June 21, 2024 • 49 mins
On this episode of The Middle we're asking you: is money corrupting our politics? We're joined by former Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard and Sarah Bryner - director of research at Open Secrets. The Middle's house DJ Tolliver joins along with his band, plus questions from our live audience. #Money #Politics #CampaignFinance #CitizensUnited #SuperPAC
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):
The Middle is supported by Journalism Funding Partners, a nonprofit
organization striving to increase the sustainability of local journalism by
building connections between donors and news organizations. More information on
how you can support The Middle at Listen tooth Middle
dot com. Welcome to the Middle. I'm Jeremy Hobson, joined
(00:22):
as always by our house DJ Tolliver and Tolliver. We
have a busy summer coming up politically, I.
Speaker 2 (00:28):
Know we do, but like, why can't every day be debate?
Speaker 3 (00:30):
Damen?
Speaker 2 (00:31):
We can do the show seven days a week to
never sleep.
Speaker 1 (00:34):
Yeah, right exactly. We'll see if we even get the
first one. So next week we're going to be doing
a special episode of The Middle right after the presidential debate,
assuming it happens between Biden and Trump. We're going to
be taking calls for listener reaction from around the country.
So that's next week, and then the conventions are the
political conventions are coming up this summer. The Republicans go
(00:55):
first in July, and it turns out that the big
speeches from the candidates are scheduled to a right in
the middle of the time when we air live on
the radio. So we're going to be recording a special
episode in advance for each convention, asking what it means
to be a Republican in twenty twenty four for the Republicans,
and what it means to be a Democrat in twenty
twenty four for the Democrats. And the reason we're bringing
this up right now is because I want to ask
(01:17):
Republican listeners, since Republicans go first to call in and
leave us a message, what does it mean to you
to be a Republican in twenty twenty four, Tolliver? How
can they reach.
Speaker 2 (01:26):
Us the same way they always do at eight four
four four Middle that's eight four four four sixty four
and three three five three, Or you can write to
us that listen to the Middle dot com.
Speaker 1 (01:34):
And by the way, don't do that right now because
that we're doing a show right now. You can leave
those messages later, but right now you can talk to
us about money in politics. The United States spends far
more on elections than any other nation on Earth. In
the twenty twenty election alone, total political spending amounted to
over fourteen billion dollars. That was more than the GDP
(01:56):
of Madagascar. Now, there have been efforts to curb the
influence of money in our politics. The Bipartisan Campaign Reform
Act of two thousand and two that's also known as
the McCain Fine Gold Act put into place limits on
some spending in campaigns. But then eight years later, the
Supreme Court issued their ruling in the Citizens United case,
which ruled that freedom of speech prohibits the government from
(02:17):
limiting political spending by nonprofits, labor unions, and most notably, corporations,
and that has led to seemingly endless amounts of cash
coming into campaigns, often with little information about who's behind it.
So that's our question this hour, is money corrupting our politics?
Tolliver again, give us the number.
Speaker 2 (02:36):
It's eight four four four Middle. That's eight four four
four sixty four three three five three or right to
us that listen to the middle dot com.
Speaker 1 (02:42):
And let's meet our panel. Terry Goddard is the former
Attorney General of Arizona and the former mayor of Phoenix.
He led the twenty twenty two effort to pass a
stop dark money ballot and initiative in his home state,
which passed with seventy two percent of the vote. He
joins us from KJZZ in Phoenix. Terry Goddard. Well, come
to the middle.
Speaker 4 (03:01):
Thank you so much. We squeaked that one through.
Speaker 1 (03:04):
It's just seventy two percent. Sarah Briner is also with us.
She is director of research at Open Secrets, which tracks
money in US politics. She's in Chicago.
Speaker 5 (03:13):
High Sarah, Hi, happy to be here.
Speaker 1 (03:16):
Well, so before we get to the phone, Sarah, I
want to start with you. We mentioned the landmark US
Supreme Court ruling known as Citizens United, But can you
tell us just briefly what effect that has had and
how it has changed the way political campaigns have been
financed since then.
Speaker 6 (03:32):
I like to think of Citizens United as a case
that really opened the floodgates to money in politics. So
not only did it roll back a lot of the
reforms that happened earlier in the century, but it created
the possibility for groups to exist that can spend huge
amounts of money outside of our traditional sort of disclosed universe.
Speaker 5 (03:57):
And that has.
Speaker 6 (03:58):
Led to a sort of environment where millionaires and billionaires
can drop huge amounts of money into the election, really
late in the game, without anyone knowing who they are,
really affecting the messaging, and I think that that's super problematic.
Speaker 1 (04:15):
Terry Goddard. You left officees Arizona's in Arizona the year
after Citizens United was ruled down by the Supreme Court.
At that time, did you realize what effect it would have?
Speaker 7 (04:27):
I saw that effect, yes, and I lived it because
I was running for statewide office that same year in
twenty ten, and my experience was that, at least in Arizona,
and I think it was even more in other places,
the cost of running for office went up by five times,
and that was a direct result of opening the floodgates
of corporate money coming into elections. And the dark money
(04:51):
phenomenon was what really got my attention because in Arizona
we sort of led the parade for anonymous, massive contributions
trying to tip the scale one way or the other.
Speaker 1 (05:02):
And dark money, by the way, just for our listeners,
just basically means money where you don't know who's behind it.
Speaker 4 (05:08):
That's right.
Speaker 7 (05:09):
That's the money from people you can't see for laws
you don't like. It's the kind of a non anonymity
that was not required by Citizens United. But when the
corporate players started coming in, they liked to say they
were above the fray. They didn't want to tip their
(05:30):
hand they didn't want to have consumer reaction to their
political contributions, so they love doing it secretly.
Speaker 1 (05:38):
Sarah, I have to say that even when the information
is there, it's often very hard to follow the money
in politics. What kind of a difference does it make
do you think when voters have access to the information
about who's funding what.
Speaker 6 (05:51):
There's some great political science research that says that people
actually trust ads that are run by groups with names
like Americans for a Better America than they do when
they're run by ads by candidates. So if it's from
something that you don't have a reaction to, you believe it.
And so laws like the one in Arizona and then
(06:13):
and there are other states that have implemented similar laws
in the past, like Alaska and main that tell people, oh,
Americans for a Better America, that's actually X on mobile
can be monumentally influential and getting to the bottom of
what's actually trying to influence your opinion, because as soon
as you hear that term X on mobile or target
(06:34):
or whatever like, you have a completely different reaction than
when it's just anonymous political group. And I think that
that is hugely influential in our politics.
Speaker 1 (06:43):
Yeah, and Terry Gottard just tell us briefly what your
bill that you got through passed with seventy two percent
support in Arizona. What does it do in the state.
Speaker 7 (06:51):
Well, basically, it asks the so called dark money, the
anonymous contributors, most of them are hidden through the provision
and the internal Revenue Code that allows for political advocacy.
Speaker 4 (07:04):
By what we call five O NC four organizations.
Speaker 7 (07:07):
And basically what it does is it says we only
wanted to go after major players. So if you have
spent fifty thousand dollars or more in statewide races, then
you're required to disclose the original source that's contributed five
thousand dollars or more to you. So anybody under five
thousand dollars we didn't require reporting on, but any of
(07:29):
the big contributions above that were required to fess up
and report within five days to the Secretary of State
as a public document. And what I think is unique
about the Arizona law is that in other states, the
dark money contributors hide their kind their tracks very artfully.
(07:53):
And I used to be a prosecutor. I used to
do a lot of work on money laundering, and frankly,
although it's legal. What they were doing, it was money
laundering because they wanted to make it really hard for
public and the news media to find who they were.
So what our statue does is it basically, through a
series of disclosures, gets to the original source in other words,
(08:14):
the corporation or the person who started the money rolling,
and it may go through four or five six intermediaries.
We've seen them that go offshore and then come back
in the United States. They did exactly the same thing
the drug cartels do to try to hide the source
of their money.
Speaker 1 (08:32):
Let's get to the phones and Rebecca, who's in Central Minnesota. Hi, Rebecca,
Welcome to the middle.
Speaker 8 (08:39):
Yes, I think that it should be absolute, complete transparency
as far as who is donating to the funds for
a lectionis an absolute full disclosure and that is really important,
I think, And just judging from what audacities that Trump
(09:02):
has done and is blatantly regard of laws that a
lot of the Republicans are it seems like and maybe
Democrats too, but especially the Repukes it can seem like
they're emboldened by Trump and what he has done and
that having to be accountable and just encouraging disregard of
(09:26):
the laws.
Speaker 1 (09:27):
Disregard of the laws, Rebecca, Thank you for that, Sarah Briner.
When Rebecca talks about disregard of the laws, I mean,
they're obviously Trump was just convicted. But aside from that,
what about the campaign finance laws. If you blatantly disregard
the campaign finance laws, does anybody come after you?
Speaker 6 (09:44):
Yeah, so if you don't disclose your donors. So if
you violate the disclosure laws in any way, theoretically the
Federal Election Commission can.
Speaker 5 (09:54):
Come after you or the Department of Justice, depending on
what you do.
Speaker 6 (09:57):
The fact of the matter is elections, even so, they
feel like they go on forever or actually fairly short
term events, and so much of the disclosure that we
see that's driven by legal sort of pushes comes after
the election itself.
Speaker 5 (10:12):
And you know that's.
Speaker 6 (10:13):
Problem when you're a voter trying to say what's going on, Well,
you don't know because.
Speaker 5 (10:18):
It's in court.
Speaker 6 (10:20):
And so I think that, you know, Rebecca's question sort
of brought to mind the fact that, like both of
the parties are guilty of using dark money, it supports
both Democrats and Republicans. But I think that the Supreme
Court when they argued to just as united if they
were being genuine, made it clear that disclosure was paramount
to the sort of functional democracy. And so I think
(10:45):
that we've navigated away from that a little bit because
the parties have figured out how to get around that.
But we just need to look to what Scalia and
Justice Roberts said, which was that you know, we still
need to know who you are, even if you're doing
all this stuff.
