November 19, 2022 • 48 mins
Since the Supreme Court ruled in 2010 in the Citizens United case that political contributions are speech and should be protected, the floodgates of anonymous political contributions have opened. But does absolute funding corrupt absolutely? Find out in this classic episode.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Happy Saturday morning or Saturday afternoon, or Saturday evening or
Saturday night, or any other day of the week that
you happen to be listening to this. This is Chuck here.
It is March in my mind in my memory palace,
because I'm opening the window to the upstairs floor to
talk about dark money, how dark money works. Released in
(00:23):
great episode. Check it out right now. Welcome to Stuff
you Should Know, a production of I Heart Radio. Bush
and dukakas on Crime. Bush supports the death penalty for
first degree murderers. Dukaka is not only opposes of the
(00:45):
death penalty, he allowed first degree murderers to have weekend
passes from prison. One was Willie Horton, who murdered a
boy in a robbery, stabbing him nineteen times. Despite a
life sentence, Horton received ten weekend passes from prison. Orton fled,
kidnapped a young couple, stabbing the man and repeatedly raping
his girlfriend. Weekend prison passes du caucasun Crime. Hey and
(01:09):
welcome to the podcast. I'm Josh Clark, there's Charles to be,
Chuck Bryant, there's Jerry over there. And what you've just
heard was something we brought back with us from via
the way back machine an attack ad, the attack AD
from the election between George Herbert Walker Bush and one
(01:29):
Michael du Caucus. That's right, and uh, that ad is
widely credited as turning the tide against du Caucus's campaign,
which was doing pretty good at the time. Yeah. Well,
some people say so, other people say true. Depends on
who you ask dissent. That's politics, as it turns out,
there's always more than one opinion. But the reason we
(01:51):
bring up this ad, which UM first aired on September
twenty one, nineteen, Yes, UM as called weekend passes for
obvious reasons, and it was UM funded by something called
the National Security Political Action Committee And n s PACK
was a non affiliated pro Bush political action committee that
(02:18):
was aimed at sinking du Caucus and getting Bush elected. Yeah.
I think, uh, one of Bush's uh maybe it was
his chief campaign guy said by the time we're done,
people are gonna think Willie Horton is du caucus is
running mate. And it worked too. I mean, like still,
if if you say the name Willie Horton, people of
(02:40):
a certain age e g r age can still say, oh,
I know who that is? Yeah, Well, quickly, the story
of Willie Horton is he was he was in prison
for murder, was furloughed as part of the UH for
a weekend as part of the Massachusetts furlough program that
was UM in effect at the time, and he raped
(03:01):
and killed somebody on this weekend pass on the weekend pass,
which was a big sign that it may not be
a good idea to furlough murders. I guess they needed
to test it out to find out one way or another.
But yeah, that pretty much closed the book on it.
And the thing was the Bush campaign linked d Caucus
is well, Duke Caucus himself with the weekend passes and
(03:23):
insinuated that he had come up with this and that
he was in support of it. Well, he was in
support of it. He didn't come up with it though, Yeah,
he inherited it from his Republican predecessor, I believe. Yeah,
it actually started U with a Republican governor governor of Massachusetts,
which apparently things have been going fine up until then
(03:44):
until Willie Horn came along. Yeah, it kind of had
a weird UH, A long and winding road. Um. The
initial program excluded first degree murderers, and then the Supreme
Court said, no, the law doesn't specifically say that, so
you can't exclude first degree murderers. So the legislature said, well,
we gotta put a stop to this, and we can't
(04:05):
let first agree murderers out on leave. And Ducaca's vetoed that.
So he did support it until he decided to run
for president, and that's when he said, let's get this off.
So the N. S Pack ad was very um widely criticized.
It was criticized as being misleading, It was criticized as
(04:25):
fostering racist attitudes. Um and but it still worked. A
lot of people say, and I understand. Some people say no,
A lot of people say this did work. Some people
say it was the tank Gride remember that, Oh I
forgot abouts rode around that tank. Yeah, I totally forgot
about that. He was off the rails there for a
little bit. Um. But the the thing is is George
(04:49):
Bush's campaign I was able to say, hey, this had
nothing to do with us, blame N. S. Pack. So
it still worked in George Bush's favor. But George Bush
got got to say this had nothing to do with me.
Remodle up. That was Clinton. I just did. Um. It
was it was pretty dead on Clinton. Really, it's called
(05:11):
a political matchup. Um. And the whole way that this
pack was was funded was with what's called dark money. Yeah.
We should uh, we should just title this one how
to exploit a loophole in America. Yeah, and how the
Supreme Court really screwed things up. Yeah. Or if you
(05:32):
don't like Josh and Chuck talking politics, turn it off now.
But we're taking down the system. Yeah. Yeah. Here's the thing, man,
Billionaires controlling who gets elected in the United States is
not a conservative or liberal issue. We're all being screwed
over equally. Here everyone, I got a stat for you,
(05:53):
and then we'll get right into it. This will shake
you to the core. Uh. Since two thousand ten of
the one bill in dollars spent in federal elections by superpacks,
almost sixty percent of that money came from one hundred
and ninety five people and their spouses one hundred and
nine people of campaign of superpack spending. And as most
(06:18):
as it is crazy, but it's not that surprising if
you really step back and look at what's been going
on the last decade or so, and that's what people
I mean, some people say, like spending tons of money
on elections isn't bad. It's the fact that a hundred
people are the ones doing the majority of the spending, right,
That's that it's not right. And the the that's a
billion dollars spent by super packs or political action committees,
(06:41):
and super packs up until recently had to disclose, um,
who donated money to them. So this is just the
money that's traceable. And what we're talking about is the
money that's not traceable here. So we're gonna go back
a little bit um in the way back machine, back
(07:04):
to the early twentieth century once again. Yeah, and um,
we're going to talk about money in politics. There's this
really good Mother Jones article called Follow the Dark Money,
and it gives a bit of a history of politics
and money. Uh and says Congress is always reacting to
some sort of money scandal, but there's this long history
(07:26):
and tradition of knowing who is funding campaigns. Transparency in America. Yeah,
and it started with Teddy Roosevelt. Teddy Roosevelt ran as
a trust buster. He was against the big corporations that
controlled so much in the robber barons, but he was
also simultaneously secretly going to these same corporations of robber
(07:47):
barons and getting secret funding for his campaigns. Yes, one
tycoon said, Teddy Roosevelt got down on his knees for us.
That's not the normal description of Teddy Roosevelt. And as
far corporations are concerned, not the public image of him.
Teddy Roosevelt, you wouldn't think got on his needs for anybody.
So as a result, after Roosevelt was elected, he actually
(08:09):
did something about it. He signed into law of the
Tilman Act that prevented it, outlawed corporations from directly contributing
to candidates. That's illegal, still is today. It is. That's
why we need loopholes. Watergate came along in uh, the
I think the nineteen seventy four, nineteen yeah, nineteen seventy
(08:29):
two election when Nixon was running for UM office. He um, Okay,
he accepted twenty million dollars in nineteen seventy two money
UM in secret political contributions. And we're talking like delivered
in cash and checks in briefcases by couriers who were
(08:51):
flying private jets from Texas to d C. For Pete's sake. Yeah,
and his personal attorney when Herbert kombach Uh, he was
z deputy finance chair for the Committee for re Election
for President, he destroyed this evidence and went to prison
for it. So it was a real thing that happened.
What's crazy is their their political action committee was the
Committee to re Elect the President and the acronym was Creep.
(09:16):
They called themselves creep and they were trying to reelect
Nixon's pretty funny. I mean, come on, it's a little
on the nose. Don't you think maybe it was lost
on them? So um, you fast forward and you just say, okay, guys,
let's stop bashing Teddy Roosevelt and Richard Nixon. How about
some some Democrats in there. And uh, Bill Clinton was
a really good example of that as well. Yeah, you
(09:38):
want to go jogging with Bill? I want to play
a little golf six figure check. Please. Access to the
president or even somebody who's running for the presidency is
not supposed to be purchasable. Bedroom you were you or I,
we can't do that. We don't have access to the
president because we don't have that much money. So it's
just simply not fair for somebody who does have that
(09:59):
much money to have that much more access to the
president or somebody running for the president. So over the
years have been scandal and then uh some sort of
change to campaign finance laws. But there's been this through
thread over the twentieth century that America has said, we
want to know who is giving money to uh two candidates,
(10:23):
we want to know who they're indebted to when they win. Yeah,
but there's also been a thread of every time law
comes into action, there is a loophole that is invariably
found that can get around that created by the same
politicians who pass the Act to begin with, because it's
a game. They really upsetting if you think about it. Oh,
(10:43):
it's very upsetting. I'm I'm really doing a good job
here staying calm. Well, you have a vein in your
forehead that's pulsing. I can see it is. There's this
blood spurting out of it. Yea, So um chuck. There's
a there's another thread to um to all of this
is semi political, and that is the tax code. Right,
(11:03):
So if you go look at the tax code after
you're going to see something called the five oh one
C four organization called the social welfare organization, or you
can also be a local association of employees and be
a five O one four. Those are also known as unions. Right,
and as of nineteen thirteen the Underwood Terriff Act, which
(11:26):
brought back income taxes, five oh one C four organizations
are nonprofits that are tax exempt. Right, Yeah, and they
can accept donations. But because of this uh there five
oh one C four status, they don't have to reveal
who their donors are, right, which wouldn't seem like a
(11:46):
big problem because all nonprofits are are people trying to
save animals and save the rainforest. Right. Social welfare one. Sure,
So you want to just donate your money and I
want it to be anonymous and it's no big deal.
