MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

The Official Koch Industries Reply to The New Yorker Hit Piece

Koch Industries has posted a response to Jane Mayer's New Yorker piece alleging that billionaires Charles and David Koch are waging a clandestine "war against Obama" based on fake science, bullshit public policy work, and other "covert operations" (the actual title of The New Yorker piece). As others have noted, the story is a masterpiece not of the tightly researched and argued journalism for which The New Yorker is revered, but of sly innuendo and revelations as lame as they are breathless. To give a taste of the piece, check this out:

[A] Republican campaign consultant said of the family’s political activities, “To call them under the radar is an understatement. They are underground!” Another former Koch adviser said, “They’re smart. This right-wing, redneck stuff works for them. They see this as a way to get things done without getting dirty themselves.” Rob Stein, a Democratic political strategist who has studied the conservative movement’s finances, said that the Kochs are “at the epicenter of the anti-Obama movement. But it’s not just about Obama. They would have done the same to Hillary Clinton. They did the same with Bill Clinton. They are out to destroy progressivism.”

Exactly how are the Koch brothers under the radar or underground? They show up every year in the Forbes super-rich lists. Charles Koch wrote a best-selling business book a year or two ago and makes no secret of his belief in free markets and limited government. David Koch ran for vice president of these United States on the Libertarian Party ticket in 1980 (where he helped Ed Clark pull over 900,000 votes, by far the highest total gained by the LP). Both are known for a wide range of philanthropic giving, whether to arts and medical outfits or think tanks or political action groups.

Full disclosure: David Koch has been on the board of trustees of Reason Foundation, the publisher of this website, for decades, and his name appears in the masthead of Reason magazine; I have also taught at various programs for the Institute for Humane Studies, which the Kochs fund, and will speak at an Americans for Prosperity event later this week. While I have never had more than brief interaction with either brother, I am perhaps overdue in thanking them on this blog for supporting my career at Reason, where I have argued in favor of gay marriage, drug legalization, non-interventionist foreign policy, open borders, sales in human organs, an end to corporate welfare, and a wide variety of other shamelessly libertarian policies.

While the Kochs are not publicity hounds, they certainly don't hide their giving or their political agenda under a bushel basket. They are consistently in favor of smaller government (even if Koch Industries gave 15 percent of its political donations to Democrats in the 2008 election cycle). They may in fact be "out to destroy progessivism" but they are hardly using secret means to combat the growth and reach of government. You can argue whether The New Yorker story is "shameful," but there's no question that it is a great example of the demonization of opposing points of view (this happens on the right, too, where way too many liberals are labeled socialists or communists or whatever). It's not enough that opponents believe different things, they must be cast as underhanded and duplicitous, acting out of only the most vulgar or awful of motives. Mayer could have easily written a story that left out the psycho-biographic innuendo (the Kochs' father was a Bircher!), unnamed sources, and half-truths such as this:

The Mercatus Center [a think tank affiliated with George Mason University founded by the Kochs] released a report claiming that stimulus funds had been directed disproportionately toward Democratic districts; eventually, the author was forced to correct the report, but not before Rush Limbaugh, citing the paper, had labelled Obama’s program “a slush fund,” and Fox News and other conservative outlets had echoed the sentiment.

The author of that study was Reason columnist Veronique de Rugy, whose research found that congressional districts represented by Democrats received significantly more stimulus money than those controlled by Republicans (she relied on government data from the Treasury Department). Her original study was critiqued by stats maven Nate Silver (now at The New York Times), who thought that controlling for state capitals would explain the seeming differential. De Rugy in fact did another analysis and found that "Democratic districts...received 2.65 times the amount of stimulus dollars that Republican districts received ($122 billion vs. $46 billion)." That's some correction.

New Yorker story short on conspiracist boilerplate and long on actual reporting (how, one wonders, does Koch Industries' supposedly horrible regulatory record stack up against other relevant firms'?) might have been interesting and illuminating. But that'll have to wait for a different time.

The Koch response is here.

Update: A recent New York Magazine story on David Koch.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they 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 for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    Gillespie, you cock sucker, if somebody outside your official libertarian coterie of true-believer assholes rubbed Sarah Palin's shit on your face, you say is was chocolate fudge.

  • ||

    I don't doubt this little tantrum will be cited as fact in Mayer's follow-up piece.

  • Paul||

    Win

  • ||

    Look, Edward changed his handle again. It's like he thinks we can't tell it's him. How cute.

    (no homo)

  • ||

    No shit, Gillespie. I come on hear to get updates about the mosque, and there are nothing but puff pieces about right-wingers, specifically Sarah Palin! Oh wait, that's right, I'm not retarded fucking liberal.

    Although I did hear the Jacket was a gift from the First Dude.

  • ||

    Geez, anon-bot's comments are more on-target than this.

  • ||

    Because Reason is so pro-Sarah-Palin, ya know.

  • ||

    Bad grammar, bad taste. Can you do anything right?

  • ||

    pwned

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    I knew there was an official libertarian coterie! If you guys didn't want me to join you could have just said so.

  • ||

    You don't belong here. There's still a chance for you to get away.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    There's Kubrick-style orgies, too? Aw, man! I miss out on the everything.

    It's the time the libertines wouldn't let me join all over again.

  • ||

    I don't even know where the secret reason blog is...so you can't bitch.

  • ||

    Shoot, if the Koch brothers pay for my college, so I can get some credentials, I'll write libertarian pieces all day. I already fight for libertarianism day in and day out, can't I start profiting from the evil rich cabal? When do I get my cut?

  • ||

    See! The Koch brothers paid you to forsake your inborn progressive faith and become a libertarian!

  • ||

    "We’re foraging for reef-dwelling mollusks, guys. Come on."

  • ||

    "They are out to destroy progressivism.”

    Sons of a bitch. How dare they - right as Hope and Change was really getting us started in the right direction. Back off the cliff and shit.
  • ||

    Obama's fanboys love the Koch!

  • ||

    Once again, we have a nasty, uninformed attack from the left on libertarians. Yet I still cannot understand how libertarians have become the left's boogeyman. I know it's partially that leftists are constitutionally incapable of understanding libertarian concepts (such as individual freedom) and have a completely distorted view of what libertarians are about; but it's like they're willfully misunderstanding--as if they want a particular demon and don't care how much they have to deceive themselves to get it.

  • ||

    Personally I prefer nasty, uninformed attacks from other libertarians on libertarians.

  • ||

    How typical of an ape's head.

