Koch Industries

Scientific Proof That Exxon And The Kochs Distorted The Public’s Understanding Of Climate Change



When it comes to climate deniers in the halls of Congress, some have suggested that their rejection of the scientific consensus on climate change stems from their financial ties to the fossil fuel industry.

But it turns out that it’s not just members of Congress whose climate doubt may be traced back to corporate influence — a study published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences suggests that over the last 20 years, private funding has had an important influence on the overall polarization of climate change as a topic in the United States.

“The main thesis that corporate funding influences climate change issues is definitely something people have been writing about for a long time, but just not with the type of data to fully support these conclusions,” Justin Farrell, author of the study and a sociologist at Yale University, told ThinkProgress. “It confirms what we thought using comprehensive data and computational analyses.”

To understand how corporate funding has contributed to the polarization of climate change in the United States, Farrell looked at 20 years’ worth of data, analyzing articles, texts, and policy papers produced by 164 organizations and more than 4,500 individuals who do not accept the science of climate change (that climate change is either not happening or not a product of human activity). The study also looked at funding from two key contrarian entities: the Koch Family Foundationsand ExxonMobil.

By analyzing both the networks of individuals and organizations that have participated in climate misinformation campaigns and the climate-related texts that those organizations produced between 1993 and 2013, Farrell found what he described to the Washington Post as an “ecosystem of influence” within groups that received corporate funding. Groups that received funding from Koch or Exxon were not only more likely to have written texts aimed at polarizing climate change, but were more likely to change the emphasis of their content over time. Beginning in 2008, groups that received funding were more likely than unfunded groups to produce texts stressing things like the idea that climate change is a long term cycle or that carbon dioxide is in fact good for the planet, key tenets of the climate misinformation campaign aimed at casting doubt on the scientific consensus. Groups that received funding consistently touted these themes, while groups with no funding didn’t show the same level of coordination.

“This funding has an impact on the nature and amount of what is going out in the climate misinformation effort,” Robert Brulle, a professor of sociology and environmental science at Drexel University who was not involved in the study, told ThinkProgress. “It’s stronger, and there’s more of it, and these organizations are at the core of the effort.”

The study comes out at a time when ExxonMobil is facing increasing public scrutiny for its role in misleading the public about climate change. Several prominent politicians have called for a Department of Justice investigation into whether or not Exxon purposefully mislead the public about climate change, based on information published in a recent Inside Climate News investigation which found that Exxon’s internal research confirmed in 1977 that climate change is caused by carbon emissions from fossil fuels. Earlier this month, New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman issued a subpoena to Exxon, demanding records relating to its climate research.

“[The study] gives credence and empirical strength to the argument that ExxonMobil made a concerted effort to promulgate climate misinformation, which they knew from their internal research was false,” Brulle said.

But beyond Exxon, Brulle praised the paper for proving with data something that climate activists have long suspected: When it comes to climate misinformation, corporate funding plays a crucial role.

“We sort of always suspected that this was the case, that the funders were building and creating this effort, but this really demonstrates it empirically,” he said. “This is a very, very robust and interesting paper.”


How Rand Paul bombed at Koch brothers gathering

Sen. Rand Paul is pictured. | Getty

“Jeans might work for a younger audience,” said one attendee, “but these are old bulls who put on a tie every day to go to the office.” | Getty


His laid-back style turns off big money donors.

Some of the most influential players in big-money conservative politics gathered late last month to discuss government’s role in society, but their focus kept shifting to a less weighty topic: Rand Paul’s outfit.

The Kentucky senator and prospective GOP presidential candidate — whose libertarian politics mesh with those of the billionaire megadonor brothers Charles and David Koch — appeared at the annual winter meeting of the Koch donor network wearing a boxy blue blazer, faded jeans and cowboy boots.

Some attendees commented that Paul’s appearance was “cavalier,” said Frayda Levin, a Paul supporter and major donor who attended the conference at the Ritz-Carlton in Rancho Mirage, California. It was organized by Freedom Partners Chamber of Commerce, the nonprofit hubthat oversees the Koch network. “This is an older crowd and much more establishment crowd. They are used to a Romney. They are used to a Jeb Bush,” Levin said.

“Jeans might work for a younger audience,” said another attendee, “but these are old bulls who put on a tie every day to go to the office.”

The sartorial criticisms hint at a potentially more serious challenge for Paul — securing the backing of enough big-money donors to be competitive in a crowded Republican primary that could include prolific fundraisers such as Jeb Bush and Chris Christie.

