The Left’s Most Hated Koch Brothers Are Only 59th In Highest Political Donations

Only days ago the most hatefilled, partisan member of the Senate, Democrat Majority Leader Harry Reid, again cried that the evil Koch brothers are destroying the country with their political donations. But it turns out that the Kochs are 59th on the big donor list. Worse, liberals take up almost all of the top 10 donors.

There has been gnashing of teeth and rending of clothes among extreme lefties over the big money donations made to conservative and libertarian causes by David and Charles Koch. They helped create the political activist group Americans For Prosperity and have funded many, many such groups across the nation. This center right activism, of course, makes them a target of the haters on the left and push them into top spot as the left’s most hated boogy men.

But a recent look at the nations deep pocket donors shows that the brothers are way, way down the list of big donors and that lefties fill most of those top slots.

In a piece by Mark Tapscott we find that six of the top ten donors to political causes are left-wing unions.

Those unions are AFSCME, the NEA, IBEW, UAW, the Carpenters & Joiners, and the SEIU.

And who is the biggest political donor? The extremist, left-wing group ActBlue. In fact, ActBlue tops the list after being around for only ten years, a full 15 years fewer than the Koch brothers have been involved in and donating to politics. Yet ActBlue has topped the Kochs by tens of millions in that short period of time!

The other three donors in the top ten are communications giant AT&T, the National Association of Realtors, and Goldman Sachs.

But on the floor of the Senate, Senator Harry Reid has whined that the Koch brothers are “buying” the country and destroying Washington with their political activism and their political donations.

As usual we find that those on the left simply lie. About everything.

Shortlink:

Posted by on February 27, 2014.
Filed under Asshats, Barack Obama, Big government, Constitutional Issues, corruption, Culture Of Corruption, Democrats, Economics, Harry Reid, Hypocrisy, Liberals.
Warner Todd Huston is a Chicago-based freelance writer, has been writing opinion editorials and social criticism since early 2001 and is featured on many websites such as Andrew Breitbart's BigGovernment.com and BigJournalism.com, RightWingNews.com, CanadaFreePress.com, RightPundits.com, StoptheACLU.com, Human Events Magazine, among many, many others. Additionally, he has been a frequent guest on talk-radio programs to discuss his opinion editorials and current events. He has also written for several history magazines and appears in the new book "Americans on Politics, Policy and Pop Culture" which can be purchased on amazon.com. He is also the owner and operator of PubliusForum.com. Feel free to contact him with any comments or questions, EMAIL Warner Todd Huston: igcolonel .at. hotmail.com "The only end of writing is to enable the reader better to enjoy life, or better to endure it." --Samuel Johnson

You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
  • Hank_M

    The Koch bros merely took the place of William Mellon Scaife, who they demonized during the Clinton (war on woman) years.

    It also satisfies 2 of the major characteristics of modern day liberals. It gives them a handy villain to whine about, and it’s also an attempt to stifle opposing views.

    It’s so ridiculously stupid that only liberals could do this with a straight face.

    But, better that than actually talking about the damage they’re doing to the country.

  • jim_m

    It isn’t the amount of money that offends it is that they dare oppose the left at all. The left’s actions are all about silencing people not based on the money the give but on the ideology they believe. This is about political oppression and not about money.

    • Walter_Cronanty

      Excellent article about how our “liberal” betters, Congress and White House, are using the IRS to silence their critics – all the while the Ds’ propaganda arm refuses to report. Yet again, if W had done this….
      http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303426304579401513939340666?

      • jim_m

        I saw that one earlier today. An excellent piece. I would expect that our resident lefties will claim that it is all coincidence proving nothing and that everyone is just being paranoid.

        • Walter_Cronanty

          Yeah, that’s why Lerner took the Fifth – “Not even a smidgen of IRS corruption.”

          • jim_m

            I’ve read that she’s looking for a immunity deal. No need for immunity if everything was legal. Seems like the narrative is falling apart.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            Don’t you worry, the MSM will glue it back together. Or, find a nice shiny squirrel to report on. Look, a traffic lane is closed at that bridge!!

