BURLINGTON, Vt., Jan. 24 – Potential Republican presidential candidates are hobnobbing this weekend with politically potent billionaires at an invitation-only gathering in Palm Springs, California, that U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and others have called “the Koch brothers primary.”
Four Republican hopefuls – looking to line up benefactors to bankroll their campaigns – are participating in mostly closed-door meetings of millionaires and billionaires assembled by Charles and David Koch, the industrial tycoons who control the second largest family fortune in the United States.
“Americans used to think Iowa and New Hampshire held the first caucus and primary in the nation every four years. Not anymore. Now the ‘Koch brothers primary’ goes first to determine who wins the blessing and financial backing of the billionaire class. This is truly sad and shows us how far Citizens United has gone to undermine American democracy.
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and U.S. Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) are all speaking at the winter meeting of the so-called Freedom Partners Chamber of Commerce.
To end the ability of billionaires to buy elections, Sanders on Wednesday introduced a constitutional amendment that would undo the 2010 Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. That narrow 5-4 decision and subsequent court cases struck down decades-old laws that had limited how much money wealthy individuals and corporations may contribute to campaigns.
Vermont and 15 other states along with voters and city councils in more than 600 cities and towns already have passed measures supporting a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United. “People across the political spectrum are demanding that billionaires not be able to buy American democracy,” Sanders said.
The influence of money in politics was on vivid display this week in the Senate, where Republicans promoting the interests of a giant international oil conglomerate blocked Sanders’ proposal to put Congress on record acknowledging the scientific consensus that burning fossil fuels causes global warming. “The issue was whether we listen to the scientists or listen to the powerful fossil fuel industry. Sadly, the Republicans sided with the special interests and campaign contributors who promote the myth that climate change is not caused by carbon emissions,” Sanders said.
Contact: Michael Briggs (202) 224-5141
Now for the diportional balance of reality
Democrates have more top donors and millionaires in Congress then Republicans! The Koch brothers are donors but not at the same level of democrats, long term, a ratio of 7 to 1. I guess if you keep saying misinformation eventually some buy into it. The Kochs did however give 100 mill to NY Presbyterian Hospital, 100 mill to the City Center of Music and Drama, 65 mill to the Metropolitan Museum of Art, 20 mill to the American Museum of Natural History etc… They are only 59th on a list of top political contributors. Public and private sector unions leave the Koch Brother’s measly $18 million over 25 years in the dust. Maybe Col sanders should go back too demonizing walmart.
The Colonel Blowing Bubbles
Thank you SteveJD. I was hoping I wasn’t alone on this one.
Nonsense. Present cites to
Nonsense. Present cites to back your information up please. Otherwise it is nonsense. The Koch brothers don’t just donate to the Met and hospitals and Music and Drama, they donate huge amounts of money to political organizations, including backing and helping financially to establish tea party groups. They are neck deep in using their money to attempt to effect change in laws and regulations that benefit them financially. https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php
http://mediamatters.org/research/2014/08/27/myths-and-facts-about-the-koch-brothers/200570
You need to back up that $18 million figure, it’s not accurate. And then you need to include the organizations like Americans for Prosperity and others, which they fund some in total and use as additional ways to donate without having it directly tracked back to them.
It has been reported that in 2012 alone they spent around $400 million through affiliated and hard to track organizations. Check out this article in Politfact which is a very credible group.
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/apr/23/doonesbury/doonesbury-says-koch-brothers-outspent-unions-3-1/
There are many layers to the Koch brothers, that 59th number is bogus. Present your cites please.
One more tidbit
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/09/koch-brothers-liberal-counterpart_n_5113492.html
Bernie is right . . . again.
"Personhood” is one thing that Bernie leaves on the sideboard
Cites, or no cites, there is no question that the Koch brothers are political fodder or folderol.
Singling out the Koch brothers in a sea of incestuous board relationships is a little too obvious. They are a target of least resistance, to make an example of. Whether Bernie or SteveJD is nonsensical doesn’t obviate that.
The Citizen United syndrome isn’t really only about wealthy contributions. That’s been going well before Lincoln. The real issue is the broad scope of powers (including wealth) that “personhood” lands into the lap of the corporate “multilayered” hydra, now and well into the future.
And “personhood” is the one thing that Bernie leaves on the sideboard. He is quoted as say that the most significant question facing the American people is: “Are we prepared to take on the enormous economic and political power of the billionaire class or do we continue to slide into economic and political oligarchy?”
