Corporate Power in 2012: A Case Study of Koch Industries

1

Table of Contents

Section 1—Introduction........................................................................................................ 2

Section 2—Koch Money in Politics....................................................................................42.1 Background.................................................................................................................................. 42.2. Analysis of Congressional Contributions..........................................................................62.3 Lobbying Expenditures.......................................................................................................... 10

Section 3—Koch Chief Executives and Corporate Leadership...............................133.1 Background and History In the Corporate Sphere.......................................................133.2 Outside of the Corporate Sphere........................................................................................15

Section 4—Corporate Strength........................................................................................16

Section 6—Conclusion......................................................................................................... 18

Section 7—Works Cited...................................................................................................... 20

2

Section 1—Introduction

Politics has always been a money game; those with the most money have

always had an edge over their less wealthy competitors. However, following the

2010 Supreme Court decision in Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission,

which threw out part of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) the

influence of money in politics was exponentially increased since the ruling struck

down regulations on political spending as a violation of free speech and sparked the

creation of political action committees (PACs). Different corporations have

responded in different ways to the removal of limits on their involvement in politics,

but those that have received the most media attention are those using the Citizens

United ruling to funnel millions of dollars into elections deemed favorable to them.

While it is prohibitively difficult to pinpoint or define the groups that benefitted

most from the Citizens United decision, it is possible to examine those that are most

notoriously taking advantage of the ruling since they cast a greater shadow.

However, it is important to note that not all corporate spending in the

political arena is related to the election of particular candidates. Since corporate

actions exist within a sphere of government regulation and influence, a large

amount of corporate spending is also directed towards a more direct advancement

of their economic interests in the form of lobbying or other support for particular

policies or bills, often with very distant, but nonetheless significant links to a

corporation’s economic interests. Furthermore, it makes no sense to discount the

influence of non-economic measures, such as ownership, in tracking and defining

3

spheres of corporate influence. In fact, all of these different variables come together

in a complex ways in order to piece together a picture of corporate power and

influence.

All major corporations have some influence on society, political, socially or

economically, so labeling one corporation as particularly influential is simply to

make a statement of relative degree of this influence. Moreover, since the specific

nature of a particular corporation’s relationship to the rest of society differs vastly

from that of another corporation, it is necessary, for the sake of specificity and

completeness, to examine structures of corporate power on a case by case basis.

While there are certainly generalizations that can be made, rarely, if ever, do all of

these generations apply in their entirety to any particular corporation due to unique

organizational or managerial styles, ownership, market share, political or economic

interests etc.

Although, following the financial crisis of 2008, many corporations have

become household names. Yet, despite their notoriety, for the most part, discussion

of these corporations remains one for dinner table political conversations. While

people may curse the name of Goldman Sachs, or AIG, it takes a special kind of

corporation to be the not-so-subtle subject of a Will Ferrell and Zach Galifianakis

satire film. Neither Goldman, AIG, nor any of other players in the 2008 financial

crisis were featured, and yet, Wichita, Kansas based corporation, Koch Industries

managed to be the antagonists of the 2012 film “The Campaign.” In the film,

brothers Glen and Wade Motch, modeled after brothers David and Charles Koch,

attempt to use their seemingly inexhaustible wealth to determine the results of a

4

North Carolinian congressional race in order to further their own economic

interests. The comparison is so unsubtle that leading actor Zach Galifianakis openly

admitted in a Daily News interview that “[he] think[s] it is pretty obvious that the

Motch brothers represent the Koch brothers” (Daily News, 2012). While Charles

Colton may have been correct when he said, “imitation is the sincerest form of

flattery,” Hollywood satire is much more negative, and there is no doubt that Charles

and David Koch weren’t terrible flattered by John Lithgow and Dan Aykroyds’

portrayals of them.

This essay will comprise of a holistic analysis of Koch Industries in which the

political contributions, leadership and relative strength will be examined in order to

construct an understanding of the role of Koch Industries that elucidates structures

of corporate power in their relationship to the rest of society.

