Interview Only w/ Jeff Clements - How To Get Money Out Of Politics For Good - The Chuck ToddCast

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
It's sponsorship time. But you know what, it's really great
when you get a sponsor that you already use.

Speaker 2 (00:05):
And guess what.

Speaker 1 (00:06):
Quint's is something that in the Todd household we already
go to. Why do we go to Quint's Because it's
a place you go where you can get some really
nice clothes without the really expensive prices. And one of
the things I've been going through is I've transitioned from
being mister cot and ty guy to wanting a little
more casual but to look nice doing it. Is I've
become mister quarter zip guy.

Speaker 2 (00:27):
Well guess what.

Speaker 1 (00:28):
Guess who's got amazing amounts of quarter zips? It is Quints.
I have gotten quite a few already from there. The
stuff's really nice. They have Mongolian cashmere sweaters for fifty dollars.
I just know, hey, cashmere, that's pretty good. You don't
normally get that for fifty bucks or less. Italian wool
coats that look and feel like designer the stuff. I'll

(00:49):
be honest, right, you look at it online, you think, okay,
is this really as nice as it looks? Well, when
I got it, I was like, oh, this is real quality.
So yeah, I'm going to end up making sure I
take it to my dry cleaner so I don't screw
it up when I clean it. But I've been quite impressed.
In Hey, it's holiday season. It is impossible to shop
for us middle aged men. I know this well. Tell
your kids, tell your spouses, tell your partners. Try Quints,

(01:12):
or if you're trying to figure out what to get
your adult child, what to get your mom or dad,
I'm telling you you're going to find something that is
going to be comfortable for them on Quints. So get
your wardrobe sorted and your gift list handled with Quints.

Speaker 2 (01:26):
Don't wait.

Speaker 1 (01:27):
Go to quins dot com slash chuck for free shipping
on your order and three hundred and sixty five day
returns now available in Canada as well. That's qui nce
dot com, slash chuck free shipping and three hundred and
sixty five day returns quints dot com slash chuck use
that code.

Speaker 2 (01:50):
So joining me now is Jeff Clements.

Speaker 1 (01:53):
He's co founder and president of an organization called American
Promise Best Way. They describe themselves a cross partisan organization
that's advocate advocating a constitutional amendment to limit the influence
of money and politics.

Speaker 2 (02:07):
As many of you guys know, I think we are.

Speaker 1 (02:09):
We are if you look at our history as a country,
we're at one of those moments where the appetite for
adding a couple of constitutional amendments should be pretty big.
Anytime we've had a consequential era of ten or more
years like the one we're sort of at the tail
end of here with the Trump era, just like after

(02:32):
FDR we added the twenty second Amendment, during the beginning
of the Industrial Revolution and the controversies in and around that,
and the teens. In the twenties, we added direct election
as senators, the income tax prohibition, both positive and negative.
So I think we're in one of those moments.

Speaker 2 (02:50):
And I believe Jeff Clements thinks we're in one of
those moments. Of course, the question is what.

Speaker 1 (02:54):
We'll get priority if we are going to start adding
constitutional amendments. He's advocating campaign finance. He's alone there. What
else would be on that docket. We will dabble in that,
as you know, I've been dabbling in that on this
feed for some time.

Speaker 2 (03:07):
But Jeff, welcome to the podcast.

Speaker 3 (03:09):
Hey, thank you, Chuck. Good to be here.

Speaker 2 (03:11):
So let's start with it's I know why.

Speaker 1 (03:15):
You know, look, it's pretty clear the courts have unless
you want to wait forty years to alter the ideological
makeup of the courts.

Speaker 2 (03:24):
And it's not even ideological makeup, the.

Speaker 1 (03:26):
Sort of the this belief that corporations are people too.
If that is the case and money is speech, well,
then the only way to limit it.

Speaker 2 (03:34):
Is to add a constitutional amendment. Is that the conclusion
you've come.

Speaker 3 (03:40):
To absolutely, Chuck, and I come to it after you know,
three decades nearly in practicing law, and I believe that
the courts were where these kind of issues got worked out.
Over the course of my legal career, the Supreme Court
has taken dozens and dozens of cases involving campaign finance laws,

(04:00):
basically making the system we have now with a handful
of judges and lawyers in Washington, d c. No American
asked for twenty billion dollar elections, you know, six hundred
million dollars Senate raises, foreign money coming in, all the
things you've talked about on this on this on the podcast.
So it is a court created crisis, and it is

(04:24):
not a constitutional crisis because there's something wrong with the concert.

Speaker 2 (04:29):
You know, that's an interesting way of putting it.

Speaker 1 (04:31):
Let's let's I want to dig into that for a
couple of minutes, because essentially, I see where you're going.
Just about everything we don't like about the current way
campaigns are financed was due to a loophole created by
illegal ruling in response to a challenge to a congressional
law that was passed whose purpose was to actually try

(04:54):
to limit the influence of money in politics.

Speaker 3 (04:58):
Absolutely, and you know a a lot of The most
recent famous case, of course, is Citizens United versus Federal
Election Commission. But the first time the court ventured into
this sort of experiment and what would happen if justices
decided our campaign finance policy instead of the American people

(05:18):
was in nineteen seventy six with a case called Buckley
versus Valais.

Speaker 2 (05:22):
I'm just going to ask about it. It's Buckley Valeo right now.

Speaker 3 (05:24):
Yeah, exactly.

Speaker 2 (05:25):
For there was Citizen United, there was Buckley Valeo.

Speaker 3 (05:27):
Yeah. In nineteen seventy six was our bi centennial that
we'd had the first Amendment for nearly two centuries. We'd
had any corruption laws for well over a century by
that point, limiting money in politics. Not once in two
hundred years had the First Amendment been interpreted by the
Court to mean that the American people were stripped of
the ability to have limits on the power of wealth

(05:49):
to influence election outcomes. The Court made up this rule
in nineteen seventy six by saying that spending money is
free speech. It sure has something to do with free
speech First Amendment, but the Court simply said, no, it
is free speech. And then they started on a fifty
year experiment. And because they're not that good at politics,

(06:11):
nor should they be, the justices they increasingly created new
problems for themselves and then had to make up a
rule for that. So what we're doing at American Promise
is saying enough is enough. This has failed. Let's bring
it back to the people with a constitutional amendment that says, Justices,
this is not your job. It's the job of Congress

(06:32):
and the state legislatures to make the rules for how
money influences our elections.

Speaker 1 (06:37):
You know, what would the you know, McCain fine gold
to me is turns out to be the one of
the worst pieces of legislation that Congress passed. What could
it have been good legislation had you had an interpretation
of money and politics differently like would that have under
in a world where money isn't speech. Is McCain fine

(07:02):
gold good legislation?

