Twice yearly, the billionaire industrialists Charles and David Koch assemble a crowd of wealthy economic libertarian sympathizers to raise funds for their efforts to influence government and the American public.
Last June, Charles Koch stood before such a crowd in Vail, Colo., and thanked by name a number of people who donated more than $1 million each to the brothers’ agenda. Sometime afterward, the editors at Mother Jones obtained a recording of the speech. This week they published the names of the big contributors along with brief biographies detailing the sources of their wealth, their political and business affiliations, family relations and, when possible, the size of their gifts. —ARK
Mother Jones:
The Farmers: Dick Farmer is from Ohio. The founder and former CEO of the Cintas Corporation, his story is literally rags-to-riches: He turned his father’s Depression-era rag-cleaning business into a $3.5 billion enterprise. Farmer and his wife, Joyce, are longtime Republican boosters; during the 2002 election cycle the couple gave about $1 million to the party.
The Friesses: Foster Friess founded the investment firm Friess Associates in 1974 with his wife, Lynn; in 2001, he sold a majority share for $247 million. Friess is a champion of conservative Christian causes and one of Wyoming’s richest men. His son, Steve Friess, helps him run the family’s philanthropic foundation. (Steve’s wife, Polly, was also on the list of Aspen Koch participants.)
The Marshall family: Elaine Marshall of Dallas is the widow of E. Pierce Marshall, a son of oil tycoon J. Howard Marshall who served on the board of Koch Industries before his death. Elaine was involved in a successful effort to prevent the late Playboy Playmate Anna Nicole Smith, who married Howard when he was 89, from inheriting the family’s wealth. Before Smith’s death, she was investigated by the FBI but never prosecuted in a murder-for-hire plot against Pierce. In the end, Pierce inherited the bulk of his father’s wealth because he and his father had previously helped Charles and David Koch thwart a takeover of Koch Industries; Howard’s eldest son—also named Howard—sided against his father and was disinherited as a result. Meanwhile, Elaine’s son, E. Pierce Marshall Jr., is senior vice president and general counsel at oil exploration company MarOpCo. Another son, Preston Marshall of Houston, is the president of MarOpCo.
If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.
I find myself appreciative of your post until the last lumping sentence!
As hard as it is, I attempt not to lump all of anything, such as GOP or Tea Bags as I would not lump all libertarians, for then stereotypes very easily morph into the well known absolutist thing called bigotry.
All liberals are not wealthy nor do they agree on anything worthy of lumping, more like limping! I will attempt to address what this standing for nothing liberal believes in. Only from this liberals point of view, let it be known I am not speaking for many, all or other liberals, only for myself!
This liberal believes in the concept of government, helping people all the people even libertarians. Liberals may believe in collective bargaining, child labor laws, public schools, women rights, regulations to protect the safety of the people the environment and the poor, not just the few. This liberal does not believe money is people too, nor are corporations people too. This liberal believes in one person, one dollar one vote.
Standing for nothing seems a purposely general comment, well on its way of portraying itself. So nothing may mean not agreeing with barking dogmas, then and only then the comment liberals stand for nothing may be correct.
The comment standing for nothing is apparently supposed to be trite and divisive.
The following appears to be bridge burning to me!
“In fact, they’re more akin to the modern liberal who stands for nothing but their own self-interests.”
I suspect from what I have seen the Koch Brothers will use any means they can as expert opportunists to promote and manipulate their bought and paid for agendas. Money is power and libertarians even as a noble cause are not really immune to any special exclusion from opportunist manipulations. In the end all causes start out noble and end up with the same covey of opportunists floating to the top.
Little guys will as usual end up waiting for the hind tit, which is after all the trickle down theory.
By Libertarian, September 9, 2011 at 9:58 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
1. “The use of the term was an accurate reporting of the particular fund raising event actually.”
The wealthy individuals at the fundraiser, along with the Koch Brothers, are not libertarian. They, the Tea Party movement, and the right wing in general are only “libertarian” when it optimizes their profits. The Kochs, for instance, make a fortune from government subsidies and regulation considering they hare heavily invested in both the US ethanol industry and the European emission trade. I’ve also heard the Kochs are giddy at the starting gates for the neoliberal “development” of Libya -I’m sure they had a hand in funding the “rebels” as well. In any case, it’s no secret that the Koch-funded right wing think tanks and the tea party get a hard-on for war. You really don’t see a lot of Tea Partiers embracing Ron Paul, and that’s perfectly fine with me.
The article’s labeling the wealthy individuals as “wealthy economic libertarian sympathizers” is accurate to the extent that it doesn’t flat-out label the individuals as libertarian and does specify their interest in only economic libertarian principles. However, because these individuals regularly engage in economic activity in direct opposition libertarianism, the article’s suggesting that the individuals categorically ‘sympathize’ with even economic libertarianism is quite inaccurate.