But that is an always the case. Um. By the
well late nineteen fifty nine, early nineteen sixties, the government
(12:07):
realized that politics and uh five oh one seat where
they five one fours at that time? Yeah, okay, um,
they were intertwined. Uh. There was nothing they could do
about it, and so they started loosening rules in a
night one they said, you know what, you can be
politically engaged as long as it's under the banner of
(12:28):
the promotion of quote social welfare or quote or that
the work you're doing is primarily social welfare. And the
way that that translated as far as the I R S,
who you know, um enforces the tax code. As far
as the I R S was concerned, it was if
fifty one of your funds are spent on social welfare,
(12:49):
you can spend up to forty nine on political stuff. Yeah.
And the I R S had to fight for that
designation because previously it just said primarily, which is such
a loose h word. You know, they said, you know,
we what does this really mean? Right? And so that
they just through I think they released an interpretation a rule.
It said this is what primarily means nine. And that
(13:12):
was the rule from one on basically. Um, And so, okay,
you've got five oh wind C four is they're hanging
out there over there, they're doing their own thing. Nobody's
paying too much attention to them. Uh. And then two
thousand ten rolls along, and there was a lawsuit that
had made its way through the lower courts up to
the Supreme Court, and it was called Citizens United versus
the Federal Election Committee. And it sounds so boring that
(13:36):
I hazard to say that Americans have never even heard
of it. And it's and it may be one of
the most influential Supreme Court rulings in the history of
this country. But it just listened to it. Citizens United
versus the FEC snooze. So Citizens United was a m
a political action committee and uh well, I think it
(13:58):
still is as a matter of fact. And Citizens United
was spending money on advertisements for a video on demand
movie that was basically, um, a attack ad, one giant
attack ad on Hillary Clinton. I thought you're gonna say
it was one of those Kirk Camera in movies. I
(14:19):
think it was similar. He had a cameo I think, right.
And so in this movie, Um, like the Citizens United didn't.
I don't believe they funded the movie or finance, but
they were. They were running ads about it, and they
were running ads within I think thirty days of the
the election, no, sixty days of the prime no, sorry,
(14:40):
thirty days of a primary election, which under the McCain
Fine Goal of Act, which is a campaign finance reform
Act that came along in two thou two. Um, you're
not allowed to do And Citizens United said, you know what,
why wouldn't we be allowed to do this? This is
political speech. Um, we're going to sue the Federal Elections Commission,
and they did in free speech. The Supreme Court ruled
(15:01):
on it, and the Supreme Court in Citizens United ruled
in favor of Citizens United. But then they released one
of the most sweeping explanations of what they'd ruled that
just completely changed the face of American politics from that
point on. It said, it's open season. Bring in as
(15:22):
much money as you want uh into the American political system,
because we are opening the floodgates as wide as they
can go. Yeah, what they basically did was they equated
speech with money, and they said, basically they took the
term money talks to the reaches that we can't even
(15:42):
comprehend that you can make huge donations and that is
a political statement. That is your speech as a corporation,
and you are protected because corporations are individuals, right, So
so that's exactly what they did. They said, spending money
on political campaigns, any political contribution, is a form of
political speech. Speech is protected under the First Amendment, but
(16:04):
the speech of individuals is protected. Well. Corporations are considered
artificial people, so therefore they should have that same thing
extended to them, right, And so that that the ruling
was that you can spend as much as you want
as long as it doesn't go directly to a candidate.
And um, you can also now that since there's five
(16:27):
O four, you can funnel as much money as you
want too or five O four and remain an anonymous donor. Yeah.
And the problem, well, there are a lot of problems.
One of the biggest problems is is these corporations are
spending tons and tons, millions and millions of dollars. The
court essentially said, uh, Joe Schmo on the street donating
(16:48):
ten dollars to a campaign is the same thing as
a corporation donating thousand dollars to a campaign, because they're
both individuals, right. So it created this huge loophole. And
I think the Supreme Court with they were relying on was, uh,
that these groups would be independent of the candidates. And
that's not only not how it worked out, that was
the plan all along. It was extremely naive the ruling was.
(17:12):
And if you look at naive or was it, I
don't know, but if you look at the I have
the same questions. You know a lot of people do
the the If you look at the ruling, though, there's
a section on transparency, where they say, with the Supreme
Court uphold the constitutionality of requiring transparency in campaign finance
at that past eight to one, right, eight to one,
(17:33):
which is like they're the only person descending was Clarence Thomas,
and it was like, yes, we're saying you need to
be transparent. And they said, okay, well, then transparency is
going to come through people demanding the corporations that they
own stock in to release what what political donations they've done.
That makes total sense. If you have stock in a company,
(17:54):
if your life's fortune is invested in a corporation, you
should know who are they're who they're giving their money too. Okay,
So that's one way. And they also said, well, the
Federal Elections Commission, they've got their job to do, the
I R S, the SEC. There's all these regulatory agencies
that are tasked with keeping transparency in the political process,
(18:15):
and um, we're we're just going to rely on them.
And as we're about to see after this break, relying
on that was an enormous mistake. Foolhardy. So all right
(18:44):
we're back, boy, we're getting riled up today. I'm remaining
calm still, I'm riled up um election season. So the
Supreme Court said, guys, spend as much money as you want,
spend it anonymously if you want. UM. The only thing
that remains illegal is corporations contributing directly to candidates, right, which,
(19:06):
once you have these loopholes, who cares, you don't need
to anymore. Right. Plus, also, don't even worry about the
mega donors donating directly to candidates because you, um, there's
there's requirements for reporting. There's transparency requirements. If you under McCain,
fine gold if you contribute a thousand dollars or more
to a candidate or a pack that has to report donors, Um,
(19:30):
you have to report it. Somebody's got to report it. Sure,
there's transparency, right, the Federal Elections Commission, the i R S,
all these guys are tasked with making sure that happened.
So we're fine. Supreme Court went home and took a
giant nap together on their enormous nine person bed. UH.
And here's one of the other big problems is a
(19:50):
lot of this money goes toward UH campaign ads, television ads,
which have a lot of sway UM nine out of
chen and people have studied this. The uh Annenberg Public
Policy Center UH determined that in the two thousand twelve
campaign cycle, nine out of ten ads UH funded by
dark money were negative. So that's why you see those
(20:12):
negative ads. And not only that, but those were misleading
and there's no accountability. So they're being funded anonymously and
there's no fact checker. They don't have to run it
by anybody to get approval and say, well, this is
all true, it's not misleading at all, So you can
basically say whatever you want. The ad runs, it's anonymously funded,
and someone's campaign is destroyed in the process. So the
(20:35):
point is, as long as the candidate is not coordinating
with the Political Action Committee, the superpacker, the five of
one CE four, then it's all kosher. It's all illegal
and coordinating, meaning like so blatantly like come on, it's
still going on. So every every election season as it
starts to kick off, you'll you'll see on the news
(20:56):
like Ted Cruz or Bernie Sanders or whoever, just released
an eerie twelve hour tape of them doing different things
with no soundtrack whatsoever. And and the whole thing is
they they'll release a real and it's them hanging out
with their mom, them writing a tractor, them like standing
(21:17):
on like a mountain looking as the sun comes up
with their foot on the head of a small child. Sure,
they're like there, and it's just that there's no sound
to it whatsoever. And they just put it out there.
I'm just putting it out there, and then anybody wants
to use it can do whatever they want with it.
And then the political action committees, the super along use
that footage to make their ads in supported the candidate.
(21:39):
I kind of wondered, I was like, how are they
getting this footage anyway? If they can't be directed putting
it out there? I had no idea. Yeah, it's pretty
cynical really if you think about it, the idea that
they're not coordinating in any way, shape or form. They're
just putting all this raw footage out there. And and again,
guys like if you're getting riled up if you're a
Republican when we say they like the Democrats do this too.
(22:00):
But it's really disingenuous to say that all parties are
equally equally at fault here for using dark money, because again,
studies show that if you quantify the amount of money
spent by the GOP and by the Democrats. The GOP
has outspent the Democrats mind boggling to seventeen percent. Yes.
(22:25):
As far as using dark money goes, it's it's definitely
not a like. Democrats do it, for sure, and they
sometimes do it cynically. I read about a a dark
money committee that released an ad in favor of Harry
Reid lambasting dark money. That's pretty cynical as well. Yeah,
(22:46):
so both sides do it. The Republicans just do it
way way more. Yeah, And I think Hillary Clinton has
come under fire for her reliance on super PACs, being
attacked by Bernie of course, who's like, I don't want
any part of that stuff. Um, Although there are some
super pecks for Bernie, but I think he's disavowed them. Maybe. Yeah,
you have to look at George Bush disavowed the Weekend
(23:08):
Passes ad too. You still benefit from it. It's not
like he's like, guys, you have to stop, well, that
was my Bernie standards. No, that was your Larry David right.
Oh wait, same guy. Uh. Leading up to the primaries
here in New Hampshire and Iowa not too long ago,
Bernie came under fire from Hillary because there's a group
(23:30):
called Friends of the Earth Action. Uh there are five
oh one c four and um they are in strong
support of Bernie. And she's like, hey, dude, you're getting
dark money too from this outfit. Uh. Friends of Earth
UM Action said, Hey, first of all, we've been around
since early seventies. We've been around long before dark money
(23:51):
has been around. Uh, that's not what we are. We
are mainly small donor based. UM, do not compare us
to these corporations. Uh. And you know they have a
point in a lot of ways. You can't compare Friends
of Earth Action to the Koke Brothers. UM. But I
think Hillary was just trying to get in some like, hey,
you're not completely clean either. Right, it's true. And the
(24:14):
Koke Brothers is good that you mentioned them because they
are basically the poster boys for dark money contributions. Right.
