Cato versus the Koch Brothers


Recommended Posts

Here's the thread I started on this when it first broke:

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=11810&view=findpost&p=157572

I still don't know what to make of it. People who want to support the Cato Institute will just found a new organization, and this business can only arrest, and even taint, the whole endeavor of spreading libertarian ideas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here are some aspects of Koch that came up on Hannity last night according to this blog:

(John Hinderaker)

The Democrats’ attack on Rush Limbaugh hasn’t turned out the way they had hoped. The blow back, in the form of conservatives pointing out the outrageous conduct of liberals like Bill Maher and Keith Olbermann, has dwarfed the original reaction against Rush. Worse, the blow back continues. So Democrats are now in the position of trying to shut down the conversation about civility and misogyny that they opportunistically started.

Last night on the Hannity Show, Sean Hannity asked Democratic operative Bob Beckel whether President Obama should return the $1 million his PAC received from Maher. Beckel responded by trying to change the subject–no surprise there–but he did so in a despicable manner:

[T]he rest of them are taking money from the Koch brothers who are Iranian arms sellers…But [Koch] traded arms with our enemies [and] I think that’s a lot worse.

Here is the video:

This was sheer fantasy. Beckel just made it up to avoid having to deal with the reality of Democratic Party misogyny. Apart from the utter falsity of his claim, there is a certain irony in his dragging the Koch brothers, two of the most gentlemanly individuals you are likely to meet, into a conversation about Bill Maher’s references to c***s and t***s.

Koch Industries responded to Beckel’s smear on KochFacts:

During a discussion on a Fox News program on Monday, March 19, partisan left-wing commentator Bob Beckel made outrageous and maliciously false statements about Koch. In reference to GOP presidential candidates, Beckel said, “the rest of them are taking money from the Koch brothers who are Iranian arms sellers.”

Mr. Beckel made the remarks in a bizarre effort to rebut concerns that the Obama campaign had accepted contributions from donors that have made disparaging remarks about women. He added, “But [Koch] traded arms with our enemies [and] I think that’s a lot worse.”

Mr. Beckel’s comments are reckless and wrong in many different ways. We assume he was referring to allegations contained in a widely criticized Bloomberg Markets article from last October. First, Koch has never manufactured, bought, sold, or traded arms of any kind or for any purpose — neither with Iran nor anyone else. Second, unlike many large contributors to the President and the Democratic party that Mr. Beckel is affiliated with that either continue to do business in Iran or did it at a much larger level for a longer time than Koch did, Koch voluntarily ceased all business in Iran several years ago.
At that time Koch put in place a policy that was stricter than US federal law that remains in place today. Third, the sales referred to in the Bloomberg Markets article related to petrochemical equipment [not arms] involving a foreign subsidiary of another foreign subsidiary of Koch that had in place protocols that were consistent with existing US law – something Bloomberg Markets itself was forced to concede.
Given the orchestrated campaign against us by those who oppose our views on public policy issues, we expect and have received partisan and baseless criticism and attacks over the past few years. Further, while it is hard to take a partisan hack like Mr. Beckel seriously and while he has made other misleading comments about us in the past, these new, entirely false charges out of whole cloth are a low even for him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's the thread I started on this when it first broke: http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=11810&view=findpost&p=157572 I still don't know what to make of it. People who want to support the Cato Institute will just found a new organization, and this business can only arrest, and even taint, the whole endeavor of spreading libertarian ideas.

I don't understand any of this either. With their billions Charles and David could easily start a new foundation and use that for whatever purposes they wish. I cannot fathom why it is necessary to gain control of Cato.

I have met Charles Koch a few times; he flew me out to Witchata many years ago to give a lecture for a supper club, and he financed a writing project of mine c. 1993. (He's a very nice guy.) I have never met David Koch, but I was under the impression that both are serious libertarians. I guess they have drifted to the right over the years.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

George, thanks for posting #1 and #2. Very interesting.

But Cato shouldn’t be involved in partisan politics. It is a 501©(3) organization forbidden from campaigning for or against any candidate on pain of “termination with extreme prejudice” by the most ruthless and powerful of U.S. intelligence agencies, the IRS.