Speaker 1 (11:01):
A reminder, you can reach us at eight four four
four Middle that is eight four four four six four
three three five three, or you can reach out and
listen to the Middle dot com. Our question this hour
is money corrupting our politics? And Tolliver, we've been talking
about the Citizens United decision from the Supreme Court, which
has had a profound impact on campaign spending.
Speaker 2 (11:20):
Yeah, and one of its champions was Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell,
the Republican leader of the Senate. A year after the ruling,
McConnell's spoke about what he saw is the positive outcome
it would have on our political system.
Speaker 9 (11:31):
My view is the American citizens have to have an
opportunity to push back against this massive, overreaching government that
is trying to regulate every aspect of our lives and
the way you push back in a country of over
three hundred million just to have a voice. So all
citizens of United basically did, what's the level of playing
field for corporate America and say you can participate? Why
(11:53):
shouldn't everybody be free to do that? I think it
was a terrific decision. I don't think there's any harmful
to quants to come out of it.
Speaker 2 (12:02):
Finally somebody standing up for corporate America giving them a voice.
Speaker 1 (12:05):
Well, and it's safe to say that there are a
lot of people who would disagree with that assessment. But
we hope that you are enjoying the Middle, and we
write back with more in a moment. This is the Middle.
I'm Jeremy Hobson. If you're just tuning, in the Middle
is a national call in show. We're focused on elevating
voices from the middle geographically, politically and philosophically, or maybe
you just want to meet in the middle. This hour,
(12:28):
we're asking you, is money corrupting our politics? Tolliver, what
is that number to call in?
Speaker 2 (12:33):
It's eight four four four Middle. That's eight four four
four sixty four three three five three. You can also
write to us at Listen to the middle dot com
or on social media.
Speaker 1 (12:40):
I'm here with former Arizona Attorney General and Phoenix mayor
Terry Goddard and Sarah Briner, director of research at Open Secrets.
Before we get back to the phones, Terry Goddard, what
do politicians themselves think about campaign finance reform? Is it
an issue that some are publicly for but privately against.
Speaker 7 (12:59):
Public Actually, it's the other way around. I think most
politicians in office tend to be, especially in the area
of transparency, very wishy washy. Former politicians are very strong
in opposition to dark money and transparency. But Rebecca the
caller just mentioned something that I thought was critically important.
(13:21):
I tried four different election cycles to get the stop
dark money on the ballot in Arizona, and so I
talked to literally thousands of people in the process of
passing petitions to get it on the ballot. Not one
of them ever said I would prefer not to know
who's buying the ads that are trying to influence my vote.
I want to be fooled. So it is really popular.
(13:44):
Our polling was usually around ninety percent bipartisan in the middle,
if you will appropriate for this show. In a very
divided state, Arizona's split right down the middle, literally fifty
to fifty, but seventy two voted in favor, and I
think a lot more would have if it was clearer
(14:04):
on the ballot. In other words, you had to vote
yes to stop dark money. That's kind of unintuitive and
so but the popularity, as James Carvel said once, it's
just good politics.
Speaker 1 (14:16):
I remember that those two referenda in Ohio in the
last year involving abortion. One was to change the constitution
and one was to put abortion rights in the constitution.
And one was like, if you were in favor, you
say yes, and the other one was if you're in favor,
you say no. It's a very, very complicated the way
they do these pallid measures. Sometimes. Let's go to Elliott,
who is in Prairie Village, Kansas. Elliott, welcome to the middle,
(14:38):
Go ahead, Hello.
Speaker 10 (14:41):
Yes, if a corporation is a person and can donate
money but they can't vote, does that seem like that's
a issue in terms of just the reality of what
we're trying to do here. Vote.
Speaker 1 (15:02):
You're talking about citizens united there and the whole idea
that corporations are people too. Yeah, yeah, Terry Goddard, you
laughed at that, and I let you take that.
Speaker 4 (15:11):
Thank you.
Speaker 7 (15:13):
It's an extraordinary proposition that in all ways corporations are people,
and that was the Citizens United ruling. And yes, they
can't vote, but they also can't suffer harm in the
way people can. And so one of the legal challenges
against our proposition after it was passed by seventy two
percent of the voters in Arizona, was that people would
(15:36):
be individuals would be docked or harassed or threatened by
having to disclose their identity as a contributor. And the
cases that they used were the civil rights cases of
NAACP out of the fifties in the South. But there's
a big difference. A corporation can't be hung. It can't
(15:56):
be harm physically. I think that's a big physically. I
think that's that's a big difference. And so we need
to draw some lines outside of.
Speaker 1 (16:09):
United Elliott, Elliott, go ahead.
Speaker 10 (16:13):
Corporation can be.
Speaker 1 (16:17):
Ended, can be ended, Okay, it can't be harmed physically
like a person is. Yeah, yeah, let's go to uh Bo,
who's in St. Anthony Idaho, Bo, Welcome to the middle
go ahead.
Speaker 11 (16:32):
Hi, Yes, thank you for having me on. Yeah, I
just wanted to kind of bring it to a more
general discussion almost in my opinion, Yeah, money is definitely
corrupting our politics in a lot of ways. You know,
there's a lot of different things that go into it.
But to even have a re election campaign, you almost
(16:54):
have to start that from day one after you get elected,
for not just the presidency, but for Congress and everything.
So so much of elected officials time just goes into
fundraising for these corporations. Who'se you know, all all of
our economy and the corporations in it is really focused
on continuous growth. And I think it's kind of generally
(17:15):
understood that the federal and local governments are there for
stability for the general public and to regulate these corporations.
But when they're the ones getting the elected officials in,
and the elect officials just spend most of their time
campaigning and fundraising, nothing important can get done, it seems
like to the general public, and it's really frustrating. And
it even goes into last week episode of how we
(17:37):
get the Politics out of Climate change too by you know,
tackling tackling this money that's in our policy.
Speaker 1 (17:43):
So what would you do? What would you do about it?
Speaker 11 (17:50):
I mean, it's just it's it's hard for any elected
official to feel like they can do anything without, you know,
upsetting some donor some contributor. I feel like so one
thing that comes to mind for me is where I live,
right by Grant Tetah National Park. The only reason that
(18:10):
park is as big as it is is because a
member of the Rockefeller family just decided to give it
to the government instead of passing it down through the generations.
So it feels like it really just is going to
take wealthy individuals, wealthy corporations just choosing to do the
right thing because they want to and not because it's
going to perpetuate their success and further down the road.
Speaker 1 (18:34):
Both thank you for that, Sarah Briner, your thoughts on that,
and specifically Bow's point that politicians have to spend so
much of their time raising money, and of course if
you do that, you're probably gonna pick up the phone
when that person who made your fundraising a little bit
easier calls.
Speaker 6 (18:53):
I am going to assume that what both said is correct,
just for the purposes of conversation, and I think it
is you know, if you give money, you're going to
get your phone answered. But I think that there are
two things here that are not just typical corporation giving
to politician dynamics. One is that Citizens United made it
possible for millionaires and billionaires to give a million dollar contributions.
(19:16):
And the other is that alongside that, we've seen this
huge rise in donations from small donors. You can think
of people like Macaids, Alexandria Okasio Cortez, a bunch of
people from both sides who have really relied on small donors.
And those people aren't showing up in DC saying hey, AOC,
can you have a.
Speaker 12 (19:35):
Meeting with me.
Speaker 6 (19:35):
They're supporting that candidate because they believe in them.
Speaker 5 (19:40):
That's the good side.
Speaker 6 (19:42):
On the other side, you also have these millionaires and
billion I looked towards the corporations as the moderating effect,
because those corporations want to have just standard politics, as
normal conversations to get some you know, boring like tax
credit passed. It's the millionaires and billionaires funding the super
PACs are saying, let's push the politics to the extremes.
(20:04):
And I think that that is what really has happened
as a result of Citizens United.
Speaker 5 (20:09):
It's not the target or Walmart. Huh who I think
it was?
Speaker 6 (20:13):
Elliott said, like, they're exposed, they have consumers, They're not
the problem. It's the you know, really super rich people
who don't have consumers, who don't have to care about
what we think, who are pushing the politics to the extremes.
Speaker 1 (20:28):
Let's go to Claudia, who's in Chicago. Claudia, welcome to
the middle Go ahead.
Speaker 13 (20:32):
Hi, thank you. I think I was saying that it's
not really a question of whether money is corrupting politics,
it's how it's corrupting. And I think the Biggest Color
gave an example of how it's doing. And I think overall,
it dilutes the individual more than it does benefit the
(20:53):
corporate corporates have way more money than the individual to
give to a cause, So what does it do to
the individ to do all vote?
Speaker 1 (21:01):
Have you ever given money to a campaign, Claudia, I have, yes, yeah,
And and do you feel like do you get anything
back from that or is it just you're doing it
because you believe in it and not expecting anything in return.
Speaker 13 (21:17):
I do it mostly because I believe in it. I
don't believe that I get a direct benefit of that,
but I do. I do donate to cause it and
to people that I think might have my best interest
in mine.
Speaker 1 (21:31):
Claudia, thank you for that. Terry Goddard. What do you
think of that from Claudia, that these these larger donations
basically dilute anything small that's coming in.
Speaker 4 (21:40):
They really do.
Speaker 7 (21:41):
I think it's part of the pervasive feeling that that
government doesn't represent me that I hear all the time
from from regular folks. They feel that the millionaires, billionaires
are able to put their finger on the scale and
move things dramatically when way or the other. And for instance,
let me just use our example here in Arizona. The
(22:05):
population was overwhelmingly, as we proved in the election in
twenty two, in favor of controlling providing transparency. But the election,
the officials, the legislators were never willing to even give
a hearing to a bill that would have done that.
Speaker 4 (22:24):
A huge, huge.
Speaker 7 (22:26):
Difference between what the people wanted and what the elected
representatives of the people were willing to even consider. And
I think that shows the the litany that I think
is absolutely true is they were afraid of the dark money.
