3 ms·

Great to see this happen. Criminal justice reform seems like one of the rare bipartisan efforts in quite awhile, especially when it comes to an issue in which t

by danso 8y ago

Great to see this happen. Criminal justice reform seems like one of the rare bipartisan efforts in quite awhile, especially when it comes to an issue in which the most direct beneficiaries are a non-voting constituency. There was a great "This American Life" episode pre-2016 [0] about a billionaire conservative family -- the Deasons, not the Kochs, but in that same strata -- who, like the Kochs, were passionate about pushing through criminal reform. And then Trump -- whom the Kochs hated -- became the nominee and split the conservative base and attention. The TAL episode was about how the Deasons were so impressed by Trump that they parted ways with the Kochs and backed Trump despite not knowing whether he's support criminal reform. Back then, it truly did seem that regardless of Trump's beliefs, criminal reform would fall by the wayside with respect to the other political issues that Trump prioritized. That the Kochs and the Deasons were so committed to criminal reform, aligning themselves with the likes of ACLU and left-leaning groups, I remember reading op-eds/screeds from activists accusing the Kochs of having an ulterior agenda. But not much evidence has surfaced of this. FWIW, the TAL episode refers to a 2015 NYT op-ed that Doug Deason wrote about how close his life came to being ruined by a felony burglary charge, which is a great read [1]. [0] https://www.thisamericanlife.org/591/transcript https://www.thisamericanlife.org/591/transcript [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/30/opinion/ruining-lives-with-criminal-justice.html https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/30/opinion/ruining-lives-wit...

