Citizen Koch Filmmaker Q&A

What’s the most surprising revelation you learned about the Koch brothers or the political system in general while making this documentary?

When the US Supreme Court ruling in the Citizens United case opened the door to unlimited corporate spending in elections, it not only unleashed the Super PAC on our electoral process, but it created loopholes for non-profit entities to raise money and spend it politically without revealing the source of the money. We were astonished to learn that one of those entities benefiting from the decision was run by Ginny Thomas— the wife of Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas who ruled in favor in the Citizens United decision. She and her extreme right–wing group directly benefited from the decision.

Were there any unusual challenges you faced on Citizen Koch that you didn’t face on Trouble the Water?

We’ve filmed all over the world in challenging situations—in conflict and disaster zones, in boardrooms and sweatshops. We filmed Citizen Koch as parents of a toddler. Now that’s a challenge.

Did the Koch brothers try and prevent your film from being made or released?

David Koch’s contributions and political influence at the largest PBS affiliate is what kept the film from the public airwaves. One executive told us, “We live in a world where we have to be aware that people with power have power and how they use that power.”

The following is excerpted from Op-Ed News’ “’Citizen Koch’ Fights to Tell Its Story” http://www.opednews.com/articles/Citizen-Koch-Fight-to-Te-by-Joan-Brunwasser- Art_and_Money_Citizen-Protest_Citizens-United_Documentaries-131102-210.html

Tia Lessin: Citizen Koch was green-lit by public television last year and premiered in January at the Sundance Film Festival. But then, because of billionaire David Koch's donations to PBS and his position on the board of one powerful PBS affiliate--WNET in New York--the film was censored. The public agency that funds and curates independent documentaries -- ITVS -- withdrew its financial support and its broadcast partnership for Citizen Koch to avoid offending WNET and its benefactor David Koch.

Not only did the film lose $150,000 in funding, but millions of viewers lost their chance to see Citizen Koch on public television. All because of David Koch's money. It's the very thing the film is about – how the money of the wealthiest drowns out the voices of the rest of us.

Joan Brunwasser: Koch money essentially shut you out and shut you up. But you didn't give up, despite this rather large setback. What did you and your partner, Carl Deal, do about it?

TL: We spoke with investigative journalist Jane Mayer about losing our public television commission for Citizen Koch. We went on record because we want things to change, and we want our revered public institutions to operate free from this type of pressure. We also wanted to know the whole story. After conducting her own investigation, she wrote a piece for The New Yorker magazine: A Word From Our Sponsor (http://nyr.kr/18R2IMG%20). The story exposes how the integrity of public broadcasting has been compromised because of David Koch's role as trustee of and donor to WNET and WGBH, and elevated this conversation about private influence over a revered public institution to a national stage.

We also joined a coalition of groups that organized protests, a petition drive, media coverage around Charles and David Koch's contemplated purchase of the Tribune Co.'s chain of newspapers using our experience with public television's self-censorship as a cautionary tale – and we can claim victory for helping to draw unwanted attention to the Koch's interest in the company. The Kochs ultimately walked away from the sale.

In early August, we completed a successful crowd-funding campaign that raised more than double its original goal, and surpassed the $150,000 in funding that ITVS rescinded from Citizen Koch with an average pledge of $50. Our experience with crowd funding Citizen Koch shows that thousands of small donors, in concert, can counter the big money deployed by billionaires like the Kochs that effectively suppressed this film from the public airwaves.

Other questions:

What do you think this means? What lesson should we draw from the outpouring of financial support for your project?

Carl: It means that the public won’t stand for censorship. The idea that one our most sacred public institutions, public television, can be swayed by the power and influence of a billionaire donor, is simply offensive to many Americans.

Tia: I love what one woman wrote to us to explain why she pledged her money to our film: “I learned the reason for supporting this project when I was six years old, from someone who said it much better than I ever could: Sometimes when the fight begins, I think I'll let the dragons win. But then again, perhaps I won't. Because they're dragons. And I don't. A.A. Milne.”

Does it suggest that big money can be balanced by small donors when they are mobilized?

Tia: Absolutely. Our experience with crowd funding Citizen Koch shows that thousands of small donors, in concert, can counter the big money deployed by billionaires like the Kochs that effectively suppressed this film from the public airwaves.

Carl: That’s exactly why they are working so hard to neutralize small-dollar donations in the political process and take out organized labor — there are roughly 400 billionaires in the US, and they know they’re outnumbered.

What is it about the Kochs, do you think, that hits such a nerve with the public?

Tia: We kept hearing the phrase “sick and tired” from supporters who wrote to us. People have had it with big money calling all the shots. The Kochs personify the influence of high dollar donors on the political process--they deployed at least 400 billion dollars in the last election cycle by their own admission, and much of it their own. I think people are fed up with the idea that money from one or two billionaires can matter more to politicians than the votes of the rest of us.

What lesson do you think PBS and ITVS should take from it?

Tia: Don’t mess with the public trust.

Carl: We hope public television executives get the message that when they allow private interests to influence their programming and funding decisions, the public will take notice and take action.

Do you expect that the public television world will embolden itself after this, to cover its big funders, even when uncomfortable?

Tia and Carl: We sure hope so. On the other hand, it might make the gatekeepers (and filmmakers) even more risk averse. That would be a really terrible outcome of all of this.

What would you like to see happen in the way of reform, if anything, in the public television sphere?

Tia and Carl: We’re not expert in these matters, but our lawyer, Andrew Celli, the former New York State Commissioner of Public Integrity is, so we asked him. Here’s what he would like to see happen: “Institutionally, there need to be checks and balances within public television, and externally, to ensure that decisions about content are made on the merits, without fear of or favor to moneyed interests, like big dollar patrons or corporate sponsors. A special committee to question staff selection or de-selection decisions in the

case of films with explicitly political themes, and to report its findings to the board and the public.”

Do you think you've won – or is this just one step towards victory?

Tia and Carl: We spoke out because we want things to change, and we want our revered public institutions to operate free from this type of pressure. Any progress in that direction is a victory.