Who's really behind the No on Prop. 30 ads?

The Fair Political Practices Commission released a bit of information about who just dumped $11 million into the No and 30 and Yes on 32 campaigns, and on the surface, the disclosure doesn't tell much except that secretive PAC money moves around in tight circles. The head of the FPPC, Ann Ravel, called it "money laundering," which sounds like a fairly accurate description. But all the FPPC records really show is that one nonprofit called Americans for Job Security and another called The Center to Protect Patient Rights moved the cash into the Arizona-based Americans for Responsible Leadership, which sent the money to California.
Who the hell are any of these groups? Technically, nobody knows, since they don't disclose their donors. The SacBee notes that:
Although it could not be confirmed, the Center to Protect Patient Rights has been connected to Kansas-based Koch Industries, whose owners, David H. Koch and Charles G. Koch, are conservative advocates.
"Conservative advocates" is a kind way of putting it.
When the Bee called Koch HQ, a flak there said her guys weren't involved:
Asked about reported ties to the Center to Protect Patient Rights, Koch Companies Public Sector spokeswoman Melissa Cohlmia said in an email, "Contrary to some media reports, Koch Industries, Charles Koch, and David Koch have not provided any financial support in favor of Proposition 32 and are not involved in this issue."
Ah, but that's a bit of a stretch. The LA Times has actually done some investigative work on this, and it's pretty clear that the Center to Protect Patient Rights IS the Koch brothers, and that any money that comes through there is part of the brothers right-wing network.
I'm surprised Jerry Brown hasn't jumped all over this. A big ol' press conference event with the guv denouncing the (actual) vast right-wing conspiracy to shut down unions and drive California off the fiscal cliff might be the boost Prop. 30 needs in the final day.
Most Commented On
Recent comments
- Apple only does those totally legal actions because the - June 18, 2013
- Disagree. The banks had to be saved. But GM? No way. - June 18, 2013
- You got to be fucking kidding me. - June 18, 2013
- Didn't really matter either way. - June 18, 2013
- Not really...just ask Apple - June 18, 2013
- It wasn't a cost problem. it was a revenue problem. - June 18, 2013
- Really, marcos? - June 18, 2013
- Venom, the idea that you can float a boat based on the - June 18, 2013
- The only silver lining if The Guardian ceases to be is - June 18, 2013
- Tim kept empowering people - June 18, 2013









Comments
Post new comment