Evil Koch Brothers Are Only 59th Biggest Political Donors In America
Who occupies the 58 spots ahead of the Koch brothers, who gave $18 million in political donations? Mark Tapscott writes in the WashEx:
Six of the top 10 are ... wait for it ... unions. They gave more than $278 million, with most of it going to Democrats.Sign Up for the Morning Examiner newsletter!
These are familiar names: AFSCME ($60.6 million), NEA ($53.5 million), IBEW ($44.4 million), UAW ($41.6 million), Carpenters & Joiners ($39.2 million) and SEIU ($38.3 million).In other words, the six biggest union donors in American politics gave 15 times more to mostly Democrats than the Evil Koch Bros.
Other slots in the top 10 were occupied by AT&T, the National Association of Realtors, and Goldman Sachs.
So, if money is the measure of evil in American politics and the Evil Koch Bros only come in 59th, who is really the most evil donor ever?Turns out it's Act Blue, with just short of $100 million in contributions during its lifetime, which only started in 2004, 15 years after the Evil Koch Bros in the OpenSecrets.org compilation.
Any bets on when Mayer's "Covert Operations II: Act Blue" will appear in the New Yorker?
via @veroderugy
Those unions represent millions of workers. Whether or not they represent them well, and whether or not you agree with their views, it takes a lot of members dues to come up with those contributions. The fact that one-percenters like the Koch's can afford to throw around money like that as though it's pocket change, in their attempts to influence the govt, is a perfect example of how unbalanced things are in this country.
Lee at February 16, 2014 6:37 AM
I was watching a Charlie Rose the other night and one of the reports was about the New Hampshire Rebellion. The question they ask of politicians is "How are YOU going to end the system of corruption in Washington?"
Then they went into damning corporations for the money that they spend on politics. No mention of how much unions or anybody else does.
They also never looked at the fact the federal government is doing so much that is extra-constitutional and not an enumerated power. The federal government should not have it's fingers in so much that they effect our everyday life. That was not the intent.
Jim P. at February 16, 2014 6:46 AM
Lee, Those millions of dollars the Koch spend represent billions of satisfied customers, who also deserve a voice.
And those companies who donate, represent 100s of millions of stockholders, and hundreds of billions of customers.
We just showed how unbalanced it is in $ and influence in favor of unions, and people still claim it is unbalanced the other way.
This is also only the tip of the iceberg with union contributions, paying or just having members to man phones at political fundraisers don't count, or canvasing areas, or doing registration at pro- Dem areas.
Joe J at February 16, 2014 7:21 AM
The important difference between these groups is that only the unions have the legal power to extort "contributions" from their opponents. That needs to change yesterday.
jdgalt at February 16, 2014 8:04 AM
Only individuals should be able to contribute this kind of money, not groups!
This way we can be sure that only the wealthiest individuals have access to the halls of power, and as we know, that's the best kind of government.
Either that or outlaw political contributions altogether and make the politicians only spend limited campaign funds supplied by the government, but then there goes the pay-for-access system - and no politician is going to accept that.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at February 16, 2014 9:46 AM
The one thing often overlooked about the Koch"s, is that their philanthropy overshadows their political giving... by A LOT. Ever notice when you watch NOVA on PBS it's sponsored by David H. Koch?
Obviously I"m cribbing from wiki, so there is potential that it"s not all correct, still.
Before you paint a man as evil, you should look at what he's about. David, is one of the 50 most philanthropic people, in the world. Since he is a long cancer survivor, he's given hundreds of millions to researc on that, and over 100million last year to hospitals.
In the mean while, when a BILLION (maybe 2) some dollars have been given to philanthropy by the Koch siblings, as there are 4 of them...
They also gave 18 million to politics. In 25 years.
Wow. Those guys are EVIL. :massive eyeroll:
swissarmyd at February 16, 2014 10:39 AM
I believe that I have broken the code about political contributions:
It's only "evil" if some person or group is donating to the political entity you don't agree with.
