Tea Party loosens K Street's stranglehold on the GOP

[FarCenter]

How did the Republican Party become so splintered and so infused with hard-line conservatives?

Don't blame redistricting. Don't chalk it up to anti-Obama fervor.

Republicans have become an unruly bunch of scorched-earth conservatives because the Tea Party smashed the business lobby's monopoly on GOP fundraising.

...

It may confuse liberals who think free-market politics is just a corrupt deal to enrich Big Business — or who claim that the Tea Party is a Big Business front — but these are the opposing pulls in the GOP: K Street and the Tea Party.

Having two sources of money changes the party dramatically.

“I don't think there's a way for Wall Street to punish the 25 to 50 hardcore House Republicans,” one Wall Street lobbyist told Politico in the first couple days of the shutdown. Referring to an anti-establishment libertarian freshman congressman, the lobbyist said, “I don't think Justin Amash cares if Bank of America gives to him or not.”

A Republican who doesn’t care about Bank of America checks wasn’t possible before the Tea Party.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/article/2536847

[PeteSelman]

1. With the Kochs, Adelsons and Shnatters of the world financing them…

They don't need the big banks. Instead of working for industries, they work for individuals. It's even worse.

[FarCenter]

3. They provide the seed money for grass-roots organizing of conservatives

Not just direct contributions to candidates.

[Lasher]

2. If you don't know this you don't understand today's Republican party.

It gets more complicated than this but the concept is simple: Teabaggers against Corporate Republicans.

[Starry Messenger]

4. Chris Hayes interviewed Carney, the author

of this piece and rebutted this theory by pointing out that the Tea Party is largely funded by the Koch brothers.

I think Carney is trying to make the case that the Tea people are genuinely populist and not beholden to Wall Street like establishment Republicans. I don't think that is true.

Here is Chris' interview, if people are interested: http://video.msnbc.msn.com/all-in-/53190713

[FarCenter]

5. Interesting interview, but Chris doesn't really rebut Tim's argument

Chris brings up the Koch brothers as Tea Party sponsors who are also big businessmen. But Adelson and others are just the same.

K Street money comes from big business in the form of contributions from corporate America and their executives.

T Party money comes from wealthy individuals, not limited to the Koch's, and from contributions from business owners and small businesses. The sources are far more diverse and not controlled by the Fortune 500.

[Starry Messenger]

6. I'm unclear how the Kochs, etc. are not corporate America.

Their wealth is from their corporations.

And when we say "small business owners", how small are we talking here?

In the interview, Carney tries to equate the Tea Party to the left-wing grassroots. I just remain unconvinced that this represents a genuine fracturing of the right, which seems to be the underlying theme of Carney's.

[FarCenter]

7. The Kochs own Koch Industries outright -- it is a privately held corporation

Most big business corporations are publically held. Their stock trades on an exchange, and they usually do not have a stockholder with a controlling interest. For example, there is no individual who controls enough Bank of America stock to directly influence the Board of Directors or the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of BofA.

The political interests of a large publically held corporation would typically be limited to topics that influence its financial profitability. Thus BofA's PAC and it money via the Financial Services Roundtable would go to support politicians who support things that benefit BofA.

By contrast, the Koch brothers contributions, and possibly direct contributions from Koch Industries, could go to support any cause that the Koch's support as individuals.

The difference is that big businesses interest are more financial and practical, while those of big individuals are more ideological.