4 ms·
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. Th
by hawkice 11y ago
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.
- _delirium 11y agoI'm not sure it makes a difference either way when it comes to the influence of money on institutions (influence from non-politicians is not necessarily any less corrupting), but: I think it would be hard to consider the Kochs to not be politicians, anyway. They're heavily involved in party politics and electioneering, both in internal party politics and in general elections. And David Koch has even run as a candidate for national office himself (he was the vice-presidential nominee on the 1980 Libertarian Party ticket, before leaving them for the GOP).
- deciplex 11y agoYeah, they're politicians for sure, they're just in it to actually affect policy in their favor rather than as an ego trip or whatever other petty reasons people usually get into politics. And, they've figured out that directly running for office is sort of a waste of time in that regard, in America.
- chefkoch 11y agoI rather think they figured that they can't run for every office they can buy.
- aaronbrethorst 11y agoThey 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_citizens_united_koch_brothers_plan_to_drop_900_million_on_2016_elections/ http://www.salon.com/2015/01/27/this_is_the_legacy_of_citize...
- hawkice 11y agoDonating 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.
- ricksplat 11y ago> you believe universal healthcare The difference is it's something that benefits the many, as opposed to the few
- tsotha 11y agoWhy does that make it right?
- ricksplat 11y agoBecause in "a democracy" the majority provide what's called a "political mandate". This kind of clandestine lobbying outside the democratic process usurps the democratic process. There's a big difference between publicly supporting Bernie Sanders because you believe he'll be a good president and skulking around in the corridors of power buying off officials so that you can line your own pockets.
- tsotha 11y agoNo, the fact that the US is a democracy just makes it legal. That still doesn't make it right. Right now in the US almost all the income taxes are paid by 20% or so of the population. People who advocate a bigger, more expensive government are almost always planning to do it with someone else's money.