Defending the Kochs
You may have noticed that Charles and David Koch are under scurrilous attack by left wing writers for supporting right-of-center organizations and political candidates. For example, here’s Jane Mayer, arguing that the Kochs are unprincipled profiteers, who make donations in order to make their profits higher. Here is Matt Yglesias, saying much the same thing. Yet nothing could be further from the truth. Here is David Friedman’s response to Mayer.
Jonathan Chait at The New Republic is into conspiracy theories. (If you are a friend of a friend of a friend, you are probably part of the Kochtopus.) Here is Yglesias’ follow-up to Chait with more gratuitous (and totally uninformed) piling on.
Fair disclosure: We have been recipients of Koch gifts. I would guess they total less than 1% of our income over 28 years of existence. More importantly, Koch giving has always been completely principled, as Charles Koch explained in the Wall Street Journal the other day. We have never received a phone call, letter, e-mail, or any other communication advising us to take a position or change a position on any public policy issue. The Kochs through their giving have been completely principled supporters of a libertarian approach to public policy, whether or not those policy changes would add to or subtract from the profits of Koch Industries.
Good post. Very interesting.
I agree with you. I have never heard of the Kochs pressuring a think tank or public policy organization to take a position or change a position for any reason — let alone pressuring people to help make Koch Industries more profitable.
Thanks for the additional information on this.
It’s good to hear the other side of this issue for a change.
The left wing media accused the Kochs of stirring up trouble in Wisconsin to bust the unions. It seems obvious to me if the public employee unions are allowed to continue gorging at the public trough, it’s taxpayers that will go bust. Left-of-center groups routinely fund research, outreach and advocacy promoting public policy that is both unaffordable and unsustainable. Yet it’s lauded as compassion for the downtrodden. How is supporting groups that promote sustainable public policies a conspiracy?
John, your comments are consistent with everything I have heard about the Kochs.
Good post. This is helpful.
There’s nothing “covert” about the desire of the Kochs and a lot of other people to make Obama a one-term president. We also want to spew pollutants (not just CO2) into the air — that’s why we grill outdoors, and the EPA wants to stop us!
There’s nothing here that James Madison didn’t predict and encourage in the 10th Federalist. More special interests (e.g., Koch, Soros) help secure a vibrant democracy.
John,
I am glad you finally admitted to one of your funding sources and I am not surprised it is the Koch’s.
How is it libertarian to donate money to a governor that in return submits a bill that dismantles the collective bargaining of Koch’s political opponents, neuters their labor force, while guaranteeing the purchase of state utilities to the Koch’s with no bid contracts and a price at the governor’s discretion?
I call this fascism. You know strip the people of political power then let the corporations takeover the government. We know how that ended.
What could be possibly wrong in legally supporting groups that push public policies leading to changes that add to an organization’s profits? Profits = Growth = Jobs creation. That the outcome contributes to the enhancement of sustainable public policies is a major plus…or am I missing something here?
Well John, saying the Koch Brothers have contributed 1% over the past 28 years is a start. Is that just direct contributions, or does it include indirect contributions from foundations and organizations they also fund. What percentage over the past 5 years? one year? How about your top 10 contributors and the percent from each. Remember, your basic philosophy is that people respond to financial incentives. Why should anyone believe that if financial incentives can change health care decisions they can’t change health care policy analysis conclusions?
The Kochs invest a great deal of money that they could otherwise plow into leisure pursuits. But they don’t. They are interested citizens who are willing to support ideas, and ideas change the world, not politicians. Besides, I would be willing to bet that there’s a lot more of George Soros’s, Ariana Huffington’s, AMA’s, AARPs, and choose-your-favorite-rich-liberal’s money in Wisconsin, Ohio and Illinois than anyone else. IK
to artk:
of course, the Koch’s incentive might be to foster ideas that great minds like Milton Friedman, John Goodman and others discover, nurture and develop to fruition. But of course that can’t be right, they’re not liberal! Only George Soros and his SEIU brethren could possibly be on the right–er, excuse me, correct. How phony! Now that’s tailoring a fact to fit your fashion. Congrat, artk; you should be asking George for money for stuff like that. JP
Erik, the people in Minnesota who are acting like fascists are the unions — trying to intimidate duly elected representatives and get by force and intimidation what they lost on election day.
Whoops, did I say “unions.” What I meant to say are all the socialist goon squads that are coming in from around the country pretending to be in the unions.