Speaker 3 (07:04):
Well, you know, at American Promise, honestly, we're sort of
agnostic about specific policy because we're looking at the long term,
and America needs to look at the long term. We've
got AI coming, we've got global digitalized currencies, we've got
all kinds of problems with trying to maintain control of
our political experiment here. McCain fine gold was a law

(07:27):
around two thousand and two three period when Congress was
in some ways trying to deal with the handcuffs that
the Supreme Court had put on them. So money, as
you've said before, Chuck, we'll find a way in politics.
That does not mean just like and I.

Speaker 1 (07:44):
Always compared to the Michael Crichton's character in the original
Jurassic Park, where the Jeff Goldblum character says it in
the movie, but it's also in the book where the
old man claims he's going to keep the dinosaurs from procreating,
and he's like, life finds a way.

Speaker 2 (07:58):
Well, in politics, money finds a way. Yeah, no matter what.

Speaker 3 (08:03):
Absolutely, But that doesn't mean that the American people just
say Okay, I guess money decides things. I think you know,
murder and mayhem find a way too in the human condition.
But we have law and we have real clarity about
who decides, and in America it's the American people who
decide ultimately. And so in the past we have had

(08:27):
yes money. I'm from Boston. You know. Mayor Curley got
re elected from his jail cell. So I get this.
I'm not naive about this. But the American people have
always had the ability and acted on it to enact
new rules for new situations. So corporations became powerful in
the Gilded Age, as you mentioned, and we had any
corruption laws which limited corporate money coming in. Teddy Roosevelt

(08:50):
pushed it. The unions became powerful spenders, and by nineteen
forty eight we had taft haartly. So the laws that
the Buckley Court in nineteen seventy struck down followed the
catastrophic in many ways money and politics scandal of the
Nixon White House, leading to the resignation of a president.
So this is not about the final one answer that

(09:12):
will fix everything. It's about who decides what is needed
in order to address the problems that inevitably occur with
money and corruption and the political system. So McCain Feinegeld
was an attempt to solve a new problem, which is, Okay,
we've got soft money coming in. It's going around the
limits that the candidates are supposed to be able to

(09:33):
be limited to in terms of taking money and some
other problems like that. But they were the Congress was
constrained by the courts at that point forty year invention
of all these rules. Independent expenditures can't possibly corrupt, therefore
they can't be limited, but giving it to the parties
or the candidates could corrupt, so those are going to
be limited. So the states and Congress have been put

(09:55):
in this straight jacket by the courts rules that don't
really make sense, and they start they don't protect free
speech of most Americans, and so you end up with
messy and often bad legislation. That's why we need the
constitutional reset.

Speaker 1 (10:08):
Which of course is why if you're wondering why political
parties have no ability to purge itself of bad candidates,
it's because they've lost the ability to fund campaigns. They've
lost the ability to you know, in some ways, you know,
this is where McCain Feingeld was a bad law with
good intentions that ended up only making polarization worse and

(10:31):
making it even harder for the parties to have any control.
But let's talk about what's the wording of a constant?
You know, the hallmark of the Roberts Court for the
most part, on many issues, it's usually Roberts comes down to, hey, Congress,
do your job. But in this case, Congress tried to
do jobs and the Court said no. A lot of times,

(10:52):
this is a congressional failure. You know, whether it comes
to you could argue it's a congressional failure when it
comes to some of these issues, specificity about independent agencies
and things like that. This is not a congressional issue.
This is truly an invention of the judiciary, sort of
creation of precedence that suddenly become So so, what's the

(11:16):
wording of the amendment that would take this power away
from the judiciary.

Speaker 3 (11:20):
Yeah, so the flat out the wording fits on a napkin.
This is not complicated most constitutional amendments.

Speaker 1 (11:30):
Better if it's in fact, that's three graphs. Do you
need it down to two?

Speaker 3 (11:34):
I'm happy we could And this doesn't have to be
the final language. So what this amendment does though that
we call it the for our Freedom Amendment. You know,
the first section just reminds the court, frankly, in all
of us that we the people have sovereign interest in
free speech and federalism and the equal rights of every
voter and anty corruption and all the things that a
lot of those the Court took off off the First

(11:56):
Amendment balance. So the Court says, and they and let's
be cleared, McCain Fengel didn't create the super PACs and
everything else that was the Supreme Court by saying that
independent expenditures never corrupt and making up these different kinds
of rules. And so the Court did that because the
Court decided it was its job to decide free speech

(12:17):
questions around money and politics with only one question quid
pro quo corruption or the appearance thereof, as they say,
and that's basically Latin for bribery practically. You know, I'll
give you this if you give me that. Well, the
American people and the founders, frankly long understood that there's
a much wider constitutional balance to protecting the equal rights

(12:39):
and freedom of Americans and self government in a republic
and there's things like federalism. There's things like the equal
rights of a citizen. It doesn't mean you have equal
outcomes economically, but in the political sphere, we're all equal citizens.
So there's things like that. Section one makes that clear,
and then Section two moves that Who decides question? Who
decides these rules? It's the legislatures in Congress because they're

(13:02):
accountable to the people. The judges aren't. So we the
people will decide do we want limits, do we not
want limits, do we want super PACs? Do we not
want super PACs? Those will be decisions, and federal elections
for Congress, in state elections for the states, just like
it's always been until the Court intervened. And then Section
three pretty interesting, it distinguished. It says Congress and the

(13:23):
States may distinguish between corporations and entered other artificial entities.
It uses the word artificial entities because.

Speaker 2 (13:31):
We've got to be thank for super pac.

Speaker 3 (13:33):
Well it could be or what about artificial intelligence. The
Court's approach to free speech essentially is if it can
spend money and broadcast noise into the political system, it
has a free speech right. And I use it intentionally
because the Court does not distinguish between human beings or
any other entity. So now you have bots and AI

(13:55):
and who knows what in ten years, twenty years, fifty
years that we have to be thinking about. So this
doesn't solve the problem, and it simply says we're allowed
to solve that problem.

Speaker 1 (14:07):
So here's the question that I have of why the
First Amendment itself couldn't be used as an interpretation of
it without needing this and it would go as follows.

Speaker 2 (14:19):
And I didn't go to law school.

Speaker 1 (14:21):
I just play when I play a lawyer on a podcast.
So excuse please mock away. But I'm guaranteed free speech.
I'm not guaranteed amplification of speech. And it seems as
if the courts have decided if you deny the ability

(14:41):
to amplify.

Speaker 2 (14:42):
Speech, you have violated free speech.

