The major corporation behind the grassroots Tea Party

[BVS]

Chances are you've never heard of Charles and David Koch. The brothers own Koch Industries, a Kansas-based conglomerate that operates oil refineries in several states and is the company behind brands including Brawny paper towels, Dixie cups, Georgia-Pacific lumber, Lycra fibers and Stainmaster carpet. Forbes ranks Koch Industries as the second-largest privately held company in the U.S. — and the Koch brothers themselves? They're worth billions.

The brothers also have created several neutral-sounding groups like Citizens for a Sound Economy — which staged media events to oppose President Clinton's proposed Btu tax on energy — and Citizens for the Environment, which called many environmental problems, including acid rain, "myths."

David Koch founded the group Americans for Prosperity Foundation, which has been linked to the Tea Party — training hundreds of activists in Texas and hosting talking points for Tea Party activists on its website.

On Thursday's Fresh Air, Mayer joins Terry Gross for a conversation about the Kochs' funding efforts, particularly what she describes as their broad and vigorous campaigns to manufacture grassroots political opinion. As she notes in the article, "the brothers have funded opposition campaigns against so many Obama administration policies — from health care reform to the economic-stimulus program — that, in political circles, their ideological network is known as the Kochtopus." (Koch Industries has responded to recent media coverage and Internet discussions with a set of "Koch Facts" published on its website.)

The Brothers Koch: Rich, Political And Playing To Win : NPR

So a billionaire helps fund the Tea Party and such groups in order to raise the opposition on environmental issues, healthcare, and pretty much anything that would effect THEIR way of business?

At one point in the interview she says someone that works for Koch provided the quote,

we use rednecks do the dirty work for us

.

I can't wait to see the full article, should be an interesting read.

 

[financeguy]

Thanks for this. I have been saying all along they must be funded by corporate interests.

 

[Knuckle]

I just listened to the NPR radio show segment on this on my way home from work. Ggrrr. But I cannot say I am the least bit surprised.

 

[indra]

Thanks for this. I have been saying all along they must be funded by corporate interests.

I always assume if a group is called Citizens For or Americans For or Taxpayers For that a big corporation or group of corporations is behind it.

 

[financeguy]

I'm going to set up a front group called "Concerned Citizens for a Better America, Mom and Apple Pie" and launder loads of dirty cash through it.

 

[nathan1977]

THE 2004 CAMPAIGN - THE PHILANTHROPIST - THE 2004 CAMPAIGN - THE PHILANTHROPIST - And for His Next Feat, a Billionaire Sets Sights on Bush - NYTimes.com

Billionaires fund the left. Billionaires fund the right.

Shocker.

 

[indra]

I'm going to set up a front group called "Concerned Citizens for a Better America, Mom and Apple Pie" and launder loads of dirty cash through it.

Exactly!

 

[anitram]

Billionaires fund the left. Billionaires fund the right.

Shocker.

I like how conservative Americans conveniently never mention that George Soros was long funding anti-communist intellectuals and movements in Eastern Europe for decades back when the Soviets were the big, bad people. I guess then he was a commendable philanthropist?

 

[BVS]

THE 2004 CAMPAIGN - THE PHILANTHROPIST - THE 2004 CAMPAIGN - THE PHILANTHROPIST - And for His Next Feat, a Billionaire Sets Sights on Bush - NYTimes.com

Billionaires fund the left. Billionaires fund the right.

Shocker.

If you listen to the interview she mentions Soros, in fact she said she's written some not so flattering articles about him.

But she said one thing that stands out is that Soros is very transparent about his funding the Kochs are not. Soros is funding, Kochs have been manufacturing opinions.

 

[PhilsFan]

THE 2004 CAMPAIGN - THE PHILANTHROPIST - THE 2004 CAMPAIGN - THE PHILANTHROPIST - And for His Next Feat, a Billionaire Sets Sights on Bush - NYTimes.com

Billionaires fund the left. Billionaires fund the right.

Shocker.

The left calls it what it is. The right calls it grassroots.

 

[nathan1977]

Soros is funding, Kochs have been manufacturing opinions.

That's probably very much in the eye of the beholder -- it's pretty clear from the Times article that Soros has his own ideological agenda, same as the Koch boys. Regardless, whatever side of the aisle you're on, whoever shouts loudest and longest tends to sway the argument -- and the shouters are usually bought by someone.

Big money can be used for good (the billionaires deciding to give away half their fortunes, the Gates Foundation, etc) or ill (527s, lobbying, etc). Tough to regulate without tossing out baby and bathwater.

 

[Kieran McConville]

I don't know much about the shadowy forces behind the Tea Party, but can I just say how annoying it is, as an outsider, that the Right have coopted phrases such as 'Liberty' to a sufficient extent that any website I come across related to keywords such as 'Liberty' is almost guaranteed to be of the political Right, indeed probably the far Right. It's kind of sad, really.

