KOCH3

---frontline 4 22<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0.5em 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1.725em; hyphens: auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Feb. 17, 1993<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0.5em 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1.725em; hyphens: auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON:<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0.5em 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1.725em; hyphens: auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Our plan does include a broad-based tax on energy, and it is environmentally responsible. It will help us in the future as well as in the present with the deficit.<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0.5em 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1.725em; hyphens: auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">MARC CHUPKA:<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0.5em 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1.725em; hyphens: auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">I was excited that a fairly bold step had been proposed.<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0.5em 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1.725em; hyphens: auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">MALE NEWSREADER:<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0.5em 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1.725em; hyphens: auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">It’s called a "BTU tax."<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0.5em 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1.725em; hyphens: auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">FEMALE NEWSREADER:<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0.5em 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1.725em; hyphens: auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">The tax is likely to be levied at the producer or distributor level, though consumers would feel it as energy companies passed it along in their prices.<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0.5em 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1.725em; hyphens: auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">MARC CHUPKA:<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0.5em 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1.725em; hyphens: auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">It’s a tax policy. You don’t expect everyone to love it. But the opposition to this particular proposal was very strong, very strident, very aggressive.<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0.5em 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1.725em; hyphens: auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">MALE NEWSREADER:<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0.5em 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1.725em; hyphens: auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Koch Industries has been called the biggest company you never heard of. The sprawling giant includes pipelines, petrochemicals, asphalt plants, trading floors. Based in Wichita, Kansas, it sells everything from gasoline to beef.<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0.5em 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1.725em; hyphens: auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">JEFF NESBIT, Comms. Dir., Citizens for a Sound Economy, 1993:<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0.5em 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1.725em; hyphens: auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">I would say that virtually no one in the early 1990s had ever heard of Koch Industries.<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0.5em 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1.725em; hyphens: auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">MALE NEWSREADER:<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0.5em 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1.725em; hyphens: auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Koch's core business is distribution. It owns 37,000 miles of international pipeline.<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0.5em 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1.725em; hyphens: auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">JEFF NESBIT:<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0.5em 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1.725em; hyphens: auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">They can take the heaviest oil, the dirtiest oil, the hardest to turn into a useful product and refine it. And they became the best in the world at doing that. I think it's still probably the second-largest privately held company in the world.<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0.5em 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1.725em; hyphens: auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">The two brothers who ran Koch Industries were Charles and David Koch. They had their sights set on how they were going to deal with issues that were existential to their industry. It's the heart of what they do, so they're going to fight and hang on to that till the bitter end.<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0.5em 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1.725em; hyphens: auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">JERRY TAYLOR, Cato Institute, 1991-2014:<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0.5em 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1.725em; hyphens: auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">The Cato Institute was a public policy think tank. It was founded by Charles Koch. And Charles was heavily invested in energy policy discussions back in that time, particularly the emergence of climate change.<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0.5em 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1.725em; hyphens: auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">The Cato Institute position was that climate change is real, but the climate change that we're seeing today is far, far more modest than what the computer models say we should have seen by now. We need to know a lot more before we should be spending trillions of dollars to address it.<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0.5em 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1.725em; hyphens: auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">JEFF NESBIT:<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0.5em 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1.725em; hyphens: auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">So the Kochs had funding directed at the Cato Institute as a libertarian think tank; they also had funding that went to Citizens for a Sound Economy, which was built for a slightly different purpose, which was to be a quote, grassroots mobilizer.<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0.5em 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1.725em; hyphens: auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">JERRY TAYLOR:<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0.5em 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1.725em; hyphens: auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Coming out of the gate, we then get served up with a proposed BTU tax. It was obvious to us at the Cato Institute that once that tax is in place, it's going to be very hard to get rid of.<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0.5em 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1.725em; hyphens: auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">JEFF NESBIT:<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0.5em 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1.725em; hyphens: auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">We walked over from Citizens for a Sound Economy over to the American Petroleum Institute, and we met with the entire leadership of API. And the meeting was all about, let's just knock out the BTU tax in its infancy.<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0.5em 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1.725em; hyphens: auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">JERRY TAYLOR:<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0.5em 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1.725em; hyphens: auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">We would be meeting in various locales in Washington with over 100 people in the room. It was a real war room situation.<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0.5em 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1.725em; hyphens: auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">JERRY JASINOWSKI, President of the National Association of Manufacturers :<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0.5em 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1.725em; hyphens: auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">[Archive] This coalition is one of the fastest growing and strongest that I've seen. We will stop the BTU tax and I believe substitute spending cuts in its place. Thank you very much for coming.<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0.5em 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1.725em; hyphens: auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Oklahoma<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0.5em 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1.725em; hyphens: auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">RON HOWELL, Former consultant, Koch Industries:<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0.5em 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1.725em; hyphens: auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">We were known, and I think we made ourselves known that way, as the oil capital of the world. Almost everywhere you'd look had behind it oil industry dollars.<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0.5em 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1.725em; hyphens: auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">I thought that the tax was a bad idea for America, but predominantly a bad idea for Oklahoma. Oklahoma was not in a good spot at that time at all. Oil wells were being shut. That meant a lot of lost jobs, a lot of lost companies. And this was putting the heel of the boot down hard.<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0.5em 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1.725em; hyphens: auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">I got a call from Koch Industries telling me the industry is very concerned about this, but we're worried that this word isn't getting out. Our particular goal was to focus on Sen. Boren.<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0.5em 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1.725em; hyphens: auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">JEFF NESBIT:<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0.5em 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1.725em; hyphens: auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">David Boren was a moderate Democrat who chaired the relevant committee that would deal with the Clinton budget.<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0.5em 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1.725em; hyphens: auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">RON HOWELL:<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0.5em 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1.725em; hyphens: auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">We were hearing that he wanted to be left to do his own revising of it behind closed doors.<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0.5em 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1.725em; hyphens: auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">JEFF NESBIT:<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0.5em 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1.725em; hyphens: auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">They basically said if we can get David Boren to flip, we win. So they said, we're going to do whatever it takes.<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0.5em 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1.725em; hyphens: auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">RON HOWELL:<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0.5em 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1.725em; hyphens: auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">We set about what I would call a grasstops and a grassroots campaign. The grassroots were encouraged to call Sen. Boren and let him know that you do not want a tax, after seeing an ad that showed "take shower, pay a tax; start your car, pay a tax."<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0.5em 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1.725em; hyphens: auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">JEFF NESBIT:<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0.5em 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1.725em; hyphens: auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Everybody was given their marching orders out of this playbook. People would stand up behind politicians with signs about no BTU tax. There were rallies.<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0.5em 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1.725em; hyphens: auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">ENERGY INDUSTRY SPOKESMAN:<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0.5em 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1.725em; hyphens: auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">—cost to the average household in Oklahoma is going to be roughly about $500 a year.<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0.5em 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1.725em; hyphens: auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">RON HOWELL:<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0.5em 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1.725em; hyphens: auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">My main role was what I would call the grasstops. You may be a civic leader, you may be a CEO. Often it would be Mr. Koch would call them, or myself, and talk them through "Did you know it does this, this, this and this?" Encourage strongly Sen. Boren kill it.<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0.5em 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1.725em; hyphens: auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">JEFF NESBIT:<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0.5em 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1.725em; hyphens: auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">What they told the public and what the policymakers were led to believe was that there was an army of folks who were ready to march in the streets. Maybe there were a handful of folks who thought, "Oh, gosh, I should call my senator and register my complaint," but they had no such grassroots army. It was funded and fueled by the corporate interests.<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0.5em 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1.725em; hyphens: auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">MALE NEWSREADER:<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0.5em 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1.725em; hyphens: auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">CSE says its work isn’t done yet. It’s joined forces with other lobbying groups, stoking the flames of the prairie fire, hoping they’ll spread and burn the BTU tax for good.<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0.5em 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1.725em; hyphens: auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">RON HOWELL:<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0.5em 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1.725em; hyphens: auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">I remember a very late night or early morning phone call, and it was actually Sen. Boren's communications guy. "We want those ads to stop. And we want the CEOs to quit calling us, and in return, Sen. Boren’s going to announce his intentions to vote against it."<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0.5em 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1.725em; hyphens: auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">SEN. DAVID BOREN, D-Oklahoma, 1979-94 :<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0.5em 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1.725em; hyphens: auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Our proposal is fairer than that put forward by the administration—that is the BTU tax, which is the tax which is a part of the administration's plan that does hit lower- and middle-income Americans.<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0.5em 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1.725em; hyphens: auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">JEFF NESBIT:<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0.5em 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1.725em; hyphens: auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">He folded right away. It’s like wow, this can really work. We can pick our targets strategically and win, even when we’re not in political power.<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0.5em 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1.725em; hyphens: auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">NARRATOR:<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0.5em 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1.725em; hyphens: auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">At the time, David Boren disputed he was influenced by the oil industry. He said he was responding to concerns from the American public, and he opposed the tax because it would hurt consumers and businesspeople.<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0.5em 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1.725em; hyphens: auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">MALE NEWSREADER:<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0.5em 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1.725em; hyphens: auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">President Clinton has pulled the plug on his proposed BTU energy tax.<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0.5em 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1.725em; hyphens: auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">FEMALE NEWSREADER:<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0.5em 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1.725em; hyphens: auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Critics said it would cost jobs and devastate the economy, and there weren't enough votes in the Senate to pass it. Besides, who the heck knew what it was?<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0.5em 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1.725em; hyphens: auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">MALE NEWSREADER:<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0.5em 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1.725em; hyphens: auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">This is after all a nation addicted to its cars and to the idea of driving down the open road.<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0.5em 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1.725em; hyphens: auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">AL GORE:<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0.5em 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1.725em; hyphens: auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">It was extremely disappointing to not get the votes. It was just the raw power of all the money that they threw into this. But we just decided to regroup and try to skin the cat a different way.<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0.5em 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1.725em; hyphens: auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">MARC CHUPKA:<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0.5em 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1.725em; hyphens: auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">They never proposed another energy tax. It was just considered radioactive.<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0.5em 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1.725em; hyphens: auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">JEFF NESBIT:<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0.5em 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1.725em; hyphens: auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">I think some of the leadership of the Koch network were really quite excited that it worked so well. So that's how that playbook first began. It was developed right then. What I didn’t know at the time was that it would become the beginning of something much bigger. And that playbook is still in use today.<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0.5em 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1.725em; hyphens: auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">I don't feel embarrassed or regretful. In hindsight, I shouldn't have done that. There's no question I shouldn't have done that. But they were my client. I was a contractor. I was paid, I'm going to do my job. And my job was to do that.<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0.5em 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1.725em; hyphens: auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">NARRATOR:<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0.5em 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1.725em; hyphens: auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Charles Koch did not respond to questions about the campaign against the BTU tax. In 1994, a top Koch executive said, "Our belief is that the tax, over time, may have destroyed our business."...=<h1 class="headline" style="background: transparent; border: 0px; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; font-weight: 700;">House aides to grill EPA official about formaldehyde review</h1><section class="homepage byline" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; margin: 0.25em 0px 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; font-weight: 400; font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-color: initial; display: block !important;">By <a href="https://www.eenews.net/staff/Corbin_Hiar" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent; text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap;">Corbin Hiar</a> in <a href="https://www.eenews.net/eed" class="publication eed" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent; text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; font-weight: 700;">E&E Daily</a> </section><a href="https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/stories/1061788049" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration-line: none;"></a><section class="excerpt" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: border-box;">Congressional investigators tomorrow will scrutinize the role a former Koch Industries Inc. executive may have played in sidelining a health review of formaldehyde.</section>judicial junket update:
<a href="http://www.publicintegrity.org/2013/03/28/12368/corporations-pro-business-nonprofits-foot-bill-judicial-seminars" style="">http://www.publicintegrity.org/2013/03/28/12368/corporations-pro-business-nonprofits-foot-bill-judicial-seminars</a><ul style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 24px 0px; padding: 0px 0px 0px 30px; border: 0px; font-family: tablet-gothic-n2, tablet-gothic, " helvetica="Helvetica" neue="Neue" arial="Arial" sans-serif="sans-serif" line-height="line-height" px="px"><li style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px;">Between July 2008 and 2012, about 185 federal judges attended more than 100 judicial education seminars, sponsored by conservative foundations and multinational corporations like ExxonMobil, Pfizer and BP.</li><li style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px;">The Center identified instances where judges who attended seminars underwritten by certain firms and trade groups later issued rulings in the funders’ favor.</li><li style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px;">George Mason University’s Law & Economics Center and Northwestern University’s Judicial Education Program hosted more judicial conferences than any other organization or university.</li><li style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px;">The Koch Foundation and The Searle Freedom Trust, both major supporters of conservative causes, were sponsors for most of the conferences organized by the two schools.</li><li style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px;">The person who spoke at more judicial conferences than any other was Henry Butler, a professor and prominent conservative formerly of Northwestern and now executive director of George Mason’s Law & Economics Center.</li></ul>
<ul class="list-unstyled" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 10px; padding-left: 0px; list-style: none;" helvetica="Helvetica" neue="Neue" arial="Arial" sans-serif="sans-serif" line-height="line-height" px="px" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb"><li style="box-sizing: border-box;"><a href="http://assets.motherjones.com/interactives/projects/features/koch-network/shell19/index.html?initialWidth=960&childId=graphic#" class="show-entity" data-name="United Negro College Fund" data-entity-index="10" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none; background: 0px 0px;">United Negro College Fund: $25,000,000</a><div class="entity-details" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><section style="box-sizing: border-box; padding: 0.5em; margin: 0.5em 0em 0.5em 1em; border: 1px solid rgb(238, 238, 238); border-top-left-radius: 4px; border-top-right-radius: 4px; border-bottom-right-radius: 4px; border-bottom-left-radius: 4px; background-color: rgb(238, 238, 238);">This gift to UNCF supports historically black colleges and provides scholarships. The fund's decision to accept the donation led the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees to end a joint scholarship program with UNCF. In a <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lee-a-saunders/a-principle-is-a-terrible-thing-to-waste_b_5571970.html" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none; background: 0px 0px;">letter</a> to fund president Michael Lomax, AFSCME head Lee Saunders wrote that he was "truly stunned to learn that less than two weeks [after accepting the donation], you attended and spoke at the Koch brothers summit in California…The Koch brothers and the organizations they fund…support voter identification laws. They seek to restrict early voting and voter registration. They funded organizations that advocated for the Supreme Court's rolling back of the Voting Rights Act. The Koch brothers are the single most prominent funders of efforts to prevent African Americans from voting."<ul class="list-unstyled" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; list-style: none;">Received money from:<li style="box-sizing: border-box;"><a href="http://assets.motherjones.com/interactives/projects/features/koch-network/shell19/index.html?initialWidth=960&childId=graphic#" data-target="Charles Koch Foundation and Koch Industries" class="donor-link" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none; background: 0px 0px;">Charles Koch Foundation and Koch Industries</a> $25,000,000</li></ul></section></div></li></ul><a href="http://prezi.com/0_wyaom0httg/ifgs-kochtopus-mapping-the-influence-of-koch-cash/" style="">http://prezi.com/0_wyaom0httg/ifgs-kochtopus-mapping-the-influence-of-koch-cash/</a>votes for xl, koch$ in order (to 7K$)Pat Roberts (R-KS)Jim Inhofe (R-OK)Jerry Moran (R-KS)Roy Blunt (R-MO)Tom Coburn (R-OK)John Thune (R-SD)Richard Burr (R-NC)Mitch McConnell (R-KY)Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)Saxby Chambliss (R-GA)Orrin Hatch (R-UT)Marco Rubio (R-FL)John Cornyn (R-TX)Mark Kirk (R-IL)John Barrasso (R-WY)Mary Landrieu (D-LA)Rob Portman (R-OH)Roger Wicker (R-MS)Dean Heller (R-NV)Mark Pryor (D-AR)Pat Toomey (R-PA)Richard Shelby (R-AL)Kelly Ayotte (R-NH)Ron Johnson (R-WI)Johnny Isakson (R-GA)Ted Cruz (R-TX)Rand Paul (R-KY)Jeff Flake (R-AZ)David Vitter (R-LA)Max Baucus (D-MT)Bob Corker (R-TN)Dan Coats (R-IN)Tim Scott (R-SC)Jeff Sessions (R-AL)John Hoeven (R-ND)Mike Crapo (R-ID)Lindsey Graham (R-SC)Tom Carper (D-DE)Mike Johanns (R-NE)<div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">pbs newshour 2/14</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">JUDY WOODRUFF: Senate Democrats face a tough map in this November’s midterm elections, having to defend 21 seats, compared to 14 for Republicans.Among the top targets for Republicans are seven seats currently held by Democrats in states that Mitt Romney won in 2012: Alaska, Arkansas, Louisiana, Montana, North Carolina, South Dakota, and West Virginia. Democrats, meanwhile, view Kentucky and Georgia as their best pickup opportunities.As the two parties stockpile resources for the fall campaign, outside groups have already begun spending massive sums of money. In fact, Americans for Prosperity, which is backed by conservative billionaires Charles and David Koch, has spent $27 million on ads just since August.</div>15. Koch brothers could make $100 billion profit from Keystone pipeline Approval of the Keystone XL pipeline could generate $100 billion in profits for billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch, according to a <a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="http://kochcash.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Embargo_Report.pdf" style="line-height: 1.2em; outline: none;">report released Sunday</a>, which revealed the extent to which the Kochs would benefit from the tar sands development the proposed pipeline would help spur.A progressive think tank called the <a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="http://www.ifg.org/" style="line-height: 1.2em; outline: none;">International Forum on Globalization</a> completed <a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="http://kochcash.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Embargo_Report.pdf" style="line-height: 1.2em; outline: none;">the study</a>, which found that the Kochs and their privately-owned company, Koch Industries, hold up to 2 million acres of land in Alberta, Canada, the proposed starting point of the Keystone XL.Read the full story: <a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="http://americablog.com/2014/01/koch-brothers-make-100-billion-profit-keystone-pipeline.html" style="line-height: 1.2em; outline: none;">http://americablog.com/2014/01/koch-brothers-make-100-billion-profit-keystone-pipeline.html</a> nick c rslcCharles and David Koch, brothers whose philanthropic and political network has helped fuel a Republican resurgence in the onetime union strongholds of the industrial Midwest, have also stepped up their political activity in the states; they hope to rebound in places like Virginia, where a Democrat won the governorship in 2013, and consolidate earlier victories in states like Michigan and Wisconsin.=crypto:  There is a long and storied tradition of corporate, right-wing interests seeking to shape the economic policies of the Democratic Party. The DLC, another Third Way–style group that folded in 2011, was funded by none other than Koch Industries. Richard Fink, a strategist to the Koch brothers who helped found what is now known as Americans for Prosperity, <a href="http://prospect.org/article/how-dlc-does-it" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none; outline: none;" helvetica="Helvetica" neue="Neue" arial="Arial" sans-serif="sans-serif" line-height="line-height" px="px" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb">was on the DLC’s board</a>. fang<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elliott-negin/unreliable-sources-how-th_1_b_3367567.html?view=print&comm_ref=false">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elliott-negin/unreliable-sources-how-th_1_b_3367567.html?view=print&comm_ref=false</a><div id="blog_title" style="list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; overflow: visible; line-height: 16px;"><h1 class="title-blog" style="list-style: none; margin: 0px 0px 10px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; overflow: visible; line-height: 36px;">Unreliable Sources: How the Media Help the Kochs & ExxonMobil Spread Climate Disinformation</h1><div class="comments_datetime_new border_none relative v05" data-beacon="{" p="p" mnid="mnid" entrybyline="entryByline" style="list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; overflow: visible; position: relative;">Posted: 06/03/2013 </div></div><div class="padding_bottom_10" style="list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 10px; border: 0px; overflow: visible; line-height: 16px;"><div class="fb-like fb_edge_widget_with_comment fb_iframe_widget" data-href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elliott-negin/unreliable-sources-how-th_1_b_3367567.html" data-send="false" data-layout="standard" data-width="450" data-show-faces="false" data-colorscheme="light" data-font="arial" data-action="like" ref="" fb-xfbml-state="rendered" style="list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; overflow: visible; display: inline-block; position: relative; width: 450px;"></div></div><div class="blog_content blog_design_b" id="entry_body" style="list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 15px 0px 0px; border-width: 2px 0px 0px; border-top-style: solid; border-top-color: rgb(205, 205, 205); overflow: visible; line-height: 21px;"><div class="clear_first" style="list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; overflow: visible; clear: both;"><div class="entry_body_text" style="list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; overflow: visible;"><div class="float_left" style="list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; overflow: visible; float: left;">This six-part series originally ran on the Huffington Post between May 13 and 24, 2013. Below are all six parts in consecutive order.<img alt="2013-05-10-Table_Huffpost.jpg" src="http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2013-05-10-Table_Huffpost.jpg" width="610" height="359" style="list-style: none; margin: 0px 20px 15px 0px; padding: 2px; border: 1px solid rgb(205, 205, 205); overflow: visible; float: left;" />Part 1: A Glaring Lapse in Climate and Energy Coverage One of my morning rituals is half-listening to NPR's "Morning Edition" while I'm getting ready for work. But on January 3, when a story came on about the fate of the wind industry's production tax credit, I snapped to attention. It was good news. Congress's eleventh hour "fiscal cliff" agreement had left the tax credit in place for at least one more year.The NPR <a href="http://www.npr.org/2013/01/03/168515103/wind-power-changes-landscape-in-multiple-ways" target="hplink" style="list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; text-decoration: none; overflow: visible; outline: 0px;">story </a>featured a spokesman for a small Iowa wind project who explained how the tax credit benefits rural communities. For balance, it also included a naysayer: Thomas Pyle from the American Energy Alliance, who wanted Congress to kill the subsidy."It's not that the subsidies for the wind industry in and of themselves are bad, but it is part-and-parcel of a larger problem, and that is, is that the federal government is notoriously bad at energy policy," Pyle said. "They have been for decades, and we think it's time for them to step aside."But who is Thomas Pyle and what is the American Energy Alliance? The story didn't say.It turns out that the American Energy Alliance is a front group for the oil and gas industry. Pyle, AEA's president, is a former lobbyist for the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association and Koch Industries, the Wichita, Kansas-based coal, oil and gas conglomerate owned by the billionaire brothers Charles G. and David H. Koch (pronounced "coke"). Koch Industries is the second largest privately held company in the country.Digging a little deeper, I learned that AEA is the political arm of the Institute for Energy Research, where Pyle also serves as president. From 2006 to 2010, IRE received hundreds of thousands of dollars from the oil and gas industry's trade association, the American Petroleum Institute; ExxonMobil; and the Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation, a philanthropy controlled by Charles Koch.OK, but didn't Pyle say the federal government should stop subsidizing all energy? That sounds pretty evenhanded, right? In fact, as aggressive as Pyle and his benefactors are about undermining their competition, they are even more vehement about protecting themselves--and they know full well their friends in Congress wouldn't dare touch oil and gas subsidies. Indeed, legislation introduced last May to pull the plug on the billions in annual tax breaks and subsidies the oil, gas and coal industries enjoy died a quick death.Obviously there wasn't enough time to explain all that in a four-minute news segment. But at the very least the reporter should have identified Pyle as an oil and gas industry spokesman. I emailed the reporter later that day to point that out. I got no response.Why Don't Reporters Follow the Money?Twenty-five years after NASA scientist James Hansen testified at a Senate hearing that scientists know with a 99 percent certainty that burning fossil fuels--not natural climate variations--is warming the planet, there are many reasons why Congress has yet to take significant steps to curb U.S. carbon emissions. The hundreds of millions of dollars oil, coal, auto and manufacturing industries have donated to federal candidates is certainly a factor. So are the hundreds of millions of dollars they've spent to lobby them once they're elected.But the news media are also to blame. Too often they have provided a platform for fossil fuel industry-funded think tanks and advocacy groups to make spurious claims about global warming and renewable energy and allowed them to pass themselves off as independent, disinterested parties promoting free markets and limited government.Over the years, journalists have consistently relied on these groups to provide the "other side" in climate and energy stories when, in fact, there is no other side--at least not on the science or the fact that we have to wean ourselves off fossil fuels to avoid some of the worst consequences of climate change. All too often, however, the news media have presented these two sides as equivalent, despite the fact that one rests its argument on peer-reviewed climate science while the other promotes the distortions of industry-funded contrarians, most of whom are not climate scientists--or even scientists at all. NPR's ombudsman addressed this deficiency two years ago. "NPR often does a lousy job of identifying the background of think tanks or other groups when quoting their experts," Alicia C. Shepard wrote in an <a href="http://www.npr.org/blogs/ombudsman/2011/04/22/134229266/what-to-think-about-think-tanks" target="hplink" style="list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; text-decoration: none; overflow: visible; outline: 0px;">essay </a>posted on the network's website in April 2011, just a month before her three-year tenure ended. "NPR also rarely explains why listeners should pay attention to the experts it chooses to quote. This matters."Shepard was right. It does matter. But her solution of just tacking on "libertarian," "conservative" or "liberal" labels doesn't sufficiently inform the public whose interests these think tanks are serving. In any case, her message apparently fell on deaf ears. The glaring omission in the January 3 story is still more the rule than the exception at NPR, and the network is not alone. Most, if not all, mainstream news organizations are guilty of the same transgression.To gauge just how widespread this failure is, I recently looked to see if elite news organizations reported funding sources for eight prominent climate contrarian groups in climate and energy stories that ran from January 2011 through December 2012. The groups--which I have dubbed the "Oil Eight"--are the American Enterprise Institute, Americans for Prosperity, Cato Institute, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Heartland Institute, Heritage Foundation, Institute for Energy Research (and its political arm, American Energy Alliance), and Manhattan Institute for Policy Research. When it comes to climate, the Oil Eight share the same goals as their corporate underwriters: sow doubt about the reality or seriousness of global warming, stifle government efforts to curb carbon emissions, and hinder the growth of renewable energy technologies.Who are their corporate underwriters? From 2001 through 2011, the Oil Eight collectively received more than $23 million from one or more of the following interested parties: the American Petroleum Institute, ExxonMobil, General Motors and three Koch family foundations: the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation (now the Charles Koch Foundation), David H. Koch Charitable Foundation and Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation, according to data I gleaned from federal tax filings, the <a href="http://foundationcenter.org/findfunders/990finder/" target="hplink" style="list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; text-decoration: none; overflow: visible; outline: 0px;">Foundation Center</a> and the Bridge Project's <a href="http://bridgeproject.com/?transparency" target="hplink" style="list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; text-decoration: none; overflow: visible; outline: 0px;">Conservative Transparency</a> database. In addition, another Charles Koch philanthropy, the relatively unknown Knowledge and Progress Fund, contributed nearly $8 million from 2005 to 2011 to a secretive, pass-through foundation called <a href="http://greenpeaceblogs.org/2013/02/15/revealed-donors-trust-is-the-secret-atm-machine-for-climate-deniers/" target="hplink" style="list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; text-decoration: none; overflow: visible; outline: 0px;">Donors Trust</a>. From 2001 through 2011, Donors Trust and its affiliate Donors Capital Fund laundered more than $54 million of largely untraceable contributions to the Oil Eight, far outpacing ExxonMobil and the three main Koch family foundations.Using the Nexis database and the news organizations' archives, I tracked coverage by the Associated Press, NPR, the political trade journal Politico, and six leading newspapers: theLos Angeles Times, New York Times, USA Today, Washington Post and Wall Street Journal. I confined my search to stories on climate and energy, so I excluded pieces that focused on industry funding without mentioning either topic.After poring over more than 1,000 stories, editorials, opinion columns and interviews, I narrowed my sample to 357 relevant pieces. Here's what I found: These top news organizations provided information about the Oil Eight's fossil fuel industry funding in only 32 percent of the climate and energy stories they published or aired over the two-year period.When I was in school, 32 percent was an F.<img alt="2013-05-10-Chart_ThinkTanks.jpg" src="http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2013-05-10-Chart_ThinkTanks.jpg" width="611" height="373" style="list-style: none; margin: 0px 20px 15px 0px; padding: 2px; border: 1px solid rgb(205, 205, 205); overflow: visible; float: left;" />The eight news organizations did the best job identifying the fact that the Koch brothers underwrite Americans for Prosperity, citing the Kochs as the group's funders 69 percent of the time. They were not nearly as attentive with the other groups, however. They disclosed the funders behind the Institute for Energy Research and its political arm, American Energy Alliance, in 43 percent of the stories that mentioned them in 2011 and 2012, and then their attention really faded. They mentioned the Heartland Institute's benefactors only 20 percent of the time, the Cato Institute's funders only 10 percent of the time, and the supporters of the remaining four groups--the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Manhattan Institute, Heritage Foundation and American Enterprise Institute--less than 10 percent of the time. (See the table at the top of this blog for my complete survey results.)Politico ran the most climate and energy stories citing the Oil Eight during the two year period--86--and named their funders in 44 percent of its stories, tying it with the Los Angeles Times for the best record. The Los Angeles Times--which the Koch brothers would like to buy--ran 25 stories citing one or more of the Oil Eight, mentioning funders in 11 of them.The news organizations that did the worst job identifying fossil fuel industry funders wereUSA Today, which cited them in only 18 percent of its 28 stories and op-eds, and the Wall Street Journal, which named them in only 11 percent of its 46 stories, columns and op-eds. That's very discouraging, given the two papers have the largest circulations in the country. #<img alt="2013-05-10-Chart_NewsOrgs.jpg" src="http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2013-05-10-Chart_NewsOrgs.jpg" width="611" height="373" style="list-style: none; margin: 0px 20px 15px 0px; padding: 2px; border: 1px solid rgb(205, 205, 205); overflow: visible; float: left;" /> Elliott Negin, the director of news and commentary at the Union of Concerned Scientists, is a former NPR news editor and managing editor of American Journalism Review.
Part 2: Disinformation Laundering at the Competitive Enterprise Institute Social scientists use the term "information laundering" to describe the phenomenon of corporations funding seemingly independent think tanks to convey their message. A more accurate term would be "disinformation laundering." To be sure, it's just one of a number of tactics corporations and trade associations use to protect their interests, including supporting candidates and political parties, lobbying legislators, financing public relations campaigns, and underwriting university-based institutes. But backing anti-regulation think tanks enables corporations to disseminate their message anonymously--and more effectively. After all, a "scholar" with an "independent" think tank has more credibility than a corporation with the general public and, more important, with policymakers and the news media.To understand just how the fossil fuel industry has been laundering climate disinformation, there are few better places to start than with the Washington, D.C.-based Competitive Enterprise Institute. CEI is the same think tank that notoriously reassured Americans that global warming is nothing to worry about in a <a href="http://globalwarmingwatch.blogspot.com/2006/05/carbon-dioxide-spot-they-call-it-ad-we.html" target="hplink" style="list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; text-decoration: none; overflow: visible; outline: 0px;">TV commercial</a> extolling the virtues of<a href="http://www.wunderground.com/resources/climate/cei.asp" target="hplink" style="list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; text-decoration: none; overflow: visible; outline: 0px;">carbon dioxide</a>. The spot's unforgettable tag line: "They call it pollution. We call it life."During the 1990s, CEI and other think tanks that would later form the backbone of the climate contrarian movement received millions of dollars from <a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/documentStore/q/w/i/qwi82c00/Sqwi82c00.pdf" target="hplink" style="list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; text-decoration: none; overflow: visible; outline: 0px;">tobacco </a>and <a href="http://www.apnewsarchive.com/1996/Study-Drug-Industry-Finances-Studies-Advocating-Less-Regulation/id-d84fe1de99976f574af6ba219f09567f" target="hplink" style="list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; text-decoration: none; overflow: visible; outline: 0px;">drug </a>companies to attack the Food and Drug Administration's regulatory authority. The tobacco industry wanted to <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Smoking_as_a_civic_duty" target="hplink" style="list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; text-decoration: none; overflow: visible; outline: 0px;">block efforts</a> to address secondhand smoke, regulate tobacco as a drug, and curb cigarette advertising and sales to minors. The pharmaceutical industry, meanwhile, wanted to pressure the agency to speed up the drug approval process. CEI--which had no scientists, physicians or public health experts on its staff--went even further, <a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/documentStore/o/y/v/oyv77d00/Soyv77d00.pdf" target="hplink" style="list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; text-decoration: none; overflow: visible; outline: 0px;">calling on</a> Congress to allow companies to market unapproved drugs and medical devices as long as they came with a warning that the FDA did not evaluate them for safety or effectiveness.At the same time CEI and other think tanks--including the American Enterprise Institute, Cato Institute and Heritage Foundation--were laundering disinformation for the tobacco and drug industries, a coalition of 50 U.S. companies and trade groups was doing its best to discredit climate science and stymie national and international efforts to address global warming. Formed in 1989--just a year before the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) published its "First Assessment Report"--the Global Climate Coalition included the oil industry's trade association, the American Petroleum Institute; oil giants British Petroleum, Chevron, Exxon, Mobil, Shell and Texaco; and the Big Three automakers, DaimlerChrysler, Ford and General Motors.The fact that the Global Climate Coalition represented major carbon polluters was no secret. For example, 42 of the 43 stories the New York Times ran citing the coalition between 1989 and 2002--the year it disbanded--noted that it was an industry lobby group and many of them connected it directly to oil, coal and electric utility companies. Over the same time period, the Washington Post linked the coalition to industry in all of the 41 stories it ran and, like the Times, periodically mentioned its ties to oil and coal companies.By the late 1990s, however, key Global Climate Coalition members began enlisting the help of CEI and other tobacco industry-funded think tanks, which hid their involvement and made their arguments seem more credible. For example, between 1997 and 1999, British Petroleum, Daimler Chrysler, Ford, General Motors, Shell and Texaco collectively gave CEI $342,000. In 2001 and 2002, ExxonMobil donated $545,000, while two of the three main Koch family funds--the David H. Koch Charitable Foundation and Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation--kicked in $100,000 and $29,460 respectively. Given CEI's entire budget in 2002 was about $3 million, these grants were significant. The ploy paid immediate dividends. Contrast how the New York Times and Washington Post identified the Global Climate Coalition with how they identified CEI, which quickly became one of the most-quoted climate change contrarian groups.While the Times nearly always identified the coalition properly, only one of 12 climate and energy stories the paper ran from 1997 through 2002 citing CEI mentioned its industry connection, and that article merely stated it was "a pro-business research and advocacy group." Among other unhelpful labels, the other 11 stories called CEI a "conservative group," a "private group that opposes regulatory approaches to environmental problems," and "a public policy group that promotes free enterprise and limited government."The Post did an equally abysmal job. Ten of 11 stories published from 1998 through 2002 called CEI either a "conservative" or "free market" think tank or didn't identify it at all. Like the Times, the paper's lone piece alluding to the group's corporate connection, an August 1999 op-ed, just called it a "pro-industry group."Journalists Continue to Enable CEI to Mislead the PublicToday, the news media continue to give CEI and other fossil fuel industry-funded think tanks too many opportunities to deceive the public. To try to get a fix on how often this happens, I reviewed two years' worth of climate and energy pieces published or aired by eight elite news organizations: the Associated Press, NPR, the political trade journal Politico, and six leading newspapers: the Los Angeles Times, New York Times, USA Today,Washington Post and Wall Street Journal. I confined my search to stories on climate and energy, so I excluded pieces that focused on industry funding without mentioning either topic.Using the Nexis database and the news organizations' archives to search for stories, editorials, opinion pieces and interviews, I looked at how these media outlets described CEI and seven other prominent fossil fuel industry-funded groups I call the "Oil Eight."How did they do?Overall, the news organizations identified funding sources in 32 percent of the relevant stories that ran from January 2011 through December 2012. But their track record describing CEI was decidedly worse. Only two of 30 climate and energy stories citing CEI over that time period mentioned that fossil fuel interests fund it. In other words, my eight top news organizations failed to note that CEI is a fossil fuel industry-backed group more than 90 percent of the time. (For more survey results, click <a href="http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/images/gw/Table_Paper.jpg" target="hplink" style="list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; text-decoration: none; overflow: visible; outline: 0px;">here</a>.)Just one energy <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/59618.html" target="hplink" style="list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; text-decoration: none; overflow: visible; outline: 0px;">story </a>in Politico, which ran 10 articles mentioning CEI, reported that the think tank gets fossil fuel industry money. The only other time CEI's funding was mentioned was during an <a href="http://www.npr.org/2012/05/02/151842205/exxonmobil-a-private-empire-on-the-world-stage" target="hplink" style="list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; text-decoration: none; overflow: visible; outline: 0px;">interview </a>NPR Fresh Air host Terry Gross did with New Yorker staff writer Steve Coll, who was promoting his new book on ExxonMobil.  What makes this omission so puzzling is journalists should be well aware of the connection.New York Times reporter Jennifer 8. Lee first <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/28/business/exxon-backs-groups-that-question-global-warming.html" target="hplink" style="list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; text-decoration: none; overflow: visible; outline: 0px;">reported </a>that CEI was one of ExxonMobil's grantees back in 2003. That makes it especially surprising that the Times, in particular, did such a poor job. Not one of the 10 climate and energy stories the national newspaper of record published in 2011 and 2012 mentioning CEI cited its link to fossil fuel interests.One of Washington's "Most Prominent Skeptics" Gets a Free RideThe way the New York Times and Associated Press described CEI and its main spokesman on climate, Myron Ebell, in two stories last year illustrates how the news organizations in my survey fell down on the job.Before joining CEI in 1999, Ebell was the policy director at the ExxonMobil-, tobacco industry-funded Frontiers of Freedom, a property rights, anti-environment organization started by former Sen. Malcolm Wallop (R-Wyo.). While still at Wallop's group, Ebell moonlighted as a member of ExxonMobil's Global Climate Science Team, a small task force the company formed in 1998--when Exxon and Mobil merged--to develop a strategy to discredit climate science that mimicked the tobacco industry's anti-FDA campaign.The same year it formed the task force, ExxonMobil started cutting checks to CEI. From 1998 through 2005, the company gave CEI more than $2 million. Over the last decade, the think tank also received $25,000 from the American Petroleum Institute (2009), $245,000 from General Motors (2003-08), $24,100 from the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation (2009), and $222,620 from Charles Koch's Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation (2002-11).Ebell, the director of CEI's Center for Energy and the Environment, is not a scientist. He has a master's degree in political theory from the London School of Economics and Political Science. But that doesn't stop him from posing as a climate expert--and it hasn't stopped journalists from quoting him. His standing in the global warming debate prompted Vanity Fair to publish an unflattering <a href="http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/05/skeptic200705" target="hplink" style="list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; text-decoration: none; overflow: visible; outline: 0px;">profile </a>of him in May 2007 highlighting his ExxonMobil funding, while the Financial Times in March 2010 <a href="http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/2d0bfdbc-2b1a-11df-93d8-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2PbaztKAj" target="hplink" style="list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; text-decoration: none; overflow: visible; outline: 0px;">named </a>Ebell "one of the most prominent skeptics in Washington."In March 2012, New York Times environment reporter Justin Gillis called Ebell for his opinion of two peer-reviewed studies on global warming-induced sea level rise that ran in the journal Environmental Research Letters. The studies estimated that 3.7 million Americans are at risk from coastal flooding due to rising sea levels, and one of the authors told Gillis, "We have a closing window of time to prevent the worst by preparing for higher seas."Gillis set up a quote from Ebell in his March 14 <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/14/science/earth/study-rising-sea-levels-a-risk-to-coastal-states.html?r=0" target="hplink" style="list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; text-decoration: none; overflow: visible; outline: 0px;">story </a>this way:<blockquote style="list-style: none; margin: 15px 0px; padding: 15px; border: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); overflow: visible; background-color: rgb(240, 240, 240); line-height: normal !important;">The handful of climate researchers who question the scientific consensus about global warming do not deny that the ocean is rising. But they often assert that the rise is a result of natural climate variability, they dispute that the pace is likely to accelerate, and they say society will be able to adjust to a continuing slow rise.Myron Ebell, a climate change skeptic at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a Washington research group, said that "as a society, we could waste a fair amount of money on preparing for sea level rise if we put our faith in models that have no forecasting ability."</blockquote>Times readers likely would conclude that Ebell is one of a "handful of climate researchers" who has doubts, especially since Gillis called CEI a "research group." In fact, neither Ebell nor CEI conduct any scientific research, none of CEI's energy and environment program staff members are scientists, and Ebell's criticism of climate models doesn't square with reality. A peer-reviewed paper <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/mar/27/climate-change-model-global-warming" target="hplink" style="list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; text-decoration: none; overflow: visible; outline: 0px;">published </a>recently in the journal Nature Geoscience found that climate models accurately predicted the rise in global temperatures over the last 15 years to within a few hundredths of a degree.A few months later, Associated Press science reporter Seth Borenstein turned to Ebell for comment for a May 31, 2012, <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/warming-gas-levels-hit-troubling-milestone-054101171.html" target="hplink" style="list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; text-decoration: none; overflow: visible; outline: 0px;">story</a>, "Warming gas levels hit 'troubling milestone.'" The article reported that Arctic monitoring stations were detecting more than 400 parts per million of carbon in the atmosphere."These milestones are always worth noting," Ebell told Borenstein, but he insisted that average global temperatures haven't gone up since 1998, despite higher carbon concentrations. "As carbon dioxide levels have continued to increase," Ebell said, "global temperatures flattened out, contrary to the [climate] models."Borenstein mistakenly called Ebell an economist, merely described CEI as "conservative," and made no mention of the think tank's funders. But he did refute Ebell's statement. "Temperature records contradict that claim," he wrote. "Both 2005 and 2010 were warmer than 1998, and the entire decade of 2000 to 2009 was the warmest on record, according to NOAA [the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration]."If Borenstein also had reported that CEI is backed by the fossil fuel industry, it would have helped explain Ebell's motivation for mangling the facts. # Elliott Negin, the director of news and commentary at the Union of Concerned Scientists, is a former NPR editor and managing editor of American Journalism Review. ExxonMobil Chairman, President and CEO Rex Tillerson may sound more reasonable than his predecessor, but he's still funding climate contrarian think tanks. (Getty Images)Part 3: Public Interest Groups Exxpose Exxon--Temporarily Until just a few years ago, ExxonMobil was without a doubt the Daddy Warbucks of climate contrarian philanthropy. While most oil and auto companies stopped funding contrarians by the time the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued its 2001 "Third Assessment Report" underscoring the severity of the global warming threat, ExxonMobil opened the spigot.The oil giant's behind-the-scenes role in underwriting contrarian think tanks, however, went largely unnoticed. When journalists cited these think tanks, they most often labeled them "conservative," "libertarian" or "free market" if they defined them at all, and--more important--they consistently failed to explain that these seemingly independent groups were in essence acting as PR agents for ExxonMobil in particular and the fossil fuel industry writ large.It took a nudge from public interest groups to get the mainstream press to take a closer look. Although one of the first <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/28/business/exxon-backs-groups-that-question-global-warming.html" target="hplink" style="list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; text-decoration: none; overflow: visible; outline: 0px;">articles</a> on ExxonMobil's role appeared in the New York Times back in May 2003, it was a one-off story. The paper didn't <a href="http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A04E4DF133DF931A25754C0A9639C8B63" target="hplink" style="list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; text-decoration: none; overflow: visible; outline: 0px;">mention</a> the company's funding agenda again until July 2005 when a coalition of a dozen groups launched the Exxpose Exxon campaign to protest the company's attacks on climate science and its support for drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Reserve.Two years later, a January 2007 <a href="http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/global_warming_contrarians/exxonmobil-report-smoke.html" target="hplink" style="list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; text-decoration: none; overflow: visible; outline: 0px;">report</a> by an Exxpose Exxon coalition member, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), pushed the company further into the media spotlight. "Smoke, Mirrors and Hot Air: How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco's Tactics to Manufacture Uncertainty on Climate Science" revealed that between 1998 and 2005, the oil giant had lavished $16 million on a network of more than 40 anti-regulation think tanks to launder its message. Many of the company's grantees, which together function as a climate disinformation "echo chamber," were veterans of the tobacco industry's war against tighter government regulation in the mid-1990s.Widely covered by wire services, television networks and leading newspapers, the UCS report drew blood. A week after its release, Rex Tillerson, who took over as ExxonMobil's CEO just a year before, conceded that his company had a PR problem. "We recognize that we need to soften our public image," he said, according to a January 10 story in Greenwire, a trade publication. "It is something we are working on."A month later, just after the release of the IPCC's "Fourth Assessment Report," the company made what appeared to be an about-face. "There is no question that human activity is the source of carbon dioxide emissions," said Kenneth Cohen, ExxonMobil's vice president of public affairs, as reported by Greenwire on February 9. "The appropriate debate isn't on whether climate is changing, but rather should be on what we should be doing about it." But what about the ExxonMobil grantees UCS identified in its report? Cohen toldGreenwire that the company had stopped funding them.Well, not quite.It is true that ExxonMobil's annual payout to contrarian groups peaked at $3.48 million in 2005 and the company began to drop grantees. That year the company severed ties with the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and over the next two years it cut off a number of others, including the Cato Institute, Frontiers of Freedom, George C. Marshall Institute, Heartland Institute and Institute for Energy Research.That said, ExxonMobil's contrarian funding dipped only 25 percent after Tillerson took over in 2006. It spent $16 million from 1998 through 2005--an average of $2 million a year--and $8.83 million from 2006 through 2011--an average of $1.47 million a year. In 2011, the company doled out $1.08 million to 17 contrarian groups, including seven named in the 2007 UCS report.Journalists Continue to Ignore the Money Behind Climate ContrariansDespite the fact that ExxonMobil is still a significant contrarian funder, the flurry of media interest in the company's funding agenda sparked by UCS's exposé died down soon after its release and remains feeble to this day. What happened? First, ExxonMobil's new CEO, Rex Tillerson, sounded a lot more reasonable than his predecessor Lee Raymond, who had denied the reality of climate change and called environmental advocates "extremists." Right off the bat, Tillerson acknowledged that climate change is a serious issue. Second, as I mentioned above, just a month after UCS released its report, ExxonMobil's VP for public affairs stated unambiguously that the company had pulled the plug on its contrarian network.Journalists apparently took that misleading statement at face value, and so did advocates. By the end of the 2007, the Exxpose Exxon campaign--which noticed a 33 percent drop in the company's contrarian funding between 2005 and 2006--declared victory and closed up shop. Meanwhile, the kinder, gentler Tillerson hewed to the same path as his predecessor and, with much less fanfare, the company continued to ply contrarian think tanks with grants, as did a small number of other fossil fuel and auto industry benefactors.  How well has the press explained the link between these special interests and these think tanks over the last few years? Not very. I recently sifted through the coverage of climate and energy issues from January 2011 through December 2012 by eight top news organizations to see how they identified key think tanks and advocacy groups funded by the fossil fuel industry. My sample included stories, editorials, opinion pieces and interviews from the Associated Press, NPR, the political trade journal Politico, and six leading newspapers: the Los Angeles Times, New York Times,USA Today, Washington Post and Wall Street Journal.I focused at how these media outlets described eight leading fossil fuel industry-backed policy groups I call the "Oil Eight": the American Enterprise Institute, Americans for Prosperity, Cato Institute, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Heartland Institute, Heritage Foundation, Institute for Energy Research (and its political arm, American Energy Alliance), and Manhattan Institute for Policy Research.Overall, the news organizations mentioned the Oil Eight's funding in only a third of the nearly 360 relevant pieces I found. If that sounds bad, it was considerably worse when it comes to how they covered the three Oil Eight think tanks that were still receiving grants from ExxonMobil between 2006 and 2011--the Manhattan Institute, Heritage Foundation and American Enterprise Institute. The news outlets referenced their funding in only two of 89 pieces that mentioned the think tanks, and one was a column by the New York Times' public editor--what other papers call an ombudsman--responding to complaints that theTimes does not disclose its outside op-ed writers' financial conflicts of interest. (For more information about my findings, click <a href="http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/global_warming_contrarians/news-media-helps-koch-brothers-exxon-mobil-spread-climate-disinformation.html" target="hplink" style="list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; text-decoration: none; overflow: visible; outline: 0px;">here</a>.)Let's take a look at some of the coverage.Manhattan Institute Fellow Attacks RenewablesThe Manhattan Institute for Policy Research is a multi-issue, pro-market, anti-government think tank based in New York City. Between 2001 and 2011, ExxonMobil and Charles Koch's Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation gave the institute $460,000 and $1.9 million respectively.Ten of the Manhattan Institute's 24 citations over the two years I surveyed were opinion pieces in the Wall Street Journal by Robert Bryce, an institute fellow. Before joining the Manhattan Institute, Bryce, a former newspaper reporter, worked for the Institute for Energy Research, which over the years has been funded by the American Petroleum Institute, ExxonMobil and the Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation.
