Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
    • The Best of Reason Magazine
    • Why We Can't Have Nice Things
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password

Politics

Koch Brothers Sue Cato in Ownership Dispute

Matt Welch | 3.2.2012 2:16 PM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

In a move that could have significant impact on institutional libertarianism, Cato Institute founder Charles Koch and his brother David (the latter of whom sits on the boards of both Cato and the Reason Foundation, which publishes this website), are suing Cato, Cato President Ed Crane, and the widow of recently deceased former Cato chairman William Niskanen in a dispute over Niskanen's ownership shares in the $39 million libertarian think tank. Here's how the Washington Post, which broke the story, characterized events:

Charles and David Koch, owners of a Wichita-based conglomerate that ranks as one of the largest private corporations in the world, filed a lawsuit this week in Kansas seeking an option to increase their 50 percent control of the Cato Institute.

Cato President Ed Crane blasted the lawsuit Thursday as an attempted "hostile takeover" of a venerable Washington institution that he co-founded with Charles Koch in the 1970s.

"Mr. Koch's actions in Kansas court yesterday represent an effort by him to transform Cato from an independent, nonpartisan research organization into a political entity that might better support his partisan agenda," Crane said in a statement. He vowed to fight the move "vehemently."

Charles Koch said in a statement that he and his brother were only seeking to uphold the terms of the shareholder agreement that governs Cato and were not "acting in a partisan manner."

"We support Cato and its work," he said. "We want to ensure that Cato stays true to its fundamental principles of individual liberty, free markets, and peace into the future, and that it not be subject to the personal preferences of individual officers or directors." […]

Cato was most recently divided between four shareholders: the two Koch brothers, Crane and former Cato chairman William Niskanen.

The lawsuit centers on the fate of the shares owned by Niskanen, who died in October. The Koch brothers contend that they have the option to buy Niskanen's shares, but no offer has been made to them, according to the lawsuit. The shares now belong to Niskanen's widow, Kathryn Washburn. […]

Charles Koch was the largest financial backer of Cato in its formative years. More recently, however, the brothers have cut back on their giving to the organization, donating nothing last year, according to Cato officials. The Koch[s] have given millions of dollars to a new libertarian center at George Mason University.

A Cato spokeswoman last year said that Charles Koch and Crane had a "falling-out" in 1991.

More information, including more quotes from both sides, at the link. Here also are PDF links to the lawsuit, and to Cato's bylaws.

The New Yorker's Jane Mayer, author of a controversial and influential hit piece on the Kochs two years ago, provides background, some of it culled from Reason Senior Editor Brian Doherty's foundational history of the libertarian movement:

Cato was co-founded by Edward Crane and Charles Koch, in the nineteen-seventies, with Koch's money; the lawsuit notes that the original corporate name was the Charles Koch Foundation, Inc. […]

Brian Doherty, in his 2007 history of the libertarian movement, "Radicals for Capitalism," writes, "As for what happened between Cato's Ed Crane and his longtime biggest supporter, Crane himself insists 'I don't know what happened. I'll go to my grave not understanding what happened.'"

Doherty also interviewed Charles Koch, whom he portrays as being rather blithe about the breakup: "For his part, Charles Koch decided at a certain point that 'my involvement [with Cato] was counterproductive. I have strong ideas, I want to see things go in certain direction [sic], and Crane has strong ideas. I concluded, why argue with Ed? Rather than try to modify his strategy, just go do my own thing and wish him well. I had to get out to let them reach their potential, and I think it worked out to their benefit.'"

More analysis and commentary from David Weigel, Jonathan H. Adler, and Skip Oliva (whose Twitter feed has been full of related content).

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: Katherine Mangu-Ward Talks Google and Privacy on Cavuto

Matt Welch is an editor at large at Reason.

PoliticsCultureMediaLibertarian History/PhilosophyKochs
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (148)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

  1. Soros   13 years ago

    giggity

    1. Fundamentalist Infighting   13 years ago

      ...is fun to watch.

