I think he’s made his links very clear. I’m not quite sure what else you feel he should explain.

Then there’s his appearances on the Glenn Beck show on FOX, the cheerleaders for the Tea Party…

So a guy who openly states he has links to people is criticised for not saying that he has links to people.

I am confused.

What you probably mean is that every single statement he makes is not then accompanied by a five page declaration of all his income and associates.

Can I ask where your declaration of interests is, and why wasn’t it attached to the bottom of your blog post?

Behave.

“A recent Greenpeace report names Koch as the “kingpin of climate science denial” vastly outspending even ExxonMobil in giving money to organizations fighting legislation related to climate change, underwriting a huge network of foundations, think tanks, and political front groups. A figure of $37 million is cited just on lobbying alone.”

Gosh, that’s amaaazing! Such huge numbers to put against Greenpeace’s $2 billion income over the last decade.

Boy, those billionaires sure do spread it around, don’t they?

Point the first…

The Koch brothers sounds like a bad vaudeville act.

Point the second…

Tories and ALEC? Colour me unsurprised…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Atlantic_Bridge#Funding_and_partnerships

Daniel Hannan has just gone up in my estimation.

And I already thought he was awesome.

@Tim Worstall

The Koch Brothers are largely spending on political causes to improve the profits of Koch Industries. What’s wrong with that? Nothing if you are a shareholder in Koch Industries.
But if you believe that the legislative process should not be hijacked by plutocrats , or that as humble citizens we should be informed by the truth rather than propaganda to play our part in democracy then the exploits of the Koch brothers should very much be a matter of concern.

In contrast Greenpeace does not take corporate donations btw.http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/about/faq/where-does-greenpeace-get-its-funding-from

Hengist,

what exactly is your position here? Are you against the Koch brothers funding any political groups, think tanks or media operations? If so, on what basis? Their funding is hardly a secret – look up the word ‘kochtopus’.

I received funding from an organisation that the Kochs support to do some academic research that was completely unrelated to any of their business interests – it was on freedom of speech in the UK. I think they are rich supporters of a political philosophy that happens not to be wholeheartedly approved of on this website.

11

Wouldn’t the more pertinent question be: would they be as sanguine about funding “independent” research which went contrary to other causes they held dear?

And even if they would, if the amounts of such “pro bono” spending are simply a fig leaf for a more worrying general picture of the super rich funding things which are just plain wrong headed, that would tend to curb any enthusiasm we might have for the fact they funded the odd piece of research, no?

My, my, look at the butler class tory trolls defending their corporate masters. Their loyalty to the global elite is amazing. Of course, the rich elite could not give a rats shit for them in return. They are just cannon fodder to be used in in the battle to steal more money from the little people.

It is only recently that the Koch brothers have been exposed as funding so many Astroturf, bullshitting groups with apple pie names. Why do the Koch brothers hide behind these groups? Why are they so reluctant to come out into the open and admit that they hate freedom for all. These are the modern version of the French aristocracy, and if they don’t stop their greedy ways they could very well end up with the same outcome.

As for Hannan, he is a rich , lazy sack of shit. Who spouts the usual clap trap so loved by the butler class trolls.

Yay, Sally’s back!

“My, my, look at the butler class tory trolls defending their corporate masters.”

You tell ‘em, Sally.

“It is only recently that the Koch brothers have been exposed as funding so many Astroturf, bullshitting groups with apple pie names. Why do the Koch brothers hide behind these groups?”

It’s hardly news. The Kochs have been funding stuff for decades, such as the Cato Institute.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/gordon/gordon37.html

“Wouldn’t the more pertinent question be: would they be as sanguine about funding “independent” research which went contrary to other causes they held dear?”

The same applies to almost any ‘independent’ research. I wouldn’t expect most UN funded research to be directly critical of the existence of the UN, or for EU funded research to be critical of EU integration (it funds a series of academic chairs and journals all designed to normalise EU citizenship). The Joseph Rowntree Foundation and the Nuffield trust tend to take lines on some things (although to their credit, they are, at least, eclectic in their preferences). No source is neutral. So its best if everyone declares openly who their supporters and interests are. Then we judge the research on its quality.

So a guy who openly states he has links to people is criticised

Where does he do that?

Can I ask where your declaration of interests is, and why wasn’t it attached to the bottom of your blog post?

I didn’t realise we were elected representatives. So much for Tory demands for transparency.

16

Agreed, but my main issue is exactly that the fact they are capable of funding your research on free speech (however laudible) is less impressive than if they were funding research into why global warming exists, or why astro-turfing is a bad idea. By all means give them credit for the fig leaf, but let’s not forget what it might be covering up eh?

I’m slightly confused by this “scandalous” lack of disclosure.

I mean it’s not as if Hannan is being paid/bribed to say stuff he doesn’t mean.

