3 ms·

A lot of left-wing and media groups attribute a lot of influence to the Koch brothers. But honestly, their efforts are often ineffective or outright counter-pro

A lot of left-wing and media groups attribute a lot of influence to the Koch brothers. But honestly, their efforts are often ineffective or outright counter-productive to their stated goals. It's funny to see them portrayed as boogeymen when you know how bad they actually are at wielding influence. I've worked with the Charles Koch Institute before, and it's a mad house. Their other orgs are about the same. But don't take my word for it--check out their Glassdoor reviews[1] to see for yourself how many current and former employees feel about them. (Read the negative ones; many of the positive ones were posted because HR told people to do it.) [1] https://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/Charles-Koch-Institute-and-Charles-Koch-Foundation-Reviews-E446388.htm https://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/Charles-Koch-Institute-and...

acqq 9y ago
> their efforts are often ineffective or outright counter-productive to their stated goals. The fact that the employees complain doesn't mean that the money they invest isn't effective for the goals they have: to increase doubt in the facts that they don't like and therefore prevent or even just slow down possible actions against their interests. Then, what is the support for your claim that they are ineffective?
gech 9y ago
I think the Koch brothers are more active and problematic than the other side's boogeyman, George Soros.
soundwave106 9y ago
The main issue with groups pushing single boogiemen is that life isn't that neat: there are, as alluded to in other places, multiple people (mostly billionaires these days, but not always) with major influence pushing multiple opinions. I am also not surprised that life behind the scenes at one of these advocacy groups is as Dilbertesque as any corporate environment tends to be. I think the main issue here is that, with decisions like Citizen United in particular, political power does seem to have shifted towards those who can spend the most money even more than usual. Often, their priorities are out of whack with what the priorities of the common citizen are. I do not get the impression, for instance, that tax cuts aimed largely at corporations and high earners were the top priority of most who voted in last year's election (certainly the polling on the tax cut seems to reflect that). Yet this appears to be the single issue that the national GOP unifies itself on. Go figure. Paradoxically, I think the very messiness that you are talking about might actually contribute to this particular issue. Instinctively, the Koch corporate interests shouldn't care about muni broadband much. Koch is largely resource extraction, meaning a lot of operation in rural areas. Given the current state of broadband (quasi-monopolistic), some rural communities miss out on good broadband because, quite simply, rural broadband isn't profitable enough for the current broadband monopolies [1]. Frankly, good broadband makes a given location that much more attractive to potential employees and other people living in the area. It would seem like the Kochs would at best simply keep mum about a muni broadband fight, even if it didn't necessarily gel with core beliefs. Instead, my best guess is that their "libertarian oriented" cause funding got tied into the network of old school broadband monoplies' desire to restrict competition by legal decree (not exactly a libertarian thought, but currently aligned with Republicans). Voila, via the magic of political coalitions, the Koch brothers now "provide" some of the funding for anti-muni broadband campaigns. [1] http://www.roanoke.com/opinion/editorials/editorial-minnesota-offers-virginia-a-lesson-on-rural-broadband/article_1bce113b-9a0d-554e-9219-a4b6a1bd8754.html http://www.roanoke.com/opinion/editorials/editorial-minnesot...

acqq 9y ago

> their efforts are often ineffective or outright counter-productive to their stated goals. The fact that the employees complain doesn't mean that the money they invest isn't effective for the goals they have: to increase doubt in the facts that they don't like and therefore prevent or even just slow down possible actions against their interests. Then, what is the support for your claim that they are ineffective?

gech 9y ago

I think the Koch brothers are more active and problematic than the other side's boogeyman, George Soros.

soundwave106 9y ago

The main issue with groups pushing single boogiemen is that life isn't that neat: there are, as alluded to in other places, multiple people (mostly billionaires these days, but not always) with major influence pushing multiple opinions. I am also not surprised that life behind the scenes at one of these advocacy groups is as Dilbertesque as any corporate environment tends to be. I think the main issue here is that, with decisions like Citizen United in particular, political power does seem to have shifted towards those who can spend the most money even more than usual. Often, their priorities are out of whack with what the priorities of the common citizen are. I do not get the impression, for instance, that tax cuts aimed largely at corporations and high earners were the top priority of most who voted in last year's election (certainly the polling on the tax cut seems to reflect that). Yet this appears to be the single issue that the national GOP unifies itself on. Go figure. Paradoxically, I think the very messiness that you are talking about might actually contribute to this particular issue. Instinctively, the Koch corporate interests shouldn't care about muni broadband much. Koch is largely resource extraction, meaning a lot of operation in rural areas. Given the current state of broadband (quasi-monopolistic), some rural communities miss out on good broadband because, quite simply, rural broadband isn't profitable enough for the current broadband monopolies [1]. Frankly, good broadband makes a given location that much more attractive to potential employees and other people living in the area. It would seem like the Kochs would at best simply keep mum about a muni broadband fight, even if it didn't necessarily gel with core beliefs. Instead, my best guess is that their "libertarian oriented" cause funding got tied into the network of old school broadband monoplies' desire to restrict competition by legal decree (not exactly a libertarian thought, but currently aligned with Republicans). Voila, via the magic of political coalitions, the Koch brothers now "provide" some of the funding for anti-muni broadband campaigns. [1] http://www.roanoke.com/opinion/editorials/editorial-minnesota-offers-virginia-a-lesson-on-rural-broadband/article_1bce113b-9a0d-554e-9219-a4b6a1bd8754.html http://www.roanoke.com/opinion/editorials/editorial-minnesot...