What’s more, the article identifies and emphasizes “wealthy economic libertarian sympathizers” via hyperlink on the main page, and it’s clear that the article’s main thrust is that “libertarians” are the Koch’s evil “million-dollar buddies.” The article is extremely misleading and seemingly reactionary to the growing Ron Paul support among Truthdig readership.
2. “Would it make sense to invite working class libertarians to such a gathering?”
No, it would not make sense. I’m not disappointed that I wasn’t invited. I don’t quite understand what you are suggesting with this question.
3. “I doubt that either of them would be able to contribute much at all.”
I’ll go further and profess that true libertarians, wealthy or poor, would be ideologically opposed toward contributing to such an oppressive, coercive, and illegitimately influential agenda. In regard to giving in general, personally, I enjoy giving to various causes which I deem worthy: sexual assault prevention, support of individuals with disabilities, anti-war groups, etc. I, however, don’t enjoy being told where to give my money (e.g. to our government via taxes so they can buy more bombs, drones, etc.).
Libertarian, September 9 at 6:39 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
“The term ‘wealthy libertarians’ struck a chord with me due to the influx of laudatory comments regarding the candidacy of Ron Paul.”
This, too, struck a chord with me, but I interpreted it as Truthdig’s REACTION to the influx of laudatory comments regarding Ron Paul.
The use of the term was an accurate reporting of the particular fund raising event actually. Would it make sense to invite working class libertarians to such a gathering? I doubt that either of them would be able to contribute much at all.
By Libertarian, September 9, 2011 at 6:39 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
“The term ‘wealthy libertarians’ struck a chord with me due to the influx of laudatory comments regarding the candidacy of Ron Paul.”
This, too, struck a chord with me, but I interpreted it as Truthdig’s REACTION to the influx of laudatory comments regarding Ron Paul.
Had to laugh, considering I’m a libertarian and am struggling to put food on my table in spite of multiple degrees and 12+ hour days. A typical gross over-generalization. Well, just plain inaccurate if you ask me; though, I’m sure there are some “wealthy libertarians.” Just as there are wealthy liberals who paid for Obama, profit off of our immoral wars, etc. How such progressives feel about being THEIR company?
I feel better about my “wealthy libertarian” company; that is, if they are in fact libertarian. A libertarian, by definition, is opposed to economic benefit that harms others, all coercive forces, involuntary submission, non-aggression, and accordingly every military conflict the US is currently involved in. If they support our wars, they’re not libertarian. If they support the Koch Bros, any government privileges granted to them, or any economic benefit conferred by them that harms others, then they are not libertarian. Hence, members of the Tea Party are not libertarian. In fact, they’re more akin to the modern liberal who stands for nothing but their own self-interests.
Ok, Ok. We know that plutocrat electoral funding has been going on for ages upon ages upon ages.
My question is this: Why does it matter?
The possible answer is this: Americans get most of their news and information from the BoobTube. I know of no “hard proof” of media manipulation - if you have any, post it here.
But neither would I dismiss it out of hand. When a media outlet depends upon advertising for its sole revenue, then manipulation can indeed happen. If it can, then it probably does - the question remains of “how much?”
Fox News - part of the Murdoch News Empire - is perhaps the worst transgressor. Others can be just as single-minded, but few are placed in two medias simultaneously - both TV and newspaper.
Not far behind the poll that came up with breakdown of “information sources” (that you can find here in a 2008 study by Pew Research) was the fact that, growing frantically, is the Internet.
Yes, because it is supposedly “free”. But, who in his right mind thinks that anything “free” is not biased either? Nothing prevents the Koch Brothers from funding a blog called, for instance, “TheRightIsRight”.
Is TruthDig neutral and unbiased? No, it isn’t, nor should it be. It has a pronounced journalistic bent towards the Left. Freedom-of-speech respects this attitude, though I maintain it does not respect defamation or character assassination as goes on in the blogs.
MY POINT
But the advantage of Internet New Reporting is the ability of real-time contradiction of the written word. This changes news reporting, which has been a one-way street for far too long. The reporting direction was One to Many - and not the other way around. (Letters to the Editor were always Few-to-One, if they got printed. Big little “if”, that.)
That has changed with the Internet and the advent of Web Forums (aka “blogs”). The direction has reflected backward – it has become Many to One.
That makes a lot of difference to journalists. In means that they are not writing in an intellectual vacuum. There is a responsive voice out there - perhaps too many voices in fact. But they are very definitely there to be heard/read. At least, for those journalists inclined to “listen”.