Americans for Prosperity spent thirty six million dollars and that's
their group right in two yeah, in two twelve, UM,
and they actually got outspent by other groups like Karl
Rove created UM Crossroads GPS and that all these names
(24:36):
are so dumb. They spent seventy one million in two
thousand twelve. But the Koch brothers in particular have pledged
nine hundred million dollars for the two thousand and sixteen cycle.
That's how much they're going to spend on the two
thousand and sixteen cycle. And um, if you read up
on those guys and their dark money contributions, UM or
just their general political contributions, they've definitely amassed a lot
(24:59):
of ends in state legislatures, in the Senate, in the
in the the the House, and the one that's left
is the presidency, and they're spending a tremendous amount of
money making friends with whoever is going to become president.
All right, so let's talk for a second about does
money when you an election? Because that's really what's it
(25:20):
the route here? If money doesn't win you elections? And
who cares? I take issue with that, but go ahead.
What what was the issue? Well, the issue is like
in this article, the author says, you know a lot
of people raise a lot of money and flame out,
they don't make it even to the primary. Look at
Jeb Bush. Yeah, he I think he raised a hundred
and three million through super PACs alone. Yeah, and and
(25:42):
just burned right through. It didn't get anywhere with it.
But that's a disingenuous that's a straw argument because it's
it's saying like, yeah, you can raise all the money
you want and you're still not gonna win. The thing
is somebody's gonna win, and the people that help them
win through these huge donations, they're gonna be indebted to
those people. Well, I'll help you out even further, my friend. Uh.
(26:03):
People that say you can spend a ton of money
and still not win. Who he or she who spends
the most money almost always wins. Yeah, yeah, not sort of. Yeah.
Nine out of ten uh in the House and eight
out of ten in the Senate. Uh, winners are the
people who spent the most money. Yeah, So you can't
(26:25):
ignore that if you raise the most money, you have
an eight or nine out of ten chance of winning.
So money is buying elections, it is. And then people say, well,
if these are as long as the packs and the
super packs and the five of one c four is
all stay separate from the candidate, then and there's no
coordination and there's no crossover whatever, then the candidates not
(26:48):
indebted to these people who gave nine million dollars to
their campaign, um, which is just the most ridiculous assertion
you can possibly think of. And I really read this
this UM. I think it was a Bloomberg article or
u S News, I can't remember, and it basically explained
it how you're indebted to these people you're it's not
(27:11):
necessarily nefarious, although I'm quite sure there is a tremendous
amount of nefariousness out there. But even if you remove
the nefarious angle, right, if you are a presidential candidate
and you're moving and shaken, yeah you're going to like
the local diner and somewhere in like Rhode Island or whatever,
and shaking hands or whatever. But the people you're really
(27:32):
interacting with that you see over and over again at
the same fundraisers. Those are the mega donors. You don't
see the dude who's sitting at the diner asking you
a question more than that one time at that one
dime you see him in the photoph You do see
the same mega donors time after time after time after time.
So the very at least they have your ear, and
(27:54):
even if they don't have your ear, they become who
you think of when you think of your electorate. These
people who you saw time and time and time again,
who contributed money after money after money. So even if
you're not saying, yeah, give me some money and I'll
make your your legal troubles go away with the I
R S. Even if it's not quid pro quo like that,
(28:15):
there's still a mentality that crops up where if you're
exposed to these people who are giving you tons of
cash to get you elected, you're going to equate their
help with your success at being elected. That's at the
very least how it influences politics. All Right, we definitely
need to take a break now because I can't even
(28:36):
coming out of your I ducks. Alright, we're back. You good,
(28:58):
you got the tissue. Yeah, I'm good. You're crying bloody tears. Uh,
I get riled up to man. It's just it's when
you look at the state of American politics these days,
it's very hard to not want to go live on
a deserted island somewhere in Canada start your own oligarchy. Yeah,
rule myself, monkeys. I wonder what it's. I don't know
(29:20):
much about politics around the world. I know other like
you know, wealthy countries are corrupt as well. Um, I
feel like we're leading the race, though maybe maybe not
the the race downward. Yeah, I'd like to hear from
other countries out there, other like big wealthy countries, UM
(29:40):
about your systems. Yeah, I'm sure they're largely broken. Right,
Are we the only ones? No, we're definitely not the
only ones doing it right the Finns. I mean, you
look at Scandinavia and you're like, yeah, they're like a
model of of you know, using taxes for good and
all that. But how much of it do you know here?
About like how much like like waste is there, how
(30:03):
much graft is there? How much you know? I'm like, well,
they pay so much much in taxes over there. But
everything we hear though from people in that part of
the world say, we're happy to because everything's great. It's
like we have no crime, we have no gun violence,
everyone's healthy, we all get healthcare, schools are awesome. We're
all happy. I don't know, maybe I'll move to Finland.
(30:26):
So we we've talked about, um, like why how money
influences politics, But the underlying key is this is if you, um,
if you can purchase campaigns, you can purchase everything else
because you get people who owe you, or who you
(30:47):
have influenced, or who you just share a tremendous amount
of common viewpoints with into office. You backed the right horse,
your guy got in there. Right. You can put it
as crassly or as nicely as you want, but you
helped get somebody into office, and now they kind of
owe you, and now the policies are probably going to
(31:09):
fall into your favor. And just the ability to do
this is such a symptom of the inequality in the
United States that we're dealing with right now that I
think that's what disheartens me the most. It's it's like
when the Supreme Court ruled in two thousand ten, we're
opening the floodgates, basically said you have no voice individual. Yeah,
(31:30):
but yeah it did, But did we ever? Was the
Supreme Court really just saying like, hey, we're going to
take the scales off your eyes. We're not We're going
to take away any pretense. Here's how it is, Here's
probably how it's always been. But now it's legal. Man,
Just get used to it. Yeah, but no one was
paying attention because people But I mean, like back in
(31:51):
the seventies when Watergate happened. People paid attention to that,
you know, because the idea that if you were wealthy
you could become an ambassador for two K, or that
you add access to the president. It's always ticked Americans off. Uh.
So remember when we talked a little bit ago about um,
the five oh one s fours have to of their
(32:15):
uh spending cannot be political. Uh, no comment on that part,
but it's unenforceable. Basically. Well, IRS did try to enforce
it once. Yes, that's where I was headed. The i
R S UH made the mistake of going too hard
at the tea party, um because they felt like they
were the worst offenders, and it backfired on them in
(32:38):
a big way. UM to say the least, would you say, Yeah, Well,
the GOP in Congress came down hard on the i
r S. They got the i R S director removed
from her position, got a new person installed. And this
new guy has basically said, like you know this, I'm
just going with everything the Supreme Court thinks. So I'm
(32:59):
gonna stop and forcing this. And even if the I
R S wanted to enforce these rules that that they're
tasked with making sure that there's transparency, right, Um, Uh,
the Senate actually inserted a couple of bills. And by
Senate I mean Mitch McConnell, who hates campaign finance laws. Uh,
(33:20):
he got a couple of bills inserted in the omnibus
spending bill, a couple of riders. Yes. Um. And if
you guys, a lot of people may not know what
an omnibus spending bill is. It's basically a big, large, sweeping, uh,
set of many, many bills and writers all under one banner.
It pays it's the government's budget. Well yeah, but it's
(33:42):
a it's they don't have to do with one another.
You can when you hear like a rider was attached
to it. That that a lot of times means someone
is trying to sort of sneak something through. Right, So
if you attach a rider to the right bill, you
can get almost anything passed. And you know, I shouldn't
say sneak something through because it's not like it's in secret,
(34:04):
but it's a way. It's a very convenient way to
pass a controversial amendment. Right. Okay, So if you if
you take a very cherry bill like one that has
to pass, like the bill that pays for the government
spending for the next year. And you insert a writer
in there that says the I R S is not
allowed to make clearer rules on UH five oh one
(34:25):
C fours and political action committees spending on politics. You're
gonna get it passed. And it did get passed. Yeah.
And another thing that got passed was, remember when we
talked about the fact that shareholders wanted to know if
their corporations who they were donating to. They also got
a almost said snuck it in. They almost also got
(34:45):
in a writer that said, no, corporations don't have to
do that. They they did. They said that. They said
that the SEC is not allowed to make rules considering
making corporations disclosed political contribution. Yeah, you cannot for them
to do that. So there's a ban on the I
R S clarifying its rules and the SEC creating a
(35:06):
rule just clarifying. They just wanted it more clearly defined
in existing you can't do that, but we like it
really nebulous. So Congress said, sit down, when it comes
to campaign finance stuff, you you don't do your jobs anymore.
Your regulatory stuff is over with now. UH. Individuals have
petitioned UH these companies UM and sometimes they voluntarily given
(35:28):
it up. But if that's the solution, then it's not
much of one. And then so lastly, so the SEC
is down, the I R. S Is down, UM, and
the last the last agency that was tasked with enforcing
transparency was the Federal Elections Commission itself. Yeah, surely they
(35:48):
would step up and do the right thing. So the
Federal Elections Commission is now split three and three along
party lines and apparently deadlocks as a matter of routine.
So you need four commissioners for FBC commissioners to take
action on anything to get a quorum, right, they can't
even get a quorum. So as far as campaign finance
(36:10):
stuff goes, they have been sitting on their hands since
two thousand ten. And there was a couple of rulings
about UM transparency that that that are about the last
things they did. So in two thousand and seven they said,
you know that McCain fine gold requirement that says if
you spend a thousand dollars or more contributing to a
(36:31):
political group or campaign, you have to disclose it. We
the Federal Elections Commission decided that that means that if
you spend a thousand dollars or more on a political
like communication like an AD, then you have to disclose it.
