There’s deep sadness, but little surprise, in watching prominent libertarians come slowly and ruefully to the conclusion that Charles & David Koch’s attempt to seize control of the Cato Institute is a bad thing. So many of these gentlemen (outside of Cato) approach the topic hesitantly, cautiously.

That hesitation and caution is an embarrassment: the Kochs’ destructive scheming deserves a firm, clear response free of qualifications, caveats, and conditions.

Be clear: the Kochs’ complete control would transform Cato from the finest, independent libertarian institution in the world to a partisan paper-mill for their narrow, increasingly reactionary agenda.

That’s what’s at stake. It’s that simple.

If it should be difficult for some libertarians to say as much, then they’ve not the strength to represent the liberty-movement. Men and women who grow reticent when discussing Charles & David Koch are not men and women who serve a movement committed to protecting vulnerable people from the power of over-reaching government. If the scheming, manipulative Kochs seem too much, then what hope do these people have against a scheming, manipulative state?

Quoted at length in a Volokh Conspiracy post, Cato’s Jerry Taylor ably refutes the Kochs’ flimsy lies about their intentions for Cato.

Consider, from his refutation, the kind of men the Kochs have fought to place on Cato’s board:

This is at odds with both the words and deeds of the Koch brothers of late. Last year, they used their shares to place two of their operatives – Kevin Gentry and Nancy Pfotenhauer – on our board against the wishes of every single board member save for David Koch. Last Thursday, they used their shares to force another four new board members on us (the most that their shares would allow at any given meeting); Charles Koch, Ted Olson (hired council for Koch Industries), Preston Marshall (the largest shareholder of Koch Industries save for Charles and David), and Andrew Napolitano (a frequent speaker at Koch-sponsored events). Those four – who had not previously been involved with Cato either financially or organizationally – were likewise opposed by every member of our board save for Gentry, Pfotenhauer, and David Koch.

To make room for these Koch operatives, we were forced to remove four long-time, active board members, two of whom were our biggest donors. At this moment, the Kochs now control seven of our 16 board seats, two short of outright control.

Why are they forcing out Cato board members, all strong, principled libertarians who have been heavily involved with Cato – financially and organizationally – for years? The answer was given in early November of last year when David Koch, Richard Fink (he of many Koch hats), and Kevin Gentry met with Cato board chairman Bob Levy. They told Bob that they intended to use their board majority to remove Ed Crane from Cato and transform our Institute into an intellectual ammo-shop for American for Prosperity and other allied (presumably, Koch-controlled) organizations. That statement of intent is certainly consistent with what we’ve been hearing from both Kevin Gentry and Nancy Pfotenauer. They’ve frequently complained during their short time on our board that Cato wasn’t doing enough to defeat President Obama in November and that we weren’t working closely enough with grass roots activists like those at AFP.

(It’s worth noting that Americans for Prosperity would be nothing — not grass roots, but dead shoots — without the Kochs’ money. It is what they are.)

All of this has been a longtime coming. Charles and David seek change through the conservative front-group, AFP. In so doing, AFP has changed them, whetting their appetites, and completing their metamorphosis from libertarians to self-interested reactionaries.

Pretending that they don’t see that they’d ruin Cato is absurd: they don’t give a damn about a nonpartisan reputation. They want an instrument of their will.

The Kochs have done good work in the past; it does not absolve them of their bad acts in the present.

Posted originally on 3.6.12 at Daily Adams.

Over at the Volokh Conspiracy, Jonathon Adler’s March 2nd Post, Koch v. Cato, describes the inevitable consequence of a Koch-controlled Cato Institute:

Whatever the merits of the Kochs’ claim, I cannot understand how their actions can, in any way, advance the cause of individual liberty to which they’ve devoted substantial sums and personal efforts over the years. Even assuming their legal claim has merit, a legal victory will permanently injure the Cato Institute’s reputation.

Many libertarian-leaning organizations receive money from the Kochs and their foundations and are attacked on this basis. Such attacks can be deflected, as financial support is not the same thing as control. But if the Koch brothers themselves represent the controlling majority of an organization’s board, that organization is, by definition, a Koch-run enterprise. Progressive activists and journalists will have a field day with this.
They will forevermore characterize the Cato Institute as “Koch-controlled” — and, as a legal matter, they will be correct. No efforts to re-establish the Institute’s credibility or independence will overcome this fact….

….any benefit from whatever changes they could make will be outweighed to the permanent damage to Cato’s reputation caused by turning it into a de facto Koch subsidiary. In short, they will have destroyed the Cato Institute to save it.

Adler’s right, of course, but he’s much too mild: the Kochs have let slip their libertarianism for a more conventional conservatism through their control of organizations like American for Prosperity. We should be well beyond the point of thinking the Kochs are traditionally libertarian.

In their efforts to control Cato they they’ve completed a transformation — years ago begun — from libertarians to conservatives, and manipulative and domineering ones at that.

See, previously, The Kochs Sue to Control the Cato Institute.

Posted originally on 3.6.12 at Daily Adams.

Since 1977, the Cato Institute has been America’s chief libertarian think tank. Cato had four shareholder-founders: Ed Crane, Charles Koch, George Pearson, and William Niskanen. Following Niskanen’s death last fall, there’s been an ongoing, behind-the-scenes controversy about what would happen to Niskanen’s shares in the organization.

Would the shares go to his widow, or does billionaire Charles Koch have a right to purchase them (if Cato does not or cannot)? Charles Koch has been at odds with Crane’s non-partisan philosophy for Cato, so the ownership of the shares is consequential.

If the Kochs had more shares, they would control Cato, and could take it in any direction they wanted. Cato would likely look more like Charles & David Koch’s Americans for Prosperity, an avowedly partisan and conservative organization.

In the fall, just about everyone in the libertarian movement knew that the Kochs would try to use Niskanen’s death to wrest control of Cato from Crane. This conflict been a long-time coming. Talk of behind-the-scenes (now failed) discussions on Cato’s future has been widespread.

The Kochs are now suing to determine who has the right to Niskanen’s shares.

Here’s Crane’s statement on the Kochs’ lawsuit:

Charles G. Koch has filed a lawsuit as part of an effort to gain control of the Cato Institute, which he co-founded with me in 1977. While Mr. Koch and entities controlled by him have supported the Cato Institute financially since that time, Mr. Koch and his affiliates have exercised no significant influence over the direction or management of the Cato Institute, or the work done here.

Mr. Koch’s actions in Kansas court yesterday represent an effort by him to transform Cato from an independent, nonpartisan research organization into a political entity that might better support his partisan agenda. We view Mr. Koch’s actions as an attempt at a hostile takeover, and intend to fight it vehemently in order to continue as an independent research organization, advocating for Individual liberty, limited government, free markets and peace.

For more about the Kochs’ lawsuit, see the Washington Post and the court documents in the case.

Writing at Slate, David Weigel describes what’s at stake:

And so, with libertarianism at its modern apex, the Kochs are trying to wrestle the movement’s leading think tank away from the guy [Ed Crane] who built it up. (Literally. They just completed a renovation.)

More to come.

Posted originally on 3.2.12 at Daily Adams.