For ultrarich Democrats, this is the golden age of political scheming.
The last three weeks since President Biden wilted during the first presidential debate have uncorked a nervous energy that has stirred almost every major Democratic donor and their advisers, turning billionaires ensconced on summer vacations into crafty political animals.
They’re calling every major politician they know, encouraging them to call for Mr. Biden’s removal. They’re dangling money to members of Congress who say the right things, and withholding money from those who do not. And even the most reclusive donors are talking to reporters, sometimes on the record, about the turmoil within the party establishment.
These are chaotic times. So many ideas are bouncing around the donor class that some card-carrying members say privately that they are having trouble keeping track of all the plots. Some of the wealthiest people in the world have been locked in a perpetual, almost academic examination of how much leverage they truly have to change Mr. Biden’s mind.
Would it be best to funnel money toward a super PAC, which has raised $2 million so far, that plans to back vulnerable Democratic members of Congress who are calling for Mr. Biden’s removal? Or maybe the savvier move would be to raise money loudly for Vice President Kamala Harris, his heir apparent, as an affirmative sign that the president need not worry about passing the reins? What about setting aside some money in an escrow account that would be spent only on a Democratic presidential campaign led by someone other than Mr. Biden?
Tom Strickler, a founder of the Hollywood talent agency WME, said he had recently met in Los Angeles with Senator Martin Heinrich, Democrat of New Mexico.
“If you don’t publicly call for Biden to step aside,” Mr. Strickler said he told Mr. Heinrich’s team on Thursday morning, “you are not getting a dime from me.”
Mr. Strickler said that he had also been planning to give the maximum legal amount in August to each of the seven most vulnerable Democratic Senate candidates, but that as of now, he would not be supporting them because they have not broken with Mr. Biden.
“It’s a message that I’ve encouraged my friends to send as well,” he said. “If you back Biden, you will lose our support. Over and out.”
Or, perhaps, there is no leverage to be had at all.
The Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court in 2010 threatened to unleash torrents of cash into American politics that critics worried would hand too much influence to a small group of partisan billionaires. But ever since Donald J. Trump ran for president in 2016, major business-friendly Republican donors have learned the limits of their powers — unable to dislodge him from the party’s nomination that year, nor able to do so eight years later.
Now, Democratic megadonors are learning some of the same lessons, especially during a time when Mr. Biden has shown some ability to raise significant money from small-dollar givers.
For all their riches and ambitions, many Democratic contributors and their big-money advisers have become resigned to the notion that their influence is fairly limited, and are trying not to be naïve. A sense of powerlessness pervades.
After all, Mr. Biden is not, as one major Democratic donor put it, subject to a vote by the wealthy. And he and his team have bristled against wealthy “elites” who are trying to force him out of a Democratic nomination that he won democratically, heightening concerns from major donors who are already nervous about their efforts backfiring if they are seen as bullies.
Mr. Biden is likely to be influenced first and foremost by his family, including Jill Biden, the first lady, and after that by a series of aides who have worked for him for decades. Major donors have debated among themselves about who precisely in his inner circle could be reached — and which donors have the best access to those people. But privately, few Democratic donors are bullish about their own powers, especially given Mr. Biden’s increasingly anti-elite language.
Joe Ravitch, a top Hollywood banker and a longtime Democratic fund-raiser, said that even before the debate, he had conditioned his giving on pushing for a change at the top of the ticket. But he sounded dour about whether his advocacy would accomplish much.
“I can’t figure out who — if anyone — has influence over this, but donors certainly don’t, regardless of what we do,” Mr. Ravitch said. “And to speak out publicly against the president only helps undermine him. It’s a Catch-22.”
Mr. Biden has had relatively few defenders among the country’s biggest donors. Democratic insiders say that most major donors want him to step aside.
But there are a few exceptions. Reid Hoffman, the co-founder of LinkedIn, has been the most voluble supporter of staying the course. Alex Soros, the head of one of the Democratic Party’s most generous families, has urged the party not to abandon Mr. Biden. And Amy Goldman Fowler, a low-profile but major donor who gives millions of dollars a year to the Democratic Party, came out with a rare on-the-record statement praising the president.
Despite all of that agitation, plenty of Democratic donors are plainly nervous to cross Mr. Biden publicly, even now, with some worried about weakening him in the general election if he remains the nominee.
Some mega-contributors are staying as quiet as possible. Henry Laufer, one of the party’s biggest contributors, told The New York Times a week after the debate that “I have no comments.” A spokeswoman for another Democratic billionaire, Marilyn Simons, also one of the party’s top donors, shared that Ms. Simons had “no comments to offer.”
Haim Saban, the Hollywood magnate who has spent tens of millions of dollars for the Democratic Party since Citizens United, was asked for his view of the situation, and spoke for many of his peers.
“Silence is golden,” he replied simply.
