Koch Brothers to Spend $900 Million on 2016 Elections

[Pleonast]

@Martin_Hyde

Money isn’t speech, but organizing is. Money isn’t speech, but making documentaries is. Money isn’t speech, but direct mailing is. Money isn’t speech, but rallies and ground events are. Money isn’t speech, but newspaper advertisements are.

This is exactly right. There’s little point to having free speech if people cannot pool and spend their resources to advocate their political opinions. I agree with little of what the Kochs think, but I treasure living in a society where people can peacefully try to influence the political process.

[John_Mace]

What financial limit should there be on spending for political speech, and how do you come up with that figure? Because my copy of the 1st amendment says “Congress shall make no law…”. It’s one thing to say: Well, that’s only for political speech, but quite another to say: Well, that’s only for political speech costing less than $X.

[BrainGlutton]

According to this analysis, the significant thing is that the Kochs are playing a long game.

Here’s what the long game looks like, at least the way the Kochs are playing it. The long game is a House of Representatives that is, thanks in part to Citizens United and the 2010 census, almost guaranteed to stay Republican for the foreseeable future. The long game is a GOP establishment that knows it can only diverge from the Tea Party in style (and not substance) if it wants to survive a primary challenge from a Koch-funded opponent. The long game is a new era of almost unprecedented dominance on the part of the GOP when it comes to politics on the state level. And the long game is a feeder system that sends those far-right state-level conservatives to Congress — while threatening to replace them with someone else if their time in D.C. weakens their devotion to the cause.

In other words, if you broaden your timeline since 2010 from years to decades, the Koch brothers’ track record starts looking a whole lot better. At the same time, the Democrats’ chances to build a new, economically populist party for the 21st century start to look a whole lot worse. Have you heard that because Democrats are so few in number on the state level and in the halls of Congress, the party lacks a “bench”? Sure, that’s partially just the usual partisan crowing from right-wingers. But like the Kochs themselves, these conservatives are looking at state politics for a reason. Another example: Americans often pick governors as their presidents. Almost every high-profile governor in the U.S. right now is a Republican; you can partially thank the Kochs for that, too.

So while I’m sure the Kochs desperately want Republicans to win the White House in 2016 — especially given the stakes for the Supreme Court, which are likely to be abnormally high — I have no doubt that much of their promised nearly $1 billion will be trickling down to races that are much further from public view. The Kochs and their buddies are fighting the battles of the here and now, of course. But they’re trying to design a right-wing machine to dominate American politics in the near- and medium-term future, as well. On the whole, it’s gone rather well for them thus far. And as Tuesday’s news showed, they have no intention of stopping.

[Chefguy]

@ITR_champion

PastTense’s title for this thread, “Koch Brothers to Spend $900 Million on 2016 Elections”, is not true. The political organization they work with is planning to spend that amount, but it comes from a great many donors, not just the two of them.

True, but no less obscene. Neither side of the political fence has a monopoly on this, of course.

I think Mitt’s last three houses cost about this much, didn’t they?

[BrainGlutton]

@Chefguy

Neither side of the political fence has a monopoly on this, of course.

No, but I’m sure the Kochs, etc., pour a lot more money into the game than Soros, etc.

[doorhinge]

@Snowboarder_Bo

Why did you put his name in quotes? Do you “think” it’s not “really” his “name”? Why do you think that, “ITR champion”? :dubious:

“Rich Richman”, get it? “Rich” plus “Richman”. A rich richman named “Rich Richman” is being mined for Democrat gold. That’s just priceless.

[doorhinge]

@BrainGlutton

No, but I’m sure the Kochs, etc., pour a lot more money into the game than Soros, etc.

Maybe you could tell Soros to stop creating/funding political groups that are trying to influence U.S. elections, and to stop donating money to American politics, in general? Soros could lead by example or Soros is leading by example.

[BrainGlutton]

@doorhinge

Maybe you could tell Soros to stop creating/funding political groups that are trying to influence U.S. elections, and to stop donating money to American politics, in general?

You go first. After you’ve talked the Kochs out of the game, I’ll think about approaching Soros.

