# Koch Brothers to Spend $900 Million on 2016 Elections **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [January 27, 2015, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/koch-brothers-to-spend-900-million-on-2016-elections/710967 "2015-01-27T00:52:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 16
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2015, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/koch-brothers-to-spend-900-million-on-2016-elections/710967/301 "2015-02-21T20:40:07Z")
> [@furt](#): > > If I give $900M to politicians, I need to see well over a billion dollars coming back to for it to make more sense than just investing that $900M in my already-profitable businesses, and I need to be sure I’ll be getting most of it back sooner rather than later (this is especially true if I am 80 years old). Koch Industries doesn’t do anything like that level of business with the federal government. It’s true that some of the industries they work in are heavily subsidized, but 1) neither party is going to eliminate those subsidies, and 2) the surest way to get one party to think about eliminating them is to start funding the other party. By betting all on one party, I’m running a huge risk – I could easily lose the election, and my money is a total loss. I could also see my sweetheart deal/friendly regulation wiped out in the next election. Yes, but that is a risk they are willing to take, for very important yearly profits. [https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/news/2014/02/10/83879/with-](https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/news/2014/02/10/83879/with-) > [@](#): > > only-93-billion-in-profits-the-big-five-oil-companies-demand-to-keep-tax-breaks/ > The 2013 profit totals are in for the big five oil companies—BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Exxon Mobil, and Shell. Their financial reports indicate that they earned a combined total of $93 billion last year, or $177,000 per minute. (see Table 1) After years of oil production declines, the big five oil companies actually increased their total production\* in 2013, predominately due to BP and ConocoPhillips almost doubling their total production. Organizing a group that will spent almost a billion is chump change for them. Incidentally, having congress critters in their pocket is more important because with less profits seen last year it is clear that the subsidies and tax breaks are more important for them now. For them it is profits ahead of good government or the environment. > **[Myths And Facts About The Koch Brothers](https://www.mediamatters.org/washington-post/myths-and-facts-about-koch-brothers)** > > Charles and David Koch, brothers and the oil barons who are already shaping the 2014 midterm elections according to recently leaked audio recordings, are often portrayed as environmentally responsible advocates of the free-market that are unfairly... ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2015, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/koch-brothers-to-spend-900-million-on-2016-elections/710967/302 "2015-02-22T18:10:01Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > Rachel Maddow is probably the best journalist on television. What she presents is meticulously researched, she freely admits errors when they are made, and she invites guests with opposing viewpoints on the air to state their case and she treats them with courtesy and respect. She’s everything that Fox “News” is not. > > It is possible to present the news with a liberal viewpoint without being unfair. She does that. It may be theoretically possible to do the same from the right, but thus far there are no examples of this. But she doesn’t campaign for individuals or causes and she does not have a monetary stake in how effective her message may be. The Kochs simply want to buy elections so they can amass more wealth for themselves. Bobby loves Rachel. Bobby loves Rachel. 😃 I would go so far as saying that Maddow is the best that MSNBC has to offer. I would also say that Maddow’s persistent, and unproven, persecution of Chris Christi over Bridgegate proves that Maddow can not present the news with a liberal viewpoint without being unfair. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2015, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/koch-brothers-to-spend-900-million-on-2016-elections/710967/303 "2015-02-22T18:22:07Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > …Organizing a group that will spent almost a billion is chump change for them. > > Incidentally, having congress critters in their pocket is more important because with less profits seen last year it is clear that the subsidies and tax breaks are more important for them now. > > For them it is profits ahead of good government or the environment. (post shortened) And MSNBC has a much larger audience, and it’s on 24/7/365. If you want to curtail free political speech, you’ll have to limit MSNBC, Soros and his funded groups, the Koch bros, and the dailykos kollaborators. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2015, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/koch-brothers-to-spend-900-million-on-2016-elections/710967/304 "2015-02-22T18:57:33Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > (post shortened) > > And MSNBC has a much larger audience, and it’s on 24/7/365. Because it is a business do you really think they will not take the advertisements? [(MSNBC still gets a percentage from Republican ads, but the quantity of Republican ads in CNN and ESPN and FOX have a much bigger percentage of ads than in MSNBC. The Republicans spent a lot more and they will spent more now)](http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/10/16/the-cable-networks-that-draw-the-most-partisan-ads-arent-the-ones-you-expect/) > [@doorhinge](#): > > If you want to curtail free political speech, you’ll have to limit MSNBC, Soros and his funded groups, the Koch bros, and the dailykos kollaborators. And you really think that was not implied before Citizens United? You are even ignoring that many on the left accepted those limitations, but as usual your sources only tell you part of the story. (And History too, the History Channel gets a surprising level of Republican ads… Maybe not so as the channel is now mostly about aliens and other conspiracies, so it is not a wonder that the unscientific crowd is the target) ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2015, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/koch-brothers-to-spend-900-million-on-2016-elections/710967/305 "2015-02-22T19:11:52Z")
