Today (4/4/16) the Supreme Court unanimously threw out a challenge to the "one man, one vote" concept that was established in Court decisions from the 1960s. The Project on Fair Representation (PFR) in Texas. The question they raised is must redistricting be based on total population or the number of voters in the district, a move which would push power back to rural areas and away from urban areas (the norm until the 1960s) (Also Texas joined the administration in opposing this.)
What this Forum is wondering is the influence of Dark Money behind the conservative movement.
Why do I ask? Because a quick Google search revealed that the Koch Brothers gave, since 2005, $5.2 million to a 501(c)(3) public “charity” dedicated to financially supporting economic freedom (which the Koch's are also responsible for). This "charity" then dispersed the money to ALEC, who wrote the model voter discrimination laws enacted by many Southern states to suppress Democratic votes (they say it is to stop non-existent fraud by illegals) and PFR, who did successfully convince the Court to throw out Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Does conservative Dark Money drive the politics of the Right?
Even as a Republican, I don't have a problem with the decision. It was based on precedent and to hear it was unanimous, makes its even better. We could use more of that.
That being said, for all the fear mongering about the Koch brothers, I will say this: If their $$ is so influential, why haven't we won the Presidency since 2004 and will probably lose it again in 2016? Our margins are very slim everywhere. The country is deeply divided. This is the same argument I use about Citizens United, which another Democratic talking point. If it's so destructive, why doesn't my party have a majority everywhere? Not just in Congress or the Presidency, but the Statehouses, Governorships and Mayoralties? And this latest SC ruling proves yet again that $$ does not buy as much as you think. I'm pretty sure they are not enamored with Trump.
The Koch brothers employ thousands throughout the country. They also help keep 30+ hospitals afloat in diverse communities.
So while I laud the Court ruling, I think we need to stop worrying so much about the Koch Brothers.
Koch is Big Money, by definition inherently evil and to be stamped out.
Koch is Dark money, not just big, and that is the problem.
So what are you calling Dark Money and why is it a problem?
Dark Money is money that cannot be tracked back to its source. For example, Koch gives his tax deductible Koch Foundation which doesn't have to identify its funding sources. Now there are many avenues that can be taken. One is that the Kochs put on semi-annual "seminars" whose invitees are like-minded billionaires and multimillionaires, along with specially selected conservative politicians and Supreme Court justices. The purpose of these meetings is to discuss political issues which may get in the way of their ability to make money AND to make very large donations, along with the Koch Foundation to another organization which is also tax deductible and will protect the identities of the donors.
This organization, not necessarily the same one each time, then spread out to support think tanks like Cato, buy Department Chairs and educational programs at various universities like George Mason, establish and fund organizations like ALEC and Project of Fair Representation and hundreds of other such propaganda outlets and action committees. Even the Tea Party was created by these people, trained in how to disrupt meetings, and all made to look like it was a grassroots movement ... it isn't.
There is an "invisible hand" (Koch's words, not mine) behind most of the far right activity to shape Republican policies and programs and, ultimately, national politics as well.
The Kochs have admitted they have effectively established a third political party whose funding, $800+ million, is equal to either the Republican or Democratic Party ... and none of it can be traced back to its source.
Now that may not seem like a problem to you, but it sure does to me.
Is there no Democratic "dark money?" No money from Wall Street? None from foreign sources? I guess it all depends on what side you're on.
Does it also depend on how much money each side is spending?
The Koch brothers revealed they were spending $900 million on this election including 1,200 full time staff people. For the sake of accuracy, they recently admitted they may not spend that much because of lower donations (and because of Trump).
George Soros, who is often criticized by the right for being the same problem as the Kochs, first announced that he is spending $3 million and recently increased that number to $8 million, according to various news reports.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/27/us/po … .html?_r=0
Your question concerning "dark money" driving the conservatives, combined with the slant of your perspective, ("model voter discrimination laws"), posed a second question; "Is it only the Conservatives that use "dark money?"
A quick Google search returned some answering headlines:
"When Democrats aren’t complaining about the rise of “dark money” in this year’s election, they are raising it themselves."
