Democrats Used to Complain About Too Much Money in Politics. Now They Don’t.

Democrat George Clooney Once Claimed That There Was an ‘Obscene’ Amount of Money in Politics. He made that Claim in 2016. He and Other Democrats Have Apparently Had a Change of Heart

Most people know of George Clooney from his acting, both on the big screen and on television. The Hollywood golden boy for many years, is also the leading Democrat in Hollywood, and more than that he is in fact one of the Party’s biggest fundraisers. He is very influential in the party; one might say powerful even. One example is the fact that Clooney started the coup against Biden, with his column which the New York Times published suggesting that Biden give up the party’s nomination. Leaders of the party probably went to George and asked for help. It has even been suggested that former President Obama put Clooney up to writing the column, who knows he probably helped him write it. The jist of the column was that Joe should, for the good of the party, get out of the race. It was published in early July, and it started the ball rolling on the Democrats dumping senile old Joe plan. In the column Clooney also endorsed Harris to be the replacement, also probably suggested by Obama. Published on July 10th and by July 21st Biden announced he would not run again, opening the door for Kamala. I for one don’t think it is a stretch to say that it was George Clooney that started the coup against Biden. After Clooney took the first shot, other Democrats followed his lead-George lead the way. Sure, he may be an airhead celebrity, but Democrats, take the millions he raises, and they listen to him.

Admittedly I haven’t watched a movie in like 30 years so I must confess I probably have not seen any of his movies, or that TV show where he played the doctor in the emergency room, I forget what that was called. No, I first remember Clooney, when the Hollywood star decided that he would adopt a cause. At the time I just thought he was a typical celebrity liberal that decided that he needed to take up a virtue signaling cause. He owed it to his adoring public perhaps. I kind of figured his cause would be something vacuous, and trendy like global warming or preserving the rainforests, saving the ocelots in Arizona, or freedom for Tibet. No, Clooney decided to rail against money in politics. Clooney claimed that there was too much money in politics, and that all that money had a corrupting influence. He believed more money leads to more power for special interests and less power for average Americans. He believed that big donors got unfair access and could acquire undue influence. Ironically it is sort of true. If Clooney didn’t raise hundreds of millions of dollars for Democrats, they wouldn’t listen to him, heck not one congressional Democrat would even return his phone call.

In the mid 2000’s he would talk about this subject, and this cause as much as anyone. Clooney would go around the country and declare that there was an “obscene amount of money in politics” and that it had to be stopped. He didn’t say at what dollar figure does a campaign contribution become obscene.

But I have heard this argument since I was young. Too much money in politics is an old hobby horse of Democrats. Democrats have traditionally sought to limit campaign contributions, and many Democrats have gone as far as arguing in favor of public funding of campaigns and getting rid of private donations altogether. The issue goes back to the 1970’s, and public financing and campaign fundraising limits were included in Democrat sponsored Watergate era reforms. The left likes government control, and there is a certain appeal to Democrats for the idea that government should run elections and control the campaigns. If a government body could actually run campaigns, perhaps they could stamp out misinformation.

The root of all of this is the Democrats belief, formed circa 1970, that the rich and corporations are sympathetic towards Republicans, so they will give generously to Republican candidates and put Democrats at a disadvantage. Sure, Democrats control the mainstream media for the most part, but the wealthy and big corporations would be able to raise enough money for Republicans to make campaigns competitive. That is to help the GOP overcome the liberal media bias.

The core belief is mistaken so it is only natural that Clooney’s crusade against money in campaigns would fall apart as he became more of a Democrat party activist. And as the wealthy moved away from the GOP and towards the Democrats, the idea of too much money in politics went away. Other than Bernie Sanders I don’t know of any Democrats complaining about money in politics. Democrats are winning the fundraising aspect of campaigns, so there is no need for them to complain about too much money in politics.

In 2016 Clooney decided to back Hillary for President, no surprise there, and in order to help her he hosted a dinner fundraiser in San Francisco, at 33 thousand dollars a plate. Now at the time there were those that pointed out the hypocrisy of his claiming that there is too much money in politics while raising millions for his candidate.

Clooney blew it off by saying that “He didn’t enjoy doing it”, that is hosting such an expensive fundraiser, but that it was necessary, because the mean old Republicans were busy raising obscene amounts of money. If only they would first stop raising obscene amounts of money he wouldn’t have to. Also, he no doubt rationalized that his fundraiser was necessitated by the fact that the country really needed Hillary to win. Clooney also tried to excuse the fundraiser by claiming that most of the money would go to “down ballot candidates”, all Democrats. Hillary wasn’t going to get all of it. Oh, well I guess that is a little better.

When did Clooney have his road to Damascus moment or the come to Jesus moment on the issue. That is when did he finally realize that there is not too much money in politics? I think I know.

In 2016 Hillary outraised Trump in that election. According to CNBC:

“His (Trump)campaign committee spent about $238.9 million through mid-October, compared with $450.6 million by Clinton’s. That equals about $859,538 spent per Trump electoral vote, versus about $1.97 million spent per Clinton electoral vote.”

Clooney then must have learned a new rule in politics, and that is Democrats usually raise more money than Republicans. He learned the lesson. I did a google search and I can’t find any more examples of his raising the issue. We again saw this in the 2024 election. Harris outraised Trump, from January of 24 to October 24 Harris (combined with Biden until the Clooney coup) raised 997.2 million dollars and Trump raised 388 million. In fact, by the end of the campaign Harris had raised over a billion dollars.

It is not surprising that Harris outraised Trump. The wealthy and the affluent heavily lean Democrat. Exit poll data show that Harris did well with wealthy voters. It was one of only two demographics that she improved with over Biden in 2020. People making over 100k and voters with advanced degrees.

So, the Democrats have the rich and have easier access to campaign money. So, Clooney has come to a new position. His is not a principled stance, it is based on raw politics. Clooney and the Democrats will go back to the issue of too much money in campaigns once they start getting outspent, just like they will favor getting rid of the filibuster once they retake the Senate. For now, the party line is that there is not too much money in politics. And it is not obscene to raise over one billion dollars on a Presidential campaign.

David Shephard is the author of two books. Elections Have Consequences, A Cautionary Tale.

Norton’s Choice: An Inside Politics Exposé: Shephard, David: 9781892538802: Amazon.com: Books