Section 2—Koch Money in Politics

2.1 BackgroundIf Koch Industries was uniquely the target of Hollywood satire, it seems to

follow that there are similarly unique features of Koch industries that serve as

justification, legitimate or otherwise, for such critique. In light of such corporate

individuality, this essay will focus its discussion of corporate actions and influence

to a particular corporation, Koch Industries. Koch Industries, founded in 1940 by

Fred Koch, is a multinational conglomerate with business in Petroleum (Primary),

Farming and Agriculture, Pulp and Paper, Fiber, Resin and Intermediates. Aside

from being the United State’s second largest private corporation, Koch industries is

5

ranked 76th on The Center For Responsive Politics Open Secrets list of individual

corporate donors since 1990, having spent a total of $14,057,348 on political

campaigns (OpenSecrets). Furthermore, Koch Spending is not merely on

contributions for indirect purposes, but also they have spent $71,412,700 in the

same period of time lobbying congress on bills, almost exclusively in relation to

energy policy (which will be discussed in more depth later)(OpenSecrets).

Table 2.1: Koch Campaign/Lobbying Expenditures Since 1990

Year $ Spent On Lobbying $ Spent on Campaigns2012 $7,800,000 $2,577,1132011 $8,360,000 02010 $8,070,000 $2,174,3632009 $12,450,000 02008 $20,023,000 $1,964,0642007 $5,068,750 02006 $3,968,750 $1,511,8552005 $2,185,000 02004 $857,200 $847,7722003 $610,000 02002 $840,000 $1,454,6762001 $500,000 02000 $240,000 $1,074,9061999 $240,000 01998 $200,000 $1,013,0801997 N/A 01996 N/A $843,5701995 N/A 01994 N/A $404,5591993 N/A 01992 N/A $152,1901991 N/A 01990 N/A $39,200

TOTAL $71,412,700 $14,057,348

In the 2012 campaign cycle, Koch Industries gained particular notoriety due

to a pledge on the part of brothers David and Charles Koch to donate $400 million to

political campaigns in order to aid (mostly) republic candidates in their bids for

reelection and to aid in the similar goal of preventing the (re)election of democratic

6

candidates, particularly president Barack Obama (Allen & VandeHei, 2012). In the

election cycle, Koch industries itself gave approximately $2,577,113 in campaign

contributions, to 197 different candidates, making it one of the most significant

corporate players in the 2012 elections (OpenSecrets).

If there is one rule that be applied to any successful corporation, public or

private, it is that one cannot spend money frivolously and remain competitive in the

free-market. Thus, it seems logical that there must be a concrete explanation behind

the large financial investment of Koch industries in the 2012 election cycle. The

necessary first step for any examination of Koch Industries’ political involvement is

the determination of its political goals and interests. However, due to the complex

nature of both inter-corporate and American politics defining such ends can prove

to be extremely difficult when the numerous agenda’s and motivations of each actor

are taken into account. In the case of Koch Industries, such complexity is magnified

since, although many corporations are limited in the nature and scope of their

political contributions by the presence of shareholders, Koch’s status as a private

company gives it more freedom than its publically traded counterparts. Thus in

order to attempt to pinpoint Koch’s political interests, it is important to examine the

pattern of donations in relation to the beliefs, committee membership and voting

records of candidates who received the most financial support. Once these data are

compiled it then becomes possible to construct a fairly accurate picture Koch’s

political agendas by cross-referencing donations with the political affiliation and

records of recipients.

7

2.2. Analysis of Congressional Contributions

At the highest level, any analysis of contribution data would show a clear

Republican favoritism in Koch donations. For example, in the current election cycle,

the total of $2,177,313 in direct financial contributions to federal political

campaigns, $2,132,101 or 98% was given to Republican candidates (OpenSecrets).

There are two possibly explanations for such an action either (a) the chief

executives of Koch Industries, Charles and David Koch, are ideologically positioned

in such a way that would make them more inclined to support conservative

candidates regardless of corporate interests or (b) the stance taken by republican

candidates aligns more closely to the economic interests of Koch Industries and its

subsidiaries. While (a) is almost certainly true, as the Koch brothers are self-

admitted longtime libertarians (New Yorker, 2010), such a position would only

explain the lack of contribution to Democratic candidates but not explain the reason

for Koch’s hefty political involvement.

