Most Advocacy Groups Reward Their Friends and Punish their Enemies, but Planned Parenthood has Decided to Punish a Friend.
As would seem obvious, most, if not all, advocacy groups adhere strictly to the principle of rewarding their friends and punishing their enemies. But by endorsing Amanda Cappelletti, Planned Parenthood is opposing a legislator who for a period of nearly two decades received nothing but 100% favorable ratings from that group. Offhand, can you think of another example of an advocacy group that punished a very good friend, the way PP is punishing Daylin Leach?
The executives of other advocacy groups, as well as members of the Pennsylvania Legislature (and legislators in other states and in Congress, for that matter), must be wondering what PP thinks it will accomplish by punishing Leach.
What does PP gain by replacing Leach with Amanda Cappelletti?
Let’s assume PP is successful and Leach loses. Amanda Cappelletti will probably be more effective at getting co-sponsors for legislation, and being part of the Democratic caucus than Leach. Cappelletti might be more popular with the governor and the other Democratic senators, but when it comes time to vote, it’s not possible for Cappelletti to be any more loyal to PP than Leach. And when all is said and done, PP knows that it doesn’t matter whether Cappelletti or Leach represents SD-17, the same amount of PP-favorable legislation is going to be enacted.
Maybe PP believes that the way to improve women’s health and assure reproductive rights is to pay fealty to the Pennsylvania Democratic Party Establishment, and if paying that fealty requires punishing a loyal friend, then the loyal friend must be punished.
Speaking of loyalty, do think that every legislator, governor, mayor and county commissioner won’t take note of how PP rewarded Leach for his loyalty?
And if Leach wins? Do you think it’s possible some legislators might be a little less eager to return PP’s calls?
Win or lose, how does punishing a good friend improve PP’s ability to influence legislators anywhere? Believe it or not, there are a lot of politicians who will support or oppose PP’s agenda for reasons that have nothing to do with ideology.
That’s right. There are politicians whose primary motivation when it comes to supporting or opposing PP’s initiatives, is whether it’s politically advantageous for them to do so. And by punishing a friend like Daylin Leach, PP has sent a signal that they don’t really care that much about how a legislator votes. I can just imagine a fence-sitting senator thinking to her or himself, “I better vote with PP on this bill, because, otherwise, they may or may not support me in the next election.”
It’s understandable why PP might not have wanted to endorse our controversial senator.
Let’s face it. Whether the concerns about him are legitimate or not, Daylin Leach has major issues when it comes to women. But PP didn’t have to endorse his opponent. Nobody would have begrudged them for staying neutral in the SD-17 Primary.
It’s not like there isn’t a precedent for that. Last week PP announced their eyeball rolling, ham-fisted “co-endorsement” of the two opposing candidates in a Western Pennsylvania State House race. And In numerous races they have taken the normal approach to staying neutral, by just not endorsing any candidates in contested elections.
PP released a list yesterday (April 9) of their “first wave endorsements.” Presumably that means there will be a second and maybe a third wave of endorsements. But for now, including SD-17, they have only endorsed candidates in nine of the 24 contested House races, and in three of the seven Senate races.
Please understand, my quibble is with the political arm of PP. The health services that PP provides are a godsend for countless women. I just think it’s a pity to see the political side of PP making stupid decisions that will ultimately make it more difficult for “the real Planned Parenthood” to provide its essential service.
Emily Callen is the Executive Director of Planned Parenthood Pennsylvania PAC. Please contact her and let her know how you feel about her strategy of punishing a good friend.