40 ms·
Charles Koch Says His Partisanship Was a Mistake
- anarazel 6y agoMain Koch PAC: https://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/detail.php?cmte=Americans+for+Prosperity https://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/detail.php?cmte=... Total Independent Expenditures: $41,016,106 For Democrats: $92,936 Against Democrats: $8,887,525 For Republicans: $32,035,645 Against Republicans: $0 Koch industry donations: https://www.opensecrets.org/search?order=desc&q=Koch+Industries%2C+Inc&sort=D&type=donors https://www.opensecrets.org/search?order=desc&q=Koch+Industr... Edit: Added link showing recent Koch Industry donations
- ceilingcorner 6y agoThat’s actually not very much compared to someone like Bloomberg.
- jrumbut 6y agoThe interesting aspect here is not so much the amount as it is the one-sidedness. It shows Koch is still very actively making the same mistake.
- watwut 6y agoNow that Trump lost, I want to be seen as the good one. Tho I also want to actually do the same thing I have done before. I mean, these guys are all sociopaths, so what should one expect?
- qPM9l3XJrF 6y agoFunding one side more than the other is not quite the same as contributing to partisanship. For example, he could be focused on funding more moderate candidates he thinks will build bridges.
- eghad 6y agoThe Koch's political funding goes far beyond just this one PAC fyi. Their funneling of millions into the Federalist Society and its individual causes serving as just one example that has had an outsized negative influence on the health of American democracy.
- specialist 6y agoMore than amount, I'm impressed by the strategy, focus, and long term commitment. They've played 4D chess while my Democrats are amnesiacs still trying to grasp checkers.
- 5d749d7da7d5 6y agoI recalled this story [0] where the Koch brothers said they would organize $1 billion to conservative groups for the 2016 election. [0] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/koch-brothers-network-will-spend-almost-1-billion-on-2016-election/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/koch-brothers-network-will-spen...
- javagram 6y agoImportant follow-up story the next year. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2016/05/the-koch-brothers-were-supposed-to-buy-the-2016-election-what-happened.html https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2016/05/the-koch-brother... “The Koch Brothers Were Supposed to Buy the 2016 Election: What happened?” As the article notes, Trump (who was not Koch-backed) won with very little spending compared to his big-money backed conventional GOP opponents. They decided to step back and spend less in 2016 as a result, since they didn’t support either Trump or Hillary.
- js2 6y agoI'm glad he's spending money to help fight climate change but it's gross how much the wealthy can influence elections and policy. If I have to choose, obviously I want that money to go toward making the world a better place for everyone, but I'd rather not have to choose at all. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-07-01/billionaires-political-spending-grew-37-fold-in-10-years https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-07-01/billionai... https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jun/10/billionaires-climate-change-michael-bloomberg https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jun/10/billio...
- vr46 6y agoToo little, too late.
- qPM9l3XJrF 6y agoI'm a registered Democrat and I voted for Biden, but the way the left seems to be incapable of considering the option of forgiving someone is very unattractive to me.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- abvdasker 6y agoSome nice words he probably doesn't mean at the end of his life do nothing to repair the irreversible damage he has done to the environment. Nothing he ever says can wash the blood off the hands of a man who dedicated his life to preventing gun control, supporting the Iraq War and profiting from the military industrial complex. The only justice possible for a ghoul like Koch is the forfeiture of his assets and the blade of a guillotine. Charles Koch deserves to die and I will celebrate when he does. I hope future generations will piss on his grave.
- qPM9l3XJrF 6y ago>The only justice possible for a ghoul like Koch is the forfeiture of his assets and the blade of a guillotine. Alright. I'm persuaded. Never voting for another Republican again. Seriously what are you thinking? Flagged.
- abvdasker 6y agoThat you care more about some mean words on the Internet than the actions of a man like Koch suggests maybe "persuading" people like you is a waste of time.