"...At the forefront is the nonprofit Patriot Majority USA, which is providing Democrats with a countervailing force against the political machine of conservative billionaires Charles and David Koch. This election cycle, Patriot Majority USA has spent more than $7 million on political advertisements, according to reports filed with the Federal Election Commission."
"Liberal 'dark money' group rails against 'dark money' "
"...One catch: The group behind the video, a nonprofit called American Family Voices, doesn’t generally reveal who funds its operations — although a Center for Public Integrity review of Internal Revenue Service and Department of Labor records indicates large unions, environmental interests and a major corporate retail lobbying group have this decade provided it with six- or seven-figure contributions."
"Is 'dark money' boosting Bernie Sanders?"
"...Friends of the Earth Action. The national environmental nonprofit this week released an ad that praises Sanders’ green record and highlights his early opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline.
... Friends of the Earth Action is a “social welfare” nonprofit, also known as a 501(c)(4) organization. Under law, 501(c)(4) nonprofits are not required to disclose their donors."
There were more, but these are enough to make the point that your OP is only addressing one side of the coin. Did you wonder if the Dems did it too? Why did you choose to address only Conservative group's use of "dark money?"
ps. I noticed that the $5.2 million you mentioned the Koch brothers have spent since 2005 is dwarfed by the $7 million the Patriot Majority USA group spent in one election cycle, (2014 midterm elections).
The $5.2 million is a drop in the bucket for the Kochs and about 1/20th to 1/40th of what just the Kochs spend, not to mention Stephen Schwarzman, Paul Singer, Richard Strong, Robert Mercer, Steven A. Cohen, Philip Anschutz, Sheldon Adelson, Oliver Grace Jr., Richard Farmer, Stephen Betchel Jr, Thomas Steward, Ken Langone, Richard DeVos, James Pope (the man behind the conservative take-over of the NC gov't), Corbin Robertson Jr., Richard Gilliam, Harold Hamm, J. Larry Nichols, Kevin Crutchfield, to name a few members of the Koch Fully Integrated Network
All you can come up with Soros.
Does the Left benefit from Dark Money, I have no doubt. But the magnitude of it is minuscule compared to the above group of Right-wing donors who coordinate, strategize among themselves in secret. What is more, at the state level and effectively guiding American opinion, they have been more than successful. The Presidency, fortunately, is out of reach of their extremism.
That is quite a list of names. If all those donors are known then maybe their efforts aren't so dark. Sorros was the only name I mentioned to make a point. I doubt he is the only name that can be found that is associated with Liberal dark money.
I am also a lot less confident than you appear to be that the Left's dark money efforts are "minuscule" compared to the Right's. That would imply that only the Conservatives are smart enough to take advantage of a powerful tactic.
If you were speaking of illegal acts in the Right's dark money efforts this would be a different conversation, and I would be on the wagon with you, but you seem to consider the act of concerted and organized effort to be proof of wrong doing. I don't.
I will have to give your declaration that the Right is more successful on the state and local level some more thought. It might seem to be saying the Conservative message is better received at the 'people' level than it is on the national process level. Hmm
If the Left as much money in play, Jane Meyer would have have found evidence of it given her goal was to uncover as much as she could the source of ALL dark money, not just that from the Right. If the Left was as deeply involved as the Right, she would have reveled it.
No, most of the money she writes about isn't illegal, thanks to Citizens United. Its application to the political scene, however, is dark; the people getting the message the money pays for have no idea who is behind the message.
- Koch gives $10 million to his foundation,
- his non-profit, tax deductible foundation gives $5 million each a couple of non-profit, tax deductible front organizations, A and B, whose purpose is to hide the money.
- "A" gives $1 million to a series of non-profit, tax deductible advocacy organizations, like Project for Fair Representation, or non-profit, tax deductible Think Tanks, like the Cato Institute (which Charles Koch is the major owner).
- The Think Tanks churn out "authoritative" papers supporting libertarian points of view and the advocate groups run ads against Obamacare or bring suit. And nobody knows who is funding all of this; they make it look like a grassroots effort when in fact, it is very coordinated strategy being implemented by the rich and powerful.
