David Koch comes out -- as a carefully contrived media darling. (Quick, hide the silverware!)

Is that former "shadow"-dweller Barnabas Collins coming out at last week's Republican National Convention? Oh wait, no, wrong vampire! This is the Far Right's new media darling, convention delegate David Koch!

"Americans for Prosperity's Web site advertised Koch's Tampa début as "open to the public" and the press. But The New Yorker, whose coverage the Kochs have complained about, was denied credentials to cover the event. Our 2010 piece on the Koch Brothers, "Covert Operations," is apparently as apt as ever."

-- Jane Mayer, in the newyorker.com
News Desk post "Out of the Shadows"

by Ken

Happily, The New Yorker's Jane Mayer has retained all her curiosity about the doings of the Brothers Koch. (You may recall that her now-legendary 2010 New Yorker piece "Covert Operations" was very likely the prime mover in the lifting of the veil of secrecy from the Kochs' mammoth energy- and mind-control operation.) So it's not surprising that she's fascinated by junior brother David, who has generally functioned as the "front man" of the Koch Industries energy-and-far-right-politics conglomerate, leaving the brainwork to brother Chas. David, unlike Chas, seems to enjoy the spotlight. He lives in New York, while Chas tends to business in friendly Wichita.

But that's not to say that David has welcomed scrutiny. He likes being lionized as a gazillionaire philanthropist. But as Jane M notes, "the co-owner of America's second largest private company, Koch Industries, an oil, pipeline, chemical, lumber, and finance conglomerate that has been called 'the Standard Oil of our times,' has historically been press-shy." No more, however. (Note: There are lotsa links onsite.)

[H]e used the occasion of the Republican National Convention, which he attended as a delegate, to rebrand himself as a good citizen rather than one of the biggest and most secretive behind-the-scenes funders of the opposition to Barack Obama. (There are wealthy people backing Obama's reëlection campaign as well, but as I reported in the magazine recently, he's been having trouble on that front.) The fact that he'd take on the public role of a delegate was noteworthy on its own, but even more remarkable was that his week in Tampa culminated with an event billed as a "Salute to Entrepreneurs Building America," which was really a kind of coming-out party that he threw himself in conjunction with Americans for Prosperity, a conservative political group he co-founded.

"I … like to speak out," Koch reportedly told a small throng at the event. Alas, Koch's new interest in going public doesn't yet include disclosure of how much he is personally spending on the 2012 campaign, since most of his donations go to a network of non-profits that hide the names of their donors.

David K's media coming out "capped a week of carefully controlled press appearances in friendly venues, evidently aimed at a [an] image makeover" that had her thinking about a similar one once undertaken by the man who created Standard Oil.

A little more than a hundred years ago, John D. Rockefeller, Sr., then thought to be the richest man in the world, found himself the subject of damaging investigative journalism. Scared by growing public backlash, and the talk of stiffer regulations coming from a President intent on reform, America's first great oil baron launched a public-relations campaign aimed at enhancing his image. Although he had previously operated in secrecy, avoiding the press -- especially muckraking journalists like Ida Tarbell, who exposed shocking practices by his company, Standard Oil -- he began to make himself more accessible. He started speaking up, and writing. And although he is thought to have been making a billion dollars in inflation-adjusted currency every year by then, he also won a surprising amount of good will by personally dipping into his pockets when in public, and offering nickels to children and dimes to adults.

The Koch media campaign made free use of friendly-billionaire-controlled right-wing media. David's own name was attached to an op-ed piece in the New York Post, "owned by Rupert Murdoch, a fellow Manhattan mogul who shares many of Koch's views." And a fawning piece by "conservative pundit" Michael Barnes, "Citizen Koch Goes to Tampa," appeared both in the right-wing weekly rag the Washington Examiner and in the "ostensibly higher-brow journal of conservative opinion" The Weekly Standard -- both owned by right-wing billionaire Philip Anschutz.

Scribe Barone, Jane M notes, "has spoken at two conferences held by the Kochs, as he acknowledges in his piece."

