Box Turtle Bulletin

“Maybe this latest â€œnewsâ€ is Kochâ€™s way of making his and his brotherâ€™s election-buying appear less ominous.”

Yes, the only way Obama loses is if the EVIL Koch brothers spend money advertising against him (and they would be free to do this as individuals even if Citizens United was overturned). Not because of his record. No sir.

Democrats could raise a billion dollars if they could get 50 million people to donate $20 each. Or are they too stupid and/or disorganized to do that sort of fundraising? They could also find their own wealthy contributor(s) to match the Koch’s contributions.

Mark F.

I wish the Kochs wouldn’t support the GOP, but you know what? Most people don’t have one issue litmus tests for their candidates. Democrats didn’t demand that Obama support gay marriage in 2008, did they?

Frankly, I should think Democrats would see the value in having pro-equality people like the Kochs support the GOP. If Romney wins, it means he may listen to them and maybe moderate his positions a bit. He won’t be listening much to Obama supporters.

Priya Lynn

Mark said “Yes, the only way Obama loses is if the EVIL Koch brothers spend money advertising against him.”.

Exactly. The republicans have enough campaign money to flood the airways with lies and the Democrats can’t match that to refute the lies. The media thinks its got to be polite to both sides so for the most part is unwilling to call Republicans on their lies.

The Democrats will never have the campaign money of the Republicans because the vast majority of big business and wealthy people favour the Republicans whereas Democrat campaign money for the most part comes from people of modest means in very small dollar amounts. Ironically the Republicans are still having a very tough go of winning an election that should be easily in the bag for them because their policies and record are so extremely poor.

Priya Lynn

As Romney pollster Neil Newhouse said “We’re not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact checkers.”

Timothy Kincaid

Maybe this latest â€œnewsâ€ is Kochâ€™s way of making his and his brotherâ€™s election-buying appear less ominous.Â

“Election buying”.

Wealthy people contribute. And having more to contribute (as well as more at stake) they contribute in higher amounts. Is it to elect people who share their views and who will favor their ventures? Certainly. And you are free to see it as ominous.

But I hope the ‘ominous’ label is applied consistently.

When Obama picks up tens of millions at a Hollywood fundraiser, when Tim Gill targets specific races to vastly outspend the other side, when Amazon throws millions into support for Referendum 74, I think of it as people putting their money behind candidates and issues that fit their vision.

I don’t see the Koch Brothers differently.

I certainly donâ€™t see this as a hopeful sign myself since there is zero evidence that Koch allows these views to influence the brothersâ€™ hundreds-ofâ€“millions-of-dollar political investments over the years.

And until NY marriage there was zero evidence that the Wall Street Republicans did either.

Koch will never support a pro-gay candidate that wants to encumber his business or confiscate his wealth. I hope that’s not a surprise. But I suspect that given the choice between a pro and anti-gay Republican with similar fiscal policies, it would impact his decision.

I don’t hate Koch. I have no pre-determined emotional reaction to him at all. So I am free to see this as positive. And I do.

Timothy (TRiG)

Of course it’s election buying. And of course it’s disgusting. And in absolutely no sense at all do wealthy people have “more at stake” in an election. What absurdity is that? They won’t have their lives ruined by medical bills, or their futures blighted by being unable to afford an education. They are largely insulated from the consequences of their own decisions, elections, and the vicissitudes of fortune. That’s what being wealthy is all about. It’s the poor and the middle class who have everything at stake in an election. Any suggestion to the contrary is, quite simply, stupid.

TRiG.

Priya Lynn

The hollywood fundraisers have typically brought in one million or so for Obama while billionaire conservative business men have given 20 or even 40 million at a crack. The wealthy giving to the Republican party is certainly more ominous than hollywood giving to Obama. As Trig said a relatively poor person who can be ruined by medical bills has far more at stake in this election than a billionaire looking to save several million in taxes. The billionaire can lose his multim millions in taxes and it won’t affect his lifestyle in the slightest.

Emily K

The Koch’s have the ability to out-spend the leftist PACs 10 times over. Sorry Charlie, sometimes things don’t have a 2-sides “Fair and Balanced” structure.

They bankrolled the Teabaggers; basically bought the current House of Reps for themselves. Fortunately, I think it’s starting to bite them in the ass as those Reps aren’t exactly towing the deregulation line the Koch’s hoped they would.

a relatively poor person who can be ruined by medical bills has far more at stake in this election than a billionaire looking to save several million in taxes.

Seriously. There is no dichotomy here at all.

I donâ€™t hate Koch. I have no pre-determined emotional reaction to him at all. So I am free to see this as positive. And I do.