There is no similar network on the Left's side that she could uncover.
The efforts you point out, and the hypothetical you list have not been deemed as wrong because they are illegal, but wrong because the Right seems, (by your view), to be doing it better than the Left. At least that is the appearance of your criticism.
It could be said that Patriot Majority USA is a similarly functioning operation for the Left. Just on a smaller scale maybe?
My perspective is that the Kochs', like anyone else, have a right to support and promote their views - as longer as they stay within the law. I would bet a nickle that a little research will find most of the legislation concerning lobbying and campaign finance were Democrat efforts. Sour grapes?
If acceptance of the message is optional, does the origin of the message matter? Would you discredit a warning of fire in a burning theater if the 'warner' were a rapist?
If dark money were flowing through left-wing coffers, I would mention it as well, dark money is dark money where ever it comes from. It is just that so little of it can be found on the Left.
There is "no" Left-wing equivalent to the semi-annual, semi-secret Koch Summits designed to plan the next moves and raise funds to pay for it; none, nada.
There is no Left-wing equivalent to the coordinated "network" of think tanks, college seats, PACs, shell companies, and charity bundling organizations whose funding has been traced back to the same set of money men and women and their associated foundations ... all tax deductable and non-profit. Here is a short list of such organizations:
- American Enterprise Institute
- Atlas Economic Research Foundation
- Cato Institute (a liberatarian think tank owned by Charles Koch)
- David Horowitz Freedom Center
- Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, which advocates for free-market solutions to environmental issues and dissent on anthropogenic global warming
- Commonwealth Foundation for Public Policy Alternatives, a Harrisburg-based libertarian think tank
Foundation for Economic Education
- Free Congress Foundation (headed by Jim Gilmore)
- Freedom House
- GOPAC (headed by Newt Gingrich)
- Independent Women's Forum
- Intercollegiate Studies Institute (which operates the Collegiate Network)
- Judicial Watch
- Landmark Legal Foundation
- Media Research Center (headed by Brent Bozell)
- Pacific Legal Foundation
- Reason Foundation
Can you come up with a similarly long list of "networked" organization? Save for the Cato Institute, one of the major donors is (was, he died in 2014) Richard Mellon Scaife and his foundation. Other players with most of those organizations listed above are the Koch Integrated Donor Network, Art Pope and his foundation, and, and, and.
I'm not seeing the Koch Brothers listed among the world's worst villains on the new leaked documents "PANAMA PAPERS", a corporate gatekeeper for western elites' dirty money.
Corporate Media Gatekeepers Protect Western 1% From Panama Leak: "Craig Murray is an author, broadcaster and human rights activist. He was British Ambassador to Uzbekistan from August 2002 to October 2004 and Rector of the University of Dundee from 2007 to 2010."
* https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives … nama-leak/
Whoever leaked the Mossack Fonseca papers appears motivated by a genuine desire to expose the system that enables the ultra wealthy to hide their massive stashes, often corruptly obtained and all involved in tax avoidance. These Panamanian lawyers hide the wealth of a significant proportion of the 1%, and the massive leak of their documents ought to be a wonderful thing.
Unfortunately the leaker has made the dreadful mistake of turning to the western corporate media to publicise the results. In consequence the first major story, published today by the Guardian, is all about Vladimir Putin and a cellist on the fiddle. As it happens I believe the story and have no doubt Putin is bent.
But why focus on Russia? Russian wealth is only a tiny minority of the money hidden away with the aid of Mossack Fonseca. In fact, it soon becomes obvious that the selective reporting is going to stink.
The Suddeutsche Zeitung, which received the leak, gives a detailed explanation of the methodology the corporate media used to search the files. The main search they have done is for names associated with breaking UN sanctions regimes. The Guardian reports this too and helpfully lists those countries as Zimbabwe, North Korea, Russia and Syria. The filtering of this Mossack Fonseca information by the corporate media follows a direct western governmental agenda. There is no mention at all of use of Mossack Fonseca by massive western corporations or western billionaires – the main customers. And the Guardian is quick to reassure that “much of the leaked material will remain private.”