Most of Barone's article dwells on David Koch's philanthropic activities -- like Rockefeller before him, Koch has given substantial amounts of money to fund the arts and scientific research. Koch, who Forbes counts as the fifth-wealthiest billionaire in America, has warned, though, that if Obama raises taxes on dividend income, he may not be able to afford to give as much. At his public unveiling on Thursday, Koch said he could support some unspecified tax hikes in the interest of balancing the budget and reducing the government's debt. But evidently, increases in taxes on dividends -- which form a substantial portion of his own income -- are not among those he might support. In the Summer 2012 issue of Philanthropy Magazine, he told Evan Sparks that, "I'm worried about the tax increases the Obama Administration is lobbying for with Congress. A substantial amount of my income comes to me through dividends." Until 2003, dividends were taxed at the same rate as salaries and other earned income, but the Bush Administration cut the tax rate on dividends to fifteen per cent. The Obama Administration has proposed raising the top dividend tax rate back up to 39.6 per cent, and it is this that Koch suggests might impede his philanthropic activity. On Thursday, Koch also surprised some by saying that he favors legalizing gay marriage, but the stand is consistent with the Libertarian Party platform he ran for Vice President on in 1980, against Ronald Reagan. The Party's platform that year proposed the legalization of prostitution, recreational drugs, and suicide, and the abolition of virtually all roles for government other than the protection of individual rights, property, and national defense.

Barone's piece also chronicled Koch's hurt feelings at facing public criticism for his extraordinary financial investment in American politics. A substantial portion of the four hundred million dollars -- the brothers' money, and that of their fellow conservative mega-donors -- that Koch-related organizations plan to spend in this year's elections is going toward financing scorching political ads, some of which have been condemned by non-partisan fact-checking groups as misleading. Yet asked how he felt about being criticized by opponents himself, Koch, who is seventy-two, told Barone, "It does not feel good."

And that, Jane speculates, may be what David K "is still avoiding some members of the media," which leads her to the observation about the Koch's notion of being "open to the public" which I put at the top of this post. As I suggested in writing in June about Chas K's move on the Cato Institute, the libertarian think tank the Kochs once more or less owned, "Chas isn't one of those billionaires who doesn't see the connection between his money and getting his way." My read is that Chas likes controlling, well, everything he can. And I quoted my earlier observation:

I imagine that a man like Chas, when he thinks about his wealth, focuses not so much on the money he has as on the money he doesn't have, for no good reason he can think of. Same deal with propaganda outlets. Doesn't he have enough? Perhaps not, for a man who likes to be in control, and doesn't seem to have the word "enough" in his vocabulary.

Now, Jane M suggests, a run of inconvenient publicity has made it desirable for the Kochs to create a touchier-feelier public front for their industrial and propaganda empire, and as a result, we're lucky to have Delegate David walking veritably among us mere mortals. Yuck!

#

Bernie Sanders to Jim Inhofe: "Stop Poisoning Our Children"

Blue America has only endorsed ONE senator running for reelection-- ONE. And here's an example of why: Wednesday Bernie Sanders stood up on the floor of the Senate (video above) and called on Jim Inhofe to "stop poisoning our children" for the sake of his campaign donors. Inhofe is a blatant corporate whore who has taken $2,294,442 in bribes from energy and natural resources companies, more than any other current Members of Congress other than McCain (R-AZ), Joe Barton (R-TX), Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), John Cornyn (R-TX) and Miss McConnell (R-KY). The legislation he proposed in the Senate-- which Bernie's barn-burner speech helped defeat-- was meant to exempt coal companies from EPA emission standards meant to protect the public from mercury poisoning. Inhofe's resolution was defeated 46-53, with 5 Republicans too ashamed to go along with Inhofe's deadly proposal. They crossed the aisle and voted with the Democrats. On the way across, of course, they passed an equal number of Democratic corporate whores-- Ben Nelson, Joe Manchin, Jim Webb, Mark Warner, and Mary Landrieu-- going in the other direction. Miraculously, conservative Democrats Claire McCaskill, Tom Carper, Mark Begich and Jon Tester stuck with the Democrats. And even more miraculously, coal state advocate Jay Rockefeller had a profile in courage moment that could hurt him politically in West Virginia in 2014.

Standing at the back of the Senate chamber with a handful of his colleagues looking on, the 75-year-old Democrat delivered a lofty speech before the vote, warning that attempts to demonize air pollution rules will only hurt the coal industry as it tries to stay competitive in an increasingly challenging economic environment. Calling the Inhofe effort “foolish,” Rockefeller said the long-term health effects of the rule would be “enormous.”