Our senator has latched onto the inflammatory code word “billionaire.” I have news for Bernie, when the Hamiltonian banking system raced ahead of the Jeffersonian agrarian system we were doomed to be stranded in the hands of the vested power of the wealthy few – nothing new about that.
Giving corporations equal status with “We the People” was the final blow. The billionaire class as being significant? You bet it is.
But it pales into comparison with the devastating effects of Personhood on the future of self-determination, the little we had, that is.
Citing sources - “the devil is in details”
I actually agree with Rosa about presenting “cites to back your information up please.”
But sometimes the “devil is in details” is less important than the big picture…
Our senator needs to dumb down Citizens United to his intended audience using the oligarchy as target practice. But he intentionally will not look at the forest for the trees.
Research
Try opensecretes.org and politico to name a few.
First of all you need to
First of all you need to present cites that back up your information directly, i.e., the blah blah blah did blah blah blah and here’s the cite. However I’d love to use your two references, looks like you didn’t read them all that much.
Here’s what opensecrets says about the Kochs: “It’s also important to note that we aren’t including donations to politically active dark money groups, like Americans for Prosperity, a group linked to the Koch brothers, or the liberal group Patriot Majority — because these groups hide their donors;”
And then there’s Politico which has many articles about how the Koch brothers use their money to fund political pac groups in addition to personal donations. This is how they are able to donate millions and millions more than the amount you quoted from the open secrets article where you missed the statement about the dark money groups they support in addition to what they openly donate in their own names and their corporate names. http://www.politico.com/story/2014/05/koch-brothers-americans-for-prosperity-2014-elections-106520.html
If you want to explain why you cited these two sources when a quick google search simply backs up what I wrote feel free. But one suggestion, read your sources before you use them, it’s safer that way.
Vidda, while it’s certainly true that there have always been donations given to influence one way or the other, there’s absolutely no way you can look at the amount of money donated in 2012 alone when their dark money contributions are included, $200 million, without acknowledging that that’s not just some average amount directed towards a political group. It’s really unique, and without precedence.
It’s just simply ridiculous to try to spin this as some sort of media effort to “get” the Koch’s. I repeat, the amounts they are contributing, especially using pacs and dark money, is simply unprecedented and in my opinion, extremely dangerous considering how the donations allow them to control our political system.
Just a quick addition because “why look at this” Here’s an entire article about the Koch Brothers funding separate Pacs and organizations (Citizens United) and donating millions. Why look at that. it was writtten by open secrets. http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2014/04/how-2014-is-shaping-up-to-be-the-darkest-money-election-to-date/
I really think at this point SteveJD, you have to point to which of your points in your argument link to your two sources, open secrets and Politico because I’m having trouble finding anything at those two locations except damning information about these guys.
...to trust your opinions and research
Rosa, I have learned to trust your opinions and research. (Steve’s too, but I have read much more from you than him, as you contribute more frequently, I believe.)
I will continue to follow this…
It's actually pretty easy to
It’s actually pretty easy to follow these guys Vidda. They were hiding in plain sight for quite awhile but most worthwhile news organizations including the ones Steve cited are onto them now. They’re not the only ones who use Pacs and 509s to increase their donations while not needing to report them but they are far beyond any other group. I would like to see Steve come up with any other group Repub, conserv, liberal, Dem who between reportable and under the table contributions through Pacs and 509s donated anywhere near the 400 million they did in 2012 let alone 2013 or this year.
One other little Koch brothers tidbit, the dad was one of the founders of the John Birch Society and said that Eisenhower was a communist. I repeat “Eisenhower was a communist.” So this is the background they were raised in. Similar to Donald Trump who inherited his fortune and has spent quite a bit of it on bad investments, his publicity aside, they inherited their money. Here’s a little tidbit from Daiily Kos: George Soros spent his youth as a Jew in Hungary during WWII, survived the street to street battle of Prague at 15 years old, and became rich as a self made man. Spent the 80’s supporting human rights in Eastern Europe. http://en.wikipedia.org/…
The Koch brothers inherited an Oil & Refining company from their father in the 1960s and spent the 1980’s suing each other. http://en.wikipedia.org/…
Bernie is totally right about these guys and I’m glad he’s putting the word out there so more know about them.
