REVEALED: Koch Industries Coerced Employees During The 2010 Midterm Elections

[kpete]

Koch Industries Coerced Employees During The 2010 Midterm Elections

Writing today in the Nation, http://www.thenation.com/article/160062/big-brothers-thought-control-koch Mark Ames and Mike Elk reveal that Koch Industries mailed a letters to 50,000 employees instructing them on who to vote for in the 2010 midterm elections. The Koch packet given to employees included candidate names, a letter from a Koch lobbyist, and a right-wing screed from the company and the Washington Examiner, an outlet owned by Phil Anschutz, a billionaire who is close to the Koch family. (View a copy of the packet here.)
http://www.thenation.com/sites/default/files/Koch%20Vote%20Record-2-WM.pdf

Corporate coercion of employees is perhaps the most profound repercussion from the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision last year. The Nation spoke to several law experts who noted that “Citizens United frees Koch Industries and other corporations to propagandize their employees with their political preferences.” Before the decision, businesses were prohibited from instructing their employees to vote a certain way.

Not only was Koch active in helping push the Citizens United decision (several of the groups filing amicus briefs supporting unlimited corporate spending were funded by Koch), but Koch actively planned for exploiting the decision. When we exposed a memo outlining the 2010 secret Koch political strategy meeting with fellow right-wing donors, we noted that the summit included a presentation from Karl Crow. Crow is a Koch operative who had penned a memo calling for corporations to exploit Citizens United and aggressively use “employees, vendors, and customers” as tools for advancing business interests in the political sphere:

.................

MORE:
http://thinkprogress.org/2011/04/20/koch-coerced-employees-during-the-2010-midterm-elections/

[GoCubsGo]

How would they know who their employees vote for?

I thought the ballot was supposed to be secret. Are people really THAT spineless and stupid that they allow themselves to be told how to vote?

[Freddie Stubbs]

5. They don't

[Drale]

1. 50,000 employees?

How has this not come out before, that is a ton of people and I can not believe every one of them is loyal to the kock brothers.

[cbdo2007]

39. I think they're loyal to having a job, regardless of who it's for.

[FiveGoodMen]

2. So, this is really what you want, huh, teabaggers?

[FormerDittoHead]

3. The only "revelation" would be that someone was even slightly surprised by this. n/t

[emulatorloo]

4. Now there is proof, that is worth something n/t

[kpete]

6. did you read the manifesto?

[FormerDittoHead]

24. I must be missing the point. What's the big deal / surprise / illegality?

I found like 4 links, and I just downloaded the 14 page PDF. Save me 20 minutes of my life trying to parse this thing out and please tell me where the illegal part is?

[Bozita]

7. Mark Ames is on LIVE with Ratigan NOW!

[Thunderstruck]

11. That was all kinds of excellent! THAT is why I like Ratigan!

[Bozita]

14. Agreed! The first half hour today is MUST SEE stuff.

[Bozita]

33. link to MSNBC's video of the segment

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31510813/#42687371

[CrossChris]

8. This is legal now, and Dems won't do a damn thing to stop it.

Not since Citizens United.

Again--top/bottom instead of left/right. The top party, both left and right, LOVES this development.

[plcdude]

13. It may be permissable

under "Citizen" but this is political harrassment on the part of one's employer who holds power overagainst the employees.

[CrossChris]

16. What body is going to enforce that, especially now that Corporations can directly buy elections?

Corporate power has trumped law enforcement. Employee handbooks are the new law.

[Thunderstruck]

9. Regressive voters are unknowingly supporting having their votes

controlled by The Company.

Their stupidity is epic.

[malaise]

10. On Ratigan now n/t

[malaise]

12. So how many Teabaggers were employees forced to

do the bidding of the Koch brothers?

[Dr Fate]

15. And then Obama rewarded their efforts with ENORMOUS tax breaks.

Of the likes that the middle class will never see.

I know, I know he was (forced, coerced, fooled enter excuse here) into doing that.

I guess we better all open up our wallets and donate to DEMS, or DEMS will be "forced" to give even more money to the Koch Brothers to help them fund these efforts.

So "centrist" DEMS give massive tax cuts to the Koch Brothers, then DEMS ask ME (a guy who will NEVER see such tax benefits) to give DEMS more money to combat all those awful things the Koch Brothers do with this money. Round and round we go.

[CrossChris]

17. He's an effective member of the Top party. They take care of each other, while we...

get to shout at each other in this echo chamber. Oh, and our words here are documented so they can be searched by future employers, or law enforcement.

[Dr Fate]

19. Cops & bosses are going to check DU to see if I oppose tax breaks for the Koch Brothers?

Good- they will see that I side with the majority of Americans.

Otherwise, I read what you are saying.

[CrossChris]

37. I do worry about the reach the employers will have with the ability to background check

They already google everyone they're thinking of hiring. So yes, if your political stances in a google search turn them off, they will use that against you, I believe.

[markpkessinger]

18. Horribly unethical practice -- but coercion?

Since an employer cannot know how an employee votes while in voting booth, the employee's freedom to vote for the candidate of his/her choice is not compromised. I'm not defending the tactic at all -- just saying that "coercion" is a bit over the top in this context.

[Dr Fate]

20. Let the pro-Koch brothers types split the hairs over the semantics.

Elected DEMS should go on TV and call it "coercion" and "against America" and say "this should be illegal in a Democracy" until the Koch Brothers and their GOP defenders can explain in great detail otherwise.

Of course, I mean that in the context of an alternate reality where "centrist" DEMS actually fight to oppose the economic positions of the Koch Brothers and the GOP.