- qPM9l3XJrF 6y ago
- SideburnsOfDoom 6y agoApologies if this is covered in the article, which I can't get to, but what is he doing to make amends? Or is this just empty, placatory words?
- flavor8 6y agoHe's 85, his brother died recently, and he's very likely concerned about "legacy". According to Greenpeace, these assholes have poured $145,555,197 into groups that worked counter to climate policy changes being enacted (from 1997 to 2018). _Partisanship_ should be the least of his worries - he'll be remembered as a key figure who spurred inaction at the exact time that we should have been taking drastic action.
- the-dude 6y agoIs everybody you disagree with an <totally not appropiate here or elsewhere> ?
- shrimp_emoji 6y agoFor me, when the disagreement is about turning the planet into a hollow cinder for naked protection of wealth accrued in an unjust system and justified by Puritanical memes of free will and individualism, it's either a naughty word ascribing malice or one ascribing stupidity. (Consequentially, the difference is sadly zero.)
- the-dude 6y agoGreat stuff, you can't make this up.
- kbenson 6y ago> turning the planet into a hollow cinder There is disagreement about the magnitude of things, but this is hyperboloic. > for naked protection of wealth An opinion on their motives. > accrued in an unjust system There's so much that can be discussed there. But simple, name one system that isn't unjust in some way. You can optimize for advancement though capitalism, or you can optimize for equality though communism, or some variation thereof. If you optimize too much for capitalism, the lower class are left out, if you optimize too much for communism, after a while everyone is lower than the lower class in what capitalism would result in. Different people will view the right balance differently, so "just" has no meaning here. > it's either a naughty word ascribing malice or one ascribing stupidity Or a bit of humility in assuming that you don't know every single thing there is to know about economics, sociology, political theory, and the motives of other individuals. To be clear, I probably have similar views and beliefs to you on all these topics, but where we differ is in my willingness to put my views forth as fact and condemn others on limited evidence, public relations pieces put out by them and others, and my views on soft sciences that are still very much being worked on and in flux. Thinking someone else is an asshole is not an excuse for adopting bad behavior youself.
- sacomo 6y agoShouldn't have been allowed to have undemocratic control over that amount of political power (wealth) to begin with.
- TaylorAlexander 6y agoI feel the same way. I am a voluntarist so I do not think forced wealth redistribution is the answer. But it’s clear to me that there are ways we can move to different businesses structures and property norms so that massive wealth has a tendency to be distributed throughout the population rather than concentrating in few hands. It’s a challenge, for sure. And some proposed solutions may cause more harm that good. But it’s absurd to me the level of wealth inequality we have today. That there are individual humans worth over a billion dollars while so many even in developed nations are hungry and overworked. More cooperatively owned firms and less intellectual property control are two voluntarist ways we can reduce this inequality.
- wombatmobile 6y agoIf rich people payed tax at the same rate as ordinary people, we'd be living in the same system without harmful extremes of inequality.
- TaylorAlexander 6y agoBut they don’t pay tax at the same rate, because once they get wealthy they buy enough influence to tip the scales in their favor. Which is why I advocate for more collectively owned firms. Then wealth goes directly to the people rather than going to a rich CEO and shareholders and then the government and then eventually maybe the people.
- barry-cotter 6y agoThis isn’t true. To take the US tax system as an example it’s much more progressive than the flat tax starter you’re describing, where all income is taxed at the same rate. This does not stop inequality. > In 2016, the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers—those with adjusted gross incomes (AGI) below $40,078—earned 11.6 percent of total AGI. However, this group of taxpayers paid just 3 percent of all income taxes in 2016. > In contrast, the top 1 percent of all taxpayers (taxpayers with AGI of $480,804 and above), earned 19.7 percent of all AGI in 2016, and paid 37.3 percent of all federal income taxes. The top 1 percent of taxpayers accounted for more income taxes paid than the bottom 90 percent combined, who paid 30.5 percent of all income taxes. https://taxfoundation.org/america-progressive-tax-system/ https://taxfoundation.org/america-progressive-tax-system/
- pydry 6y ago... right after going all in on red and the roulette wheel turned up blue.