      But don't let them fool you; they all are still Market Fundamentalists, who demand a strict adherence to specific religio-economic doctrines, usually as a reaction against TEH LIBURULZ.

      Praise Teh Holy Spirit and Teh Invisible Hand.

      1. Market Fundamentalist=Religion   13 years ago

        Economists instead were assigned the task to dispense priestly blessings that would allow business to operate independent of damaging political manipulation. They accomplished this task by means of their message of "laissez faire religion, based on a conception of a society composed of competing individuals"...Admittedly, as the economic "symbolism got farther and farther from reality, it required more and more ceremony to keep it up."
        ? Robert H. Nelson, REACHING FOR HEAVEN ON EARTH

        Economic efficiency has been the greatest source of social legitimacy in the United States for the past century, and economists have been the priesthood defending this core social value of our era.
        ? Robert H. Nelson, ECONOMICS AS RELIGION

        source: http://www.dieoff.org

        1. Fat white guy from Pittsburgh   13 years ago

          Bold Fontz Are Kool

      2. Tak Kak   13 years ago

        I wish Cato or the Kochs were market fundamentalists, it's just the bland fighting the beige now.

        1. Citizen Nothing   13 years ago

          Wooly Beige. Wasn't that L. Neil Smith's stand-in character for Harry Brown in The American Zone?
          Jesus. Reading that mess was a couple hours of my life wasted.
          And now I've wasted more seconds commenting on it.
          I've done it again!
          And again!
          Somebody stop meeeeeeeeee!

  2. Warty   13 years ago

    KOCHTOPUS

    Where is Lew Rockwell in all this?

    1. affenkopf   13 years ago

      Now I know what it was like to be on the Old Right when Hitler attacked the Soviet Union: as Col. Robert W. McCormick put it in the dear old Chicago Tribune, let them destroy each other -- like scorpions in a bottle!

      Also: Happy Birthday Murray!

      1. Brandybuck   13 years ago

        Typical Raimondo, associate anyone he doesn't like with Stalin or Hitler.

        1. Tak Kak   13 years ago

          Typical everyone

        2. Typical Brandybuck,   13 years ago

          fucking stupid.

    2. Fist of Etiquette   13 years ago

      Kochtopus vs. Crane. I think I saw this on Animal Planet. Or here.

      1. WinningTheFuture_WithSalmon   13 years ago

        Please. The "Craniacs" versus the "Kochtopus".

        Only one man can bring this all back together: David Bergland.

    3. Citizen Nothing   13 years ago

      If you can get Ed Crane and a Koch brother (really, one is all you need) on the Reason Cruise, I'll sign up.

    4. *   13 years ago

      Where is Lew Rockwell in all this?

      Read, and behold. It's going to get interesting:

      http://www.underpenaltyofcatap.....ch-vs-cato

      The agreement ... proves that Murray was an original shareholder.

      What is most significant, is that according to David, Murray never signed his certificate over to Cato or Koch. Since the current Koch brothers lawsuit is all about turning a certificate over, the Koch brothers obviously understand that the turning over of a certificate is important.

      Since Murray didn't sign his and he left his entire estate to his wife and his wife left Lew Rockwell as the executor upon her death, in a logic endorsed by the Koch brothers (via the lawsuit), Lew has a strong argument that because the Rothbard certificate has not been endorsed over to Cato, Lew represents those certificates in the goings on at Cato.

    5. Banjos   13 years ago

      Awesome.

      1. RBS   13 years ago

        Awesome for the shit show yeah maybe, but not so awesome for Cato.

    6. Kent   13 years ago

      Going to entertaining if it turns out Lew Rockwell is now a major shareholder, thanks to the revelling lawsuit.

  3. rather   13 years ago

    Bitch fight 🙂

  4. rather   13 years ago

    There is nothing more fun than watching billionaires fight over a nickel
    -this one is going to be fun

    1. +   13 years ago

      Watching John and the other puppets accuse every troll of being you is kinda funny. In a sad way.