Speaker 1 (14:45):
And the reason I'm saying the words amplification because I
also wonder if this is a way to crack down
on to allow for more social media regulation in addition
to campaign finance regulation. You know, obviously, look I consider myself,
you know, any if we can do this without a

(15:06):
constitutional amendment, the better. Is there a First Amendment argument
against amplification? It's sort of like a corporation's ability to
amplify its access to free speech overwhelms mine.

Speaker 2 (15:19):
Is that the intent of the founders?

Speaker 3 (15:21):
Yeah, well, that it is not the intent of the
founders that the corporations and you know, the wealthiest among
us should drown out everybody else's that's antithetical to the
First Amendment. And I want to mock your interpretation, Chuck.
It's right on in my view. I agree with it.
I think most Americans agree with it. It's what the

(15:43):
dissenters and these many many Supreme Court cases would have said.
So this isn't a question about whether there's anything wrong
with the First Amendment. There's nothing wrong with the First Amendment.
We are a free speech organization where free speech nation.
We want free speech. What we have right now in
the political system with money isn't free speech. For exactly

(16:04):
the reasons you're saying. The Court ma need a mistake
in how it interprets the First Amendment and is laid
down this mandate, which basically means amplification until nobody can
hear anyone anymore except those with the biggest this ability
to spend. And so what our amendment does is not

(16:25):
replace the First Amendment. It strengthens the First Amendment, it
makes it much more like the one you're describing. I
can just tell you one story, and I've been all
over the country with this amendment. There's a wonderful guy
in Maine. David Trahan runs the Sportsman's Alliance of Maine.
He's on our advisory council as well. After Susan collins
Is two hundred million dollars Senate race in twenty twenty

(16:48):
now looks kind of quaint. They're talking about a six
hundred million dollar race in twenty twenty six there, but
all of the super Pac money was pouring in from
outside the state. And these are people who spenders have
no idea where Maine is on a map, probably let
alone caring about what the people of main things. It
was a battle for control of the US Senate. And
so this guy is pretty politically savvy and a free

(17:11):
speech absolutist as well as a Second Amendment advocate. Is
saying he said, Jeff, we can't be heard and we
can't hear each other with all this money. And I
thought that was such an interesting way to think about
the First Amendment issue in this case. In this situation,
which is we want free speech, and actually we want

(17:31):
to hear what our fellow citizens think as well, and
engage about it and argue with each other and then
get out and vote. That's what a republican self government
looks like. It does not look like this. So your
first amendment, David Tryan's first amendment, I think it's the
American first Amendment, and that's the first amendment we'll get
with our constitutional amendment to get us there.

Speaker 1 (17:55):
Having good life insurance is incredibly important. I know from
personal experience. I was sixteen when my father passed away.
We didn't have any money. He didn't leave us in
the best shape. My mother, single mother, now widow, myself
sixteen trying to figure out how am I going to
pay for college and lo and behold, my dad had
one life insurance policy that we found wasn't a lot,

(18:17):
but it was important at the time, and it's why
I was able to go to college. Little did he
know how important that would be in that moment.

Speaker 2 (18:27):
Well, guess what.

Speaker 1 (18:28):
That's why I am here to tell you about Etho's life.
They can provide you with peace of mind knowing your
family is protected even if the worst comes to pass.
Ethos is an online platform that makes getting life insurance
fast and easy, all designed to protect your family's future
in minutes, not months. There's no complicated process, and it's
one hundred percent online. There's no medical exam require you

(18:51):
just answer a few health questions online. You can get
a quote in as little as ten minutes, and you
can get same day coverage without ever leaving your home.
You can get up to three million dollars in coverage
and some policies start as low as two dollars a
day that would be billed monthly. As of March twenty
twenty five, Business Insider named Ethos the number one no
medical exam instant life insurance provider. So protect your family

(19:15):
with life insurance from Ethos. Get your free quoted ethos
dot com slash chuck. So again, that's Ethos dot com
slash chuck. Application times may vary and the rates themselves
may vary as well, but trust me, life insurance is
something you should really think about, especially if you've got
a growing family. You brought up Maine, and I'm glad

(19:40):
because Larry Lessek, who I know you're very familiar with,
and no, and I think you said, he's on your board,
so you're familiar. He believes he has found a way
to essentially use originalism, which is sort of the current
makeup of the Conservative Court. Arguably three of the nine
are more originalists. I think the other three Conservatives are

(20:02):
probably a little more nuanced than being textualists or originalists,
but that's probably open to interpretation. But that there's actually
an originalist argument that would overturn Citizens United.

Speaker 2 (20:15):
Do you buy it?

Speaker 3 (20:18):
Oh, I buy the argument. But if I thought that
the right argument would win the court, I think we
want to need this amendment. As you say, we would
get a reinterpretation of the First Amendment as to be
more aligned with what it was supposed to mean, and
that's originalism. I mean, can you imagine those who ratified
the amendment. Remember, the First Amendment was an amendment too

(20:39):
happens to be our first one. It wasn't didn't come
out of Philadelphia's convention. It came because the American people
at the time demanded the Bill of Rights and passed
and ratified amendments in this way, and the first Amendment
protecting free speech. Can you imagine in that ratification the
people who just won the revolution saying, yeah, this is
intended to protect the right of corporations to spend unlimited

(21:03):
money and the wealthiest you know, among us they even
have billionaires. Then to spend unlimited money, they would have
been preposterous. And originalism in constitutional interpretation means what did
the words actually mean? What did the people who put
those words and voted on those words and lived by
those words intend and mean by it? And so I

(21:23):
think the originalism argument is powerful. We make the same
case at American Promise. In many ways our amendment is
an originalist interpretation of the First Amendment. And so you know,
I welcome and applaud Very few people have worked as
long in his hard in this effort around responding to
the money in politics crisis as Larry Lessig, and I

(21:45):
applaud him for it. And I know he is also
a fan of the constitutional amendment approach. There's no reason
you don't try all the different leavers. So Professor Lesg's
theory is is, Look, the Court didn't act invent the
super pac literally, it was the District Court. There was
the DC Court of Appeals. It never went to the

(22:07):
Supreme Court in a case called speech now, and they said, well,
the court, the Supreme Court tells us that independent expenditures
can't corrupt, therefore there's no reason to have a limit
on packs. Because remember Congress and the American people actually
said we want a five thousand dollars limit on packs.
That used to be the law, and the law fell

(22:28):
down in that case because the District Court of DC
Court of Appeals said that that doesn't make sense after
citizens united because they say independent expenditures can't corrupt, and
then we therefore get the super pack when one person
can put three hundred million dollars into it or one
hundred million dollars into it would have been wildly illegal
before this case. So Larry's argument as, hey, the Supreme

(22:51):
Court didn't say that, and actually independent contributions to independent
expenditures are super packs can corrupt. You can corrupt and
influence the outcome of legislation by telling the person and
heads the committee or whoever is needed to say, hey,
I'll put some money in the superpack and you get

(23:12):
the legislation. So of course it can corrupt. I think
most Americans would agree with that, like, yeah, super PACs,
of course they're corrupting. There's all kinds of Shenanigans going
on with them. So that's the theory, and Larry's the
main people of Maine agreed and adopted a low saying
contributions to super PACs are limited to five thousand dollars.

