Charles Koch: Here is where Bernie Sanders is Right

[BWV 1080]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... story.html

The senator is upset with a political and economic system that is often rigged to help the privileged few at the expense of everyone else, particularly the least advantaged. He believes that we have a two-tiered society that increasingly dooms millions of our fellow citizens to lives of poverty and hopelessness. He thinks many corporations seek and benefit from corporate welfare while ordinary citizens are denied opportunities and a level playing field.

I agree with him.

Democrats and Republicans have too often favored policies and regulations that pick winners and losers. This helps perpetuate a cycle of control, dependency, cronyism and poverty in the United States. These are complicated issues, but it’s not enough to say that government alone is to blame. Large portions of the business community have actively pushed for these policies.

[Read more: Bernie Sanders is the realist we should elect]

Consider the regulations, handouts, mandates, subsidies and other forms of largesse our elected officials dole out to the wealthy and well-connected. The tax code alone contains $1.5 trillion in exemptions and special-interest carve-outs. Anti-competitive regulations cost businesses an additional $1.9 trillion every year. Perversely, this regulatory burden falls hardest on small companies, innovators and the poor, while benefitting many large companies like ours. This unfairly benefits established firms and penalizes new entrants, contributing to a two-tiered society.

Whenever we allow government to pick winners and losers, we impede progress and move further away from a society of mutual benefit. This pits individuals and groups against each other and corrupts the business community, which inevitably becomes less focused on creating value for customers.

[John F]

That really is surprising. Do you think he might vote for Bernie Sanders? Naaah...

[lennygoran]

Where does he stand on Citizens United? Regards, Len

[BWV 1080]

Where does he stand on Citizens United? Regards, Len

with the ACLU

[lennygoran]

Where does he stand on Citizens United? Regards, Len

with the ACLU

Yes I see you're correct.


The ACLU and Citizens United

In Citizens United, the Supreme Court ruled that independent political expenditures by corporations and unions are protected under the First Amendment and not subject to restriction by the government. The Court therefore struck down a ban on campaign expenditures by corporations and unions that applied to non-profit corporations like Planned Parenthood and the National Rifle Association, as well as for-profit corporations like General Motors and Microsoft.

That decision has sparked a great deal of controversy. Some see corporations as artificial legal constructs that are not entitled to First Amendment rights. Others see corporations and unions as legitimate participants in public debate whose views can help educate voters as they form their opinions on candidates and issues.

We understand that the amount of money now being spent on political campaigns has created a growing skepticism in the integrity of our election system that raises serious concerns. We firmly believe, however, that the response to those concerns must be consistent with our constitutional commitment to freedom of speech and association. For that reason, the ACLU does not support campaign finance regulation premised on the notion that the answer to money in politics is to ban political speech.

At the same time, we recognize that the escalating cost of political campaigns may make it more difficult for some views to be heard, and that access to money often plays a significant role in determining who runs for office and who is elected.

In our view, the answer to that problem is to expand, not limit, the resources available for political advocacy. Thus, the ACLU supports a comprehensive and meaningful system of public financing that would help create a level playing field for every qualified candidate. We support carefully drawn disclosure rules. We support reasonable limits on campaign contributions and we support stricter enforcement of existing bans on coordination between candidates and super PACs.

Some argue that campaign finance laws can be surgically drafted to protect legitimate political speech while restricting speech that leads to undue influence by wealthy special interests. Experience over the last 40 years has taught us that money always finds an outlet, and the endless search for loopholes simply creates the next target for new regulation. It also contributes to cynicism about our political process.

Any rule that requires the government to determine what political speech is legitimate and how much political speech is appropriate is difficult to reconcile with the First Amendment. Our system of free expression is built on the premise that the people get to decide what speech they want to hear; it is not the role of the government to make that decision for them.

It is also useful to remember that the mixture of money and politics long predates Citizens United and would not disappear even if Citizens United were overruled. The 2008 presidential election, which took place before Citizens United,was the most expensive in U.S. history until that point. The super PACs that have emerged in the 2012 election cycle have been funded with a significant amount of money from individuals, not corporations, and individual spending was not even at issue in Citizens United.

Unfortunately, legitimate concern over the influence of “big money” in politics has led some to propose a constitutional amendment to reverse the decision. The ACLU will firmly oppose any constitutional amendment that would limit the free speech clause of the First Amendment.

https://www.aclu.org/aclu-and-citizens-united

Fortunately that's not how Sanders feels!


