Nothing Really Compares to the Koch Brothers' Political Empire

By Paul Blumenthal, Moyers and Company

14 April 14

s billionaire conservatives Charles and David Koch become a focus of Democratic Party attacks for their big spending in the 2014 elections, conservatives have argued back that the Kochs’ “dark money” is puny compared to the shadowy funds spent by an array of wealthy liberal interests and individuals.

Fingers have been pointed at labor unions, billionaire investor George Soros, billionaire environmentalist Tom Steyer and the Tides Foundation as the supposed liberal counterparts to the Kochs.

But the numbers just don’t add up. And these progressive groups tend to operate in the sunshine of public disclosure, unlike the Kochs’ semi-secret political empire.

Let’s start with the misunderstanding — or the deliberate expansion — of the term “dark money.”

Coined in October 2010 by Bill Allison, editorial director at the Sunlight Foundation, “dark money” was meant to describe the funds spent on elections and election-related issue ads by political nonprofits that are not required to disclose the names of their donors. This money skyrocketed following the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision.

The term “dark money” does not apply, however, to every nonprofit that does not disclose its donors — not even to every nondisclosing nonprofit with political goals, broadly speaking, on the left or the right.

“Cato [Institute], Heritage [Foundation] and Center for American Progress aren’t dark money groups, and neither is the March of Dimes, which also does not disclose donors,” Allison said via email. “I think of Dark Money as the money from undisclosed donors spent to influence the outcome of an election.”

What kinds of nonprofits does the term cover? Mainly, “social welfare” nonprofits (organized under section 501(c)(4) of the tax code) and trade associations (organized under section 501(c)(6)), when they spend money to influence electoral outcomes. It can also cover shell corporations that spend on elections and have no other apparent purpose.

Those not included under the “dark money” moniker: public interest nonprofits (organized under section 501(c)(3)), which may be involved in shaping policy but are forbidden to engage in electoral activity and labor unions (organized under section 501(c)(5)), which can participate in elections but must disclose their donors to the Labor Department.

In total, the Koch political empire marshaled $400 million in the 2012 election cycle toward groups and efforts that spent money directly in the electoral arena. Not every group that received money from the empire reported spending on elections, but the vast majority of that money went to groups that spent tens of millions on electoral ads — which must be reported to the Federal Election Commission — and even more on issue ads that targeted candidates but didn’t advocate their electoral victory or defeat — which is not reported. Koch players included Americans for Prosperity, the American Future Fund and the 60 Plus Association.

Already, Koch-linked dark money groups have spent more than $30 million on ads targeting vulnerable Democratic congressional candidates running in the 2014 midterms.

It is the electoral focus of the Koch nonprofits and their sophisticated efforts to shield donors’ identities – plus the vast sums of money they move — that has brought them the unwanted attention of both Democratic Senate leadership and reporters.

There exists no outside network or organization supporting Democratic Party candidates in elections, while not disclosing its donors, that spends money in comparable amounts.

Take the Tides Foundation, a longstanding liberal donor fund that provides money to nonprofits working on the environment, labor issues, immigrant rights, gay rights, women’s rights and human rights. Conservative blogs blasted the foundation as far more influential than the Koch brothers as early as 2011.

But according to tax records accessed through CitizenAudit.org, the Tides Foundation allocates little of its money to groups that engage in FEC-reportable spending on elections. Tides gave just $3.1 million of its $136 million in 2011-2012 grants to 501(c)(4) nonprofits that are permitted to engage part-time in politics. An even smaller sum went to such groups that actually reported election spending — i.e., dark money groups.

Some of those recipient groups reported spending large sums on elections, but they received very little of that from Tides: The League of Conservation Voters, which spent $11.2 million on elections, received just $150,000 from Tides. The Michigan League of Conservation Voters spent $860,237 but received only $15,000. Planned Parenthood spent $6.7 million and received $110,000. And VoteVets.org spent $3.2 million and received $82,500.

The Advocacy Fund, a former Tides organization that is still run out of the same office, gave more to 501(c)(4) nonprofits in the last election cycle: $11.5 million. But only $5.7 million went to those dark money groups that actually spent money on the elections. Recipients that engaged in electoral spending included America Votes ($1.8 million from the Advocacy Fund), the Campaign for Community Change ($1.3 million), the League of Conservation Voters ($2 million), the National Wildlife Federation Action Fund ($125,000), the NRDC Action Fund ($80,000) and the Sierra Club ($278,000).

So if the Tides Foundation is supposed to be the liberal equivalent of the Kochs, it’s a pale shadow of the conservative juggernaut. Combined, the money from Tides and the Advocacy Fund falls well short of the amounts amassed by the Koch operation.

Another favorite target of conservative comparison making is George Soros, who is indeed a major progressive political donor and operates a large network of nonprofit funds to push his vision of an “open society.” This network holds assets in the billions of dollars.

But again, the Soros foundations direct only a tiny fraction of their funds to groups spending money to directly influence elections. The Open Society Policy Center and the Fund for Policy Reform, the main Soros groups donating to 501(c)(4) nonprofits, gave $12.9 million to those nonprofits in the 2012 cycle, of which just $1 million went to the subset that spent money in elections. Soros himself has publicly stated his opposition to funding attack ads.

In addition, Soros was personally a major donor to Democratic super PACs in the last election, including $1 million to American Bridge 21st Century, $1 million to Priorities USA Action, $675,000 to House Majority PAC and $100,000 to Senate Majority PAC. He has also donated $25,000 to the Ready for Hillary PAC. But unlike whatever funds the Koch brothers pour into their political empire, the Soros donations to super PACs are not “dark,” for they are all disclosed to the FEC in publicly accessible records.

