Quote:

---

For 35 years, the Cato Institute has been a nonpartisan and independent source of libertarian views on key policy issues in America. We stand for limited government, individual liberty and peace.

No matter who is in the White House or has control of Congress, scholars at Cato have consistently argued that the federal government should treat every person as an individual, regardless of background and lifestyle choices. We have advocated for limiting military engagement in foreign conflicts that have no bearing on the safety of our country. And we have opposed legislation that would involve more government control, even when that legislation is supported by some free-market organizations.
.....
But, if Charles Koch, the CEO of Koch Industries, gets his way, the independence that has allowed Cato scholars to focus on smart policies rather than electoral politics will come to an end.

Koch, along with current CEO Ed Crane, was a co-founder of Cato and provided nearly all of the seed capital and early funding that established the institute in 1977. Koch's interests have taken him on different paths since; he left Cato's board in 1991 and has provided no funding to the institute for many years.

Koch has recently increased his funding for more partisan advocacy groups, such as the Americans for Prosperity. His brother, David, told me in a meeting in November of 2011 that he and Charles wanted Cato to coordinate more closely with their political organizations in their efforts to defeat President Obama in the fall election. Tim Phillips, president of Americans for Prosperity, left little doubt as to what their plans are when he spoke with the New York Times that same month: "From an operational standpoint, we're going to have a field effort in targeted states that is doing phones, door to door, and integrated with direct mail and social media. It is going to look very similar to what party committees would be doing."

That's fine for them, but not for Cato.

The court will ultimately decide who is in control at Cato: A board of independent directors who have, over 30 years, provided financial and management support to the institute while upholding its libertarian principles, or two individuals who seek to restructure the board with people beholden to their political agendas.

The Koch brothers are shareholders of Cato through an unusual but legal arrangement. Because one of the shareholders passed away, the Kochs believe they can take control of Cato.

Indeed, Charles Koch's first step when he thought he had gained control of Cato's stock was to nominate 12 people to fill board seats of Cato directors whose terms of service had expired. None of the nominees had supported Cato financially or indicated any interest in the institute's governance. Three nominees are Koch employees, two are lawyers for Koch Industries, two had long careers at Koch-controlled organizations, one is a third-generation major shareholder in Koch Industries and one is a Republican political operative. However accomplished the nominees may be, they are not appropriate for Cato's board if the institute is to preserve its international reputation as a leading vanguard for libertarian principles.

The stakes are high. Would transforming Cato from a libertarian research center into a policy shop for the Kochs' political operations make any sense? The answer from Cato's fiercely independent donors, scholars and stakeholders worldwide has been unequivocal: No.

As partisan wrangling threatens to polarize Washington to the point of paralysis, there should be at least one organization to which elected leaders and the public can turn for credible, consistent, free-market policy prescriptions. Any imagined benefits from a takeover of Cato will be more than offset by the flight of its greatest assets -- its scholars. Similarly, any attempt to direct or influence Cato initiatives will result in quick devaluation of the Cato brand. This would be devastating -- not just for Cato, but for the libertarian movement that Koch conspicuously supports.

The Kochs can easily work through their activist grassroots organizations to advance their political goals. But the Cato Institute cannot be just another tool to promote their interests. http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/02/opinion/levy-cato-koch/index.html?hpt=hp
_bn7

---

Quote:

---

From its perch in a spacious brand-new headquarters blocks from the White House, the Cato Institute has built on its reputation as a venerable libertarian research center unafraid to cross party lines.
.....
The rift has its roots, Cato officials said, in a long-simmering feud over efforts by Mr. Koch and his brother David Koch to install their own people on the institute’s 16-member board and to establish a more direct pipeline between Cato and the family’s Republican political outlets, including groups that Democrats complain have mounted a multimillion-dollar assault on President Obama. Tensions reached a new level with a lawsuit filed last week by the Kochs against Cato over its governing structure.

“We can’t be perceived as a mouthpiece of special interests,” Robert A. Levy, chairman of Cato’s board, said in an interview. “The Cato Institute as we know it would be destroyed.”

At a tense meeting in November at Dulles Airport outside Washington, David Koch and two family emissaries laid out what they described as the “intellectual ammunition” they envisioned that Cato could provide by supplying its brand-name research and scholars to Koch-financed political advocacy groups, according to Mr. Levy.