If the donation is to a cause or politician you support it is "independent free thinkers supporting democracy in action."
Jay at February 16, 2014 11:26 AM
I learned the definition of a good politician as "A guy who stays bought after you buy him the first time." Apparently that has changed over the years.
Things would change by simply putting term limits on congress. Repealing the 17th and various other amendments.
But the simple cutting of the fed back to the the enumerated powers would make a difference.
BTW: anyone who say the Koch Brothers are bad should take the time to google "George Soros". Then speak as eloquently as you know how.
Jim P. at February 16, 2014 1:30 PM
Joe J Says:
"Lee, Those millions of dollars the Koch spend represent billions of satisfied customers, who also deserve a voice."
Really???
It represents "billions of satisfied customers"?
When you say something this outrageously stupid I don't even know where to begin.
The population of the United States is in the 300 million range.
If the Koch brothers are spending millions to represent "billions" of people, who exactly are they representing? Because it cannot possibly be the American public given that number.
Clearly according to your own numbers the Koch brothers represent enormous international interests that include only a small fraction of American citizens (which any citizen should find to be a huge problem because it implies they are trying to have our government represented by foreign interests).
That is the only conclusion one can draw if your numbers are even remotely accurate.
The alternative and more likely answer is that you just made up a bull shit argument to back up your position and have no interest in things like facts or reality.
Artemis at February 16, 2014 11:13 PM
Let me tell you a bit about reality. There are plenty of union members, my wife among them, who have zero voice in whether they pay union dues for political causes with which they disagree. Yes, I know one can theoretically "opt out" of the political contributions. The words union and violence have long been associated with each other for a reason. We like our tires unslashed, for starters. Life's unfair, both ways.
MarkD at February 17, 2014 4:10 AM
Let me tell you a bit about reality. There are plenty of union members, my wife among them, who have zero voice in whether they pay union dues for political causes with which they disagree. Yes, I know one can theoretically "opt out" of the political contributions. The words union and violence have long been associated with each other for a reason. We like our tires unslashed, for starters. Life's unfair, both ways.
MarkD at February 17, 2014 4:11 AM
Famously, New Jersey teachers cannot really "opt out" of paying union dues.
Taxpayer money, in the form of wages deducted from teacher salaries, goes directly to the teachers union.
How do you like that?
Radwaste at February 17, 2014 5:06 AM
They are businessmen in a global market place. They are inventors whose inventions have benefitted the entire world.
And as for foreign influences. One of the main Democratic contributes is SEIU Now what does that I stand for , Oh yeah International.
You can tell a lot about people when you see who their heroes are. Soros the Democrat darling made his money by making what? hedge funds. He isn't a Wall Street person, he is Mr. Wall Street, and yet, the 99%s and Dems worship him though they claim to be anti- wall street and hedge funds.
Koch brothers, smart productive people. Hell a Phd from MIT, invent new medicines, cleaner more efficient processes for refining oil, fertilizers. How did they make their fortune? By feeding the world, keeping it healthy, and the environment. Evil by Dems standards.
Joe j at February 17, 2014 7:08 AM
Dear Artemis, or can I call you Arty...
"The alternative and more likely answer is that you just made up a bull shit argument to back up your position and have no interest in things like facts or reality."
Facts, well go diggin, honus. The Billions of happy customers, could be an example person who uses a Koch product over and over, buys gas, wear clothes, eats beef, and so on. How often do you wipe your tush? What're the odds that a Koch Industries company made that TP? The lycra holding your socks up? And so on and so on. It's not hard to get from billions from there. Here is only a small grouping of companies the Koch's own... not necessarily STARTED, but own.
