Why do rightwing billionaires spend hundreds of millions on elections if both parties are the same?

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

Discuss

I am especially interested in hearing someone explain to me that both parties are the same.

But everyone please respond, is it possible this could be enlightening to some?




p.s. not talking about certain Wall Street people or corps who tend to spend on both candidates, talking about people like the Walton's and Koch's, they do NOT spend on both.

WHY do you think that is?

[onehandle]

1. Because dumb, uninformed, hateful voters are easier to buy. nt

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

2. But there is a reason they want the republican in office and not the democrat, right?

[woo me with science]

57. No, because it's PROFITABLE and sustains the illusion of democracy.

This question in the OP is always the weak "trump card" attempted in the corporate talking points to deny that we are an oligarchy now rather than a democracy.

We are supposed to scratch our chins and nod wisely and conclude that these corporations wouldn't do something silly like WASTE all this money on donating to campaigns if the two candidates didn't really offer a substantive choice!

What a crock. What an absurd argument....for one simple reason. It tries to suggest that the oligarchs LOSE money through their donations, when actually they are profiting beyond their wildest dreams. Here was my response the FIRST time this poster attempted this argument. Actually, the entire thread is worth reading, because it exposes the "obstructionism" and "lesser-of-two-evils" deceptions that the corporate talking points use to manipulate us into voting for our own destruction by Wall Street-funded corporate predators: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026197237

Why would corporations spend all this money on campaigns?
ARE YOU SERIOUSLY TRYING TO ARGUE THAT THEY LOSE MONEY BY DOING IT?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6197863

SERIOUSLY? Because that's perhaps the most absurd spin I've heard all day. Look at this chart posted by Teamster Jeff re: our economic "recovery." Note the circled red numbers. These are the donors you speak of.

Reality Check
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026192719

The illusion of democracy must be maintained.

And you've got to hand it to our .1 percent. They are nothing if not forward-thinking and creative. What can you do, when you dismantle a 240-year-old representative system of government from the inside and replace it with oligarchy and even nascent fascism? What do you do with the shell of that system? The elections? The parties?

We have a *corporate oligarchy* focused on profit, so the solution should not be surprising: Don't throw away the shell, the outward trappings, of democracy. Keep it, because it's USEFUL.

1. It's USEFUL because it sustains the illusion of democracy.

2. And it's USEFUL because it's PROFITABLE.

Hence what we have seen done to our democratic process. Our presidential elections have been turned into an obscene, hyped, massively profitable corporate pageant, a sports event that, as the Princeton study showed, has virtually *nothing* to do with the actual direction of policy or of governance in this country anymore. It is the illusion of democracy, in which the people's voices have no real impact.

We have TWO Superbowls in this country now...two major, vapid, nationally hyped and advertised sporting events in which the people are urged to take a side and mindlessly cheer for their side to win. And from which the media oligarchs, the political oligarchs, and the banking oligarchs profit BILLIONS.

And the oligarchs are buying up new private islands with the profits from it all.

[haikugal]

133. Excellent response, Thank YOU!

[KingCharlemagne]

3. Both parties are NOT the same, so the premise of your post is flawed (perhaps

deliberately so?). Democrats are a bourgeois capitalist party while Republicans have slipped their moorings and are now full-tilt fascist. So the billionaries support fascists because fascism generally subordinates democratic rule to the interests of the business class. (This makes 2016 particularly frightening, as the fascists will have their next chance to consolidate the grip of the 1-party state.)

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

4. No, both parties are NOT the same, that is my point.

And I agree with your assessment, but DU is full of folks who insist that if the option is voting for Hillary then there is no reason to vote.

I am no fan of Hillary because I am a liberal, but compared to the alternative, my god

There are only two ways we slip into full tilt boogie fascism and one is blocking voting, the other is convincing people there is no point in voting

[think]

5. Dems are somewhat less corporate tools. Yay...

I'll still vote AGAINST the worse option but I surely won't feel any excitement in doing so....

[glasshouses]

8. Not really

maybe Bernie is but both parties bow down to the same master $

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

18. Really, so they are the same on choice? voting rights? workers rights? taxation?

Please show me where the two parties are the same on any of these issues.

Dont tell me the dems arent liberal enough, I know that, I am one of the most liberal people on this board

SHOW ME where the two parties are the SAME on ANY of these issues

[glasshouses]

20. Both bow down to money

But as I said in my other post some billionaires have their pet projects
they support.

Makes them feel better in some cases

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

21. Is it a pet project if my sister is killed in a back alley abortion, to you?

[glasshouses]

27. I'm sure the billionaires wouldn't lose any sleep over it

It's pet projects for them ...that's all it is

[napi21]

55. They both bow down to money because that's the only way they can get elected, or

reelected. Sorry to have to say that it costs multi millions now just to get elected in a house race in a lot of locations. Other than "bowing to money" how could anyone get into office, unless they are independently wealthy and use their own money? It's a crap system! I'd LOVE to see something like mandatory maximums on the amt. of money any candidate could spend on a campaign, no matter what the source, thus eliminating PACs, wealthy donors, and even using their own money. It would stop the unending campaigning. Some 3 or even 4 years long! However I can't see that happening with the SCOTUS and current congress, no matter which party is in the majority.

[glasshouses]

6. They are the same in some regards for the 1%

They know they can buy influence on certain pet projects and causes they believe in so they pick the party
that might advance the same cause.

They both know that their money is safe due to many tax hole loop holes that both parties support

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

33. So you agree with Ted Cruz, got it

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026197801

[glasshouses]

46. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

48. At least you can admit it...why do you post on a board dedicated to the Democratic Party?

[glasshouses]

67. it's a default setting

It's the closest I can come to potential candidates that at least might share some of my beliefs

I'm a socialist

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

68. Oh so you agree that allowing all people to vote doesnt matter?

Keeping women safe, doesnt matter?

Keeping some level of sanity with the environment versus NONE, doesnt matter?

You dont believe those things, what you believe, wrongly, is there is NO difference between the parties

I am a democratic socialist...and you will have to KILL Me to stop me from voting for whoever the dem candidate is

[glasshouses]

73. I don't think you will ever find a post of mine saying I won't vote for who ever

is running in the democratic party.

I'm not delusional about it , I know what I'm getting with it.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

75. OK, then there is no reason for us to be talking about this, sorry

I am sick of all the people here who I think are trying to get us to NOT vote or NOT vote for the dem

I think some of them are tasked to do just that

[glasshouses]

85. No apology needed , it's a discussion board

Some of these people I think are just blowing off steam .
At least now it's the time to do it.

I think when it comes down to crunch time they will all pull the democratic lever

[A-Schwarzenegger]

84. "I'm a socialist"

[glasshouses]

87. why is that funny

Do you think I don't belong on this board

[A-Schwarzenegger]

89. Funny? I'm happy that you became a socialist overnight

after supporting Rand Paul last night against
that mean CNBC gal who made him freak out & cry.
Of course socialists belong here.
Do you think you don't belong here?
I believe I've welcomed you here with open arms.
I know good material when I see it.

[glasshouses]

101. I did not support Paul in any of my posts

I do not support aggressive anchors with that style of interview but you knew that already.

Asking a question and then answering the question for the guest before he or she responds
is not good journalism.

ask , listen , challenge

[A-Schwarzenegger]

107. Well, you're a socialist now,

so that's all that matters.

