Talk:KochPAC

Open secrets

The entry at opensecrets.org is titled "Koch Industries", although it mentions KochPAC. The entry for the 2010 election cycle was called "Koch Industries" and included PACs and contributions from employees who designated a Koch Industries subsidiary as their employer on the reporting form. Any ideas whether the entry really is about KochPAC? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:59, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Looks like those giving the cite conflate the PAC, the company, the Koch brothers, and individual employees who are able to contribute as they see fit are all part of "KochPAC" whether it is or is not correct here. Collect (talk) 22:23, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

The entries at OpenSecrets.org are titled "Koch Industries" for sake of user friendliness. They are solely about KochPAC and this is made clear on the main entry. There is no conflation or confusion of any kind here.   — C M B J   00:26, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

It's not true of the 2010 entries as discussed in 2011 and 2012. I can't find anything specific on the web site.

Actually, I can. At http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/methodology.php ,

What information will you find?

Contributions made by an organization's PAC or employees and their families to candidates, party committees like the RNC or the DSCC, other PACs, outside spending groups or 527s. We are not profiling organizations that have not contributed in the current cycle. "All Cycles" totals also may include direct "soft money" contributions from an organization's treasury made prior to 2002, when soft money was banned. Totals reflect the giving of both the parent organization and any affiliates or subsidiaries. In addition to overall totals, top candidate recipients and a breakdown of the source of funds (PAC vs Individuals) is included.

Seems to contradict the assertions above. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:35, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

That's the methodology for organizations. The 2010 KochPAC entry states:

• 2010 PAC Summary Data
• 2010 PAC Contribution Data
• Contributions from this PAC to federal candidates
• Contributions to this PAC from individual donors of $200 or more
• Official PAC Name: KOCH INDUSTRIES INC POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (KOCHPAC)

The data is also directly derived from and attributed to FEC forms that can be viewed all the way back to 1993.   — C M B J   01:00, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I withdraw my objection, then. It does look as though OpenSecrets states that that page is about the PAC. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:05, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

2006 ranking

This edit mistakenly identifies data in the associated report.

The chart on page 29 does indeed rank Exxon Mobil above Koch Industries for years 2006, 2008, and 2009, but this refers to all-inclusive corporate lobbying efforts and not just those of their respective PACs.

Further to this point, the report explicitly says:

Contributions through Koch’s political action committee (PAC) are a matter of public record. Since the beginning of the 2006 election cycle, Koch’s PAC spent more on contributions to federal candidates than any other oil-and-gas sector PAC.

There is nothing ambiguous here.   — C M B J   19:02, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

The chart and figures disagree with that claim. The implication that Koch was the heaviest political player is wrong - and the cite was to the page with the graph showing totals. Koch is nowhere near the biggest petroleum industry political contributor and it would be wrong foru Wikipedia to so imply. Collect (talk) 20:18, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Greenpeace only gives industry figures in the report - thus the claim about the PAC specifically is not backed by any data in that report. I have added the actual approximate figures presented in the Greenpeace report. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:28, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

That statement is not abiguous, but it also contradicts the statement in the article that Exxon's PAC exceeded KochPAC in 2010. And the statements about Koch vs. ExxonMobil (not their PACs) should be removed, entirely. If the statement were to be edited to read "KochPAC spent more in total during the 2006 through 2010 election cycles than any other oil-and-gas sector PAC.", it wouldn't contradict; but I'm not entirely sure what Greenpeace meant.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:48, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

One problem is that the Greeenpeace tract is not just about the PAC which makes up under 3% of what it counts as "lobbying expenditures" in any case - thus we have "tail v. dog" going on with regard to what Greenpeace is actually claiming. The tract, by and large, is a political one and not one based on simple fact, alas, but primarily based on political opinion. Collect (talk) 22:21, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

There is no problem with the tract insofar that the original citation is concerned. They are a reliable source making a reasonable claim about KochPAC's relative standing. The claim is also echoed by public data.   — C M B J   22:41, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

(I would have said not based on a single fact, rather than simple fact, but....) That are a reliable source for Greenpeace's claim; your wording still seems to contradict the previous sentence about 2010, though. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:49, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the sentence refers to total Koch-Industry-related campaigning, as opposed to KochPAC. I'm going to tag as {{verification failed}}, as well as {{reliable source}}. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:55, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