Moving down from general into specific, data obtained via OpenSecrets

shows the specific interests of the Koch industries by examining contribution

distribution in congress in relation to committee membership and seems to lend

further support to the thesis that Koch’s political contributions follow a set of

concrete economic interests. Given Koch Industry’s involvement in the energy

sector it comes as little surprise that Koch’s donations to members of the House

Energy and Commerce committee, totaling $291,750, more than double their total

contribution to the members of any other congressional committee. This trend in

donation continues when data from other committees in considered, for instance

8

the House Financial Services committee was the second largest recipient ($135,353)

and in the Senate the top recipient was the Committee on Health, Education and

Labor ($35,250) followed closely by the Energy Committee ($34,000) (Open

Secrets). Although specific donation amounts will vary based on who is due for

reelection (probably one of the reasons why substantially less money was spent in

the senate), the data shows a general trend towards interests in issues of energy and

market regulation; a trend which becomes even more concrete as data concerning

specific candidates and legislation is examined.

Table 1.2.1 Contributions by Committee- House Totals, Top 5

Committee Total Democrats RepublicansEnergy/Commerce $346,750 $16,000 $330,750

Govt Reform $184,250 $0 $184,250

Financial Svcs $164,353 $0 $164,353

Resources $154,750 $2,000 $152,750

Ways & Means $140,000 $1,000 $139,000

Table 2.2.2 Contributions by Committee-Senate Totals, Top 5

Committee Total Democrats RepublicansHealth/Ed/Labor $35,250 $0 $35,250

Energy $34,000 $1,000 $33,000

Armed Svcs $32,500 $0 $32,500

Finance $31,250 $0 $31,250

Vet Affairs $30,000 $0 $30,000

If party and committee donations can help to unveil the political interests of

Koch Industries, examining specific candidates and the legislation and amendments

that they propose can tear the mask right off. Unsurprisingly, considering Koch

Industries headquarters in Wichita, Kansas and focus in the energy sector, the top

9

recipient of Koch money in Congress has been Kansas Republican and member of

the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mike Pompeo ($90,000), followed by Texas

Republican and member of the House of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Pete

Olson ($35,000). Pompeo, who represents the congressional district in which Koch

Industries is headquartered, is probably the most visible sign on Koch influence on

the 2012 election cycle, having consistently backed legislated to loosen

environmental regulation on the emission of greenhouse gases and was one of the

sponsors of the Stop the War on Coal Act which would reduce EPA regulative

authority to allow for increased carbon emission. Moreover, Pompeo has sponsored

legislation to eliminate funding for a database cataloguing consumer complaints

about unsafe products and an Environmental Protection Agency registry of

greenhouse-gas polluters, both of which Olson has supported, and represent top

legislative priorities for Koch industries based on disclosure records which indicate

Koch has spent $37 million on lobbying for these and similar amendments since

2008.

Obtaining support in Congress is only one part of Koch Industries’

involvement in politics; they also have shown a definite interest in the 2012

presidential election, giving $38,450 to Republican challenger Mitt Romney with an

additional $30,800,720 spent by Koch affiliated PAC, Americans for Prosperity, on

anti-Obama measures (OpenSecrets). Once again, Koch’s financial involvement in

the Romney Campaign can be linked to concrete interests in energy and corporate

policy. Not only is Obama an advocate of tighter corporate regulation and

investment in alternative energy, but also Romney’s own energy policy emphasizes

10

energy independence, which, considering Koch’s presence in the North American

energy sector, would be economically beneficial to Koch Industries as it would

remove foreign competition from the markets and hence increase their market

share (Romney Platform).

2.3 Lobbying Expenditures

Having examined political contributions, the still un-elucidated category of

political expenditure is congressional lobbying. To avoid overly redundant and so as

not to lose focus of the purpose of the examination, I have chosen to limit my

discussion to the Koch’s most lobbied bill each year over the years 2009-2012. The

immediately obvious way to rank bills is via amount spent on lobbying per bill,

however, such information is unavailable as neither Koch nor lobbying agencies are

required the disclose information related to per-bill expenditure, only the size and

existence of the contract itself. Thus, as an alternative to expenditure based ranking,

I have selected to use the number of Koch-sponsored reports on each bill as a

method of ranking for the reason that, logically, it seems to follow that Koch would

issue the most reports on bills most closely related to their interests1, a summary of

this data is presented in Table 2.3 below:

Table 2.3- Bills Most Frequently Lobbied 2009-2012

1 In 2011, the most lobbied bill was actually H.R. 901, however it was omitted in favor of the second most lobbied bill, H.R. 910

to avoid data repetition that would have failed to elucidate Koch political interest.