[glasshouses]

9. Hillary is a tool

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

31. And Ted Cruz is saying something today on TV that I am sure you are in complete agreement with

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026197801

Why are Ted Cruz talking points allowed on DU?

Surely you and woo agree with Cruz, right??

Right???

[glasshouses]

39. The party lost me with TPP , they talk a good game but in the end they will fall in line

Obama
The Clintons all corporate tools of the 1%

Problem has and will always be the people who REALLY support the working class and not the corporate masters are out casts in the democratic party .

That's why Bernie an independent

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

49. One party will kill women, one wont, do you sit out the election?

[Cosmic Kitten]

90. Single issue voting? Ok then

What GUARANTEE do you have that voting
for a 3rd-Way candidate will protect women's rights?

This BS guilt trip you are spreading sucks.
On a STATE LEVEL, republicans are rolling back
women's rights and there is NO APPRECIABLE
outcry from the democratic party.

This BS about voting for *a democrat* because
they *might* defend women's rights...
because republicans are worse, is played out.

NO MORE SINGLE ISSUE VOTING!
No more but, but, but, the Supreme court....

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

91. Got it, you say no, if women die, then so be it, if minorities are stopped from voting, so be it

check

I wonder why the last people to take your position are minorities, gays, etc...

Why are you so VISIBLY ANGRY at me for wanting to protect women and minorities?

it infuriates you

[Cosmic Kitten]

98. Interesting...you are a mind reader too?

You started out with whining about billionaires
buying political parties... that there is a *difference*.

Then you switched to women's issues.

Now you are switching to minority voters.

What has Obama done about MINORITY VOTER concerns?
What has Obama done to protect Women's Rights, equal pay?
What has the Democratic Party done about those issues lately?

Don't pretend that a *democrat* will ABSOLUTELY
defend women, minority, or voter rights because *democrat*.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

99. Got it, you say no difference, got it

[Cosmic Kitten]

102. Tell us all how the parties are different...

What guarantee do you have
that a 3rd-Way candidate will defend
women and minority rights?

The 3rd-Way is *democratic*...
what guarantees do you have that
they will defend Democratic principles?

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

104. So you believe Hillary may appoint a SC justice who will go against Roe?

[Cosmic Kitten]

108. You assume she will or won't?

Single issue voting is BS.

What about WAR, the economy, the social safety net...

YOU are going to vote for a WAR HAWK because...
abortion rights? seriously?

This TRIANGULATION, WEDGE ISSUES politicking sucks
Single issue voters hurt more than help!

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

110. W O W

privileged white liberals

pfft

[Cosmic Kitten]

116. Is that an attempted insult?

privileged white liberals

your post has the stink of bigotry?

Actually, on review of this thread YOU
seem more intent on tearing apart the DU members
than any outside group or republicans.

You have harassed and berated members
for no other reason than disagreeing with you.

The single issue, WEDGE ISSUES, that you
are promoting is what allowed the DLC/3rd-Way
to get a foothold in the party.
Socially permissive, fiscally conservative
Thanks.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

118. OMG OMG OMG you did NOT say that OMG

I am the one ATTACKING THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY AND OBAMA AND CLINTON?

I am the one attacking the Dem party on a Dem board?

PLEASE SAY YOU ARE KIDDING


P L E A S E

YOU DO KNOW THIS BOARD IS FOR DEMOCRATS, RIGHT?

[Cosmic Kitten]

120. OMG OMG OMG reading comprehension issues?

It's interesting how you are so VISIBLY ANGRY!!!!!!!!!11!!!!

You seem to have very agitated views of other DU members.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

121. YOu just accused me of tearing apart the dem party or this board, it was an absurd thing to say

[Cosmic Kitten]

124. No, it's not absurd.

Look at your posts.
You continually berate members
because they don't subscribe to your
WEDGE POLITICS.

It's laughable that you think voting *democratic*
is a GUARANTEE of anything.

Why do you hate women who live in foreign counties?

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

119. Oh, and insult MY ASS, show me the long list of minorities who dont see a difference in the parties

I will wait

[Cosmic Kitten]

122. Minorities? White privilege? OMG WHAT?

Why are you making this about race?

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

123. Dont you wonder why there are so few people who have to fight for their rights, minorities

who buy into this both parties are so alike there is little reason to vote for the dem?

Dont you wonder why?

You do know that is the case, right?

i.e.

People who have to fight for their rights like afam and gays and women who are paying attention and latinos, are rarely going to be found in your camp....

Dont believe me?

do a poll here on DU, i cant, but if you can, do a poll...

[Cosmic Kitten]

125. In my camp? I have a camp?

Will we roast marshmallows at *my camp*?

I don't like tents, personally...
prefer cabins.
That's prolly pretentious or elitist, eh?

[Cosmic Kitten]

100. Visably angry? Infuriated you say?

Actually NO.

Pretending the oligarchy care about the issues
you profess to be concerned with is sad yet amusing.

There is ZERO evidence that the 3rd-Way will defend
minority voters or women's rights.

What do you suppose Hillary will do to
protect Women and defend voter rights?

[KingCharlemagne]

32. The German Communist Party in the early 1930s made the fatal mistake of welcoming

a victory by Hitler and the Nazis (and eschewing common cause with the German Social Democrats) on the grounds that such would prove the 'icebreaker' to finally herald the proletarian revolution. Fast forward to June of 1933 and most of those Communists are either in, on their way to German concentration camps or in exile until at least 1945.

Don't mean to be unduly alarmist, but better I ring the alarms and the worst not come to pass than that I stay silent and the worst come to pass without anyone having raised the alarm. These Republicans are some scary motherfuckers, missing some crucial component of what makes us human, like an 'empathy gene' or something. The stakes could not be any higher.

ETA: Forgot to rec this thread for the great discussion on my first pass. Now recommended!

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

34. Exactly, but according to MANY here at DU, both parties are the same, weird

[hifiguy]

92. The Turd Way Dems will boil us frogs a little more slowly

than the pukes will, and they will toss a bone or two like marriage equality in the direction of actual, real liberal Democrats. The economic end game of both groups is the same - the New Corporate Fascism. Don't ever think that it is not.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

93. Lets assume you are right, for the sake of argument

one party will kill women and stop minorities from voting

one wont

will you act in such a way as to support the one who will not kill women etc?

[Cosmic Kitten]

103. false assumption

one party will kill women and stop minorities from voting

one wont

Where is this written in stone?
Who will guarantee your assumption?

[Maedhros]

159. Blackmail is no way to earn votes.

I need positive, progressive change from the Democrats, not just threats about what the Republicans will do.

[yourout]

151. While I mostly agree with you....my gut is telling me things will have to get worse before...

they get better.

We have not hit bottom yet and far to many people that should know better are still hitting the R button in the voting booth.

Until they get screwed to the point that the light goes on as to who is really to blame things will continue to get worse.

It is going to take a massive public uprising to right the ship.

[jwirr]

80. Absolutely.

[sulphurdunn]

106. Then neither party represents

the interests of anything other than corporations. Bourgeois capitalism is rapidly becoming a thing of the past, the middle class is shrinking and the working class is powerless.

[KingCharlemagne]

130. Agreed, but the Dems still honor the principles of pluralism and to some extent

egalitarianism (racial, gender and sexual orientation). The fascists have stopped anything but lip service to those notions.

