Long live the oligarchy: the return of secret donors - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Baraka_Guru · 10-17-2010, 08:42 AM

Quote:

Return of the Secret Donors
By JILL ABRAMSON
October 16, 2010

To old political hands, wise to the ways of candidates and money, 1972 was a watershed year. Richard M. Nixon’s re-election campaign was awash in cash, secretly donated by corporations and individuals.

Fred Wertheimer, a longtime supporter of campaign finance regulation, was then a lawyer for Common Cause. He vividly recalls the weeks leading up to April 7, 1972, before a new campaign finance law went into effect requiring the disclosure of the names of individual donors. “Contributors,” he said, “were literally flying into Washington with satchels of cash.”

The Committee for the Re-Election of the President was also illegally hauling in many millions of dollars from corporations, many of which felt pressured into making contributions.

The record of donors was so tightly held that it was kept in a locked drawer by Rose Mary Woods, Nixon’s secretary. The list — which came to be known as “Rose Mary’s Baby” — wasn’t released until Mr. Wertheimer forced the issue through a lawsuit. Among those on the list were William Keeler, the chief executive of Phillips Petroleum, who pleaded guilty, during the post-Watergate prosecutions, to making an illegal corporate donation.

Rose Mary’s Baby itself, now an artifact of the nation’s biggest political scandal, sits in the Watergate collection of the National Archives.

In this year’s midterm elections, there is no talk of satchels of cash from donors. Nor is there any hint of illegal actions reaching Watergate-like proportions. But the fund-raising practices that earned people convictions in Watergate — giving direct corporate money to a campaign and doing so secretly — are back in a different form in 2010.

This time around, the corporations are still giving secretly, but legally. In 1907, direct corporate donations to candidates were legally barred in a campaign finance reform push by President Theodore Roosevelt. But that law and others — the foundation for many Watergate convictions — are all but obsolete. This is why many supporters of strict campaign finance laws are wringing their hands.

Certainly, it is still illegal for corporations to contribute directly to candidates. But they now have equally potent ways to exert their influence. This election year is the first since the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, which allows corporations for the first time to finance ads that directly support or oppose political candidates. And tax laws and loopholes have permitted a shadow campaign network of Republican-leaning nonprofit groups to collect a flood of anonymous donations and spend it widely.

If the Republicans make big gains in the House and Senate on Election Day, there is rare bipartisan consensus that they will owe part of their victory to the millions of dollars raised and spent by these nonprofit groups, much of which has come from businesses.

The groups, including the Chamber of Commerce, the American Action Network and Crossroads GPS, which is linked to the Republican strategist Karl Rove, have committed to spending well over $150 million this year. President Obama has railed against these groups as they have poured money into races in which once-secure Democrats are hanging by a thread.

But the attacks may have only helped build the groups’ fund-raising muscle. Crossroads GPS and a sister organization, American Crossroads, have received more than $100,000 in small donations through the Web, when they had expected most gifts to come in big checks. And the groups’ leaders have only grown more influential — far more influential than the Republican National Committee, led by Michael Steele. Evidently, the corporate donors love having a secret route to influence politics and elect Republicans without showing their hands to a Washington still controlled by the Democrats.

In past elections, the Democrats have also used outside groups, including those organized by the party strategist Harold Ickes. In 2004, groups linked to the Democratic Party spent $150 million to influence the elections and agreed to pay $1.3 million in fines to settle charges that they had made illegal expenditures. In the last three elections, Democratic groups substantially outspent Republican groups. But many of these groups were so-called 527s, which were required to disclose donors’ identities.

In this election, Mr. Obama and the Democrats have either refused, or have been unable, to fight fire with similar, Democrat-leaning groups. With an angry Wall Street and donors like George Soros on the sidelines — “I don’t believe in standing in the way of an avalanche,” he recently said — the Democrats don’t have an obvious counter, except for labor unions, which probably can’t match corporate contributors.

Since Watergate, the names of political donors have largely been disclosed, even by so-called independent groups. In 2004 and 2006, nearly all independent groups involved in politics revealed their donors, according to a report by Public Citizen, a group that has long supported campaign finance reform. In 2008, fewer than half of these groups disclosed donors, and so far this year, fewer than one-third.

Because United States tax law permits certain social welfare and labor groups to collect donations anonymously if political activity is not their key focus, the only way to stop the undisclosed donations is to change the law. But Democrats recently failed to move a bill requiring disclosure through the Senate; not a single Republican voted for it.

Such legislation is unlikely to grow any more popular before 2012, and most political experts agree that the secret money spent by outside groups this year will look like a pittance by then, when President Obama will face re-election.

“This year is practice for 2012,” said Jan Baran, a partner at Wiley Rein L.L.P. in Washington, who is a former general counsel of the Republican National Committee. Mr. Baran filed an amicus brief in the Citizens United case on behalf of the Chamber of Commerce, which opposed donor disclosure. “It would lead to intimidation and harassment of contributors,” Mr. Baran explained. (While the decision blessed certain corporate donations, the court supported disclosure requirements for money given to political parties and candidates. The nonprofits were unaffected.)

The 1972 campaign had its own dry run for the fund-raising abuses of Watergate. In 1970, President Nixon tried to orchestrate a Republican sweep in the off-year Congressional elections. Known as the Townhouse Operation, a group of Nixon loyalists, some of whom are leading this year’s nonprofit push, operated out of a townhouse near DuPont Circle in Washington, raising illegal corporate cash and distributing it in key Senate races.

The legacy of Watergate is quite clear. But the repercussions from today’s campaign finance system are still being measured and debated.

“It creates all the appearances of dirty dealings and undue influence because our candidates are awash in funds the public is ignorant about,” said Roger Witten, a partner in the New York office of WilmerHale, who served as assistant special prosecutor in the Watergate special prosecution force. “This is the problem that was supposedly addressed after Watergate.”

Mr. Baran, the Republican lawyer, said Watergate comparisons are way overblown; plenty of restrictions still exist. “To make the Watergate analogy is an exaggeration,” he said, “and I have five inches of statutes that repudiate that comparison.”

Still, some players shaking the corporate money trees for nonprofit groups this year cut their teeth in the Nixon re-election campaign. There is Fred Malek, a founder of the American Action Network, whose members include many well-known Republicans, like former Senator Norm Coleman of Minnesota. Mr. Malek was the White House personnel chief in 1972 and helped dispense patronage for major Nixon donors as well as serving as deputy director of Creep.