They either got some, or they wanted to get some,
or they were afraid that the big money would oppose
(22:47):
them in a primary. So the bottom line was they
were afraid of it, and therefore they didn't want to
do anything to harm it. And that, unfortunately, is an
example of other places where money doesn't talk.
Speaker 2 (23:00):
Roars he Jeremy, we got a call in from or sorry,
an email in from John in Rockford, Illinois. He says,
if a citizen offers money to a judge and response
to the way he interprets the law, that's a bribe.
If a citizen offers money to a cop in response
to the way and forces the law, that's a bribe.
But if a citizen or organization offers money to an
elected legislator in response to the way he makes the laws,
that's just campaign fundraising and not at all illegal or
(23:21):
un ethical.
Speaker 1 (23:23):
Sarah Brighter, is that true that? I mean, what do
you think about that?
Speaker 5 (23:26):
I mean, that is true.
Speaker 1 (23:29):
But you but there was a moment. There was a
moment recently where it was reported that Donald Trump had
a meeting with a bunch of oil executives. Yeah, and
basically said to them you need to give me a
billion dollars to my campaign and then I'll reverse all
these these decisions from the bid administration. Is that legal
to do that? If he if he did that, I
don't know.
Speaker 5 (23:49):
I think it's an open question. It's tricky.
Speaker 1 (23:51):
I was like a quid pro quote, and which you're
not allowed to do, right, you can't do a quid
pro quote that No, No, I'm just asking. I mean
that's called briberary. Yeah, right, Sarah, go ahead, what were
we gonna say?
Speaker 6 (24:07):
No, it's just gonna say that. Like it's really difficult
to draw the line. And that's the that's the purpose here,
is that it's complicated for a reason because you can't
challenge things when they become.
Speaker 5 (24:19):
So just tricky that it seems like it might be illegal.
Speaker 8 (24:23):
But is it.
Speaker 5 (24:24):
I don't know, Like what line are we crossing here?
Is a quidbrook or not?
Speaker 6 (24:27):
And then you're just like this is politics as normal,
And that's what that kind of Trump saying, I'm going
to give you this, but I'm not going to give
you this line and this bill with a specific consequence
that's beside the point, Like there is an exchange of
goods and services here and I think that that's what
gets lost in these legal these discussions.
Speaker 1 (24:49):
Let's go to Jim in Hattiesburg, Mississippi. Jim, Welcome to
the middle. What do you think is money corrupting our politics?
Speaker 8 (24:56):
Well?
Speaker 14 (24:57):
I think it is. And I think what I wanted
to say is, I think there's a very insidious line
of reasoning that's been going on, and it's part of
what got Trump elected. And I'm sure other people will follow,
but it's this idea that if you come from money
or have your own money, you're somehow more immune to
corruption buy money, and I don't think there's any evidence
(25:19):
for that.
Speaker 1 (25:22):
Interesting point. What do you think, Terry Goddard about I mean,
I remember Michael Bloomberg running for mayor in New York
saying I'm going to I'm spending my money, I'm not
going to be beholden to anybody.
Speaker 4 (25:35):
Well, you do hear that.
Speaker 7 (25:36):
A lot, and I think it is a direct reaction
to what we've been hearing from the callers, that this
is a feeling that you want to have elected officials
who are somehow immune to the forces of big contributors,
and maybe somebody who's already a millionaire is less likely
(25:56):
to respond. I think you also have to look, however,
at how they made that million dollars and what they're
what they what they had to do to get it,
because their prejudices may show in that in that way,
but it is an argument that you hear, and unfortunately
it has some validity.
Speaker 1 (26:15):
You know, I was wondering whether there were going to
be a lot of calls on the show, and all
the lines are full, so that's exciting. Mary is with
us from western North Carolina. Him Mary, welcome to the middle.
Speaker 15 (26:25):
Go ahead, Hi, how are you uh?
Speaker 16 (26:28):
I think that money has already crypted our politics. I
don't feel like there's a candidate that can run successfully
because unless they have a lot of money, and therefore
they aren't representing the common man or common woman. I'm
from a very rural area and in no way do
I feel represented by anyone because they haven't gone through
(26:52):
the struggles that I have, you know.
Speaker 15 (26:54):
Of having to be a single parent, having to figure
out how we're going to pay the bills, and all
they're worried about is, you know, how much money they
can get from their fundraising dinner, And there's no way
I would even consider doing that, And it's not democratic Republican,
it's all of them. In reference to whether someone is
(27:17):
corruptible or less corruptible based on whether they have money, well, yeah,
everybody's corruptible, you know. At finding that perfect person is
very difficult.
Speaker 1 (27:28):
So what do you do when it comes to election time?
Speaker 15 (27:30):
Mary, Well, usually I vote. I vote according to the
person that is my that I think is going to
best represent me. But I'm of that people right now
that I'm frustrated. I don't feel like I have a
good choice this year, and it frustrates me, and that
(27:53):
bothers me. I was brought up to be a good
citizen to vote and to you know, put people in office,
and my mother was. She worked for senators, my grandfather
worked for the you know, people in government. But I
am very frustrated at this point that I don't know
(28:15):
if I'm going to vote, and that almost embarrasses me.
It's to the point that I'm like, why vote? Why
because it's not gonna matter anymore?
Speaker 1 (28:26):
Mary, thank you for that, right, yeah?
Speaker 9 (28:29):
Thank yeah.
Speaker 1 (28:30):
Let me let me take that to Sarah Brener because
it gets to just the heart of this. She feels
that the money is really making it and making the
candidates so unappealing.
Speaker 6 (28:40):
I mean, I hear you, I hear you from my
like the depths of my soul because I grew up
in Alaska, you know, very similar kind of upbringing. Because
it sounds like and I don't see the people running
for office is reflective of me, And I think that
a lot of that is speaking.
Speaker 5 (29:00):
Has to run for betteral office.
Speaker 6 (29:02):
You need to either be able to spend all of
your free time fundraising to counteract the super PACs that
are able to, you know, fundraise with like a drop
of a hat. Or you need to be independently wealthy,
like Mike Bloomberg. Or you need to be embedded in
DC like the incumbents. And I say that sounding cynical,
and I think that you and I both share that
(29:25):
that's that frustration at feeling that cynicism. But that is
the way the system is right now. And I think
that the fundamental changes that need to happen are both
in money and also the way that we vote for people.
Speaker 1 (29:38):
Well stand by because Tolliver, believe it or not, some
politicians actually want to limit the amount of money going
into our elections.
Speaker 2 (29:45):
Yeah, John McCain, to name one. Here's the late Arizona Senator,
speaking on the matter at a nineteen ninety seven conference
on political reform.
Speaker 17 (29:52):
Real reform has to do two things. It must limit
the influence of money and campaigns, and it's got the
level of playing field between challengers and incumbents. Those are
the two principles we seek. Now. Opponents say that anything
we are trying to do is restrictive of free speech,
thereby equating free speech and money. I do not believe
(30:13):
that money means free speech in America. And if it does,
then there's a couple of hundred million Americans that have
very little free speech.
Speaker 1 (30:21):
That was just five years before the passage of McCain Finegeld,
the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act.
Speaker 7 (30:27):
Oh.
Speaker 1 (30:27):
Okay, by the way, Tolliver, you know our listeners, if
they haven't seen you perform live, they can go and
sign up for our weekly newsletter. And I believe we
posted a video of you performing in Waterbury, Connecticut. Real
entire songs. Yes, your dance mears are lit.
Speaker 2 (30:44):
Okay, that's why I'm on the show.
Speaker 1 (30:46):
We'll be right back with more of the middle. This
is the middle. I'm Jeremy Hobson. We're asking you this hour,
is money corrupting our politics? Call us at eight four
four four middle that's eight four four four six four
three three five three reach out at listen to the
miiddle dot com. I'm joined by former Arizona Attorney General
Terry Goddard and Sarah Briner, director of research at Open Secrets.
(31:08):
And Sarah before we go back to the phones. It
is kind of head spinning sometimes to follow the money.
There was a recent Trump campaign event which the campaign
claims brought in about fifty million dollars. The money raised,
according to the invitation listen to this will be directed
to the Trump forty seven Committee, which is a shaff
fundraising agreement among the Trump campaign, the Republican National Committee,
(31:28):
and roughly forty state parties. Under that agreement, the first
sixty six hundred of any contribution will go to Trump's campaign,
the next five thousand to the Save America pack which
he has used to pay his legal bills, and the
RNC will get the next four hundred and thirteen thousand,
and the rest goes to the estate parties.
Speaker 5 (31:42):
What how is I know? I know it's on purpose.
It's on purpose to confuse us.
Speaker 6 (31:49):
And also I will say that up until like this
last month, the Trump campaign did not raise any money
for state parties, which really annoyed them. So he was
spending most of it on his legal expensive But now
he has more of it because he got convicted of
felonies and so that money is getting allocated. But regardless,
it's like it's confusing, and that is the story, right,
(32:13):
and that I think leaves the voter behind. And I
think that that's one of the reasons why the Arizona
law that Terry can talk about is so critical, because
it's really trying to tell the voter and the person
who is behind these efforts.
Speaker 1 (32:29):
But Terry that the Arizona Zono Law does not apply
to federal races in Arizona.
Speaker 4 (32:34):
Right, No, No, we don't have that kind of power.
But we were talking about heroes.
Speaker 7 (32:38):
I would single ad Senator Sheldon Whitehouse in the US Senate,
who's been absolutely intrepid and consistent about trying to get
the Disclosed Act and other pieces of legislation through the Congress.
And he's been stopped by the Mitch McConnell's and the
folks who were in favor of dark money and no
disclosure at all. But McCain an Arizona sort of led
(33:01):
that fight. The Supreme Court got rid of what McCain
fine Gold had had done, And I think to answer Mary,
we need to not step away from the political process,
but be informed and use it to try to change
the direction of American politics. We can in fact keep
corporations out by it was a five to four decision.