Did anybody say it would be easy? Is it that it cannot be done, or just that you don’t want it to be done? Or that it cannot be done in a just and fair fashion, or that it would be difficult? Do the Koch Brothers have more political power than you or I? Clearly, they do. Does that extra power derive entirely because they possess more money? Clearly, that is so. Is that offensive to ideals of egalitarian democracy? We think so, how about you? Do you think it cannot be fairly and justly fixed, or you just don’t want it to be fixed? And if you think it cannot be fixed, is it OK with you if we give it a try? And finally, this: (post shortened) Is there any hope that you will abandon this pointless and annoying affectation, that you will turn away from the path of the **Shodan** , the pink and the puckered? ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2015, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/koch-brothers-to-spend-900-million-on-2016-elections/710967/306 "2015-02-22T21:03:26Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Because it is a business do you really think they will not take the advertisements? > [(MSNBC still gets a percentage from Republican ads, but the quantity of Republican ads in CNN and ESPN and FOX have a much bigger percentage of ads than in MSNBC. The Republicans spent a lot more and they will spent more now)](http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/10/16/the-cable-networks-that-draw-the-most-partisan-ads-arent-the-ones-you-expect/) > And you really think that was not implied before Citizens United? You are even ignoring that many on the left accepted those limitations, but as usual your sources only tell you part of the story. > > (And History too, the History Channel gets a surprising level of Republican ads… > > Maybe not so as the channel is now mostly about aliens and other conspiracies, so it is not a wonder that the unscientific crowd is the target) You’re the one who is trying to ban political free speech that you don’t approve of. It’s my position that you can’t ban one group without banning others. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2015, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/koch-brothers-to-spend-900-million-on-2016-elections/710967/307 "2015-02-22T21:15:10Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > You’re the one who is trying to ban political free speech that you don’t approve of. It’s my position that you can’t ban one group without banning others. As my position in reality was referring to a system that applies to all your idea was a wrong one. It usually happens when you get involved in discussions. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2015, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/koch-brothers-to-spend-900-million-on-2016-elections/710967/308 "2015-02-22T21:15:44Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Did anybody say it would be easy? Is it that it cannot be done, or just that you don’t want it to be done? Or that it cannot be done in a just and fair fashion, or that it would be difficult? > > …Is that offensive to ideals of egalitarian democracy? We think so, how about you? Do you think it cannot be fairly and justly fixed, or you just don’t want it to be fixed? And if you think it cannot be fixed, is it OK with you if we give it a try? (post shortened) And you want to make it easier by outright rejection of any ideas and suggestions of the loyal opposition. Good luck with that. You can certainly try to fix the problem - as you identify the problem - but you still have to convince a large number of voters that your way is the only way. And you have to do that without being able to shut down the political free speech of those you disagree with. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2015, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/koch-brothers-to-spend-900-million-on-2016-elections/710967/309 "2015-02-22T21:24:05Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > (post shortened) > > And you want to make it easier by outright rejection of any ideas and suggestions of the loyal opposition. Good luck with that. > > You can certainly try to fix the problem - as you identify the problem - but you still have to convince a large number of voters that your way is the only way. And you have to do that without being able to shut down the political free speech of those you disagree with. As usual you are not making sense because the more restrictive rules before applied to Republicans and Democrats alike. What it is important IMHO is not to just see that and stop doing eternal vigilance, the Kochs and many others are funding the Republicans that are also listening to what their money is also manufacturing with the help of shady scientists to seed doubt on very important issues that will affect us all. > **[Deeper Ties to Corporate Cash for Doubtful Climate Researcher (Published 2015)](https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/us/ties-to-corporate-cash-for-climate-change-researcher-Wei-Hock-Soon.html?