When I reported my article on the flood of private campaign money that is washing away the traditional party system, I focused on the what and the how. But the why is also fascinating. What drives billionaires, who could do anything with their money, to engage in the frustrating work of politics? Certainly you could argue — and many do — that the engagement is entirely a matter of personal gain. But if you listen to Tom Steyer, who has dedicated more than $50 million of his own money to electing Democrats this fall, or Charles and David Koch, whose Americans for Prosperity is expected to spend more than $125 million on Republican candidates and policies this fall, you will hear a more philosophical story. Here, in their own words, are the worldviews that motivate them. The Steyer quotes are from my own recent interviews. In the case of the Kochs, who did not agree to be interviewed, I have cited various public statements.
On the role of government
Tom Steyer: The reason you have a government is: A community decides that they are a community and they have common needs and they should be organized in order to solve those. And you have a democracy so that you get the answer that the most people agree with. That’s the theory; that is not bad. If you don’t believe in community, you don’t believe we have common interests with other people, then, you know, it’s fine to imagine that we’re really all living in caves, and when we go outside it’s completely fair to hit each other over the head with clubs and then, you know, cook us for dinner. [But] that’s not actually how American society has achieved the things that it has achieved.
Charles Koch: In many ways, our vision for Koch Industries reflects the genius of America’s founders, who took a very different course from what was normal in Western Europe 240 years ago. As they saw it, the job of government was not to protect people from themselves or control their lives; it was to establish freedom so people could live their lives as they thought best, reaping the rewards or suffering the negative consequences of their own actions. As Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are inalienable rights that we already have, not something a government can presume to give us. Thus the founders did not propose a government to deliver or guarantee happiness (a hopeless cause, however well-intended), but one that would be limited enough to allow people to pursue happiness for themselves. (From Discovery, the Koch Industries newsletter, Jan. 31, 2014)
On the tragedy of the commons
Charles Koch: The biggest problems in society have occurred in those areas thought to be best controlled in common: the atmosphere, bodies of water, air, streets, the body politic and human virtue. They all reflect aspects of the “tragedy of the commons” and function much better when methods are devised to give them characteristics of private property. … Clear, dependable property rights that allow individuals to enjoy the benefits of ownership while bearing the full costs of their actions are the solution to the tragedy of the commons. (From “The Science of Success: How Market-Based Management Built the World’s Largest Private Company,” by Charles Koch)
Tom Steyer: Any level playing field involves people paying for their pollution. It’s Econ 101. There is no econ course in the world that doesn’t include the Tragedy of the Commons. That if there are societal goods that people don’t charge for, people overuse them, including pollution. And I like to say: “If my garbage-collection company is allowed to take all the garbage from your house and Heather’s house and Bobby’s house and Ted’s house and dump it in the Kochs’ front yard, I can have a really cheap price and still make a lot of money.” But I’m assuming they wouldn’t like that.
Can government subsidize an alternative to oil and coal?
Charles Koch: Our elected officials would do well to remember that the most prosperous countries are those that allow consumers — not governments — to direct the use of resources. Allowing the government to pick winners and losers hurts almost everyone, especially our poorest citizens. (Discovery, March 1, 2011)
Tom Steyer: A subsidy is just an attempt to do a reverse tax, right? … It’s the flip side of the same thing. You’re trying to get a level playing field. I agree with [the Kochs], that’s not the best way to do it, but it’s an attempt to take care of a market imperfection.
How do your personal stakes in fossil fuel industries square with your political agendas?
Tom Steyer [who says he is now divested from his oil and coal holdings]: I actually went through and felt like: O.K., we have new information, and there’s a reason not to do this. And, in particular, there’s a reason for me not to do this. So, do I regret not knowing something before I knew it? No. If you don’t know it, what are you supposed to do? If I had known it earlier, would I have acted earlier? Yes. But I didn’t.
Charles Koch: Striving to comply with every law does not mean agreeing with every law. But even when faced with laws we think are counterproductive, we must first comply. Only then, from a credible position, can we enter into a dialogue with regulatory agencies to demonstrate alternatives that are more beneficial. If these efforts fail, we can then join with others in using education and/or political efforts to change the law. (“The Science of Success”)
What is your ultimate goal?
Tom Steyer: Our mission is to act politically to prevent climate disaster and preserve American prosperity.
Charles Koch: I want my legacy to be greater freedom, greater prosperity and a better way of life for my family, our employees and all Americans. And I wish the same for every nation on earth. (Discovery, July 1, 2012)