MTierce, I wasn’t thrilled with the level of detail in this article, either. But I think this is a smoke-indicates-fire situation.
You presented two seemingly distinct choices there. Either the Kochs contributed with the intent that the money would continue moving, or else the Kochs contributed because they believe in Group A’s agenda.
I submit to you that both options are true, since Group A (in this case, the Center for Protecting Patients’ Rights) seems to exist solely to move money between conservative nonprofit groups. OpenSecrets.org discusses CPPR SourceWatch does the same
If you can identify what other, non-money-laundering agenda CPPR supports, I would love to hear it.
Don’t defend billionaires. They pay someone else to do it for them, because no one is going to be crazy enough to do it for free for them.
Politics is about feeling, namely the feeling that you have something I don’t, or that you want something I have. The eternal tug of war between the haves and the have nots. You can’t be taken seriously if you think there’s anything rational about it.
Click bait headlines. Who cares? That battle is already lost (see Buzzfeed, see Gawker). I could complain about the incessant Disneyland posts, but I still keep clicking on BB’s posts, so what does that tell you?
Except I think we have engaged in a useful exercise here. This thread documents some additional reporting which should have been included in the original post. That means those facts are at least available for others who happen to look at the BBS.
Actual headline: “California Watchdog: “Koch Brothers Network” Behind $15 Million Dark-Money Donations”. Have to wonder why OP never editorializes headlines for the UK where they are resident. Oh, right! Libel laws there work differently.
And before anyone screeches that I’m a shill for billionaires, I don’t have a dog in that race so save your keystrokes.
[quote=“Israel_B, post:25, topic:12970”]
I don’t have a dog in that race[/quote]
Yes you do. We all do. You live on this planet, you have a dog in that race. Being neutral isn’t an option.
For my part, I would ask what alternative to the status quo would you propose? How would you implement that vision?
I briefly posted above some of my practical concerns with “banning” big money. But for a moment let’s assume that we can create a magic policy that directly achieves a vision of a world where money contributions are no longer a problem. What does politics in such a world look like?
I suspect that the big winners would be:
Incumbent politicians (This was the case with McCain - Feingold)
Family Dynasties (Bushs, Kennedeys)
The well connected (read: well off, because a lot of these people go to the same schools, the same parties, the same vacation destinations. When you know the Senator personally, you have influence, independent of money. And you’ll never be able to abolish that so long as we are represented by humans)
Big media corporations
Celebrities
The losers are independent politicians and the little guy. At least today we have a degree of parity. For every billionaire spending money on one side we have another spending money against. At least today even if you are one voice, if you can convince others to support you and raise enough cash, you can somewhat level the playing field.
I know what we have is crap, and maybe there is some solution. Unfortunately, I have yet to hear a good one.
Banning the SPENDING of big money in election campaigns would be a start. Pre-Citizens United, big money was less of an issue. Other countries limit campaign spending and get better results for it. This is not rocket science, unless you bite on the “money = speech and all speech must be unrestrained” bait. That is a recipe for oligopoly, with examples of its corrupting influence all around. The rift between the people who get you elected and whom you serve (ie. big spending donors) versus, the people you have to con into electing you and pretend to serve (ie. voters who haven’t figured it out yet or have but can’t find a way to change it) gets bigger daily. Any individual should be able to influence an election to the extent that they hold the franchise - the Walton’s each have one vote, and so does a Walmart greeter. Why should the Walton’s have any more influence?
Historically, and professionally, speaking, the purpose of an article is to expound the claims of a headline. The reader should not be required to do further research.
Okay, so the premise behind the Kochs NOT funneling money through the CPPR is that they care about patient’s rights? Or that CPPR is not basically a slush fund to hide the source of right wing donations to other causes?
From what I can see its all smoke and mirrors, and where there’s smoke… it does seem strange to me that you are spending a lot of time complaining that the money trail is obfuscated so we don’t KNOW where the money went when that’s exactly how this particular scam works. Are we supposed to believe the Kochs wouldn’t stoop to such a level, or would you prefer if the headlines made a particular, and extremely naive, caveat to soothe your sense of exact precision?
Until they can tell us exactly what their money was spent on they are guilty, because we are not in a court of law and I’m not a naive dumbass. I think your concern would be better directed at some other, worthier cause.
Additionally, it’s worth comparing with the UK, for one example. Election spending is tiny. Campaigns last a couple months. Even having so much in common - love of Neoliberalism and lobbyists with cash, entrenched ruling class culture, dominated by two right-of-centre parties who represent the same corporate interests - it still seems trivial to imagine removing money from politics in the US. In the UK, we can be dominated and pacified by the oligarchy just fine, without recourse to spending big money on elections
In any case, we should really be trying to imagine how a digital democracy might work, where there is more individual participation in a flexible array of of issues and democratic contexts involving discussion and voting. I hate to be the person suggesting technological fixes, but digital networks do suggest the possibility of actual democratic participation, which would undercut and tweak the present (anti)representational system. It would devalue politicians, and make them more like servants of their rightful constituency.
Oh stop. The scam is what it is. The point of the scam is to hide funding sources. How in the world can thorough proof be offered without a complete audit of CPPR’s books and every organization’s book to which it funneled money for the periods in question? In other words, these private organizations are designed so that we can’t know for sure. What is obvious is that the Kochs support the particular propositions in question and did funnel money to groups that funneled money to these causes. Its circumstantial evidence, which in this case is more than enough for me. Even in criminal court this evidence would be admissible, and could possibly lead to conviction. Given this is civil law its more than enough.
although, the original source might be the more tempting charge… especially since these people are very well connected/established. basically, passing money around through non-profits avoids stateside taxes. non-profits are not overly regulated (fortunately because we need hospitals). where they got these funds to pass around tax-free wasn’t in the article.