What do you expect? The leak is being managed by the grandly but laughably named “International Consortium of Investigative Journalists”, which is funded and organised entirely by the USA’s Center for Public Integrity.
Their funders include:
Rockefeller Family Fund
W K Kellogg Foundation
Open Society Foundation (Soros)
among many others. Do not expect a genuine expose of western capitalism. The dirty secrets of western corporations will remain unpublished.
Expect hits at Russia, Iran and Syria and some tiny “balancing” western country like Iceland. A superannuated UK peer or two will be sacrificed – someone already with dementia....
Follow the Bad Money here.
Let's see how this pans out or gets blown over.
This could make a Chevy convert out of a Ford man!
THE PRICE OF OFFSHORE REVISITED*
NEW ESTIMATES FOR MISSING GLOBAL PRIVATE
WEALTH, INCOME, INEQUALITY, AND LOST TAXES
PDF: http://www.taxjustice.net/cms/upload/pd … 120722.pdf
Lock down has begun...JP Morgan has started to limit cash withdrawals at ATM machines.
I read in the Corporate Media that the leader of Iceland was involved and has resigned. I didn't see that in your write up.
No. The PM of Iceland, David Gunnlaugsson is not going to resign over Panama Papers. There were false rumors of him stepping down.
John Podesta is the Chairman of the 2016 Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, and has been linked to the Panama Papers.
The Panama Papers are being used as a political weapon by the elites. While Soros funded journalists refuse to cover the real story. The media would rather push that Putin (Putin isn't even named in the papers) is connected in the scandal, but they avoid everything that involves the "untouchable" globalists. They will name foreign regimes they want to take out, but not one of them. They are trying to deflect the attention off of the real bad money boys and girls and spinning it to their advantage. They might sacrifice one of their own yet who is senile already anyway.
Its an enormous blackmail operation. I imagine the CIA is involved.
Anyway, the Panama off shore accounts are big news as news goes. Its the Reno scandal I'm interested in now.
Color says - "No. The PM of Iceland, David Gunnlaugsson is not going to resign over Panama Papers. There were false rumors of him stepping down. "
ME says - Color is very wrong ... see http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/05/europe/pa … celand-pm/
That error sort of "colors" the rest of your comment.
She's a little late on her information is all. His first reaction was that he would NOT resign, but pressure from other politicos there "convinced" him otherwise.
I'm not sure being several days behind the time bothered Color much. On the day the story broke, I saw the same headline about the PM not resigning. Then one or two days later I read (CNN) or heard (POTUS) where he changed his mind. And that was a few days ago.
If Color is off on that, then how about the rest of the assertions. For example, the claim that Podesta is 'Linked" to the Panama Papers. Well they were "linked" as much as the janitor the Russian bank who is implicated in the Papers (that is the link) hired to clean their floors. This bank hired Podesta's firm to lobby for them. That makes it really hard to take Color seriously.
The Prime Minister's office in Iceland has just issued a press statement in English to the international press saying that the Prime Minister has not resigned, merely stepped aside for an unspecified amount of time and will continue to serve as the Chairman of the Progressive Party.
David Gunnlaugsson says he did not resign. Modified 6 Apr 2016
Iceland Monitor: http://icelandmonitor.mbl.is/news/polit … s_release/
RT: https://www.rt.com/news/338534-iceland- … gn-panama/
Nothing has changed from two three days ago.
According to AP, Putin denied having any links to offshore accounts and described the Panama Papers document leaks scandal as “part of a U.S.-led plot to weaken Russia.”
“You are all journalists here and you know what an informational product is… They’ve plowed through offshore [funds]. [Putin] is not there, there is nothing to talk about. But the task has been assigned! So what have they done? They’ve created an informational product by having found some acquaintances and friends,”
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/b2e8d290 … ken-russia
Lots of propaganda floating around.