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@doorhinge

“Rich Richman”, get it? “Rich” plus “Richman”. A rich richman named “Rich Richman” is being mined for Democrat gold. That’s just priceless.

1. You aren’t ITR champion so I’m not sure why you’re responding.
2. You didn’t explain anything.

[doorhinge]

@BrainGlutton

You go first. After you’ve talked the Kochs out of the game, I’ll think about approaching Soros.

I don’t want the Koch bros, or their organizations funding, to leave politics. Liberals, progressives, Democrats, etc. can whine about Koch bros donations while they ignore the huge amounts of money Democrat donators provide. It almost seems like a double standard or bizarre movie cliche.

*Otter: He can’t do that do that to our pledges.
Boon: Only we can do that to our pledges.

• Animal House*

[Thudlow_Boink]

How much did they spend on the 2012 election?

I found a site that claims it was over $400 million.

How much of an effect did that have? I don’t know, but at least we know who won the presidential election that year.

[BobLibDem]

@John_Mace

What financial limit should there be on spending for political speech, and how do you come up with that figure? Because my copy of the 1st amendment says “Congress shall make no law…”. It’s one thing to say: Well, that’s only for political speech, but quite another to say: Well, that’s only for political speech costing less than $X.

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.

[BrainGlutton]

@Thudlow_Boink

How much did they spend on the 2012 election?

I found a site that claims it was over $400 million.

How much of an effect did that have? I don’t know, but at least we know who won the presidential election that year.

See post #43.

[Pleonast]

@BobLibDem

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.

I keep seeing the phrase “buy elections”, but beyond being a code word for “using money to advocate political opinions” I’m not sure what it means. So what do you mean by “buy elections”?

If I buy a poster board and markers to write “Vote Obama” on it, am I trying to buy the election?

Also, using disparaging terms does a disservice to your argument.

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@Pleonast

I keep seeing the phrase “buy elections”, but beyond being a code word for “using money to advocate political opinions” I’m not sure what it means. So what do you mean by “buy elections”?

If I buy a poster board and markers to write “Vote Obama” on it, am I trying to buy the election?

Also, using disparaging terms does a disservice to your argument.

What if you buy ALL the poster board and write “Vote Obama” on it?

[ITR_champion]

@Snowboarder_Bo

Why did you put his name in quotes?

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.

[Pleonast]

@Snowboarder_Bo

What if you buy ALL the poster board and write “Vote Obama” on it?

Then the paper companies win.

But seriously, it’s not possible. A quick search shows US production of paperboard was $22 billion in 2001. When people who want to make political posters can’t because of supply shortages, we can begin to limit political posters. Until then, it’s not a problem.

Martin Hyde discussed 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.)

[BrainGlutton]

@Snowboarder_Bo

What if you buy ALL the poster board and write “Vote Obama” on it?

Put another way – From The Next American Nation, 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. 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.*

*A much more compelling analogy would be between the electoral process and the judicial system, with the electorate playing the role of the jury. In our system of trial by jury, there are elaborate rules governing the presentation of evidence to the jury by plaintiff and defendant (the “candidates”). If our judicial system were organized the way our judicial system is, then rich candidates would be allowed to buy time before the jury. Texas Senator Phil Gramm, in one Senate election, outspent his opponent by 300 to 1; the equivalent, in the judicial system, would be allowing a rich defendant to buy, say, six months to present his side of the case, while the poor plaintiff might be able to purchase only twenty minutes for his side.

[BrainGlutton]

@Pleonast

I keep seeing the phrase “buy elections”, but beyond being a code word for “using money to advocate political opinions” I’m not sure what it means. So what do you mean by “buy elections”?

“We don’t buy votes. What we do is we buy a candidate’s stance on an issue.”

– Allen Pross, executive director, California Medical Association’s PAC (1989).

[BrainGlutton]

@BrainGlutton

“We don’t buy votes. What we do is we buy a candidate’s stance on an issue.”

– Allen Pross, executive director, California Medical Association’s PAC (1989).

Sorry, better link.