Party Politics : A Tough Sales Job for GOP in Hollywood

They threw a $1,000-a-head fund-raiser for President Bush the other night at the Century Plaza--and three of his biggest celebrity boosters from campaigns past didn’t show.

Aides to Republican presidential challenger Patrick J. Buchanan, meanwhile, say that a handful of entertainers are considering backing the combative conservative--but none has found the courage to endorse him.

For Democrats, presumed to be more liberal, there is a ready stable of celebrity supporters from which to draw. And Hollywood’s corporate elite--the producers and major studio executives--are mindful of the benefits of friendly ties with whomever resides in the White House.

But for Bush and Buchanan, lining up big, contemporary stars is painstaking work these days. Neither shares Ronald Reagan’s roots in show business--roots that helped vault the former actor to the White House and enabled him to put Hollywood’s liberal Establishment in temporary eclipse.

Three years and an unyielding recession later, Bush and Buchanan are finding that Hollywood backing--with the glitter, cash and cachet it can confer--is not readily transferable.

Indeed, with the nation in the midst of a volatile presidential campaign year, some performers are expressing fear that backing Republicans might hurt their careers by violating the boundaries of Hollywood-defined “political correctness.”

“Most celebrities who are in the film industry refuse to speak up because it’s the kiss of career death within the studios and the talent agencies” to back conservatives, said Paul Erickson, owner of a Los Angeles film production company and Buchanan’s national political director.

Said Academy Award-winning actor Charlton Heston, a conservative who supports Bush:

“I have heard actors say, ‘You can shoot your mouth off, Chuck, because of your position.’ I have heard that from actors who perceive, accurately or not, that their careers are not secure. . . . An actor’s career is a very insecure thing. At any time, you may have done your last part.”

Not that Bush is without other industry backing. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Chuck Norris are supporters. And other stalwarts such as Jimmy Stewart, Bob Hope and Andy Williams remain firmly committed to the President.

“I’ll be involved as long as George Bush is in politics,” says Jerry Weintraub, another longtime Bush friend and major Hollywood fund-raiser who does not appear deterred by the difficulties of his production company, which last year slid into Chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization.

Yet many of Hollywood’s younger voices remain solidly Democratic--or are silent. And three of the most prominent stars who backed Bush in 1988 passed up on attending Bush’s Feb. 25 fund-raiser at the Century Plaza:

* Kevin Costner, the 37-year-old actor and director who plays prosecutor Jim Garrison in the anti-Establishment film “JFK,” is one of the youthful stars who backed Bush in 1988 but recently let it be known that they no longer want their names listed as supporters.

Costner “is not doing anything politically,” according to an aide. The actor was unavailable for comment.

* Tony Danza, 40, star of the hit TV series “Who’s the Boss?” and heretofore one of Bush’s most energetic celebrity backers, has informed the campaign that he, too, does not want his name used.

“Right now, Tony does not want to mix politics with the entertainment business,” said Danza’s public-relations agent, Frank Lieberman.

* Tom Selleck, 47, star of the long-running ‘80s TV series “Magnum, P.I.,” told The Times that he has recently sent $1,000 checks to three presidential candidates--but not to Bush. His contributions went to Buchanan and two Democrats, former Massachusetts Sen. Paul E. Tsongas and former California Gov. Edmund G. (Jerry) Brown Jr. (Selleck said he subsequently lowered the latter donation to $100, to comply with Brown’s self-imposed ceiling.)

Selleck said that he likes Tsongas’ call for cutting the capital-gains tax, is attracted to Brown’s idea of a 13% “flat” federal tax rate and wants Buchanan to have enough money to stay in the race.

Because of his previous support for Republicans--including Bush--the actor said he has been labeled a “freak” by many in Hollywood.

“The liberal Establishment in Hollywood questions where your heart is if you don’t agree with them,” Selleck said. “And I find that not only stupid, but dangerous. . . . I’ve had a lot of labels put on me. I don’t think these (recent) contributions fit that.”

Bush’s difficulty in countering the Democrats’ entertainment backing is hardly without precedent. Aside from Reagan, who in 1980 and 1984 attracted Selleck and dozens of former colleagues as supporters, Republican nominees have often been outflanked in Hollywood.

In 1960, for instance, John F. Kennedy captured extensive industry support--most notably Frank Sinatra’s--along the way to winning California’s prized electoral votes and the Presidency. Kennedy’s Republican opponent, Richard M. Nixon, made do with a smaller Hollywood cast that included Stewart, John Wayne and Mickey Rooney.

“Kennedy had a pretty good beachhead,” recalled Robert H. Finch, the Pasadena lawyer who managed Nixon’s campaign and went on to serve as California lieutenant governor and a Nixon Cabinet secretary. “We weren’t trying to compete with them on their own terms. We couldn’t. We were trying to show that we had a respectable coterie” of entertainment backers.

Then, as now, Finch said he viewed Hollywood support mostly in terms of dollars. “It’s useful and it’s a sign of strength,” he said. “. . . the main corollary, particularly on the Democratic side, is money.”

Film and television companies do wield millions of dollars in federal elections--using contributions from political action committees plus personal donations from employees. In 1988, leading studio PACs and their employees gave at least $2 million to presidential and congressional races, according to a computer-assisted analysis of Federal Election Commission records conducted for The Times.