What Do the Koch Brothers Want?

As a result of the disastrous Citizens United Supreme Court decision, billionaires and large corporations can now spend an unlimited amount of money to influence the political process.

Perhaps, the biggest winners of Citizens United are Charles and David Koch, owners of the second-largest privately run business in America Koch Industries.

Among other things, the Koch brothers own oil refineries in Texas, Alaska, and Minnesota and control some 4,000 miles of pipeline.

According to Forbes Magazine, the Koch brothers are now worth $80 billion, and have increased their wealth by $12 billion since last year alone.

For the Koch brothers, $80 billion in wealth, apparently, is not good enough. Owning the second largest private company in America is, apparently, not good enough. It doesn’t appear that they will be satisfied until they are able to control the entire political process.

It is well known that the Koch brothers have provided the major source of funding to the Tea Party and want to repeal the Affordable Care Act.

David KochWhat else do the Koch brothers want?

In 1980, David Koch ran as the Libertarian Party’s vice-presidential candidate in 1980.

Let’s take a look at the 1980 Libertarian Party platform.

Here are just a few excerpts of the Libertarian Party platform that David Koch ran on in 1980:

“We urge the repeal of federal campaign finance laws, and the immediate abolition of the despotic Federal Election Commission.”
“We favor the abolition of Medicare and Medicaid programs.”
“We oppose any compulsory insurance or tax-supported plan to provide health services, including those which finance abortion services.”
“We also favor the deregulation of the medical insurance industry.”
“We favor the repeal of the fraudulent, virtually bankrupt, and increasingly oppressive Social Security system. Pending that repeal, participation in Social Security should be made voluntary.”
“We propose the abolition of the governmental Postal Service. The present system, in addition to being inefficient, encourages governmental surveillance of private correspondence. Pending abolition, we call for an end to the monopoly system and for allowing free competition in all aspects of postal service.”
“We oppose all personal and corporate income taxation, including capital gains taxes.”
“We support the eventual repeal of all taxation.”
“As an interim measure, all criminal and civil sanctions against tax evasion should be terminated immediately.”
“We support repeal of all law which impede the ability of any person to find employment, such as minimum wage laws.”
“We advocate the complete separation of education and State. Government schools lead to the indoctrination of children and interfere with the free choice of individuals. Government ownership, operation, regulation, and subsidy of schools and colleges should be ended.”
“We condemn compulsory education laws … and we call for the immediate repeal of such laws.”
“We support the repeal of all taxes on the income or property of private schools, whether profit or non-profit.”
“We support the abolition of the Environmental Protection Agency.”
“We support abolition of the Department of Energy.”
“We call for the dissolution of all government agencies concerned with transportation, including the Department of Transportation.”
“We demand the return of America's railroad system to private ownership. We call for the privatization of the public roads and national highway system.”
“We specifically oppose laws requiring an individual to buy or use so-called "self-protection" equipment such as safety belts, air bags, or crash helmets.”
“We advocate the abolition of the Federal Aviation Administration.”
“We advocate the abolition of the Food and Drug Administration.”
“We support an end to all subsidies for child-bearing built into our present laws, including all welfare plans and the provision of tax-supported services for children.”
“We oppose all government welfare, relief projects, and ‘aid to the poor’ programs. All these government programs are privacy-invading, paternalistic, demeaning, and inefficient. The proper source of help for such persons is the voluntary efforts of private groups and individuals.”
“We call for the privatization of the inland waterways, and of the distribution system that brings water to industry, agriculture and households.”
“We call for the repeal of the Occupational Safety and Health Act.”
“We call for the abolition of the Consumer Product Safety Commission.”
“We support the repeal of all state usury laws.”

In other words, the agenda of the Koch brothers is not only to defund Obamacare. The agenda of the Koch brothers is to repeal every major piece of legislation that has been signed into law over the past 80 years that has protected the middle class, the elderly, the children, the sick, and the most vulnerable in this country.

It is clear that the Koch brothers and other right wing billionaires are calling the shots and are pulling the strings of the Republican Party.

And because of the disastrous Citizens United Supreme Court decision, they now have the power to spend an unlimited amount of money to buy the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the next President of the United States.

If they are allowed to hijack the American political process to defund Obamacare they will be back for more.

