News reports say Barack Obama raised nearly $5 million at yesterday’s celebrity- and mogul-packed fundraiser at the Dorothy Chandler Pavilion.  The asking price for a ticket to the gala’s general reception for Obama’s campaign was $2,300.  Tickets to the VIP dinner were $28,500 for the Democratic National Committee.  The Center for Responsive Politics, analyzing fundraising data released May 21, said Obama had collected more than $4 million from the movie, TV and music businesses. ( Clinton raised $3.4 million from showbiz, and McCain collected $636,000.)  So far, for the 2008 election cycle, the entertainment industry has donated a total $22.4 million with 76% going to Democrats.  But that only ranks 10th among biggest sector donors to the Democrats.  In turn, Obama can hardly be called the “Hollywood candidate” since only one showbiz company appears among the biggest donors on his money web charted by the Center For Responsive Politics.  Which one?  Surprisingly, National Amusements Inc, which is privately held by Sumner Redstone (80%) and his daughter Shari Redstone (20%).  A Viacom insider explains: “They (CFRP) roll up everyone who donates from CBS or Viacom under National Amusements because it is the controlling shareholder.  It’s a very imprecise survey.”  Redstone himself gave to Hillary Clinton and Rudy Guiliani — not to Obama (yet).  Here’s the graphic:

32 Comments

anonymous • on Jun 25, 2008 3:11 pm

Well, Obama couldn’t be bothered to spend even a few minutes on the WGA picket lines when he was in town fund-raising… and he was here fund-raising with the moguls during the strike.  My friend who was active in the Democratic party out here and who came out with me when John Edwards walked the picket line told me when Obama was here and I said, Is he going to come to the picket line?  She answered that he was busy and it was a short trip and I said, there are studios all over town… is he going to go to one of them?  I don’t consider that he represents me, especially since he didn’t want to upset his mogul contributors, and I’m not happy that I’m forced to vote for him because the alternative is so much worse. 

chad • on Jun 25, 2008 3:11 pm

Stick to entertainment Ms. Finke.  This post feels like it comes from “left” field.  You telling me this is the only fundraiser Obama throws in Hollywood? 

demand Clinton • on Jun 25, 2008 3:11 pm

Obama is toxically phony – he’s a marketing creation with all those moronic posters and props, i.e. the Obama-fied Presidential seal. 

Vote for Ron Paul or Ralph Nader. 

We’re still demanding Clinton. 

Jessy S. • on Jun 25, 2008 3:11 pm

I think what Nikki is trying to convey here is that Barack Obama supports monsterious media and doesn’t care about the guilds or unions though he says that he does.  Everyone here has to remember that both Obama and McCain are flip-floppers and that they would send both the WGA and SAG down the river before saving their hides or helping them at any cost.  Obama has already beeped the fourth amendment and will be ready to do the same to any union. 

What the actors, writers, and any other guild and union need to do is support a third party.  This will get everybody talking and will help make sure both losers don’t end up in the White House. 

Armand • on Jun 25, 2008 3:11 pm

Very disturbig news Nikki. 

Does this mean the candidate with more fundraising moolah is popular and a better choice to run the country?  Why is it we need to fork out money to someone who is or might be running the country? 

All this presidency thingy is a major joke.  None so far has come out with a plan on how they are going to combat the recession.  Worst, their healthcare plan is a recycled idea.  Don’t get me started with Iraq

Francois Papillion • on Jun 25, 2008 3:11 pm

Enough with Obama already.  If he were simply a white, first-term Senator with no notable achievements, he never would have been taken seriously as a Presidential candidate, and he certainly wouldn’t be treated as the “Chosen One” by the news media (for cryin’ out loud, he said himself in 2004 that it would be out of the question for him to be ready to run nationally in 2008). 

BTW, Nikki, where is the follow-up to your SAG/AFTRA/AMPTP news tease?  Pretty lame to let it go this long. 

Obama is such a phony and I called it back in Jan. (read the New York Post story below) I still mean every word I was quoted to have said in the piece. 

I am so happy Sumner sees Obama for what he is – an empty suit with a good speaking voice. 

WRITERS CALL DEMS STRIKE-SHY
POST – PAGESIX

January 21, 2008 — THE striking members of the Writers Guild are disappointed they aren’t getting more support from the supposedly pro-union Democratic presidential candidates. 

The bitter scribes say front-runners Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are afraid of alienating their well-heeled supporters in Hollywood, folks like Alan Horn (Warner Bros.), Peter Chernin (Fox) and Bob Iger (Disney).  Plus, thousands of other workers and businesses have been hurt by the shutdown of TV and movie production. 

