Argument against authority fallacy?

Hello.

So most people involved in debate and logical discourse are quite familiar with the argument from authority fallacy, a fallacy in which the user claims that because they, or the source of their argument, is of a sufficient authority, then they are intrinsically right. This is common in many arguments over religion, politics, social norms, etc.

However, recently in particular, I noticed somewhat of an inverse argument appearing. For example, everyone is quite well aware that on average, Hollywood celebrities are more likely to be left leaning than right leaning. So naturally, when a celebrity speaks out about an issue, more often celebrity will lean a certain way. However, I have noticed a particularly large number of members of the right wing community, rather than counter the argument on its merits, dismiss the argument up front because it's coming from "disconnected Hollywood elites." Of course those that have more money and a different lifestyle do not have the perspective of the average American, but that does not discredit the merit of the argument. It would appear that in an attempt to preemptively counter to a perceived argument from authority, these individuals are making an argument against perceived authority. i.e.: "Because this argument comes from a perceived authority, the argument cannot be right"

Another example might be if I present a quote from someone I like, they will instantly dismiss it. However, I'm not presenting the quote as an appeal to authority of "you should agree with this because this famous person said it." I am presenting the quote because I agree with the particular way the argument was articulated and I am crediting the person that originally said it because otherwise would be plagiarism. I want the argument to be assessed on its merits exactly as it normally would be.

A formalized example of the fallacy might go something like this:
P1) A Celebrity is arguing that the United States should implement a national single payer healthcare system
P2) No one should care what celebrities think just because they are celebrities
C) The United States should not implement a national single payer healthcare system

There is a suspicious lack of this fallacy used against right-wing celebrities.

Obviously, I'm not saying that everyone that disagrees with a celebrity (or disagrees with me) is using this fallacy. This is just the most apparent example of the fallacy that I can think of. Does it have a formal name, and is there a way to explain it as easily as I can explain the appeal to authority?

Thank You.

Obviously, a person's celebrity status right or left has nothing to do with the logic of a specific argument. The use of the term "celebrity" could be an appeal to authority, but typically such an appeal applies to any authority valid or invalid who opines or is cited for a topic beyond their expertise. It could be Donald Trump or Albert Einstein. I believe Dr. Bo presents the example: I like wearing red socks. Einstein wore red socks.

However, when the term celebrity is used to dispute a claim it could very well be a derogatory attempt to poison the well. Oh, she's a celebrity ergo her argument is invalid by ad hominem association.