The Billionaire's Third Party

There has been quite a bit of discussion regarding the news that the Koch brothers leaked announcement that they intend to raise nearly a billion dollars for the 2016 Presidential election, through their well developed networks of dark money front groups.

Much of the discussion here on PF has been the usual back and forth Democrat Republican thing.

But these discussions beg the issue.

Dark money, money that is raised in secret and spent through third party "social welfare" organizations represent a real threat to democracy.

Conservatives cheered when the Supreme Court essentially gutted campaign finance disclosure laws with its Citizen's United decision.

The GOP quickly moved to exploit the loopholes in tax code to take advantage of the ruling. Democrats did too.

While the public often freely confuses Super Pacs with these dark money groups, they are very different. Super Pacs have to disclose the names of their donors. 501c4 and c6 groups do not.

The GOP used the 501c4 tax status to set up astroturf tea party groups all over the country. Their objectives were to rally the far right, while hiding the fact that the campaign was being orchestrated from Washington.

It worked, and it delivered them a mid term election victory in 2010, heavily financed by the new flood of secret corporate cash.

But the rise of third party groups financed by corporate cash also represented a threat to the party structure and the party's hold on both message and money.

This isn't just a problem for Republicans, Democrats recognize it too.

As Politico notes:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/67046.html

2012 saw an even greater erosion of party influence, as nearly half of all political giving by wealthy individuals went to dark money groups. The GOP in particular, found itself far more dependent on these groups and being able to cooperate with these groups than the Democrats did. For the GOP, the small donor became almost irrelevant.

Money is power in politics. No one knows that better than a politician. And politicians increasingly see that big money is planning on charting its own course.

That recognition, led the GOP to insist on raising the limits for individual donations to party PACs and Super PACs as part of the lame duck deal at the end of the last Congress, and why the Democrats went along.

Now, the poster brothers for dark money, Charles and David Koch have announced that they are going to lead the way.

They aren't going to lead the way in raising money for the GOP.

They're building their own warchest, to use as they please.

It's a war chest financed by billonaires, and right wing fat cats. And it has no alliegence to the American public or to any party.

And since the goal is to out raise either party, this war chest can be used to drive the agenda of whatever candidates or party it decides to support. Or it can set its own agenda, and ignore either party.

They may have been lost on the liberals and conservatives who argues with one another about the virtues and vices of the Koch brothers. But you can bet that there have been a lot of anxious meetings at the RNC and the DNC.

"The Koch brothers’ operation intends to spend $889 million in the run-up to the 2016 elections — a historic sum that in many ways would mark Charles and David Koch and their fellow conservative megadonors as more powerful than the official Republican Party."

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/koch-2016-spending-goal-114604.html#ixzz3Pzrgzgy0

It's ironic in a way. The GOP celebrated Citizen's United because all it saw was a ruling that created a loophole that would allow them to raise money using the simple sleight of hand of running it through a third party. And since that third party was hiding behind an obscure non profit status in the tax code, it could raise as much money as it wanted and not report where any of it came from. A powerful incentive for the wealty.

What they didn't see, was that the third party groups could become more important than the party itself.

Samual Alito famously shook his head when the President scolded the Supreme Court over the Citizen's United decision. In the ensuing four years, Obama's prediction has come true with a vengence, and Alito has not been seen at a SOTU.

Now, the GOP, fresh from battling the tea party genie back in the bottle, faces the real threat of being big footed by their own largest donors. It could have just as easily happened to the Democrats and may well yet.

People in American tend to identify with one of the two major parties. Their systems of committees and party structure function as a shadow government. Parties define elections, manage them, and are the public face of American politics.

Now, a group of very wealthy people, acting under a cloak of secrecy, are planning on outbidding the parties for the next election.

This is a real threat to democracy, right or left.

The voice of the people should have as much value as the voice of the billionaire in a democracy.

We have created, by court ruling and regulation, a system which threatens to undermine the very people who created it.

 

Liberal celebrities like Samuel L Jackson and Ben Affleck can call nearly half the country "stupid" if they vote Republican, and it has a negligible effect on their careers. If certain donors to the Republican party are revealed, the left will make it their mission to destroy them, both professionally and, possibly, physically. The media is in the tank for the Democrats, and will help attack any big donor to the GOP.

I don't blame them for wanting to remain secret. Progressives created this situation, now they're whining about it.

 

Limits on spending is limits on personal freedom. If a person wants to pay money to advertise his philosophy he should be free to do so.

 

Yesterday, I noted that you were missing the point I was making. At least you're consistant.