Most of Bryce's Wall Street Journal columns sang the praises of oil and coal and denigrated the potential of wind and other renewable energy technologies. For example, his May 4, 2012, <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303592404577364244006391420.html" target="hplink" style="list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; text-decoration: none; overflow: visible; outline: 0px;">column</a>, "Gouged by the Wind," claimed that state standards requiring utilities to ramp up their use of renewables would significantly raise electricity rates--despite evidence to the contrary. Bryce rested his argument on his own, thoroughly debunked February 2012 Manhattan Institute <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lewis-milford/manhattan-institute-renewable-electricity-report_b_1321716.html" target="hplink" style="list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; text-decoration: none; overflow: visible; outline: 0px;">study</a> and an equally flawed Koch-funded <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elliott-negin/koch-brothers-fund-bogus-b_2253472.html" target="hplink" style="list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; text-decoration: none; overflow: visible; outline: 0px;">study</a> by the Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University.None of the author bios at the end of Bryce's Journal columns disclosed the institute's fossil fuel industry ties. To be fair, however, the Journal is not alone. None of the newspapers in my survey provided that kind of information.The New York Times, for example, published a Bryce <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/08/opinion/08bryce.html" target="hplink" style="list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; text-decoration: none; overflow: visible; outline: 0px;">op-ed</a> in June 2011 titled "The Gas is Greener." In the piece, Bryce <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/06/10/241882/small-is-beautiful-robert-bryce/" target="hplink" style="list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; text-decoration: none; overflow: visible; outline: 0px;">overstated</a> how much land large-scale renewable energy projects would need to buttress his argument that natural gas and nuclear power make more sense, ignoring the fact that they come with their own set of land-use issues. The author's bio at the end of the column identified him as a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and the author of Power Hungry: The Myths of "Green" Energy and the Real Fuels of the Future. Here again, readers deserved to know that two key Manhattan Institute funders--ExxonMobil and Charles Koch--are in the natural gas business.Heritage Fellow Disputes Carbon Dioxide-Global Warming LinkThe eight news organizations did a similarly poor job identifying the Heritage Foundation, the multi-issue, anti-regulation behemoth founded in 1973 to counter the raft of environmental, consumer and workplace protections signed into law during the Nixon administration. The news outlets mentioned funding sources in only one of 39 stories citing Heritage during the two years I checked. During the last decade, Heritage has received $535,000 from ExxonMobil (2001-11), $100,000 from General Motors (2003-07), and $3.69 million from Charles Koch's Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation (2001-10).Heritage is not known for its climate work, but that didn't matter. Reporters still called Heritage fellows for the "other side" of the story.Heritage was cited in seven articles and one op-ed in the Washington Post, for example. The lone <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/25/AR2011022506593.html" target="hplink" style="list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; text-decoration: none; overflow: visible; outline: 0px;">op-ed</a>--by Mike Tidwell of the Chesapeake Climate Action Network--did refer to the climate "disinformers" at the think tank, but Tidwell doesn't work for the paper. Meanwhile, two of the articles merely labeled the Heritage Foundation "conservative" and the other five didn't bother to describe it at all. None of the stories informed readers that ExxonMobil and Charles Koch support Heritage. Equally egregious, Post reporters provided Heritage spokespeople space to make false assertions and failed to refute them.Three of the articles quoted Diane Katz, a Heritage research fellow. In one of the stories, which ran in March 2011, Katz <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/epa-chief-lisa-jackson-perpetually-on-capitol-hill-hot-seat/2011/03/08/ABOKT7T_story.html" target="hplink" style="list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; text-decoration: none; overflow: visible; outline: 0px;">told</a> Post reporter Darryl Fears: "There's no strong consensus on whether carbon dioxide causes global warming or climate change." In fact, there is an overwhelming <a href="http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus" target="hplink" style="list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; text-decoration: none; overflow: visible; outline: 0px;">consensus</a> among scientific institutions worldwide.Later that year, longtime Post environment reporter Juliet Eilperin <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/obamas-record-environmental-agenda-pushes-sweeping-attack-on-air-pollution/2012/10/21/44173f74-f603-11e1-8398-0327ab83ab91_story.html" target="hplink" style="list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; text-decoration: none; overflow: visible; outline: 0px;">asked</a> Katz for her reaction to the Obama administration placing limits on carbon emissions from new power plants and strengthening vehicle fuel efficiency standards. "Environmental regulation should be about protecting public health," Katz said, "and not about creating green jobs and mitigating hypothetical risk." In fact, there is nothing hypothetical about global warming, and it poses a serious <a href="http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/impacts/climate-change-and-your-health.html" target="hplink" style="list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; text-decoration: none; overflow: visible; outline: 0px;">threat</a> to public health.Who is Diane Katz? Like a number of her Heritage colleagues, Katz spent some time at smaller Koch-funded organizations before joining the think tank in 2010. After a stint at the Detroit News as a reporter and editorial writer, she worked for the Koch- and ExxonMobil-funded Fraser Institute, a libertarian think tank in British Columbia; and the Koch-funded Mackinac Center for Public Policy, a Michigan-based libertarian think tank.USA Today also sporadically labeled Heritage "conservative" and, like the Post, the paper didn't mention where Heritage gets its funding. David Kreutzer was USA Today's favorite Heritage talking head. The paper quoted him in 11 of the 13 stories that cited the think tank over the two-year period I reviewed.USA Today energy and environment reporter Wendy Koch (pronounced "Kotch" and no relation to the Koch brothers) cited Kreutzer in an August 16, 2011, story on how cities are preparing for global warming-induced sea level rise, calling him a "climate change skeptic." Koch wrote that Kreutzer told her "there have always been 'variations in weather' so it makes sense to prepare for storms," but he warned "cities may waste money if their regulations are based on 'hysterical' projections of sea level rise."Two months later, on October 4, Koch wrote a story about federal subsidies to the solar industry and again called Kreutzer, who, in her words, told her "the government has no business subsidizing the industry." Never mind that the federal government has been giving the oil and gas industry significantly more in subsidies and tax breaks for a much longer time--an average of <a href="http://www.dblinvestors.com/documents/What-Would-Jefferson-Do-Final-Version.pdf" target="hplink" style="list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; text-decoration: none; overflow: visible; outline: 0px;">$4.86 billion</a> annually in today's dollars for the last 95 years, in fact.Who is David Kreutzer? Before joining Heritage in 2008, he worked for Richard Berman, whose PR firm, Berman and Company, runs two-dozen industry front groups whose raison d'être is to block or weaken consumer, environmental and workplace safeguards. Like Katz, Kreutzer also has a previous Koch network connection. He got his doctorate in economics from George Mason University's economics department, which currently shares roughly half its faculty with the Koch-founded and Koch-funded Mercatus Center, an anti-regulation, climate contrarian think tank housed on the GMU campus. Over the last decade, the center received $25,000 from the American Petroleum Institute (2008), $240,000 from ExxonMobil (2003-09), and $5.7 million from the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation (2002-08).AEI Scholar Calls for Ending Federal Subsidies for Solar, But Not for OilThe American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research (its official name) has played a relatively bit part in the climate and energy debate. Even so, the think tank, which was founded in 1938, was cited in 26 climate and energy stories and op-eds over the two years I reviewed. None of the pieces mentioned that AEI is partly supported by the fossil fuel industry, let alone that it was the beneficiary of $60,000 from the American Petroleum Institute, $3.04 million from ExxonMobil, and $1.1 million from the three main Koch family foundations between 2001 and 2011.AEI's principal climate and energy spokesmen during the period I reviewed were Steven Hayward and Kenneth Green. Like Diane Katz and David Kreutzer at Heritage, Hayward's and Green's résumés illustrate how fossil fuel industry network experts move from one contrarian echo chamber institution to another.Hayward--who called for expanding domestic oil production in an April 2011 Wall Street Journal <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703806304576233071178867598.html" target="hplink" style="list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; text-decoration: none; overflow: visible; outline: 0px;">op-ed</a> and predicted California's carbon emission cap-and-trade program "will wither and die an ignominious death" in an October 2011 New York Times <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/21/business/energy-environment/california-adopts-cap-and-trade-system-to-limit-emissions.html" target="hplink" style="list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; text-decoration: none; overflow: visible; outline: 0px;">story</a>--has a doctorate in American studies. Before joining AEI, he was a contributing editor at the ExxonMobil-, Koch-funded Reason Foundation's monthly magazine and a fellow at the ExxonMobil-, Koch-funded Heritage Foundation. He is a now a visiting scholar at the University of Colorado in Boulder and has been a senior fellow with the ExxonMobil-, Koch-funded Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy for a number of years.Green--who denounced federal subsidies for solar power--but not for oil--in a March 2011Wall Street Journal <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703662804576188641442134306.html" target="hplink" style="list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; text-decoration: none; overflow: visible; outline: 0px;">story</a>--has a doctorate in environmental science and engineering, but has never published any peer-reviewed articles on climate. Over the years, he has made the rounds on the fossil fuel industry-funded circuit. Before joining AEI, he was the director of the ExxonMobil-, Koch-funded Environment Literacy Council, an education project of the ExxonMobil-, Koch-funded George C. Marshall Institute that stressed the uncertainties of climate science and published a <a href="http://www.enviroliteracy.org/nsfmod/ClimateChange.pdf" target="hplink" style="list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; text-decoration: none; overflow: visible; outline: 0px;">report</a> in 2007 that questioned whether global warming is occurring. Prior to his two-year stint at the Environment Literacy Council, Green was chief scientist at the ExxonMobil-, Koch-funded Fraser Institute and the ExxonMobil-, Koch-funded Reason Foundation. He also has served as a Heartland Institute expert. He is now back at the Fraser Institute, serving as a senior director.Do Robert Bryce, Diane Katz, David Kreutzer, Steven Hayward and Kenneth Green have a right to express their opinions on climate and energy issues? Certainly. But at the same time the public has a right to know how shallow their scientific expertise might be, if what they are saying is indeed correct, and what interested parties are underwriting their think tanks.Collectively, the elite eight news organizations I reviewed cited funding sources for the Manhattan Institute, Heritage Foundation and American Enterprise Institute in only 2 percent of the relevant pieces they ran during the two years I surveyed. The public deserves more, especially when we're talking about such a critically important issue as climate change. #Elliott Negin, the director of news and commentary at the Union of Concerned Scientists, is a former NPR news editor and managing editor of American Journalism Review. Charles Koch (above) and his brother David (below) gave nearly $50 million to a network of climate contrarian think tanks and advocacy groups from 2002 through 2011.Part 4: The Koch Brothers Overtake ExxonMobil as Top Contrarian Patron For several decades, Charles G. and David H. Koch -- owners of the Wichita-based oil, gas and coal conglomerate, Koch Industries -- surreptitiously financed political and policy organizations favoring "free enterprise" and opposing government regulation. At the same time, the billionaire brothers developed an unsavory reputation with at least one philanthropy watchdog.In 2004, the National Committee on Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP) published a comprehensive <a href="http://www.ncrp.org/index.php?option=com_ixxocart&Itemid=41&p=product&id=3&parent=3" target="hplink" style="list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; text-decoration: none; overflow: visible; outline: 0px;">study</a> on the funding strategies of 79 conservative foundations to support 350 public policy think tanks at the national, state and local level. Three of those foundations were ones controlled by the Kochs -- the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, the David H. Koch Charitable Foundation and the Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation.The NCRP's take on the Kochs' funding agenda? It concluded that their family foundations support think tanks that "do research and advocacy on issues that impact the profit margin of Koch Industries." "In touting limited government and free markets," the NCRP found, "these organizations doubt the dangers of various chemicals, environmental pollutants and global warming, as well as challenge research efforts documenting these hazards.""... It makes sense that the Kochs would fund such anti-environment organizations," the study authors added, "given their seedy past of environmental violations and lawsuits."To be sure, Koch Industries has a long environmental crime <a href="http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/koch-industries-environmental/" target="hplink" style="list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; text-decoration: none; overflow: visible; outline: 0px;">rap sheet</a>. Over the years, the company has had to pay tens of millions of dollars in fines and hundreds of millions in cleanup costs. At the same time, the brothers' grantees have been particularly critical of environmental safeguards on the books as well as proposed ones, such as a carbon emissions <a href="http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/climate-2030-roadmap-chapter-3.pdf" target="hplink" style="list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; text-decoration: none; overflow: visible; outline: 0px;">cap-and-trade system</a>, which would certainly have a significant impact on Koch Industries' bottom line.As it turns out, a number of the think tanks the Kochs began supporting more than 25 years ago -- the Cato Institute, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Heartland Institute and Heritage Foundation, among them -- are the very same policy shops that represented the tobacco and pharmaceutical industries in their fight against the Food and Drug Administration in the mid-1990s. And, as I pointed out earlier in this series, ExxonMobil, General Motors and other fossil fuel interests enlisted these same think tanks at the turn of the century to sow doubt about the reality of global warming and blunt any attempts in Congress to pass climate change legislation.In the early 2000s, there was a bipartisan bill kicking around Congress that would cap and reduce carbon emissions from power plants, refineries and other industries. The legislation -- first introduced in the Senate in 2003 by John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.) and in the House in 2004 by Wayne Gilchrest (R-Md.) and John Olver (D-Mass.) -- was reintroduced in both houses in 2005. In contrast with the Bush administration's unsuccessful voluntary approach, the proposed bill called for establishing a mandatory, market-based cap-and-trade system to cut emissions.The McCain-Lieberman bill apparently spooked the Kochs, who operate oil refineries in Alaska, Minnesota and Texas and supply coal to Midwestern utilities. In 2005, their three main family foundations doubled their contrarian group contributions from the previous year to $4.2 million, surpassing ExxonMobil, which spent $3.48 million. A year later, the Kochs' donations doubled again, reaching a peak of $8.59 million, more than three times what ExxonMobil gave that year. All told, the three main Koch family funds would funnel more than $43 million to the contrarian network from 2005 through 2011, while ExxonMobil would hand out $12 million -- less than a third -- to many of the same groups.The Kochs Fly Under the Media RadarBy 2005, the Kochs had quietly replaced ExxonMobil as the uber patron of climate contrarianism, but nobody knew it. The news media were only just beginning to pay attention to ExxonMobil's funding activities and, outside of the fossil fuel industry -- and Koch grantees, of course -- who had ever heard of Koch Industries? As David Koch liked to joke, his family-owned conglomerate, whose annual revenues are now estimated at $100 billion, was "the largest company you've never heard of."At least one national news organization, however, was on to the Kochs -- for about a news-cycle nanosecond. Thirteen years ago, on January 29, 2000, the Washington Post ran a front-page <a href="http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/Dan-Morgan-Post-Story_1-29-00.pdf" target="hplink" style="list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; text-decoration: none; overflow: visible; outline: 0px;">story</a> by Dan Morgan, "Think Tanks: Corporations' Quiet Weapon; Nonprofits' Studies, Lobbying Advance Big Business Causes," which profiled a conservative, multi-issue, small government policy group called Citizens for a Sound Economy (CSE)."CSE was founded by two free-spirited Midwestern oil and gas tycoons, the brothers David H. and Charles G. Koch, principal owners of Koch Industries of Wichita," Morgan reported. "Foundations they controlled helped found Cato, CSE and other less-known think tanks committed to the Koch's libertarian beliefs."Morgan's investigation turned up documents that, as he explained, "provide a rare look at think tanks' often hidden role as a weapon in the modern corporate political arsenal. The groups provide analyses, TV advertising, polling and academic studies that add an air of authority to corporate arguments -- in many cases while maintaining the corporate donor's anonymity."Sound familiar?After Morgan's story, however, it was radio silence, at least at the national level. There was no follow up by the Post, and no attention paid by any other news organizations besides local papers in Houston, Seattle, St. Louis and Wichita, which ran one-off stories over the next five years that linked the Kochs to conservative think tanks. The "Kochs as under-writers" story essentially died, despite the fact that, between 2002 and 2007, they spent nearly $24 million on climate contrarian policy groups -- and millions more on think tanks and lobbyists working on their other pet issues.It wasn't until 2008 when the news media -- at least at the local level -- began to take notice again. What piqued reporters' interest, appropriately enough, was Americans for Prosperity (AFP), one of the two multi-issue, tea party-affiliated groups that Citizens for a Sound Economy spawned in 2004 when it broke up, the other being FreedomWorks. David Koch, who is credited as AFP's founder, is the chairman of the group's foundation.In 2008, AFP kicked off a cross-country "Hot Air Tour" featuring hot air balloon rides and the slogan "Global Warming Alarmism: Lost Jobs, Higher Taxes, Less Freedom." The national print press ignored the story. Besides Fox and MSNBC, national television and cable news shows didn't pay much attention, either, and only MSNBC's Rachel Maddow Show mentioned the Koch-AFP link. Local newspapers where the tour touched down, on the other hand, covered it like the circus coming to town. But only five out of 38 briefs and articles those papers ran on the tour in 2008 and 2009 reported that the Kochs backed AFP.So where was the Washington Post?Remarkably, it took the paper nearly a decade to rediscover the Koch-think tank connection that Dan Morgan reported back in 2000. Although the paper ran 24 stories on AFP from 2004 through 2009, only <a href="http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2009-08-16/politics/36872072_1_protest-group-health-care-reform-freedomworks" target="hplink" style="list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; text-decoration: none; overflow: visible; outline: 0px;">one</a> -- which ran in August 2009 -- linked the group to the Kochs. It also was the only story that mentioned that AFP disputed climate science. Most of the other stories merely identified it as a "conservative" or "small government" group.A Public Interest Group Blows the Whistle (Again)The Kochs' years of relative anonymity came to an end in early 2010 and, as in the case of ExxonMobil, it was largely due to the work of a public interest group.As I reported earlier in this series, ExxonMobil was thrust into the public eye in the summer of 2005 by the Exxpose Exxon campaign, which was sponsored by a dozen public interest groups, and again in early 2007, when a Union of Concerned Scientists <a href="http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/global_warming_contrarians/exxonmobil-report-smoke.html" target="hplink" style="list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; text-decoration: none; overflow: visible; outline: 0px;">report</a> disclosed the company's role in bankrolling climate contrarians. The Koch brothers, meanwhile, were outed by a March 2010 Greenpeace <a href="http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/Global/usa/report/2010/3/koch-industries-secretly-fund.pdf" target="hplink" style="list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; text-decoration: none; overflow: visible; outline: 0px;">report</a> revealing that between 2005 and 2008, the Kochs spent significantly more than ExxonMobil on virtually the same network of contrarian groups to attack climate science and undermine government attempts to address global warming.Before Greenpeace released "Koch Industries Secretly Funding the Climate Denial Machine," the group's research director, Kert Davies, met with journalists at a number of news organizations, including ABC, Newsweek and the New York Times, to go over the report's findings. "The number of serious journalists who didn't even know the name David Koch or Koch Industries was stunning," Davies, a lead author of the report, <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/52025.html" target="hplink" style="list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; text-decoration: none; overflow: visible; outline: 0px;">told</a> Politico, a political trade journal. "It was because they were intentionally invisible. They really liked it the way it was. So one of our main objectives was to make them a household name...." David Koch is bullish on global warming. "The Earth will be able to support enormously more people," he <a href="http://nymag.com/news/features/67285/" target="hplink" style="list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; text-decoration: none; overflow: visible; outline: 0px;">says</a>, "because a far greater land area will be available to produce food."The Greenpeace report definitely created a media buzz. In July, New York magazine<a href="http://nymag.com/news/features/67285/" target="hplink" style="list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; text-decoration: none; overflow: visible; outline: 0px;">profiled</a> David Koch, who told the magazine that global warming is a good thing because it will lengthen growing seasons in the northern hemisphere. Around the same time, economist Paul Krugman <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/26/opinion/26krugman.html" target="hplink" style="list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; text-decoration: none; overflow: visible; outline: 0px;">disclosed</a> the Koch-climate contrarian link in the New York Times for the first time. A month later, the Washington Post <a href="http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/senate/who-is-americans-for-prosperit.html" target="hplink" style="list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; text-decoration: none; overflow: visible; outline: 0px;">profiled</a> AFP, delving into the details of its Koch connection. And the New Yorker ran a 10,000-word <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer" target="hplink" style="list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; text-decoration: none; overflow: visible; outline: 0px;">opus</a> on the brothers' family history, libertarian philosophy, and influence on conservative politics that prominently cited Greenpeace's findings.All of the sudden, the Kochs were fair game.News Media Tie AFP to the Kochs, But Fail to Connect Other GranteesDespite the fact that more journalists are now aware of the Koch brothers, many still miss the fact that AFP is not the only policy group that lives off Koch largesse. For instance, AFP is just one of approximately 40 think tanks and advocacy groups the Kochs underwrite to promote their climate and energy agenda. Regardless, journalists still more often than not fail to mention they're Koch surrogates.If you've read any of the previous installments in this series, you know that I recently reviewed climate and energy coverage from 2011 and 2012 to see how often top news organizations disclosed funding sources for AFP and seven other climate contrarian groups I call the "Oil Eight." My survey included stories, editorials, opinion columns and interviews from the Associated Press, NPR, Politico, and six leading newspapers: the Los Angeles Times, New York Times, USA Today, Washington Post and Wall Street Journal.Given there's a brighter spotlight on the Kochs and a heightened awareness of post-Citizens United money flooding the political system, it's not surprising that these news outlets mentioned AFP more than any other of the Oil Eight. Overall, nearly 30 percent of the 357 climate and energy stories in my sample cited AFP at least in passing, and a number focused squarely on the group and its activities. Many of the stories referenced the group's multimillion-dollar TV political ad campaign last year. A number of the news organizations in my survey--the Los Angeles Times, New York Times, Politico and Washington Post, in particular--devoted considerable space to that story.Likewise, the news organizations did a better job identifying AFP as fossil fuel industry-funded group. Seventy of 102 pieces citing AFP -- 69 percent -- linked the group to the Kochs, whose family foundations gave AFP more than $5.75 million between 2005 and 2010. (For more on my survey results, click <a href="http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/global_warming_contrarians/news-media-helps-koch-brothers-exxon-mobil-spread-climate-disinformation.html" target="hplink" style="list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; text-decoration: none; overflow: visible; outline: 0px;">here</a>.)Discounting their AFP coverage, the news outlets cited fossil fuel industry funding sources in only 24 percent of 255 pieces that mentioned the other seven climate contrarian groups. Those seven groups -- the American Enterprise Institute, Cato Institute, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Heartland Institute, Heritage Foundation, Institute for Energy Research (and its political arm, American Energy Alliance), and Manhattan Institute for Policy Research -- together received $10 million from the three main Koch family foundations between 2001 and 2011. (For more details, see this <a href="http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/Fossil-Fuel-Industry-Funders-of-Climate-Contrarian-Groups-2001-2011.pdf" target="hplink" style="list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; text-decoration: none; overflow: visible; outline: 0px;">list</a> of the Oil Eight's fossil fuel industry funding.)American Energy Alliance vs. Obama Campaign: Dueling AdsAnother Oil Eight member -- the American Energy Alliance (AEA) -- also got caught in the glare of political campaign coverage last year. Although the eight news outlets in my survey were not as attentive to its funding as they were with AFP, they still managed to tie the alliance to the fossil fuel industry in 43 percent of the 61 stories that cited the group in 2011 and 2012.Most of the stories citing the alliance -- the political arm of a small, single-issue group called the Institute for Energy Research -- focused on its TV ad battle with the Obama reelection campaign. A number of those stories that mentioned the alliance's funding relied on the Obama camp's charge that the AEA is a "front group for big oil" without going the extra mile to nail down that fact. For example, an April 3, 2012, <a href="http://www.boston.com/news/politics/articles/2012/04/03/obama_ad_accuses_romney_of_backing_big_oil/" target="hplink" style="list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; text-decoration: none; overflow: visible; outline: 0px;">story</a> by Associated Press political reporter Andrew Miga stated: "There's no way of knowing if Obama's claim that the American Energy Alliance ad is funded by Big Oil is true; the alliance does not disclose its donors or contribution amounts."If Miga had checked either the <a href="http://www.bridgeproject.com/?transparency" target="hplink" style="list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; text-decoration: none; overflow: visible; outline: 0px;">Conservative Transparency</a> or <a href="http://www.foundationcenter.org/" target="hplink" style="list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; text-decoration: none; overflow: visible; outline: 0px;">Foundation Center</a> website, he would have been able to confirm that during the last decade, the alliance's parent organization received $160,000 from the American Petroleum Institute (2008-10), $337,000 from ExxonMobil (2002-07), and $227,500 from Charles Koch's Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation (2001-07).To his credit, Miga did report that AEA's president, Thomas Pyle, is a former Koch Industries lobbyist and that AEA's arguments "are the same ones made by oil companies and their allies." All told, the Associated Press cited AEA's fossil fuel industry connection in three of the six stories it ran over the two-year period I checked.Politico, meanwhile, mentioned the alliance's funding in 11 of the 23 stories it ran citing the group. The Washington Post, on the other hand, reported it in only one of five stories. That<a href="http://english.htu.cn/washington%20post/2012/06/29/Ax04.pdf" target="hplink" style="list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; text-decoration: none; overflow: visible; outline: 0px;">story</a>, "Energy issue gets jolt of ads," by T.W. Farnum, called the alliance "an advocacy group that pushes for less government regulation of the [energy] industry," and reported that it "spent $3.6 million on an ad attacking Obama over gas prices, Solyndra, the Keystone pipeline and his opposition to drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge."Farnum then paraphrased an alliance spokesman, who told him the group "received most of its funding in its last tax year from individual families, including many with newfound wealth from domestic drilling." That does make it clear that the alliance represents the oil and gas industry, but most readers would presume that the AEA is a mom and pop operation. Little would they know that the American Petroleum Institute, ExxonMobil and the Koch brothers have been funding the group for years. #Note: In part 3 of this series I mentioned that Heritage Foundation fellow David Kreutzer previously worked for Richard Berman, who runs a network of corporate front groups. On May 19, the Boston Globe published a front page <a href="http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2013/05/18/corporations-anonymously-fund-attacks-and-influence-washington-policy-through-nonprofit-groups/qyaJIFcv7yYOsQvya6ykAK/story.html" target="hplink" style="list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; text-decoration: none; overflow: visible; outline: 0px;">exposé</a> of Berman, focusing on his Center for Consumer Freedom, which represents the interests of the restaurant and food industries. Elliott Negin, the director of news and commentary at the Union of Concerned Scientists, is a former NPR news editor and managing editor of American Journalism Review.</div></div>anti-wind:As Congress dithers for the umpteenth time over extending a key subsidy for wind energy, the industry once again is up in the air. Called the <a href="http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/smart-energy-solutions/increase-renewables/production-tax-credit-for.html" target="hplink" style="list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; text-decoration: none;">production tax credit</a> (PTC), the subsidy helps level the playing field between wind and fossil fuels and has proven to be critical for financing new projects, helping to make wind one of the fastest growing electricity sources in the country. Given the planet needs to transition as quickly as possible away from coal and natural gas to carbon-free energy to avoid the worst consequences of climate change, who would be against renewing wind's tax credit?The Koch brothers, that's who.Charles G. and David H. Koch -- the billionaire owners of the coal, oil and gas Koch Industries conglomerate -- have enlisted their extensive network of think tanks, advocacy groups and friends on Capitol Hill to spearhead a campaign to pull the plug on the PTC. Never mind the fact that the oil and gas industry has averaged four times what the wind tax credit is worth in federal tax breaks and subsidies annually for the last 95 years.The Koch network is fighting the wind industry on a number of fronts. Last month, Koch-funded Congressman Mike Pompeo (R-Kansas) sent a <a href="http://pompeo.house.gov/uploadedfiles/windptc2013letter.pdf" target="hplink" style="list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; text-decoration: none;">letter</a> signed by 52 House members to the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, urging him to let the PTC expire. Meanwhile, a coalition of some 100 national and local groups organized by the Koch-founded Americans for Prosperity sent a <a href="http://americanenergyalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/WindPTC_letter.pdf" target="hplink" style="list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; text-decoration: none;">letter</a> to each member of Congress asking them to do the same. And earlier this month, the Koch-funded Institute for Energy Research launched an anti-PTC ad campaign and released a report claiming that only a handful of states actually benefit from the subsidy.Malcolm Gladwell didn't include this battle in his new book David and Goliath because, given the odds, it's more like Bambi versus Godzilla.The Kochs' Man in CongressThe fact that Kansas Rep. Mike Pompeo is the Kochs' point man to scuttle the PTC in the House is a bit ironic given his state is a <a href="http://awea.rd.net/Resources/state.aspx?ItemNumber=5223" target="hplink" style="list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; text-decoration: none;">wind energy leader</a>. Kansas has the second highest wind potential in the country, it has already attracted more than $5 billion in wind industry investment, and last year wind generated 11.4 percent of its electricity. With stats like that, the industry has broad bipartisan support. Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback and Sens. Jerry Moran and Pat Roberts -- all Republicans -- are big fans.Pompeo, who has been in Congress since only 2011, would argue that he's against all energy tax credits. For the second year in a row, he has introduced a <a href="http://freebeacon.com/cut-the-credits/" target="hplink" style="list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; text-decoration: none;">bill</a> that would eliminate tax breaks that benefit oil, natural gas, coal, nuclear, electric vehicles, alternative fuels, solar and wind, including the PTC, which gives wind developers a tax credit of 2.3 cents for each kilowatt-hour of electricity they produce.But there's a catch. Although it appears evenhanded, Pompeo's bill would severely hamper wind and solar but preserve a number of oil, gas and coal subsidies, including the percentage depletion allowance, the ability to expense the costs of exploration, and the accelerated depreciation of certain kinds of "geologic property." These and other tax breaks he left out of his bill would be worth about $12.5 billion to the oil and gas industry from 2011 through 2015, according to a March 2012 Congressional Research Service <a href="http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41769.pdf" target="hplink" style="list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; text-decoration: none;">report</a>.Why is Pompeo so down on wind? Perhaps it's because Koch Industries is headquartered in Wichita, smack-dab in the middle of his district -- and the fact that the company is by far and away his biggest campaign contributor. Since 2010, Koch Industries has given him $200,000, more than four times what his second highest contributor kicked in. Besides Koch Industries, three other oil companies are among Pompeo's top five contributors -- McCoy Petroleum, Mull Drilling and Richie Exploration -- and they're also based in Wichita.What about the other 51 House members who signed Pompeo's letter? As it turns out, 65 percent of them received contributions from Koch Industries during the last two or three campaign cycles, according to Federal Election Commission <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/" target="hplink" style="list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; text-decoration: none;">data</a> compiled by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. A quarter of them, meanwhile, cashed checks from ExxonMobil. And except for two congressmen who didn't take any energy industry money, the signatories received sizable contributions from a number of other corporations that compete with wind, including coal barons Arch Coal and Alpha Natural Resources; oil and gas giants Chesapeake Energy, Chevron, ConocoPhillips and Valero Energy; and Exelon, which owns the most nuclear reactors in the country.Americans for (Koch) Prosperity Weighs InPompeo's letter came on the heels of a <a href="http://americanenergyalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/WindPTC_letter.pdf" target="hplink" style="list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; text-decoration: none;">letter</a> from the Kochs' flagship advocacy group, Americans for Prosperity, calling for Congress to kill the PTC. AFP's letter, which was signed by 102 organizations, claims that "the wind industry has very little to show after 20 years of preferential tax treatment" and declares that "Americans deserve energy solutions that can make it on their own in the marketplace -- not ones that need to be propped up by government indefinitely."Is that right? Little to show? Preferential tax treatment?In fact, until Congress left the wind industry hanging late last year, it had been doing quite well. Even with a deep recession and slow recovery, over the previous five years -- with the help of the PTC, stimulus spending and state renewable electricity standards -- the industry doubled its electricity output, employment and private investment. In 2012, domestic manufacturers <a href="http://energy.gov/articles/energy-dept-reports-us-wind-energy-production-and-manufacturing-reaches-record-highs" target="hplink" style="list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; text-decoration: none;">produced</a> roughly 72 percent of the wind turbine equipment erected across the country -- nearly triple the percentage in 2006 -- and more than 13,000 megawatts of new wind generation capacity was installed. By the end of last year, there were enough wind turbines to power 15 million typical American homes -- without toxic pollutants or carbon emissions.But AFP's complaint that the wind industry has been on the dole far too long is even more galling. What about the oil and gas industry? It's been feeding at the federal trough since 1918! On average, the industry has benefited from $4.86 billion in tax breaks and subsidies in today's dollars every year since then, according to a 2011 <a href="http://www.dblinvestors.com/documents/What-Would-Jefferson-Do-Final-Version.pdf" target="hplink" style="list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; text-decoration: none;">study</a> by DBL Investors, a venture capital firm. Renewable energy technologies, meanwhile, averaged only $370 million a year in subsidies between 1994 and 2009. The 2009 stimulus package did provide $21 billion for wind, solar and other renewables, but that support barely begins to balance the scales that have tilted toward nuclear power for more than 50 years, oil and gas for 95 years, and coal for more than two centuries.So who signed the AFP letter? About half of the signatories are local tea party affiliates and anti-wind NIMBY groups of indeterminate size and funding. The other half are, for the most part, relatively obscure national groups, but there are a few that have attracted<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elliott-negin/unreliable-sources-how-th_1_b_3367567.html" target="hplink" style="list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; text-decoration: none;">attention</a> over the years for their contrarian views on climate science and renewable energy. Like AFP, those groups are awash in petrodollars. The American Energy Alliance (and its parent, the Institute for Energy Research), Competitive Enterprise Institute, Freedom Works, Frontiers of Freedom and Heritage Action (and its parent, the Heritage Foundation) collectively have received millions of dollars from Koch family foundations, ExxonMobil and the American Petroleum Institute, the oil and gas industry's premier trade association.The Institute for Energy Research's Questionable ResearchOn December 3, the <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elliott-negin/koch-funded-climate-contr_b_3620727.html" target="hplink" style="list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; text-decoration: none;">Institute for Energy Research</a> and its political arm, the American Energy Alliance, sponsored what they dubbed the "wind welfare" summit in Washington, D.C., featuring IER founder and CEO Robert Bradley Jr., a Koch network veteran. AEA announced it would spend $40,000 on print and digital ads calling for an end to the PTC and is flying in anti-PTC advocates for meetings on Capitol Hill.Bradley presumably highlighted the findings of a <a href="http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2013/12/02/study-majority-of-states-losing-millions-to-big-wind/" target="hplink" style="list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; text-decoration: none;">report</a> IER released the day before claiming that a small number of states with wind resources -- Iowa, North Dakota, Oklahoma and Texas -- are reaping the benefits of the PTC while 30 states and the District of Columbia are "losing millions" to fund it.The report's findings, however, don't hold up to scrutiny. Mike Jacobs, a senior energy analyst at the Union of Concerned Scientists, pointed out in a recent <a href="http://blog.ucsusa.org/misleading-institute-for-energy-research-wind-power-report-326" target="hplink" style="list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; text-decoration: none;">blog</a> that IER ignored the fact that a number of the states it identified as "net payers" are home to wind industry manufacturing facilities. There are 62 companies in Ohio making turbine components, for example, 40 in Michigan and 21 in California. Jacobs also discovered that IER downplayed the fact that "the PTC benefits consumers where wind-generated electricity adds to the supply and lowers the price of electricity, landowners who receive lease payments from the wind turbines, and local communities that collect tax payments on installed wind farms."Jeff Spross, blogging on the Center for American Progress' ThinkProgress website, also<a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/12/02/3009401/tax-credits-wind-welfare/" target="hplink" style="list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; text-decoration: none;">chided</a> IER, pointing out that most industries are not equally distributed across the country. "The oil and gas industries, for instance, benefit from a wealth of federal tax carve-outs," he wrote, "but the economic activity they generate is concentrated in just a few key states."In other words, it's disingenuous to single out the wind industry.Twisting in the WindWhile Congress has generously provided the fossil-fuel and nuclear-energy industries a number of permanent subsidies, it has typically granted the wind industry the PTC on a short-term basis and then wavered over renewing it. Last year the PTC expired on December 31, but as part of the "fiscal cliff" budget deal the next day, Congress extended it for the seventh time since it debuted in 1992 -- for only one year.  This uncertainty over the PTC's status has put wind developers at a distinct disadvantage, making it difficult to attract investors and plan ahead. Last year's cliffhanger, for example, definitely did a number on the industry. Wind farm construction has fallen off dramatically compared with 2012: Only one utility-scale wind turbine was installed in the first six months of this year. Business picked up somewhat in the third quarter, with 68.3 megawatts installed, <a href="http://www.awea.org/3Q2013?RDtoken=18040&userID=" target="hplink" style="list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; text-decoration: none;">according to</a> the American Wind Energy Association, but that's far below the average of more than 1,000 megawatts that the industry constructed in most quarters in recent years.  Given that it takes years to plan, finance and construct a wind farm, Congress is again undermining the industry's potential by slow-walking the PTC extension this year. And that potential is tremendous. Wind currently generates about 4 percent of U.S. electricity, but by 2030 it could produce more than 20 percent, <a href="http://20percentwind.org/" target="hplink" style="list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; text-decoration: none;">according to</a> the U.S. Department of Energy. The DOE's National Renewable Energy Laboratory also is bullish on wind and renewables writ large. Last year, it published a <a href="http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/re_futures/" target="hplink" style="list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; text-decoration: none;">report</a> that concluded today's commercially available renewable technologies could easily generate 80 percent of U.S. electricity by 2050, with nearly half coming from wind. If the Koch brothers and their allies have their way, however, it likely will take a lot longer to get there -- and it will cost a hell of a lot more.Elliott Negin is the director of news and commentary at the Union of Concerned Scientists.Why is WGBH Legitimizing David Koch's Climate Change Denial?, The Huffington Post, 10-15-2013  <a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="http://act.forecastthefacts.org/go/539?t=15&akid=285.100725.XNz74F" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; line-height: 1.2em;">http://act.forecastthefacts.org/go/539?t=16&akid=285.100725.XNz74F</a>Last Wednesday, more than 50 people gathered outside of WGBH -- Boston's public television station and the largest producer of national PBS television content -- with 119,000<a href="http://act.forecastthefacts.org/sign/wgbh_koch_petition/" style="list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; text-decoration: none;">petition signatures</a> calling on the station to drop David Koch from its board. Even Elmo was there (well, a local climate activist dressed up as Elmo), to say that a man who has <a href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=who-funds-contrariness-on" style="list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; text-decoration: none;">spent millions</a> spreading lies about climate change doesn't belong on the board of an institution that seeks to enrich "people's lives through programs and services that educate [...]" WGBH spokespeople were quick to respond that as a board member, Koch has no impact on their programming. This may well be true, but it misses the point of the campaign, and misunderstands the nature of our country's ongoing struggle against climate change denial.The WGBH campaign comes on the heels of a <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/05/27/130527fa_fact_mayer" style="list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; text-decoration: none;">scandal </a>at New York's WNET, where Koch's presence on the board clearly did have an influence on programming, leading WNET staff to give the cold shoulder to a documentary called Citizen Koch, which then led documentary funder ITVS to pull their support for the film. WGBH's response to this controversy has been that such a thing could never happen at WGBH. Maybe they are right (though I am sure WNET would have said the same thing before this year). But the issue of Koch being on the board is not what he does to WGBH and its programming, but what they are doing for him. Giving Koch a seat on their board legitimizes who Koch is, and what he does, as being within the frame of reasonable political debate. And when it comes to climate change denial, that should no longer acceptable, not in a country where more than <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/02/us-drought-2012-disaster-areas_n_1731393.html" style="list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; text-decoration: none;">half of the counties</a> were declared drought disaster areas in 2012, where rebuilding from Superstorm Sandy will take years, and where our <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/07/23/wildfire-season-getting-longer/2581381/" style="list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; text-decoration: none;">wildfire season</a> is now two months longer than just four decades ago.It's pretty easy to see this process of legitimizing Koch in action. In response to the campaign, board chair Amos Hostetter said that GBH has "no political litmus test" for its board members, and that "Diversity is something we highly value." But climate change is not something that reasonable people can disagree about, and climate change denial is not just another "diverse" political viewpoint. It's a systematic effort to lie to the American people about a scientific fact. And for the Kochs, those lies are directly supporting their bottom line. By allowing Koch on their board, by accepting his largesse, WGBH is saying to Koch and the world -- we're ok that you are willfully trying to convince Americans that the single greatest threat to our lives and livelihoods doesn't even exist, as long as you keep your donations coming.It's useful here to think about some analogies where this equation would never compute. If Koch was known to be a major funder of "research" to show that tobacco doesn't cause cancer, WGBH would not take his money. Likewise, if Koch were engaged in a massive, well-funded campaign to deny that HIV leads to AIDS, his support would also be unwelcome. Why? Because it's widely recognized that the promotion of these scientific conspiracy theories aren't just wrong, but are also deeply injurious to people around the world. Why should we look at climate change any differently?Climate change has already claimed the lives of hundreds of thousands through increasingly extreme weather, and its expected to claim <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/25/climate-inaction-idINDEE88O0HH20120925" style="list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; text-decoration: none;">100 million lives</a> by 2030. No one will be exempt from the wreckage. By 2050, WGBH's home city of Boston could be under as much as 10 feet of water from storm surge caused by a hurricane. At some point, we as a society must band together and say that those who deny the existence of climate change are denying the very humanity of those lives it will destroy. We must agree that their cynical misinformation campaign is not an acceptable contribution to the political debate, and that any institution that understands the reality of climate change will cut ties with those who deny it. Members of Forecast the Facts, many of whom are also WGBH members are donors, are encouraging WGBH to see that that time is now.We are well aware that this is a high stakes decision. Koch has given millions to programs like Nova. So it's no surprise that people like Nova film producer Miles O'Brien have been skeptical of our campaign, tweeting "Methinks protestors at #WGBHshould watch the #nova film I produced on climate change b4 acting like silly muppets." But people like Miles O'Brien, and the WGBH board, should be the ones most eager to cut ties with Koch. Because they know how serious climate change is. They understand how far our society is from accepting and acting on that reality. And they know the central role that Koch has played in fostering that uncertainty. It's not just that his money is tainted. It's that taking his money actually helps Koch's climate denial be effective. Because by definition, if WGBH will accept Koch's donations and give him a seat on their board, then his massive contributions to the climate denial machine can't be that bad.One of the speakers at last week's rally, Reverend Fred Small, put the question in appropriately moral terms, saying, "David Koch may not have broken a single law, but he is a criminal. He is a criminal because climate change is a crime against humanity and the earth. Global warming is theft. It steals from our own children and from the most vulnerable people on the planet, most of them poor and of color."WGBH has done as much as any institution to educate Americans about the reality of climate change. Now they have the chance to do something even more important -- refuse to lend their good name and sterling reputation to the climate change denial of David Koch. =an article published Thursday by The Guardian revealed that the Beacon Hill Institute (BHI), which describes itself as the research arm of Suffolk's Economic Department, wrote a research grant proposal with a stated goal: "[to] pare back or repeal RGGI [the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative]." The initiative is a hugely successful agreement amongst Northeastern states and Canadian provinces to reduce carbon emissions.You might be asking yourself: Why would a respected higher education institution like Suffolk University determine the outcome of a research project before even starting the actual research?Two words: Koch money. Between the years of 2008 and 2012, the oil and gas billionaire Koch brothers donated over $784,560 to Suffolk University—an unknown amount of which has been allocated to the conservative Beacon Hill Institute (the exact amount is not specified because Suffolk will not disclose the itemization of these funds). The university released the following statement in response to the debacle: "The stated research goals, as written, were inconsistent with Suffolk University's mission."  It's clear Suffolk is feeling the need to take action.  If we act fast, we can encourage them to reject the Kochs' money and maintain their integrity and independence. Sign the petition while the pressure is still mounting: <a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="http://act.forecastthefacts.org/go/535?t=3&akid=285.100725.XNz74F" style="line-height: 1.2em; outline: none;">Tell Suffolk University: Stop accepting Koch-tainted money that unfairly influences the outcomes of economic climate research.</a>The Beacon Hill Institute claims to "provide objective analysis to examine and influence public policy," but given its track record, that's a tough lie to sell (even with the Kochs' fortune). Since 2009, BHI has issued 16 reports claiming that state-based renewable energy standards would destroy local economies. Yesterday's report is just one more egregious example of BHI's attempts to reinforce its funders' climate misinformation agenda.Suffolk University now joins the ranks of other public education institutions tainted by the Koch brothers' money and agenda. First came WNET, New York City's PBS affiliate who engaged in self-censorship due to David Koch's presence on their board. Next was WGBH, Boston's PBS station and largest producer of national PBS content. At WGBH, David Koch remains a board member and uses his sponsorship of NOVA, an award-winning science program, to legitimize his role as a "philanthropist of art and science."Forecast the Facts members have closely followed the Kochs' destruction-via-donation in Boston and beyond—we're the ones who can make this case effectively and stop the Kochs' dirty money trail. <a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="http://act.forecastthefacts.org/go/535?t=4&akid=285.100725.XNz74F" style="line-height: 1.2em; outline: none;">Tell Suffolk University: the Kochs' money isn't worth sacrificing the integrity of your research and the reputation of your university. Stop accepting dirty donations from the Koch brothers.</a>Factually yours,Emily, Brad, Sylvie, and the rest of the Forecast the Facts teamMORE INFORMATIONFree-market research group's climate proposal denounced by host university, The Guardian, 12-05-2013  <a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="http://act.forecastthefacts.org/go/536?t=5&akid=285.100725.XNz74F" style="line-height: 1.2em; outline: none;">http://act.forecastthefacts.org/go/536?t=6&akid=285.100725.XNz74F</a>Koch Brother Fronts Flood Into Kansas to Attack Wind Industry Report, The Environmentalist, 2013  <a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="http://act.forecastthefacts.org/go/537?t=7&akid=285.100725.XNz74F" style="line-height: 1.2em; outline: none;">http://act.forecastthefacts.org/go/537?t=8&akid=285.100725.XNz74F</a>Charles Koch Foundation's 2012 990 Tax Forms <a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="http://act.forecastthefacts.org/go/540?t=9&akid=285.100725.XNz74F" style="line-height: 1.2em; outline: none;">http://act.forecastthefacts.org/go/540?t=10&akid=285.100725.XNz74F</a>Climate skeptic group works to reverse renewable energy mandate, The Washington Post, 11-24-2013  <a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="http://act.forecastthefacts.org/go/538?t=11&akid=285.100725.XNz74F" style="line-height: 1.2em; outline: none;">http://act.forecastthefacts.org/go/538?t=12&akid=285.100725.XNz74F</a>A Word From Our Sponsor, The New Yorker, 5-27-2013  <a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="http://act.forecastthefacts.org/go/157?t=13&akid=285.100725.XNz74F" style="line-height: 1.2em; outline: none;">http://act.forecastthefacts.org/go/157?t=14&akid=285.100725.XNz74F</a>Why is WGBH Legitimizing David Koch's Climate Change Denial?, The Huffington Post, 10-15-2013  <a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="http://act.forecastthefacts.org/go/539?t=15&akid=285.100725.XNz74F" style="line-height: 1.2em; outline: none;">http://act.forecastthefacts.org/go/539?t=16&akid=285.100725.XNz74F</a> =Today, the Koch-funded "Freedom Partners," which secretly distributed $250 million during the 2012 election season, posted its first federal tax report which uncloaked several Koch-related entities that were previously unknown. Last week, Politico broke the news of the existence of this group. Today, new details of the group's spending are available for the first time.
The new-ish organization, formally known as "Freedom Partners Chamber of Commerce," lists five entities which it owned 100% of:
The "American Entrepreneur Fund LLC," which had assets of $885,316 and whose activities are listed as simply as "projects"The "American Enterprise Group LLC," which had assets of $424,975 and whose activities are listed as "management"The "American Strategies Group LLC," which had assets of $97,714 and whose activities are listed as "public outreach"The "MIC LLC," with assets of $25,000 and whose job was "research"And, "American Strategic Innovations LLC," with assets of $4,976, whose job was also listed as "research"All of these entities, whose assets totaled more than $1.4 million as of October 2012, share the same street address: 2200 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 102-391, Arlington, Virginia 22201. All of these corporations are registered in Delaware. The activities of these groups is not known and their current assets are also unknown. (These corporations are listed on the form as "disregarded" in IRS lingo not because they no longer exist but because of a technical tax definition for certain companies that are similar to sole proprietorships or controlled by just a few people.)
The Koch-Fueled CPPR Got More than $100 Million Last Year
The Freedom Partners Chamber of Commerce's tax filing also lists the names and amounts of all of the entities it funded between late 2011 and the eve of the 2012 elections. Here is the list of the top five groups to which the Kochs' Freedom Partners Chamber of Commerce funneled millions:
"Corner Table LLC," known as the "Center to Protect Patient Rights" (CPPR): three infusions of cash totalling $114,678,000. CPPR is at the center of a probe by the California Elections Board on "dark money" spent through shell groups to influence two ballot initiatives, among other concerns that have been raised about it."PR Dist LLC," described as "Americans for Prosperity," which is directed by David Koch: two infusions totaling $31,600,000"The 60 Plus Association Inc.," $15,660,000"American Future Fund," $13,600,000"Concerned Women for American Legislative Action Committee," $8,150,000Kochs Have Claimed No Role on Gun Policy; the NRA Got Millions
In the past 18 months as controversy has grown over the role of the Koch-funded American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) in pushing so-called "Stand Your Ground" legislation, Koch Industries has repeatedly issued denouncements that it has any role in gun policies. The Center for Media and Democracy, however, has documented how extreme gun policies of the National Rifle Association (NRA) have flourished while Koch Industries has had a seat on and led ALEC's Private Enterprise Board (which was recently rebranded as the Private Enterprise Advisory Council).
While it is not known if Koch Industries has donated any funds to the Freedom Partners Chamber of Commerce, what is known -- as CMD has documented -- is that this organization is filled with Koch operatives, was launched in the same building as the Charles Koch Foundation, and has very close ties to David and Charles Koch, who are two of the richest men in the world.
Now, with this tax filing it is clear that this Koch-related operation is directly funding the NRA. The NRA received more than the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, receiving $3,465,000. The NRA describes itself as a membership organization, where people can pay $35 to be a member and get a subscription to one of the NRA magazines. However, the NRA has not disclosed how much of its funding comes from gun manufacturers or non-profit groups such as the Freedom Partners Chamber of Commerce.
The Freedom Partners Chamber of Commerce also gave millions to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Federation of Independent Business, and the National Association of Manufacturers.
More Mysteries of the Koch Network Exposed
In addition to these, the Freedom Partners Chamber of Commerce spent another $50 million on other groups, cumulatively, some of which are well known and some of which have flown below the public's radar:
"American Commitment," $6,260,000"Partnership for Ohio's Future," $500,000"West Michigan Policy Forum," $1,000,000"American Energy Alliance," $1,460,000 (has previously been connected to the Kochs)"American Values Action," $230,000 (spent $14 million on "independent expenditures" including phone calls against Obama during the 2012 election; donors unknown/not registered as a PAC)"Common Sense Issues, Inc.," $50,000"Heritage Action for America, Inc.," $500,000 (connected to the Heritage Foundation, which has deep Koch connections)"ORRA LLC (EVANGCH4 Trust)," $5,055,000"POFN LLC (Public Notice)," $5,466,250"Republican Jewish Coalition," $700,000"RION LLC (Center for Shared Service Trust)," $2,738,000 (closely connected to the Charles Koch Foundation)"SLAH LLC (Public Engagement Trust)," $1,500,000 (Arlington)"State Tea Party Express," $600,000 (operates out of Willows, California)"STN LLC (Themis Trust)," $5,781,000"TONA LLC (Libre Initiative Trust)," $3,112,000"Tea Party Patriots," $200,000 (operating out of Woodstock, Georgia)"TRGN LLC (Generation Opportunity)," $5,040,000 (a group aimed at Gen X that tries to pin the economic crash that began under President George W. Bush on Democrats)"The National Right to Work Committee," $1,000,000 (which pushes anti-worker, union-busting measures)Some of these groups have been directly connected to the Koch fortune by prior research, such as the Heritage Foundation's arms (which are long-time recipients of Koch money), the Center for Shared Service (which helps recruit right-wingers for jobs in the Koch network and which shares an office building with the Charles Koch Foundation) Themis and Libre (which advance Koch corporate agenda of Ayn Rand-style economic policies), and the Tea Party groups (which the Kochs initially claimed to the New Yorker's Jane Mayer that they had little to do with, despite evidence to the contrary).
Other groups were not yet tied to Koch money, like Generation Opportunity (which is aimed at college graduates struggling to find work in this economy and which attempts to blame progressive policies for the economic crisis that was actually spurred by Koch-style deregulation peddled by David Koch's Citizens for a Sounds Economy, which pressed for the repeal of Glass-Steagall protections, the predecessor group of Koch's Americans for Prosperity).
Others, such as the array of LLCs in the list in addition to the gigantic sum given to CPPR, raise additional questions about the Koch agenda and how it was spent during the last election cycle when hundreds of millions in dark money was poured into so-called issue ads and other "public education" activities that coincided with election themes.
The Freedom Partners Chamber of Commerce describes itself as devoted to advancing its members "common business interests." It is a trade group organized under section 501(c)(6) of the tax group, with corporate members (which may be able to write-off part of their investment as a business expense). The question a growing number of people are asking is how the pursuit of these common business interests is actually undermining the prosperity of ordinary Americans, while advancing the interests of some of the richest few in the country.
(This article has been updated, including new links.)
News Types: NewsAdd new commentPrinter-friendly versionPrinter-friendly version9639 readsAttachment Size fpcoc_990_for_2011_2012_.pdf 7.81 MB=<div class="print-content" style=""><div id="node-912933" class="node node-story view-mode-print clearfix" about="/environment/koch-brothers-could-earn-100-billion-tar-sands-profit-if-keystone-xl-pipeline-approved" typeof="sioc:Item foaf:Document" style="position: relative;"><div class="byline environment" style=""><a href="http://www.dailykos.com/" style="">Daily Kos</a> [1] / By <a href="http://www.alternet.org/authors/meteor-blades" style="">Meteor Blades</a> [2]</div><div class="headline" style=""><h1 property="dc:title" datatype="" class="node-title">Koch Brothers Could Earn $100 Billion in Tar Sands Profit if Keystone XL Pipeline Is Approved</h1></div><div class="the_body body_environment clearfix" style=""><div class="story-date">October 21, 2013  |  </div>Authors of a 40-page <a href="http://kochcash.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Embargo_Report.pdf" style="">report</a> [3] by the liberal think-tank <a href="http://www.ifg.org/" style="">International Forum on Globalization</a> [4] have concluded that the billionaire duo, David and Charles Koch, stand to make as much as $100 billion in profits from their holdings in the tar sands of Alberta if President Obama approves the Keystone XL pipeline. Because it would cross the boundary between Canada and the United States, the pipeline, which would connect the tar sands to refineries on the Texas gulf coast, requires a presidential permit based on U.S. national interest. Given the mandates of the review process, a decision isn't likely until early 2014.Boiled down to the essentials of its executive summary, the IFG report—<a href="http://kochcash.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Embargo_Report.pdf" style="">Billionaires' Carbon Bomb: The Koch Brothers and the Keystone XL Pipeline</a> [3]—states:<blockquote>By better connecting Canadian tar sands to U.S. refineries and their growing export markets, KXL will create a cash cow on steroids for the Kochs. KXL would worsen today's chances for controlling carbon by enormously expanding the Kochs' financial war chest thereby increasing their ability to influence U.S. carbon pollution policymaking and undermine urgent global climate cooperation.IFG's special report reveals that Koch Industries' role in KXL includes:2 million or more potential acres in Alberta with tar sands (and emissions) exceeding Exxon, Chevron and ConocoPhillips combined;$53 million in Koch Cash for front groups and politicians who are pushing to fast-track KXL;$100 billion in potential profits due to KXL, or 1 million times more than the average KXL worker's wage over the life of the pipeline.The resulting rise in the pace and scale of Canadian crude oil consumption will make more money faster for the Kochs, who stand to personally profit from KXL more than any other individuals, even Exxon executives.</blockquote>Approval of the pipeline, the report's authors add, would give the Kochs "more money to ramp up their already successful attacks against Americans' voting rights, labor rights, pollution controls, and other public interest protections."The Kochs, with a combined net worth of $92 billion, have been the leaders in financial support for climate change denialist propaganda, surpassing even Exxon's massive support for such lies, as well as denying candidates and lobbying meant to spur lawmakers away from pollution controls.The authors conclude:<blockquote>No single permit or pipeline will itself solve our Earth's deepening crisis of economic inequality and ecological collapse, but rejecting both can build awareness and popular pressure to reduce the role of private money polluting politics, the underlying problem obstructing our global economic transition from today's delusion of endless industrial growth to ecological sustainability and social justice.</blockquote>KGrandia has a diary up on the subject <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/10/20/1249110/-New-Study-Koch-s-Could-Make-100-Billion-on-Keystone-XL-Pipeline-Deal" style="">here</a> [5].</div><div class="big_story_tools_bottom_container" style=""><div class="talk_box"></div></div><div class="story_tools_bottom" style=""><div class="text-size" style=""><div class="story_tools_email" style=""><div class="story_tools_print" style=""><div class="story_tools_share" style=""><div class="story_tools_social_buttons" style=""><div class="tags" style="">See more stories tagged with:<div class="field field-name-field-tags field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="http://www.alternet.org/tags/koch-0" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" style="">koch</a> [6]</div></div></div></div><div class="comment_button" style=""><div class="print-footer" style="text-align: center;"><hr class="print-hr" style="border: 0px; height: 1px; width: 1551px; background-color: rgb(158, 158, 158);" /><div class="print-source_url" style="">Source URL: <a href="http://www.alternet.org/environment/koch-brothers-could-earn-100-billion-tar-sands-profit-if-keystone-xl-pipeline-approved" style="">http://www.alternet.org/environment/koch-brothers-could-earn-100-billion-tar-sands-profit-if-keystone-xl-pipeline-approved</a></div>3. Koch brothers: Cervical cancer is a small price to pay to defeat Obamacare.In

