FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Streisand the Cali Recall

by BERNARDO ISSEL

Barbara Streisand is typically attacked from the right for her support of liberal concerns. However lately she’s been criticized for her lawsuit against an environmental project, California Coastal Records Project which creates a photographic internet database of California’s coast. Streisand’s Complaint: Not Of My Back Yard–that is no photo of her cliffside mansion. Her stance and lawsuit have placed her at odds with a project that was begun as an effort to help the Sierra Club protect California’s coast. The project has been has received environmental acclaim — eco-guru Paul Hawken raved about it.

Adelman’s oceanfront web project signals a breakthrough that will, within a decade or more, begin to remake government planning and land ownership regulations–even international law and multilateral environmental treaties.

Regarding the lawsuit, Mark Massara, the director of the Sierra Club’s Coastal program, makes a strong case against Streisand’s lawsuit.

It is starkly ironic that someone who proclaims herself an environmentalist would threaten to dismantle one of the greatest high tech projects to protect the California coast in all time just because they chose to place their backyard on a coastal bluff. At some point, someone needs to sit her down and tell her the public interest is at stake here.”

In Streisand’s lawsuit prevails, developer and other anti-environmental interests benefit from Streisand’s role as a Trojan horse. Moreover, Streisand’s role as a funder of environmental and other public interest nonprofits protects her from criticism from these organizations in regards to her lawsuit–would they bite the hand that feeds them by “sit[ting] her down and tell[ing] her the public interest is at stake here” as urged by the Sierra Club’s Mark Massara.

Streisand and the California Recall

In the California campaign to recall Governor Gray Davis, there has been extensive accusations regarding fundraising from corporate and other special interests whose financial support is extended with expectation of exerting influence at the expense of the public good. In this regard, Huffington has been a vocal critic of Bustamante and Schwarzenegger.

Will recall candidates sit Streisand down for a chat about the public interest? Not likely. Barbara Streisand has given $1000 each to Huffington, Bustamante and Davis. Also, Marge Tabankin, who heads Streisand’s foundation, has been described as involved in the Huffington campaign. While these donations are small relative to the total amounts that these candidates have received, Streisand’s support can be viewed as having greater weight than the amount would suggest. Were candidates to speak out against Streisand in regards to her lawsuit agains the California Coastal Records Project, there could well be a Hollywood backlash as friends and professional contacts of Streisand would refrain from supporting a candidate critical of Streisand.

Davis and Bustamante are hardly environmentalists and could be expected to take money from any source. However Arianna Huffington is another case.

Huffington and Streisand

Arianna Huffington is running for governor of California on a progressive standard. In the last decade Huffington has shifted from a rightwing supporter of Gingrich to a leading critic of the corrupting effect of special interests upon politics and the common good, as epitomized by her recent book Pigs at the Trough: How Corporate Greed and Political Corruption Are Undermining America

Her platform and concerns evokes the memory of Upton Sinclair’s run for governor in 1934. In fact, earlier this year she was awarded the Upton Sinclair Award by the Liberty Hill Foundation.

When Sinclair ran for governor, he faced a cavalcade of attacks from establishment interests, including and especially Hollywood which produced newsreels against his candidacy and raised money from its employees to fund the candidacy of his opponent.

In contrast to Sinclair, Arianna is being generously supported by Hollywood glitterati. As pointed out by the New York Times,

“. . . Arianna Huffington owns Hollywood. Ms. Huffington, the liberal-come-lately newspaper columnist who has frequently opened her Brentwood home to stars, talent agents, producers and studio executives, has clearly struck a chord among the Hollywood set with her candidacy for governor of California. . . . Ms. Huffington has already won the heavy, if not overwhelming, support of the entertainment industry here.”

Huffington’s Hollywood base is by no means piddling or middlebrow, including James Wiatt, president of the William Morris agency; Ron Meyer, president and chief operating officer of Vivendi Universal Entertainment; Tom Freston, chairman of MTV Networks, Harvey Weinstein, co-chairman of Miramax, Ari Emanuel, partner in Endeavor (a top Hollywood talent agency), and Larry David, formerly producer of Seinfeld. It may seem unfair to take Arianna to task about this matter, however please note that she has made progressive concerns including environmental ones major components of her writings in recent years and that she has set a high standard, as exemplified by her taking New York State’s attorney general Elliot Spitzer to task for not going far enough in his settlements with Wall Street firms.

Huffington has made progressive concerns including environmental ones major components of her campaign as well as writings in recent years. Furthermore, Huffington has set a high standard for herself, as exemplified by her taking New York State’s attorney general Elliot Spitzer to task for not going far enough in his investigations of Wall Street firms in regards to corporate malfeasance.

