Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

CHART: Koch Spends More Than Double Top Ten Unions Combined

POSTED AT 12:16 PM BY LEE FANG
The Wall Street Journal’s Kimberley Strassel either has no understanding of campaign finance, or is willfully misleading her readers. In either case, her column today about the Koch brothers’ political spending — which parrots a meme that has bounced around conservative blogs and websites like a bad chain e-mail — gets the facts about Koch spending versus union spending completely wrong.

In her column, “The Really Big Money? Not the Kochs,” Strassel cites a Center for Responsive Politics list to claim that unions “collectively spent $620,873,623 more than Koch Industries” on political races. Of course, if you actually visit this page on the CRP website, the list runs below a disclaimer noting that it does not include certain Super PAC spending or most undisclosed dark money spending, the preferred route for the Koch brothers for decades. In fact, the CRP site notes that union spending might appear inflated since unions traditional PAC spending is coupled with outside Super PAC spending. For the purposes of this chart, union spending is inflated compared to the giving of companies like Koch or Super PAC donors like Sheldon Adelson.

For the last election, Koch PAC spent $4.9 million in disclosed contributions (figures that appear on the chart referenced by Strassel). But they also spent over $407 million on undisclosed campaign entities, which does not show up in the CRP chart.

Republic Report broke down the figures for the last election and found that Koch groups alone spent more than double the combined political spending (including to undisclosed group) for the top ten unions combined. The chart includes union spending on dark money Democratic groups and Koch spending on dark money groups like Americans for Prosperity...

- See more at: http://www.republicreport.org/2014/unio ... x8Eit.dpuf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

kalm wrote:No, we don't need campaign finance reform, the Koch brothers are clearly bad businessmen, wasting over $400 million in the last election. And Harry Reid is a bad, bad man for calling them out on it.

(I would gladly get rid of union spending as well ).

CHART: Koch Spends More Than Double Top Ten Unions Combined

POSTED AT 12:16 PM BY LEE FANG
The Wall Street Journal’s Kimberley Strassel either has no understanding of campaign finance, or is willfully misleading her readers. In either case, her column today about the Koch brothers’ political spending — which parrots a meme that has bounced around conservative blogs and websites like a bad chain e-mail — gets the facts about Koch spending versus union spending completely wrong.

In her column, “The Really Big Money? Not the Kochs,” Strassel cites a Center for Responsive Politics list to claim that unions “collectively spent $620,873,623 more than Koch Industries” on political races. Of course, if you actually visit this page on the CRP website, the list runs below a disclaimer noting that it does not include certain Super PAC spending or most undisclosed dark money spending, the preferred route for the Koch brothers for decades. In fact, the CRP site notes that union spending might appear inflated since unions traditional PAC spending is coupled with outside Super PAC spending. For the purposes of this chart, union spending is inflated compared to the giving of companies like Koch or Super PAC donors like Sheldon Adelson.

For the last election, Koch PAC spent $4.9 million in disclosed contributions (figures that appear on the chart referenced by Strassel). But they also spent over $407 million on undisclosed campaign entities, which does not show up in the CRP chart.

Republic Report broke down the figures for the last election and found that Koch groups alone spent more than double the combined political spending (including to undisclosed group) for the top ten unions combined. The chart includes union spending on dark money Democratic groups and Koch spending on dark money groups like Americans for Prosperity...

- See more at: http://www.republicreport.org/2014/unio ... x8Eit.dpuf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

HI54UNI wrote:George Soros

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:We need balance

You guys have Soros, Buffett, the media, the unions, Hollywood and many other scummy private donors.


We have 2 brothers. Granted the numbers are skewed but it levels the playing field.

CID1990 wrote:Lions! Tigers! Bears! Koch Brothers! OH FVCKING MY!

bluehenbillk wrote:Anyone else find it hypocritical when they refer to all the "corruptness" in the Russian government....

Cluck U wrote:

bluehenbillk wrote:Anyone else find it hypocritical when they refer to all the "corruptness" in the Russian government....

Absolutely.