11

Bill Number

Year Bill TitleNo. of

ReportsKoch's

SupportStatus

H.R.901 2012

Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism

Security Authorization Act of

2011

10 OpposedIn House

Committee

H.R.910 2011Energy Tax

Prevention Act of 2011

9 In Favor Passed House.

H.R.2868 2010Chemical and Water Security Act of 2009

15 OpposedPassed House

and Senate

H.R.2454 2009American Clean

Energy and Security Act of 2009

25 Opposed Failed

H.R. 901— Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Security Authorization Act/ H.R.2868— Chemical and Water Security Act of 2009

In 2009, congress passed the Chemical and Water Security Act (H.R. 2868),

which required facilities to assess the costs of potentially safer chemicals or

processes and, potentially, convert to meet safety guidelines. However, if the facility

would be forced to relocate or be hurt economically, it would avoid the requirement

to convert (OmbWatch.org). As of July 2011, the Department of Homeland Security

(DHS) had listed 4,069 domestic chemical facilities as being “high risk,” 57 of which

are operated by Koch Industries (Greenpeace, No Date Given). However, H.R. 901

would not only require the enforcement of current safety regulations, but would

also remove numerous exemptions which would, in turn, force either closure of

“high risk” chemical facilities (H.R. 901). Thus, the reasons for Koch’s opposition

seem pretty clear, they have a vested economic interest in preventing the closure or

costly upgrading of 57 chemical facilities

H.R.910—Energy Tax Prevention Act

12

Currently, the Clean Air Act of 1970, authorizes the Environmental

Protection Agency to regulate emissions of hazardous air pollutants, especially

greenhouse gases (EPA.gov) . H.R. 910 would eliminate the EPA’s authority

“promulgate any regulation concerning, take action relating to, or take into

consideration the emission of a greenhouse gas to address climate change” (H.R.

910). Koch Industries, founded as a petroleum company, and having been named by

University of Massachusetts at Amherst’s Political Economy Research Institute, one

of the top ten air polluters in the United States (New Yorker 2010), has an obvious

vested interest in ending the enforcement capability of the EPA under the clear air

act, especially considering that between 2000-2006 along Koch Industries has paid

over $50 million in fines for violations of the Clean Air Act (Public Integrity, 2006).

H.R. 2454— American Clean Energy and Security Act

The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, proposes a cap and

trade system, under which the government sets a cap on national greenhouse gas

emission. The way the system would work is that the act would allocate 85% of total

carbon allowances to industry for free and then allowing companies to buy or sell

permits to emit greenhouse gases such that the amount would always remain finite

(Forbes, 09). Koch’s opposition to H.R. 2454 is thus pretty clear for the same

reasons why it supports the Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011 (H.R. 910) in

addition to the perception that a cap and trade program would increase the

operating costs of Koch factories which would, in turn, cut corporate profits

(MacKinder, 2010).

13

Section 3—Koch Chief Executives and Corporate Leadership

3.1 Background and History In the Corporate Sphere

Koch Industries, as a private corporation, has kept corporate leadership

concentrated in immediate familial relations, having had only two chief executive

officers (CEOs), in founder Fred Koch and his son Charles Koch, both of whom held

controlling shares of the company.

Fred Koch founded Koch Industries in 1927 with MIT classmate, Lewis

Winkler, as a simple engineering firm with an innovating new method of thermal

cracking for turning crude oil into gasoline (NNP). Having proven the success of his

methods, F. Koch was suddenly thrown into a cutthroat corporate world. Desperate

to shut down what was seen as a threat to their economic interests, larger

corporations in the oil and gas sector filed suit against the newborn Winkler-Koch

Engineering Company (the company was renamed Koch Industries following Fred’s

death) (NNP). Fred Koch, being temporarily forced out of business in the United

States, was unwilling to abandon his venture and so constructed a series of 15

cracking rigs in communist controlled Russia. It was there, under the eyes of the

Stalinist regime that Fred Koch’s hatred of communism and unshakable belief in

free-market, libertarian-style capitalism took root, an ideology adopted by his son

which continues to influence Charles (P.R.T, 2011).

When Charles took over the position of CEO in 1966, the company was

classified as a mid-sized oil and gas firm. Today, the company is one of the largest in

the world, grossing over $100 billion annually (Opensecrets). Charles achieved this

14

success through what he refers as market-based management, which is composed of

a set of ideas he constructed during his leadership of Koch. In order to successfully

lead a corporation such as Koch industries, Charles argues for the necessity of (1),

Vision: determining where and how the organization can create the greatest long-

term value, (2), Virtue and Talents: helping ensure that people with the right values,

skills and capabilities are hired, retained and developed, (3) Knowledge Processes:

creating, acquiring, sharing and applying relevant knowledge, and measuring and

tracking profitability, (4) Decision Rights: ensuring the right people are in the right

roles with the right authority to make decisions and holding them accountable, and

(5) Incentives, Rewarding people according to the value they create for the

organization (Koch, p23).

