I definitely think that chronic care would benefit from Super PAC lobbyists championing it instead of LGBT rights. I think that chronic care is more important to the community than something that only supports a minority of the community. I think that chronic care is something that is important to everybody.
Yes, chronic care would benefit from Super PACs lobbying it championing it instead of LGBT rights, because it is always good to have a lobbyist in your corner. If the Super PACs would take up the issue, the legislators would become more aware of the needs that chronic care patients have.
Why can't both be championed. I do not think that chronic care would benefit more of Super PAC lobbyists championed it instead of LGBT rights. I think that it would benefits if it was championed by the lobbyists, period. There is no reason to choose one or the other in this case.
Even though the LGBT has a political pull toward the left and an obvious agenda to swing voters in that favor, as a group they are still less likely to have a publicly known pursuit of a political agenda. The Super PAC is, for most all obvious fixtures , a 100% political entity with political gain known in the public eye to be their goal.A more neutral party, in my belief, will hold more ground while lobbying for chronic care.