(36:51):
So that means that if you if you contributed a
thousand dollars to a political action committee, you would have
to say this is for ads, well for this ad
specifically that came later. But yeah, that's the way it
is now, which no one ever does. It's another loophole.
So this last thing, this last bastion of transparency, to
(37:13):
where you had to say I donated a thousand dollars
or more. You you would have to say it is
not just for an attack AD. It's for attack AD
number two thirty eight. Hillary hates America. That's what this
money is for. And like you said, no one does
that because they don't have to. So you so that
as far as the Federal Elections Commission is concerned, you
(37:34):
don't have to say you donated that thousand dollars. Yeah,
they don't have to, so they won't because they don't
want their name attached to it, which is the most
cowardly thing you can do. You know, if you think
about it, Well, yeah, there's this, Well that's the argument.
That's a lot of people's argument is anonymous political speech
keeps you from um getting blowback from the powers that
(37:55):
be or whatever. And there was this woman who has
caught handing out anonymous pamphlets that she wrote outside of
a polling place, which apparently was illegal under McCain fine Gold,
and everybody was like, well, there's a long, proud tradition
of handing out anonymous right. The Federalist papers were originally anonymous.
And Justice Scalia, who was who died recently, Um, he
(38:19):
was actually very very conservative, and in his descent on
that ruling in favor of the woman's right to handle
out anonymous pamphlets said, anonymous pamphlets have about as much
historic tradition and precedents as anonymous phone calls in this country.
They're not honorable. There's something honorable about anonymously lambasting something
that didn't translate to the rest of the court as
(38:40):
far as Citizens United is concerned. Yeah, it's the equivalent
of of going in the dark of night and like
spray painting something on the wall and running away. Right,
It's true, you know. So here's where we're at right now.
The Supreme Court ruled that corporations are people. They already
had ruled that they upheld it politic to go money
is protected speech, right, So this opened the floodgates to
(39:06):
unlimited money to five O one C fours, which are
nonprofit action groups who do not need to disclose their
donor's identities, which means that you could you could contribute
as much money as you wanted to anonymously to a
political campaign. So the SEC was banned from requiring corporate disclosure,
the i r S was banned from investigating the political
(39:26):
action groups themselves, and then the FEC, the Federal Elections Commission,
removed the last transparency requirements of the donors. And an
estimated ten billion dollars is going to be spent on
this two thousand sixteen campaign, five or six billion on
the presidency right, two billion was spent in two thousand twelve.
So the big question here is, are you the individual
(39:51):
upping your political contribution five times? Do you account for
this enormous increase from two billion to five or six
billion dollars? No? No, of course not. So there are
some folks that started digging around and said, all right,
who's funding who's finding some of these uh efforts? Uh
(40:13):
maybe like climate change denial, Some somebody's funding this stuff.
So there's a guy named well at drects the University
and environmental it's like UH sociologist named Robert Brule. He said,
you know what, let me look into this and see
somebody is giving a lot of money to climate change denial.
And UM XN was was given a ton of money
like blatantly for years and years and again the Koke Brothers,
(40:35):
the Koke brothers, and we all knew that because it
was all you know on record. But a weird thing
happened once these changes came about. UM, the Koch Brothers,
A Coke Industries and x On Mobile their cash flow
to climate change and I'll disappeared without a trace. Yeah
the stuff. But a hundred and forty foundations funneled almost
six hundred million dollars to about one hundred climate denial
(40:59):
or organizations. Uh since then, and their money dried up.
This money increased into anonymous five. You don't need to
be a Sherlock colums to figure out what's going on here. Yeah.
And the other thing about a five O one C
four is let's say you have a really great UM,
a really great political action committee. You're a really great
(41:21):
UM social social awareness group, right, UM or social welfare group,
and you don't want to let that brand die because
it's really established itself, but you don't want to keep
funneling money to it because climate denial has a bad
name these days. Right, You can funnel money to a
five oh one c four that funnels money to that
(41:43):
political action committee and you your donation is it's it's
basically laundered, your laundering your donation, turning it anonymous, but
it's still having the same effect, the same outcome. Yeah,
thanks to that loophole. Yeah, and then one more chuckle more.
Criticism of this whole thing is if you say, so what,
who cares? This is the way the world works, especially
(42:05):
with corporations in particular, if they start doing what's called
rent seeking, which is there's a there's a an established pie,
and when you rent seek, you go to get your
piece of the pie. It keeps you from innovating. You
start going spending your money on legislation. Yeah, it's like
rentsing is basically, if you're a big corporation spending a
(42:28):
hundred million dollars on lobbying for regulations against your competitor
instead of spending that one hundred million dollars investing in
your own corporation to grow, which is no good for shareholders. No,
your bottom line still kind of goes up. But really
you're just reaching the path towards stagnation because you're not
innovating anymore. And the public loses out because regulation decreases. Right, Um,
(42:52):
jobs are lost because you're not innovating. And then as
far as consumers are concerned, there's like less stuff to
buy because the corporation and are going for the piece
of the pie rather than making the pie bigger or
creating new pies. Yeah, going for the money that's already
out there. So the solution I think is strictly public
financing of campaigns. Like I have no problem with that.
(43:16):
Just say, here's a hundred million dollars to the candidates
who won the primaries, right and um, get creative. This
is all you got. You are. It's illegal to use
another penny outside of these public funds that were just
given to you as the the party candidates go to it.
(43:36):
Everything else is totally illegal. I can't imagine what a
sea change it would be in politics. I can't imagine
there would be another loophole. Well, you know what would
happen is Suddenly these um these political action committees would
start attacking this idea, saying, you, Josh Moo, you can't
vote with your or you can't your political speech from
(43:57):
your campaign contributions being restricted. Your amendment rights are being restricted.
Your fifty you were going to give candidate which is
suddenly taken on huge dimensions of import Uh, it's being restricted.
And that's exactly what would happen. Who so we moved
into Finland. No, we need to take this country back. Man,
(44:17):
what's the best country? That's what I want to know
from listeners. Which one is the best? I can't wait
to hear Costa Rica. That's pretty nice. Right. If you
want to know more about UM campaign finance, dark money,
all that jazz, we want you to go check it out.
Look up dark money in the search bar at how
stuff works dot com, and just check out dark money
(44:39):
all over the web, including Jane Mayer from The New
Yorker wrote a really interesting book called dark Money All
about the Koch Brothers. Yeah, fantastic. Well, since I said, uh,
Jane Mayer, it's time for listener man. All right, I'm
gonna call this one. Uh maybe appropriate for this well
(44:59):
not really. Some Body funding us. This is from a
coal miner about our Bill Gates podcast. He said, Hey, guys,
one problem that no one ever seems to talk about
with renewable energy is the people. The people you ask, well,
I was an underground coal miner for seven years until
the market got so bad that I lost my job.
And I'm just one of seven thousand plus people here
(45:19):
in eastern Kentucky that has been hit hard by this.
I'm not saying we need to stick with coal, it's
just the people. Don't think about the people that are
behind the fossil fuel industry losing jobs. Not only are
people losing their way of life, but entire towns are
being killed. I can't count how many people have had
to leave the place that they've called home their entire
life to find work. Along with new renewable, cheaper energy,
(45:42):
we need to find jobs to fill that void of
those who have been lost. Yeah, you know, I mean
it's not like because creating renewable energy creates a lot
of jobs, but they're not going to the coal miners.
You know what I'm saying. But however, this is kind
of neat um. I was lucky enough to find work
at bit Source Tech start up here. The company hired
ten former coal miners and began teaching us how to
(46:05):
web and how to be web and software developers. UH.
The only problem is there only ten of us UH
and it's just this one company, and they cannot feel
the void of all those who lost jobs. I know
that you guys might be able to help shed some
light on this problem. Like I said, no one thinks
about the people and the families that are hurt by progress,
but it happens. Someone told me once, you can be
(46:25):
the best wheelmaker out there, but if no one needs
wheels anymore, doesn't matter how good you are. Thanks for
the podcast. I love to listen on my drive to
and from work. That is Michael Harrison. That is a
great point, Michael. It is everybody should do something or
maybe train these people in new renewable energy forms. Sure,
and this bit source company is a pretty good example
(46:46):
of how the market can can swoop in and in
foster progress basically right. Sure, but the fact that they're
hiring ten coal miners out of seven thousand UH who
need jobs is also an example of how the market
doesn't do that. And like you could, this is where
(47:06):
government comes in. Government spending. Say, okay, let's move forward
and lay the infrastructure for an enormous high speed internet
um national grid. We need people to install that, we
need people to design it, we need people to develop it,
we need people to maintain it. Let's take people who
don't have jobs, train them to do this stuff, build
(47:28):
this infrastructure, and just take off like a rocket from there.
That's one thing you could do, agreed. Uh. Man, we're
gonna get some mail for this whole episode. Good uh.
If you want to get in touch with us to
let us know what you think about this whole jam,
you can tweet to us at s y s K podcast.
You can join us on Facebook, dot com, slash Stuff
(47:49):
you Should Know. You can send us an email to
Stuff podcast at how stuff Works dot com, and as always,
join assert a home on the web. Stuff you Should
Know dot Com Radio. Stuff you Should Know is a
production of I Heart Radio. For more podcasts my Heart Radio,
visit the I Heart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever
you listen to your favorite shows. H
Happy Saturday morning or Saturday afternoon, or Saturday evening or
Saturday night, or any other day of the week that
you happen to be listening to this. This is Chuck here.