their abject desperation to forestall the implementation of Obamacare,

right-wing zealots released some ads this week that are bound to go down

in history as some of the most absurd pieces of political video ever

created.The ad campaign created by <a href="http://generationopportunity.org/#axzz2fHQev3hU">Generation Opportunity</a> [3],

which is funded by the ultra-conservative Koch brothers, specifically

targets young people with the rather irresponsible message that they

really don’t need health insurance. Better to “opt out,” pay the fine,

it’s cheaper. Also, for young women, it avoids those uncomfortable

gynecological exams, the ones that might save you from cervical cancer.

The somewhat deranged looking advertisement features the legs of a woman

in stirrups, presumably ready for her potentially life-saving pap

smear, when all of sudden a wooden marionette Uncle Sam pops up between

her legs. Uncle Sam apparently wants her. In the final scene, Uncle Sam

is shown holding a speculum.Young men can also get in on the

invasive healthcare action with Obamacare. Another ad features a young

man about to receive a prostate exam. He is told to take off his pants,

and Uncle Sam appears behind him.We knew right-wing Republicans

had an unhealthy obsession with our orifices, from advocating mandatory

vaginal probes for abortion seekers to seeking reinstatement of

anti-sodomy laws, but these ads are truly hitting a new low. The good

news is that the young people seeing them are not so easily fooled.Caution:

If you see the ads you might make the mistake of thinking you are

watching "Saturday Night Live" parodies, even if it is the middle of the

day on Tuesday.
=
<h1 class="asset-name" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; line-height: 26px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Koch-Connected Group Revealed as Major Funder of CPPR, Other Dark Money Groups</h1><div class="asset-meta" style="margin: 0.25em 0px 0px; padding: 2px 0px 0.3em; line-height: 18px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">by <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/" style="outline: none;">Viveca Novak</a> on September 12, 2013 1:24 PM </div><div class="asset-body" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; clear: both; line-height: 18px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><div style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">This is the latest in an exclusive OpenSecrets Blog <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/news/reports/moneytrail.php" style="outline: none;">series</a> about the funding and activities of politically active tax-exempt groups. 
</div><div style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
</div>Much of the funding for some of the largest conservative dark money groups in 2012 came from a previously little-known group that was started by and is to some degree bankrolled by the billionaire Koch brothers, according to a story on <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/behind-the-curtain-exclusive-the-koch-brothers-secret-bank-96669.html" target="blank" style="outline: none;">Politico</a>'s website today. 

Freedom Partners, a 501(c)(6) business partnership, made grants totaling $236 million since it was founded in November, 2011.

Almost half of that -- $115 million -- went to the <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/nonprof_contrib.php?id=264683543" style="outline: none;">Center to Protect Patient Rights</a>, a group that has no activities of its own other than giving grants to other politically active tax-exempt organizations. That's more than CPPR's budget in all years combined since it was established in 2009. It's run by Sean Noble, a political consultant and Koch operative.

CPPR has given grants to some of the same groups that, according to Politico, Freedom Partners gave funds to last year, such as the conservative seniors' group <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/detail.php?cmte=C90011685&cycle=2012" style="outline: none;">60 Plus Association</a>, which also has Koch connections. CPPR gave 60 Plus $14 million over three years. 

</div></div><div id="more" class="asset-more" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; clear: both; line-height: 18px;">Freedom Partners sent $15.7 million to 60 Plus in 2012 alone.

And 60 Plus -- which has also <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/contrib.php?cmte=60+Plus+Assn&cycle=2012" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); outline: none;">received donations</a> from the American Petroleum Institute, the Karl Rove-affiliated Crossroads GPS, and another Koch-connected group that does nothing but give out grants, TC4 Trust -- reported spending more than $4.6 million in the 2012 federal elections, much of it to support GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney.

CPPR has not yet filed its tax forms covering 2012 with the IRS, so it's not yet known what groups it provided funds to last year -- or how much of its total revenue was covered by the $115 million from Freedom Partners.

Until now, <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2012/05/cppr.html" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); outline: none;">CPPR</a> and <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2012/12/nonprofit-funneled-money-to-kochs-voter-database-effort-other-conservative-groups.html" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); outline: none;">TC4 Trust</a> -- which were both uncovered last year by OpenSecrets Blog -- were believed to be the main "shadow money mailboxes" (having no activities of their own other than giving grants) on the right. As of last year, Freedom Partners, the only significant group in the network that is not a 501(c)(4), has taken the lead. 

But the fact that it's heavily funding CPPR means that the latter group continues playing a major role in the network -- with an additional curtain of secrecy hiding its donors. 

<a href="http://freedompartners.org/us/" target="blank" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); outline: none;">Freedom Partners</a> was started as the Association for American Innovation in December 2011. Its president, Marc Short, has overseen the Koch brothers' political efforts for some time. The Kochs, who run an industrial conglomerate based in Wichita, have been deeply involved in Republican politics for years and sponsor an annual strategy session for groups and donors on the right. 

Short told Politico that Freedom Partners has about 200 donors each paying at least $100,000 each. One donor gave $25 million.

The California Fair Political Practices Commission has been <a href="http://www.fppc.ca.gov/press_release.php?pr_id=766" target="blank" style="outline: none;">trying</a> to pierce the veil hiding donors to several tax-exempt nonprofits that contributed money to one another -- one of which was CPPR -- before ultimately giving it to a group working on ballot measures in the state last year. And attorneys general in other states, such as New York, also have been attempting to force such groups to identify their donors. 

The use of a 501(c)(6) like Freedom Partners could help keep dark money stay dark. Business associations may not fall within the charitable trust jurisdiction of state attorneys general, so the arrangement could help stymie states' efforts to shed some light on who is behind the organizations. Neither (c)(4) groups nor (c)(6)s are supposed to be primarily political, but both types have asserted that providing grants to other organizations -- even if those groups spend some of their resources on political ads -- is not political activity.

Other groups that received major funding from Freedom Partners in 2012, Politico reported, include the <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/detail.php?cmte=American+Future+Fund&cycle=2012" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); outline: none;">American Future Fund</a>, which received $13.6 million. AFF reported to the Federal Election Committee that it spent $25.4 million on ads benefiting conservative candidates in that election cycle. 

<a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/detail.php?cmte=Americans+for+Prosperity&cycle=2012" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); outline: none;">Americans for Prosperity</a>, a group that was started by the Koch brothers, got $32.3 million; it spent $36.4 million in outside spending during the 2012 elections, according to FEC reports it filed. 

Themis Trust, a voter database spearheaded by the Kochs that was initially funded through TC4 Trust, <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2012/12/nonprofit-funneled-money-to-kochs-voter-database-effort-other-conservative-groups.html" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); outline: none;">received $5.8 million</a>.</div>2013Staffers from some Koch-funded nonprofit groups have continued to testify before Congress, sowing doubt about climate change in spite of scientists’ consensus that global warming exists, that it warrants concern and that it is tied to human behavior.Recent 2013 testimony includes:• On Feb. 5, Mary Hutzler, senior fellow at the Institute for Energy Research, told members of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce that research shows America has an abundance of fossil fuel reserves that could power the nation for nearly 600 years.Hutzler urged lawmakers to allow drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska, off the coast of the southern United States and in the Green River that runs through Colorado, Utah and Wyoming.“Our economy needs the lasting stimulus that robust energy development on federal lands and waters would provide,” she said, according to the committee transcript.• On Feb. 14, her colleague, Daniel Simmons, director of Regulatory and State Affairs at the Institute for Energy Research, told members of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform that environmental regulation of the oil industry is to blame for the rising cost of gasoline. He also suggested opening up the same federal lands to oil and gas drilling.• A month later, on March 13, Hutzler testified during a hearing of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology that federal subsidies of wind, solar and other renewable energy sources had failed to make America energy independent. She argued that the fuels receiving the most government money produced the least amount of energy.• On April 24, an energy policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation, testifying before the House Oversight and GovernmentReform Committee, criticized federal incentives for companies that make fuel-efficient cars.• On April 25, Simmons urged members of the House Committee on Natural Resources to support a bill that would allow companies to drill for oil in the Gulf of Mexico, in waters belonging to the United States and Mexico. At the same hearing, research fellows at the Heritage Foundation also testified in favor of the bill.• On May 7, Paul Knappenberger, assistant director of the Center for the Study of Science at the Cato Institute, told members of House Committee on Science, Space and Technology that carbon dioxide emissions from the proposed Keystone XL oil pipeline would have an insignificant impact on climate change. He also challenged the notion of a scientific consensus linking carbon dioxide emissions to climate change.“The more we learn, the less responsive it seems that the earth’s average temperature is to human carbon-dioxide emissions,” Knappenberger said.And testimony last year included this:• On Sept. 11, 2012: David Kreutzer, a research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, emphasized uncertainty about carbon dioxide’s role in global warming during a hearing before the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Kreutzer criticized the EPA’s funding of environmental programs in developing countries, adding that “the magnitude of carbon dioxide’s impact on global warming is, in fact, not settled.”Other Koch-funded groups whose staff and researchers have testified in recent years against federal environmental regulation are the George C. Marshall Institute, the American Council for Capital Formation, the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Reason Foundation and the Texas Public Policy Foundation.grist: Carbon-tax proposals are<a href="http://grist.org/climate-energy/the-positive-economic-impact-of-a-carbon-tax-in-uh-hang-on-10-charts/" style="line-height: 22.8px; border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-style: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; max-width: 100%;">going nowhere in Congress</a>, but the Koch brothers aren’t taking any chances.<p style="border: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 1.4em; padding: 0px;" times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" serif="serif" vertical-align="vertical-align" baseline="baseline" max-width="max-width" color="color" rgb="rgb" line-height="line-height" px="px" background-color="background-color">A few <a href="http://grist.org/article/hey-look-a-republican-who-cares-about-climate-change/" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-style: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; max-width: 100%;">non-office-holding Republicans</a> and a few <a href="http://grist.org/climate-energy/could-waxmans-new-bill-offer-fresh-hope-for-a-carbon-tax/" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-style: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; max-width: 100%;">actual-office-holding Democrats</a> are calling for a carbon tax, but the current Congress would never pass one, and even the Obama administration has said it doesn’t want one.<p style="border: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 1.4em; padding: 0px;" times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" serif="serif" vertical-align="vertical-align" baseline="baseline" max-width="max-width" color="color" rgb="rgb" line-height="line-height" px="px" background-color="background-color">Still, a grandstanding Republican representative, Steve Scalise of Louisiana, is pushing <a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c113:H.CON.RES.24:" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-style: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; max-width: 100%;">a House resolution</a> declaring that “a carbon tax would be detrimental to the United States economy” and “to American families and businesses,” and that it would “fall hardest on the poor, the elderly, and those on fixed incomes.” (Never mind that many carbon-tax proposals are <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/02/14/1596391/the-newly-proposed-carbon-tax-will-fight-global-warming-protect-low-income-americans-and-reduce-the-deficit/?mobile=nc" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-style: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; max-width: 100%;">designed specifically to ease burdens on low-income Americans</a>. Facts are not of interest here.)<p style="border: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 1.4em; padding: 0px;" times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" serif="serif" vertical-align="vertical-align" baseline="baseline" max-width="max-width" color="color" rgb="rgb" line-height="line-height" px="px" background-color="background-color">The billionaire oil-mogul Koch brothers — who’ve <a href="http://grist.org/news/how-the-koch-brothers-screwed-over-the-climate-even-more-than-you-know/" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-style: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; max-width: 100%;">convinced many politicians to sign a “No Climate Tax Pledge”</a> — have now hired a gang of lobbyists to push Scalise’s pointless resolution, <a href="http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/314577-kochs-tap-ex-cantor-aide-for-work-on-anti-carbon-tax-measure" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-style: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; max-width: 100%;">The Hillreports</a>.<p style="border: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 1.4em; padding: 0px;" times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" serif="serif" vertical-align="vertical-align" baseline="baseline" max-width="max-width" color="color" rgb="rgb" line-height="line-height" px="px" background-color="background-color">Just how would a tax on carbon pollution hurt American families and businesses? Well, it might take a bite out of the Koch family’s coffers and the Kochs’ businesses.<p style="border: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 1.4em; padding: 0px;" times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" serif="serif" vertical-align="vertical-align" baseline="baseline" max-width="max-width" color="color" rgb="rgb" line-height="line-height" px="px" background-color="background-color">Still, the Kochs really are concerned about the poor. In fact, Charles Koch is pushing his own plan for lifting people out of poverty; one key component is <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/07/10/2280101/charles-koch-minimum-wage/" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-style: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; max-width: 100%;">eliminating the minimum wage</a>.<p style="border: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 1.4em; padding: 0px;" times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" serif="serif" vertical-align="vertical-align" baseline="baseline" max-width="max-width" color="color" rgb="rgb" line-height="line-height" px="px" background-color="background-color">=<p style="border: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 1.4em; padding: 0px;" times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" serif="serif" vertical-align="vertical-align" baseline="baseline" max-width="max-width" color="color" rgb="rgb" line-height="line-height" px="px">Charles and David Koch, to paraphrase the famous Raid bug spray slogan, want to kill carbon tax proposals dead. Koch Companies Public Sector, LLC has contracted lobbyists including a former aide to House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) to lobby on a House resolution that declares carbon taxes “detrimental to American families and businesses.” Newly available lobby filings show that Koch has <a target="blank" mce_href="http://soprweb.senate.gov/index.cfm?event=getFilingDetails&filingID=32115afb-6bcb-47c3-8f21-515b9c0625b9&filingTypeID=1" href="http://soprweb.senate.gov/index.cfm?event=getFilingDetails&filingID=32115afb-6bcb-47c3-8f21-515b9c0625b9&filingTypeID=1" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; outline: none; line-height: normal;">hired Shockey Scofield Solutions, LLC</a>, to lobby on the anti-carbon tax resolution. Read more: <a href="http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/314577-kochs-tap-ex-cantor-aide-for-work-on-anti-carbon-tax-measure#ixzz2apqjbOBp" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; outline: none;">http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/314577-kochs-tap-ex-cantor-aide-for-work-on-anti-carbon-tax-measure#ixzz2apqjbOBp</a>  Follow us: <a href="http://ec.tynt.com/b/rw?id=bNYbpAvBir4Pxiacwqm_6l&u=thehill" target="blank" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; outline: none;">@thehill on Twitter</a> | <a href="http://ec.tynt.com/b/rf?id=bNYbpAvBir4Pxiacwqm_6l&u=TheHill" target="blank" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; outline: none;">TheHill on Facebook</a><p style="border: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 1.4em; padding: 0px;" times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" serif="serif" vertical-align="vertical-align" baseline="baseline" max-width="max-width" color="color" rgb="rgb" line-height="line-height" px="px" background-color="background-color">obbyists working on the account include partner Mike Ference, a former senior policy aide to Cantor who announced in late 2012 he was stepping down to join Shockey Scofield Solutions. Also listed in the filing are the firm’s other leaders, John Scofield and Jeff Shockey, who are both former top GOP aides on the House Appropriations Committee. Carbon tax proposals floated by some Democrats face opposition from numerous conservative groups and GOP lawmakers, and have not gained political traction.  But an ad-hoc, left-right coalition of advocates is <a target="blank" mce_href="http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/297751-carbon-tax-backers-quietly-forge-ahead" href="http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/297751-carbon-tax-backers-quietly-forge-ahead" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; outline: none; line-height: normal;">seeking to advance the idea</a>, and opponents hope to ensure they don’t gather momentum.  Shockey Scofield Solutions is working on House Concurrent Resolution 24, a measure with nearly 150 co-sponsors introduced in March by Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.), their lobby filing shows.  The House resolution declares that a carbon tax would raise prices for energy and other consumer goods, “fall hardest on the poor, the elderly, and those on fixed incomes,” and hurt the economy and U.S. competitiveness in several ways. In addition to the carbon measure, the lobbyists will work for Koch on “issues related to the limiting the impact of the Renewable Fuels Standard,” according to the filing, referring to the national biofuels blending mandate that many refiners oppose.The Koch brothers are major players in conservative politics and bankroll a number of advocacy groups in Washington.<p style="border: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 1.4em; padding: 0px;" times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" serif="serif" vertical-align="vertical-align" baseline="baseline" max-width="max-width" color="color" rgb="rgb" line-height="line-height" px="px" background-color="background-color"> Read more: <a href="http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/314577-kochs-tap-ex-cantor-aide-for-work-on-anti-carbon-tax-measure#ixzz2apqRxhUj" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; outline: none;">http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/314577-kochs-tap-ex-cantor-aide-for-work-on-anti-carbon-tax-measure#ixzz2apqRxhUj</a>  Follow us: <a href="http://ec.tynt.com/b/rw?id=bNYbpAvBir4Pxiacwqm_6l&u=thehill" target="blank" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; outline: none;">@thehill on Twitter</a> | <a href="http://ec.tynt.com/b/rf?id=bNYbpAvBir4Pxiacwqm_6l&u=TheHill" target="_blank" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; outline: none;">TheHill on Facebook</a><a href="http://grist.org/news/heres-how-the-koch-brothers-retaliate-against-journalists-they-dont-like/">http://grist.org/news/heres-how-the-koch-brothers-retaliate-against-journalists-they-dont-like/</a>press supp =clever, note use of graph w/ no src/increments: Charles Koch Foundation: An Income Of $34,000 Puts You In The Wealthiest 1 Percent (VIDEO)

Huffington Post  |  By David Winograd    Posted: 07/11/2013 4:20 pm EDT  |  Updated: 07/12/2013 11:04 am EDT

If you earn $34,000, that puts you in the wealthiest 1 percent of the world, according to the Charles Koch Foundation.

That's one of many assertions made in a new ad that attempts to undermine government policies that protect low- and middle-income Americans. You can watch the ad, which is produced by Koch's conservative non-profit group, here:

Of course, earning $34,000 in the U.S. won't get you very far in most parts of the country. The Economic Policy Institute estimates that a family of three needs an income of at least $44,617 a year to cover basic living expenses in the cheapest parts of the country. In Wichita, Kansas, where the commercial is currently being aired, according to Think Progress, a family of three would need to make $53,721 to get by. That's far more than $30,000 a year that two parents earning minimum wage would make.

Minimum wage is one policy that billionaire Charles Koch would like to see eliminated. In a recent interview with the Wichita Eagle, Charles Koch described the federal minimum wage as one of the policies that “creating a culture of dependency” and added that it “reduces the mobility of labor.”

(H.T. ThinkProgress.)
=
long report: excellentTop recipientsKoch foundations donated to 221 universities during the 2007-2011 period, giving as little as $1,000 to Wisconsin Lutheran College and more than $16 million to George Mason University. The Kochs donated to 89 nonprofits and one annual conference, all of which have public policy and educational missions synchronous with those of the Koch corporation — deregulation, limited government and free markets.Top 5 college and university recipients<img src="http://irw.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads%2Fkoch-university-chart.png" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" line-height="line-height" px="px" border="0" /> Top 5 nonprofit recipients in millions of dollars<img src="http://irw.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads%2Fkoch-foundation-chart.png" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" line-height="line-height" px="px" border="0" /> Source: Research by Eric Holmberg,  graphic by 
Cristina Keane, Investigative Reporting Workshop
<a href="http://investigativereportingworkshop.org/investigations/the_koch_club/story/Koch_millions_spread_influence_through_nonprofits/">http://investigativereportingworkshop.org/investigations/the_koch_club/story/Koch_millions_spread_influence_through_nonprofits/</a>
<a href="http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2013/07/the-kochs-and-the-action-on-global-warming.html">http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2013/07/the-kochs-and-the-action-on-global-warming.html</a>
Think tanks in Washington, D.C., and in state capitals across the country primarily serve three major functions: First, they write policy papers that analyze topics. Second, they suggest remedies in the form of new legislation to solve identified problems. These policy papers can be quoted by politicians to support their arguments and help set the “parameters of discourse,” as veteran journalist and author Bill Greider once described it, the intellectual groundwork preliminary to the later legislative maneuverings, bill draftsmanship and hearing process. The third major function of think tanks is that their experts regularly testify before Congress and can spend up to 20 percent of their time lobbying. They also make media appearances on television and radio news programs, especially on the 24-hour cable news networks, to make their ideas known to a wider audience and win over voters and lawmakers to their point of view.The Investigative Reporting Workshop compiled a database of more than 4,000 entries to track the commonalities among people who work in the Koch ecosystem. We saw people move across multiple organizations that the Kochs donate to and discovered the same people serving on many of the boards of directors. For instance, Nicole Kurokawa Neily began as a Koch Summer Fellow, worked for the Cato Institute and FreedomWorks, wrote papers for Americans for Prosperity’s Illinois chapter and eventually became executive director of the Independent Women’s Forum. Until 2008, the forum was run by Nancy Pfotenhauer, a former lobbyist for Koch Industries.In addition to funding the think tanks that curate libertarian ideas and policies, the Kochs influence Congress in a more traditional way by employing lobbyists to sculpt bills to their advantage. The Kochs lobby Congress on mostly environmental or energy issues through a variety of avenues. They lobby Congress through Koch Industries, but most of their lobbying activity goes through its government and public affairs arm, Koch Companies Public Sector LLC. Koch Companies Public Sector alone employed 26 lobbyists from seven firms who lobbied on more than 70 specific bills in the House and Senate in 2012. They employed 32 lobbyists in 2011, according to lobbying disclosure records. Koch Companies Public Sector spent nearly $19 million lobbying Congress in 2011 and 2012.The only other lobbying records came from companies that are now subsidiaries to Koch Industries. Flint Hills Resources, which stopped lobbying in 2009, spent $3.3 million that year. Georgia-Pacific and INVISTA each stopped lobbying separately from Koch Industries in 2008.I asked Sassoon, fresh off his Pulitzer win, what he thought of the news of Koch Industries potentially bidding on the Tribune Company newspapers. "We reported on the Kochs' involvement in the tar sands, and they played hardball to try to shut us up," he wrote in an email."They pressured Reuters to drop us as a content partner, and ran ads on Google andFacebook calling me liar…. What we've experienced of them firsthand makes me think they would not be trustworthy stewards of the honorable traditions of journalism."===
<ul style=""><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-1"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_activities_of_the_Koch_brothers#Background">1 Background</a></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-2"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_activities_of_the_Koch_brothers#Organizations">2 Organizations</a>

<ul><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-3"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_activities_of_the_Koch_brothers#Family_Foundations">2.1 Family Foundations</a></li><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-4"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_activities_of_the_Koch_brothers#Political_organizations">2.2 Political organizations</a>

<ul><li class="toclevel-3 tocsection-5"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_activities_of_the_Koch_brothers#Cato_Institute">2.2.1 Cato Institute</a></li></ul>

</li></ul>

</li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-6"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_activities_of_the_Koch_brothers#Political_activity">3 Political activity</a>

<ul><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-7"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_activities_of_the_Koch_brothers#U.S._education">3.1 U.S. education</a></li><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-8"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_activities_of_the_Koch_brothers#Politics">3.2 Politics</a>

<ul><li class="toclevel-3 tocsection-9"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_activities_of_the_Koch_brothers#Wisconsin">3.2.1 Wisconsin</a></li><li class="toclevel-3 tocsection-10"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_activities_of_the_Koch_brothers#Mitt_Romney">3.2.2 Mitt Romney</a></li></ul>

</li><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-11"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_activities_of_the_Koch_brothers#Competitive_Enterprise_Institute">3.3 Competitive Enterprise Institute</a></li><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-12"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_activities_of_the_Koch_brothers#Lobbying_for_oil.2C_gas.2C_and_chemical_industries">3.4 Lobbying for oil, gas, and chemical industries</a></li><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-13"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_activities_of_the_Koch_brothers#Free_enterprise_seminars">3.5 Free enterprise seminars</a></li><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-14"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_activities_of_the_Koch_brothers#Anthropogenic_global_warming_skepticism">3.6 Anthropogenic global warming skepticism</a></li></ul>

</li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-15"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_activities_of_the_Koch_brothers#Criticism_from_Jane_Mayer">4 Criticism from Jane Mayer</a>

<ul><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-16"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_activities_of_the_Koch_brothers#Responses_to_Mayer.27s_article">4.1 Responses to Mayer's article</a></li></ul>

</li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-17"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_activities_of_the_Koch_brothers#Impact">5 Impact</a></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-18"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_activities_of_the_Koch_brothers#References">6 References</a></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-19"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_activities_of_the_Koch_brothers#See_also">7 See also</a></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-20"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_activities_of_the_Koch_brothers#External_links">8 External links</a></li></ul><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_activities_of_the_Koch_brothers">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_activities_of_the_Koch_brothers</a>
===
<h1 class="print-title" style="">PBS Killed Wisconsin Uprising Documentary "Citizen Koch" To Appease Koch Brothers </h1>

    
    
        </font></strong></strong></font></font><div class="meta" style=""><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><strong><strong><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
      <span class="submitted">by <a href="http://www.prwatch.org/users/35275/brendan-fischer" title="View user profile.">Brendan Fischer</a> <span class="print-footnote">[1]</span> — May 20, 2013 - 8:12pm</span>
    </font></strong></strong></font></font></div>

        </div>

<a class="da2a_button" href="http://www.addtoany.com/share_save?linkurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.prwatch.org%2Fnews%2F2013%2F05%2F12118%2Fpbs-killed-wisconsin-uprising-documentary-citizen-koch-appease-koch-brothers&linkname=PBS%20Killed%20Wisconsin%20Uprising%20Documentary%20%22Citizen%20Koch%22%20To%20Appease%20Koch%20Brothers%20" id="da2a_1"><img src="http://www.prwatch.org/sites/all/modules/addtoany/images/share_16_16.png" alt="Share/Save" height="16" width="16" /> Share this</a> [2]

"Citizen Koch," a documentary about money in politics focused on

the Wisconsin uprising, was shunned by PBS for fear of offending

billionaire industrialist David Koch, who has given $23 million to

public television, according to <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/05/27/130527fa_fact_mayer?currentPage=all" target="blank">Jane Mayer of the </a> [3]<a href="http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/05/27/130527fa_fact_mayer?currentPage=all" target="blank">New Yorker</a> [3]. The

dispute highlights the increasing role of private money in "public"

television and raises even further concerns about the Kochs potentially

purchasing eight major daily newspapers.

The film from Academy Award-nominated filmmakers Carl Deal and Tia Lessin documents how the U.S. Supreme Court's Citizens United decision helped pave the way for secret political spending by players like the Kochs, <a href="https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CC8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.prwatch.org%2Fnode%2F9964&ei=tsmaUdDQLIny0QHI6oDwCg&usg=AFQjCNEOnf4HBSJQ8BGj3vavqIepmupfzQ&sig2=0oobaf33G0SO9POLK_IQQQ&bvm=bv.46751780,d.dmQ" target="blank">who contributed directly and indirectly</a> [4] to the election of Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker in 2010 and <a href="http://www.prwatch.org/news/2012/02/11289/americans-prosperity-nonprofit-spreading-pro-walker-message" target="blank">came to his aid again</a> [5] when the battle broke out over his effort to limit collective bargaining.

Originally slated to appear on PBS stations nationwide as part of the

"Independent Lens" series, "Citizen Koch" had its funding pulled after

David Koch was offended by another PBS documentary critical of the

billionaire industrialists.

"People like the Kochs have worked for decades to undermine public

funding for institutions like PBS," Deal told the Center for Media and

Democracy. "When public dollars dry up, private dollars come in to make

up for the shortfall."

And that private funding can conflict with PBS' "public" mission and

its editorial integrity. The PBS distributor "backed out of the

partnership because they came to fear the reaction our film would

provoke," Deal and Lessin said in a statement. "David Koch, whose

political activities are featured in the film, happens to be a

public-television funder and a trustee of both [New York PBS member

station] WNET and [Boston member station] WGBH. This wasn’t a failed

negotiation or a divergence of visions; it was censorship, pure and

simple.”

