Pity the poor Koch Brothers, just a couple of regular guys trying to do the right thing

By Richard K. Barry

Big joke. The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) says that it inadvertently sent a letter to the Koch Brothers asking for a political contribution. Given the Koch Brothers' long history of financing fake "grassroots movements" and throwing money at every conceivable roadblock to creating a fairer society for more Americans, it does, at first blush, appear to be an obvious mistake.

Having said that, like most corporations in America, the Koch Brothers have probably, over time, financed both Democrats and Republicans if the candidate in question happened to be either on side with a particular corporate interest or deemed "swayable."

It seems too obvious to say, but, because corporations have so much cash to distribute, they throw their money in all directions on the chance that it might somehow have an impact consistent with whatever public policy goal they find useful.

That the Koch Brothers would have ended up on a list of those who had previously donated to individual Democratic candidates, and therefore be a potential target for a DSCC fundraising pitch, seems not only possible, but likely. It's the nature of list management in the world of high volume political fundraising. Lists are the real currency of politics: donors, supporters, opinions leaders, volunteers, sign locations, etc.

In fact, Politico reports that the Kochs did donate almost $200,000 to Democratic organizations in 2010 and $30,000 to the DSCC in the same cycle.

So, the "how dare you" response by the Koch Brothers seems a little strained to me, but predictable.

Clearly, though, if the DSCC had been paying more attention they would have pulled the letter, knowing that it would be a minor public relations bonanza for those on the right with too little else to do with their time. In that sense, it was a mistake.

Blah, blah, blah.

More interesting for me, though, was the final paragraph in the letter sent by a Koch Companies public affairs hack to the DSCC complaining about the request for financial support. It read:

It is troubling that private citizens taking part in the discourse have become the targets of White House and DSCC fundraising missives, and we would certainly encourage you to rethink that approach.

Give me a break. Holding aside that whole bizarre thing about corporate personhood, an entity as large, influential and powerful as the Koch Companies is a behemoth able to act in the public sphere in a way so dramatically different from what a "private citizen" could do as to make the Koch claim ridiculous.

In 2008, Forbes called Koch the 2nd largest privately held company in the United States, stating that it had an annual revenue at that time of $98 billion. Say it to yourself slowly, "an annual revenue of $98 billion."

I guess Koch's political activities would sort of be just like the guy down the street with a photocopier and a pet political issue to flog, except that it would be totally different from that.

It seems that we are supposed to feel sorry for the Koch Brothers because some would want to shine a light on their political activities to get a firmer grasp on how they spend some of that money to makes friends and influence people.

Oh, cut the crap.

Koch Industries is a monster corporation that has and will continue to grease whatever palms it thinks might be useful on whichever side of the aisle.

Nice try at indignation. Not buying.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

The Koch funded echo chamber

By Creature

If I was still blogging, I'd so post this video. Well, since I still have the keys here at The Reaction, what the hell.


[Via Digby]

Koching up some trouble

By Capt. Fogg

"Good Lord. These are truly evil people"

says The Impolitic and it's hard to disagree. Of course the people that thought it would be a "conservative" thing to do; giving struggling Detroit homeowners fake foreclosure notices, don't think they're being vandals trying to destabilize civilization and built a "conservative" Utopia on the ruins. In fact the Koch brothers who seem to be behind this prank have a vision for the future that more resembles an Orwellian horror with the part of Big Brother played by corporate robber barons like them and the sinister, black menace portrayed by Barack H. Obama. Their lackeys see it otherwise, I'm sure. A step in the final solution of the "colored problem" that the Liberals and do-gooders brought upon Detroit and a reaction to the stunning affront of ACORN having forced a black president on us -- a man nobody voted for, of course. The new North. It's the old South without the sheets.

It's truly hard to describe this sort of thing in the way we describe rational human conduct, because it isn't any more rational than drunken football hooliganism or beer hall riot -- and a hell of a lot more dangerous. It's all the more dangerous for the lack of attention given. CNN.com today provides a bright colorful farrago of sex scandal, new Facebook features, the exploits of rappers and little else. Indeed what else concerns us?

(Cross posted from Human Voices)

Birthers, Deathers, will the madness never end?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

The release of President Obama's long-form birth certificate certainly didn't silence the Birthers, but, regardless, there's room for many ridiculous conspiracy theories on the right -- not that Birtherism is a theory, it's more of a sickness of the mind -- and the killing of Osama bin Laden has produced a new one, Deatherism, with Deathers questioning the veracity of Osama's death.

(Sigh.)