Look, I am a Socialist (and Bernie Sanders is a bit too far right for my tastes). But all Socialists (and Communists) need to make preventing fascist consolidation of power their primary priority, imo. We must not make the same mistake the KPD of the 1930s did - a step backward for workers never, EVER, leads to a step forward.

[woo me with science]

144. Absolute bull for corporate Dems. Perhaps the most vicious lie of Third Way politicians,

perhaps their most revolting bit of PR, is the shameless, outrageous claim to be the ones who *especially* care about women and minorities....while they are aggressively and relentlessly dismantling the very democratic systems that make it possible for women and minorities to be empowered.

Authoritarian societies are incompatible with human rights and the rights of minorities. The move away from democracy and toward fascistic, authoritarian rule *always* harms minority groups. Always. Look at history. Look at the ACTUAL effects of Third Way policies on people's lives.

Predatory corporatism harms all of us, but it ravages disadvantaged groups most of all.

Women Facing Globalization: The Impact Of Neo-liberal Globalization On The Economic, Social And Cultural Rights Of Women
http://www.awid.org/Library/Women-Facing-Globalization-The-impact-of-neo-liberal-globalization-on-the-economic-social-and-cultural-rights-of-women

Neoliberalism’s Deleterious Effects on Women
https://genderandsocs13.wordpress.com/2013/03/03/neoliberalisms-deleterious-effects-on-women/

NEOLIBERALISM THRHOUGH THE EYES OF WOMEN
http://focusweb.org/publications/2001/neoliberalism-through-the-eyes-of-women.html

Racial Aspects of Economy are Significant for White House to Address
http://www.alternet.org/speakeasy/2010/07/28/racial-aspects-of-economy-are-significant-for-white-house-to-address

The Astonishing Collapse of Black and Latino Household Wealth
http://www.alternet.org/economy/black-and-latino-household-wealth-has-collapsed

The Roots of the Widening Racial Wealth Gap: Explaining the Black-White Economic Divide
http://iasp.brandeis.edu/pdfs/Author/shapiro-thomas-m/racialwealthgapbrief.pdf

Wealth Gaps Rise to Record Highs Between Whites, Blacks and Hispanics
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/files/2011/07/SDT-Wealth-Report_7-26-11_FINAL.pdf

The truth is that women and minorities can't afford more corporatism and are already dying because of it. The effects of *continued* corporate warfare on this nation will be a disaster for all Americans, but *especially* women and minorities.

It's all viciously cynical rhetoric. The Third Way will not protect values of racial *or* gender equality by supporting candidates whose policies are dismantling the very economic and democratic systems that make it possible for women and minorities to be empowered. They certainly won't do it with policies like Obama's and Hillary's that protect bankers, starve schools and communities, grow exploitative industries including private prisons, and militarize the hell out of police in marginalized communities.

If people think things are bad now, just wait until we see the status of women and minorities in this country when we are all working for Third World wages, Hillary's trade agreements have ramped up corporate power and the ability of predatory corporations to override our democratic laws and protections, and dissent in the new corporate America has been crushed. Talk to women and minorities who live under authoritarian rule.

It's a vicious agenda. It's the corporate agenda:

Poor minorities are worthless to corporations on the street. In prison they can bring in $40,000/yr
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023368969

Poor Land in Jail as Companies Add Huge Fees for Probation
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014158005

The Caging of America - Why do we lock up so many people
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002226110

The Obama administration is aggressively growing private prisons
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022568681

Obama's 2013 budget: One area of marked growth, the prison industrial complex
http://sync.democraticunderground.com/1002392306

Obama selects the owner of a private prison consulting firm as the new Director of the United States Marshals Service (USMS)
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2010/12/mars-d03.html

Private prison corporations move up on list on federal contractors, receiving BILLIONS
http://www.nationofchange.org/president-obama-s-incarcernation-1335274655

Federal Private Prison Populations Grew by 784% in 10 Year Span
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4362184

Prison Labor Booms As Unemployment Remains High; Companies Reap Benefits
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/10/prison-labor_n_2272036.html

Private Prison Corporation's Letters to Shareholders Reveal Industry's Tactics: Profiting from Human Incarceration
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022665091

Financial growth of private prison industry...Profiting from caging humans.

http://l.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/BshteP8i282pcaeH8pdUsA--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7cT04NTt3PTUyMA--/

We heard about private prisons...but do you know of the private probation industry?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025380204

NYT: Probation Fees Rise, Firms Profit and the Poor Go to Jail
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002893040

No Safe Place: How Cities Are Making It Illegal to be Homeless
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101699724

Thrown in jail for being poor: the booming for-profit probation industry
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024603515

The exploitation of Ferguson I: In 2013 the town issued over 24,000 arrest warrants..
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025404667

The exploitation of Ferguson II: The Seamy Underbelly Of Ferguson Starts To Appear
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025416747

The exploitation of Ferguson III: Ferguson Feeds Off the Poor: Three Warrants a Year Per Household
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025428157

[sulphurdunn]

156. Excellent argument. I will read every link.

I still think KingCharlemagne makes a good point regarding the consolidation of fascist power. In our case, we're on the ropes and can't come out swinging, not now anyway. If there is some way to avoid being knocked out by any other means than trying to move the democrats to the left, I don't know what it might be.

[sulphurdunn]

154. Yes, you are correct.

[Fuzzy Slipper]

7. For the same reason left wing billionaires do

To buy influence and massage their ego.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

11. Which leftwing billionaires are spending hundreds of millions, and do you think their AGENDA

is the same?

[Fuzzy Slipper]

15. There are about 2100 billionaires in the world

Some would be right wing some would be left wing and some would fall on a spectrum in between.

As to their agendas and motivations I would imagine that there are almost 2100 of them.

The world doesn't fall Into freshman dorm room logic, speculation and argument.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

16. clever insult

[davidn3600]

10. Because the GOP favors them slightly more than the Democrats

You really think the Koch brothers will be screaming if Hillary is elected?

Sure they prefer the Republican, but they will still make money with a Democrat in office....just not as much money.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

12. Does one care about women having a right to their body and another doesnt?

[davidn3600]

40. You were asking why billionaires spend money on one party more than the other

When it comes it comes to things like abortion, that's a different area.

The parties differ quite a bit on social issues. They are roughly the same on economic issues. And they are nearly identical on foreign policy.

I also remind you this is in very general and broad terms.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

47. Lets assume you are right, just for the sake of argument

one politician will kill women in back alley abortions

one wont

do you sit out the election?

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

13. DOes one party want to DRASTICALLY reduce taxes paid by the rich and corps and one doesnt?

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

14. Does one want to systematically take away voting rights and workers rights and one doesnt?

[Populist_Prole]

17. Because the GOP is more bold and open in their contempt of the working class

Money WILL buy influence, and it IS the main reason spend as they do, but from their perspective they figure why not cast their lot with those they happen to agree with?

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

19. Even the most liberal, radical Americans, especially those with life experiences going back to the

civil rights movement, KNOW there is a difference.

Not enough, yes.

But KNOW there is a difference and while you try and get candidates who are actually liberal you ALWAYS vote in such a way to make sure the terrorist who wants to KILL You isnt elected.