He does mean it. He quite likes those guys!

I’m slightly confused by this “scandalous” lack of disclosure.

Of course you are. Though if some lefty was advocating for and defending an organisation whose funders had paid for their flights you’d be copying and pasting that everywhere.

But what are you saying he is hiding?

That he is only “TP for pay”?

Here’s Daniel Hannan talking about hosting the first UK Tea Party event:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOKtgLfC458

If he’s trying to cover up his links to the TP, he’s doing a terrible job!

If he’s trying to cover up his links to the TP, he’s doing a terrible job!

Just to clarify – could you and cjcjc point me to anywhere, where Dan Hannan has disclosed to his readers that he has had his flights paid to the US by these organisations?

Anywhere?

Oh we know he loves the tea party and wants to set one up here and has failed miserably. We’re talking about the disclosure above though.

I thought Butler cjcjc would be on here defending his corporate masters.

“could you and cjcjc point me to anywhere, where Dan Hannan has disclosed to his readers that he has had his flights paid to the US by these organisations?”

Shameful.

Tea party stooges love their corporate wefare.

“could you and cjcjc point me to anywhere, where Dan Hannan has disclosed to his readers that he has had his flights paid to the US by these organisations?”

Well, it’s in his declaration of interests, as your article states. His PR company page states:

“He has recently addressed the Koch Foundation, the Reboot Britain conference and the American Legislative Exchange Council.”

http://www.pfd.co.uk/client/daniel_hannan/public_speaking/

And here he is addressing the Cato Institute, which is part of the Kochtopus:

http://www.cato.org/weekly/index.php?vid_id=186

So, again, I ask, what’s the problem? Do you really think his readers, those that like him I mean, are bothered about him flying to the US and speaking to these groups? Do you think that if they read your article they will feel betrayed by Hannan?

Do you actually have a point to make? If you are calling for new laws to limit donations to political groups or think tanks, then spell it out. Otherwise, this just seems like sour grapes that these particular brothers want to spend their money on things you don’t agree with.

Do you really think his readers, those that like him I mean, are bothered about him flying to the US and speaking to these groups?

Errr yes – actually I do think it’s relevant that you disclose these things. You’ll see that a lot of journos at reputable publications do disclosures when they write about orgs.

Of course you’re not bothered – you think it doesn’t matter. These groups are benign to you. Not for others.

@Trooper Thompson,
No , I don’t think those that like Dan Hannan will feel betrayed by Hannan, IMHO it will take a great deal more to dislodge his loyal followers . But through his constituency he represents millions of people in South East England, to the European Parliament, his duty is to everyone in that constituency. That is the constitutional role he enjoys, he has no constututional duty whatsoever towards the billionaires of Wichita Kansas.
However in his Telegraph blog he defends the billionaires of Wichita Kansas, and pretends to make impartial judgments that the causes founded by the billionaires of Wichita Kansas are “popular” and “spontaneous”.
And still, Daniel Hannan enjoys the patronage of the billionaires of Wichita Kansas, a point we thought you ought to know.

Okay, you don’t like Hannan, the Koch brothers and the Tea Party, but you’ve got nothing on Hannan, because the links between these three are clear as day.

By the way, I’m no particular fan of Hannan or the Kochs: I’m a Misesian – Rothbardian kinda guy, although I’m not sure the distinction will save me from Sally’s wrath.

I always thought being a butler would be a great job.

Bruce Wayne’s Alfred the obvious role model!

28

Butler…. ideal job for Cleggy post election when no doubt he’ll be in need of gainful employment?

Though if some lefty was advocating for and defending an organisation whose funders had paid for their flights you’d be copying and pasting that everywhere.

Oh come off your high horse. They didn’t pay for his flights to have a holiday in the sun. They paid for his flights to come and speak at their event. Just a refund of legitimate expenses.

This is absolutely fascinating. A list of major donors in Federal US politics over the last few decades.

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php?type=A

Koch Industries is number 86 on the list.

Many of those above them are, erm, unions.

13 of the top 15 financial donors in the US donate to the Democrats (the other two sit on the fence, donating to both)? Surely not! I thought only the Republicans were in the grip of corporate interests!

Clearly I need to get my news somewhere other than Sunny TV (“Fair and Balanced”).

Now that a bunch of right wing activist thugs (sorry the supreme court of the US) has decided, that corporations can donate as much money as they like to political campaigns, and do not have to reveal their backing, Tim’s idiotic list will change very quickly over the next ten years. Billions will be poured into negative attack ads against any liberal candidates, but of course the public will be kept in the dark about who these people are and what the stand for.

Always funny to see the tory trolls grumbling about democratically, and open trade unions while defending unaccountable and secretive rich corporations. But the butlers must serve their masters.