The Tea Parties: Deluded and Propelled by Billionaires

The Tea Party movement is remarkable in two respects. It's one of the biggest exercises in false consciousness the world has seen and the biggest Astroturf operation in history.

The Tea Party movement is remarkable in two respects. It is one of the biggest exercises in false consciousness the world has seen – and the biggest Astroturf operation in history. These accomplishments are closely related.

An Astroturf campaign is a fake grassroots movement: it purports to be a spontaneous uprising of concerned citizens, but in reality it is founded and funded by elite interests. Some Astroturf campaigns have no grassroots component at all. Others catalyse and direct real mobilisations. The Tea Party belongs in the second category. It is mostly composed of passionate, well-meaning people who think they are fighting elite power, unaware that they have been organised by the very interests they believe they are confronting. We now have powerful evidence that the movement was established and has been guided with the help of money from billionaires and big business. Much of this money, as well as much of the strategy and staffing, were provided by two brothers who run what they call "the biggest company you've never heard of".

Charles and David Koch own 84% of Koch Industries, the second-largest private company in the United States. It runs oil refineries, coal suppliers, chemical plants and logging firms, and turns over roughly $100bn a year; the brothers are each worth $21bn. The company has had to pay tens of millions of dollars in fines and settlements for oil and chemical spills and other industrial accidents. The Kochs want to pay less tax, keep more profits and be restrained by less regulation. Their challenge has been to persuade the people harmed by this agenda that it's good for them.

In July 2010, David Koch told New York magazine: "I've never been to a Tea Party event. No one representing the Tea Party has ever even approached me." But a fascinating new film – (Astro)Turf Wars, by Taki Oldham – tells a fuller story. Oldham infiltrated some of the movement's key organising events, including the 2009 Defending the American Dream summit, convened by a group called Americans for Prosperity (AFP). The film shows David Koch addressing the summit. "Five years ago," he explains, "my brother Charles and I provided the funds to start Americans for Prosperity. It's beyond my wildest dreams how AFP has grown into this enormous organisation."

A convener tells the crowd how AFP mobilised opposition to Barack Obama's healthcare reforms. "We hit the button and we started doing the Twittering and Facebook and the phonecalls and the emails, and you turned up!" Then a series of AFP organisers tell Mr Koch how they have set up dozens of Tea Party events in their home states. He nods and beams from the podium like a chief executive receiving rosy reports from his regional sales directors.

Click to expand...

Conservative Americans are America`s version of our ANC supporters. Too stupid to know who they are voting for.

Click to expand...

Sen. Barack Obama's decision to reject public financing of his presidential run — and the spending limits that come with it — will give him a big financial advantage over Sen. John McCain this fall, but it may come at a political price.

Obama and McCain claim to be taking stand against special-interest money.

Obama's stark abandonment of a pledge he repeatedly made during the Democratic primaries has dinged his reputation as a government reformer, and it clearly gave his critics ammunition to attack his character and paint him as a Democratic flip-flopper.

That flip-flopping image did serious damage to Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., four years ago when the Democratic candidate impaled himself with his own quote on an Iraq spending bill, explaining, "I was for it before I was against it."

Obama, D-Ill., can expect some of his own words on his commitment to public financing of presidential campaigns to be tossed in his face in the coming months.

For years Obama supported using public funds for campaigns to keep the big special-interest money out, and he was recorded more than once saying "I strongly support public financing."

On a questionaire by the good government group Common Cause, Obama wrote, "If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election."

And during an April 27 apperance on Fox News, Obama declared, "I have promised that I will sit down with John McCain and talk about can we preserve a public system."

Obama, who has shattered fundraising records, has tried to finesse the about-face by telling supporters that he needs more than the $89 million that would be allocated by the federal government so he can combat what he says will be Republican attacks on his character.

Click to expand...

Alan said:

Like Zapiro :erm:

More hypocrisy.....

Click to expand...

w1z4rd said:

You really do have a hysterical fixation on Obama

We... are ... talking ... about .. the ... tea ... party.

Click to expand...

w1z4rd said:

Read more: http://www.alternet.org/teaparty/148619/the_tea_parties:_deluded_and_propelled_by_billionaires/

Conservatives: 0 - Big money: 9583538537543565

Conservative Americans are America`s version of our ANC supporters. Too stupid to know who they are voting for.

Click to expand...

grayston said:

Not really. Conservatives support big money, because they all harbour a secret desire to be part of the big money club one day, and don't want to destroy it afore they can get a taste of it.

Click to expand...

"More than three quarters of those worth $1 million to $10 million plan to vote for Sen. McCain. Only 15% plan to vote for Sen. Obama (the rest are undecided). Of those worth more than $30 million, two-thirds support Sen. Obama, while one third support Sen. McCain."

Click to expand...

Alan said:

Which is why the majority of super rich Americans voted for the democrats nominee for president.....

But alas you are allergic to facts.....

Click to expand...

