How Much Giving Can L.A. Take?
Wading through the dozens of spiffy invitations, Department of Social Services statements, reply cards and other litter around this desk, it seems like L.A. is a party that never stops. Correct that--a benefit that never stops.
In New York, investment banker Felix Rohatyn and his socialite wife have become something of a cause celebre, speaking out against expensive, long-established charity balls that they believe have become an end in themselves. The Rohatyns also asked the upper crust of the Big Apple pie to spread their philanthropy to lesser-known charitable groups. Ah, what bravery being truly born to the social purple can bring.
New Kid on the Block
In Los Angeles, Mr. Rohatyn, such charity parties are a beginning, an end and a middle. From culture to disease, from international issues to the derelict down the block, causes have found support groups and those groups frequently throw big-ticket benefit parties. L.A. is a new kid on the block, societywise, and has built a Dagwood sandwich of social life, charity events globbed on top of one another, like hunks of expensive ham and cheese. And, yes, some bologna.
But does this partying-for-good causes--this Recreational Philanthropy--really make money? And can the party circuit continue to grow, adopting every new cultural and crisis cause? Just how many good times can one metropolis take--especially a city whose corporate givers are being taxed by the private sector’s move to counter federal government cutbacks?
In the next few days alone, one can--for money--attend a party celebrating Dear Abby and benefiting the Suicide Prevention Center; go to the American Cinema Awards Foundation dinner at the Beverly Wilshire; play tennis with Joan Rivers for Cystic Fibrosis; have tennis and crumpets at the Playboy Mansion for the John Tracy Clinic; dance with the Pasadena Symphony Juniors; see Nobel Prize winner Bishop Desmond Tutu and help the South African Council of Churches; eat lots of gourmet goodies for the American Cancer Society at Pickfair; or upwards of several dozen other pay-if-you-go events--all for worthwhile causes.
One could, given the necessary social ambitions and bank account, spend thousands of dollars for a four-day weekend of events.
Political Get-Togethers
And there are also a hefty handful of political events, including a luncheon for a North Philadelphia congressman at Jimmy’s; a brunch for an East Los Angeles councilman at the Grill in Beverly Hills; a late-afternoon Bel-Air get-together for a GOP senatorial candidate.
One knows that the political events have a bottom-line profit. That’s what they are all about. And pros usually are putting them on.
But in the field of charities, the pro-ams abound. As do expensive centerpieces that keep one from seeing across the table, the after-the-screening midnight suppers that no one eats, the elaborate auction items that no one bids on, and the dance bands that bring no one to their feet. To sit down to a hotel dinner usually costs the charity at least $50 an eater.
There are good benefits; there are great benefits. But there are increasingly anguished cries of help from benefit committees that cannot fill the hotel ballrooms.
This is not New York with its centuries-old social structure. Los Angeles has used the charity party as a keystone in building our social structure. And it’s here to stay.
And people like parties. Of course, there are those who like to express ennui, jejune and other cranky and bored feelings in the midst of supposed merriment. But when charities have tried organizing “phantom balls”--parties that one pays not to come to--supporters who kvetched through the real party the year before, saying they would “pay to stay home,” don’t. Don’t pay. And don’t stay home.
And, for charities, a big, flashy event--with borrowed or in many cases “rented” celebs--really highlights their cause. (Yes, indeed, many charities pay for performing stars while other celebs get in free.) As far as keeping supporters, a successful benefit means the volunteer committee will be back next year.
But no matter how successful some big-ticket parties are, lavish charity benefits are not the solution to all cultural and charity needs. There are not enough dollars to go around.
Good causes need support from good people--but must good people always get a good time in return?
