Hollywood political donors are spreading the wealth in surprising ways

I love it that these days everyone gets to know which bigwigs are giving the most money to which political candidates. It's a great way to see who puts their money where their mouth is and who is, ahem, adroitly hedging their bets. The Hollywood Reporter has posted a fascinating chart that shows the top showbiz contributors in the Meg Whitman vs. Jerry Brown California governor's race -- and there are definitely some intriguing examples of money going where you'd least expect it.

It's no surprise to see that Jeffrey Katzenberg, Steven Spielberg and David Geffen are big Brown givers, along with J.J. Abrams, Magic Johnson and Hugh Hefner. Ditto for Whitman givers, who include such GOP stalwarts as Harry Sloan, Terry Semel and Mike Ovitz.

But then it gets interesting. First off, Whitman is getting big-time money from sports owners like the Dodgers' Frank McCourt, as well as out-of-towners like the New England Patriots' Robert Kraft and the Dallas Cowboys' Jerry Jones. Is that just because sport tycoons tend to be conservatives? Or is it because NFL owners like Jones and Kraft somehow think that Whitman might be of help in bringing an NFL franchise back to L.A., which could be a big boost for the league?

And then there are the genuine surprises, like ultra-conservative media tycoon Phil Anschutz giving $45,400 to Brown and apparently nothing to Whitman. And ultra-liberal Sony chief Michael Lynton giving $25,900 to Whitman, but apparently zip to Brown. I've heard from Sony insiders that Lynton and Whitman are old pals, but still -- that shouldn't leave Brown, a longtime supporter of entertainment industry causes, entirely out in the cold, should it?

And when it comes to double dipping, no one tops Haim Saban, who even though he has been a huge FOB (friend of Bill Clinton) and one of the most lavish supporters of Democratic Party causes, gave $25,900 to Whitman while also giving $50,800 to Brown. You'd have to assume that Saban is protecting his interests by giving generously to both sides of the battle, something you rarely see from such a devoted Democratic stalwart.

And oh yes, my favorite fast-food joint, In-N-Out Burger, gave $2,000 to Whitman. Does that mean that if she wins, there could be a Whitman double cheeseburger on the menu? As always, when it comes to showbiz political contributions, there's always some ulterior motive, even if it's not always readily apparent. 

Photo: Haim Saban, listening to Bill Clinton's closing address at the  Clinton Global Initiative summit in 2006.

Credit: Stephen Hilger / Bloomberg News

Comments

[Linda B]

Haim Saban knows the people are going to vote for the individual who is most capable of leading California out of recession...and he knows they will be voting for Meg Whitman.

[Jaap den Haan]

Just dozens of billionaires have pledged to give half their wealth away to charity. This may very well be a way of obscuring the situation of 'the poor' that are always complained about, even more. I gave all my time for five years writing on something, and found out I had to (re)validate a Microsoft Word program. Someone I had given a script already complained it couldn't be opened, after so long I gave it for proof of things everyone denies from habit. I checked what could be the matter and was explained many consumers are amazed and discomforted at this, it could be caused by having worked on a public computer of a large company, in my case perhaps a library that gave me many other problems as well, and whose rights hence are protected. In any case I would have to buy a program to validate it. The service of Internet is fast disappearing by such petty commercialism. To that effect all sorts of renewals are made every time again. You can start your life over again every year, month, or day, every minute by commercialisation. There were times one couldn't even buy normal pants or shoes anywhere by the constant innovations of fashion. The motive of donors is mostly dire self-interest. And it has become politics as well. They usually keep making life difficult and complex for a few cents, but they cut their nose despite their face, that remains the level of their scope on life into which they buy others to join them in their mousehole of greed, looking at things cross-eyed . You can't fix something that is not broken. New so-called services make simple usage more complicated, so we keep buying as the essence of our life, not to use the intended medium as a tool, but as an end in itself. These people are mostly spoilers who always confuse and manipulate the means and the end. They are bored and break all that is constructive and simple and reliable. Copyright may be so exaggerated an item because everything they do is based on theft. But they are just throwing sand in their own machine, as well as in the eyes of the beholder, 'the consumer'. That is the political aspect. This is at least my opinion, and that of a mahatma. I count there are people who have common sense too, and the money (power) to use it, if not the intelligence. But often it is just: "I've got the balls, you've got the brains." The latter is although too optimistic.