teachrdan 8y ago
You seem to be repeating a common misunderstanding, which is that the Koch brothers supported criminal justice reform because they care about the fate of incarcerated people. That is provably false. They care of criminal justice reform because they don't want corporations--or the people who own them--to be held criminally liable when those corporations violate the law. This is particularly important for a family whose fortune comes from the extraction of oil.[0] They purchased ads around the country criticizing judges and politicians as "soft on crime," and actively supporting a Republican gubernatorial candidate who opposes criminal justice reform and criticized Obama for releasing "dangerous thugs."[1] From the Intercept: "Koch’s interest in criminal justice reform was sparked not by the plight of overcrowded prisons or racial disparities in law enforcement, but by the company’s own environmental crimes. In 2000, Koch was indicted over claims that it had polluted huge amounts of benzene, a known carcinogen, from a Texas refinery and then attempted to cover up the crime. The indictment came on the heels of a series of state and federal probes that had forced the company to pay what was then the largest civil penalty for violations of environmental law for allowing hundreds of oil spills across six states." [0] Koch Industries has pattern of violating ethics, environmental laws: https://www.seattletimes.com/business/koch-industries-has-pattern-of-violating-ethics-environmental-laws/ https://www.seattletimes.com/business/koch-industries-has-pa... [1] KOCH BROTHERS TALK CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM, BUT PAY FOR “TOUGH ON CRIME” POLITICAL ADS: https://theintercept.com/2015/11/03/soft-on-crime-ads/ https://theintercept.com/2015/11/03/soft-on-crime-ads/
- danso 8y ago
  No, the Koch's interest in criminal reform for the sake of the greater good is not "provably false". The Intercept article you posted is full of circumstantial evidence and rhetoric, and contains nothing that would be regarded as "proof". The strongest points it makes are: 1) The Kochs' money goes toward Republican candidates who oppose criminal reform. 2) The Kochs' interest was "sparked by the company's own environmental crimes" Point 1 is as convincing as arguing that the ACLU and other liberals are also anti-criminal-reform, given that the majority of them likely voted for Bill and Hillary Clinton, despite the former being the president who advocated and signed America's most punitive federal sentencing reforms. The Koch brothers support conservatives, and some/many conservatives don't support or prioritize criminal reform. Also, you mischaracterize their political ad efforts. Their money goes to Republicans who have the discretion to spend it on whatever they like, including tough-on-crime candidates and platforms. The Kochs are indeed an accomplice to whatever their supported candidates decide to do with the money. But if the Kochs just want conservatives to win and don't actually care about criminal reform, why would they be quitely spending millions directly to support the kind of criminal reform advocacy that undercuts the GOP's status quo? Point 2 is supported by a link to this TIME article: http://time.com/3686797/charles-koch-criminal-justice/ http://time.com/3686797/charles-koch-criminal-justice/ And the TIME article does indeed assert the Kochs' interest in criminal justice reform dates back to when their company was charged with environmental crimes and fined. And the Kochs' general counsel is quoted as supporting that timeline and that non-altruistic origin story: > The owners believed they had been victimized by overzealous prosecutors and unclear statutes. “Our view was if we, a large company with many resources, were treated this way, what’s happening to the average American?” Holden says. And...so? I didn't say the Kochs' got into criminal reform out of altruism. The op-ed I linked to from Doug Deason clearly has Deason talking about his personal run-in with the law. What I'm claiming is that, however they were first interested, what they are advocating now is reform that affects millions of convicts who are nowhere near Kochs' strata of self-interest, which the TIME article details (and the Intercept ignores). What does lobbying for better legal counsel for low-income/indigent defendants, restoring rights to youthful non-violent offenders, and reducing mandatory prison sentences, have to do with protecting the Kochs from prosecution for white-collar crimes. If the Kochs wanted to mitigate their exposure to future prosecution, they could just focus on lobbying for corporate and environmental deregulation. The New Yorker has a more thorough article about the Kochs' possible motives and potential Trojan horse [1]. It notes that a previous iteration of the criminal reform bill, passed by the Senate committee, the House Judiciary Committee added provisions that would "weaken the government's ability to prosecute an array of corporate crimes". The Kochs spokesperson told the New Yorker at the time that the Kochs supported stripping the white-collar-crime provisions if that meant the bill could be passed. [1] https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/01/25/new-koch https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/01/25/new-koch
qqqwerty 8y ago
I don't think the Kochs have an ulterior agenda, but I also don't think they are being entirely altruistic in their motives. They have built a vast political influence machine to push their agenda of de-regulation and tax cuts, so using some of that influence to push for modest criminal justice reforms is a convenient way of demonstrating 'bipartisanship', while not really sacrificing much in the way of core values[1]. The fact that this bill is getting pushed through in the lame duck session in the waning days of total Republican control is also a signal as to how much of a priority it was. Also, the Kochs have faced criminal investigations in the past, so they probably hold some personal animosity towards our justice system. [1] My very limited understanding of this bill, is that it will reduce spending overall (i.e. smaller government), and the only increase in spending is going to private institutions.
- philwelch 8y ago
  Also, they're libertarians, so criminal justice reform is entirely within their lane.

by danso 8y ago

teachrdan 8y ago

You seem to be repeating a common misunderstanding, which is that the Koch brothers supported criminal justice reform because they care about the fate of incarcerated people. That is provably false. They care of criminal justice reform because they don't want corporations--or the people who own them--to be held criminally liable when those corporations violate the law. This is particularly important for a family whose fortune comes from the extraction of oil.[0] They purchased ads around the country criticizing judges and politicians as "soft on crime," and actively supporting a Republican gubernatorial candidate who opposes criminal justice reform and criticized Obama for releasing "dangerous thugs."[1] From the Intercept: "Koch’s interest in criminal justice reform was sparked not by the plight of overcrowded prisons or racial disparities in law enforcement, but by the company’s own environmental crimes. In 2000, Koch was indicted over claims that it had polluted huge amounts of benzene, a known carcinogen, from a Texas refinery and then attempted to cover up the crime. The indictment came on the heels of a series of state and federal probes that had forced the company to pay what was then the largest civil penalty for violations of environmental law for allowing hundreds of oil spills across six states." [0] Koch Industries has pattern of violating ethics, environmental laws: https://www.seattletimes.com/business/koch-industries-has-pattern-of-violating-ethics-environmental-laws/ https://www.seattletimes.com/business/koch-industries-has-pa... [1] KOCH BROTHERS TALK CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM, BUT PAY FOR “TOUGH ON CRIME” POLITICAL ADS: https://theintercept.com/2015/11/03/soft-on-crime-ads/ https://theintercept.com/2015/11/03/soft-on-crime-ads/