Back then, Mr. Malek was interviewed by Hamilton Fox III, another Watergate prosecutor, and acknowledged that some of the campaign’s activities might have “bordered on the unethical.”

In an interview last week, Mr. Malek said he founded his new group to “counter what the labor unions are doing on the Democratic side.” Started in February, the group is split into two parts: the Action Forum, a 501(c)(3), which allows donations to be tax-deductible but limits political activities, and the Action Network, a 501 (c)(4), in which contributions are not deductible or disclosed but the group can advocate for political causes.

The American Action Network has spent heavily in New Hampshire, where it backed Kelly Ayotte, the Republican nominee for United States Senate. She was endorsed in a tough primary battle by Sarah Palin, the former Alaska governor. (Mr. Malek is a fan of Ms. Palin, according to his blog.) Mr. Malek’s group has also spent heavily in Wisconsin, where it hopes to help unseat Russ Feingold, the Democratic senator. It is also spending on close House races.

The American Action Network shares office space with American Crossroads, led by Mr. Rove, who also was an active participant in Nixon’s re-election as executive director of the College Republican National Committee.

Mr. Malek also attends meetings of the Weaver Terrace Group, which was named for the street where Mr. Rove used to live. The participants, who include leading Republican strategists from outside groups, routinely trade political intelligence and sometimes make joint fund-raising trips.

The list of donors for either Mr. Malek’s group or Mr. Rove’s group is unknown. Yet Mr. Wertheimer predicts that the groups will, one day, have to disclose their contributors. “I don’t believe secretly funding our elections can be sustained,” said Mr. Wertheimer, who now runs Democracy 21, which pushes for campaign finance reform. “It won’t hold up. The public won’t stand for it. This is guaranteed corruption.”

With so many different Republican groups spending so much, he said, no desk drawer is big enough to hold the 2010 list of secret donors, like the one that held his hard-fought-for Rose Mary’s Baby.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/17/we...7abramson.html

For those of you who remember Watergate, what do you make of this?

It seems the political process is awash in cash, and its flows seem to be unbalanced in favour of the Republicans. Furthermore, it happens with no requirements for disclosure. Where most donors were disclosed less than five years ago, this year fewer than a third have been disclosed.

This has to be a problem. How is this good for the ostensibly democratic election process?

It's already a big problem when you have big media (i.e. Fox News) with political leanings, but now you have this. You have media and wealth flowing through the political system as a means to influence the process.

How is this democratic?
How is this not an oligarchy?

Money talks, and the people listen.

Congratulations, America, your republic is corrupt, and it's not something you can blame the Democrats for.

Enjoy 2010 and probably 2012. Maybe one day we will find out how they were bought and sold.

ottopilot · 10-18-2010, 09:24 AM

oh please... like this guy hasn't cashed his check. It probably came from some place like the "Tides Foundation". It is grossly naive to presume one party is more or less corrupt than the other. Claiming moral superiority in this argument is like saying one shit-pile is better than another shit-pile.

roachboy · 10-18-2010, 09:37 AM

right....the facile cynicism of a conservative. good-o. i expect that the far-right media apparatus is already busily pooh-poohing on more or less exactly these grounds.

it's ok if conservatives do this because in some imaginary counter-world everyone already does it, even as this is a new phenomenon that is following on the conservative-dominated supreme court's decision that corporate persons are just like you and me...

from the article above:

Quote:

Certainly, it is still illegal for corporations to contribute directly to candidates. But they now have equally potent ways to exert their influence. This election year is the first since the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, which allows corporations for the first time to finance ads that directly support or oppose political candidates. And tax laws and loopholes have permitted a shadow campaign network of Republican-leaning nonprofit groups to collect a flood of anonymous donations and spend it widely.

If the Republicans make big gains in the House and Senate on Election Day, there is rare bipartisan consensus that they will owe part of their victory to the millions of dollars raised and spent by these nonprofit groups, much of which has come from businesses.

The groups, including the Chamber of Commerce, the American Action Network and Crossroads GPS, which is linked to the Republican strategist Karl Rove, have committed to spending well over $150 million this year. President Obama has railed against these groups as they have poured money into races in which once-secure Democrats are hanging by a thread.

Xazy · 10-18-2010, 10:18 AM

Why didn't the democrats close the loophole then, they have control? Obviously it is not a 'Republican' issue but an overall issue with politicians on both sides.

roachboy · 10-18-2010, 10:28 AM

one of the infuriating things about the obama administration is that they do not act like they in fact have control of much of anything. they persisted in believing that the right would participate in bipartisan coalitions. i think they misunderstood what the right had determined was it's strategy.

SecretMethod70 · 10-18-2010, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

one of the infuriating things about the obama administration is that they do not act like they in fact have control of much of anything. they persisted in believing that the right would participate in bipartisan coalitions. i think they misunderstood what the right had determined was it's strategy.

Agreed, to the letter. While the Obama administration has accomplished quite a bit, it's amazing to think of how much more they could have accomplished but now had they really tried. That would have gone some way to alleviating the "enthusiasm" gap they are facing now too.

Tully Mars · 10-18-2010, 04:24 PM

What are the dems going to do when a week before the election the GOP calls their bluff and releases the list only to show all the donors are in fact from the US?

Baraka_Guru · 10-18-2010, 07:03 PM

For every action, a counteraction:

Quote:

Unions Try to Counter Republican Supporters
By MICHAEL D. SHEAR

President Obama and the Democrats have spent much of the last several weeks complaining about outside groups — mostly financed by big business and wealthy donors — that they believe are interfering in campaigns across the country.

But by their own admission, the Democrats are relying more than ever this year on another outside force to help even the playing field: organized labor.

In a memo to be released this morning, the political director of the AFL-CIO argues that any surprise Democratic victories on November 2 may well be the result of an unprecedented effort by the national union in the past weeks.

“Outside the political party committees themselves, we have the largest political mobilization operation in the country,” says Karen Ackerman in a memo obtained by The Caucus.

The ultimate impact of that mobilization is far from clear. Many polls continue to show an enthusiasm deficit among Democrats compared to their Republican counterparts. And many competitive races are in places where union membership is low.

But Ms. Ackerman argues in her memo that more than half of the 75 competitive seats with a Democratic incumbent have high “union density” and could be decided based on the turnout of labor voters. There are 37 House districts with more than 40,000 voters who belong to a union, she writes.

