[arcseco]

Both the Koch brothers and Bezos are liberals in the broadest sense of the word, in fact Charles Koch considers himself and probably is a classical liberal [1]. They both are both injecting personal bias into politically active ventures, and that is an affront to what democracy should be about. Because of their vast wealth they are able to shape and suppress political discourse in their own favour (I would guess that your and most peoples interests don't align directly with those of a multi-billionaire). Bezos is probably more left leaning than others but that doesn't mean that his politics don't impact people negatively. Do you really believe that Carlos Slim's primary motivator for becoming the largest stake holder in the NYT Co. is to promote coexistence via liberalism? [1]http://freakonomics.com/podcast/why-hate-koch-brothers-part-...

[volkl48]

NYT has a split stock structure.

Carlos Slim's stake affords him basically zero sway in NYT's affairs. Even owning ALL of the public stock still wouldn't accomplish that.

The founding family has a majority (70%) control of the board through the rights of the class B shares they hold, and as such are beholden to no one.

[nl]

"classical liberalism" is close to the opposite of what most people think of liberalism. It arose in the 19th century and then was liberal in that it advocated the rule-of-law for all, low tarrifs and low taxes.

It has been termed "classical liberalism" since the late 19th century to distinguish it from social liberalism, which is what most people think of now whn they refer to "liberal".