# Koch-Backed Network to Spend Nearly One Billion Dollars on Republican 2016 Presidential Election



## SeaBreeze (Jan 26, 2015)

More than twice as much as they spent in 2012.  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/26/koch-brothers-2016_n_6550374.html



> WASHINGTON, Jan 26 (Reuters) - Conservative political advocacy groups supported by the billionaire Koch brothers plan to spend $889 million in the 2016 U.S. elections, more than double what they raised in 2012, the Washington Post reported on Monday.
> 
> The newspaper said the goal was announced to donors at a weekend meeting in Rancho Mirage, California, hosted by Freedom Partners, a business lobby at the center of the Koch brothers' political operation. The Post cited a person who attended the gathering.
> 
> ...


----------



## Warrigal (Jan 26, 2015)

Well, at least it's all out in the open and the voters can take the vested interests into account. _Caveat civis _- let the citizen beware.

Why is it that when I read "Freedom Partners" I am instantly reminded of George Orwell's novel 1984. Newspeak?


----------



## Davey Jones (Jan 26, 2015)

Its always about money when it comes to politics,hell with what the voters think.
Now lets see what the Democrats will raise.


----------



## BobF (Jan 26, 2015)

Keep an eye on George Sorros and some of his big money friends that bought Obama a good chance to be President even while Hillary was already moving well along for that job.   I think she will be back.    So watch the Democrats big money and see just how they will do with their billions.


----------



## Warrigal (Jan 26, 2015)

Watching the lot of them is wise policy, Bobf.

Look carefully too. Take note of our current circus in Canberra to see what can happen.

Last year, when our PM reintroduced Knights (and Dames) of the Order of Australia people sniggered a bit but we were assured that these honours would be used sparingly for recognition of outstanding Australians. The first recipients were the outgoing and incoming Governor's General so nobody made too much fuss.

Now he's awarded a knighthood to the Queen's husband, Prince Philip and Australians are either wetting themselves laughing or despairing about Tony Abbott's judgement. Nobody believes that the "adults are in charge" anymore.

The whole English speaking world is laughing at our expense. If they're not, they probably haven't yet heard about it.

More seriously, a government that promised to "end the waste" and "balance the books" has doubled the national debt and trebled the deficit in just over a year. It would have been a good thing if more people, including the media, had bothered to look behind the curtain of three word slogans to see more clearly what they were really voting for. And who their backers were.


----------



## Debby (Jan 26, 2015)

Geeze, sounds like your politics can be entertaining sometimes there.  Lately ours hasn't been entertaining much.  Our government hasn't trebled our national debt but at a time when everything is so volatile and oil prices are down and our PM has put ALL our eggs in that one basket, they're planning on giving away a dwindling (smallish) surplus to the top 15% of earners in an income splitting scheme (and some other goodie but it just escapes me at the moment what that is...).  

To me it seems like having a bit of money saved up and you know that either you or your husband are going to get laid off in the next three or six months maybe.....and you decide to go on a vacation anyway .......... because you promised yourself a holiday.  Who does that?


----------



## Don M. (Jan 26, 2015)

The Koch Brothers names always comes up with regard to campaign spending, but if you check the numbers, Obama spent twice as much as McCain in 2008, and 40% more than Romney in 2012.  In each of those elections the Obama camp spent over 750 million dollars to "purchase" the White House.  Anyone who thinks that our political process isn't being completely Polluted by Big Money...to BOTH parties....needs to spend some serious time doing research at OpenSecrets.org.


----------



## rt3 (Jan 26, 2015)

Don M. said:


> The Koch Brothers names always comes up with regard to campaign spending, but if you check the numbers, Obama spent twice as much as McCain in 2008, and 40% more than Romney in 2012.  In each of those elections the Obama camp spent over 750 million dollars to "purchase" the White House.  Anyone who thinks that our political process isn't being completely Polluted by Big Money...to BOTH parties....needs to spend some serious time doing research at OpenSecrets.org.