Those with a bee in their bonnet pay no attention to the “feedback”.
So, it is for the reader to judge. But, unless we are bamboozled, I doubt this site is trying to manipulate information to its own purposes - though its Journalistic Compass heading is definitely westward (meaning Left).
POST SCRIPTUM
And, frankly, its Forum Content and Forum Technology are some of the best in use today. It is no wonder that it won the Webby Awards.
The term “wealthy libertarians” struck a chord with me due to the influx of laudatory comments regarding the candidacy of Ron Paul. I would imagine that there must be differing definitions of ‘libertarian’ for so many supposed progressives to appear, here and elsewhere, supporting the candidacy of perhaps the most well known libertarian.
I cannot help but wonder how these progressives feel about being in such distinguished company…...
Bank of America Lied to Homeowners and Rewarded Foreclosures, Ex-Employees Say
Email 
Print
Share
Email to a friend
Newsletter 
Like Us
Follow Us
Get Our Feed
By Leefeller, September 10, 2011 at 8:50 am Link to this comment
Libertarian,
I find myself appreciative of your post until the last lumping sentence!
As hard as it is, I attempt not to lump all of anything, such as GOP or Tea Bags as I would not lump all libertarians, for then stereotypes very easily morph into the well known absolutist thing called bigotry.
All liberals are not wealthy nor do they agree on anything worthy of lumping, more like limping! I will attempt to address what this standing for nothing liberal believes in. Only from this liberals point of view, let it be known I am not speaking for many, all or other liberals, only for myself!
This liberal believes in the concept of government, helping people all the people even libertarians. Liberals may believe in collective bargaining, child labor laws, public schools, women rights, regulations to protect the safety of the people the environment and the poor, not just the few. This liberal does not believe money is people too, nor are corporations people too. This liberal believes in one person, one dollar one vote.
Standing for nothing seems a purposely general comment, well on its way of portraying itself. So nothing may mean not agreeing with barking dogmas, then and only then the comment liberals stand for nothing may be correct.
The comment standing for nothing is apparently supposed to be trite and divisive.
The following appears to be bridge burning to me!
“In fact, they’re more akin to the modern liberal who stands for nothing but their own self-interests.”
I suspect from what I have seen the Koch Brothers will use any means they can as expert opportunists to promote and manipulate their bought and paid for agendas. Money is power and libertarians even as a noble cause are not really immune to any special exclusion from opportunist manipulations. In the end all causes start out noble and end up with the same covey of opportunists floating to the top.
Little guys will as usual end up waiting for the hind tit, which is after all the trickle down theory.
Report thisBy Libertarian, September 9, 2011 at 9:58 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
1. “The use of the term was an accurate reporting of the particular fund raising event actually.”
The wealthy individuals at the fundraiser, along with the Koch Brothers, are not libertarian. They, the Tea Party movement, and the right wing in general are only “libertarian” when it optimizes their profits. The Kochs, for instance, make a fortune from government subsidies and regulation considering they hare heavily invested in both the US ethanol industry and the European emission trade. I’ve also heard the Kochs are giddy at the starting gates for the neoliberal “development” of Libya -I’m sure they had a hand in funding the “rebels” as well. In any case, it’s no secret that the Koch-funded right wing think tanks and the tea party get a hard-on for war. You really don’t see a lot of Tea Partiers embracing Ron Paul, and that’s perfectly fine with me.
The article’s labeling the wealthy individuals as “wealthy economic libertarian sympathizers” is accurate to the extent that it doesn’t flat-out label the individuals as libertarian and does specify their interest in only economic libertarian principles. However, because these individuals regularly engage in economic activity in direct opposition libertarianism, the article’s suggesting that the individuals categorically ‘sympathize’ with even economic libertarianism is quite inaccurate.
What’s more, the article identifies and emphasizes “wealthy economic libertarian sympathizers” via hyperlink on the main page, and it’s clear that the article’s main thrust is that “libertarians” are the Koch’s evil “million-dollar buddies.” The article is extremely misleading and seemingly reactionary to the growing Ron Paul support among Truthdig readership.
2. “Would it make sense to invite working class libertarians to such a gathering?”
No, it would not make sense. I’m not disappointed that I wasn’t invited. I don’t quite understand what you are suggesting with this question.
3. “I doubt that either of them would be able to contribute much at all.”
I’ll go further and profess that true libertarians, wealthy or poor, would be ideologically opposed toward contributing to such an oppressive, coercive, and illegitimately influential agenda. In regard to giving in general, personally, I enjoy giving to various causes which I deem worthy: sexual assault prevention, support of individuals with disabilities, anti-war groups, etc. I, however, don’t enjoy being told where to give my money (e.g. to our government via taxes so they can buy more bombs, drones, etc.).
