Arizona Governor Doug Ducey just appointed a Koch agenda advocate to the state’s Supreme Court: Clint Bolick, co-founder of the Koch-supported Institute for Justice and a litigator at the Koch-supported Goldwater Institute. Ducey is a big fan of the Kochs in his own right — the guy even hired a Koch operative as his first chief of staff — so it comes as no surprise that he’s looking to assist the Kochs in their Arizona takeover.
Bolick’s organization, the Institute for Justice, has benefited from “generous” Koch funding over the years — and it’s dutifully propped up the two brothers’ selfish agenda in return, including:
- Leading an Arizona Supreme Court case to force “candidates out of public financing and back into the money machine of private donors” like the Kochs. (Putting Bolick right on the Court cuts out the middle man.)
- Pushing an anti-regulations agenda; and,
- Defending school choice legislation.
Charles and David Koch just got a great deal courtesy of Governor Doug Ducey, one of their top Arizona allies.
Background:
Clint Bolick And The Institute for Justice
Clint Bolick Served As A Litigator For The Goldwater Institute. According to the Arizona Republic, “Gov. Doug Ducey has appointed Phoenix attorney and Goldwater Institute litigator Clint Bolick to the Supreme Court of Arizona.” [Arizona Republic, 1/6/16]
Bolick Co-Founded The Institute For Justice. According to an opinion by Jonathan Adler for the Washington Post, “Among other things, [Clint] Bolick co-founded the Institute for Justice, served as president of the Alliance for School Choice, and (most recently) was vice president for litigation at the Arizona-based Goldwater Institute. Before co-founding IJ, Bolick had worked at the Landmark Legal Foundation, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Justice Department.” [Washington Post, 1/6/16]
Washington Post’s Jonathan Adler: “As His Record Makes Clear, Bolick Is Not An Advocate Of ‘Judicial Restraint’ Or Minimalism.” According to an opinion by Jonathan Adler for the Washington Post, “As his record makes clear, [Clint] Bolick is not an advocate of ‘judicial restraint’ or minimalism. In the constellation of right-leaning legal stars, Bolick is much closer to Randy Barnett than to Robert Bork. (He also, incidentally, was close with Justice Clarence Thomas — with whom he worked at the EEOC — and was an outspoken proponent of his confirmation.)” [Washington Post, 1/6/16]
Relationship To Kochs
The Institute For Justice Awarded The “Cornerstone Award” To Charles And David Koch In 2001. According to the Institute for Justice, “IJ presented its Cornerstone Award to Charles and David Koch for their uniquely important role in funding the Institute. Charles Koch provided the initial seed funding that made it possible to launch the Institute in 1991. David Koch has been a generous benefactor each year of IJ’s first decade. We are deeply grateful for their support and the commitment to liberty it represents.” [Institute for Justice, November 2001]
Charles Koch “Provided The Initial Seed Funding That Made It Possible To Launch The Institute In 1991.” According to the Institute for Justice, “IJ presented its Cornerstone Award to Charles and David Koch for their uniquely important role in funding the Institute. Charles Koch provided the initial seed funding that made it possible to launch the Institute in 1991. David Koch has been a generous benefactor each year of IJ’s first decade. We are deeply grateful for their support and the commitment to liberty it represents.” [Institute for Justice, November 2001]
David Koch Was “A Generous Benefactor Each Year Of IJ’s First Decade.” According to the Institute for Justice, “IJ presented its Cornerstone Award to Charles and David Koch for their uniquely important role in funding the Institute. Charles Koch provided the initial seed funding that made it possible to launch the Institute in 1991. David Koch has been a generous benefactor each year of IJ’s first decade. We are deeply grateful for their support and the commitment to liberty it represents.” [Institute for Justice, November2001]
Funding
Between 1993 And 2014, The Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation And The David H. Koch Charitable Foundation Contributed A Combined $1,619,800 To The Institute For Justice. [Conservative Transparency, accessed 1/7/16]
Between 2002 And 2013, Donorstrust And Donors Capital Fund Have Contributed A Combined $2,082,700 To The Institute For Justice. [Conservative Transparency, accessed1/7/16]
Between 1991 And 1997, The Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation Contributed $1,000,000 To The Institute For Justice. [Conservative Transparency, accessed 1/7/16]
Pushed Koch legal Priorities
Campaign Law
The Supreme Court Decision In Arizona Free Enterprise Club V. Bennett Was A “Hard Uppercut Following Citizens United’s Body Blow To American Democracy” Which “Could Eliminate Public Financing As A Meaningful Way To Fight Corruption.” According to an opinion by Ian Millhiser for Think Progress, “Today’s 5-4 Supreme Court decision in Arizona Free Enterprise Club v. Bennett, however, could eliminate public financing as a meaningful way to fight corruption — forcing candidates out of public financing and back into the money machine of private donors and constant fundraisers. […]Today’s decision is the hard uppercut following Citizens United‘s body blow to American democracy. Without unlimited corporate money in elections, most candidates could afford to take public funds unless their opponent had unusual access to wealth or wealthy donors.” [Ian Millhiser – Think Progress,6/27/11]
- Politico: “The Arizona Case Was Brought By A Pair Of Small-Government Groups — The Washington-Based Institute For Justice And The Phoenix-Based Goldwater Institute.”According to Politico, “The Arizona case was brought by a pair of small-government groups — the Washington-based Institute for Justice and the Phoenix-based Goldwater Institute — on behalf of Arizona state candidates who rejected public funds and argued the provision infringed on their freedom of speech by compelling them to spend less money to avoid triggering the additional funds.” [Politico, 6/27/11]
Anti-Regulation
Institute For Justice Lawyer Arif Panju: A Lawsuit Against San Antonio By Four Food Truck Owners “Seeks To Vindicate A Common Principle” That Regulation Requires A “Legitimate Government Interest.” According to San Antonio Business Journal, “A group of four San Antonio-based food truck owners have filed a lawsuit against the city of San Antonio alleging that their economic liberties were violated as a result of the city’s mobile vending ordinance. […] Arif Panju, the Institute for Justice lawyer representing the four San Antonio food truck operators, told me that the only purpose of the city law requiring the 300-foot buffer zone was to protect restaurants from competition. ‘Food trucks bring all sorts of diverse foods at various price points, and they also employ people, creating jobs and most importantly, providing a step up the economic ladder,’ Panju said, adding that Austin has developed a lively, local business environment largely because of its large food truck community. ‘What’s important for all entrepreneurs from San Antonio is that the lawsuit seeks to vindicate a common principle — to regulate something, you need some sort of legitimate government interest.’” [San Antonio Business Journal, 10/6/15]
School Choice
Reno Gazette-Journal Letter To The Editor: “The Institute Of Justice Proclaims They Are Going To Defend The School Voucher Bill, SB 302,” Which “Will Take $5,000 Of Public Education Funds To Give To Parents To Pay Private School Tuition.” According to a letter to the editor of the Reno Gazette-Journal by Wanda Dingwall, “The Institute of Justice proclaims they are going to defend the school voucher bill, SB 302. SB 302 will take $5,000 of public education funds to give to parents to pay private school tuition.” [Wanda Dingwall – Reno Gazette-Journal, 10/10/15]