tv A Conversation with Freshman Representative Buddy Carter R-GA CSPAN November 26, 2015 11:40pm-12:06am EST
of identity in order to speak or support a cause. now, some may not like it and were free to debate the pros and cons of such a system. but the supreme court has been steadfast in its affirmation of the role of money in politics specifically one's right to remain anonymous. charles koch int, deserves a little credit. he personally remains transparent in his spending. what he gives personally to the foundations and to the pacs like koch pac and freedom partners pac is public. and that is not most of what he gives actually. most of what he gives goes to his foundation, which funds multiple endeavors throughout the country including contributions for organizations like the united negro college fund, youth entrepreneurs, salvation army. he also funds the charles koch institute, an educational
organization that is dedicated to giving others the opportunity to learn the principles that transform charles' life and enable him to accomplish more than he ever dreamed possible. in other words, he supports ideas over politics. now, i don't say these things to make excuses. there's a lot of money in politics. there's a lot of money on both ends of the political spectrum. and the worst of it is the corporate welfare money that is crippling this economy. corrupting the business community and destroying opportunities for the disadvantaged. we believe that the only profit that is beneficial is that which results from creating value for others. not through coercive means as we've seen through government mandates. but through mutually beneficial transactions. let me close. in short, we need a principle driven framework that focuses on creating freedom, opportunity, and well being for everyone. especially the least fortunate.
this is the key to unleashing a free society. and making america everything it can and should be. colleges such as s anselm can play a pivotal role by ensuring tomorrow's leaders are educated d inspired by the ideas of freedom and that science not partisan politics provides the intellectual foundation for change. whether we like it or not we have a chase to make here. do we want control and dependency to define our nation or cooperation and competition? would we rather have a culture of entitlement among the rich as well as the poor or a culture of accomplishment? i am confident that if we want to expand opportunity for everyone, we must help people, their dreams, achieve those dreams rather than dictate how they should live their lives. as charles koch wrote in his new book "good profit" for individuals to develop and have
a chance of happiness they must be free to make their own choices and mistakes rather than be forced to accept choices made by others. in the -- this is the essence of the difference between north korea and south korea. hong kong and mainland channel 9 -- china and in the past east germany vs. west and countless other examples. history has repeatedly shown that protecting individual rights and promoting economic freedom does more than create a higher standard of living. these societies also enjoy cleaner environments, higher literacy rates, lower infant mortality rates, and less government and business corruption. that is why i believe a free, fair, and prosperous society is worth pursuing. in fact, i believe that it is a future worth fighting for. it's up to you to decide if you want to do something about it. that's all i have and i'm happy
to take questions as many as we have time for this morning. thank you. [applause] yes? [question inaudible] >> in what way? >> just for my perspective the koch brothers -- [question inaudible] i see the koch brothers maligned and i see george sorrows as a championn the media. i don't. but i am curious. as you look at them and what they represent, what is the difference between the two of them? and what they may be seeking? maybe you can't speak to what george soros is speaking but i'm just curious. >> sure. it is a fair question. if you're talking about how they each use money in there s, i don't believe
is a much of a difference going on there. there are a lot of organizations on the left, the democracy alliance which has dozens and dozens of groups that support a progressive agenda and that's a lot of "dark money." that's been going on for years and that's fine. that is their right. they have a right to do that. george soros has a right to do that. it's interesting that when other organizations that don't match the ideology start doing that then i think some people take exception and you can't just have one standard for one side and one for the other. >> i am a democrat but not a progressive. some of us still exist. and in fact a lot of us know that the environmental movement is kind of coopted by a lot of marxists who use the environmental movement to get their agenda passed.
