“The first principal of a free society is an untrammeled flow of words in an open forum.”

- Adlai E. Stevenson, American lawyer and politician

One has to question just how democratic the San Diego Democratic Club is after the predominantly GLBT political group refused to run a two-page, center-spread Gay & Lesbian Times advertisement because it featured editorial content critical of Councilmember Toni Atkins’ involvement in the city’s financial crisis.

The ad was supposed to run in the club’s program that will be distributed this Saturday at their annual Freedom Banquet, a gala honoring local Democratic political leaders and activists, and at which Atkins is the master of ceremonies.

SDDC president Stephen Whitburn said the ad, which features two recent editorials calling on Atkins to answer questions about the Kroll report regarding her involvement in the mismanagement of city funds, was “inconsistent with the nature of the celebration.”

It should be noted here that Whitburn is running for Atkins’ seat on the City Council when she is termed out in 2008.

It should also be noted that the club’s decision was made following a written agreement between Whitburn and Gay & Lesbian Times publisher Michael Portantino to trade advertising space: SDDC would run an ad for their Freedom Banquet in the GLT and in exchange the GLT would get the center spread in this year’s Freedom Banquet program. No restrictions were placed by either party on the ads’ content.

In denying our ad, Whitburn did, however, acknowledge that if the same editorial content targeted a conservative Republican politician, the ad would have been acceptable.

“If my info were about Randy ‘Duke’ Cunningham, you would run it,” Portantino said in a phone conversation with Whitburn this week.

“You are correct. An ad centered negatively on George W. Bush would likely be appropriate,” Whitburn said, adding that if the ad negatively portrayed an SDDC member, they also wouldn’t run it in the program. He also said, “If it was negative on someone we didn’t like, we would let you run it.”

“Sounds lock-step,” Portantino said.

“We are lock-step against conservative Republicans. If someone wanted to run an ad against them [Republicans], we would happily take it. We don’t think this is inconsistent with Democratic values.”

If he were still alive, early San Diego Democratic Club member Tom Homann, a lifelong free-speech advocate and lawyer who fought for the rights of dissenters under the First Amendment, would be hopping mad. How can a club founded on the principal of giving dissenting and/or unheard voices a platform refuse to follow those same principals in their advertising policy?

Visit our archives online at www.gaylesbiantimes.com and re-read our editorial titled “The Kroll report: You do the math” (www.gaylesbiantimes.com/?id=7931) and publisher’s point titled “Toni Atkins: Our responsibility, your responsibility” (www.gaylesbiantimes.com/?id=8014). Notice that both pieces neither attack Atkins on a personal level, nor do they criticize her political integrity or her incredible dedication to the people of San Diego. Both simply call on her to answer to her constituency for her actions, because we the people elected her, and it is our tax dollars that the Kroll report says have been mismanaged.

Many of us at the GLT are registered Democrats, and there are many registered Democrats here in San Diego’s GLBT community who agree Atkins is just as answerable for her actions regarding the city’s financial crisis as any other elected official implicated in the Kroll report. In fact, 94 percent of respondents answered “yes” to our Aug. 24 poll question, “Do you think the gay and lesbian press should scrutinize its own political leaders the same way it scrutinizes heterosexual politicians?” Nothing could be more democratic than holding our elected officials accountable for their actions, and nothing is a surer sign of progressive GLBT activism than keeping the floor open to valid dissenting voices.

British novelist Edward M. Forster once said: “We are willing enough to praise freedom when she is safely tucked away in the past and cannot be a nuisance. In the present, amidst dangers whose outcome we cannot foresee, we get nervous about her, and admit censorship.” It’s hard for us to imagine that the San Diego Democratic Club – or Whitburn, for that matter – could disagree on that point.

You may notice a slew of letters to the editor in next week’s paper proclaiming that the club, as a private entity, has every right to be discriminatory in its advertising policy. Take note now that we absolutely agree with that argument. Our question to you is how do you feel about a Democratic club that refuses to run a voice of dissent, tasteful or not, from within the very ranks it purports to advocate for? Isn’t that one of the founding principals of democracy – and of the gay rights movement?