# 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:** 4
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2015, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/koch-brothers-to-spend-900-million-on-2016-elections/710967/61 "2015-01-29T00:05:13Z")
> [@Pleonast](#): > > **Martin Hyde** [discussed](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18087362&postcount=36) limits on limited resources, like broadcast media, could make sense. But I’ve seen no indication that political speech has been stifled because of lack of access to broadcasts. (Of course, the only broadcast media I consume is NPR, so it doesn’t matter that much to me anyway.) Anything that costs money is a limited resource. Access to broadcasts – journalists’ and commentators’ broadcasts – typically costs the pols nothing, but access to ad-time does. ---
**Author:** ![BlankSlate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/blankslate/32/80_2.png) [@BlankSlate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BlankSlate)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2015, 12:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/koch-brothers-to-spend-900-million-on-2016-elections/710967/62 "2015-01-29T00:14:36Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Because I think it’s funny that the Democrats claim to be opposed to rich people making huge donations to politicians, while at the same time Obama charges folks $30,000 to hang out with him at a house owned by a billionaire named “Rich Richman”. I emphasized the name because the name makes it slightly more funny. That is, to state the obvious, a minor distraction from the main point. The main point is that if Democrats were really opposed to big money in politics, they wouldn’t bring so much money into politics. Sure, and republicans never complain about union money, Soros money, Hollywood money and on and on. It’s ridiculous to paint this as a partisan issue. Both sides do it because they really don’t have a choice. Consequently, politicians spend way too much time and effort raising huge sums of money. Meanwhile, everyone pretends that all that cash comes with no strings attached. The problem rises to the level of absurdity for members of the House who, because of the short, two-year terms, are constantly fundraising for the next run. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2015, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/koch-brothers-to-spend-900-million-on-2016-elections/710967/63 "2015-01-29T00:34:03Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Because I think it’s funny that the Democrats claim to be opposed to rich people making huge donations to politicians, while at the same time Obama charges folks $30,000 to hang out with him at a house owned by a billionaire named “Rich Richman”. I emphasized the name because the name makes it slightly more funny. That is, to state the obvious, a minor distraction from the main point. The main point is that if Democrats were really opposed to big money in politics, they wouldn’t bring so much money into politics. Then how would they stay in politics? One can, without hypocrisy, call for disarmament while still fighting with the weapon one wants banned, if one is at war and the other side is using it. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2015, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/koch-brothers-to-spend-900-million-on-2016-elections/710967/64 "2015-01-29T00:39:35Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > I have some problems with that analysis. There is a difference between having free speech and being able to buy elections. This is what the Kochroaches are doing. They buy them at the state level to rig the redistricting and they buy them at the federal level to rig the legislation. Do we let the Founding Fathers tie our hands and say “well, James Madison didn’t say that money couldn’t buy elections so it must be okay”? I think not. If the Kochs want to stand on a soapbox and tell us why they need to back up their armored cars to the treasury vaults, let them do it. They can publish papers and magazines to their hearts content if they can find schmucks to buy them. But to buy limitless time on publicly-owned airwaves, not so much. No, we don’t let the FF tie our hands. Don’t like the constitution, change it. But don’t ignore it. Can I spend $100M on a movie that promotes capitalism? What about environmental conservation or Climate Change? > [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > What if you buy ALL the poster board and write “Vote Obama” on it? I guess you’d have to rely on all the other things in the world that are NOT poster boards. You could start with the internet and work your way down. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2015, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/koch-brothers-to-spend-900-million-on-2016-elections/710967/65 "2015-01-29T00:40:34Z")
> [@BlankSlate](#): > > It’s ridiculous to paint this as a partisan issue. Both sides do it because they really don’t have a choice. Consequently, politicians spend way too much time and effort raising huge sums of money. Well, it’s not a symmetrical picture; only one side has even a segment of its base that wants the campaign-financing system changed. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2015, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/koch-brothers-to-spend-900-million-on-2016-elections/710967/66 "2015-01-29T00:45:53Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > I have some problems with that analysis. There is a difference between having free speech and being able to buy elections. This is what the Kochroaches are doing. They buy them at the state level to rig the redistricting and they buy them at the federal level to rig the legislation. Do we let the Founding Fathers tie our hands and say “well, James Madison didn’t say that money couldn’t buy elections so it must be okay”? I think not. If the Kochs want to stand on a soapbox and tell us why they need to back up their armored cars to the treasury vaults, let them do it. They can publish papers and magazines to their hearts content if they can find schmucks to buy them. But to buy limitless time on publicly-owned airwaves, not so much. I have two problem with that analysis: 1. You could buy elections in the Founding Fathers’ time. Leaving aside that anyone could write a blank check directly to any candidate, it’s long been said that you don’t get into a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel. How is the press not buying elections when it has access to the printing press and the average citizen does not? Yet the founders still saw fit to include freedom of the press in the 1st amendment, despite the inequality that this creates. 2. I don’t really buy the “they can publish papers and magazines to their hearts content” argument as being made in good faith. When Citizens United was first decided, I heard plenty of “If they want to spend millions on elections, they need to do it themselves! Individuals have rights, not corporations!” Well, now they do it themselves and liberals are saying they shouldn’t be allowed to. So I guess individuals do not have unlimited rights to advocate. If the Kochs find any means of influencing elections that is actually effective, liberals will say that is “unfair” and seek to restrict it. It’s extremely hard to believe that your beef is just with the public airwaves. And BTW, if you’re going to regulate the public airwaves it has to be done in an equal way. You can’t have a privileged class that can buy ads while others cannot. In other words, if you say the Kochs can’t buy ads, then political parties and candidates can’t do it either. If you want to make the public airwaves an ad-free zone, you can probably do that legally right now. Anthony Kennedy’s beef in Citizens United was the division of advocates into “favored” and “disfavored”. If no one can do political advocacy on the public airwaves, that problem goes away. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2015, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/koch-brothers-to-spend-900-million-on-2016-elections/710967/67 "2015-01-29T00:56:59Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Well, it’s not a symmetrical picture; only one side has even a segment of its base that wants the campaign-financing system changed. Sucks to be on the losing side in a democracy. What else can I say? ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2015, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/koch-brothers-to-spend-900-million-on-2016-elections/710967/68 "2015-01-29T00:59:25Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Then how would they stay in politics? > > One can, without hypocrisy, call for disarmament while still fighting with the weapon one wants banned, if one is at war and the other side is using it. I do agree with this, BUT, Democrats are calling for restricting things that benefit Republicans more than Democrats. If they were serious, they’d support banning ALL public airwaves advertising for or against candidates. The reason Democrats will never support that is because it would reduce voter turnout by a huge margin compared to what it is today. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2015, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/koch-brothers-to-spend-900-million-on-2016-elections/710967/69 "2015-01-29T01:08:47Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > I do agree with this, BUT, Democrats are calling for restricting things that benefit Republicans more than Democrats. > > If they were serious, they’d support banning ALL public airwaves advertising for or against candidates. The reason Democrats will never support that is because it would reduce voter turnout by a huge margin compared to what it is today. I don’t think anyone wants to ban all advertising. They want to ban _unlimited_ advertising. And before anyone mewls about\* speech equaling money\*, your speech is already limited when there is a good reason. You can’t yell, “Fire” in that crowded theater. Because the risk of death overcomes your free speech. And the risk of the US becoming an oligarchy where only the rich have a say, overwhelms spending limitless amounts on elections. Or at least that’s my opinion. And I’ve yet to hear an argument against it that doesn’t boil down to, “FREEDOM!!111” ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2015, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/koch-brothers-to-spend-900-million-on-2016-elections/710967/70 "2015-01-29T01:12:35Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > I don’t think anyone wants to ban all advertising. They want to ban _unlimited_ advertising. Okay. What are the rules and how do you make them fair to all? You can’t have candidate A able to outspend advocate B. Candidates are not privileged citizens. > [@](#): > > And before anyone mewls about\* speech equaling money\*, your speech is already limited when there is a good reason. You can’t yell, “Fire” in that crowded theater. Because the risk of death overcomes your free speech. And the risk of the US becoming an oligarchy where only the rich have a say, overwhelms spending limitless amounts on elections. It takes more than a good reason. If all it took was a good reason, we’d have no rights at all. The nature of rights is that the government needs an overwhelming reason to restrict a right. Speech restrictions are not like littering laws. There has to be a compelling interest involved, and you have to make it fair. If Barack Obama spending $900 million isn’t a threat to democracy, than the Kochs spending $900 million isn’t a threat to democracy. There’s also the actual impact to consider. Bill O’Reilly reaches 2.83 million viewers every day. The Kochs will never match that level of influence even with $900 million. 30-second ads sprinkled throughout the television lineup, ads that most people tune out, or skip, or channel flip, or get up for Cheetos, is not going to match the influence that a TV talking head with a full hour of prime time TV is going to receive. If the Kochs’ have an undue influence on elections, then so does Bill O’Reilly and his competitors. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2015, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/koch-brothers-to-spend-900-million-on-2016-elections/710967/71 "2015-01-29T01:13:40Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Sucks to be on the losing side in a democracy. What else can I say? That it sucks even worse to be on the losing side in a plutocracy, which is what we’ve got now, and almost **everybody** is on the losing side, as is always the case in plutocracies. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2015, 1:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/koch-brothers-to-spend-900-million-on-2016-elections/710967/72 "2015-01-29T01:16:35Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > I don’t think anyone wants to ban all advertising. They want to ban _unlimited_ advertising. No, we want to ban any advertising that **costs money.** See post #58. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2015, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/koch-brothers-to-spend-900-million-on-2016-elections/710967/73 "2015-01-29T01:17:51Z")
If you want to restrict a basic right in a free country, you have to demonsrate a compelling interest. That starts with actually proving that there is a problem to be solved. Saying that the richest country in the world with the most well to do middle class in the world is suffering under plutocracy doesn’t really meet any standard of evidence that would hold up in court. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2015, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/koch-brothers-to-spend-900-million-on-2016-elections/710967/74 "2015-01-29T01:19:00Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > No, we want to ban any advertising that **costs money.** See post #58. There are no free ads on the public airwaves. So you would ban all political advertising, right? How about the internet? In an age where the newest hit music videos get 100 million views, that’s 100 million eyeballs on a campaign ad. Are we to regulate Youtube now? ---
**Author:** ![Leaper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4bbf92/32.png) [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2015, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/koch-brothers-to-spend-900-million-on-2016-elections/710967/75 "2015-01-29T01:21:32Z")
Man, there’s nothing that’s so self evident that some people don’t think it’s a problem. I guess if “people going bankrupt or dying because of medical bills” couldn’t do it, I guess “a wealthy superminority openly buying elections” wouldn’t either. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2015, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/koch-brothers-to-spend-900-million-on-2016-elections/710967/76 "2015-01-29T01:23:35Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Okay. What are the rules and how do you make them fair to all? You can’t have candidate A able to outspend advocate B. Candidates are not privileged citizens. > > It takes more than a good reason. If all it took was a good reason, we’d have no rights at all. The nature of rights is that the government needs an overwhelming reason to restrict a right. Speech restrictions are not like littering laws. There has to be a compelling interest involved, and you have to make it fair. If Barack Obama spending $900 million isn’t a threat to democracy, than the Kochs spending $900 million isn’t a threat to democracy. > > There’s also the actual impact to consider. Bill O’Reilly reaches 2.83 million viewers every day. The Kochs will never match that level of influence even with $900 million. 30-second ads sprinkled throughout the television lineup, ads that most people tune out, or skip, or channel flip, or get up for Cheetos, is not going to match the influence that a TV talking head with a full hour of prime time TV is going to receive. If the Kochs’ have an undue influence on elections, then so does Bill O’Reilly and his competitors. In my opinion, the ban (or limit) should be on advertising, not content like O’Reilly’s show. You are _subjected_ to advertising. You _choose_ to listen to Billo. Or Rush. Or the NYT. Or Politico. I’m talking about saturation bombing the airwaves, mailings and robocalls. If someone chooses to listen to FOX, they should be able to as much as they should like. My problem is with unsolicited advertising. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2015, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/koch-brothers-to-spend-900-million-on-2016-elections/710967/77 "2015-01-29T01:33:32Z")
> [@Leaper](#): > > Man, there’s nothing that’s so self evident that some people don’t think it’s a problem. I guess if “people going bankrupt or dying because of medical bills” couldn’t do it, I guess “a wealthy superminority openly buying elections” wouldn’t either. Self evident? Perhaps. I agree there’s a problem, but if you want to get courts to rule your way you actually have to define the problem. “People going bankrupt and dying because of medical bills” occurs because most people don’t want any of the health care reforms that have so far been proposed. THat’s known as democracy. A society where wise men decide what is best for us isn’t democracy. A society where selfish people make selfish decisions is a democracy. So it’s not evidence of anything, and arguably the passage of ACA refutes that claim anyway. Now the second one is where the problem could be. So now you just have to demonstrate that the wealthy are buying elections. If they are, then their alignment to political parties would seem to change like every two years. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2015, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/koch-brothers-to-spend-900-million-on-2016-elections/710967/78 "2015-01-29T01:34:39Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > In my opinion, the ban (or limit) should be on advertising, not content like O’Reilly’s show. > > You are _subjected_ to advertising. You _choose_ to listen to Billo. Or Rush. Or the NYT. Or Politico. > > I’m talking about saturation bombing the airwaves, mailings and robocalls. If someone chooses to listen to FOX, they should be able to as much as they should like. My problem is with unsolicited advertising. Okay, that’s fine, but you can’t have favored advertisers and disfavored advertisers. If the airwaves are open to political advertising by candidates, it’s open to those who don’t like the candidates. ---
**Author:** ![BlankSlate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/blankslate/32/80_2.png) [@BlankSlate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BlankSlate)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2015, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/koch-brothers-to-spend-900-million-on-2016-elections/710967/79 "2015-01-29T01:38:46Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > If you want to restrict a basic right in a free country, you have to demonsrate a compelling interest. That starts with actually proving that there is a problem to be solved. > > Saying that the richest country in the world with the most well to do middle class in the world is suffering under plutocracy doesn’t really meet any standard of evidence that would hold up in court. What decade are you living in? The U.S. doesn’t have [the wealthiest middle class anymore.](http://money.cnn.com/2014/06/11/news/economy/middle-class-wealth/). Sure, the median income is high, but more and more of that is concentrated at the top. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2015, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/koch-brothers-to-spend-900-million-on-2016-elections/710967/80 "2015-01-29T01:46:18Z")
What is median again? As opposed to mean? Median is not an average. Median is the income of the middle person. So if our country’s income distribution looked like this: 1,000,000;500,000;50,000;25,000;10,000 then the mean, or average income would be $317,000. The median, however, is whatever the middle number is, which is $50,000. So yes, we do have the richest middle class, especially when you account for aftertax income. However, your cite concentrates on wealth, and there we aren’t the richest middle class. As the article says, that has a lot to do with easy availability of credit. Our net worths are lower because we have a culture that likes to spend, spend, spend. But how much money we MAKE per year is the highest in the world except for Luxembourg and perhaps Norway. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/koch-brothers-to-spend-900-million-on-2016-elections/710967.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/koch-brothers-to-spend-900-million-on-2016-elections/710967.md?page=5)