During a Sunday afternoon speech at the Koch forum , Paul drew skepticism among some donors by touting tax breaks as a means of spurring economic growth in blighted inner cities. That stance is anathema to the brand of small-government conservatism espoused by the industrialist brothers and many of their network’s donors, who object to marketplace interference. Even Levin admitted she was “a bit surprised. But he’s just exploring ideas right now. People didn’t quite understand where he was coming from.”

Donors were further put off by Paul’s performance later that evening in a forum for prospective GOP presidential candidates that also featured Sens. Marco Rubio of Florida and Ted Cruz of Texas. At times slouching in a cushy arm chair, Paul, with his legs crossed, gave rambling answers that contrasted sharply with other participants.

At one point, he opposed eliminating tax benefits to the oil and gas industry — from which Koch Industries, the brothers’ multi-national conglomerate, benefits but which the brothers philosophically oppose. Paul seemed less prepared than Rubio, who gave detailed answers and was by far the most sharply turned out of the trio (pressed Navy blue suit, crisp white shirt, red tie and American flag lapel pin). Cruz, tieless in a light blue shirt and tan sports coat, laced his remarks with one-liners.

The next day, when 100 donors participated in an informal straw poll conducted by veteran consultant Frank Luntz, Paul finished dead last. Rubio came in first, followed by Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, who stopped by the conference, but could not make it for the panel.

Paul’s spokesman Sergio Gor noted the event was mostly off the record (though the forum was streamed live online) and said his office wouldn’t comment on specifics. But, he added “we can assure you Sen. Rand Paul made great inroads with countless individuals who attended the event. His individual meetings with attendees proved very, very fruitful and he was well-received by the hosts. Finally, since the event was closed to the press, it is impossible for any reporter to accurately reflect the opinion of 300 attendees.”

Still, several attendees characterized Paul’s performance as a missed opportunity for him to significantly broaden his base of megadonor support headed into a presidential election in which the two major party nominees and their allies are expected to spend upward of $1.7 billion apiece.

Big-money support is seen as a key weakness for Paul, much as it was for the presidential campaigns of his father, former Texas Rep. Ron Paul. While there are key differences between father and son in both style and substance, major donors still look skeptically upon both Pauls’ brands of libertarian-infused conservatism — particularly their noninterventionist foreign policies.

Supporters argue that Rand Paul, who has opened offices in Silicon Valley and Austin, can overcome that by looking outside the traditional GOP megadonor community

“Mainstream donors were never his primary target. He is bringing in guys from Silicon Valley, from the tech world, who were never comfortable with the Republican Party,” Levin said, describing Paul’s donor base as “transpolitical.”

Indeed, Paul has met with a number of tech tycoons who defy party labels, such as Peter Thiel, the PayPal co-founder and early investor in Facebook and LinkedIn, who gave more than $2.7 million to super PACs supporting Ron Paul’s 2012 presidential campaign; Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg; PayPal board member Scott Banister; Joe Lonsdale, founder of Palantir who is considered a Thiel protégé. Napster co-founder Sean Parker, who has waded increasingly into national politicsin recent months, donated $5,000 to Paul’s leadership PAC in November, according to the latest campaign finance reports.

Paul might not raise the most, but he will have necessary donor support, said Aleix Jarvis, one of the few Paul backers among the K-Street lobbying world of Washington. “Money is not going to be a problem for him,” said Jarvis, a lobbyist at Fierce Government Relations. “It won’t match what Jeb does, but I think that’s an advantage in Rand’s mind.”

Yet with mixed results, Paul has continued to try to court allies among the traditional megadonor community.

During a 2013 major donor summit organized by the Karl Rove-conceived American Crossroads super PAC, Paul was aggressively challenged on whether he would support a military strike on Iran if it became apparent that the regime had enough uranium to build a bomb.

The Freedom Partners conference seemed like fertile turf for Paul, given that Paul’s libertarian sensibilities align closely with the Koch brothers and some of their key donors.

In fact, Charles Koch is thought to favor Paul most among all the prospective 2016 candidates. And Paul has traveled to Koch’s home turf of Wichita to court him, playing at least one round of golf with the 79-year-old billionaire. (Paul’s PAC late last year paid $406 to Koch Industries for a “golf expense” according to a recent campaign finance filing).

