Twenty or so years ago, when I worked for Armand Hammer at Occidental Petroleum, I had charge of such money-making ventures as figuring out how to manage visits by the Prince of Wales to Palm Beach or Los Angeles. We raised millions for colleges, various "royal charities" and healthcare, good but frequently not very specific causes. Los Angeles loved royalty and apparently it still does.
This weekend, I noticed a similar phenomenon. When Hillary Clinton came to town, Variety could not contain itself or all of the Hollywood names who clamored to raise money and presumably even write checks for the incumbent New York Senator. But as with the Prince or his titled kin folk, I wonder if those who helped bring in $300,000-500,000 for a weekend of buffets for Senator Clinton really know for what the money will be used.
While no one in elected office is ever guaranteed reelection, at least not so far, Senator Clinton seems well in line to win the 2006 contest. Her opponent is hardly a household name and has raised but a few hundred thousand dollars. We all want and need Senator Clinton to be reelected. But does she really need this kind of dough now?
I frankly think not. I for one have determined that my fundraising and political giving for this cycle will be confined almost exclusively to California issues. Two weeks ago, we struggled to raise $15,000 for Franicine Busby, a Democrat running in the 50th Congressional District (North San Diego County) for a seat currently occupied by the corrupt Duke Cunningham. Mr. Cunningham has already announced he will not seek reelection. If he's indicted before February, he'll have to resign. Then we'd face a special election which Francine could quite possibly win. That'd be one Republican down, one Democrat up and money well spent. $15,000 for her campaign was very helpful. Think what $300,000 would mean.
But try to tell that story to those who paid up for Senator Clinton. It's not really very sexy. And I do not begrudge anyone their right to give or raise money. I would ask that we all think about the use of the funds. Wouldn't it be great if a star like Senator Clinton demanded that half of her funds go to support a couple of competitive races in California (so far, there are at most two)? And what if we all took a step back and realized that State and local politics may indeed determine whether or not California ever becomes a swing state again. If it does, who ever runs for President on our side will need far more than a few hundred thousand bucks from Los Angeles to compete. In fact, the chances of success will be downright slim.
So give, but think first. Charity starts at home.