Ah yes, the classic Tim Kincaid “I’m the only grown-up in the room because I’m not afraid to be the right-leaning centrist gay and all the others are reactionary leftists” maneuver. It never gets old, does it. Well, whatever makes you feel superior.

“wealth confiscation”? really? how many billions does one need to own in order to maintain their lifestyle? If the wealthy are so damned concerned about the government that enabled their obscene riches “confiscating” what’s theirs they can cash in all their stock and buy gold bars to bury in their back yard like Glenn Beck instructs.

MsRowena

This is starting to sound like Animal Farm. I gather the argument in Koch’s favor here is that we are all equal and all have free speech, but some of us are more equal and can afford more “free speech” than others. A lot more.

Stephen

â€œwealth confiscationâ€? Is that what we call taxes these days?

Jess

Ok, I Like you Tim, I don’t always agree with you, but I find your commentary to be interesting. I usually an just a lurker, but I had to comment now.
Really, do the Koch brothers have “more to lose” than I do? If you talk about money, then yes, I am a student teacher. However, I could go bankrupt if I get cancer, I don’t think the Koch brothers have that problem. But if you talk about basic freedoms that we all have then no. I do resent the implication that the rich should have more say in elections simply because they can contribute more, and this honestly goes to both sides.
Please Timothy, explain what you meant by the Koch brothers haveing more to lose? Because it feels to me like you are saying that their money is more important than other peoples rights, and I really hope I’m wrong.

Timothy Kincaid

By “more at stake” i meant, literally, more money which can be effected by public policy. Not “more likely to starve” or “More total things which threaten ones sense of security” or any of the other variations on the theme.

But no one has addressed this question: is it odious when Tim Gill fully funds a candidate?

J. Peron

I can fill you in. A reporter asked him about these things in Tamapa. He gave the same answer. The reporter went out and claimed Koch “broke” with the GOP on these issues, as if it were brand new. Other media outlets picked it up without checking.

They assume that because they hadn’t heard about it, then it has to be new.

Priya Lynn

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/18/major-gop-donor-eyes-100-million-in-donations/

Timothy said “But no one has addressed this question: is it odious when Tim Gill fully funds a candidate?

If Tim Gill were making 100 million in contributions like some Republican donors that would be odious but I can find no record of him making contributions anywhere near that magnitude. Monstrous donations to buy the race is mostly a Republican thing.

You allways play this “Democrats are just as bad as Republicans” but its very rarely true.

Eric in Oakland

“By ‘more at stake’ i meant, literally, more money which can be effected by public policy. ”

Even that isn’t exactly true since the uberwealthy are far better equipped to finesse financial obstructions and limitations — thus their money is less affected by public policy than less fortunate folks. However, why is this even relevant, Tim? In the context of the discussion, that statement seems to imply you consider money (independent of proportionality or financial security) to be a more important stake than liberty, welfare, or justice.

Emily K

You always play this â€œDemocrats are just as bad as Republicansâ€ but its very rarely true.

When Obama starts speaking at Black Panther events, then we can consider “Democrats just as bad as Republicans.” Til then, the most prominent members of the Republican party are towing the line at prominent, well-attended, hate group-sponsored summits. I see no evidence of Democrats trying to write any kind of discrimination into the Constitution.

Richard Rush

Sooner or later I think the day is coming when social unrest will make last year’s Occupy protests seem quaint, and rightly so if things continue as they are. Sooner if more Republican majorities are elected, and perhaps later if more Democratic majorities are elected. The recent history of humanity, at least in the west, where a substantial percentage of people shared in the wealth may prove to be an aberration. Regardless of the current recession, we now seem to be in the process of reverting to what has been the norm – a small percentage of people hoarding virtually all of the wealth. As long as the-party-of-greed can continue to keep millions of gullible people from voting in their own best interest, the current path seems likely to continue.

Stephen

Tim Gill doesn’t fund the teabaggers and their anti-gay hate. He doesn’t speculate in oil prices. He doesn’t shut down discussion of global warming. He isn’t the inheritor of the John Birch Society. He isn’t linked with Dick Armey or Grover Norquist.

To compare Tim Gill, a man who made his career and his wealth out of his own talent and effort, to the inherited wealth of the Koch bros is the definition of false equivalence.

The fact that they can squander hundreds of millions on this election proves beyond any doubt that they don’t pay enough taxes. We are 95th in income equality on the GINI scale. We rank below Uganda. Educate yourself. Or consign this site to the backwaters of the internet. You have literate, educated followers: don’t make us ashamed.

MCB

Yes, Tim, they have much more money at stake – just like those rich men were so much more generous to the temple than the widow and her mite.