The best part is that bothers Huffer so much (Huffington Post)


----------



## WhatInThe (Jan 27, 2015)

BobF said:


> Keep an eye on George Sorros and some of his big money friends that bought Obama a good chance to be President even while Hillary was already moving well along for that job.   I think she will be back.    So watch the Democrats big money and see just how they will do with their billions.



Forget the presidential campaign. Both parties and multiple issues get financial support year round. Soros funds/funded many protestor groups and causes that were part of the Ferguson protests.

http://www.examiner.com/article/geo...-contributor-to-furgeson-demonstrations-riots

It takes money to travel and this is probably how many of the outside agitators got to Ferguson. 

Private financiers use groups and causes as shall we say contractors to lay the ground work for an actual candidate. All sides do it.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jan 27, 2015)

Don M. said:


> The Koch Brothers names always comes up with regard to campaign spending, but if you check the numbers, Obama spent twice as much as McCain in 2008, and 40% more than Romney in 2012.  In each of those elections the Obama camp spent over 750 million dollars to "purchase" the White House.  Anyone who thinks that our political process isn't being completely Polluted by Big Money...to BOTH parties....needs to spend some serious time doing research at OpenSecrets.org.




 Stop with the false equivalency stuff...  I believe that nearly one half of donations to the Obama campaign were from small donors and under $200....  Quite a bit different than a handful of Billionaires purchasing the government..   Fortunately the People prevailed.  

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/obama-trumps-romney-with-small-donors/



> In the scramble for campaign cash, President Obama has proved once again that he’s king,  at least among  American small-dollar donors.
> Nearly half  —  48 percent — of Obama’s $118 million haul in 2011 came from individuals giving $200 or less, according to a new analysis by the Campaign Finance Institute, a nonpartisan group.
> Small-donors made up only 9 percent of the 2011 fundraising total for Mitt Romney.
> But it’s on the other end of the donor spectrum that Romney holds more sway: He gathered 82 percent of his funds from donors giving  $1,000 or more, the Campaign Finance Institute found.  Those high-dollar donors comprise just 28 percent of Obama’s total.
> Looked at in absolute sums, Obama raised more money from small donors last year — $56.7 million to $56.3 million — than Romney collected from all donors combined.


----------



## BobF (Jan 27, 2015)

You are misreading what has been posted.   It is not incorrect nor is what you post incorrect.   What the big money is doing is posting large amounts of money to the campaigns plus to lots of side groups supporting what they want supported.    Sorros was only one that I remember to be a big supporter of Obama who gave money to radio stations and TV channels so they would preach the far left stuff Sorros wanted heard.   Did Obama really get that much money from individuals across the US?    Could some of that be from people that would send in lots of small amounts?   I don't know and don't know how anyone would really know yes or not.

I would like to see limits on how much a candidate can use for campaigning.    I understand there is such a limit offered and some candidates do try to hold the limits but Obama decided to heck with that idea and said he was going to spend as much as he could.   

The big problem I see here is the effort to make it look like only the conservatives are the ones using big money to win the elections.

Now for the Koch's, it is said they put their money in many places and not most just to the conservative Presidential elections.

I used 'Kochs money distribution' for search request.   It turns out that their money goes many ways and not all to election campaigns at all.

http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2011/03/21/koch-money/

There are others and from all sides of the politics.    Some insist anything the conservatives do is evil, but is not so at all.    I also remember reading that the Koch brothers also give to certain Democrat operations.


----------



## WhatInThe (Jan 27, 2015)

Soros is the Democratic version of the Koch Brothers.

Here is a list of disclosed contributions/recipients.

http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/s...d=&state=&cycle=2014&soft=&zip=&sort=R&page=1

Notice who's on that list and the organizations-American Bride 21st Century which sole purpose is to counter Republican policy and/or speeches.