Some have viewed Charles Koch as a bridge to other network donors. The Koch network intends to spend $889 million in the run-up to the 2016 election on a combination of political organizing and advertising, as well as academic research and advocacy on free-enterprise issues. While the brothers and their network have not said whether they will try to influence the GOP presidential primary, the political world is closely watching its every interaction with prospective candidates.

Some conference attendees say Paul was well-received in a small group break-out session on one of Koch’s key issues — criminal justice reform.

But when Paul defended his noninterventionist positions in response to a question on Cuba at the candidate forum, sources say he got mixed results from the Koch donor network, which has become increasingly diverse and now includes several donors who are more aligned with the hawkish GOP orthodoxy on foreign policy.

Asked about his support for President Barack Obama’s move to normalize relations with the communist island nation, Paul said “We’ve tried an embargo for 50 years. It hasn’t worked. The reason I call it a form of isolationism is if you apply the embargo … if you do that for China, for Vietnam, for Laos, for any of the other countries that have human rights abuses, that would be a policy of isolationism.”

Levin conceded that Paul’s foreign policy isn’t for everyone. “That’s what differentiates him. I don’t think he came across as extreme libertarian. Rand Paul just thinks we can’t patrol the world,” she said. As for the Rancho Mirage, she said “I don’t think it was a missed opportunity. He tried to court them, but there are some issues — some key issues — that he’s not going to back down on.”

Kochonomics Returns

I’m one of those idealists that believe every dog will eventually have it’s day.  That includes the omnipotent Koch brothers…

The Progress Report

How The Koch Brothers Have Rigged The System In Wisconsin And North Carolina To Benefit Them

The Koch brothers are hard at work to limit government as much as possible, resulting in a system that benefits their businesses no matter the potential harm to everyone else — a strategy we have dubbed “Kochonomics.” The Koch network’s immense efforts to buy national elections have been widely documented. Here at CAP Action, we have also exposedthe Kochs’ growing plans to shrink local governments by undermining public education, opposing mass transit, and blocking small tax increases to benefit public safety, schoolchildren, and seniors.

Our latest investigation of the Kochs uncovers their influence in two self-described model states, Wisconsin and North Carolina. In both states, the Koch network has funded state leaders who have put in place policies that benefit the wealthy few, including the Koch brothers, regardless of the effect on anyone else. We walk through how Kochonomics has worked in Wisconsin and North Carolina below, and be sure to check out the full report from the Center for American Progress Action Fund as well.

State: Wisconsin

Koch Foot Soldier: Gov. Scott Walker
Koch Business Interests in the State: Koch Industries, the second-largest privately held company in America owned by the Koch brothers, has six wholly owned subsidiaries with at least 17 locations in Wisconsin.
The Price of Influence: Gov. Scott Walker has been one of the top recipients of Koch donations in state politics, receiving $43,000 from the Koch network during his 2010 gubernatorial race. On top of that, Koch-backed advocacy group Americans For Prosperity has strongly supported Walker, spending at least $12.5 million to promote Walker’s conservative policies and electoral campaigns.
Policies Passed Which Benefit The Koch Brothers: The Koch network aggressively pushed for tax cuts that heavily favor millionaires, billionaires, and big corporations, which Gov. Walker pushed through and became law. One of the resulting benefits to the Kochs is that they could see their income tax rate on the manufacturing activities of Koch Industries subsidiaries in Wisconsin drop from 7.65 percent to as low as 0.15 percent.
How These Policies Could Hurt the Middle Class: Under Gov. Walker’s leadership and policies over the last four years, Wisconsin’s working and low-income families have had to pay $170 million more in additional taxes.

State: North Carolina

Koch Foot Soldier: North Carolina Speaker of the House Thom Tillis
Koch Business Interests in the State: Koch Industries has two wholly owned subsidiaries in the state of North Carolina with at least eight locations.
The Price of Influence: North Carolina House Speaker Thom Tillis received $11,000 in donations from Koch Industries from 2010 to 2012, making him second-highest recipient of Koch Industries campaign contributions in the Tar Heel state. In his run for U.S. Senate, Tillis has benefited from almost $12 million in spending from the Koch network.
Policies Passed Which Benefit The Koch Brothers: Americans for Prosperity advocated for—and state lawmakers passed—tax cuts for the wealthiest 1 percent by an average of more than $10,000 annually. Moreover, state lawmakers eliminated local business taxes, further reducing the taxes of Koch subsidiaries in North Carolina.
How These Policies Could Hurt the Middle Class: The tax policies pushed by the Koch network and passed by lawmakers would force working families earning between $52,000 and $84,000 per year to pay an average of $74 more in taxes.