      1. rather   13 years ago

        The sad part is John doesn't know why he's doing it; he's a parasite living symbiotically on another organism

    2. Juice   13 years ago

      http://zengersmag.blogspot.com.....ic-in.html

      "She saw them take out 100 barrels of oil on the Osage reservation and mark down 70 barrels. They'd take 40 barrels and mark down 30. I followed the trucks to the central loading dock, and the man said, 'I want more overage.' In the old days we called that 'thievery.' Today we call it 'job creation.' The guy standing on the deck was named Charles Koch" ? one of the notorious Koch brothers who are among the principal corporate villains cited by the Occupy movement ? "and when he was asked why, since he's already a billionaire and he's taking $3 from Stanlee Ann Mattingly ? Koch said, 'I want what's coming to me, and that's all of it.'"

  5. Seer   13 years ago

    What's libertarian about forcing someone to sell you something? On what basis does the widow not get to just hold the shares?

    1. Joe M   13 years ago

      On the basis of a previously agreed-upon contract.

      1. Even SLAVERY contracts=sacred   13 years ago

        ...to market fundamentalists.

        1. Newt Paul   13 years ago

          But not marriage contracts or newsletters I sign.

          "I disavow."

          "Things happen."

          1. KP   13 years ago

            Market fundamentalists don't think contracts can be broken? That's news to me.

    2. kilroy   13 years ago

      What's libertarian about forcing someone to sell you something?

      So you're saying there was force or fraud involved in the signing of the contract?

    3. GILMORE   13 years ago

      Seer|3.2.12 @ 2:22PM|#
      ... On what basis does the widow not get to just hold the shares?

      Uh, this is a standard legal clause in the formation of a joint-general partership company; the issue falls under the concept of Right of First Refusal.

      The example here is 3 people agree to run a business; if one dies, the remaining partners have the right to allocate the former owners shares in a pre-agreed upon manner in order to maintain business continuity, and ensure that those who *own* the firm have the greatest interest in its success. Say the dead guy's kids/family were screaming liberals; is their 30% ownership of a libertarian think-tank in the interests of the firm? The beneficiaries are certainly entitled to the *value* of the inherited ownership stake (its $ value) - but not its independent transferrance to *anyone*, sans input from the other business-partners.

  6. Gojira   13 years ago

    That is a fancy building, for fancy-pants individuals, no doubt.

    Us regular-pantsed proles have to make due in our Soviet-style concrete apartment blocks.

    1. T   13 years ago

      What about the pantsless, Jim? What happens to them?

      1. Warty   13 years ago

        They are issued Utilikilts and Vibram Fivefingers.

        1. T   13 years ago

          Hey! I resemble that remark!

        2. Gojira   13 years ago

          Thankfully the Dallas Irish Festival is this weekend, so all day tomorrow I get to embarass my wife wearing my kilt, with no underwear, and "accidentally" flipping it up every time I sit down.

          Sadly though it is a traditional kilt, not a utilikilt.

          1. Warty   13 years ago

            I have given some thought to taking up competing in highland games, and at least half of that was based on my desire to wear a kilt in public.

            1. T   13 years ago

              Wear one anyway. Fuck it, what are people gonna do, Warty? Think you're more of a freak than they do already?

              Honestly, in my experience, you get more questions about the Fivefingers than you do the kilt.

              1. Warty   13 years ago

                The questions are fucking constant. It's highly annoying.

                1. T   13 years ago

                  Yeash, the first couple of times, I didn't mind. The next 600, it started to wear on me.

                  1. Warty   13 years ago

                    I prefer my Merrels to the Vibrams at this point, because no one stops me to ask about them.

                2. Ska   13 years ago

                  So is caber tossing involved?

                  1. Warty   13 years ago

                    Yes.

                    Wait, you're using that as a euphemism for something sexual, right, Ska? The answer is still yes.

                    1. Gojira   13 years ago

                      I'm telling you, I understand why women wear skirts now. That thing is soooo comfortable, esp. in the Texas summer. Easy to just take a shitpiss while you're walking, too. Just falls right out onto the ground, no fuss no muss.