- resfirestar 6y agoHard to tell if this is Charles Koch actually deciding to become more of a philanthropist than a partisan in his old age, or just a veiled threat to the GOP that he's ready to jump ship in the event that the GOP remains the "party of Trump" after 2020. The latter isn't that wild an idea as the Democrats have slid into more Koch-friendly positions on virtually everything except deregulation over the past decade. They'd face a lot of resistance from Democrats who instinctually hate them, though.
- coffeefirst 6y agoI wouldn’t count on it meaning anything. He has a long history of being fairly reasonable in interviews even while he promotes radical ideologues.
- jasonwatkinspdx 6y agoIt's important to understand this. His personal views slant strongly libertarian, but his political activism is almost entirely motivated by return on investment, not his ideology.
- mlamat 6y agoThe damage he and his brother have done is irredeemable.
- louwrentius 6y ago“Dark Money” by Jane Mayer was extremely enlightening. The influence of the Koch family on politics and public opinion has been devastating. The Federalist Society is a conspiracy against democracy.
- Pirgo 6y agoEssential reading.
- chub500 6y agoCan you give a brief synopsis about how the federalist society is a conspiracy against democracy? I thought it was about originalism which seems to me to be pro-democracy by maintaining proper separation of powers etc.
- extra88 6y agoThe Federalist Society finds, indoctrinates, and advances conservative lawyers and judges. That's not inherently anti-democratic though their level of success and influence on judges selection processes may be considered so. The problem is they also tend to be highly partisan (pro-Republican) which undermines the separation of powers. Often their picks ignore their "originalist" approach when it would be counter to their desired outcome. I'm no expert, this is from my general understanding and skimming Wikipedia.
- chub500 6y agoI believe for the last 30 years or so (after the late Antonin Scalia) 'conservative' judge is almost synonymous with originalist. I think you may be falling victim to correlation is not causation? IE there are no liberal originalists by definition (above). If I'm wrong, could you give me an example of a liberal originalist? I would be very happy to be wrong about this. The correlation here is that conservative presidents pick justices who object to rulings like Roe v Wade. The mistaken 'cause' is that it is Conservatism that leads to this objection when in fact it could also be that originalists object to legislation from the bench. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Rj_MhS2u-Pk https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Rj_MhS2u-Pk
- gadders 6y agoNow we just need Soros to say the same.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- Pirgo 6y ago"Mr. Koch has written (with Brian Hooks) a new book, “Believe in People: Bottom-Up Solutions for a Top-Down World,”" Can it get any more cynical than this?
- chub500 6y agoForgive my asking - what's cynical about this title? Should we not believe in people? Is the world not top-down oriented? Sorry - just confused.
- extra88 6y agoWhy should anyone believe an oligarch, who has been the embodiment of top-down influence, wants "the people" to direct how society operates? His version of "bottom-up" is heavily funding astroturf campaigns as well as more populist groups through which he can control what they do.
- Pirgo 6y agoWell obviously it's not title per se, but title in relation to the authors of the book.
- meowing 6y agoKoch has spent a fortune on destabilizing public infrastructure in midwest cities. If he "believed in people", he could show it by not tearing down public transit systems which disenfranchises poorer people.
- qPM9l3XJrF 6y agoIs public transit bottom up? I'd say just the opposite.
- brbrodude 6y agoMaybe it's a more complex matter? How about if people at the bottom were not continuously smacked by rich libertarian assholes and had a chance of having freedom of leisure, education, movement & all that good stuff that can make a citizen, who then is able to participate in decision making progress instead of being treated as animals for being poor? Feels bottom-up to me.