With different Supreme Court, we could go the other way.
Speaker 1 (33:23):
I do believe that one thing that still remains from
the McCain fine Gold Act is that the politicians and
their ads have to say, I'm x y Z and
I approve this message that came out of that that law.
I believe. Let's go to Sean.
Speaker 4 (33:36):
When you're Americans better America? Right exactly? You don't have
to say that, and you don't.
Speaker 1 (33:44):
Right, Let's go to Sean, who's in Minnesota. Sean, welcome
to the middle.
Speaker 12 (33:51):
Hello. So yeah, I am actually a Republican primary challenger
for US House against Brad Finsky here in Minnesota's first
congressional district. But yeah, I don't think money is inherently
good or bad. I think it's just a lot of
politicians fall subject to the same thing. A lot of
(34:12):
people and businesses do goal displacement. They start maybe they
have an idealism that they want to make change, just
like maybe a company has a goal and they want
to promote a product. But you know, after a little
ways in, you start getting caught up on all the
secondary and third goals and you kind of lose, you know,
(34:32):
lose on your original vision. Yeah, so what do you think.
Speaker 1 (34:37):
Do you think that nothing needs to be done about
money and politics or how do you feel about it
right now? There need to be major changes made to it?
Speaker 12 (34:47):
Well, I mean in some aspects, you know, I'm kind
of yes and no. But I think part of it
is until you get to a certain momentum, a lot
of people don't necessarily pay attention to you. For example,
you know, like as a Republican challenger, I would say
(35:07):
not a lot of people would pay attention to the
challengers at this point in the game. So there's not
a lot of money moving. It's more of the Once
you get trenched in the Washington it's then people start
paying attention to you and you show up on radars.
So I don't know if it's inherently good or bad.
I think it's just kind of like who you know,
when you know it when people gain a focus on
(35:28):
you and all those kind of things added together. You know,
the more people that are around you are more easily
it is to get persuaded or you know, focus on
other goals than your original campaign slogan.
Speaker 1 (35:42):
Well, let me ask you one final thing, Sean, were
if you were able to get into Congress, how are
you going to avoid that sort of getting away from
the main reason that you got in there and getting
caught up in whatever your funders want.
Speaker 12 (35:57):
I would love to limit the campaigns into just a
few months and let you know, let eighteen months of
the two year term or something. You can focus on
your work and then you know, maybe the last six
months or a few months, then you can focus on
contact that you needed to get re elected.
Speaker 1 (36:15):
Yeah, Sean, thank you for calling in, Terry Goddard. What
do you think about that? Limiting the campaign time? Would
that make a big difference?
Speaker 4 (36:23):
It could.
Speaker 7 (36:24):
I mean it sounds unconstitutional, unfortunately, but it could. And
I think there are lots of things that we could do.
I had a friend in Washington said that she wanted
to do a national initiative to require Congress people to
work an eight hour day for the public, in other words,
not be in a closed room making phone calls, but
actually attending hearings and responding to constituents and doing what
(36:47):
we think Congressman ought to do.
Speaker 4 (36:49):
That's an interesting idea. Maybe we could get that going.
Speaker 7 (36:53):
Another says that a certain percentage of your contribution should
come from your district if you're going to Congress, or
from your state in the Senate. That's been tried out.
I think it needs some honing, but that's a reform
that could work. And I can't say enough about how
much the credibility of politics would be impressed and improved
by having a national bill for full disclosure of all contributions,
(37:18):
where they come from, who the original source was.
Speaker 1 (37:21):
Let's go to Chantan, who's in Las Vegas. Hi, Chanton,
Welcome to the middle Go.
Speaker 18 (37:25):
Ahead, Hey, how's it going.
Speaker 8 (37:29):
Hey.
Speaker 18 (37:29):
I've been listening to all these callers, and I think
they all make very good points that there is.
Speaker 19 (37:34):
A big money already in politics, and we have to
face the reality that it exists and we can't escape it.
Speaker 20 (37:42):
But the real.
Speaker 18 (37:42):
Problem is it's just the common person's voice.
Speaker 19 (37:47):
Being drowned out by big money.
Speaker 18 (37:48):
That is the real problem. We don't care about money
in politics, it is that our voices are not being heard.
I think it's time for us to really focus on
novel methods to make sure that our voices are in
the political process, rather than harp on like you know,
the money object, it's already done. Like it's it's impossible
for us to go back and remove money from politics
(38:09):
to So.
Speaker 1 (38:11):
What would be the novel method just briefly, what would
you what do you think should be done?
Speaker 18 (38:16):
I think there should be a national petition system that
lets individual vorders take certain their opinions.
Speaker 19 (38:23):
On certain topics that are that matter to them. I
think it's it's high time in a state there we
have such high technology. I think it's our chaic to
be based on our voices being only hurt through the
spuilter of the politicians.
Speaker 18 (38:37):
You know, I think he think forward and not think backwards.
Speaker 19 (38:41):
And like all of us, alves this.
Speaker 18 (38:43):
Uh, you know who is more.
Speaker 19 (38:46):
Popular the popularity contest of the political system, you.
Speaker 1 (38:50):
Know, Yeah, Jean Tom, thank you very much for that call.
Let's get to another one. Brian is in New Orleans, Louisiana.
Speaker 3 (38:57):
Brian, go ahead, Well, I think we live in a plutocracy.
It's not a democracy anymore. That started in eighteen twenty
eight with Andrew Jackson and the Second US Bank when
they started donating money. What we need to do is
have the two thousand dollars per constituent giving money to
(39:20):
the campaign. It can't be corporations and unions because that
is not democracy. That democracy is government of buying for
the people, and corporations and unions aren't the people. They
should not be allowed to donate money to the campaigns. Also,
you should not be able to give to someone outside
(39:43):
your district or outside your state. Senator, Wow, that is corruption, Brian,
thank you for that.
Speaker 1 (39:53):
Sarah Biner. Let me go to you first on that.
There's a lot there. But what about the idea.
Speaker 14 (39:57):
Of just.
Speaker 1 (39:59):
Sticking to the a person who's making the donation instead
of saying you can give, you know, thousands of dollars
to the Trump forty seven committee, and then you can
give more to the party, and you can give more
to the super pac and all that. You say this,
each person can only give two thousand dollars in a
political campaign season.
Speaker 6 (40:18):
Yeah, that sounds like public financing, and I think that
what we have in the US.
Speaker 5 (40:24):
So there's all of the questions.
Speaker 6 (40:25):
We very nicely together, and somebody said, let's limit the
campaign season.
Speaker 5 (40:31):
That would be nice.
Speaker 6 (40:32):
That I think is unconstitutional, as our Supreme Court has
decided based on the freedom of speech. So taking that
off the table, Let's have public financing. Let's not make
this be privately financed. That worked for a while, but
then Barack Obama actually said, you know what, I can
raise a lot more money than I could get from
the public financing program. I'm going to go do that.
(40:54):
But by public financing. That terminated the public financing program
essentially for presidential races. And so there have been states
and cities that have taken efforts to return to public financing,
and I think that there are varying degrees of success there,
and one of the sort of metrics that we look
at is how much the candidate takes from the city
(41:17):
that they represent.
Speaker 5 (41:18):
But there needs to.
Speaker 6 (41:19):
Be political will behind those programs, because it is a
lot easier to raise a million dollars from a private donor,
which the courts have routinely held is something that you
have the right to do, than it is to go
out and take, you know, a couple thousand dollars from
the people. So to reform the financing program, I think
(41:41):
is a much bigger process. I think that there's a
lot of different components here that are interconnected.
Speaker 1 (41:48):
Well, Terry Goddard, is you know, we've heard a lot
of people talk about how things have already gone too far.
There's no way to take the money out of politics
at this point. But do you think that there's a
moment when the amount of money flowing into a campaign
goes from just the process of funding a campaign and
making it work to corrupting our politics?
Speaker 7 (42:10):
Oh okay, I was going to get into public finance,
but which I think is a great idea and we
need to pursue it further.
Speaker 4 (42:18):
I don't know where that magic point is.
Speaker 7 (42:21):
We use the word corruption because the Supreme Court did,
and that they made it one of the standards for
when you've gone too far. And what we're talking about
generally with political contributions is not money in the pocket
of the politician, but money for media, money for the
very expensive things that it takes to be known to
(42:42):
the public. And I think there's hope here, and the
last caller I think really touched on it. I've seen
some very innovative ideas I think they're in Maine where
they basically public finance would be two thousand dollars per voter,
and they could contribute to whoever they want to during
the cycle, all to one or spread it out. And
(43:04):
then if you add that to complete transparency, so that
the voters will know exactly where everybody got their funding,
they will be able to make their own choice. In
other words, if it's only from millionaires, I think the
voters will have that to take into consideration. If it's
all from small contributors who use their chit of their
thousand dollars to put somebody up as a candidate. And
(43:29):
the other part has got to be media reform. I mean,
you have to have access to the airways. Public radio
does a lot of good in that way, but the
commercial airways basically dominate the campaign. So is a corruption, No,
not exactly, but it certainly is a domination of our politics,
and it has degraded the process. And I think that's
what I'm hearing from all of your callers, hopefully not.
Speaker 4 (43:52):
To the point of despair.
Speaker 6 (43:54):
There also needs to be fact checking. Media doesn't need
to let there be content on the airwaves that is
actually untrue that's bought and paid for by millionaires, and
that's something that publicly financed media could do with political will.
Speaker 1 (44:09):
I will point out that it seems that we're moving
in the opposite direction because the debate that is supposed
to happen next week is not going to be like
a normal presidential debate. It's a CNN presidential debate, and
every network that runs it has to run the CNN
commercials and all that stuff. I mean, it's like it's complete,
it's putting more money into that system rather than less.
Let's go to John in Fort Worth, Texas. John, Welcome
(44:33):
to the middle.
Speaker 16 (44:33):
Go ahead.
Speaker 20 (44:35):
Yeah. I mean, I don't think it's a question of
if the money is influencing you know everything right now.