“They can’t stick their necks out for the writers in the middle of an election campaign because we are perceived to be in an elite class, not blue-collar workers,” said Chris Jackson, whose writing credits include “Men in Black II,” “Rush Hour” and its sequel, and “The Kings of Comedy.” 

Jackson claims he talked to a high-level adviser to the Clinton campaign who told him: “Bill Clinton was approached by someone close to the Guild to come in as the mediator to end this strike, but he was advised not to become part of the WGA strike, other than not crossing our picket line.” 

All of the Democratic presidential candidates have issued statements in support of the strikers, but only John Edwards has appeared in person to picket and speak with the writers, when he visited NBC Studios in Burbank on Nov. 16. 

Jackson, who has worked as an advance man for Bill Clinton and Al Gore, told Page Six: “I was hurt by learning the truth.  The DNC [Democratic National Committee] are in bed with big business.  They are for change when it comes to using marketing slogans . . .  but they only use Hollywood to milk money out of us.” 

Neither the Clinton team nor the Obama operation would respond to the charge that they pay lip service to the strikers’ cause but keep their distance. 

“I am for the truth,” Jackson said, “and not for phony Democrats – Obama and the Clintons – who kowtow to the poor and middle class to gain power in Washington.” 

The strike over the future profits from digital downloads and other technologies is expected to last several months more. 

Are you all really going to keep shtting on Obama because he doesn’t pander to your demographic as best as possible? 

He is a pragmatist and a problem solver.  Hate to break it to you but there is a middle ground and Obama is great at finding it.  He is the best hope for President we’ve had in years. 

anonymous • on Jun 25, 2008 3:11 pm

Well said, Chris Jackson.  Just to add to what you said, John Edwards not only appeared in person to picket and speak with the writers in Burbank (despite getting caught in traffic that took up even more of his time) but he also walked the picket line in New York… and in New York more than once. 

Demand Clinton — Hilary didn’t make an appearance on either picket line either, so I’m not happy about that either.  And I did vote for Nader last time and the time he ran before that… I just don’t see him as a viable candidate any more.  What we need is another Nader who doesn’t have the baggage on him that makes him less than viable to most people.  And I don’t mind admitting that the person I saw being that is John Edwards.  And if nothing else convinced me that he’s the candidate that the media and corporations and big money is afraid of, then the media’s almost blackout of him and denigrating of his chances, just like they did to Nader before him, would alone have definitely convinced me. 

Chad — politics is very much a part of our entertainment life.  It’s not out of left field for Nikki to talk how entwined it is to us. 

chuck • on Jun 25, 2008 3:11 pm

Perhaps Summer Redstone didn’t contribute nor warmed up to Senator Obama is the fact like all voters he doesn’t know much about him.  Think about it.  Senator Obama hasn’t revealed much about himself to the public.  Unlike Senator Clinton and Senator McCain they know where they stand on issues.  Now Obama hasn’t really come clean to the voters who he really is.  If I was a wealthy Democratic donar I would be wary of him.  Especially how Obama talks about change.  On certain issues like gas prices he hasn’t presented short term solutions for the problem at all.  A smart executive would.  But a politician?  I suspect Summer is more suspicious of Sen. Obamama becouse of he hasn’t revealed more about himself. 

Nick • on Jun 25, 2008 3:11 pm

@Chris Jackson:

Right, because every “empty suit with a good speaking voice” gets to be editor of the Harvard Law Review. 

JoshA • on Jun 25, 2008 3:11 pm

Sorry, but I think that the 2000 election demonstrated the destructiveness of the position of the “if your favorite candidate didn’t win, vote for someone out of spite.”  Personal purification quests have horrible real world consequences.  Take Nader and his supporters—some of them feel regret, but a number of them feel very proud of their refusal to support a Democrat who isn’t everything they want.  I wonder how the families of dead Americans and Iraqis feel about that. 

In 2000, I felt “out of sync” with Gore’s emphasis on “the People vs. the Powerful.” ( In retrospect, he was dead-on right).  And since I felt out of sync with Bush being a moron, I didn’t vote for either of them, instead protest voting Libertarian.  I was in MA, so its not like this made a difference, but I still regret that vote. 

As Steve Gilliard used to point out, you don’t see any inner-city African-Americans in the Green Party, because they can’t afford the pretension that such a party is really about.  I now see 3rd parties as vanity projects.  You don’t like the Democrats?  Work to change them, as the rightwing changed the Republican party. 

