Koch: I'm Tired of Character Assassination

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
I do get irked by the constant slandering of private citizens [/quote]

Doesn’t matter which side they’re on, people who fund political campaigns are as fair game as are elected officials.

Now, slander is another story, and when anyone is lied about, wrong has been done. But people who buy political victories and candidates are public figures.[/quote]

Something like 2b came in in the 2012 cycle from individual donors giving less than $200. (Read it in today’s Journal, I could have figures wrong, I’ve gotten 9 hours sleep this week.)

So does the person who gave $35 for political donation become a target of political assassination on the Senate floor as well? Or is there a dollar limit on when an elected representative can defame you publicly?[/quote]

Maybe, in theory, to a commensurate extent (and, by the way, there have been a great many people whose small contributions have been the subject of scrutiny), but the greater the sum, the greater the political influence, the greater extent to which the person is a public figure.

$35 doesn’t get an official to pick up the phone when you call, which is what truly justifies public scrutiny. Obviously.

[/quote]

So where is the line then?

Let’s put a $ figure on it.

At what donation level is it acceptable for a Senator to be blasting a private citizen on the Senate floor, in social media and on the record?

And as a follow up, at what point (I assume beyond words, but I’m not sure that is good enough) does this type of action become political persecution?

22

Thanks for the well wishes guys

[quote]H factor wrote:

Well I think you’re making some pretty intentional goal posts here man. [/quote]

Fine, fair enough, in the interest of discussion, lets establish that which party is doing it is fine. I want to know what people think of the following two questions:

  1. At what point of activity in political processes does a private citizen become “fair game” for the type of commentary those private citizens previously mentioned get from elected officials in an “on the record” fashion?

  2. At what point does this commentary from elected officials become persecution?

I want to establish a common ground on those two things. And then ask more questions.

23

I think what Reid has done is paint the Koch Bros better than GOP attempts at painting Soros or Gore as some kind of huge money donors.

Reid is talking this kind of bullshit on the Senate floor of all places, which is already going to grab a huge audience.

24

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
I do get irked by the constant slandering of private citizens [/quote]

Doesn’t matter which side they’re on, people who fund political campaigns are as fair game as are elected officials.

Now, slander is another story, and when anyone is lied about, wrong has been done. But people who buy political victories and candidates are public figures.[/quote]

Something like 2b came in in the 2012 cycle from individual donors giving less than $200. (Read it in today’s Journal, I could have figures wrong, I’ve gotten 9 hours sleep this week.)

So does the person who gave $35 for political donation become a target of political assassination on the Senate floor as well? Or is there a dollar limit on when an elected representative can defame you publicly?[/quote]

Maybe, in theory, to a commensurate extent (and, by the way, there have been a great many people whose small contributions have been the subject of scrutiny), but the greater the sum, the greater the political influence, the greater extent to which the person is a public figure.

$35 doesn’t get an official to pick up the phone when you call, which is what truly justifies public scrutiny. Obviously.

[/quote]

So where is the line then?

Let’s put a $ figure on it.

At what donation level is it acceptable for a Senator to be blasting a private citizen on the Senate floor, in social media and on the record?

And as a follow up, at what point (I assume beyond words, but I’m not sure that is good enough) does this type of action become political persecution?[/quote]

I have a car.

I take a hubcap off: I still have a car.

I take another hubcap off: I still have a car.

I take a taillight out: I still have a car.

I keep going.

Eventually, all that’s left is a single screw.

I no longer have a car.

When did I cease to have a car?

The point being that “let’s draw a line” does not really disprove what I’m saying, does it? I am pretty sure that you agree with me that a man who can and does fund entire political campaigns is a public figure, or far more a public figure than a man who donates a $20 bill to a political candidate. I could be wrong and I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but I’m pretty sure.

Like I said, someone who can and does buy the privilege of calling an elected official and getting a call back is a public figure. However much that costs, that’s where the line is.

25

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

The point being that “let’s draw a line” does not really disprove what I’m saying, does it? .[/quote]

NO, and I’m not really trying to.

I’m trying to figure out where the line is. It is somewhere between $20 and $20,000,000. But where?

And more importantly, at what point is the backlash towards those that cross that line become persecution?

26

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[\ I’ve gotten 9 hours sleep this week.[/quote]

Tax season must be rough for your kind. My condolences friend.