It is March in my mind in my memory palace,
because I'm opening the window to the upstairs floor to
talk about dark money, how dark money works. Released in
(00:23):
great episode. Check it out right now. Welcome to Stuff
you Should Know, a production of I Heart Radio. Bush
and dukakas on Crime. Bush supports the death penalty for
first degree murderers. Dukaka is not only opposes of the
(00:45):
death penalty, he allowed first degree murderers to have weekend
passes from prison. One was Willie Horton, who murdered a
boy in a robbery, stabbing him nineteen times. Despite a
life sentence, Horton received ten weekend passes from prison. Orton fled,
kidnapped a young couple, stabbing the man and repeatedly raping
his girlfriend. Weekend prison passes du caucasun Crime. Hey and
(01:09):
welcome to the podcast. I'm Josh Clark, there's Charles to be,
Chuck Bryant, there's Jerry over there. And what you've just
heard was something we brought back with us from via
the way back machine an attack ad, the attack AD
from the election between George Herbert Walker Bush and one
(01:29):
Michael du Caucus. That's right, and uh, that ad is
widely credited as turning the tide against du Caucus's campaign,
which was doing pretty good at the time. Yeah. Well,
some people say so, other people say true. Depends on
who you ask dissent. That's politics, as it turns out,
there's always more than one opinion. But the reason we
(01:51):
bring up this ad, which UM first aired on September
twenty one, nineteen, Yes, UM as called weekend passes for
obvious reasons, and it was UM funded by something called
the National Security Political Action Committee And n s PACK
was a non affiliated pro Bush political action committee that
(02:18):
was aimed at sinking du Caucus and getting Bush elected. Yeah.
I think, uh, one of Bush's uh maybe it was
his chief campaign guy said by the time we're done,
people are gonna think Willie Horton is du caucus is
running mate. And it worked too. I mean, like still,
if if you say the name Willie Horton, people of
(02:40):
a certain age e g r age can still say, oh,
I know who that is? Yeah, Well, quickly, the story
of Willie Horton is he was he was in prison
for murder, was furloughed as part of the UH for
a weekend as part of the Massachusetts furlough program that
was UM in effect at the time, and he raped
(03:01):
and killed somebody on this weekend pass on the weekend pass,
which was a big sign that it may not be
a good idea to furlough murders. I guess they needed
to test it out to find out one way or another.
But yeah, that pretty much closed the book on it.
And the thing was the Bush campaign linked d Caucus
is well, Duke Caucus himself with the weekend passes and
(03:23):
insinuated that he had come up with this and that
he was in support of it. Well, he was in
support of it. He didn't come up with it though, Yeah,
he inherited it from his Republican predecessor, I believe. Yeah,
it actually started U with a Republican governor governor of Massachusetts,
which apparently things have been going fine up until then
(03:44):
until Willie Horn came along. Yeah, it kind of had
a weird UH, A long and winding road. Um. The
initial program excluded first degree murderers, and then the Supreme
Court said, no, the law doesn't specifically say that, so
you can't exclude first degree murderers. So the legislature said, well,
we gotta put a stop to this, and we can't
(04:05):
let first agree murderers out on leave. And Ducaca's vetoed that.
So he did support it until he decided to run
for president, and that's when he said, let's get this off.
So the N. S Pack ad was very um widely criticized.
It was criticized as being misleading, It was criticized as
(04:25):
fostering racist attitudes. Um and but it still worked. A
lot of people say, and I understand. Some people say no,
A lot of people say this did work. Some people
say it was the tank Gride remember that, Oh I
forgot abouts rode around that tank. Yeah, I totally forgot
about that. He was off the rails there for a
little bit. Um. But the the thing is is George
(04:49):
Bush's campaign I was able to say, hey, this had
nothing to do with us, blame N. S. Pack. So
it still worked in George Bush's favor. But George Bush
got got to say this had nothing to do with me.
Remodle up. That was Clinton. I just did. Um. It
was it was pretty dead on Clinton. Really, it's called
(05:11):
a political matchup. Um. And the whole way that this
pack was was funded was with what's called dark money. Yeah.
We should uh, we should just title this one how
to exploit a loophole in America. Yeah, and how the
Supreme Court really screwed things up. Yeah. Or if you
(05:32):
don't like Josh and Chuck talking politics, turn it off now.
But we're taking down the system. Yeah. Yeah. Here's the thing, man,
Billionaires controlling who gets elected in the United States is
not a conservative or liberal issue. We're all being screwed
over equally. Here everyone, I got a stat for you,
(05:53):
and then we'll get right into it. This will shake
you to the core. Uh. Since two thousand ten of
the one bill in dollars spent in federal elections by superpacks,
almost sixty percent of that money came from one hundred
and ninety five people and their spouses one hundred and
nine people of campaign of superpack spending. And as most
(06:18):
as it is crazy, but it's not that surprising if
you really step back and look at what's been going
on the last decade or so, and that's what people
I mean, some people say, like spending tons of money
on elections isn't bad. It's the fact that a hundred
people are the ones doing the majority of the spending, right,
That's that it's not right. And the the that's a
billion dollars spent by super packs or political action committees,
(06:41):
and super packs up until recently had to disclose, um,
who donated money to them. So this is just the
money that's traceable. And what we're talking about is the
money that's not traceable here. So we're gonna go back
a little bit um in the way back machine, back
(07:04):
to the early twentieth century once again. Yeah, and um,
we're going to talk about money in politics. There's this
really good Mother Jones article called Follow the Dark Money,
and it gives a bit of a history of politics
and money. Uh and says Congress is always reacting to
some sort of money scandal, but there's this long history
(07:26):
and tradition of knowing who is funding campaigns. Transparency in America. Yeah,
and it started with Teddy Roosevelt. Teddy Roosevelt ran as
a trust buster. He was against the big corporations that
controlled so much in the robber barons, but he was
also simultaneously secretly going to these same corporations of robber
(07:47):
barons and getting secret funding for his campaigns. Yes, one
tycoon said, Teddy Roosevelt got down on his knees for us.
That's not the normal description of Teddy Roosevelt. And as
far corporations are concerned, not the public image of him.
Teddy Roosevelt, you wouldn't think got on his needs for anybody.
So as a result, after Roosevelt was elected, he actually
(08:09):
did something about it. He signed into law of the
Tilman Act that prevented it, outlawed corporations from directly contributing
to candidates. That's illegal, still is today. It is. That's
why we need loopholes. Watergate came along in uh, the
I think the nineteen seventy four, nineteen yeah, nineteen seventy
(08:29):
two election when Nixon was running for UM office. He um, Okay,
he accepted twenty million dollars in nineteen seventy two money
UM in secret political contributions. And we're talking like delivered
in cash and checks in briefcases by couriers who were
(08:51):
flying private jets from Texas to d C. For Pete's sake. Yeah,
and his personal attorney when Herbert kombach Uh, he was
z deputy finance chair for the Committee for re Election
for President, he destroyed this evidence and went to prison
for it. So it was a real thing that happened.
What's crazy is their their political action committee was the
Committee to re Elect the President and the acronym was Creep.
(09:16):
They called themselves creep and they were trying to reelect
Nixon's pretty funny. I mean, come on, it's a little
on the nose. Don't you think maybe it was lost
on them? So um, you fast forward and you just say, okay, guys,
let's stop bashing Teddy Roosevelt and Richard Nixon. How about
some some Democrats in there. And uh, Bill Clinton was
a really good example of that as well. Yeah, you
(09:38):
want to go jogging with Bill? I want to play
a little golf six figure check. Please. Access to the
president or even somebody who's running for the presidency is
not supposed to be purchasable. Bedroom you were you or I,
we can't do that. We don't have access to the
president because we don't have that much money. So it's
just simply not fair for somebody who does have that
(09:59):
much money to have that much more access to the
president or somebody running for the president. So over the
years have been scandal and then uh some sort of
change to campaign finance laws. But there's been this through
thread over the twentieth century that America has said, we
want to know who is giving money to uh two candidates,
(10:23):
we want to know who they're indebted to when they win. Yeah,
but there's also been a thread of every time law
comes into action, there is a loophole that is invariably
found that can get around that created by the same
politicians who pass the Act to begin with, because it's
a game. They really upsetting if you think about it. Oh,
(10:43):
it's very upsetting. I'm I'm really doing a good job
here staying calm. Well, you have a vein in your
forehead that's pulsing. I can see it is. There's this
blood spurting out of it. Yea, So um chuck. There's
a there's another thread to um to all of this
is semi political, and that is the tax code. Right,
(11:03):
So if you go look at the tax code after
you're going to see something called the five oh one
C four organization called the social welfare organization, or you
can also be a local association of employees and be
a five O one four. Those are also known as unions. Right,
and as of nineteen thirteen the Underwood Terriff Act, which
(11:26):
brought back income taxes, five oh one C four organizations
are nonprofits that are tax exempt. Right, Yeah, and they
can accept donations. But because of this uh there five
oh one C four status, they don't have to reveal
who their donors are, right, which wouldn't seem like a
(11:46):
big problem because all nonprofits are are people trying to
save animals and save the rainforest. Right. Social welfare one. Sure,
So you want to just donate your money and I
want it to be anonymous and it's no big deal.