Charles has also been subject to numerous criticisms for his perceived

attempts at political indoctrination among the employees of Koch Industries and it’s

subsidiaries. Such attempts of supposed indoctrination range from required

business seminars on the harms of market regulation and the power of free-market

capitalism to direct attempts on the part of Charles to influence the way in which

Koch employees vote by sending out a message to employees making hints that an

Obama reelection would be harmful to the economic wellbeing of Koch Industries

and may require the elimination of jobs. Moreover, reports from employees suggest

that success at Koch industries is limited unless one is willing to drink Charles’s

libertarian Kool-Aid. It is due to policies and actions such as these that Charles Koch

is seen as a CEO who intentionally obfuscates the line between business and politics

15

to the point where the Koch Super Pac is essentially just another subsidiary, no

different from any other (New Yorker, 11).

3.2 Outside of the Corporate Sphere

Charles Koch is also known for his substantial and yet surprisingly low-key

philanthropic contributions. . One of the most frequent targets for Charles’

philanthropy is the medical industry where he has shown considerable interest in

the research and development of new medical technologies and research, especially

those related to cancer prevention and treatment, a passion perhaps motivated by

his and his three brothers own battles with prostate cancer. Although Charles is a

massive spender in medical research and a frequent patron of the arts and sciences,

most of Charles’ donations are not so a-political. In 1974 he, along with Murray

Rothbard and Ed Crane founded the conservative think-tank The CATO Institute,

which was originally named the Charles Koch Foundation before being renamed in

1976 (Vltp, 2012).

In his 2006 book, Who Rules America, William Domhoff argues that the

corporate community uses what he refers to as a “policy-planning network,” which

exercises economic power for the purpose of shaping government policy-making

(Domhoff, p85). Domhoff identifies a couple of key ways in which members of the

corporate community, in this case Charles Koch, involve themselves in these

networks. First, they finance organizations at the center of policy-making efforts, for

example the Koch Funded Super-Pac American’s for prosperity that attempts to

shape public policy via advertisement, and second, they serve on the board of

16

organizations, such as think tanks, that produce research that justifies policies that

are of interest to the corporate sector (Domhoff p80, 180).

Section 4—Corporate Strength

Corporate power can understood as being either strong, in which the

corporation is able to assert its agenda over the interests of others, or weak, in

which case it cannot. In contrast to publically traded corporations which must

justify their actions to the public and to their shareholders, Koch Industries, as a

privately held company where the two controlling parties (David and Charles Koch)

control over 80% of the company, lacks this sort of accountability (Forbes) . While

this fact alone is not necessarily sufficient to make a company strong since the

argument can be made that the freedom of Koch is counterbalanced by its inability

to raise capital through stock trading the same way that a public corporation would

be able to. However, not only the lack of ability to raise capital by selling shares not

counterbalance the strength of privatization since Koch can make business

decisions it would not be able to make in an effort to raise capital, but also Koch has

the ability to sell shares privately if the need for emergency capital arises.

Despite the apparent strength of Koch industries, the company itself is not

well known outside of the business sector, in fact a statement released by David

Koch proclaims that “We're the largest company that you've never heard of”

despite the fact that Koch industries generates $100 billion annually (USAtoday

2012, Opensecrets). While, at first glance, this appears to be evidence of some

unidentified weakness of Koch, it is, in fact quite the opposite. The reason for the

17

relative obscurity of Koch compared to other large conglomerates such as General

Electric is to the lack of corporate publicity regarding its business decisions,

financial status and tax liability. While publically traded companies are required

by the 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley act to disclose financial records, Koch, as a private

company, is not required to do so and statements made by Koch attorneys indicate

that the Koch policy is to make information about its structure and tax liability not

publicly available (Klink 2004, CNN Money). This lack of public information

allows Koch to operate in the proverbial shadows, away from public scrutiny,

allowing it to, as laid out by the definition of a strong corporation, asserts its

agenda regardless of competing interests.