“Union voters are the firewall for candidates that support working families,” Ms. Ackerman writes in the memo.

[...]

Unions Try to Counter Republican Supporters - NYTimes.com

It's interesting to note. However, the indication still points to a gross imbalance.

ottopilot · 10-18-2010, 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

right....the facile cynicism of a conservative. good-o. i expect that the far-right media apparatus is already busily pooh-poohing on more or less exactly these grounds.

it's ok if conservatives do this because in some imaginary counter-world everyone already does it, even as this is a new phenomenon that is following on the conservative-dominated supreme court's decision that corporate persons are just like you and me...

from the article above:

Gee... dismissive redirection posed in bigoted stereotypes? Nothing new to be found in this "imaginary counter-world" either.

The far-right media apparatus? (If you say so!

) The evil Nazis at Faux News have taken over PBS, NPR, ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC, MSNBC, MTV, Comedy Central, Showtime, HBO, the majority of academia, newspapers and magazines. How will we save liberal-dominated AM talk radio from the cynically facile conservative horde?

The article from the OP is nothing more than talking-points propaganda... pure and simple. Corporations, unions, political action committees, shell organizations, bogus foundations, countless vehicles for anonymous donorship (and certainly way-more-creative ways to funnel money than we can imagine) all plentifully exist across all political interests.

---------- Post added at 11:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:56 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xazy

Why didn't the democrats close the loophole then, they have control? Obviously it is not a 'Republican' issue but an overall issue with politicians on both sides.

Excellent point.

dc_dux · 10-19-2010, 04:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xazy

Why didn't the democrats close the loophole then, they have control? Obviously it is not a 'Republican' issue but an overall issue with politicians on both sides.

The House passed the DISCLOSE Act back in June with only two Republican votes.

The Senate Republicans blocked it repeatedly.

While it is far from perfect, it was a first step towards correcting the abuses that resulted from the Citizens United decision.

SecretMethod70 · 10-19-2010, 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

The House passed the DISCLOSE Act back in June with only two Republican votes.

The Senate Republicans blocked it repeatedly.

While it is far from perfect, it was a first step towards correcting the abuses that resulted from the Citizens United decision.

This is one of the more frustrating things about American politics lately. People seem to only pay attention during the last couple weeks of an election and completely lack context for why something did or did not happen. So now, two weeks out, people say "Why didn't the Democrats do X?" and all too often it is for the very same reason that the DISCLOSE Act didn't pass. Yet no one blames the party that blocked the legislation. (To be fair, this is also the result of Democrats doing a terrible job of pointing it out.)

Baraka_Guru · 10-19-2010, 04:14 PM

Well, if the good old-fashioned American democratic process can't save America, at least a secretive cabal of oligarchs is on the case!

Quote:

October 19, 2010
Secretive Republican Donors Planning Ahead
New York Times
By KATE ZERNIKE

A secretive network of Republican donors is heading to Palm Springs for a long weekend in January, but it will not be to relax after a hard-fought election — it will be to plan for the next one.

Koch Industries, the longtime funder of libertarian causes from the Cato Institute to the ballot initiative that would suspend California’s landmark law capping greenhouse gases, is planning an invitation-only, confidential meeting at the Rancho Las Palmas Resort and Spa to, as a confidential invitation says, “develop strategies to counter the most severe threats facing our free society and outline a vision of how we can foster a renewal of American free enterprise and prosperity.”

The invitation, sent to potential new participants, offers a rare peek at the Koch network of the ultra-wealthy and the politically well-connected, its far-reaching agenda to enlist ordinary Americans to its cause, and its desire for the utmost secrecy.

Koch Industries, a Wichita-based energy and manufacturing conglomerate run by the billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch, operates a foundation that finances political advocacy groups, but tax law protects those groups from having to disclose much about what they do and who contributes.

With a personalized letter signed by Charles Koch, the invitation to the four-day Palm Springs meeting opens with a grand call to action: “If not us, who? If not now, when?”

The Koch network meets twice a year to plan and expand its efforts — as the letter says, “to review strategies for combating the multitude of public policies that threaten to destroy America as we know it.”

Those efforts, the letter makes clear, include countering “climate change alarmism and the move to socialized health care,” as well as “the regulatory assault on energy,” and making donations to higher education and philanthropic organizations to advance its agenda.

The Kochs also seek to cultivate Americans’ growing concern about the growth of government: at the most recent meeting, in Aspen, Colo., in June, some of the wealthiest people in America listened to a presentation on “a vision of how we can retain the moral high ground and make the new case for liberty and smaller government that appeals to all Americans, rich and poor.”

The goals for the twice yearly meetings, the brochure says, include attracting more investors to the cause, but also building institutions “to identify, educate, and mobilize citizens” and “fashioning the message and building the education channels to re-establish widespread belief in the benefits of a free and prosperous society.”

Charles Koch, whose wealth Forbes magazine calculates at about $21.5 billion, in his letter argues that “prosperity is under attack by the current administration and many of our elected officials.” In dire language, he repeatedly warns about the “internal assault” and “unrelenting attacks” on freedom and prosperity. The brochure underscores that to the Koch network, “freedom” means freedom from taxes and government regulation. Mr. Koch warns of policies that “threaten to erode our economic freedom and transfer vast sums of money to the state.”

The Kochs insist on strict confidentiality surrounding the Palm Spring meetings, entitled Understanding and Addressing Threats to American Free Enterprise and Prosperity. The letter advises participants that it is closed to the public, including news media, and admonishes them not to post updates or information about the meeting on the Web, blogs, social media or traditional media, and to “be mindful of the security and confidentiality of your meeting notes and materials.”

Invited participants are told they must wear nametags for all meeting functions. And, ensuring that no one tries to gain access by posing as a participant, the invitation says that reservations will be handled through Koch Industries’ office in Washington: “Please do not contact the Rancho Las Palmas directly to place a reservation.”

To give prospective participants a sense of what to expect, Mr. Koch’s letter enclosed a brochure from the group’s meeting at the St. Regis Resort in Aspen, including a list of the roughly 200 participants — a confab of hedge fund executives, Republican donors, free-market evangelists and heavy hitters from the New York social circuit.