It definitely is, and I think it's more so importantly,
I think at a federal level, obviously, you know the
elected officials, you know, camping, donating to them, that's one thing.
(44:57):
But even I think at a local level, for example,
like here in Trent County, you know, there's there's been
a I think I've seen a couple of corruption cases
that have come up from elected officials, and so I
don't you know, and I would say it's probably even
more important at a local level, to where you know,
(45:17):
it probably affects us a little bit more because we
live in the cities and the counties, and so they
obviously make laws. At a federal level, it's one thing,
but I think people we need to pay more attention
also at a local level what's going on.
Speaker 1 (45:31):
Yeah, well, and that's exactly why Terry Goddard, I guess
got this, uh this ballot measure through at the local level.
H in Arizona, John, Are you do you pay attention
to who donates to various campaigns? Do you go online?
Do you look up who's who's funding these candidates?
Speaker 20 (45:51):
It's it's weird, but you know when I see, like,
for example, I think you guys brought it up earlier
American and I forgot what what what institution or something
like that, and I was like, okay, who's really behind that?
So I started doing a little bit of research. I'm like, okay,
this is really you know this, And so I kind
of find my way to find out where the money's
(46:11):
kind of really coming from. And it is interesting to
see that, you know, in some cases there's these big
corporations behind it, and I'm like Okay, well this really
doesn't sound and I'm not sure if I'm really behind
this anymore.
Speaker 1 (46:25):
You know, yeah, John, thank you very much, Sarah Briner
than last word to you on this. You know how
many people like John and across America are going into
places like open Secrets and looking up who's funding what
and making a decision based on that information.
Speaker 6 (46:41):
Not enough, And I think that John is the perfect
example of like when you hear that Americans for a
Better America or what have you is actually x y
or Z.
Speaker 5 (46:53):
Thank you Arizona law and Alaska law main law.
Speaker 6 (46:58):
You have a different reaction. But like most people, you know,
we're busy buying groceries. You're busy paying for child care.
We're busy, you know, enjoying our lives. We're not going
out there researching our political donors. And I think that
the law needs to predict the citizenry, not vice versa.
Speaker 1 (47:15):
Okay, I have I have good news. First of all,
thanks to everybody who called in, and you can still
leave messages on our voicemail which we listened to and
we will play some of them next week. But the
good news is, Tolliver, it is time for a brief
quiz for our guests.
Speaker 2 (47:26):
Oh my god, and this one's a little biased, I'm
sorry to say. According to OpenSecrets dot com, what percentage
of political contributions come from men? Fifty eight percent, fifty
forty percent or forty percent?
Speaker 5 (47:40):
Fifty eight percent the biggest number.
Speaker 1 (47:43):
She she wrote the book.
Speaker 2 (47:49):
It was an open book test.
Speaker 5 (47:51):
Ah, women know the answer to that question.
Speaker 1 (47:54):
Oh that's interesting. Well, I want to thank my guests
for the our former Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard and
Sarah Briner, director of research at Open Secrets. Thank you
so much to both of you.
Speaker 5 (48:05):
Thank you so much.
Speaker 4 (48:06):
Thank you for opening this subject. It's so important.
Speaker 1 (48:09):
It is very important. And Tolliver. Next week we have
a special late live edition of The Middle.
Speaker 2 (48:14):
YEP, we'll be live right after the Trump and Biden debate.
I'm sure it'll be very civil. You can join the
conversation with your reaction by calling eight four four four
Middle or going to listen to the Middle dot com.
Speaker 1 (48:26):
And you can always sign up for our weekly newsletter.
The Middle is brought to you by Longnok Media, distributed
by Illinois Public Media in Turbana, Illinois, and produced by
Joann Jennings, Harrison Fatino, Danny Alexander, and John Barth. By
the way, it's Harrison Patino's birthday today, so Happy birthday, Harrison.
Our intern is Anikadeshler. Our technical director this week is
Jason Croft. And thanks to KJZZ in Phoenix for hosting
(48:49):
Terry Goddard this hour. Actually it's in Tempe. Our theme
music was composed by Andrew Haig. Thanks to Nashville Public Radio,
iHeartMedia and the more than four hundred and ten public
radio stations that are making it possible for people across
the country to listen to the Middle I'm Jeremy Hobson
and I'll talk to you next week.
The Middle is supported by Journalism Funding Partners, a nonprofit
organization striving to increase the sustainability of local journalism by
building connections between donors and news organizations. More information on
how you can support The Middle at Listen tooth Middle
dot com. Welcome to the Middle. I'm Jeremy Hobson, joined
(00:22):
as always by our house DJ Tolliver and Tolliver. We
have a busy summer coming up politically, I.
Speaker 2 (00:28):
Know we do, but like, why can't every day be debate?
Speaker 3 (00:30):
Damen?
Speaker 2 (00:31):
We can do the show seven days a week to
never sleep.
Speaker 1 (00:34):
Yeah, right exactly. We'll see if we even get the
first one. So next week we're going to be doing
a special episode of The Middle right after the presidential debate,
assuming it happens between Biden and Trump. We're going to
be taking calls for listener reaction from around the country.
So that's next week, and then the conventions are the
political conventions are coming up this summer. The Republicans go
(00:55):
first in July, and it turns out that the big
speeches from the candidates are scheduled to a right in
the middle of the time when we air live on
the radio. So we're going to be recording a special
episode in advance for each convention, asking what it means
to be a Republican in twenty twenty four for the Republicans,
and what it means to be a Democrat in twenty
twenty four for the Democrats. And the reason we're bringing
this up right now is because I want to ask
(01:17):
Republican listeners, since Republicans go first to call in and
leave us a message, what does it mean to you
to be a Republican in twenty twenty four, Tolliver? How
can they reach.
Speaker 2 (01:26):
Us the same way they always do at eight four
four four Middle that's eight four four four sixty four
and three three five three, Or you can write to
us that listen to the Middle dot com.
Speaker 1 (01:34):
And by the way, don't do that right now because
that we're doing a show right now. You can leave
those messages later, but right now you can talk to
us about money in politics. The United States spends far
more on elections than any other nation on Earth. In
the twenty twenty election alone, total political spending amounted to
over fourteen billion dollars. That was more than the GDP
(01:56):
of Madagascar. Now, there have been efforts to curb the
influence of money in our politics. The Bipartisan Campaign Reform
Act of two thousand and two that's also known as
the McCain Fine Gold Act put into place limits on
some spending in campaigns. But then eight years later, the
Supreme Court issued their ruling in the Citizens United case,
which ruled that freedom of speech prohibits the government from
(02:17):
limiting political spending by nonprofits, labor unions, and most notably, corporations,
and that has led to seemingly endless amounts of cash
coming into campaigns, often with little information about who's behind it.
So that's our question this hour, is money corrupting our politics?
Tolliver again, give us the number.
Speaker 2 (02:36):
It's eight four four four Middle. That's eight four four
four sixty four three three five three or right to
us that listen to the middle dot com.
Speaker 1 (02:42):
And let's meet our panel. Terry Goddard is the former
Attorney General of Arizona and the former mayor of Phoenix.
He led the twenty twenty two effort to pass a
stop dark money ballot and initiative in his home state,
which passed with seventy two percent of the vote. He
joins us from KJZZ in Phoenix. Terry Goddard. Well, come
to the middle.
Speaker 4 (03:01):
Thank you so much. We squeaked that one through.
Speaker 1 (03:04):
It's just seventy two percent. Sarah Briner is also with us.
She is director of research at Open Secrets, which tracks
money in US politics. She's in Chicago.
Speaker 5 (03:13):
High Sarah, Hi, happy to be here.
Speaker 1 (03:16):
Well, so before we get to the phone, Sarah, I
want to start with you. We mentioned the landmark US
Supreme Court ruling known as Citizens United, But can you
tell us just briefly what effect that has had and
how it has changed the way political campaigns have been
financed since then.
Speaker 6 (03:32):
I like to think of Citizens United as a case
that really opened the floodgates to money in politics. So
not only did it roll back a lot of the
reforms that happened earlier in the century, but it created
the possibility for groups to exist that can spend huge
amounts of money outside of our traditional sort of disclosed universe.
Speaker 5 (03:57):
And that has.
Speaker 6 (03:58):
Led to a sort of environment where millionaires and billionaires
can drop huge amounts of money into the election, really
late in the game, without anyone knowing who they are,
really affecting the messaging, and I think that that's super problematic.
Speaker 1 (04:15):
Terry Goddard. You left officees Arizona's in Arizona the year
after Citizens United was ruled down by the Supreme Court.
At that time, did you realize what effect it would have?
Speaker 7 (04:27):
I saw that effect, yes, and I lived it because
I was running for statewide office that same year in
twenty ten, and my experience was that, at least in Arizona,
and I think it was even more in other places,
the cost of running for office went up by five times,
and that was a direct result of opening the floodgates
of corporate money coming into elections. And the dark money
(04:51):
phenomenon was what really got my attention because in Arizona
we sort of led the parade for anonymous, massive contributions
trying to tip the scale one way or the other.
Speaker 1 (05:02):
And dark money, by the way, just for our listeners,
just basically means money where you don't know who's behind it.
Speaker 4 (05:08):
That's right.
Speaker 7 (05:09):
That's the money from people you can't see for laws
you don't like. It's the kind of a non anonymity
that was not required by Citizens United. But when the
corporate players started coming in, they liked to say they
were above the fray. They didn't want to tip their
(05:30):
hand they didn't want to have consumer reaction to their
political contributions, so they love doing it secretly.
Speaker 1 (05:38):
Sarah, I have to say that even when the information
is there, it's often very hard to follow the money
in politics. What kind of a difference does it make
do you think when voters have access to the information
about who's funding what.
Speaker 6 (05:51):
There's some great political science research that says that people
actually trust ads that are run by groups with names
like Americans for a Better America than they do when
they're run by ads by candidates. So if it's from
something that you don't have a reaction to, you believe it.
