Clif Hostetler's Reviews > Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right [Audio]

Dark Money by Jane Mayer
Rate this book
Clear rating

by
793473
's review

really liked it
bookshelves: current-events

This book shines a light on dark money. It’s called dark money because it is of unknown origin (i.e. secret), unlimited in its amount, intended for political purposes, and in the United States it’s legal and often tax deductible. This book based on thorough research turns the darkness into a bit lighter shade of dark.

The conservative shift in American politics, and its continuing movement toward the radical right didn’t just happen. This book makes it clear that it was paid for by wealthy interests. These payments were made via circuitous channels designed to obscure their origin and encourage the impression that the changes were grass-root in their origin.

This book follows the trajectory of political influence of Charles and David Koch, the wealthy owners of Koch Industries, the second largest privately held company in the United States. Over the past thirty years they have helped finance and organize an interlocking network of think tanks, academic programs and news media outlets that far exceeds anything the liberal opposition could manage.

By the midterm elections of 2010 the Republicans dominated state legislatures, controlled a clear majority of the governorships, taken one chamber of Congress, and were on their way to winning the other. But even more significant is that many of these Republicans were not middle-of-the-road pragmatists. Uncoincidentally they were antigovernment libertarians of Kochs’ own political stripe. From the perspective of those who oppose these changes they are nothing less than a hijack of American democracy.

The author Jane Mayer spent five years working on Dark Money, which began with an article she published in The New Yorker in 2010. Research for this book was done without the cooperation of Charles or David Koch nor many others in their network of funders. But she has obviously used what sources were available to connect the available clues to determine how their money had been used. In the end Dark Money appears to be well written and thoroughly documented.

The so-called Tea Party loomed larger than their numbers would have otherwise over national news because of the influence of dark money.
If the estimates were correct the actual number of hard core Tea Party activist was not by historical standards all that large. But the professionalization of the underground infrastructure, the growth of sympathetic and in some cases subsidized media outlets, and the concentrated money pushing the message from the fringe to center stage were truly consequential.
Toward the end of the book the rise of the influence of the Koch brothers is summarized in the following quotation:
Charles Koch's trajectory had been a longer climb, but it was hard not to marvel about how far he too had come from the days when he had haunted the John Birch Society Book Store in Wichita and teetered with the Freedom School and the Libertarian Party on the outermost fringe of political irrelevance. The force of his will combined with his fortune had made him one of the most formidable in modern American politics. Few had waged a more relentless or more effective assault on American's belief in government. He and his brother had built and financed a private political machine that had helped cripple a twice elected Democratic president and begun to supplant the Republican Party. Educational institutions and think tanks all over the country promoted his world view. Doubling as a talent pipeline, a growing fleet of non-profit groups mobilized public opinion behind his agenda. The groups trained candidates and provided the technological and financial assistance necessary to run state-of-the-art campaigns. The money they could put behind their chosen candidates was seemingly limitless. Congressmen, senators, and presidential hopefuls now flocked to their secret seminars like supplicants eager to please them in hopes of earning their support.

Interesting story about what happened to Mayer when her subjects found out she was on to them:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/27/nyr...
Here's a report of political spending for 2015 (nearly 1 billion before one vote was cast):
http://billmoyers.com/story/candidate...

Link to a list of groups created and sustained by Koch Family Foundations


47 likes · flag

Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read Dark Money.
Sign In »

Reading Progress

January 25, 2016 – Started Reading
January 25, 2016 – Shelved
February 1, 2016 – Finished Reading

Comments Showing 1-7 of 7 (7 new)

dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Richard (new)

Richard The New Yorker's "Politics and More" podcast interviewed the author on the same topic that your New York Times link is about — how she discovered the Koch brothers were apparently investigating (and trying to smear) her:

• Stream from the New Yorker
Stream or download from WNYC radio
Get it on iTunes


Clif Hostetler Richard wrote: "The New Yorker's "Politics and More" podcast interviewed the author on the same topic that your New York Times link is about — how she discovered the Koch brothers were apparently investigating (an..."

Interesting podcast! Thanks Richard.


message 3: by Jim (last edited Dec 29, 2016 09:56AM) (new)

Jim Thank you, Clif, for the notice on this book. For the relatively disinterested (me) the title gives fair warning regards the author's orientation. She uses the word Dark and you use unknown and secret to mean private , thus tipping your respective hands.

