During the 2008 presidential campaign then-Sen. Barack Obama out-raised Sen. John McCain by a wide margin.
Obama: $750 million
McCain: $238 million
Obama even broke his promise (a sign of things to come, no doubt) "to use public financing for the general election."
Hollywood liberals closed their eyes, covered their ears and hopped aboard the "Hope and Change" express all the same.
Now, with Obama's failed presidency making money raising a chore, celebrities are out in force to decry the influence of money in politics. Singer Graham Nash says, "“I think the ability to buy a democracy is a terrible, terrible thing.”
Zach Galifianakis, the star of the upcoming political comedy "The Campaign," told "Good Morning America," "the one thing I think that most citizens would be able to agree on in this movie is the gross amount of money that is being spent on these elections."
And famed Obama booster Sarah Silverman retreated to her usual shtick, being offensive in a calculated fashion, to show just how worried she is about money in politics ... now.
Many of the above gripes are targeted, partly, at the Citizens United case which allows for unfettered spending by corporations. But both the Left and the Right can benefit from that case, correct? And the Left has surely applauded how millions of dollars go into movies and television shows with a clear partisan agenda, sneaking under election rule radar to influence the masses. Heck, the earth-hugging epic "Avatar" alone may have been more valuable to the green movement than any number of donations.
Should Obama's fundraising fortunes suddenly reverse course, and his coffers overflow once more, these Hollywood-based complaints would quickly exit, stage left.
Follow Christian Toto on Twitter @TotoMovies