- scoot_718 6y agoRightwing playbook: Republicans in power: Use every loophole Democrats in power: Preach bipartisanship and the importance of fairplay.
- d4rti 6y agoWe're about to see the big switch in caring about deficits too.
- stefs 6y agoyou're already a week late here, they already started.
- Der_Einzige 6y agoThe worst part is that Democrats eat that shit up. I can't believe that we're going to get nothing done for another 4 years because Biden believes in a weaker executive branch. Personally, I think the president has far too much power (especially in war-powers), but Biden will need to deploy a ton of executive orders to get anything done with the legislative branch he's about to get - and he won't do it because he (along with his party and Obama) believe in fair-play, norms and institutions. The issue is that their opponents don't. Republicans will win back the house in 2024 in no small part due to Biden being precieved as having done nothing due to his reluctance to use executive orders to legislate from the oval office like his predecessor did.
- blfr 6y agoThe US seems to be in the middle of another realignment, like in the 60s. The Democratic party is consolidating its support from the big corporations, while the Republican party is making inroads with the working class.
- RickJWagner 6y agoI think you've hit the nail on the head. It's a big part of the cognitive dissonance felt by much of America, I think.
- pnw_hazor 6y agoWe are seeing the end of the nation state or at least its prominence.
- rootusrootus 6y agoNot just that, but the Republican party is openly populist right now. I think the Democrats are about to experience a significant amount of turmoil as the progressives try to take full control of the party. Maybe the conservatives in the Democratic party will join with the conservatives from the Republican party. Not sure how it will play out, but both parties seem to be evolving rapidly and both have big internal divides.
- mindslight 6y ago> Maybe the conservatives in the Democratic party will join with the conservatives from the Republican party And go where? As you've said, the Republican party is openly populist. If anything the Republican conservatives will look to the Democratic party, which seems to have become the conservative option. I consider myself a Libertarian and I'm considering voting straight national ticket Democrat for the next decade due to what the Republican party has become. Putting party above country is simply unforgivable.
- Der_Einzige 6y agoa solid 35-40% of the Democratic Party is explicitly anti-corporate, remember occupy wall-street and the success of Bernie Sanders? Remember Warren calling for breaking up big tech? Even Biden and Obama frequently deployed (light) anti-corporate rhetoric in their campaigns and presidency. Trump is a billionaire and a defender of the corporate class. His entire administration consists of ex-corporate wall-street types folks and/or zealot yes-men. You may be right that the "inroads with the working class" are being made, but only in the form of the working class being convinced that their interests are the same as the corporate classes interests... though even that analysis may be wrong considering that Biden won by convincing voters in the rust and sun belt to vote for him.
- JohnJamesRambo 6y agoAlmost drove the country to the brink of fascist anti-science annihilation and now wants to suck from the new power teat when he and other conservatives realize the majority of America thankfully isn’t and never will be on board with that. No thank you, Mr. Koch that isn’t forgiven with an apology. Treason has stronger penalties than that.
- loraa 6y agoI wonder what Soros says...
- cosmiccatnap 6y agoWhen you ask yourself how the system is rigged this bad and why congress is so bought out and each policy a carefully chosen business strategy instead of in the interest of average citizens you don't have to look further than the excellent example of the koch brothers who, in their infinite desire for infinite profits, have rigged the legislature and executive branches to use as a crowbar on the wallets and rainy day funds of everyone.
- neonate 6y agohttps://archive.is/TDVJM https://archive.is/TDVJM
- pstuart 6y agoPartisanship is a mistake in general.
- pstuart 6y agoYeah, I forgot that for many it's Party over Country. My bad!
- aussiegreenie 6y agoAnd in the long run we are all dead.
- StreamBright 6y agoNow when he is done ruining the planet with pushing for fossil for decades, got billions on his bank accounts, god knows what else, he has had enough and he wants to be a good boy. I totally buy it.
- meowing 6y agoJust reading how he wants to all of a sudden improve his legacy makes me so mad. How many thousands of peoples' legacies has he impacted?