And so laws like the one in Arizona and then
(06:13):
and there are other states that have implemented similar laws
in the past, like Alaska and main that tell people, oh,
Americans for a Better America, that's actually X on mobile
can be monumentally influential and getting to the bottom of
what's actually trying to influence your opinion, because as soon
as you hear that term X on mobile or target
(06:34):
or whatever like, you have a completely different reaction than
when it's just anonymous political group. And I think that
that is hugely influential in our politics.
Speaker 1 (06:43):
Yeah, and Terry Gottard just tell us briefly what your
bill that you got through passed with seventy two percent
support in Arizona. What does it do in the state.
Speaker 7 (06:51):
Well, basically, it asks the so called dark money, the
anonymous contributors, most of them are hidden through the provision
and the internal Revenue Code that allows for political advocacy.
Speaker 4 (07:04):
By what we call five O NC four organizations.
Speaker 7 (07:07):
And basically what it does is it says we only
wanted to go after major players. So if you have
spent fifty thousand dollars or more in statewide races, then
you're required to disclose the original source that's contributed five
thousand dollars or more to you. So anybody under five
thousand dollars we didn't require reporting on, but any of
(07:29):
the big contributions above that were required to fess up
and report within five days to the Secretary of State
as a public document. And what I think is unique
about the Arizona law is that in other states, the
dark money contributors hide their kind their tracks very artfully.
(07:53):
And I used to be a prosecutor. I used to
do a lot of work on money laundering, and frankly,
although it's legal. What they were doing, it was money
laundering because they wanted to make it really hard for
public and the news media to find who they were.
So what our statue does is it basically, through a
series of disclosures, gets to the original source in other words,
(08:14):
the corporation or the person who started the money rolling,
and it may go through four or five six intermediaries.
We've seen them that go offshore and then come back
in the United States. They did exactly the same thing
the drug cartels do to try to hide the source
of their money.
Speaker 1 (08:32):
Let's get to the phones and Rebecca, who's in Central Minnesota. Hi, Rebecca,
Welcome to the middle.
Speaker 8 (08:39):
Yes, I think that it should be absolute, complete transparency
as far as who is donating to the funds for
a lectionis an absolute full disclosure and that is really important,
I think, And just judging from what audacities that Trump
(09:02):
has done and is blatantly regard of laws that a
lot of the Republicans are it seems like and maybe
Democrats too, but especially the Repukes it can seem like
they're emboldened by Trump and what he has done and
that having to be accountable and just encouraging disregard of
(09:26):
the laws.
Speaker 1 (09:27):
Disregard of the laws, Rebecca, Thank you for that, Sarah Briner.
When Rebecca talks about disregard of the laws, I mean,
they're obviously Trump was just convicted. But aside from that,
what about the campaign finance laws. If you blatantly disregard
the campaign finance laws, does anybody come after you?
Speaker 6 (09:44):
Yeah, so if you don't disclose your donors. So if
you violate the disclosure laws in any way, theoretically the
Federal Election Commission can.
Speaker 5 (09:54):
Come after you or the Department of Justice, depending on
what you do.
Speaker 6 (09:57):
The fact of the matter is elections, even so, they
feel like they go on forever or actually fairly short
term events, and so much of the disclosure that we
see that's driven by legal sort of pushes comes after
the election itself.
Speaker 5 (10:12):
And you know that's.
Speaker 6 (10:13):
Problem when you're a voter trying to say what's going on, Well,
you don't know because.
Speaker 5 (10:18):
It's in court.
Speaker 6 (10:20):
And so I think that, you know, Rebecca's question sort
of brought to mind the fact that, like both of
the parties are guilty of using dark money, it supports
both Democrats and Republicans. But I think that the Supreme
Court when they argued to just as united if they
were being genuine, made it clear that disclosure was paramount
to the sort of functional democracy. And so I think
(10:45):
that we've navigated away from that a little bit because
the parties have figured out how to get around that.
But we just need to look to what Scalia and
Justice Roberts said, which was that you know, we still
need to know who you are, even if you're doing
all this stuff.
Speaker 1 (11:01):
A reminder, you can reach us at eight four four
four Middle that is eight four four four six four
three three five three, or you can reach out and
listen to the Middle dot com. Our question this hour
is money corrupting our politics? And Tolliver, we've been talking
about the Citizens United decision from the Supreme Court, which
has had a profound impact on campaign spending.
Speaker 2 (11:20):
Yeah, and one of its champions was Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell,
the Republican leader of the Senate. A year after the ruling,
McConnell's spoke about what he saw is the positive outcome
it would have on our political system.
Speaker 9 (11:31):
My view is the American citizens have to have an
opportunity to push back against this massive, overreaching government that
is trying to regulate every aspect of our lives and
the way you push back in a country of over
three hundred million just to have a voice. So all
citizens of United basically did, what's the level of playing
field for corporate America and say you can participate? Why
(11:53):
shouldn't everybody be free to do that? I think it
was a terrific decision. I don't think there's any harmful
to quants to come out of it.
Speaker 2 (12:02):
Finally somebody standing up for corporate America giving them a voice.
Speaker 1 (12:05):
Well, and it's safe to say that there are a
lot of people who would disagree with that assessment. But
we hope that you are enjoying the Middle, and we
write back with more in a moment. This is the Middle.
I'm Jeremy Hobson. If you're just tuning, in the Middle
is a national call in show. We're focused on elevating
voices from the middle geographically, politically and philosophically, or maybe
you just want to meet in the middle. This hour,
(12:28):
we're asking you, is money corrupting our politics? Tolliver, what
is that number to call in?
Speaker 2 (12:33):
It's eight four four four Middle. That's eight four four
four sixty four three three five three. You can also
write to us at Listen to the middle dot com
or on social media.
Speaker 1 (12:40):
I'm here with former Arizona Attorney General and Phoenix mayor
Terry Goddard and Sarah Briner, director of research at Open Secrets.
Before we get back to the phones, Terry Goddard, what
do politicians themselves think about campaign finance reform? Is it
an issue that some are publicly for but privately against.
Speaker 7 (12:59):
Public Actually, it's the other way around. I think most
politicians in office tend to be, especially in the area
of transparency, very wishy washy. Former politicians are very strong
in opposition to dark money and transparency. But Rebecca the
caller just mentioned something that I thought was critically important.
(13:21):
I tried four different election cycles to get the stop
dark money on the ballot in Arizona, and so I
talked to literally thousands of people in the process of
passing petitions to get it on the ballot. Not one
of them ever said I would prefer not to know
who's buying the ads that are trying to influence my vote.
I want to be fooled. So it is really popular.
(13:44):
Our polling was usually around ninety percent bipartisan in the middle,
if you will appropriate for this show. In a very
divided state, Arizona's split right down the middle, literally fifty
to fifty, but seventy two voted in favor, and I
think a lot more would have if it was clearer
(14:04):
on the ballot. In other words, you had to vote
yes to stop dark money. That's kind of unintuitive and
so but the popularity, as James Carvel said once, it's
just good politics.
Speaker 1 (14:16):
I remember that those two referenda in Ohio in the
last year involving abortion. One was to change the constitution
and one was to put abortion rights in the constitution.
And one was like, if you were in favor, you
say yes, and the other one was if you're in favor,
you say no. It's a very, very complicated the way
they do these pallid measures. Sometimes. Let's go to Elliott,
who is in Prairie Village, Kansas. Elliott, welcome to the middle,
(14:38):
Go ahead, Hello.
Speaker 10 (14:41):
Yes, if a corporation is a person and can donate
money but they can't vote, does that seem like that's
a issue in terms of just the reality of what
we're trying to do here. Vote.
Speaker 1 (15:02):
You're talking about citizens united there and the whole idea
that corporations are people too. Yeah, yeah, Terry Goddard, you
laughed at that, and I let you take that.
Speaker 4 (15:11):
Thank you.
Speaker 7 (15:13):
It's an extraordinary proposition that in all ways corporations are people,
and that was the Citizens United ruling. And yes, they
can't vote, but they also can't suffer harm in the
way people can. And so one of the legal challenges
against our proposition after it was passed by seventy two
percent of the voters in Arizona, was that people would
(15:36):
be individuals would be docked or harassed or threatened by
having to disclose their identity as a contributor. And the
cases that they used were the civil rights cases of
NAACP out of the fifties in the South. But there's
a big difference. A corporation can't be hung. It can't
(15:56):
be harm physically. I think that's a big physically. I
think that's that's a big difference. And so we need
to draw some lines outside of.
Speaker 1 (16:09):
United Elliott, Elliott, go ahead.
Speaker 10 (16:13):
Corporation can be.
Speaker 1 (16:17):
Ended, can be ended, Okay, it can't be harmed physically
like a person is. Yeah, yeah, let's go to uh Bo,
who's in St. Anthony Idaho, Bo, Welcome to the middle
go ahead.
Speaker 11 (16:32):
Hi, Yes, thank you for having me on. Yeah, I
just wanted to kind of bring it to a more
general discussion almost in my opinion, Yeah, money is definitely
corrupting our politics in a lot of ways. You know,
there's a lot of different things that go into it.
But to even have a re election campaign, you almost
(16:54):
have to start that from day one after you get elected,
for not just the presidency, but for Congress and everything.
So so much of elected officials time just goes into
fundraising for these corporations. Who'se you know, all all of
our economy and the corporations in it is really focused
on continuous growth. And I think it's kind of generally
(17:15):
understood that the federal and local governments are there for
stability for the general public and to regulate these corporations.
But when they're the ones getting the elected officials in,
and the elect officials just spend most of their time
campaigning and fundraising, nothing important can get done, it seems
like to the general public, and it's really frustrating. And
it even goes into last week episode of how we
(17:37):
get the Politics out of Climate change too by you know,
tackling tackling this money that's in our policy.
Speaker 1 (17:43):
So what would you do? What would you do about it?