We hit the button and we started doing the Twittering and Facebook and the phonecalls and the emails, and you turned up!" Then a series of AFP organisers tell Mr Koch how they have set up dozens of Tea Party events in their home states. He nods and beams from the podium like a chief executive receiving rosy reports from his regional sales directors.

Click to expand...

grayston said:

I enjoy facts which support my point, so I really liked that one! However, while we're on the topic, could you also provide:

a) the number of people worth $1 million to $10 million, versus the number of people worth more than $30 million
and
b) your source.

Thanks!

Click to expand...

Alan said:

and here's another interesting fact

The 10 states with the most billionaires. You know Tea Party supporting types supposedly.......

http://www.glencoe.com/sec/math/geometry/geo/geo_04/usa_today/rich.php//

IIRC 9 of those 10 states are blue democratic states :erm:

Click to expand...

Alan said:

So Billionaires aren't super rich. Oops sorry my mistake :erm:

Click to expand...

Alan said:

Shame must be tough coming to accept the demise of the great dark hope with all those rich Republicans turning out in waves overwhelming the poor proletariat at the polls........

Click to expand...

grayston said:

From this you inferred that no billionaires would support McCain, lower taxes, Republicans, or conservative values.

Click to expand...

At least 80 wealthy liberals have pledged to contribute $1 million or more apiece to fund a network of think tanks and advocacy groups to compete with the potent conservative infrastructure built up over the past three decades.

The money will be channeled through a new partnership called the Democracy Alliance, which was founded last spring -- the latest in a series of liberal initiatives as the Democratic Party and its allies continue to struggle with the loss of the House and the Senate in 1994 and the presidency in 2000. Many influential Democratic contributors were left angry and despairing over the party's poor showing in last year's elections, and are looking for what they hope will be more effective ways to invest their support.

Financial commitments totaling at least $80 million over the next five years generated by the Democracy Alliance in recent months -- at a time when some liberal groups, such as the George Soros-backed America Coming Together, are floundering -- suggest that the group is becoming a player in the long-term effort to reinvigorate the left. The group has a goal of raising $200 million -- a sum that would inevitably come in part at the expense of more traditional Democratic groups, although alliance officials say donors have committed to maintaining past contribution levels.

Click to expand...

The Sandlers, who spent millions to defeat Bush, are not a rare breed.Hedge-fund king George Soros, worth $7.2 billion, famously spent $23.5 million on his anti-Bush crusade in 2004. Peter Lewis, president of Progressive insurance company (worth $1.9 billion), spent just less than $23 million against Bush in 2004. Steve Bing inherited $600 million from his father’s business building luxury apartments and is now a movie producer. Bing reportedly once checked into the Hotel Bel-Air in Los Angeles and stayed there for nine years. He spent $13.9 million against Bush in 2004.Those men, all billionaires or multi-millionaires thanks to corporate success, were the top four contributors to 527s in the 2004 campaign. Number five, realtor Bob Perry, spent over $8 million in favor of Bush. Number 6, developer and owner of the San Diego Chargers Alex Spanos, spent $5 million to help the president.The primary effect of the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance laws was to drive political donors away from the parties (who could no longer accept “soft money”) and towards these 527 groups. At well over a half-billion dollars, the 527s raised and spent more than either the Kerry or the Bush campaign. For rich people looking to influence the 2004 elections, 527s were the place to be. (As a point of comparison, the most generous donor directly to campaigns and parties in 2004 gave less than a half-million dollars — one-fortieth of Soros’s largesse.)Again, the top four donors to 527s in 2004 — and the only donors to spend in the eight figures on that election — all gave exclusively to pro-Democrat groups. Of the top 25 individual donors — all billionaires or multi-millionaires — 15 of them gave to pro-Democrat groups, and 10 gave to Republican-supporting groups. From this elite group of super-rich donors, the Democratic side got $108.4 million, compared to the Republican side’s $40 million. Soros and Lewis together spent more to defeat Bush than the ten most prolific Republican fat cats combined spent to support the president.This dynamic was not particular to 2004, and the anti-Bush fever. In 2002 (before McCain-Feingold and the explosion of the 527s), Haim Saban, entertainment mogul and CEO of Saban Capital Group (net worth $2.8 billion), topped the donor list with $9.4 million — every dime to Democrats. Second place was another media mogul Fred Eychaner, president of Newsweb Corporation. Eychaner also gave exclusively to Democrats. Steve Bing was third in 2002. In fact, the top nine donors all gave exclusively to Democrats. Number 10, Roland Arnall of Ameriquest Capital, gave 65 percent to Republicans and 35 percent to Democrats.The top 25 donors in 2002 gave $4.5 million to Republicans, but $51.5 million to Democrats. Democrats had 20 donors give more than one million dollars. Republicans had four

Click to expand...

Alan said:

Which is why the majority of super rich Americans voted for the democrats nominee for president..

Eish comprehension skills are lacking......

Anyway back to Dems "propelled" by billionaires

Click to expand...