27

His libertarian views don’t make sense in a world where there is limited land to exploit. In short, his ideals ruin the world at his benefit. It’s a broken and old way of understanding reality gents.

28

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Thanks for the well wishes guys
[/quote] A little late to the party, but hang in there, bro![quote]

So where is the line then?

Let’s put a $ figure on it.

At what donation level is it acceptable for a Senator to be blasting a private citizen on the Senate floor, in social media and on the record?

[/quote]I don’t believe that ANY private citizen should be blasted on the Senate floor for ANY reason. It is blatant political persecution. If you have not run for public office, you are not a public servant. Therefore your expectation of privacy (and the rest of the shebang that public servants give up) should remain intact. The Senate floor should be a place to discuss MAKING LAWS. You know, what we PAY those fuckers to do? It should never be used as a bully pulpit against any citizen. Social Media is another story. Anyone can say whatever they want. But one could argue that as a public servant of significant power, Reid is using that power to publicly persecute a private individual. If that is found, by due process, to be the case he should resign or be forced out of office.[quote]

And as a follow up, at what point (I assume beyond words, but I’m not sure that is good enough) does this type of action become political persecution?

[/quote]When a public servant attacks a private citizen “on record” it is persecution. It is bringing the power of the government to bear on a private individual. It is never acceptable. If the individual breaks the law, we have measures in place to deal with that. But Koch has not broken any laws. Sure he has donated money, but that is his right as an American. It is NOT the right of a public servant to go after private individual - no matter what they contribute. [quote]

Fine, fair enough, in the interest of discussion, lets establish that which party is doing it is fine. I want to know what people think of the following two questions:

  1. At what point of activity in political processes does a private citizen become “fair game” for the type of commentary those private citizens previously mentioned get from elected officials in an “on the record” fashion?

[/quote]Never. See above. [quote]

  1. At what point does this commentary from elected officials become persecution?

[/quote]When a public official attacks a private individual it is persecution. Even the police don’t do that during an investigation - they recognize they are public servants and have a duty to follow and a set of boundaries to work within. The MEDIA, not being a public servant, can publicly harass, humiliate, attack whomever they wish. But an elected SENATOR brings the voice of the United States government to bear whenever he opens his mouth and should be held to a standard that is far higher than what it currently being demonstrated. [quote]

I want to establish a common ground on those two things. And then ask more questions.
[/quote]

29

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

Like I said, someone who can and does buy the privilege of calling an elected official and getting a call back is a public figure. However much that costs, that’s where the line is.[/quote]

I completely disagree. The arena of politics is the stage on which ELECTED PUBLIC SERVANTS do battle. Private individuals is who the public servants work for. How DARE they attack their employer? If someone worked for me and then tweeted that I’m a scumbag, etc… I would be well within my rights to fire his sorry ass.

And who gives a shit about a phone call? I’ve met with my Senator, my Congressman and my Lieutenant Governor and I’ve never contributed a dime to any of them. So should I be open to persecution then? Because according your standard I should be. Business people meet with their elected representatives all the time to discuss many different things from creating jobs, discussing local business and manufacturing opportunities, etc… So should they then be open to be attacked on the Senate floor? Of course not!

The SCOTUS just lifted old rules about personal donations to candidates, which further reinforces that political contribution is a form of free speech. So if a private citizen is lambasted (persecuted) for exercising his first amendment rights, what’s next? I feel that a VERY hard line should be drawn here and Reid is way over on the wrong side of it.

He is a politician. If he doesn’t like Koch’s political views and feels Koch’s money is going against HIS party, then he should go out and court a larger donor, not attack a private citizen.

30

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

The point being that “let’s draw a line” does not really disprove what I’m saying, does it? .[/quote]

NO, and I’m not really trying to.

I’m trying to figure out where the line is. It is somewhere between $20 and $20,000,000. But where?

And more importantly, at what point is the backlash towards those that cross that line become persecution?
[/quote]

Interesting questions.

Unfortunately, I can only but throw my hands up and shrug when I encounter this particular challenge.

You’re exactly right: The line is somewhere between $25 and $20 million, just like the line is somewhere between the car’s first hubcap removed and the last piece left lying on the floor. But I couldn’t say where.

I do think that a good place to find the line would be, “Does the candidate learn the donor’s name? If the donor calls, does the candidate/by-then-official pick up?”