They listened to a presentations on so-called “microtargeting” to identify like-minded voters, as well as a discussion about voter mobilization featuring Tim Phillips of Americans for Prosperity, the political action group founded by the Kochs in 2004 which campaigned against the health care legislation passed in March and is helping Tea Party groups set up get-out-the-vote operations.

Other sessions discussed the opportunities in the presidential election of 2012 to address threats to free enterprise and “how supporters of economic freedom might start planning today.”

Impressed by the Koch efforts for the midterms, the invitation cover letter says, Aspen participants “committed to an unprecedented level of support.”

“However,” it adds, “even if these efforts succeed, other serious threats demand action.”

The participants in Aspen dined under the stars at the top of the gondola run on Aspen Mountain, and listened to Glenn Beck, the Fox News personality, in a session titled, “Is America on the Road to Serfdom?” (The title refers to a classic of Austrian economic thought that informs libertarian ideology and that Mr. Beck popularized on his show.)

Participants in the Aspen event included some of the nation’s wealthiest families and biggest names in finance: private equity and hedge fund executives like John Childs, Cliff Asness, Steve Schwarzman and Ken Griffin; Phil Anschutz, the entertainment and media mogul ranked by Forbes as the 34th richest person in the country; Rich DeVos, the co-founder of Amway, Steve Bechtel of the giant construction firm, and Kenneth Langone, a founder of Home Depot.

The group also included longtime Republican donors and officials, including Foster Friess, Fred Malek and former Attorney General Ed Meese.

Participants listened to presentations from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, as well as people who played leading roles in John McCain’s presidential campaign in 2008, like Nancy Pfotenhauer and Annie Dickerson, who also runs a foundation for Paul Singer, a hedge fund executive who like the Kochs is active in promoting libertarian causes.

To encourage new participants, Mr. Koch offers to waive the $1,500 registration fee. And he notes that previous guests have included Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, Gov. Haley Barbour and Gov. Bobby Jindal, Senators Jim DeMint and Tom Coburn, and Representatives Mike Pence, Tom Price and Paul D. Ryan.

Mr. Koch also notes the beautiful setting. But he advises against thinking of this as a vacation.

“Our ultimate goal is not ‘fun in the sun,’ ” he concludes. “This is a gathering of doers who are willing to engage in the hard work necessary to advance our shared principles. Success in this endeavor will require all the help we can muster.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/20/us...cs/20koch.html

roachboy · 10-19-2010, 07:49 PM

o good. a january bund meeting.

aceventura3 · 10-20-2010, 07:17 AM

Much ado about nothing.

I vote based on a politician sharing my views and my values. Money never influenced my vote. TV commercials never influenced my vote. Second hand information never influenced my vote. I don't think I am unique in this regard.

Cimarron29414 · 10-20-2010, 07:51 AM

bg -

The only thing that article forgot to mention is that Tuesday's breakout session is a workshop on new techniques for stealing orphans' lunch money.

roachboy · 10-20-2010, 07:58 AM

right. because the oligarchs are so irrelevant.

Quote:

A Tea Party of populist posers

By Dana Milbank
Wednesday, October 20, 2010; A17

On the morning of Oct. 14, a cyber-insurgency caused servers to crash at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

The culprits, however, weren't attacking the chamber; they were well-meaning citizens who overwhelmed the big-business lobbying group with a sudden wave of online contributions. It was one of the more extraordinary events in the annals of American populism: the common man voluntarily giving money to make the rich richer.

These donors to the cause of the Fortune 500 were motivated by a radio appeal from the de facto leader of the Tea Party movement, Glenn Beck, who told them: "Put your money where your mouth is. If you have a dollar, please go to . . . the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and donate today." Chamber members, he said, "are our parents. They're our grandparents. They are us."

They are? Listed as members of the chamber's board are representatives from Pfizer, ConocoPhillips, Lockheed Martin, JPMorgan Chase, Dow Chemical, Ken Starr's old law and lobbying firm, and Rolls-Royce North America. Nothing says grass-roots insurgency quite like Rolls-Royce -- and nothing says populist revolt quite like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. In describing the big-business group as "us," Beck (annual revenue: $32 million) provided an unintended moment of clarity into the power behind the Tea Party movement. These aren't peasants with pitchforks; these are plutocrats with payrolls.

There is genuine populist anger out there. But the angry have been deceived and exploited by posers who belong to the same class of "elites" and "insiders" that the Tea Party movement supposedly deplores. Americans who want to stick it to the man are instead sending money to the man.

Consider the candidates on the ballot next month who are getting Tea Party support. In the Connecticut Senate race, there's Linda McMahon, who with her husband has a billion-dollar pro-wrestling empire. The challenger to Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold in Wisconsin, Ron Johnson, is a millionaire manufacturing executive. The former head of Gateway computers, Rick Snyder, is spending generously from his fortune to win the Michigan governor's race.

In New York, the Republican gubernatorial candidate is developer Carl Paladino, with a net worth put at $150 million. And Rick Scott, running for governor in Florida, has a net worth of $219 million from his career as a health-care executive. Then there's California, where the Republican Senate nominee is former Hewlett-Packard chief executive Carly Fiorina and the gubernatorial candidate is former e-Bay boss Meg Whitman.

Democrats have their phony populists, too. Billionaire Jeff Greene, who cashed in on subprime mortgages, made an unsuccessful attempt at the U.S. Senate nomination in Florida. But more often this year, it's the Democrats who are defending themselves against the "elite" allegation.

"The elite's fear and loathing of the tea party movement is rooted in the recognition that the real change is only now coming," writes Tony Blankley, the conservative commentator who exempts himself from the elite label even though he worked for the speaker of the House and now toils for a prominent PR firm. The Tea Party, he wrote, will "constrain the elite's economic and cultural hegemony."

Oh? Who will do this constraining of the elite's hegemony? Why, people such as the Tea Party's Senate candidate from Alaska, Joe Miller (Yale Law School); and from Kentucky, Rand Paul (Duke Medical School), and from Colorado, Ken Buck (Princeton University).

And who will be helping these anti-elite elites get into office? Well, there's FreedomWorks, a Tea Party outfit run by Dick Armey, the former Republican lawmaker whose last job was with a big lobbying firm. His deputy at FreedomWorks is Matt Kibbe, who worked for none other than the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

There's also the Tea Party Express, the creation of longtime Republican consultant Sal Russo. A colleague at Russo's consulting firm pitched the Tea Party Express idea as a way to boost the company's bottom line. According to an internal e-mail intercepted by the New York Times, it came from a "desire to give a boost to our PAC and position us as a growing force/leading force."