    I prefer the attacks where the attacker gets libertarianism so fundamentally wrong that you have to wonder if they were dumped by a libertarian, or possibly was picked on by libertarians in high school.

  • ||

    Good God, who's pathetic enough that libertarians picked on them in high school?!?

  • ||

    People who write for The New Yorker?

  • Paul||

    Everyone at NPR.

  • Hugh Akston||

    The entire American economy, apparently.

  • ||

    They are not misunderstanding. The left wants their fingers in every aspect of a person's life. A philosophy that primarily espouses being left alone and property rights gives them nothing to latch onto if implemented. A world run on libertarian lines would completely negate the left's power. The progressive left's most natural enemies are libertarians, what I don't understand is why libertarians seem to be surprised by that fact.

  • ||

    It's about control, yes, but I think for the run-of-the-mill leftist, not the political operatives, it's not that they want control just for the sake of having power over others. I think they honestly believe that if things are controlled to the point they would like, the world would be a much much better, safer place.

  • ||

    I'll buy that many are well intentioned, but in some ways that makes it worse. When people find a way wiggle out from under the current stifling rules, the left slaps another level of control until everything is regulated to the gnat's ass, but people are unable to move without breaking the rules or having to ask permission.

    Why they want control does not matter as much as that they want control.

  • ||

    church

  • ||

    I believe that's true of Christian Fundamentalists, as well. If everybody just lived by the Bible, and accepted Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, the world would be a much much better, safer place.

  • ||

    Yes, but their philosophy/religion involves choice whereas Leftists' involves force.

  • ||

    Burning witches was a choice.

  • ||

    For those doing the burning, sure.

  • ||

    "I think they honestly believe that if things are controlled to the point they would like, the world would be a much much better, safer place."

    For the children!

    http://tinyurl.com/37uo5hg

  • SIV||

    The progressive left's most natural enemies are libertarians, what I don't understand is why libertarians seem to be surprised by that fact.

    Exactly

  • ||

    Because a lot of libertarians see the religious as their natural enemy due to social restrictions. This is in part because they fail to see religious people like Bob Murphy and Ron Paul as religious people .

  • ||

    But religious people burn witches!

  • ||

    Isn't there a belief in Scientology that negativities are actually alien beings implanted in our brains?

  • ||

    I can't understand why leftists feel the need to resort to dishonest tactics like this kind of character assassination bullshit to make their case.

    Or how anyone can fall for it.

  • ||

    Or how anyone can fall for it.

    Because it validates the icky feelings they get over self-determination and choice.

  • ||

    It looks like I've found the section of the comment thread for "people who haven't read the New Yorker article, and who would rather be ignorant and restate things that Gillespie posted above."

  • ||

    We're too far to the right for the uber-lefties... that, and we're too pro-capitalism.

  • Hugh Akston||

    where I have argued in favor of gay marriage, drug legalization, non-interventionist foreign policy, open borders, sales in human organs, an end to corporate welfare, and a wide variety of other shamelessly libertarian policies.

    Nick, you reactionary right-wing ultraconservative bastard.

  • ||

    "They are out to destroy progressivism."

    Progressism has been trying to destroy classical liberalism for about a century now. When someone's trying to kill you, you have a right to try to kill them back.

  • ||

    Fuck yes.

  • ||

    where way too many liberals are labeled socialists

    When you favor socializing major chunks of the economy, I dont think that is uncalled for.

  • ||

    Or when you support a President who does...

  • ||

    Yeap, you are just trying to be even handed in a David Brooks kind of way, Nick, but it is bullshit. Any of these lunatics against cap'n'trade except those who don't think it goes far enough? Whether they are driving at fifty five, sixty five, or one hundred m.p.h in terms of how fast they want to get there, it is the same Goddamned destination.

  • ||

    Nick's correct. Socialism is just a means of control, not an end in itself.

    Due to the fact that control can be obtained just as well (if not even more efficiently) with taxation, regulation, corporate cronyism and social pressures, the label of socialism misses the true goal of the leftist.

    Control is power, and power means wealth and status. They're more Gordon Gekko than anyone else.

    Mis-labeling works against itself.

  • ||

    "Socialism" is the state control of the means of production (capital). When the state basically owns the banking industry, 2/3 of the domestic auto industry, and reserves the right to take over any other industry, at any time, what are we supposed to call it?

    It would be one thing if he was talking about people who call Obama a Maoist or Nazi. Those are obviously hyperbolic. But to call a president who has essentially nationalized entire industries socialist isn't really that much of a stretch.

  • ||

    TARP began under President Bush and was devised by Bernanke, Paulson and Geithner, in their respective roles as Chair of the Fed, Sec. of the Treasury and President of the Federal Reserve of NY. Half of the allotted funds were released under Bush and Obama requested that the other half of the funds be released as well.

    Your memory is not serving you too well.

    I didn't support the bailout of the US auto industry at all (if they're too inefficient to stay in business, let them fail), but I'm heartened that the government and GM are already on track to begin selling that stock.

    The banking bailout was a completely different story, and I trust that that bailout was necessary to stave off an enormous depression. When the banks that fund most of the large and small businesses in the US and are tied to most of the capital projects in the US, intervention is necessary. Afterwards, an examining of why it happened, and then re-writing the regulations so that it can't happen again are the next steps. Wow - things that have happened.

    I'm guessing you should become better informed, because if these are your reasons for disliking Obama, you must have hated Bush, and you'll definitely hate whoever is next in power.

  • ||

    You also have to include those who profess that the constitution does not go far enough because it is a document of 'negative' rights, what the government can't do against you, as opposed to 'positive' rights, what the government can do for you.

    This can only be accomplished through two means, corporatist redistribution to favored private interest or socialist redistribution to favored public interest, and Obama obviously wasn't labeling himself a corporate hack.

    As the Newsweek cover shortly after Obama was sworn in stated 'We are All Socialist Now' meaning like minded beltway insiders, quit your bitchin' about the accurate label. You embrace it when it can be spun as a positive and hep sentiment as Newsweek editors thought it to be at the time, but now after the bitter fruits have been tasted it is all, 'oh, no! Hyperbole! Hyperbole!'

  • ||

    I'm going to apply for work at this company. Thanks for the tip. Seriously. They kick ass.

    Oh, and if they have a newletter, I'd be interested in subscribing...

  • ||

    A few sites for you, from a current Koch employee that loves our culture and support for free markets:

    www.kochind.com/ViewPoint/ for articles and more info about their market-based culture

    KochCareers.com to view job openings

    Search for the Discovery Newsletter, the name of the quarterly company newsletter.