31

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

Like I said, someone who can and does buy the privilege of calling an elected official and getting a call back is a public figure. However much that costs, that’s where the line is.[/quote]

I completely disagree. The arena of politics is the stage on which ELECTED PUBLIC SERVANTS do battle. Private individuals is who the public servants work for. How DARE they attack their employer? If someone worked for me and then tweeted that I’m a scumbag, etc… I would be well within my rights to fire his sorry ass.

And who gives a shit about a phone call? I’ve met with my Senator, my Congressman and my Lieutenant Governor and I’ve never contributed a dime to any of them. So should I be open to persecution then? Because according your standard I should be. Business people meet with their elected representatives all the time to discuss many different things from creating jobs, discussing local business and manufacturing opportunities, etc… So should they then be open to be attacked on the Senate floor? Of course not!

The SCOTUS just lifted old rules about personal donations to candidates, which further reinforces that political contribution is a form of free speech. So if a private citizen is lambasted (persecuted) for exercising his first amendment rights, what’s next? I feel that a VERY had line should be drawn here and Reid is way over on the wrong side of it.

He is a politician. If he doesn’t like Koch’s political views and feels Koch’s money is going against HIS party, then he should go out and court a larger donor, not attack a private citizen.[/quote]

You’re twisting my words. I’m not talking about meeting a politician, I’m talking about calling and making a “suggestion” and having the said suggestion heeded. Influence, in other words. And someone who underwrites political campaigns in order to have political influence is, to the fullest extent, a pubic figure in my book. If they don’t like it, they can get themselves out of politics. Until they do that, politics is public–not just the candidates, but also the activists, the financiers, the journalists who cover it–all of them.

32

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

Like I said, someone who can and does buy the privilege of calling an elected official and getting a call back is a public figure. However much that costs, that’s where the line is.[/quote]

I completely disagree. The arena of politics is the stage on which ELECTED PUBLIC SERVANTS do battle. Private individuals is who the public servants work for. How DARE they attack their employer? If someone worked for me and then tweeted that I’m a scumbag, etc… I would be well within my rights to fire his sorry ass.

And who gives a shit about a phone call? I’ve met with my Senator, my Congressman and my Lieutenant Governor and I’ve never contributed a dime to any of them. So should I be open to persecution then? Because according your standard I should be. Business people meet with their elected representatives all the time to discuss many different things from creating jobs, discussing local business and manufacturing opportunities, etc… So should they then be open to be attacked on the Senate floor? Of course not!

The SCOTUS just lifted old rules about personal donations to candidates, which further reinforces that political contribution is a form of free speech. So if a private citizen is lambasted (persecuted) for exercising his first amendment rights, what’s next? I feel that a VERY had line should be drawn here and Reid is way over on the wrong side of it.

He is a politician. If he doesn’t like Koch’s political views and feels Koch’s money is going against HIS party, then he should go out and court a larger donor, not attack a private citizen.[/quote]

You’re twisting my words. I’m not talking about meeting a politician, I’m talking about calling and making a “suggestion” and having the said suggestion heeded. Influence, in other words. And someone who underwrites political campaigns in order to have political influence is, to the fullest extent, a pubic figure in my book. If they don’t like it, they can get themselves out of politics. Until they do that, politics is public–not just the candidates, but also the activists, the financiers, the journalists who cover it–all of them.[/quote]

Wasn’t trying to twist your words. What I’m saying is that it’s not appropriate for a PUBLIC servant to attack a PRIVATE citizen on the Senate floor. There are people who make contributions on BOTH sides of the aisle. That is their free speech. If Reid doesn’t like the fact that someone is donating to his opponent, he should spend more time courting donors for HIS team, not attacking donors for the opposition. “Buying influence” is not a new phenomenon. It’s been happening since we were tribes of hunter/gatherers. I don’t have a problem with it. But a public official who represents the government has the power and influence of his office that a private citizen doesn’t have. Reid should be attacking the politician who ACCEPTED the donation and allowed himself to be influenced - not the CITIZEN exercising his free speech. That’s a slippery slope…

33

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

Like I said, someone who can and does buy the privilege of calling an elected official and getting a call back is a public figure. However much that costs, that’s where the line is.[/quote]

I completely disagree. The arena of politics is the stage on which ELECTED PUBLIC SERVANTS do battle. Private individuals is who the public servants work for. How DARE they attack their employer? If someone worked for me and then tweeted that I’m a scumbag, etc… I would be well within my rights to fire his sorry ass.