danso 8y ago
No, the Koch's interest in criminal reform for the sake of the greater good is not "provably false". The Intercept article you posted is full of circumstantial evidence and rhetoric, and contains nothing that would be regarded as "proof". The strongest points it makes are: 1) The Kochs' money goes toward Republican candidates who oppose criminal reform. 2) The Kochs' interest was "sparked by the company's own environmental crimes" Point 1 is as convincing as arguing that the ACLU and other liberals are also anti-criminal-reform, given that the majority of them likely voted for Bill and Hillary Clinton, despite the former being the president who advocated and signed America's most punitive federal sentencing reforms. The Koch brothers support conservatives, and some/many conservatives don't support or prioritize criminal reform. Also, you mischaracterize their political ad efforts. Their money goes to Republicans who have the discretion to spend it on whatever they like, including tough-on-crime candidates and platforms. The Kochs are indeed an accomplice to whatever their supported candidates decide to do with the money. But if the Kochs just want conservatives to win and don't actually care about criminal reform, why would they be quitely spending millions directly to support the kind of criminal reform advocacy that undercuts the GOP's status quo? Point 2 is supported by a link to this TIME article: http://time.com/3686797/charles-koch-criminal-justice/ http://time.com/3686797/charles-koch-criminal-justice/ And the TIME article does indeed assert the Kochs' interest in criminal justice reform dates back to when their company was charged with environmental crimes and fined. And the Kochs' general counsel is quoted as supporting that timeline and that non-altruistic origin story: > The owners believed they had been victimized by overzealous prosecutors and unclear statutes. “Our view was if we, a large company with many resources, were treated this way, what’s happening to the average American?” Holden says. And...so? I didn't say the Kochs' got into criminal reform out of altruism. The op-ed I linked to from Doug Deason clearly has Deason talking about his personal run-in with the law. What I'm claiming is that, however they were first interested, what they are advocating now is reform that affects millions of convicts who are nowhere near Kochs' strata of self-interest, which the TIME article details (and the Intercept ignores). What does lobbying for better legal counsel for low-income/indigent defendants, restoring rights to youthful non-violent offenders, and reducing mandatory prison sentences, have to do with protecting the Kochs from prosecution for white-collar crimes. If the Kochs wanted to mitigate their exposure to future prosecution, they could just focus on lobbying for corporate and environmental deregulation. The New Yorker has a more thorough article about the Kochs' possible motives and potential Trojan horse [1]. It notes that a previous iteration of the criminal reform bill, passed by the Senate committee, the House Judiciary Committee added provisions that would "weaken the government's ability to prosecute an array of corporate crimes". The Kochs spokesperson told the New Yorker at the time that the Kochs supported stripping the white-collar-crime provisions if that meant the bill could be passed. [1] https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/01/25/new-koch https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/01/25/new-koch

qqqwerty 8y ago

I don't think the Kochs have an ulterior agenda, but I also don't think they are being entirely altruistic in their motives. They have built a vast political influence machine to push their agenda of de-regulation and tax cuts, so using some of that influence to push for modest criminal justice reforms is a convenient way of demonstrating 'bipartisanship', while not really sacrificing much in the way of core values[1]. The fact that this bill is getting pushed through in the lame duck session in the waning days of total Republican control is also a signal as to how much of a priority it was. Also, the Kochs have faced criminal investigations in the past, so they probably hold some personal animosity towards our justice system. [1] My very limited understanding of this bill, is that it will reduce spending overall (i.e. smaller government), and the only increase in spending is going to private institutions.

philwelch 8y ago
Also, they're libertarians, so criminal justice reform is entirely within their lane.