BOTTOM LINE: While the Koch brothers may claim that their radical ideology helps everyone, the impact of the policies they promoted in Wisconsin and North Carolina are clear. These policies, which were made into law with the help of powerful elected officials collecting Koch contributions, benefit the wealthy—including the Koch’s business interests in the two states—but in most cases hurt working families.

Koch Brothers’ Secrets Revealed In New Book

The Huffington Post

Charles and David Koch are the unofficial standard-bearers of a new generation of billionaires, willing to spend immense sums to influence politics. Best known for bankrolling the tea party movement, the fiercely private Koch family has achieved a quasi-mythical status in political circles. Yet they remain an enigma to most Americans.

Sons of Wichita: How the Koch Brothers Became America’s Most Powerful and Private Dynasty aims to change that. Written by Mother Jones senior editor Daniel Schulman, the biography, set to be released Tuesday, draws on hundreds of interviews with Koch family and friends, as well as thousands of pages of legal documents. The Huffington Post received a copy of the book on Friday.

Schulman examines the roots of Charles and David Koch’s libertarian worldview through the lens of their family, including the formative relationship that all four Koch brothers had with their father, the cold, ambitious Fred Koch. Schulman also traces the bitter and litigious history of Charles and David Koch’s relationships with their lesser-known brothers: Frederick, the eldest, and Bill, David’s twin brother.

At the center of the saga is patriarch Fred Koch, a staunch anti-communist who drilled his political ideology into his sons from a young age. In 1938, then sympathetic to the fascist regimes ruling Germany, Italy and Japan, Fred wrote that he hoped one day the United States would resemble these nations, which had “overcome” the vices of “idleness, feeding at the public trough, [and] dependence on government.”

Elsewhere, Fred warned of a future “vicious race war” in which communists would pit black Americans against white. “The colored man looms large in the Communist plan to take over America,” he wrote.

In private, Fred Koch “ruled the house with an iron fist” and faith in social Darwinism. Schulman recounts how the former boxer encouraged his sons to fight each other, sometimes with horrifying results. “During one bout, Bill bashed his twin over the head with a polo mallet,” Schulman writes. And “David still bears a scar from the time Bill pierced him in the back with a ceremonial sword.” Those early lessons left a deep imprint on the brothers.

Frederick, the oldest, was an outsider in the rough-and-tumble boys club of the Koch house. “Freddie was a sophisticate, a man of the world, in addition to the fact that he was gay, [which] wasn’t easily accepted in those days,” said a family friend.

Instead, it was Charles, the middle child, who became the vehicle for his father’s ambitions. According to a friend, the father worried that he had been “too kind to Freddie, and that’s why he turned out to be so effeminate. When Charles came along, the old man wasn’t going to make that mistake. So he was really, really tough on Charles.”

The result was a serious, extremely disciplined man, who along with his younger brother David, would transform their father’s medium-sized oil refining business, Koch Industries, into one of the largest privately held corporations in the world. But their success came at a high price.

Schulman describes how Charles, unable to convince brother Frederick to sell his stake in Koch Industries, allegedly resorted to “a homosexual blackmail attempt to force Frederick to sell his shares.” And when the youngest twin, Bill, launched a bid to wrest control of Koch Industries from his older brothers, Charles’ legal team responded by releasing a dossier of opposition research on Bill, filled with sordid details of his personal life.

In 2000, Bill’s then-wife Angela, the mother of two of his children, called the police to accuse Bill of punching her in the stomach and threatening “to beat his whole family to death with his belt.” Bill was charged with domestic assault and threatening to commit murder. Angela later recanted parts of her account, shortly before receiving a divorce settlement worth $16 million.

Nonetheless, Bill spent decades waging vicious legal battles against Charles and David, which cost the family tens of millions of dollars. Much of the book revolves around Bill’s failed attempts to gain control of Koch Industries.

As Schulman recounts, Bill hired private investigators to bug his brothers’ offices and pick through the garbage cans at their homes. He planted false memos aimed at rooting out spies in his own company, Oxbow, who he suspected were secretly working for his brothers.

While Bill’s anger may have been rooted in childhood rivalries, according to Schulman, it was exacerbated by Charles’ ultra-libertarian business philosophy, which Bill considered bad for business. Schulman describes how Charles, and by extension Koch Industries, regularly ignored environmental regulations on principle, believing them to be a hallmark of “Big Brother” government.