During the campaign, I felt very out of sync with a candidate who voted for the Iraq War, never said she regretted that vote, gave Bush a standing ovation for the surge during the SOTU in 2008, and whose husband described “young voters” (like me) as “naive.” ( Note: I’m assuming 28 is young, maybe he just meant 18 year olds). 

And if she had won?  I would have volunteered for her, donated to her, tried to persuade friends and family for her, and crawled over broken glass if necessary to vote for her.  For whatever the faults of any Democratic politician—and they are indeed often sadly legion—the Bush II Presidency has made me determined to not repeat the same mistake I feel I made in 2000.  Better someone deeply imperfect than a guy who voted with Bush 95% of the time in 2007, 100% of the time in 2008, and in 2004 said about Bush “not only has he earned our support, he has earned our admiration and our love.” 

So while Edwards was my choice in the primary, there’s no question that my choice is Obama now. 

Anonymous • on Jun 25, 2008 3:11 pm

“Obama or die!”  Attributed to Sean “Diddy” Combs at the BET Awards.  Gee, that should make everyone feel secure… Haven’t heard any comment from Barack’s camp on that one. 

Santayana • on Jun 25, 2008 3:11 pm

Blah blah blah.  Bill Clinton had two clear years with a Democratic Congress after he was elected to install FCC Commissioners and DOJ attorneys who would break apart the media monopolies, and he didn’t.  Now that Obama is courting the same communications barons, do you think it’s going to be any better for our industry if they count all the votes and he gets in?  And by “better” I mean for the people who do the work, not for those who make the deals.  Read the card, folks: “Change” doesn’t mean the same as “Improvement.” 

In 1991, I was talking on the phone to Carl Franklin, who was about to direct Denzel Washington in Devil In A Blue Dress, Carl told me that the studio would not greenlight the movie if Bill Clinton didn’t win the election.  The studio execs told him that flat out. 

Hollywood didn’t want to make race pictures as they use to be called under a George BUSH Sr.  admin. 

In fact, during W’s rein as KING of the world there has been a signifcant decline in the African American filmmaking and opportunities to make African American, and other minority filmmakers movies by the studios.  The list independents are dwindling as we speak and even they have stopped making race pictures. 

We get movies like Paramount’s racist movie Distant Thunder to lampoon black actors as (played by the white guy – Robert Downey Jr.) as a snivleing, cowardly black soldier who cries because he is scared to die in battle.  To add more insult to injury Robert Downey Jr. plays the character like Jar Jar Binks (a fictional character from the Star Wars films The Phantom Menace, Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith)as a altered voice shuck and jive idiot.  Jar Jar Binks was also created to add comic relief to the Star Wars movie as Paramount has claimed about Robert Downey’s blackface character. 

The actor should be ashamed of himself.  Ben Stiller should be tarred and feathered as well. 

The Paramount movie Distant Thunder should be classified as a hate crime.  End of story. 

So, now in BUSHLAND Hollywood has no fear to make racist movies like Distant Thunder because the Justice Dept doesn’t investigate hate crimes anymore. 

Hollywood takes its cues from Washington.  It has for the last one hundred years.  Birth of A Nation was a made to appease Washington politics. 

If Obama continues to turn his back on his people (the African American community) and Muslims in order to get elected we all can just expect another BUSH term with Obama in the White House after he starts flip-flopping on white people too. 

(See the link to the youtube video below)

Ralph Nader: Barack Obama wants to ‘talk white’

I told by the Obama camp that they did not want any black paid staff people to work the event at the Dorthy Chandler fundraiser on Tuesday because they didn’t need to be paying any blacks to come around who would make Obama look blacker than he already is. 

That was a sad fact – that the white people running team Obama doesn’t want any blacks around unless they give $2,300 but still they have to stay from view of the photo op cameras.  This again was my personal knowledge of why Sunmer Redstone understands that Obama might not be all that the branding claims to be. 

What happens when the Gaza strip is overun by Iran?  Will he flipflop to aviod War World III? 

We must face it, Sumner Redstone is Jewish and I am sure he is concerned about that ever happening to Isreal as I am too. 

anonymous • on Jun 25, 2008 3:11 pm

JoshA — 3rd parties are not vanity projects — they are democracy in action.  It’s too bad that the masses have bought the line that they only have one of two choices — how different is that from the countries with only one party?  Especially when neither of those two choices actually represents the people.  People don’t vote out of spite, they vote out of frustration that neither of the two choices is that much different from each other.  Nothing will improve here until people stop listening to the status quo people (or people representing big business) and remember, the lesser of two evils is still evil.  If people actually voted for who they believed it rather than who they think they have a chance of getting elected, whether that person is a good choice or not, things would finally change. 

