David Brooks’ latest trick: Exposing the sleight of hand in his defense of the Kochs

[unhappycamper]

http://www.salon.com/2014/10/10/david_brooks_latest_trick_exposing_the_sleight_of_hand_in_his_defense_of_the_kochs/



Here's why his new piece on political spending is really a gift to the GOP's most influential moneymen

David Brooks’ latest trick: Exposing the sleight of hand in his defense of the Kochs
Elias Isquith
Friday, Oct 10, 2014 02:08 PM EST

David Brooks may not be as influential or widely read as he once was, but give him this much: When it comes to cloaking a dogged promotion of the interests of the Republican one percent as high-minded, above-the-fray pontification, he still can’t be beat. Consider his latest New York Times column, a misleading disquisition on how “we should all relax about campaign spending” and stop worrying about the effects of Citizens United, as just the latest case in point.

In brief, Brooks’s argument is that the data we have so far indicate that 2010′s Citizens United decision has not only not destroyed the Democratic Party, as Brooks claims one lawmaker theatrically predicted, but has in fact benefited Democrats the most. Citing the always reliable and forthright Karl Rove, Brooks reports that “Democratic candidates have reserved $109 million in television advertising time before Election Day, while Republicans have reserved $85 million.” According to the nonpartisan Center for Public Integrity, Brooks notes, Democratic groups in the 2012 election quite likely outspent their Republican foes.

As Brooks himself acknowledges later in the piece, the Democrats’ current fundraising advantage is likely temporary and much of the money being spent on behalf of the GOP is through 501(c)(4) groups that are allowed to keep their donors secret. He treats those revelations as if they were important, but not major. He doesn’t do this because he is stupid; he’s not. He does this because his column isn’t really about Citizens United or the role of money in U.S. politics. It’s something much grubbier than that. It is, indirectly, a defense of the Kochs.

If you’re familiar with Brooks’s politics (authority is always good), you probably suspected as much going in, but Brooks gives the game away in his closing paragraph with a silly and cheap shot at billionaire hedge funder Tom Steyer, an environmentalist who’s gone all-in for Democrats this cycle. Steyer’s reasoning, as he’s previously explained, is that catastrophic climate change is a real possibility, one that Democrats — but not Republicans — are willing to confront. So in the interest of, in his mind, quite literally saving the planet, Steyer is doling out funds.