(23:32):
And it's been struck down by held up by the court,
federal courts. It's now Larry hopes to go to the
Supreme Court and have the Supreme Court say, you know what,
you're right, we never said that, and you can limit packs.
So I think the theories right. I wish the court
would buy it. I'm less skeptical. I'm more skeptical than

(23:54):
Larry is that they will given that.

Speaker 1 (23:56):
Like I hear you, except where I think Larry's case
is strong, It's like, well, one of two things are
going to happen. Either they strike down all limits for individuals,
because how is it that you can have a situation
where you can have unlimited contributions to an independent expenditure,
but you can limit contributions directly to a campaign, right,

(24:20):
It's sort of it's a distinction without much of a
difference anymore. So I wonder if that is if actually
it's one of two outcomes. Either he's right and they say,
you're right if you can limit in contributions of individuals
to campaigns and you can limit contributions to packs, or
it goes the other way and there are no more limits.

Speaker 3 (24:41):
Yeah, I think that's that's that's a fair scenario assessment.
I think you know, the other case that was argued
last week in the Supreme Court NRSC versus FEC has
a similar kind of situation where there's a limit on
the party's ability to spend in coordination with candidates that
the court upheld twenty years ago but now doesn't see.

(25:03):
The argument is it doesn't make sense given that you
can put anything you want and spend anything you want
in other vehicles. So but the problem, I have two problems,
not problems, that's the wrong word. I have two reasons
why we need this constitutional amendment more than ever, even
as I'm rooting for Professor Lessig's success. One is that

(25:26):
even if the Court does begin to see that there's
some weird contradictions in the system that they have built
around money in politics, which believe me, it has been
messed up for a long time, and that hasn't seemed
to bother them. But maybe this time they take this
and say, Okay, we're going to allow some limits on
contribution to certain kinds of super PACs that might create corruption.

(25:50):
There's still all kinds of other avenues that should not
be up to the Court to decide how to deal
with it, should be up to the legislatures. But the
most important reason, Chuck, I'd say more than ever, is
that it's not so much the specific policies and we
can get in the weeds around all these different vehicles
and the different systems. Fundamentally, the constitutional crisis, in my view,

(26:12):
is not specific cases or specific policies. It's the fundamental
question of who decides. And another five to four or
even six' three decision out of The Supreme, court no
matter which way it comes, out does not solve that
problem we have had for half a. Century The american
people disabled from just about what any democracy in the

(26:33):
world does what we used to do before The court gone,
involved which is we make the rules around, this not
the justices In. Washington so that's what we got to.

Speaker 1 (26:42):
Fix, well this goes to you, Know i'm old enough
to remember when my friends and the right were complaining
that the judiciary was legislating in campaign finance laws. Ninety,
basically most of the law that governs campaigns has been judicially.
Written absolutely it.

Speaker 2 (27:03):
Is it has been.

Speaker 1 (27:04):
Over you, know overturning a state, legislature overturning a congressional,
law none of, them, right it has not BEEN i
can't think of a legislature that has passed a law
that the court you know that that you, KNOW i
can't think of a legislature that, said, yeah we should
have unlimited this and we should have it, unlimited LIKE i.

(27:25):
Can't i'm trying to find the legislative law that has done,
that can You.

Speaker 3 (27:29):
Yeah and you know it's you're absolutely, right it's constant
legislation by. Judges it's all of these are policy questions
you can we could agree or disagree or argue.

Speaker 2 (27:38):
About but they have made the. Decision but these are
not the.

Speaker 1 (27:41):
Questions is not a legislative, intent, right because it has
not been legislative, intent.

Speaker 3 (27:46):
Not at, all exactly. Right and so you know that's
the fundamental reason we need this constitutional amendment because it's getting.
URGENT i, mean The american people now call money in
politics the top, issue the top threat to our Democracy Pew.
Research after the twenty billion dollar election in twenty twenty
four did their usual survey of The american people's, Priorities

(28:07):
reducing money in politics was number, one ahead of, immigration
ahead of, crime and, so and there's a good reason
for it because people see it now where they. Live
it's the corruption is coming, home and we've got to fix.

Speaker 1 (28:19):
This SO i accept the, premise and Then i'm going
to challenge you on, it because you, know there's always
the correct answer the public, gives and then there's how
they actually vote right during, elections and you AND i
both know the following, truism which is there's not a
single person that is won on.

Speaker 2 (28:36):
This issue where they've made it the.

Speaker 1 (28:38):
Issue and that is why, POLITICIANS i, think shy away
from making it a centerpiece of their, campaign right because
ultimately you're, like, yeah, OKAY i agree with, that but
what are you doing about the price of?

Speaker 2 (28:51):
Groceries? Right like it has been hard to make this.

Speaker 1 (28:55):
Issue you can get voters to engage with it if
they see the corruption and it's a corruption directly impacting
said candidate and said. Campaign but BECAUSE i, LOOK i
always say there's you, know there's eighty percent issues where
there's only where half of those folks it. Isn't it

(29:17):
isn't the single voting issue that they will go to
the polls to vote. On but they're an eighty percent, agreement, right,
gun some sort of control over you, know some sort
of legislative additional hurdles to purchase guns as falls into that,
category which is there's general, agreement but it's not the
people that are the most passionate about it actually vote
the other. Way why do you think it's been so

(29:40):
hard to make it a voting.

Speaker 2 (29:42):
ISSUE i.

Speaker 1 (29:42):
UNDERSTAND i see the polling, too but there's you AND
i both know there's type certain issues that poll well
that don't get you to the, vote actually get people
to the ballot.

Speaker 3 (29:52):
Box, YEAH i think we have to unpack that a, Bit,
chuck because you, know The american people have never been
offered the voice we Had american promise are, offering which,
is do you want the power back to actually make
the rules around money and, politics or do you want
to leave it the same way it is now leave
it to the, Judges BECAUSE i think we got to

(30:12):
give The american people more. Credit they know that for
fifty years we've lived with judge made rules that have
just moved power into the hands of the wealthiest and
the most global corporate, interests and everybody knows. THAT i
think that's so when they, say, Hey i'm going to

(30:33):
run on passing, McCain finegeld vote for, me the voter isn't.
Stupid they know that the elected official is not actually
going to be able to do very much because The
Supreme court has said has basically invented this right to
spend onlimited, money no matter what you might think about.
It and SO i think that the passion is already.