Report thisBy ardee, September 9, 2011 at 4:02 pm Link to this comment
Libertarian, September 9 at 6:39 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
“The term ‘wealthy libertarians’ struck a chord with me due to the influx of laudatory comments regarding the candidacy of Ron Paul.”
This, too, struck a chord with me, but I interpreted it as Truthdig’s REACTION to the influx of laudatory comments regarding Ron Paul.
The use of the term was an accurate reporting of the particular fund raising event actually. Would it make sense to invite working class libertarians to such a gathering? I doubt that either of them would be able to contribute much at all.
Report thisBy Libertarian, September 9, 2011 at 6:39 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
“The term ‘wealthy libertarians’ struck a chord with me due to the influx of laudatory comments regarding the candidacy of Ron Paul.”
This, too, struck a chord with me, but I interpreted it as Truthdig’s REACTION to the influx of laudatory comments regarding Ron Paul.
Had to laugh, considering I’m a libertarian and am struggling to put food on my table in spite of multiple degrees and 12+ hour days. A typical gross over-generalization. Well, just plain inaccurate if you ask me; though, I’m sure there are some “wealthy libertarians.” Just as there are wealthy liberals who paid for Obama, profit off of our immoral wars, etc. How such progressives feel about being THEIR company?
I feel better about my “wealthy libertarian” company; that is, if they are in fact libertarian. A libertarian, by definition, is opposed to economic benefit that harms others, all coercive forces, involuntary submission, non-aggression, and accordingly every military conflict the US is currently involved in. If they support our wars, they’re not libertarian. If they support the Koch Bros, any government privileges granted to them, or any economic benefit conferred by them that harms others, then they are not libertarian. Hence, members of the Tea Party are not libertarian. In fact, they’re more akin to the modern liberal who stands for nothing but their own self-interests.
Report thisBy Lafayette, September 9, 2011 at 4:23 am Link to this comment
JOURNALISTIC COMPASS HEADING
Ok, Ok. We know that plutocrat electoral funding has been going on for ages upon ages upon ages.
My question is this: Why does it matter?
The possible answer is this: Americans get most of their news and information from the BoobTube. I know of no “hard proof” of media manipulation - if you have any, post it here.
But neither would I dismiss it out of hand. When a media outlet depends upon advertising for its sole revenue, then manipulation can indeed happen. If it can, then it probably does - the question remains of “how much?”
Fox News - part of the Murdoch News Empire - is perhaps the worst transgressor. Others can be just as single-minded, but few are placed in two medias simultaneously - both TV and newspaper.
Not far behind the poll that came up with breakdown of “information sources” (that you can find here in a 2008 study by Pew Research) was the fact that, growing frantically, is the Internet.
Yes, because it is supposedly “free”. But, who in his right mind thinks that anything “free” is not biased either? Nothing prevents the Koch Brothers from funding a blog called, for instance, “TheRightIsRight”.
Is TruthDig neutral and unbiased? No, it isn’t, nor should it be. It has a pronounced journalistic bent towards the Left. Freedom-of-speech respects this attitude, though I maintain it does not respect defamation or character assassination as goes on in the blogs.
MY POINT
But the advantage of Internet New Reporting is the ability of real-time contradiction of the written word. This changes news reporting, which has been a one-way street for far too long. The reporting direction was One to Many - and not the other way around. (Letters to the Editor were always Few-to-One, if they got printed. Big little “if”, that.)
That has changed with the Internet and the advent of Web Forums (aka “blogs”). The direction has reflected backward – it has become Many to One.
That makes a lot of difference to journalists. In means that they are not writing in an intellectual vacuum. There is a responsive voice out there - perhaps too many voices in fact. But they are very definitely there to be heard/read. At least, for those journalists inclined to “listen”.
Those with a bee in their bonnet pay no attention to the “feedback”.
So, it is for the reader to judge. But, unless we are bamboozled, I doubt this site is trying to manipulate information to its own purposes - though its Journalistic Compass heading is definitely westward (meaning Left).
POST SCRIPTUM
And, frankly, its Forum Content and Forum Technology are some of the best in use today. It is no wonder that it won the Webby Awards.
Report thisBy ardee, September 9, 2011 at 4:15 am Link to this comment
The term “wealthy libertarians” struck a chord with me due to the influx of laudatory comments regarding the candidacy of Ron Paul. I would imagine that there must be differing definitions of ‘libertarian’ for so many supposed progressives to appear, here and elsewhere, supporting the candidacy of perhaps the most well known libertarian.
I cannot help but wonder how these progressives feel about being in such distinguished company…...
Report this