 

[Kieran McConville]

Any US website, I guess is what I really mean, to be clear.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

I don't know much about the shadowy forces behind the Tea Party, but can I just say how annoying it is, as an outsider, that the Right have coopted phrases such as 'Liberty' to a sufficient extent that any website I come across related to keywords such as 'Liberty' is almost guaranteed to be of the political Right, indeed probably the far Right. It's kind of sad, really.

Amen to that. The insinuation over who's a better patriot or loves this country more or whatever BS really has to stop. It's insane.

Anywho, this story's been making the rounds on TV a bit-doesn't surprise me in the least. Grassroots movements usually take time to build up, these Tea Parties, on the other hand, seemed to just pop up out of nowhere one day. That, combined with the fact that Fox News has been so heavily behind them should've been a massive sign these were all manipulated setups. This story could have not existed at all and the evidence would still be there.

I feel kinda bad for any average, everyday people that show up at these events. They genuinely think they're involved in some game-changing thing they helped to create, and the truth is just the opposite. They're pawns in yet another corporate scheme. It really is disgusting the way these groups can manipulate people so horribly. And when government officials get involved, that just adds to the difficulty of regulating this crap.

Nathan makes a very good point, too, though .

Angela

 

[BVS]

That's probably very much in the eye of the beholder -- it's pretty clear from the Times article that Soros has his own ideological agenda, same as the Koch boys.

Of course they both have an agenda, no one is arguing that...

Read the article when it comes out and tell me if you think they are the same thing.

 

[purpleoscar]

that the Right have coopted phrases such as 'Liberty' to a sufficient extent that any website I come across related to keywords such as 'Liberty' is almost guaranteed to be of the political Right, indeed probably the far Right. It's kind of sad, really.

In North America Conservatives don't like that Liberal was coopted by the left. It's typical of political labels to change as parties shift priorities over the decades and centuries. The political science labels are rarely used in politics.

 

[Kieran McConville]

Yes, mate, but Liberty is one of those words that is absolutely key to the United States' founding principles. Liberalism (while not unrelated, historically) is something different.

 

[BVS]

In North America Conservatives don't like that Liberal was coopted by the left. It's typical of political labels to change as parties shift priorities over the decades and centuries. The political science labels are rarely used in politics.

Care to explain?

 

[maycocksean]

THE 2004 CAMPAIGN - THE PHILANTHROPIST - THE 2004 CAMPAIGN - THE PHILANTHROPIST - And for His Next Feat, a Billionaire Sets Sights on Bush - NYTimes.com

Billionaires fund the left. Billionaires fund the right.

Shocker.

Refresh my memory, Nate. Which major "grassroots" organization did Soros fund that had a major impact on the political and cultural landscape?

 

[purpleoscar]

Care to explain?

Classical Liberals are different than reform liberals. Conservatives in the past were for mercantilism and Liberals for free trade. As liberal parties changed to reform liberalism the classical liberals moved into conservative parties. Of course this is more for my country but it's similar in most of the English speaking world. In Europe some conservatives are called Neo-Liberal so the term can still be applied to the right politically.

 

[maycocksean]

Classical Liberals are different than reform liberals. Conservatives in the past were for mercantilism and Liberals for free trade. As liberal parties changed to reform liberalism the classical liberals moved into conservative parties. Of course this is more for my country but it's similar in most of the English speaking world. In Europe some conservatives are called Neo-Liberal so the term can still be applied to the right politically.

In case you hadn't noticed this kind of cerebral discussion isn't exactly common in popular politics in the United States.

 

[purpleoscar]

In case you hadn't noticed this kind of cerebral discussion isn't exactly common in popular politics in the United States.

The political science labels are rarely used in politics.

You were saying.

 

[the iron horse]

I read the article.

"And in the past 30 years, they've funneled more than $100 million into dozens of political organizations, many of which are trying to steer the country in a more libertarian direction."

Are you saying that is wrong?

God bless anyone promoting less goverment control and more personal freedom.

Liberty is worth more than 100 million.

 

[purpleoscar]

I read the article.

"And in the past 30 years, they've funneled more than $100 million into dozens of political organizations, many of which are trying to steer the country in a more libertarian direction."

Are you saying that is wrong?

God bless anyone promoting less goverment control and more personal freedom.

Liberty is worth more than 100 million.

Remember the left manufactures opinion so when the right does the same they get pissed off. Whether less or more government is good or bad isn't the topic of this thread. I still feel though that there are more "grassroots" with the right precisely because the general public doesn't have to know rocket science to understand that large debt = future taxes.

 

[PhilsFan]

It's the lack of transparency that's the story here. They sold the Tea Party as grassroots. I've seen that word thrown around all the time in association with it, as a positive.

 

[maycocksean]

Remember the left manufactures opinion so when the right does the same they get pissed off. Whether less or more government is good or bad isn't the topic of this thread. I still feel though that there are more "grassroots" with the right precisely because the general public doesn't have to know rocket science to understand that large debt = future taxes.

