When I think of activism, I think of progressive movements that were focused and effective in the past, and nothing but noise and ignored disorder now. That is, unless you look at what social conservatives have accomplished with getting antigay ballot measures passed. Whoever is working to stop gay marriage is organizing in large numbers and is doing a good job.

Large national non-profits such as the very visible Moveon.org and Human Rights Campaign have made efforts to scale back the social conservative agenda, but even these organizations fall victim to losing their message by taking on several causes instead of concentrating on one. However, there is greater hope in a focused pro-gay operation going on right now, but with less fanfare.

CapitolJoshua Green wrote a sprawling article in the March 2007 issue of The Atlantic Monthly called “They Won’t Know What Hit Them” that chronicles the philanthropic work of Tim Gill and others. Gill’s strategy is simple: target state politicians who initiate or support antigay policies, and boost funding of the election campaigns of their opponents.

As Green puts it, entrepreneurs like Gill who turn to philanthropy are “creating independent charitable enterprises that emphasize innovation and accountability. The Gates Foundation, founded by Bill Gates and his wife, Melinda, is a prime example of this new results-oriented philanthropy.”

Call it philanthropy if you like, but I’d like to call Tim Gill’s work the rise of Gay Activism 2.0. I’ve never been a fan of activism until now. I think it’s time for politicians touting intolerance to experience some payback. Here’s why you should put your money in Gay Activism 2.0.

According to Green, “Gill’s principal interest is gay equality. His foundations have given about $115 million to charities…. In 2000, he gave $300,000 in political donations, which grew to $800,000 in 2002, $5 million in 2004, and a staggering $15 million last year, almost all of it to state and local campaigns.”

Gill’s plan gets a bit more interesting, and you could liken it to how George Bush built his powerful empire. Green further explains that Gill, “enlisted as his political counselor an acerbic lawyer and former tobacco lobbyist named Ted Trimpa, who is Colorado’s answer to Karl Rove.”

Trimpa as Karl Rove is believable too, except take sinister out of the equation. Trimpa’s ideas about how to use political campaign contributions make sense. Green continues, “Trimpa believes that the gay-rights community directs too much of its money to thoroughly admirable national candidates who don’t need it, while neglecting less compelling races that would have a far greater impact on gay rights”a tendency he calls ‘glamour giving.'” A clear example according to Trimpa is Barack Obama, who is “an attractive candidate, solid on gay rights, and viscerally exciting to donors. It feels good to write him a check. An analysis of Obama’s 2004 Senate race, which he won by nearly fifty points, had determined that gays contributed more than $500,000.”

The alarming point Trimpa makes to Green is that, “a fraction of that money, directed at the right state and local races, could have flipped a few chambers.”

Now that Democrats have taken control of the House and Senate, and the Republican backlash has happened, why should we waste significant amounts of money on so called “glamour giving”? According to Green, “Most antigay measures, [Gill and Trimpa] discovered, originate in state legislatures.”

The idea then, as Green describes, “to snuff out rising politicians who were building their careers on antigay policies, before they could achieve national influence” is perhaps a reasonably bigger worry than bolstering the wealthy campaigns of popular Democratic candidates.

Gill’s efforts to recruit other gay philanthropists to steering political races reveal compelling insights into why LGBT acceptance is still stalling. According to Green, Gill’s “pitch was simple: Instead of waiting for a political savior to fix everything, consider donating to these [state] races, where you’ll have more effect at a fraction of the cost. As Trimpa later characterized the rationale for such an approach: ‘We live in a post–Will & Grace society. Americans believe and understand that gay people are everywhere, and most view them in a mainstream context. But this is a recent development, and the political world has not yet caught up”it’s lagging behind. The day will come when all of this is aligned, but we’re not there yet.’ ”

Apparently Gill and Trimpa have had success with their strategy. Green continues, “In the 2006 elections… donors injected more than $3 million, providing in some cases more than 20 percent of a candidate’s or organization’s budget. On Election Day, fifty of the seventy targeted candidates were defeated… and out of the thirteen states where Gill and his allies invested, four”Iowa, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Washington”saw control of at least one legislative chamber switch to the Democratic Party.”

Even with these results, Gill has his critics, including Jeff Soref of the Democratic National Committee. Soref tells Green that the recent Democratic victories in the 2006 elections were not as big partly because of Gill “steering gay money away from the national level.”

Soref continues, “But [Gill’s] way, state by state, will take years. There’s nothing like passing national legislation that benefits everybody equally,” and cites to a pending national employment nondiscrimination bill as reason to have faith in Washington.

Blah blah blah, Soref! What’s the point of small victories in national legislation when severe losses such as having 27 states ban same-sex marriage has greater impact? With Soref’s thinking, the LGBT community will uniformly be denied equal rights across all states at the rate antigay measures keep getting passed.

Soref’s comments underscore why the LGBT community can’t rely on just the Democratic party to push for equal rights. They are so focused on gaining majority, that LGBT causes might fall to the wayside.

Green delves into much greater detail of problems with Democratic ideals, but Gill’s philanthropy does not rely on just one party. After all, not all Republicans are against gay rights. “One component of Gill’s strategy,” according to Green, “includes courting that element of the Republican Party that’s open to compromise, while at the same time making clear that gay bashing will now come at a price.”

Trimpa sums it best. “You have to create an atmosphere of fear and respect… and set up the proper context for them to do the right thing.”

Controversial tactics indeed, but perhaps that’s how change occurs. Welcome to Gay Activism 2.0.

For more information, check out the website for the Gill Foundation.