(30:57):
There you've said it. YOURSELF i thought you're an alice
of the twenty twelve election Of Barack. Obama chuck was
really astute when you said that was misread as somehow
this grand demographic coalition rather than a populist. Election he
went After Mitt, romney AND i thought that was right.
On and why Did Bernie sanders go head to head

(31:19):
an unknown at the, Time Bernie sanders go head to
head With Hillary? Clinton why Is Donald? Trump they had
taken over The Republican party and He's president of The United.
States the answer to all of those, QUESTIONS i think
is the same which The american people are, smart they get,
it is that this system is completely corrupted and the
normal politics isn't going to fix, it and so they're
looking for. Answers and SO i, think as usual In,

(31:42):
america that comes down to a constitutional. Question and SO
i think there's passion for the constitutional question in a
way that you are not going to render up a
voting passion around you, know should the limit be five
thousand dollars to ten thousand dollars or disclosure versus public,
Finance and that's not what this is. About we face
a fundamental constitutional.

Speaker 1 (32:03):
Question, well let's talk about this issue OF i, MEAN
i feel like we're hitting there's a few different. Issues
people that are passionate about certain issues THAT i feel
like are where we basically the only answer is a constitutional.
AMENDMENT i think IT'S i think campaign finance is one of.
THEM i think those my friends that worry about the.
DEBT i think the balanced budget amendment is another. ONE

(32:25):
i think age, limits, Right if you have age minimums
in the, constitution it means there's only one way you
can create age. Limits you're going to need a constitutional,
amendment right if you care about the electoral. College, NOW
i think there are ways around, that which include expanding
the Physical house Of, representatives which would actually fix the
electoral college, issues and you wouldn't need a constitution. One

(32:48):
there are a few places where you wouldn't need. One
but we're at a moment WHERE i think there's enough.
Issues is it worth working in concert with some of
these other affinity groups who are fighting for this sort
of what the infrastructure reforms for our democracy or our constitutional?

Speaker 2 (33:11):
Republic?

Speaker 1 (33:11):
Right you, know and if you look at our, history
we basically have had three periods where we've actually fixed
up our, house our constitutional, house right at the, beginning
right during and after The Civil, war and essentially during
and after The Gilded. Age and then you could say
the twenty Second, amendment in the twenty Fifth amendment also

(33:34):
that was, about you, know sort of REACTION fdr And
kennedy and sort of in what.

Speaker 2 (33:39):
Incapacitation but is this a moment that is?

Speaker 1 (33:43):
Similar is this a period is it worth working with
others to try to force a larger conversation about amending
the constitution or is your time better spent just galvanizing on.

Speaker 2 (33:55):
The single issue of campaign.

Speaker 3 (33:57):
Finance, WELL i think the conversations well. Underway The american
people are talking about constitutional change all the. Time now
you left term limits, Off i'd put.

Speaker 1 (34:07):
That it's another, one, yes where you probably it's only
going to Take you're going to need a constitutional amendment for.

Speaker 2 (34:12):
You. Yeah.

Speaker 3 (34:12):
Yeah The Supreme court is also ruled we're not allowed
to have term, Limits SO i THINK i think that
also there's a viable and energetic support for that kind
of constitutional. Amendment so you're. ABSOLUTELY i couldn't agree more
that we are in a moment In american history where
we will see fundamental change and if we if we
focus and make that constitutional change and other kinds of,

(34:37):
reform it'll be a very positive. Thing but at the same,
time if we, don't there's. Dangers AND i think that's
what you saw if you look at all those periods you,
mentioned and i'd ad you, know we did four, amendments
four constitutional amendments between nineteen sixty one and nineteen seventy,
one lowering the voting, AGE dc got some, representation the poll.

(34:57):
Tax those are pretty big. Deals and if you look
at all those, periods it was very much like our
own political. Assassinations division the wheels coming off The american,
democracy AND i think people realize that we can't go
on with the status quo constitutional structures we've, had and

(35:19):
there's fundamental, change AND i think that's what we're going
to see. Now that doesn't mean, necessarily, though that there's
some grand constitutional. COALITION i think maybe after The Civil,
war The Civil war, amendments The Republican party at the
time was the grand coalition around constitutional. Amendments we need
to once and for all overturn the Dread scott decision

(35:41):
and slavery In, america enfranchise All americans regardless of. RACE
i think that was the. Exception the other, ones, THOUGH
i think amendments happen in a dynamic systematictic process where
there's opportunity because the old way is, crumbling the old
stabilities there, anymore and you can actually put together new

(36:02):
coalitions and new votes to actually get a two thirds
vote In congress and ratification in three quarters of the,
states which remain very. Different SO i don't think you
need to march and lockstep and have different arguments that.
Might you, know it isn't necessarily people will vote for
our amendment who will be against electoral college, reform or

(36:23):
people will like term limits but not the balanced, budget
or you name. It that's. OKAY i think it's a
much more dynamic. Process if Every american go for whatever
it is that you want to, see will be just.
Fine AND i would predict in a decade we'll have
three or four amendments again like previous. Times but if
we have a try to make it with some grand

(36:43):
coalition coming out Of washington Telling americans what to, do
it goes. Nowhere we go to the, states we go
to the, people AND i think that's what smart amendments.
Do so we have twenty three states already on board
for Our Freedom amendment At american. Promise that why you get,
ratification that's why you get the vote In, congress because
we've actually shown that states as widely disparate As alaska

(37:08):
And utah and, yeah you Know wyoming And montana Versus,
California New, York. Massachusetts they're all doing, this they're all moving,
forward and the politics of it are. Changing and so
whether you're A republican Or democrat and you actually want
to vote for our, amendment that'll happen with some of
the other amendments.

Speaker 1 (37:27):
TOO i think what's Your so what's it's, Interesting, look
the four states you just talked about that Are republican.

Speaker 2 (37:32):
Leaning don't surprise me right.

Speaker 1 (37:35):
There there there's a there's a history In montana of
sort of skepticism of corporations and corporate. Money that's a
very little more bipartisan concern about it than you see
in most States, utah, right it's civic, Mindedness, alaska Even,
wyoming the small states sort of get. It what's your biggest, Hurdle,

(37:58):
right you need thirty eight, states you, know it means
you're going to need you, KNOW i guess in theory
you could do this without The Deep south red. States
but make the case to The alabama legislature of why
they should be for this.

Speaker 3 (38:10):
Amendment, OH i think we can win. Anywhere so and you, Know,
ALABAMA i, HOPE i hope we'll come on board. Soon
but you, know we passed The Oklahoma house. Unanimously we
still got to go through The, senate but the vote
In oklahoma was unanimous in The. House we've passed The
senate In. Wyoming so this lead sponsor In, Texas Senator Angela.
Paxton you don't get to the right of The paxtons In.

