logo
Corporations won't save LGBTQ+ people. Take their money for Pride anyway.

Corporations won't save LGBTQ+ people. Take their money for Pride anyway.

USA Today2 days ago

Corporations won't save LGBTQ+ people. Take their money for Pride anyway. | Opinion Every large company, regardless of its position on DEI, operates within systems that perpetuate harm in one way or another. This is not a time to stand on principle. Take the money.
Show Caption
Hide Caption
San Francisco Pride faces shortfall as corporate sponsors pull out
Several major companies have opted out of donating to San Francisco Pride this year, such as Anheuser-Busch, Diageo, Nissan, and Comcast.
Corporations are not our friends.
Despite their diverse casting in advertisements, the rainbow trinkets they proudly sell for $2, press releases on innovative DEI initiatives or how "brave" their hot takes on social issues are – corporations will not save us. They exist to sell us things. They exist to advertise their brand. They exist to maximize their profits.
And our job as queer leaders is not to be the morality police of who can or cannot sponsor pride or donate toward LGBTQ+ events and causes; our job is to grab that money and use it to support a community on the brink of being pummeled.
This is not a normal year. Federal funding for nonprofits supporting LGBTQ+, immigrant, people of color and other intersecting communities are under attack, as are our tax-exempt statuses. Economists are predicting massive layoffs. Libraries, museums, cultural spaces and health programs (which employ and serve countless LGBTQ+ individuals) are being defunded.
Trump administration has waged war on trans people
Our federal government has waged an egregious war on our trans family, and the Supreme Court recently heard a case that could dismantle all preventative care coverage, including access to PrEP (pre-exposure prophylaxis medicine that can help prevent the spread of HIV).
Here is the hard truth we have to reckon with in 2025: Every dollar counts more than ever if we want to keep LGBTQ+ people informed, healthy and alive.
There's a commendable vision within the LGBTQ+ community to return to a time when we relied on mutual aid instead of corporate dollars. But like everything, it has a cost. In 2025, that cost is asking a community of people who are losing access to meds, about to lose their jobs and constantly under political attack to give even more.
Your Turn: Do you celebrate pride? Are you worried about Trump's impacts on it? Tell us.
The quiet truth is it would financially decimate our community if we were expected to take the already small amount of resources that we have and use them to replace hundreds of millions dollars in lost sponsorships, research and health care.
Most people can't afford to donate to every fundraiser providing continuous access to gender-affirming care, send money to replace funding for the local trans services that lost their federal grant, give to all the GoFundMe's for everyone getting laid off this year, donate to support some research project still happening and still manage to support the normal fundraising needs our community has on whatever is left in their pockets between paydays.
We become stronger by bringing more resources into the fold, not recycling what we have over and over.
Pride events must take every dollar from any corporation
The truth is, no corporation is ever clean. There is no ethical consumption under capitalism.
Every large company ‒ regardless of its position on diversity, equity and inclusion ‒ operates within systems that perpetuate harm in one way or another. How is DEI the deal breaker for who can sponsor pride, but we'll turn a blind eye to a health insurance conglomerate with questionable tactics, companies that destroy the environment or banks supporting genocide?
In any other year, I would be asking you to throw them all out. Today I'm asking you to take all of their money.
Opinion: With Trump's ban on trans troops in effect, US tests lawful discrimination
This is my ask, if you're running a pride festival or charity event, determine the minimum amount you need to make your event a reality, and build a regranting program to get excess funds to community resources under attack this year. This includes your local HIV clinic or programs providing gender-affirming care.
If your nonprofit receives corporate gifts or grants, continue to accept the gifts that keep your doors open. But here's the key: Promise corporations the bare minimum in return for their sponsorships.
Brainstorm with your team to reexamine what you offer your partners. Are there promotional aspects that could be tweaked, or partnerships toned down, so you are still offering something of value to the partner but it's more authentic to the organization? A little wiggle room leads to big gains.
It's time to fight for our survival, not stand on principle
If these companies are willing to give us the bare minimum, in the form of a tax-deductible donation, we can afford to give them the bare minimum in return to keep our community stable. Use them to build our own mutual aid bank.
Take that dollar.
Because in six months or a year, we probably won't have it. Our nonprofits might be starting to shut down. Services will likely be more strained or cut off completely. This is not a time to stand on principle about which funding sources are 'pure.' It's a time to rally, strategize and fight for survival. Every dollar we take and redirect to our community is a necessary, and perhaps fleeting, lifeline – using the advertising capital of a festival or a one-time event, to protect the health, safety and knowledge of our community.
To nonprofit leaders and community organizers reading this: Take the money. All of it. Use it to get more medicine, more stability and more resources into your communities. Raise it now so we have it tomorrow. Ask for more, too.
We're not just fighting for the present; we're fighting to preserve a future for LGBTQ+ communities everywhere. And that fight requires every dollar we can muster.
Missy Spears is the executive director of Queer Kentucky, the GLAAD-nominated media nonprofit that uses the power of storytelling to impact LGBTQ+ culture and health. In addition to her work with Queer Kentucky, Spears serves as the Board of Directors co-president for the Kentucky Civic Engagement Table, the cofounder of the COVunity Free Fridge Program, and sits on Community Advisory Boards for the Cincinnati Art Museum, media outlet WCPO, and University of Kentucky's Center for Clinical and Translational Science. This column originally appeared in the Louisville Courier Journal.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Can Tritech Group Limited (Catalist:5G9) Improve Its Returns?
Can Tritech Group Limited (Catalist:5G9) Improve Its Returns?