Mr. Levy said he balked at tightening ties between Cato and the Kochs’ advocacy groups, expressing concern that the brothers might try to select Cato’s research topics and the timing of its studies. Any perception of political influence could compromise Cato’s nonprofit status and stain its credibility, he said in an interview.

While its focus on libertarianism and individual liberties has often aligned the Cato Institute with conservatives on issues like gun rights and financial regulation, it has also staked out a number of positions closely tied to liberals. It generally supports same-sex marriage and guest immigrant-worker programs, for instance, while opposing the Patriot Act’s sweeping counterterrorism powers, aggressive use of American military intervention, and the criminalization of drugs.

Mr. Levy, the board chairman, said the dispute was already chipping away at the center’s reputation for independence as it seeks to raise money. Unlike many nonprofit research institutions, Cato does not have an endowment but continually raises money for its operations, with a budget last year of about $23 million. It is now in the midst of a major capital drive.

“We already have major contributors who will say we are not contributing another dollar until we are sure that the Kochs are not calling the shots,” Mr. Levy said. “It is a fund-raising nightmare.”

Part of the dispute is rooted in personal acrimony. Mr. Crane, the Cato president, was once close to Charles Koch, sharing libertarian beliefs and traveling with him to China and the Soviet Union as they joined to form Cato in the mid-1970s, officials said. But the two had a falling out, and the Kochs tried to have Mr. Crane removed as president some years ago, the officials said. More at http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/06/us/cato-institute-and-koch-in-rift-o
ver-independence.html?pagewanted=all scholars also advocate positions that are appealing to many on the left side of the American political spectrum, including support for civil liberties, liberal immigration policies, and equal rights for gays and lesbians.[47] An early example of this effort was the launching of Inquiry Magazine, which was aimed at liberals who shared libertarians' skepticism about concentrated state power.

More recently, in 2006, Markos Moulitsas proposed the term libertarian Democrat to describe his liberal particular position, suggesting that libertarians should be allies of the Democratic Party. Replying, Cato vice president for research Brink Lindsey agreed that libertarians and liberals should view each other as natural ideological allies,[48] but noted continuing differences between mainstream liberal views on economic policy and Cato's "Jeffersonian philosophy."

Cato has published strong criticisms of the 1998 settlement that many U.S. states signed with the tobacco industry.[65] Among other laissez-faire policies, Cato scholars have argued for allowing immigrants to work in the U.S.

Cato's non-interventionist foreign policy views, and strong support for civil liberties, have frequently led Cato scholars to criticize those in power, both Republican and Democratic. Cato scholars opposed President George H. W. Bush's 1991 Gulf War operations (a position which caused the organization to lose nearly $1 million in funding),[61] President Bill Clinton's interventions in Haiti and Kosovo, and President George W. Bush's 2003 invasion of Iraq. As a response to the September 11 attacks, Cato scholars supported the removal of al Qaeda and the Taliban regime from power, but are against an indefinite and open-ended military occupation of Afghanistan.

Specific policy proposals advanced by Cato scholars include such measures as abolishing the minimum wage,[52] reforming policies on illegal drugs,[53] eliminating corporate welfare and trade barriers....

Cato has published strong criticisms of the 1998 settlement that many U.S. states signed with the tobacco industry.[65] Among other laissez-faire policies, Cato scholars have argued for allowing immigrants to work in the U.S.

In 2003, Cato filed an amicus brief in support of the Supreme Court's decision in Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down the few remaining state laws that made private, non-commercial homosexual relations between consenting adults illegal. Cato cited the 14th Amendment, among other things, as the source of their support for the ruling. The amicus brief was cited in Justice Kennedy's majority opinion for the Court.[67]

In 2006, Cato published a Policy Analysis criticising the Federal Marriage Amendment as unnecessary, anti-federalist, and anti-democratic.[68] The amendment would have changed the United States Constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage; the amendment failed in both houses of Congress.

Cato scholars have been sharp critics of current U.S. drug policy[53] and the perceived growing militarization of U.S. law enforcement.

Cato scholars have also been critical of the Bush administration's views on energy policy. In 2003, Cato scholars Jerry Taylor and Peter Van Doren blasted the Republican Energy Bill as "hundreds of pages of corporate welfare, symbolic gestures, empty promises, and pork-barrel projects".[77] They also spoke out against the former president's calls for larger ethanol subsidies. Wiki

---