Eric Clapton helped raise $1 million for Democratic candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s presidential campaign at a private fundraiser on Monday night, Kennedy’s campaign announced Tuesday.
Clapton and his band performed at an event, which raised a total of $2.2 million, including $1 million for Kennedy’s campaign and $1.2 million for a political action committee supporting him.
“I am deeply grateful to Eric Clapton for bringing his musical artistry and rebellious spirit to my gathering in Los Angeles last night,” Kennedy said in the press release, which described the Monday night event as a “once-in-a-lifetime musical performance.”
Kennedy’s campaign announced in late August that Clapton would perform at the private fundraiser, which reportedly offered tickets starting at $3,300, up to a maximum of $6,600.
Kennedy and Clapton have both been outspoken about their skepticism of vaccines, which has resulted in fierce blowback from the public.
In the statement Tuesday, Kennedy praised Clapton but did not mention their shared skepticism about COVID-19 vaccines.
“I sometimes think that in our divided society, it is music rather than any kind of intellectual agreement that has the most potential to bring us together again,” Kennedy said in the press release.
“Eric sings from the depths of the human condition. If he sees in me the possibility of bringing unity to our country, it is only possible because artists like him invoke a buried faith in the limitless power of human beings to overcome any obstacle,” he added.
Kennedy is one of two long-shot Democratic presidential bids to challenge incumbent President Biden for the Democratic nomination. While neither Kennedy nor author Marianne Williamson have made any significant headway against the president, Kennedy has been critical of efforts of establishment Democrats to block any serious threat to Biden’s campaign.
As always, it’s best to separate the art from the artist. Just don’t give them your money.
Partial disagreement. The artist and art, by their nature, are indelibly bound. If you can enjoy the art without benefiting a horrible person that made it, sure, but any penny or ounce of clout given to them is positive reinforcement for their being awful.
No, it’s not. It’s a reinforcement for their artistic talent. That’s what you’re paying for—their art, not their political views (unless their art expresses their political views, in which case I can’t imagine you’d like their art and thus wouldn’t buy it). You can support a person for one thing without supporting other aspects of their character or behavior.
deleted by creator
And you sound like someone who likes to call everyone who disagrees with them a Nazi, because it makes you feel like you’ve made a point or something. Fuck off.
As you can see from the post you quite literally can not.
Yes, you can. Watch.
You like Clapton’s music, but disagree with his politics, so you buy his albums, but don’t attend his fundraising performances. I can say with virtual certainty that everyone at that event agreed with his politics too. You can’t say with that level of certainty that everyone who buys his music does.
Hard disagreement there. Clapton wouldn’t have the money or draw for political fundraising if people ignored his racist ass and shamed him and those that support him. Giving anti-social people a microphone lets them use it to detriment of society.
Add to that that he has a history of literally expressing his views during his performance.
So, everyone who buys an Eric Clapton album is supporting his racism? Would you go and tell someone that to their face? Shame them into not doing that? Would you do the same to someone who buys a Harry Potter book these days? Hows about everyone with an iPhone, because of Apple’s horrible business practices in China?
It will never end. Blaming people in this way is totally untenable as a practical way of living. I’m sure you don’t actually abide by your own principles here, so what really is your point?
Well…yes. Art is produced by an artist and giving material support to awful people allows them to keep being awful. Pretending otherwise is, I think, nothing but an attempt at self-delusion to avoid cognitive dissonance. Humans are social creatures and social pressures work - look at the pressure on scabs trying to start filming despite the strikes.
For Harry Potter, in particular, there is a lot of racism, xenophobia, and other problematic stuff. So, discouraging people from giving more money to the transphobic hack who is using her influence to harm people is a good thing.
For goods produced with unethical labor standards, yeah. There’s a reason that I buy tools from Lee Valley and PCBs from either OSHPark or Aisler. Who you choose to give your money to has a societal impact.
As long as there are bad actors, no, it won’t end. The price of freedom and universal prosperity is eternal vigilance.
I do indeed put in the effort. Am I 100% successful? Fuck no. I’m a human and humans aren’t perfect. But, I try to act in a manner that supports ethical producers of art and goods while not supporting those that are just plain awful, and think it’s more than fair to expect that others should do so, if it is within their means.
Maybe, but sometimes they can’t be separated. I don’t listen to Eric Clapton’s music because he’s a racist piece of shit and I don’t watch Woody Allen’s movies because he’s a fucking pedo.
What sucks is that Remix to Ignition is such a banger.
Hey, Woody Allen has made some terrific movies. So has Roman Polanski. I don’t care anymore. I can’t justify watching them and I can’t justify listening to Clapton (or Michael Jackson) no matter how talented a musician he is.
It’s kind of an extreme stance, are people going to stop listening to the Beatles, Pink Floyd… all these great bands that had shitty people? Can you discard Hitchcock films because he was a piece of shit? So many pieces of art were made by bad people.
You can listen to whatever you like. I’m not telling anyone what to listen to. You might re-read what I wrote.