Tomorrow it will be Social Security, ending Medicare as we know it, repealing the minimum wage. It seems to me that the Koch brothers will not be content until they get everything they believe they are entitled to.

Our great nation can no longer be hijacked by right-wing billionaires like the Koch brothers.

For the sake of our children and our grandchildren, for the sake of our economy, we have got to let democracy prevail.
http://www.sanders.senate.gov/koch-brothers

Regards, Len

[John F]

The first message in this thread surprised me because the quotation from Charles Koch seemed quite different from what I would have expected from David H. Koch. Is it possible that the Koch brothers differ in such matters, and that to speak of the Koch brothers as Sanders and most people do is a mistake? Or does David H. Koch agree with what Charles Koch is quoted as saying, and is not the rapacious villain that Sanders and others believe? I'd appreciate some clarification here.

[lennygoran]

Or does David H. Koch agree with what Charles Koch is quoted as saying, and is not the rapacious villain that Sanders and others believe? I'd appreciate some clarification here.

Great question-couldn't find much but maybe this is something?

"Charles: alpha male

Charles and David, in sync on business and politics, are miles apart in geography and style.

Charles is the white-haired alpha male at the helm of Koch Industries. Midwestern through and through, the 78-year-old still walks up four flights of stairs to work at Koch headquarters in Wichita, Kansas, each morning and eats lunch in the cafeteria.

After building Koch Industries into America’s second-largest private company, he turned his business philosophy into a book, “The Science of Success.”

“He’s the most focused person I’ve ever met in my life,” said Koch general counsel Mark Holden. “A purpose-driven life, that’s Charles.”

Charles wrote in The Wall Street Journal this spring that in recent years he has seen “the need to also engage in the political process.”

And how.

He and David have created a sprawling network of groups working to promote free-market views, eliminate government regulations, fight President Barack Obama’s health care law, oppose an increase in the minimum wage, shift control of the Senate to Republicans and oust Democrats from office.

David: highest profile

David, a Koch executive vice president and board member, keeps a higher profile. He ran for vice president as a Libertarian ticket in 1980 and chairs Americans For Prosperity Foundation, a tax-exempt corner of the brothers’ network.

At 74, with a distinctive braying laugh and an aw-shucks manner, David is a fixture in New York. His name is splashed across many of his charitable causes, such as the David H. Koch Theater at Lincoln Center and the forthcoming David H. Koch Center for ambulatory care at New York-Presbyterian Hospital. He committed $100 million to each.

David’s giving escalated after two searing experiences: his survival in a 1991 plane crash that killed 34 people, and a subsequent diagnosis of prostate cancer that left him believing he didn’t have long to live. (His brothers all began regular testing, and caught their cancers much earlier.)

“When you’re the only one who survived in the front of the plane and everyone else died — yeah, you think, ‘My God, the good Lord spared me for some greater purpose,’ ” David once said.

He is equally passionate about politics. Once, asked by a reporter for the liberal blog ThinkProgress if he was proud of Americans for Prosperity, he said, “You bet I am, man oh man.”

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2014/0 ... shaneZPRO0

Regards, Len

[jbuck919]

The first message in this thread surprised me because the quotation from Charles Koch seemed quite different from what I would have expected from David H. Koch. Is it possible that the Koch brothers differ in such matters, and that to speak of the Koch brothers as Sanders and most people do is a mistake? Or does David H. Koch agree with what Charles Koch is quoted as saying, and is not the rapacious villain that Sanders and others believe? I'd appreciate some clarification here.

They are rapacious villains. Ex ungue leonem.

Here is the official position of the ACLU regarding Citizens United.

https://www.aclu.org/aclu-and-citizens-united

[John F]

Lenny posted the ACLU piece yesterday. Neither of you has really answered my question about Charles Koch; the Japan News piece Lenny found says he and his brother are "in sync," but that isn't the kind of answer I'm asking for. Such as, does David H. agree with the essentially liberal op-ed Charles wrote for the Washington Post and BWV 1080 quoted to begin this thread. Maybe they unexpectedly disagree on fundamentals and we shouldn't be complaining about the Koch brothers, just about David H. Koch.

