Coup De Grace
LETTERS (Continued from page 9)
by Grace Rachow Ms. Rachow says that listening to classical music is reputed to make you a better person and increase your IQ by several points.
Aglow with Culture
W
e have friends with season symphony tickets, and it’s not humanly possible for them to make every single performance. So every now and then, we’re offered their unused tickets. I’m always resistant to the idea of getting dressed up and heading downtown on a Saturday night. I’m not sure when going out for the evening began sounding like a chore, but it might’ve coincided with the popularity of the book, Being an Introvert is the New Black. I ask myself, “Why can’t I just stay home with the terriers and listen to YouTube music videos?” However, my husband loves going to the symphony. And every time I go, I end up loving it, too. So we’re both very grateful for this gifted nudge toward culture. A symphony performance is a culmination of the most amazing feats of human endeavor. The composer creates the score by some alchemy known only to those in the higher echelons of the creative process. In Santa Barbara, we’re lucky to have Nir Kabaretti conducting, as he has a depth of knowledge about all aspects of music and what it takes to put together performances that honor the original vision of the composer. When I was a kid, I used to think all a conductor did was wave the baton around and be dramatic, but, apparently, there’s a lot more to it than looking handsome in tails. Of course, each musician in the orchestra represents a different sort of genius in the form of focus, practice, and talent. The instruments themselves are works of art, created by an entirely different kind of artistry. And in our community we have the Granada Theatre, which not so many years ago was a funky old movie house. The building has been transformed into a first-rank venue for the performing arts, and it’s quite a treat to be inside. Given all of the above, I had to admit that getting dressed up, driving downtown, and listening to a feast of music was not too much to ask, given the enormous return on investment. So recently, we again said yes to the offer of free tickets and headed out. When we arrived at the theater, there were two violinists playing on the sidewalk in front of the Granada. They appeared to be iden-
20 MONTECITO JOURNAL
tical twins, and they were doing a fine job of fiddling. We scooted past them, enjoying a few notes, and then went up to the ticket taker at the door. Unfortunately, the scanner did not like our tickets. Closer inspection showed them to be for a performance in April of last year. Who knows how these tickets happened to be the ones we’d been given by our friends, but I feared we might soon be back listening to the street musicians. Before the ticket taker could accuse us of shenanigans and throw us out on our ears, there appeared another Granada worker who whisked us away to the box office. I expected we’d be forced to fork over payment for fresh tickets, which we would have done, if asked. Instead we were treated like royalty and given two fresh complimentary tickets, excellent seats, no questions asked. What customer service! If only the airline industry could figure out a way to implement such fabulous treatment of air travelers. The symphony program included a clarinet concerto by Aaron Copland. Since I once played clarinet passably well, I’m awed by the bravery required to play such a squeak-prone instrument in public. I know very well the challenges of embouchure and breath control. Don Foster, the featured clarinetist, had a great time with his stunning performance. Next was the “La Creation du Monde” by Milhaud and then Beethoven’s “Symphony No. 7”. The crowd stood and we clapped until our arms ached… or at least mine did. Afterward, aglow with culture, we wended our way with the crowd through the lobby. I wondered if by chance the twin violinists would still be playing in front of the theater. It’d been two hours since we walked by them on the way in, so I was sure they’d have long ago packed up and headed home. But there they were, their bows still flying and their violin cases on the sidewalk overflowing with cash. The exiting concertgoers cheered them on. The next time I ponder whether it’s worth it to dress up and go out on a Saturday night, I’ll remember those two young violinists. There are some experiences that simply can’t •MJ be had on YouTube.
National Committee to urge the court to allow him and other wealthy donors to contribute a potentially unlimited amount. Yes, Mr. Zwick, with the court’s decision involving McCutcheon, wealthy donors may now contribute more than $3.5 million to a single party’s candidates and party committees (plus a virtually unlimited amount to supportive PACs). This will result in more than $1 billion in additional campaign contributions from only 2,800 elite donors through the 2020 election cycle. More importantly, Mr. Zwick, this will shift the balance of power even further toward wealthy donors and away from ordinary citizens. Without an aggregate limit, in 2012 just 1,219 elite donors would have contributed nearly 50 percent more to candidates and parties than President Obama and Mitt Romney raised combined from more than four million small donors. But “joint fundraising committees” will allow members of Congress and party officials to solicit much larger checks from big money donors who can contribute to many candidates or parties at once. Recent research confirms the very wealthy have starkly different policy priorities than the general public, especially on economic issues. This research also shows that the U.S. government responds deferentially to the preferences of the donor class, even when those preferences run counter to those of the general public. When the richest 10 percent differ from the rest of us, the 10 percent trumps the 90 percent. This is largely because an elite “donor class” funds a substantial portion of campaigns, and he who pays the piper calls the tune. In the 2012 elections, for example, U.S. Senate candidates raised 64 percent of their funds in contributions of at least $1,000, from just 0.04 percent of the population. This means that even the best-intentioned candidates often spend most of their time contacting a narrow set of wealthy donors and hearing about their concerns and priorities than from people who worked on the factory floor. The McCutcheon ruling will mean that an even narrower set of even wealthier donors can act as gatekeepers to more races across the country. The most effective way to control the
agenda in Congress and state capitals across the country is to control who runs for office and who wins elections. Once wealthy donors have helped placed allies in positions of power, they don’t need to bribe them in order to secure preferred policies that serve their interests. This is dangerous and threatens to shape a democracy of the money rather than the many. Sincerely, Leoncio Martins Montecito (Editor’s note: I’ve seen many a political campaign over the past 50 or so years and this I know: virtually every politician who runs for office would rather have 50 backers, each giving $10,000, to fund a reasonable campaign for a local office than to have to spend every waking moment of every year soliciting funds from thousands of individuals who may cough up $250 if they’re lucky. We know, for example, that Warren Buffett was a big supporter of President Obama and donated heavily during the last election cycle. As a reward, one could argue that Mr. Obama’s reluctance to okay the Keystone pipeline has benefited Mr. Buffett directly and handsomely, as all that oil has to travel by train and those trains are owned by companies owned by Mr. Buffett. I don’t hear any squawking in the mainstream media about what seems to many as an obvious payback. At least we know Warren Buffett, George Soros, the Service Employees International Union, and other big political contributors to the Democrat Party and can, if warranted or the mood strikes, look into what may turn out to be corrupt practices. The campaign finance regulatory apparatus currently in place simply assures that all elected officials remain in office, as well over 95% of them do during every campaign cycle. It also dissuades good men and women from running at all. As it stands, only men and women of real wealth (say, Al Gore or Jay Rockefeller) can run for office without having to solicit funds from anyone; they can simply tap their personal fortunes and go for it. I, for one, am pleased that wealthy individuals not running for office can now donate as much as $3.5 million during a campaign, although I don’t believe they should be limited at all. That means there may be less time wasted by office seekers cadging money from reluctant pockets and more time spent on more substantive matters. – •MJ J.B.)
Affordable. Effective. Efficient. Call for Advertising rates (805) 565-1860
• The Voice of the Village •
8 – 15 May 2014