you probablyy are in the trenches and i am wondering if you can give specific examples of where that's happened where you're producing energy but going against this coalition of arxism and environmentalism. >> i'm going to take a tact here that the environmental movement, you talk about the environmental movement in general it's ban good thing for this country in some respects. okay? when i was a kid, i'm old, when i was a kid people were throwing trash out the window. that's gone now. people are respecting the environment and treat it as something that we need to take care of. our whole -- we have koch industries and want to make the best possible products using the fewest resources possible. so conservation is a huge part of the entire company across the globe and what we do. now when you manufacture things, stuff goes up in the air. okay? we're trying to reduce that
every year as much as possible. all the things we use every day requires manufacturing, virtually everything. and so there are ways you can do that and do it better that's less harmful to the environment. that's what koch is trying to do and a lot of other companies are trying to do that. we produce pollution control devices that other companies are using at their facility so we are very proud of our record there. again, this isn't about being, you know, against the environmental movement. some things we believe go too far in the sense that it harms people. when you start harming people's lives especially those that are most disadvantaged then i'm not sure we're making some of the right decisions. yes? >> hi. in a recent interview with the wichita eagles charles koch claimed politicians are beholden to corporations and cronies that get them re-elected and deemed that
welfare for the wealthy. the koch network has poured millions of dollars into our political system. do they agree the candidates -- >> i'm sorry the last part of your question was? >> do the kochs agree the candidates stay back or in the same way are beholden to them? >> a good question. a great question. i'm going to answer it the way charles has recently answered that. that is beholden is the wrong word in that charles is frustrated right now to be honest with you, very frustrated that a lot of the the network he is part of including a lot of other donors, hundreds, thousands, haven't done a loft the things they said they were going to do. okay? he is quite frankly very frustrated and we have not at supporting n time any presidential candidate and mr. koch believes, is worried right now that none of them are going to do what they say they're going to do.
so the folks we supported in 2014, frankly, a lot of them have not lived up to the things that i've been talking about in terms of fighting corporate welfare, supporting criminal justice reform among other things. beholden is what, we all, ve who votes for someone or contributes money to them, $#, you're hoping that they're going to do what they said they ere going to do. if you call it beholden call it beholden but to me i give $5 to a candidate because they said they'd do something and i go wow. i want them to do that. i'm giving them $5. call that beholden or $500 million or whatever it might be, i don't think it's the same way. we are expecting them to do the things they say they were going to do and frankly a lot of them aren't. most of them aren't. >> hi. so since 1997 the koch brothers have poured close to $80
million into climate change denial groups and climate change really threatens everyone on this planet but predominantly poor communities of color which it seems you are suggesting koch cares deeply about. if they do, how does continued climate change denial to protect koch's bottom line drive fairness and prosperity for these communities? >> thank you. good question. issue is e change complex. charles said recently in a loft interviews that the climate is changing. that the data that, you know, has been shown over the last hundred years or so is that the temperatures increased by 0.8 degree centigrade. and that carbon is up and that probably some
correlation that some of this is man made. what concerns us and i think others is the politicization of that in some respects is about some of the solutions that are being offered. you talk about the most disadvantaged in society. some of the solutions being offered are going to harm the very people we purport to want to help especially when you look at the disadvantage throughout the globe and in other parts of third world countries where having energy power medical devices to keep people alive as real issue in lots of parts of the world. so we think it is an important issue. the environment is important us to. but the solutions people talk about we need to talk about the actual people. whatever solutions you were talking about. yes? >> yes. recently, on local television
i'm seeing advertisements from some group with an innocuous name about ethanol subsidies and maybe the need to moderate and the mandates for them. i wonder what is the koch position on that issue? >> we oppose all ethanol subsidies. we're an ethanol manufacturer. we think it is a great product and should stand on its own. again, these subsidies and these sorts of things really disrupt the market. these products should stand on their own if they're economically viable. if they provide value for people. then they're going to work and survive and they'll thrive. any alternative out there we support all forms of energy. the all forms of energy have to stand on their own and provide economic value. they have to provide value to people in their every day lives. we oppose ethanol subsidies and
we're in the business. >> one difference between george soros and the koch brothers is that the conservatives in this country have not defamed george soros from the united states senate floor as harry reid has and that gets to the question that i want to ask. i'm very impressed with the industries the koch brothers run but i think one issue that you fail to address is the news media entertainment stranglehold in this country and i wonder why with all their money the koch brothers don't uy abc, cbs, or nbc? ask them. >> if i had one to choose i'd go with espn. we can spend hours and