- jrochkind1 6y agoIs there a trick to getting around the WSJ paywall?
- xdavidliu 6y agosomeone posted a link above: https://archive.is/TDVJM https://archive.is/TDVJM However, I'm not sure how to answer your question in the general case.
- jrochkind1 6y agoThanks! I'm not sure I would have noticed this link unless you had replied to me, I guess now I know to search for "archive.is" in comments...
- pmoriarty 6y agoA rat fleeing a sinking ship.
- bwanab 6y agoThis reminds me of George Wallace’s famous realization that his long term institutionalization of racism in Alabama was wrong when he was getting close to death’s door. It was kind of nice to hear, but lots of damage was done.
- CameronNemo 6y agoAlso the Emmet Till accuser admitting she lied, once she was on her death bed.
- bhickey 6y agoAt age 84 Carolyn Bryant Donham allegedly confessed to instigating Till's lynching. She's still is alive today, age 86.
- CameronNemo 6y agoMy bad, thanks for the correction. I guess subconsciously I assume everyone over 80 is on their deathbed?
- nostromo 6y agoShe was 14. I don't think we can blame her for what happened to Emmet Till. Edit: thanks for the correction, she was 21. However, I still think the blame should fall on Till's murderers.
- bsanr2 6y agoThe tragedy of Emmitt Till's murder wasn't just his death, but that it was representative of a corrupt and violent White Southerner culture that lasted despite the horror of what was done to him (and the loss of face the Deep South experienced when it was exposed). She spent 70 years standing by her lie. About 4 years into it, she was old enough to start making it right and didn't.
- DFHippie 6y ago
- yumraj 6y agoThere’s an old Hindi saying that comes to mind, which loosely translates as: After eating 900 mice, the cat is going on a pilgrimage.
- forgot_user1234 6y agoI am pretty sure HN will RIP apart Koch but do read his views before picking up your sickle
- kstrauser 6y agoI did. He's done his best to destroy the world so he could profit.
- elevenoh 6y ago'God fearing' as he approaches death? Or political play after it looks like the dems will win the election? It's almost as if, at the deepest level, we're all one.
- blackrock 6y agoI say he got what he wanted. He wanted the country to burn to the ground in mindless squabbles, so that the Right Wing can ascend to the dominant viewpoint. Mission Accomplished.
- aazaa 6y agoThe article would have been improved by giving some insight into what changed his mind. You don't just go from what he and his brother have done to the US to: > Boy, did we screw up! Without an inkling as to how or why they screwed up, there's no way to gauge what, if any, change to expect.
- tedivm 6y agoI don't think he changed his mind at all, this is 100% a rebranding and legacy repair operation.
- rch 6y agoNot even that. The EPA, public lands, etc. might be on the ropes, but they're not dead yet. This looks to me more like the next salvo to make sure they go down, and stay down.
- smnrchrds 6y ago> The article would have been improved by giving some insight into what changed his mind. The article would have been improved by at least proving he has changed his mind. Charles Koch is 85. There is a decent chance he is not going to live long enough to see another Republican administration. It would be in the best interest of maintaining some political influence and making some more change for him to change his public position like this. If he were 60, I would have expected him to wait 4–8 years for the next Republican administration instead.
- Wowfunhappy 6y agoHow can an article "prove" that someone has changed their mind?
- qzw 6y agoWait for actions instead of reporting whatever they self-proclaim? But that would take longer and lose the “newsworthiness”.
- jvanderbot 6y agoClassic end-of-life turn. Getty, etc. The Koch Family Foundation for Fossil-Free Energy would go a long way.
- TT3351 6y ago... toward lowering his grandchildren's income taxes via deductions.
- jvanderbot 6y agoThat's true, but not a bad thing. We reward charitable donations for a good reason. Ideally, he'd have given away his fortune as he made it (and lived in a world where that wasn't risky), but we live in a world where it seems responsible to save millions or billions and grow them, then dedicate it something as you realize you can't take it with you.
