There should be a cap on campaign spending in elections
By Charles Adams | Nov. 12, 2013This past week my mother forwarded a link to an article published in The New York Times. She did not mention anything about the content of the article besides the fact that it was about the Koch Brothers funding political advertisements. I expected to read about the Koch brothers paying for advertisements in a gubernatorial election or a mayoral race in a large city. After all, these two brothers are notorious for lucratively funding conservative political action committees, and they were the second largest contributors to Gov. Scott Walker’s campaign for governor in 2010. To my surprise, this article had nothing to with the gubernatorial election in Virginia or the mayoral election in New York. Rather, this article was about city council elections in Coralville, Iowa. The article detailed how Americans for Prosperity, a political action committee largely funded by the Koch Brothers, had become involved in these races. In a town of approximately 20,000 people, the two Koch brothers, each valued at $36 billion, were trying to influence the election with their money. This was shocking to me. Typically, these elections are not highly contested and they normally go unpublicized. This changed with the Koch brothers. Outside help was being brought in to run candidate campaigns and candidates were being forced to change their platforms. One candidate had planned a campaign on smaller issues such as painting the water tower. However, after Americans for Prosperity came to town, everything changed. Central debates of the campaign were shifted toward issues that pertained to Koch Brothers’ business interests. To me, the Koch brothers’ goal was clear. As much as they tried to disguise their intentions, it was clear control was the end goal. They wished to control government and create policies favorable to their interests. Apparently, no election is too small to buy.