Whether he is trying to unresign is neither here nor there. As you can see from this article, the Agriculture Minister was sworn today, Apr 7, 2016 (http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/05/europe/pa … celand-pm/)
How can that happen if the former PM hadn't resigned earlier?
When CU was decided, a conservative operative named Ed Gillespie, in concert with Carl Rove and a few others, met and developed the Redistricting Majority Project (REDMAP). Realizing that they haven't been able to sell their extreme libertarian (read Tea Party) views to the majority of Americans, the Koch Integrated Donor Network (their name, not mine) took a different tact, adopting REDMAP whose plan was to take over state offices. North Carolina, funded by the Pope Foundation, is a prime example of their national success.
So, why, in spite of the influence of the Koch brothers, do you think that the GOP consistently have been losing Presidential contests. The money Koch and others from the right use to 'game' the system is far in excess of that by, say, Soros and the left. The GOP still has done well in Congress and State Houses, as the populace moves toward the Democrats as a whole, how long can that be maintained.
BTW, I found intriguing WWII articles on your site, I will drop by soon.
How are you so certain the Right's dark money exceeds the Left's dark money? Koch and Soros are just the most visible faces, not the totality. Just a quick search turned up Left leaning dark money examples that exceeded those mentioned in the OP.
Could the lack of Conservative success you mentioned possibly be due to the Dems using as much, or more "dark money?"
I did use the more visable faces, and was prompted by that to check out for other sources
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/st … rats-or-r/
This seems to indicate that the GOP and conservative interest spend more but only by a slight margin. OK
The conservatives lack of success is due to lot more than the influence of dark money, IMHO.
Starting with an understanding that both sides are essentially spending similar amounts of money, (a few hundred million doesn't seem like so much when you are talking trillions), and agreement that money, (dark, or public), wasn't a Republican problem almost feels like a VIP pass to the Bonus level. I think I'll grab a martini and jump to the next natural question...
"Why is this bad? When does legally lobbying for something become a bad thing?"
I have the impression that it's a matter of scale for most folks.
An immediate distrust if it is of a Koch or Sorros scale, or a reserved impression waiting for more info in examples of less magnitude - such as a local Main Street cupcake merchant spending money to support a local mayoral or councilman candidate.
I don't think legal lobbying, of any magnitude, is wrong. I say it is natural and right to do so. To turn it into a moral or ethical question is to also turn it into a philosophical one. Good luck with that.
First, your assumption that the amount of Dark Money, money that can't be traced back to its source, is equal between Left and Right. Jane Meyer, who decided to follow the money to see where it led, found that amount of Dark Money coming from the Right overwhelms that coming from the Left ... overwhelms !
Further, the Right has organized a byzantine network of foundations, charities of one sort or another, chairs at various educational institutions like George Mason University, front mail box organizations to send and disperse hidden funds , organizations such as ALEC and PFR. The Kochs call it a "fully integrated [donor] network" whose purpose is to replace this government with one based on their extreme version of libertarianism, almost to the point of anarchism.
Hey there again,
If you trust your source's "overwhelming" determination that works for me. I was using Credence's source determinations because they are inline with readings I checked out. The tracking of this type of money seems to me to be less than foolproof, so you keep yours and I will keep mine.
As to the network of foundations etc. - don't you think the left "dark money" is doing the same thing? *(minus the "...extreme version of libertarianism, almost to the point of anarchism" rhetoric of course)
Just read Jane Meyers "Dark Money", especially her 20 pages of references and sources
Well, my reading docket is already pretty full, I am trying to finish a couple tomes now so I can start on one about Eisenhower during the war years. But I will look into your Jane Meyers recommendation.
The question remains about 'legal lobbying'. The line is drawn and there is a danger that lawmakers take all of this money and are expected to recompense donors with legislation that they want, regardless of the fact that the lawmakers were hired by me and thousands of others to tend to our business not those of the plutocrat.
I blame the lawmakers for this state of affairs, so I want them all to report as to how much money they received and from whom. Influence peddling is part of our democracy, but the Government is not for sale. For the most part, I don't trust wealthy people, naturally, and I say their influence on how Government actually runs and how actually responsive it is to the will of the people is suspect.