----------



## Jackie22 (Jan 27, 2015)

A link comparing Soros to Koch Bros........

http://planetsave.com/2011/02/17/soros-vs-koch-brothers-infographic/


----------



## AZ Jim (Jan 27, 2015)

Seems the little guy is left with the role of onlooker now that the big money people decide who  goes to congress and  the white house.  All us little guys with our $5 and $20 contributions might as well play the lottery instead at least there we get a one in a million chance to be a "Big money guy" too!  What has happened to us?  Where did fairplay go?  "We have met the enemy and he is us."


----------



## flowerchild (Jan 27, 2015)

Don M. said:


> The Koch Brothers names always comes up with regard to campaign spending, but if you check the numbers, Obama spent twice as much as McCain in 2008, and 40% more than Romney in 2012.  In each of those elections the Obama camp spent over 750 million dollars to "purchase" the White House.  Anyone who thinks that our political process isn't being completely Polluted by Big Money...to BOTH parties....needs to spend some serious time doing research at OpenSecrets.org.


You got that right. It's all about money and who got more of it.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jan 27, 2015)

AZ Jim said:


> Seems the little guy is left with the role of onlooker now that the big money people decide who  goes to congress and  the white house.  All us little guys with our $5 and $20 contributions might as well play the lottery instead at least there we get a one in a million chance to be a "Big money guy" too!  What has happened to us?  Where did fairplay go?  "We have met the enemy and he is us."




We did pretty well funding the Obama campaign... We certainly can do it again.


----------



## BobF (Jan 27, 2015)

Most of that Sorros strip was a joke and not at all serious postings on the Koch side.   Lots of twists and put downs looking like it was supposed to be facts.

1990's Sorros made millions in his money deals.    Yep, with his handling of silver content and coins, he took one big bundle straight away from our friends the UK.    He caused a bit of trouble for the UK.   Real nice guy this Sorros person.

http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/08/george-soros-bank-of-england.asp

*How did George Soros "break the Bank of England"?*

                                   By Andrew Beattie                                   AAA |               

                                                                              A:             In Britain, Black Wednesday  (September 16, 1992) is known as the day that speculators broke the  pound. They didn't actually break it, but they forced the British  government to pull it from the European Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM).  Joining the ERM was part of Britain's effort to help along the  unification of the European economies. However, in the imperialistic  style of old, she had tried to stack the deck.


----------



## WhatInThe (Jan 27, 2015)

Soros also fined for stock market manipulation in Hungry his home country.

http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/english/finance/11306864.asp

Some say he also torched south east Asia in the 1990s.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jan 27, 2015)

WhatInThe said:


> Soros also fined for stock market manipulation in Hungry his home country.
> 
> http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/english/finance/11306864.asp
> 
> Some say he also torched south east Asia in the 1980s.




"Some say"    Isn't that a favorite express of Fox news?  lol!    Stop fishing for red herring.


----------



## BobF (Jan 27, 2015)

Time to prove FOX NEWS is a bad broadcaster.    Fox has come from nothing to near the top in not too many years.   If Fox was all crap and nonsense as some like to say, then why is FOX climbing while others are fading out, some even closed down.


----------



## WhatInThe (Jan 27, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> "Some say"    Isn't that a favorite express of Fox news?  lol!    Stop fishing for red herring.



 I made a mistake, it was the 1990s and the Prime Minister of Malaysia is one of several that accused Soros of heavy speculation that crashed the currency in the region.

http://archive.fortune.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/1997/09/29/232108/index.htm

http://thanong.tripod.com/01302001.htm


----------



## QuickSilver (Jan 27, 2015)

WhatInThe said:


> I made a mistake, it was the 1990s and the Prime Minister of Malaysia is one of several that accused Soros of heavy speculation that crashed the currency in the region.
> 
> http://archive.fortune.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/1997/09/29/232108/index.htm
> 
> http://thanong.tripod.com/01302001.htm


----------



## Don M. (Jan 27, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> Stop with the false equivalency stuff...  I believe that nearly one half of donations to the Obama campaign were from small donors and under $200....  Quite a bit different than a handful of Billionaires purchasing the government..   Fortunately the People prevailed.
> 
> http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/obama-trumps-romney-with-small-donors/



"False Equivalency Stuff".....You chose to reference data from some individual Blogger, Devin Dwyer...whoever he is, who chooses to quote data from a heavily biased Left Wing source...The CFI.  I prefer to rely on the numbers from OpenSecrets.  Do a search on the "About Us" from each of these organizations, and you may note the differences.  Opensecrets gathers the data as submitted to the FEC, by the various candidates and political parties, as required By Law, and posts the data directly from the FEC...Without Partisan Bias.  They have been doing so for well over 20 years, and are the most accurate source for such data.  