Georgia-Pacific
Georgia-Pacific is a paper and pulp company that produces "Brawny" paper towels, "Angel Soft" toilet paper, "Mardi Gras" napkins and towels, "Quilted Northern" toilet paper and paper towels, "Dixie" paper plates, bowls, napkins and cups, "Sparkle" paper towels, and "Vanity Fair" paper napkins, bowls, plates and tablecloths. The Atlanta-based company has operations in 27 states.[18]
INVISTA
Acquired from DuPont, INVISTA is a polymer and fibers company that makes "Stainmaster" carpet, and "Lycra" fiber, among other products.
Plus oil companies, cattle companies, and so forth. These guys ain't saints, but neither are they satan.
how's that for Bullshit?
SwissArmyD at February 17, 2014 10:43 AM
SwissArmyD Says,
"The Billions of happy customers, could be an example person who uses a Koch product over and over, buys gas, wear clothes, eats beef, and so on. How often do you wipe your tush? What're the odds that a Koch Industries company made that TP? The lycra holding your socks up? And so on and so on. It's not hard to get from billions from there. Here is only a small grouping of companies the Koch's own... not necessarily STARTED, but own."
Really now... this is your argument???
That every time any person makes any purchase from any company or industry that is even remotely or tangentially related to Koch industries that if this money is spent on some political contribution it "represents" their political views?
This is there the "billions" represented comes from?
Well that isn't particularly satisfying because we are no longer talking about people anymore.
Now apparently the Koch brothers aren't representing people... they are representing individual purchases... or even individual ass wipes to use your toilet paper example (note it wasn't even one role that was being represented... it was each use of the roll).
This is stupidity of the highest order.
People are represented within the political sphere... purchases are not people.
That is why you don't get a vote at the polls for every roll of toilet paper you've bought.
A customer is an individual person to be represented... a customer doesn't separate into a new person every time they buy something or use something.
This is the kind of mental gymnastics people engage in when logic and reasoning are unimportant to them.
Artemis at February 17, 2014 1:05 PM
actually Arty, it's you who are doing the mental gymnastics... Lee was suggesting that all those millions of dollars, that come from UNIONS represent millions of Union workers...
To which Joe replied in kind, as I see it... based on where the money comes from, and how it gets there. Millions of union workers paying dues in every pay check, that is then used for political purposes... Top union AFSCME has 1.5 million workers, and paid 60million, SEIU has about the same number of workers for 38million...
Meanwhile, all sorts of other entities provide political support, like the Kochs, or Soros, using money that is paid to them by various businesses that they do.
Regardless if you pay Soros as a hedgefund mgr, or buy your TP from the Kochs... the profit ends up in their pocket, and they get to use it how they see fit. And EVERY TIME you buy this way from them, you contribute to their ability to use that money.
Now, if you were a curious kind of person, you might investigate where your dollars are going if you have decided that certain large multinational companies were doing something you didna like. And THEN you might stop buying stuff from that company.
Kinda like not buying perdue chicken if you've got a problem with factory farming, instead buying redbird to get free range chicken.
And either one of those companies might make a political donation, to further their business or pet project.
On the OTHER hand. If you are in a union, in order to have a job, and that union siphons off your dues to pay some fatcat's salary, and that person decided to use the union coffers to back some candidate or law... and guess what.
You have entirely NO CHOICE. Because they are going to deduct dues from your check, or you get to find another job.
So your argument about BILLIYONS AND BILLIYONS of anything kinda misses the point. It could be TEN of something.
Those tress out there are called a forest.
SwissArmyD at February 17, 2014 3:08 PM
SwissArmyD Says:
"Lee was suggesting that all those millions of dollars, that come from UNIONS represent millions of Union workers..."
If you want to argue that the unions fail to appropriately represent their members go for it.
However... there is nothing crazy about suggesting that there are millions of workers within the United States.
There is something inherently insane about the following statement:
"And those companies who donate, represent 100s of millions of stockholders, and hundreds of billions of customers."
Please read that again for a moment... "hundreds of billions of customers".