But that is an always the case. Um. By the
well late nineteen fifty nine, early nineteen sixties, the government
(12:07):
realized that politics and uh five oh one seat where
they five one fours at that time? Yeah, okay, um,
they were intertwined. Uh. There was nothing they could do
about it, and so they started loosening rules in a
night one they said, you know what, you can be
politically engaged as long as it's under the banner of
(12:28):
the promotion of quote social welfare or quote or that
the work you're doing is primarily social welfare. And the
way that that translated as far as the I R S,
who you know, um enforces the tax code. As far
as the I R S was concerned, it was if
fifty one of your funds are spent on social welfare,
(12:49):
you can spend up to forty nine on political stuff. Yeah.
And the I R S had to fight for that
designation because previously it just said primarily, which is such
a loose h word. You know, they said, you know,
we what does this really mean? Right? And so that
they just through I think they released an interpretation a rule.
It said this is what primarily means nine. And that
(13:12):
was the rule from one on basically. Um, And so, okay,
you've got five oh wind C four is they're hanging
out there over there, they're doing their own thing. Nobody's
paying too much attention to them. Uh. And then two
thousand ten rolls along, and there was a lawsuit that
had made its way through the lower courts up to
the Supreme Court, and it was called Citizens United versus
the Federal Election Committee. And it sounds so boring that
(13:36):
I hazard to say that Americans have never even heard
of it. And it's and it may be one of
the most influential Supreme Court rulings in the history of
this country. But it just listened to it. Citizens United
versus the FEC snooze. So Citizens United was a m
a political action committee and uh well, I think it
(13:58):
still is as a matter of fact. And Citizens United
was spending money on advertisements for a video on demand
movie that was basically, um, a attack ad, one giant
attack ad on Hillary Clinton. I thought you're gonna say
it was one of those Kirk Camera in movies. I
(14:19):
think it was similar. He had a cameo I think, right.
And so in this movie, Um, like the Citizens United didn't.
I don't believe they funded the movie or finance, but
they were. They were running ads about it, and they
were running ads within I think thirty days of the
the election, no, sixty days of the prime no, sorry,
(14:40):
thirty days of a primary election, which under the McCain
Fine Goal of Act, which is a campaign finance reform
Act that came along in two thou two. Um, you're
not allowed to do And Citizens United said, you know what,
why wouldn't we be allowed to do this? This is
political speech. Um, we're going to sue the Federal Elections Commission,
and they did in free speech. The Supreme Court ruled
(15:01):
on it, and the Supreme Court in Citizens United ruled
in favor of Citizens United. But then they released one
of the most sweeping explanations of what they'd ruled that
just completely changed the face of American politics from that
point on. It said, it's open season. Bring in as
(15:22):
much money as you want uh into the American political system,
because we are opening the floodgates as wide as they
can go. Yeah, what they basically did was they equated
speech with money, and they said, basically they took the
term money talks to the reaches that we can't even
(15:42):
comprehend that you can make huge donations and that is
a political statement. That is your speech as a corporation,
and you are protected because corporations are individuals, right, So
so that's exactly what they did. They said, spending money
on political campaigns, any political contribution, is a form of
political speech. Speech is protected under the First Amendment, but
(16:04):
the speech of individuals is protected. Well. Corporations are considered
artificial people, so therefore they should have that same thing
extended to them, right, And so that that the ruling
was that you can spend as much as you want
as long as it doesn't go directly to a candidate.
And um, you can also now that since there's five
(16:27):
O four, you can funnel as much money as you
want too or five O four and remain an anonymous donor. Yeah.
And the problem, well, there are a lot of problems.
One of the biggest problems is is these corporations are
spending tons and tons, millions and millions of dollars. The
court essentially said, uh, Joe Schmo on the street donating
(16:48):
ten dollars to a campaign is the same thing as
a corporation donating thousand dollars to a campaign, because they're
both individuals, right. So it created this huge loophole. And
I think the Supreme Court with they were relying on was, uh,
that these groups would be independent of the candidates. And
that's not only not how it worked out, that was
the plan all along. It was extremely naive the ruling was.
(17:12):
And if you look at naive or was it, I
don't know, but if you look at the I have
the same questions. You know a lot of people do
the the If you look at the ruling, though, there's
a section on transparency, where they say, with the Supreme
Court uphold the constitutionality of requiring transparency in campaign finance
at that past eight to one, right, eight to one,
(17:33):
which is like they're the only person descending was Clarence Thomas,
and it was like, yes, we're saying you need to
be transparent. And they said, okay, well, then transparency is
going to come through people demanding the corporations that they
own stock in to release what what political donations they've done.
That makes total sense. If you have stock in a company,
(17:54):
if your life's fortune is invested in a corporation, you
should know who are they're who they're giving their money too. Okay,
So that's one way. And they also said, well, the
Federal Elections Commission, they've got their job to do, the
I R S, the SEC. There's all these regulatory agencies
that are tasked with keeping transparency in the political process,
(18:15):
and um, we're we're just going to rely on them.
And as we're about to see after this break, relying
on that was an enormous mistake. Foolhardy. So all right
(18:44):
we're back, boy, we're getting riled up today. I'm remaining
calm still, I'm riled up um election season. So the
Supreme Court said, guys, spend as much money as you want,
spend it anonymously if you want. UM. The only thing
that remains illegal is corporations contributing directly to candidates, right, which,
(19:06):
once you have these loopholes, who cares, you don't need
to anymore. Right. Plus, also, don't even worry about the
mega donors donating directly to candidates because you, um, there's
there's requirements for reporting. There's transparency requirements. If you under McCain,
fine gold if you contribute a thousand dollars or more
to a candidate or a pack that has to report donors, Um,
(19:30):
you have to report it. Somebody's got to report it. Sure,
there's transparency, right, the Federal Elections Commission, the i R S,
all these guys are tasked with making sure that happened.
So we're fine. Supreme Court went home and took a
giant nap together on their enormous nine person bed. UH.
And here's one of the other big problems is a
(19:50):
lot of this money goes toward UH campaign ads, television ads,
which have a lot of sway UM nine out of
chen and people have studied this. The uh Annenberg Public
Policy Center UH determined that in the two thousand twelve
campaign cycle, nine out of ten ads UH funded by
dark money were negative. So that's why you see those
(20:12):
negative ads. And not only that, but those were misleading
and there's no accountability. So they're being funded anonymously and
there's no fact checker. They don't have to run it
by anybody to get approval and say, well, this is
all true, it's not misleading at all, So you can
basically say whatever you want. The ad runs, it's anonymously funded,
and someone's campaign is destroyed in the process. So the
(20:35):
point is, as long as the candidate is not coordinating
with the Political Action Committee, the superpacker, the five of
one CE four, then it's all kosher. It's all illegal
and coordinating, meaning like so blatantly like come on, it's
still going on. So every every election season as it
starts to kick off, you'll you'll see on the news
(20:56):
like Ted Cruz or Bernie Sanders or whoever, just released
an eerie twelve hour tape of them doing different things
with no soundtrack whatsoever. And and the whole thing is
they they'll release a real and it's them hanging out
with their mom, them writing a tractor, them like standing
(21:17):
on like a mountain looking as the sun comes up
with their foot on the head of a small child. Sure,
they're like there, and it's just that there's no sound
to it whatsoever. And they just put it out there.
I'm just putting it out there, and then anybody wants
to use it can do whatever they want with it.
And then the political action committees, the super along use
that footage to make their ads in supported the candidate.
(21:39):
I kind of wondered, I was like, how are they
getting this footage anyway? If they can't be directed putting
it out there? I had no idea. Yeah, it's pretty
cynical really if you think about it, the idea that
they're not coordinating in any way, shape or form. They're
just putting all this raw footage out there. And and again,
guys like if you're getting riled up if you're a
Republican when we say they like the Democrats do this too.
(22:00):
But it's really disingenuous to say that all parties are
equally equally at fault here for using dark money, because again,
studies show that if you quantify the amount of money
spent by the GOP and by the Democrats. The GOP
has outspent the Democrats mind boggling to seventeen percent. Yes.
(22:25):
As far as using dark money goes, it's it's definitely
not a like. Democrats do it, for sure, and they
sometimes do it cynically. I read about a a dark
money committee that released an ad in favor of Harry
Reid lambasting dark money. That's pretty cynical as well. Yeah,
(22:46):
so both sides do it. The Republicans just do it
way way more. Yeah, And I think Hillary Clinton has
come under fire for her reliance on super PACs, being
attacked by Bernie of course, who's like, I don't want
any part of that stuff. Um, Although there are some
super pecks for Bernie, but I think he's disavowed them. Maybe. Yeah,
you have to look at George Bush disavowed the Weekend
(23:08):
Passes ad too. You still benefit from it. It's not
like he's like, guys, you have to stop, well, that
was my Bernie standards. No, that was your Larry David right.
Oh wait, same guy. Uh. Leading up to the primaries
here in New Hampshire and Iowa not too long ago,
Bernie came under fire from Hillary because there's a group
(23:30):
called Friends of the Earth Action. Uh there are five
oh one c four and um they are in strong
support of Bernie. And she's like, hey, dude, you're getting
dark money too from this outfit. Uh. Friends of Earth
UM Action said, Hey, first of all, we've been around
since early seventies. We've been around long before dark money
(23:51):
has been around. Uh, that's not what we are. We
are mainly small donor based. UM, do not compare us
to these corporations. Uh. And you know they have a
point in a lot of ways. You can't compare Friends
of Earth Action to the Koke Brothers. UM. But I
think Hillary was just trying to get in some like, hey,
you're not completely clean either. Right, it's true. And the
(24:14):
Koke Brothers is good that you mentioned them because they
are basically the poster boys for dark money contributions. Right.