Despite the apparent strengths of Koch industries, its environmental track

record has made it a target for government regulatory agencies, which, on face,

could be evidence of an aspect of weakness. Since 2000, Koch has been one of the

corporations most frequently sued by the EPA for violations of environmental

restrictions of dumping, pollution, and pipeline spills. These fines seem like

evidence of relative government power weakening Koch, but in fact this may not be

the case (Desmog) . In late 2000, as the Clinton Administration was preparing to

leave, Koch was served by the federal government for covering up the discharge of

more than fifteen times the legal limit of Benzene is Corpus Christi, Texas. The

company faced penalties of more than $350 million and four employees were

criminally charged and faced up to 35 years in prison, however, once the Bush

Administration took office, the case was settled out of court with Koch paying $20

million in fines and pleading guilty to one count of concealment and, in return, the

18

Justice Department dropped all criminal charges against Koch and its employees

(Desmog). Circumstances such as the one of Corpus Christi are evidence of a

different kind of corporate strength, the ability to break the rules without actually

being held accountable.

Koch Industries, despite the struggles of other corporations on tough

economic times, which require them to make concessions to government regulators

in the interest of remaining afloat, remains strong. Its relationship to the financial

market is unshakably stable, even as the market’s crashed Koch’s revenue held

consistent at $100 Billion and it proved itself to be an economic juggernaut,

unaffected or unphased by traditional sources of corporate weakness.

Section 6—Conclusion

Setting out on an examination of Koch Industries, the eventual goal was to

construct an image of corporate power as it related to Koch. What is the nature of

the relationship between Koch and the rest of non-corporate society? The difficulty

with asking such questions is that answering them seems merely to be a

restatement of arguments already advanced in different terms; saying that Koch is a

strong corporation that supports generally conservative policies in order to advance

it’s own interests fails to elucidate anything not already laid out in greater detail.

So, in questioning corporate power as it relates to Koch, it seems necessary to break

down the social and political actions of Koch and find the essence that defines

corporate power as it relates to Koch.

19

Power can either be defined as the ability to act in a certain or the ability to

direct others to act in a certain way. Regardless of the exact conception of power,

once thing remains true, power is means to achieve some kind of end; either in the

power to resist regulation or to shape the actions of others, both are causes to some

effect. For instance, as established in section 2, when Koch gives money to a political

campaign or lobbying effort, the monetary contribution is a means to the end of

furthering some concrete economic goal. Similarly, the funding or organizations

such as Americans for Prosperity or the CATO institutes are a means are

disseminating favorable information for some end, either economic or, in the case of

C. Koch’s funding of cancer or economic research, ideological.

Returning to the introductory discussion of the satirical film, The Campaign,

one thing seems abundantly clear, whether or not the humorous portrayal of the

“Motch Brothers” and their fictional corporation was justified, the thematic

elements of their relationship to the story remain consistent with the idea of Koch

power. While government power might be in the creation of laws to regulate society

in whatever way, corporate power is the ability to push forwards, using economic

means to further economic ends.

20

Section 7—Works Cited

Center for Responsive Politics: OpenSecrets “Lobbying Spending Database-Koch Industries” http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000000186&year=2012Accessed 12/15/2012

Center for Responsive Politics: OpenSecrets. Koch Industries: Recipients. http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/toprecips.php?id=D000000186&cycle=2012. Accessed 10/24/2012

Center for Responsive Politics: OpenSecrets. Pete Olson: Summary http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00029285&type=I Accessed 10/24/12

Center for Responsive Politics: OpenSecrets Americans for Prosperity Recipients, 2012. http://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/recips.php?cmte=Americans+for+Prosperity&cycle=2012 Accessed 10/24/2012

Center for Responsive Politics: OpenSecrets Koch Industries: Congressional Committees http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/congcmtes.php?id=D000000186&cycle=2012 Accessed 10/24/2012

Center for Responsive Politics: OpenSecrets Mike Pompeo: Summary http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00030744&cycle=2012 Accessed 10/24/2012

Deans, John and Vickery, Will. 2012. “Toxic Koch: Keeping Americans at Risk of a Poison Gas Disaster” Greenpeace. http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/toxics/toxic-chemical-threats/Toxic-Koch-Keeping-Americans-at-Risk-of-a-Poison-Gas-Disaster/Accessed 11/23/12