    And last but not least,
    www.kochfamilyfoundations.com for a summary of their philanthropic donations and support for education programs and environmental stewardship.

  • ||

    Thank you so much, Lauren!

  • ||

    Her original study was critiqued by stats maven Nate Silver (now at The New York Times), who thought that controlling for state capitals would explain the seeming differential.

    Doesnt it saying something if state capitols are inproportionately in democratic districts?

  • ||

    I think the point here is that state capitals are cities, and urbanites have a much stronger tendency to vote Democrat.

  • ||

    The money was funneled through state capitals which would skew democrat v. republican data per county.

  • ||

    Most state capitols have been the same for 100 years or more. The demoncrats have always been good at slow playing a hand.

  • ||

    I prefer the attacks where the attacker gets libertarianism so fundamentally wrong that you have to wonder if they were dumped by a libertarian, or possibly was picked on by libertarians in high school.

    Maybe the reason so many get it wrong is the number of phonies who call themselves "libertarians" but don't walk the walk. About 50% of the "libertarians" I meet end up, on learning more, to just be selfish Conservatives who concern with liberty starts and stops with their own personal situation.

  • ||

    I have the opposite problem.

    All the phonies i meet want to legalize pot because they smoke it but voted in favor of outlawing cigarettes in bars and voted for and support Obama.

    I have found in the flesh more principled libertarians who call themselves democrats and/or republicans then i have found in the flesh libertarians who call themselves libertarians.

  • ||

    ditto

  • ||

    Didn't you hear? Obama smoked pot and that makes him kool as a pres. Of course, admitting to smoking pot 20 years ago and actually doing something to stop a stupid drug war are two totally different things and your stoned friends are either too stupid or too stoned (or both) to realize this.

    Stoned morons that voted for Obama piss me off.

  • ||

    (i hope) nobody actually expected obama to legalize drugs. he's certainly a lot better than his recent predecessors on marijuana policy and radically better than mccain would've been. if you base your vote on drug policy, than obama was your man. unless you want to throw your vote away on libertarian or green candidates, which i did.

  • ||

    Nick:
    I'm sure that you are old enough to remember the pre-Tina Brown "New Yorker": eminently readable, even when it took a liberal slant. Under David Remnick, it has gone completely to hell.
    Isn't this the same repulsive Jane
    Mayer who coauthored the notorious hit on Justice Thomas?

  • ||

    Indeed!

  • ||

    Olbermann and Maddow both spent a while on humping this New Yorker piece last night, one of 'em even had the author on. In summary:

    *One of the Koch brothers looks like an old Steven Colbert.
    *They are evil because they pollute a lot and make rayon.
    *Olbermann and Maddow said that the Kochs were coercing the Tea Party people to protest things that helped their company's bottom line. Also, the hosts used the terms libertarians and right-wingers interchangeably.

  • ||

    *Olbermann and Maddow said that the Kochs were coercing the Tea Party people to protest things that helped their company's bottom line. Also, the hosts used the terms libertarians and right-wingers interchangeably.

    They are regressing.

    The lefts 5 steps of Obama grief:

    step 1: denial - AstroTurf
    step 2: Anger - They are racists!
    Step 3 bargaining - Libertarians are right about barber licenses.
    Step 4 : Depression - ??
    step 5 : Acceptance -??

    Depression will happen after November. Acceptance is an unknown. I had a theory for how it would manifest but i forgot it.

  • ||

    I'm predicting Olbie never gets past Step 2.

  • ||

    I think Maddow might make it out, but only because i have seen her on tucker carlson's old PBS show.

    I suspect she does not live in as air tight echo chamber as Olbermann.

    Oh yeah and I remembered how i think step 5 will play out.

    The left will accept Obama being a huge looser but will say he was not a true lefty. Firedoglake has already pioneered the path by saying that Obama has been mostly a corporate crony.

    So sadly this will not destroy the left. They will simply go back to saying progressivism has never been truly tried before.

    There is a slight chance they reform and permanently drop some of their more caustic economic policies....but i have my doubts.

  • ||

    "The left will accept Obama being a huge looser but will say he was not a true lefty. Firedoglake has already pioneered the path by saying that Obama has been mostly a corporate crony."

    Only the drug addicts.

  • ||

    Olbermann only acknowledges the first two steps in public and the fourth one in private.

  • Paul||

    So are these Koch people out to destroy progressivism the way George Soros is out to destroy conservatism?

  • ||

    But OUR billionaire cares.

  • ||

    Soros didn't feel guilt from confiscating the possessions of his own people being slaughtered. Why would he give a fuck about anyone?

  • ||

    He also didn't feel bad "attacking" currencies of nations. While I wouldn't normally have a problem with this (since if the countries' national banks had not been engaged in chicanery, it wouldn't have worked), why aren't those lefties out saying what a bastard Soros is for helping to instigate the Southeast Asian crisis of 1998?

  • ||

    Does anyone else remember the far-left wack-a-doodle article that someone ran on the Koch brothers back 3-4 months ago? I can't remember what website it appeared on but it was but it was nutjob-level far left.

    Anyone else suspect that perhaps Jane Mayer got the idea by reading that article?

    I mean, this is how the left operates, really. Some cynical progressive publishes a pack of lies on some propaganda rag, then some left-liberal picks up the idea and pushes it into the mainstream media.

  • ||

    I believe you are refering to this: http://www.alternet.org/econom.....age=entire

  • ||

    Yes, that's the one. The Jane Mayer piece is less unhinged, but still has the same glow of fervent paranoia.

  • ||

    Mayer also repeats the error (also in the Alternet piece) that Fred Koch was a founder of the John Birch Society.

    Telltales.

  • ||

    Ok that error is everywhere. The Koch article says he wasn't.

    Maybe the Koch thing is all part of the same left-wing meme.

  • ||

    Is it evidence of plagiarism?

  • ||

    The John Birch Society was founded by Robert Welch, by the way.

    Their fact checker should be fired.

    I wonder what else in that article wasn't fact checked...

  • ernie1241||

    It would have been more accurate to state that he was a "founding member" of the JBS -- along with 10 other individuals.

  • ||

    The Borg operate in similar fashion.

  • ||

    My favorite part of the article was when they go through the list of Koch's refineries, pipelines, all the subsidiaries, and identify it as the second largest private company in the country, and then, ominously, finger it as "one of the top ten air polluters in the United States"...

    As if the expectation would be that smaller, less productive companies would be in the top ten?