Some clown congresswoman was on TV the other day talking about how Russia's government was doing all these illegal things while Obama was a white knight in shining armor.

CNN commentators, or course, didn't take the dope to task.

JohnStOnge wrote:Is there anybody here who thinks that how much the Koch Brothers, George Soros, or the Unions spend influence how they vote?

Whether they're Unions or Koch Brothers people should be able to spend as much as they want in support of candidates they support. If people are influenced by that they get the government they deserve. If how much somebody spends in that way makes the difference in who you vote for you have no one to blame but yourself.

And it's not up to the government, or at least it SHOULD not be up to the government, to "protect" people from actually being influenced by ridiculous political advertising.

JohnStOnge wrote:Is there anybody here who thinks that how much the Koch Brothers, George Soros, or the Unions spend influence how they vote?

Whether they're Unions or Koch Brothers people should be able to spend as much as they want in support of candidates they support. If people are influenced by that they get the government they deserve. If how much somebody spends in that way makes the difference in who you vote for you have no one to blame but yourself.

And it's not up to the government, or at least it SHOULD not be up to the government, to "protect" people from actually being influenced by ridiculous political advertising.

Money can also stifle speech, John.

Over 90% of incumbents win elections and over 90% of the time, the candidate who spends the most, also wins. Sheldon Adelson, the Kochs, and Soros aren't donating to campaigns because they're stupid businessmen. They're spending money because they financially gain from it.

kalm wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:Is there anybody here who thinks that how much the Koch Brothers, George Soros, or the Unions spend influence how they vote?

Whether they're Unions or Koch Brothers people should be able to spend as much as they want in support of candidates they support. If people are influenced by that they get the government they deserve. If how much somebody spends in that way makes the difference in who you vote for you have no one to blame but yourself.

And it's not up to the government, or at least it SHOULD not be up to the government, to "protect" people from actually being influenced by ridiculous political advertising.

Money can also stifle speech, John.

Over 90% of incumbents win elections and over 90% of the time, the candidate who spends the most, also wins. Sheldon Adelson, the Kochs, and Soros aren't donating to campaigns because they're stupid businessmen. They're spending money because they financially gain from it.

JohnStOnge wrote:

Money can also stifle speech, John.

Over 90% of incumbents win elections and over 90% of the time, the candidate who spends the most, also wins. Sheldon Adelson, the Kochs, and Soros aren't donating to campaigns because they're stupid businessmen. They're spending money because they financially gain from it.

Again: Do you think how much someone spends determines how YOU vote?

UNI88 wrote:

kalm wrote:
Money can also stifle speech, John.

Over 90% of incumbents win elections and over 90% of the time, the candidate who spends the most, also wins. Sheldon Adelson, the Kochs, and Soros aren't donating to campaigns because they're stupid businessmen. They're spending money because they financially gain from it.

And Union intimidation and other tactics can't stifle free speech? Gee this is fun, let's try to make the other side's strengths look evil and pretend that our strengths are completely benign.

BlueHen86 wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:
Again: Do you think how much someone spends determines how YOU vote?

What difference does that make? I'm sure that there are lots of informed people who aren't swayed by ads, I'm sure there are lot of partisans who vote party line no matter what, and I'm sure that there are lots of undecided, uninformed voters who are swayed by ads. Those are the voters that the ads target, and they can decide an election.

Are those the people that you want deciding elections?

Grizalltheway wrote:

BlueHen86 wrote:
What difference does that make? I'm sure that there are lots of informed people who aren't swayed by ads, I'm sure there are lot of partisans who vote party line no matter what, and I'm sure that there are lots of undecided, uninformed voters who are swayed by ads. Those are the voters that the ads target, and they can decide an election.

Are those the people that you want deciding elections?

I think he's made it pretty clear he only wants white male landowners deciding elections.

BlueHen86 wrote: What difference does that make? I'm sure that there are lots of informed people who aren't swayed by ads, I'm sure there are lot of partisans who vote party line no matter what, and I'm sure that there are lots of undecided, uninformed voters who are swayed by ads. Those are the voters that the ads target, and they can decide an election.

Are those the people that you want deciding elections?