I assume that at least some (a few?) of you will be watching the Oscars tonight. Enjoy yourselves. I won’t be, since I don’t care much for award shows to begin with and I’ve seen almost none of the movies in contention. The exceptions are American Sniper and Birdman. The former was great, but probably won’t attract many votes from Hollywood’s elite and the latter was simply awful, which means it will probably win best film. But if there wasn’t some sort of political slant to this shindig it really wouldn’t be worth a post here, so we’ll have to make do with this set of oddball Oscar statistics from The Hill.

Some of the Oscars’ most famous contenders — including this year’s hopefuls Reese Witherspoon, Edward Norton, Mark Ruffalo, Bradley Cooper, and Meryl Streep — are delivering big bucks for the left.

An analysis by The Hill of political donations made by past and present Oscar nominees in the award show’s top categories shows the entertainer, [Ed Norton] who has publicly urged Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) to make a 2016 White House bid, has given tens of thousands of dollars over the years to Democratic causes and candidates.

Norton donated $53,000 to the Democratic National Committee over a four-year period and has also poured money into a slew of now-lawmakers’ campaigns, including Sens. Al Franken (D-Minn.), Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), and Rep. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), among others.

Some of the folks on this list aren’t exactly generous, given what they seem to bring down in movie paydays. Reese Witherspoon shows up with less than $10K total spread around between Warren, Kirsten Gillibrand and Hillary. Bradley Cooper had a whopping $750. (Also to Hillary.) Some have been more generous, such as Mark Ruffalo who gave $13K to Democrats. But the queen of not only the silver screen in this year’s nominees but of the Dem Donors was clearly Meryl Streep. She racked up more than $75K in 2012 alone, all to Democrats.

I don’t need to pause here to allow anyone to head to the fainting couch, I’m sure. Hollywood is synonymous with the Left and it’s also a black hole of cash. The combination of those two factors make Tinseltown a natural fit for Democrat fundraising. But the occasion of the annual Academy Awards provides an opportunity to ponder exactly how things wound up this way. The basic distribution of ideological allegiances across the nation would indicate that some percentage of the studio owners, power brokers, agents and actors must be conservative. Clint Eastwood can’t be the only one. So are they all in hiding? Or is the environment so biased and hostile that even concealing your opinions isn’t good enough and they’ve essentially chased all the sensible people out of town?

I was watching one of the Sunday morning shows today (sadly I forget which one) and some entertainment reporter was saying how young conservatives need to get more involved in acting, filmmaking and the rest of the LA scene arts so their views can be represented. But that sounds pretty much like a suicide mission to me. Prejudice based on political allegiance is one of the last bastions of acceptable bias remaining in the nation, and Hollywood hangs on to it like grim death. They will never face any repercussions for shutting out anyone and everyone who says anything nice about a Republican, so I don’t expect to see much change in my lifetime.