          • Walter_Cronanty

            When you have no scruples, you’re not bothered by shame. From Hillary’s crass, cynical whisperings to the grieving families of the Benghazi terror attacks about how she will bring the film maker who caused the attack to justice, to Holder’s turning the DOJ into race-baiter heaven, the Obama administration has, indeed, performed a radical transformation on this country.
            But, of all of Obama’s scandals, I find the use of the IRS as the DNC’s “enforcer” the most pernicious. From the targeting of conservative groups to inhibit their ability to associate and communicate, to the release of confidential tax records to ProPublica, to the release of Christine O’Donnell’s records and bogus tax lien – and then hiding the perpetrators – the Ds’ use of the IRS for blatant political purposes is as dangerous to the body politic as it is shocking.

            And yet, the Ds are publicly calling for more: “Senate Democrats facing tough elections this year want the Internal Revenue Service to play a more aggressive role in regulating outside groups expected to spend millions of dollars on their races.”

            http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/198298-vulnerable-dems-want-irs-to-step-up

  • Brucehenry

    More dishonesty. Groups like Americans For Prosperity are specifically excluded from this useless list.

    And if it’s significant that the Kochs are 59th, what does it say that evil mastermind SSOROOOSS!! isn’t on the list at all?

    • jim_m

      So your point seems to be that there are undoubtedly many more people on the list which would make the Kochs fall even further down toward total insignificance. Well done.

      The fact remains that the left screams constantly how evil the Kochs are for daring to think that they have the freedom to participate in our democracy and make their views heard, and yet they are far from the largest donors out there.

      My point remains that the left’s objection are not about money at all but about who is allowed to participate and they will only be satisfied with outlawing views that they disagree with. And you of course will continue to excuse and cover for this behavior.

      • Brucehenry

        Well I don’t know what my point “seems to be” to you, since you can read words on these pages no one else can see.

        What I INTENDED my point to be is that the list is useless as a guide to who wields more “money-as-speech” since groups like AFP are specifically excluded.

        And also, if the Kochs are such two-bit players since they are 59 spots down on the list, what does that make Soros, the wingnut right’s favorite bogeyman? He doesn’t appear at all.

        Now I’ve said the same thing twice. Why don’t you go ahead, though, Jim, and enlighten me as to what I’m REALLY saying?

        You hallucinating loonytune.

        • jim_m

          Read the explanation of how they ranked the groups. You can disagree with the reasoning, but the fact remains that your complaint is that a handful of uber rich people are left off the list and there are at least as many, if not more, lefties off the list than there are right wingers.

          Soros would appear but the nature of his donations is different as described in the opensecrets statement.

          You and Steve are being deliberately obtuse and it just demonstrates how extremely dishonest you are and how far you will go to lie and obfuscate about the sources of leftist funding and how deeply in the pay of special interested leftist politicians are.

          Put bluntly, I think you are a lying Sack of S#*%.

          • Brucehenry

            Nope. I understand the reasoning, I guess, used by Opensecrets, but it is Warner who is characterizing this dishonestly.

            He is using this list to portray the Kochs as bit players when AFP is one of the most powerful actors on the political stage today. This list actually isn’t evidence of the point he’s trying to make.

            Which makes you, once again, a rube, LOL.

            Oh and I have to laugh at the characterization of the Kochs as “center-right.” Hilarious.

          • jim_m

            I am not a rube when I point out your dishonesty and your apologetic for the left’s attempts to destroy democracy.

          • Brucehenry

            No, you are a rube for swallowing and defending Warner’s dishonest characterization of what the Koch brothers actually do.

          • jim_m

            What, that there are many. many organizations that donate far more money to political causes than they do?

            I see nothing but truth in that. I suppose your ideology informs you otherwise.

          • Brucehenry

            I’ve explained it and so has Steve, genius.

            The list is useless since it leaves off “dark money” donors. The explanation for why Opensecrets uses this criteria is buried 2 links back from Warner’s story.

