Sunday, May 3, 2015

Breaking Hollyweird's Power

From May 3, 2015 The Politico;:LOS ANGELES – In the wide-open, Wild West world of political fundraising spawned by the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, a once-bright liberal star has dimmed a bit in the current presidential election cycle: The Hollywood bundler.

In the 1990s, a donor who rounded up, say, $50,000 in hard-money contributions from like-minded friends, or gave $100,000 of his or her own money to the Democratic National Committee ranked as a big player – and got a front-row seat – in Democratic politics.

In the gilded age of deep-pocketed conservative donors like Sheldon Adelson, Foster Friess and the Koch brothers – who can afford to give millions to super PACs backing a single candidate, if they choose – that’s no longer true, as some longtime donors active in Hollywood and New York now acknowledge.

To compete with her GOP rivals, Hillary Clinton will have to tap Democratic-friendly billionaires like George Soros, Tom Steyer and even Michael Bloomberg in the crunch of the general election campaign. Even celebrity-studded galas and concerts will presumably lose some of their allure.
“When the moment of truth comes, it’s only going to be focused on people who are in a position to give $5 million, $10 million, $25 million,” said one veteran donor and fundraiser in Manhattan, speaking on condition of anonymity, like everyone else contacted about this topic by POLITICO in recent days. “And that means most of us won’t be participating in that, in any level, and that’s a little sad.”
Not to me it isn't.  Big money is dangerous in any political situation but Hollyweird money combines the corruption of big money with the fantasy world of entertainment.

Others are not sure:
At least one top Hollywood fundraiser quarreled with the notion that longtime donors are feeling left out or disempowered. In the 1990s, before the 2002 McCain-Feingold law’s ban on soft money, the national party committees could raise large amounts from individual donors to pay for “issue ads” promoting candidates, effectively in full coordination with their campaigns.

“Remember,” this fundraiser said, “during the Clinton era we were raising contributions in $100,000 increments, which sidelined the $1,000 raisers at the time.”

1 comment:

  1. There's a huge problem with the first statement: it pushes the false narrative that the Republicans are the party of big donors and the Democrats have to "catch up." And, it raises the terrifying boogeyman of the Koch Brothers.