          2. depantic vasant   13 years ago

            irish kilts?

            1. Ska   13 years ago

              I was going to write the same, but if you've ever seen any version of the Emerald Society in a parade, they wear kilts and play bagpipes, too.

              1. depantic vasant   13 years ago

                a modern innovation only

                1. Gojira   13 years ago

                  I'm doing to to rub my Scottish pride in their snooty poverty-stricken Irish faces.

                2. Brandon   13 years ago

                  Kilts are also a relatively modern innovation.

          3. Pro Libertate   13 years ago

            I went to a black-tie New Year's party years ago with an ex-girlfriend and a few other couples, and one of the guys was wearing a formal kilt. Too awesome. I thought about getting one, but it's just crazy expensive.

            1. Warty   13 years ago

              Aren't they like $700 and up? I do like the idea of having one, though. It would give me an extra reason to grow a beard down to my navel, I think.

              1. Pro Libertate   13 years ago

                I looked, and you can get a good one for around $1,000. The big cost, I believe, is the kilt itself.

                I own a tux, and I've thought about getting a tartan waistcoat. I already have "Pro Libertate" cufflinks.

            2. T   13 years ago

              Yeah, traditional formal full on kilts are crazy expensive. I think on the order of $3k? But there are many lower priced alternatives. I get most of mine at various RenFests.

              1. Gojira   13 years ago

                I got my at our renfaire, but felt like a chump when I saw websites offering them for much less.

                For a few hundred more I can even get one made (online) from my specific clan tartan.

                1. Pro Libertate   13 years ago

                  That's what makes it so expensive for me. There are national tartans, and that whole clan tartan business is largely fictional. At least in the sense that it goes back before the 19th century (Scots were waaay in vogue in England then).

                  1. Gojira   13 years ago

                    Well sure it was mostly invented within the last two hundred years, but it's still something a lot of people in the Scottish heritage movement do.

                    I get a discount with some retailers as a dues-paying memeber of my clan association (I also get a shitty quarterly newsletter and some schwag like stickers and membership card, etc.)

                    1. Pro Libertate   13 years ago

                      I have some clan stuff from my family, so I can't throw large stones or telephone poles.

  7. rather   13 years ago

    BTW, thanks for reading my blog, honey 😉

  8. Brett L   13 years ago

    Come on. How many times do we have to go over this? The purges come after you take power.

  9. rather   13 years ago

    Interesting news; unlike these babies fighting over blocks:
    France to require Breathalyzer kits

    It gives whole new meaning to BYOB

  10. shrike   13 years ago

    I have to give Cato higher marks than Reason on capitalism these days. Cato invited Soros to speak at its Hayek celebration. Great capitalists like Soros need to be heard.

    (Cue the rightwing nutcases who think Soros is a "commie" despite his continuous fight against statism in Eastern Europe).

    1. fish   13 years ago

      OOoohh! Shrike spoof!

      1. cynical   13 years ago

        No, I think that's just shrike.

    2. Bradley   13 years ago

      0/10

  11. Abdul   13 years ago

    Meetings at the club of secret billionaires who rule the world are going to be awkward!

    1. Almanian   13 years ago

      Like that meetings at the Masonic Temple aren't already awkward ENOUGH!? LOL!

  12. NeonCat   13 years ago

    I'd ask why we can't all just get along, but I've been reading Hit & Run comments for long enough to know that's not going to happen.

    1. Almanian   13 years ago

      That made me laugh and blow snot out my nose.

      Well done!

  13. Pro Libertate   13 years ago

    Internecine conflicts are the best conflicts.

    1. Warty   13 years ago

      -1 point for not using extirpation somewhere in that sentence.

      1. Pro Libertate   13 years ago

        Internecine conflicts resulting in the extirpation of hegemonic dualities are the best conflicts.

        1. Episiarch   13 years ago

          TWO BILLIONAIRES ENTER ONE BILLIONAIRE LEAVES

          1. Citizen Nothing   13 years ago

            As long as all the money is ok.