            Warner wants us to believe that because the Kochs show up 59th on this useless list, the left’s concern with their undue influence is unwarranted. But since AFP and groups like it are not part of this list, the list is useless in determining who’s the biggest swinging dicks in politics these days. The Kochs may not have the biggest, but they ain’t got the 59th biggest, either.

            This article is obfuscation — smoke and mirrors. The list is held up as if it proves the Kochs are NOT the bogeymen the left claims they are. Maybe they’re not, but this list ain’t evidence of it.

            See it NOW you rube?

          • jim_m

            And my point was that the vast numbers of dem donors at the top of the list debunked the idea that the dems are not the beneficiaries of big money or that they have any real interest in removing financial influence from elections.

            I guess you missed that fact while you were hyperfocusing on the Koch bogeyman.

          • Brucehenry

            And again, blockhead, the list is useless, whether discussing Soros or the Kochs or anybody else, because of the criteria Opensecrets used.

            I was “hyperfocusing” on the Kochs, because Warner was, you Mensa scholar you.

          • jim_m

            So you claim that the figures for everyone on the list are bogus?

          • Brucehenry

            Damn you are an idiot. Can you fucking read at all? I mean actual, visible words, not the phantom words you insist that others are writing.

            No, I’m saying that making the claim that the Kochs are not big players based on this list is bogus. His whole point is to debunk the idea that the Kochs wield undue influence, as many leftists claim. The list does NOT disprove anything.

            This would be equally true, I’m sure, with many other individuals. The list is useless as a guide to who wields the greatest “money-is-speech” influence, thanks to Citizens United.

            This is demonstrated by the list leaving off Adelson, as Steve pointed out. The guy donated $95 million and didn’t make the list at all! Are you saying the guy wasn’t trying awfully hard to convert his money into influence? Dope.

          • jim_m

            OK. I was never claiming that but that the number of bigger players that donate to the left significantly outnumber those from the right. I really don’t give a damn about what the Kochs give or how much. I would just like an end to the rampant hypocrisy on the left that finds it a offense deserving capital punishment to donate to a conservative cause.

          • Brucehenry

            Boo hoo.

            Butthurt and willfully ignorant is no way to go through life, son.

          • jim_m

            You should take your own advice jackass.

      • stan25

        The left doesn’t object to big money in politics, as long as it goes to them. The money that the Koch Bros and others give to the center right, is money that is not going into the coffers of the left.

        • Alpha_Male

          Careful, by replying to jim_m in his response to Brucehenry, you sir are now defined as “chickenshit”

          • Brucehenry

            If the shoe fits…

          • Alpha_Male

            Would that be the cloven hoof, crammed inside birkenstocks, that supports a body going about it’s day dreaming of a Roddenberry-esque universe supported by a unified, benevolent, fascist state?

          • Brucehenry

            Ummm, maybe? I don’t really know….wtf.

  • SteveCrickmore075

    What happened to “the premiere fundraiser in American politics”, billionaire casino owner, Sheldon Adelson and his wife, Miriam who gave Romney and other Republican candidates $95 million during the 2012 election season, closing in on the gambling magnate’s vow to give $100 million to GOP causes? http://bigstory.ap.org/article/casino-owner-aided-romney-late-10-million-bet

    • jim_m

      Obviously Steve cannot read because the link to Opensecrets.org states clearly the reasons why people like Adelson do not appear on the list. I’d suggest that you are a dumbass but in this case I think you are just being dishonest.

      The reality is that individual donors represent a minority of political donors. The vast majority of money comes from large organizations, predominantly unions. The one thing to recognize is that EVERY dem proposal for regulating political speech explicitly exempts unions from any restrictions. This shows that the leftist desire to “clean up” elections by getting money out of them is just a dishonest pose.

      • SteveCrickmore075

        But Adelson (and his wife) gave far more than any other unión or corporation. He would be number one on the list if donors, were considered people which is the implication when you include the Koch brothers on the list. But a recent look at the nations deep pocket donors shows that the brothers are way, way down the list of big donors and that lefties fill most of those top slots.. Thanks to the Citizens United decision, there are no curbs on how much Adelson could give the pro-Romney Super PAC, Restoring Our Future. from Forbes

        • jim_m

          Duh. Learn to read. Then go and read the opensecrets disclosure.

          As Bruce points our Soros is not on the list. Neither is Bloomberg.

          The point her eis that there are enormous sums of money going into politics and most of it is skewed extremely toward the left. Look at the top ten donors and you see that the overwhelming amount of money is going to the dems.

          Your whole complaint about Adelson and the Kochs boils down to a fascist need to silence everyone whom you disagree with. You overlook donor after donor that gives huge sums of money to the left and you hyper focus on 2 donors who give to conservative causes. You are a hypocrite and you are deeply dishonest about your motives in complaining about these people. You obvis=ously don;t give a damn about big money in politics because you never spare a momoent for the larger sms of money going to your candidates. You wouldn’t lift a finger to stem that flood of money. You are only interested in the comparitively smaller totals going to conservatives. The only rational conclusion is that you want to silence all political opposition and you want to give all advantages to your own side.

          • SteveCrickmore075

            It is a specious table when you exclude the biggest donor on the rationale that people, except for bilionaires like Adelson with deep pockets don’t normally give as much as corporations and unions,( except when they do and more) but include the Koch brothers because they are 59th. Soros maybe the largest individual Dem donor by the way in 2012, gave 3.5 million, http://www.cbsnews.com/news/george-soros-gives-1-million-to-support-obama/ It is hard to compare that with the 95 million of Adelson.

          • jim_m

            It is not specious when you state at the very outset what the criteria for inclusion were. Only a complete ideological idiot would not get that.

          • SteveCrickmore075

            Not at the very outset of the post, actually twice removed, but a link from another link that the post refers to. then the caveats begin but somehow don’t make it to either the Tapscott piece nor the Huston piece. The devil is in the details. I will grant you that the unions have undue political clout, with the Obama administration, note their Obama heathcare exemptions, because of their financial contributions, which the media fails to highlight. That point is taken! From the AP link “That final burst brought the Romney campaign’s total for the election to above $1 billion. Final fundraising and spending totals for President Barack Obama’s victorious drive also topped $1 billion, so it turns out they came to about a draw in fundraising from whatever sources.

          • jim_m

            obama achieved that by enabling illegal donations by stripping the security measures from his on line donation sites. Whereas Romney achieved his fund raising total despite IRS blocking the activities of hundreds of conservative organizations.

            So yeah, the left won the donation battle by silencing conservative voices and by cheating. Par for the course frankly. If the left played by the rules you’d would be totally marginalized.

  • LiberalNightmare

    The left doesnt mind that the Koch brothers give money, the left is just upset that they aint gettin any.
    Money, that is

  • 914

    Looks like dingy Harry is trying to out lie Obama the last few days? Good try dingy!

  • SteveCrickmore075

    Nothing seems to stop a Congressman from fundraising not even death. The most eyebrow-raising among these is the reelection website of former 22-term Florida Republican Bill Young.

    Young died last October 18th and a special election to fill his seat will be held in less than a month.
    Even still, some 129 days after his passing, Young’s campaign website is still active where one can sign up for a Bill Young yard sign or supporter pin, volunteer to help the campaign, or contribute financially online or via the mail.
    http://blog.lib.umn.edu/cspg/smartpolitics/2014/02/12_retiring_ex-_or_deceased_co.php

  • Paul Hooson

    Some wealthy political donors like Donald Trump split their donations almost evenly between Democrats and Republicans so as to have influence on both parties, while other wealthy donors fall largely on one side or that. Strangely, even Arnold Schwarzenegger has largely only made Democratic donations recently. – Buying political influence makes for strange bedfellows.

    • jim_m

      The governator, like Bloomberg, was only ever a Republican out of convenience not out of conviction.

      • Paul Hooson

        True!

  • ackwired

    Yep! The left demonizes the Kochs and the right demonizes Soros. Mirror images of each other.