This is a pretty illuminating read.
https://www.ineteconomics.org/perspectives/blog/meet-the-economist-behind-the-one-percents-stealth-takeover-of-america?fbclid=IwAR2LGxh5mnRQSOHMEpFVt9T1IBmFf23pVfSGA12XyAhMwHSbRlnoduWU2eM#.XqblEXdTsYQ.facebook
Interesting read, if conspiracy theory-ish.
Hm.. where?
As far as I know, all about this is simply researched tru(ish) facts. The motives might be a bit speculation, as always, but the names and time points etc. should all be real. I certainly have heard most of that before e.g. in a show that is very reliable when it comes to those things - because they were already sued several times for it (and won every time).
It's pretty obvious by the fourth paragraph that what you're about to read is going to be a very slanted article.
It may be 100% true, but I'm not going to trust a source that conveys it in such a judgmental tone.
It's rather simple to go to the source and read up wikipedia summaries of the original work(s) of Buchanan in question (I did).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Calculus_of_ConsentI have not spent the weeks, at a minimum, required to gain a passing familiarity with the concepts of public choice theory (or likely years to gain a good familiarity). But I have a shortcut - one that I extensively employ when interviewing candidates for technical positions in domains I know nothing about (e.g. someone who primarily worked in a language I have never coded in).
You take the mathematical or logical inner core of the theory they propose (thankfully economics like to express their theories in concise mathematical expressions).
e.g. the statement "Employing the theoretical concepts of game theory and Pareto optimality, Buchanan and Tullock show that symmetry in benefits sharing may be at most a necessary, but never a sufficient condition for the attainment of a Pareto optimal position. The introduction of side payments is the crucial element, which would lead to optimality. In a sense the introduction of side payments creates marketable property rights of the individual political vote (Chapter 12)."..
A true expert with correct motives will highlight issues on all sides of this theory, the ones convenient with their political outlook, and the ones that are not.
e.g. for this specific statement, it could be asked:
Symmetry in benefits sharing is a necessity, is that necessity maintained by future political prescriptions made by Buchanan (e.g. the "side payments"). e.g. is the benefits of lobbying (i.e. side payments) equitably shared by the society?
Was this asymmetry foreseeable?
Then I go to read more popular economics writings of Buchanan. He - rather deliberately - misuses the word "collective" interchangeably to mean "coercive". In his language - a book club started up collectively (i.e. without strict one-to-one agreements between all combinations of participants), would likely be considered a coercive arrangement since it is a "collective" one.
Using such rhetorical devices to explicate just one side of the arguments in an area of your expertise in a debate is just as much of a bad form today as it was when Aristotle wrote the "Art of Rhetoric".
So, without spending the years necessary to develop expertise in the relevant areas in the public choice theory I can still come up with an opinion on whether Buchanan was engaging in quackery when he engaged with the political process in just a few hours and with a high degree of confidence.
Unfortunately, to me the answer seems to just as much "yes" in Buchanan's case as it is for Arthur Laffer. They were both primarily politicians masquerading as economists - and in Buchanan's case a rather competent and intelligent one.
This is not meant to take away anything from Buchanan's core work. From all I can read (I'm no expert), he did have some very useful insights and advanced the public choice theory a lot.