That seems like a big issue. I wonder about the fine line between actiions that are and are not considered to be "campaigning for or against any candidate." I guess I could find out here (29 pages).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On his Monday broadcast, syndicated conservative radio host Mark Levin offered his take on a Daily Caller report that tied Media Matters for America to the al-Jazeera network. TheDC reported that the organization’s foreign policy fellow MJ Rosenberg has made some ill-advised statements about the Jewish community and the United States.

Levin called on the Internal Revenue Service to review Media Matters’ tax status and called the organization, as he has often done in the past, a “criminal front group.”

“Media Matters is a key political operative entity for the Democrat Party and for this president,” Levin said. “I don’t care if it covers itself in the charitable, non-profit, non-partisan mode, part of the Internal Revenue Code. That’s for the IRS to sort out and the IRS ought to be looking at them, quite frankly, as I’ve said many, many times. That’s why I call them a ‘criminal front group.’”

Levin challenged Media Matters to take action against him for the moniker he has given the group, and said he would use a lawsuit as an opportunity to investigate the organization.

“Hey, boys and girls at Media Matters, if you don’t like me calling you a ‘criminal front group,’ what are you going to do about it?” Levin asked. “I would love nothing more than to conduct myself a full-scale discovery of your organization, your finances, your phone records, your emails, your iPods, every little device that you have there.


<script src="http://player.ooyala.com/player.js?embedCode=tjNGs2NDpecHSJesNhViDjZBEuRdol7L&deepLinkEmbedCode=tjNGs2NDpecHSJesNhViDjZBEuRdol7L&width=640&height=360"></script>

“I would love nothing more, me to depose Mr. [David] Brock, the head of your organization. I would love nothing more than to depose Eric Burns. I would love nothing more than myself to depose Mr. Rosenberg, the whole damn bunch of you. You got it?” (RELATED: Full coverage of Media Matters)

The conservative talker challenged President Obama to condemn Media Matters and Rosenberg for his statements. He also suggested Alan Dershowitz, who has condemned the organization for its anti-Israel attacks, could serve as co-counsel.

Read more: http://dailycaller.c.../#ixzz1plNbv4fX

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand any of this either. With their billions Charles and David could easily start a new foundation and use that for whatever purposes they wish. I cannot fathom why it is necessary to gain control of Cato.

George,

Do the brothers Koch have a grudge against Ed Crane that they want to settle?

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand any of this either. With their billions Charles and David could easily start a new foundation and use that for whatever purposes they wish. I cannot fathom why it is necessary to gain control of Cato.
George, Do the brothers Koch have a grudge against Ed Crane that they want to settle? Robert Campbell

I'm not privy to any inside information -- everything I know is in the public domain -- but it wouldn't suprise me if this is a factor.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do the brothers Koch have a grudge against Ed Crane that they want to settle?

That wouldn't surprise me. The Koch brothers already run Americans for Prosperity, a 501©(4) organization, and Americans for Prosperity Foundation, a 501©(3) organization (link).

501©(4) organizations are generally civic leagues and other corporations operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare, or local associations of employees with membership limited to a designated company or people in a particular municipality or neighborhood, and with net earnings devoted exclusively to charitable, educational, or recreational purposes. 501©(4) organizations may lobby for legislation, and unlike 501©(3) organizations they may also participate in political campaigns and elections, as long as its primary activity is the promotion of social welfare. The tax exemption for 501©(4) organizations applies to most of their operations, but contributions may be subject to gift tax, and income spent on political activities - generally the advocacy of a particular candidate in an election - is taxable.

Contributions to 501©(4) organizations are not deductible as charitable contributions for the U.S. income tax. 501©(4) organizations are not required to disclose their donors publicly. This aspect of the law has led to extensive use of the 501©(4) provisions for organizations that are actively involved in lobbying, and has become controversial. In 2010, a bill (the DISCLOSE Act) was passed by the U.S. House of Representatives that addressed identification of donors to organizations involved in political advocacy, but the Senate Republicans filibustered and prevented a vote on the bill (link).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heh. I navigate to OL and what do I see? An ad that says: "The Koch Brothers are funding the fight against the EPA. Help the EPA fight back."