(38:31):
Texas and you know she's.

Speaker 1 (38:34):
The least It's Ken paxton soon to be ex wife
who's the chief sponsor for? You?

Speaker 3 (38:37):
There you know this is this is the truth about.

Speaker 2 (38:39):
The, fellows, Right, Yeah.

Speaker 3 (38:41):
Yeah the thing about amendments is especially if you do
it in a way that is respectful and actually like
we're service, minded we serve The american people to get done.
With we want to get. Done everybody wants to get,
done but we want to get it done for different.
Reasons so we just let people do it for their own.
Reason and you start to put up these these these.
Wins so the question is why Would alabama want to do?

(39:03):
This not why WOULD i want to Tell alabama to do?

Speaker 2 (39:06):
This In alabama's best?

Speaker 3 (39:09):
Interesting, Yeah so the question for The alabama legislature is
do you want to make the rules For alabama elections
or do you want them to be made by five
justices In. Washington, right that's fundamentally.

Speaker 1 (39:19):
It's the strongest argument you can, make almost like a
state's rights.

Speaker 2 (39:23):
Argument.

Speaker 3 (39:23):
YEAH i just have a hard time If i'm an
elected legislature In alabama saying, WELL i don't really want
to make the. RULES i LIKE i like THE i
like the way it, is and that it's coming From.
Washington i've never heard that In. Alabama SO i think
that they will very much be behind this because, again the,
amendment very, simple is a question of who decides it
puts it back in the hands of the people and our.

(39:45):
Representatives and so we're not Telling, alabama, oh you got
to have this rule or you got to have that.
Rule we're saying To, alabama we Want alabama's to decide
what the rules. Are and SO i think it's a compelling.

Speaker 1 (39:57):
Case do you hate, Hangovers we'll say goodbye to. Hangovers
out Of office gives you the social buzz without the
next day. Regret their best selling out Of office gummies
were designed to provide a, mild relaxing, buzz boost your,
mood and enhance creativity and. Relaxation with five different, strengths
you can tailor the dose to fit your, vibe from
a gentle one point five milligram micro dose to their

(40:21):
newest fifteen milligram gummy for a more elevated. Experience THEIR
thhc beverages and gummies are a, modern mindful alternative to
a glass of wine or a. Cocktail And i'll tell you,
This i've given up. BOOZE i don't like the. HANGOVERS
i prefer the gummy. Experience soul is a wellness brand
that believes feeling good should be fun and. Easy soul

(40:41):
specializes in DELICIOUS hemp DERIVED thhd AND cbd, products all
designed to boost your mood and simply help you. Unwine
so if you struggle to switch off at, Night soul
also has a variety of products specifically designed to just
simply help you get a better night's, sleep including their
top selling sleepy. Gummies it's a fan favorite for Deep
restore to. Sleep so bring on the good vibes and

(41:02):
treat yourself To sold, Today right, Now soul is offering
my audience thirty percent off your entire. Order so go
to get sold dot com use the promo code. Toodcast
don't forget that. Code that's get sold Dot com promo
code toodcast for thirty percent. Off what's been the toughest

(41:24):
pushback you've had to deal?

Speaker 3 (41:26):
With, WELL i think there's two forms of, opposition AND
i respect them both and we take them both. Seriously
one is the intellectual opposition is. LEGIT i, mean The
Supreme court isn't filled with dumb. PEOPLE i mean this.

Speaker 2 (41:43):
Theory this is a libertarian, argument, Right, yeah.

Speaker 3 (41:45):
The First amendment having something to do with spending the
money in politics is a serious, argument and there are
still a fortunately small number of people who agree with.
It but the data on it now after fifty, years
is not very supportive of that. Theory so the, idea
even if one thought it made, sense now that we
see it in, practice it doesn't really seem very supportive

(42:08):
of free speech principles unless your view of free speech
is different than what Most americans seem to, think which
is free speech does not mean you get to drown
out every other. Person and so but that argument is still.
There the court sticks with, it many. Others you, know relatively,
speaking it's probably ten percent in the, polling ten to fifteen,

(42:28):
percent and so we respect. That we'd love that debate
because we win it every, time and because that's not
where people. Are we've seen the, data we've seen the.
Results but that's constitutional issues always have two. Sides there's
no reason why this one won't. It so that's. Okay
we'll argue that one out and we think we'll win the,
votes and the for Our Freedom amendment will be the new.

(42:50):
Rule the second one is more, serious and that's the
ones you don't see the, operatives the multi billion dollar
political industrial complex now that's made a lot of money
off this. System they're not coming out to debate, Necessarily
they're coming out to just try to stop.

Speaker 2 (43:05):
THIS i this. Eject this is WHAT i fear the.

Speaker 1 (43:09):
Most there is so many wealthy people In washington who
have made a killing off of super. PACs, yeah and
they're mere existence and there's an entire ecosystem that is
now close to twenty years old when you think back
to really it began with the two thousand and four
you know act was sort of the first one of,
these and then and it was, like, hey you don't
even have to do that.

Speaker 2 (43:28):
Anymore you can.

Speaker 1 (43:30):
You don't even have to pretend there's a distinction between
The kerry campaign and your independent. Expenditure you can have
the candidate themselves can raise money for both. Entities, now,
right that's essentially what since The united allowed and it's
now a generational. Industry. Right there are people that have
whose livelihoods depend on these independent. Expenditures and you're, right

(43:57):
like that's probably the biggest impediment you. Have are you,
know people who are afraid of losing out on.

Speaker 3 (44:05):
Cash, YEAH i think that's absolutely. Right when we take it.
Seriously but you know that is the. Fight that is
the question about are we able to overcome that or
is this our? Future and if it's our, future remember
we're only twenty years, in as you, said back to

(44:26):
two thousand and. Four if imagine when it looks like
twenty years from, now fifty years from now is not.
Sustainable and so the question is are we willing to
fight for what we? Got AND i don't mean fight,
VIOLENTLY i mean fight with a constitutional battle which will
decide the. Issue and we're not the first ones who
had to do. This imagine you mentioned the progressive income.
Tax imagine the amendment that had to go around saying

(44:48):
we're going to raise, taxes, Right so ours it.

Speaker 1 (44:51):
Was because people had had. IT i mean this is
where the moment people had had.

Speaker 2 (44:56):
It with wealthy.

Speaker 1 (44:56):
People and back then the income text really only applied
to to a small group of.

Speaker 3 (45:00):
People, yeah and there's pretty good analogies, today don't you.
THINK i, LOOK i.

Speaker 1 (45:06):
Think absolutely that sort of should money equal? Power we
understand money equal. Speech but what you've actually done is
you've equated those with the most money has the most.