Speaker 11 (17:50):
I mean, it's just it's it's hard for any elected
official to feel like they can do anything without, you know,
upsetting some donor some contributor. I feel like so one
thing that comes to mind for me is where I live,
right by Grant Tetah National Park. The only reason that
(18:10):
park is as big as it is is because a
member of the Rockefeller family just decided to give it
to the government instead of passing it down through the generations.
So it feels like it really just is going to
take wealthy individuals, wealthy corporations just choosing to do the
right thing because they want to and not because it's
going to perpetuate their success and further down the road.
Speaker 1 (18:34):
Both thank you for that, Sarah Briner, your thoughts on that,
and specifically Bow's point that politicians have to spend so
much of their time raising money, and of course if
you do that, you're probably gonna pick up the phone
when that person who made your fundraising a little bit
easier calls.
Speaker 6 (18:53):
I am going to assume that what both said is correct,
just for the purposes of conversation, and I think it
is you know, if you give money, you're going to
get your phone answered. But I think that there are
two things here that are not just typical corporation giving
to politician dynamics. One is that Citizens United made it
possible for millionaires and billionaires to give a million dollar contributions.
(19:16):
And the other is that alongside that, we've seen this
huge rise in donations from small donors. You can think
of people like Macaids, Alexandria Okasio Cortez, a bunch of
people from both sides who have really relied on small donors.
And those people aren't showing up in DC saying hey, AOC,
can you have a.
Speaker 12 (19:35):
Meeting with me.
Speaker 6 (19:35):
They're supporting that candidate because they believe in them.
Speaker 5 (19:40):
That's the good side.
Speaker 6 (19:42):
On the other side, you also have these millionaires and
billion I looked towards the corporations as the moderating effect,
because those corporations want to have just standard politics, as
normal conversations to get some you know, boring like tax
credit passed. It's the millionaires and billionaires funding the super
PACs are saying, let's push the politics to the extremes.
(20:04):
And I think that that is what really has happened
as a result of Citizens United.
Speaker 5 (20:09):
It's not the target or Walmart. Huh who I think
it was?
Speaker 6 (20:13):
Elliott said, like, they're exposed, they have consumers, They're not
the problem. It's the you know, really super rich people
who don't have consumers, who don't have to care about
what we think, who are pushing the politics to the extremes.
Speaker 1 (20:28):
Let's go to Claudia, who's in Chicago. Claudia, welcome to
the middle Go ahead.
Speaker 13 (20:32):
Hi, thank you. I think I was saying that it's
not really a question of whether money is corrupting politics,
it's how it's corrupting. And I think the Biggest Color
gave an example of how it's doing. And I think overall,
it dilutes the individual more than it does benefit the
(20:53):
corporate corporates have way more money than the individual to
give to a cause, So what does it do to
the individ to do all vote?
Speaker 1 (21:01):
Have you ever given money to a campaign, Claudia, I have, yes, yeah,
And and do you feel like do you get anything
back from that or is it just you're doing it
because you believe in it and not expecting anything in return.
Speaker 13 (21:17):
I do it mostly because I believe in it. I
don't believe that I get a direct benefit of that,
but I do. I do donate to cause it and
to people that I think might have my best interest
in mine.
Speaker 1 (21:31):
Claudia, thank you for that. Terry Goddard. What do you
think of that from Claudia, that these these larger donations
basically dilute anything small that's coming in.
Speaker 4 (21:40):
They really do.
Speaker 7 (21:41):
I think it's part of the pervasive feeling that that
government doesn't represent me that I hear all the time
from from regular folks. They feel that the millionaires, billionaires
are able to put their finger on the scale and
move things dramatically when way or the other. And for instance,
let me just use our example here in Arizona. The
(22:05):
population was overwhelmingly, as we proved in the election in
twenty two, in favor of controlling providing transparency. But the election,
the officials, the legislators were never willing to even give
a hearing to a bill that would have done that.
Speaker 4 (22:24):
A huge, huge.
Speaker 7 (22:26):
Difference between what the people wanted and what the elected
representatives of the people were willing to even consider. And
I think that shows the the litany that I think
is absolutely true is they were afraid of the dark money.
They either got some, or they wanted to get some,
or they were afraid that the big money would oppose
(22:47):
them in a primary. So the bottom line was they
were afraid of it, and therefore they didn't want to
do anything to harm it. And that, unfortunately, is an
example of other places where money doesn't talk.
Speaker 2 (23:00):
Roars he Jeremy, we got a call in from or sorry,
an email in from John in Rockford, Illinois. He says,
if a citizen offers money to a judge and response
to the way he interprets the law, that's a bribe.
If a citizen offers money to a cop in response
to the way and forces the law, that's a bribe.
But if a citizen or organization offers money to an
elected legislator in response to the way he makes the laws,
that's just campaign fundraising and not at all illegal or
(23:21):
un ethical.
Speaker 1 (23:23):
Sarah Brighter, is that true that? I mean, what do
you think about that?
Speaker 5 (23:26):
I mean, that is true.
Speaker 1 (23:29):
But you but there was a moment. There was a
moment recently where it was reported that Donald Trump had
a meeting with a bunch of oil executives. Yeah, and
basically said to them you need to give me a
billion dollars to my campaign and then I'll reverse all
these these decisions from the bid administration. Is that legal
to do that? If he if he did that, I
don't know.
Speaker 5 (23:49):
I think it's an open question. It's tricky.
Speaker 1 (23:51):
I was like a quid pro quote, and which you're
not allowed to do, right, you can't do a quid
pro quote that No, No, I'm just asking. I mean
that's called briberary. Yeah, right, Sarah, go ahead, what were
we gonna say?
Speaker 6 (24:07):
No, it's just gonna say that. Like it's really difficult
to draw the line. And that's the that's the purpose here,
is that it's complicated for a reason because you can't
challenge things when they become.
Speaker 5 (24:19):
So just tricky that it seems like it might be illegal.
Speaker 8 (24:23):
But is it.
Speaker 5 (24:24):
I don't know, Like what line are we crossing here?
Is a quidbrook or not?
Speaker 6 (24:27):
And then you're just like this is politics as normal,
And that's what that kind of Trump saying, I'm going
to give you this, but I'm not going to give
you this line and this bill with a specific consequence
that's beside the point, Like there is an exchange of
goods and services here and I think that that's what
gets lost in these legal these discussions.
Speaker 1 (24:49):
Let's go to Jim in Hattiesburg, Mississippi. Jim, Welcome to
the middle. What do you think is money corrupting our politics?
Speaker 8 (24:56):
Well?
Speaker 14 (24:57):
I think it is. And I think what I wanted
to say is, I think there's a very insidious line
of reasoning that's been going on, and it's part of
what got Trump elected. And I'm sure other people will follow,
but it's this idea that if you come from money
or have your own money, you're somehow more immune to
corruption buy money, and I don't think there's any evidence
(25:19):
for that.
Speaker 1 (25:22):
Interesting point. What do you think, Terry Goddard about I mean,
I remember Michael Bloomberg running for mayor in New York
saying I'm going to I'm spending my money, I'm not
going to be beholden to anybody.
Speaker 4 (25:35):
Well, you do hear that.
Speaker 7 (25:36):
A lot, and I think it is a direct reaction
to what we've been hearing from the callers, that this
is a feeling that you want to have elected officials
who are somehow immune to the forces of big contributors,
and maybe somebody who's already a millionaire is less likely
(25:56):
to respond. I think you also have to look, however,
at how they made that million dollars and what they're
what they what they had to do to get it,
because their prejudices may show in that in that way,
but it is an argument that you hear, and unfortunately
it has some validity.
Speaker 1 (26:15):
You know, I was wondering whether there were going to
be a lot of calls on the show, and all
the lines are full, so that's exciting. Mary is with
us from western North Carolina. Him Mary, welcome to the middle.
Speaker 15 (26:25):
Go ahead, Hi, how are you uh?
Speaker 16 (26:28):
I think that money has already crypted our politics. I
don't feel like there's a candidate that can run successfully
because unless they have a lot of money, and therefore
they aren't representing the common man or common woman. I'm
from a very rural area and in no way do
I feel represented by anyone because they haven't gone through
(26:52):
the struggles that I have, you know.
Speaker 15 (26:54):
Of having to be a single parent, having to figure
out how we're going to pay the bills, and all
they're worried about is, you know, how much money they
can get from their fundraising dinner, And there's no way
I would even consider doing that, And it's not democratic Republican,
it's all of them. In reference to whether someone is
(27:17):
corruptible or less corruptible based on whether they have money, well, yeah,
everybody's corruptible, you know. At finding that perfect person is
very difficult.
Speaker 1 (27:28):
So what do you do when it comes to election time?
Speaker 15 (27:30):
Mary, Well, usually I vote. I vote according to the
person that is my that I think is going to
best represent me. But I'm of that people right now
that I'm frustrated. I don't feel like I have a
good choice this year, and it frustrates me, and that
(27:53):
bothers me. I was brought up to be a good
citizen to vote and to you know, put people in office,
and my mother was. She worked for senators, my grandfather
worked for the you know, people in government. But I
am very frustrated at this point that I don't know
(28:15):
if I'm going to vote, and that almost embarrasses me.
It's to the point that I'm like, why vote? Why
because it's not gonna matter anymore?
Speaker 1 (28:26):
Mary, thank you for that, right, yeah?
Speaker 9 (28:29):
Thank yeah.
Speaker 1 (28:30):
Let me let me take that to Sarah Brener because
it gets to just the heart of this. She feels
that the money is really making it and making the
candidates so unappealing.
Speaker 6 (28:40):
I mean, I hear you, I hear you from my
like the depths of my soul because I grew up
in Alaska, you know, very similar kind of upbringing. Because
it sounds like and I don't see the people running
for office is reflective of me, And I think that
a lot of that is speaking.
Speaker 5 (29:00):
Has to run for betteral office.