    Are there private companies that just put out lots of pollution *without* being productive?

  • Paul||

    Are there private companies that just put out lots of pollution *without* being productive?

    Yes. It's known as the Federal Government.

  • ||

    private companies

  • ||

    Distinction?

  • ||

    Misprinted name, sorry. But intriguing.

  • ||

    10$ says that if CO2 were not considered a pollutant they would drop from the top 10 polluters down to the top 100.

  • ||

    It's a fact that GM and Chrysler now belch rainbows, bunnies, and foxes as byproducts from their factories.

  • ||

    Long live the brothers Koch!

    If only there were a million more of them.

  • Mike H||

    Some about all this reminds me of something our Dear Leader's favorite philosopher used to say: people hurt faster than institutions.

  • ||

    They are out to destroy progressivism.”

    Do they have a news letter I can subscribe to? (now if that isn't a setup, I don't know what is)

  • bags||

    Yes. It's known as the Federal Government.

  • jemo||

    As if the expectation would be that smaller, less productive companies would be in the top ten?

  • scarf||

    Olbermann only acknowledges the first two steps in public and the fourth one in private.

  • ||

    I enjoy Gillespie's writing. The carefully managed snark combined with excellent research makes any piece by him amusing and informative. Long live his shaggy hair and his mandarin collars.

  • ||

    They'll be able to buy the NY Times for five dollars in a few years.

  • ||

    The New Yorker too.

  • ||

    and a journalist's soul for half that

  • ||

    So, are they among the world's biggest polluters or not? I'm no fan of Soros the liberal hag, but can someone directly refute some of the actual charges, particularly the stuff about formaldehyde and the other pollutants Koch Industries belches into the air? Or do you really think "Mother Nature" is gonna clean it all up?

  • ||

    I was hoping Obama and Joe would clean it up. They are going to borrow Ben's spandex undies and cape.

  • ||

    Only cunts work for the New Yorker.

    The National Enquirer often has better reporting.

  • ||

    Koch bros love the Fed.

  • ||

    Hmmm....a REASON Foundation supporter got his hair pulled and now the mag rushes to the defense of these corporate cronies? Y-A-W-N...

  • ||

    You're so bored you had to comment?

  • oldParasiteSingle||

    Mr. Gillespie writes that Jane Mayer reported Koch's "fake science, bullshit public policy work." I read the New Yorker piece and it mentions nothing about bullshit science. However since the Climate Change Denier research is not reproducible and without substantial merits, I'll take Mr. Gillespie's words to heart about the Koch Industries contribution since he is such an authority on them.

  • ||

    also cause they pay his salary

  • ||

    Nick Gillespie's silly tirade carries a whiff of insecurity and defensiveness. One wonders if Mayer's piece might give a clue as to why.

    Mayer was interviewed today on NPR's "Fresh Air" and recounted that, besides her unflattering portrayal of the Kochs, she'd also previously done a piece that was unflattering of Soros, the bete noir of the rabid right.

    When Terry Gross asked her to compare them, Mayer said there was no comparison. Whereas Soros was a model of openness and spent hours with her, freely answering her questions, the Kochs flatly denied her any access whatsoever, whether in person, in writing, you name it. The Kochs, of course, are notorious for being tight-lipped.

    Now perhaps the Kochs' passion for secrecy, particularly when it comes to journalists, is completely innocent, entirely unrelated to their having something to hide. But one could be forgiven for wondering, because they "open up" to SOME journalists.

    As Mayer reported, they "opened up" to the editor of this magazine!

    Quote:

    “He (senior Koch) was constantly speaking to us children about what was wrong with government,” he told Brian Doherty, an editor of the libertarian magazine Reason, and the author of “Radicals for Capitalism,” a 2007 history of the libertarian movement. “It’s something I grew up with—a fundamental point of view that big government was bad, and imposition of government controls on our lives and economic fortunes was not good.”

    And

    Charles and David also became devotees of a more radical thinker, Robert LeFevre, who favored the abolition of the state but didn’t like the label “anarchist”; he called himself an “autarchist.” LeFevre liked to say that “government is a disease masquerading as its own cure.” In 1956, he opened an institution called the Freedom School, in Colorado Springs. Brian Doherty, of Reason, told me that “LeFevre was an anarchist figure who won Charles’s heart,” and that the school was “a tiny world of people who thought the New Deal was a horrible mistake.” According to diZerega, Charles supported the school financially, and even gave him money to take classes there.

    Read more http://www.newyorker.com/repor.....z0xlSRweYE

    Unquote.

    Now maybe, just maybe, Gillespie's umbrage is unrelated to the possibility that, by rushing to the Koch's defense, Reason can maintain its access to the Koch's, and perhaps even to donations.

    I'm sure we'll never know. For who would tell - the Koch's or Reason?

  • ||

    Try reading her piece on Soros. It's neither a hit piece nor unflattering.

    "I asked Soros to name one thing in the world that he wished he could have, he replied with a laugh,“If I want it, I own it.” He paused. “But I do want something,” Soros finally said, his smile fading. “I want my ideas to be heard.”

    Read more http://www.newyorker.com/archi.....z0xlkMwMkY

    Same thing with the Koch brothers, you dolt.

  • ||

    Ah, by this retort, 'shitty friend' has proven himself a "conservative." And how does one tell? First, he refutes an assertion I didn't make - that Mayer's piece on Soros was a "hit piece." I didn't say that. I described it as Jane Meyer herself described it yesterday on Terry Gross's "Fresh Air," "unflattering."

    Did Gross misdescribe her own article? Inter alia, she wrote the following:

    "Critics of Soros see his donations as brazenly hypocritical, considering that, until recently, he was a leading crusader for campaign-finance reform in America. Starting in the late nineteen-nineties, he donated eighteen million dollars to groups that supported the cause, and he is credited with having contributed significantly to the passage of the McCain-Feingold law. When Soros was asked about this reversal, he said, 'This is the most important election of my lifetime. These aren’t normal times. The ends justify every legal means possible.'"

    http://www.newyorker.com/archi.....z0xmQDAblO

    While it doesn't descend to the sort of name-calling "Shitty Friend" may believe would qualify it as "unflattering," but it's scarcely an encomium.

    I hope "Shitty Friend" is in the same tax bracket I'm in and that the Koch's succeed in saving him as much in taxes as I'll save if the Koch's win in blocking attempts to raise taxes on us high earners.

