You may have seen that the Charles Koch Institute sent an email defending the Kochs’ attempt to size control of the Cato Institute. As one would expect, the Kochs’ describe their lawsuit in self-righteously and sanctimoniously, as a defense of the very rule of law:

….Charles and David are absolutely committed to libertarian principles and the libertarian issues Cato works on. They merely want the integrity of the shares, the original structure that all parties agreed to, upheld and for Cato’s officers and directors to act in a manner consistent with the principles the organization was founded on. As you know, a key principle of libertarianism is recognizing and respecting the rule of law….

For the full text of the email, see Dave Weigel’s Hot, Fresh Koch Damage Control.

The rule of law….as though every shareholder dispute implicates a conflict between law and the alternatives of utter disorder or abject tyranny. That’s simply absurd, but proof of how vainglorious the Kochs have become.

If the Kochs, themselves, are in court, after all, they may be reassured that the rule of law is not in jeopardy. This is a question of a contractual interpretation under the law, and a larger question about what’s right for libertarianism.

Claiming that the primacy of law itself is endangered begs these questions: are the Kochs so grandiose that they believe their own rhetoric, or do they think everyone else is so stupid as to to believe it?

Those who seek to subordinate the Cato Institute to the political interests of Americans for Prosperity, for example, may call themselves libertarians, but it’s a hollow, incredible claim.

Posted originally on 3.7.12 at Daily Adams.

Bob Levy, current chairman of Cato, describes a conversation with David Koch:

In early November, David Koch met with Bob Levy, chairman of Cato’s board of directors, at Dulles International Airport. They were joined by Richard Fink, Koch’s chief adviser, and Kevin Gentry, a vice president of Charles Koch’s charitable foundation who’d been put on Cato’s board of directors. (Former Americans for Prosperity President Nancy Pfotenhauer had joined the board after the same meeting.)

“They said that a principle goal was to defeat Barack Obama,” remembered Levy. “The way David [Koch] put it was, ‘We would like you to provide intellectual ammunition that we can then use at Americans for Prosperity and our allied organizations.’ AFP and others would apply Cato’s work to advance their electoral goals.”

Levy asked them: “What gives you the impression that [Cato isn’t] providing intellectual ammunition?” He says now: “I never got a satisfactory answer. The only answer that makes sense was that Cato needed to be more responsive to their needs. We would take closer marching orders. That’s totally contrary to what we perceive the function of Cato be.”

Americans for Prosperity, by the way, has an upcoming rally that Rep. Michele Bachmann and Sen. Pat Toomey will headline.

You may have supposed that Bachmann and Toomey were something other than libertarian, and if you thought that, you were right.

They are something different — they’re called Republicans.

The Kochs might have built a new Republican-friendly institute, but instead chose to take an existing libertarian one and twist it into a servile, GOP-friendly paper-mill.

Cheaper, to be sure, but antithetical to an honest and independent libertarianism.

Posted originally on 3.7.12 at Daily Adams.

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.