It is easy to throw stones at others for not challenging their donors, but does Huffington have the gumption to do so herself?

This matter is reminiscent of the controversy over the Ballona Wetlands over which several years ago Dreamworks was challenged about its development plans. In this matter, few Hollywood actors were courageous enough to speak out, no doubt out of concern for risking the ire of the company’s moguls Spielberg, Geffen and Katzenberg. About this controversy, NonprofitWatch.org prepared a report critical of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), noting that the group’s accommodation of the development plans undermined grassroots opposition and coincided with a variety of conflicts of interests, including NRDC’s strong support from Hollywood actors who would look askance at their environmental charity challenging the Hollywood moguls that gave the actors jobs. Also, NRDC received generous financial support from David Geffen, whose by the way has been criticized for getting a an environmentally questionable sea wall approved by the California Coastal Commission (another case of a liberal serving as a Trojan horse).

Ironically but perhaps appropriate to her warm relation with Hollywood, Huffington’s commendable campaign against low-mileage SUV’s is now a project of NRDC. We doubt that NRDC would be comfortable with Huffington taking a critical view of Streisand, especially as the diva donates lavishly to NRDC.

Bernardo Issel is director of Nonprofit Watch. He can be reached at: hellobernardo@yahoo.com

 

More articles by:
July 25, 2016
Sharmini Peries - Michael Hudson
As the Election Turns: Trump the Anti-Neocon, Hillary the New Darling of the Neocons
Ted Rall
Hillary’s Strategy: Snub Liberal Democrats, Move Right to Nab Anti-Trump Republicans
William K. Black
Doubling Down on Wall Street: Hillary and Tim Kaine
Russell Mokhiber
Bernie Delegates Take on Bernie Sanders
Quincy Saul
Resurgent Mexico
Andy Thayer
Letter to a Bernie Activist
Patrick Cockburn
Erdogan is Strengthened by the Failed Coup, But Turkey is the Loser
Robert Fisk
The Hypocrisies of Terror Talk
Lee Hall
Purloined Platitudes and Bipartisan Bunk: An Adjunct’s View
Binoy Kampmark
The Futility of Collective Punishment: Russia, Doping and WADA
Nozomi Hayase
Cryptography as Democratic Weapon Against Demagoguery
Cesar Chelala
The Real Donald Trump
Julian Vigo
The UK’s Propaganda Machinery and State Surveillance of Muslim Children
Denis Conroy
Australia: Election Time Blues for Clones
Marjorie Cohn
Killing With Robots Increases Militarization of Police
David Swanson
RNC War Party, DNC War Makers
Eugene Schulman
The US Role in the Israeli-Palestine Conflict
Nauman Sadiq
Imran Khan’s Faustian Bargain
Peter Breschard
Kaine the Weepy Executioner
Weekend Edition
July 22, 2016
Friday - Sunday
Jeffrey St. Clair
Good as Goldman: Hillary and Wall Street
Joseph E. Lowndes
From Silent Majority to White-Hot Rage: Observations from Cleveland
Paul Street
Political Correctness: Handle with Care
Richard Moser
Actions Express Priorities: 40 Years of Failed Lesser Evil Voting
Eric Draitser
Hillary and Tim Kaine: a Match Made on Wall Street
Conn Hallinan
The Big Boom: Nukes And NATO
Ron Jacobs
Exacerbate the Split in the Ruling Class
Jill Stein
After US Airstrikes Kill 73 in Syria, It’s Time to End Military Assaults that Breed Terrorism
Jack Rasmus
Trump, Trade and Working Class Discontent
John Feffer
Could a Military Coup Happen Here?
Jeffrey St. Clair
Late Night, Wine-Soaked Thoughts on Trump’s Jeremiad
Andrew Levine
Vice Presidents: What Are They Good For?
Michael Lukas
Law, Order, and the Disciplining of Black Bodies at the Republican National Convention
David Swanson
Top 10 Reasons Why It’s Just Fine for U.S. to Blow Up Children
Victor Grossman
Horror News, This Time From Munich
Margaret Kimberley
Gavin Long’s Last Words
Mark Weisbrot
Confidence and the Degradation of Brazil
Brian Cloughley
Boris Johnson: Britain’s Lying Buffoon
Lawrence Reichard
A Global Crossroad
Kevin Schwartz
Beyond 28 Pages: Saudi Arabia and the West
Charles Pierson
The Courage of Kalyn Chapman James
Michael Brenner
Terrorism Redux
Bruce Lerro
Being Inconvenienced While Minding My Own Business: Liberals and the Social Contract Theory of Violence
Mark Dunbar
The Politics of Jeremy Corbyn
Binoy Kampmark
Laura Ingraham and Trumpism
Uri Avnery
The Great Rift
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail