# 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:** 8
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2015, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/koch-brothers-to-spend-900-million-on-2016-elections/710967/141 "2015-02-03T21:45:02Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > Sure, you want to influence elections, fine, just observe the cash limits. Do you want to spend your $200 or so going in with others on that billboard or donate to the We Love Jane Fonda PAC, that’s up to you. I made no reference to any elections. Do you even know what a PAC is? Regards, Shodan ---
**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:** [February 3, 2015, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/koch-brothers-to-spend-900-million-on-2016-elections/710967/142 "2015-02-03T22:46:50Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > I’ll take a shot. Every organization that puts out a political ad must provide a thorough accounting of all its donors, including names and social security numbers and how much they contributed. The FEC takes this info from all the PACs, along with the political parties, and the amount donated by each donor closely monitored. Any donor whose total contribution to PACs or parties exceeds 10% of the annual salary of a minimum wage worker shall be tried for the new crime of trying to buy elections. This would take the money out of elections and cut down on the number of political ads, forcing the candidates to rely on stump speeches, debates, and policy statements. Can I spend more than that to make a movie about the perils of Climate Change? How about a documentary on the Meat Slaughtering Industry? The social ill of abortion? The need to legalize marijuana? The rampant gun problem plaguing the US? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2015, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/koch-brothers-to-spend-900-million-on-2016-elections/710967/143 "2015-02-03T23:01:20Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > George Soros wouldn’t allow such an amendment to pass. Oh, he would, and the Kochs wouldn’t; that’s the difference. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2015, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/koch-brothers-to-spend-900-million-on-2016-elections/710967/144 "2015-02-03T23:33:38Z")
That’s an assumption. the ACLU has pretty strong opinions about campaign finance reform: > [@](#): > > Some argue that campaign finance laws can be surgically drafted to protect legitimate political speech while restricting speech that leads to undue influence by wealthy special interests. Experience over the last 40 years has taught us that money always finds an outlet, and the endless search for loopholes simply creates the next target for new regulation. It also contributes to cynicism about our political process. > > Any rule that requires the government to determine what political speech is legitimate and how much political speech is appropriate is difficult to reconcile with the First Amendment. Our system of free expression is built on the premise that the people get to decide what speech they want to hear; it is not the role of the government to make that decision for them. > **[The ACLU and Citizens United | American Civil Liberties Union](https://www.aclu.org/documents/aclu-and-citizens-united)** > > In Citizens United, the Supreme Court ruled that independent political expenditures by corporations and unions are protected under the First Amendment and not subject to restriction by the government. The Court therefore struck down a ban on campaign... And while Soros supported McCain-Feingold, he strongly defends independent expenditures: > **[OSI Statement on U.S. Campaign Finance Reform and Independent Organizations](https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/newsroom/osi-statement-us-campaign-finance-reform-and-independent-organizations)** > > Official OSI statement regarding its role and the role of George Soros in ongoing debates over campaign finance reform legislation in the United States. > [@](#): > > Such efforts are not only constitutionally protected, but because they have no direct connection to candidates for office, reformers and scholars agree that they have less potential for corrupting influence on officeholders. Many also believe that such efforts are beneficial to the functioning of democracy—for example, they are targeted to educating voters and increasing voter turnout among disenfranchised or disaffected groups. Also, under legislation passed a year earlier, such contributions to “527 organizations” are now required to be fully disclosed, and some donors have admirably gone even further by disclosing contributions well before the law requires. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2015, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/koch-brothers-to-spend-900-million-on-2016-elections/710967/145 "2015-02-03T23:34:20Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Can I spend more than that to make a movie about the perils of Climate Change? How about a documentary on the Meat Slaughtering Industry? The social ill of abortion? The need to legalize marijuana? The rampant gun problem plaguing the US? Gosh, doesn’t that just happen all the time? A whole argumentative point of view is destroyed by a single, rather simple…nay, _simplistic_!..question. You’re a real killer when you go into “gotchaya” mode, **John**. Sure you can! You can even make a documentary about Obama the child-molesting meth addict. And spend all the money you want for it, and if a theater wants to show it or a tv company wants to air it, they will get in touch with you. Hell, maybe even pay _you_ for it! But what if you spend ten million making it and an additional fifty million trying to get tv stations to air it? (Remember that to air is human…) Isn’t that functionally different, in both the intent and the procedure? The Koch Industries ad on the SuperBowl (more on that never…) was a total crock of corporate shit, all about how wonderful, bright and cheerful they are. And I’m cool with that, got a good laugh out of it, because I know who they are! But if they added a bit there about how voting for Senator Throckmorton, or the Republican Party might mean that they could stop the liberals from shooting that puppy…I don’t want to hear about how it was made by the Free Americans for Free Liberty, or some such crap. I want to know who’s talking to me, who’s _lying_ to me. Is that some kind of problem? ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2015, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/koch-brothers-to-spend-900-million-on-2016-elections/710967/146 "2015-02-03T23:38:14Z")
So you just want disclosure? That’s perfectly legal. No amendment required. If you want limitations, that’s where you run afoul of the law. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2015, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/koch-brothers-to-spend-900-million-on-2016-elections/710967/147 "2015-02-03T23:43:38Z")
No amendment is actually required anyway. Shit, **addy** , how many times you seen that old trick used around here, anyway? “Well, sure, if you guys think you are so right, go and get a Constitutional amendment, and then we’ll talk!”. Yeah. Right. Hugh Betcha. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2015, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/koch-brothers-to-spend-900-million-on-2016-elections/710967/148 "2015-02-03T23:52:14Z")
Why do you need an amendment if all you want is disclosure. THe Democrats already tried to pass the DISCLOSE Act. It failed because too many affected groups wanted carveouts and you can’t horsetrade speech rights. But as long as it applies equally to everyone, there’s no constitutional problem with disclosure. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2015, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/koch-brothers-to-spend-900-million-on-2016-elections/710967/149 "2015-02-04T00:06:18Z")
Well, by Og, you’ve convinced me! There is no need for a Constitutional amendment. Thanks for showing me the light! ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2015, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/koch-brothers-to-spend-900-million-on-2016-elections/710967/150 "2015-02-04T03:40:16Z")
If all you want is disclosure, why do you think you need one? And if you did, wouldn’t it just say, “Congress shall have the power to require full disclosure of all paid political advocacy?” ---
**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 4, 2015, 7:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/koch-brothers-to-spend-900-million-on-2016-elections/710967/151 "2015-02-04T07:48:24Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Put another way – From [_The Next American Nation,_](http://www.amazon.com/NEXT-AMERICAN-NATION-Nationalism-Revolution/dp/0684825031/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1214163307&sr=8-1) by Michael Lind: > > > [@](#): > > > > It is time to build a wall of separation between check and state. Curing the disease of plutocratic politics requires a correct diagnosis of its cause: the costs of political advertising. The basic problem is that special interests buy access and favors by donating the money needed for expensive political advertising in the media. Thank you, **Brain Glutton**. If you INTJ Dopers manage to let INTP **septimus** fight your ignorance on just one matter, let it be that _Problems need to be diagnosed_, first. Only when that’s successful, do the tradeoffs involved in _solutions_ become debate-worthy. Instead, some reason backwards: “Freedom of speech is an axiom or theorem, just like the SAS rule of triangles. Therefore, getting money out of politics is impossible. Q.E.D.” Instead, open your minds! Once we can admit (independent of any “axioms” we may think we know) that selling politicians to the highest bidder is not good democracy, _then_ we can look for solutions. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > … Elaborate schemes governing the flow of money do nothing to address the central problem: paid political advertising. Instead of devising unworkable limits on campaign financing that leave the basic system intact, we should cut the Gordian knot of campaign corruption by simply outlawing paid political advertising on behalf of any candidate for public office. The replacement of political advertising by free informational public service notices in the electronic and print media would level the playing field of politics and kill off an entire parasitic industry of media consultants and spin doctors. > > > > An outright ban on paid political advertising and the imposition of free time requirements on the media are radical measures, but nothing less is necessary if we are to prevent our government from continuing to be sold to the highest bidders. The argument against strict public regulation of money in politics is based on a false analogy between free spending and free speech protected under the First Amendment. The analogy is false, because limits on campaign finance do not address the content of speech – only its volume, as it were. It is not an infringement on free speech to say that, in a large public auditorium, Douglas will not be allowed to use a microphone unless Lincoln can as well… To many right-wing Americans this will seem like hyper-Marxist fantasy. But (or do I repeat myself? :rolleyes: ) much of it is already the case in Europe. ---
**Author:** ![Pleonast](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pleonast/32/1183_2.png) [@Pleonast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pleonast)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2015, 8:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/koch-brothers-to-spend-900-million-on-2016-elections/710967/152 "2015-02-04T08:26:52Z")
> [@](#): > > we should cut the Gordian knot of campaign corruption by simply outlawing paid political advertising on behalf of any candidate for public office So, you’d outlaw my “Vote Obama” poster, but allow the Kochs to buy as much global warning denying ads as they can afford? ☹ ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2015, 8:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/koch-brothers-to-spend-900-million-on-2016-elections/710967/153 "2015-02-04T08:48:14Z")
Something I wonder. The people who tend to support the idea that money is speech and should be unlimited seem almost gleeful about it, rubbing it in the faces of those who disagree. Do you actually like the idea that a small number of people can exert a great amount of political power, which in turn they use to further give themselves even greater power? Or do you consider it a necessary because to compromise on that would go against our values? To give an example of what I mean: I absolutely support the rights of neo-nazis to have marches. I think it sucksthat anyone would do such a thing, and that there are people who subscribe to those values. And I think that their speech is harmful to society. What they do is a bad thing. And yet it’s a worse thing for society to be able to limit who can speak. And so letting neo-nazis spread their message is a necessary evil in the pursuit of the greater value of free speech. Do you view giving greatly disproportionate political power to a select few in the same light? That it’s harmful, and damaging to society, and yet we must accept it because it’s in line with a greater principle? Or do you actually believe that it’s a positive thing, that there’s nothing wrong with it? Or do you simply think that it’s okay because you feel as though it empowers your tribe more than it does the other tribe? ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2015, 10:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/koch-brothers-to-spend-900-million-on-2016-elections/710967/154 "2015-02-04T10:49:00Z")
It’s hard to take people seriously on their concern about money in politics when they don’t seem concerned at all about the corrupting effect of the money coming OUT of DC. Which is usually defended by “But that’s democracy!” Well, free speech is liberty, and liberty is the whole point of democracy, not allocation of money to various special interests to buy their support. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2015, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/koch-brothers-to-spend-900-million-on-2016-elections/710967/155 "2015-02-04T14:19:15Z")
Yeah! Like doling out money to the EPA so they can hassle and harass the Duke Bro…sorry, Koch Brothers on behalf of special interests! Like people who breathe and drink water. ---
**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:** [February 4, 2015, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/koch-brothers-to-spend-900-million-on-2016-elections/710967/156 "2015-02-04T15:42:18Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Gosh, doesn’t that just happen all the time? A whole argumentative point of view is destroyed by a single, rather simple…nay, _simplistic_!..question. You’re a real killer when you go into “gotchaya” mode, **John**. You miss the point, so I’ll take the high road and assume I was unclear. Under Bob’s proposal, it’s unclear that it COULD happen. If it can’t happen, then we got ourselves _un gran problema, amigo._ So, hows about we let Bob answer? It’s his proposal, after all. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2015, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/koch-brothers-to-spend-900-million-on-2016-elections/710967/157 "2015-02-04T16:26:11Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Can I spend more than that to make a movie about the perils of Climate Change? How about a documentary on the Meat Slaughtering Industry? The social ill of abortion? The need to legalize marijuana? The rampant gun problem plaguing the US? I would limit the law to spending on political advertisements. They’re the 600 pound gorilla in the room. What we have learned over the last 50 years or so is that negative ads work tremendously, and now we’ve got legions of PACs hiding behind the “not affiliated with any candidate” skirt. So my proposal would be that no person could contribute more than $200 to any candidate or PAC, in total. Cut the money out of the PACs and we’ll see elections won on merits and ideas rather than “Tell Senator Ballscratcher to stop forcing Boy Scouts into homosexual Muslim marriages! Not affiliated with any candidate”. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2015, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/koch-brothers-to-spend-900-million-on-2016-elections/710967/158 "2015-02-04T16:33:56Z")
Actually, you’ll see elections based on whether Bill O’Reilly or Rachel maddow makes the more convincing case for their favorite. The real debate won’t be between the candidates, but between the media camps, which will then have complete power to decide how the debate will be conducted and who it will favor. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2015, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/koch-brothers-to-spend-900-million-on-2016-elections/710967/159 "2015-02-04T16:35:06Z")
Sure, **John** , but we are talking about elections, here. Your post veers off into documentaries, propaganda for causes, stuff like that. Which is an interesting subject, but nonetheless, it is _another_ subject. A _different_ subject. I’ll take the high road as well, I’ll accept that maybe you really believe that all political speech is somehow at risk if we attempt to control campaign finance. Do you? Is that your point? ETA: shit, ninja’d again. If only I could think faster, and still be right! ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2015, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/koch-brothers-to-spend-900-million-on-2016-elections/710967/160 "2015-02-04T16:40:41Z")
“Campaign finance” needs to be defined in an amendment better than just that term, which can be expanded as surely as “Interstate commerce” to cover pretty much all speech. BCRA defined banned ads as those “expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate” 90 days before an election or sooner. Which still allowed big money independent spending advocating the election or defeat of a candidate expressly as long as they did it before August(which is actually a pretty critical time to define your opponent), and they could still run ads in the 90 day period as long as they didn’t “expressly” advocate or oppose a candidate. How broadly would you ban campaign ads, and in what forums would you ban them? Are you proposing regulation of the internet now? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/koch-brothers-to-spend-900-million-on-2016-elections/710967.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/koch-brothers-to-spend-900-million-on-2016-elections/710967.md?page=9)