- CalChris 6y ago“Still, his political spending remains almost entirely partisan. Koch Industries’ PAC and employees donated $2.8 million in the 2020 campaign cycle to Republican candidates and $221,000 to Democratic candidates, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.“
- throwawayxyz987 6y agoBigTech is just as biased, if not more, only in the other direction. https://www.vox.com/2018/10/31/18039528/tech-employees-politics-liberal-employers-candidates https://www.vox.com/2018/10/31/18039528/tech-employees-polit... Employee donations to midterm candidates by party Netflix ($321K) 99.6% D 0.4% R Twitter ($228K) 98.7% D 1.3% R Airbnb ($107K) 97.8% D 2.2% R Apple ($1,218K) 97.5% D 2.5% R Stripe ($152K) 97.0% D 3.0% R Lyft ($47K) 96.1% D 3.9% R Google ($3,742K) 96.0% D 4.0% R Salesforce ($364K) 94.8% D 5.2% R Facebook ($1,066K) 94.5% D 5.5% R Tesla ($118K) 93.9% D 6.1% R eBay ($46K) 93.5% D 6.5% R PayPal ($84K) 92.2% D 7.8% R Microsoft ($1,480K) 91.7% D 8.3% R Amazon ($971K) 89.3% D 10.7% R Uber ($125K) 81.5% D 18.5% R HP ($73K) 80.0% D 20.0% R Intel ($353K) 78.5% D 21.5% R Oracle ($685K) 66.1% D 33.9% R https://www.foxnews.com/politics/facebook-twitter-employees-donations-democrats https://www.foxnews.com/politics/facebook-twitter-employees-... > Twitter employees donated $347,270, or 98.99% of total federal donations, to Democrats, making individual donations of $200 or more. Meanwhile, only $3,556, or 1.01%, of federal donations from Twitter employees went to Republicans. > Facebook employees donated $2.4 million, or 91.68% of total federal donations, to Democrats with donations of $200 or more via individuals or PACS. Only $218,576, or 8.2% of all federal donations from Facebook employees, went to Republicans.
- spaetzleesser 6y agoHe will probably try to buy off both parties now. And no doubt he will be successful. His real mistake wasn’t partisanship but pouring money into organizations that distorted science like they did with climate change.
- civilized 6y ago> Relentlessly putting my self-interest above any other consideration turned out to be not in my self-interest, and I regret it for this reason alone
- santoshalper 6y agoIs that an actual quote from the article? If so, it's just perfect.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- ethbr0 6y agoI mean, that's basic libertarian epiphany in a nutshell. Maximizing freedom for myself in a society where there are other people requires limiting everyone's freedoms in some ways.
- mrgordon 6y agoYep some philosophers described it as “freedom to” and “freedom from”. Without freedom from others doing some things that effect you, you might be dead or otherwise severely restricted
- KaoruAoiShiho 6y agoYes people not understanding positive and negative freedom is the major educational failure behind the libertarian meme.
- defterGoose 6y agoIt's a basic feature of the growth-at-all-costs financier mindset. A complete and total misunderstanding of closed vs open systems, zero sum games, and "innovation".
- tclancy 6y ago
- jgalt212 6y agoBig money has captured the leadership of both parties. He could have been more effective squashing the little man had he spread the wealth (of his donations) a bit more broadly. e.g. Mike Bloomberg.
- pavel_lishin 6y ago> At 85, the libertarian tycoon who spent decades funding conservative causes says he wants a final act building bridges across political divides Isn't that what all the republicans are saying now that their presidential candidate has lost? Now that they've lost a modicum of power, now is the time for partisanship and teamwork? Where was this spirit of cooperation before? This seems like a good way to spend money on his interests, while pretending he's building bridges, and blaming the other side when anything goes wrong.