<h2 style="">"Park Avenue" Documentary Raised Koch Hackles</h2>

In November of last year, the New York PBS affiliate WNET aired a

documentary by Oscar-winning filmmaker Alex Gibney, "Park Avenue," that

explored growing income inequality by contrasting the lives of residents

in a luxury apartment building in Manhattan with individuals living on

the other end of Park Avenue, in the Bronx. The film focuses on one of

the apartment's wealthiest residents, David Koch, and does not paint a

particularly positive image of the billionaire industrialist and his

brother, Charles.

Koch is also a board trustee and major donor to WNET. And WNET's

president called him before the documentary aired to alert Koch to the

critical content -- and took the nearly unprecedented step of airing a

disclaimer from Koch following the film calling it "disappointing and

divisive." WNET also replaced the original introduction to the film,

which had been narrated by actor Stanley Tucci, with one calling the

film "controversial" and "provocative."

“They tried to undercut the credibility of the film, and I had no

opportunity to defend it,” the film's director Gibney told Mayer. "Why

is WNET offering Mr. Koch special favors?"

Independent Television Service (ITVS), an arm of PBS that funds and

distributes independent films, had funded "Park Avenue," and aired it as

part of ITVS' popular "Independent Lens" series that runs on dozens of

PBS member stations. ITVS also funded "Citizen Koch" and it was also

slated to be aired on the Independent Lens series.

But "Citizen Koch" got caught in the blowback.

<h2 style="">Fearing Koch Backlash, Funding Pulled on "Citizen Koch"</h2>

ITVS was excited about the "Citizen Koch" documentary before "Park

Avenue" aired. In April 2012, the company informed Deal and Lessin their

film would receive $150,000, and that “Everyone here at ITVS looks

forward to working with you on your very exciting and promising

program.”

But once "Park Avenue" aired, WNET blamed ITVS for impacting its

relationship with David Koch and not providing advance notice of the

film's contents. Mayer writes:

"[WNET President Neal] Shapiro acknowledged that, in his

conversations with ITVS officials about 'Park Avenue,' he was so livid

that he threatened not to carry its films in the future. The New York

metropolitan area is the largest audience for public television, so the

threat posed a potentially mortal blow to ITVS."

ITVS got the message, and quickly changed its tune on "Citizen Koch."

Lessin and Deal began receiving pressure from ITVS executives to

change the title and de-emphasize the Kochs' political influence. One

executive told the filmmakers the title was "extremely problematic" and

that “we live in a world where we have to be aware that people with

power have power.”

On a conference call in January, ITVS executives acknowledged the

push-back from WNET over the "Park Avenue" film, and again urged the

filmmakers to change the storyline. Sources told Mayer that what their

message was "Get rid of the Koch story line ... Because of the whole thing with the Koch brothers, ITVS knew WNET would never air it."

"It is always a struggle for documentaries to get out there," Deal

told CMD. "That's why PBS and ITVS are so important: they support

independent filmmakers to say new things on the public airwaves." But

because of funding pressures, "we won't have access to that audience

now," he said. "We're disappointed."

<h2 style="">PBS Reaction to "Citizen Koch" Proved the Film's Point: Money Talks</h2>

"Citizen Koch," which premiered at Sundance in January and competed

for Best Documentary, followed the activism and struggles of former

Republicans who felt betrayed by Walker's union-busting move (which he

never mentioned on the campaign trail). The film documents the role of

Koch-funded entities like Americans for Prosperity, which spent <a href="http://www.prwatch.org/news/2012/06/11604/politifact-false-about-koch-support-walker" target="_blank">$10 million</a> [6]

aiding Walker in his recall election. The film's final scene shows an

Americans for Prosperity official making the incredible claim the group

is "just like the Red Cross, just like any other nonprofit.”

In April of this year, one day after the film had its Dairy State

premiere at the Wisconsin Film Festival, ITVS informed Lessin and Deal

it had "decided not to move forward with the project."

In a statement, the filmmakers said this is an ironic turn: “It’s the

very thing our film is about—public servants bowing to pressures,

direct or indirect, from high-dollar donors.”

ITVS wrote in a prepared statement: “ITVS commenced negotiations to

fund the film ‘Citizen Corp’ based on a written proposal. Early cuts of

the film did not reflect the proposal, however, and ITVS ceased

negotiations.” The filmmakers disagreed. “The film we made is identical

in premise and execution to the written and video proposals that ITVS

green-lit last spring," they said in a statement.

"I don't believe there was a concerted conspiracy to keep 'Citizen

Koch' off of public television, with David Koch as a ringleader," Deal

told CMD. "Instead, Koch's presence and role in that world created an

environment that was hostile to our message. And that was enough."

Just before Mayer's New Yorker article was published, on May

16, David Koch resigned from WNET's board. The resignation was the

result, a source told Mayer, "of his unwillingness to back a media

organization that had so unsparingly covered its sponsor."

<a href="http://org.salsalabs.com/o/632/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=13288" target="_blank">As has been widely reported</a> [7],

the Kochs are now considering a purchase of eight major daily

newspapers currently owned by the Tribune Companies. And that has Deal

worried.

"For anybody who says the owner or funder of an outlet doesn't have

an impact on what gets published, I hope they'll think again."

This article has been updated.===<div class="h-openspaces" style="">

<h3>Key Front Groups Taking Koch Money And Doing Their Dirty Work</h3>

From 1997 to 2011, the Kochs funneled over $67 million

to organizations who are working in lockstep with the Kochs' agenda

while presenting themselves as experts. Some top recipients of Koch

money include:

<ul style=""><li><a href="http://greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/Acton-Institute-for-the-Study-of-Religion-and-Liberty---Koch-Industries-Climate-Denial-Front-Group/">Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty</a> - $423,750</li><li><a href="http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/american-council-on-capital-fo">American Council on Capital Formation (ACCF)</a> - $375,000</li><li><a href="http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/american-council-on-science-an/">American Council on Science and Health (ACSH)</a> - $155,000</li><li><a href="http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/american-enterprise-institute/">American Enterprise Institute (AEI)</a> - $350,000</li><li><a href="http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/american-legislative-exchange/">American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC)</a> - $858,858</li><li><a href="http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/American-Spectator-Foundation---Koch-Industries-Climate-Denial-Front-Group/" target="blank">American Spectator Foundation</a> - $24,500</li><li><a title="Greenpeace Koch Industries Americans for Prosperity (AFP)" href="http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/americans-for-prosperity-found/" target="blank">Americans for Prosperity Foundation (AFP)</a> - $5,760,781</li><li><a href="http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/americans-for-tax-reform-atr/">Americans for Tax Reform (ATR)</a> - $60,000</li><li><a href="http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/atlas-economic-research-founda/">Atlas Economic Research Foundation</a> - $186,100</li><li><a href="http://greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/Ayn-Rand-Institute-ARI---Koch-Industries-Climate-Denial-Front-Group/">Ayn Rand Institute</a> - $100,000</li><li><a href="http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/capital-research-center/">Capital Research Center (CRC)</a> - $670,000</li><li><a title="Greenpeace Koch Industries Cato Institute" href="http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/cato-institute/" target="blank">Cato Institute</a> - $5,535,750</li><li><a href="http://greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/Center-for-Freedom--Prosperity-Foundation---Koch-Industries-Climate-Denial-Front-Group/">Center for Freedom and Prosperity Foundation</a> - $54,266</li><li><a href="http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/Center-for-Independent-Thought-Stossel-in-the-Classroom---Koch-Industries-Climate-Denial-Front-Group/" target="blank">Center for Independent Thought</a> - $140,000</li><li><a href="http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/center-for-the-study-of-carbon/">Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change</a> - $85,000</li><li><a href="http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/center-for-the-study-of-market/?idkeep=True">Center for the Study of Market Processes</a> (now Mercatus Center) - $50,000</li><li><a href="http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/citizens-for-a-sound-economy/?idkeep=True">Citizens for a Sound Economy</a> (split into FreedomWorks and Americans for Prosperity) - $6,510,375</li><li><a href="http://greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/Collegians-For-A-Constructive-Tomorrow-CFACT-Campus--Koch-Industries-Climate-Denial-Front-Group/">Collegians for a Constructive Tomorrow</a> - $12,285</li><li><a href="http://greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/Commonwealth-Foundation-for-Public-Policy-Alternatives---Koch-Industries-Climate-Denial-Front-Group/">Commonwealth Foundation for Public Policy Alternatives</a> - $104,943</li><li><a href="http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/competitive-enterprise-institu/?idkeep=True">Competitive Enterprise Institute</a> - $530,146</li><li><a href="http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/Council-for-National-Policy---Koch-Industries-Climate-Denial-Front-Group/">Council for National Policy</a> - $50,000</li><li><a href="http://greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/Environmental-Literacy-Council---Koch-Industries-Climate-Denial-Front-Group/" target="blank">Environmental Literacy Council (ELC)</a> - $180,000</li><li><a href="http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/federalist-society-for-law-and/">Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies</a> - $2,426,999</li><li><a href="http://greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/Foundation-for-Economic-Education-FEE---Koch-Industries-Climate-Denial-Front-Group/">Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)</a> - $42,592</li><li><a href="http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/foundation-for-research-on-eco/">Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment (FREE)</a> - $1,525,000</li><li><a href="http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/fraser-institute/">Fraser Institute</a> - $650,500</li><li><a href="http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/frontiers-of-freedom/">Frontiers of Freedom</a> - $175,000</li><li><a href="http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/george-c-marshall-institute/">George C. Marshall Institute</a> - $350,000</li><li><a href="http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/goldwater-institute/">Goldwater Institute</a> - $75,000</li><li><a href="http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/heartland-institute-hi/?idkeep=True">Heartland Institute</a> - $55,000</li><li><a title="Greenpeace Koch Industries Heritage Foundation" href="http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/the-heritage-foundation/" target="blank">The Heritage Foundation</a> - $4,551,571</li><li><a href="http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/independence-institute/">Independence Institute</a> - $191,000</li><li><a href="http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/Independent-Institute---Koch-Industries-Climate-Denial-Front-Group/" target="blank">Independent Institute</a> - $100,000</li><li><a href="http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/independent-women-s-forum-iwf">Independent Women’s Forum (IWF)</a> - $835,000</li><li><a href="http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/institute-for-energy-research/">Institute for Energy Research (IER)</a> - $235,000</li><li><a href="http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/institute-for-humane-studies/">Institute for Humane Studies (IHS)</a> - $13,384,548</li><li><a href="http://greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/James-Madison-Institute-JMI---Koch-Industries-Climate-Denial-Front-Group/">James Madison Institute</a> - $119,983</li><li><a href="http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/john-locke-foundation-jlf/">John Locke Foundation (JLF)</a> - $122,472</li><li><a href="http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/mackinac-center-for-public-pol/">Mackinac Center for Public Policy</a> - $84,151</li><li><a href="http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/the-manhattan-institute/">The Manhattan Institute for Policy Research</a> - $1,925,000</li><li><a href="http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/media-research-center-mrc/">Media Research Center (MRC)</a> - $15,005</li><li><a title="Greenpeace Koch Industries Mercatus Center" href="http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/mercatus-center/" target="blank">Mercatus Center</a> - $10,474,500</li><li><a href="http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/national-center-for-policy-ana/">National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA)</a> - $620,000</li><li><a href="http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/National-Review-Institute---Koch-Industries-Climate-Denial-Front-Group/" target="blank">National Review Institute</a> - $10,000</li><li><a href="http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/national-taxpayers-union-found/">National Taxpayers Union Foundation (NTUF)</a> - $32,500</li><li><a href="http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/pacific-research-institute-for/">Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy (PRIPP)</a> - $1,302,000</li><li><a href="http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/Philanthropy-Roundtable---Koch-Industries-Climate-Denial-Front-Group/" target="blank">Philanthropy Roundtable</a> - $253,968</li><li><a href="http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/property-and-environment-resea/">Property and Environment Research Center (PERC)</a> - $193,144</li><li><a href="http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/the-reason-foundation/">The Reason Foundation</a> - $1,911,509</li><li>Smithsonian Institute Astrophysical Observatory (<a href="http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/CASE-STUDY-Dr-Willie-Soon-a-Career-Fueled-by-Big-Oil-and-Coal/">Willie Soon</a> payments) - $230,000</li><li><a href="http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/state-policy-network-spn/">State Policy Network (SPN)</a> - $49,000</li><li><a href="http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/Students-for-Liberty---Koch-Industries-Climate-Denial-Front-Group/" target="_blank">Students for Liberty</a> - $48,500</li><li><a href="http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/tax-foundation/">Tax Foundation</a> - $657,369</li><li><a href="http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/texas-public-policy-foundation/">Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF)</a> - $573,999</li><li><a href="http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/washington-legal-foundation/">Washington Legal Foundation (WLF)</a> - $1,605,000</li></ul>

</div>

Total Koch money to the Climate Denial Machine, 1997-2011 = $67,042,064

</div>===
grandpa harry: newspaper, booster, RR
What Harry didn’t tell his readers was that his own son, Fred Koch, had

just come back from the Soviet Union, where he was under contract with

Comrade Stalin to build 15 refineries, train commie engineers and beef

up Soviet energy independence. Fred made a killing working for the

Soviet Union, taking home a $5 million nut for himself, but that didn’t

stop Fred Koch from carrying on his father’s red-baiting tradition. Fred

Koch took the obsession to new paranoid heights when he helped found

the John Birch Society in 1958, after which he toured Elk Lodges and

YMCAs across America, arguing for the reimposition of segregation,

denouncing President Kennedy as communist agent and traitor, and warning

people of a diabolical commie plot to subvert America using labor

unions, gays, Jews, blacks and that most evil and cunning of all

Soviet-trained commie traitors, General Dwight D. Eisenhower.  <a href="http://www.alternet.org/print/media/being-democracy-hating-corporate-power-defending-newspaper-owner-runs-deep-koch-family">http://www.alternet.org/print/media/being-democracy-hating-corporate-power-defending-newspaper-owner-runs-deep-koch-family</a>
=<a href="http://www.alternet.org/print/media/only-koch-brothers-could-make-rupert-murdoch-look-journalisms-savior">http://www.alternet.org/print/media/only-koch-brothers-could-make-rupert-murdoch-look-journalisms-savior</a>


<hr class="print-hr" style="" />

    </font></strong></strong><div class="print-content" style=""><strong><strong><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">

      
    </font></strong></strong><div class="byline news-politics"><strong><strong><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
              <span class="field field-name-field-sources field-type-node-reference field-label-hidden"><span class="field-items"><span class="field-item even"><a href="http://www.prwatch.org/">PR Watch</a> <span class="print-footnote">[1]</span></span></span></span>             /               <em>By</em> <em><a href="http://www.alternet.org/authors/brendan-fischer">Brendan Fischer</a> <span class="print-footnote">[2]</span></em>
          </font></strong></strong></div>

    <span class="small"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
      <img alt="comments_image" src="http://www.alternet.org/sites/all/themes/custom/alternet/images/talk_box_news-politics.jpg" border="0" />
      <span class="news-politics comments_link">
    </span>

</div>

        <h1 class="node-title"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Kochs Form New Dark Money Group To Hide Political Activities From Public</font></h1>
      </div>

        
    
    
          <div class="story-date"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><em><span class="field field-name-field-date field-type-date field-label-hidden"><span class="field-items"><span class="field-item even"><span class="date-display-single" content="2013-05-02T08:04:00-07:00">May 2, 2013</span></span></span></span>

|   </div>

The right-wing network funded by the billionaire industrialist Koch

brothers is being revamped after the 2012 elections, starting with a new

nonprofit called the "Association for American Innovation" that will

act as a hub for funneling undisclosed spending towards the Kochs'

political projects.With ambiguous IRS rules and a deadlocked Congress, they might get away with it.The role for the group, <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/26/koch-brothers-group_n_3164357.html">according to the Huffington Post</a> [3],

is to serve as a financing vehicle for the Koch political network,

which includes organizations like Americans for Prosperity. In some

respects it appears to be playing a similar role as the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Center_to_Protect_Patient_Rights#cite_note-open_secrets-0">Center to Protect Patient Rights</a> [4], a 501(c)(4) nonprofit run by Koch operative Sean Noble that <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2012/05/cppr.html">funnelled</a> [5] nearly $55 million to other front groups, which in turn ran ads attacking Democrats in the 2010 elections. The

Association for American Innovation will likely help the Kochs and

their allies continue avoiding transparency in political spending.Association Formed as "Business League," Perhaps to Avoid IRS ScrutinyThe

Association is organized under Section 501(c)(6) of the tax code,

setting it apart from many of the dark money groups active in the 2010

and 2012 elections, like Karl Rove's Crossroads GPS or Americans for

Prosperity, which are organized as 501(c)(4) "social welfare"

nonprofits.Section 501(c)(6) is reserved for business leagues

like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce or trade associations like the

pharmaceutical lobby PhRMA; but unlike those groups, there is little

evidence the Association exists to advance the interests of any

particular trade or industry. "A (c)(6) is exactly where you'd

expect captains of industry to go for political leverage out of the

public view, especially if the notorious 501(c)(4) organizations are

about to be more heavily scrutinized and regulated by the IRS," attorney

Greg Colvin, an expert in nonprofit law, told the Center for Media and

Democracy.  "Unlike a (c)(4), the organization would have no

pretense of promoting the common good and general welfare of the

community," Colvin said. "A 501(c)(6) is not a public interest

organization. It can promote the special interests of oil and gas,

pharmaceuticals, real estate developers, manufacturers, or free

enterprise capitalism generally."Donors to both 501(c)(6) "trade

associations" and 501(c)(4) "social welfare" nonprofits can remain

anonymous, providing a potential avenue for publicity-shy funders to

spend on elections while keeping their identities secret. Super PACs

must disclose all their donors, but nonprofits have no such obligation,

unless a donation was specifically earmarked for a political ad.And

the law governing both 501(c)(6) and 501(c)(4) groups are the same:

political intervention cannot be their primary purpose. But the IRS

rules for what constitutes political intervention are relatively

ambiguous and rarely enforced. And this provides an opening for the

Kochs and their allies to continue influencing elections from the

shadows.Kochs Exploiting "Vague, Unpredictable, and Unevenly Applied" LawsDespite

these limits on political intervention, several dark money nonprofits

last year did little else besides spend on election-related ads. Some

nonprofits <a href="http://www.propublica.org/article/controversial-dark-money-group-among-five-that-told-irs-they-would-stay-out">even told the IRS</a> [6] they would not spend a dollar on political intervention.There

still has not been a public prosecution of a dark money group for

violating election or tax law in the 2012 or 2010 elections, an issue

that was the subject of a <a href="http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/hearing.cfm?id=2c79a170440dcdca9be971883a73cb83">Senate Judiciary Subcommittee hearing </a> [7]in April. "The tax rules are vague, unpredictable, and unevenly applied," Colvin <a href="http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/pdf/04-09-13ColvinTestimony.pdf">testified</a> [8] at

the hearing. "Only the most flagrant violations could be knowing,

willful, or deliberate and subject to criminal prosecution."To

assess whether an ad or expenditure counts as "political intervention,"

the IRS uses multi-factor "issue advocacy" rules and a vague "facts and

circumstances" approach. This includes enough wiggle room for dark money

groups run by the Kochs or others to argue that their ads or organizing

drives should count as "education" or "lobbying" rather than electoral

advocacy -- preserving their nonprofit status while shielding their

spending and funding from public view.The IRS and Treasury Department could create more bright-line rules but have failed to do so. Kochs Taking Steps to Thwart TransparencyThis

ambiguity in the rules governing nonprofits led to an unprecedented

level of secret spending in the 2012 elections. And that has inspired

calls for transparency from members of both parties, although the GOP as

a whole has consistently opposed disclosure legisation. In addition to

the DISCLOSE Act, which failed in recent sessions (largely because of

Republican opposition), Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Ron Wyden

(D-Ore.) have introduced the <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/138100014/Follow-the-Money-Act-Backgrounder">"Follow the Money Act"</a> [9] to

require any group that spends more than $10,000 on an election to

disclose the identities of donors who give $1,000 or more. The Kochs have <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2013/04/pepsico-koch-industries-others-lobby-against-donor-disclosure.html">lobbied against</a> [10] almost every proposal for greater transparency in election spending.The

fate of disclosure legislation remains unclear. But perhaps the Kochs

are nonetheless anticipating greater transparency requirements with the

creation of the Association for American Innovation: by a donor giving

to the Association, and the Association then contributing to a dark

money nonprofit like Crossroads GPS that spends on political ads, the

original donor's identity is almost certain to remain secret if

Crossroads GPS must disclose its donors. GPS would likely only report

the Association for American Innovation contribution, allowing the

original donor to keep their anonymity. "So long as huge amounts

and proportions of political campaign funds can flow through

multi-purpose 501(c) entities, the task of achieving public disclosure

will be almost impossible," Colvin told the Senate Subcommittee.Another

complicating issue is that the IRS has never clarified how much

political intervention is too much for a nonprofit. It cannot be a

"primary purpose," which could mean anywhere between 10 percent and 49

percent of the nonprofit's overall activites. It is also not clear when

one nonprofit transferring funds to another counts towards their

political intervention limit.Even if a group like the Association

were to specify that its transfer to another Koch group cannot be used

for electoral purposes (as defined under vague IRS rules), money is

fungible, so the contribution can free up more funds for the recipient's

explicitly political activity. And if the Association makes a

significant number of contributions to other nonprofits -- which they

will likely do -- and argues the transfers do not count as "political

intervention," the Association itself could devote more resources to

electoral politics without this becoming its "primary purpose."Take it to the States (but Avoid State Attorney Generals)Despite

entreaties from Colvin and other experts, the IRS has failed to create

more clear rules for nonprofits on how political intervention is defined

and how much is too much, and Congress has failed to revise the tax

code or pass disclosure legislation. This has left the door open to

abuse of the tax code by players like the Kochs. But some states have not been paralyzed by inaction.  In 2012, the Koch-connected Center to Protect Patient Rights was involved in a <a href="http://www.prwatch.org/news/2012/11/11845/california-elections-board-peels-back-layer-dark-money-onion-finds-more-onion/">shell game</a> [11] where

$11 million was shuffled between three different groups to influence

two California ballot initiatives. But since November, California's

elections board has been digging deep into what it calls this "campaign

money laundering" effort, <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/24/california-dark-money_n_2943688.html">most recently</a> [12] issuing a round of subpoenas to determine who provided the original funds. Other states are also taking action. Montana and its state courts have <a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/government-elections-politics/big-sky-big-money/montana-court-rules-dark-money-group-violated-state-law/">successfully enforced disclosure laws against</a> [13] a dark money group that had tried keeping its donors secret. <a href="https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2013/related/proposals/sb166">Bipartisan legislation</a> [14] in

Wisconsin would require greater transparency for "issue ads" that run

near an election. And New York's Attorney General issued new rules to <a href="http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/12/new_york_dark_money_rules.php">require donor disclosure</a> [15] by dark money groups that spend more than $10,000 in an election.  And

here arises another advantage to organizing the Association for

American Innovation as a (c)(6): unlike (c)(4)s, they largely will not

fall under the jurisdiction of state attorney generals.

          </div>

    <div class="talk_box">
            <span class="small"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
    </font></span></div>
      </div>

    <div class="text-size">
          </div>
    <div class="story_tools_email">
          </div>
    <div class="story_tools_print">
          </div>
    <div class="story_tools_share">
          </div>

</div>

      <div class="tags">
      <font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><em>See more stories tagged with:</em> </font><div class="field field-name-field-tags field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden">
    <div class="field-items">
          <div class="field-item even">
      <font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><a href="http://www.alternet.org/tags/koch-brothers-0">koch brothers</a> <span class="print-footnote">[16]</span>,     </font></div>      <div class="field-item odd">
      <font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><a href="http://www.alternet.org/tags/center-media-and-democracy">Center for Media and Democracy</a> <span class="print-footnote">[17]</span>,     </font></div>      <div class="field-item even">
      <font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><a href="http://www.alternet.org/tags/dark-money-groups">dark money groups</a> <span class="print-footnote">[18]</span>    </font></div>  </div>

</div> </div>

        </div>

</div>

    <div class="print-footer" style="">

</div>

    <hr class="print-hr" style="" />
    <div class="print-source_url" style=""><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><strong>Source URL:</strong> <a href="http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/kochs-form-new-dark-money-group-hide-political-activities-public">http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/kochs-form-new-dark-money-group-hide-political-activities-public</a></font></div>
    <font size="4" style="" face="Times New Roman"><strong style="">Links:</strong><br />[1] http://www.prwatch.org/<br />

[2] http://www.alternet.org/authors/brendan-fischer

[3] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/26/koch-brothers-group_n_3164357.html

[4] http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Center_to_Protect_Patient_Rights#cite_note-open_secrets-0

[5] http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2012/05/cppr.html

[6] http://www.propublica.org/article/controversial-dark-money-group-among-five-that-told-irs-they-would-stay-out

[7] http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/hearing.cfm?id=2c79a170440dcdca9be971883a73cb83

[8] http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/pdf/04-09-13ColvinTestimony.pdf

[9] http://www.scribd.com/doc/138100014/Follow-the-Money-Act-Backgrounder

[10] http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2013/04/pepsico-koch-industries-others-lobby-against-donor-disclosure.html

[11] http://www.prwatch.org/news/2012/11/11845/california-elections-board-peels-back-layer-dark-money-onion-finds-more-onion/

[12] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/24/california-dark-money_n_2943688.html

[13]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/government-elections-politics/big-sky-big-money/montana-court-rules-dark-money-group-violated-state-law/

[14] https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2013/related/proposals/sb166

[15] http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/12/new_york_dark_money_rules.php

[16] http://www.alternet.org/tags/koch-brothers-0

[17] http://www.alternet.org/tags/center-media-and-democracy

[18] http://www.alternet.org/tags/dark-money-groups

[19] http://www.alternet.org/%2Bnew_src%2B
===
hub?:
They’ve blessed the

formation of a new secret money nonprofit group, the Association for

American Innovation, POLITICO has learned. It will be run by former top

AFP strategist Alan Cobb and will wage a behind-the-scenes push in state

capitols for reforms consistent with the brothers’ small-government,

free-enterprise philosophy, including possibly curbing union power and

abolishing income taxes.

Americans for Prosperity is moving forward with a new initiative to <a href="http://americanhealthcarefreedom.com/" target="blank">block the implementation of Obamacare</a>, and has hinted it may get involved in congressional primaries for the first time in 2014, which <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2013/02/rove-vs-tea-party-for-gops-future-87296.html" target="blank">could pit it directly against Rove</a>’s effort.

The brothers’ operation also has signaled

continued commitment to a host of nonprofit groups established in the

past few years under a section of the tax code — <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/82387.html" target="_blank">501(c)4</a>

— that allows donors to remain anonymous. There’s a voter data-mining

effort called Themis, a Hispanic voter targeting outfit called Libre

Initiative and a fiscal watchdog called Public Notice.

Maybe the biggest question looming over Koch World, though, is

whether it can still count on the support of the dozens of wealthy

supporters in its network, who — as much as the brothers’ own personal

fortunes (<a href="http://www.forbes.com/profile/charles-koch/" target="blank">estimated</a> at $<a href="http://www.forbes.com/profile/david-koch/" target="blank">31 billion</a> each) from their family owned industrial conglomerate Koch Industries — give the Kochs their political muscle.

The 2013 installments of the secretive twice-a-year Koch seminars at

which donors often pledge seven-figure contributions have been delayed

to allow for completion of the audit, which is being conducted by

independent contractors and overseen by Koch operative Marc Short. The

results will be presented at a seminar in April — a change from the

typical late January or early February winter seminar <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/48464.html" target="_blank">in Southern California</a>. The summer conference has also been pushed back but is still being planned, POLITICO has learned.

If donors are either not satisfied that Koch World has learned the

lessons of 2012 or are anxious that their anonymity is at risk from

heightened scrutiny of the Kochs’ operation, they might be reluctant to

give at the unprecedented level that they did in 2012, when the Kochs

aimed to steer as much as <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76849.html" target="_blank">$400 million</a> into conservative causes.

“Nobody expected that people were going to continue to give at the

level that they were giving leading up to that election and that cycle,”

said Jeremy Jensen, one of the dozens of field organizers laid off by

Americans for Prosperity this year.

“I don’t think they’re going anywhere,” Jensen added of the Kochs and

AFP. “No, I think it will only come back bigger. I believe [2012] was a

trial run for what things will look like in the future for some really

big money plans.”

Americans for Prosperity spent roughly $140 million last year — its

biggest annual budget by far — flooding swing state airwaves with

anti-Obama ads and streets with <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/83330.html" target="_blank">paid canvassers</a>,

though AFP has always positioned itself as a nonpartisan organization

that doesn’t measure its success or failure on the results of a single

election....

buying LA times, went after Inside Climate Sasson, using facebook and ads, included picture.

===
Greg Palast: Koch brothers could save two billion dollars a year if they

can replace Venezuelan heavy crude crude with Canadian tar sands – one

of the dirtiest sources of carbon emissions on the planet.<a href="http://dissidentvoice.org/2013/02/koch-brothers-driving-keystone-xl-pipeline-from-canada-to-cut-out-venezuelan-oil/">http://dissidentvoice.org/2013/02/koch-brothers-driving-keystone-xl-pipeline-from-canada-to-cut-out-venezuelan-oil/</a>
==
Infamous for bankrolling political causes that advance their anti-tax

and generally anti-government agenda, frequently by clandestine means,

brothers Charles and David Koch have expanded their clout to include

university curriculums, and even hiring practices. The Kochs have given

millions to a variety of think tanks, politicians, political parties and

universities, both domestically and internationally. The brothers are

receiving criticism for covertly influencing the academic agendas of

major colleges throughout the U.S.

Florida Gulf Coast University recently gained public recognition for

its athletics program, and in the process a troubling connection was

discovered between the Charles G. Koch Foundation and the university��s

economics department. According to the blog site, ThinkProgress, a group

of Libertarian economists were funded to instill the ideals of

free-market capitalism into economics and finance classes, including a

course titled “The Moral Foundations of Capitalism”. The brothers also

donated nearly $800,000 to The Beacon Hill Institute, a free-market

think tank for Suffolk University that produced faulty research data

opposing environmental bills in various states. The regulations and

emissions standards associated with these bills could prove cumbersome

to the brothers’ business interests in energy and raw materials

industries.

The Koch’s financial relationship with Florida Gulf Coast University

and The Beacon Hill Institute are examples of the brothers’ apparent

aim: to shape what is being studied and valued in college classrooms  —

supporting a radical Libertarian and Ayn Rand “objectivist” agenda that

favors anti-regulatory, pro-business activism. Public beware.

Sources

Beauchamp, Zack, “A Cinderella Story? How The Koch Brothers Use

Florida Gulf Coast University To Promote Their Agenda” ThinkProgress,

March 28 2013,  <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/03/28/1783741/florida-gulf-coast-koch-brothers/?mobile=nc">http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/03/28/1783741/florida-gulf-coast-koch-brothers/?mobile=nc</a>

Fuller, Andrea, Reity O’Brien, Chris Young, “Pro-Business

Organizations Sponsor Expense-Paid Seminars For Judges” The Lens, March

28 2013, <a href="http://thelensnola.org/2013/03/28/pro-business-organizations-sponsor-expense-paid-seminars-for-federal-judges">http://thelensnola.org/2013/03/28/pro-business-organizations-sponsor-expense-paid-seminars-for-federal-judges</a>

Gibson, Connor, ��Koch Brother Fronts Flood into Kansas to Attach Wind Industry �� Report” Greenpeace, March 11 2013, <a href="http://greenpeaceblogs.org/2013/03/11/koch-brother-fronts-flood-into-kansas-to-attack-wind-industry-report">http://greenpeaceblogs.org/2013/03/11/koch-brother-fronts-flood-into-kansas-to-attack-wind-industry-report</a>

Student Researcher: Sean Duffy, San Francisco State University

Faculty Evaluator: Kenn Burrows, San Francisco State University

<a href="http://www.mediafreedominternational.org/2013/04/02/koch-brothers-money-behind-pro-business-agenda-in-college-classrooms-2/" style="">http://www.mediafreedominternational.org/2013/04/02/koch-brothers-money-behind-pro-business-agenda-in-college-classrooms-2/</a>

==

koch industry pac 2012

House

Total to Democrats: $28,000

Total to Republicans: $1,528,000Recipient  ? Total  ?

Aderholt, Robert B (R-AL) $5,000

Alexander, Rodney (R-LA) $2,500

Altschuler, Randy (R-NY) $10,000

Amash, Justin (R-MI) $10,000

Amodei, Mark (R-NV) $7,500

Archer, John H Jr (R-IA) $5,000

Austria, Steve (R-OH) $2,500

Bachmann, Michele (R-MN) $10,000

Barletta, Lou (R-PA) $7,500

Barr, Andy (R-KY) $5,000

Barrow, John (D-GA) $10,000

Barton, Joe (R-TX) $10,000

Benishek, Dan (R-MI) $15,000

Black, Diane (R-TN) $10,000

Blackburn, Marsha (R-TN) $12,000

Boehner, John (R-OH) $10,000

Bono Mack, Mary (R-CA) $2,500

Boren, Dan (D-OK) $2,000

Boustany, Charles W Jr (R-LA) $5,000

Bridenstine, James (R-OK) $5,000

Brooks, Maggie (R-NY) $5,000

Broun, Paul (R-GA) $10,000

Bucshon, Larry (R-IN) $5,000

Buerkle, Ann Marie (R-NY) $10,000

Burgess, Michael (R-TX) $10,000

Camp, Dave (R-MI) $10,000

Campbell, John (R-CA) $2,500

Canseco, Francisco (R-TX) $10,000

Cantor, Eric (R-VA) $10,000

Capito, Shelley Moore (R-WV) $10,000

Carter, John (R-TX) $10,000

Cassidy, Bill (R-LA) $10,000

Chabot, Steve (R-OH) $5,000

Chaffetz, Jason (R-UT) $2,500

Coffman, Mike (R-CO) $10,000

Cole, Tom (R-OK) $5,000

Collins, Chris (R-NY) $5,000

Collins, Doug (R-GA) $5,000

Conaway, Mike (R-TX) $10,000

Coors, Joe (R-CO) $10,000

Cornilles, Robert (R-OR) $5,000

Cotton, Thomas (R-AR) $5,000

Cramer, Kevin (R-ND) $5,000

Cravaack, Chip (R-MN) $5,000

Crawford, Rick (R-AR) $5,000

Crenshaw, Ander (R-FL) $1,000

Culberson, John (R-TX) $7,500

Daines, Steven (R-MT) $10,000

Davis, Geoff (R-KY) $5,000

Davis, Rodney (R-IL) $5,000

Dent, Charlie (R-PA) $10,000

DeSantis, Ron (R-FL) $10,000

Desjarlais, Scott (R-TN) $2,500

Diaz-Balart, Mario (R-FL) $2,500

Doheny, Matt (R-NY) $5,000

Doherty, Brendan P (R-RI) $5,000

Duffy, Sean P (R-WI) $10,000

Duncan, Jeff (R-SC) $7,500

Ellmers, Renee (R-NC) $2,500

Farenthold, Blake (R-TX) $10,000

Fincher, Steve (R-TN) $7,500

Fitzpatrick, Michael G (R-PA) $10,000

Fleischmann, Chuck (R-TN) $5,000

Fleming, John (R-LA) $2,500

Flores, Bill (R-TX) $10,000

Foxx, Virginia (R-NC) $2,500

Franks, Trent (R-AZ) $2,500

Gardner, Cory (R-CO) $10,000

Garrett, Scott (R-NJ) $10,000

Gibbs, Bob (R-OH) $8,500

Gill, Ricky (R-CA) $7,500

Gingrey, Phil (R-GA) $10,000

Gohmert, Louis B Jr (R-TX) $10,000

Gosar, Paul (R-AZ) $8,500

Gowdy, Trey (R-SC) $7,500

Graves, Sam (R-MO) $5,000

Graves, Tom (R-GA) $12,000

Griffin, Tim (R-AR) $7,500

Griffith, Morgan (R-VA) $10,000

Guinta, Frank (R-NH) $10,000

Guthrie, Brett (R-KY) $7,500

Harris, Andy (R-MD) $10,000

Hartzler, Vicky (R-MO) $5,000

Hasner, Adam (R-FL) $10,000

Hayworth, Nan (R-NY) $10,000

Heck, Joe (R-NV) $10,000

Hensarling, Jeb (R-TX) $10,000

Herrera Beutler, Jaime (R-WA) $5,000

Holding, George (R-NC) $5,000

Hudson, Richard (R-NC) $10,000

Huelskamp, Tim (R-KS) $10,000

Huizenga, Bill (R-MI) $5,000

Hultgren, Randy (R-IL) $5,000

Hurt, Robert (R-VA) $10,000

Issa, Darrell (R-CA) $9,000

Jenkins, Lynn (R-KS) $10,000

Johnson, Bill (R-OH) $10,000

Jordan, Jim (R-OH) $10,000

Kelly, Jesse (R-AZ) $5,000

Kelly, Mike (R-PA) $10,000

King, Pete (R-NY) $3,500

King, Steven A (R-IA) $10,000

Kingston, Jack (R-GA) $10,000

Kinzinger, Adam (R-IL) $10,000

Kline, John (R-MN) $10,000

Labrador, Raul (R-ID) $10,000

LaMalfa, Doug (R-CA) $5,000

Lamborn, Douglas L (R-CO) $10,000

Lankford, James (R-OK) $5,000

Latham, Tom (R-IA) $10,000

Latta, Robert E (R-OH) $10,000

Lucas, Frank D (R-OK) $7,000

Lummis, Cynthia Marie (R-WY) $2,500

Lungren, Dan (R-CA) $10,000

Maldonado, Abel (R-CA) $5,000

Marchant, Kenny (R-TX) $2,500

Marino, Tom (R-PA) $5,000

Massie, Thomas (R-KY) $10,000

McCarthy, Kevin (R-CA) $10,000

McCaul, Michael (R-TX) $10,000

McHenry, Patrick (R-NC) $10,000

McIntosh, David M (R-IN) $5,000

McKinley, David (R-WV) $10,000

McMorris Rodgers, Cathy (R-WA) $7,500

Meadows, Mark R (R-NC) $5,000

Meehan, Patrick (R-PA) $7,500

Messer, Luke (R-IN) $10,000

Mica, John L (R-FL) $10,000

Mullin, Markwayne (R-OK) $5,000

Mulvaney, Mick (R-SC) $12,000

Murphy, Tim (R-PA) $7,500

Neugebauer, Randy (R-TX) $7,500

Noem, Kristi (R-SD) $5,500

Nugent, Richard (R-FL) $7,500

Nunes, Devin (R-CA) $10,000

Nunnelee, Alan (R-MS) $5,000

Olson, Pete (R-TX) $10,000

Palazzo, Steven (R-MS) $5,000

Parker, Vernon (R-AZ) $5,000

Paton, Jonathan (R-AZ) $5,000

Paulsen, Erik (R-MN) $9,500

Pearce, Steve (R-NM) $10,000

Perry, Scott (R-PA) $6,000

Peterson, Collin (D-MN) $10,000

Pittenger, Robert (R-NC) $12,500

Pitts, Joe (R-PA) $7,500

Plummer, Jason (R-IL) $5,000

Poe, Ted (R-TX) $2,500

Pompeo, Mike (R-KS) $10,000

Price, Tom (R-GA) $10,000

Radel, Trey (R-FL) $10,000

Reed, Tom (R-NY) $2,000

Renacci, Jim (R-OH) $10,000

Ribble, Reid (R-WI) $10,000

Rigell, Scott (R-VA) $7,500

Rogers, Hal (R-KY) $7,000

Rogers, Mike (R-MI) $10,000

Rohrabacher, Dana (R-CA) $2,500

Rokita, Todd (R-IN) $5,000

Rooney, Tom (R-FL) $1,000

Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana (R-FL) $3,500

Roskam, Peter (R-IL) $10,000

Ross, Dennis (R-FL) $10,000

Ross, Mike (D-AR) $6,000

Rothfus, Keith J (R-PA) $5,000

Rouzer, David (R-NC) $5,000

Runyan, Jon (R-NJ) $9,500

Ryan, Paul (R-WI) $10,000

Salmon, Matt (R-AZ) $5,000

Scalise, Steve (R-LA) $10,000

Schilling, Bobby (R-IL) $10,000

Schock, Aaron (R-IL) $6,000

Schweikert, David (R-AZ) $10,000

Scott, Austin (R-GA) ($2,500)

Scott, Tim (R-SC) $8,500

Sensenbrenner, F James Jr (R-WI) $2,500

Sessions, Pete (R-TX) $10,000

Shimkus, John M (R-IL) $10,000

Shuster, Bill (R-PA) $10,000

Simpson, Mike (R-ID) $2,500

Smith, Adrian (R-NE) $5,000

Smith, Lamar (R-TX) $10,000

Snuffer, Richard (R-WV) $5,000

Southerland, Steve (R-FL) $5,000

Stearns, Cliff (R-FL) $5,000

Stewart, Chris (R-UT) $5,000

Stivers, Steve (R-OH) $5,000

Strickland, Tony (R-CA) $10,000

Stutzman, Marlin (R-IN) $5,000

Sullivan, John (R-OK) $1,000

Tavaglione, John F (R-CA) $7,500

Terry, Lee (R-NE) $5,000

Thompson, Glenn (R-PA) $5,000

Tiberi, Patrick J (R-OH) $2,000

Tipton, Scott (R-CO) $10,000

Upton, Fred (R-MI) $10,000

Valadao, David (R-CA) $10,000

Vann, Kim Dolbow (R-CA) $10,000

Wagner, Ann L (R-MO) $5,000

Walberg, Tim (R-MI) $10,000

Walden, Greg (R-OR) $10,000

Walorski, Jackie (R-IN) $10,000

Walsh, Joe (R-IL) $12,500

Weber, Randy (R-TX) $10,000

Webster, Daniel (R-FL) $2,000

Wenstrup, Brad (R-OH) $6,000

Whitfield, Ed (R-KY) $10,000

Wilson, Joe (R-SC) $2,500

Womack, Steve (R-AR) $7,500

Woodall, Rob (R-GA) $5,000

Yoder, Kevin (R-KS) $10,000

Young, Todd (R-IN) $2,500http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pacgot.php?cmte=C00236489&cycle=2012

Senate

Total to Democrats: $10,000

Total to Republicans: $190,000Recipient  ? Total  ?

Allen, George (R-VA) $10,000

Barrasso, John A (R-WY) $10,000

Berg, Rick (R-ND) $10,000

Brown, Scott (R-MA) $10,000

Cornyn, John (R-TX) $5,000

Cruz, Ted (R-TX) $15,000

Flake, Jeff (R-AZ) $2,000

Hatch, Orrin G (R-UT) $15,000

Heller, Dean (R-NV) $10,000

Hoekstra, Peter (R-MI) $5,000

Inhofe, James M (R-OK) $5,000

Lingle, Linda (R-HI) $5,000

Mack, Connie (R-FL) $7,000

Mandel, Josh (R-OH) $10,000

McConnell, Mitch (R-KY) $10,000

Mourdock, Richard E (R-IN) $10,000

Murkowski, Lisa (R-AK) $5,000

Pryor, Mark (D-AR) $10,000

Rehberg, Denny (R-MT) $10,000

Roberts, Pat (R-KS) $10,000

Smith, Tom (R-PA) $5,000

Summers, Charlie (R-ME) $5,000

Thompson, Tommy G (R-WI) $5,000

Thune, John (R-SD) $1,000

Wicker, Roger (R-MS) $10,000

Based on data released by the FEC on February 18, 2013

...

The audit has nerves in Koch World on edge.

AFP president Tim Phillips wouldn’t comment on specific personnel moves, though he generally cast the cuts to his group, which now has about 190 employees, as an anticipated back-end result of a major election-year ramp up.

“The vast majority of it reflects a field effort that increased dramatically in late 2011 and 2012, and then it comes down to a more long-term sustainable size,” Phillips said. “Washington is an artificial hothouse as far as how folks move and how organizations change. A year or two years is an eternity working for the same organization in Washington D.C.”

But the departure of AFP’s chief operating officer Tracy Henke, which occurred around the time of Charles Koch’s holiday party criticism of AFP, was acrimonious, according to sources.

Henke and other departing AFP staffers signed nondisclosure agreements, and she did not respond to requests for comment, but she appears to have completely left the Koch network of groups.

That��s in contrast to other top AFP officials who recently left the group to join or start other new groups regarded as part of the Koch family, including Cobb’s Association for American Innovation and Phil Kerpen’s American Commitment.

The moves fit a pattern the Koch operation has pioneered of creating — and channeling millions of dollars to — political groups since it began increasing its political involvement.

The technique has helped the Koch network win the loyalty of donors, because it shields them from exposure, but it is now increasingly at risk thanks to an investigation by the California Fair Political Practices Commission.