[jbuck919]

Lenny posted the ACLU piece yesterday. Neither of you has really answered my question about Charles Koch; the Japan News piece Lenny found says he and his brother are "in sync," but that isn't the kind of answer I'm asking for. Such as, does David H. agree with the essentially liberal op-ed Charles wrote for the Washington Post and BWV 1080 quoted to begin this thread. Maybe they unexpectedly disagree on fundamentals and we shouldn't be complaining about the Koch brothers, just about David H. Koch.

There is not a shred of liberalism about Charles Koch's op-ed. It is obvious that he still thinks that we should be a society of impossible self-reliance where men rich and poor have an equal right to choose under which bridge they will sleep tonight. I don't believe you are that inept at reading between the lines. AFAIK, he still has a political agenda that would gratuitously cancel every social benefit program we have. Why are you grasping at straws to forgive the devil?

[John F]

Lenny posted the ACLU piece yesterday. Neither of you has really answered my question about Charles Koch; the Japan News piece Lenny found says he and his brother are "in sync," but that isn't the kind of answer I'm asking for. Such as, does David H. agree with the essentially liberal op-ed Charles wrote for the Washington Post and BWV 1080 quoted to begin this thread. Maybe they unexpectedly disagree on fundamentals and we shouldn't be complaining about the Koch brothers, just about David H. Koch.

There is not a shred of liberalism about Charles Koch's op-ed. It is obvious that he still thinks that we should be a society of impossible self-reliance where men rich and poor have an equal right to choose under which bridge they will sleep tonight. I don't believe you are that inept at reading between the lines. AFAIK, he still has a political agenda that would gratuitously cancel every social benefit program we have. Why are you grasping at straws to forgive the devil?

Why are you evading my question? Charles Koch's Washington Post op-ed agrees with the Democratic candidate furthest to the left, a self-declared socialist, at least the first paragraph does. And the rest, libertarian as it is, does not seek to "cancel every social benefit program we have" or take any position to the right of the old Republican mainstream. You say "AFAIK," meaning as far as you know. That's an honest reservation, I make it all the time; when I do, it means I admit there may be more to it than I know and I could certainly be wrong. I say you may not know far enough, and you give the impression of not wanting to know. I'm not defending or forgiving anybody, I'm asking for factual information, which apparently you do not have. If there really is a split between the Koch brothers on their political agenda, if for example Charles Koch puts his money behind Bernie Sanders (and Sanders doesn't reject it on principle), that wouldn't just be news, it could be momentous. If not, then back to business as usual.

[jbuck919]

Lenny posted the ACLU piece yesterday. Neither of you has really answered my question about Charles Koch; the Japan News piece Lenny found says he and his brother are "in sync," but that isn't the kind of answer I'm asking for. Such as, does David H. agree with the essentially liberal op-ed Charles wrote for the Washington Post and BWV 1080 quoted to begin this thread. Maybe they unexpectedly disagree on fundamentals and we shouldn't be complaining about the Koch brothers, just about David H. Koch.

There is not a shred of liberalism about Charles Koch's op-ed. It is obvious that he still thinks that we should be a society of impossible self-reliance where men rich and poor have an equal right to choose under which bridge they will sleep tonight. I don't believe you are that inept at reading between the lines. AFAIK, he still has a political agenda that would gratuitously cancel every social benefit program we have. Why are you grasping at straws to forgive the devil?

Why are you evading my question? Charles Koch's Washington Post op-ed agrees with the Democratic candidate furthest to the left, a self-declared socialist, at least the first paragraph does. And the rest, libertarian as it is, does not seek to "cancel every social benefit program we have" or take any position to the right of the old Republican mainstream. You say "AFAIK," meaning as far as you know. That's an honest reservation, I make it all the time; when I do, it means I admit there may be more to it than I know and I could certainly be wrong. I say you may not know far enough, and you give the impression of not wanting to know. I'm not defending or forgiving anybody, I'm asking for factual information, which apparently you do not have. If there really is a split between the Koch brothers on their political agenda, if for example Charles Koch puts his money behind Bernie Sanders (and Sanders doesn't reject it on principle), that wouldn't just be news, it could be momentous. If not, then back to business as usual.

I am not evading anything. If it were not coming from you, I would consider your inquiry sophomoric. No one in his right senses gives someone like Charles Koch the benefit of the doubt or places the emphasis on distinguishing him from his equally venal brother. These men are robbing the country blind, and the odd moment of positive PR they may seek out deserves no more consideration than that Hitler did not kick his dog or beat his mistress.