Americans for Prosperity describes its policy aims as "limited government and free markets on the local, state, and federal levels." David Koch and his brother Charles are described by his critics as "lifelong libertarians."
So why are people shocked to learn that Koch-funded AFP opposes corporate welfare.
From the Minnesota Post's Brian Lambert:
Put down your coffee, it’s spit-take time. David Koch — that David Koch — is putting a political hit out on Minnesota legislators who supported the Vikings stadium....
Citing a Minnesota Public Radio article, Lambert concludes his post:
"Senator Bill Ingebrigtsen sided with corporate special interests and his policies are costing taxpayers,' an example of the flier reads. It calls the Vikings stadium deal a ‘give away’ to corporate special interests.” This has to be some prankster’s brilliant, twisted joke.
So, why is Lambert confused? Probably because he buys the Jane Mayer/Thomas Frank definition of the libertarian movement: a "pro-corporate movement," as Mayer puts it.
Who opposed TARP? Who opposed the Export-Import Bank reauthorization recently? Who stood against the Chamber of Commerce when the Chamber supported the stimulus? Libertarians.
A final note:
The MPR article mentions that AFP is knocking three lawmakers for supporting the stadium susbidies, and notes, "In an unusual twist, two of those targets are Republicans...." What's supposed to be "unusual"? That Republican politicians support corporate welfare? Or that AFP, often called a "Tea Party" group would target Republicans for bad votes? Neither surprises people who actually follow the GOP or the Tea Party.