          2. Pro Libertate   13 years ago

            Just to be clear, Ed Crane isn't a billionaire, right? Jokes aside, it seems like that's suggested a couple of times in these here comments.

            1. Fist of Etiquette   13 years ago

              Did you see the picture up there? It screams monocle.

              1. Pro Libertate   13 years ago

                Strictly honorary. I'm not sure he's even "rich", except in the Obama sense (i.e., people with money who aren't mutual).

            2. Episiarch   13 years ago

              How dare you question me!

              1. Pro Libertate   13 years ago

                Dude, they're going to execute the billionaires (other than a few of the more proletarian bent--yeah, I know) first. Let's not get Ed added to the list.

                1. kinnath   13 years ago

                  Cambodia redux, everyone with a monocle gets shot.

            3. GILMORE   13 years ago

              Wait... aren't WE ALL billionaires? I assumed... i mean, *you're* not?? I thought it was like... a rule for joining??... god, I'm so embarassed. The rest of the Illuminati are going to so laugh at me...

              1. Pro Libertate   13 years ago

                Silly person. Mere billions are for common folk.

              2. veemee sashimi   13 years ago

                "Wait... aren't WE ALL billionaires?"

                Not for another three years when a case of Old Style will cost $100,000.

                1. Citizen Nothing   13 years ago

                  Are you claiming to have 10,000 cases of Old Style set aside?

                  1. veemee sashimi   13 years ago

                    Used to, now it's down to about three.

                    1. darius404   13 years ago

                      Someday, I hope I can say, "We are ALL billionaires now."

        2. Warty   13 years ago

          The Jungian thing?

          1. Almanian   13 years ago

            The well-hungian thing, if ya know what I'm sayin'...

          2. Pro Libertate   13 years ago

            No. Piss off.

            1. Warty   13 years ago

              All I ask is that you obey my orders like you would the word of God.

              1. Pro Libertate   13 years ago

                Like I told you before, that should be a management book title.

                1. sarcasmic   13 years ago

                  When I was in cooking school the chef had a sign in his office window that read:

                  Rule #1: The boss is always right.

                  Rule #2: When the boss is wrong, refer to Rule #1.

              2. darius404   13 years ago

                Oops.

                Woah woah woah Warty, you DON'T want people to obey you like it was the word of God, you at least want to do better than THAT.

  14. Apatheist ?_??   13 years ago

    Nice alt-text.

  15. Montani Semper Liberi   13 years ago

    I guess it's true what they say. Ask and you shall receive.

  16. Tim   13 years ago

    If he gets Cato next he'll be after Green Hornet.

    1. Almanian   13 years ago

      No, no - they already got OJ, so now they're trying to get Cato.

      1. Tim   13 years ago

        Closeau?

    2. Pro Libertate   13 years ago

      Please. Wrong Cato.

      This is the right Cato: "You fool! You raving Oriental idiot! There is a time and a place for everything, Cato! And this is it!" [Clouseau goes to attack Cato, but misses and destroys the restaurant's kitchen.]

      1. darius404   13 years ago

        +1 Nonexistent upvote.

  17. Almanian   13 years ago

    .....SO 24 hours ago....

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/....._blog.html

    (I believe that's the same one Matt linked to - too lazy to check - CAUSE I ALREADY READ THIS YESTERDAY)

  18. Citizen Nothing   13 years ago

    ...whom sits on the boards of both Cato and the Reason Foundation...

    Here's hoping Drew Carey outlasts David Koch, even though I once voted for Davy for Vice President. True story.
    Come to think of it, I also once voted for Wayne Allyn Root for Vice President. Jesus. What the fuck is wrong with me?

    1. White Indian   13 years ago

      No what the fuck is wrong with me?

    2. Blanco Indian   13 years ago

      No what the fuck is wrong with me?

  19. P Brooks   13 years ago

    Great capitalists like Soros need to be heard.

    Yup.

    1. Poor baby Soros...   13 years ago

      ...no one ever listens to him.

