My post exposing The Smoking Gun on the Koch Brothers Money Trail has had an interesting reaction from the left has been simultaneously disappointing and typical.
Basically, they think the charts that show conclusively that labor unions give WAY WAY WAY more money to politics than the new liberal boogeymen brothers are "misleading." (duh)
I haven't had too much in the way of an explanation of how this is true until today from a new liberal pal of mine on Twitter, who spoke up saying, "you mean THIS gun?" ↓
I apparently overlooked the individual donations of the Kochs, which are separate from Koch Industries. Not realizing this would be such a game changer to the big picture, I went ahead and rolled the individual contriubution amounts into the $11,002,235 kicked in by Koch Industries over the last 21 years that ranks them 83 out of 140 on the all-time donor list.
The new number is $13,845,380, which SKYROCKETS them ALLLLLLLL the way up to 61! Did you feel the G's on that one?
That new ranking changes virtually nothing, it would place Koch Industries ahead of a bunch of corporation, and only 3 unions.
Even if that kind of comingling of funds doesn't make sense, liberals still have to grapple with the hypocrisy of complaining about the Kochs contributing $2,843,145 to the political process over a 21 year period when the left's most photogenic billionaire ally, George Soros, spent more than one-third that ammount on ONE California ballot proposition in 2010 ALONE.
Then my friend sent me this chart ↓ ....
...which to the naked eye for the liberal guy looks like the Koch's spent triple what the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees spent in 2010, and that they actually started spending more than them starting in 2006.
Look at the scale on the "TOTALS" axis. In 2010 Koch industries spent about $2 million, the AFSCME spent almost 3 million. The comparisons just get worse from there, because 2010 was a record breaking year for the Koch's. Meanwhile, the AFSCME spent that and THEN some (especially in 2000 and 2002) EVERY YEAR but 1990.
So....I'm still trying to figure out what my liberal friend was trying to "show and tell" me. That he doesn't understand numbers? He doesn't know how to read charts?
Or maybe he was just trying to concede that I'm still right?