Crystal Diane Stevens • on Jun 25, 2008 3:11 pm

I agree with Francois.  If Obama were white, he wouldn’t be in the race now.  He’d have faded into obscurity like John “Nice ‘n Easy” Edwards.  I still think the media has risen Obama to Christ-like levels because they want McCain to win and so it makes sense to raise Obama enough in the media in order to make Clinton fall by the wayside (the only Democratic candidate who could have kicked McCain’s ass) only to turn on Obama later and kick the chair out from under him so McCain wins.  Obama is just another politician and I mean that in the most negative way possible.  He lies and flip flops with the best of them.  And if he was such a great speaker as some people insist that he is (my god, how far has the english language and standards in general fallen?),  he wouldn’t have to damn well come back and “explain” what he said last time (such as his grandmother being “a typical white person”).  He’d make it clear and that would be it.  And it shocks me that so-called feminists were frothing at the mouth against Clinton.  That’s just bizarre. 

Such ignorance, No-Obama • on Jun 25, 2008 3:11 pm

JoshA, you’re an ignoramus. 

First, no one on this board said they are voting against Obama out of spite, although it’s their right to do so.  Moreover, I don’t recall people voting for Nader in 2000 out of spite.  If this is a sideswipe taken at women not voting Obama, it is their right to vote for the candidate whom they believe best serves their interest. 

It is typical of an Obama supporter to not believe that someone could possibly be against your boy. 

If you truly were interested in reality, you would burst your fantasy bubble on the Iraq war nonsense.  Obama was not in the Senate at the time of the Iraq vote, and he was quoted at that time as saying he didn’t know how he’d vote if he were in the Senate.  Any speculation on how he’d have voted is just that – speculation.  We’ve all seen his Illinois voting record and how he stays on the fence on controversial issues.  His record in the Senate is unremarkable. 

In actuality, other than one speech (as usual, all talk no action) made about the Iraq war before he became Senator, Obama did not speak out or act out against the Iraq War. 

Once in the Senate, he did even less than zero and voted repeatedly FOR the war.  He did not take a position against the war until public polls and his colleagues did a couple of years later. 

Obama is the worst kind of politician – one who pretends to be so much better, but plays the same dirty opportunistic games as do they all.  We’ve seen that this week with his flip-flop on public campaign financing, and other issues, and we will see it more and more. 

Obama is a product of Madison Ave. 

No thanks. 

Crystal Diane Stevens • on Jun 25, 2008 3:11 pm

LOL about Puff Daddy screaming “Obama or Die” at BET Awards considering, for all his “Vote or Die” shirts he sold in 2000, he himself never actually bothered to vote! 

And in regard to how smart Obama must be to have gone to Harvard, um, plenty of stupid people go to Ivy League colleges.  Need I point you in the direction of George W. Bush? 

Terry • on Jun 25, 2008 3:11 pm

Not only could an empty suit be editor of Harvard Law Review, but it probably requires an empty suit to do so.  Not to mention affirmative action for Sen. “57 States” Obama. 

At least John McCain isn’t a lawyer. 

How refreshing would it be to kick the lawyers out of government and watch things actually get done. 

JoshA • on Jun 25, 2008 3:11 pm

Anon, I disagree.  Democracy is about coalition building, election winning, and policy implementation.  Have the Green, Libertarian, or Constitution parties ever done any of those things?  The most concrete result from these parties is George W. Bush becoming President thanks partially to Green nominee Ralph Nader. 

Democracy in action is grassroots/netroots folks making Dean DNC chair despite the howls of the party establishment, having Donna Edwards beat the Iraq war and bankruptcy-bill backing Rep. Al Wynn, or for the Republican grassroots beating Rep. Wayne Gilchrest or Rep. Chris Cannon. 

Endlessly regurgitating a platform that clearly does not connect with large numbers of people—but sometimes connects with enough to cause the party closer to you to lose to the one further away—is an at best pointless and at worst destructive undertaking. 

B. • on Jun 25, 2008 3:11 pm

Nader is telling it like it is re: Obama

And what someone above said is also true – Obama wouldn’t be running and wouldn’t have gone this far if he were white. 

It is also true that 3rd party candidates would win if voters would vote their conviction, not who has a chance to win. 

It is definitely true that conservatives bashed Clinton because she was the only one who posed a real threat to their candidate.