  20. Fist of Etiquette   13 years ago

    So the Koch brothers are trying to toss a widow out into the street, eh? This won't go over well on the MSNBC tonight.

    1. Tulpa   13 years ago

      If she was depending on living off of a non-profit organization, she deserves it.

      1. yonemoto   13 years ago

        ballers gotta roll like that. Voluntary says voluntary, bitch.

    2. joshua corning   13 years ago

      If you mean pay her millions for a corporation that is designed never to make money by "tossing her into the streets" then yeah that is what the Kochs are doing.

  21. P Brooks   13 years ago

    Jesus. What the fuck is wrong with me?

    You're obviously not afraid of failure.

    1. Citizen Nothing   13 years ago

      You're obviously not afraid of failure.

      Let's see:

      David Koch
      Andrew Marrou
      Nancy Lord
      Jo Jorgensen
      Art Olivier
      Richard Campagna
      Wayne Allyn Root

      I have no idea what you're talking about.

      1. Citizen Nothing   13 years ago

        Oh, wait. How the fuck could I have forgotten Jim Lewis?

        1. Citizen Nothing   13 years ago

          Really -- how many others of you can say they've cast a vote for all of these greats?

          1. veemee sashimi   13 years ago

            I fake voted for Gus Hall when we had a fake election in school when I was 9 (1980).

      2. romulus augustus   13 years ago

        At least Jo was a hottie.

  22. Nathan   13 years ago

    Cato is non-partisan? Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

    1. Citizen Nothing   13 years ago

      Honest question: To which party do you think they belong?

      1. Pro Libertate   13 years ago

        Holy cow, has he read nothing published by Cato? If they're helping the Republicans, it's in the same way the Nazis helped the Russians in the summer of '41.

        1. Citizen Nothing   13 years ago

          That's why I ask, Pro L, 'cause I honestly don't know what he's getting at.

          1. +   13 years ago

            Trolling, silly. Sheesh.

            1. Citizen Nothing   13 years ago

              Apparently I don't understand trolling, then.
              "Puzzling" troll is puzzling?

              1. +   13 years ago

                His rhetorical question, followed by the excessive derision, was obviously meant to elicit a response. That's how I understand trolling, anyway. Ask John. He's the expert around here at getting trolled.

                1. Citizen Nothing   13 years ago

                  excessive derision

                  ??
                  Apparently I also don't understand "excessive derision."
                  Oh, well.

                  1. Citizen Nothing   13 years ago

                    Oh, wait. You're saying the troll showed "excessive derision" simply to get any kind of response at all.
                    Huh. Weird.

      2. atheist   13 years ago

        Like all the other libertarians, they're owned lock stock and barrel by the conservatives.

    2. mr simple   13 years ago

      Non-partisan is a designation handed out by the IRS. Most non-partisan groups have clearly laid out ideologies.

      1. Pro Libertate   13 years ago

        To be sure, Cato is no shill. Some think tanks are, more or less. Probably most.

  23. mr simple   13 years ago

    So Michael Caine is David Koch? Is that a picture from Inception?

  24. Suzy Roundheels   13 years ago

    "We support Cato and its work," he said. "We want to ensure that Cato stays true to its fundamental principles of individual liberty, free markets, and peace into the future, and that it not be subject to the personal preferences of individual officers or directors."

    Like hiring those leftwing twits Wilkinson and Sanchez!

    1. RBS   13 years ago

      You've never actually read anything Sanchez has written have you?

  25. Banjoopy   13 years ago

    BFD.
    I'm getting married!

    1. Citizen Nothing   13 years ago

      And...pathetic troll is pathetic.
      Yep, I really don't get trolling these days.

      1. +   13 years ago

        You're supposed to ignore it. Answering it only makes it stronger.

        1. Citizen Nothing   13 years ago

          So our trolls are looking for and satisfied by any kind of answer at all?
          Really, what would be the purpose, then? Are our trolls nihilists?
          That's just scary.