Speaker 2 (45:18):
Power was that actually the founder's?

Speaker 3 (45:20):
Intent, yeah, exactly and SO i like our. CHANCES i
don't underestimate the opposition and the and the. Power but
that's what this is is a power, struggle and that's
what that's the that's The american story.

Speaker 1 (45:33):
Is can you assuage my libertarian friends by, saying, hey
this amendment doesn't prevent a state legislature or even a
FUTURE Us congress from creating a system with minimal.

Speaker 3 (45:43):
Limits, yeah that is the argument that gets libertarians on our,
side and we have many which is WHAT i. Thought you, Know,
yeah because.

Speaker 1 (45:50):
The WAY i read, this it doesn't it's not one.
Sided if a if the state Of wyoming wants to
be a libertarian wants to be the inin rond experiment
and essentially take away all regulate regulations and markets and
on that go to, it this amendment would guarantee that
within the confines of the state Of.

Speaker 2 (46:11):
Wyoming, Right, yeah.

Speaker 3 (46:12):
There's no reason a libertarian would prefer the current system
over our, amendment which has a much more libertarian orientation
than the current. SYSTEM i, think you, know a lot of,
libertarians just like a lot of, businesses just like a
lot of wealthy, people they, see like you, said money equaling,
power means government gets more and more power because it's
a pay to play system and this sort of you,

(46:34):
know and it's going up in orders of magnitude in
terms of who can play and who, pays and so
what you don't get is a lot of liberty going.
Around and SO i think real libertarians think about you,
Know John locke and the sort of order ordered, libertarianism which,
is you, know it's again that question of who, decides

(46:55):
not what the answer. Is and so by moving it
back to the, people you're absolutely. Right if a libertarian legislature, says,
hey our view is you, know no, rules then they
they this doesn't force them, Otherwise.

Speaker 1 (47:08):
And this is a you, know it's interesting reading your Amendment,
again the idea of paid campaigning was probably not something
the founders fully thought. About they knew there'd be, factions
they knew there'd be moneyed interest per, se but it
was not A i think it's. Fairness but you're you're
a bit more of a historian on. THIS i, mean
how front of mind was the idea of of of

(47:33):
wealth having a contributory factor to the.

Speaker 3 (47:35):
Democracy, WELL i think there's two different things. There one
is you're, right absolutely no ability even to foresee the
kind of money in, politics specifically around elections and campaigns
that we. Have they. Did they were distrustful of, Parties
they were distrustful of even acting like you're, running you,

(47:56):
Know George washington famously, saying, Well i'll, serve But i'm
not going to run around and ask for. Votes you,
know it was a it was a different kind of.
Thinking but they were obsessed with. Corruption they were obsessed
with the power of money to corrupt the political system
in a lot of. Ways the revolution was, around you,
know was again it was a question who, decides not

(48:18):
not whether there should be a tax on, tea but
whether who gets to make.

Speaker 2 (48:22):
The people get to? Decide, Right, Yeah.

Speaker 3 (48:25):
And so you know, this a notion that it's going
to be a republic versus an aristocracy is essentially saying
we're going to be a place where wealth won't decide those.
Questions AND i think the the consistency of our constitutional
solution of money in politics with that founding vision of
What american is is really.

Speaker 1 (48:46):
Profound and, LOOK i think one of your other challenges
and bear unfair is limiting campaign, finance limiting putting limits
on the financing of campaigns is is perceived to help
the left over the. RIGHT i, CAN i can argue

(49:08):
it both, ways So i'm NOT i am, not but
that is to me a perception hurdle you, have, right
anytime you can have it's, like why is D c
not a state? Yet and you know why can we
GET dc And Puerto rico to come in? Together you
know they because the right has to be convinced that
they'll Have you know that it isn't automatically going to
change the balance of, power, right that there is an

(49:29):
equal opportunity here in having new states added that they
write D c.

Speaker 2 (49:34):
Alone, right the right.

Speaker 1 (49:36):
Opposes not on on on high minded grounds but on
simply pure political power.

Speaker 2 (49:42):
Grounds and so.

Speaker 1 (49:43):
Anytime you can have an, amendment that is that, it you,
know benefits that that both that ideologues on both sides
could make the case helps them better off you. Are
how do you break through this idea that that limiting
camp putting restrictions on the financing of campaigned only helps the.

Speaker 3 (50:04):
Left, well the facts are the best argument against, that
AND i think increasingly with every election cycle somebody has
been punched in the face by money in. Politics so
each time we have an, election we get more, data
and SO i think that's that's no longer the. Case
SO i think in the early days After Citizens, united

(50:27):
The mitch McConnell kind of Public republican party, thought, hey
we can win with with unlimited money and it'll hurt The.
Democrats so why would we be Against Citizens? United that
that's no longer. TRUE i, Mean republicans have lost The
wisconsin judicial race because of, money one hundred million dollars

(50:47):
coming in for that. ONE i don't.

Speaker 2 (50:51):
You want to Stop george sorows? Right is that your
best line to the.

Speaker 3 (50:54):
Right, WELL i don't have. To they'll say it to.
Me they'll tell me, that and it's a true. THING i,
Mean George zories really does spend a lot of money
in in, politics and it comes down to the local,
level which it really affects if you think About republican.
Interests it's, local it's state. Based and now every election
has been nationalized right down to the DA's races and

(51:16):
even school. Committee so that's A republican. Issue but, Look
democrats have gotten very good at this game, too and
nobody is too confident that they'll be able to prevail
over the long. Haul with one system or. ANOTHER i
was talking to A Texas republican In. Dallas he looked
at our map of, states twenty three states that have
gotten behind this, amendment and he looks and he, says

(51:38):
you Got california And New. York why would The democrats
vote for? This because in his, mind it's The democrats
who have the advantage with big. Money and if you're In,
texas you know this Turn texas. Blue outside money coming
in all the. Time their experience is The democrats are
using the system against, them and so everyone has their own.

(51:59):
Experience AND i think we're getting to the point now
which which we thought would, happen and why the amendment
is actually going to get done where both sides know
that they actually won't have a sustained advantage in the current,
system and both have an interest in.

Speaker 1 (52:14):
THIS i assume you'd love if a mainstream presidential candidate
or both got behind. This, obviously if you could get
both dominees behind this in twenty eight you'd get to
thirty eight states pretty.

Speaker 2 (52:24):
Quickly what is that your.

Speaker 1 (52:27):
Hope that you're going to influence the debate, itself or
how do you hope to galvanize here to get to
the to get you, know twenty three states is one, thing.

Speaker 2 (52:38):
Thirty eight to?

Speaker 1 (52:38):
Another or do you want to do you really Think,
Congress i'm skeptical you can get it through This.

