That Hollywood can be taken for granted reveals a shift in Democratic politics. | Reuters Photos SOPA may cost Obama in Hollywood

President Barack Obama regularly graces glitzy Hollywood fundraisers, studio execs have given big to his campaign, and big-name musicians and movie stars have stumped for him.

But when it came time for Obama to have Hollywood’s back, his administration slighted the longtime Democratic force in favor of a powerful new ally — the tech industry.


On Saturday, the White House put out a statement that read like it was trying to split the difference on two anti-piracy bills pushed by Hollywood. But by making clear that it wasn’t enamored with the bills, the White House helped slow down momentum, sparking grumbling among entertainment industry insiders.

That Hollywood can be taken for granted on one of its top priorities reveals a seismic shift in Democratic politics that could have a lasting impact in party fundraising in 2012 and beyond.

Leo Hindery, a major Democratic donor whose New York media private equity firm owns cable channels, said Obama might have reason to worry about his entertainment industry fundraising base.

“[The bill] is an issue that has no business being decided politically – by anybody on one side or the other – and the fact that it might be becoming a political issue is unfair to the content producers,” said Hindery, who’s contributed more than $3 million to Democratic candidates and groups.

Entertainment industry insiders suspect the White House’s stance on SOPA, the Stop Online Piracy Act pending in the House, could harm Obama’s fundraising prospects.

Even Cary Sherman, CEO of the Recording Industry Association of America — the trade group that represents the nation’s big music labels said “it could.”

Obama counts Hollywood insiders like Jeffrey Katzenberg, Andy Spahn and Ari Emanuel among his top bundlers for campaign cash. Katzenberg, a Hollywood mogul and DreamWorks Animation CEO, has raised at least $500,000 for Obama and is a top spender on outside Democratic groups, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Spahn — an entertainment consultant who was appointed in 2008 to the President’s Commission on Arts and Humanities — has also raised at least $500,000 for Obama this cycle.

The television, movies and music industries donated more than $9 million on Obama last election, according to Center for Responsive Politics, and more than 70 percent of the industries’ donations to federal candidates from employees and political action committees have gone to support Democrats in recent years.

If the Senate doesn’t pass a bill, it could dampen the entertainment industry’s enthusiasm to pony up for Obama, said a former entertainment industry executive. “But there’s so much money in this campaign from all sides, whether it’ll be seen and noticed is kind of unclear at this point,” that person added.

Democratic operatives and industry insiders say the White House stance isn’t about weighing campaign contributions from the competing interests involved. But there’s no denying that the tech industry has become a rising force in Washington and in fundraising.

Campaign donations to Obama from the tech industry this cycle have soared, with employees and political action committees in the industry giving more than $1.3 million to Obama in the second and third quarters of 2011 — a boost of nearly 80 percent from that time four years ago, according to a CRP analysis. Contributions to Obama from the television, movie and music industries, meanwhile, dropped 31 percent during that time to just over $1 million.

Obama spokesman Jay Carney told reporters Wednesday that the White House’s “firm belief is that we need to do something about online piracy by foreign websites, but we need to do it in a way that does not impinge upon a free and open Internet. And what that means is that both sides, loosely defined, the two sides in this issue need to come together and find a solution that strikes a balance.”

As much as the White House might like to find a middle ground on the hot-button issue, those engaged in the fight say that might not be possible.

“It’s unclear to me what exactly the administration is saying through its statement, except that it doesn’t want to antagonize either the tech or the content industry,” said Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), a co-sponsor of the SOPA legislation. “But I’m not sure there’s a way to paddle down the middle of this river,” he added.

For now, Schiff said, it’s unclear whether the White House stance will affect Obama’s relationship with Hollywood donors. “I think a lot will depend on how the administration gives content to this statement, and I think everyone is guessing at this point.”

Some entertainment industry insiders insist the White House reaction was more about acquiescing to the grassroots organizing tactics of the internet community than a willingness to snub Hollywood.

“It was really much more about the grassroots than it was about the businesses,” said the former entertainment industry executive. “Of course the entertainment industry has never been able to match kind of the grassroots support of the tech industry, not because people don’t love the products, but because the industry has never been able to use its customers and consumers the way the tech industry does.”

Publicly, movie and music industry folks are trying to make clear that the fight isn’t over, even those in the tech industry fighting against the bill.

“I think the momentum is on the anti-SOPA side,” said one tech lobbyist. But “we didn’t interpret it as any great, clear cut victory,” that person added.

“I really thought the White House statement was far more nuanced than I’ve read about in the media, which basically said that the White House killed SOPA,” said Sherman of RIAA. “I don’t think that was their intent at all … I think they’re trying to navigate a difficult issue.”