And who gives a shit about a phone call? I’ve met with my Senator, my Congressman and my Lieutenant Governor and I’ve never contributed a dime to any of them. So should I be open to persecution then? Because according your standard I should be. Business people meet with their elected representatives all the time to discuss many different things from creating jobs, discussing local business and manufacturing opportunities, etc… So should they then be open to be attacked on the Senate floor? Of course not!

The SCOTUS just lifted old rules about personal donations to candidates, which further reinforces that political contribution is a form of free speech. So if a private citizen is lambasted (persecuted) for exercising his first amendment rights, what’s next? I feel that a VERY had line should be drawn here and Reid is way over on the wrong side of it.

He is a politician. If he doesn’t like Koch’s political views and feels Koch’s money is going against HIS party, then he should go out and court a larger donor, not attack a private citizen.[/quote]

You’re twisting my words. I’m not talking about meeting a politician, I’m talking about calling and making a “suggestion” and having the said suggestion heeded. Influence, in other words. And someone who underwrites political campaigns in order to have political influence is, to the fullest extent, a pubic figure in my book. If they don’t like it, they can get themselves out of politics. Until they do that, politics is public–not just the candidates, but also the activists, the financiers, the journalists who cover it–all of them.[/quote]

Wasn’t trying to twist your words. What I’m saying is that it’s not appropriate for a PUBLIC servant to attack a PRIVATE citizen on the Senate floor. There are people who make contributions on BOTH sides of the aisle. That is their free speech. If Reid doesn’t like the fact that someone is donating to his opponent, he should spend more time courting donors for HIS team, not attacking donors for the opposition. “Buying influence” is not a new phenomenon. It’s been happening since we were tribes of hunter/gatherers. I don’t have a problem with it. But a public official who represents the government has the power and influence of his office that a private citizen doesn’t have. Reid should be attacking the politician who ACCEPTED the donation and allowed himself to be influenced - not the CITIZEN exercising his free speech. That’s a slippery slope…
[/quote]

For the record, I don’t really have a problem with the buying of influence either (my view of campaign finance is complicated).

I just believe that people who do it, and do it to noteworthy extent, are public figures. In fact I think anyone with influence over our politics beyond “s/he can vote” is, to an degree commensurate with the magnitude of their influence, a public figure.

Sorry about that last sentence. It was a nightmare. I need sleep.

34
35

Pitt,

I don’t understand your beef with people spending money to get their message across. Liberals do it too. What I think Libs and you are really upset about, is Conservatives being able to deliver their message more cheaply and effectively than Democrats do.

36

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Pitt,

I don’t understand your beef with people spending money to get their message across. Liberals do it too. What I think Libs and you are really upset about, is Conservatives being able to deliver their message more cheaply and effectively than Democrats do. [/quote]

If they are spending their money to trick people they are perpetuating fraud . I and people that believe there is an organized effort to defraud America and the World out of something that WILL NOT BE ABLE TO BE RETRIEVED , all in the name of another dollar (FOR THEM)

37

I know you will think he is a partisan hack , he may be ,m he hacks both Democrats as well as Republicans

38

The Koch family made their first millions when their father worked for Joseph Stalin. Isn’t that nice? The brothers pulled themselves up by their own million-dollar bootstraps, the old fashioned way.

If corporations are people, are rock bands people too? Is my softball team a person? Is Occupy Wall Street a person? The Black Panther Party?

Also, I thought posts with ALL CAPS were moderated here. I’ll start using them too, if not.

39
40

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
He makes some good points, but it is hard to take him seriously. Just trying to keep the cronyism out of politics by spending millions of dollars trying to influence politicians. He spends quite a bit according to this article trying to hide where the money is coming from and who is responsible for it.

For a guy trying to tell us he isn’t trying to rig the system he sure spends a lot of money on the system. For a guy saying he is fighting cronyism he sure spends a lot of his money being a crony.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/koch-backed-political-network-built-to-shield-donors-raised-400-million-in-2012-elections/2014/01/05/9e7cfd9a-719b-11e3-9389-09ef9944065e_story.html[/quote]

You don’t get a turn if you’re not in the game. [/quote]

Nor can you change the game without playing it. [/quote]

Yeah, tell that to the commissioner of every major sports league on the planet.