‘Dark Money’ journalist tells why she’s focused on Charles and David Koch
Few journalists have written as much about Charles and David Koch as has Jane Mayer, a staff writer for the New Yorker. And no journalist has drawn as much criticism from the family and from its Koch Industries.
Mayer has won numerous national awards for her journalism. But Koch officials say she doesn’t treat the Kochs fairly. They say she uses questionable sourcing and misrepresents facts to further “a partisan, agenda-driven storyline that is often grossly inaccurate,” an assertion she challenges here.
Her new book, “Dark Money, The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right,” went on sale Jan. 19. Much of the book focuses on Wichita natives Charles and David Koch.
The New York Times, the Washington Post and several other media sites wrote about the book, most of them highlighting how Mayer wrote that Fred Koch, the company founder, had helped not only the Soviet Union but also Nazi Germany build oil refineries.
Mayer agreed to answer questions about why she spent five years focusing on the Kochs and conservative donors. The Eagle also asked Koch Industries for a response, which it supplied.
Q. Why is it important to investigate and write about Koch political spending and Koch political activity?
A. For the past 21 years I have covered politics for the New Yorker Magazine, and for the dozen years before that, I covered the White House and other beats for the Wall Street Journal, and following the money has always been a big part of any political reporter’s job. These days, if you follow the money, you inevitably stumble across the Kochs. They’ve put together a mostly-secret donor group that is planning to spend, by their own estimate, $750 million during this presidential election cycle, some $300 million of it directly on campaigns. According to Politico, the Koch network now has twice the budget and over three times more paid employees than the Republican National Committee did in 2012. The Koch network also has a budget that is as much as 20 times the size of its liberal corollary, the Democracy Alliance. In short, this relatively tiny group of extraordinarily rich Americans is becoming almost like a shadow political party. That’s a big story. I can’t really imagine not covering it, given my beat.
Q.Why your fascination with the Kochs?
A: I actually never set out to cover the Kochs in particular – what I hoped to write about when I began reporting on them in 2010 was why politics seemed so dysfunctional. The country is filled with pretty centrist voters who share a consensus on many issues, from the need to strengthen Social Security to the belief that climate change is a serious problem requiring government action. Most Americans also support raising the minimum wage, putting limits on campaign spending, and closing tax loopholes used almost exclusively by the super rich. Despite the sizable majorities of Americans who share these views, nothing gets done about them in Congress. Why is that? One answer is that ultra-rich donors have been able to exert outsized influence to impose self-serving minority views on our elected officials by strategically deploying their fortunes. Among the most active and financially important of these donors has been the Koch family. So, this brought them to my attention. But they are far from alone. My book, “Dark Money,” tells the stories of several other fascinating billionaires and multi-millionaires who have also devoted their family fortunes, often without public awareness, to remaking America in line with their own beliefs. People like Richard Mellon Scaife, the heir to the Gulf Oil fortune, for instance, whose unpublished memoir I obtained, describes having spent over $600 million on this largely unknown political project. One friend calls him “Santa Claus.”
Q. If the Kochs play rough or operate in secret in politics – or run a secret spy/political operative network as you write in your book – how is what they do different from what left-leaning mega-donors and activists do?
A. Big money and political corruption are not partisan problems, they are bipartisan problems. Both parties have wealthy and powerful interests trying to game the system. I’ve written major investigative pieces about Bill Clinton’s fundraising shenanigans, when he was president, and about George Soros, the rich liberal donor, when he was pouring money into the 2004 presidential campaign. That said, the Kochs are more secretive than the others. And by the way, that includes the reporting I’ve done on the CIA. As Charles Koch has often said, he wanted to be like a whale who swam underwater, because that way, he wouldn’t get harpooned. But it’s the job of the press to hold those in power accountable, whether they like it or not.
Q. How about Hitler? Stalin?
A. Fred Koch’s previously undisclosed business venture in Hitler’s Third Reich is part of the hidden history of one of America’s great businesses. It’s relevant because it’s true, interesting, and had been hidden from the public all of these years, which is in line with the general secrecy that has shrouded Koch Industries. When news of Ford and IBM’s roles working with the Nazi regime first surfaced, that too was news.
I take pains, though, in “Dark Money” to note that Fred Koch’s views of Hitler during the 1930s are unknown. I also note that while he did employ an avid supporter of the Nazis to raise his two oldest boys until 1940, Fred Koch nonetheless tried to enlist in the U.S. military when America entered World War II. I included this purposefully to blunt any unfair inference that he sided with the Nazis by the start of the war. If the episode tells us anything, it may be that the Kochs’ fortune rests on a morally mixed legacy, which, given their attachment to libertarianism, is ironically interwoven with some of the world’s most tyrannical dictators.
Q. Do the Kochs have a point in saying that the people and institutions whom they oppose play rough in politics and yet it’s the Kochs who are accused in mainstream media of playing rough?
A. Generally, I think the mainstream media does pretty well in subjecting everyone to similar levels of scrutiny. Certainly we reporters are equally disliked by all sides, and all sides complain pretty equally that they are being picked on.
But if the Kochs feel singled out, it may be because they have behaved so singularly. In my 35-year career as a reporter, the only time I’ve ever been targeted by a private investigator trying to dig up dirt on my life in order to tarnish my reputation has been when writing about the Kochs. It’s a bit surprising and disappointing to encounter such tactics from people who have described themselves as champions of a free society, which presumably includes a free press.
Q. You say in your book that Koch-associated people tried with considerable effort and expense to publicly smear you as a plagiarist after your 2010 New Yorker story about the Kochs. Is there any chance this book is personal because of that?