“This is a critical and contentious time in the Mountain State,” Rockefeller said. “The dialogue on coal, its impacts and the federal government’s role has reached a fevered pitch. ... West Virginians understandably worry that a way of life and the dignity of a job is at stake. Change and uncertainty in the coal industry is unsettling.

“But my fear is that concerns are also being fueled by the narrow view of others with divergent motivations-- one that denies the inevitability of change in the energy industry, and unfairly leaves coal miners in the dust,” Rockefeller said. “The reality is that many who run the coal industry today would rather attack false enemies and deny real problems than find solutions.”

Senate Environment and Public Works Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), a staunch ally of the environmental community, immediately hailed the speech.

“I believe when the next historian writes a book about leadership, courage and integrity in the United States Senate, that this speech today will be featured in that book,” she said.

Rockefeller's stand is particularly compelling in light of an AP/Roper poll that came out this week highlighting the public's intense concerns about national health care policy. If the Supreme Court strikes down the Affordable Healthcare Act, as seems likely, 77% of respondents want the president and Congress to come up with a better system. Only 19% of Americans agree with the Republicans that the system is fine the way it is.

25 Miners Are Dead In West Virginia Because Rich Wingnut Mine Owner Only Abides By Laws He Approves Of

How many must die before the government protects us from predators like Blankenship?

A few days ago we introduced you to an especially unsavory character, multimillionaire robber baron, Republican campaign donor, union-buster, climate change denier and US Chamber board member, Don Blankenship. He still hasn't been arrested. Labor Secretary Hilda Solis doesn't look like she wants to let the tragic mine disaster at Blankenship's shoddily-run mine get swept under the rug. Obama has asked her and Mine Safety and Health Administrator Joe Main "to report on their early assessment of the deadly explosion’s cause, the safety record at the Upper Branch mine, and the steps that the Federal government should take to improve safety enforcement and prevent future tragedies."

Yesterday Think Progress an early assessment from Blankenship himself, an interview he gave almost exactly one year ago:

They’re very difficult to comply with. There’s so many of the laws that are, if you will, nonsensical from an engineering or a coal mining viewpoint. A lot of the politicians, they get emotional, as does the public, about the most recent accident, and it’s easy to get laws on the books that are not truly helping the health or safety of coal miners. I think we need to be very pragmatic and very careful when we’re passing laws of that nature to make sure that we create as much safety and as much health as can be created for each of the resources we expend.

Blankenship has spent a small fortune trying to elect right-wing Republicans who would let him get away with-- literally-- murder. Even the U.S. Supreme Court has been concerned that he's bought too much influence power for himself in West Virginia.

As detailed in an ABC News investigation, Blankenship vacationed on the Riviera with one West Virginia Supreme Court Justice and underwrote an ad campaign supporting the election of another while a $50 million judgment against Massey Energy was before the court. Blankenship's apparently successful multi-million-dollar attempt to change the composition of the court became the basis of a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision-- and the source of a slew of controversial television ads... Blankenship... spent millions more of his own cash trying to oust Democrats from the state legislature.

West Virginia Senator Jay Rockefeller called Massey Energy and it's CEO Don Blankenship "rogue" and is clear that "Massey is not doing its job when it comes to the safety of its miners."

"I think there's a growing feeling that there are a lot of coal companies that do a good job and then there are others that are outliers or rogues. They try to do as little as they can and I think there's a growing anger on my part, and the part of the people who work in those mines, that this distinction has to be closed."

Just last month, federal inspectors cited Massey Energy for high levels of methane and coal dust as well as a ventilation system that wasn't working properly at the UBB Mine.

Senator Rockefeller says Massey mines have a long history of violations, but never seem to pay the penalties.

"Mr. Blankenship, who's the head of Massey, said that every mine violation is somehow an improvement in safety. I've been pondering that for several days now and haven't been able to make any sense out of that. He's had a lot of fines. He hasn't had to pay those fines because of loopholes in the laws."