After losing a string of huge regulatory battles in the 1990s and paying heavy fines, Charles softened his stance somewhat. Still, the company remains a libertarian venture to this day. Schulman writes that Charles believes the role of government should be “only to keep a check on those who might attempt to interfere with the laws of supply and demand.”

Charles still lives in their hometown of Wichita, Kansas, with his wife, Liz, and generally avoids drawing attention to himself or his family.

By comparison, his brothers can seem like dilettantes, despite Schulman’s exceptionally fair treatment.

As a bachelor, David was known for hosting hundreds of people at champagne-soaked, all-night parties at his homes in Aspen, Colorado, and Southampton, New York. He once boasted that at least a third of his guests were “beautiful, wild, single women.” A guest told Schulman, “A lot of the crowd were these L.A. chicks who had just bought a new pair of tits and wanted to make sure that they did not go unnoticed — those parties got pretty wild.”

In 1996, Bill went to court to evict his former girlfriend from the Boston apartment he had set her up in. Included in the court records were faxes the couple exchanged, some of them sexually explicit. One of the notes was signed “Hot Love From Your X-Rated Protestant Princess.” In another, the woman described herself as “a wet orchid,” writing, “every inch of my body misses you.” Bill succeeded in having her evicted.

For his part, Frederick lives an intensely private life and apparently has little contact with his three brothers. He maintains a collection of historic houses around the world, as well as smaller homes in which he actually lives. The historic houses, which Frederick fills with priceless art, essentially serve as his own private museums.

Sons of Wichita hits bookstores on May 20.

Charles Koch Is Sick Of ‘Collectivists’ Calling Him ‘Un-American’

Charles Koch, CEO of Koch Industries

Koch needs to stop whining.  “If the shoe fits...”

It’s ironic how he uses the derogatory term collectivists while decrying people calling him the equally derogatory term “un-American“.  It appears his premise is simply “I can call you names but how dare you call me names.”

The Huffington Post

Charles Koch has apparently had enough of “collectivists” criticizing his “un-American” ways.

In an opinion piece published online Wednesday in The Wall Street Journal, the billionaire backer of conservative candidates and causes came to his own defense, claiming he only seeks to uphold the principles of “dignity, respect, equality before the law and personal freedom,” which he said he believes “are under attack by the nation’s own government.” He defined collectivists as “those who stand for government control of the means of production and how people live their lives.”

Koch and his brother, David Koch, are under increasing attack by Democrats. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and others have taken to the Senate floor and other platforms to accuse the brothers of trying to “buy America.”

Koch claimed his critics “strive to discredit and intimidate opponents.”

Rather than try to understand my vision for a free society or accurately report the facts about Koch Industries, our critics would have you believe we’re “un-American” and trying to “rig the system,” that we’re against “environmental protection” or eager to “end workplace safety standards.”

Far from trying to rig the system, I have spent decades opposing cronyism and all political favors, including mandates, subsidies and protective tariffs — even when we benefit from them. I believe that cronyism is nothing more than welfare for the rich and powerful, and should be abolished.

The Koch brothers have backed multi-million dollar attack blitzes slamming Democratic candidates and President Barack Obama’s signature health care legislation. In the wake of Reid’s recent criticism, the brothers are funding a group in Nevada to run attack ads against the Senate majority leader.

Reid and his backers show no signs of retreat.

“There have been times in my life I’ve been a little afraid,” Reid said Tuesday on the Senate floor. “But I’m not afraid of them.”

Read the full op-ed at The Wall Street Journal.

Obamacare fight gets too hot for Kochs: We’re not backing GOP’s shutdown tactics

Koch brothers

The Raw Story

As the government shutdown moved into the ninth day on Wednesday, even conservative billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch appeared to be abandoning Republican lawmakers who were trying to use the tactic to derail the president’s health care law.

NBC’s Michael Isikoff reported that Koch Industries, which is privately owned by the activist brothers, sent a letter to members of Congress, insisting that “Koch has not taken a position on the legislative tactic of tying the continuing resolution to defunding Obamacare nor have we lobbied on legislative provisions defunding Obamacare.”

Phillip Ellender, the company’s president of Government and Public Affairs, instead declared that the company had put its emphasis on “reducing our nation’s debt and controlling runaway government spending” with the hopes of never needing to raise the debt ceiling again in the future.

“Congress should focus on these efforts: balancing the budget, tightening and cutting government spending, curbing cronyism, and eliminating market-distorting subsidies and mandates,” Ellender wrote.

