I'm shocked that our campaign contribution system would allow this to occur before people unraveled it.
So I read the linked piece and the underlying settlement documents. Neither in any way supports this headline. There is zero evidence presented that the Koch's contributed to these campaigns, and the MJ article notes that Koch Industries specifically denies that any donations were made to these campaigns. The sole piece of evidence cited is a email solicitation to one of the Koch brothers. Is that enough to say that they "laundered millions?"
I'm just saying by that standard I could be accused of laundering money through every fundraiser that I have ever turned down (or ignored). Bottom line, this just damages your credibility.
It would be nice if the article mentioned how the law was broken.
You know what damages your credibility? Opening an account today simply to play the misdirection game. It takes 10 seconds of googling to see how the K-Bros money made it there.
Politico spelled it out over a month ago:
The K-Bros funded a group called Freedom Partners. That group sent $115 million to the Center to Protect Patient Rights, which is cited as one of the key players in this scheme.
How much are you being paid to shill for the Koch Brothers?
so this is how trickle down economics works.
I'm not on anyone's payroll. Nor do I really care about the Koch's one way or another. I simply asked a simple question: "Where is the factual support in the article or the linked documents to support the headline?"
I ask this question because facts matter. Presumably you agree.
As for registering today, every poster here registers on the day that they first post.
So you're unemployed?
If the Koch bros have nothing to hide, they have nothing to worry about.
We do not fall for that BS here.
A lot of astroturfers work for free, out of intellectual fervor.
Which is kind of pathetic, considering how much money the people they're advocating for spend to warp policy and public opinion.
No I am not unemployed. I work in IT, and it is quite mind numbing. I meant that my words and thoughts are my own and I am not paid to speak.
"If the Koch bros have nothing to hide, they have nothing to worry about."
Like I said I don't really care either way about them. If they have done something illegal, they should be prosecuted. If they have done something unethical, they should be called on it. But surely it is not inappropriate to ask for factual support for such criticisms? So far the only evidence has been "They gave to A, and A gave to B" Guilt by association? Sounds like the NSA building its Orwellian surveillance state. I don't agree with that either, but maybe you do since you cite that argument.
That's not technically true.
- A poster cannot post without an account.
- A poster cannot post BEFORE they have an account.
- However, a poster can first post anytime after they have an account (where 'anytime' = 1 minute to infinity, for reasonable values of infinity)
Presumably the distribution of first posts skews towards the low end of that range, but there is no requirement that it be within 24 hours.
I suppose you are right. But is there any reason to register before you decide to post? Generally I try to limit the amount of accounts I have out in the ether.
From the Superior Court of the State of California, Stipulation for Entry of Judgment (in favor of plaintiff against defendants), start reading on page 4 at "Summary of the Law"
That was a joke. Now you know what I mean.
It's fairly hard to 'prosecute' someone for a civil offense. More to the point, if the laws have loopholes that allow the Koch brothers to make shady donations, then it's difficult to do anything at all except make accusations. Which is not against the law, unless you want to drive a stake into the 1st.
I can't take their spokesperson seriously, anymore than I can take the NSA's spokesperson seriously, because they're paid to lie, and even if they're not lying, they're lying.
The irony here is that you're accusing me, now, without all the facts. See how that works?
No, I do not mean to accuse you of anything. Hence "maybe" And this is BB, I doubt we will find many supporters of the cloak and dagger set here.
I'm sympathetic to the aims of people who want big money out of politics. Unfortunately, I tend to 1A absolutism, and my sense is that the proposed cure is worse than the disease. I think this because
1. Any policy that will be effective will have a serious adverse effect on the free speech of the wealthy and the non wealthy alike
2. Complex campaign finance laws fall heaviest on the less sophisticated and less well off. The wealthy simply hire lawyers to comply. Or they engage in "shenanigans" Grass roots groups get sued into oblivion because when you can only raise 15K to try to stop a corp from seizing your home though a corrupt eminent domain proceeding, you can't afford to pay someone to handle the compliance side.
The spokesperson said they "did not support, either directly or indirectly, this ballot initiative," which was already shown to be untruthful by the findings in TFA.
Of course, their definition of "indirectly" could be so narrowly defined so as to have fewer hops than those ridiculous "pirated dvds directly supports terrorism" and "smoking weed pot supports terrorists" advertisements or even the Glenn Beck "Obama supports terrorists" blackboards of yesteryear.
Okay, so you think the spokesman has been taking dissembling lessons from Clapper and Alexander. Fair enough.
This leaves us with the Koch's giving money to Group A. Group A then funded group B, so there are a couple of possibilities here:
1. The Koch's gave their money to Group A with the intent (or at least the knowledge) that it would then go to Group B.
2. The Koch's gave their money to Group A because they supported Group A's aims. Group A decided to give Group B money independently, without direction or knowledge of the Koch's
Now, I realize that many people just assume 1. Let me state quite clearly that these people may be right. And I also concede that evidence to decide whether what occurred was 1 or 2 will be nigh impossible to come by. Given those facts, it's fair to say: "This looks fishy." "This looks unethical" etc.
But the headline assumes 1. Without definitive evidence. And the reason I posted about that is because I have a lot of respect for Cory's work, and I find this jump disappointing.