The guy who put together the Tea Party "Contract From America" previously worked on Rudy Giuliani's presidential campaign. Another Tea Party group, Americans for Prosperity, has been lavishly funded by the billionaire Koch brothers.

A movement of the plutocrats, by the political professionals and for the powerful: Now that's something Tea Partyers should be mad about.

Dana Milbank - A Tea Party of populist posers

wake up.

Baraka_Guru · 10-20-2010, 08:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Much ado about nothing.

I vote based on a politician sharing my views and my values. Money never influenced my vote. TV commercials never influenced my vote. Second hand information never influenced my vote. I don't think I am unique in this regard.

I hope not. However, the pessimist in me thinks you're a rarity. Money controls the message.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cimarron29414

The only thing that article forgot to mention is that Tuesday's breakout session is a workshop on new techniques for stealing orphans' lunch money.

Well, at least they're not kicking puppies. However, if the Brothers Koch and their ilk had their way, orphanages might take on a whole new Dickensian aesthetic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

right. because the oligarchs are so irrelevant.

Yes, money controls the message.

SecretMethod70 · 10-20-2010, 08:24 AM

ace: assuming your statements are correct (most people love to think they're immune to the things you mentioned, but study after study proves otherwise), you are the exception not the norm. Not by a long shot.

Baraka_Guru · 10-20-2010, 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SecretMethod70

ace: assuming your statements are correct (most people love to think they're immune to the things you mentioned, but study after study proves otherwise), you are the exception not the norm. Not by a long shot.

I'm willing to believe ace, to an extent. He mentioned not being influenced in terms of his vote. I'm assuming he would only vote for those who share his values, and that it should be fairly clear whether a politician poses with those values or not.

He didn't state that he isn't influenced by money and media in other ways. We all are.

I'm also assuming he doesn't get all his information from TV, or, worse, a single TV show. I can't say the same for others.

EDIT: As an aside, I don't believe him when he calls this much ado about nothing. That assumes that undecided swing voters are nothing, among other things.

aceventura3 · 10-20-2010, 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SecretMethod70

ace: assuming your statements are correct (most people love to think they're immune to the things you mentioned, but study after study proves otherwise), you are the exception not the norm. Not by a long shot.

I would like to see those studies.

I agree that money may be a reason that a person may or may not run for office, and that can have an influence over my choices - but for example the Green Party could spend $100 billion dollars on the next election and I will never be in line with their views. My father has been a Democrat for the last 50 years, it would not matter how much secrete money big business gives to a Republican Candidate he is going to vote for the guy he thinks is best for "labor". He is a union man to the core, I am not even sure he would vote for me.

---------- Post added at 05:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:33 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

I'm willing to believe ace, to an extent. He mentioned not being influenced in terms of his vote. I'm assuming he would only vote for those who share his values, and that it should be fairly clear whether a politician poses with those values or not.

He didn't state that he isn't influenced by money and media in other ways. We all are.

I'm also assuming he doesn't get all his information from TV, or, worse, a single TV show. I can't say the same for others.

EDIT: As an aside, I don't believe him when he calls this much ado about nothing. That assumes that undecided swing voters are nothing, among other things.

People vote for candidates for many reasons, I doubt who their donors are or how much money they spend is a primary concern. Often, big money candidates loose.

I am going to assume no one here is going to say their vote is for sale, do you know people where that would be true?

I do know people who vote on non-partisan elections, i.e. judges, school board, etc. who admit to doing silly things when making a choice - but that diminishes for statewide or national office.

I can imagine if I were homeless and someone was willing to give me cash, I would certainly vote and take the cash, but then they would not have a guarantee that I would vote the way they wanted - and given my personality I would vote for the other guy.

Again, I conclude this is a non-issue, and if it is - for ever movement in one direction there would be a movement in the other, canceling any real impact.

Cimarron29414 · 10-20-2010, 10:21 AM

bg-

Yeah, those Koch brothers are real assholes.

David H. Koch Charitable Foundation and Personal Philanthropy

$600 million given or pledged to charity in the last decade.

roachboy · 10-20-2010, 10:29 AM

boo hoo. those poor koch brothers. boo hoo.

except of course they are assholes:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...och_Industries

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2...urrentPage=all

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/29/opinion/29rich.html

etc.

Baraka_Guru · 10-20-2010, 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cimarron29414

Yeah, those Koch brothers are real assholes.

David H. Koch Charitable Foundation and Personal Philanthropy

$600 million given or pledged to charity in the last decade.

I wouldn't call them assholes for funding good initiatives. Though it should be noted that philanthropy for many is good PR, and I don't deny that this $600 million is a good thing. But it essentially amounts to less than 3% of his entire fortune. So it's kind of a pet project of his maybe. Well, no, it's a bit more than that. As a cancer survivor, I can see why he'd want to put money towards cancer research. I can also see why he'd want to put money towards arts and education. He's really into ballet. And instilling a sense of national pride in young people. That's all fine.

Does he do as much to fight poverty?

It seems to me that he hopes others like him would be so kind to be interested enough in that. Unless you think he's cool with the state doing it.

Unfortunately, taking up the cause for poverty isn't as sexy.

Cimarron29414 · 10-20-2010, 11:40 AM

I understand their politics are different than yours and they advance those politics as earnestly and with as many resources as they have at their disposal, just like you do. Just like I do. I guess we are all assholes.

I also know that they gave $600M away, and didn't have to.

roachboy · 10-20-2010, 11:58 AM

alot depends on what you think they're up to, really.
my impression is that the koch brothers really don't have much truck with this democracy business, preferring something closer to a corporate oligarchy.
if that's true and they aren't exposed (at the least) and they manage to get something like power (or to own those who are in power) i think things could go very badly indeed.

i am not at all one of these people who thinks all political viewpoints are matters of opinion, man, and that it's all good.
i think there are some political viewpoints which are dangerous.
neo-fascism for example.
what the koch brothers stand for as another example.

Cimarron29414 · 10-20-2010, 12:26 PM

rb-

I grapple frequently with the question of whether your politics (if implemented) are dangerous. While sometimes it's not clear to me how far you would take this measure or that idea, I do find myself concluding that at least a subset of your politics is dangerous. Conversely, your understanding of my politics might lead you to believe mine are dangerous. You, of course, would not believe any of yours to be dangerous. Nor would I believe mine to be, nor the Koch brothers theirs.