Yes, Obama had a "slight" edge over Romney when it comes to smaller donations, but he Still brought in hundreds of millions more than Romney...most of that from wealthy Left Wing Special Interests.  Do the research.  

Unfortunately, even Opensecrets may no longer be able to accurately track the Dark Money that is flowing profusely to BOTH political parties as a result of Citizens United.  These PAC's are no longer bound by our long standing campaign finance disclosure rules...and will continue to erode the control and influence the average person has in Washington.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jan 28, 2015)

Don M. said:


> "False Equivalency Stuff".....You chose to reference data from some individual Blogger, Devin Dwyer...whoever he is, who chooses to quote data from a heavily biased Left Wing source...The CFI.  I prefer to rely on the numbers from OpenSecrets.  Do a search on the "About Us" from each of these organizations, and you may note the differences.  Opensecrets gathers the data as submitted to the FEC, by the various candidates and political parties, as required By Law, and posts the data directly from the FEC...Without Partisan Bias.  They have been doing so for well over 20 years, and are the most accurate source for such data.
> 
> Yes, Obama had a "slight" edge over Romney when it comes to smaller donations, but he Still brought in hundreds of millions more than Romney...most of that from wealthy Left Wing Special Interests.  Do the research.
> 
> Unfortunately, even Opensecrets may no longer be able to accurately track the Dark Money that is flowing profusely to BOTH political parties as a result of Citizens United.  These PAC's are no longer bound by our long standing campaign finance disclosure rules...and will continue to erode the control and influence the average person has in Washington.






> President Obama_ has proved once again that he’s king, at least among American small-dollar donors._
> _Nearly half — 48 percent — of Obama’s $118 million haul in 2011 came from individuals giving $200 or less, according to a new analysis by the _Campaign Finance Institute_, a nonpartisan group._
> _Small-donors made up only 9 percent of the 2011 fundraising total for Mitt Romney._
> _But it’s on the other end of the donor spectrum that Romney holds more sway: He gathered 82 percent of his funds from donors giving $1,000 or more, the Campaign Finance Institute found. Those high-dollar donors comprise just 28 percent of Obama’s total._
> _Looked at in absolute sums, Obama raised more money from small donors last year — $56.7 million to $56.3 million — than Romney collected from all donors combined._


An individual BLogger who took his numbers from the CAMPINGN FINANACE INSTITUTE.    It is a nonpartisan group...


----------



## rkunsaw (Jan 28, 2015)

Okay, I admit it. I'm guilty of buying the government. I gave a total of $145 dollars to our Senate candidate, Tom Cotton. I also gave $25 dollars to Arkansas' candidate for governor, Asa Hutchinson. Both won big time thanks to my donations. 

I'm  happy to report that Republicans won every elective statewide office in Arkansas for the first time ever. 

How many of you supported candidates with more than lip service?


----------



## QuickSilver (Jan 28, 2015)

rkunsaw said:


> Okay, I admit it. I'm guilty of buying the government. I gave a total of $145 dollars to our Senate candidate, Tom Cotton. I also gave $25 dollars to Arkansas' candidate for governor, Asa Hutchinson. Both won big time thanks to my donations.
> 
> I'm  happy to report that Republicans won every elective statewide office in Arkansas for the first time ever.
> 
> How many of you supported candidates with more than lip service?



Me....  I always send money..  and not just to candidates in my state, but to candidates in other states who support my political views.. in order to defeat those that don't.  While they say that all politics is local, we have to make sure the Federal aspect is protected.


