SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Nicholas Confessore reports at the New York Times that the Koch Brothers and their political network plan to spend close to $900 million in the 2016 election, an unparalleled effort by coordinated outside groups to shape a presidential election that is already on track to be the most expensive in history. The group’s budget reflects the rising ambition and expanded reach of the Koch operation, which has sought to distinguish itself from other outside groups by emphasizing the role of donors over consultants and political operatives. Hundreds of conservative donors recruited by the Kochs gathered over the weekend for three days of issue seminars, strategy sessions, and mingling with rising elected officials. These donors represent the largest concentration of political money outside the party establishment, one that has achieved enormous power in Republican circles in recent years. “It’s no wonder the candidates show up when the Koch brothers call,” says David Axelrod, a former senior adviser to Mr. Obama. “That’s exponentially more money than any party organization will spend. In many ways, they have superseded the party.”
Espousing a political worldview that protects free speech and individual and property rights with equal protection for everyone under the law Koch says: “It is up to us. Making this vision a reality will require more than a financial commitment. It requires making it a central part of our lives.” Told of the $889 million goal, Mark McKinnon, a veteran GOP operative who has worked to rally Republican support to reduce the role of money in politics, quipped: “For that kind of money, you could buy yourself a president. Oh, right. That’s the point.”
(Score: 2) by EQ on Thursday January 29 2015, @01:49AM
Its both parties. Go look at the numbers. From Open Secrets list of top individual donors [opensecrets.org], the Kochs don't break the top ten. In fact the top sp[ender is "Steyer, Thomas & F. & Kathryn Ann. Fahr LLC/Tom Steyer". 100% given to liberal/Democrat causes and candidates. Second? Bloomberg, Michael R., again 100% to Liberal/Democrat. But after these, the list is pretty much split. So limiting them limits both sides.
So, look at organizations? Open Secrets has a list of top organizations [opensecrets.org] too. All but 2 (numbers 6 and 8) of the top 10 are overwhelmingly funding "to Dems and Liberals". So limiting them limits both sides but liberals more than conservatives.
OK look at "SuperPACS"s as the article suggests? Here you go [opensecrets.org]. Of the top 20, 11 are Liberal, including the top 2. A Koch associated group comes in at #3 ($28M) less than a 1/3 fund raised compared to the top fund raising outside group, "Next Gen Climate Action"($77M). So limiting SuperPacs actually hits the liberals/progressives just as hard as conservatives.
A bit of context goes a long way to illuminate the inherent but tacit bias in the article.
Concerned about the effects of money on politics? So is anyone with a working brain. But outside of empowering the government to curtail the right to spend your money as you wish, including on political speech, there is not a workable solution other than complete and utter transparency - to do so in almost any manner entails a loss of liberty. Muzzle the Kochs and their libertarian voice? If you do that, you'll also end up muzzling the liberals too (c.f. donors and organizations above, largely liberals), and expanding governmental control of political speech in the process. Choose your bête noire, be it the Koch brothers, or George Soros. Liberals/Progressives, think about having conservatives in control of who gets to speak, and how much. Conservatives, same for you - when the Liberals/Progressives are in charge. Its bad either way.
The solution may be something closer to a "joke" my dad loves to use about passing a law requiring politicians to dress like like racing cars/drivers, with logos and patches from their "sponsors" all over them, so you know just who is giving them money each and every time you see them.
As for the article? Pretty much political spin, straight from a political organization pushing this on the gullible (and left-leaning) media - and mainly it is clickbait.