The line between legal lobbying and influence, verses unethical or illegal is a pretty slippery slope.
Greetings again, Cred,
I agree that the line between legal and unethical can be a "slippery slope," but that is not the discussion... As I see it.
To date, I have seen nothing that indicates the Koch efforts are illegal. If we, (collectively), set the rules, then complaining about the injustice of getting beaten within them is unsupportable.
I read MyEsoteric's OP as a complaint that the Right is beating the Left, at a game they are both playing. A mental picture of a kid crying to mom that he couldn't win because the other guy was better than him comes to mind.
A strong effort was made to layout the details and scope of the "unfair" Koch brother's "network" of influence, but none of those details were claimed to be illegal. And, it was acknowledged that the Left is attempting to do the same thing the Kochs are doing, just not on as large a scale, or even nearly as successfully.
I would say the essence of MyEsoteric's OP is a sore loser's cry of unfairness."
If looked at from the most primitive step, the cupcake maker offering a free tasting night at the mall in support of some cupcake-beneficial rule is no different than the Koch's "network" of infuencers(yeah, yeah, (SP) I know), bringing home the bacon via grassroots support.
GA, you are correct, for the most part. Because of Citizen United, much, but not all, of what they do is legal ... just unethical and very, very dangerous. A few of their groups, such as Center to Protect Patients Right, Small Business Action Committee, American for Responsible Leadership ... all found guilty by California for breaking finance laws. The original source of money for those organizations was the Koch Integrated Donor Network and the Koch Freedom Partner's Action Fund.
All of these hundreds of PACs, Foundations, Think Tanks, and the like are all non-profit, tax deductible organizations. In other words, they use your money GA for their political purposes. Most of these PACs are only allowed to spend 49% for purposes other than charity, education, business promotion or whatever sham they are using to get their 501 c(...) status. That was what the example above was about.
As to your snarky remarks, all they do is lower my, and other's opinion of your character, which obviously doesn't bother you.
Fortunately, they found out they wasted hundreds of millions of dollars on trying to win the presidency and have, for the most part, given up on that and focused on State, House, and Senate campaigns where they have been much more successful.
You can believe or not that the Left has no such integrated network of hundreds of connected entities, acting in the shadows, accountable to nobody but the billionaires who fund them, skirting the law most of the time and violating it on occasion but, you would be deluding yourself.
Wow! "Snarky comments," and "lower my, and other's opinion of your character,..."
Firstly, as a character issue. you can kiss my ass. (Oops! my bad, - in more polite terms I mean you are wrong ). I disagreed with the premise of your OP. And for this you want attack my character?
You presented no evidence of illegality. You presented no evidence of impropriety. In fact you presented a rant that the Right is beating the Left at a completely legal tactic. Hurrah for you. The moral ground is yours because you aren't as good as the Right at the game. Is that your defense?
Why in the world would you attack my character just because I disagree with you? You present no evidence of wrong-doing or impropriety on the Right. You have no basis for claims of illegality, yet because I disagree with you it becomes a character issue?
Nope! I ain't buying it. My character is fine, You are just bitching because the Left isn't doing it as good as the Right, and that is your problem! "But Mom, it isn't fair!
Lobbying is very strongly regulated. If you have a problem with the laws then your recourse is to change them, (the laws), not bitch because you aren't as good at it as your opponent.
If you want to address character issues, then look at your house first. What are the Kochs doing that is illegal or unethical? What are they doing that the Left isn't also trying to do? You referenced Citizens United, but you didn't reference the 71' FECA amendments or the 74' FEC changes. Why? Don't the rules apply to you as well as the Right? The Left is playing the same game - just more poorly than the Right. So why don't you complain about that?
I don't like the power of the Right's legislative influence either, but they aren't breaking the rules. So deal with it. If you want change - then convince us. Otherwise, you can take your opinion and a buck and buy a cup of coffee.
"... you can kiss my ass."
"...you can take your opinion and a buck and buy a cup of coffee."
Oh my, looks like I broke the martini rule... sorry.
