
How the Koch brothers and the super-rich are buying their way out of criticism - walterbell
http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Robert-Reich/2015/0408/How-the-Koch-brothers-and-the-super-rich-are-buying-their-way-out-of-criticism
======
_delirium
> When the Charles Koch Foundation pledges $1.5 million to Florida State
> University’s economics department, it stipulates that a Koch-appointed
> advisory committee will select professors and undertake annual evaluations.

Huh, that's surprisingly overt. Donations for things like endowed chairs or
new buildings usually assumed to have an influence, as institutions don't like
to offend potential sources of money. But it's rarely as direct as the donor
actually getting to vet faculty hires. If the linked article [1] is correct,
sounds pretty openly like an attempt by a private individual to literally buy
control of part of a public institution.

[1] [http://www.tampabay.com/news/business/billionaires-role-
in-h...](http://www.tampabay.com/news/business/billionaires-role-in-hiring-
decisions-at-florida-state-university-raises/1168680)

~~~
bsbechtel
To be fair, the Gates Foundation basically singlehandedly bankrolled the
political process to push through Common Core...so a private individual buying
control of our public k-12 schools. There are differences here, but both are
dangerous.

~~~
snowwrestler
Common Core passed so quickly because:

\- States already had educational standards

\- There was already tremendous interest in improving those standards

\- English, science, and math work the same way in every state

\- States already had a lot of experience with harmonizing standards, such as
the Uniform Commercial Codes

Even today, with all the "controversy", the vast majority of states adhere to
the Common Core, and even the states that don't, have essentially the same
standards with a different name.

So, there's really no reason to call this the Gates Foundation "buying
control" of public schools.

edit: clarity

------
deciplex
> _He said he didn’t want to antagonize certain wealthy congregants on whose
> generosity the congregation depended._

> _“I’d appreciate it if you didn’t criticize Wall Street,” he said,
> explaining that several of the trustees were investment bankers._

This sort of shit is _exactly_ why income and wealth inequality are such a big
deal. It's so much more than any principle of "fairness" \- it's about
representation and balance of power. Even if the entire population is, in a
material sense, perfectly looked after, if some fraction of a percent own or
control the bulk of the wealth, then they will have most of the power even if
society keeps the veneer of democracy in place.

I don't have any issue with the Koch brothers in particular, but no one should
be able to purchase laws or see their considerable wealth translate into
outsized political power. No democracy can survive that forever, even if with
an engaged and conscientious electorate.

~~~
enraged_camel
Yep. I get downvoted every time I say this on HN, but I will keep saying it:
wealth disparity matters. Even though everyone's standard of living has risen
over the past several decades, the fact that the ultra rich are able to buy
representation and power is a _huge_ problem. It actively and fundamentally
subverts democracy. That's why we must do everything we can as a society to
fix the issue of income inequality before it's too late.

------
tsotha
It's funny when the influence of money comes up it's always the Koch brothers
being criticized. Clearly they aren't getting very good value for their money,
since you never hear about the leftist billionaires doing the same thing.

Tom Steyer bought the California legislature, and I don't think I've ever seen
his name on HN.

~~~
MagnumOpus
Tu quoque fallacy. Maybe the Kochs are an easy target because they do it at a
scale never before imagined - their annual spending on their political
projects easily eclipses Steyer's entire net worth...

The initiatives and proposed solution would solve any "leftist" kleptocrats
doing the same thing as the teabaggers too - as such shouting "others do it
too" smacks of somebody wanting to distract from the problem rather than solve
it.

~~~
barney54
This is not at all true. The Kochs are easily outspent by the left every year.
Just look at the Sierra Club's, NRDC's, EDF's, LCV's, Center for American
Progress, and other's spending every year. And these are just groups that do
environment activities. Soros, Tides Foundation, Steyer, McCarthur, Packard
Foundation, and other foundations spend far more than the Kochs. If anything
the Kochs are playing catch up. But the CS Monitor is not interested in
writing about that. They are getting pitched by Media Matters on the Kochs and
those are the stories The Monitor writes.