- javagram 6y ago> Isn't that what all the republicans are saying now that their presidential candidate has lost? FYI, the Koch network did not actively support Trump in either 2016 or 2020. So calling Trump as “their presidential candidate” could be misleading. Charles Koch talked about Trump vs Hillary in 2016 as cancer vs heart attack and said publicly hillary might be a better president.
- webmaven 6y ago> > Isn't that what all the republicans are saying now that their presidential candidate has lost? > FYI, the Koch network did not actively support Trump in either 2016 or 2020. So calling Trump as “their presidential candidate” could be misleading. Sure, they didn't support Trump directly. But they really only supported GOP candidates, and whether those candidates in turn supported Trump doesn't seem to have ever been a factor. They certainly never explicitly supported any opposition to Trump, not even conservative opposition such as the Lincoln Project.
- javagram 6y agoYes, they didn’t actively support Trump opponents either. Had a non-Trump candidate won the 2016 GOP primary, they would have backed him or her in the presidential race - they canceled their plans to do so when Trump won.
- samirillian 6y agoIs it possible that this is because the democratic party has shifted towards the Koch brothers and not the other way around?
- pjscott 6y agoI looked a bit at what Charles Koch has been saying recently, and this doesn't look like a change of opinion; it looks like a change of tactics. He's de-emphasizing the partisan tug-o-war stuff, which looks less promising now than it did during (for example) the early days of the Tea Party, and focusing on the less fought-over parts. It's a reasonable approach if he wants to get things done, but not the about-face the headline suggests.
- sangnoir 6y agoI'm not sure if I'm being overly cynical - but isn't this just a tactic to consolidate the gains he managed to win by discouraging the other side from using his methods? Similar to how challengers decry bureaucracy, but once they become incumbents, wield it as a cudgel to swat down upstarts.
- bredren 6y agoWe saw this in the Portland mayoral race. The only on-ballot challenger to the incumbent used political tactics that overcame what would normally be exclusionary credentials. It was so successful, I was taken aback by it. At one point I had a chance to speak with the candidate by phone, and I spoke about my concerns about the divisive rhetoric. The candidate said it was only something they had to do to "fire up my base" and that they would not govern in the way they had campaigned. Hearing that sent a chill down my spine and I voted against this person.
- redis_mlc 6y ago> my concerns about the divisive rhetoric. When you have a two-party system, you get binary outcomes - ie. divisiveness. It doesn't even make sense to expect something else.
- rualca 6y ago> When you have a two-party system, you get binary outcomes - ie. divisiveness. The two-party system problem seems to be a consequence of "first-past-the-post" voting. For example, some posters in reddit's /r/conservative were very insistent in attacking libertarian voters, pinning on them the responsibility of Trump's election loss. Their rationale was that they felt libertarian voters threw their vote away by voting on a candidate who had no chances of winning, thus robbing their candidate of support that they felt he would otherwise have if no libertarian candidate ran for president. Consequently, they argued that the only rational approach to the elections would be if all like-minded voters concentrated their vote on not-so-good-but-popular somewhat like-minded candidate so that they could have at least a chance of electing someone who, even though might not be the best candidate in the voter's opinion, was closer to support some of their views.
- bernardv 6y agoHe can’t undo the sh*t he sowed
- awakeasleep 6y agoThe aged scorpion asked the frog for one final ride across the river What he's asking for here is for Democrats to accept his lack of opposition to social liberalism, and bend themselves even further towards his fiscal conservatism.
- webmaven 6y ago> What he's asking for here is for Democrats to accept his lack of opposition to social liberalism, and bend themselves even further towards his fiscal conservatism. Yes, exactly. The thing is, as a putative libertarian he ought to have been supporting socially liberal policies (and candidates) all along. Merely offering a 'lack of opposition' isn't really any change at all, as he's never opposed it.