If you think that the dark money the Koch's raise is for the GOP, you really are missing the point.

The Kochs hold no loyalty to the GOP. They intend to dictate their agenda to them.

 

That was complete non sequiter.

I never said anything about spending limits.

But to that point, if you believe the five dollars you give to a candidate at a fundraiser carries the same influence as the check a wealthy developer hands him/her, you're a fool.

You talk about people wanting to pay money to advertise his philosphy.

That's not what's going on here. No one is advertising. In fact, the money laundering machinery that the Kochs and others have established is intended for the exact opposite effect. No one in dark money poltics is advertising their views. They're trying to conceal them. That's the whole point.

And when a group of very powerful people gather a warchest entirely financed by shadowy anonymous donors with the advertised intention of dominating poltics in America, that's a threat.

 

And to the Democrats.

Possibly, people may have to actually examine what the people they are intending to rule their lives for the next few years are really saying for themselves. In that way we can make the Kochs spend all their money for nothing.

 

Nor should my 5$ carry the same amount of influence in the world of public discourse. Money is not everything in politics, if you want to have your voice heard there are many venues for it that money cannot buy. As far as shadowy donors, again if I want to donate money to a cause or a message, one should have a right to do so without giving out my identity. What part of constitution denies privacy?

 

I heard the other day that the ten biggest political donors gives much as all the rest of the donors combined.

There really is no need for billionaires to form a third party when they already own two.

 

Name at least two venues that do not require large expenditures of money that can reach a large audiences and are not beholden to advertising revenues from large corporations.

 

Youtube, if you are a good speaker or creative with the media you could give traction to your ideology, or opinions.

Or if you are active and use your time, you could go door to door and organize a movement. Sweat equity, something a Rich person who is busy running his estate has no time for.

Money is not everything you see, there are many ways to make your voice heard. For the Rich money is what they have in abundance, for others there is other ways. Nothing can buy effort,dedication, and love those come from truth. Power of ideas is the most important currency.

 

Ayuh,.... Yer completely Wrong,.... This is how a 3rd party is born,....

The topic here is the growth of the Libertarians,.....

While the alignment might be closer to the Republicans, the Democrats are scared sh!tless over this, with good reason,....

The Progressives are the exact opposite, 'n the sooner they're Crushed, the Better,.......

I'm sendin' My $5.00 to the Koch Machine,......

 

Man are you naieve!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I hardly know where to begin with that one.

 

If most of their giving was for the Democrats, you wouldn't be complaining, just like you're not complaining about George Soros funding agendas that he wants to support.

Your motivation for starting this thread is obvious.

 

Good post!

The problem is, the system is self-reinforcing, like a positive feedback loop: The more money is spent lobbying, to make sure making money from having money becomes easier, the more money is concentrated in the hands of the few, the more money the few can spend on lobbying -- and the loop goes on forever until the whole system collapses when the money becomes too concentrated. That's one thing that we know from Science: No positive feedback loop continues forever, unless it is counterbalanced by negative feedback.

 

If you think that only Democrats are worried about this, you don't understand what's going on.

The lights are burning late at the RSCC, the RNC and the RCCC too.

That's why both parties slipped provision into the Cromibus bill last year to raise the top individual contribution levels to PACs. They want that fat cat money coming to the DSCC or the RNC where they can direct it, rather than given in secret to American for Prosperity, or something called the C4 Partnership.

You can send your five dollars to the Kochs if you want. It's a free country. But don't be under the illusion that they give a damn about you.

 

You're still missing the point. And doubling down on it by trying to put words on my mouth too!!!!!

While I may not complain about George Soros, I would be if he convenced a secret cabal and announced that he was going to raise a big bankroll with the declared purpose of big footing the entire poltical process!

 

I really hate these types of ignorant threads.

Money does not buy you anything in politics, it is simply a way to hedge your bets. Your hoping the guy you give money to gets elected, he doesn't get elected because you give him money.

How come the Koch bros. do not simply pick some yes men out of their corporate ranks, fund all their elections, and win every single seat in Congress that is up and the presidential election?

It would be because it does not work like that.

But according to the OP it does. The biggest spender automatically wins.

What a joke.

 

What is this crypto-Marxist drivel?

Billionaires aren't some sort of alien life form - they're the people, too.

 

They have put their man at the head of the RNC.

And the biggest spender ususally wins.

If the Kochs though the same way you do, they wouldn't be upping the ante.

Try running for public office some time with ridiculous notions like that and see where it gets you.

 

Oh that's right, you're the guy who thinks type size confers credibility!