    I mean, it'd be a tragedy if we had to pay the same higher rate of taxes we paid during the Reagan era. Surely, it's just to keep my taxes low by borrowing from future generations, n'est pas?

    For when Reagan ran up the then-biggest deficits in history, at least he did it that the burden of the debts would fall not to guys like me, but on the lower and lower middle classes. Thanks, Gipper!

    GaryA

  • ||

    GaryA, Of course, Meyer described her profile on Soros as "unflattering". Even you begrudgingly admit, it hardly is. There's a world of difference between "unflattering" and "encomium". I bet Soros was pleased with the article.

    In the Soros article, Mayer calls out the wealthy Republican/Conservative "charitable foundations promoting policies that were in their immediate self-interest", while what Soros just, "wants his ideas to be heard" The Kochs also want their ideas heard. If you think it's all about taxes, then we have nothing further to talk about.

    I am no conservative, but you have proven yourself to be a dufus. I'm just calling a spade a spade. Go back to listening to that partisan hag, Terry Gross. She's only interested in being open minded and "intelligent", right? Give me a fuckin break.

  • ||

    Man, Gillespie, I remember roflmao'ing as you trounced Jonah Goldberg and Peter Beinart at an Arsalyn conference. You were my idol back then - you demonstrated an acute sense of perceptibility and cut through the bullshit like no other. Now..

    Now you're just a Koch sucker, throwing integrity to the wind for the chance to brown-nose your corporate overlords. We'll miss you, man.

  • ||

    Dang, Nick can't win. Mish, go back to sucking Mises' dusty dick.

  • ||

    There's something decidedly un-Libertarian and rather pathetic about Nick Gillespie's channeling Ken Mehlman and spinning one for the team here.

    A True Libertarian would never be like the Koch brothers and demand that one of the organization it finances defend the True Libertarian. Instead, a True Libertarian would mount its own defense and do its own spinning.

    A True Libertarian would never agree like Nick Gillespie to defend its financial backer. Hell no! A True Libertarian would tell its financial backer to stick its head up its ass, stomp into the boss's office and tell the boss to stick his/her head up his/her's ass, and then walk out back for a bong hit or three.

    But Gillespie not only agreed to spin this crap for the Koch brothers. Gillespie even grovels on the page before them like some worthless Congressional staffer, mindless AIPAC loyalist, or garden variety ACORN office hack.

    Did someone remove Gillespie's balls? Is Gillespie now angling for a job at Cato since the Koch brothers bounced the two David Frums out of that shop?

    Where in the hell is the True Libertarian formerly known as Nick Gillespie?

  • ||

    There's nothing remotely unlibertarian about defending a financial backer.

    However that is all begging the question since it's not clear at all that's his motivation. He's simply pointing out the article is crap, as any 'True Libertarian' would know all about the kochtapus and know that what is accurate in the article is no secret and the rest is tripe.

  • ||

    The Koch brothers' demand that Nick Gillespie defend their actions on the pages of Reason hardly epitomizes the self-reliance and personal responsibility that define the True Libertarian.

    Gillespie's willful submission to do his masters' bidding fails, quite miserably, to adhere to the individual strength and go-it-alone quality that define the True Libertarian.

    Instead, the Koch brothers have chosen to behave in a manner befitting Augusto Pinochet and Gillespie has regressed into little more than a hack along the lines of the Tass News Agency or Baghdad Bob.

    The Koch brothers have used their financial power to willfully ignore their personal responsibilities as True Libertarians. Gillespie has opted to cower meekly like a paid stooge and declined to stand alone and apart as a True Libertarian.

  • ||

    This is called begging the question. You are assuming your assertion.

    Fail.

    Even if it was true, there is nothing unlibertarian about unlibertarian about being paid for a service.

    Fail.

    There is nothing unlibertarian about using financial power.

    Fail.

    So far as I can see the kochtopus is spending millions on the philanthropy of educating people about economics. While this may possibly be 'unObjectivist' it's certainly not unlibertarian.

  • ||

    "So far as I can see the kochtopus is spending millions on the philanthropy of educating people about economics" of oligarchy and in such a way that will ensure he will be able to keep the billions he earned the old fashioned way, by inheritance.

  • ||

    Faith,

    This is called following the fool, your antics. You are assuming that Nick Gillespie is an independent voice - even after Gillespie has admitted that he owes his job and his finances to the Koch brothers.

    Fail.

    There is nothing unbiased about writing for one's financial powers.

    Fail.

    So far as I can see, the Kochtopus is spending millions on defending its personal desire to secure billions - at the expense of the American populace and nation as a whole. While the Koch brothers' motivations and Gillespie's antics to defend his masters are without question unObjectivist, both are certainly contrary to the merit and hard work that had defined America until roughly 1980.

  • ||

    Holy crap you're a perfect exemplar of our fine public stupidification system. Hell you could be a teacher. You're as confused as a conservative or a liberal.

    even after Gillespie has admitted that he owes his job and his finances to the Koch brothers.

    Doesn't demonstrate motive. I'm unpaid by the kochtopus and have the same opinion.

    There is nothing unbiased about writing for one's financial powers.

    No one said that. I said bias is not unlibertarian. See I actually respond to what you say. You respond to voices in your head then write stuff unrelated. This causes you to be deluded that your thinking is remotely coherent.

    While the Koch brothers' motivations and Gillespie's antics to defend his masters are without question unObjectivist, both are certainly contrary to the merit and hard work that had defined America until roughly 1980.

    Your timeline is sorely lacking.

    The Koch motivations are interesting but not particularly germane. The fact is they do fund freedom oriented institutions. That they also protect their business interests is hardly incriminating.

    Even Hank Reardon had his 'man in Washington'. Even if you want to change the game to a free market you have to play by the current rules until then.

    The question you should be asking is.. what have they done that is anti-freedom compared to what they do that is pro freedom?

    I don't know what your boggle is but the great libertarian schism was over long ago, and the principles largely don't care any more. (Lew may still harbor a grudge, but not so much anyone else, and Rothbard is dead)

    I think it's long past time for a for a rapprochement. David if you're reading, could you set an example and toss Mises a mil and hold out the olive branch, would ya? We're all on the same side aren't we?

  • ||

    "No one said that. I said bias is not unlibertarian."

    So you've merely confirmed my assertion that Nick Gillespie, Reason, and the Liebertarian movement as a whole exist for their financial masters and, as such, should be regarded as totally and wholly biased for those financial backers.

    "The Koch motivations are interesting but not particularly germane. The fact is they do fund freedom oriented institutions. That they also protect their business interests is hardly incriminating."

