Charles and David Koch, notorious for pouring millions of dollars of their personal wealth to drive their self-serving agenda, won big when Citizens United gave them new avenues to influence elections. But the Kochs, whose political spending has helped fill Congress with extreme conservatives who support their agenda, didn’t just reap the benefits of this court ruling–they influenced it.
In 1977, the Cato Institute was formed, with Charles Koch as a co-founder. David Koch remains a board member who offers significant funding to the group. When the Citizens United Case came before the Supreme Court, Cato filed an amicus brief urging the justices to rule in favor of unlimited political spending. They argued that Congress can’t decide how much political “speech” – in their case, money – is too much.
For the Kochs, everything is an investment. And this investment has certainly paid off–at the expense of working families.
Background
The Kochs Founded The Cato Institute And David Koch Remains A Board Member
David Koch Serves On Cato Institute’s Board Of Directors. [Cato.org accessed 3/14/14]
The Cato Institute Was Founded By Ed Crane And Charles G. Koch. According to the Cato Institute 25th Annual Report, “When a young California investmentmanager, Ed Crane, spent 1976 in Washington, he noticed how much influence a few think tanks had despite their relatively small budgets. He thought there ought to be a public policy research organization, or ‘think tank,’ dedicated to the American principles of liberty and limited government. He was willing to start one, but only if he didn’t have to live in Washington. When he returned to San Francisco, he joined the Kansas industrialist Charles G. Koch to set up the Cato Institute, which opened its doors in January 1977.” [Cato Institute 25th Annual Report, 2001]
CATO Filed Amicus Brief In Support Citizens United
Cato Institute Filed Amicus Brief with Supreme Court In Support of Citizens United Case Around Issues of Political Speech and Activity Around the First Amendment. According to Cato, in the Interest of the Amicus Curiae: The Cato Institute was established in 1977 as a nonpartisan public policy research foundation dedicated to advancing principles of individual liberty, free markets, and limited government. Cato’s Center for Constitutional Studies was established in 1989 to help restore principles of limited constitutional government that are the foundation of liberty. Toward those ends, the Cato Institute publishes books and studies, conducts conferences and forums, publishes the annual Cato Supreme Court Review, and files amicus briefs. This case is of central concern to Cato because it addresses the further collapse of constitutional protections for political speech and activity, which lies at the very heart of the First Amendment. [Supplemental Brief for Amicus Curiae Cato Institute In Support of Appellant, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, No. 08-205, 7/31/2009]
Cato Argued Austin and McConnell Cases On Political Speech Were Wrongly Decided, Argued In Favor of Principles of Buckley Decision. According to Cato: “Austin and McConnell were wrongly decided and unfaithful to the First Amendment principles correctly stated in Buckley. Because stare decisis does not require preserving or extending precedents that misstate the law, it does not shield either Austin or McConnell from being reexamined and overturned. Those decisions were fundamentally erroneous and untrue to the core principles of the First Amendment.” [Supplemental Brief for Amicus Curiae Cato Institute In Support of Appellant, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, No. 08-205, 7/31/2009]
Cato Criticized Austin Decision for Equalizing Volume of Political Speakers by Allowing “Censorship” of Speech Based On Perception of Support for Ideas, Said Buckley Held Government “Decide Political Speakers’ Relative Worth Or Proper Position In The Marketplace Of Ideas.” According to Cato: “Austin wrongly deviated from Buckley by embracing the goal of equalizing the relative volume of political speakers and by permitting censorship of an entity or individual’s speech based on the government’s perception of public support for the ideas expressed. Buckley held government may not decide political speakers’ relative worth or proper position in the marketplace of ideas. “[E]qualizing the relative ability of individuals and groups to influence the outcome of elections” is not a cognizable governmental interest justifying restriction of independent politicalspeech because the concept that government may restrict the speech of some elements of our society in order to enhance the relative voice of others is wholly foreign to the First Amendment . . . The First Amendment’s protection against governmental abridgment of free expression cannot properly be made to depend on a person’s financial ability to engage in public discussion. Buckley, 424 U.S. at48-49 (internal quotation omitted). “ [Supplemental Brief for Amicus Curiae Cato Institute In Support of Appellant, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, No. 08-205, 7/31/2009]
CATO Cited Argument That Congress ‘May Not Prescribe How Much Political Speech Is Too Much,’ Using Means-Based Censorship In A Misguided Effort To Ensure “The ‘Fairness’ Of Political Debate.” According to CATO: “Thus Congress may not “prescribe how much political speech is too much,” using means-based censorship in a misguided effort to ensure “the ‘fairness’ of political debate.” Austin, 494 U.S. at 680, 695 (Scalia, J., dissenting). In Bellotti, the Court reemphasized the importance of this principle, cautioning that “the people in our democracy” are entrusted with the responsibility of judging and evaluating “the relative merits of conflicting arguments”—the obvious corollary being that the government must not usurp the people’s prerogative. First Nat’l Bank v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765, 791 (1978). [Supplemental Brief for Amicus Curiae Cato Institute In Support of Appellant, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, No. 08-205, 7/31/2009]
CATO Cited Famous Cohen v. California Supreme Court Decision About Free Speech That Said That The Air May At Times Seem Filled With Verbal Cacophony Is, In This Sense Not A Sign Of Weakness But Of Strength. According to CATO: See also Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15, 24-25 (1971)(“The constitutional right of free expression is powerful medicine in a society as diverse and populous as ours. It is designed and intended to remove governmental restraints from the arena of public discussion, putting the decision as to what views shall be voiced largely into the hands of each of us . . . . That the air may attimes seem filled with verbal cacophony is, in this sense not a sign of weakness but of strength.”).” [Supplemental Brief for Amicus Curiae Cato Institute In Support of Appellant, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, No. 08-205, 7/31/2009]