Deatherism lies mainly on the right, where Obama's Republican opponents will do, say, and think anything that seems to discredit him, however insane, but it's not exclusively a right-wing phenomenon. Regardless, I doubt it will have much staying power, and certainly not nearly as much as Birtherism, largely because most of Obama's critics are criticizing him on other grounds -- a few on the left, like Michael Moore, criticizing him for acting illegally in "executing" Osama, many more on the right criticizing him for any number of ridiculous things, like being too slow to act, and/or, like David Koch, refusing to give him any credit at all.

I myself have been critical of the White House's handling of the post-killing spin, but on the basic fact of the incredibly risky, incredibly courageous action to raid Osama's hideout and, yes, kill the terrorist mastermind, Obama deserves enormous credit.

Not that the facts will do anything to convince those who prefer paranoia to reality.

Elephant Dung #29: David Koch, of Koch Brothers fame, smacks down Donald Trump

Tracking the GOP Civil War

By Michael J.W. Stickings

(For an explanation of this ongoing series, see here. For previous entries, see here.)

This is soft, mushy dung tied up in a bow.

On Saturday, David Koch told the New York Daily News that Trump isn't exactly his choice for the White House -- and doesn't exactly have what it takes to be president:

"Donald Trump is exposing himself to a lot of attacks," said Koch. "As much as I like Donald, he's sort of asking for it." He laughed again, then observed that "Donald's political positions over the last 10 years have been highly variable and unusual. He's a wonderful guy, but I don't think he should run for office."

Noting Trump's love of press, Koch said the "Celebrity Apprentice" host is "getting more publicity than he ever dreamed about right now." But, he added, "at some point I think he's going to drop out of the race when he realizes that he's really not qualified to be President."

Allow me to quibble:

First, "a wonderful guy"? I suppose right-wing billionaires who prop up the Tea Party and seek to turn government into a wholly-owned subsidiary of Corporate America have their own ideas of "wonderful."

Second, I'm sure Trump has dreamed of this much publicity before. He probably dreams of even more.

Third, this won't be about Trump himself coming to realize he's not qualified to be president. Assuming that he thinks he's qualified, and that's a fairly safe assumption, he'll never not think he's qualified. It's part of who he is, a megalomaniac who thinks he can do no wrong and that he's better than everyone else. He's not even running yet, but should he, if/when he drops out it won't be because he's come to some sort of awareness of his limitations but because he doesn't want to subject himself to the toil and travail, and spotlight, of a serious national political campaign, because he doesn't want the various skeletons in his closet to be brought to light, and maybe also because he knows/suspects he'd lose, however much that contradicts his overriding sense of superiority.

But who knows? Maybe he'll run and maybe he'll even do well. Would you really put it past the GOP to go with a loudmouth megalomaniacal celebrity businessman who panders to its extremism?

In any event, it may be helpful to remember what Koch said.

In "defense" of the Koch Brothers

By Carl

What's really interesting about this piece by United Steelworkers President Jon Geenen is how it's being spun by the low-normals of the right wing as a defense of the Koch brothers. It's not. It's a devastating attack on them tempered only by the warning that a boycott against them would shoot union members in the foot.

It's tough to be a billionaire

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Glenn Greenwald looks at the self-pity of the Koch brothers et al.:

Since the financial crisis of 2008, one of the most revealing spectacles has been the parade of financial elites who petulantly insist that they are the victims of societal hostility: political officials heap too much blame on them, public policy burdens them so unfairly, the public resents them, and -- most amazingly of all -- President Obama is a radical egalitarian who is unprecedentedly hostile to business interests...

I'm not someone who sees the Koch Brothers as some sort of unique threat. I mostly regard them as little more than a symbol of the death of democratic values in the U.S. -- the way in which the possession of vast financial resources is an absolute prerequisite to making any impact on the national political process, and conversely, how those without such resources are politically inconsequential and impotent (short of their fomenting serious social unrest)...

For billionaires to see themselves as the True Victims, to complain that the President and the Government are waging some sort of war against them in the name of radical egalitarianism, is so removed from reality -- universes away -- that's it's hard to put into words. And the fiscal recklessness that the Kochs and their comrades tirelessly point to was a direct by-product of the last decade's rule by the Republican Party which they fund: from unfunded, endless wars to a never-ending expansion of the privatized National Security and Surveillance States to the financial crisis that exploded during the Bush presidency. But whatever else is true, there are many victims of fiscal policy in America: the wealthiest business interests and billionaires like the Koch Brothers are the few who are not among them.