Meanwhile, Democrats will try again to rein in serial criminals like Blankenship, although until a CEO like him is dragged before a judge and jury, tried, convicted and made to suffer the consequences for multiple homicides, this kind of corporate exploitation and criminality will never end. This is nothing but bullshit game-playing to distract from the real issues and from the complicity of the ruling elites in this tragedy:

Democrats in Congress are trying to crack down on litigation by mining companies that kept federal safety officials at arm’s length from the Upper Big Branch mine... Massey Energy, the company that operates Upper Big Branch, was able to keep the Mine Safety and Health Administration at bay by regularly appealing safety violations.

Since 2005, Massey has gone to the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission 89 times to dispute safety violations that federal inspectors found at Upper Big Branch, according to an official at the commission.

The litigation stalled many of the findings of safety violations and prevented the Mine Safety and Health Commission from finding a “pattern of violation” that would have enabled them to exercise more oversight... Obama administration officials and Democratic lawmakers have tried since last year to eliminate the backlog of cases at the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission, but experts estimate even the newest proposals could fall short.

We don't need a commission and we don't need a congressional investigation. We need a judge-- one who hasn't be paid for by Blankenship-- a jury and an electric chair... or whatever West Virginia uses to eliminate mass murderers. Perhaps Secretary Solis should show President Obama and Senator Rockefeller this video:

JUDGE FINDS BUSH'S WARRANTLESS WIRETAPS UNJUSTIFIED-- WILL CONGRESS HEAR?

Take out the candidates for the presidency-- although keep in mind that the Telecoms have given McCain a whopping $356,145, far more than they donated to either Obama or Hillary-- and the senator who has benefited most from their largesse is... Jay Rockefeller, the crooked West Virginia political hack who has been leading the fight to grant his benefactors retroactive immunity for any crimes they may have committed under the FISA laws. The Telecoms gave Rockefeller $51,500 and the next closest senator was-- speaking of crooks-- Ted Stevens (R-AK) at $37,900. Funny how Rockefeller has vaulted to the top of the heap too. Overall, he was only their 25th most favorite senator (at $168,442) and it wasn't until he became the champion of retroactive immunity that they realized he was worthy of some big checks. In way of comparison, this year's #2, Senator Stevens, has gotten $260,450 from the Telecoms over his Senate career, which, I guess, helps explain his popular "tubes" song and dance.

Yesterday another judge rejected the Bush Regime's-- and the paid off members of Congress-- claim that they could wiretap American citizens without legal warrants. Count on Glenn Greenwald to make it clear and easy to understand:

A Bush-41-appointed Federal District Judge yesterday became the third judge-- out of three who have ruled on the issue-- to reject the Bush administration's claim that Article II entitles the President to override or ignore the provisions of FISA. Yesterday's decision by Judge Vaughn Walker of the Northern District of California also guts the central claims for telecom immunity and gives the lie to the excuses coming from Congress as to why the new FISA bill is some sort of important "concession." More than anything else, this decision is but the most recent demonstration that, with this new FISA bill, our political establishment is doing what it now habitually does: namely, ensuring that the political and corporate elite who break our laws on purpose are immune from consequences.

In this morning's NY Times Eric Lichtblau took a stab at explaining how the new ruling did not and does not give Bush the right to wiretap without warrants.

The Bush Regime had worked diligently to quash the law suit for the past 2 years claiming the case was a "state secret and citing the president’s constitutional power as commander in chief to order wiretaps without a warrant from a court under the agency’s program."

But Judge Walker, who was appointed to the bench by former President George Bush, rejected those central claims in his 56-page ruling. He said the rules for surveillance were clearly established by Congress in 1978 under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which requires the government to get a warrant from a secret court.

“Congress appears clearly to have intended to-- and did-- establish the exclusive means for foreign intelligence activities to be conducted,” the judge wrote. “Whatever power the executive may otherwise have had in this regard, FISA limits the power of the executive branch to conduct such activities and it limits the executive branch’s authority to assert the state secrets privilege in response to challenges to the legality of its foreign intelligence surveillance activities.”

Judge Walker’s voice carries extra weight because all the lawsuits involving telephone companies that took part in the N.S.A. program have been consolidated and are being heard in his court.