The California investigation is trying to unmask the original source of a mysterious $11 million donation that was funneled through a key Koch conduit in the weeks before Election Day to a California political committee boosting a 2012 ballot measure to restrict union political activity and opposing a separate ballot proposition to raise taxes.

“What they already admitted was definitely money laundering,” commission Chairwoman Ann Ravel told POLITICO.

Ravel said the groups under investigation are “raising issues and not providing everything requested” and that the agency may file a civil complaint.

But she predicted the investigation could reveal the donors by the middle of the year and potentially go after them if “the evidence shows that the donors knew or should have known that they were contributing to campaigns in California.”

Ravel’s commission has already forced the disclosure that, before the $11 million made its way from an Arizona nonprofit called Americans for Responsible Leadership (the originally disclosed donor) to the California committee, it <a href="http://images.politico.com/global/2013/02/17/cppr_11m_cfppc_110512.html" target="blank">passed from a Virginia-based nonprofit</a> called Americans for Job Security <a href="http://images.politico.com/global/2013/02/17/amersforrespleadership_11m_cfppc_110512.html" target="blank">to an Arizona 501(c)4</a> called the Center to Protect Patients Rights.

The latter group, run by the Kochs’ top ad man, Sean Noble, has played a key role in steering money to other Koch-backed groups, along with another mysterious 501(c)4 group called TC4 Trust.

Between 2009 and 2011 (the most recent years for which the groups’ tax returns were accessible), the two nonprofits combined to steer more than $75 million to Koch-linked groups including $18.1 million to the 60 Plus Association, $8 million to Public Notice and its subsidiaries, $7.1 million to American Commitment, $6.8 million to Themis and its subsidiaries, and $500,000 to Generation Opportunity. They also donated $4.8 million to Americans for Job Security and $900,000 to Americans for Responsible Leadership.

Americans for Responsible Leadership — which is <a href="http://images.politico.com/global/2013/02/17/torchinsky_amersforrespldrshp_response_102412.html" target="blank">represented by the lawyer</a> for Americans for Prosperity, American Commitment, the Center to Protect Patients Rights and other Koch-backed groups — contends that Ravel’s commission is ��bowing to political pressure,�� ignoring the Supreme Court’s 2010 <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31786.html" target="blank">Citizens United decision</a> allowing unlimited corporate political expenditures and trying to scare the group and its donors.

The commission’s efforts “utterly discount the legitimate interest that donors to non-profits have in maintaining their privacy” and have had a “deterrent effect on the activities of both ARL and its donors,�� wrote Americans for Responsible Leadership in a <a href="http://images.politico.com/global/2013/02/17/amersforrespldrshp_response-noexhbts_102512.html" target="_blank">legal brief </a>filed just before the election.

Beyond the California investigation, Noble has come under scrutiny in the brothers’ post-election audit, sources say. His consulting firm, DC London, though technically independent, is widely regarded as almost a subsidiary of the Koch political operation. Its performance in 2012, when it handled advertising and other paid media for a number of the groups that get their cash through the Center to Protect Patients Rights and TC4 Trust, was seen as a weak link by some in Koch World.

Since the election, Gentry, who runs the donor seminars, has sent several emails to a list of operatives at other conservative groups asking them to study various aspects of Obama’s advertising and messaging strategies, becoming captivated this year with a 2012 <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BkmJ4gIa8ek" target="_blank">ad featuring Jennifer Lopez</a>, whom he called “the #1 public celebrity for young Latinas.”

It created “peer pressure to the target audience that if they don’t join their fellow Latinos in ‘getting Obama’s back,’ then they will not be part of the in-crowd,�� he wrote....

<a href="http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=C3F3B132-A7E6-44F4-A173-03E912635A0C">http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=C3F3B132-A7E6-44F4-A173-03E912635A0C</a>

===

Kevin Lunny and his family purchased the former Johnson’s Oyster Farm in 2005, when seven years remained on the 1972 “special use” permit, which allowed the oyster operation to stay on the National Park land for a maximum of 40 years. But the Lunny’s, along with many supporters in the area, had hoped to persuade the Department of the Interior to continue the lease for another 10 years, an option created through an appropriations bill by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a vocal supporter of Drake’s Bay Oysters.

But Salazar last week announced he would allow the lease to expire and "return the Drake's Estero to the state of wilderness" designated by Congress. "I believe it is the right decision for Point Reyes National Seashore and for future generations who will enjoy this treasured landscape," Salazar said.

But today it was announced that Drake’s Bay Oysters has retained the services of a “government accountability” group called Cause of Action, as well as legal firm Stoel Rives LLP.

---

Last week, Secretary of the Interior issued a long-awaited decision on the fate of Drakes Bay Oyster Company, located within Point Reyes National Seashore. He ordered the oyster farm removed. The farm was, by all accounts, a model of <a href="http://kimsteelegreenblog.wordpress.com/2012/11/18/help-save-family-owned-drakes-bay-oyster-company/">sustainable agriculture</a>. Meanwhile, <a href="http://www.nationalparkstraveler.com/2012/03/point-reyes-national-seashore-staff-accused-more-wrongdoing-measuring-impacts-oyster-farm9691">National Park Service employees allegedly engaged in wrongdoing</a> in their zeal to kick out the oyster farm. Dianne Feinstein favored the oyster farm. Sympathies lay with the sustainable oyster farmer. After Salazar ruled against the farm, op-eds were written calling for <a href="http://www.examiner.com/article/mr-president-it-s-time-to-walk-the-talk-at-drake-s-bay-oyster-company">President Obama to reverse</a> Salazar's decision.

It's a trap. You're being used by Darrell Issa and the Koch brothers.

As background, John F. Kennedy declared Point Reyes a National Seashore in 1962, permitting businesses onsite 50 years to leave. Congress passed a law in 1976 designating the coast as a marine wilderness once the oyster farm left. Kevin Lunny bought the oyster farm in 2004 and gambled on an extension. And he did everything right in winning the favor of powerful Bay Area folk, including Senator Feinstein. Feinstein placed a clause in a 2009 appropriations bill giving Salazar the option to choose to renew the lease, expiring November 30, 2012.

On November 29, Salazar <a href="http://www.doi.gov/news/pressreleases/secretary-salazar-issues-decision-on-point-reyes-national-seashore-permit.cfm">decided against the oyster farm</a>. The area will now become the United States' first marine wilderness.

Sure enough, Kevin Lunny <a href="http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_22122729/oyster-farmer-sues-feds-over-eviction">sued</a>. His counsel is Dan Epstein of Cause of Action. Who is Dan Epstein? Mother Jones <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2012/12/drakes-bay-oyster-salazar-cause-of-action">explains</a>:

a former GOP counsel on the House's Committee on Oversight and Government Reform under California Republican Darrell Issa. Epstein is also a veteran employee of billionaires Charles and David Koch; he used to work at the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation and for a Koch Industries lawyer.

</blockquote>

Yes, the model of environmental sustainability is being represented by a scion of Darrell Issa and the Koch brothers. Not because Epstein likes oysters or environmental sustainability, but rather because fossil fueled Republicans really, really likes the idea of commercial businesses on wilderness land. Or, as he puts it: "'Cause of Action is committed to ensuring that federal agency decision-making that can affect economic prosperity in the United States is held to the scrutiny of public accountability,' his statement also read."

The East Bay Express explains the <a href="http://www.eastbayexpress.com/ebx/the-real-reasons-for-ken-salazars-decision/Content?oid=3405939">real reasons for Ken Salazar's decision</a>: "It wasn't about the environmental impacts of Drakes Bay Oyster Company at Point Reyes National Seashore; it was about precedent." Once one commercial operation is allowed on what is supposed to be wilderness, untrammeled by humanity, then you allow others. And that's exactly what Epstein and his powerful friends want.

Salazar has made the correct decision here in weighing not only the environmental footprint of the Drakes Bay Oyster Company but also the precedent that would be set by allowing commercial operations in wilderness and wilderness study areas.

Point Reyes' oysters are only the appetizers on the menu of the Koch brothers and Darrell Issa. The main course is <a href="http://www.parkadvocate.org/on-the-edge-fracking-and-the-fate-of-theodore-roosevelt-national-park/">the shale gas of Theodore Roosevelt National Park</a> and other wilderness atop fossil fuels.

</div>

kochs claim rosa parks <a href="http://www.prwatch.org/node/11946"> http://www.prwatch.org/node/11946</a>

David Koch’s Americans for Prosperity (AFP) chapter in Wisconsin is throwing its support behind a proposed mine in the state's far North. A mining bill -- almost identical to the one that failed last year in the Wisconsin State Senate -- was reintroduced this week in the state legislature. What changed? Republicans picked up two more Senate seats in 2012, which may give mining supporters the slim margin they need.

===

koch older bro fred jr and david twin bill; kochs steal from indians; Sen Nickles OK wingman of Dole 1990 crim indictment of koch ~; deconcini also threatened (busted for keating $, but not mccain or dole, prosector asst AG Nancy Jones fired.

��

Koch threw party for dole 150K$; 3mil gal toxics in river; 97 counts; dole cd not shield, so tried to change law, recruited newt; contract WITH Am clause 7 Job creation and wage enforcement act boosted Regl Flex Act decrim poison dump 78; CPI said seemed to be crafted to help them; GP says BY them

Bought Ron Paul Nat'l Taxpayers Legal Fund --> CSE  1984, then took the Wise Use, then Tea Party 79 bbb

===

<a href="http://kochcash.org/">http://kohcash.org/</a>

http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2012/12/18/video_kochtopus_map_of_the_billionaire_koch_brothers_influence

--

<h1>How the 'Kochtopus' stifled green debate</h1>

</div>

Behind the climate 'countermovement' are two billionaire brothers

</div>

Steve Connor

</div>

<div class="dateline" style="">Thursday, 24 January 2013</div>

Even by the standards of the super-rich, Charles and David Koch are extraordinarily wealthy. Together they own most of Koch Industries, one of the largest private conglomerates in America with annual revenues of around $100bn (£62.5bn), and interests as diverse as energy, petrochemicals, pulp and paper.

</div>

The two brothers share a similar political outlook. They are right-wing libertarians who believe in minimal regulation of industry, smaller government, lower corporate taxes and less generous social services. They are also closet "sceptics" when it comes to climate science.

Charles, 77 and the elder of the two, has effectively run the family business since the death of their father, Fred, in 1967. He is described as a hands-on executive, whereas David has played a more junior role. Nevertheless, the spectacular growth of the family firm has put them both among the richest men in America �� and the world.

Each of the Koch brothers has his own charitable foundation and they have given generously to organisations that share their free-market outlook. They have both funded opposition campaigns to many of the policies of the Obama administration – so many, in fact, that their opponents have dubbed their ideological network "The Kochtopus".

Together, the two brothers have given millions of dollars to non-profit organisations that criticise environmental legislation and support lower taxes for industry.

The Kochs have also contributed vast sums to promote scepticism towards climate change, more even than the oil industry according to some estimates. Greenpeace, for instance, has calculated that ExxonMobil spent $8.9m on climate-sceptic groups between 2005 and 2008; over the same period the Koch brothers backed such groups to the tune of nearly $25m.

Americans for Prosperity, a group established by David Koch, did much to foment public outrage over the "climategate" emails stolen from the computers of the University of East Anglia (UEA) in 2009. The organisation claimed the emails proved that global warming was the "biggest hoax the world has ever seen".

Meanwhile, Charles and his wife Liz have established a little-known organisation called the Knowledge and Progress Fund, which appears to have been set up to channel Koch money into a third-party organisation called the Donors Trust.

The Donors Trust is a "donor advised" fund, which means it has special status under the US tax system. One of the benefits of donor-advised funds for billionaires such as Charles is that their names are not linked to funds given out by the Donors Trust to other organisations.

Among the beneficiaries of Donor Trust money is the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which is being sued for defamation by Professor Michael Mann of Pennsylvania University, an eminent climatologist, whose affidavit claims that he was accused of scientific fraud and compared to a convicted child molester.

Professor Mann was one of the scientists named in the stolen emails from the UEA and has been a target of climate sceptics keen to rubbish his work on temperature records, which produced the now famous "hockey stick" graph showing a rapid temperature rise in the 20th century.

According to Robert Brulle, a sociologist at Drexel University in Philadelphia, the Donors Trust and its sister organisation Donors Capital Fund have become key players in the climate "countermovement", which he says is dedicated to maintaining the status quo on energy policy.

For instance, in 2003 Donors received just 3 per cent of the funding that eventually went to climate sceptic groups such as the ultra-conservative Heartland Foundation, which has led the attack on climate scientists. Professor Brulle said this had risen by 2009 to about a quarter of the total funding of the climate countermovement dedicated to denying the link between greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels and global warming.

The link between the Koch family and Donors was discovered by Professor Brulle and John Mashey, a retired software engineer living in California, who has trawled through hundreds of official tax records, including the US Inland Revenue Service's "990" forms of the Knowledge and Progress Fund, which mention that it had given Donors millions of dollars for "general support".

"The Kochs decided it was better to go underground and foster all these think-tanks. Charles Koch has often said publicly that anyone should be able to give money to anyone without having to make it public," Dr Mashey said. "The point of all this is that Koch wants to anonymise his giving as much as possible."

Whitney Ball, the chief executive of Donors Trust, said the fund has given more than $400m to about 1,600 beneficiaries since it began in 1999 but that only a few of them are involved in promoting climate scepticism.

"We don't disclose our list of donors, any more than other donor-advised funds… We are not legally required to do so. We have been referred to as a black box but this is a misleading and unfair characterisation. We are no different from any other donor-advised fund," she said.

"There are all kinds of reasons why people want to be anonymous. Imagine you lived a fairly modest lifestyle and you wanted to give charitably. You could do it through a donors-advised fund and no one would treat you differently," she said.

Asked whether the Donors Trust or Donors Capital Fund have any connection with the Koch family, Ms Ball said: "I wouldn't say we have a relationship. We are knowledgeable about some of the groups that they fund and we are ideologically sympathetic."

Asked if she could explain how the money from the Knowledge and Progress Fund was spent, she said: "There's been a lot of hyperventilating about this�� Like other donor-advised funds, we don't disclose that information."

The Charles Koch Foundation and Koch Industries declined to comment.

Lawson's sceptics double secret donations in a year

Anonymous donations to Britain's leading climate-change sceptic organisation have more than doubled over the past year �� but the registered charity has consistently refused to comment on the identity of its backers.

The Global Warming Policy Foundation, which was set up in 2009 by Lord Lawson, pictured, the former Conservative Chancellor, received £408,641 from anonymous donations in 2012, compared with £158,008 in 2011.

The foundation has repeatedly refused to name its financial supporters, although a leaked email last year suggested that Michael Hintze, a wealthy Tory donor and philanthropist, was one of its main backers.

Benny Peiser, a founder member of the foundation, said the charity does not receive any corporate money from the fossil-fuel industry, but denied it is being secretive about its backers.

"Our concern is about transparency of the science, not the funding. We don't take funding from vested interests and we make sure there is no conflict of interest before accepting donations," Dr Peiser said. "The main reason why they want to remain anonymous is so that people like you [the media] don't harass them," Dr Peiser explained.

From freeze to flood weekend forecast

One last blast of snow is expected over much of Britain today before the present week-long freeze gives way to a thaw and wet weather, which may combine to produce flooding.

Up to a foot of snow may fall over the Scottish Highlands, with up to six inches possible in northern England, four inches in the Midlands and up to two inches in the South.

"A combination of rain and snowmelt over the weekend will increase the risk of flooding, especially in South West England, Wales, the West Midlands and northern England," said the Environment Agency's Phil Rothwell. "We are closely monitoring the situation and have teams ready to respond to any potential flooding."

The recent severe weather has been blamed for at least nine deaths and has caused widespread disruption to travel and schooling.

Michael McCarthy

</div>

==

hedge ethanol (subsidies?)<a href="http://www.publicintegrity.org/2011/04/06/3936/kochs-web-influence"> </a><a href="http://www.publicintegrity.org/2011/04/06/3936/kochs-web-influence">http://www.publicintegrity.org/2011/04/06/3936/kochs-web-influence</a>

<h4 style="margin: 0.266em 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; line-height: 1.33em;" helvetica="Helvetica" neue="Neue" arial="Arial" sans-serif="sans-serif">Ethanol</h4>

The Koch brothers are renowned as free market libertarians. But as a major trader in energy and financial markets, Koch Industries also knows how to hedge.

As its corporate officials and  publicists decried ethanol as a costly government boondoggle, the Kochs bought four ethanol plants in Iowa in recent months, with a combined annual capacity of 435 million gallons. In Washington (where ethanol tax subsidies cost the Treasury some $6 billion annually) Koch representatives lobbied Congress on ethanol and other biofuel subsidies.

“New or emerging markets, such as renewable fuels, are an opportunity for us to create value within the rules the government sets,” Flint Hills Resources President Brad Razook told his employees in the January company newsletter.

Koch Industries’ status as an ethanol player goes beyond its new Iowa plants. Koch blends ethanol and gasoline nearby, in its Minnesota refinery. By its own account, the company’s subsidiaries, Flint Hills and Koch Supply & Trading, currently buy and market about one-tenth of all the ethanol produced in the United States.

The Kochs seem to have recognized that their actions might seem hypocritical and in a January 2011 newsletter the company tried to explain things to employees who have been “scratching their heads and wondering: what is going on?”

“After all, ethanol production is heavily subsidized, mandated and protected,” Koch Industries acknowledged, “while Koch companies openly oppose such government programs.”

Realism had won out. The company has the “capabilities necessary to be successful in the ethanol industry,” the newsletter explained. The new ethanol plants “fit well geographically with several other FHR assets, including fuel … terminals, a widespread distribution network that includes Iowa, and the Pine Bend [Minnesota] refinery.”

��We are not going to place our company and our employees at a competitive disadvantage by not participating in programs that are available to our competitors,” Razook assured Koch employees.

The company has a history of pragmatism in commercial affairs. Koch was a pioneer importer of Russian oil to the United States, including a 2002 shipment of Russian crude that Koch sold to the U.S. government to help fill the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve. And though it opposes a cap-and-trade solution to global warming for the United States, Koch makes money trading emissions credits under a similar program in Europe.

Nor is ethanol the only form of corporate welfare Koch Industries supports. As it ventures into biofuel production, and uses alternative fuels to power its plants, the company has its lobbyists working “to expand the [tax] credit for renewable electricity production” made from biomass.

Georgia-Pacific, the company reported in 2008, was responsible for more than 10 percent of all the renewable biomass electricity generated in the U.S.

Koch’s efforts to limit regulation of toxic substances illustrate the breadth of its lobbying operation.

In 2004 Koch Industries purchased Invista, a subsidiary of DuPont, known for manufacturing Lycra, Stainmaster carpets and other textiles and fabrics. In 2005, as part of the same corporate diversification and expansion strategy, Koch Industries bought the giant wood and paper products firm, Georgia-Pacific, adding Brawny paper towels, Angel Soft toilet paper, Dixie cups and dozens of factories and plants to its holdings.

Koch has since worked, on Capitol Hill and in various regulatory proceedings, to dilute or halt tighter federal regulation of several toxic byproducts that could affect its bottom line, including dioxin, asbestos and formaldehyde, all of which have been linked to cancer.

Dioxin is released from incinerators, hazardous waste treatment, pesticide manufacturing, paper plants and other sources. With 165 manufacturing facilities across the United States, Georgia-Pacific ��has a significant interest in and will be significantly impacted,” by the EPA’s decisions on dioxin, Koch officials told the agency in April 2010.

Hundreds of workers would have to be hired, and trucks and earth-moving equipment leased or purchased. And “of the limited number of hazardous waste landfills operating in the United States, very few are willing to accept dioxin-containing soil,” the company noted.

“Treatment and disposal of dioxin-containing soil is already a challenging, expensive and capacity-limited problem that would only get worse if additional volumes were generated.”

It’s been three decades since the environmental catastrophes at Love Canal, N.Y., and Times Beach, Mo., introduced the American public to the dangers of dioxin. But in the EPA hearing at the Washington Hilton last July, toxicologist John M. DeSesso, a consultant speaking on behalf of Georgia-Pacific, told the agency that the scientific studies on common levels of exposure are still inconclusive. He urged further study.

The Environmental Working Group and a number of public health organizations, meanwhile, chastised the EPA for dragging its feet, and reminded the agency panel that another arm of the federal government, the U.S. National Toxicology Program, and the World Health Organization have already classified dioxin as a known human carcinogen.

“Twenty-five years after publishing its first assessment of dioxin … the EPA has yet to establish a safe daily dose for human exposure” for “one of the most-studied of all chemical pollutants,” the EWG told the panel. ��It is EPA’s responsibility to address this problem with resolve … without regard to pressure from special interests who stand to benefit financially from weak standards and regulations.”

It isn��t just dioxin that has drawn Koch’s interest. On Capitol Hill, and in regulatory proceedings, Koch lobbyists and officials have resisted tighter government regulation of a gallery of toxic and carcinogenic substances, like asbestos, formaldehyde and benzene.

“GP strongly disagrees with the [National Toxicology Program] panel’s conclusion to list formaldehyde, a natural component of every cell in the body, as a human carcinogen,” wrote Traylor Champion, the firm’s vice president for environmental affairs, in a February 2010 letter.

“Costly control requirements are being mandated on sources that have insignificant levels of HAP (hazardous air pollutants) emissions,�� a Georgia-Pacific environmental health and safety manager, James Eckenrode, complained to the EPA in November 2008, when it sought to apply tougher air pollution standards on the firm’s manufacture of resins and formaldehyde.

Through its Flint Hills Resources subsidiary, Koch Industries operates a refinery near Fairbanks, Alaska. “Refineries in Alaska are geographically isolated from the rest of the U.S. market such that benzene extraction and sale into the petrochemical market would be infeasible,” the company argued in 2006, when the EPA proposed new clean air limits on benzene. “Benzene reductions to levels proposed in this rule would either require extensive and economically prohibitive capital upgrades at our facility or would result in a significant reduction in gasoline production.”

When Koch Industries purchased Georgia-Pacific, it inherited a titanic liability regarding asbestos. Georgia-Pacific had used asbestos to make gypsum-based drywall products, and starting in the 1980s the firm became a target for more than 340,000 claims by plaintiffs who said they suffered lung and other diseases, including mesothelioma, a deadly cancer. By 2005, the company was spending $200 million a year and had to build a $1.5 billion reserve fund for asbestos liabilities and defense costs.

In a 2008 Koch Industries publication, General Counsel Mark Holden griped that “many of those claims are an outright abuse of the legal system … that often involve people who are not sick … all because of over-zealous litigators and a legal system that gives them perverse incentives.”

The number of new claims has dropped with tougher federal safety standards. But in the 110th Congress Koch lobbyists still sought to sway members on legislative proposals intending to restrict the use of asbestos and improve public knowledge, even Senate Resolution 462, which called for a “National Asbestos Awareness Week.”

It’s in the Kochs’ commercial interest to preserve America’s reliance on carbon-based energy sources. Despite recent diversification, Koch remains a major petrochemical company with refineries in North Pole, Alaska; Corpus Christi, Texas; Rosemount, Minn., and Rotterdam in the Netherlands; an array of chemical plants; a coal subsidiary (the C. Reiss Coal Co.) and 4,000 miles of pipelines.

So it is not surprising that, when the Obama administration and the Democrats on Capitol Hill proposed to regulate the emission of greenhouse gases in recent years, Koch Industries responded with a fervent counteroffensive.

===

A new report by the International Forum on Globalization details the role of David and Charles Koch in undermining international talks to address the rapidly escalating problem of climate change. As the United Nations meets in Doha, Qatar this week, the goal is to create a framework in which the governments of the world make internationally binding commitments to cut carbon emissions fast enough to keep climate change within the agreed threshold of 2C.

But the real decision makers are not the climate negotiators, but politicians in capitals around the world including Washington, DC. The report, <a href="http://kochcash.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/ifg_report.pdf" target="_blank" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: initial;">Faces Behind a Global Crisis: U.S. Carbon Billionaires and the U.N, Climate Deadlock</a>, details how Charles and David Koch's undue influence over United States climate policy has paralyzed American policy makers and stymied the United Nations climate talks.

Bloomberg's Billionaire Index recently ranked the Carbon Kings' net worth ($80.2B) as greater than that of the world's wealthiest man, Carlos Slim ($71.8B), and the Kochs are using that money to kill any chance of United States climate legislation and convince America that "energy independence" is more important than cooking the planet. The report explains how the Kochs' campaign contributions, lobbying legislators, funding climate denialists, attacking clean air laws, and stopping the shift in subsidies from fossil fuels has helped to halt any serious progress on climate policy in the United States. The result is a deadlock in addressing the global climate crisis.

"As the top spenders to stop climate policy in the planet's most polluting nation, the two oil barons from Wichita hold hostage any progress in Washington, and hence any meaningful global deal in Doha," said Victor Menotti, Executive Director of the IFG. "Advancing a UN agreement requires substantial changes in US domestic dynamics to reduce the role of the Kochs, and all private money, corrupting policy outcomes. Setting stronger standards for power plant pollution will be a litmus test."

<a href="http://www.prwatch.org/news/2012/12/11894/koch-carbon-kings-driving-force-behind-un-deadlock-doha">http://www.prwatch.org/news/2012/12/11894/koch-carbon-kings-driving-force-behind-un-deadlock-doha</a>

from the report: In addition to their vast personal wealth based on fossil fuels, the annual revenue of Koch Industries

was estimated to reach $100 billion in 2011.....Koch Industries alone has given over $6 million in ‘dirty energy money’ to representatives in

Congress since 1999 Their wealth quintupled is six years (2005-2011)

following the creation of unregulated oil derivatives markets that made room for speculation and

insider trading.

21

, including contributions to members of the key Senate committees listed in

Figure 6a and 6b as well as to members of key House committees.

22

Of the top 25 recipients of

contributions from Koch Industries, seven can be found on these committees including prominent

representatives such as Joe Barton, Mike

Pompeo, and James Inhofe - all voting for

fossil-fuel interests at least 93% of the

time.

23

Inhofe is a famous denier of global

warming and has even written a book

arguing that global warming is a hoax.

24

Pompeo (R-KA), who has taken over

$100,000 from the Kochs in this current

(2010-2012) Congress alone,

25

is backing

fossil fuel subsidies and resisting financial

support for wind energy.

26

Pompeo has

even tried to eliminate six EPA internship

slots each accompanied by a $6000

stipend.

27

Representative Gerry Connolly (D-VA) suggested renaming a House bill that would block

EPA climate regulations to the ‘Koch Brothers Appreciation Act’ in 2011.

28

The connections between contributions to elected officials were apparent in the vote for the latest

House bill, ‘the Strategic Energy Production Act’, which aimed to limit public influence and

environmental review of agency action on leasing public lands for fossil-fuel production. Those

voting in favor of the bill have taken almost five times more from fossil-fuel interests over the last

thirteen years than those voting against the bill had.

29

A closer look at the correlation between

politicians’ voting patterns and the money they receive from the fossil-fuel industry (coal, oil and

gas) with data from Oil Change International reveals similar voting patterns on bills where the public

interest has been pitted against fossil-fuel interests.

30

The Senate’s Energy and Natural Resources Committee and Environment and Public Works

Committee (currently under Democratic majority control) have jurisdiction over EPA issues

31

as

well as other energy policy, climate change, oil, gas and coal production and distribution

32

, air��

pollution, and environmental policy.

33

Figure 6 shows the average contribution per Congress, the percentage of votes in favor of fossil-fuel

interests on selected bills, and party affiliation of representatives on two key Senate committees with

jurisdiction over energy and environmental areas. The correlation between party affiliation and votes

in favor of fossil-fuel interests demonstrates a high degree of polarization. It is also observable that

those not voting for fossil-fuel interest as frequently also receive little in contributions from the

fossil-fuel industry. The data reveals a clear pattern: Party affiliation and money from fossil-fuel

interests strongly correlates with voting patterns. What stands out is the relatively expensive

Democratic votes of Joe Manchin, Mary Landrieu, and Max Baucus indicating the higher cost of

going against the party line

17

...Figure 6a. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee

Representative ($) Average contribution/congress (%) Votes in favor of fossil-fuel interests

John Barrasso (R-WY) 246,366 90

James M. Inhofe (R-OK) 189,764 94

David Vitter (R-LA) 172,732 88

Max Baucus (D-MT)   95,318 40

Lamar Alexander (R-TN) 75,800 94

Jeff Sessions (R-AL) 69,252 94

Mike Johanns (R-NE) 58,750 89

Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) 54,517 13

Mike Crapo (R-ID) 45,206 94

John Boozman (R-AR) 35,246 88

Mark Udall (D-CO) 35,198 11

Thomas R. Carper (D-DE) 32,766 13

Benjamin L. Cardin (D-DE) 31,207 13

Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) 16,139 8

Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ) 14,058 13

Barbara Boxer (D-CA) 12,336 6

Jeff Merkley (D-OR) 4,650 11

...

On top of the spending to influence Congress, the Kochs are organizing secretive meetings with

influential conservatives including Supreme Court Justices Scalia and Thomas.

34

For the 2012 elections, Koch related organizations planned to spend about $400 million toward a

staggering $1 billion blitz in outside spending from conservative groups.

35

Leading Lobbyist of Legislators

Data from the Center for Responsive Politics show that over the ten-year period of 1998-2008,

fossil fuel interests spent about half the amount of the financial industry

36

on lobbying Congress,

and have been given substantial returns on their investment. The energy and natural resources

sector’s spending on lobbying jumped one third to almost $300 million between 2007 and 2008 and

remained at a significant $293 million in 2011, down from $337 million in 2010.

37

Of the total energy

and natural resources sector’s $2.3 billion in lobbying expenditures, the oil & gas industry together

with electric utilities spent $1.8 billion (78%) of the total over the same time period (1998-2008) in

which the financial industry spent $5 billion.

38

During the Congressional debate on global warming

in 2009, environmental groups spent a record $22.4 million. Although this was an impressive

number, they were outspent by a single oil company - ExxonMobil - and dwarfed by the combined

oil and gas industry’s $175 million lobbying offensive.

39

The Koch PAC, despite the estimated revenue of Koch Industries being only a third of the largest

oil company ExxonMobil, outspent Valero, ExxonMobil, BP, ConocoPhillips and Chevron between

2006 and 2010.

40

Spending some $69 million on lobbying efforts,

41

Koch funded lobbyists worked

against EPA regulation of greenhouse gases and EPA efforts that sought to reduce energy market

speculation.  Koch lobbyists also pushed for keeping subsidies and tax breaks for the oil industry,

42

including promotion of the ��Energy Tax Prevention Act’ aimed at stripping the EPA of the right to

regulate greenhouse gases.

43

...Financing for Climate Denialists

The Kochs have provided over $60 million to groups denying climate science over the period of

1997-2010.

57

Greenpeace keeps close track of the various climate denial efforts that the Kochs are engaged in,

and regularly reports on their activities.

58

Among the strongest skeptics has been Dr. Robert Muller from the University of California

Professor of Physics and the Founder and Scientific Director of the Berkeley Earth Surface

Temperature.  Muller completed a Koch-funded study during the drought of summer 2012 that

unequivocally concluded that human-caused carbon emissions are indeed warming the planet.

59

Similar to the ways in which Big Tobacco executives cast doubt for decades on studies of the health

impacts of cigarettes only to be caught manipulating scientific research, the Kochs may be entering a

new landscape of legal responsibilities now that their own researchers are finding and informing

them that the impacts of the greenhouse gas emissions are indeed impacting our planet.

Stopping the Shift in Subsidies

Different reports vary regarding their assessments of the size of total subsidies, but it is clear that

returns on lobbying expenditures are substantial.

60

According to an OECD report, the US fossil

fuels industry receives a variety of producer and consumer subsidies that together with research and��

development amounted to $12.5 billion in 2009 and $15 billion in 2010.

61

A study from the

Environmental Law Institute found that between 2002 and 2008, subsidies to fossil fuels totaled an

impressive $72 billion, with ‘foregone revenues’ (foreign tax credits and credit for production of

nonconventional fuels) as the largest tax break. Renewables only received $29 billion, more than half

of which went to corn ethanol,

62

a fuel with negative net climate effects.

63

Despite recent calls from the

President to end an annual $4 billion

in tax subsidies for oil and gas��

companies, whose profits reached

$80 billion in 2011, a Senate bill to

cut only $2.5 billion from them

failed in late March by a marginal

vote.

64

To put this in context, the big

five oil companies, BP, Conoco

Philips, ExxonMobil, Chevron, and

Royal Dutch Shell, made a

combined $1 trillion in profits over

the last decade.

65

Although fossil-fuels have

dominated subsidies, American Recovery and Reinvestment Act has provided has provided a

significant boost to renewables with climate-energy tax incentives estimated at $21 Billion (citation

needed). However, the greatest subsidy of all for the oil industry came through the war on terror and

the invasion of Iraq, which sent prices through the roof and produced unprecedented relative gains

for big oil.

66

Source: Environmental Law Institute, 2009.

Figure 11. Fossil Fuel Subsidies vs. Renewables 2002-2008

==

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2012/12/nonprofit-funneled-money-to-kochs-voter-database-effort-other-conservative-groups.html?utm_source=CRP+Mail+List&utm_campaign=ad4bb1ae38-Newsletter_12_21_2012&utm_medium=email

Themis was a daughter of Heaven and Earth, the goddess of divine law and order in Greek mythology.

More prosaically, Themis is also the name of a voter database project spearheaded by David and Charles Koch, the conservative billionaires of <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000186">Koch Industries</a>, early in the 2010 midterm election cycle. The idea was to reach GOP and libertarian voters more systematically and efficiently, to catch up with the voter microtargeting strategies Democrats had been developing over several years.

And even more matter-of-fact are the names of some of the entities that have funded the conservative endeavor -- a collection of organizations that would be at home in a bowl of alphabet soup. Their existence has not been reported previously. 

The heart of this network is TC4, a 501(c)(4) tax-exempt organization founded in 2009. According to its first tax filing, covering the period Aug. 28, 2009 through June 30, 2010, TC4 -- which had one trustee and a single key employee -- made a grant of $2.5 million to Themis Trust.

That wasn't all. TC4 sent Themis more contributions, though they were disguised. In its most recent IRS Form 990 tax return, which covers the 12 months ending midway through 2011, TC4 lists a grant of $2.5 million to something called STN LLC and one of $1.8 million to DAS MGR LLC. Both are affiliates -- or in the formal jargon of tax law, "disregarded entities" -- of Themis.

<div>

</div>

<div>But it appears that TC4 wasn't just about funneling money to the Themis project. Over the less than two years covered by tax forms filed by TC4, the organization gave large grants to other conservative 501(c)(4) groups that worked to help Republicans in the 2010 and 2012 elections, including the <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/detail.php?cmte=60+Plus+Assn">60 Plus Association</a>, <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00375865&cycle=2012">Concerned Women for America</a>, <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000024789">Citizens Against Government Waste</a> and <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/detail.php?cmte=American+Commitment">American Commitment</a>.</div>

<div>

</div>

Other groups that received millions of dollars are parts of better-known groups, but legally distinguished from them. And still other organizations have proven ciphers thus far. In total, according to IRS forms filed thus far by the group, TC4 has given away more than $36.5 million.

<div>

</div>

</div>

<div>The existence of TC4 and its role in sending funds to other, politically active nonprofits has been hidden until now in part because 501(c)(4) groups -- which all of the recipients of TC4's grants are -- are not required to disclose the names of their donors, a fact that OpenSecrets Blog has covered extensively in its <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/news/reports/moneytrail.php" style=" text-decoration: underline;">Shadow Money Trail</a> series. Nonprofits must list only those to whom they give grants, making it hard to connect the dots when the starting point is the recipient organization.</div>

<div>

</div>

<div>Nondisclosing groups -- those that don't identify their donors, almost all of them 501(c)(4)s -- played a huge role in the 2012 elections, accounting for <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/summ.php?cycle=2012&chrt=V&disp=O&type=U" style=" text-decoration: underline;">more than $311 million</a> in outside spending that was reported to the Federal Election Commission. (More was spent that fell outside reporting requirements.)</div>

<div>

</div>

<div>The groups aren't supposed to be primarily involved in politics. But so many of them have been so active on this front since the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United decision that the IRS should be conducting audits, said Marcus Owens, a Washington tax lawyer who formerly headed the Exempt Organizations division of the federal agency.��</div>

<div>

</div>

<div>Many of the groups, in his view, "most certainly would merit investigation," Owens said -- including TC4.</div>

<div>

</div>

<div>Bare-bones info</div>

<div>

</div>

<div>Exactly what part TC4 may have played in funding groups between mid-2011 and this year's election is currently unknown, because the IRS doesn't require nonprofits to file their 990s until many months after the end of their fiscal years. TC4's return showing any grants it gave in late 2011 and early 2012 won't be available until the spring of 2013. And documents showing its activity running up to Nov. 6 will remain out of public view until the following spring, 2014.  </div>

<div>

</div>

In many ways, TC4 appears to function like the <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2012/05/cppr.html">Center to Protect Patient Rights</a> (CPPR) -- another large tax-exempt group that has few programs of its own and practically no staff, but through which millions of dollars flow to conservative, politically active nonprofits.

In its <a target="_blank" href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/494933-tc4-2010.html">first tax form</a>, covering the period Aug. 28, 2009 until June 30, 2010, TC4 listed just two individuals as working for the group: Michael Hartz, a Chicago lawyer who is TC4's unpaid trustee, and Gretchen Hamel, who is identified as the "Program Leader" and was paid about $52,000. TC4's stated purpose was, "[g]rant making, research, analyze, report on, make publicly available matters useful and beneficial to the community, which focus on the advancement of free markets, liberty and individual freedoms."

By the time of TC4's second, <a target="_blank" href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/494931-tc4-2011.html">most recent filing</a>, covering the 12 months ending June 30, 2011, Hartz's name is the only one listed (other than that of a tax preparer).

Despite the Chicago connection, and its Indianapolis accountant, the address given for TC4 on tax forms is that of a UPS mailbox in Alexandria, Va. OpenSecrets Blog left repeated messages for Hartz, but he did not return the calls.

<div>

</div>

<div>TC4 and CPPR's ties that bind

TC4 reported about $46 million in revenue in its first two years, mostly in year one. The funds that came almost entirely from investment income, rather than from contributions and grants as was the case with CPPR. Most of its grant-making came in the second year, when it used money it had banked to provide funds to 13 organizations, a big increase from the previous year when it made only two grants. During the two years, nearly $37 million went out the door in grants. In fact, in its second 990, the group told the IRS that "during the current fiscal year, TC4 ceased all non-grant making programs and focused solely on the grant making activities centered around the same initiatives."

In spite of the technical differences in their funding streams, though, TC4 and CPPR together gave grants to some of the same politically active nonprofits -- five of them received a total of $33.1 million from the two major donor groups, according to 990s the pair have filed.

<div>

</div>

<div>Concerned Women for America, 60 Plus Association and American Commitment are all easily recognizable conservative groups. That's not true of another organization that received $892,000 from TC4. Incorporated in Delaware in 2010, PRDIST LLC is actually a subsidiary -- or another "disregarded entity" -- of Americans for Prosperity, the 501(c)(4) co-founded by David Koch. AFP let loose more than $35 million in outside spending in the 2012 election, nearly all of which was used to attack President Barack Obama.

And another multimillion-dollar grantee of both TCR and CPPR also has a complicated structure. POFN LLC, another Delaware corporation formed close to the same time as PRDIST LLC, received more than $8 million from the groups. It turns out to be a subsidiary of a nonprofit called SGC4 Trust, of which Gretchen Hamel -- the only employee TC4 has yet listed on its tax forms -- is the sole trustee.

<a target="blank" href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/494934-sg-c4-trust.html">SGC4 Trust</a>, according to tax documents, does business under the name <a target="blank" href="http://thepublicnotice.org/">Public Notice</a> -- a group of which Hamel is the executive director. A project of Public Notice is called <a target="_blank" href="http://www.bankruptingamerica.org/">Bankrupting America</a>, which highlights government spending and regulation as the cause of the nation's fiscal woes.

Hamel did not respond to multiple messages left by OpenSecrets Blog.

Below is a table showing organizations that received money from both CPPR and TC4 Trust from 2009 until the end of 2010 (in TC4's case, mid-2011). The total comes to more than $41 million.

<a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/news/assets_c/2012/12/cppr.tc4-10214.html" onclick="window.open('http://www.opensecrets.org/news/assets_c/2012/12/cppr.tc4-10214.html','popup','width=449,height=134,scrollbars=no,resizable=no,toolbar=no,directories=no,location=no,menubar=no,status=no,left=0,top=0'); return false"><img src="/d09a611a-1f21-5031-bb20-57d3907c6917.jpg"/></a>TC4's grantees in its second year, in addition to the groups already named, were Eleventh Edition LLC; Freedom Club; the Center for Shared Services; TRGN LLC; and Generation Opportunity. Little or no public information exists for some of those organizations. </div>

<div>

</div>

<div>In its first year, other than Themis, TC4 gave money to just one other organization -- an LLC that, like many of its other grantees, has a name that is a jumble of letters. However, the name is smudged on the scanned copy of the 990 that OpenSecrets Blog has seen, though there are indications it may be connected to American Commitment.</div>

<div>

</div>

<div>Disregarded, but not forgotten

"Disregarded entities" could be considered something like subsidiaries or affiliates of their parent organizations. They are not required to file separate federal tax returns. But in other ways they are treated as legally separate from the parent, and are sometimes used to protect the parent company from liability. </div>

<div>

</div>

<div>And, perhaps more importantly in this case, disregarded entities can give grants under their own names to other groups, and the recipients need only list those disregarded entities -- not their parent organizations -- as donors. </div>

<div>

</div>

<div>That helps provide an additional layer of anonymity to any person or organization concerned, for whatever reason, about being identified as a donor.</div>

<div>

</div>

<div>The usefulness of these layers of cloaks to those fighting disclosure was apparent recently when the California Fair Political Practices Commission ordered an Arizona 501(c)(4) group, Americans for Responsible Leadership, to name its donors. Under court order, it did so, but little was unmasked. The group got its money from CPPR, which had received it from Americans for Job Security; both are also 501(c) organizations, and whoever or whatever was the original source of the funds remained hidden. The frustrated state agency called it a plain case of "money laundering."

The Koch connections

Links between many of the grantor and grantee groups and the Kochs are numerous and multilayered. For instance, Hamel, who ran TC4 in its first year and then became head of Public Notice, which received money from both of the larger groups, was a presenter at the 2010 edition of the brothers' annual gathering of conservative donors and groups.

Also at that meeting with Hamel -- a former Bush administration spokeswoman and frequent guest on Fox News -- were Sean Noble and Heather Higgins, two of the original board members of CPPR. Yet another of the original CPPR board members, Eric Novack, was a senior fellow at the Kochs' Americans for Prosperity.

American Commitment, which also received money from the two large donor groups, was originally headed by CPPR president Noble. Later, Phil Kerpen took over; Kerpen is on the board of Koch-funded Americans for Prosperity, which also was sent checks from the two major groups. The 60 Plus Association, the largest recipient of funds from TC4 and CPPR together and a big outside spender in 2010 ($7.1 million) and 2012 (4.4 million), is frequently reported to be on the receiving end of Koch money.  

As for Themis, its 2010 revenue was $7.7 million, tax documents show. The three grants from TC4 total $6.8 million, almost all of its income. According to <a target="blank" href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/07/koch-brothers-database-2012-election">The Guardian</a> newspaper, the Kochs set up Themis "with $2.5m of their seed money," which could correspond with TC4's first, $2.5 million grant to Themis. The organization's data work played a role in helping Wisconsin's Republican Gov. Scott Walker beat back a recall attempt earlier this year, <a target="blank" href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0612/77453_Page2.html">Politico </a>reported, noting that Koch strategists discussed investing as much as $20 million in Themis. Its unknown whether the additional funds materialized, in part because the 990s that might provide clues have not been filed yet.

Themis' tax documents list a Paul W. Brooks as the sole trustee, which is the same name as that of a former Koch Industries senior vice president. Messages left for him were not returned. The group's chief operating officer, Ben Pratt, is a former Koch Industries executive, as well.

</div>

<div>

Groups that are granted 501(c)(4) tax status by the IRS are supposed to be focused on "social welfare" causes; politics can't take up more than half their resources, as the rules have been interpreted over the years. Perhaps to reassure regulators that it is hewing to the law, TC4's most recent 990 contains a statement that reads, "Each grant recipient is required to sign a grant agreement, which among other things...provides that the grant funds shall not be used for political activity."

But tax attorney Owens is skeptical that the statement is a lock against all such activity by grantees. "My reaction is that we're not able to see the actual grant agreements. We don't know whether they require the recipients to report back" how they used the money, "or what the agreements provide if there is a violation of the terms. And we don't know how they define 'political.'"</div>

<div>

And the language may not keep organizations from using money received from TC4 to give to still other politically active nonprofits, for instance -- which groups like Karl Rove's Crossroads GPS <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2012/04/for-friends-crossroads-helps-with-t.html">don't appear to consider</a> political spending.

