Obama: Don't fund independent groups [media 527s]

Senator Barack Obama's campaign is steering the candidate's wealthy supporters away from independent Democratic groups, calling into question what had been expected to be the groups' central role in this year's Democratic offensive against Senator John McCain. Obama's national finance chairwoman, Chicago hotel mogul Penny Pritzker, told supporters at a national finance committee meeting in Indianapolis May 2, and in other conversations, not to give money to the groups, people familiar with her comments said. "From the beginning of this race Obama has told supporters that if they want to help his effort, they should do so through his campaign," said Obama spokesman Bill Burton, who confirmed that Pritzker has told donors not to give to the groups. "And he means exactly what he says." ...The donors have been considering entreaties from Progressive Media USA, run by conservative-journalist turned liberal media critic David Brock; from former Clinton aide John Podesta's Fund for America; and from America Votes, a group backed by billionaire George Soros that focuses on voter mobilization, among other efforts... Donors and Democratic activists have been quietly debating Obama's motives: Is he simply interested in keeping his Democratic efforts within his campaign, which is so well funded he doesn't need outside help? Or is he, as some believe, cutting off funds to groups whose leaders -- Brock and Podesta -- some Obama aides view as too tightly linked to Clinton? In either case, Pritzker's words are the latest in Obama's remarkably swift and complete consolidation of Democratic Party power... Pritzker's words are part of a move to keep Obama's grip on the sole important funnel of Democratic money this year. And his campaign has largely ignored the existing network of liberal bloggers, and actively opposes their embrace of fierce partisanship.

Actually, Penny is part of the group of older Pritzker children who actually has worked all her life to manage and increase the family fortune. Her father died when she was still a teenager, IIRC, and she was adopted by one of her uncles. I don’t recall anything about her mother, but there was at one time an entire co-op apartment building in Chicago inhabited by former Pritzker wives.

I don’t know her, but I was once friendly with one of her cousins, who did work, including farm labor and housecleaning, for several years prior to receiving her trust fund. I am not trying to whitewash them. The cousin worked within a cult situation and once she did receive her trust fund and after a couple of failed marriages, she joined a Buddhist commune and has lived fairly quietly for the last 10 years or so. However, she donates massively to feminist and Progressive politics, or at least, did up through 2004.

Some of them are just as you describe and some aren’t. There is even one cousin, James (again, IIRC) in Illinois, who is a conservative. The ones active in Progressive politics have a deep belief in noblesse oblige coupled with a need to control everyone and everything that they can. The one I knew was a mass of contradictions and conflicts. She believed she was doing *good*. There are many enmities and differences between all of them, within and between the generations.

The family fortune began when an immigrant pharmacist bought all of downtown Chicago after the Chicago Fire. They were merely comfortable until Penny’s father and his brothers began buying failing companies and turning them around. That was the generation that made the billions. The ones who actually worked in the family firms were hated by the ones who didn’t, since the workers controlled more money and perks, such as a private jet, and wouldn’t always allow the others to use the plane.

I’ve known people who worked in Pritzker & Pritzker. Intense work schedules, catered lunches for everyone, great salary and benefits. The person I knew was in data entry and an extremely fast typist whose job entailed routing all the income into the various trust accounts. The trust monies were prorated generationally with differences between workers and recipients, which was a part of the interfamily conflicts. This was before Robert, as the last surviving brother who made the real fortune, sold off and distributed the assets. He is now in his 80s and I believe he may have Parkinson’s.

They have donated massively to medical research, established the Pritzker Prize in Architechture and, in general, tried to instill in the 4th generation, the one I had contact with, a need to always leave things better (by their own definitions, granted) than they found them.

The youngest generation, in their 30s, has some very active political members and some who are simply having a good time.
I always thought that the intense Progressivism was a way of buying friendship while still being controlling. Everyone wants to be liked, even billionaires.

They couldn’t sell off the fortunes if they wanted to, IMO. They can live on the interest of their interest or sell off the jewlery or art they inherited. Before the distributions, their individual, multiple homes were all owned by the family trust. While the heirs got lump sum distributions, I believe the various enterprises that weren’t sold were still being managed by the family firm, with the profits accruing to the ones who did the work.

Some people in any group are lazy and worthless, but for all their faults, the ones I knew, met briefly and heard about who did work, worked hard at whatever they chose to do. They were also driven to be good at what they did, to the point of perfectionism.

FWIW

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.