The entire human population is only 7 billion people... and yet Joe is talking about 100's of billions of customers.
This isn't an "in kind" reply by any stretch of the imagination.
To suggest that companies could represent millions of customers might have been reasonable... but 100's of billions???
Not on your life.
That kind of hyperbole doesn't belong in a serious conversation.
Someone who states such an outrageous figure is either delusional, or pulling information out of their ass.
That you choose to defend such stupidity doesn't suggest you should be taken seriously either.
No matter how you slice it... in principle unions could in fact represent millions of workers (because millions of workers actually exist on this planet)... corporations could not represent 100s of billions of customers on a planet of 7 billion people unless you start to define customer in a very strange and ambiguous manner.
Nest time you decide to cancel your subscription to some routine service I suggest that you tell the company that their loss will constitute the loss of thousands of customers... we'll see how seriously they take you.
"So your argument about BILLIYONS AND BILLIYONS of anything kinda misses the point. It could be TEN of something."
Again... to someone for whom facts and accuracy do not matter this might make sense.
People who exaggerate figures to ridiculous proportions to make a political point are not doing anyone a favor.
I'll remember you said this though the next time you may argue that an opponent has exaggerated a statistic to make a political point.
Artemis at February 17, 2014 4:55 PM
By the way... since you like to play games with numbers, let's adjust Lee's original statement using the kind of statistical manipulation you seem to appreciate.
Unions represent trillions of employees.
Here I now define an employee as every penny a union worker earns.
Please keep in mind that this is the level of rhetoric you are defending here.
In my opinion such arguments have no place in a serious conversation.
When you are ready to have a serious discussion that involves talking about realistic figures and actual facts please let me know.
Artemis at February 17, 2014 5:00 PM
OK, Arty, I'll bite.
let's dump figures entirely.
What IS your point?
Is it good that all the top political donors are unions, along with their captured dues, which render irrelevant the political interest of the dues paying member? Is there some insinuation that the Union, by it's existence, REPRESENTS the political will of it's members? Is this the reason a Union is formed?
Is it a bad thing that other rich people use their OWN money for their own political ends? Knowing that they may state those political ends outright through foundations and so forth, or they may not? Those foundation may take buy-in from other individual, or not?
And how does that make those people "EVIL" versus the unions that do it with someone elses money?
And dispense with the serious argument bullshit. This is an amusing blog, where it's fun to work the brains, but few are under any illusion that what goes on here is any more earth-shattering than thought provocation.
SwissArmyD at February 17, 2014 5:30 PM
Or choice 3 a 1 letter typo.
Your entire argument is about that? Lol
Joe J at February 17, 2014 6:35 PM
Money is a part of politics in pretty much exactly the same way that photosynthesis is a part of plant growth.
There is absolutely no way to excise financial influence from the political theatre.
Don't bother mentioning the idea you have. It was already thought of years ago and left to rot on the curb because it didn't work.
You might have a fairy tale idea of how to solve this issue, but the outcome of your idea will be the same as the outcome of Bambi, in Bambi vs Godzilla (a hint for those of you who don't know, Bambi loses).
You can bitch and moan about Soros or the Koch brothers (or whatever is causing the itch in your panties this week), but it's *not* going away (on either side of the aisle).
Even if it *were* possible to entirely exclude outside monetary influence on politics, neither side would be willing to give up their largesse.
They'd be happy to block those they oppose, but they won't give up the money that supports their agenda (again, both sides).
You won't get a non partisan outcome on this, because neither side wants to give up their end.
And ... The fact of the matter is that the person who earned the money gets to say what they do with it (you can argue 'earned' all you want, but they're the ones who possess that money).
You can also try to make the case that some contributors are representing more people than others are (as alluded to above, unions vs Koch).
That's a strawman.
Do you have the means to determine that *every* person they claim to represent actually does support this contribution? Or that they don't?