Jack Valenti, president of the Washington-based Motion Picture Assn. of America, noted that presidents and those seeking the office have been tapping the minds or checkbooks of Hollywood since at least the Administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt.

“I think one of the main reasons, besides the money, is this: If you can attract superstars to your side, as George McGovern did with Warren Beatty in 1972, you can entice people,” Valenti said. “. . . it is the mesmerizing appeal” of celebrity.

“They’re individuals that (ordinary) people can identify with,” said Victoria Clarke, press secretary to the Bush-Quayle reelection campaign. “And it really means something.”

Many entertainers endorse presidential candidates because of passionately held views on such issues as the environment, abortion or civil rights. But for other contributors there are the more selfish matters of ego, advancement and prestige--including the chance to mingle with the President.

Said Norman Lear, the television producer and prominent backer of liberal causes: “There’s nothing new with people joining an organization because they think it will be good for themselves someday.”

This has not been lost on the administrations of either Reagan or Bush.

When it comes to courting favor in Hollywood, both presidents have relied extensively on veteran producer A. C. Lyles, who for 55 years has been a presence on the Paramount lot. Lyles continues to help line up entertainers for campaign support of Bush--and for attendance at exclusive White House dinners.

Invitations to these black-tie soirees, said author and former Reagan domestic-policy adviser Martin Anderson, represent an “enormous” perk.

“Hollywood celebrities are extremely wealthy. There isn’t much they can’t buy,” said Anderson, now a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. “And power is something you can’t just buy. . . . A White House dinner invitation is very hard to get. If you don’t think so, just try to get one.”

For producers or studio executives--who see billions of dollars of income at stake--the reason for contributing to and mixing with presidential candidates goes straight to the financial bottom line: Having a friend in the White House can be comforting when profits hinge on the favorable disposition of antitrust, tax, trade or myriad other disputes.

Putting balance sheets aside, however, Finch is among those convinced that political correctness--if it is defined as shunning conservatism--does deter Hollywood figures from backing Republicans. “I think that’s very real,” Finch said.

Satirist Mort Sahl, a friend of Kennedy and Reagan, said he has long seen a tendency among career-minded stars to gravitate toward seemingly chic, liberal candidates favored by powerful producers.

“The way it works in Hollywood is, you find a dilettante who’s a producer and you try to show him you’re an activist,” said Sahl, who has made a living tweaking the pieties of Republicans and Democrats.

Author David Horowitz, a leader of the Berkeley free-speech movement in the 1960s and editor from 1969 to 1973 of Ramparts magazine, said he is certain that entertainers are afraid to espouse views contrary to what he regards as Hollywood’s doctrinaire liberalism.

“We operate in a one-party (town),” said Horowitz, who renounced his own liberalism in a 1985 Washington Post magazine essay. “There’s a lot of intimidation. People are afraid for their jobs. . . . They’re afraid to be involved with conservative causes.”

Nonsense, say others.

“That’s a bunch of garbage,” said Arthur J. Kropp, president of People for the American Way, the Washington-based lobby founded by television producer Lear. “. . . right now, I think Hollywood is sort of disgusted with all the candidates--Republicans and Democrats.”

Kropp, while acknowledging the early fund-raising success within entertainment circles of Democratic candidates Gov. Bill Clinton of Arkansas and Sen. Bob Kerrey of Nebraska (who withdrew from the campaign Thursday), noted that neither has generated the enthusiasm that former Sen. Gary Hart of Colorado did in 1984.

“No one has captured the imagination of Hollywood,” Kropp said.

Lear said that because of Senate Democrats’ failure to block the confirmation of conservative Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas last year, he is not supporting any of the party’s candidates.

“The best thing” for the future of liberalism, Lear said, “might be to see the Democrats lose the Presidency, the House (of Representatives) and the Senate . . . the kind of defeat that the Republicans suffered in 1964.”

Both Lear and Danny Goldberg, an executive with Atlantic Records who is chair of the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Southern California, rejected the contention that entertainers fear being politically incorrect.

“Please,” said Goldberg, who is supporting Democratic Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa for the presidency. “The two biggest movie stars in the country are Arnold Schwarzenegger and Kevin Costner. . . . I don’t know of anybody on my side of the fence who was unable to distinguish between (Costner’s 1988 support for Bush) and ‘Dances With Wolves,’ ” the Oscar-winning film in which Costner directed and starred.

Indeed, even many self-described conservatives who in 1988 supported Bush are far from pleased. “I differ with him on a number of issues,” said Heston, noting Bush’s broken pledge of “no new taxes”--”he blew an absolutely unassailable position.”

Said Selleck, explaining further his decision to send checks to candidates other than Bush: “I’m very interested in reminding President Bush that, whether you agree with him or not, he was elected on a conservative mandate.” In the end, Selleck added, he ultimately may vote for Bush.

Valenti--who in the 1960s segued from owning a Dallas advertising agency to White House adviser to President Lyndon B. Johnson to emissary for the film industry--personifies the studios’ quest to seek friendly bipartisan relations.

Federal Election Commission records show that in 1988, Valenti personally gave a total of $6,000 to the presidential campaigns of Bush--and five Democrats.

In an interview, Valenti said he is “very admiring” of Bush’s performance and that he thinks “highly” of many Democrats, including presidential contenders Harkin and Brown.

What the producers and distributors of American films need, Valenti said, is a President--regardless of party or political correctness--who is “a passionate, vigorous, unhesitating supporter.”