----------



## Warrigal (Jan 28, 2015)

I've been following but not really understanding.

Is this what you are talking about?

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/koch-donors-marco-rubio-2016-114673.html


----------



## QuickSilver (Jan 28, 2015)

In essence, the Koch Brothers are controlling the American political process with and estimated $1 BILLION dollars to be spent in 2016..  They are deciding who they want in office and will get them there by spending this money, almost entirely on negative TV and radio ads blasting the opposing candidate.  This is the spawn of the now infamous Citizen's United ruling by the US Supreme Court allowing unlimited and most times anonymous contributions to PACS  (political action committees) who purchase this negative air time.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jan 28, 2015)

IN stark contrast to the vast sums dregged up by the Koch brothers... this George Sorros  false equivalency nonsense holds no water..  The right ALWAYS likes to compare Sorros to the Kochs...  BUT.....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/27/george-soros-super-pac_n_1920491.html



> A spokesperson for Priorities USA Action, the super PAC backing President Barack Obama's reelection, confirmed to The Huffington Post Thursday that billionaire investor George Soros has committed $1 million to the PAC. A spokesman for House Majority PAC also confirmed to HuffPost that Soros had given a combined $500,000 to House Majority PAC and the Senate Majority PAC in September.


----------



## Don M. (Jan 28, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> _
> An individual BLogger who took his numbers from the CAMPINGN FINANACE INSTITUTE.    It is a nonpartisan group..._


_

I would suggest that you more closely investigate this CFI...paying particular attention to their Management and Board of Directors.  However, if you have been exposed to the Chicago Political Machine, arguably the Most Corrupt in the nation, I can somewhat understand your extreme Partisan views.  Here is a pretty good breakdown of the 2012 Presidential race, and the financing thereof.  If you go through some of the subtitles, you can get even more detailed information as to where these candidates got their financial support.  

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/#out

As you can see from these numbers, the ONLY area in which the Romney supporters outspent the Obama team was in the area of "outside spending"...which is another way of noting the massive amount of money these PAC's, authorized by "Citizens United", are throwing at our election campaigns.  This "Dark Money" is going to completely ruin our political system, and will only get worse as time passes._


----------



## AZ Jim (Jan 28, 2015)

Don M says....."I can somewhat understand your extreme Partisan views."  I wonder what excuse we can find for your  extreme partisan positions?


----------



## QuickSilver (Jan 28, 2015)

AZ Jim said:


> Don M says....."I can somewhat understand your extreme Partisan views."  I wonder what excuse we can find for your  extreme partisan positions?



Have you noticed that?  It's only "Partisan" when it's liberal...  All the Conservatives are just expressing their opinions..  :yes:


----------



## Don M. (Jan 28, 2015)

AZ Jim said:


> Don M says....."I can somewhat understand your extreme Partisan views."  I wonder what excuse we can find for your  extreme partisan positions?



If this comment is directed at me, I can assure you that I have NEVER been Dumb enough to vote the "Party Ticket".  I try to devote sufficient time, each election, to looking closely at the various candidates, and selecting the one who presents the best potential for proper governance.  Increasingly, those representing our two major parties leave little choice other than trying to find the one who will do the least amount of damage to the nation.  I am registered as an "Independent", and I fully intend to stay that way.


----------



## AZ Jim (Jan 28, 2015)

Don M. said:


> If this comment is directed at me, I can assure you that I have NEVER been Dumb enough to vote the "Party Ticket".  I try to devote sufficient time, each election, to looking closely at the various candidates, and selecting the one who presents the best potential for proper governance.  Increasingly, those representing our two major parties leave little choice other than trying to find the one who will do the least amount of damage to the nation.