But for members of the House and Senate, particularly the Republicans plus corrupt Democrats like Rockefeller, Steny Hoyer, Rahm Emanuel, Chris Carney, and John Barrow, who are determined to keep the bribes from Telecoms flowing their way, no voice carries any weight except for the voice at the polls. There are no plausible opponents for Rockefeller, Steny Hoyer, and Rahm Emanuel in 2008. If Carney loses, as bad as he is, he will lose to a much worse Republican lunatic. That leaves John Barrow. Helping to elect a progressive state Senator, Regina Thomas, who vociferously opposes warrantless wiretaps and retroactive immunity-- and who has made it a key part of her election campaign is the only way to send our congressional employees a message they will hear. There is still a chance to let them know there is a real price to pay for violating our constitutional rights. Please help Regina Thomas this Independence Day weekend. It means at least as much as a parade and a barbecue.


UPDATE: SO HOW DOES THIS IMPACT THE SENATE ON TUESDAY?

The Electronic Frontier Foundation seems optimistic. "With the Senate poised to vote on the FISA Amendments Act and immunity this Tuesday, this decision is particularly timely, as it demolishes key arguments made by proponents of telecom immunity... udge Walker's decision makes clear that Congress is about to pass telecom immunity based on arguments that are just plain wrong. Congress should take the time to look at the facts, rather than be fooled by the myths. It should not to rush to judgment next week. If you haven't already, phone your Senators now and urge them to vote against ending debate on the FISA bill, vote for the amendments to the bill that would strip or weaken the immunity provisions, and vote against final passage of the bill." And the list of myths and facts is absolutely great. Stuff like this:

Myth: The telecoms can't defend themselves in court because of the government's assertion of the state secrets privilege.

Fact: The Al Haramain decision makes clear that the state secrets privilege will not prevent the telecoms from defending themselves, because FISA's evidentiary procedures preempt the privilege. See Opinion at p. 2 ("FISA preempts the state secrets privilege in connection with electronic surveillance for intelligence purposes.")

Myth: It's not fair to punish the telecoms for relying in good faith on the president's authorization to conduct the surveillance, even though it violated FISA.

Fact: In an extended discussion, the Al Haramain decision makes clear-- or rather, shows how clear it already was-- that the President's commander-in-chief powers do not give him the authority to ignore FISA. See Opinion at pp. 10-14, 23 ("[With FISA,] Congress appears clearly to have intended to-- and did-- establish the exclusive means for foreign intelligence surveillance activities to be conducted. Whatever power the executive may otherwise have had in this regard, FISA limits the power of the executive branch to conduct such activities....")

But there is one problem: the pervasive and all powerful Culture of Corruption that IS Washington, DC. You thought we got rid of that with the end of Duke Cunningham, Tom DeLay, Bill Frist, Rick Santorum, Bob Ney and Denny Hastert? Not a chance. Rahm Emanuel, Steny Hoyer, Jay Rockefeller, John Barrow and the rest of the bribe-takers who are adamant about joining the Republican to pass retroactive immunity for their benefactors at the Telecoms, make that crowd look like pikers.

What the heck are they hiding? House Dems move closer to accepting the GOP's frantic cover-up of the Bush regime's electronic-surveillance activities

"It's about finding middle ground, and we have middle ground. It's not going to please everyone, but let's get on with it."

--House Intelligence Committee Chairman Silvestre Reyes, quoted by CongressDaily, on "a Republican-brokered deal to rewrite the nation's electronic surveillance laws" which Reyes "disclosed late Tuesday that he is ready to accept"

"There just isn't enough money at stake to explain this. Nobody's suing for the money, they are suing for the discovery. Something bad happened here and the Democrats are helping the Republicans cover it up."

--Digby, in "FISA Zombie," a post of the CongressDaily article

I wasn't originally going to pass on this CongressDaily article about the new "compromise" on a replacement for the expired FISA laws which Chairman Reyes has now signed on to. I know how complex and technical this whole issue is -- both in its substance and in the politics of it. I know people's hair tends to hurt when they hear mere mention of FISA, not to mention "retroactive telecom immunity."

Then I saw that Digby had posted the CD article, and noted in particular the above paragraph that she appended. As usual, she's got it exactly right.

