Is crowdfunding the way of the future?
By Rachel Braeuer
Photos by Ariel Mitchell
If there’s a tape of a shady politician smoking crack, I want to see it. As a writing plebe, when people like Rob Ford try to divert millions of dollars from AIDS prevention because “if you’re not doing needles or you’re not gay,” as he alleges, you won’t get AIDS; or state that oriental people work like dogs, “sleeping beside their machines,” ergo they’re more successful, there’s little to nothing that I or anyone like me can do besides bang out a few vitriolic words and hope to inform more people and inspire them to care.
Still, it’s heavy and hard work, and at the end of the day, it doesn’t change anything. And then these people do something like (allegedly) smoke a crack pipe on film. For a day, they’re your assistant. They did all the heavy lifting for you, and now you can watch the video and laugh maniacally in all your well-deserved schadenfreude glory. But am I willing to spend my own money for this pleasure, and should I even have to?
Crowdfunding is becoming an increasingly popular way for creative-types to make a go at it in a world where, up until 20 years ago, consumers could be happily removed from the process the goods they consume go through to get to them, and more importantly from the producers, whether we’re talking about the illegal immigrant trafficked into Canada to work on a farm in the valley that our blueberries come from, or the singer behind our latest favourite song.
Cue the internet: individuals who we would only have a hope of really getting to know after a stunning rise to fame, chronicled in Rolling Stone after their second successful world tour, we now know on a very personal level. Amanda Palmer is arguably the most successful crowdfunded artist of our time, attributing her success to focusing on the give and take of a relationship defined by monetary exchange.
The give, on her part, seems to be equal parts music and a controlled yet voyeuristic look into her life through a commitment to connecting with fans via social media. When she cancels a tour, we don’t get a hollow press release about family health and a wish for privacy. She tells us her friend has cancer on her blog, offering us real emotions behind her choice, posting pictures from the hospital, humanizing her celebrity. We seem to appreciate this, as we’ve collectively given her over $1.2 million.
The people behind Ford’s crack-tape are no Amanda Palmers, though. The person or people holding on to the alleged tape and asking for the hefty $200, 000 investment are (again, allegedly) drug dealers. While I was initially prepared to fork over at least $20, after realizing this, I hit pause. Not that I haven’t, uh, funded local hydroponic efforts ever, just that helping to give $200k to someone who probably sells crack cocaine is a pretty dark cloud, even if the silver lining is roasting a pig of epic proportions. Many have brought up this same issue, saying there are much more worthwhile endeavours to donate to. “There are starving children in China!” they bellow, before picking through the “Made in Bangladesh” discount piles of Joe Fresh clothing at Superstore.
Naysayers aren’t wrong, but in a world with such nefarious ethics, define right. It’s clear that governing bodies aren’t going to hold public figures accountable for their actions. A former police officer has stated that the purchase of the tape itself poses interesting legal issues surrounding the proceeds of crime and money laundering sections of the Criminal Code. What about the legality of someone purchasing and smoking crack cocaine? Last time I checked, that was still, unquestionably, illegal. Proof allegedly exists, but instead of confirming the validity of this and holding people accountable, we’re pontificating about questionably ethical, maybe illegal activity that hasn’t happened yet.
Gawker, the media conglomerate that wants to raise funds to buy the tape, is a gossip blog geared towards entertainment. It’s understandable why people would have a hard time taking them seriously. But other, more highbrow, media outlets don’t seem any less suspect when it comes to fair reporting.
In an interview with Jian Ghomeshi, Conrad Black, who headed the third-largest newspaper group in the world, characterized the recent scandal in the PM’s office surrounding a $90, 000 personal cheque being used to divert attention away from a potential misuse of Government funds as a friend looking out for another friend. By this logic, if the crack-tape exists, we can just write it off as Ford supporting local small business owners, I guess.
It’s a sad day when the public has to spend their own income, the taxes from which pay for Ford’s habits (whether they’re late night trips to McDonalds or to his dealers), to hold public figures such as him accountable. While we choose to fund individuals like Palmer, or efforts like Kony 2012 or even the crack-tape purchase, we, via proxy, fund politician’s illegal activities whether we like it or not.
Given the passionate response to this scandal and others like it by those who could actually do something about it, it’s clear that whether we’re it comes directly from2 our pockets or elsewhere, of our own volition or not, we’re going to be paying for it.