Americans for Prosperity spent thirty six million dollars and that's
their group right in two yeah, in two twelve, UM,
and they actually got outspent by other groups like Karl
Rove created UM Crossroads GPS and that all these names
(24:36):
are so dumb. They spent seventy one million in two
thousand twelve. But the Koch brothers in particular have pledged
nine hundred million dollars for the two thousand and sixteen cycle.
That's how much they're going to spend on the two
thousand and sixteen cycle. And um, if you read up
on those guys and their dark money contributions, UM or
just their general political contributions, they've definitely amassed a lot
(24:59):
of ends in state legislatures, in the Senate, in the
in the the the House, and the one that's left
is the presidency, and they're spending a tremendous amount of
money making friends with whoever is going to become president.
All right, so let's talk for a second about does
money when you an election? Because that's really what's it
(25:20):
the route here? If money doesn't win you elections? And
who cares? I take issue with that, but go ahead.
What what was the issue? Well, the issue is like
in this article, the author says, you know a lot
of people raise a lot of money and flame out,
they don't make it even to the primary. Look at
Jeb Bush. Yeah, he I think he raised a hundred
and three million through super PACs alone. Yeah, and and
(25:42):
just burned right through. It didn't get anywhere with it.
But that's a disingenuous that's a straw argument because it's
it's saying like, yeah, you can raise all the money
you want and you're still not gonna win. The thing
is somebody's gonna win, and the people that help them
win through these huge donations, they're gonna be indebted to
those people. Well, I'll help you out even further, my friend. Uh.
(26:03):
People that say you can spend a ton of money
and still not win. Who he or she who spends
the most money almost always wins. Yeah, yeah, not sort of. Yeah.
Nine out of ten uh in the House and eight
out of ten in the Senate. Uh, winners are the
people who spent the most money. Yeah, So you can't
(26:25):
ignore that if you raise the most money, you have
an eight or nine out of ten chance of winning.
So money is buying elections, it is. And then people say, well,
if these are as long as the packs and the
super packs and the five of one c four is
all stay separate from the candidate, then and there's no
coordination and there's no crossover whatever, then the candidates not
(26:48):
indebted to these people who gave nine million dollars to
their campaign, um, which is just the most ridiculous assertion
you can possibly think of. And I really read this
this UM. I think it was a Bloomberg article or
u S News, I can't remember, and it basically explained
it how you're indebted to these people you're it's not
(27:11):
necessarily nefarious, although I'm quite sure there is a tremendous
amount of nefariousness out there. But even if you remove
the nefarious angle, right, if you are a presidential candidate
and you're moving and shaken, yeah you're going to like
the local diner and somewhere in like Rhode Island or whatever,
and shaking hands or whatever. But the people you're really
(27:32):
interacting with that you see over and over again at
the same fundraisers. Those are the mega donors. You don't
see the dude who's sitting at the diner asking you
a question more than that one time at that one
dime you see him in the photoph You do see
the same mega donors time after time after time after time.
So the very at least they have your ear, and
(27:54):
even if they don't have your ear, they become who
you think of when you think of your electorate. These
people who you saw time and time and time again,
who contributed money after money after money. So even if
you're not saying, yeah, give me some money and I'll
make your your legal troubles go away with the I
R S. Even if it's not quid pro quo like that,
(28:15):
there's still a mentality that crops up where if you're
exposed to these people who are giving you tons of
cash to get you elected, you're going to equate their
help with your success at being elected. That's at the
very least how it influences politics. All Right, we definitely
need to take a break now because I can't even
(28:36):
coming out of your I ducks. Alright, we're back. You good,
(28:58):
you got the tissue. Yeah, I'm good. You're crying bloody tears. Uh,
I get riled up to man. It's just it's when
you look at the state of American politics these days,
it's very hard to not want to go live on
a deserted island somewhere in Canada start your own oligarchy. Yeah,
rule myself, monkeys. I wonder what it's. I don't know
(29:20):
much about politics around the world. I know other like
you know, wealthy countries are corrupt as well. Um, I
feel like we're leading the race, though maybe maybe not
the the race downward. Yeah, I'd like to hear from
other countries out there, other like big wealthy countries, UM
(29:40):
about your systems. Yeah, I'm sure they're largely broken. Right,
Are we the only ones? No, we're definitely not the
only ones doing it right the Finns. I mean, you
look at Scandinavia and you're like, yeah, they're like a
model of of you know, using taxes for good and
all that. But how much of it do you know here?
About like how much like like waste is there, how
(30:03):
much graft is there? How much you know? I'm like, well,
they pay so much much in taxes over there. But
everything we hear though from people in that part of
the world say, we're happy to because everything's great. It's
like we have no crime, we have no gun violence,
everyone's healthy, we all get healthcare, schools are awesome. We're
all happy. I don't know, maybe I'll move to Finland.
(30:26):
So we we've talked about, um, like why how money
influences politics, But the underlying key is this is if you, um,
if you can purchase campaigns, you can purchase everything else
because you get people who owe you, or who you
(30:47):
have influenced, or who you just share a tremendous amount
of common viewpoints with into office. You backed the right horse,
your guy got in there. Right. You can put it
as crassly or as nicely as you want, but you
helped get somebody into office, and now they kind of
owe you, and now the policies are probably going to
(31:09):
fall into your favor. And just the ability to do
this is such a symptom of the inequality in the
United States that we're dealing with right now that I
think that's what disheartens me the most. It's it's like
when the Supreme Court ruled in two thousand ten, we're
opening the floodgates, basically said you have no voice individual. Yeah,
(31:30):
but yeah it did, But did we ever? Was the
Supreme Court really just saying like, hey, we're going to
take the scales off your eyes. We're not We're going
to take away any pretense. Here's how it is, Here's
probably how it's always been. But now it's legal. Man,
Just get used to it. Yeah, but no one was
paying attention because people But I mean, like back in
(31:51):
the seventies when Watergate happened. People paid attention to that,
you know, because the idea that if you were wealthy
you could become an ambassador for two K, or that
you add access to the president. It's always ticked Americans off. Uh.
So remember when we talked a little bit ago about um,
the five oh one s fours have to of their
(32:15):
uh spending cannot be political. Uh, no comment on that part,
but it's unenforceable. Basically. Well, IRS did try to enforce
it once. Yes, that's where I was headed. The i
R S UH made the mistake of going too hard
at the tea party, um because they felt like they
were the worst offenders, and it backfired on them in
(32:38):
a big way. UM to say the least, would you say, Yeah, Well,
the GOP in Congress came down hard on the i
r S. They got the i R S director removed
from her position, got a new person installed. And this
new guy has basically said, like you know this, I'm
just going with everything the Supreme Court thinks. So I'm
(32:59):
gonna stop and forcing this. And even if the I
R S wanted to enforce these rules that that they're
tasked with making sure that there's transparency, right, Um, Uh,
the Senate actually inserted a couple of bills. And by
Senate I mean Mitch McConnell, who hates campaign finance laws. Uh,
(33:20):
he got a couple of bills inserted in the omnibus
spending bill, a couple of riders. Yes. Um. And if
you guys, a lot of people may not know what
an omnibus spending bill is. It's basically a big, large, sweeping, uh,
set of many, many bills and writers all under one banner.
It pays it's the government's budget. Well yeah, but it's
(33:42):
a it's they don't have to do with one another.
You can when you hear like a rider was attached
to it. That that a lot of times means someone
is trying to sort of sneak something through. Right, So
if you attach a rider to the right bill, you
can get almost anything passed. And you know, I shouldn't
say sneak something through because it's not like it's in secret,
(34:04):
but it's a way. It's a very convenient way to
pass a controversial amendment. Right. Okay, So if you if
you take a very cherry bill like one that has
to pass, like the bill that pays for the government
spending for the next year. And you insert a writer
in there that says the I R S is not
allowed to make clearer rules on UH five oh one
(34:25):
C fours and political action committees spending on politics. You're
gonna get it passed. And it did get passed. Yeah.
And another thing that got passed was, remember when we
talked about the fact that shareholders wanted to know if
their corporations who they were donating to. They also got
a almost said snuck it in. They almost also got
(34:45):
in a writer that said, no, corporations don't have to
do that. They they did. They said that. They said
that the SEC is not allowed to make rules considering
making corporations disclosed political contribution. Yeah, you cannot for them
to do that. So there's a ban on the I
R S clarifying its rules and the SEC creating a
(35:06):
rule just clarifying. They just wanted it more clearly defined
in existing you can't do that, but we like it
really nebulous. So Congress said, sit down, when it comes
to campaign finance stuff, you you don't do your jobs anymore.
Your regulatory stuff is over with now. UH. Individuals have
petitioned UH these companies UM and sometimes they voluntarily given
(35:28):
it up. But if that's the solution, then it's not
much of one. And then so lastly, so the SEC
is down, the I R. S Is down, UM, and
the last the last agency that was tasked with enforcing
transparency was the Federal Elections Commission itself. Yeah, surely they
(35:48):
would step up and do the right thing. So the
Federal Elections Commission is now split three and three along
party lines and apparently deadlocks as a matter of routine.
So you need four commissioners for FBC commissioners to take
action on anything to get a quorum, right, they can't
even get a quorum. So as far as campaign finance
(36:10):
stuff goes, they have been sitting on their hands since
two thousand ten. And there was a couple of rulings
about UM transparency that that that are about the last
things they did. So in two thousand and seven they said,
you know that McCain fine gold requirement that says if
you spend a thousand dollars or more contributing to a
(36:31):
political group or campaign, you have to disclose it. We
the Federal Elections Commission decided that that means that if
you spend a thousand dollars or more on a political
like communication like an AD, then you have to disclose it.