I see your point though- elected DEMS are not going to pick a fight over this (If anything, they will just give the Koch Brothers even more wads of cash), so we might as well start using semantics to down play the seriousness of this so the crazy liberal base wont be too disappointed (again) when they realize elected DEMS are going to let this stand.

Round & round we go...

[markpkessinger]

22. I don't think we help our cause with over the top arguments n/t

[Dr Fate]

23. Me neither. Which is why I never advocated making them.

If DEMS wanted to play this right, then the "over the top" argument comes from the half-baked retort given by the Koch Brothers and their GOP defenders, not the righteous (read: hypothetical)elected DEMS who would argue (Factually & correctly) that setting up a system that implies that the boss can hold one's employment hostage- is an anti-Democratic, anti-American form of coercion.

You say the word "coercion" is "over the top" - but I think the average media consumer could see the argument as to why it is coercion, and if played right, voters would see the couter-argument (that bullying employees top vote a certain way is A-OK and 100% All-American)as the true "over-the top" response.

But alas, I spin my wheels, dreaming about what a hypothetical elected Democrat could or might do- The real DEMS are never going to pick up "our cause", as to this specific incident, and I think you realize that too.

[markpkessinger]

25. "Coerce" implies the use of some kind of threat . . .

. . . which is non-existent if the employer cannot possibly know how the employee voted. If an employee is intimidated by a packet sent around by the employer, then it's the employee that has a problem here.

[Dr Fate]

27. It sure does. Then again, my hypothetical DEMS would take the side of the employee and free speech

Which is what you must mean by "over the top."

We both seem to realize that the real life "centrist" DEMS will do no such thing, hence your argument that blames the employee's precarious position in this economy, while serving to let the Koch Brothers off the hook. No big deal, I mean, it's the stupid worker's fault, right?

That is the whole point- to scare workers into thinking that they might somehow be found out, then lose their jobs. All it takes is one wrong discussion around the water cooler or at the bar after work- or maybe something on a private, non-work related Facebook page. So your defense of the Koch's tactics and your blaming the employees is wrong- there is a way they can find out. It's the chilling of free political speech and freedom of association. You really wanna side with the Koch Brohters on that? Wait, is this centrism?

Better to go ahead and make pro-Koch arguments now than be disappointed when elected DEMS fail to make anti-Koch brother attacks, right?

LOL! Could you imagine how "over the top" it would sound if a GOPer or a Koch Brothers rep. went on TV and said "It's the employee who has the problem here." As it is, you are already saying it for them. A non-conservative DEM could rip that shit apart and make him look like a fool who supports trans-national interests over sacred individual rights.

Who would the average swing or independent voter side with on that one? The GOPer using your over the top argument, or a DEM using mine?

Your quote: ". . which is non-existent if the employer cannot possibly know how the employee voted. If an employee is intimidated by a packet sent around by the employer, then it's the employee that has a problem here."

[markpkessinger]

32. So, I don't agree with you on this one point so I'm a "hypothetical Dem?"

I have been a loyal, voting Democrat for over 30 years -- my entire adult life -- and will put my progressive bona fides up against anyone on this board! I just happen to think words have meaning, and that it's important to use those words correctly. Nowhere did I defend what the Koch brothers are doing or take their side in any respect. I detest everything the Koch brothers stand for -- and I said in my OP that I regard the practice as horribly unethical -- so get off your damned high horse!

My point is this: the word coercion means there is a real (or at least, perceived to be real) threat of consequences that will follow noncompliance with a particular demand. Since the employer (whether it's Koch Industries or Ben & Jerry's) has no way to verify compliance with a particular demand, then no credible threat exists because the employer cannot know who complied and who did not. Call it outrageously improper, unethical or what have you, but it does not, in my view, rise to the level of "coercion."

This business of casting everyone who disagrees with you on a particular issue somehow less than an authentic Democrat is the same shit the far right does to people 2who dare to disagree with them. It's a vile practice whether it occurs on the left or on the right!

[supernova]

21. Used to work @ American Bankers Association

The Association Pres would send missives out all the time just before elections, reminding us in a not so subtle way who buttered our bread and that's the way we should vote.

I put them in the round file and voted the way I wanted to... :dem:

[Donnachaidh]

26. Koch Brothers need a date with this baby

[Dr Fate]

28. Instead, they will enjoy massive tax breaks of the likes you & I will never see.

n/t

[Initech]

29. Isn't this illegal?

[MedleyMisty]

30. That doesn't matter

I know how moderates like to say we're a country of laws or whatever.

Well, we're not. We're a totalitarian fascist state. Get used to it.

[Dr Fate]

31. If it was, would that make elected DEMS stand up to the Kochs a little harder?

Does it even have to be illegal? Whatever happened to going after something just b/c it is WRONG?

LOL! I'm sorry- I was being Liberal there. This is centrist site.I wonder what excuses we will craft for not fighting them if it IS arguably illegal?

Illegal? Hell- we are already saying that it is the employees fault. I say we stick with that story- less fuss & muss.

[highplainsdem]

34. K&R. Thanks for posting this! I'd missed this earlier today, and tonight I heard something about

it on The Ed Show, but only a little, and I'd missed hearing the source of the story.

[Bozita]

35. link to video from this afternoon - Mark Ames with Dylan Ratigan

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31510813/#42687371

[noamnety]

36. Back when I worked for a defense contractor

they sent out a memo to all employees stating that their goal was 100% participation in donating to their company PAC.

Of course all the donation records were public so they could see who had donated. And of course nearly 100% of the PAC donations go to republicans. I was appalled (and did not donate).

[elleng]

38. Off with their d***** heads!!!