_r=0)** > > Newly released documents show the extent of the links between corporate interests and the published work of Wei-Hock Soon, a Smithsonian-affiliated scientist who has tried to debunk the consensus about global warming. > [@](#): > > For years, politicians wanting to block legislation on climate change have bolstered their arguments by pointing to the work of a handful of scientists who claim that greenhouse gases pose little risk to humanity. > > One of the names they invoke most often is Wei-Hock Soon, known as Willie, a scientist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics who claims that variations in the sun’s energy can largely explain recent global warming. He has often appeared on conservative news programs, testified before Congress and in state capitals, and starred at conferences of people who deny the risks of global warming. > > But newly released documents show the extent to which Dr. Soon’s work has been tied to funding he received from corporate interests. > > He has accepted more than $1.2 million in money from the fossil-fuel industry over the last decade while failing to disclose that conflict of interest in most of his scientific papers. At least 11 papers he has published since 2008 omitted such a disclosure, and in at least eight of those cases, he appears to have violated ethical guidelines of the journals that published his work. > [@](#): > > Southern is one of the largest utility holding companies in the country, with huge investments in coal-burning power plants. The company has spent heavily over many years to lobby against greenhouse-gas regulations in Washington. More recently, it has spent significant money to research ways to limit emissions. > > “Southern Company funds a broad range of research on a number of topics that have potentially significant public-policy implications for our business,” said Jeannice M. Hall, a spokeswoman. The company declined to answer detailed questions about its funding of Dr. Soon’s research. > > **Dr. Soon also received at least $230,000 from the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation. (Mr. Koch’s fortune derives partly from oil refining.)** ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2015, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/koch-brothers-to-spend-900-million-on-2016-elections/710967/310 "2015-02-22T21:34:26Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > You’re the one who is trying to ban political free speech that you don’t approve of. What we’re trying to do is ban “political speech” (campaign advertising) that is not free because you have to pay for it. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2015, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/koch-brothers-to-spend-900-million-on-2016-elections/710967/311 "2015-02-22T21:59:05Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > (post shortened) > > And MSNBC has a much larger audience, and it’s on 24/7/365. > > If you want to curtail free political speech, you’ll have to limit MSNBC, Soros and his funded groups, the Koch bros, and the dailykos kollaborators. Fine! And Fox News, ABC, and PBS. Bring back the Fairness Doctrine, see if they can function. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2015, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/koch-brothers-to-spend-900-million-on-2016-elections/710967/312 "2015-02-22T22:30:40Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > Fine! > > And Fox News, ABC, and PBS. Bring back the Fairness Doctrine, see if they can function. OK. I’m sure that you understand that the battle over the Fairness Doctrine has already been fought and the Fairness Doctrine was overturned. What fresh legal arguments do you propose to reestablish it? ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2015, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/koch-brothers-to-spend-900-million-on-2016-elections/710967/313 "2015-02-22T22:43:33Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > What we’re trying to do is ban “political speech” (campaign advertising) that is not free because you have to pay for it. Some of you are. Some of you are trying (and failing) to stop others from discussing the issue. The only campaign advertising that my tax dollars are funding is the endless stream of progressive, liberal, anti-conservative, and pro-Democrat programs on PBS. I think they should stop using my money to fund what is obviously a form of campaign advertising. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2015, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/koch-brothers-to-spend-900-million-on-2016-elections/710967/314 "2015-02-22T22:59:46Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > (post shortened) > > And you want to make it easier by outright rejection of any ideas and suggestions of the loyal opposition. Good luck with that. > > You can certainly try to fix the problem - as you identify the problem - but you still have to convince a large number of voters that your way is the only way. And you have to do that without being able to shut down the political free speech of those you disagree with. (post unchanged just to be an annoying dick about it) Well, you answered the questions you wanted to answer rather than the one’s you were asked, but OK. So, anyway, you claim we can’t do it without cheating? But if we can, then its cool with you? Yeah, OK. that’ll work. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2015, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/koch-brothers-to-spend-900-million-on-2016-elections/710967/315 "2015-02-22T23:04:03Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > (post unchanged just to be an annoying dick about it) > > Well, you answered the questions you wanted to answer rather than the one’s you were asked, but OK. So, anyway, you claim we can’t do it without cheating? But if we can, then its cool with you? > > Yeah, OK. that’ll work. I made no such claim. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2015, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/koch-brothers-to-spend-900-million-on-2016-elections/710967/316 "2015-02-22T23:08:44Z")