(36:51):
So that means that if you if you contributed a
thousand dollars to a political action committee, you would have
to say this is for ads, well for this ad
specifically that came later. But yeah, that's the way it
is now, which no one ever does. It's another loophole.
So this last thing, this last bastion of transparency, to
(37:13):
where you had to say I donated a thousand dollars
or more. You you would have to say it is
not just for an attack AD. It's for attack AD
number two thirty eight. Hillary hates America. That's what this
money is for. And like you said, no one does
that because they don't have to. So you so that
as far as the Federal Elections Commission is concerned, you
(37:34):
don't have to say you donated that thousand dollars. Yeah,
they don't have to, so they won't because they don't
want their name attached to it, which is the most
cowardly thing you can do. You know, if you think
about it, Well, yeah, there's this, Well that's the argument.
That's a lot of people's argument is anonymous political speech
keeps you from um getting blowback from the powers that
(37:55):
be or whatever. And there was this woman who has
caught handing out anonymous pamphlets that she wrote outside of
a polling place, which apparently was illegal under McCain fine Gold,
and everybody was like, well, there's a long, proud tradition
of handing out anonymous right. The Federalist papers were originally anonymous.
And Justice Scalia, who was who died recently, Um, he
(38:19):
was actually very very conservative, and in his descent on
that ruling in favor of the woman's right to handle
out anonymous pamphlets said, anonymous pamphlets have about as much
historic tradition and precedents as anonymous phone calls in this country.
They're not honorable. There's something honorable about anonymously lambasting something
that didn't translate to the rest of the court as
(38:40):
far as Citizens United is concerned. Yeah, it's the equivalent
of of going in the dark of night and like
spray painting something on the wall and running away. Right,
It's true, you know. So here's where we're at right now.
The Supreme Court ruled that corporations are people. They already
had ruled that they upheld it politic to go money
is protected speech, right, So this opened the floodgates to
(39:06):
unlimited money to five O one C fours, which are
nonprofit action groups who do not need to disclose their
donor's identities, which means that you could you could contribute
as much money as you wanted to anonymously to a
political campaign. So the SEC was banned from requiring corporate disclosure,
the i r S was banned from investigating the political
(39:26):
action groups themselves, and then the FEC, the Federal Elections Commission,
removed the last transparency requirements of the donors. And an
estimated ten billion dollars is going to be spent on
this two thousand sixteen campaign, five or six billion on
the presidency right, two billion was spent in two thousand twelve.
So the big question here is, are you the individual
(39:51):
upping your political contribution five times? Do you account for
this enormous increase from two billion to five or six
billion dollars? No? No, of course not. So there are
some folks that started digging around and said, all right,
who's funding who's finding some of these uh efforts? Uh
(40:13):
maybe like climate change denial, Some somebody's funding this stuff.
So there's a guy named well at drects the University
and environmental it's like UH sociologist named Robert Brule. He said,
you know what, let me look into this and see
somebody is giving a lot of money to climate change denial.
And UM XN was was given a ton of money
like blatantly for years and years and again the Koke Brothers,
(40:35):
the Koke brothers, and we all knew that because it
was all you know on record. But a weird thing
happened once these changes came about. UM, the Koch Brothers,
A Coke Industries and x On Mobile their cash flow
to climate change and I'll disappeared without a trace. Yeah
the stuff. But a hundred and forty foundations funneled almost
six hundred million dollars to about one hundred climate denial
(40:59):
or organizations. Uh since then, and their money dried up.
This money increased into anonymous five. You don't need to
be a Sherlock colums to figure out what's going on here. Yeah.
And the other thing about a five O one C
four is let's say you have a really great UM,
a really great political action committee. You're a really great
(41:21):
UM social social awareness group, right, UM or social welfare group,
and you don't want to let that brand die because
it's really established itself, but you don't want to keep
funneling money to it because climate denial has a bad
name these days. Right, You can funnel money to a
five oh one c four that funnels money to that
(41:43):
political action committee and you your donation is it's it's
basically laundered, your laundering your donation, turning it anonymous, but
it's still having the same effect, the same outcome. Yeah,
thanks to that loophole. Yeah, and then one more chuckle more.
Criticism of this whole thing is if you say, so what,
who cares? This is the way the world works, especially
(42:05):
with corporations in particular, if they start doing what's called
rent seeking, which is there's a there's a an established pie,
and when you rent seek, you go to get your
piece of the pie. It keeps you from innovating. You
start going spending your money on legislation. Yeah, it's like
rentsing is basically, if you're a big corporation spending a
(42:28):
hundred million dollars on lobbying for regulations against your competitor
instead of spending that one hundred million dollars investing in
your own corporation to grow, which is no good for shareholders. No,
your bottom line still kind of goes up. But really
you're just reaching the path towards stagnation because you're not
innovating anymore. And the public loses out because regulation decreases. Right, Um,
(42:52):
jobs are lost because you're not innovating. And then as
far as consumers are concerned, there's like less stuff to
buy because the corporation and are going for the piece
of the pie rather than making the pie bigger or
creating new pies. Yeah, going for the money that's already
out there. So the solution I think is strictly public
financing of campaigns. Like I have no problem with that.
(43:16):
Just say, here's a hundred million dollars to the candidates
who won the primaries, right and um, get creative. This
is all you got. You are. It's illegal to use
another penny outside of these public funds that were just
given to you as the the party candidates go to it.
(43:36):
Everything else is totally illegal. I can't imagine what a
sea change it would be in politics. I can't imagine
there would be another loophole. Well, you know what would
happen is Suddenly these um these political action committees would
start attacking this idea, saying, you, Josh Moo, you can't
vote with your or you can't your political speech from
(43:57):
your campaign contributions being restricted. Your amendment rights are being restricted.
Your fifty you were going to give candidate which is
suddenly taken on huge dimensions of import Uh, it's being restricted.
And that's exactly what would happen. Who so we moved
into Finland. No, we need to take this country back. Man,
(44:17):
what's the best country? That's what I want to know
from listeners. Which one is the best? I can't wait
to hear Costa Rica. That's pretty nice. Right. If you
want to know more about UM campaign finance, dark money,
all that jazz, we want you to go check it out.
Look up dark money in the search bar at how
stuff works dot com, and just check out dark money
(44:39):
all over the web, including Jane Mayer from The New
Yorker wrote a really interesting book called dark Money All
about the Koch Brothers. Yeah, fantastic. Well, since I said, uh,
Jane Mayer, it's time for listener man. All right, I'm
gonna call this one. Uh maybe appropriate for this well
(44:59):
not really. Some Body funding us. This is from a
coal miner about our Bill Gates podcast. He said, Hey, guys,
one problem that no one ever seems to talk about
with renewable energy is the people. The people you ask, well,
I was an underground coal miner for seven years until
the market got so bad that I lost my job.
And I'm just one of seven thousand plus people here
(45:19):
in eastern Kentucky that has been hit hard by this.
I'm not saying we need to stick with coal, it's
just the people. Don't think about the people that are
behind the fossil fuel industry losing jobs. Not only are
people losing their way of life, but entire towns are
being killed. I can't count how many people have had
to leave the place that they've called home their entire
life to find work. Along with new renewable, cheaper energy,
(45:42):
we need to find jobs to fill that void of
those who have been lost. Yeah, you know, I mean
it's not like because creating renewable energy creates a lot
of jobs, but they're not going to the coal miners.
You know what I'm saying. But however, this is kind
of neat um. I was lucky enough to find work
at bit Source Tech start up here. The company hired
ten former coal miners and began teaching us how to
(46:05):
web and how to be web and software developers. UH.
The only problem is there only ten of us UH
and it's just this one company, and they cannot feel
the void of all those who lost jobs. I know
that you guys might be able to help shed some
light on this problem. Like I said, no one thinks
about the people and the families that are hurt by progress,
but it happens. Someone told me once, you can be
(46:25):
the best wheelmaker out there, but if no one needs
wheels anymore, doesn't matter how good you are. Thanks for
the podcast. I love to listen on my drive to
and from work. That is Michael Harrison. That is a
great point, Michael. It is everybody should do something or
maybe train these people in new renewable energy forms. Sure,
and this bit source company is a pretty good example
(46:46):
of how the market can can swoop in and in
foster progress basically right. Sure, but the fact that they're
hiring ten coal miners out of seven thousand UH who
need jobs is also an example of how the market
doesn't do that. And like you could, this is where
(47:06):
government comes in. Government spending. Say, okay, let's move forward
and lay the infrastructure for an enormous high speed internet
um national grid. We need people to install that, we
need people to design it, we need people to develop it,
we need people to maintain it. Let's take people who
don't have jobs, train them to do this stuff, build
(47:28):
this infrastructure, and just take off like a rocket from there.
That's one thing you could do, agreed. Uh. Man, we're
gonna get some mail for this whole episode. Good uh.
If you want to get in touch with us to
let us know what you think about this whole jam,
you can tweet to us at s y s K podcast.
You can join us on Facebook, dot com, slash Stuff
(47:49):
you Should Know. You can send us an email to
Stuff podcast at how stuff Works dot com, and as always,
join assert a home on the web. Stuff you Should
Know dot Com Radio. Stuff you Should Know is a
production of I Heart Radio. For more podcasts my Heart Radio,
visit the I Heart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever
you listen to your favorite shows. H
Stuff You Should Know News
Hosts And Creators
Chuck Bryant
Josh Clark
Show Links
AboutOrder Our BookStoreSYSK ArmyRSSPopular Podcasts
United States of Kennedy
United States of Kennedy is a podcast about our cultural fascination with the Kennedy dynasty. Every week, hosts Lyra Smith and George Civeris go into one aspect of the Kennedy story.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com