If you truly want to get rid of the uneven influence of money on the government, the only real solution is to make it so that there's no advantage for the contributors to give money to government.
And, the thing is, that's pretty much wishful thinking in a world with normal human personalities.
So, in reality, if you believe that some given party should not contribute to the politics of their choice, then, if you are honest, you will also believe that other parties should also not contribute to the politics of your choice.
there are some who call me 'Tim?' at February 17, 2014 9:46 PM
SwissArmyD,
Since we've gotten beyond the "made up" numbers and are now onto more substantive material I'm happy to offer some of my own thoughts.
My first point is this. When a wealthy individual chooses to donate to a political cause or campaign we must not delude ourselves into thinking that they represent anyone but themselves.
It may be true that their beliefs are in line with the beliefs of other people, but to suggest that they represent those other people in any serious way is silly.
It is mere coincidence that their beliefs may align on one issue... and they are free to diverge on other issues or to change their mind as they see fit... this is because they represent themselves.
They have no legal, ethical, or moral obligation to represent their "customers".
Now whether or not there is something wrong with an individual dumping huge sums of money into the political sphere to shift policy one way or another is an entirely separate issue as to who that individual represents.
I could try and argue that when I enter a voting booth I represent everyone who agrees with me, but that would be a bit arrogant... when I cast my vote I represent myself, just like when others cast their vote they represent themselves.
Similarly, when the Koch brothers donate to a political campaign they represent the Koch brothers... not some hypothetical toilet paper purchaser.
So suggest this is the case is to try and get around the notion of self interest and instead try to argue that they are merely looking out for others.
It is an attempt to make their political donations akin to some sort of charitable operation they do for the benefit of everyone else.
If that is the case then they can keep their money for themselves... most people don't want to be represented in this manner. If they want to donate to a political cause they can choose to do so on their own behalf.
I am glad that you acknowledge this reality when you say this:
"Is it a bad thing that other rich people use their OWN money for their own political ends?"
At least you operate under the reality that these donations are for their own benefit and then ask the question of whether or not it is "wrong" as opposed to pretending that they donate to political causes for people other than themselves.
When you ask is it "wrong" I'll cut to the chase.
Our democracy has been subverted by the financial interests of lobby groups that are composed of group interests and individual interests.
There is simply too much money in politics at the moment and most of our politicians have essentially been bought to the extent that political contributions result in votes and bills on issues that do not represent the will of the public.
To the extent that this is wrong, it is wrong to have so much money entering the political sphere... and I don't care who it comes from... that kind of money results in widespread corruption.
Artemis at February 18, 2014 12:22 AM
Have you by any chance read the The Liberty Amendments?
Cutting back the fed would effectively kill the amount of money anyone donates. So you by the House Republicans. The senate being responsible to their state legislature would cut crap quickly. The senators being responsible to the state and not the electorate means the state has an effective say again.
About the only amendment I would add is that every representative can not represent more than 300K people, and there pay is the median income for the district plus $10K. Yes, the House would be about a 1K people, but the gerrymandering would die. The reps, to make more money need to raise the income in their district.
But until you put limits on the fed, putting limits on cash is a joke.
Jim P. at February 18, 2014 7:39 PM
Jim P.,
I have not read the liberty amendments, but I will take a look at it.
So far as the house of representatives goes, I have thought for quite some time that the limitation based upon a fixed number of representatives has become outdated.
It made sense before the age of computers, but now that people can communicate remotely in the blink of an eye it is probably time for representatives to actually have a fixed constituency.
I also think it would be great if fund raising for politicians was required to come from people who are permitted to vote for them.
There is something unsavory about being able to fund the campaign for someone who is supposed to represent another group of people.
If you want to use your own personal funds to support the campaign of someone to represent you, more power to you... but using your own funds to get another constituency to represent you strikes me as a subversion of the principles of our republic.
Artemis at February 19, 2014 12:40 AM
Leave a comment