~shrug~ I don't know where I'm going with this. I think I've lost my taste for political debate. I'm too busy setting my own house in order, as it were.

roachboy · 10-20-2010, 12:39 PM

i dont really think your particular political viewpoint is problematic, cimmaron, for what it's worth.
and i don't often lay out where i come from here politically. i like direct democratic council forms in general. i used to think alot about social revolution. now i don't know what that could mean, really.

i think the koch brothers are dangerous not only for their ultra-reactionary corporate oligarchy political views but also because they're in a position to buy access to media-space and are willing to hide behind less--um---repellent viewpoints in order to construct networks. i think their views should be more widely known. i think there should be way way more transparency than there is in the funding process. at the moment, the central obstacle to transparency is coming from the organized right, and that for purely instrumental purposes. they've been able to use the united citizens decision to run a 3-card monty routine organizationally and have latched onto the tea party as an astroturf front. given that they can buy their way onto commercial media outlets and have free commercial time passed off as news at fox, they've been able to concoct the illusion that there is somehow a "new right" in motion. but that's really all about the same old assholes repositioning themselves so they don't have to take responsibility for their own records.

the koch brothers are a big part of funding that shell game.
i think they should be exposed at every turn, held to account. ideally, they should be stopped. but that's just because i don't think corporate oligarchy just an opinion, man.

maybe you do.

or it's like this:

Quote:

N.A.A.C.P. Examines Race in the Tea Party Movement
By KATE ZERNIKE

The nation’s oldest and largest civil rights organization declared in a report released Wednesday that the Tea Party was “permeated with concerns about race,” an assessment that is likely to reignite a feud between the two groups.

The report by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People argues that Tea Party groups “have given platform to anti-Semites, racists and bigots,” and have attracted white nationalists looking for recruits.

“The Tea Party movement has unleashed a still inchoate political movement who are in their numerical majority, angry middle-class white people who believe their country, their nation, has been taken from them,” argues the report, called Tea Party Nationalism.

Written by Leonard Ziskind, who has written extensively on white nationalism, the report looks at what it calls six nationwide Tea Party networks at the core of the movement. It says that leaders of all but one — FreedomWorks, a libertarian group in Washington headed by Dick Armey, a former House majority leader – have raised questions about President Obama’s birth certificate or have ties to white supremacist groups.

Most of the groups the report focuses on are better described as social media networks that predate the Tea Party movement but have become popular among Tea Party activists, among others. The core of the movement remains local Tea Party and 9/12 groups, which are harder to analyze because of their diffuse nature; the report explicitly notes that it did not make an effort to examine these groups.

And a foreword from the N.A.A.C.P.’s president, Benjamin Todd Jealous, notes that the vast majority of Tea Party supporters “are sincere, principled people of good will.”

But the N.A.A.C.P. also points to signs at Tea Party rallies with explicitly racist or racially charged language. It notes that several black congressmen accused Tea Party supporters of shouting racial epithets at them in March, during a rally against health care legislation on Capitol Hill. And Mr. Jealous called on Tea Party leaders to repudiate this kind of racism, as well as ties to white supremacist groups and “birthers” within the ranks of the movement.

The N.A.A.C.P. passed a similar resolution seeking such a repudiation at its convention in July. Tea Party leaders reacted angrily, saying that there was no proof that the incidents outside the Capitol had occurred. And they have long said that they do not harbor racists.

Still, the N.A.A.C.P. report notes that slowly, Tea Party leaders have expelled leaders accused of making racist remarks – a move it calls “welcome first steps.”

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2...er=rss&emc=rss

you can't deny that the tea party has given a platform for racists, and that it's public manifestations are shot through with racist sentiments---from the birthers on to the very basic animating illusion that "our country's been taken from us."

but maybe you're alright with a political movement that is so very very easily used by racists and anti-semites on the one hand, and is being itself used by old-school republican political operatives on the other to hide from their own record.

maybe you think racism is just another opinion, man.
i don't.

o yeah...here's a link to the naacp report. i suggest you read it before you start bitching about the organization that released it.

http://www.teapartynationalism.com/i...=29&Itemid=102

it's very interesting.
if you're sympathetic to the tea party, you should be concerned about this stuff.
you don't have to approve and it's pointless to go down the road of saying "but the tea party isn't that" because we all know that the tea party isn't exactly anything. so it's the sum of parts and these are parts and if you don't like them it's probably better to agitate to get rid of the lunatics from within the tea party than it is to complain about people who point them out.

but that's just my opinion, man.

Cimarron29414 · 10-20-2010, 01:16 PM

For the sake of this discussion (read: the government might be reading this), I suppose I need to define what I mean by "dangerous". I suppose I mean a detrimental change to my way of life - which is admittedly broad and murky. I do not mean to imply that anyone on here means physical harm to others through their politics....for the record - again because often these things get taken out of context...and the government might be reading this.

I don't know about the NAACP. It is an organization formed for the purpose of advancing only certain races. I just can't take them seriously when they accuse some other race of wanting to advance itself - even if I believed that to be true - which I don't.

I know it will infuriate you, but I just can't take what they say seriously because their agenda is defined as advancing their chosen races. I wish I could get there and examine the report critically, I just can't. Similarly, I doubt you would take a report funded by the Koch brothers seriously.

If it makes you feel any better, every time I try to think the word "Koch" my mind says "Cock". So, I've been calling them cocks this entire discussion.

roachboy · 10-20-2010, 01:22 PM

well, given that that is a possibility, i should say that i meant the same thing as cimmarron in all cases.

roachboy · 10-22-2010, 09:43 AM

Quote:

Despite tea party energy, outside groups funded by Swift Boaters, other old hands

By Dan Eggen and T.W. Farnam
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, October 22, 2010; 1:25 PM

The Swift Boaters are back.

Funders of the stealth campaign against presidential candidate John Kerry have returned in force six years later, giving millions of dollars to independent groups targeting Democrats in the November midterms, according to election disclosures and other records.

The donations are part of a broader pattern of giving this year dominated by longtime party fundraisers, Wall Street financiers and energy tycoons. Despite the burst of new political energy surrounding the tea party movement, only a thin slice of the population is donating, with the number of Americans giving $200 or more dropping dramatically.