Yahoo

time22 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Can Tritech Group Limited (Catalist:5G9) Improve Its Returns?

While some investors are already well versed in financial metrics (hat tip), this article is for those who would like to learn about Return On Equity (ROE) and why it is important. By way of learning-by-doing, we'll look at ROE to gain a better understanding of Tritech Group Limited (Catalist:5G9). Return on equity or ROE is an important factor to be considered by a shareholder because it tells them how effectively their capital is being reinvested. Put another way, it reveals the company's success at turning shareholder investments into profits. Trump has pledged to "unleash" American oil and gas and these 15 US stocks have developments that are poised to benefit. The formula for ROE is: Return on Equity = Net Profit (from continuing operations) ÷ Shareholders' Equity So, based on the above formula, the ROE for Tritech Group is: 3.4% = S$69k ÷ S$2.0m (Based on the trailing twelve months to March 2025). The 'return' is the amount earned after tax over the last twelve months. One way to conceptualize this is that for each SGD1 of shareholders' capital it has, the company made SGD0.03 in profit. Check out our latest analysis for Tritech Group One simple way to determine if a company has a good return on equity is to compare it to the average for its industry. Importantly, this is far from a perfect measure, because companies differ significantly within the same industry classification. As shown in the graphic below, Tritech Group has a lower ROE than the average (12%) in the Construction industry classification. That's not what we like to see. That being said, a low ROE is not always a bad thing, especially if the company has low leverage as this still leaves room for improvement if the company were to take on more debt. When a company has low ROE but high debt levels, we would be cautious as the risk involved is too high. To know the 3 risks we have identified for Tritech Group visit our risks dashboard for free. Most companies need money -- from somewhere -- to grow their profits. That cash can come from issuing shares, retained earnings, or debt. In the first and second cases, the ROE will reflect this use of cash for investment in the business. In the latter case, the debt used for growth will improve returns, but won't affect the total equity. Thus the use of debt can improve ROE, albeit along with extra risk in the case of stormy weather, metaphorically speaking. Tritech Group does use a high amount of debt to increase returns. It has a debt to equity ratio of 2.71. With a fairly low ROE, and significant use of debt, it's hard to get excited about this business at the moment. Investors should think carefully about how a company might perform if it was unable to borrow so easily, because credit markets do change over time. Return on equity is a useful indicator of the ability of a business to generate profits and return them to shareholders. Companies that can achieve high returns on equity without too much debt are generally of good quality. All else being equal, a higher ROE is better. But when a business is high quality, the market often bids it up to a price that reflects this. It is important to consider other factors, such as future profit growth -- and how much investment is required going forward. Check the past profit growth by Tritech Group by looking at this visualization of past earnings, revenue and cash flow. If you would prefer check out another company -- one with potentially superior financials -- then do not miss this free list of interesting companies, that have HIGH return on equity and low debt. Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team (at) article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data

Medinex Reports Full Year 2025 Earnings
Medinex Reports Full Year 2025 Earnings

Yahoo

time23 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Medinex Reports Full Year 2025 Earnings

Revenue: S$13.1m (up 4.3% from FY 2024). Net income: S$2.83m (up 174% from FY 2024). Profit margin: 22% (up from 8.2% in FY 2024). The increase in margin was primarily driven by lower expenses. Trump has pledged to "unleash" American oil and gas and these 15 US stocks have developments that are poised to benefit. All figures shown in the chart above are for the trailing 12 month (TTM) period Medinex shares are up 6.6% from a week ago. Don't forget that there may still be risks. For instance, we've identified 4 warning signs for Medinex (2 are a bit concerning) you should be aware of. Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team (at) article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data

‘Donors' vs ‘takers': SALT battle stirs debate between blue and red states
‘Donors' vs ‘takers': SALT battle stirs debate between blue and red states