Speaker 3 (52:44):
Congress, well we you, know we look at how other
amendments were. Done you, know it's interesting the founders intentionally
took the president out of the. Deal there's no veto of,
this there's no signing of. This it's the one thing
That congress does where the president has no role and
the governor have no. Role the legislatures when they, ratify
do the, vote there's no governor. Roles SO i think that's.

(53:06):
Intentional but obviously presidential races are focused a lot of.
Attention we would welcome both presidential candidates from both parties endorsing.
This but in the, end this isn't a top down
kind of. Thing this Is god have come up from
the people from the. States that's how you get the
vote In. Congress that's why we do the work with
The americans in every. State we don't care who you vote.

(53:28):
For we are on the ground and Supporting americans to
get this. Done and that'll be plenty to get our
congressional vote and ratification in The, states the presidential politics of,
it you, know it could it could help or could
hurt if one side supports and the other side, doesn't
then it's you, know we're pushing up against partisan. Perceptions

(53:49):
and so our job is simply to Support americans where
we live in The, states and we'll get we'll get the. Votes,
so you, know we do have a candidate pledge and
we invite all candidates to sign, it and and we
have about half and Half republicans And. Democrats but in
the you, know the politics of the presidential race in

(54:11):
twenty eight will will do what they. Do and in the,
meantime there's a lot of work that we all can
do where we. Live and that's get you, know get
behind this, amendment move it forward and ask our elected,
representatives no matter which party they, are to support. It
and then it'll be in the presidential candidate's interest to
do so, too because that's where the votes will come.

Speaker 1 (54:30):
From where is the most amount of your efforts to
galvanize people Go is it on the ground in state legislative?

Speaker 2 (54:40):
Races is it more Where how is it that you
feel you guys can be the most.

Speaker 3 (54:44):
Effective, Yeah so the biggest THING i would say about, That,
chuck is we Don't we always say we're not going
to end the. Constitution american promise isn't going to do.
It The american people will do. It our job is to.
Serve and so what is the highest, leverage fastest way
we can Move americans behind this constitutional solution to money in.

(55:05):
Politics and so a lot of our staff support is
in the, states supporting people, there and we have replicable
work through networks like business, networks local, chambers local. Rotaries
and if we do, that not only are we getting
the wins and the state, legislatures we're leaving in those
states after they pass. This it's not like we're parachuting

(55:28):
it in and then. Leaving we're leaving behind a well
informed electorate that is eager to see this, done that's
carrying it forward with leadership fromstate, legislatures from business, groups
from civic. Groups so that's where we focus our. Attention
it's not really about just you, know landing in trying

(55:48):
to get wins and moving. On it's about support through
these kind of, networks network. Strategy and, so, yeah we
want votes and. Legislatures we've racked up a whole bunch of.
Them we've won ballot. Initiatives we're seven and zero in
states ON vallid and this is the most recent And
maine was eighty six. Percent so we do the work
that Lets americans be heard on this and then gets

(56:11):
legislators voting for, it no matter which party they.

Speaker 1 (56:13):
Are, so you, know a lot of times having you,
know there's nothing like a reform smoker to tell you
not to. Smoke you, know do you have a Living
koch brother And George soros jointly supports something like. This
do you have super wealthy donors that have that have
benefited from the system come out and.

Speaker 2 (56:32):
Favored does that help or hurt your? Cause?

Speaker 3 (56:34):
WELL i will, say, first we disclose all our, donors
SO i encourage you to sign up at The americanpromise
dot net check out our annual. Report and the REASON
i say that the beauty of it is you can
look at all our donors AND i bet you won't
know any of. Them it's regular. People and it doesn't
mean they're all small dollar. Donors there are people wealthy
people too who are very concerned about this. Interest, yeah

(56:55):
and yes many of them participate in the current system spending,
wise but it's not working for, them just like it's
not working for most. PEOPLE i, remember you, know we're
talking to somebody who's fairly, wealthy basically telling, us you,
know ten million dollars doesn't get your phone calls returned.
Anymore so it's like when they start feeling like they
have no, voice you know.

Speaker 1 (57:16):
That, well it's, funny, right the seven figure donor is
just another. Donor, yeah major parties, now so it really it's.
Funny it's sort of like what used to buy?

Speaker 2 (57:27):
Access does? It? Well you you don't get what you're
paid for, anymore, Right like all sorts of.

Speaker 1 (57:31):
THINGS i remember WHEN i remember when bribing a politician
was a, nickel, Right, no, yeah maybe that is maybe
that is a way to get some of these folks on.

Speaker 3 (57:41):
Board, yeah but you, know the we have No, cokes
we have No, soross we have no no famous. Donors
But i'd encourage all of them to like ask, themselves you,
know whether you're The cochs or The, soros is this
really working for you and for the. Country and it
would be great to see them, say, hey we can
keep doing, this but let's join together and put an

(58:02):
end to.

Speaker 1 (58:02):
It Jeff clements it's, Look I'M i am one of
those who believes we are in a moment that, FRANKLY
i think we could use from civics, education we could
use a moment focusing on the constitution and sort of
getting people. THERE i think, inevitably you know in some,
day you, know this is never let a crisis go to.

(58:23):
Waste this is one of. Those we're in a crisis
moment for. Democracy it's an opportunity to do some. Repairs
so we'll see if we'll do.

Speaker 2 (58:31):
It we'll see if we can get.

Speaker 3 (58:33):
Traction absolutely. Well thank, You, chuck really enjoyed talking with you.

Speaker 1 (58:36):
Today appreciate, It appreciate the, Time, john good luck with.

Speaker 3 (58:39):
It thank you so. Much take.

Speaker 1 (58:41):
Care there's a reason results matter more than, promises just
like there's a Reason morgan And morgan Is america's largest
injury law. Firm for the last thirty five, years they've
recovered twenty five billion dollars for more than half a million.
Clients it includes cases where insurance companies offered next just
hoping to get away with paying as little as. Possible

(59:03):
morgan And morgan fought back ended up winning. Millions in,
fact In, pennsylvania one client was awarded twenty six million,
dollars which was a staggering forty times the amount that
the insurance company originally. Offered that original offer six hundred
and fifty thousand dollars twenty six, million six hundred and
fifty thousand. Dollars so with more than one thousand lawyers
across the, country they know how to deliver for everyday.

(59:23):
People if you're, injured you need a, lawyer you need
somebody to get your. Back check out for The people
dot Com slash podcast or dial pound, Law pound five
two nine law on your cell. Phone and remember all
law firms are not the, same so check Out morgan And.
Morgan their fee is free unless they win

All Episodes

Interview Only w/ Jeff Clements - How To Get Money Out Of Politics For Good

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

The Burden

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}Interview Only w/ Jeff Clements - How To Get Money Out Of Politics For Good