There are still a number of mysteries about where how all the money in the TC4 and CPPR networks moves around, and at whose behest. </div>

<div>

</div>

<div>But if it's not already perfectly clear that all the secrecy is no accident, a Salvador Dali quote on the <a target="_blank" href="https://ben-pratt.squarespace.com/blog/2012/12/15/its-not-guns-you-should-be-afraid-of">personal blog</a> of Themis COO and former Koch Industries executive Ben Pratt sums it up nicely: "The secret of my influence has always been that it has remained a secret."

Images: David Koch via <a target="blank" href="http://www.hrc.org/blog/entry/david-koch-supports-marriage-equality">hrc.org</a>; Gretchen Hamel via <a target="blank" href="http://www.bankruptingamerica.org/bios/gretchen-hamel/">bankruptingamerica.org</a>; Sean Noble via <a target="blank" href="http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=2572066&authType=NAME_SEARCH&authToken=4Ng&locale=en_US&srchid=0c386d04-4ffc-4a82-a1b1-9f4f79f45afc-0&srchindex=3&srchtotal=305&goback=.fps_PBCK_sean+noble11111121_Y111_false_1_R151151_true222222222222222222222&pvs=ps&trk=pp_profile_photo_link">Linkedin.com</a>.

</div>

</div>

<h4 class="entry-categories-header">Categories:</h4>

<li class="entry-category"><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/news/outside-money/501c-groups/">501(c) groups</a>,</li>

<li class="entry-category"><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/news/politicians-elections/congress/">Congress</a>,</li>

<li class="entry-category"><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/news/politicians-elections/congressional-elections/">Congressional Elections</a>,</li>

<li class="entry-category"><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/news/outside-money/">Outside Money</a>,</li>

<li class="entry-category"><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/news/politicians-elections/">Politicians & Elections</a>,</li>

<li class="entry-category"><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/news/politicians-elections/presidential-election-1/">Presidential Election</a></li>

</ul>

</div>

<li class="entry-tag"><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/MT/mt-search.cgi?blog_id=8&tag=60%20plus%20association&limit=20&IncludeBlogs=8" rel="tag">60 plus association</a>,</li>

<li class="entry-tag"><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/MT/mt-search.cgi?blog_id=8&tag=american%20commitment&limit=20&IncludeBlogs=8" rel="tag">american commitment</a>,</li>

<li class="entry-tag"><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/MT/mt-search.cgi?blog_id=8&tag=americans%20for%20job%20security&limit=20&IncludeBlogs=8" rel="tag">americans for job security</a>,</li>

<li class="entry-tag"><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/MT/mt-search.cgi?blog_id=8&tag=americans%20for%20prosperity&limit=20&IncludeBlogs=8" rel="tag">americans for prosperity</a>,</li>

<li class="entry-tag"><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/MT/mt-search.cgi?blog_id=8&tag=americans%20for%20responsible%20leadership&limit=20&IncludeBlogs=8" rel="tag">americans for responsible leadership</a>,</li>

<li class="entry-tag"><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/MT/mt-search.cgi?blog_id=8&tag=bankrupting%20america&limit=20&IncludeBlogs=8" rel="tag">bankrupting america</a>,</li>

<li class="entry-tag"><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/MT/mt-search.cgi?blog_id=8&tag=barack%20obama&limit=20&IncludeBlogs=8" rel="tag">barack obama</a>,</li>

<li class="entry-tag"><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/MT/mt-search.cgi?blog_id=8&tag=ben%20pratt&limit=20&IncludeBlogs=8" rel="tag">ben pratt</a>,</li>

<li class="entry-tag"><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/MT/mt-search.cgi?blog_id=8&tag=california%20fair%20political%20practices%20commission&limit=20&IncludeBlogs=8" rel="tag">california fair political practices commission</a>,</li>

<li class="entry-tag"><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/MT/mt-search.cgi?blog_id=8&tag=center%20for%20shared%20services&limit=20&IncludeBlogs=8" rel="tag">center for shared services</a>,</li>

<li class="entry-tag"><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/MT/mt-search.cgi?blog_id=8&tag=center%20to%20protect%20patient%20rights&limit=20&IncludeBlogs=8" rel="tag">center to protect patient rights</a>,</li>

<li class="entry-tag"><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/MT/mt-search.cgi?blog_id=8&tag=citizens%20against%20government%20waste&limit=20&IncludeBlogs=8" rel="tag">citizens against government waste</a>,</li>

<li class="entry-tag"><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/MT/mt-search.cgi?blog_id=8&tag=concerned%20women%20for%20america&limit=20&IncludeBlogs=8" rel="tag">concerned women for america</a>,</li>

<li class="entry-tag"><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/MT/mt-search.cgi?blog_id=8&tag=crossroads%20gps&limit=20&IncludeBlogs=8" rel="tag">crossroads gps</a>,</li>

<li class="entry-tag"><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/MT/mt-search.cgi?blog_id=8&tag=david%20koch&limit=20&IncludeBlogs=8" rel="tag">david koch</a>,</li>

<li class="entry-tag"><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/MT/mt-search.cgi?blog_id=8&tag=disregarded%20entities&limit=20&IncludeBlogs=8" rel="tag">disregarded entities</a>,</li>

<li class="entry-tag"><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/MT/mt-search.cgi?blog_id=8&tag=eleventh%20edition&limit=20&IncludeBlogs=8" rel="tag">eleventh edition</a>,</li>

<li class="entry-tag"><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/MT/mt-search.cgi?blog_id=8&tag=eric%20novack&limit=20&IncludeBlogs=8" rel="tag">eric novack</a>,</li>

<li class="entry-tag"><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/MT/mt-search.cgi?blog_id=8&tag=freedom%20club&limit=20&IncludeBlogs=8" rel="tag">freedom club</a>,</li>

<li class="entry-tag"><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/MT/mt-search.cgi?blog_id=8&tag=generation%20opportunity&limit=20&IncludeBlogs=8" rel="tag">generation opportunity</a>,</li>

<li class="entry-tag"><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/MT/mt-search.cgi?blog_id=8&tag=gretchen%20hamel&limit=20&IncludeBlogs=8" rel="tag">gretchen hamel</a>,</li>

<li class="entry-tag"><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/MT/mt-search.cgi?blog_id=8&tag=heather%20higgins&limit=20&IncludeBlogs=8" rel="tag">heather higgins</a>,</li>

<li class="entry-tag"><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/MT/mt-search.cgi?blog_id=8&tag=koch%20brothers&limit=20&IncludeBlogs=8" rel="tag">koch brothers</a>,</li>

<li class="entry-tag"><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/MT/mt-search.cgi?blog_id=8&tag=koch%20industries&limit=20&IncludeBlogs=8" rel="tag">koch industries</a>,</li>

<li class="entry-tag"><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/MT/mt-search.cgi?blog_id=8&tag=marcus%20owens&limit=20&IncludeBlogs=8" rel="tag">marcus owens</a>,</li>

<li class="entry-tag"><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/MT/mt-search.cgi?blog_id=8&tag=michael%20hartz&limit=20&IncludeBlogs=8" rel="tag">michael hartz</a>,</li>

<li class="entry-tag"><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/MT/mt-search.cgi?blog_id=8&tag=paul%20w.%20brooks&limit=20&IncludeBlogs=8" rel="tag">paul w. brooks</a>,</li>

<li class="entry-tag"><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/MT/mt-search.cgi?blog_id=8&tag=phil%20kerpen&limit=20&IncludeBlogs=8" rel="tag">phil kerpen</a>,</li>

<li class="entry-tag"><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/MT/mt-search.cgi?blog_id=8&tag=prdist%20llc&limit=20&IncludeBlogs=8" rel="tag">prdist llc</a>,</li>

<li class="entry-tag"><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/MT/mt-search.cgi?blog_id=8&tag=public%20notice&limit=20&IncludeBlogs=8" rel="tag">public notice</a>,</li>

<li class="entry-tag"><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/MT/mt-search.cgi?blog_id=8&tag=Robert%20Maguire&limit=20&IncludeBlogs=8" rel="tag">Robert Maguire</a>,</li>

<li class="entry-tag"><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/MT/mt-search.cgi?blog_id=8&tag=Russ%20Choma&limit=20&IncludeBlogs=8" rel="tag">Russ Choma</a>,</li>

<li class="entry-tag"><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/MT/mt-search.cgi?blog_id=8&tag=sean%20noble&limit=20&IncludeBlogs=8" rel="tag">sean noble</a>,</li>

<li class="entry-tag"><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/MT/mt-search.cgi?blog_id=8&tag=sgc4%20trust&limit=20&IncludeBlogs=8" rel="tag">sgc4 trust</a>,</li>

<li class="entry-tag"><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/MT/mt-search.cgi?blog_id=8&tag=shadow%20money%20trail&limit=20&IncludeBlogs=8" rel="tag">shadow money trail</a>,</li>

<li class="entry-tag"><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/MT/mt-search.cgi?blog_id=8&tag=themis&limit=20&IncludeBlogs=8" rel="tag">themis</a>,</li>

<li class="entry-tag"><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/MT/mt-search.cgi?blog_id=8&tag=Viveca%20Novak&limit=20&IncludeBlogs=8" rel="tag">Viveca Novak</a></li>

</ul>

</div>

��

==

<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elliott-negin/koch-brothers-fund-bogus-b_2253472.html?ir=">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elliott-negin/koch-brothers-fund-bogus-b_2253472.html?ir=</a>

You can say one thing about the Koch brothers: They don't let the facts get in their way.

Of course I'm talking about <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer" target="_hplink">Charles G. and David H. Koch</a> (above), the billionaire owners of Koch Industries, the oil, coal and natural gas conglomerate that's been dubbed the "kingpin of climate science denial."

Last summer, Richard Muller, a Berkeley physicist long skeptical of climate science, went off script and <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html?pagewanted=all" target="_hplink">announced </a>that his three-year, Koch-funded investigation verified that global warming is indeed real, is primarily caused by human activity, and is even worse than the climate science community thought.

Did Muller's conclusions prod the Kochs to reconsider their hardline position against wind, solar and other renewable energy--our best bet, besides energy efficiency, to combat global warming? Hardly. The Kochs' minions merely stepped up their ongoing disinformation campaign to scuttle renewable energy on economic grounds.

Take the <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elliott-negin/alec-climate-change_b_1439267.html" target="hplink">American Legislative Exchange Council</a> (ALEC) and <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute" target="hplink">Heartland Institute</a>, two Koch-funded organizations with a history of attacking efforts to address climate change. ALEC, a stealthy lobby group whose corporate, nonprofit and state legislator members ghostwrite and then attempt to implement "model" legislation, played a key role in killing the Midwest Greenhouse Gas Reduction Accord, a six-state regional cap-and-trade agreement. Meanwhile, Heartland--an ALEC member that hosts annual conferences deriding climate science--is probably best known for <a href="http://articles.latimes.com/2012/may/09/local/la-me-gs-unabomber-billboard-continues-to-hurt-heartland-institute-20120509" target="_hplink">posting </a>a not-so-subtle billboard in Chicago last May comparing people who accept the reality of global warming with "Unabomber" domestic terrorist Ted Kaczynski.

More recently the two groups made news when the Washington Post <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/climate-skeptic-group-works-to-reverse-renewable-energy-mandates/2012/11/24/124faaa0-3517-11e2-9cfa-e41bac906cc9_story.html" target="hplink">reported </a>ALEC's board of directors adopted a Heartland-crafted model bill that would repeal state standards requiring utilities to ramp up their use of renewable energy. The model legislation, the "<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/business/documents/Electricity-Freedom-Act-121123.pdf" target="hplink">Electricity Freedom Act</a>," claims these requirements--currently on the books in 29 states and the District of Columbia--will dramatically drive up electricity rates.

That claim, however, is bunk. In fact, renewable electricity standards have not significantly increased rates. In some cases, rates have even dropped a bit. But more on that later.

Garbage in, garbage out. To make its case, ALEC--whose <a href="http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=8078765" target="hplink">members </a>include major coal, oil and electric utility industry companies--cites analyses by Suffolk University's <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/beacon-hill-institute" target="hplink">Beacon Hill Institute</a> commissioned by the Koch-funded <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/american-tradition-institute" target="hplink">American Tradition Institute</a> and "free-market" state think tanks associated with the Koch-funded <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=State_Policy_Network" target="hplink">State Policy Network</a>. The analyses examine current or proposed standards in more than a dozen states, including Colorado, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota and New Jersey. The studies were partly funded by, you guessed it, the Koch brothers.

The fact that the Kochs funded the studies doesn't automatically mean they're biased. In this case, however, Beacon Hill research economist Michael Head essentially conceded to Washington Post reporter Juliet Eilperin that he and his colleagues fudged their findings.

��

That's right.

Beacon Hill, Eilperin reported, "assumed that the Energy Information Administration's projected renewable energy price estimates are too low, and that cost-containment measures embedded in state policies will fail." Head told her that he and his co-authors doubted the cost caps, which place a ceiling on how high monthly consumer electricity rates can go to meet renewable standards, would take effect. "We just left it out so we could provide the actual analysis of the policy itself," he explained.

How convenient.

A closer look at a sample Beacon Hill analysis of a state renewable electricity standard shows that this sleight of hand is just one of a number of ways Head and his colleagues play fast and loose with the facts.

Jeff Deyette, a senior energy analyst at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), <a href="http://blog.ucsusa.org/fact-check-koch-funded-group-misleads-michigan-voters-on-clean-energy/" target="_hplink">dissected </a>a September analysis Head et al. did of a proposed increase in Michigan's renewable electricity standard from 10 percent by 2015 to 25 percent by 2025, which was on the November ballot. Besides excluding the cost cap--a key component of the policy--Deyette found that the Beacon Hill analysts:

• ignored the fact that the state already has a standard in place, enabling them to inflate the costs of implementing the stronger standard;

• made questionable assumptions about renewable energy technologies--often citing out-of-date, controversial or unsubstantiated material to support their assertions--instead of using real-world cost and performance data from local projects; and

• failed to factor in the new standard's benefits, including economic development, job growth, cleaner air and reduced carbon pollution.

Beacon Hill--an official <a href="http://climateconference.heartland.org/cosponsors/" target="hplink">sponsor </a>of this year's Heartland climate science-bashing conference--conducted this particular study for the Michigan-based <a href="http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/mackinac-center-for-public-pol/" target="hplink">Mackinac Center for Public Policy</a>. The center, the largest state-based free-market think tank in the country, is a Koch grantee and a member of the Koch-funded State Policy Network. Not surprisingly, the center consistently denies the reality of global warming.

This is not the first time Beacon Hill energy analyses have been questioned. Last year, Michael Conathan, director of ocean policy at the Center for American Progress, a progressive, Washington, D.C.-based think tank, <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/08/17/297394/koch-brothers-fund-bogus-study-bashing-offshore-wind-in-new-jersey/" target="_hplink">reviewed </a>a Beacon Hill analysis of the potential for offshore wind along the New Jersey coast. According to Conathan, the study--which was heavily promoted by Americans for Prosperity, a political advocacy group founded by and largely funded by the Kochs--"misses the mark on both sides of the ledger by dramatically overstating the costs and underestimating the economic benefits of offshore wind."

The facts on the ground tell a different story. Despite the Koch juggernaut's scare tactics, some evidence is already in, and so far the impact of renewable electricity standards on rates has been, for the most part, negligible. In late October, Steve Clemmer, UCS's director of energy research, <a href="http://blog.ucsusa.org/michigans-neighbors-show-increasing-renewable-electricity-standard-is-affordable/" target="_hplink">surveyed </a>rates in three Midwestern states. This is what he found:

�� Wind and other renewable technologies have reduced wholesale electricity prices in Illinois by displacing coal and other energy sources that have higher operating costs, saving ratepayers an estimated $177 million in 2011 alone, according to the Illinois Power Agency.

�� Minnesota's standard of 30 percent by 2020 for the state's largest utility, Xcel Energy, and 25 percent by 2025 for all other utilities has had little or no impact on rates for eight of 14 companies that submitted a report to the state Public Utilities Commission. Xcel Energy customer rates actually dropped 0.7 percent from 2008 through 2009, and the company calculates that rates will increase a mere 1.4 percent over the next 15 years. Five other utilities reported modest wholesale rate increases ranging from 1 percent to 6.6 percent in 2010, and one utility reported a 16 percent increase.

• From 2008 through 2010, Wisconsin's 10 percent by 2015 standard nudged rates up only 1 percent. By 2010, renewables were supplying 7.4 percent of the state's electricity, nearly double their contribution in 2006.

A national 25 percent by 2025 renewable electricity standard also would be quite affordable. In 2009, UCS <a href="http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/clean_energy/Clean-Power-Green-Jobs-25-RES.pdf" target="hplink">calculated </a>that such a standard would lower annual consumer electricity rates by 4.3 percent, saving ratepayers across the country $64.3 billion on their electricity and natural gas bills by 2025. Meanwhile, a 2010 <a href="http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy10osti/48258.pdf" target="hplink">study </a>by the Energy Department's National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) estimated a 25 percent standard would cost less than 2 percent more a month for a typical U.S. household--an average of $2.37 to be precise. Even that would be a small price to pay to help avoid the worst consequences of global warming, and a <a href="http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v2/n8/full/nclimate1527.html" target="_hplink">poll </a>published last May found that Americans would be willing to pay more than five times that amount for clean energy.

Besides the fact that we can afford to transition away from fossil fuels, keep in mind that we can't afford not to. As I pointed out last month in a Huffington Post <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elliott-negin/the-biggest-threat-to-the_1_b_2067118.html" target="_hplink">blog</a>, global warming, hands down, is the biggest long-term threat to the economy we face.

The good news is renewables have been a bright spot in an otherwise gloomy economy. Over the last five years--with the help of state renewable electricity standards, stimulus spending and <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elliott-negin/knocking-the-wind-out-of-b_1544538.html" target="hplink">production tax credits</a>--U.S. wind capacity has more than tripled and solar capacity has more than quadrupled, boosting employment and attracting private investment. Even with a deep recession and slow recovery, U.S.-based wind turbine, blade, tower and gearbox manufacturing has jumped 25 to 60 percent since 2005.

Likewise, the potential for non-hydro renewables is tremendous. They currently generate only about 5 percent of U.S. electricity, but by 2030 they could produce more than 40 percent, according to a 2009 UCS <a href="http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/big_picture_solutions/climate-2030-blueprint.html" target="hplink">study</a>. That would more than replace the share currently generated by coal, which is still responsible for roughly 75 percent of U.S. utility sector carbon emissions. Looking even further down the road, NREL <a href="http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/re_futures/" target="hplink">concluded </a>earlier this year that today's commercially available renewable technologies could adequately generate 80 percent of U.S. electricity by 2050.

But you won't hear any of that from the Koch propaganda machine.

Elliott Negin is the director of news and commentary at the Union of Concerned Scientists.788888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888u

==

SACRAMENTO -- Ending some but not all of the mystery behind an anonymous $11 million donation, an Arizona group revealed under court order Monday that the money it pumped into California's ballot wars was funneled through two groups -- one tied to David and Charles Koch, the billionaire brothers who have played a huge role in spreading anonymous political cash around the country.

The two conservative groups, Americans for Job Security and the Center to Protect Patient Rights, are part of a tangled web of so-called dark donors who operate largely out of public view, shielded by their status as nonprofit advocacy groups that are supposedly not involved primarily in politics.

��

While the groups have been identified, however, individual donors who have bankrolled them remain a mystery.

But "this isn't going to stop here," said Ann Ravel, chairwoman of the Fair Political Practices Commission, the state's political watchdog. "They admitted to money laundering. We agreed to do this without an audit because we wanted to get information to the public before the election. But we in no way agreed this would preclude further action."

The FPPC determined that the Arizona group, Americans for Responsible Leadership, had violated California campaign law.

Money laundering -- sending money through multiple sources to conceal the original donor -- is a misdemeanor. But a conspiracy to commit money laundering is a felony.

--[

Like the first version, DISCLOSE 2.0 requires that once an outside spending group has spent a certain amount, it must report the identity of each contributor who gave $10,000 or more. Groups must “stand by” their ads, the same way candidates do. And corporations, unions and other organizations that file annual financial reports must include their campaign-related spending.

In 2010, the Chamber was one of 113 organizations to lobby the bill and by far the largest. In 2010, it spent $100.2 million on lobbying. The 2012 bill hasn’t attracted nearly as much attention, due no doubt to its almost certain failure thanks to Republican opposition. The Chamber is again leading the fight. It sent a <a href="https://www.wewear.org/assets/1/16/050912SenateDiscloseAct.pdf">letter</a>, signed by 124 organizations, to the Senate in May voicing its opposition.

Among the signers were the Associated Builders and Contractors and several of its local chapters, Edison Electric Institute and the Wichita Independent Business Association, whose board of directors includes Koch Industries�� vice president of government and public affairs, Mark Nichols.

...

he FPPC or the state Attorney General's Office will pursue criminal charges.

The donation, the largest anonymous contribution to a ballot measure campaign in California history, was made to the Small Business Action Committee, a conservative PAC running a campaign for Proposition 32, the measure that would curb labor's ability to collect political cash, and against Proposition 30, Gov. Jerry Brown's tax-hike initiative.

"This money is so dirty it had to be laundered five times -- and it still stinks," said Brown, who had made it a rallying cry in his campaign to "unmask" the donors.

Election financing experts said if the groups had gotten away without disclosure, it would have set back the national movement for effective disclosure.

"Now California can be seen as a model that others use to fix their own systems," said Rick Hasen, an election law professor at UC Irvine. "This was a test case for (big donors) to see what they could get away with. And it was a successful defensive action against the flow of dark money."

Ravel said Phoenix-based Americans for Responsible Leadership conceded it was the intermediary and not the true source of the contribution. The source was actually Americans for Job Security, which then passed the money through a second intermediary, the Center to Protect Patient Rights, she said.

In its settlement letter, an attorney for the Arizona group said neither it nor the Center to Protect Patient Rights "admit any wrongdoing" and they reserve the right to contest any further action.

Americans for Job Security has been described by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics as "pro-Republican," "pro-business" and "established to directly counter labor's influence." It was founded in 1997 by Michael Dubke and David Carney, the same two GOP strategists who formed Crossroads Media, which runs advertising for American Crossroads, GOP uber-strategist Karl Rove's Super PAC.

In September, Americans for Job Security spent $8 million in ads in the swing states of Florida, Iowa, North Carolina, Ohio, Virginia and Colorado blasting President Barack Obama for what it said was his failure to turn the economy around.

The Center to Protect Patient Rights, also based in Arizona, is run by Sean Noble, an operative of the Koch brothers, who are worth a combined $50 billion, according to Forbes. Noble, a GOP strategist, was hired in 2010 to coordinate the Koch brothers' distribution of millions of dollars to dozens of entities. He has been a member of a group, called the Weaver Terrace Group -- dubbed Rove's "Fight Club" -- that meets regularly to plot campaign financing strategies, said Viveca Nova, a spokeswoman for the Center for Responsive

</div>

Politics.

Noble admitted in a letter to the FPPC that the Center to Protect Patient Rights received $11 million from Americans for Job Security.

This wasn't a new arena for the Center to Protect Patient Rights. It acted as a pass-through to distribute $44.6 million to other nonprofit groups in 2010, and $10.8 million the year before, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

"What you get are layers upon layers of groups that don't have to disclose their donors," Nova said. "What California did to reveal these ties is unusual, though it only tells you so much. But it does give more illustration about how the money is being passed around."

California Attorney General Kamala Harris said: "One thing is clear -- further investigation is necessary to determine whether there have been any violations of state law, be they civil or criminal. This thing ain't over. It's not over on Election Day. We are committed to going forward and figuring out what happened."

The revelation came after a 7-0 decision by the state Supreme Court on Sunday ordering attorneys for Americans for Responsible Leadership to immediately hand over documents related to the $11 million donation to the California business PAC.

After turning to the U.S. Supreme Court seeking another delay, attorneys backed down. Rather than hand over all emails and communications between the Arizona group and the California PAC, however, they settled on providing the name of the group that provided the money.

The Arizona group is a 501(c)4 nonprofit advocacy organization, which under IRS rules does not have to reveal donors' names. These groups have become prominent in this election cycle as hundreds of millions of dollars in political cash was unleashed by the U.S. Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United decision to allow unlimited corporate spending in campaigns.

As corporations and wealthy individuals became more involved, they have sought to keep their names concealed and have found the nonprofit groups an effective conduit to wielding influence without the potential backlash from consumers. They have spent one-fourth of all campaign cash this year, according to ProPublica, an independent investigative group.

Contact Steven Harmon at 916-441-2101. Follow him at <a href="http://Twitter.com/ssharmon">Twitter.com/ssharmon</a>. Read the Political Blotter at

===

cmd:

<h1 class="title" style="">Koch Social Media Policy May Be Unlawful; Employers Still Have Broad Leeway to Limit Employee Speech</h1>

<div class="meta">by <a href="http://www.prwatch.org/users/35275/brendan-fischer" title="View user profile.">Brendan Fischer</a> — October 16, 2012 - 8:41am</div>

<ul>

<li class="vocabulary-2">Topics: <a href="http://www.prwatch.org/topics/us-government/election-2012">Election 2012</a>, <a href="http://www.prwatch.org/topics/corporations">Corporations</a>, <a href="http://www.prwatch.org/topics/democracy">Democracy</a>, <a href="http://www.prwatch.org/topics/politics">Politics</a></li>

</ul>

</div>

<ul>

<li class="vocabulary-9">Projects: <a href="http://www.prwatch.org/projects/alec-exposed">ALEC Exposed</a></li>

</ul>

</div>

<div class="content clearfix"><a class="da2a_button" href="http://www.addtoany.com/share_save?linkurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.prwatch.org%2Fnews%2F2012%2F10%2F11801%2Fkoch-social-media-policy-may-be-unlawful-employers-still-have-broad-leeway-limit-&linkname=Koch%20Social%20Media%20Policy%20May%20Be%20Unlawful%3B%20Employers%20Still%20Have%20Broad%20Leeway%20to%20Limit%20Employee%20Speech" id="da2a_1"><img src="/de9c3526-cafb-5b64-a3e7-54ea0c944c4d.png"/> Share this</a>

The Koch Industries policy limiting employee speech on social media may be unlawful in light of recent decisions by the National Labor Relations Board, but employers still have broad leeway to impose their political views on workers and punish those who disagree.

On October 14, Mike Elk at In These Times <a href="http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/14017/koch_industries_sends_45000_employees_pro_romney_mailing" title="reference on reported" target="blank">reported</a> on how Koch Industries sent a mailer to 45,000 employees of its Georgia-Pacific subsidiary urging them to vote for Mitt Romney and other Republicans, warning that if they don't, they "may suffer the consequences." At the same time, the Kochs were limiting employees' speech through a <a href="http://www.inthesetimes.com/Koch/gpsocialmedia.pdf" title="reference on social media policy" target="blank">social media policy</a> that threatened Georgia Pacific workers with disciplinary action or termination if their Facebook posts or tweets "reflect negatively" on the company's reputation or are "disparaging." The policy applies even to social media usage outside of working hours, and Elk reports that the policy has deterred some employees from speaking freely in their online posts.

</div>

��

--

huffpo

Billionaire William Koch is <a href="http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/10/12/51239.htm" target="hplink">facing a lawsuit in federal court</a> from a former top-level employee who claims the energy mogul lured him to a secluded property, where he was imprisoned and interrogated for a period of time, according to a <a href="http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/10/12/51239.htm" target="hplink">report in Courthouse News</a>.

John Houston Scott, an attorney for Kirby Martenson, a former executive for a number of Koch subsidiaries, confirmed the story to HuffPost, adding that he guessed the case could go to trial in a year.

The case was filed in San Francisco, where the Republican-backing Kochs are not deeply popular.

Martensen <a href="http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/10/12/51239.htm" target="_hplink">alleges</a> that the multiple-day-long incident was set off by an anonymous letter accusing Martensen of mismanaging and stealing from Oxbow Carbon & Minerals International while serving as the company's vice president. That accusation prompted the company's leadership to read Martensen's letters and emails without his knowledge, the suit charges, which led the company to discover that Martensen had deep reservations about the legality of the company's tax avoidance strategies.

Martensen alleges he was told by his superiors that he was transferred overseas to Asia so that the Koch company could avoid paying U.S. taxes on some $200,000,000 in profits.

“Kirby Martensen states in a lawsuit that we investigated him for participating in a wide-ranging scheme to defraud, accepting bribes and diverting business from our company," Brad Goldstein, director of corporate affairs for Oxbow, a Bill Koch company, said in a statement. "He is right. We absolutely investigated Martensen and determined that he did participate in the fraud against the company. We identified who was defrauding us and are pursuing appropriate action to hold them accountable. In fact, several of the wrongdoers have admitted their involvement and one has directly implicated Mr. Martensen in the scheme. ”

Koch, who is David Koch's twin brother, is estimated to be worth $4 billion. He previously made news by <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/21/william-koch-billionaire-n_1819744.html" target="hplink">reconstructing a replica of an Old West ghost town</a> on the isolated ranch where Martensen and his co-workers were allegedly held.

Martensen had a flight booked from Aspen, but was not permitted to travel to the airport, he claims, as a local sheriff worked with Koch's employees to "make sure you don't wander off," according to the complaint. He says he was subjected to a several-hour interrogation, fired, held against his will on the property, then forced to fly in a private plane to San Francisco, accompanied by a man he believed to be armed.

Through his privately held companies -- Oxbow Carbon and Huron Carbon -- Bill Koch has <a href="http://articles.latimes.com/2012/apr/20/news/la-pn-koch-donation-romney-super-pac-20120420" target="_hplink">given $3 million</a> to the pro-Mitt Romney super PAC Restore Our Future. His more well-known brothers have given substantially more to the effort to elect the Republican presidential candidate.

"Any allegations of misconduct by Mr. Koch simply are untrue and stem from Martensen’s attempts to divert attention from his own wrongdoing," said Goldstein.

===

<h1 class="txttitle" style="">Billionaire Koch Brothers Try to Buy Florida's Courts</h1>

By Carl Hiaasen, The Miami Herald

04 October 12

<img src="/e202f798-fe93-5460-99f4-301287dcebbb.jpg"/>he new stealth campaign against three Florida Supreme Court justices is being backed by those meddling right-wing billionaires from Wichita, Charles and David Koch.

They couldn't care less about Florida, but they love to throw their money around.

Last week they uncorked the first of a series of commercials from their political action committee, Americans for Prosperity. The targets are Justices R. Fred Lewis, Barbara Pariente and Peggy Quince.

They were three of the five-vote majority that in 2010 knocked down a half-baked amendment slapped together by state lawmakers seeking to nullify the federal Affordable Health Care Act.

The Florida Supreme Court upheld lower court decisions in finding that the proposed amendment contained "misleading and ambiguous language," the hallmark of practically everything produced by this Legislature. Stoned chimpanzees have a keener grasp of constitutional law.

Conservative groups have gone after local justices before. In Iowa, a place which has nothing but vowels in common with Florida, three state justices were fired by voters after being vilified for ruling against a ban on gay marriage.

On the November ballot, Lewis, Pariente and Quince are up for merit retention, meaning voters can choose to retain them or not. This simple system was put in place to keep the state's high court above the sleaze of political races.

The mission of the Kochs, hiding as always behind their super PAC, is to get the three justices dumped at the polls so that Gov. Rick Scott can appoint replacements.

This is worth repeating: If the Kochs have their way, Rick Scott - yes, that Rick Scott - gets to pack the Supreme Court with his own hand-picked crew.

Yikes is right.

The head of the Florida chapter of Americans for Prosperity is a person called Slade O' Brien, whose job is to keep a straight face while saying things like: "We're not advocating for the election or defeat of any of the justices. What we're attempting to do is call more attention to them advocating from the bench."

Meanwhile the state GOP's executive board is less coy. It voted to oppose the retention of Quince, Lewis and Pariente, branding them "too extreme."

Well, let's have a peek at these dangerous radicals.

Justice Pariente, 63, has been on the court for 15 years. She was graduated from George Washington University Law School and clerked in Fort Lauderdale under U.S. District Judge Norm Roettger, who was no softie.

Justice Lewis, 64, who was graduated cum laude from the University of Miami Law School, has been on the court almost 14 years. Both he and Pariente were appointed by Gov. Lawton Chiles, not exactly a wild-eyed liberal.

Justice Quince, also 64, is the first African-American woman on the Supreme Court. A graduate of the Columbus School of Law at Catholic University, she worked for years prosecuting death-penalty cases in the state Attorney General's office.

In 1999, she was jointly selected for the high court by Chiles and that wacky left-winger, Jeb Bush.

Twice before Floridians have voted to keep these justices, but now the Kochs from Wichita say they know better. You won't see David or Charlie in any of the campaign commercials because they don't like people to know they're prying.

Their multinational fortune comes from oil refineries, fertilizers, cattle, commodities, chemicals and paper mills. Next time you reach for Angel Soft toilet paper, think of the Koch brothers.

Both are MIT grads, philanthropists, unabashedly ultraconservative and anti-Obama. They're spending hundreds of millions of dollars trying to defeat the President and lesser officeholders all over the country who won't bend to their will. Some Florida Republicans - respected judges and lawyers - are disturbed by the sneak attack on the Supreme Court, which they view as a bald attempt to politicize the judiciary.

The two other justices who voted against the inept Obamacare amendment were similarly singled out two years ago, when they were up for merit retention. Tea Party groups bought TV time blasting justices Jorge Labarga and James Perry, and urging voters to remove them from the court. It didn't work.

Labarga was retained with about 59 percent of the vote, Perry with 61 percent. Those aren't bad margins, considering that the justices can't campaign in their own defense.

This time is different because Americans for Prosperity has a bottomless war chest to use against Lewis, Pariente and Quince. Be assured that Gov. Scott is rooting for the Kochs. He'd love to have three openings to fill on the Supreme Court.

The last thing these guys want is fair judges who know the law; they want partisan judges who'll obediently support their political agenda

It's worse than just trying to buy an election. It's trying to hijack Florida's justice system at the highest levels.

And all the Angel Soft in the world won't wipe away the stink.  http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/13792-billionaire-koch-brothers-try-to-buy-floridas-courts

==

<h2 class="article" style="">Guided by the Koch brothers, Republicans have installed czars to run Michigan's cities</h2>

support iof snyder

<a href="http://www.hightowerlowdown.org/node/3105">http://www.hightowerlowdown.org/node/3105</a>

===

Inside Koch world

By: Kenneth P. Vogel and Tarini Parti

June 15, 2012 04:35 AM EDT

The Billion-Dollar Buy: About this series

Like never before, big dollars are having a big impact on politics and governance. This series examines how the new wide-open fundraising landscape will affect the 2012 campaigns.

<a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76849.html">See also: GOP groups plan record $1 billion blitz</a> | <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/79421.html">Myth of the small donor</a> | <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0712/78466.html">Rove hits big: The birth of a mega-donor</a>

The Koch brothers’ political operation has increasingly come to resemble its own political party — and later this month in San Diego, it will hold what amounts to its most ambitious convention to date.

Many of the dozens of rich conservative invitees are expected to write huge checks to a pool of cash distributed among Koch-approved groups, potentially boosting the Kochs’ 2012 spending plan beyond their historic <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76849.html" target="blank">$395 million goal</a>. And it’s also a chance for the Kochs to show off their increasingly robust political machine, including a growing voter database project called Themis that played a major role in <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0612/77256.html" target="blank">conservatives�� recent efforts in Wisconsin</a> and in which POLITICO has learned Koch operatives have discussed investing $20 million.

(<a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0612/77451.html">Also on POLITICO: Losing faith on campaign finance)</a>

It’s part of an ambitious expansion of the billionaire brothers’ political operation that includes the recruitment of new donors and fundraisers into their network by a development team led by summit emcee Kevin Gentry, and their recent hiring of in-house political operative Marc Short to oversee the spending of funds raised at the summits.

The expansion is also reflected in Charles and David Kochs’ <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/73494.html" target="blank">bid to take over</a> the libertarian Cato Institute as well as their operations steering cash to groups that <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/74643.html" target="blank">aren’t commonly thought of as Koch affiliated</a>. The 60 Plus Association, American Energy Alliance, American Future Fund, Americans for Limited Government and National Right to Life have all received funds through the Koch donor network.

“They ask for support — and they get it because we all love our country and we have a different vision than do the liberals,” said Stanley Hubbard, a Minnesota television station owner who has attended the Koch donor summits for years and plans to be in San Diego for this month’s meeting. “I’ve gotten friends to be involved, and I think others have, too, so I would guess, yes, that’s expanding.”

Yet, even as Koch World has increasingly flexed its muscles in conservative politics, its inner sanctum — comprised of the brothers and their longtime right-hand man Richard Fink — has remained all but impenetrable to even big GOP players who want a piece of the Koch action or invitations to the summits, according to numerous operatives.

The specific location of the San Diego summit could not be determined. And a Koch spokesman declined to comment on details of the summit, which starts the weekend of June 23, or the brothers’ political plans.

“The Koch groups are very complex in the way they do things. They’re difficult to penetrate from the outside, which is smart,” said one GOP operative who has worked with Koch-backed groups. “You often need a Sherpa.”

That’s what makes Gentry, Short and Tim Phillips so powerful. They came up together in the good-ol’-boy universe of Virginia GOP politics, and they’re now the Kochs’ liaisons to Washington’s professional conservative class.

A number of sources with knowledge of Koch World — who did not want to speak publicly about it for fear of being cut out of the loop — said the trio carry with them the full confidence of the brothers and Fink, and the ability to make and execute decisions on their behalf, not to mention access to the mega-donors who make the network so potent.

The roles break down thusly: Phillips runs the Kochs’ primary political vehicle Americans for Prosperity and Short oversees the spending of Koch network cash by other approved groups, some of which air among the sharpest attack ads against Democrats, and Gentry raises the Koch network’s cash.

Gentry’s fundraising appeals can strike an urgent tone, as was the case in a letter he sent to attendees of a 2008 Koch donor summit, warning that “our society faces dangerous and imminent threats.” The letter, reported here for the first time, seemed to compare the Koch summit with the Continental Congress and asked, “Can a small but dedicated group of leaders make a difference?”

Gentry also leads a sort of informal network of fundraisers for top conservative think tanks and advocacy groups around the country, including The Heritage Foundation, Americans for Prosperity and the Texas Public Policy Foundation, POLITICO has learned.

In a weekly email to the network, Gentry passes along tips on donor prospecting and maintenance and cites best practices. For example, in a February email obtained by POLITICO, he shared advice from a Heritage fundraiser who suggested his group won the loyalty of a million-dollar donor who attended Koch summits by introducing him to big names who spoke at Heritage events, including Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

Short, who attends the same church as Gentry, is by far the newest member of the inner circle, having been hired only last year to oversee the spending of Koch donor network cash by other groups. Previously, the Kochs had tasked a contractor named Sean Noble with the responsibility. Short — who most recently had worked with Koch-favorite Rep. Mike Pence, leading an unsuccessful effort to <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47931.html" target="blank">lure him into the presidential race</a> — has been representing Koch World at the Karl Rove-conceived Weaver Terrace Group <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/74506.html" target="blank">meetings</a> where conservative groups coordinate ad spending.

But Koch World’s expansion has raised hackles among critics in the conservative movement who see the Kochs and their operatives as secretive control freaks who <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/65504.html" target="_blank">don’t always play well with others</a> and are trying to leverage their cash to expand their influence.

“Koch has been angling for the last three or four years to consolidate more of the conservative movement within their network,” said a conservative operative who has worked with donors in the Koch network. “That’s why they do these seminars — to try to consolidate more big donors’ money and direct it into their projects,” said the operative, who asserted that groups that attend the summits become beholden to the Kochs, but also marveled at the effectiveness of the gatherings as a fundraising technique.

“Some of the donors believe giving to one source makes it easier for them instead of having to give to a dozen different places,” said the operative, “and others just want to come out to hang with the billionaire brothers and be part of a very elite universe.”

Koch Industries, the brothers’ privately owned oil, chemical and household products company, has sponsored the summits twice a year since 2003 and they are where it all comes together in Koch World. The donors, like regulars <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0412/75000.html" target="blank">Foster Friess</a> and Rich DeVos and first-timers like <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0612/77139.html" target="blank">Sheldon Adelson</a>, are gently pressured to give while the invited operatives jockey to impress the Kochs and their donors with presentations on campaign and legislative strategy.

There’s also a collection of A-list dignitaries that has in recent years included rising political stars like Eric Cantor, Chris Christie, Bob McDonnell and Rick Perry, talkers like Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck — even Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Thomas.

Koch summit donors over the years have donated more than $120 million on their own to various federal candidates, committees and super PACs, according to an analysis of Federal Election Commission data, as well as numerous background interviews and confidential Koch documents reviewed by POLITICO.

But most of the cash raised at the Koch summits — typically in pledge sessions on the last day of the summit that have a revival-like feel �� goes to nonprofit groups that do not disclose their donors. And the groups represented at recent conferences provide some hints as to the recipients. According to the documents reviewed by POLITICO and interviews, there are think tanks such as The Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute and The Federalist Society, as well as advocacy groups including the 60 Plus Association, National Right to Work, the Club for Growth and Americans for Prosperity.

The Kochs raised more than <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/74506_Page4.html" target="blank">$150 million</a> at their winter conference this year in Indian Wells, Calif., on top of <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/49303_Page2.html" target="blank">$49 million</a> at a summit a year earlier in Rancho Mirage, Calif.

There was one summit in between, in Beaver Creek, Colo., and even if donors only matched the lower tally, that would put the Koch network at about $250 million raised for the cycle. That means they’re within striking distance of their $395 million goal, and could exceed it, given that sources said interest in the donor network has only increased since Democrats up to and including President Barack Obama have taken to <a href="http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/02/obama-campaign-targets-romneykoch-ties-115451.html" target="blank">targeting the Kochs</a> as examples of the <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/72104.html" target="blank">corrupting influence of big money</a> in politics.

The attacks haven’t bothered Koch network donors, asserted Hubbard, declaring, “All this nonsense over ‘Well, they’re oil people’ — baloney! They will do the right thing for their country.”

But at last year’s summer conference, Gentry seemed to assure the donors they wouldn’t catch flak for their donations. “There is anonymity that we can protect,” he said in remarks that were surreptitiously recorded and leaked to <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/09/exclusive-audio-koch-brothers-seminar-tapes" target="_blank">Mother Jones</a>.

Secrecy is the name of the game at the summits, much like at the Democracy Alliance <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45260.html" target="blank">gatherings of big liberal donors</a>: Koch donors are required to wear name tags at all times, and security officers wearing gold lapel pins bearing Koch Industries’ “K” logo, roamed the halls at last year’s winter meeting, <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/48624_Page4.html" target="blank">removing</a> a POLITICO reporter under threat of arrest.

Attendees are warned not to “post updates or information about the meeting on blogs, social media such as Facebook and Twitter, or in traditional media articles,” according to a packet distributed to participants at the June 2010 session that was obtained and posted by the liberal blog <a href="http://images2.americanprogressaction.org/ThinkProgress/secretkochmeeting.pdf" target="blank">ThinkProgress</a>. The summits had gone off without a peep of publicity until that packet, which included an invitation to the winter 2011 meeting in Rancho Mirage, Calif., <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/20/us/politics/20koch.html?r=1" target="blank">leaked to The New York Times</a> and <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2010/10/20/124642/beck-koch-chamber-meeting/" target="blank">ThinkProgress</a>, paving the way for raucous protests outside the Rancho Mirage resort hosting the conference.

Attendees are expected to wear business casual attire for panels, according to a packet for an earlier meeting that was reviewed by POLITICO, but “For our evening meals, cocktail attire is appropriate for women. Men should wear a sport coat, though most forgo wearing a tie.�� Justice Thomas was the featured guest at one such dinner, while another included a menu of “shiitake mushroom and roasted vegetable strudel with goat cheese crema” and “tomato water poached halibut with heirloom tomato salad and mint couscous.��

Aesthetics aside, the Koch summits are regarded as a holy grail of sorts for conservatives seeking cash for their initiatives. Decisions about who gets invited, and who doesn’t, can lead to raw feelings, as Gentry learned firsthand at a dinner meeting of the Cato board, to which he had been appointed by the Kochs in their bid to wrest control of the libertarian think tank from a faction led by President Ed Crane.

“Kevin Gentry sitting over there has never once — never once! — invited me to one of the Koch donor events that he organizes for Charles!” Crane bellowed at Gentry, according to an account in the <a href="http://www.washingtonian.com/articles/people/the-battle-for-cato/indexp5.php" target="_blank">Washingtonian</a>. “Nor has he invited anyone from Cato!”