We could argue that the "OpenSecrets" source supports the statement, but it's a bit more than just WP:CALC to combine the 2006, 2008, and 2010 Industry-specific PAC listings. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:01, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

What we need here is a revert. The previous text (i.e., what existed up until a few hours ago) was not problematic either in terms of sourcing or verifiable accuracy, which we can easily confirm (and I have confirmed) on OpenSecrets.   — C M B J   01:59, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Also, I was responding with insufficient time earlier and didn't fully read what all was going on here, but KochPAC was not #1 O&G in 2010. It was #1 in 1998, 2006, 2008, and 2012, but it got outspent in the 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2010 elections.   — C M B J  

OpenSecrets is probably a better source that the Greenpeace manifesto, but I have no objection to that text. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:37, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and reverted it to the last good baseline version so I can add additional content without getting it tangled up in this mess. If anyone wants to re-add accurate numbers for the other years as Collect meant to do, or anything else I might've overlooked and accidentally removed, then that's fine.   — C M B J   08:28, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I also agree with Arthur and state the reasoning below about why the Greenpeace wording is poor in this article. Collect (talk) 12:21, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

adding excessive detail

I suppose we could add every single contribution to this page - we have sources for them. But I suggest it verges on OR as a minimum, and UNDUE absolutely were we to do so. And the weird wording of the Greenpeace claim was placed back in - I rather think that it is improper as currently worded, and that the prior wording was better, but will let others comment. Collect (talk) 12:19, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

That's not even close to being representative of the situation here. There is no one proposing that every single contribution, or most contributions, or even a substantive number of contributions, be added to this article. In fact, there are somewhere on the order of 20–30 news articles about individual contributions that theoretically could be included, but still aren't included. This content is neither indiscriminate, nor anecdotal, nor original research. It is based on credible source material that calls into question the appropriateness of KochPAC contributing to the campaign of someone that, if elected, would stand to be directly involved in handling a case lodged against its parent organization. In summary, it's reliable, it's pertinent, it's encyclopedic, and it should be re-added if there is no other objection.

You are welcome to re-adjust the wording of "...KochPAC was the highest spending U.S. petroleum industry PAC in 2006" as you see fit, but "KochPAC was the single largest PAC donor in total contributions for the election cycles from 2006 through 2010 to federal candidates of companies' PACs in the oil and gas industry..." introduced a factual inaccuracy (i.e., that KochPAC was #1 in 2010) and incorporated a lot of unnecessary nuance that detracted from the text's coherence. I still can't see how the former is weird by way of comparison.   — C M B J   10:16, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

It is based on credible source material that calls into question the appropriateness of KochPAC contributing to the campaign of someone that, if elected, would stand to be directly involved in handling a case lodged against its parent organization. In summary, it's reliable, it's pertinent, it's encyclopedic, and it should be re-added if there is no other objection applies to every single PAC in existence. The apparent desire to imput improper mitives to this one PAC is wrong, and contrary to NPOV from the start. Is there a specific reason you wish to impute such motives here? Collect (talk) 11:34, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

No, that statement does not apply to every single PAC in existence; it's a pretty unusual scenario from what I recall the two articles describing. That's not to say it was necessarily anything other than an innocuous coincidence, but the text was thoroughly sanitized to be fair (more than fair, I would argue) to that possibility. Again, the onus is on you to demonstrate why this information should be purged, and it should simply be re-added if there are no concrete objections.   — C M B J   12:33, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I demur - and it shows a specific effort to avoid NPOV. And I think you misread policy - it takes CONSENSUS to include disputed information as a general rule. Not what you WP:KNOW to be the WP:TRUTH nor to "right great wrongs". In short - the onus is on you to include this "single data point" as having great importance. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:38, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps the following should be in the article....

According to OpenSecrets, KochPAC was the highest-spending U.S. petroleum industry PAC in the 2006^[1], 2008^[2], and 2012^[3] election cycles.

"According to OpenSecrets" is required because the allocation of PAC to industry sometimes requires an opinion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:10, 6 March 2013 (UTC)