Not to pile on, artk, but how about we see your tax return? And are you saying you would change your entire thought process, or alter it substantially, for one-percent of your income–even after-tax? If you would, you’d be stupidly following a liberal agenda. But I repeat myself. P.L. Sonis
First, you can see clear parallels between the issues the Koch Brother put their funding behind and the bottom line considerations of their corporate interests. This is different from Soros who advocates for issues he thinks are right despite the fact they work against his business interests.
Second, the Koch Brothers inherited their businesses, Soros and Huffington built their businesses from nothing. I would argue that inherited money is a form of the hereditary aristocracy that we rejected in 1776.
Third, the issue of NCPA keeping their donors secret is part of a bigger problem. Read any medical research paper, you’ll see complete list of funding sources. Among economists, be they part of advocacy groups like NCPA or academics, financial conflicts of interest are kept secret. I say again, if you believe financial incentives can cause patients to change medical care decisions than you must believe financial incentives can cause the NCPA to shape medical care policy analysis. I’m a derivatives trader, my firm has to file a 13f listing every holding every quarter. Why should the NCPA be allowed to keep it’s funding a secret?
Ken, you do not understand history or the definition of fascism. You must be a product of public school union teachers. What is occurring in the Badger State is a filibuster by another name. Something the Republicans do by rote.
Femi, Profits do not equal Growth or Jobs. The stock market is soaring, record profits are being recorded throughout the business world and there is a 10% unemployment problem in this country.
I thought I had done this before. But here it goes:
1. Like other nonprofits, the NCPA seeks money from many diverse sources.
2. We don’t change our ideas as we go from door to door or as contributors come to us or leave us.
3. Rarely does a donor try to get a think tank analysts to change his views with a gift. It’s only happened to me once in 28 years, and it didn’t work.
4. When I write about an individual or an organization, I try to always alert the reader if I have a financial relationship with them. Especially if my post is about something that is not publically verifiable. (e.g. Conversations and observations)
5. However, I don’t engage in long discussions about these relationships. Either you believe me or you don’t. Personal attacks are not substitutes for reasoned argument. At this blog, artk is the most prolific user of ad hominem attacks. Our response has always been to point out that ad hominem arguments are not arguments.
John, it’s not a personal attack. The people publishing peer reviewed medical research aren’t insulted when they disclose all their funding sources and potential conflicts of interest. Why should you be exempt?
Exempt? He’s fully disclosed the association, limited and miniscule though it may be, in his original post. And I dispute your statement about Soros. If you’ll notice, wherever Obama, powerful Senators, et al., gather, there are always a gaggle of corporate chieftains around, and that’s true for GOPers as well as Dems. It’s getting to the point that the first plank in any enterprise’s business plan is government–1) how to profit through association with government, and 2) how to limit taxes. After all, government money is the easiest money–guaranteed prices, guaranteed markets and taxpayers are don’t seem to care how stiff their tax bill is.
artk, when you show us your tax return and quit being a hypocrit I will start paying attention to you.
For people who run blogs, the source of funding is irrelevant, because almost every thing that happens on a blog site is a reference to publicly available information.
I can recall several times when John Goodman has related and observation or something about a communication (non public facts) where he has acknowledged a financial relationship. No one requires him to do that at his own web site, so he appears to be very honest and forthcoming to me.
The reason why journal authors disclose financial relationships is because much of what they do is not observed and the rest of us have to trust them. I assume that when John and other NCPA authors publish in these journals they reveal any financial conflicts of interest, just like everybody else.
artk,its time for you to get a life.
Chait has responded, quoting David Koch. A link would be appropriate.
“Chait has responded, quoting David Koch. A link would be appropriate.”
<a href=http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/84680/conspiracy-so-vast
Phil, David Koch quote completely out of context. See Richard Walker comment there. Quote has nothing to do with the John Goodman Health Policy Blog or the NCPA.
I found this interesting comment from the CFO of NCPA from the link Phil provided. For full disclosure please see the whole comment.
03/04/2011 – 3:28pm EDT | richard2w
“But regardless, as chief operating officer of the NCPA, I can confirm–and affirm–that we have no idea whether the Koch’s’ positions on public policy issues match ours,”
Right, I’ll take that AND the Brooklyn Bridge.
and then
“First, Jonathan Cohn posts John Goodman’s satire as a serious policy nostrum, now Jonathan Chait quotes David Koch out of context.”
Satire?
This is one of those times when the explanation is worse than the offense.