~~~
flavor8
In the interest of fairness:

The biggest spenders on lobbying are typically business-right groups.
[https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?showYear=2015&inde...](https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?showYear=2015&indexType=s)

The top individual funders tend to be conservatives:
[https://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/summ.php?disp=D](https://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/summ.php?disp=D)

And on the left, the biggest organizational contributers in election cycles
tend to be unions (which is a significant factor behind the right's desire to
break them):
[https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php?cycle=2014](https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php?cycle=2014)

------
clickok
If you have money, shaping the discourse on issues of your choice is
surprisingly straightforward:

1\. Come up with a bunch of candidate ideas/ lines of argument/ memes that
promote your point-of-view

2\. Ensure maximum virality by doing things like forming think tanks to
publish credibility boosting papers, distribute these ideas widely across
available media, and (most importantly), gain the support of as many
influential figures as you can. These people are the ones who will do the
grunt work of persuading people when the memes you're pushing come up for
discussion.

After a certain point, the position you're advocating becomes (one of) the
main frameworks that people think in when evaluating an issue.

But! We've all seen cases where some idea took hold without having some
wealthy cabal backstopping it-- academics can be biased, celebrities can
(occasionally accidentally) make something a household word, thought leaders
of various stripes can seize on a pet cause without a reward ever being
offered. Sometimes, a voice from the rabble gets heard, but most of the time
the stuff you get an opportunity to think about is graciously provided by
either rich people or the otherwise influential[0].

However, it's scarier when wealthy people do it, because they have so much
more scope to play with. They can weigh in on any topic (through proxies) and
affect the discussion, regardless of whether they understand the issue or if
there's a blatant conflict of interest. They can tamp down on dissenting
voices (as we see in the article), so their position becomes the only obvious
mainstream one.

I can't really offer any solutions. You can't trust the news (or other media)
because the sorts of people who shouldn't game it are the ones that will, but
you also can't participate in current affairs if you're uninformed. Okay, I
suppose I can offer some solutions: become exceedingly wealthy or, if you
can't swing that, become a widely influential subject matter expert on
everything you discuss.

\---

0\. There's an essay by The Last Psychiatrist which is somewhat germane to
this,
[http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2011/10/you_are_the_98.html](http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2011/10/you_are_the_98.html)

------
acd
Look who owns often cited media for example the Economist on Wikipedia.
Journalists will most often not criticize the hand that feeds them. A way of
buying influence is to own media oulets and have think tanks pushing agendas
which is in their best interests.

~~~
ricksplat
> Look who owns often cited media for example the Economist on Wikipedia

Aha! I was wondering why some of their editorials recently were out of whack.
Usually a fairly progressive publication it's posted some fairly biased stuff
about protecting the rich lately.

~~~
_delirium
The Economist has been free-market oriented for 100+ years and conceives of
itself as classically liberal, so I don't think there's any recent turn to the
right. The main difference with some other free-market-oriented media (like
some on the American right) is that they more fully adopt the European liberal
tradition, including quite a bit of social liberalism, and acceptance of
things like social safety nets, the need for good public schooling, openness
to immigration, etc. That can sometimes make them seem progressive in an
American context, but only in specific senses.

~~~
ricksplat
I don't agree that "Free Market Oriented" is the same as "Right Wing". One is
economic ideology, the other is a social position. They interplay certainly,
but how should I put it, some of Economists editorials recently do seem
disharmonious with overall enlightened character of their commentary.