The letter was prompted by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-NV) charge on the Senate floor on Tuesday that the Koch brothers “have been raising and spending hundreds of millions of dollars to get us to where we are right now.”

Isikoff told MSNBC’s Tamron Hall that the Koch Industries letter was fascinating because groups funded by the Koch brothers had spent more than $200 million in an effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act.

And those groups had pushed the tactic of “defunding the government as a wedge to get Obamacare defunded,” Isikoff explained. “Now, here we have the Koch brothers, who in some ways helped foster that movement, saying, ‘Whoa, slow down, we’re not there, that’s not what we think Congress should be focusing on.’”

Watch this video from MSNBC, broadcast Oct. 9, 2013.

List of Companies Supporting Right-Wing and Tea Party Causes and Candidates


Liberals Unite

As we discussed in our recent article, 4 Effective Ways to Fight the Tea Party, there are many things we can do to combat their agenda.  We can work to advocate truthfulness, avoid television stations that air conservative Super PAC propaganda.  WE can support candidates facing elections against Tea Party candidates…

And we can boycott companies whose products and services help fund the Tea Party agenda and candidates.

For your convenience, here is a list of but a few of those companies we should avoid.  Be sure to share with your family and friends. This is by no means a fully comprehensive list, but it is a good beginning.

Also, change.org has a petition you can sign telling “Cannon Pharmacy, Quicken Loans, Angie’s List, & 37 Limbaugh Sponsors – We’re Not Buying”.


Be sure not to watch:

  • 20th Century Fox Television programs on other networks (24, Married with Children, etc.)
  • Big Ten Network (49%)
  • Fox Business Network;
  • Fox College Sports
  • Fox Movie Channel
  • Fox News
  • Fox News Channel
  • Fox Reality Channel
  • Fox Soccer Channel
  • Fox Sports en Español
  • Fox Sports Enterprises
  • Fox Sports Net
  • Fox-branded local television stations
  • Foxtel (25%)
  • FX Networks
  • National Geographic Channel (International) (50%)
  • National Geographic Channel (US) (67%)
  • Speed Channel
  • Sport South

Do not watch movies produced by these studios:

  • 20th Century Fox Español
  • 20th Century Fox Home Entertainment
  • 20th Century Fox International
  • 20th Century Fox movies;
  • Blue Sky Studios pictures;
  • Fox Searchlight Pictures;

On the web, avoid:

  • AmericanIdol.com
  • AskMen.com
  • Authonomy via HarperCollins
  • Fox Interactive Media
  • Fox.com
  • Foxsports.com
  • GameSpy
  • Hulu.com
  • IGN
  • MyNetworktv.com
  • MySpace (5%)
  • News Digital Media
  • Scout.com
  • TheSimpsons.com
  • TheXFactorUSA.com
  • WhatIfSports

Do not buy/subscribe to magazine/print publications or read books from:

  • Alpha
  • Barron’s – weekly financial markets magazine.
  • Big League
  • Chopper
  • Country Style
  • Financial News
  • Harper Collins
  • Lifestyle Pools + outdoor design
  • Live to Ride
  • Marketwatch – Financial news and information website.
  • MasterChef Magazine
  • Modern Boating
  • Modern Fishing
  • New York Post
  • Overlander 4WD
  • SmartSource Magazine
  • Super Food Ideas
  • Tattoo
  • The Wall Street Journal
  • Truck & Trailer Australia
  • Truckin’ Life
  • Two Wheels
  • Two Wheels Scooter
  • Vogue Entertaining + Travel
  • Zondervan Publishing


  • ADI-Pure ®
  • Antron ®
  • Brawny brand paper towels and other products;
  • Chemical products including: •Sure Sol ® products
  • Comforel® fiberfill
  • CoolMax ®
  • Cordura ® fabric
  • DACRON ®
  • DBE ® dibasic esters
  • Delica ®
  • Demak’Up ®
  • Dixie® Brand cups plates, and other products;
  • European brands: •Colhogar ®
  • Georgia-Pacific lumber and paper products;
  • Inversoft ®
  • Kitten Soft ®
  • Koch Agricultural – Operates cattle ranches
  • Koch Fertilizers
  • Lotus ®
  • Man-made fabrics and fibers including: •LYCRA ®
  • Mardi Gras brand paper goods;
  • Matador Ranch – Hunting ranch.
  • Moltonel ®
  • Northern brand toilet paper;
  • Nouvelle ®
  • Okay
  • Oxyclear ™
  • Performa ®
  • Polarguard ®
  • Polyclear ®
  • Polyshield ®
  • Soft-n-Gentle® brand toilet paper;
  • SolarMax ®
  • Somerelle ® Bedding
  • Sparkle brand paper goods;
  • Sparkle brand paper napkins;
  • Stainmaster® carpet and fabric care products;
  • Supplex ® Fabric
  • Tactel®
  • Tactesse ® Carpet Fibers
  • Tenderly ®
  • Terathane
  • Thermolite ®
  • Tutto ®
  • Vanity Fair brand paper napkins;
  • Zee brand paper goods


