (R-ALA.)

AT&T
Bank of America
Bell Atlantic
Chevron
GlaxoWellcome
Disney                $1,000         $1,000

Find more on this topic at www.advocate.com