 

Let us know when you have something to say.

 

Let us know when you grasp what I said.

 

You didn't say anything.

 

Absolutely. 50 years of media/Hollywood carrying water for Democrats, especially near election time, "but that's not advertisement! that's artistic expression, protected speech! Shoo away FEC!" Leftist courts agree. So teeny tiny Citizens United, an eensy mole on the larger media ass, says "well what's good for the goose is good for the gander!" and starts making weeny widdle documentaries critical of Hillary and other left stuff. These CU documentaries aren't even a raindrop in the ocean of media, not even a fart in a tornado compared to Michael Moore's perpetual, trumpeted and overpublicized dreck. But as we know with the left, if they can't have absolute advantage and control, they know their lie narratives fall right apart, so suddenly, with respect to these CU documentaries,

"OUTRAGE! FEC VIOLATION, BUYING POLITICS!" no arty farty defense of free speech anywhere to be heard. And not surprisingly, corrupt leftist lower courts agree, sending the clear as a bell message that "Democrat manipulation of media is just fine, all others verboten." We head to the SCOTUS, and in an excellent decision, the Court rules "what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If any political interest can broadcast out its message as art and free speech in an attempt to avoid FEC rules, any other political interest can as well. What's fair is fair."

Now, the above is the truth about Citizen's United. Wiki it up and read for yourselves if you don't believe me. Any claim about CU or money in US politics that doesn't accurately include this necessary context is a pure lie, being told to you, hoping you are too stupid to see through the lie to the truth, hoping you won't actually look into the facts, history and actual text of the decision, hoping you will blindly accept the "all this money in politics is vewy vewy bad!" lie narrative.

The union label Complex left knows full well that it can easily "give up" more obvious abuses of FEC rules because in so doing, the opposition will be completely frozen out, and it can go back to business as usual, planting messages in all like and manner of supposed "entertainment," in movies, tv shows, print, elsewhere. It knows that any environment where "the money is taken out of politics," it still has MSM/Hollywood and the same chicanery it has played for 50 years.

So now, we hear, "It's not a partisan thing, but everyone should be concerned about all this 'dark money' in politics," and then go endlessly on with the spiraling Kochanoia, well crafted in their union label PR offices to FOOL YOU. Are you fooled?

Don't take my word for it. Just read the Citizens United wiki page for starters, note that they are lying to you by not telling you the actual history of the case. If they are lying about that, what else would they lie about? Why would you take a liar's word for anything?

Next go turn on a TV and watch an episode of Law & Order SVU (or hell, most movies). Count up the "soapbox moments" where an otherwise apolitical plot suddenly becomes political. Count up gratuitous "black hat" instances of presumption of evil with respect to business, men, Christianity, conservatives wealth, and the opposite for cool, hip, empowered leftists and leftist causes. Wait for the point in the SVU rerun for Richard Belzer's character (or any of the others, they usually used Belzer for this) has a mysteriously paragraph long line on some leftist social issue that was just plopped into the script. How did THAT get there and why? Then go note when the episode was originally shown... guess when? C'mon you can do it, rhymes with "erection." The left knows full well it gets to keep -that-, their competition has little if any of -that- (which explains why they so violently hate Fox News), and they can go back to their dirty business as usual.

The whole "dark money" issue is an appeal to fool you into believing that the Kochs can ever in a million years raise enough money to influence elections in the way the left-Complex does through its MSM wing every single day and week, year in year out. Don't be fooled.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uT-7t6wBoEY

Watch the above. Watch it again, then watch it again. If you have a rational mind at all, you will find something very wrong here.

So sure, let's get all the money out of politics, but IF AND ONLY IF that includes the MSM/Hollywood branches of the Democratic Party being brought within FEC rules. Until then? Tell us another tale of "dark money ruining politics." You don't seem to mind the BILLIONS of proleft media messages pounding us every day, somehow those aren't "ruining politics."

Starting to get the picture?

 

While you are right that spending the most money does not GUARANTEE winning the election, as was clearly shown in the 2012 presidential election, it highly INCREASES THE CHANCES of winning. Who is to say that Obama would not have won in a huge landslide if spending had been at parity? So, it is possible that big money kept Romney in a close race that he essentially had no business winning on even footing. Mind you that the PAC outside money made the big difference, in which pro-Romney money outspent pro-Obama by 3:1.

Note that money is even more important in state and local races, where having $100,000 or not could make a difference between winning or not having a chance. There was a recent post in another thread that actually made the point that the Kochs are making use of this effect, focusing much more on local and state campaigns.