Records suggest that much of the money fueling a wave of negative attack advertising comes from a stable of old political hands with roots going back as far as the Nixon era.

American Crossroads, one of this year's biggest Republican-friendly spenders, has received 42 percent of its money from a dozen supporters of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, the independent group that ran ads in 2004 accusing Kerry of lying about his war record, according to a Washington Post analysis. The single biggest contributor to the group, with $7 million, is Bob J. Perry, the Texas home builder who was the top Swift Boat financier.

Perry and other Swift Boaters have given millions more to other prominent conservative groups as well, including the Republican Governors Association and the First Amendment Alliance, an independent group funded primarily by energy executives from Texas and Colorado.

On the left, a "super PAC" called America's Families First has reported contributions of $25,000 or more from wealthy Democratic donors including party fundraiser Fred Eyechaner, Barack Obama bundler Orin Kramer and Silicon Valley banker Sanford Robertson, records show. Others Democratic-friendly groups such as the Patriot Majority PAC rely heavily on large union transfers for their funding.

But the pattern of outsized giving is far more noticeable this year among independent conservative groups, which have drawn on a deep bench of Republican rainmakers while many of their liberal rivals are sitting out this election. Past GOP powerbrokers spending big again this year include casino magnate Sheldon Adelson; energy tycoon T. Boone Pickens; media mogul Philip Anschutz; and George W. Bush bundler Robert Rowling, records show.

These and other donors, who are revealed in disclosure documents filed with the Federal Election Commission or Internal Revenue Service, are only part of the fundraising picture. Much of the outside funding this year is going to large unions such as AFSCME, and nonprofit groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which are not required to publicly disclose many of their contributions.

The rise in monied donors comes amid a significant drop in contributions among the broader electorate, experts say. In 2008, propelled by the presidential race, more than 1.3 million Americans contributed $200 or more to a political campaign, according to the Center for Responsive Politics; this year that number has been cut in half.

"The reality is that American elections are financed by a very small number of people," said David Donnelly, director of Campaign Money Watch, which favors public financing for elections. "There aren't that many people who can play at that level or who can engage at that level, which means they have an inordinate amount of power."

Many of the largest independent groups are run or supported by a who's who of Republican operatives, from former Bush aides Karl Rove and Ed Gillespie - who helped launch American Crossroads - to Fred Malek, whose Washington political career stretches back to the Nixon administration. Malek is chairman of the American Action Network, which has spent over $7 million on House and Senate races, and has served as an adviser to former Alaska governor Sarah Palin (R).

Even Dick Morris, the Clinton-aide-turned-conservative-pundit, has gotten into the act, launching the aptly named Super PAC of America with the goal of raising $20 million. The group announced a $600,000 ad buy against Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) this week.

The tilt of outside giving is notably different than many previous election cycles, including 2004 and 2006, when unaffiliated liberal groups matched or exceeded their Republican-friendly opponents. This year, by contrast, some major Democratic players such as the financier George Soros have largely held back from funding election-related activities.

On the conservative side, well-connected groups with big donors have largely eclipsed the efforts of tea party-affiliated groups such as the Tea Party Express, which has spent only $2 million on election activities this year, much it during the primary season, FEC records show.

Keith Appell, senior vice president at CRC Public Relations of Alexandria, which helped orchestrate the Swift Boat campaign in 2004, said tea party groups have had little luck attracting deep-pocketed donors in part because of their populist roots.

"We have worked with several tea party organizations directly and indirectly, and all of them have been looking for financing of one kind or another," Appell said. "We have not seen any big-money people emerge in those groups. It's more organic than people give it credit for."

GOP consultant Ron Bonjean said the lack of "new money" in this year's elections isn't surprising. "Outside groups usually start with big donors to get them off the ground and then new donors usually follow once they are well established," he said.

American Crossroads has received at least $10 million from Swift Boat group veterans, including Perry; $2 million from investor Harold C. Simmons; and $400,000 from a company run by Ohio billionaire Carl Lindner, according to FEC filings. Overall, $21.5 million of the $24 million reported by the group has come from donors giving $100,000 or more, the data show.

B. Wayne Hughes, the billionaire founder of Public Storage Inc., gave $2.3 million to American Crossroads and sits on the board of the American Action Network, a group spearheaded by former GOP senator Norm Coleman of Minnesota. Hughes is a longtime GOP donor who contributed to Progress for America, which worked on behalf of Bush and other Republicans in 2004 and 2006.

Jonathan Collegio, a spokesman for American Crossroads and its sister group, Crossroads GPS, which does not disclose donors, said focusing on the largest contributors obscures a rush of money from small- and medium-range donors. He said the Crossroads groups have taken in numerous unsolicited contributions from Midwestern businessmen and others giving $10,000 or less to the cause.

"A lot of folks are trying to make the case that the big money is artificially driving the intensity, but that gets it precisely backward," Collegio said. "The intensity of the grass-roots movement, starting with the tea parties, is what is driving the bigger contributors."

Other groups are also getting support from donors linked to the Swift Boat group, including the New Prosperity Foundation, which is running advertising to support Republican candidates in the Midwest. Hunter Engineering, a private manufacturing firm, gave $50,000 to the group. The company is run by Steven Bauer, a Swift Boat donor and a former ambassador to Belgium under Bush. Sam Fox, a Bush fundraiser and Swift Boat donor who was also appointed to be ambassador to Belgium by Bush in 2007, gave another $25,000 to New Prosperity, as did investment manager David Herro.

Perry, the owner of Houston-based Perry Homes, is garnering the most attention because of his leading role in giving $4.45 million to the Swift Boat group in 2004. The 77-year-old custom home builder has given at least $30 million to independent conservative groups and candidates over the past decade, including at least $14 million in the 2010 cycle, records show.

One beneficiary this year is New Mexico gubernatorial candidate Susana Martinez, who received $450,000 from Perry and his wife. (The state does not have donation limits.)

In Espanola, N.M., last week, former president Bill Clinton called attention to the Perry donations, describing the Swift Boat campaign as "the most dishonest ads in my lifetime" and suggesting that the Perrys had ulterior motives in supporting Martinez.

"They didn't just say, 'Oh, there's a girl born in Texas, I think I'll send her 800,000 bucks," Clinton said, drastically inflating the amount in his remarks. "I just feel so good that a girl from Texas made good in New Mexico, I think we'll ship 800 grand over there," Clinton added.