The crucial "compromise" -- negotiated, curiously, with the ranking Republican, Kit Bond of Missouri [right], on the Senate Intelligence Committee (not that the Democratic chairman, Jay Rockefeller, is any more enlightened on the issue) -- concerns the ever-contentious issue of telecom immunity, which is neither granted nor denied. Instead it is to be determined, in secret of course, by the always-secret FISA court.

As regards the politics of the issue, it's still impossible to know from the CD article where matters stand. If we accept that Chairman Reyes is prepared to sign on to the "compromise," that doesn't mean that either House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer or Speaker Nancy Pelosi is, which means we still don't know what the Democratic leadership position is. It's just not an encouraging step that the Intelligence Committee chairman has decided that the crucial issue is "getting on with it."

But as regards the substance, allowing the telecom companies to get their "get out of jail free" cards in secret means the Bush regime, or whoever is working so hard to make sure that no proper investigation of illegal surveillance ever takes place, have won their case. Because contrary to the usual Republican obfuscation, which has it that FISA-related lawsuits, like most lawsuits, are just money-grubbing opportunities promoted as usual by sleazy lawyer-loving Democrats, as Digby notes, the importance of the FISA lawsuits has nothing to do with money. Such suits may in fact be the only way to force public disclosure of . . . well, whatever the people who are hiding stuff are trying so hard to hide.

Again as Digby notes, "Something bad happened here and the Democrats are helping the Republicans cover it up." And the more ferociously the behind-the-scenes negotiators work to obliterate those lawsuits, the badder we may guess that something is that happened. The working hypothesis has to be that it's so bad, there are people who will do whatever it takes to make sure it never becomes public.

That said, since CongressDaily is a subscription deal, here is the full text of the article:

House Chairman Open To Republican Compromise On FISA
by Chris Strohm

The House Intelligence Committee's top Democrat disclosed late Tuesday that he is ready to accept a Republican-brokered deal to rewrite the nation's electronic surveillance laws, signaling that a long-running congressional impasse could soon be coming to an end.

House Intelligence Chairman Silvestre Reyes told CongressDaily that he is "fine" with language offered by Senate Intelligence ranking member Christopher (Kit) Bond and other Republicans to overhaul the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Notably, the GOP language, which was offered a day before the recent congressional recess, would leave it up to the secret FISA court to grant retroactive legal immunity to telecommunications companies that have helped the Bush administration conduct electronic surveillance on the communications of U.S. citizens without warrants.

About 40 civil lawsuits already have been filed against the companies. The administration, Bond and other Republicans had backed a Senate-passed FISA bill that would have shielded the telecom firms from the lawsuits upon enactment.

"It's about finding middle ground and we have middle ground," Reyes said of the compromise offered by Republicans. "It's not going to please everyone but let's get on with it."

Reyes said he believes enough Democrats will support the proposal to pass it in the House.

But he said House Majority Leader Hoyer told him that House Democratic leaders want to have the liability of the telecoms reviewed in federal district court as opposed to the FISA court.

A senior Reyes aide clarified his boss' positions by saying that while Reyes thinks Bond's proposal is a positive one, he remains supportive of Hoyer's efforts to improve on it.

A FISA reform bill passed by the House earlier this year would have had the cases heard in district court.

Efforts to obtain comment from Hoyer's office were unsuccessful at presstime and Reyes' assertion that the GOP language would pass the House could not be confirmed.

Public interest groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union have criticized the GOP language on the immunity issue, saying it does not empower the FISA court to determine if the administration or the telecom firms broke the law. They say the court review would be too limited to give plantiffs in the lawsuits a fair hearing.

On another issue, the proposed GOP compromise would require the administration to submit its procedures and certifications to the FISA court for review before surveillance could begin, except in exigent circumstances. This would apply to wiretaps involving the communications of a U.S. citizen inside the United States.

Republicans also have said they will accept, for the most part, language from House Democrats making FISA the exclusive means for conducting wiretaps to collect foreign intelligence. House Speaker Pelosi has said that having such language in a final FISA bill is her top priority.

And Republicans have agreed to accept a Democratic demand that the inspectors general of the intelligence agencies conduct audits of the terrorist surveillance program.

The House-passed FISA bill included a provision that would have established an independent commission to investigate the administration's warrantless wiretapping activities.

"We knew we weren't going to get everything, but we need to get this done," Reyes said.

#