    The Koch brothers' motivations are central to Nick Gillespie and Reason. The Koch brothers' primary motivation is to protect their business interests. The Koch brothers protect their business interests by funding oligarchial think tanks with pseudo-democratic titles.

    As you, yourself, maintained in the statement above, the Koch brothers have bought and paid for the biased statements of Nick Gillespie, Reason, and the Libertarian movement. Therefore, any statements, writings, or opinions offered by Mr. Gillespie, Reason, and the Libertarian movement must be viewed as public relations on behalf of the Koch brothers and their business interests.

    The Koch brothers have acted in opposition to freedom and the American Democratic way of life by openly purchasing the opinions, statements, and writings of Mr. Gillespie, Reason, and the Libertarian movement and thus negating the very existence of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Free speech matters not to the Koch brothers - a point you have rendered as not being germane to the conversation, their activities, and/or the activities of Mr. Gillespie, Reason, the Libertarian movement, and, of course, the John Birch Society, which their late-father HELPED WITH OTHERS to found. (Please do not claim that I have asserted that the late-Mr. Koch founded SOLELY AND WHOLLY the John Birch Society. I have not.)

    The Koch brothers oppose the U.S. Constitution, free speech, and anything and everything that would in any way prevent their ability to take whatever they want at the great expense to society as a whole.

    But, according to you, if the Koch brothers have the money, they should be able to buy whatever they want - including an absence of freedom.

    So how much do the Koch brothers need to pay for your blind loyalty and willful desertion from the freedoms of our democratic society?

  • ||

    So you've merely confirmed my assertion that Nick Gillespie, Reason, and the Liebertarian movement as a whole exist for their financial masters and, as such, should be regarded as totally and wholly biased for those financial backers.

    You've confirmed my assertion that collectivists are barely coherent and can't understand ideas more complicated than might makes right.

    The Koch brothers' primary motivation is to protect their business interests.

    No where demonstrated. Proof by repeated assertion.

    As you, yourself, maintained in the statement above, the Koch brothers have bought and paid for the biased statements of Nick Gillespie,

    Simple and egregious lie.

    The Koch brothers have acted in opposition to freedom and the American Democratic way of life by openly purchasing the opinions, statements

    Openly? Brazenly? But I thought it was a secret conspiracy?;)

    Regardless again 1) There is no evidence to support this other than your repeated assertions and 2) there is nothing unlibertarian about paying for a service. Libertarians pay, give value for value, for services. Collectivists like you steal them.

    The Koch brothers oppose the U.S. Constitution

    Patently absurd. If there's one thing the organizations promote more than anything else it's the Constitution.

    But, according to you, if the Koch brothers have the money, they should be able to buy whatever they want

    Of course. You think you will promote freedom by limiting someone elses'?

    - including an absence of freedom.

    Oh I see, you're confusing them with Soros. The Koh's are the other guys, the ones who give money to organizations that support freedom.

    So how much do the Koch brothers need to pay for your blind loyalty and willful desertion from the freedoms of our democratic society?

    I have no loyalty, so nothing. I judge them by their works. If they start funding collectivist groups like American Enterprise Institute or Brookings then I'll be a detractor.

    But for now they fund Reason, Cato, Mercatus, IHS, AFP and lots more that you've probably never heard of. All pro liberty groups.

  • ||

    >I have no loyalty

    That's where you're wrong. You're just in too deep to know it.

  • ||

    That's where you're wrong. You're just in too deep to know it.

    Strong with the ignorance is this one.

    I'm actually a Rothbardian. But that doesn't mean I can't recognize unfounded accusations against Nick. He's never once supported pro-corporatist policies (which is essentially what you are accusing Koch of)

    and it doesn't change the facts that you have admitted that the:...

    I've admitted none of those things. The problem posting while being a low grade moron is that you forget that people can just scroll up and see you are full of shit.

    The First Amendment contains no clause about "freedom of speech for sale to the highest bidder".

    No it just says congress shall pass no law abridging the freedom of speech.

    Lovely in it's clarity.

    or Gillespie's willing forfeiture

    So far as I know he's never voted for any censorship laws or promoted same. That's the only way he could be said to have willingly forfeited freedom of speech.

    Or do you mean the fact that he's employed?

    Does a pea brained collectivists feel like he's forfeiting his freedom because he's doing the bidding of the man by taking a paycheck?

    One must wonder.. why so h8? Is your life so pathetic that that posting prurient adolescent rants against a man immeasurably more intelligent (and clearly infinitely more emotionally adjusted) than you makes you feel better about yourself?

    I mean if you really want to feel superior to Nick what you want to do is attack his fashion sense.. that's a critique that might have some basis..

  • ||

    "But for now they fund Reason, Cato, Mercatus, IHS, AFP and lots more that you've probably never heard of. All pro liberty groups."

    All pro-Koch brothers groups.

    Filled with staffers who know that they must either blindly follow the Koch brothers and their financial interests or hit the road.

    Keep pitching all the Collectivist shtick you like and it doesn't change the facts that you have admitted that the:

    Koch brothers bought Nick Gillespie and Nick Gillespie's writing at Reason; and,

    Loyal Koch brothers' followers such as yourself sees nothing wrong with Nick Gillespie and Reason selling out to the Koch brothers.

    The First Amendment contains no clause about "freedom of speech for sale to the highest bidder". That's what the Koch brothers have done with Gillespie and Reason and their First Amendment rights.

    That you see no problem with such a transaction or Gillespie's willing forfeiture of his freedom of speech for a price is an issue for you and you alone. Some would call your beliefs Fascist in nature. I just find you rather sad.

  • ||

    and it doesn't change the facts that you have admitted that the:...

    I've admitted none of those things. The problem with posting while being a low grade moron is that you forget that people can just scroll up and see you are full of shit.

    The First Amendment contains no clause about "freedom of speech for sale to the highest bidder".

    No it just says congress shall pass no law abridging the freedom of speech.

    Lovely in it's clarity.

    or Gillespie's willing forfeiture

    So far as I know he's never voted for any censorship laws or promoted same. That's the only way he could be said to have willingly forfeited freedom of speech.

    Or do you mean the fact that he's employed?

    Does a pea brained collectivist feel like he's forfeiting his freedom because he's doing the bidding of the man by taking a paycheck? Oh I know working for a living is bad. Better to steal from taxpayers.

    One must wonder.. why so h8? Is your life so pathetic that that posting prurient adolescent rants against a man immeasurably more intelligent (and clearly infinitely more emotionally adjusted) than you makes you feel better about yourself?