As for Tom Steyer, the former hedge fund investor turned super-environmentalist, the majority of his spending this election cycle has gone through a super PAC, which discloses its donors — or in Steyer’s case, its donor. So far, his CE Action Committee has spent more than $1 million to help Senator Ed Markey (D-MA) secure victory in a 2013 special election and more than $8 million to help Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe (D) win his race.

Steyer has declared that he intends to spend up to $100 million in the 2014 elections. Although that would no doubt make him the largest political donor among those backing Democratic candidates, it remains to be seen whether he will follow through. The Los Angeles Times said as much when it wrote that Steyer “may” be the liberal answer to the Kochs.

In the meantime, the Kochs’ dark money empire is not merely a future threat or a possible hope. It is a reality, controlled by two billionaires who chose to operate, as much as they can, in the political shadows.

Ukraine: Unleashing the Dogs of War

By Steve Weissman, Reader Supported News

13 April 14

ake no mistake,” declared Barack Obama, President of the United States. “Neither the United States nor Europe has any interest in controlling Ukraine. We have sent no troops there.”

Obama assured his European audience of his best intentions in Brussels on March 26. He had already assured Americans that he would not enter into a hot war. “We are not going to be getting into a military excursion in Ukraine,” he told a TV audience in San Diego. The United States, he said in St. Louis, “does not need to trigger an actual war with Russia.”

Yet, as Obama proudly announced in Brussels, he had already unleashed the dogs of war. NATO planes were patrolling the skies over the Baltics, and “we’ve reinforced our presence in Poland.” He did not mention that his main man at NATO, a four star Air Force general named Philip Breedlove, was testifying that very day to the House Armed Services Committee. As the intrepid Eli Lake reports, the very gung-ho general was sounding far more bellicose than his civilian commander in chief.

This Tuesday, Gen. Breedlove will formally report on how he wants to redeploy NATO assets to “reassure” our Eastern European allies. His report will no doubt confirm that Team Obama is still in charge, though Breedlove will continue to provide Republican and Democratic critics more than enough ammunition to challenge the president’s leadership.

Putin, for his part, has so far moved his pieces cleverly, bringing Crimea into the Russian Federation with almost no violence, a masterful use of his special forces, and a show of popular democracy, though quickly-called plebiscites have a long, smelly history of tyrannical abuse. His gambit even showed a strained rationality, safeguarding Moscow’s warm-water access to the Mediterranean against potential threats from extremely anti-Soviet forces and their Western backers in Kiev.

But for all his tactical brilliance, Vlad the Conqueror left himself little way to avoid strategic defeat. With his flagrant disregard for established borders that Moscow had pledged to defend, he made many Ukrainians who formerly opposed joining NATO now beg for Western protection. He increased fear of Russia throughout Eastern Europe. He promoted hope among ethnic minorities who want to break free of Russia’s own borders. He boosted efforts to seek long-term alternatives to Europe’s current dependence on Russia’s natural gas. He encouraged Angela Merkel’s Germany to swallow its anger over Washington’s prying eyes and find new comfort in NATO, a build-up of the country’s military forces, and a sudden willingness to deploy them on their old stomping grounds in Eastern Europe. And he whipped up a nasty Russian nationalism that could become ever more dangerous.

Where Putin goes from here could make the situation even worse for everyone, including himself. Like a Grand Master, he has positioned his troops on Ukraine’s border, where he can deploy them in any number of directions without giving the other side any idea of what he is likely to do next. He could protect his newly-won Crimea should Kiev cut off its gas and fresh water. He could take Ukraine’s naval port at Odessa, further diminishing the country’s military potential. He could race across Ukraine “to protect” the pro-Russian enclave of Transdniestria, in neighboring Moldova. Or he could take over all or part of predominantly Russian-speaking eastern and southern Ukraine.

These are his clearest military options. His political options play an even bigger role. The very presence of the troops and his apparent use of special forces within Ukraine are putting enormous pressure on Kiev and its Western backers. Combining this with a diplomatic push to grant greater autonomy to the Russian-speaking regions, Putin seeks to play them off against the central government to keep Ukraine as an independent buffer between Russia and the West, with a government that is not anti-Russian and an army that will never become part of NATO. This is far more important to Russia than any of the cockamamie theories from modern Kremlinologists about why Putin does what he does.

“We want Ukraine to be whole within its current borders, but whole with full respect for the regions,” explains the Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov.

The clash is obvious. Russia’s fairly rational needs fly in the face of Ukrainian nationalism as defined by the followers of Stepan Bandera, whether among the newly empowered neo-Nazis or in the Fatherland party of the American-backed prime minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk. The push and shove is just beginning, and Yatsenyuk has already moved to promise the Russian-speaking regions greater autonomy, though not as much as Russia demands. In the end, the only solution likely to keep Kiev from losing any more of its territory is for Washington and the Europeans to negotiate a deal with Putin and impose it on some very unhappy Ukrainians. The alternative, in the tradition of Bandera, could be a long, bloody, and “heroic” guerrilla war. What a nightmare that would be for both Russia and the West!

A veteran of the Berkeley Free Speech Movement and the New Left monthly Ramparts, Steve Weissman lived for many years in London, working as a magazine writer and television producer. He now lives and works in France, where he is researching a new book, "Big Money and the Corporate State: How Global Banks, Corporations, and Speculators Rule and How to Nonviolently Break Their Hold."

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.