Of all the commentators that I've read, only Steinem (in her recent, excellent memoir) actually gives a credible instance of unequal money tipping an election - that of Senator Danforth who narrowly won an election which was polled "tied" pre-election.

The authors of Freakonomics cautioned something that most journalists seem not to understand - that correlation does not prove causation (more on them and college professors below). The context of that caution is that it seems at least as likely that attractive candidates, likely to be elected for that quality, attract more money.

I don't recall whether these economists actually did the work to objectively confirm the notion, but it is nearly certain that journalists do not, either - especially since most seem not to detect a fallacious number of zeros in the figures they swallow and print.

Still, if for nothing else, knowing even a little cherrypicked background behind "Dark Money" seems entertaining.

More broadly, extending beyond elections, the rightward shift in the American electorate might be explained by many factors beyond:

an interlocking network of think tanks, academic programs and news media outlets that far exceeds anything the liberal opposition could manage.

I'll close with a rock-solid, perhaps even legitimate, statistic that has persisted since our births in America (and long before that). I'll pose it as a question:

Name two professions that readily (and collectively) admit to voting Democrat by 70%-90%.

If your answered "journalists and college professors" you get a Gold Star!


Clif Hostetler Jim wrote: "...If your answered "journalists and college professors" you get a Gold Star! ..."

Journalists and college professors are generally intelligent and well informed. Maybe their voting patterns are a product of their insight into the issues.


message 5: by Richard (new)

Richard A 2009 Pew study revealed that only 6% of scientists are members of the GOP and only 9% self-identify as "conservative".
Doesn't it seem curious that those whose careers specialize in seeking out information about the world skew heavily progressive?

Fwiw, this tool lets you plug in a job title and see how those self-reporting it contributed during the 2012/14 election cycles. Some curiosities are in there. For example, "Computer scientists" are overwhelmingly liberal, "Software engineers" a bit less so, while "Electronics Engineers" are split almost evenly and "Electrical Engineers" are significantly conservative.


message 6: by Jim (new)

Jim Clif,

I hoped you would see the confirmation bias hinted at by the adjectives "dark "unknown" and "secret" used in the title and your commentary. Does this not indicate the author's (and your) "slant"?

Journalists and college professors are generally intelligent and well informed.

In my opinion (not so objective or reliable as the fact that they have reported as Democrat for many decades) I'd estimate that at least 75% have would test above the norm for intelligence. The latter is likely to be verifiable.

"Well informed" is another matter - tough to estimate but perhaps objectively "verified" somewhere. No matter, my conjecture (admittedly a correlation) is that academics pass on their general political beliefs to journalism students. This may be at least weakly causative in that the ocean of ink used by journalists overwhemlingly occurs after their academic imprinting.

Considering the sheer population and ubiquity of journalists and college professors, do you really believe that that "interlocking network" could hold a candle to journalists and professors? If you were really interested in this question you could confirm it using column inches, broadcast minutes, barrels of ink (in the last century), relative populations (perhaps someone has).

On to the thesis - without some kind of objective measurement, Ms. Mayer's effort amounts to a conspiracy theory. Not, I hasten to add, that her digging is incorrect, but the cause-and-effect assertion is tenuous.


message 7: by Jim (last edited Dec 30, 2016 03:21PM) (new)

Jim Richard,

Thanks for the link to that Pew Study - which has some significant weight (thud factor, anyway, if printed, and tossed onto a table). That will serve for some interesting reading.

The "tool" is interesting. I tried a few key words:

Key Word - DEM/GOP/OTHER (%)

Journalist - 80/19/1
College Professor 84/16/1 (even "worse") : - }
Chemistry Professor 90/9/1 ("worse" yet) ; - }
Law Professor 91/not specified
Physics Professor 96/not specified (OMG!) : {


(maybe that's why I dropped Physics in favor of a BSEE - now I'm wondering about the sample)

(OK, I'm a lazy reader - sample is limited to those who openly donated to a federal political campaign and gave an occupation)

(and further limited to those who donated "at least 50 contributions over the last two cycles "

(this is unlike I, who give NPR an envelope of cash - because I don't want them to call, write, or spam me)

Businessman 32/67/1
Engineering Consultant 41/59/0 (note that most consultants are private sector)
Engineer (the "main four) range = 34-46/53-64/1-2
EE/ChE/ME/CE - EE most DEM, CE least DEM

TWP gave a link to the FEC - raw data - far more satisfying than a journalist cherrypicking and selling bound baskets of cherries.


back to top