Desmog. No Date. “Koch Industries, Inc.” Desmogblog.com. http://www.desmogblog.com/koch-industries-inc Accessed 11/20/12

Fang, Lee (2010) Meet Mike Pompeo: The Congressional Candidate Spawned By The ‘Kochtopus’ Think Progress http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2010/09/21/119973/koch-mike-pompeo/?mobile=nc. Accessed 10/21/2012

21

Farrell, John. 2011. “Koch’s Web of Influence” Public Integrity. http://www.publicintegrity.org/2011/04/06/3936/kochs-web-influence Accessed 12/14/12

Glassman, James. 2011. “Market Based Man.” Philanthropy Magazine http://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/topic/excellence_in_philanthropy/market_based_man Accessed 11/23/12

Johnson, Brad (2011) Mike Pompeo (R-Koch) Attacks ‘Radical’ Environmental Justice, Global Warming Internships. Think Progress http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/09/12/316752/mike-pompeo-r-koch-attacks-radical-environmental-justice-global-warming-internships/

Klimko, Justin. 2004. “Sarbanes-Oxely- Possible Impacts on Privately Held Companies” Michigan Bar Journal. Retrieved 12/12/12www.michbar.org/journal/pdf/pdf4article696.pdfForbes: The 400 Richest Americans. 2008 “Charles Koch. ” Forbes Magazine. http://www.forbes.com/profile/charles-koch/ Accessed 10/24/12

Mackinder, Evan. 2010. “Pro-Environment Groups Outmatched, Outspent in Battle Over Climate Change Legislation” Opensecrets. http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2010/08/pro-environment-groups-were-outmatc.html Accessed 12/14/12

Mayer, Jane. 2010 “Covert Operations” The New Yorker http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer#ixzz2FJ6U8ttB Accessed 11/20/12

New Netherland Project. No Date “Frederick Chase Koch” New http://www.nnp.org/nni/Publications/Dutch-American/kochf.htmAccessed 11/24/12

Ombwatch. 2009. “House Passes Chemical Security Bill” Ombwatch Blog. http://www.ombwatch.org/node/10554 Accessed 12/14/12

Osterhouse, Jacob. (2012) “Koch brothers fire back at Galifianakis over Daily News interview” New York Daily News. http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-08-08/news/33104774_1_koch-brothers-koch-industries-political-processAccessed 12/16/12

Project Vote Smart. Stop The War on Coal Act of 2012 –Public Statements: Pompeo http://votesmart.org/public-statement/745815/stop-the-war-on-coal-act-of-2012#.UJHpbYUtuO5

22

Romney Campaign. Mitt Romney Sets Goal Of North American Energy Independence By 2020. http://www.mittromney.com/blogs/mitts-view/2012/08/mitt-romney-sets-goal-north-american-energy-independence-2020

Skousen, Mark. 2007. “Charles Koch: My Lunch With the Worlds Much Successful Billionaire” Investmentu. http://www.investmentu.com/2007/February/20070225.html Accsessed 11/21/12

Stone, Andy. 2009. “A Winner In The New Climate Legislation” Forbes Magazine. http://www.forbes.com/2009/06/24/climate-carbon-cap-and-trade-business-energy-carbon.html Accessed 12/14/12

Schouten, Fredreka. 2012. “Who are the Kochs?” USA Today. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/NEWS/usaedition/2012-08-24-Who-are-the-Kochs_ST_U.htm Accessed 12/13/12

U.S. House. 111th Congress. “H.R.2868 - Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Act of 2009” Fulltext Available: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h2868/Accessed 12/14/12

U.S. House. 112th Congress. "H.R. 901, Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Security Authorization Act of 2011." Fulltext Available: www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr901ih/pdf/BILLS-112hr901ih.pdfAccessed 12/14/12

U.S. Senate. 112th Congress. H.R.910 -- Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011” Version 4. Fulltext Available: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgibin/query/D?c112:4:./temp/~c112veHmoJ

Voters Legislative Transparency Project (VLTP). 2012. “Charles Koch cofounded the Cato Institute–the First Major Libertarian Think Tank

http://www.vltp.net/tag/charles-koch-cofounded-the-cato-institute-the-first-major-libertarian-think-tank Accessed 12/10/12

VandeHei, Jim and Allen, Mike. (2012). “GOP groups plan record $1 billion blitz” Politico.

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=0F866DCD-F8DC-436E-B46D-504340FEB315 Last Accessed: 12/14/12

23

24