  • AMWAY products (much of which are made in China) including: •Nutrilite ®
  • Artistry make-up and skin care products
  • Body Series personal products;
  • DITTO Delivery
  • eSpring laundry and cleaning products;
  • Fulton Street Market products;
  • Glister oral care products;
  • Hi-Gear automotive products
  • iCook
  • Legacy of Clean;
  • Miss America make-up and skin care products
  • NUTRIPET ® products
  • Nutriplant agricultural products;
  • Perfect Empowered drinking water
  • Personal Accents ® scents;
  • Satinique bath products;
  • The Creme LuXury Collection make-up and skin care products
  • The NBA ® Orlando Magic
  • Trend Collection make-up and skin care products
  • XLP automotive products
  • XS energy drinks


Koch Brothers eye L.A. Times, other Tribune newspapers: sources

David Koch, executive vice president of Koch Industries, applauds during an Economic Club of New York event in New York, December 10, 2012. REUTERS/Brendan McDermid

Good luck with that, fellas…


Charles and David Koch, two of the world’s richest men, are interested in Tribune’s newspaper assets, which include the Los Angeles Times and the Chicago Tribune, according to sources familiar with situation.

Earlier on Tuesday, L.A. Weekly reported that the Koch brothers were rumored to be interested in either all of the Tribune company, which includes 23 TV stations and national cable network WGN American, or the Tribune newspapers. The report also cited “another rumor” from a Los Angeles Times editorial board member that the Koch brothers are helping U-T San Diego newspaper owner Doug Manchester finance a bid.

According to one of the Reuters sources, the Koch brothers are not interested in Tribune’s other assets – which include the broadcast TV stations. Tribune, based in Chicago, owns eight major dailies, including The Baltimore Sun and Hartford Courant.

Manchester said in statement: “We are looking forward to opportunities to employ our cross-media strategy in other markets. We have no partnership with Koch Industries or with the Koch brothers, and we don’t anticipate any such arrangement. If we were to become involved in the sale of the Tribune Company or any other media assets, we would be glad to comment at the appropriate time.”

Melissa Cohlmia, a spokeswoman for Koch Companies Public Sector, said in a statement: “As an entrepreneurial company with 60,000 employees around the world, we are constantly exploring profitable opportunities in many industries and sectors.

“So, it is natural that our name would come up in connection with this rumor. We respect the independence of the journalistic institutions referenced in today’s news stories, but it is our long-standing policy not to comment on deals or rumors of deals we may or may not be exploring.”

Tribune spokesman Gary Weitman said the company does not comment on speculation.

The Koch Brothers – worth $34 billion, making them the world’s sixth-richest men, according to Forbes magazine – would have more than enough room to make a bid for all of Tribune’s newspapers.

Tribune’s newspapers are profitable and estimated to be worth $623 million, according to a report by Lazard, its financial adviser.

The brothers are the owners of Koch Industries, a sprawling conglomerate whose holdings include crude oil and natural gas pipelines, paper products like Dixie Cups and Angel Soft toilet tissue, and cattle ranches.

They are known for their conservative views and on the Koch Industries website explain that economic freedom means that “government is kept small and limited to those activities that contribute to societal well-being, rather than undermine it.”

Other notable names such as Warren Buffett and News Corp’s Rupert Murdoch have surfaced as possible buyers for some of Tribune’s dailies. Aaron Kushner, the owner of the Orange County Register near Los Angeles, said he was “prepared to take a serious look” at Tribune’s newspapers in December.

The newspaper industry is once again becoming a hive of activity as several big city papers hit the auction block while other smaller newspapers have been snapped up by the likes of Buffett.

Tribune is the latest example of a company exploring a sale of its newspapers. The New York Times announced in February it was putting The Boston Globe and other properties in New England up for sale.