Yahoo

time26 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

‘Donors' vs ‘takers': SALT battle stirs debate between blue and red states

President Trump's domestic agenda bill is spurring a debate over whether blue states are subsidizing red states. After a successful pressure campaign from blue-state Republicans, the House version of Trump's bill was amended to boost the state and local tax (SALT) deduction cap to $40,000. The agreement was a major win for a handful of House Republicans from wealthier districts in blue states. The GOP lawmakers backing the larger cap argued their constituents tend to pay higher state and local taxes in large part due to high property values. Before Trump's 2017 tax bill, the constituents could write off their state and local taxes. That bill imposed a $10,000 ceiling, which the blue-state GOP lawmakers said unduly punished their area's homeowners, who suddenly had a massively larger tax bill. The SALT cap is controversial because it's a tax break that benefits wealthier Americans in more affluent coastal states. But those arguing that the higher ceiling is justified say their constituents already send in more to the federal government in taxes than they get out in public services. As a result, they argue their states are already effectively subsidizing state with lower property values that tend to get more in federal benefits than their constituents pay in taxes. This has spurred a larger debate over who is subsidizing who when it comes to red and blue states. Democrats and blue-state Republicans defend the SALT deduction and advocate for a higher cap because their states often pay more in taxes than they get back in services. They distinguish between 'donor states' and 'taker states' and argue that, as donors, they should be able to fully exempt their regional taxes from their federal tax bill. 'Most of these states … are high tax states that give more to the federal government than they get back in federal services. Most of the red states are taker states, states that get more from the federal government than they actually pay in taxes,' Rep. Tom Suozzi (D-N.Y.) said during a markup of the tax portion of the GOP bill earlier this month. 'It's really not fair that we are being stuck with this cap on our state and local tax deduction because people are getting taxed on taxes that they've already paid,' he said. The argument is a common one among Democrats. California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) made the point during an interview with television pundit Sean Hannity in 2023. 'We're subsidizing your states, Sean, because of your policies,' he said. Republicans in red states see things dramatically differently. They argue many residents of blue states are simply living in high-tax areas and shouldn't get a federal tax reduction for doing so. If they want lower taxes, vote to lower the local taxes or move. State tax experts say blue states are generally sending in more to the federal government than they are getting out in benefits because they have larger local economies and more higher-income taxpayers. The 'donor state' and 'taker state' distinction has been around for decades, though funding used to flow more from northern states to Southern states rather than from coastal states to interior states. Recent studies show a bit of a complicated picture, though in many cases it is blue states that are paying in more to the federal government than they are taking out. For example, Washington, Massachusetts and New Jersey all ran a deficit with the federal government in 2023, according to a 2025 New York comptroller study, meaning these states sent in more in taxes than they received in benefits. Other states with a substandard balance of payments include California, New Hampshire, Minnesota, Utah and Illinois. Most of those states have repeatedly voted for Democratic candidates in recent presidential elections and have Democratic senators representing them in Congress. Utah is a notable exception. However, when it comes to states simply taking large amounts of benefits from the federal government, the report from the New York comptroller paints a more complicated picture. The top 10 taker states in 2023, the report found, included New Mexico, Virginia, Hawaii, Maryland and Maine, which repeatedly have backed Democrats in the presidential election. The list also included Alaska, Mississippi, West Virginia, Kentucky and Alabama, five red states. New Mexico, Virginia, Alaska, Mississippi and West Virginia all receive more than $12,000 more per person from the federal government than they pay in taxes, according to the comptroller study. A separate report from the State University of New York found the states in 2022 with the most favorable balance of payments per capita were Virginia ($14,888), Kentucky ($14,507), Alaska ($14,031), New Mexico ($13,009), and Maryland ($11,617). Texas and Florida, the two GOP-leaning states with the largest economies, received moderately more per person from the federal government than they provided in taxes. There's no single government program or tax that's responsible for the net transfers from blue states to red states, but experts point to health care matching contributions, also known as FMAP, as a major driver. 'If you look at FMAP, the share usually for red states is much higher, meaning there is more federal support,' Lucy Dadayan, a principal research associate with the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center at the Urban Institute, told The Hill. 'Medicaid is the largest share of all the federal aid going to the states. That's one [way] that red states get substantially more funding from the federal government than the blue states get.' The GOP bill makes large cuts to public health care programs to partly offset some of its tax cuts, with millions of people set to lose access to public health care as a result of the legislation. There is no regional breakdown of where those people live from the Congressional Budget Office, but the distribution of FMAP allocations suggests they may be located in Republican-led states. While the bill still has to make it through the Senate, the higher $40,000 SALT cap would lower taxes on more affluent taxpayers by allowing them to deduct more local taxes from their federal returns. This could take a bite out of the net federal subsidies from Democratic to Republican states by amping a tax cut that is of particular advantage to Democratic states. It will also contribute substantially to the federal deficit. One estimate from the Tax Policy Center found that a $40,000 SALT cap without an income threshold would cost more than $600 billion through 2034. Getting rid of the SALT cap altogether would cost more than $1.2 trillion through the next nine years, the group found. All the maneuvering the House has done on SALT and the last-minute agreement Republicans struck to raise the cap to $40,000 could be for nothing. Republicans in the Senate don't have a SALT caucus that is threatening to break from the rest of their party in the same way that the House does. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) told The Hill that the SALT cap wasn't really an issue for the Senate, even though he recognized that the House had to make a deal. Investors say they expect changes on the bill could come from Senate moderates. 'We will be watching Senate moderates and moves in the bond market, as these will likely drive last-minute adjustments. The true deadlines remain the August recess,' Larry Adam, chief investment officer of investment bank Raymond James, wrote in a note to investors. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store