When Money Buys Access beyond Washington
“You have to bloom where you’re planted.” — Bill Clinton, about life after his presidency
I’m catching up on my past New Yorker magazines and I’m embarrassed to admit that there is still an issue in the stack from May. This profile on Bill Clinton written by David Remnick first ran in Sept and is now available online. Remnick makes an interesting point about what money can buy beyond Washington.
He writes, “Clinton is the first post-President to tap into the newer generation of wealth”the hedge-fund and retail moguls, who have bigger planes to lend and more cash to burn than their upper-class predecessors ever had.”
“Ronald Burkle, a supermarket tycoon, is another frequent travelling companion and airplane lender; Burkle made Clinton a partner in one of his investment funds. Clinton’s appeal for these tycoons is obvious: in exchange for giving money to a good cause”the Clinton Foundation’s budget last year was thirty million dollars”you not only have the usual tax break and the knowledge that you are doing good but also get to play Oh Hell (a lesser cousin of contract bridge) until five in the morning with a two-term ex-President who knows how to have a good time.”
“You become a certified Friend of Bill, which still has some currency, six years after one Clinton White House and, possibly, two years before another. Writing a check to the March of Dimes hardly provides the same multi-layered reward.”
Much has been written as of late about philanthropy. Most people noticed when Time magazine named Bono and Bill & Melinda Gates as Persons of the Year.
The Economist published an article called in which they explore how the nouveau rich give away their money. They write, “The new enthusiasm for philanthropy is in large part a consequence of the rapid wealth-creation of recent years, and of its uneven distribution. The world now boasts 691 billionaires, 388 of them ‘self-made’, compared with 423 in 1996, according to Forbes magazine’s ‘rich list’ for 2005.”
“For now, it does look as though everyone, from Michael Bloomberg, the billionaire mayor of New York, to hedge-fund tycoons and film stars, is opening their wallet for a good cause. In Manhattan these days, a table for ten at the best charitable fund-raising dinners can cost $1m.”
“Celebrities are increasingly putting their own money into good works, as well as playing their time-honored role of using their fame to raise money from others. The film star Angelina Jolie, for example, has backed up her public advocacy of the cause of refugees with substantial gifts to refugee organizations.”
“The media, which used to take little notice of charitable donations, now eagerly rank the super-rich by their munificence and berate those they regard as tight-fisted.”
“Why are they doing it? Many people are wary of rich folk bearing gifts, suspecting them of having hidden business or political motives, or feeling guilty about how they have made their pile, or simply enjoying an ego trip fuelled by generous tax breaks. But there could also be plenty of innocent and admirable reasons why the rich have become so much more open-handed. Never mind the motives: the important thing is to ensure that this largesse is put to good use.”
This brings the conversation back to Bill… Bill isn’t one of the super rich, but “He’s a brand, a worldwide brand, and he can do things and ask for things that no one else can.”
Money talks. It seems the world is listening. And things are changing for the good.
Look at what happened with the rise of Nazism in Germany and you’ll see that the “money talks” approach is real limited. Plus, money is amoral. Homophobics and sexists can speak quite loudly with their money.
Clide.
I could not agree with you more. Look at what happened in the gulf coast communities last year. You don’t have the money, you die. “Money talks” is a dangerous ideology historically championed by the few at the expense of the many.
Clide,
How does turning social ethics and politics into private and consumerist questions amount to progress? Isn’t that what the right’s been wanting to do all along? “And things are changing for the good” writes Nina. That’s why I mentioned Katrina. Ask those poor souls if things are really changing for the good! I also saw that Nina quotes a Sai Baba in another post. I looked him up. He’s an Indian guru that caters to well heeled Westerners and materializes Rolex watches, owns many Mercedes-Benz cars and has been accused of child molestation. So, he’s a godman who has a taste for brands. Again, using brands, persons or product lines, to stand in for morality is dangerous unless you do the necessary homework to look at what they do beyond the scope of your one myopic cause. I say this as a very proud gay man.
In this weeks Carnival of the Vanities:
http://www.silflayhraka.com/archives/2006/12/carnival_of_the_vanities_220.html