[mobile site, backup mobile]
[SoapBlox Help]
Menu & About Calitics

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?

- About Calitics
- The Rules (Legal Stuff)
- Event Calendar
- Calitics' ActBlue Page
- Calitics RSS Feed
- Additional Advertisers


View All Calitics Tags Or Search with Google:
 
Web Calitics

Will Kim Kardashian support the Millionaires Tax of 2012?

by: eddieshakes

Mon Dec 19, 2011 at 20:55:56 PM PST


The Courage Campaign (where I am employed) launched a video tonight that is getting covered by a number of political bloggers. It's a cheeky piece that aims to get Kim Kardashian to support the Millionaires Tax of 2012, a ballot initiative recently unveiled by the Restoring California Coalition, which includes Courage, the California Federation of Teachers, and California Calls.

We thought the public would find it curious that millionaires like Kim -- who made more than $12 million in 2010 -- only paid 1% more in income taxes than a middle class Californian. So, we made this video to explain the situation. It's just the sort of fun video that can educate people who aren't politically engaged how much is at stake next November. In our focus groups, independent voters tended to think of celebrities (rather than CEOs, bankers, or Silicon Valley execs) when asked who should pay more in taxes. By the way, our initiative actually polls at 67%, the highest support our pollster has ever seen or a tax measure. More on that here.

We're going to start a campaign to get Kim to endorse the Millionaires Tax of 2012. If she gets on board, we'll reach people who never would have learned about the ballot measure otherwise. But most importantly, we have to show people why it's time for people like Kim to pay their fair share. See the full video by clicking below:

eddieshakes :: Will Kim Kardashian support the Millionaires Tax of 2012?
Tags: , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

Wow. That seems pretty tasteless. (4.00 / 1)
Really?

Can't we stick to policy instead of randomly singling about people to bully?

Be honest.  Why did you pick her?  Specifically her.  Numbers-wise there are better examples.

You're exploiting the fact that she got divorced.  You're shaming her for her relationship decisions.  Look, I'm no fan of her relationship decisions, but are you kidding me?

This is not okay.  It's exploitative, it's mean and it's no way to advocate for sensible tax policy.


YEAH !! (0.00 / 0)
YEAH
Let's ask Justin Bieber instead
He's got EVEN LESS TALENT !!

Kim is just a 'One Trick Pony'
Except she apparently does it very well


[ Parent ]
Really? (0.00 / 0)
I'm part of the team that produced this video. The reason for the choice is pretty obvious to me -- she was picked because people want to watch things about Kim Kardashian. That means that people who don't read political blogs and are not going to watch a video of Robert Reich explaining tax inequities will watch this one. The theory seems pretty well borne out by the fact that Perez Hilton picked up on it.

As for "bullying" and "exploiting" Kim Kardashian, I'm not even sure where to start on that one. The video doesn't even mention her divorce; her reality show beams it into millions of households daily. This is a person whose entire career and fortune is based on raising her profile at all costs and demolishing every privacy boundary imaginable; try going a single day without seeing an image or a headline about a Kardashian. I'm surprised that leveraging Kim Kardashian's outsized persona to drive a message about unfair taxation rather than to sell perfume, jewelry or diet products is actually controversial here.


[ Parent ]
On the Other Hand (0.00 / 0)
One could say that the fact that Perez Hilton picked up on it only proves it was exploitative and tasteless...

I don't see a conflict between the claims of effectiveness and exploitativeness -- it does help get the message to an audience that wouldn't hear it otherwise.  One may regret that this kind of approach is necessary, but it is hard to argue that it isn't necessary.  In my opinion, Kim Kardashian seems to be someone who is famous for her ability to receive plastic surgery, but I can't argue that she has made a phenominal career from whatever that talent is.  So, good for your team for finding a way to exploit that for progressive ends.


[ Parent ]
If the shoe fits.... (0.00 / 0)

When you publicize your own 'Sex Video' of you ballin' a celebrity...

How can you complain about 'Tacky'  ??

Just curious
Hasn't she done multiple videos ??

Dry your weeping eyes !!


[ Parent ]
Seems tacky to me too, but (0.00 / 0)

But readers of Calitics is not whom the ad is trying to reach. Part of me says, "Hey, whatever works."



How do you know it works? (0.00 / 0)
I think if it doesn't fly with a Calitics audience it definitely isn't going to fly outside a Calitics audience.

[ Parent ]
We're reaching a lot of non-political folks (0.00 / 0)
Thus far the video has been covered by PerezHilton.com, Jezebel.com (part of the Gawker network), and HuffPo Celebrity, not to mention the SF Chronicle and Inside Bay Area. It's definitely reaching people who do not follow politics closely, which was the whole idea.

Thanks for the feedback, but from a strategic stand point, I strongly disagree with your analysis. "Sticking to policy" is exactly how not to reach the people who are viewing this video.

Also, a special shout out to Christopher Sprinkle and Leighton Woodhouse of Dog Park Media, who helped us out with the video. If anyone needs a hand with video production, print design or communications strategy work, contact leighton at dogparkmedia dot com.


Calitics in the Media
Archives & Bookings
The Calitics Radio Show
Calitics Premium Ads


Support Calitics:

Advertisers


-->
California Friends
Shared Communities
Resources
California News
Progressive Organizations
The Big BlogRoll

Referrals
Technorati
Google Blogsearch

Daily Email Summary


Powered by: SoapBlox