One person doesnt give a shit about you, the other wants to destroy you, BIG DIFFERENCE

[Populist_Prole]

24. I guess we talked past each other

"One person doesnt give a shit about you, the other wants to destroy you, BIG DIFFERENCE"

The crux of the issue, the answer to the OP's query. Pretty much what I said but in different words.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

29. Yeah, sorry...I am having a hard time believing people who allege to be liberals are

actually going to vote in such a way as to help scott walker or rand paul or ted cruz become president, or jeb bush

I no longer believe these people are liberals, I have to believe they are plants...nothing else makes sense

[Marr]

22. Why do you suppose the Kochs funded the DLC?

Right wing billionaires *do* fund both parties.

So perhaps you should revise this post to say, 'why do right wing billionaires invest MORE money in Republicans overall, and also ignore Wall Street, please, and pretend they aren't right-wing'.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

23. FIrst I am unaware the Koch's funded the DLC, second, they are not funding the democratic candidate

now, are they?

Can you show that to me, otherwise admit there is a difference and that is why they support people like scott walker

when did I say wall street isnt right wing, what???????


no no no, never said that, no no god damn it no

[Marr]

35. Here you go.

Koch Industries gave funding to the DLC and served on its Executive Council

http://americablog.com/2010/08/koch-industries-gave-funding-to-the-dlc-and-served-on-its-executive-council.html

[HereSince1628]

36. Yes Koch money helped set them up. And Al Gore was one of the first chairs...

The history of the DLC is on the web for all to see.

As Bill Clinton moved forward as a prominent DLCer one of the things he pointed out was that there was no point in conceding the big money donors to the republicans.

To get them, you have to cozy up to them, and many governors in the south, including Clinton had developed the capacity to do that as they pushed for incentives that moved industries and thereby jobs from the north into the south...with tax holidays, reduced prices for industrial sites, resistance to labor and environmental regs, etc.

What makes all this really interesting is that people forget how things evolve. The DLC started out promising to deliver for everyone by being "winners" in the end they gained such a bad reputation with the base that they had to stop and rebrand themselves.

But the membership still lingers in politics and is still influential in the party.

Mostly we see them under the guise of the social liberal fiscal conservative, which really means spending less on social programs and being more supportive of American corporate interests especially with respect to overseas.

on edit here is some text and a link

As Bill Berkowitz writes, the Koch brothers have also been funding the Democratic Leadership Council.


According to SourceWatch, a project of the Center for Media & Democracy, the brothers are "leading contributors to the Koch family foundations, which supports a network of Conservative organizations and think tanks, including Citizens for a Sound Economy, the Manhattan Institute the Heartland Institute, and the Democratic Leadership Council."

Charles Koch co-founded the Cato Institute in 1977, while David helped launch Citizens for a Sound Economy [now FreedomWorks] in 1986.

This is no less stunning than if Scaife or the Coors family were funding the DLC. So do the Kochs just throw money at the DLC -- as long as the Council supports a free-market" (i.e. unrestricted/unregulated corporate power) agenda that the Kochs generally agree with. Or is it more than just that -- does this really buttress what Greens and other disaffected liberals contend -- that the DNC has just become a party of "Republicrats", thanks especially to the DLC? They would say that corporate backers like the rightwing/libertarian Kochs have co-opted the Democratic establishment -- a hostile takeover of (what was once) the opposition.


http://www.democrats.com/node/7789

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

38. So you folks agree with Ted Cruz then?

and you firmly believe women's health is equally in danger no matter who is elected?

please god dammit before women start dying ANSWER THIS FUCKING QUESTION

[Marr]

42. What a pitiful response. /nt

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

44. NO, in fact it is the PERFECT RESPONSE...jesus christ

I am losing patience with people who FUCKING ALLEGE to be liberals who are willing to put the likes of SCOTT WALKER in the white house with a con senate and house

It makes me phuysically outraged, in fact just thinking that you would do that



I better NOT fucking talk to you or anybody like you AGAIN on this board or I am gonna say something that will get me in trouble

[Marr]

50. Oh, yeah-- you're going to disengage now because you're just TOO honorable.

YOU mad a false assumption in your sales pitch. YOU demanded information proving as much. YOU got it.

So you move the goalposts, change the subject, and downshift into phoney outrage.

Again, pitiful response.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

52. BullSHIT, you are willing to act in a way that will kill women in back alleys

PERIOD

ADMIT IT

AND MOVE ON

btw

why are you posting on a board that is dedicated to the dem party?

you obviously hate the dem party

[Marr]

53. You don't want to talk about right-wing billionaires' political spending anymore, I see.

Interesting.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

56. Sure I do, show me where the Koch's are supporting the democratic party, today, please.

then explain to me why you dont care if women are killed?

[Marr]

59. *sigh*.... fine. I'll kick at your *new* goalpost.

http://www.thenation.com/blog/177437/gop-donors-and-k-street-fuel-third-ways-advice-democratic-party

There.

[Oilwellian]

114. ROFL nt

[woo me with science]

153. LOL.

What a satisfying dispatch.

[Oilwellian]

113. LOL

I literally laughed out loud. The entire OP is absurd.

[HereSince1628]

43. Fail. Such linkage is really for sophomores

sophomore... from the roots wise and fool.

Meaning someone with knowledge used foolishly

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

45. But you both say Obama and the dems are equal to the cons, right?

dont know any women that might need a fucking abortion someday?

I wont talk to you people anymore, none of you are liberals I want anything to do with

[HereSince1628]

51. NO. I'm providing what YOU ASKED FOR EVIDENCE KOCHS SUPPORTED THE DLC!!!!!

You aren't keeping track of your own driving very well

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

54. Yes, I see now you are one of the FEW posters here who isnt defending Ted Cruz and attacking the

dem party with a desire to end up with women killing cons in power.

sorry

You see, I get PHYSICALLY OUTRAGED when I deal with people who will knowingly act in such a way that will kill women, destroy voting rights, etc.

It isnt good for my health, this is NOT a hobby for me

[HereSince1628]

58. Wow, you ask for evidence...it's given and all you have is ad hominem attacks

and obfuscation by subject changing.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

61. NO, I was admitting that all you did was provide me the evidence and you didnt attack outside of

that evidence.

It was a thank you.

What I am saying is the Koch bros do NOT support dem candidates today or surely not Hillary or presidential candidates

[LongTomH]

25. I hold out hope for the Democratic Party and intend to help in the fight for its 'soul.'

The Republican Party is beyond all hope of redemption!!!!!

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

26. Good, thanks.

[ladjf]

28. My guess is that they want to guarantee control regardless

of the election outcomes. nt

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

30. Wall Street does that, and Wall Street is very rightwing, but the Koch and Walton's of the world

they have political AND social agendas that dont go with democrats.

[Savannahmann]

37. If you wish, we can. You won't like it though.

Everyone remembers Halliburton. The single source no bid contract company that provided chow to the troops, transportation, and mercenaries to protect the transportation. Not to mention the people to help get the Iraqi oil up and running again. Has anyone heard about Halliburton getting those contracts since Obama took office? Nobody has heard a word about the companies providing those same services. Does anyone really think that the Government went through the trouble of putting out bid specifications and then asking companies to provide the bids? Nope. They awarded the contracts the same way as always, and claimed it saved money, only this time the companies were friendly to Democrats.

Let's give an example. Omega Aerial Refueling. They provide civilian aircraft for use by the Navy and Marines for aerial refueling. Yes, you read that right, they took planes, converted them over to aerial tankers, and then connected up approved refueling drogues that were compatible with naval systems. Now, the Military has many refueling capable planes, so why did we need a civilian plane? Good question, one I have no freaking answer for. But this company has expanded to three aircraft based upon contracts with the military. Did those contracts get offered for bids? How would those contracts have been phrased? Nope, the company offered the service, and apparently had the political connections to get it done. Not during the Bush years mind you, but right now, today, this year, and for the last several.

Now, do you think that Omega is donating to Republicans? Do we think that Omega just came up with a great idea and it was adopted based entirely upon merit? Again, we have military planes, flown by military pilots, that do this job. Don't tell me that Civilian pilots work cheaper. Or that the civilian aircraft maintenance crew is cheaper to pay than the military one.

So obviously this company is one of "ours" and doing things for them to repay the donations and support during the campaigns is a good thing. Besides, they are using American Planes, flown by Americans, and repaired by Americans, in support of the Military, that is also ours. Do I need the Sarcasm tag?

Is it any different than the Republicans repaying Halliburton? Or Nixon giving a ton of money to Howard Hughes to thank him for his support under the guise of the Glomar Explorer?

Yes, in this both parties are the same. We both seek to repay those who have supported us. We denounce those who support the Republicans and get repaid while we insist our supporters get repaid. Denouncing them while we pocket the cash is at best somewhat hypocritical don't you think?

But this question has been examined before. And allow me to link and quote.

We cross-checked the Open Secrets list of the top 100 individuals donating to outside spending groups in the current election against the Forbes list of the world’s billionaires and found that, as of June 19, there were 22 individuals on the Open Secrets list who were billionaires. Of those 22 billionaires, 13 -- or more than half -- gave predominantly to liberal groups or groups affiliated with the Democratic Party. The other nine gave predominantly to conservative groups. (A list of billionaires and how much they donated can be found here.)

Now, you can tell yourself that those Billionaires are awesome and earned their money through totally honorable and fair means while the Republican Billionaires cheated and stole. I hesitate to imagine the level of self delusion that would have to exist to make a statement anything like that, wouldn't you?

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

41. So women's health are equally in danger no matter which party is in power?

[Savannahmann]

111. That has to be the worst comeback I've read in quite some time.

That is the worst debate topic in the world. You ask a question about Billionaires like the Koch brothers investing tons of money into Republicans and ask if that doesn't prove that the two parties are different. I prove that in fact the two parties are exactly alike when it comes to donations from the mega rich and taking care of the corporations and rich folks who donate. Now, you want to change the topic to womens health because your original premise was utterly destroyed. That is beyond disingenuous.

Allow me to quote your OP that I responded to before it gets edited.

Why do rightwing billionaires spend hundreds of millions on elections if both parties are the same?

Discuss

I am especially interested in hearing someone explain to me that both parties are the same.

But everyone please respond, is it possible this could be enlightening to some?




p.s. not talking about certain Wall Street people or corps who tend to spend on both candidates, talking about people like the Walton's and Koch's, they do NOT spend on both.

WHY do you think that is?

So I obligingly demonstrate that we have our own mega rich backers, and we take care of them exactly like the hated RW does and you ignore the reply and go for the obvious crowd pleaser. Why is that? Are you incapable of admitting you were ignorant of the reality regarding the donations and good old boy backroom deals our own party does? Did you imagine that our politicians were paragons of virtue, and would never stoop to single source contracts like the Republicans? Were you surprised to find out that in fact, more Billionaires donate to Democrats than Republicans? Why is it that a Billionaire who donates to Democrats is somehow far more moral and less greedy than a billionaire who donates to Republicans? You utterly ignored that question and thus it must be for a single reason. You are embarrassed at being shown as an ill informed individual.

Do you really want to turn the topic to Womens Health? If so shouldn't you start an OP asking why the Republicans are so backwards and all of that. I'll point out that the midterm elections were run almost exclusively on women's issues and we got our asses kicked. In fact, in many districts more women voted against us than for us. So apparently the women in question don't think that the Republicans are all that bad on the issue. Nationally only 51% of women voted for the Democratic candidate. So why didn't the War on Women meme work on convincing the women that the Republicans were at war with them?

http://www.cnn.com/election/2014/results/race/house

I told you in my first reply, you wouldn't like it. Obviously you don't. Now, don't get mad at me for presenting you with factual information and some truth. If you want to support the Democratic party based upon truth and fact, that's fine. But don't expect people to nod their heads and agree when you throw out nonsensical talking points that are utterly discredited. Don't try and change the subject after you've been shown to be in error to try and save face.

Now, if you want to post fantasy as the reason that Democrats are better, then perhaps you can talk about how Frodo has the cool ring or whatever. Because that has almost as much truth in the statement as the argument in your OP for what Democrats are superior.

Oh, and for the record. I encouraged the Democrats in Texas to argue smart instead of talking point nonsense when the Republican backed bill making it nearly impossible for an womens health clinic to operate was being discussed. Instead they went with nonsensical talking point crap and pointless displays of outrage. But the residual anger of that was supposed to carry someone into office.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

112. I wonder why minorities are the last people to take your position?

You know, the position that there really is no or very little difference between the parties?

I wonder.

I dont actually, only privileged white liberals wouldnt get it

Unless you are saying you will vote for Hillary if it comes down to that choice?

Then I apologize

You see the difference between myself and so many here is I can agree with most of what you say AND at the same time understand the ABSOLUTE NIGHTMARE we would be in if we did NOT elect WHOEVER the dem candidate is.

[Savannahmann]

135. No, there are apparently many more differences between us.

You see, I know the good of my party, and the bad. I am honest about both of those. My first loyalty is always towards principle. If you wonder what Principles I hold so closely then I suggest you read the Bill of Rights. I would give examples, but you get the point, and will almost certainly start debating the 2nd Amendment claiming I'm a lunatic gun nut. I'd point out the word Militia and how that affects the Amendment, which is in keeping with the ACLU's read of the Amendment, but you probably wouldn't notice.

I don't automatically endorse anything a Democrat does. I am MORE likely to endorse something a Democrat does than a Republican. But if a Republican endorses an idea, or a principle I hold, then I will agree with them.

As for my vote in the upcoming election cycle. I can assure you I will vote against Hillary and for whoever is the Democratic candidate for the nomination that isn't Hillary. In the general, I'll vote Democrat, although for Hillary I'll be wearing a clothespin on my nose.

I said my first loyalty is to Principle, and it is. I support the Democrats because they are more closely aligned with those principles than the Republicans are. The alternatives are as juvenile as a populist shout out to change the subject.

Here is what I mean by those alternatives. My Party is always right. That is absolutely juvenile and worthy of no consideration. My party right or wrong. That is infamous and worthy of even less consideration. When my party is right, I give it full throated defense. When my party is wrong, I give it equally full throated objection. If you want to know what issues I've given support to or opposition of, I could list them.

My loyalty to the Democratic Party will continue so long as they abide by the principles that have made this nation what it is. When they no longer show any interest in, or concern for those principles, then I will cast my ballot for whatever third party does.

Oh, and before you say it, yes I'll agree with a Republican when they are right on an issue. Opposing them because they are Republicans, or the equally juvenile argument that agreeing with them on one issue means that I must agree with them on all is asinine. I do not define my beliefs on what someone else believes. I do not show my support based upon what letter then individual has after their name. I refuse to join the My party is always right, or right or wrong camp.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

136. Show me where I ever said anything within a million miles of this, or assure me you didnt

refer to me in anyway when you included it in your post


My Party is always right

OH, and i just saw you say you will vote for Hillary if she is the nominee, begrudgingly, then I dont know why we are talking

I will too, I will wish it was Bernie, but I will too

I am simply addressing ANYONE ON DU who is saying we should NOT , begrudgingly or otherwise, vote for the dem candidate for the same reason you and I are.


I dont know what your politics are, personally I would nationalize all electrical and gas power, all fuel, probably the internet as well


I am a democratic socialist.

I would stop most of our empire activity as well

I would move mountains to increase union participation dramatically

[Savannahmann]

141. I'm not sure I'm on the same page.

Especially regarding nationalized gas, electrical, and internet. Historically, nationalized industries tend to do poorly. Poor service, high costs, and substandard quality. Doubt me? Look up the history of British Leyland. A disaster. The cars were crap. I mean they looked poor, had reliability issues beyond the imaginations of us mere mortals, and were far more expensive than foreign models.

There are few, very few examples of successfully nationalized efforts. The Suez Canal of course is one of those. As is the Panama Canal. But there are very few examples compared to the examples of tremendous failure. Regulated industry seems to work better, although the level of regulation is always a good topic of debate. Personally, I prefer enough freedom to experiment and develop new technology or approaches. While at the same time keeping prices reasonable and services at a standard. Something closer to an Insurance Commissioner in the State who makes sure that the companies are providing acceptable policy options while at the same time investigating complaints against those companies.

Union Participation. That's a tough one. Unions helped increase worker safety a long time ago. Yet today, OSHA regulations tend to define the safety issue. Worker hours are another area in which the Unions had great success, but these days the 40 hour work week is the standard before overtime gets in, with a few exceptions like Transportation workers who it would assume would be well protected under the Teamsters. Yet those transportation workers are most often denied overtime.

Also love of the Unions tends to uneven. Back to cars. We worship the UAW and the "big three" like they are somehow blessed by a deity. How they are superior to the ILA that brings cars in at our Ports is beyond me. Those cars are loaded on Trains, which are under the Railroad unions. Or transported on trucks which brings us back to the Teamsters. Yet imports are viewed with derision while American built cars, or American Corporation cars built mostly in Mexico, are somehow awesomely patriotic.

Personally, I have a Toyota that was built in Indiana, which used to be an American state. But things change or something. Kia has a factory in Georgia, Volkswagen has one in Chattanooga. BMW has a plant in South Carolina, while Toyota has a huge plant in Texas. Yet no one considers those cars to be "American" while a Ford built in Mexico is American. I got into a discussion with a small minded moron about this. He saw my Van and asked why I didn't buy American. I said it had been built in Indiana, which was American, unless we've broken off Diplomatic relations and I missed it. He said he only drives American cars. I told him that his Ford Fusion was built in Mexico. He called me a liar and opened the door to find it was built in Mexico on the panel. He cursed me, and stormed off with as impressive a squealing of tires as he could manage.

My own experience with Unions has been mixed. Some good, some not so good. I've seen the Union intimidation first hand, and stood up against it. I've seen the benefits first hand too. As I said, mixed experience.

What is interesting is somehow you confused my own feelings on the Democratic nominee with someone else. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you were not claiming that I suggested or said we should not vote for the Democratic nominee. I've argued before that Hillary won't get the support at the polls many believe she will. I think she's got too much baggage, and just isn't as strong of a candidate as others think. It depends on who the Republicans end up nominating. If it is a Bush, we should win. If it is Scott Walker, it will be much closer. Previously I've said Rand Paul, but since then I've seen some polling, not on the who would you vote for issue, but on public opinion on many issues, and I think that Rand is out of it now based upon those public opinion polls. Specifically the question of security versus privacy. 64% of the people said that Security should be the automatic answer. Privacy could take a flying fuck at a rolling donut to those folks. I disagree, not enough to vote for Rand, but I disagree. Without that issue, Rand is dead in the water. I believed that more people were interested in the Privacy side of the issue, I was wrong. Need I say terribly disappointed as well as wrong?

[whatchamacallit]

60. To raise the price of admission

They spend lavishly on both parties, but only on the right type of candidates. The astronomical cost of a successful campaign is how they screen out undesirables that might rock the boat and challenge the status quo. They guide the process, funneling it down to lackey R and lackey D. This way, whatever the unwashed rabble electorate do, they have their tool.

[AgingAmerican]

62. Influence

They hedge their bets by donating to both sides, thus assuring they have influence regardless of who wins.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

65. Not the Koch Bros, do you think they will spend equally on getting dems in power as cons?

or at all on Dems?

And you do know they alone will spend about

ONE

BILLION

DOLLARS

you do know that?

[AgingAmerican]

77. They are called 'Hedged bet donations'

nt

[woo me with science]

63. This question in the OP is always the weak attempt at a "trump card"

in corporate talking points trying to deny that we are an oligarchy now rather than a democracy.

It's a ridiculous question, and the answer is self-evident:

Because it's PROFITABLE, and because it sustains the illusion of democracy
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6198011

[woo me with science]

76. Link to the original OP that attempted this Third Way talking point AND others:

Link to the original OP that attempted this Third Way talking point *and* others:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026197237

[Dont call me Shirley]

64. Because the Birchers/Fascists have taken full control of the gop. The Progressive side of the

Democratic Party is what the gop is truly afraid of and willing to spend trillions to end beliefs in economic fairness, caring for others, treating others with dignity and self-determination.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

66. But look at all the folks here who are certain there is NO difference between the two

and I am going to ask for the 3rd time

Why are so many, is it hundreds? Why are so many people here non stop attacking the Democratic Party?

Do these people know where they are?

If they hate the dem party they do, they were sent here me thinks

[Marr]

71. Cite the post that says there's NO difference between the two parties, please. /nt

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

74. All of your responses, all of the no difference responses are here.

People say that without using those exact words all day long here and you know it, though some use those exact words

Simple question, it is election day and the candidates for prez are hillary and jeb bush, what do you do?

your answer will tell me if you think there is no difference

I will rephrase

"you think there is NOT ENOUGH difference for you to vote for the dem"

right?

[Marr]

79. Either quote it or admit you're lying.

Generally I'd say, 'admit you made a mistake', but given your pathetic stream of gradeschool-level sophistry in this thread, I can't believe that's the case.

If the next thing you post doesn't begin with a relevant quote or an admission that you were mistaken, I'll just take it as an admission that you're a liar. Thanks.

[Phlem]

69. The TPP is a gift to billionaires and is very much

being pushed by both parties. Yeay Bipartisanship!

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

70. And it is terrible and it is wrong...but there is a difference between the parties

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6198033

[Phlem]

78. That's what people say. But when it comes to economics

I still have yet to see any support for the middle class and lower class. The health insurance fix had to be done or the country would have gone up in flames on Obama's watch, but we still need livable wage jobs to pay those bills. Yes The party have been quite different on many things but I don't see that in economics and I'm still waiting for it to get fixed, but it won't.

[Oilwellian]

117. Yeah, when another family becomes destitute

because their job was sent to Viet Nam, their first concern will be whether or not they can still get an abortion. And if you don't support their first concern, you are NOT a Democrat. Damnit!

[Phlem]

158. Spot on my friend. +1

That's pretty much the gist of it.

[Piasladic]

72. Coke or Pepsi

They both want to make money.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

82. Both wanna take away women's rights to their own bodies and strip voting rights?

[outside]

115. Well said.

Senator Elizabeth Warren fights for middle- and working-class Americans. But she's part of the Top 1%.
Warren, the Harvard bankruptcy law professor elected to the Senate in 2012, is worth between $3.7 million and $10 million.

That's not including the three-story Victorian home in Cambridge, Mass., that she owns with her husband and fellow Harvard law professor, Bruce Mann. It's now assessed at $1.9 million, according to city property records.
While she's not in the uppermost wealth echelon of Congress, she's not doing too badly either. Roll Call recently ranked her the 76th wealthiest out of 541 senators and representatives. +snip+

http://money.cnn.com/2015/01/08/news/economy/elizabeth-warren-wealth/

I guess the pay at Harvard is pretty good.

[AverageJoe90]

81. Apathetic would-be voters are easier to keep away from the polls.....nt

[MisterP]

83. by that logic, Obama's whipping for the TPP = Dems are cheaper to buy

[MFrohike]

86. Yikes

Quick thoughts:

1. There is no such thing as perfect information, nor do donors operate in a vacuum. They may fail to realize they could push their agenda in either party. There is no reason to assume that the rich are any better at making strategic judgments than anyone else. There's a saying in sports: talent covers a lot of flaws. Substitute money for talent and that statement applies quite well to politics.

2. They may seek either an outright win or a soft win. An outright win would be the candidate of their backing winning an election. A soft win would be pushing the context of the election so far to the right that they get most of what they want anyway.

3. It may be a case of pure partisan loyalty or dislike

4. It could be a case of personal loyalty or dislike.

5. It could be pure irrationality.



I'm not interested in arguing your point, so please don't bother to try that with me. I'm just offering some idea off the top of my head as to how a person or group of people could choose to support one party over the other. They're pretty simple ideas, but simple ideas have a way better track record of success than complex ideas. I'd suggest exploring and eliminating these before moving on to other things. Otherwise, you could end up missing the point of it all and that would be a shame.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

96. OK, I wont ask you if you will vote in such a way to stop women from being killed

or in such a way as to protect minority voting rights

you can have the rest of the day off

[MFrohike]

142. Cool

I won't ask you if you'll vote in a way that makes sure that they can't make the money necessary to defend those rights.


Litmus tests cut both ways, champ.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

143. What? You lost me..I asked a simple question, dont answer it if you dont want but dont answer it

with a question.

It is a REALITY you will be faced with soon

[MFrohike]

148. I'm not surprised

You asked a loaded question in order to make a point. You're now whining that I did the same in return. Gooses and ganders, my friend.

As for litmus tests, it's quite simple. You want to make the dividing line of acceptable and unacceptable abortion and voting. Cool, my point was that if you don't prioritize better incomes and jobs in the process, you'll find the rights you prize being tossed aside because the people who need them protected won't have the means (money) to do it. Campaigns cost money. Lawsuits cost money. Leisure time to get informed on the issues costs money. If your dividing line doesn't take that into account, it's going to be as successful as Custer at Little Big Horn.

[kydo]

88. The stucture/means/ways is the same. The ideas are very very different.

The politics is the same. The schmoozing, making deals, getting elected, ect, that stuff is the stuff they all do. But the ideas and stands are different.

[Adam051188]

94. expensive maintenance for a large illusion.

[sendero]

95. You think...

... they only fund one party? They fund whoever has won or is expected to win.

[ND-Dem]

97. they spend the money on both sides. it's good to maintain the illusion of difference, however.

it makes controlling the population easier.

Brooke Buchanan, a Walmart spokesperson, emphasized that the Walton family and Walmart's PAC are different. She noted that 49 percent of the PAC's contributions went to Democrats in the 2011-2012 election cycle.

"Our giving is very equal between parties across the country," she said.

Of the donations made by both Walmart's PAC and the Walton family since the 2000 election cycle, nearly 70 percent went to Republican candidates and committees, the report found. Because in many cases the report combines donations from the Walmart PAC and the Walton family, the findings create a more conservative picture than Walmart's own data.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/18/walmart-political-contributions_n_3461267.html

Since 2000, KochPAC has given more than $1.4 million to Democratic candidates, leadership PACs and party committees, according to numbers compiled by Congressional Quarterly’s Moneyline.

KochPAC has given $10.2 million to Republican candidates since 2000. That’s in addition to the millions that the two brothers have spent on election activity.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/03/koch-brothers-democrats-104787.html#ixzz3RBeZDVxB


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/03/koch-brothers-democrats-104787.html#ixzz3RBe6ov8x

[MisterP]

105. and don't forget the Kochs creating the DLC

[ND-Dem]

132. Now that's something I've heard said often that I've never been able to find authoritative evidence

for.

So far as I know, the Kochs have contributed funds to DLC, but they didn't found it. If you have evidence, though, please link it.

Will Marshall III founded the Democratic Leadership Council in 1985 and served as its first Policy Director. He is president of the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) and a member of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq (CLI). [1]

Marshall is a longtime friend of former President Bill Clinton and a supporter of former Vice President and candidate in U.S. presidential election, 2000 Albert Gore, Jr.. [3]

"Marshall's previous campaign and political experience includes posts as press secretary, spokesman and speechwriter for the 1984 United States Senate campaign of former North Carolina Governor Jim Hunt, speechwriter and policy analyst for the late U.S. Representative Gillis Long of Louisiana, Chairman of the House Democratic Caucus; and, spokesman and speechwriter in the 1982 U.S. Senate campaign of former Virginia Lt. Governor Dick Davis. In addition, Marshall was senior editor of the 1984 House Democratic Caucus policy blueprint, Renewing America's Promise." [4]

"The connection to Long also linked Marshall to Al From, the guiding spirit behind the DLC and PPI." [5]

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Will_Marshall

"Freeing Democrats from being, well, Democrats has been the Democratic Leadership Council's mission since its founding 16 years ago by Al Gore, Chuck Robb, and a handful of other conservative, mostly southern Dems as a rump faction of disaffected elected officials and party activists. Producing and directing the DLC is Al From, its founder and CEO, who's been the leader, visionary, and energizing force behind the New Democrat movement since Day One." --Robert Dreyfuss, The American Prospect, April 23, 2001.

An August, 2000 Newsweek story on Joe Lieberman, The Soul And The Steel[1] reveals that some of the early funding came from ARCO, Chevron, Merck, Du Pont, Microsoft, Philip Morris and Koch Industries:

Like many similar groups, the DLC (of which Gore is a founding member) has never disclosed its funding sources. But last week, in response to requests from NEWSWEEK, it turned over a list of top donors....Among the DLC's biggest benefactors last year (contributions of between $50,000 and $100,000) were ARCO, Chevron and the drug giant Merck. Other big underwriters include Du Pont, Microsoft and Philip Morris (which has kicked in $500,000 since Lieberman became DLC chairman). There is no evidence that the DLC has trimmed policies to accommodate its patrons, but some contributors say the money has helped ensure an open door to Lieberman. "We've been able to have a dialogue with the senator and his staff," said Jay Rosser, spokesman for another DLC benefactor, Koch Industries, an oil-pipeline firm that is also a big GOP donor.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Democratic_Leadership_Council

I think people focus a bit too much on Koch. They're not the only player out there, or even the biggest, to my understanding. I actually think Koch may be being used by the Party as a distraction, a convenient villain.

[benz380]

109. Billionaires on both sides spend big money on their party

These days both parties are corporatists and it's all about the money.
The two parties are not the same in a lot of ways, but it all comes down to
'if I contribute big money to get you elected, how much will I get back on my initial investment?'

[Cosmic Kitten]

126. So it appears your OP is inaccurate

talking about people like the Walton's and Koch's, they do NOT spend on both

Apparently, the Walton's and Koch's
DO SPEND ON BOTH PARTIES???

Now what?
Does that mean the parties are the same?

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

127. NO, they will NOT both spend on the Dem prez cand and the repub...unless you have something that

says they will?

All signs are they will not..

what they did with the DLC has nothing to do with now, it is why I didnt bother to answer ANY of those posts before

meaningless as to what will be spent by whom on the two presidential candidates.

[Cosmic Kitten]

129. HA HA moving goal posts again?

Your OP speaks in the past tense...
*Why do* not *why will*...

Now you want to argue/debate
an imaginary, future political donation?
Really!?!

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

128. another du person just now said this, said it WAY better than i could

To white, straight, Libertarian males, the parties are the same because they

don't have to concern themselves with civil rights, reproductive choice, equal pay, or voter suppression.

It's good to be the top of the food chain.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026195280#post311

[Cosmic Kitten]

131. NON-Sequitur... are you NOW switching...

from assuming white, liberal, privilege...
to white, straight, Libertarian males?
Why not throw in *left-leaning-independent*

You seem obsessed with race, gender, and political identity?

[Agnosticsherbet]

134. I think the argument made that both parties are the same is made most often by single issue

voters on the basis of economics, and those who are convinced the normal pace of change in our system is unacceptable and blame that on everyone being the same or that the system is compromised by big money interests.

Our system as designed requires compromise between a sufficient number of individual representatives. The result is that change, except in a very unusual times, is always slow, and our government tends to operate around the political center.

Since Gingrich, partisan politics where, especially Republicans, refuse to compromise, and Washington has become a place where warring camps are the norm.

Obama passed the ACA, a bill that would never have been passed by a Republican President. Fifty-four or fifty-five votes to repeal it shows that th sides are not at all th same. Arguments were made here that the ACA was nothing more than a give away to Corporate insurance companies. Back then, it was a huge source of conflict between people here who liked it and people who did not.

Supreme Court Justices show that the sides are different. Ginsberg and Breyer show that Clinton's court picks were superb. Kagan and Sotomayor show that Obama's picks were superb. Clinton, especially, is known as a Third Way Democrat. Obama's policies toward Wall Street has been criticized as more in favor of banks than the little guy.

There is plenty of evidence that the parties are different. I don't know that those who consider them the same will ever agree.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

139. ACA was both a give away to health ins co and a HUGE improvement on the old system

I am also all but certain the terrorists on the SC are about to destroy it

[Agnosticsherbet]

140. Which of the Terrorist on the SC were put there by Democrats?

And it is not possible for them to destory the SC. It will continue long after they have retired, and other justices can and wll undo the damage, if we elect Democrats to nominate them.

[woo me with science]

145. More corporate talking points.

They are most certainly not the same, and people have explained this to you over and over.

One is deliberately made worse than the other, by design.

The corporate Republicans MUST be batshit crazy in order for the corporate Democrats to keep moving rightward.

The fact that corporate Republicans will do all the same things to us, PLUS force our daughters to have mandatory transvaginal ultrasounds (!) is the ONLY way that predatory, money-corrupted corporate Democrats can justify working PROACTIVELY for so many of the same vicious, murderous, looting, environmentally destructive corporate policies as the Republicans.

REALITY is clear. The behavior of the two parties is self-evident. To pretend that corporate Democrats are not funded by and aggressively complicit in the malignant, predatory, antidemocratic corporate agenda is worse than absurd. It is INCONSISTENT WITH REALITY.

[Agnosticsherbet]

149. To think they are the same is inconsistant with reaity and history.

[woo me with science]

150. Nonsensical and unresponsive. Just like in the other thread.

My post here was about how the two parties are deliberately *not* the same, so your reply makes no sense whatsoever. It's as though you didn't even read the post. It feels canned, like a bot response that isn't quite on the mark.

Thank you for illustrating, yet again, the canned quality of the corporate talking point responses.

You just very effectively demonstrated the difference between political discussion and corporate advertising....so I think we're done here.

Goodbye.

[Agnosticsherbet]

152. Nonsensical and illogical. You began by calling it corporate talking points. You call them the same.

You move right through Corporate Democrats and Corporate Republicans.

Which is an argument for their sameness.

Oh sure, you touch on republican rape vaginal ultrasound, but you go right back to the same tired Corporate Conspiracy argument, you are showing an unwillingness to look at the parties as being substantively different.

You are seem unwilling to examine the system as it works, which means you seem unwilling to try and make it work for the people.

Goodbye.

[3catwoman3]

137. What I would like the Koch brothers to answer...

...is this - If you have $990,000,000 to spare, that you do not need for anything else, WTF difference does it make which party is in office? Are you not independently wealthy enough that you can pretty well do as you damn please? What exactly are you being prevented from doing because we have a Democratic president?

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

138. That is how much they hate us, how much they want to destroy the environment

it makes me think of things I should not think of, I consider them violent enemies of the human race...

[Jamastiene]

146. The ones who spend on both sides want to make sure they own whichever party wins.

The ones who don't spend on both sides REALLY want the right wingers to win, because the GOP has so many flakes so far to the right. That matches what the right wing billionaires really want.

As far as the argument that both parties are the same, on quite a few votes, they do end up voting the same, for the most part, but there are still lots of issues that seem to actually get opposite votes on each side. So, I cannot argue that both parties are the same all the time, only sometimes.

The answer to both questions comes down to money. Who has it? Who wants it most? Who will jump through the most hoops to get it? Who will be the most loyal to the billionaires? If a politician will not be loyal, that billionaire will not invest in that politician. It's the way of politics. It's all about the $$$.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

147. Did you think that being a moran stopped at a certain income level?

[RiverLover]

155. That's easy - To hedge their bets

No matter who wins, they have control.

[KG]

157. comedy gold.

[bvar22]

160. Koch Brothers money helped elect Bill Clinton,

establish the DLC, and assisted many "Centrist" Democrats in their election bids.

http://americablog.com/2010/08/koch-industries-gave-funding-to-the-dlc-and-served-on-its-executive-council.html


Its called hedging your bet, and a WIN/WIN for the Koch Brothers.

[One_Life_To_Give]

161. Too ensure a Teddy Rosevelt doesn't get into office

At one level you are seeing one group of Oligarchs vs. another. Exxon vs Google, Koch vs. Diamon, etc. Each trying to beat the other. In the end the people only win when the unexpected, such as premature death of the person the Oligarchs wanted, happens.

Seems to me they do a good job of keeping the 99% fighting amongst ourselves. IMHO

[SidDithers]

162. The parties aren't the same. There are vast differences between them...

It's Naderite asshats who insist that the parties are the same.

Sid

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

163. That is what I said, over and over, but you would have thought I was the anti christ