Koch ideological pipeline; Susan Dudley; Mercatus Center; Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment; ozone, positive effects of

In 1997, for instance, the EPA moved to reduce surface ozone, a form of air pollution caused in part by emissions from oil refineries. Susan Dudley, an economist who became a top official at the Mercatus Center, came up with a novel criticism of the proposed rule. The EPA, she argued, had not taken into account that by blocking the sun, smog cut down on cases of skin cancer. She claimed that if pollution were controlled, it would cause ... additional cases of skin cancer. 

In 1999, the District of Columbia Circuit Court embraced Dudley's pro-smog argument. Evaluating the EPA rule, the court found that the EPA has "explicitly disregarded" the "possible health benefits of ozone." In another part of the opinion, the court also rule, 2-1, that the EPA has overstepped its authority. 

Afterwards, the Constitutional Accountability Center, a watchdog group, revealed that the judges in the majority had previously attended one of the all-expenses-paid legal seminars for judges that were heavily funded by the Kochs' foundations. This one had taken place on a Montana ranch run by a group that the Kochs helped subsidize called the Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment. The judges claimed that their decision was unaffected by the junket. Their embrace of the Mercatus Center's novel argument, however, soon proved embarrassing. The Supreme Court overruled their position unanimously, noting that the Clean Air Act's standards are absolute and not subject to cost-benefit analysis. Although their side lost in the end, the case illustrated that the Kochs' ideological pipeline was humming. (187-188)