hours talking about, "media bias in the country." i'm not sure quite frankly that s the biggest problem we face. in terms of being ma layned on the senate that is senator reid's prerogative. he is protected by the u.s. constitution to do that. he knows he is protected on the floor of the senate and can say whatever he wants. i think a lot of people in this country just wish he o would try and help people improve their lives rather than going after u.s. citizens. >> hi, mr. lombardo. my name is sheila. i have a quick question about the kochs' political involvement. while the kochs claim they didn't enter the political sphere until the bush administration david koch did run for vice president on the libertarian ticket in 1980 and koch industries spent hundreds of thousands on political contributions during each presidential cycle since the
1990's. i was just wondering why the cotches are trying to hide -- the kochs are trying to hide their long involvement in politics and if you could answer that for me. >> that is a good question. i would argue with the thesis anyone is trying to hide their involvement. like any company throughout the years koch industries was involved in politics and through their contributions. david koch did run for vice president in 1980 on the libertarian ticket but what i was referring to is the seminars that started bicharles and david with a group of donors started in 2003 but both of those facts are absolutely correct. >> thank you. the koch network has made climate change denial litmus tests for supporting political candidates. if it is truly sincere about criminal justice reform will the koch network pledge to only
support pro political justice reform candidates? >> thank you. i guess is the question that if we support a political candidate who has a different view on climate change that that makes that support a climate change den ire. i would argue the hypothesis. we support a lot of different candidates over the years and will continue to do that to some extent. although as i said i think there is some level of frustration in people getting things done. the support we're going to do moving forward is a lot going to depend on their positions, political candidates' positions on the issues i've laid out today. and had very little to do with their support on some of these issues. > time for one more.
>> what is the koch position on means testing for certain government benefits? >> we don't have one right now on means testing. that's not something that we've talked about. it is clearly something that i think candidates are going to start talking about. some of the substantive public policy issues, this is a fun election cycle and i think people are getting entertained. i hope at some point it starts to migrate into something like that but we don't have a position right now. thank you very much. i appreciate it. [applause] >> on the next "washington journal" we'll look at free speech on college campuses looking at student protests and marches. "washington journal" live every morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. and you can join the conversation with your calls and comments on facebook and twitter.
>> all present having business before the honorable united states supreme court are admonished to draw near and give their attention. >> coming up on c-span's landmark cases -- >> this lieutenant white came and showed a piece of paper. he demanded to see the paper and read it and see what it was which they refused to do so she grabbed it out of his hand to look at it and then a scuffle started and she put this piece of paper into her bosom. and very readily the police officer put his hands into her bosom and removed the paper. and thereafter, thereafter handcuffed her. while the police officers started to search the house.
>> in 1957 the cleveland police went to the home of a woman they believed to be harboring a suspected bomber and demanded entry. she refufsed access without a warrant. later returning with a document they claimed was a warrant they forced themselves into the home and searched the premises. not finding their suspects police instead confiscated a trunk containing obscene pictures. she was arrested and sentenced to seven years for the contraband. she sued and her case made it all the way to the supreme court. we'll examine the case and explore the matter of evidence obtained through illegal searches and seizures and how this and other supreme court rulings transformed police practices nationwide. that's coming up on the next "landmark cases" live monday at 9:00 p.m. eastern on c-span, c-span 3, and c-span radio. and for background on each case while you watch order your copy of the landmark cases companion book available for $8.95 plus shipping at c-span.org/landmark cases.
this year, we are gratified to have this force of the new york immunity trust. this the foundation, a guard. they funded the last two volumes of the documentary history. tonight the scholars are with us. nationalrship with the service we stand ready to by 2020 programs will unfurl. and yes the contradictions of american tea. we think williams, the priceline the annual support
of the harvard conservative. think hebrew national their contribution. we welcome sees and will be sharing the evening with viewers the makingeir area of the president 2016 will preview the election. the challenge. raceoderator to view this to the prism of political history. he is the author of several notable books including the brother, the untold story of the finalist for the
national book critics circle award. the collection of essays taking aim at our city. grand central, our train station can't and america. and the history of new york in 101 object. gentlemen please join me in welcoming them robert. next thank you michael and rene area thank you to all of you for thank you to our panel who agreed to participate tonight. as rene pointed out the state of challenge carved the presidential race. notwithstanding the popularity.
i hate to admit 50 years. if it did, it began right here at this site. embodiesn new york the that more than federal hall. what distinguished new york from was the of america people who came here to escape religious persecution. they came to make money. if you get in their way you were more or less -- you could call a tolerance or indifference. whatever it was defined new york and america. yorksite embodies new history. critic ofger was a rivaling the royal governor in 1775.