---

<div class="print-breadcrumb" style=""><a href="http://www.alternet.org/">Home</a> > Classic Koch: How California's Prop. 32 Could Enrich Two Billionaires</div>

<div class="byline environment" style=""><a href="http://www.laane.org/frying-pan/">Frying Pan News</a> [1] / By <a href="http://www.alternet.org/authors/matthew-fleischer">Matthew Fleischer</a> [2]</div>

<h1 property="dc:title" datatype="" class="node-title">Classic Koch: How California's Prop. 32 Could Enrich Two Billionaires</h1>

</div>

<div class="story-date">September 21, 2012  |  </div>

On September 14 the Web exploded with news that billionaire industrialists Charles and David Koch had donated $4 million in support of Proposition 32. A San Francisco Chronicle editorial noting the donation labeled the brothers “conservative ideologues” – a moniker often applied to the Kochs. This description, however, gives the Kochs far too much credit for their supposed philosophical purity—particularly as it relates to the Prop. 32 battle.

Despite their reputations as libertarian true believers, the Koch brothers are nothing if not practical businessmen, who have no trouble taking advantage of government subsidies when it bolsters their bottom line. (Koch Industries, for instance, was for years heavily invested in the $6 billion, federally subsidized ethanol industry.) That bottom line runs up and down the state of California, where Koch Industries has hundreds of millions of dollars invested through its subsidiary Georgia-Pacific—a gypsum, pulp paper product and packaging company that operates 11 facilities in California with more than 1,100 employees and $190 million in annual payroll and benefit expenses.

Other Koch subsidiaries, such as Flint Hills Resources—a petrochemical company–stand to make a killing should California reverse its strict carbon emission standards. Koch Industries has an array of powerful lobbyists working for its interests in Sacramento and a nearly decade-long history of major donations to California politicians in support of the Kochs’ business agenda. The brothers’ latest crusade, to pass Prop. 32 and reduce the political voice of unions in California, stands to vastly increase their personal fortunes—at the expense of the rest of us.

For years prior to becoming the piggybank of the conservative movement, Koch Industries quietly channeled money to various California lawmakers through its Georgia-Pacific subsidiary.

In February of 2005, then-California Assemblyman Greg Aghazarian introduced legislation to put a one-year statute of limitations during which people suffering disabilities resulting from asbestos exposure could sue manufacturers. Georgia-Pacific—which for decades used asbestos in its wallboard products–lobbied on the bill’s behalf and subsequently donated to Aghazarian’s reelection campaign in December of 2005, shortly after the Koch’s took control of the company. Georgia-Pacific continued to lobby for the bill throughout 2006, until it was ultimately shelved.

Between 2009 and 2010, Georgia-Pacific funneled donations of $1,000 or more to the campaigns of 25 different California state Senators and Assembly members—including the Howard Jarvis-approved Senator Sam Blakeslee, offshore oil drilling advocate Assemblyman Martin Garrick, and Assemblywoman Diane Harkey, whose <a href="http://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/70764/diane-harkey/30/environmental-issues">environmental voting record</a> [3] looks like John Galt’s Christmas list.

The company retains the services of the powerful lobbying firm <a href="http://www.mchughgr.com/ourteam/gavinmchugh.html" target="blank">McHugh</a> [4], <a href="http://www.mchughgr.com/ourteam/dawnkoepke.html" target="blank">Koepke</a> [5] & Associates. The firm spent much of the past few years attempting to gut provisions of California’s Green Chemistry Initiative–a 2008 law protecting California citizens from exposure to toxic industrial chemicals–on behalf of an Orwellian-named consortium of chemical companies (including Georgia-Pacific) called the Green Chemistry Alliance.

“Frankly, the Green Chemistry Initiative is pretty sensible,” California Sierra Club Director Kathryn Phillips, who helped lobby for the bill, tells Frying Pan News. “It’s important, but it’s not a radical departure. It’s going to be slowly implemented. It’s using a scientifically established lists of toxic chemicals. It’s not pulling new chemicals in. But now that the regulations are on the verge of being adopted they’re pick, pick, picking away at it.”

Georgia-Pacific, incidentally, is registered with the California Secretary of State’s office as a limited liability company (LLC). This means none of its political activity will be hampered by <a href="http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/pdf/">Prop. 32’s proposed restrictions</a> [6] should the measure pass, as it only “[p]rohibits unions and corporations from contributing directly or indirectly to candidates and candidate-controlled committees.” An LLC is not considered a corporation nor, certainly, a union.

The Kochs’ most conspicuous foray into California politics—prior to their Prop. 32 support –came in 2010, when the Koch Industries subsidiary Flint Hills Resources donated $1 million to <a href="http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/koch-industries-war-california">support Proposition 23</a> [7]. Had voters ratified it, Prop. 23 would have overturned California’s landmark climate change prevention statute, AB 32. Flint Hills didn’t chip in out of climate change denial. The company has a substantial investment in Canadian tar sands oil, whose extraction and consumption creates a Sasquatch-sized carbon footprint. Robust clean emissions standards, Koch Industries complained on its website, “would cripple refiners that rely on heavy crude feedstocks.”

In addition to their attempts to cripple the state’s environmental laws, the Kochs seem to have a keen interest in opening up California’s waters to new offshore drilling. The Koch-backed American Future Fund, which supplied the recent $4 million lump-sum to Prop. 32, is a vociferous <a href="http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/columnists/sherman/article_57f884dc-a4a1-5f5b-98df-a4493b9ff497.html">“drill, baby, drill” backer</a> [8]. In 2008, the group went after Colorado Congressman <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2008/07/24/174097/udall-cuba-drilling/">Mark Udall </a> [9]in a series of ads for supposedly “blocking American energy” by refusing to support opening up protected waters for oil exploration. The pressure appeared to get to Udall, as he ultimately switched his position.

In August of 2008, the Koch-backed FreedomWorks organization also helped fund such <a href="http://exiledonline.com/teagagged-tea-party-protest-silenced-over-organizers-links-to-2008-drill-here-drill-now-astroturf-campaign/">pro-drilling, proto-Tea Party outfits</a> [10] as the Sam Adams Alliance and DontGo Movement. The combined Astroturf efforts of these groups helped convince the U.S. House and Senate to lift longstanding federal restrictions on new offshore oil and gas drilling.

Had the British Petroleum spill in the Gulf of Mexico not occurred in 2010, forcing Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (a <a href="http://cal-access.ss.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees/Detail.aspx?id=1007775&view=expenditures&session=2005">major recipient</a> [11]��of Georgia-Pacific campaign contributions) to rescind his efforts to open up California waters to new oil exploration, there’s a good chance the Koch’s national efforts would have been successful here too.

Now, with lessons of the BP spill two years in hindsight, the idea of offshore drilling in California has resurfaced. Koch Industries recently donated $5,000 to the Congressional campaign of Santa Barbara Republican <a href="http://m.vcstar.com/news/2012/may/24/fundraising-hits-17-million-in-county-race/">Tony Strickland</a> [12]��who, in various campaigns over the years, has <a href="http://votesmart.org/candidate/16765/tony-strickland">routinely advocated</a> [13] opening up waters off the coast of California to <a href="http://articles.latimes.com/2010/may/26/local/la-me-treas-controller-20100526">drilling</a> [14].

Though they don’t yet appear to have their feet in the door financially, there’s no reason to suspect that, with their army of lobbyists at the ready and history of campaign contributions in the state, the Kochs couldn’t maneuver to profit off of California��s offshore oil.

It certainly wouldn’t be the first time Koch Industries took advantage of California’s public resources.

Georgia-Pacific, for instance, <a href="http://articles.latimes.com/2011/aug/24/local/la-me-state-property-20110824">leases public land</a> [15] along the San Joaquin River in Northern California. In 2011, it was discovered that, for years, the understaffed California State Lands Commission failed to monitor and appropriately raise rents on Georgia-Pacific��s lease as well as other public properties under their watch. This error cost taxpayers a cool $8 million. Such are the benefits of small government.

Georgia-Pacific has also taken advantage of taxpayer-funded <a href="http://articles.latimes.com/2009/sep/23/business/fi-toyota23">worker training subsidies</a> [16]provided by California’s Employment Training Panel. Between December of 2005 and December of 2007, Georgia-Pacific received $680,394 in taxpayer subsidies under the ETP program. One could attempt to explain these subsidies as the legacy of the previous owners–the Kochs <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/15/business/15place.html">bought the company</a> [17] for $13 billion in 2005. But in 2009, Georgia-Pacific went back to the taxpayer well, requesting $25,200 to train workers at its San Leandro gypsum paper mill and Antioch wallboard plant.

The Koch brothers are no weekend fishermen when it comes to reeling in legislators and government officials. They are the moneyed heads of a sophisticated and organized political machine that serves to back one thing and one thing only—their profits. Since 2010, the brothers have reportedly sank anywhere from $2.5 to $20 million into developing an advanced <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/07/koch-brothers-database-2012-election">conservative voter database</a> [18] called <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0612/77453.html">Themis</a> [19]—which, by many press accounts, was crucial in defeating the effort to recall Wisconsin’s Governor Scott Walker.

“Our geo-targeting looks at everything from voting data to Census data to consumer-purchasing information,” Americans for Prosperity President Tim Phillips told USA Todayof Themis last month. “We know their magazine subscriptions. In some cases, we know the websites they prefer to surf.”

This level of detail will help the Kochs maximize efficiency in rallying conservative support for any conceivable California initiative—distinguishing Christian values voters from small-government libertarians and plastering them with targeted political marketing in the blink of an eye.

The Kochs’ massive donation to the Prop. 32 cause was not a principled ideological stand. It was an investment – an extended warranty on their California possessions. It was also a signal that there is money to be made in California, both from its natural resources and from its taxpayers. Should Prop. 32 pass and smother the political voice of a key anti-corporate foe to the Koch agenda, the Kochs and their political influence machine should have little trouble recouping those funds–and then some.

Seen this way, $4 million is a drop in the bucket.

</div>

<div class="tags" style="">See more stories tagged with:

<div class="field-item odd"><a href="http://www.alternet.org/tags/california" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel">california</a> [21],</div>

<div class="field-item even"><a href="http://www.alternet.org/tags/environment-0" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel">environment</a> [22],</div>

<div class="field-item odd"><a href="http://www.alternet.org/tags/proposition-32" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel">proposition 32</a> [23]</div>

</div>

<div class="print-source_url" style="">Source URL: <a href="http://www.alternet.org/environment/classic-koch-how-californias-prop-32-could-enrich-two-billionaires">http://www.alternet.org/environment/classic-koch-how-californias-prop-32-could-enrich-two-billionaires</a></div>

Links:

[1] http://www.laane.org/frying-pan/

[2] http://www.alternet.org/authors/matthew-fleischer

[3] http://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/70764/diane-harkey/30/environmental-issues

[4] http://www.mchughgr.com/ourteam/gavinmchugh.html

[5] http://www.mchughgr.com/ourteam/dawnkoepke.html

[6] http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/pdf/

[7] http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/koch-industries-war-california

[8] http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/columnists/sherman/article_57f884dc-a4a1-5f5b-98df-a4493b9ff497.html

[9] http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2008/07/24/174097/udall-cuba-drilling/

[10] http://exiledonline.com/teagagged-tea-party-protest-silenced-over-organizers-links-to-2008-drill-here-drill-now-astroturf-campaign/

[11] http://cal-access.ss.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees/Detail.aspx?id=1007775&view=expenditures&session=2005

[12] http://m.vcstar.com/news/2012/may/24/fundraising-hits-17-million-in-county-race/

[13] http://votesmart.org/candidate/16765/tony-strickland

[14] http://articles.latimes.com/2010/may/26/local/la-me-treas-controller-20100526

[15] http://articles.latimes.com/2011/aug/24/local/la-me-state-property-20110824

[16] http://articles.latimes.com/2009/sep/23/business/fi-toyota23

[17] http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/15/business/15place.html

[18] http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/07/koch-brothers-database-2012-election

[19] http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0612/77453.html

[20] http://www.alternet.org/tags/koch-0

[21] http://www.alternet.org/tags/california

[22] http://www.alternet.org/tags/environment-0

[23] http://www.alternet.org/tags/proposition-32

[24] http://www.alternet.org/%2Bnew_src%2B

</div>

��

</blockquote>

Charles Koch hates hates hates subsidies.

By subsidizing and mandating politically favored products in the energy sector (solar, wind and biofuels …), the government is pushing up energy prices for all of us �� five times as much in the case of wind-generated electricity. And by putting resources to less-efficient use, cronyism actually kills jobs rather than creating them. …

The effects on government are equally distorting — and corrupting. Instead of protecting our liberty and property, government officials are determining where to send resources based on the political influence of their cronies. In the process, government gains even more power and the ranks of bureaucrats continue to swell.

</blockquote>

Yes, Charles Koch hates subsidies — except the hundreds of millions of government dollars going to Koch Industries. (See ThinkProgress’ two-part report: “<a href="http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/03/01/146847/charles-koch-welfare/">How Koch Industries Makes Billions By Demanding Bailouts And Taxpayer Subsidies</a>” and “<a href="http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/03/01/147376/koch-polluter-bailout/">How Koch Industries Makes Billions Corrupting Government And Polluting For Free</a>.”)

Only a horrible cynic would suggest that such generosity from our elected leaders is the result of Koch’s multi-million-dollar lobbying efforts. Yes, so far this year, Koch Industries has run up <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000000186&year=2012">a $5.3 million tab on lobbying federal officials</a>. (This year.) But that’s all about social issues, no doubt.

Nor is the company thrifty when it comes to campaign contributions. Here is a list of the members of Congress for whom his Koch Industries is listed as a “top contributor” by OpenSecrets — in other words, for whom Koch Industries is one of the top 20 campaign contributors.

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00030667">Koch Industries</a> to Adam Kinzinger (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00027623">Koch Industries</a> to Adrian Smith (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00031006">Koch Industries</a> to Alan Nunnelee (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00029147">Koch Industries</a> to Andy Harris (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00031640">Koch Industries</a> to Ann Marie Buerkle (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00031545">Koch Industries</a> to Bill Flores (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00030673">Koch Industries</a> to Bill Huizenga (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00032088">Koch Industries</a> to Bill Johnson (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00013770">Koch Industries</a> to Bill Shuster (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00031672">Koch Industries</a> to Blake Farenthold (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00031128">Koch Industries</a> to Bob Gibbs (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00030668">Koch Industries</a> to Bobby Schilling (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00026314">Koch Industries</a> to Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00026595">Koch Industries</a> to Charles W. Boustany Jr (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00026171">Koch Industries</a> to Charlie Dent (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00030815">Koch Industries</a> to Chuck Fleischmann (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00002782">Koch Industries</a> to Cliff Stearns (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00004558">Koch Industries</a> to Collin C. Peterson (D) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00026425">Koch Industries</a> to Connie Mack (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00030780">Koch Industries</a> to Cory Gardner (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00031934">Koch Industries</a> to Dan Benishek (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00026481">Koch Industries</a> to Dan Boren (D) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00003845">Koch Industries</a> to Dan Coats (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00011971">Koch Industries</a> to Dan Lungren (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00007151">Koch Industries</a> to Dana Rohrabacher (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00026335">Koch Industries</a> to Daniel Webster (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00007017">Koch Industries</a> to Darrell Issa (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00031681">Koch Industries</a> to David McKinley (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00006460">Koch Industries</a> to David Schweikert (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00027522">Koch Industries</a> to Dean Heller (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00030645">Koch Industries</a> to Dennis Ross (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00004645">Koch Industries</a> to Denny Rehberg (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00007248">Koch Industries</a> to Devin Nunes (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00031539">Koch Industries</a> to Diane Black (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00028133">Koch Industries</a> to Douglas L. Lamborn (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00003467">Koch Industries</a> to Ed Whitfield (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00013131">Koch Industries</a> to Eric Cantor (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00026722">Koch Industries</a> to Francisco Canseco (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00005559">Koch Industries</a>��to Frank D. Lucas (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00030801">Koch Industries</a> to Frank Guinta (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00004133">Koch Industries</a> to Fred Upton (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00029736">Koch Industries</a> to Glenn Thompson (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00007690">Koch Industries</a> to Greg Walden (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00002656">Koch Industries</a> to Jack Kingston (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00031559">Koch Industries</a> to Jaime Herrera Beutler (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00027894">Koch Industries</a> to James D. Jordan (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00029441">Koch Industries</a> to James E. Risch (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00005582">Koch Industries</a> to James M. Inhofe (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00002472">Koch Industries</a> to James W. DeMint (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00024922">Koch Industries</a> to Jeb Hensarling (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00030752">Koch Industries</a> to Jeff Duncan (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00003062">Koch Industries</a> to Jeff Sessions (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00005282">Koch Industries</a> to Jerry Moran (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00031127">Koch Industries</a> to Jim Renacci (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00005656">Koch Industries</a> to Joe Barton (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00031244">Koch Industries</a> to Joe Heck (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00001633">Koch Industries</a> to Joe Pitts (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00004723">Koch Industries</a> to Joe Walsh (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00024809">Koch Industries</a>��to Joe Wilson (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00006236">Koch Industries</a> to John Barrasso (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00026080">Koch Industries</a> to John Barrow (D) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00025095">Koch Industries</a> to John Carter (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00024852">Koch Industries</a> to John Cornyn (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00009738">Koch Industries</a> to John Culberson (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00031688">Koch Industries</a> to John Hoeven (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00004436">Koch Industries</a> to John Kline (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00002793">Koch Industries</a> to John L. Mica (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00004961">Koch Industries</a> to John M. Shimkus (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00004572">Koch Industries</a> to John Thune (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00031988">Koch Industries</a> to Jon Runyan (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00031938">Koch Industries</a> to Justin Amash (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00030980">Koch Industries</a> to Kelly Ayotte (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00026710">Koch Industries</a> to Kenny Marchant (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00028152">Koch Industries</a> to Kevin McCarthy (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00031502">Koch Industries</a> to Kevin Yoder (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00032022">Koch Industries</a> to Kristi Noem (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00001811">Koch Industries</a> to Lamar Smith (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00031227">Koch Industries</a> to Larry Bucshon (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00005321">Koch Industries</a> to Lee Terry (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00026050">Koch Industries</a> to Lisa Murkowski (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00025495">Koch Industries</a> to Lou Barletta (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00026148">Koch Industries</a> to Louis B. Gohmert Jr (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00029077">Koch Industries</a> to Lynn Jenkins (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00030612">Koch Industries</a> to Marco Rubio (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00025337">Koch Industries</a> to Mario Diaz-Balart (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00031177">Koch Industries</a> to Mark Amodei (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00012539">Koch Industries</a> to Mark Kirk (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00030891">Koch Industries</a> to Marlin Stutzman (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00003105">Koch Industries</a> to Marsha Blackburn (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00025219">Koch Industries</a> to Michael Burgess (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00027229">Koch Industries</a> to Michael G. Fitzpatrick (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00026460">Koch Industries</a> to Michael McCaul (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00029444">Koch Industries</a> to Michael O. Johanns (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00027493">Koch Industries</a> to Michele Marie Bachmann (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00031412">Koch Industries</a> to Mick Mulvaney (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00024753">Koch Industries</a> to Mike Coffman (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00026041">Koch Industries</a> to Mike Conaway (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00006249">Koch Industries</a> to Mike Enzi (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00031647">Koch Industries</a> to Mike Kelly (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00003765">Koch Industries</a>��to Mike Pence (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00030744">Koch Industries</a> to Mike Pompeo (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00009668">Koch Industries</a> to Mike Rogers (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00009571">Koch Industries</a> to Mike Ross (D) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00003389">Koch Industries</a> to Mitch McConnell (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00032029">Koch Industries</a> to Morgan Griffith (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00031124">Koch Industries</a> to Nan Hayworth (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00009869">Koch Industries</a> to Orrin G. Hatch (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00005285">Koch Industries</a> to Pat Roberts (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00001489">Koch Industries</a> to Pat Toomey (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00026627">Koch Industries</a> to Patrick McHenry (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00031134">Koch Industries</a> to Patrick Meehan (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00028986">Koch Industries</a> to Paul Broun Jr (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00030771">Koch Industries</a> to Paul Gosar (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00004357">Koch Industries</a> to Paul Ryan (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00001193">Koch Industries</a> to Pete King (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00029285">Koch Industries</a> to Pete Olson (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00005681">Koch Industries</a> to Pete Sessions (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00004719">Koch Industries</a> to Peter Roskam (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00024760">Koch Industries</a> to Phil Gingrey (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00030836">Koch Industries</a> to Rand Paul (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00031104">Koch Industries</a> to Randy Hultgren (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00026043">Koch Industries</a> to Randy Neugebauer (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00031377">Koch Industries</a> to Raul Labrador (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00030968">Koch Industries</a> to Reid Ribble (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00031513">Koch Industries</a> to Renee Ellmers (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00002221">Koch Industries</a> to Richard Burr (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00032441">Koch Industries</a> to Richard Nugent (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00031629">Koch Industries</a> to Rick Berg (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00030770">Koch Industries</a> to Rick Crawford (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00003682">Koch Industries</a> to Rob Portman (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00032416">Koch Industries</a> to Rob Woodall (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00003028">Koch Industries</a> to Robert B. Aderholt (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00012233">Koch Industries</a> to Robert E. Latta (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00031265">Koch Industries</a> to Robert Hurt (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00003280">Koch Industries</a> to Roger Wicker (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00032546">Koch Industries</a> to Ron Johnson (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00005195">Koch Industries</a> to Roy Blunt (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00013323">Koch Industries</a> to Sam Graves (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00002685">Koch Industries</a> to Saxby Chambliss (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00031174">Koch Industries</a> to Scott Brown (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00030957">Koch Industries</a> to Scott Desjarlais (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00000743">Koch Industries</a> to Scott Garrett (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00030962">Koch Industries</a> to Scott Rigell (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00027509">Koch Industries</a> to Scott Tipton (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00030967">Koch Industries</a> to Sean P. Duffy (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00029412">Koch Industries</a> to Steve C. Austria (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00003689">Koch Industries</a> to Steve Chabot (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00031141">Koch Industries</a> to Steve Fincher (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00012672">Koch Industries</a> to Steve Pearce (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00009660">Koch Industries</a> to Steve Scalise (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00031204">Koch Industries</a> to Steve Southerland (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00031857">Koch Industries</a> to Steve Womack (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00025237">Koch Industries</a> to Steven A. King (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00029675">Koch Industries</a> to Steven Brett Guthrie (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00031958">Koch Industries</a> to Steven Palazzo (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00026457">Koch Industries</a> to Ted Poe (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00031297">Koch Industries</a> to Tim Griffin (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00027649">Koch Industries</a> to Tim Huelskamp (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00031782">Koch Industries</a> to Tim Scott (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00026368">Koch Industries</a> to Tim Walberg (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00031741">Koch Industries</a> to Todd Rokita (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00030670">Koch Industries</a> to Todd Young (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00005601">Koch Industries</a> to Tom Coburn (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00025726">Koch Industries</a> to Tom Cole (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00030788">Koch Industries</a> to Tom Graves (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00004227">Koch Industries</a> to Tom Latham (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00026160">Koch Industries</a> to Tom Price (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00030880">Koch Industries</a> to Trey Gowdy (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00031005">Koch Industries</a> to Vicky Hartzler (R) in 2012</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2010&cid=N00030245">Koch Industries</a> to Bill Cassidy (R) in 2010</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2010&cid=N00008092">Koch Industries</a> to Blanche Lincoln (D) in 2010</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2010&cid=N00027441">Koch Industries</a> to Bob Corker (R) in 2010</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2010&cid=N00029838">Koch Industries</a> to Bobby Bright (D) in 2010</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2010&cid=N00029460">Koch Industries</a> to Charles Djou (R) in 2010</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2010&cid=N00005960">Koch Industries</a> to Charlie A. Gonzalez (D) in 2010</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2010&cid=N00029788">Koch Industries</a> to Cynthia Marie Lummis (R) in 2010</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2010&cid=N00008086">Koch Industries</a>��to Dave Camp (R) in 2010</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2010&cid=N00024871">Koch Industries</a> to David Scott (D) in 2010</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2010&cid=N00009659">Koch Industries</a> to David Vitter (R) in 2010</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2010&cid=N00029391">Koch Industries</a> to Erik Paulsen (R) in 2010</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2010&cid=N00005870">Koch Industries</a> to Gene Green (D) in 2010</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2010&cid=N00024862">Koch Industries</a> to Geoff Davis (R) in 2010</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2010&cid=N00029632">Koch Industries</a> to Gregg Harper (R) in 2010</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2010&cid=N00003473">Koch Industries</a> to Hal Rogers (R) in 2010</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2010&cid=N00024978">Koch Industries</a> to Henry Cuellar (D) in 2010</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2010&cid=N00009753">Koch Industries</a> to Jim Matheson (D) in 2010</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2010&cid=N00025330">Koch Industries</a> to Jo Bonner (R) in 2010</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2010&cid=N00003675">Koch Industries</a> to John Boehner (R) in 2010</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2010&cid=N00027565">Koch Industries</a> to John Campbell (R) in 2010</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2010&cid=N00006425">Koch Industries</a> to John Shadegg (R) in 2010</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2010&cid=N00013847">Koch Industries</a> to John Sullivan (R) in 2010</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2010&cid=N00002593">Koch Industries</a> to Johnny Isakson (R) in 2010</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2010&cid=N00005883">Koch Industries</a> to Kevin Brady (R) in 2010</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2010&cid=N00002872">Koch Industries</a> to Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R) in 2010</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2010&cid=N00026163">Koch Industries</a> to Lynn A. Westmoreland (R) in 2010</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2010&cid=N00005455">Koch Industries</a> to Marion Berry (D) in 2010</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2010&cid=N00013823">Koch Industries</a> to Mark Pryor (D) in 2010</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2010&cid=N00009775">Koch Industries</a> to Michael N. Castle (R) in 2010</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2010&cid=N00006263">Koch Industries</a> to Mike Simpson (R) in 2010</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2010&cid=N00029917">Koch Industries</a> to Parker Griffith (R) in 2010</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2010&cid=N00009920">Koch Industries</a> to Richard C. Shelby (R) in 2010</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2010&cid=N00009771">Koch Industries</a> to Shelley Moore Capito (R) in 2010</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2010&cid=N00005998">Koch Industries</a> to Solomon P. Ortiz (D) in 2010</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2010&cid=N00008091">Koch Industries</a> to Spencer Bachus (R) in 2010</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2010&cid=N00024992">Koch Industries</a> to Tim Murphy (R) in 2010</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2010&cid=N00008144">Koch Industries</a> to Todd Tiahrt (R) in 2010</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2010&cid=N00029018">Koch Industries</a> to Tom Rooney (R) in 2010</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009618">Koch Industries</a> to Adam H. Putnam (R) in 2008</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00002743">Koch Industries</a> to Allen Boyd (D) in 2008</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00012739">Koch Industries</a> to Ander Crenshaw (R) in 2008</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009570">Koch Industries</a>��to Artur Davis (D) in 2008</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009154">Koch Industries</a> to Bob Goodlatte (R) in 2008</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00002460">Koch Industries</a> to Bob Inglis (R) in 2008</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00026840">Koch Industries</a> to Charles J. Melancon (D) in 2008</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00003341">Koch Industries</a> to Charles W. “Chip” Pickering Jr. (R) in 2008</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00005794">Koch Industries</a> to Chet Edwards (D) in 2008</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00006349">Koch Industries</a> to Chris Cannon (R) in 2008</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00006932">Koch Industries</a> to David Dreier (R) in 2008</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009157">Koch Industries</a> to Doc Hastings (R) in 2008</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00007999">Koch Industries</a> to Don Young (R) in 2008</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00008071">Koch Industries</a> to Elizabeth Dole (R) in 2008</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00004291">Koch Industries</a> to F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R) in 2008</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00007507">Koch Industries</a> to George Radanovich (R) in 2008</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00013837">Koch Industries</a> to Gresham Barrett (R) in 2008</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009573">Koch Industries</a> to Jeff Flake (R) in 2008</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00004745">Koch Industries</a> to Jerry Weller (R) in 2008</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00003132">Koch Industries</a> to Jim Cooper (D) in 2008</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00005414">Koch Industries</a> to Jim McCrery (R) in 2008</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00013873">Koch Industries</a> to John Boozman (R) in 2008</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00001783">Koch Industries</a> to John D. Dingell (D) in 2008</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00000397">Koch Industries</a> to John E. Sununu (R) in 2008</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00003254">Koch Industries</a> to John Tanner (D) in 2008</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00012560">Koch Industries</a> to Jon Porter (R) in 2008</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00008799">Koch Industries</a> to Kay Granger (R) in 2008</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00002091">Koch Industries</a> to Larry Craig (R) in 2008</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00003264">Koch Industries</a> to Lincoln Davis (D) in 2008</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00025054">Koch Industries</a> to Marilyn Musgrave (R) in 2008</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00003844">Koch Industries</a> to Mark E. Souder (R) in 2008</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00007068">Koch Industries</a> to Mary Bono Mack (R) in 2008</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00027781">Koch Industries</a> to Mary Fallin (R) in 2008</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00005395">Koch Industries</a> to Mary L. Landrieu (D) in 2008</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00007419">Koch Industries</a> to Mike Thompson (D) in 2008</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00013870">Koch Industries</a> to Norm Coleman (R) in 2008</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009759">Koch Industries</a> to Rick Larsen (D) in 2008</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00005244">Koch Industries</a> to Sam Brownback (R) in 2008</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00003924">Koch Industries</a> to Steve Buyer (R) in 2008</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00002327">Koch Industries</a> to Sue Myrick (R) in 2008</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00007997">Koch Industries</a> to Ted Stevens (R) in 2008</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00027281">Koch Industries</a> to Thelma Drake (R) in 2008</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00012508">Koch Industries</a> to Tom Carper (D) in 2008</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00002045">Koch Industries</a> to Tom Davis (R) in 2008</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00006423">Koch Industries</a>��to Trent Franks (R) in 2008</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00000983">Koch Industries</a> to Vito Fossella (R) in 2008</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00007584">Koch Industries</a> to Wally Herger (R) in 2008</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00027644">Koch Industries</a> to William T. Sali (R) in 2008</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00003159">Koch Industries</a> to Zach Wamp (R) in 2008</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2006&cid=N00007833">Koch Industries</a> to Adam Smith (D) in 2006</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2006&cid=N00003392">Koch Industries</a> to Anne M. Northup (R) in 2006</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2006&cid=N00006242">Koch Industries</a> to Barbara Cubin (R) in 2006</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2006&cid=N00007256">Koch Industries</a> to Bill Thomas (R) in 2006</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2006&cid=N00026786">Koch Industries</a> to Bobby Jindal (R) in 2006</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2006&cid=N00003042">Koch Industries</a> to Bud Cramer (D) in 2006</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2006&cid=N00002383">Koch Industries</a> to Charles H. Taylor (R) in 2006</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2006&cid=N00012586">Koch Industries</a> to Chris Chocola (R) in 2006</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2006&cid=N00005178">Koch Industries</a> to Christopher ��Kit” Bond (R) in 2006</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2006&cid=N00006246">Koch Industries</a> to Craig Thomas (R) in 2006</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2006&cid=N00024874">Koch Industries</a> to Dennis Cardoza (D) in 2006</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2006&cid=N00004781">Koch Industries</a> to Dennis Hastert (R) in 2006</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2006&cid=N00007422">Koch Industries</a> to Ellen O. Tauscher (D) in 2006</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2006&cid=N00003350">Koch Industries</a> to Gene Taylor (D) in 2006</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2006&cid=N00009957">Koch Industries</a> to George Allen (R) in 2006</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2006&cid=N00004527">Koch Industries</a> to Gil Gutknecht (R) in 2006</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2006&cid=N00001171">Koch Industries</a> to Gregory W. Meeks (D) in 2006</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2006&cid=N00005985">Koch Industries</a> to Henry Bonilla (R) in 2006</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2006&cid=N00005004">Koch Industries</a> to James M. Talent (R) in 2006</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2006&cid=N00005218">Koch Industries</a> to Jim Ryun (R) in 2006</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2006&cid=N00002599">Koch Industries</a>��to John Linder (R) in 2006</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2006&cid=N00001276">Koch Industries</a> to John M. McHugh (R) in 2006</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2006&cid=N00002061">Koch Industries</a> to John W. Warner (R) in 2006</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2006&cid=N00009670">Koch Industries</a> to Mark Kennedy (R) in 2006</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2006&cid=N00009715">Koch Industries</a> to Melissa Hart (R) in 2006</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2006&cid=N00013869">Koch Industries</a> to Michael E. Sodrel (R) in 2006</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2006&cid=N00000766">Koch Industries</a> to Mike Ferguson (R) in 2006</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2006&cid=N00002356">Koch Industries</a> to Mike McIntyre (D) in 2006</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2006&cid=N00002610">Koch Industries</a> to Nathan Deal (R) in 2006</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2006&cid=N00001427">Koch Industries</a> to Phil English (R) in 2006</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2006&cid=N00005407">Koch Industries</a> to Richard Baker (R) in 2006</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2006&cid=N00007516">Koch Industries</a> to Richard W. Pombo (R) in 2006</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2006&cid=N00002171">Koch Industries</a> to Rick Boucher (D) in 2006</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2006&cid=N00001380">Koch Industries</a> to Rick Santorum (R) in 2006</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2006&cid=N00002315">Koch Industries</a> to Robin Hayes (R) in 2006</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2006&cid=N00004403">Koch Industries</a> to Ron Kind (D) in 2006</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2006&cid=N00002674">Koch Industries</a>��to Sanford D. Bishop Jr (D) in 2006</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2006&cid=N00004426">Koch Industries</a> to Tom Petri (R) in 2006</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2006&cid=N00003329">Koch Industries</a> to Trent Lott (R) in 2006</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2006&cid=N00002167">Koch Industries</a> to Virgil H. Goode Jr (R) in 2006</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2004&cid=N00005372">Koch Industries</a> to Billy Tauzin (R) in 2004</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2004&cid=N00008038">Koch Industries</a> to Chris John (D) in 2004</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2004&cid=N00005617">Koch Industries</a> to Don Nickles (R) in 2004</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2004&cid=N00003762">Koch Industries</a> to Evan Bayh (D) in 2004</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2004&cid=N00008166">Koch Industries</a> to George R. Nethercutt Jr (R) in 2004</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2004&cid=N00007815">Koch Industries</a> to Gordon H. Smith (R) in 2004</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2004&cid=N00007823">Koch Industries</a> to Jennifer Dunn (R) in 2004</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2004&cid=N00002926">Koch Industries</a>��to Jim Davis (D) in 2004</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2004&cid=N00004484">Koch Industries</a> to Jim Ramstad (R) in 2004</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2004&cid=N00000616">Koch Industries</a> to Joe Lieberman (D) in 2004</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2004&cid=N00003209">Koch Industries</a> to John J. Duncan Jr (R) in 2004</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2004&cid=N00006406">Koch Industries</a> to Jon L. Kyl (R) in 2004</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2004&cid=N00003444">Koch Industries</a> to Ken Lucas (D) in 2004</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2004&cid=N00002898">Koch Industries</a>��to Mark Foley (R) in 2004</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2004&cid=N00004690">Koch Industries</a> to Peter G. Fitzgerald (R) in 2004</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2004&cid=N00024931">Koch Industries</a> to Rick Renzi (R) in 2004</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2004&cid=N00008028">Koch Industries</a> to Sam Johnson (R) in 2004</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2004&cid=N00005892">Koch Industries</a> to Tom DeLay (R) in 2004</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2002&cid=N00006202">Koch Industries</a> to Ben Nighthorse Campbell (R) in 2002</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2002&cid=N00009704">Koch Industries</a>��to Brad R. Carson (D) in 2002</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2002&cid=N00007936">Koch Industries</a> to Brian Baird (D) in 2002</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2002&cid=N00007251">Koch Industries</a> to Cal Dooley (D) in 2002</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2002&cid=N00003258">Koch Industries</a> to Ed Bryant (R) in 2002</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2002&cid=N00005528">Koch Industries</a> to J. C. Watts Jr (R) in 2002</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2002&cid=N00003437">Koch Industries</a> to Jim Bunning (R) in 2002</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2002&cid=N00005385">Koch Industries</a> to John Breaux (D) in 2002</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2002&cid=N00006619">Koch Industries</a> to John Ensign (R) in 2002</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2002&cid=N00005675">Koch Industries</a> to Kay Bailey Hutchison (R) in 2002</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2002&cid=N00009975">Koch Industries</a>��to Lindsey Graham (R) in 2002</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2002&cid=N00006267">Koch Industries</a> to Mike Crapo (R) in 2002</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2000&cid=N00004440">Koch Industries</a> to Bill Luther (D) in 2000</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2000&cid=N00005303">Koch Industries</a> to Bob Kerrey (D) in 2000</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2000&cid=N00006981">Koch Industries</a> to Brian P. Bilbray (R) in 2000</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2000&cid=N00006060">Koch Industries</a> to Charles W. Stenholm (D) in 2000</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2000&cid=N00004547">Koch Industries</a> to David Minge (D) in 2000</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2000&cid=N00005638">Koch Industries</a> to Dick Armey (R) in 2000</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2000&cid=N00002877">Koch Industries</a> to E. Clay Shaw Jr (R) in 2000</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2000&cid=N00003430">Koch Industries</a> to Ernie Fletcher (R) in 2000</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2000&cid=N00006455">Koch Industries</a> to J. D. Hayworth (R) in 2000</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2000&cid=N00006832">Koch Industries</a> to James E. Rogan (R) in 2000</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2000&cid=N00004255">Koch Industries</a> to Jim Nussle (R) in 2000</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2000&cid=N00005731">Koch Industries</a> to Jim Turner (D) in 2000</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2000&cid=N00005165">Koch Industries</a> to John Ashcroft (R) in 2000</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2000&cid=N00004391">Koch Industries</a> to Mark Green (R) in 2000</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2000&cid=N00004468">Koch Industries</a> to Rod Grams (R) in 2000</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2000&cid=N00005597">Koch Industries</a> to Steve Largent (R) in 2000</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2000&cid=N00008048">Koch Industries</a> to Steven T. Kuykendall (R) in 2000</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2000&cid=N00000491">Koch Industries</a> to Susan Collins (R) in 2000</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2000&cid=N00003828">Koch Industries</a> to Tim Roemer (D) in 2000</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2000&cid=N00009082">Koch Industries</a> to Wayne Allard (R) in 2000</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2000&cid=N00005580">Koch Industries</a> to Wes Watkins (R) in 2000</li>

<li><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2000&cid=N00001664">Koch Industries</a> to William V. Roth Jr (R) in 2000</li>

</ul>

There��s undoubtedly a good, non-cronyism reason that Koch Industries is so generous; we look forward to Charles’ essay on that.

And this doesn’t even include the Kochs’ contributions to the shadowy world of the super PACs. Last month, ProPublica determined that the Americans for Prosperity PAC, founded by Charles and his brother David, was <a href="http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/08/15/rove-and-koch-super-pacs-outpace-spending-by-all-others/">one of two PACs that outspent all other PACs combined</a>. (The other massive super PAC is Karl Rove’s.) At last reporting, AFP has <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/detail.php?cmte=Americans+for+Prosperity">spent over $30 million in opposition to President Obama</a>.

Koch, in the Wall Street Journal, also preaches that businesses ought to “act lawfully and with integrity.” Which makes this anecdote from <a href="http://seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/2016406328_kochbribes09.html">the Seattle Times</a> pertinent:

In May 2008, a unit of Koch Industries sent its newly hired compliance officer and ethics manager to investigate the management of a subsidiary in France. In less than a week, she discovered that the company had paid bribes to win contracts. …

“Those activities constitute violations of criminal law,” Koch Industries wrote in a Dec. 8, 2008, letter giving details of its findings. The letter was made public in a civil court ruling in France in September 2010; the document has never before been reported by the media.

Egorova-Farines wasn’t rewarded for bringing the illicit payments to the company’s attention. Her superiors removed her from the inquiry in August 2008 and fired her in June 2009, calling her incompetent, even after Koch’s investigators substantiated her findings....<a href="http://grist.org/news/charles-koch-americas-largest-crony-capitalist-takes-on-crony-capitalism/">http://grist.org/news/charles-koch-americas-largest-crony-capitalist-takes-on-crony-capitalism/</a>

</blockquote>

===

alternet:

<h2 property="dc:title" datatype="" class="node-title" style="">Romney's Veep Pick: Paul Ryan, Koch Ally and 'Right-Wing Social Engineer'</h2>

<div class="submitted" style="">Submitted by Addie on Sat, 2012-08-11 02:13</div>

<div class="field-label">Headline: </div>

<div class="field-item even">Romney's Veep Pick: Paul Ryan, Koch Ally and 'Right-Wing Social Engineer'</div>

</div>

This post has been updated.

It's official: The Republican Party is now officially a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Koch brothers' political enterprise. How else to explain Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney's pick of Rep. Paul Ryan, Wis., as his running mate. Yes, that Paul Ryan -- chairman of the House Budget Committee and author of the infamous Ryan roadmap budget plan, which promises to turn Medicare into a privatized voucher system, and yank health care from millions of children whose parents happen to be poor. And that's just the beginning. In addition to a raft of cuts, the Ryan plan would end the Earned Income Tax Credit, which millions of parents count on.

It's a plan that even former House Speaker Newt Gingrich deemed too "radical." Asked by NBC's David Gregory to respond to Ryan's proposal, Gingrich <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsHw92j9P0Q">famously said</a> [1]��(video): "I don't think right-wing social engineering is any more desirable than left-wing social engineering. I don't think imposing radical change from the right or the left is a very good way for a free society to operate." (Of course that was before Gingrich <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/17/gingrich-apologizes-paul-ryan-right-wing-social-engineering-criticism/#ixzz23DfTabbG">walked back</a> [2] those remarks, apparently reminded by some savvy operative that he might not want to anger the Kochs, to whom Ryan, 42, is something of a youthful ward, having been the beneficiary of years of support from the Koch-founded Americans For Prosperity.)

In case anyone should miss the point that Ryan is a very Kochy guy, Romney did his big reveal of running-mate Ryan this morning aboard the U.S.S. Wisconsin, a decommisioned ship docked in the all-important swing state of Virginia. However important Virginia is to the electoral math, Wisconsin is a highly symbolic icon for the Tea Party. It's not only Ryan's home state; it's the poster state of right-wing triumph, the place where Gov. Scott Walker successfully fended off a recall attempt made by progressives in response to a bill he rammed through the state legislature that all but ended collective bargaining for the state's public employees. Much of the credit for Wisconsin's right turn goes to Americans For Prosperity, which boasts a particularly aggressive Wisconsin chapter, which began building a network of activists there in 2005.

Ryan's association with the group goes back almost that far. In 2008, he was <a href="http://www.alternet.org/story/149965/wisconsin_is_a_battleground_against_the_billionaire_kochs%27_plan_to_break_labor%27s_back">granted</a> [3] the Wisconsin AFP chapter's "Defending the American Dream" award, handed to him by a young county executive who served as emcee for those festivities -- a guy named Scott Walker. Since then, he has made countless appearances on the group's behalf, at anti-health-care reform rallies on Capitol Hill, on conference town halls across the country and at Americans For Prosperity and Americans For Prosperity Foundation events. (Just enter Ryan's name into the search engine on the Amerians For Prosperity Web site, and you'll come up with <a href="http://americansforprosperity.org/search/Paul+Ryan/">eight pages</a> [4] of citations.) In fact, Ryan was due to speak at last week's conference sponsored by the AFP Foundation in Washington, D.C., forcing increased speculation about his running-mate prospects when he <a href="http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/08/paul-ryans-weekend-131130.html">failed to show</a> [5].

For Romney, the pluses in picking Ryan are these: the Tea Partiers, who are less than wild about Mittens, really love them some Paul Ryan -- as does David Koch, who will be seated as a Romney delegate at the Republican National Convention in Tampa. Koch and his brother, Charles -- the mbillionaire owners of Koch Industries, the second largest privately held corporation in the U.S. -- are major donors, not only to political candidates, but to <a href="http://www.alternet.org/story/150520/you_thought_the_koch_brothers_were_bad_turns_out_they%27re_even_worse_than_you_thought?paging=off">a range of right-wing think tanks and groups</a> [6]. In the post-Citizens United world, those donations add up to millions in political advertisements by all manner of non-profit groups. Already, Americans For Prosperity has made a <a href="http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2012/08/afp-to-announce-a-new-27-million-ad-buy-against-obama/1#.UCYW42NSREM">$27 million air-time buy</a> [7] for running anti-Obama ads.

Romney already owes some of his success in the primary season to Koch's favorite politicians in Wisconsin. Remember Rick Santorum? Right-wing base types -- Christian evangelicals and Tea Partiers -- just loved him. He was giving Romney a whole lotta agita during the primaries -- first stealing Romney's reported win in the Iowa caucuses back from the Mittster in a recount, and nearly besting Romney in Michigan, where Romney grew up.