- Wolfenstein98k 6y agoHis partisanship was always circumstantial. I think he's renewing his position based on the increasing polarisation rather than actually "switching teams". It's more like political divestment, as the costs of polarisation have increased. His actual values - basic libertarianism like open borders and free trade and limited government - haven't changed at all. That's precisely why he never backed Trump, and instead continued plugging the values he espoused even as that drew fire from Republicans. For instance: note that he donated a lot more to Rep candidates than to Dem candidates, but it was almost exclusively where the relevant contest involved a pro-markets versus anti-markets debate. As Republicans have moved away from markets into populism, his spending is less and less partisan.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- fnord77 6y agounelected billionaire citizens shaping policy. This isn't democracy.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- wycy 6y ago> Despite Koch's calls for unity, his political contributions largely favored GOP candidates in the 2020 election cycle, with $2.8 million donated to Republicans and just $221,000 for Democratic candidates, the Journal reported. This tells you all you need to know.
- storf45 6y agoIs that a lot of money?
- peter303 6y agoI read the new book Kochland last year. I was expecting an expose of an evil robber baron. Instead the author had a begrudging respect for the talents of the Kochs. As s privately held company they dont have to generate quarterly or annual reports for the shareholders. They can focus on long term projects. The company's value increased from a quarter billion dollars at Fred Sr.s passing to a third of a trillion now.
- pigeons 6y agoI don't enjoy government politics on this site unless there is more of a link to this site's theme than what I feel this article has.
- onelastjob 6y agoThe USA needs a law that limits individuals to only donating something like $5,000 per person to any political campaign entity such as PACs, Super PACs, and political campaigns. Companies should not be able to contribute anything, only citizens. CA Props should also have this limit. Otherwise, the USA will be defacto ruled by whichever entities are able to contribute the most to campaigns and advertising for politicians. If the Koch brothers are allowed to put up 1,000 billboards for their candidate, but I can only afford to put up 1 billboard for a candidate, then politicians will only serve wealthy individuals and companies that contribute the most financially to their campaigns. The result will be that the government will not adequately protect ordinary citizens or the environment, which, in my opinion, is already happening.
- CWuestefeld 6y agoExcept that studies show that (at least above some relatively low threshold), money spent on a campaign doesn't correlate with election success. There's no point in throwing out the First Amendment (and possibly the most important aspect of it at that) for something that's not going to make any difference.
- tasty_freeze 6y agoIf I contribute $2000 to a party or a politician, and Charles Koch contributes $2M, which one of us is going to get the ear of our representative when we call? In my case, some intern will dutifully take my call. In Charles Koch's case, he will have that congressperson's direct phone line. When he goes to Washington, they'll have a sit down meal together. Hell, if he wanted it, he could have asked for and received a cabinet position or an ambassadorship. That isn't just free speech -- that is derailing democracy. By limiting contribution amounts, it will make the elected less beholden to big donors.
- kazagistar 6y agoThe USA had exactly such laws, before they were struck down in the Supreme Court as unconstitutional in the landmark case Citizens United. The reasoning was that the right to free speech was protected at all scales and all categories absolutely, and thusvspending any amount on any political speech like buying ads was protected. The only way for such a law to pass now would be to either have the Supreme Court overturn this decision (unlikely, its still recent) or to change the constitution to specify political speech spending as unprotected by the right to free speech, which is even less likely given the supermajority needed, the natural conflict of interests with the entire existing political class, and thr sacredness with which the American people view the constitution, and that part of the document specifically. I personally think Citizens United is the worst thing to ever happen to democracy, but I fear a revolution after a prolonged slide into deep oligarchy might be the only way it ever changes.
- arkis22 6y agohacker news is a democrat board.
- ponker 6y ago"After using vast amounts of money to completely tear apart the civic fabric of this nation I think I may have done an oopsie" is not really going to cut it. The only real mistake here is that these guys weren't Ceausescued when America could have still been saved from them.