Kinda what I was asking, what perzackly _are_ you claiming? That it can’t be done, that it can’t be done without cheating, or that it can be done but shouldn’t? Or all three at the same time? Do you agree that people like the Koch’s have more political power simply because they have money? Is that fair, just and equal? Is fair, just and equal something we should strive for? And if money can be inherited, and therefore political power can be inherited, precisely how are we better than the landed nobility we rebelled against? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2015, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/koch-brothers-to-spend-900-million-on-2016-elections/710967/317 "2015-02-23T00:51:20Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > Some of you are. Some of you are trying (and failing) to stop others from discussing the issue. > > The only campaign advertising that my tax dollars are funding is the endless stream of progressive, liberal, anti-conservative, and pro-Democrat programs on PBS. I think they should stop using my money to fund what is obviously a form of campaign advertising. Well, there you have it, educational programs are liberal. Too bad that many issues are looked by the Republicans with ignorant tinted glassed. As an example: many reports from PBS and NPR made good efforts to calm the population about the Ebola outbreak, while the right wing media and politicians used fear to drive the support for the republicans that made unfounded decisions regarding quarantines, one can say that it was a factor that worked for them in the last election, but the price continues to be that conservatives do not get good information and end up voting against their best interests. In a different thread **TimeWinder** makes this point: > [@Why the liberal 'pooh-poohing' of the Ebola danger?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-liberal-pooh-poohing-of-the-ebola-danger/700388/137): > > Resurrecting the zombie here, four months on, with the definitive answer to the OP’s question: this is why. > > There were exactly two cases of US-acquired Ebola, and no fatalities. Despite neverending coverage on Fox (an average of eleven stories a day about how we were all doomed), things came out exactly how the “liberal biased” news said it would. None of the cases were among the general public, despite all of the news about how these asymptomatic people had come into contact with millions! The nurse with no symptoms who was forced into partial quarantine (and was widely criticized for not accepting a full one) didn’t infect anybody, either, just like that evil liberal “medical science” said she wouldn’t. > > So to conclude: science works for everybody, “liberal” or not. If you still believe scientific questions can be correctly answered by political positions, come on over to the liberal side instead, where we use evidence. We’ve got cookies. That was to reply to a poster that made the point of why the liberals and “their media” were poopooing the Ebola outbreak, I remember also a scientist being interviewed at NPR that said about the Fox news and the Republican politicians that were scaring the public then: “eventually politics has to yield to science”. And so it is with the issue of controlling our emissions, the only recourse we have then if there is no counter to what the Kochs are doing is to indeed educate the people better so we should not fall for the siren songs from the ones in the pockets of the oil industry. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2015, 3:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/koch-brothers-to-spend-900-million-on-2016-elections/710967/318 "2015-02-23T03:51:39Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Kinda what I was asking, what perzackly _are_ you claiming? That it can’t be done, that it can’t be done without cheating, or that it can be done but shouldn’t? Or all three at the same time? > > Do you agree that people like the Koch’s have more political power simply because they have money? Is that fair, just and equal? Is fair, just and equal something we should strive for? And if money can be inherited, and therefore political power can be inherited, precisely how are we better than the landed nobility we rebelled against? Then I take it you will not be supporting Hillary Clinton for President, since her viability for the office is entirely because of her husband? ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2015, 6:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/koch-brothers-to-spend-900-million-on-2016-elections/710967/319 "2015-02-23T06:53:56Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > … the endless stream of progressive, liberal, anti-conservative, and pro-Democrat programs on PBS. I think they should stop using my money to fund what is obviously a form of campaign advertising. The fact that PBS news is often characterized in this faulty way provides a good reference for how deranged some other American news sources have become. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2015, 8:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/koch-brothers-to-spend-900-million-on-2016-elections/710967/320 "2015-02-23T08:10:39Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Then I take it you will not be supporting Hillary Clinton for President, since her viability for the office is entirely because of her husband? I’m sure the clarity of your analysis is an inspiration to us all. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/koch-brothers-to-spend-900-million-on-2016-elections/710967.md?page=15) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/koch-brothers-to-spend-900-million-on-2016-elections/710967.md?page=17)