A. I am far from the only person who has been targeted by private investigators working on behalf of the Kochs. Many other people who I interviewed in the book described similar experiences. This includes two former federal prosecutors who spoke to me on the record about their beliefs that when they challenged Koch Industries, they or their staffs became targets of private investigators. Those interested in the details should go to the New Yorker’s website and listen to an amazing radio show the magazine did this week about this. In it, a former FBI agent, Richard “Jim” Elroy describes how the Kochs hired private eyes to spy on him when he was engaged in a U.S. Senate investigation of Koch Industries for stealing oil from Indian reservations. It’s quite a story. So, no, I don’t think this is personal to me.
Q. What has surprised you most about the Kochs?
A. I’m surprised at how thin-skinned they are. Did they really think that they could be huge forces in American public life without becoming subjects of public interest? If you’re going to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to influence our democracy, you ought to expect some tough questions about your motivations and goals, not to mention the identity of your partners. Intimidation of the press may work in other parts of the world where oligarchs exist, but this country has a tradition of holding everyone, no matter how rich or powerful, accountable.
Q. Have you tried to talk with the Kochs about what they are trying to accomplish? Their posting about your book says they “expect to have deep disagreements and strong objections with (your) interpretation of the facts and their sourcing.”
A. Yes, for six years, beginning when I reported on the Kochs for a long New Yorker profile in 2010, I’ve asked to interview them. They have steadfastly declined. In an effort to understand their point of view, however, I’ve bent over backwards to talk with many members of their families, old friends, new friends, colleagues, employees, and learned much about them, both positive and negative. I’ve also read much of what Charles and David Koch have written, and the voluminous record that now exists about them, in order to provide a thorough and balanced portrait in my book. There are hundreds and hundreds of footnotes in the book, showing my sourcing, including many references to the terrific work done by the Wichita Eagle.
Q. Donald Trump isn’t operating on other peoples’ money. And Bernie Sanders is polling well, though lacking Hillary Clinton’s vast donor base. Does this raise questions about the influence and power of mega-donors?
A. The popularity of Trump and Sanders owes much to Americans’ disgust with the idea that too many of the other candidates are bought and paid for by big donors. I think what we’re seeing is the public’s anger at candidates who seem to represent private interests, not the interests of the people who elected them. I think no matter where people are on the political spectrum, almost no one in America likes the idea that a small handful of the richest people in the country will pick our next leaders, or set our course. So, in some ways, the big donors’ are suffering from a backlash that they helped create. That said, it’s a long time from now until Election Day, and I wouldn’t be surprised if the outsiders fall by the wayside, and the usual suspects, and their mega-rich donors, bounce back.
KOCH INDUSTRIES’ OFFICIAL RESPONSE TO JANE MAYER’S ‘DARK MONEY’
Koch Industries officials declined to be interviewed about Jane Mayer’s book “Dark Money.”
Koch spokesman Ken Spain emailed this brief response:
“It’s unfortunate that Jane Mayer relies on questionable sourcing and sensationalist framing to weave together half-truths intended to portray most actions taken by the Koch family and Koch Industries as ominous and shrouded in scandal. The reason why the Koch family and Koch Industries engage in public policy is to help people improve their lives through a system of mutual benefit.”
Earlier, Koch Industries officials posted this longer response to the book on their company website:
“Ms. Mayer’s recent book, like much of her reporting over the last several years on the Koch family and Koch Industries, relies on questionable sourcing and a misrepresentation of the facts in order to further a partisan, agenda-driven storyline that is often grossly inaccurate.
“While there are many inaccurate claims and assertions throughout her book, two sensationalist allegations in particular are especially outrageous and must be addressed.
“1. Ms. Mayer falsely implies that Fred Koch was working to aid and abet Germany’s tyrannical regime during World War II, and further implies that two of his sons, Charles and David Koch could somehow share these fictional sympathies.
“Context is important in this allegation. Winkler-Koch’s contract with Foreign Oil Co. of Boston, involving work on a Hamburg refinery, was signed on Sept. 8, 1933, nearly six years before Germany invaded Poland. That refinery became operational March 23, 1935, before Charles or David were even born. Many iconic U.S companies were conducting business in Germany during that same period, including Coca-Cola, General Motors, Ford and IBM. This was Winkler-Koch’s one and only project in Germany. When it became clear that Hitler’s government was a tyrannical regime, Mr. Koch ceased doing business there. (Meanwhile, several of those other companies continued working with Germany during World War II.) Fred Koch was a patriotic American who advocated strongly and repeatedly for the bombing and defeat of the Axis during World War II. In fact, in the same letter from Fred Koch to Charles Francis de Ganahl quoted by Ms. Mayer, Fred Koch wrote about the importance of beating Germany a second time (the first having been WWI).
“2. Ms. Mayer also describes a sealed deposition that charges Charles and David Koch with participating in a ‘vicious blackmail attempt’ against their eldest brother Frederick, ‘who they believed was gay,’ in order to get him ‘to relinquish his claim to a share of the family company, or else they threatened to expose his private life to their father.’
“This false accusation is part of a series of attacks and claims from litigation filed in the 1980s. These specific allegations were found to be untrue, as were other allegations made during this case that the court and a jury ultimately found to be without merit. The court entered a verdict in favor of Koch Industries, Charles Koch and David Koch.
“It is a sad commentary on today’s media environment that we have to respond to such irresponsible and reckless attacks. Even when Ms. Mayer writes about some of the many contributions made by the Koch family and Koch Industries (such as charitable donations and public policy initiatives), she alleges an ulterior motive cloaked in conspiracy. Many of the claims made in Ms. Mayer’s book represent the lowest form of journalism and only deepen the distrust that many people have toward today’s media.”
This story was originally published January 29, 2016 at 7:02 PM with the headline "‘Dark Money’ journalist tells why she’s focused on Charles and David Koch."