I also think Citizens United unleashed a flood of money that is harmful to our political integrity. But I don't think the decision was wrong. We just need to figure out how to control the effects of it. Folks on the Right complain about Soros the same as those on the Left do about the Koch brothers. Complaining about the magnitude of one over the other is just sour grapes.
GA, it is interesting to note that in the wake of the "Citizens United' ruling from the court which allowed unlimited amounts of money into the political process to be considered a form of speech and where so much of the root of this problem can be identified, has it been the Red or the Blue who has been the more resistant to having it overturned?
The Kochs have been trying for the golden ring since the days of Goldwater and keep wasting their money. Why? Because the president is elected by all of a states population and the electoral system. Fortunately for America, those least influenced by Dark Money, live in states with the most electoral votes.
About the time of Citizen's United, they (writ large) finally figured it out they can't win at the national level and started looking for ways to take a bottoms up approach. Ed Gillespie (with figures like Carl Rove) developed REDMAP (Redistricting Major Project) which outlined a strategy to take over state governorship and legislatures. A guy named Pope, funded the switch from Democratic to Republican in NC.
The Koch's have not re-invented the wheel. They did not make dark money an overnight success. The lobbying in Congress has been building up to this for many years. Now that the greed has become overwhelming in Wall Street and the Oil Lobby etc....., it is becoming more transparent and with new laws upheld by the Supreme Court such as the Citizens United ruling, it is becoming common place.
FYI, the Koch brothers employ 1,200 political operatives working in 107 offices around the country.
"That’s about 3½ times as many employees as the Republican National Committee and its congressional campaign arms had on their main payrolls last month."
The network's "mission is in some ways more ambitious than the Republican Party’s ― to fundamentally reshape American public life around a libertarian-infused brand of conservatism."
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/12/k … les-217124
Stripped of it's insinuations and derogatory references, the Koch contributions very likely played a part in the decisions.
But I am a little confused: is it the case now that districting is done by including illegal aliens, that cannot (legally) vote? If so, why would we want that? To increase Democratic power?
Because now anyone in California with a drivers license can vote, even the illegals.
There is money flowing into both sides of the aisle to influence the decisions that are made.
It is now almost impossible to keep up with how the election process really works, let alone how the redistricting will be done. We can bet it will benefit one side more than the other because that is just how things are done in Government.
Perhaps we should throw our elections open to the world; anyone with an envelope and stamp or an internet connection could help us pick our "leaders". If we're going to let foreign nationals "help" choose who will provide more entitlements for them, shouldn't we eliminate all discrimination and make it open to all?
Poolman, where do you read those lies?
http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_2 … r-law-wont
Okey, I am seeing that news today. Thu 7 Apr
Iceland Monitor: http://icelandmonitor.mbl.is/news/polit … oney_home/
by Doug Robinson 7 years ago
With the recent revelation that Gov. Walker of Wisconsin may be in the back pocket of the Koch brothers of Koch Industry fame, is our democracy in danger?
by lady_love158 7 years ago
http://biggovernment.com/publius/2011/0 … -politics/The tin hat liberals see boogie men around every corner and if there isn't one there they'll make one! Such is the case with the Koch brothers who the left insists invented the tea party! Should such idiot liberals ever be allowed a...
by Doug Hughes 7 years ago
"As always this has to do with money, and the union "compromise" coming down the pipe was set up to be the "booby" prize while the Koch Brothers get their "booty" prize. This is all being well-orchestrated with an end game that has absolutely nothing to do with...
by icv 2 years ago
Do you think modern politics is controlled by corporate and rich people?
by Nicola Thompson 6 years ago
Have you ever changed your political stance? What changed your mind? What would change your mind?I find that usually people are stuck to the political side they have chosen. Is it possible to change sides? What might be inspiring to one to go from republican to libertarian? Extreme left to the...
by mega1 8 years ago
Or does it just seem that way because the Democrats/liberals are less vocal about it? Lately it seems to me there are many many more conservatives and their agendas being pushed at us. I usually keep away from politics entirely, but if it is true that most of the forum posters are...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|