It’s about how much the loss of money impacts you, not how much you give. A person in poverty having to pay $200 more in taxes affects them far, far worse than a billionaire having to pay a few million more.

customartist

Republicans (not the actual sitting Poloiticians) ALWAYS put out supportive rhetoric as elections approach.

Remember Cindy McCain?

What have Conservative Politicians EVER actually DONE to forward Gay Rights?

I’ll wait…………………………

Timothy Kincaid

Ok, thanks, I get it.

When Koch and Gill do exactly the same thing, Koch is odious and Gill is not.

I appreciate the clarification and I’ll just step out of the conversation. I am going to go have a margarita at Marix. Or three. Maybe that will start making sense to me.

Enjoy the rest of your Labor Day.

Stephen

Timothy, you can’t be that dense.

Priya Lynn

Timothy said “When Koch and Gill do exactly the same thing, Koch is odious and Gill is not.”.

I said no such thing. I said if Gill were to donate 100 million like Sheldon Adleson it would be the same thing and it would be odious. I can find evidence of gill making a few donations but none bigger than $100,000. If you’ve got evidence that Gill has or is going to donate 100 million to the democrats then post it otherwise stop this false accusation of equivalence and hypocrisy.

Ben in Oakland

Normally, I do try to stay out of these things, but I think I must defend Timothy.

As far as I can tell, he was describing the toxicity, the pathology, and the corruption of our government by money. He wasn’t endorsing it.

What most of you seem to be outraged over is the (perceived) moral difference between Koch and gill. Gill gives money to defend rights and end prejudice, Koch gives even mOre money to people who really don’t care about rights, prejudice, or the damage they inflict on others…

Or our country, in my opinion..

But the point remains that they are both using their outsized bank accounts, without limits, to influence the politics ofthe country.

If Koch actually wanted to do something about marriage.equality or the antigay industry, he could. He has the money-as-speech power to do so. The goal that actually matters to him is the political and economic one. Our litte trouble just doesn’t matter to him for the obvious reason– it doesn’t actually affect him, and pushing it in our direction out of the goodness of his heart isn’t going to happen because it might inconvenience his other goals.

So, I’d have to say that Timothy, as usual, called this one pretty clearly.

Priya Lynn

Ben said “But the point remains that they are both using their outsized bank accounts, without limits, to influence the politics ofthe country.”.

You’re making the same error Timothy is. There is no evidence that Gill has made the massive donations that individual republican doners have, not by a long shot. A few donations of 20-100,000 dollars is in no way equivalent to the donations of 20 million to 100 million that individual republican donars are making. If you have proof otherwise post it or stop claiming there is in anyway any equivalence between gill and koch or other republican doners.

Priya Lynn

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-david-koch-free-speech-20120830,0,1234891.story

Groups backed by the Koch brothers are expected to donate $400 million to the Republican party:

Show me where Gill is donating anywhere near that amount or stop B.S.ing

Jess

Timothy again, I like you, but when you take someone asking you a question about wether or not Gill has donated as much as the Koch brothers or Addelson as saying that it’s ok for Gill to donate large amounts of money and leave the conversation it doesn’t make you look good. No one from what I read said that it was okay for anyone to buy an election. What I saw being asked was wether or not Gill had actually bought an election or just donated more money than average.
I’m not as current of who donated what, but from where I sit it seems to me that the Koch brothers seem to be the behind the scenes leaders of the Republican party. Tim Gill doesn’t seem to have quite the same power. His main goal seems to be marriage equality. Can you give me an instance where Tim Gill or any Liberal donor had as much power as the Koch brothers? I know Glen Beck has one guy (I can’t remember the name) that he says controls ALL of the Democratic Party with money, but I’ve never seen any proof.

P.S Thank you for explaining what you meant by “More to lose” I still don’t really agree with you, but it makes what you said clearer. I still believe that I have just as much to lose in the long run as they do. Their broke isn’t any more broke than I would be if I lost all my money.

Timothy Kincaid

Jess,

My issue is not on some dollar amount or the policies each candidate holds.

For me it’s very simple: if election buying is odious, then it’s odious no matter who does it. We lose credibility when we begin to rationalize how behavior that is objectionable in others is acceptable when we do it.

Priya Lynn

A $400 million donation is election buying, a $160,000 donation is not. I’ve looked but I can find no evidence that there is even remotely any equivalency between Gill and Koch/Addelson.

Priya Lynn

If the relative dollar amounts are unimportant then Aunt Gertie who donated $50 to the Republican party is an odious election buyer.

Timothy (TRiG)