    I mean if you really want to feel superior to Nick what you want to do is attack his fashion sense.. that's a critique that might have some basis

  • ||

    Kills,

    You wrote:

    "low grade moron";

    "full of shit";

    "pea (sic) brained collectivist"; and,

    "adolescent rants".

    Then you accuse me of hatred. Interesting world in which you live, one in which the standards of respectful debate only apply to those debating you - and not yourself.

    Hypocrisy, one suggests, you will find merely by gazing into the screen of your computer for the reflection. If that fails, a look into the bathroom mirror will suffice.

    Lastly, one hardly displays some sort of pseudo-superiority by asking a writer who avows free-market, entrepreneurial principles why that writer has openly and willingly sold himself and his words to a pair of Texas-based oligarchs. Expecting Mr. Gillespie to write in accordance with his policy positions and without doing the bidding of his financial masters is only to require the highest forms of professionalism and personal responsibility on his part.

  • ||

    Then you accuse me of hatred

    Nope I asked you why you were filled with hate. Your hateful vitriol started from your first post. My calling you full of shit and a low grade moron was just belaboring the obvious. For that I apologize.

    Hypocrisy, one suggests, you will find merely by gazing into the screen of your computer for the reflection

    Hey LGM. Look up 'hypocrisy' if you don't mind.

    Lastly, one hardly displays some sort of pseudo-superiority by asking a writer who avows free-market, entrepreneurial principles why that writer has openly and willingly sold himself and his words to a pair of Texas-based oligarchs

    And yet you can't find a case where Nick did any such thing. So either such a case exists, but you're too much a LGM to find it, or it doesn't exist, and you're just talking out your hate-filled ass.

    Which is it komrade?

  • ||

    So, you're just another whore, Gillespie, who'd happily give a lap dance to David Koch in your tutu if it got you another grant, or $700,000 salary like Pete Martins.

    Hey, "Serf's Up." That's what the Koch brothers say when they go to Lincoln Center.

    A bunch of Wichita whoremongers.

  • ||

    If this is the Official Koch Industries Reply Ms. Mayer has nothing to fear.

  • ||

    If the Koch’s are not secretive are you assert; then why are they hiding behind lies about global warming?

    The lies coming from Conservatives on global warming are legion; everything from the scientific consensus to the lies spewed about the leaked emails (three separate investigates cleared those climate scientists by the way.)

    If they are oh-so-in-the-light why don’t they grow a pair and just come out and say screw the Earth, screw the scientists and screw anyone and everyone who will suffer once sea levels start to significantly rise.

    Hiding behind lies is still hiding.

  • ||

    So bottom line Nick, Reason is being financially supported by the Koch's. Now why would they do that Nick? I read Mayer's article and sure there was some innuendo but also quite a lot of substance which can't be denied. I've known about the Koch's activities for years and it's hard to deny it's John Birch II. You may think this is a good thing for the Republican party and for America. I don't.

  • ||

    The Koch brothers are nothing more than John Birchers with deeper pockets and a well-coordinated, bought-and-paid-for group of talk radio hosts, Fox Newsers, and bloggers to spin their efforts otherwise.

    The Koch brothers want a Fascist America with them as the Fascists. Look at it any other way and you're only lying to yourself.

    And if you think Nick Gillespie is going to do anything other than type the Koch brothers' "talking points" when they yank the chain at the back of his neck, then you're living in a Dream World.

  • ||

    You parasites sure are thin-skinned. Get a real job, Gillespie. You're embarrassing your parents.

  • ||

    They may in fact be "out to destroy progessivism" but they are hardly using secret means to combat the growth and reach of government. ...
    there's no question that it is a great example of the demonization of opposing points of view

    So yes, us libertarians want to destroy you and everything you stand for. But why are you demonizing us?

  • ||

    You stand for slavery. Yeah we don't like that. Call us old school.

  • Shane||

    The thing is, why should Koch have to respond or apologize? Does being wealthy mean you have lost some authenticity as a citizen? Are we to buy into the socialist lie that somehow wealth corrupts? To even respond lends credibility to this lie. He is an American, it is an American company and he has authenticate personal interest in how the country he resides in and calls home is run. He has more than any socialist who attacks our way of life and the underpinnings of the United States.

  • ||

    Something wrong? asks Shane

    Yeah. It's just too bad you don't know what it is.

  • ||

    Old news is old.

    Does Jefferson holding slaves keep you up at night too? Must mean Jefferson had nothing legitimate or useful to contribute the the conversation of freedom.

  • ||

    what i dont even

  • ||

    Shane, maybe you should read the article and refine your opinion of "authenticate [sic] personal interest in how the country he resides in and calls home is run." That bland, mostly meaningless statement could be said about anyone and suggests more that you don't know much about him and wish to not know anything more. Jane Mayer's article, which is actually outstanding and quite revealing, details what those interests are, how they dovetail with his personal financial interests, and how those political/financial interests are funding what purports to be independent think tanks, research organizations and non-profits.

    Nobody in the aforementioned article or in the "responses" has suggested that wealth corrupts.

  • ||

    Is it true that libertarians are just bratty teenagers who never bothered maturing? If you don't agree with leftists wanting to control the rich, you must either be rich or incredibly stupid.

  • ||

    Nick...thanks for the "full disclosure". It is hard to read past that and not think "begging for my supper".
    Efficient markets require full information and while the Koch's may not be underground, their pretence has been exposed. You cant fund anarchy and expect to live a protected life. You are now on everyones radar.

  • ||

    Brad,

    First, Efficient Market Theory is a joke, a con, and nothing more. It's Value Added Investment, ole' Ben Graham, and patience. Otherwise, you're little more than a rube.

    Second, Nicky's a bought and paid for hack. What's so said about it is not that Nicky's bought and paid for - or that he sold out so easily. Hell, D.C. and New York are loaded with cheap clowns on both sides of Spin Alley.

    What's so sad about Nicky is the pride he takes in being the Personal Bitch of the Koch brothers. Nicky's actually proud that he owns a pair of knee pads and an endless supply (pending regular Blind Loyalty Tests) of Vaseline and cheap mouthwash financed by the Koch brothers.

    Nicky finds it somehow noble to be a whore. That's downright pathetic.

  • ||

    Even stipulating that is true, which there is no evidence of, whores and Johns at least give value for value.

    Whereas you would rather keep your wife in her Hijab and rape her when you like because she deserves it.