Koch Industries Warns 45,000 Employees Of ‘Consequences’ If They Don’t Vote For Republicans

So much for Democracy.

The question I have is…will someone be looking over the shoulder of each employee as they vote?   This entire exercise is yet another bully tactic by the powers that be.   They are trying their best, it seems, to guarantee some sort of dystopian future for the American electorate.

Think Progress

The Koch brothers’ $60 million pledge to defeat President Obama — along with their political network’s $400 million spending — make them two of the most influential conservatives this election.

Not content with their unprecedented influence in politics, the Kochs have also taken to influencing the votes of their employees. According to In These Times, Koch Industries sent 45,000 mailers to employees at Koch subsidiary Georgia Pacific, urging votes for Romney and other conservative candidates. The letter warns ominously of “consequences” for the workers if Republicans lose.

The Koch mailer is one of several recent examples of executives warning that employees may lose their jobs if Republicans do not win in November. Here is an excerpt of the letter:

While we are typically told before each Presidential election that it is important and historic, I believe the upcoming election will determine what kind of America future generations will inherit.

If we elect candidates who want to spend hundreds of billions in borrowed money on costly new subsidies for a few favored cronies, put unprecedented regulatory burdens on businesses, prevent or delay important new construction projects, and excessively hinder free trade, then many of our more than 50,000 U.S. employees and contractors may suffer the consequences, including higher gasoline prices, runaway inflation, and other ills.

In These Times also reports that employees are restricted in their political free speech on social media outlets.

Continue reading here…


The Unholy Trinity: Koch Brothers, ALEC, and the NRA

Veracity Stew

Much has been written about the shameful killing of Trayvon Martin in Florida. This article is not about his accused killer, George Zimmerman. Much has been written about him also. This article is about the unholy alliance that helped to create the ‘Stand Your Ground’ (or Castle Doctrine) laws that enabled George Zimmerman to get away with murder in Florida: The Koch Brothers, ALEC, and the NRA.

ALEC, also known as the American Legislative Exchange Council, is a not-for-profit entity whose goal is to rewrite laws and produce ‘model bills’ that govern our rights. It boasts a $7 million a year budget, and calls itself the nation’s largest group of state legislators but, in fact, the majority of its funding comes from corporations and special interest groups. So, it should be no surprise that its laws mostly benefit corporate America. Among the myriad corporations funding ALEC are Koch Industries and the National Rifle Association. ALEC has been instrumental in promoting the so-called ‘Stand Your Ground’ laws that are shielding Trayvon Martin’s alleged killer. There are now 24 states with sweeping ‘Stand Your Ground’ laws, just like the one in Florida.


The Koch Brothers are billionaires who spend millions of dollars funding groups, like ALEC and the Tea Party’s Americans for Prosperity, to rewrite our laws in their own right-wing ideological image. Twice a year, the Koch Brothers invite conservative politicians and millionaires to a summit to discuss legislative agenda. Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas are two of the past attendees. Ergo, we should not be surprised about theCitizens United ruling.  The brothers are not shy about spending millions to influence legislation and, perhaps, buy an election while they’re at it.

In the wake of the Trayvon Martin murder, the Koch Brothers sought to distance themselves from the  ensuing controversy by releasing a statement saying that they had nothing to do with it. This is an utter lie. Michael Morgan of Koch Industries has sat on ALEC’s Private Enterprise Board for 10 years, is the Kansas State Corporate Co-Chair, and was the ‘Vice Chairman’ level sponsor of the 2011 ALEC Annual Conference.

Not surprisingly, the driving force behind the ‘Stand Your Ground’ laws is the NRA. Why? Simple economics. The NRA championed the original Florida law in 2004, and hascontinued to push for these laws across the nation. In August 2005, NRA lobbyist Marion Hammer asked legislators and lobbyists at a closed-door meeting of ALEC’s Criminal Justice Task Force to adopt the Florida ‘Castle Doctrine’ bill as an ALEC model bill. According to the NRA, her suggestion “was well received” and was approved “unanimously.”

So, there you have it. The dots have been connected. It’s getting easier and easier to buy legislation without the direct input of the American people who, especially in this particular case, live and die by these laws.

Writer’s Note: An article just popped up on my screen regarding the ‘Stand Your Ground’ laws. The Congressional Black Caucus, an all-black, all-Democratic group of 42 Senators and Representatives have introduced a resolution to repeal the ‘Stand Your Ground’ laws in every state, including Florida.