I'm sure the left would LIKE to manufacture opinion. . .they simply have not been as successful at doing so.

The United States generally leans conservative IMO, so right-wing opinion manufacturing generally resonates more.

I'm not convinced that most people are as concerned about the debt as they claim to be. I'm just not convinced that most of the people all riled up about the debt and government spending and Obama and etc, etc are really that deeply informed about the issues. I feel that most are being led around by the nose by unscrupulous entertainers that are making big money off their audience and by corporate interests who have their own agenda.

I know it's terribly snooty of me to say so, but I'm sorry the popular debate on the right has led with emotion demogaugery and sensationlism, not intellectual rigor. So what other conclusions am I to draw?

The irony is I am personally very skeptical of the effectiveness of large-scale government programs, but I find little on the conservative side of things to attach myself to in this country. The conservative point of view as poplularly expressed in the U.S. comes across as selfish, cynical, and intellectually bankrupt.

 

[financeguy]

The United States generally leans conservative IMO, so right-wing opinion manufacturing generally resonates more.

Yep. The US is, at least arguably, a hyper-capitalist society. The ingrown terrorism threat in the US is mainly from the right rather than the left - Tim McVeigh, the people that talk casually of shooting President Obama, the gun nuts - all that crew. It doesn't matter how right wing you are in America, they're always be a talking head on Fox that will give you affirmation.

In Europe, it's different. If there is a threat to civic order, it usually comes from the far left. Virtually all terrorist offences on European soil in the last forty years have been committed by left wing terrorists.

I offer no value judgement on which is a better model.

 

[purpleoscar]

I'm sure the left would LIKE to manufacture opinion. . .they simply have not been as successful at doing so.

The United States generally leans conservative IMO, so right-wing opinion manufacturing generally resonates more.

I'm not convinced that most people are as concerned about the debt as they claim to be. I'm just not convinced that most of the people all riled up about the debt and government spending and Obama and etc, etc are really that deeply informed about the issues. I feel that most are being led around by the nose by unscrupulous entertainers that are making big money off their audience and by corporate interests who have their own agenda.

I know it's terribly snooty of me to say so, but I'm sorry the popular debate on the right has led with emotion demogaugery and sensationlism, not intellectual rigor. So what other conclusions am I to draw?

The irony is I am personally very skeptical of the effectiveness of large-scale government programs, but I find little on the conservative side of things to attach myself to in this country. The conservative point of view as poplularly expressed in the U.S. comes across as selfish, cynical, and intellectually bankrupt.

It depends on who you read but the conservatives have the benefit of history and the lessons of history, but they have a perceived weakness in that they want the public to be responsible for their own finances and lives and the public isn't that concerned, (until now). Usually a financial crisis or debt crisis spur change amongst the public and politicians know this from the left and the right. The public wants high government spending and low taxes which is unsustainable (see Greece). In that documentary I.O.U.S.A. politicians openly said that there would probably have to be a debt crisis before there is a groundswell of public support for curtailing government spending. In the end the public gets the government that they deserve. I certainly can see an entitlement behaviour in the West that started in the 1800s and keeps increasing with each new generation. So far there has never been a society that has achieved great wealth and power without becoming so complacent and lazy and selfish to not avoid decadence. There are usually periods of renewal but it's hard to guess the future. Whatever philosopher or sociologist that can find a way to keep a free society disciplined during periods of indefinite wealth indefinitely will be the philosopher to revere and learn from.

Unfortunately all I hear is crickets. Until then humans have to learn the hard way and feel a sense of loss before they value something and by then it may be too late. In history societies with overtaxation and large bureaucracies with large benefits and few people described as middle class with the rest considered poor is often the norm. To have a large middle class and generally more equality would require the public to be inspired to achieve and produce more or equal to consumption and so far only modestly taxed societies have achieved this.

and "Ahnuld" is sounding the debt alarm:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...5449813071709510.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

 

[BVS]

Classical Liberals are different than reform liberals. Conservatives in the past were for mercantilism and Liberals for free trade. As liberal parties changed to reform liberalism the classical liberals moved into conservative parties. Of course this is more for my country but it's similar in most of the English speaking world. In Europe some conservatives are called Neo-Liberal so the term can still be applied to the right politically.

Well this is the wikipedia dumbed down version, but anyways...

In North America Conservatives don't like that Liberal was coopted by the left.

This isn't exactly true.

 

[BVS]

I read the article.

"And in the past 30 years, they've funneled more than $100 million into dozens of political organizations, many of which are trying to steer the country in a more libertarian direction."

Are you saying that is wrong?

God bless anyone promoting less goverment control and more personal freedom.

Liberty is worth more than 100 million.

Koch tried running several times and failed, he discovered that manufacturing opinion works better for his cause. Do I think that's wrong? I think it's disingenuous at the very least.

They are not exactly looking for more personal freedom, they just want their industry to regulated less so that they can cut more corners and make more money.

This is ONLY about $$$