If you are suggesting all liberals vote "the party ticket", you are no more right in that assessment than suggesting Cons don't vote a straight party ticket.  A good microcosm of that can historically be found in our senate, Democrats there vote all over the map but not the Republicans.  Republicans "toe the line" and vote as one.  You might say that is a good example of who (albeit in in the visible senate voting) of who votes the "straight party ticket".  I am sure the same holds true for the general electorate.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jan 28, 2015)

AZ Jim said:


> If you are suggesting all liberals vote "the party ticket", you are no more right in that assessment than suggesting Cons don't vote a straight party ticket.  A good microcosm of that can historically be found in our senate, Democrats there vote all over the map but not the Republicans.  Republicans "toe the line" and vote as one.  You might say that is a good example of who (albeit in in the visible senate voting) of who votes the "straight party ticket".  I am sure the same holds true for the general electorate.



As evidenced by how many times Dems will vote with Republicans on issues...  Those are the Blue Dogs that represent red States...  You will always hear of a Conservative Democrat... however... has anyone ever heard of a Liberal Republican?..... That bird simply does not exist.


----------



## Don M. (Jan 28, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> Have you noticed that?  It's only "Partisan" when it's liberal...  All the Conservatives are just expressing their opinions..  :yes:



Yup, labeling All Liberal viewpoints as "Partisan" makes as much sense as calling everyone who criticizes Obama as being "Racist"....yet, that seems to be the favorite tactic of those who blindly follow his every word.


----------



## Don M. (Jan 28, 2015)

AZ Jim said:


> If you are suggesting all liberals vote "the party ticket", you are no more right in that assessment than suggesting Cons don't vote a straight party ticket.  A good microcosm of that can historically be found in our senate, Democrats there vote all over the map but not the Republicans.  Republicans "toe the line" and vote as one.  You might say that is a good example of who (albeit in in the visible senate voting) of who votes the "straight party ticket".  I am sure the same holds true for the general electorate.



Over the years, I was always amazed at the number of people who just checked the "Party" on the ballot...until the State removed that option.  Now, they at least have to go down the list looking for the D or R after a candidates name.  The Best option would be to remove ALL reference to Party on the ballot, thus perhaps forcing some of these Dolts to do a Little Homework.  
I fully agree about these politicians who can only vote the Party line...they are Absolutely worthless, and if the voters had an ounce of sense they would note that and refuse to re-elect these types.   One of the Very Few in Congress that I have any respect for is our own Democratic Senator...Claire McCaskill.  Her voting record is right in the Very Middle of the Senate, and she is ranked number 50 in terms of voting with/against the Party.  I just wish she would demonstrate some aspirations to the White House....she is about the Only one I've seen that would make me want to join a campaign.


----------



## AZ Jim (Jan 28, 2015)

I like Liz Warren too but I will support whoever holds viewpoints closest to mine and  it will most likely be a Democrat.  In the simplest terms I will not vote for anyone in a party that advocates the destruction of the social programs I hold dear, not only because of myself but other seniors, disabled and poor.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jan 28, 2015)

AZ Jim said:


> I like Liz Warren too but I will support whoever holds viewpoints closest to mine and  it will most likely be a Democrat.  In the simplest terms I will not vote for anyone in a party that advocates the destruction of the social programs I hold dear, not only because of myself but other seniors, disabled and poor.



This is exactly my position... I don't vote for Republicans because I have not found one in many many years that holds my values.  Why would I vote for someone that didn't?  Just so I could say I did and prance around claiming to be an enlightened Independent??   Sounds silly to me..and a wasted vote


----------



## Don M. (Jan 28, 2015)

AZ Jim said:


> I like Liz Warren too but I will support whoever holds viewpoints closest to mine and  it will most likely be a Democrat.  In the simplest terms I will not vote for anyone in a party that advocates the destruction of the social programs I hold dear, not only because of myself but other seniors, disabled and poor.



Social Security if often referred to as "The third rail of US politics", and with good reason.  Millions of Seniors rely on that program for their primary means of support.  Were any politician Dumb enough to attack that program, he would quickly find that most voters over the age of 40 would abandon him.  However, there is a problem quickly coming in the SSDI program.  That program is slated to run out of funding in 2016...and how Congress chooses to address That issue, could be a good indicator of what direction our Entitlement programs will be taking in the future.  We would ALL be well advised to pay close attention when that issue comes up for debate.


----------