Push-down-pop-up effect of money is free speech
Generally speaking, I should add that my concerns and therefore my past opinion pieces about ‘personhood’ extends back to the Lincoln era and before that, corporations from medieval Church and monarchy times, from the founding of the East India Company to the present.
I do understand that the difference today involves (corporate) money-is-free-speech, which of itself is a dangerous condition in a world of immense wealth disparity. What wealthy person or persons wouldn’t take full advantage of that – not many?
Yet personhood runs deep. Without discharging personhood we’ll get a rotating push-down-pop-up effect. Outlaw wealthy contributions now, but they will be back as soon as they can wangle it.
Corporate law and rights taken as a whole needs serious challenges equal to the current concerns of immense wealth now, versus smaller wealth. Undo influence at any level will remain a real concern.
I agree totally. And we can
I agree totally. And we can even discuss the fact that historically one couldn’t vote without being a property owner therefore wealth determined who could even vote. But for Steve to say that the Koch influence and donation amounts is no different than most people and that they donate less than democrat contributors is just plain patently wrong. If Steve can provide some information directly that proves what he wrote fine, I hope he feels free. But the fact is that he can’t and won’t be able to. They contribute what quite possibly could be percentage-wise the largest amounts ever made in this country. Way beyond what any individual democrat or democrat group has, even weighing under the table contributions to PAcs and 501s on both sides.
And THIS just showed up on
And THIS just showed up on today’s Huff Post
Koch Groups to Spend Nearly $1 Billion on 2016
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/26/koch-brothers-2016_n_6550374.html
Steve, what do you think now?
Still standing by your initial post?
Well, I see we have a long way to go
Well, I see we have a long way to go.
When we are ready to combine forces there is much to know and more to learn. Then, we will see what we can do about this menace.
Until then, my friends, this American is standing by.
Koch products
I’ve seen a few lists of Koch products posted on FB the last few days (apparently in response to the HuffPo story). Here’s a link to a Boycott Koch website if you’re inclined to avoid buying their products:
http://www.boycottkochbrothers.com/
I want to scream
I want to scream — From Anna Galland, MoveOn.org Political Action
I want to scream! The Koch brothers have announced plans to spend $889 million to buy the White House in 2016.
AGHHHHHH!!! The Koch brothers just announced that they plan to spend nearly a billion dollars on the 2016 election, according to today’s New York Times.1
That’s billion—with a b. It’s more money than President Obama spent on his entire re-election campaign. In fact, it’s almost double what Mitt Romney spent in 2012.2
This is what buying our democracy looks like. But we’ve got a plan to fight back—by going after the Koch Brothers and the candidates they fund.
If you’re outraged that the Koch Brothers are trying to buy our democracy, can you chip in right now—and us help fight back?
Sounds like a call to arms
Going after the Koch bros and candidates they fund is the mission. What is the business plan to accomplish it?
Bernie’s plan is to – “To end the ability of billionaires to buy elections, Sanders on Wednesday introduced a constitutional amendment that would undo the 2010 Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.”
What’s ours?
A populist revolution without people
[Washington Post] “We are living in the United States right now at a time when the top one-tenth of 1 percent own more wealth than the bottom 90 percent,” the Vermont lawmaker says in his native Brooklyn accent.
The real outrage, though, is that so few people share his fury…there’s no sign yet of the mass anger that could turn into a political movement.
This is the week we would have seen it….the Koch brothers and their fundraising network plan to spend $889 million on the 2016 race. But the news elicited no more outrage than did previous acquisitions of the House of Representatives (a.k.a. Citi Field).
That leaves Sanders’s populist candidacy in an awkward place. He can mount a symbolic primary campaign against Hillary Clinton that goes nowhere. “Can you mobilize people? Can you tap the anger that’s out there?” Sanders asks rhetorically. Democrats remain “too tepid” in taking on big money, and Clinton won’t be “as bold as she needs to be.”
Clinton comes from the corporate wing of the party. Sanders, 73, is charismatically challenged, and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who has more flair, doesn’t appear to be contemplating a run. Even if she did, the primaries are so dominated by big money that it’s not clear Warren could pose a viable challenge to Clinton.
No wonder Sanders is so agitated. “Not to get you too nervous,” he says, but “I think you need a political revolution.”
As Sanders is learning, you can’t have a populist revolution without people.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-bernie-sanders-is-right-to-be-outraged/2015/01/30/d5f17576-a886-11e4-a06b-9df2002b86a0_story.html?hpid=z2