~~~
barney54
So if you like free markets or are on the right you are not "enlightened"? Is
that what you are saying?

~~~
ricksplat
Well my own personal position is that if you are "on the right" you're not
enlightened, but that's just based on my own experiences of people who claim
to be (or often deny they are - but clearly are) on the right.

Free Markets is different but it's one of those concepts that means different
things to different people and most "enlightened" people can agree that some
of those things are great, and some of those things are not so great.

------
mironathetin
This may be downvoted, as in the US private funding is an important source.
But, in order to have an independent opinion, science and public media must
not depend on private funding. In Germany we pay extra money to fund public
media. Science has to depend either on tax support too, or at least donations
must be indirectly routed through an anonymous account and an independent
committee that distributes them.

The fear is, then there will be fewer donations and this fear might be
realistic. But what use do donations have for science if they come with
restrictions?

~~~
xlm1717
It's telling, though, that in Germany, it had to be an independent website
(not funded by the public/government) that had to publish an investigation
into government spying (netzpolitik). Not only that, netzpolitik got
threatened with an investigation into possible treason.

So it seems in order to be independent from private influence, media has must
depend on government funding. But, in order to be independent from government
influence (and thus be free to report on government transgressions), a media
organization must be privately funded. Which one should we be more scared of?

~~~
mironathetin
"So it seems in order to be independent from private influence, media has must
depend on government funding."

Public funding has nothing to do with government funding. Netzpolitik was
indeed threatened, but not by public media. Public media strongly supported
Netzpolitik when it became clear that investigations were going on against
them.

------
datashovel
"It also guaranteed that a documentary critical of the Kochs didn’t air."
Perhaps more of us should be writing documentaries criticizing wealthy people.
Maybe that would help redistribute more wealth?

------
molloy
I recommend checking out [http://www.unkochmycampus.org/florida-state-
university/](http://www.unkochmycampus.org/florida-state-university/)

Full disclosure, my friend went to FSU and experienced the Koch influence
firsthand and he became involved with the FSU Progress Coalition. He recently
wrote "A Student Review of FSU Gift Acceptance Policy: Undue Influence and
Charles Koch Foundation" [1] which is worth reading.

[1]
[http://static1.squarespace.com/static/5400da69e4b0cb1fd47c90...](http://static1.squarespace.com/static/5400da69e4b0cb1fd47c9077/t/5565ddb6e4b0c699861fc0c6/1432739254835/UnKochGiftReportMay2015.pdf)

------
hawkice
They aren't buying their way out of all criticism -- about 6 months ago I saw,
on Michigan television, what I can only describe as an attack ad against them.
They aren't politicians, they donate their money to charity and other causes
they like. I disagree with some of the policies they advocate, but that left a
pretty bad taste in my mouth.

~~~
aaronbrethorst

        They aren't politicians, they donate their
        money to charity and other causes they like.
    

This is the most generous description of the Kochs I have ever read. They are
planning on spending upwards of a billion dollars in the next twelve months to
elect public officials who support their policy objectives[1].

[1]
[http://www.salon.com/2015/01/27/this_is_the_legacy_of_citize...](http://www.salon.com/2015/01/27/this_is_the_legacy_of_citizens_united_koch_brothers_plan_to_drop_900_million_on_2016_elections/)

~~~
hawkice
Donating to Bernie Sanders because you believe universal healthcare is
important is also spending money to elect public officials who support your
policy objectives. Like I said, I disagree with some of the policies they
advocate, but unless someone is donating to a politician because they like
their rock-hard abs (I literally cannot think of one likable thing about any
politician except their policies), they fit that description as well.

You (and I) may disagree with the causes they find important, but that's a
somewhat different topic. The article points out many, many instances (or
rather intimates they exist) where _policies_ are immune from criticism -- my
concern is when _people_ are criticized. There's no public policy value in
humiliating someone, and it's happening anyway.

~~~
adrianN
So you're OK with very rich people having more say in your democracy? I find
that somewhat disturbing.

------
linkydinkandyou
Is Y Combinator turing into "The Daily Kos?" Blaming all the world's problems
on the "Koch Brothers" and "The Super Rich?"

C'mon now, folks.

------
ageek123
What does this have to do with Hacker News?