It was sponsored by The League of Conservation Voters. I hope LCV pays because I clicked on it. I didn't sign the petition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heh. I navigate to OL and what do I see? An ad that says: "The Koch Brothers are funding the fight against the EPA. Help the EPA fight back."

It was sponsored by The League of Conservation Voters. I hope LCV pays because I clicked on it. I didn't sign the petition.

Heh. I navigate to OL and what do I see? An ad that says: "The Koch Brothers are funding the fight against the EPA. Help the EPA fight back."

It was sponsored by The League of Conservation Voters. I hope LCV pays because I clicked on it. I didn't sign the petition.

that's interesting. I just clicked on and got an ad for jewellery.!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ND,

Thanks for the link.

The brothers Koch do have scores to settle with Ed Crane.

Robert Campbell

Looks like Crane will retire to take the pressure off CATO

--Brant

I thought "off the record" was to provide background information, not to say something about someone you wouldn't say to his face

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

From the statement by David Koch:

I also told Bob that Cato could become much more effective in translating esoteric concepts into concrete deliverables to move the public policy debate at this critical juncture in our nation’s history. I said Cato should be supportive of other organizations that are advocating public policies consistent with a free society.

Esoteric concepts? Cato?

Concrete deliverables? What kind of doublespeak is this?

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Esoteric concepts? Cato?

Concrete deliverables? What kind of doublespeak is this?

You obviously never went to business school. Try reading Dilbert for a while, it's cheaper than getting an MBA.

http://www.dilbert.com/

http://www.johnsmurf.com/jargon.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"translating esoteric concepts into concrete deliverables" : talking down to the dumb public until they vote Republican?

spin, spin, spin.

That's probably it. I suppose this also means that no words with more than two syllables should be used in Cato publications and projects. The future of my Cato Essays does not look bright, should the Koch brothers gain control.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder about the irony of this.

I have no problem if someone wants to broaden the appeal of ideas, especially if they are good ideas. I suppose you could call it dumbing them down as a general pejorative (as if being arcane and complicated are some kind of intellectual values), but I don't see it that way.

It's perfectly possible to have high intellectual quality in both simple and complex presentations.

But here's the irony. To repeat the quote from David Koch from his Statement:

I also told Bob that Cato could become much more effective in translating esoteric concepts into concrete deliverables to move the public policy debate at this critical juncture in our nation’s history.

If you are going to call on folks to get a more popular message out and jazz things up a bit, shouldn't you lead by example? Shouldn't you jazz up your own call to action and inject it with some emotion?

"Translating esoteric concepts," "concrete deliverables," "move the public policy debate," and "critical juncture" just don't cut it on that score.

They are good for snoozing, though.

:smile:

To be fair, I read David Koch's entire statement. I didn't get the impression that the Koch brothers are interested in micromanaging Cato or even directing it's intellectual course so long as it is on the free market side. I got the impression they just want to see Cato have more impact on society in promoting libertarian ideas than it currently does while essentially continuing the work that it has been doing all along. (And maybe, if possible, finding a way to consign Bob Levy and Ed Crane to a long term of service in Uganda or something. :smile: )

In other words, within the context that quote above was made, I see it as the Koch's being interest in adding more broad appeal stuff to Cato's output (including people who appear on popular TV shows), not replacing what already exists. But frankly, I didn't see this as the core issue at all. Not even close.

I don't know. Maybe I'm wrong because I'm not all that familiar with the parties involved, but I sense more power struggle and in-house politics than anything else.

Top dogs pissing on--and being pissed at--each other.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The father, Fred, founder of the company and family patriarch was a founding member of the John Birch Society.

fredandsons.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael,

Adding popular appeal to an important intellectual message - is this the job of a think tank? Aren't Glenn Beck & Co. already doing the zip department - or do you think there is a middle ground between scholarly research and analysis, and PR?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now