  26. Christina   13 years ago

    This all reminds me of a party I went to at Ed Crane's house. Everyone was in the backyard having a good time and when I went in to go to the bathroom I found Ed on the couch watching a rerun of Friends. Dude just doesn't give a fuck about anyone.

  27. ChrisO   13 years ago

    It is kind of weird for the Koch Bros. to have such a hands-off policy on Cato for so many years and then suddenly go all litigation-y about it. I haven't seen any real explanation for that. Presumably, they could have exerted influence or bought out one of the other partners in the past if they had wanted.

    1. atheist   13 years ago

      No it's not weird. It's your owners telling you that you can't have it both ways any more. You can't both take their $$$ and pretend to be "free". I'm surprised the Koch's have been this nice to you up until now.

  28. LInda Lou   13 years ago

    Sounds like a plan to me dude.

    http://www.Went-Anon.tk

  29. Citizens U   13 years ago

    So, how much is the widow holding out for?

  30. Stormy Dragon   13 years ago

    Without commenting on who should win one way or the other, why do they even want to waste a lot of money litigating this? It's not like posession of her shares will assure them a bigger slice of that phat Cato dividend payment next quarter...

  31. HLM   13 years ago

    Personally I think this makes the Kochs look very bad, particularly Charles. How many weeks ago was it that Bill Niskanen was buried? I believe it was about 12 weeks and they are in court suing his widow. That is classless and crass.

    Cato has a good reputation of producing quality policy material. Koch has a reputation of being a power-hungry man with few real principles, mostly interested in protecting just his own personal interests.

    As a libertarian who previously defended them from unfair attacks, I'm now cheering the attackers on. This is despicable. This is just a power play that will end up discrediting a great libertarian organization in order to satisfy the ego of Charles Koch.

    1. Joe M   13 years ago

      Well, probably they assumed they would have this option, and the widow assumed she would get the ownership. I'm sure they tried to talk it out before it got to this stage.

  32. AlmightyJB   13 years ago

    This sounds like a job for Rollerball.

  33. Where's Murray Rothbard?   13 years ago

    Haha. You political hacks expose yourselves once again by omitting him.

    http://www.economicpolicyjourn.....-cato.html

  34. Bharat   13 years ago

    No mention of Rothbard?

  35. jb   13 years ago

    This Email from Jerry Taylor post at The Volakh Conspiracy provides detail into the happenings at CATO of late:

    Koch v. Cato ? A View from Cato

  36. MB   13 years ago

    "Cato was co-founded by Edward Crane and Charles Koch, in the nineteen-seventies, with Koch's money; the lawsuit notes that the original corporate name was the Charles Koch Foundation, Inc."

    You overlooked Murray Rothbard, who named it the Cato Institute and owned shares as well, until they where taken from him.

    Kind of overlooked that, huh?

  37. atheist   13 years ago

    All of a sudden, Big Daddy Koch is tired of your shit and wants you to cut the crap and pay the piper. HOW DOES IT FEEL TOADIES?! Not so nice when the big bully treats you exactly like any other cheap hooker now is it?

  38. atheist   13 years ago

    Wow. Something tells me this takeover will be the gift that keeps on giving.

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

'Banal Horror': Asylum Case Deals Trump Yet Another Loss on Due Process

Billy Binion | 5.29.2025 5:27 PM

Supreme Court Unanimously Agrees To Curb Environmental Red Tape That Slows Down Construction Projects

Jeff Luse | 5.29.2025 3:31 PM

What To Expect Now That Trump Has Scrapped Biden's Crippling AI Regulations

Jack Nicastro | 5.29.2025 3:16 PM

Original Sin, the Biden Cover-Up Book, Is Better Late Than Never

Robby Soave | 5.29.2025 2:23 PM

Did 'Activist Judges' Derail Trump's Tariffs?

Eric Boehm | 5.29.2025 2:05 PM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS

© 2024 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

This modal will close in 10

Reason Plus

Special Offer!

  • Full digital edition access
  • No ads
  • Commenting privileges

Just $25 per year

Join Today!