Much of this self-pitying anger is directed at Obama, which is pretty hilarious given that, as Greenwald points out, Obama has been very much a part of the problem, allowing the corporate control of America that was so much a part of the Bush II presidency (and so much a part of America -- see the excellent Inside Job, if you haven't already -- regardless of who's in the White House and which party controls Congress) to continue. In that regard, he hasn't really changed anything, even if Republicans keep trying to portray him as a socialist. He is nothing of the kind. He has been very good to Wall Street and very good to Corporate America generally.

And as for the billionaires:

This is exactly the psychological affliction that leads Wall Street plunderers and tycoons and billionaires to see themselves as the victims of the resentful lower-classes and the "radical egalitarians" who run the U.S. Government. Even as they get richer and everyone else gets poorer, even as the very few remaining restraints on their political power are abolished, even as the disparities in wealth and power grow ever-larger, they become increasingly convinced that everything is stacked against them, that there is a grand conspiracy to deprive them of what is rightfully theirs. All of this could be confined to a fascinating, abstract psychological study if not for the fact that the people who think this way exercise the most political power and continue to exercise more and more.

And for the fact that, as American democracy collapses in on itself and becomes a sham, and as American wealth is concentrated more and more in the hands of the plutocracy, the vast majority of the American people, many of whom are sinking further and further into debt and further and further into abject hopelessness and utter despair, have little to no power at all.

I'm not sure that's quite what the Founders envisioned.

Union-busting and the Koch brothers' plans for our future

By R.K. Barry

As we consider attempts by Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin to bust public sector unions, not to mention New Jersey Governor Chris Christie's constant rants against these unions in his own state, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that there is a plan afoot – a concerted effort by Republican politicians to do something that they always wanted to do but may not have previously seen a clear path to accomplish.

And, although former White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel has been widely credited with saying that one should never let a good crisis go to waste, it seems his best students have been Republican governors.

Yes, the economy went to rat shit because of the malfeasance of Wall Street types, leaving everyone feeling vulnerable to personal economic collapse, which, in turn, has given Republican politicians the excuse they have longed for to get rid of public sector unions.

It's pretty simple. Point to people who have bargained their salaries and working conditions in good faith, have come to agreement with their employers as part of a legitimate negotiating process, and make them a target for others who are in precarious employment situations, or perhaps unemployed.

Feed on the worst aspects of human nature, which is to say that if some people are not doing well, others, with whom they may generally occupy the same economic class, should not be doing well either. Make it sound like everyone in a public sector union is driving a luxury car and vacationing in the Riviera. Divide working people so they cannot be a threat to the power of wealth and privilege in American. Make then forget who got us into this mess in the first place and stop them from asking annoying questions. Brilliant.

What is not being talked about enough, I believe, is that the assault on public sector unions is an assault on the idea that government is an effective force for good in our society. But, in this case, it's a two-for-one sale. Attacking public sector unions is an attack on the idea of an expanded role of government but also on the idea of unions: two forces that have always been a major impediment to massive private wealth in the United States doing whatever it chooses to do (while admittedly playing that role imperfectly).

Two things that wealth and privilege hate in America: government regulating their activities and working people having their own independent base of power. Take away collective bargaining for public sector unions and you clear the way for making government smaller and destroy yet another potential oppositional force. 

The rhetoric of someone like Governor Christie is priceless. In his world, gold-plated public sector contracts are paid for by working people who don't happen to be on the gravy train. This creates the potential of working people at each other’s throats with the goal of reducing the size of government and its ability to regulate the economy while destroying unions all at the same time. Who would have thought that an economic crisis could be so useful for the power elite?

How any working people can believe that smaller government and fewer effective unions will mean that they will have more freedom and autonomy to do the things they want to do is beyond me.

Whether one wants to go back and look at John Kenneth Gailbraith's theory of countervailing power or some variant of Robert Dahl's theory of pluralism, whatever else their defects, it's pretty obvious that there is real and concentrated economic power in America and those who hope to have real freedom and autonomy had better consider how they will come together, and organize, to challenge that power. Government at times can be helpful, unions as well, as can many different kinds of social movements.

Working people who fail to organize in their own interests or fail to support others who do will wonder how it is that their piece of the pie got so small.

Reduce the size and effectiveness of government, destroy the right of people to bargain collectively, to organize politically, and you will have ceded the entire playing field to the same Wall Street hacks and their cheerleaders in the Republican Party who have grown pretty comfortable with the growing inequalities of wealth in America.

The genius of the right is that they have always been able to find ways to get working people to fight amongst themselves.

Tea Partiers may think that reducing the size of government and the power of public sector unions will lead to a utopia where everyone, even the least among us, is free to realize his or her own version of the American Dream.

The Koch brothers sincerely thank you for being so naive.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)