  • ||

    Nick Gillespie and everyone at Reason and every other Koch brothers' operation willfully accept being raped every day through the forfeiture of their First Amendment rights.

    The Koch brothers rape their think tanks, Reason, and Mr. Gillespie with the simple order that any deviation from the Koch brothers' view of the world will mean termination and financial punishment.

    Not much of a think tank. More like a Conform Tank.

  • ||

    Did you go off your Cyproterone? Bad boy.

    view of the world will mean termination and financial punishment.

    So when employees do what employers ask that's a horrible thing right?

    Regardless you have no example of anything you claim. The foundation and the outfits they help support hire libertarians. Libertarians write about libertarian stuff. Hooters hires chicks. Sorostopus hires collectivists. Airlines hire pilots. Restaurants hire cooks. So what.

    In case reality has any interest at all to you, I know for a fact they seem to employ very moderate libertarians. I wonder how much of this is bureaucratic creep in the foundation and how much the Koch brothers themselves are involved and want it this way. If the latter it's disappointing.

  • ||

    "Regardless you have no example of anything you claim."

    Reason offered two examples on Aug. 23.

    The Cato Institute, which was founded by the Koch brothers announced that it has announced that it has asked Brink Lindsey, the institute's vice president of research, and Will Wilkinson, a Cato scholar and associate of Lindsey's, to leave in the coming weeks.

    Lindsey has accepted a position at the Kauffman Foundation. Wilkinson, who has served as the editor of the online Cato Unbound, will depart on Sept. 15. Wilkinson has already started a new blog at The Economist.

    That's straight from Reason and Cato.

  • ||

    Your claim is that Nick is a hypocrite. That's not supported.

    I've seen no evidence that Nick has ever indulged in hypocrisy, and in any case being paid for a service is anything but hypocritical for a libertarian.

    Generally libertarians like to work for their compensation. Nick's 'guilty' of that surely. It's collectivists who want to take stuff from people.

    The claim that Cato possibly let go some people who turned out to be somewhat apologistic about statism isn't terribly interesting or surprising. People are hired to do a job. In this case hire to promote freedom. If they turn out not to the job in as well as you hoped you sometimes let them go. So what?

  • ||

    Manipulating those so dependent upon the federal government for Medicare, Social Security and Veterans' Benefits to campaign so fervently against their own interests and for the interests of the the elite is sheer genius. The Koch brothers and their cronies are laughing all the way to the bank.

  • ||

    Wow - Your article, Gillespie, is even less compelling than what you claim the New Yorker article to be. I actually read the entire New Yorker article, and along with quoting former Koch aides and others in-the-know (which would be an important part of any journalistic profile about them.. anyone would have done the same), it tracks their donations, the centers and think-tanks they've founded, the other organizations of which they sit on the board (including this very blog), and their self-stated political goals. If that does not provide you with a compelling piece of journalism, nothing will, not even this self-serving excuse for a rebuttal.

    I doubt much will change the minds of many of the readers who follow this website in lock-step, but perhaps, maybe just perhaps, it's reasonable to acknowledge that most of the libertarian policies you espouse will benefit certain industries and certain persons far more than it will benefit you, dear reader.

    If you need this broken down further still, the Koch brothers have an enormous company that reaches across many industries. Their stated interests lie in reducing regulation in those industries, reducing individual and corporate taxes, reducing environmental regulation and funding organizations whose sole mission is to "question" climate change science. Furthermore, their money is directly tied to this recent wave of libertarianism: the "tea party." That's what the article reports. You should probably read it, and read paragraph 3 of this website's response, before gulping down Gillespie's opinion.

  • ||

    This is embarrassing. Under the banner of freedom and ideological purity you are marching into oligarchy and poverty. It strikes me as ironic how you guys line up to go to bat for people who don't give two shits about 'libertarianism.' If they cared at all about your movement, the Tea Parties would at least mention the 25% of prison inmates who have been arrested for drug possession or the enormous government spending on military adventures. They also wouldn't have held a pseudo-revival last week on the nations capital.

    I think people are right to be upset about government waste and excessive power, but I have been watching this thing from the start and have yet to see a single constructive idea for how to solve the problem. No welfare reform, no reduction of SS benefits, no Medicare solutions, nothing. You are being led by the nose by a payed for group of actors with no real ideas.

    Please, tell me I'm wrong, that that isn't you, that is the "right-wing, redneck stuff" others fall for. Then cry tears of joy that someone made enough money to pray on people's ignorance and fear.

  • ||

    It is wrong that Veronique de Rugy's data withstands scrutiny. It was a flawed, ideologically driven study, and remains so after she "corrected it," as Mayer reported.

    http://factsandotherstubbornth.....-data.html

  • ||

    "Full disclosure: David Koch has been on the board of trustees of Reason Foundation, the publisher of this website, for decades, and his name appears in the masthead of Reason magazine; I have also taught at various programs for the Institute for Humane Studies, which the Kochs fund, and will speak at an Americans for Prosperity event later this week."

    So, maybe you should have lead the article defending the Koch brothers with this statement.

    I can't possibly see how anything you have to publish in their defense could be anything but an inherent conflict of interest.

  • ||

    Republicans = faith in God, Libertardians = faith in markets and a strict reading of the Constitution.

    No wonder you krazy kids are in cahoots. Nary a "Reason"-ed thought goes through any of your heads.

  • ||

    Progressives = faith in government

    always and everywhere when you scratch a broken market you find government meddling

  • Christopher Carr||

    I wrote a response to the article as well for The Inductive:

    http://www.theinductive.com/bl.....mayer.html

    Please anybody who's interested in more reasons why the Mayer story is bunk...

  • Suprashoesweb||

  • ||

    You can be fabulously wealthy and famous but still be "under the table" in terms of giving money to groups. If you don't announce it, if you try to hide it, then it's under the table. Like how a lot of celebrities are famous and well known but be under the table homosexuals or scientologists. You've got some faulty logic there.

  • meng989||

    This is embarrassing. warehouse dvdUnder the banner of freedom and ideological purity you are marching into oligarchy and poverty.

  • lina||

  • lilly zhang||

    nice idea.

  • ||

    Is there any reason whatsoever to read this column beyond the words, "David Koch has been on the Reason Foundation Board of Trustees...for decades"? Thanks for the disclosure but, I mean, c'mon...

  • Coach Outlet123||

  • Adidas ZX Flux sportskon||

    They would have done the same to Hillary Clinton. They did the same with Bill Clinton. They are out to destroy progressivism.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online