In the weeks leading up to the Wisconsin primary, Santorum was running double-digits ahead of Romney. But then <a href="http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/876280/did_the_koch_machine_put_romney_over_the_top_in_wisconsin">Paul Ryan endorsed Romney</a> [8], and so did the Koch-bought U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson. When Ryan began campaigning with Romney in the final days of the campaign, the crowds at Romney events seemed to swell. While conventional wisdom holds that endorsements don't amount to a hill of beans, conventional wisdom had an epic #FAIL on Wisconsin's primary night, when <a href="http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/876280/did_the_koch_machine_put_romney_over_the_top_in_wisconsin">60 percent of those responding in exit polls</a> [8] said that Romney's endorsers influenced their vote. (Romney also won the endorsements of a number of Americans For Prosperity-backed state legislators.)

</div>

==

patriot maj says kochs will spend 400M$ this yr

===

tp bk remake: 2/27 crowds small, but post Fox 100 of K? 8

aug rx town hall; 9/12/09 60-70K DC  p 8

ef AFP had Or for newbie congress ( gave populist cover )  esp TP Express

TP remake book:

2/27 crowds small, but post Fox 100 of K? 8

aug rx town hall; 9/12/09 60-70K DC  p 8

ef AFP had Or for newbie congress ( gave populist cover )  esp TP Express

FW --> TPP p10  TP is recycled old ideas , lots of misinfo 12

,,, TPP supp by FW, boosted net neitral which TP care/now nothing about; webinars; $ to trad gop consultant 109 note 71

TPP vaugue aims (no tax incrase) but never lists pgms to cut

TP more link to to Heritage than cato

agenda 21 talk

until 2008 some GOP into cap and trade, extend Rx, immigr reform 101 and compromise to get done

top 1% have 1/3 wealth, increase even after 2008 crash; gates can altr rx and educ policy 102

Koch did not have all the clout they wanted w/ CTT, so use TP, push gop to right and make sure it stys there 103

day after santelli rant FW sent out staff (no cite)  kibbe and armey wrote TP manual 104

CSE got 13mil$; shifted to AFP after breakup (cause not given) 104  FW town halls

afp maillist 270K 2008 to 1.5 mil 2011, coord ppl in 32 states 105 eg WI scott ~ unions 2008 ryan award

afp etc do not so much control TP as get them made and give a simplistic worldview 116

loose ties work well enough (and allows distance from failures) and scandals

rx town halls hyped by press; CNN called FW  a "leading grassroots org"�� tho armey insider lobbyist

...

kochs want to remake and discipline gop ; TP "go nuclear" if compromise

effect on 2010 exxag: most gps less than 50, no budget, did not endorese, not much GOTV

TPE and FW rode TP wave, not cause 159

but helped in that end run around damaged gop brand; funneled $ to cands not thru party; media coverage 160

armey did orientation , no compromise (no problem biz as usual lobbying etc) 173 maj leader under newt, did complex deals

david koch smchmmozed; TP hird longtime lobbyists p 174 note 55 eg matt canham SL trib 11/11/10 eggen pompeo koch wapo

FW tech support TP

FW etc want to convert soc programs into market subsidies 191 (obamacare sorta does that?]

FW etc has more connections/strings into TP/grasroots?

FW --> TPP p10  TP is recycled old ideas , lots of misinfo 12

��

===

video search engine?  <a href="http://www.rtbot.net/astro_turf_wars">http://www.rtbot.net/astro_turf_wars</a>  kerpin denies denial  <a href="http://www.rtbot.net/play.php?id=TGTYo98bKsc">http://www.rtbot.net/play.php?id=TGTYo98bKsc</a>

----

<div class="print-submitted" style="">y Steve Horn</div>

<div class="print-created" style="">Created 2012-03-07 10:59</div>

</div>

<div class="node-blog-user-name"><a title="View user profile." href="http://www.desmogblog.com/bio/7018/steve-horn">Steve Horn</a> [1]</div>

</div>

<h1 class="title" style=""><a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/kochtopus-cato-institute-power-grab-historical-perspective">Kochtopus Cato Institute Power Grab: A Historical Perspective</a> </h1>

<div class="filefield-file"><img src="/3afeeee3-46a2-5782-8ef5-33a3ebab71b5.png"/><a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/blogimages/Kochtopus-3_0_0.png" type="image/png; length=256103">Kochtopus-3_0.png</a> [7]</div>

</div>

A new chapter is being added to the ongoing Kochtopus saga. On March 1 the Washington Post, in a <a target="blank" href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/think-tanked/post/koch-brothers-sue-cato-institute-president/2012/03/01/gIQAUoHMkR_blog.html?tid=pm_politics_pop">story</a> [8] sure to fill the airwaves for the weeks and months to come, revealed the <a target="blank" href="http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/04/04/207816/kochtopus/">Kochtopus</a> [9] is suing the Cato Institute for control of the recently deceased and former Cato Chairman <a target="blank" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=William_A.Niskanen">William Niskanen</a> [10]'s ownership share in the think-tank.

The <a target="blank" href="http://www.counterpunch.org/2010/10/19/the-koch-empire-and-americans-for-prosperity/">Koch Empire</a> [11] was recently <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/heartland-institute-manifestation-kochtopus-empire">outed by DeSmogBlog</a> [12] as a key seed funder of the climate change denier think-tank, the <a target="blank" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute">Heartland Institute</a> [13]. Heartland's internal documents were recently leaked to DeSmogBlog (see "<a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/heartland-institute-exposed-internal-documents-unmask-heart-climate-denial-machine">Heartland Exposed</a> [14]").

Billionaire oil baron Charles Koch is now waging war against another entity that was created with Koch seed money decades ago: <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/heartland-institute-manifestation-kochtopus-empire">the Cato Institute</a> [12].

The Post <a target="_blank" href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/think-tanked/post/koch-brothers-sue-cato-institute-president/2012/03/01/gIQAUoHMkR_blog.html?tid=pm_politics_pop">explained</a> [8] succinctly:

At the heart of the dispute is the fate of the shares owned by Niskanen, who died in October at age 78 of complications from a stroke. The Koch brothers believe that they have the option to buy Niskanen’s shares, while Cato officials believe that the shares belong to Niskanen’s widow, Kathryn Washburn, according to the complaint.

</blockquote>

Cato's <a href="http://desmogblog.com/patrick-michaels">Pat Michaels</a> [15] is a key player in the world of climate change denial, "<a target="_blank" href="http://www.amazon.com/Merchants-Doubt-Handful-Scientists-Obscured/dp/1596916109">sowing the seeds of doubt</a> [16]" on human-caused climate change.

That said, Cato has also stood up for key libertarian principles in the past that do not fit a partisan framework. Among them: <a target="blank" href="http://www.cato.org/civil-liberties">protection of civil liberties</a> [17], <a target="blank" href="http://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/empire-strikes-out-new-imperialism-its-fatal-flaws">opposition to imperialism</a> [18], <a target="blank" href="http://www.cato.org/drug-war">opposition to the war on drugs</a> [19], <a target="blank" href="http://www.cato.org/publications/white-paper/overkill-rise-paramilitary-police-raids-america">opposition to the militarization</a> [20] of domestic law enforcement agencies, and <a target="_blank" href="http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/government-shouldnt-police-morals-or-sexual-practices">support for gay rights</a> [21], to name several.

A brief overview of the key movers and shakers behind Cato's ascendancy is important to understand the rise of the Koch Empire and the split between the faux-libertarians and the true libertarians.

<h3>Murray Rothbard, the Kochs, the Austrian School and the Rise of Cato�� </h3>

It all <a target="blank" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato_Institute#History">began nearly 40 years ago</a> [22] in Wichita, Kansas, corporate headquarters of <a target="blank" href="http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Koch_Industries">Koch Industries</a> [23], now and then the centerpiece of the potent Kochtopus machine. The Cato Institute was <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato_Institute#History" target="_blank" style=" line-height: 11px;">founded in 1974 and originally funded</a> [22] by Charles Koch, of Koch Industries fame and fortune.

The name "Cato Institute" <a target="blank" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato%27s_Letters#Influence">came from</a> [24] "<a target="blank" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato%27s_Letters">Cato's Letters</a> [25]," which Wikipedia explains were "essays condemning tyranny and advancing principles of freedom of conscience and freedom of speech, [and] were a main vehicle for spreading the concepts that had been developed by [political theorist] <a target="_blank" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke">John Locke</a> [26]."

Often left out of the Cato historical discussion, though, is another key libertarian economist, political theorist, historian and former good friend of <a target="blank" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_G.Koch">Charles Koch</a> [27]: <a target="_blank" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_Rothbard">Murray Rothbard</a> [28].

Rothbard was a key thinker and writer advocating for the <a target="blank" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_School">Austrian School of Economics</a> [29], a school of thought current Republican Party Presidential candidate, <a target="blank" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul">Rep. Ron Paul (TX)</a> [30], also <a target="_blank" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=467hCNuGvNw">embraces</a> [31].

Rothbard was also one of the co-founders of the Cato Institute, as explained in a 2008 <a target="_blank" href="http://www.lewrockwell.com/gordon/gordon37.html">article written</a> [32] by David Gordon of the Ludwig Von Mises Institute.

The Austrian School's ideology is best represented today by a think-tank that gets little to no play in the mainstream media, the <a target="blank" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_von_Mises_Institute">Ludwig Von Mises Institute</a> [33], currently chaired by former Paul congressional chief of staff from 1978 to 1982, <a target="blank" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lew_Rockwell">Lew Rockwell</a> [34], and named after Austrian School economist <a target="blank" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_von_Mises">Ludwig Von Mises</a> [35], who was <a target="blank" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_Rothbard#Life_and_work">Rothbard's professor</a> [36].

The Von Mises Institute, it turns out, ended up filling the void left behind when Rothbard was <a target="_blank" href="http://www.lewrockwell.com/gordon/gordon86.1.html">strong-armed</a> [37] out of the Cato Institute by Charles Koch in the early 1980's.

Gordon <a target="_blank" href="http://www.lewrockwell.com/gordon/gordon37.html">explained</a> [32] Rothbard's departure, writing,

He thought that Cato's primary mission should be scholarship rather than political campaigns and attempts to secure audiences with the high and mighty in Washington. His antagonists emphatically disagreed

…Koch could not tolerate what they deemed blatant disloyalty. Even though Rothbard was the leading theorist of libertarianism and the Cato Institute had been established to promote his views, they expected him to obey the orders sent down from on high.

(Snip)

After Rothbard departed from Cato, he joined forces with the Mises Institute, established in 1982 by Lew Rockwell. The new group was a standing reproach to Koch…since its consistent defense, encouragement, and development of a Rothbardian program were exactly the program that the Cato Institute had betrayed. The Koch forces endeavored to strangle the new group in its cradle.

</blockquote>

The main difference between the Rothbardian crowd and the Koch crowd boils down to support for a pure free market vs. what the Rothbardian crowd calls a "<a target="_blank" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qE-44dn5gfM">corporatist</a> [38]" market.

In a 1983 essay, not long after the Cato falling out, Rothbard penned a short essay titled, "<a target="_blank" href="http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard99.html">The Business-Government Alliance</a> [39]," in which he wrote,

<blockquote>The push for the new corporate state was generated by an alliance between corporatist big-business groups and technocratic intellectuals, eager to help run and to apologize for the new system, which promised them a far plusher niche than did a freely competitive economy.</blockquote>

Perhaps it is no surprise after writing articles with passages like these that Rothbard and the Austrians were exiled from the Kochtopus network.

The term "<a target="blank" href="http://mises.org/daily/3412#III">Kochtopus</a> [40]" was coined by a Rothbard-inspired libertarian, <a target="blank" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Edward_Konkin_III">Samuel Edward Konkin III</a> [41], author of the <a target="_blank" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Libertarian_Manifesto">New Libertarian Manifesto</a> [42], published in 1975.

<h3>10 Years Later, Charles Koch Departs Cato</h3>

Rothbard's early 1980's exile from Cato meant that the Koch Brothers were running the show there, alongside <a target="blank" href="http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Edward_H.Crane">Edward Crane</a> [43], the current President and CEO.

When 1991 rolled around, though, Charles Koch jumped ship from Cato and started investing his money elsewhere. Journalist Dave Weigel <a target="_blank" href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2012/03/01/behind_the_cato_koch_kerfuffle.html">explained</a> [44],

…[I]n 1991…Charles Koch walked away.

"I have strong ideas," Koch…[said in an interview]. "I want to see things go in a certain direction, and Crane has strong ideas. I concluded, why argue with Ed? Rather than try to modify his strategy, just go do my own thing, and wish him well."

That was what happened. Koch took his money to other foundations. Crane kept building Cato. Contact was severed; in a 2010 interview, Crane told me that he never quite understood why Koch��bolted.

</blockquote>

Twenty years later, Charles Koch and his brother David are resurfacing in the Cato world, but the conflict rages on.

<h3>The Kochtopus Sues Cato in a "Power Grab"</h3>

In recent years, the Kochtopus is most famous for its funding of the <a target="blank" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Astroturf">astroturf</a> [45] Tea Party machine <a target="blank" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Americans_for_Prosperity">Americans for Prosperity</a> [46] (AFP), a tour de force in the world of <a target="blank" href="http://www.treehugger.com/corporate-responsibility/koch-industries-has-now-spent-55-million-funding-climate-denial.html">climate change denial</a> [47], <a target="blank" href="http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/02/22/145796/koch-ads-walker/">union-busting</a> [48], and in the sphere of <a target="_blank" href="http://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/detail.php?cmte=Americans+for+Prosperity&cycle=2010">electoral politics</a> [49].

The common theme to its AFP front group efforts: sheer corporatism, with a well-lubed GOP machine through which to push its corporate agenda at both the federal- and state-level.

Having funded and turned AFP into a powerful national political animal, the Kochtopus Cato power grab was a logical progression.

"Mr. Koch's actions in Kansas court yesterday represent an effort by him to transform Cato from an independent, nonpartisan research organization into a political entity that might better support his partisan agenda," <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/307627/20120301/koch-brothers-cato-institute-lawsuit.htm">said Crane</a> [50] of the lawsuit.

Crane went further this week, <a target="_blank" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/06/us/cato-institute-and-koch-in-rift-over-independence.html">telling the New York Times</a> [51]:

<blockquote>��This is an effort by the Kochs to turn the Cato Institute into some sort of auxiliary for the G.O.P.,” said Edward H. Crane, who is president of Cato and co-founded it with Charles Koch. “What he is doing now is detrimental to Cato, it’s detrimental to Koch Industries, it’s detrimental to the libertarian movement.”</blockquote>

There is some irony in the fact that Rothbard left Cato because he felt Crane and Koch had abandoned true Austrian School of Economics libertarian principles, and now Koch is taking it to a new extreme, desiring to transform Cato into a mere tentacle of the AFP political machine.

Equally ironic: AFP, a key piece of the Tea Party "movement," skyrocketed in popularity after it skillfully co-opted the original��<a target="_blank" href="http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view.bg?articleid=1051232">Ron Paul-led grassroots Tea Party movement</a> [52].

Coming full circle, it could be said that Rothbard has been vindicated after all.

<h3>Cato Employees Peeved and Ready to Fight</h3>

Cato will not go down without its guns blazing. Many <a target="blank" href="http://volokh.com/2012/03/03/koch-v-cato-a-view-from-cato/#more-56521">high-ranking employees</a> [53] other than Crane have come out with strong statements against the Koch maneuver. A "Save Cato" <a target="blank" href="http://www.facebook.com/savecato">Facebook</a> [54] and <a target="_blank" href="https://twitter.com/#%21/SaveCato">Twitter</a> [55] account have also been created.

Robert A. Levy, chairman of Cato��s board, said in an <a target="_blank" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/06/us/cato-institute-and-koch-in-rift-over-independence.html">interview with the New York Times</a> [51]:

“We can’t be perceived as a mouthpiece of special interests. The Cato Institute as we know it would be destroyed.”

“We already have major contributors who will say we are not contributing another dollar until we are sure that the Kochs are not calling the shots,” Mr. Levy said. “It is a fund-raising nightmare.”

</blockquote>

<a target="blank" href="http://www.cato.org/people/gene-healy">Gene Healy</a> [56], a Cato Vice President, stated in an <a target="blank" href="http://genehealy.com/2012/03/an-open-letter-to-koch-program-alumni/">open letter</a> [57],

<blockquote>"…I can’t begin to understand why Charles and David Koch have chosen a course of action that, if successful, would carelessly, pointlessly, and grievously injure the cause I thought they were fighting for."</blockquote>

<a target="blank" href="http://www.linkedin.com/in/jonathanblanks">Jonathan Blanks</a> [58], a Cato Research Assistant, <a target="blank" href="http://blanksslate.blogspot.com/2012/03/on-kochcato-fight.html">wrote on his blog</a> [59],

<blockquote>"…the Kochs' actions here have demonstrated they have no interest in maintaining it. Cato as a name will be irreparably damaged…and they'll have to start poaching Right-wing shops to fill the vacancies left by the resignations of people who refuse to associate themselves with this naked power grab."</blockquote>

<a target="blank" href="http://www.juliansanchez.com/about/">Julian Sanchez</a> [60], a Cato Research Fellow, went so far as to write a "Preresignation Letter" on his website, saying that if the Kochtopus wins the lawsuit, it's "game over" for him at Cato. He <a target="blank" href="http://www.juliansanchez.com/2012/03/05/cato-and-the-kochs-a-presignation-letter/">stated</a> [61],

<blockquote>"I hereby tender my pre-resignation from Cato, effective if and when the Kochs take command. I’ll be sad to go, if it comes to that, but sadder to see a proud institution lose its autonomy."</blockquote>

Stay tuned as the battle rages on.

</div>

<div class="taxonomy">TAGS: <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/4023" rel="tag" title="">AFP</a> [62], <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/4515" rel="tag" title="">Americans for Prosperity</a> [63], <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/8552" rel="tag" title="">Antiwar.com</a> [64], <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/8542" rel="tag" title="">Austrian School of Economics</a> [65], <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/tags/cato-institute" rel="tag" title="cato institute">cato institute</a> [66], <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/8560" rel="tag" title="">Cato's Letters</a> [67], <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/4902" rel="tag" title="">Charles Koch</a> [68], <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/8543" rel="tag" title="">Chicago School of Economics</a> [69], <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/939" rel="tag" title="">climate change</a> [70], <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/tags/climate-change-denial" rel="tag" title="climate change denial">climate change denial</a> [71], <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/3068" rel="tag" title="">climate change denier</a> [72], <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/8562" rel="tag" title="">corporatism</a> [73], <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/8563" rel="tag" title="">corporatist</a> [74], <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/8541" rel="tag" title="">David Gordon</a> [75], <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/4903" rel="tag" title="">David Koch</a> [76], <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/2860" rel="tag" title="">echo chamber</a> [77], <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/8544" rel="tag" title="">Edward Crane</a> [78], <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/8546" rel="tag" title="">Gene Healy</a> [79], <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/913" rel="tag" title="">global warming</a> [80], <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/2352" rel="tag" title="">global warming denial</a> [81], <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/2417" rel="tag" title="">global warming denier</a> [82], <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/tags/greenpeace" rel="tag" title="greenpeace">greenpeace</a> [83], <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/7407" rel="tag" title="">Greenpeace USA</a> [84], <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/8538" rel="tag" title="">Gulf War</a> [85], <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/8439" rel="tag" title="">Heartland Exposed</a> [86], <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/821" rel="tag" title="">Heartland Institute</a> [87], <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/7721" rel="tag" title="">Imperialism</a> [88], <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/2019" rel="tag" title="">iraq war</a> [89], <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/6539" rel="tag" title="">Jerry Taylor</a> [90], <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/8561" rel="tag" title="">John Locke</a> [91], <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/8548" rel="tag" title="">Jonathan Blanks</a> [92], <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/8545" rel="tag" title="">Julian Sanchez</a> [93], <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/7395" rel="tag" title="">Koch Empire</a> [94], <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/1800" rel="tag" title="">koch industries</a> [95], <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/5188" rel="tag" title="">Kochtopus</a> [96], <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/8540" rel="tag" title="">Lew Rockwell</a> [97], <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/8550" rel="tag" title="">Ludwig Von Mises</a> [98], <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/8549" rel="tag" title="">Ludwig Von Mises Institute</a> [99], <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/8539" rel="tag" title="">Murray Rothbard</a> [100], <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/8559" rel="tag" title="">New Libertarian Manifesto</a> [101], <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/1396" rel="tag" title="">pat michaels</a> [102], <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/tags/patrick-michaels" rel="tag" title="patrick michaels">patrick michaels</a> [103], <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/8553" rel="tag" title="">Randolph Bourne</a> [104], <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/8554" rel="tag" title="">Randolph Bourne Institute</a> [105], <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/8555" rel="tag" title="">Robert LeFevre</a> [106], <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/8556" rel="tag" title="">Robert LeFevre Liberty School</a> [107], <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/2256" rel="tag" title="">ron paul</a> [108], <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/8558" rel="tag" title="">Samuel Edward Konkin III</a> [109], <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/8551" rel="tag" title="">Thomas DiLorenzo</a> [110], <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/8547" rel="tag" title="">Volokh Conspiracy</a> [111], <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/8437" rel="tag" title="">War on Drugs</a> [112], <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/2000" rel="tag" title="">wikipedia</a> [113], <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/8557" rel="tag" title="">William Niskanen</a> [114]</div>

<div id="tweetbutton"><a target="_blank" href="http://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="none" data-url="http://www.desmogblog.com/kochtopus-cato-institute-power-grab-historical-perspective" data-text="Kochtopus Cato Institute Power Grab: A Historical Perspective">Tweet</a> [3]</div>

<a target="_blank" class="rpuRepostUsButton" href="https://secure.repost.us/syndicate/create" style=" float: left; padding: 5px 0px 5px 5px;"><img src="/f9ec7c70-0667-591b-a3a3-8e4d3cff6f94.png"/></a> [4]

</div>

<li class="taxonomy_term_4515"><a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/4515" rel="tag" title="">Americans for Prosperity</a></li>

<li class="taxonomy_term_8552"><a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/8552" rel="tag" title="">Antiwar.com</a></li>

<li class="taxonomy_term_8542"><a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/8542" rel="tag" title="">Austrian School of Economics</a></li>

<li class="taxonomy_term_124"><a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/tags/cato-institute" rel="tag" title="cato institute">cato institute</a></li>

<li class="taxonomy_term_8560"><a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/8560" rel="tag" title="">Cato's Letters</a></li>

<li class="taxonomy_term_4902"><a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/4902" rel="tag" title="">Charles Koch</a></li>

<li class="taxonomy_term_8543"><a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/8543" rel="tag" title="">Chicago School of Economics</a></li>

<li class="taxonomy_term_939"><a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/939" rel="tag" title="">climate change</a></li>

<li class="taxonomy_term_492"><a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/tags/climate-change-denial" rel="tag" title="climate change denial">climate change denial</a></li>

<li class="taxonomy_term_3068"><a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/3068" rel="tag" title="">climate change denier</a></li>

<li class="taxonomy_term_8562"><a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/8562" rel="tag" title="">corporatism</a></li>

<li class="taxonomy_term_8563"><a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/8563" rel="tag" title="">corporatist</a></li>

<li class="taxonomy_term_8541"><a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/8541" rel="tag" title="">David Gordon</a></li>

<li class="taxonomy_term_4903"><a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/4903" rel="tag" title="">David Koch</a></li>

<li class="taxonomy_term_2860"><a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/2860" rel="tag" title="">echo chamber</a></li>

<li class="taxonomy_term_8544"><a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/8544" rel="tag" title="">Edward Crane</a></li>

<li class="taxonomy_term_8546"><a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/8546" rel="tag" title="">Gene Healy</a></li>

<li class="taxonomy_term_913"><a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/913" rel="tag" title="">global warming</a></li>

<li class="taxonomy_term_2352"><a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/2352" rel="tag" title="">global warming denial</a></li>

<li class="taxonomy_term_2417"><a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/2417" rel="tag" title="">global warming denier</a></li>

<li class="taxonomy_term_404"><a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/tags/greenpeace" rel="tag" title="greenpeace">greenpeace</a></li>

<li class="taxonomy_term_7407"><a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/7407" rel="tag" title="">Greenpeace USA</a></li>

<li class="taxonomy_term_8439"><a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/8439" rel="tag" title="">Heartland Exposed</a></li>

<li class="taxonomy_term_821"><a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/821" rel="tag" title="">Heartland Institute</a></li>

<li class="taxonomy_term_7721"><a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/7721" rel="tag" title="">Imperialism</a></li>

<li class="taxonomy_term_6539"><a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/6539" rel="tag" title="">Jerry Taylor</a></li>

<li class="taxonomy_term_8561"><a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/8561" rel="tag" title="">John Locke</a></li>

<li class="taxonomy_term_8548"><a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/8548" rel="tag" title="">Jonathan Blanks</a></li>

<li class="taxonomy_term_8545"><a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/8545" rel="tag" title="">Julian Sanchez</a></li>

<li class="taxonomy_term_7395"><a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/7395" rel="tag" title="">Koch Empire</a></li>

<li class="taxonomy_term_1800"><a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/1800" rel="tag" title="">koch industries</a></li>

<li class="taxonomy_term_5188"><a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/5188" rel="tag" title="">Kochtopus</a></li>

<li class="taxonomy_term_8540"><a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/8540" rel="tag" title="">Lew Rockwell</a></li>

<li class="taxonomy_term_8550"><a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/8550" rel="tag" title="">Ludwig Von Mises</a></li>

<li class="taxonomy_term_8549"><a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/8549" rel="tag" title="">Ludwig Von Mises Institute</a></li>

<li class="taxonomy_term_8539"><a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/8539" rel="tag" title="">Murray Rothbard</a></li>

<li class="taxonomy_term_8559"><a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/8559" rel="tag" title="">New Libertarian Manifesto</a></li>

<li class="taxonomy_term_1396"><a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/1396" rel="tag" title="">pat michaels</a></li>

<li class="taxonomy_term_123"><a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/tags/patrick-michaels" rel="tag" title="patrick michaels">patrick michaels</a></li>

<li class="taxonomy_term_8553"><a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/8553" rel="tag" title="">Randolph Bourne</a></li>

<li class="taxonomy_term_8554"><a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/8554" rel="tag" title="">Randolph Bourne Institute</a></li>

<li class="taxonomy_term_8555"><a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/8555" rel="tag" title="">Robert LeFevre</a></li>

<li class="taxonomy_term_8556"><a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/8556" rel="tag" title="">Robert LeFevre Liberty School</a></li>

<li class="taxonomy_term_8558"><a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/8558" rel="tag" title="">Samuel Edward Konkin III</a></li>

<li class="taxonomy_term_8551"><a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/8551" rel="tag" title="">Thomas DiLorenzo</a></li>

<li class="taxonomy_term_8547"><a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/8547" rel="tag" title="">Volokh Conspiracy</a></li>

<li class="taxonomy_term_8437"><a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/8437" rel="tag" title="">War on Drugs</a></li>

<li class="taxonomy_term_2000"><a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/2000" rel="tag" title="">wikipedia</a></li>

<li class="taxonomy_term_8557 last"><a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/8557" rel="tag" title="">William Niskanen</a></li>

</ul>

</div>

<div class="print-source_url" style="">Source URL: <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/kochtopus-cato-institute-power-grab-historical-perspective">http://www.desmogblog.com/kochtopus-cato-institute-power-grab-historical-perspective</a></div>

<div class="print-links" style="">Links:

[1] http://www.desmogblog.com/bio/7018/steve-horn

[2] http://www.desmogblog.com/kochtopus-cato-institute-power-grab-historical-perspective

[3] http://twitter.com/share

[4] https://secure.repost.us/syndicate/create

[5] http://www.desmogblog.com/print/6106

[6] http://www.desmogblog.com/printmail/6106

[7] http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/blogimages/Kochtopus-3_0_0.png

[8] http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/think-tanked/post/koch-brothers-sue-cato-institute-president/2012/03/01/gIQAUoHMkR_blog.html?tid=pm_politics_pop

[9] http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/04/04/207816/kochtopus/

[10] http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=William_A._Niskanen

[11] http://www.counterpunch.org/2010/10/19/the-koch-empire-and-americans-for-prosperity/

[12] http://www.desmogblog.com/heartland-institute-manifestation-kochtopus-empire

[13] http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute

[14] http://www.desmogblog.com/heartland-institute-exposed-internal-documents-unmask-heart-climate-denial-machine

[15] http://desmogblog.com/patrick-michaels

[16] http://www.amazon.com/Merchants-Doubt-Handful-Scientists-Obscured/dp/1596916109

[17] http://www.cato.org/civil-liberties

[18] http://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/empire-strikes-out-new-imperialism-its-fatal-flaws

[19] http://www.cato.org/drug-war

[20] http://www.cato.org/publications/white-paper/overkill-rise-paramilitary-police-raids-america

[21] http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/government-shouldnt-police-morals-or-sexual-practices

[22] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato_Institute#History

[23] http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Koch_Industries

[24] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato%27s_Letters#Influence

[25] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato%27s_Letters

[26] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke

[27] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_G._Koch

[28] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_Rothbard

[29] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_School

[30] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul

[31] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=467hCNuGvNw

[32] http://www.lewrockwell.com/gordon/gordon37.html

[33] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_von_Mises_Institute

[34] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lew_Rockwell

[35] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_von_Mises

[36] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_Rothbard#Life_and_work

[37] http://www.lewrockwell.com/gordon/gordon86.1.html

[38] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qE-44dn5gfM

[39] http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard99.html

[40] http://mises.org/daily/3412#III

[41] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Edward_Konkin_III

[42] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Libertarian_Manifesto

[43] http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Edward_H._Crane

[44] http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2012/03/01/behind_the_cato_koch_kerfuffle.html

[45] http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Astroturf

[46] http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Americans_for_Prosperity

[47] http://www.treehugger.com/corporate-responsibility/koch-industries-has-now-spent-55-million-funding-climate-denial.html

[48] http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/02/22/145796/koch-ads-walker/

[49] http://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/detail.php?cmte=Americans+for+Prosperity&cycle=2010

[50] http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/307627/20120301/koch-brothers-cato-institute-lawsuit.htm

[51] http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/06/us/cato-institute-and-koch-in-rift-over-independence.html

[52] http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view.bg?articleid=1051232

[53] http://volokh.com/2012/03/03/koch-v-cato-a-view-from-cato/#more-56521

[54] http://www.facebook.com/savecato

[55] https://twitter.com/#!/SaveCato

[56] http://www.cato.org/people/gene-healy

[57] http://genehealy.com/2012/03/an-open-letter-to-koch-program-alumni/

[58] http://www.linkedin.com/in/jonathanblanks

[59] http://blanksslate.blogspot.com/2012/03/on-kochcato-fight.html

[60] http://www.juliansanchez.com/about/

[61] http://www.juliansanchez.com/2012/03/05/cato-and-the-kochs-a-presignation-letter/

[62] http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/4023

[63] http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/4515

[64] http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/8552

[65] http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/8542

[66] http://www.desmogblog.com/tags/cato-institute

[67] http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/8560

[68] http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/4902

[69] http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/8543

[70] http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/939

[71] http://www.desmogblog.com/tags/climate-change-denial

[72] http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/3068

[73] http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/8562

[74] http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/8563

[75] http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/8541

[76] http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/4903

[77] http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/2860

[78] http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/8544

[79] http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/8546

[80] http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/913

[81] http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/2352

[82] http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/2417

[83] http://www.desmogblog.com/tags/greenpeace

[84] http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/7407

[85] http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/8538

[86] http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/8439

[87] http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/821

[88] http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/7721

[89] http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/2019

[90] http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/6539

[91] http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/8561

[92] http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/8548

[93] http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/8545

[94] http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/7395

[95] http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/1800

[96] http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/5188

[97] http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/8540

[98] http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/8550

[99] http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/8549

[100] http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/8539

[101] http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/8559

[102] http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/1396

[103] http://www.desmogblog.com/tags/patrick-michaels

[104] http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/8553

[105] http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/8554

[106] http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/8555

[107] http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/8556

[108] http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/2256

[109] http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/8558

[110] http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/8551

[111] http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/8547

[112] http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/8437

[113] http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/2000

[114] http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/8557

[115] http://www.desmogblog.com/comment/reply/6106#comment-form

[116] http://www.desmogblog.com/subscribe-newsletter</div>

===

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) has made no secret of her position against environmental regulation, even going so far as <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/green/2011/06/14/244734/bachmann-declares-war-on-epa/">to propose renaming</a> the Environmental Protection Agency as ��the Job-Killing Organization of America” during a Republican primary debate.

A glance at her campaign finance records provides some clues as to why she ignores that <a href="http://articles.boston.com/2011-02-12/bostonglobe/29348628_1_job-losses-coal-plant-potential-job-growth">environmental protections create jobs</a> to take up such a radical stance on environmental deregulation.

Bachmann’s top campaign donors include one of the nation’s largest corporate polluters, Koch Industries. Koch has spent <a href="http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/com_supopp/C00236489/">$30,000 in support</a> of her political campaigns since she first ran for the House of Representatives in 2006. The figures for the latest quarter of Bachmann’s nascent presidential campaign have not yet been made available.

Petrochemical giant Koch Industries — which advances a conservative, deregulatory agenda through its large political network — donated $5,000 to Bachmann through its political action committee and ranked as the 29th top donor in her 2010 congressional race. The Koch brothers’ <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer">environmental track record</a> explains the attraction to the Minnesota congresswoman:

- Koch Industries has faced over $55 million in civil fine and settlement fees stemming from various oil spills, pollution incidents, and industry cover-ups, including one case in which the corporation was found <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer">guilty of negligence and malice</a> in the deaths of two Texas teens in a gas-leak explosion.

- Over <a href="http://projects.publicintegrity.org/Superfund/SiteResults.aspx?act=koch">13 Superfund sites</a> currently listed are linked to Koch Industries or one of its subsidiaries.

- They directly lobbied against <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientbills.php?id=D000000186&year=2009">environmental protection legislation</a>, including the Low-Carbon Fuel Standard Act, Clean Air Protection Act and the Superfund Polluter Pays Act.

- Koch Industries and their subsidiaries are <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/green/2010/11/08/174838/koch-epa-regulations/">attacking current EPA regulations</a> in order to pursue greater profits, ranging from the disclosure of unit-specific or facility-specific greenhouse pollution, national emissions standards for hazardous air pollutants from industrial boilers, all of the crude-oil, data-reporting requirements, tighter water-quality standards for stream-dumping, and the monitoring of chemical plant greenhouse pollution.

- An air-pollution study ranks the company 10th on the list of the <a href="http://www.peri.umass.edu/toxic_index/">top 100 air polluters</a> in 2010.

- Koch Industries may face additional costs of anywhere between $1 billion and $40 billion if Congress passed legislation to regulate carbon emissions, according to <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/green/2011/01/30/174900/koch-carbon-footprint/">ThinkProgress estimates</a>.

- Since 1997, the Koch brothers have spent <a href="http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/">$55 million </a>supporting climate-change skeptics, including the CATO Institute, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Americans for Prosperity, and the “Hot Air” Movement.

- After Virginia Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli announced that he would be suing the EPA over its claim that climate change endangers human health, David Koch gave the <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/05/24/978675/-Meet-Virginia-Attorney-General-Kochinelli">following remark</a>: “In the interest of full disclosure, I figured we may as well let the world know how proud we are of our investment in this guy.” Koch Industries donated $2,500 to <a href="http://www.vpap.org/committees/profile/money_in_donors/2038?end_year=2010&filing_period=all&filter_schedule=all&industry=all&limit=50&locality=all&lookup_type=year&order=amount&page=6&start_year=2009&zip_code=all">Cuccinelli’s 2010 campaign</a>, and the attorney general attended the infamous Koch retreat in Colorado this summer.

</blockquote>

It’s no surprise that <a href="http://www.trumanproject.org/posts/2011/03/minnesota-reps-taking-heat-moves-block-epa">Bachmann voted</a> for an amendment to the U.S. House spending bill that would stop the agency from regulating greenhouse gases through the end of 2011. Add to that <a href="http://www.dumpbachmann.com/2009/04/transcript-of-michele-bachmann-on-ksgo.html">her championing</a> of the infamous climate skeptic, Chris Horner, from the Competitive Enterprise Institute — which has received <a href="http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/competitive-enterprise-institu/">over $700,000</a> from the Kochs. In Bachmann, corporate polluters have an anti-science champion eager to defend their toxic interests.

–<a href="http://thinkprogress.org/about">Sarah Bufkin</a>

<ul>

<li><a href="http://thinkprogress.org/tag/environmental-protection-agency/">Environmental Protection Agency</a></li>

<li><a href="http://thinkprogress.org/tag/global-warming/">Global Warming</a></li>

<li><a href="http://thinkprogress.org/tag/koch-industries/">Koch Industries</a></li>

<li><a href="http://thinkprogress.org/tag/michele-bachmann/">Michele Bachmann</a></li>

</ul>

</div>

===

UPDATE 6/20/2012: Updated <a onclick="gaq.push(['link','http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/']);" title="koch greenpeace climate change science denial funding money" href="http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/">Koch funding to climate science denying front groups</a> is $61,375,781 from 1997-2010, over $37.7 million of which was spent from 2005-2010. Numbers in this blog have been updated to reflect the most up-to-date data.

Greenpeace is partnering with Brave New Foundation to promote its newest film, <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_U2XViH5HY">Koch Brothers Exposed</a>. Check out the movie trailer, <a href="http://promailv5.fulfillmentconcepts.com/v5fmsnet/SecureLogin/regLogin.asp?pos=BNF012&v=3&cst=Group4&pd=1234">pick up a copy</a> of the movie and <a href="http://www.kochbrothersexposed.com/take_action">register your own local premier</a> to help expose how Charles and David Koch’s money impacts the lives of all Americans.

The new numbers are in, ladies and gentleman: since 1997 the billionaire oil brothers Charles and David Koch have dumped over 61.3 million dollars into <a onclick="gaq.push(['link','http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/']);" href="http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/">front groups that attack climate science</a> and policies designed to solve global warming. According to the 2010 IRS records of their private foundations, the latest year available, the Koch brothers funneled another $4.38 million into the Climate Denial Machine from their private foundations.

Despite overwhelming consensus among climate change researchers and scientific institutions worldwide—including all the Academies of Sciences in industrialized countries, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, NASA and all other major US scientific institutions—recognition of global warming among Americans remains startlingly low. Fueled by Koch money, the Climate Denial Machine has executed an unceasing, anti-scientific and anti-regulatory public relations campaign that mirrors the tactics used by tobacco companies to deny the health consequences of smoking.

The top recipients of Koch money in the Climate Denial Machine include <a onclick="gaq.push(['link','http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/americans-for-prosperity-found/']);" href="http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/americans-for-prosperity-found/">Americans for Prosperity</a> ($5.7 million since 1997), the <a onclick="gaq.push(['link','http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/the-heritage-foundation/']);" href="http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/the-heritage-foundation/">Heritage Foundation</a> ($2.7 million), the <a onclick="gaq.push(['link','http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/cato-institute/']);" href="http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/cato-institute/">Cato Institute</a> ($1.2 million), and the <a onclick="gaq.push(['link','http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/the-manhattan-institute/']);" href="http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/the-manhattan-institute/">Manhattan Institute</a> ($1.2 million).

By dragging credible science into the agenda-driven realm of politics and vilifying the world’s most prominent climate researchers, dirty money and fossil fuel apologists have prevailed in polluting public opinion and blocking national policy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Koch Industries itself has been aggressive in dismissing global warming, even suing a group of young activists who created a spoof press release on behalf of Koch announcing that it would drop support for policy groups that belittle climate science.

Ironically, the Kochs funded research that concluded the planet is warming but failed to admit their hypocrisy. The Charles G. Koch Foundation gave $150,000 to the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) study in 2011, which was embraced by the denial machine until it redundantly re-confirmed that the surface of our planet has been warming increasingly for decades. While David Koch had previously claimed that “<a href="http://nymag.com/news/features/67285/index4.html">global warming could be good for the planet</a>,” neither Charles nor David has explained how the BEST study they funded contradicts their denial of climate change, including when <a href="http://www.polluterwatch.com/blog/degrading-american-dream-inside-koch%E2%80%99s-americans-prosperity-convention">Greenpeace activists asked David Koch</a> to his face—see the video for yourself.

<h2 style="">Koch Brothers Exposed: Decades of Undermining Democracy</h2>

Greenpeace’s updated Koch climate denial total is being announced in conjunction with the release of Brave New Foundation’s latest film: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_U2XViH5HY">Koch Brothers Exposed</a>. Koch Brothers Exposed examines the pervasive role that Charles and David Koch’s money has played in American politics and society, attacking what they see as political inconveniences ranging from pollution controls to public education to voting rights. Brave New Foundation is organizing screenings of Koch Brothers Exposed around the country—join the effort by grabbing <a href="http://promailv5.fulfillmentconcepts.com/v5fmsnet/SecureLogin/regLogin.asp?pos=BNF012&v=3&cst=Group4&pd=1234">your own copy</a> of Koch Brothers Exposed, <a href="http://www.kochbrothersexposed.com/take_action">registering your event</a> with Brave New Foundation, and inviting friends, family and community members to your own local premier of Koch Brothers Exposed!

��

The Kochs’ expensive campaign to attack science mirrors what our country is becoming more and more conscious of—how rich ideologies in the top 1% can exert substantial and undue influence on our lives, whether through policy, the courtroom, advertising, or tainting our education systems. What the Kochs have worked hard to avoid for decades is public scrutiny, a privilege they no longer have thanks to the hard work of people and organizations dedicated to exposing the Kochs’ self-serving political manipulations.

As influential and perversely organized as the Koch brothers are, it is important to also see the broader picture. Numerous other multi-millionaire families, foundations and corporations operate in similar and often coordinated ways with Charles and David Koch, forming an elite coalition that has been infiltrating our government and eroding our democracy for decades. Greenpeace points to the <a onclick="gaq.push(['link','http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/news-and-blogs/campaign-blog/the-lewis-powell-memo-corporate-blueprint-to-/blog/36466/']);" href="http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/news-and-blogs/campaign-blog/the-lewis-powell-memo-corporate-blueprint-to-/blog/36466/">Lewis Powell Memo</a> as a crucial example of how this <a onclick="gaq.push(['link','http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/news-and-blogs/campaign-blog/greenpeace-analyzes-the-lewis-powell-memo-cor/blog/36943/']);" href="http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/news-and-blogs/campaign-blog/greenpeace-analyzes-the-lewis-powell-memo-cor/blog/36943/">40-year campaign</a> was established and carried out behind the backs of the American people. The recent Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission Supreme Court decision is a major recent development of this coordinated campaign, as have been ongoing attacks on public workers, women, ethnic minorities and students.

The Kochs themselves demonstrate this corporate takeover of our democracy in their efforts to influence the politicians, judges, media and educational institutions:

<li>Koch Industries donates <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000186">millions</a> to state and federal politicians, spends millions more on lobbying them, and pressures them through campaigns such as Americans for Prosperity’s “No Climate Tax” pledge.</li>

</ul>

<li>The Kochs donate millions to influence judicial law through organizations like the Pacific Legal Foundation, and have brought Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas to their secretive and partisan <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2010/10/20/124642/beck-koch-chamber-meeting/">political fundraising and strategy meetings</a>.</li>

</ul>

<li>Koch operatives and allies <a onclick="gaq.push(['link','http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/CASE-STUDY-The-Kochtopus-Media-Network/']);" href="http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/CASE-STUDY-The-Kochtopus-Media-Network/">pervade media outlets</a> like the Wall Street Journal, the Examiner newspapers, and the Daily Caller. They donate tens of thousands of dollars to outlets like the American Spectator and the National Review.</li>

</ul>

<li>Koch foundations craft multi-million dollar <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/05/11/144280/koch-university-takeover/">contracts with universities</a> to influence their programs, such as influencing the hiring process in Florida State University’s economics department. George Mason University, which hosts the Koch founded and financed Mercatus Center and Institute for Humane Studies (IHS), has received over $13.81 million from Koch foundations from 2005-2010 (the most recent IRS tax information), on top of $9.84 million and $7.75 million to Mercatus and IHS respectively in the same period.</li>

</ul>

In addition to examining the distinct social movements that are most important to each of us, we also need to look at the full picture and find the areas in which our social advocacy jurisdictions overlap. Working through bold coalitions, we can move our country and world in a direction that is most beneficial to all of its inhabitants, not just oil billionaires like Charles and David Koch....

<a href="http://greenpeaceblogs.com/2012/04/02/koch-brothers-exposed-fueling-climate-denial-and-privatizing-democracy/">http://greenpeaceblogs.com/2012/04/02/koch-brothers-exposed-fueling-climate-denial-and-privatizing-democracy/</a>

==

</div>

</div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>

KOCH3

Attachments