A list of puns related to "Political Activities Of The Koch Brothers"
Consider this discussion: https://youtu.be/1Z1KLpf_7tU?t=763.
Now, consider the claims below about a specific issue:
>https://nypost.com/2018/06/22/behind-the-ny-times-absurd-koch-brothers-conspiracy/
>So how much of their 11-figure net worth did the Kochsβ AFP pump into Nashville in their fell scheme to protect their precious seat-belt industry? Less than $10,000. Apparently that largely went for a mailer sent out a week before the election. For context, the proponents of the rail plan spent $2.9 million. All opponents combined spent $1.2 million. The Kochs say they donβt control AFP activities in individual states in the first place. Anyway, they could find $2.9 million in the change cup of one of their Kochmobiles. For a couple of guys who were determined to destroy mass transit in Nashville, they didnβt seem to be trying very hard.
Journalists generally assume that AFP is a Koch "front group," but I heard from someone at AFP that Charles Koch (I think that David isn't active anymore after he got cancer or something; not sure) only provides 4% of AFP's funds.
Maybe they fund 90% of AFP for all I know, but I don't know the %-figure, and I don't think that the journalists give any figures in their articles.
The Kochs created the AFP-machine, but the machine might have its own financial momentum now.
Even if the Kochs provided 90% of AFP's funding, it doesn't follow that the Kochs run/coordinate/mastermind AFP's activities on issues X/Y/Z.
I don't blame people for being suspicious; I'm suspicious.
It's hard to get much data on the "Kochtopus" because I think that AFP's finances are private.
For that matter, Koch Industries' finances are private, which means that nobody knows for sure just what % of the Koch's profits/revenues are hydrocarbon-based.
Journalists might tend to see Koch activities (or anti-regulation activities generally) as much more profit-motivated than they really are.
Sometimes this is just anti-government ideology, rather than a specific desire to shill for Big Oil.
For example, Big Oil might fund think-tanks or The Heartland Institute (climate denialists) or whatever, but it's not always clear how much Big Oil funds them, and even if it's a large % it doesn't mean that they are merely shills; they might be sincere libertarians rather than cynical industry shills.
My point is that journalists fail to try to discuss/investigate/quantify these poi
... keep reading on reddit β‘There's a popular narrative on left-leaning news websites that says rich folks like the Koch brothers are buying elections through influence and Super PACs. Their money and influence is used to produce a mix of high-bugdet brainwashing PR and restrictive voter registration laws. In this turn, this allows the Koch brothers and friends to elect the politicians they want.
Therefore American democracy has met its "demise" and we need to support grassroots organizations to restore it.
To what extent is that narrative grounded in scientific fact? What does the research say about the influence of Super PACs and lobbying? And if their influence is absurdly strong, does that mean that American democracy is "dead"? I know that it's common for activists to overstate the influence of lobbyists on legislators, which is why I question this line of reasoning.
Please note that this site uses cookies to personalise content and adverts, to provide social media features, and to analyse web traffic. Click here for more information.