Then, wagging his finger, Clinton quipped: "I don't think so!"

Perry, who generally avoids the public spotlight, declined to talk about his political giving this year. "The donations speak for themselves," said Anthony Holm, a Perry spokesman.

Staff writer Philip Rucker contributed to this report.

Despite tea party energy, outside groups funded by Swift Boaters, other old hands

same old dog shit in a different burning lunch bag.

10-18-2010, 09:24 AM	#2 (permalink)
ottopilot let me be clear Location: Waddy Peytona	oh please... like this guy hasn't cashed his check. It probably came from some place like the "Tides Foundation". It is grossly naive to presume one party is more or less corrupt than the other. Claiming moral superiority in this argument is like saying one shit-pile is better than another shit-pile. __________________ "It rubs the lotion on Buffy, Jodi and Mr. French's skin" - Uncle Bill from Buffalo Last edited by ottopilot; 10-18-2010 at 09:28 AM..

10-18-2010, 10:18 AM	#4 (permalink)
Xazy People in masks cannot be trusted Location: NYC	Why didn't the democrats close the loophole then, they have control? Obviously it is not a 'Republican' issue but an overall issue with politicians on both sides. __________________ Now, a clever man would put the poison into his own goblet, because he would know that only a great fool would reach for what he was given. I am not a great fool, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. But you must have known I was not a great fool, you would have counted on it, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.

10-18-2010, 10:28 AM	#5 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	one of the infuriating things about the obama administration is that they do not act like they in fact have control of much of anything. they persisted in believing that the right would participate in bipartisan coalitions. i think they misunderstood what the right had determined was it's strategy. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

10-18-2010, 04:24 PM	#7 (permalink)
Tully Mars Living in a Warmer Insanity Super Moderator Location: Yucatan, Mexico	What are the dems going to do when a week before the election the GOP calls their bluff and releases the list only to show all the donors are in fact from the US? __________________ I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club

10-19-2010, 07:49 PM	#13 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	o good. a january bund meeting. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

10-20-2010, 07:17 AM	#14 (permalink)
aceventura3 Junkie Location: Ventura County	Much ado about nothing. I vote based on a politician sharing my views and my values. Money never influenced my vote. TV commercials never influenced my vote. Second hand information never influenced my vote. I don't think I am unique in this regard. __________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

10-20-2010, 07:51 AM	#15 (permalink)
Cimarron29414 Still Free Location: comfortably perched at the top of the bell curve!	bg - The only thing that article forgot to mention is that Tuesday's breakout session is a workshop on new techniques for stealing orphans' lunch money. __________________ Gives a man a halo, does mead. "Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

10-20-2010, 08:24 AM	#18 (permalink)
SecretMethod70 Human Administrator Location: Chicago	ace: assuming your statements are correct (most people love to think they're immune to the things you mentioned, but study after study proves otherwise), you are the exception not the norm. Not by a long shot. __________________ Le temps détruit tout "Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

10-20-2010, 10:21 AM	#21 (permalink)
Cimarron29414 Still Free Location: comfortably perched at the top of the bell curve!	bg- Yeah, those Koch brothers are real assholes. David H. Koch Charitable Foundation and Personal Philanthropy $600 million given or pledged to charity in the last decade. __________________ Gives a man a halo, does mead. "Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

10-20-2010, 10:29 AM	#22 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	boo hoo. those poor koch brothers. boo hoo. except of course they are assholes: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...och_Industries http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2...urrentPage=all http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/29/opinion/29rich.html etc. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 10-20-2010 at 10:34 AM..

10-20-2010, 11:40 AM	#24 (permalink)
Cimarron29414 Still Free Location: comfortably perched at the top of the bell curve!	I understand their politics are different than yours and they advance those politics as earnestly and with as many resources as they have at their disposal, just like you do. Just like I do. I guess we are all assholes. I also know that they gave $600M away, and didn't have to. __________________ Gives a man a halo, does mead. "Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

10-20-2010, 11:58 AM	#25 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	alot depends on what you think they're up to, really. my impression is that the koch brothers really don't have much truck with this democracy business, preferring something closer to a corporate oligarchy. if that's true and they aren't exposed (at the least) and they manage to get something like power (or to own those who are in power) i think things could go very badly indeed. i am not at all one of these people who thinks all political viewpoints are matters of opinion, man, and that it's all good. i think there are some political viewpoints which are dangerous. neo-fascism for example. what the koch brothers stand for as another example. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

10-20-2010, 12:26 PM	#26 (permalink)
Cimarron29414 Still Free Location: comfortably perched at the top of the bell curve!	rb- I grapple frequently with the question of whether your politics (if implemented) are dangerous. While sometimes it's not clear to me how far you would take this measure or that idea, I do find myself concluding that at least a subset of your politics is dangerous. Conversely, your understanding of my politics might lead you to believe mine are dangerous. You, of course, would not believe any of yours to be dangerous. Nor would I believe mine to be, nor the Koch brothers theirs. ~shrug~ I don't know where I'm going with this. I think I've lost my taste for political debate. I'm too busy setting my own house in order, as it were. __________________ Gives a man a halo, does mead. "Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

10-20-2010, 01:16 PM	#28 (permalink)
Cimarron29414 Still Free Location: comfortably perched at the top of the bell curve!	For the sake of this discussion (read: the government might be reading this), I suppose I need to define what I mean by "dangerous". I suppose I mean a detrimental change to my way of life - which is admittedly broad and murky. I do not mean to imply that anyone on here means physical harm to others through their politics....for the record - again because often these things get taken out of context...and the government might be reading this. I don't know about the NAACP. It is an organization formed for the purpose of advancing only certain races. I just can't take them seriously when they accuse some other race of wanting to advance itself - even if I believed that to be true - which I don't. I know it will infuriate you, but I just can't take what they say seriously because their agenda is defined as advancing their chosen races. I wish I could get there and examine the report critically, I just can't. Similarly, I doubt you would take a report funded by the Koch brothers seriously. If it makes you feel any better, every time I try to think the word "Koch" my mind says "Cock". So, I've been calling them cocks this entire discussion. __________________ Gives a man a halo, does mead. "Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly." Last edited by Cimarron29414; 10-20-2010 at 01:27 PM..

10-20-2010, 01:22 PM	#29 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	well, given that that is a possibility, i should say that i meant the same thing as cimmarron in all cases. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite