These are people who will lose everything they have. If property rights were respected, climate-destroying companies like Koch Industries would owe a fortune in compensatory damages to their victims. A functioning market would heavily tax carbon, in order to account for the harm it does. Pollution is an infringement on the property rights of the people being polluted, and it was the Kochs who tried to keep those rights from being enforced. Ultimately, this brand of libertarianism is really just plutocracy.
The Koch Brothers have always believed that rich people had the right to rule over everyone else, democracy be damned. Defenders of the Kochs will point to their charitable giving.
David Koch gave large sums of money to cancer research and the ballet. Of course, there is a certain element of self-interest to these donations: Koch himself suffered from cancer and enjoyed ballet. But the Kochs were also consciously trying to improve their public image.
Because their plutocratic politics was so unpopular, the Kochs were advised to appear more socially aware and benevolent. Nonetheless, Democrats, unlike Republicans, have pushed for reforms that would shut off the dark-money spigot. These dark-money groups can spend a limited percentage of their funds directly on electoral politics. They also can contribute funds to political-action committees, creating a daisy chain of groups giving to one another.
This makes it virtually impossible to identify the original source of funding. The result has been a cascade of anonymous cash flooding into American elections. The nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics reports that in the federal election cycle more than a billion dollars was spent by dark-money groups that masked the identity of their donors.
Of that total, more than six hundred and fifty-four million dollars came from just fifteen groups. The top spender was One Nation, a dark-money social-welfare group tied to McConnell. The For the People Act requires greater disclosure of the identities of donors who pay for election ads—including those released on digital platforms, which currently fall outside of such legal scrutiny.
It also requires that donors who give ten thousand dollars or more to social-welfare groups be identified, if that donation is spent to sway elections. Donors who fund non-election-oriented activities by such groups can remain anonymous. And, notably, the legislation calls for the disclosure, for the first time, of large donors trying to exert control over the selection of judicial nominees.
This provision appears to target groups such as the Judicial Crisis Network, on the right, and Demand Justice, on the left, which have mounted multimillion-dollar public-advocacy campaigns to influence the confirmation of Supreme Court nominees. The Koch brothers are known for using their money in support of a multitude of political pursuits, which has not gone over well with many Democrats. Koch Industries has its hand in oil, minerals, consumer products, and more, making it one of the largest privately held companies in the United States.
The brothers have been heavily criticized for using their billions to fund political campaigns and candidates that align with their personal interests. Throughout the years, David has backed some Republican politicians, which angered many on the far left. I hope you suffered. The Koch brothers have also angered Republicans after speaking out against President Trump.
0コメント