Speaker 6 (29:02):
You need to either be able to spend all of
your free time fundraising to counteract the super PACs that
are able to, you know, fundraise with like a drop
of a hat. Or you need to be independently wealthy,
like Mike Bloomberg. Or you need to be embedded in
DC like the incumbents. And I say that sounding cynical,
and I think that you and I both share that
(29:25):
that's that frustration at feeling that cynicism. But that is
the way the system is right now. And I think
that the fundamental changes that need to happen are both
in money and also the way that we vote for people.
Speaker 1 (29:38):
Well stand by because Tolliver, believe it or not, some
politicians actually want to limit the amount of money going
into our elections.
Speaker 2 (29:45):
Yeah, John McCain, to name one. Here's the late Arizona Senator,
speaking on the matter at a nineteen ninety seven conference
on political reform.
Speaker 17 (29:52):
Real reform has to do two things. It must limit
the influence of money and campaigns, and it's got the
level of playing field between challengers and incumbents. Those are
the two principles we seek. Now. Opponents say that anything
we are trying to do is restrictive of free speech,
thereby equating free speech and money. I do not believe
(30:13):
that money means free speech in America. And if it does,
then there's a couple of hundred million Americans that have
very little free speech.
Speaker 1 (30:21):
That was just five years before the passage of McCain Finegeld,
the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act.
Speaker 7 (30:27):
Oh.
Speaker 1 (30:27):
Okay, by the way, Tolliver, you know our listeners, if
they haven't seen you perform live, they can go and
sign up for our weekly newsletter. And I believe we
posted a video of you performing in Waterbury, Connecticut. Real
entire songs. Yes, your dance mears are lit.
Speaker 2 (30:44):
Okay, that's why I'm on the show.
Speaker 1 (30:46):
We'll be right back with more of the middle. This
is the middle. I'm Jeremy Hobson. We're asking you this hour,
is money corrupting our politics? Call us at eight four
four four middle that's eight four four four six four
three three five three reach out at listen to the
miiddle dot com. I'm joined by former Arizona Attorney General
Terry Goddard and Sarah Briner, director of research at Open Secrets.
(31:08):
And Sarah before we go back to the phones. It
is kind of head spinning sometimes to follow the money.
There was a recent Trump campaign event which the campaign
claims brought in about fifty million dollars. The money raised,
according to the invitation listen to this will be directed
to the Trump forty seven Committee, which is a shaff
fundraising agreement among the Trump campaign, the Republican National Committee,
(31:28):
and roughly forty state parties. Under that agreement, the first
sixty six hundred of any contribution will go to Trump's campaign,
the next five thousand to the Save America pack which
he has used to pay his legal bills, and the
RNC will get the next four hundred and thirteen thousand,
and the rest goes to the estate parties.
Speaker 5 (31:42):
What how is I know? I know it's on purpose.
It's on purpose to confuse us.
Speaker 6 (31:49):
And also I will say that up until like this
last month, the Trump campaign did not raise any money
for state parties, which really annoyed them. So he was
spending most of it on his legal expensive But now
he has more of it because he got convicted of
felonies and so that money is getting allocated. But regardless,
it's like it's confusing, and that is the story, right,
(32:13):
and that I think leaves the voter behind. And I
think that that's one of the reasons why the Arizona
law that Terry can talk about is so critical, because
it's really trying to tell the voter and the person
who is behind these efforts.
Speaker 1 (32:29):
But Terry that the Arizona Zono Law does not apply
to federal races in Arizona.
Speaker 4 (32:34):
Right, No, No, we don't have that kind of power.
But we were talking about heroes.
Speaker 7 (32:38):
I would single ad Senator Sheldon Whitehouse in the US Senate,
who's been absolutely intrepid and consistent about trying to get
the Disclosed Act and other pieces of legislation through the Congress.
And he's been stopped by the Mitch McConnell's and the
folks who were in favor of dark money and no
disclosure at all. But McCain an Arizona sort of led
(33:01):
that fight. The Supreme Court got rid of what McCain
fine Gold had had done, And I think to answer Mary,
we need to not step away from the political process,
but be informed and use it to try to change
the direction of American politics. We can in fact keep
corporations out by it was a five to four decision.
With different Supreme Court, we could go the other way.
Speaker 1 (33:23):
I do believe that one thing that still remains from
the McCain fine Gold Act is that the politicians and
their ads have to say, I'm x y Z and
I approve this message that came out of that that law.
I believe. Let's go to Sean.
Speaker 4 (33:36):
When you're Americans better America? Right exactly? You don't have
to say that, and you don't.
Speaker 1 (33:44):
Right, Let's go to Sean, who's in Minnesota. Sean, welcome
to the middle.
Speaker 12 (33:51):
Hello. So yeah, I am actually a Republican primary challenger
for US House against Brad Finsky here in Minnesota's first
congressional district. But yeah, I don't think money is inherently
good or bad. I think it's just a lot of
politicians fall subject to the same thing. A lot of
(34:12):
people and businesses do goal displacement. They start maybe they
have an idealism that they want to make change, just
like maybe a company has a goal and they want
to promote a product. But you know, after a little
ways in, you start getting caught up on all the
secondary and third goals and you kind of lose, you know,
(34:32):
lose on your original vision. Yeah, so what do you think.
Speaker 1 (34:37):
Do you think that nothing needs to be done about
money and politics or how do you feel about it
right now? There need to be major changes made to it?
Speaker 12 (34:47):
Well, I mean in some aspects, you know, I'm kind
of yes and no. But I think part of it
is until you get to a certain momentum, a lot
of people don't necessarily pay attention to you. For example,
you know, like as a Republican challenger, I would say
(35:07):
not a lot of people would pay attention to the
challengers at this point in the game. So there's not
a lot of money moving. It's more of the Once
you get trenched in the Washington it's then people start
paying attention to you and you show up on radars.
So I don't know if it's inherently good or bad.
I think it's just kind of like who you know,
when you know it when people gain a focus on
(35:28):
you and all those kind of things added together. You know,
the more people that are around you are more easily
it is to get persuaded or you know, focus on
other goals than your original campaign slogan.
Speaker 1 (35:42):
Well, let me ask you one final thing, Sean, were
if you were able to get into Congress, how are
you going to avoid that sort of getting away from
the main reason that you got in there and getting
caught up in whatever your funders want.
Speaker 12 (35:57):
I would love to limit the campaigns into just a
few months and let you know, let eighteen months of
the two year term or something. You can focus on
your work and then you know, maybe the last six
months or a few months, then you can focus on
contact that you needed to get re elected.
Speaker 1 (36:15):
Yeah, Sean, thank you for calling in, Terry Goddard. What
do you think about that? Limiting the campaign time? Would
that make a big difference?
Speaker 4 (36:23):
It could.
Speaker 7 (36:24):
I mean it sounds unconstitutional, unfortunately, but it could. And
I think there are lots of things that we could do.
I had a friend in Washington said that she wanted
to do a national initiative to require Congress people to
work an eight hour day for the public, in other words,
not be in a closed room making phone calls, but
actually attending hearings and responding to constituents and doing what
(36:47):
we think Congressman ought to do.
Speaker 4 (36:49):
That's an interesting idea. Maybe we could get that going.
Speaker 7 (36:53):
Another says that a certain percentage of your contribution should
come from your district if you're going to Congress, or
from your state in the Senate. That's been tried out.
I think it needs some honing, but that's a reform
that could work. And I can't say enough about how
much the credibility of politics would be impressed and improved
by having a national bill for full disclosure of all contributions,
(37:18):
where they come from, who the original source was.
Speaker 1 (37:21):
Let's go to Chantan, who's in Las Vegas. Hi, Chanton,
Welcome to the middle Go.
Speaker 18 (37:25):
Ahead, Hey, how's it going.
Speaker 8 (37:29):
Hey.
Speaker 18 (37:29):
I've been listening to all these callers, and I think
they all make very good points that there is.
Speaker 19 (37:34):
A big money already in politics, and we have to
face the reality that it exists and we can't escape it.
Speaker 20 (37:42):
But the real.
Speaker 18 (37:42):
Problem is it's just the common person's voice.
Speaker 19 (37:47):
Being drowned out by big money.
Speaker 18 (37:48):
That is the real problem. We don't care about money
in politics, it is that our voices are not being heard.
I think it's time for us to really focus on
novel methods to make sure that our voices are in
the political process, rather than harp on like you know,
the money object, it's already done. Like it's it's impossible
for us to go back and remove money from politics
(38:09):
to So.
Speaker 1 (38:11):
What would be the novel method just briefly, what would
you what do you think should be done?
Speaker 18 (38:16):
I think there should be a national petition system that
lets individual vorders take certain their opinions.
Speaker 19 (38:23):
On certain topics that are that matter to them. I
think it's it's high time in a state there we
have such high technology. I think it's our chaic to
be based on our voices being only hurt through the
spuilter of the politicians.
Speaker 18 (38:37):
You know, I think he think forward and not think backwards.
Speaker 19 (38:41):
And like all of us, alves this.
Speaker 18 (38:43):
Uh, you know who is more.
Speaker 19 (38:46):
Popular the popularity contest of the political system, you.
Speaker 1 (38:50):
Know, Yeah, Jean Tom, thank you very much for that call.
Let's get to another one. Brian is in New Orleans, Louisiana.
Speaker 3 (38:57):
Brian, go ahead, Well, I think we live in a plutocracy.
It's not a democracy anymore. That started in eighteen twenty
eight with Andrew Jackson and the Second US Bank when
they started donating money. What we need to do is
have the two thousand dollars per constituent giving money to
(39:20):
the campaign. It can't be corporations and unions because that
is not democracy. That democracy is government of buying for
the people, and corporations and unions aren't the people. They
should not be allowed to donate money to the campaigns. Also,
you should not be able to give to someone outside
(39:43):
your district or outside your state. Senator, Wow, that is corruption, Brian,
thank you for that.
Speaker 1 (39:53):
Sarah Biner. Let me go to you first on that.
There's a lot there. But what about the idea.
Speaker 14 (39:57):
Of just.
Speaker 1 (39:59):
Sticking to the a person who's making the donation instead
of saying you can give, you know, thousands of dollars
to the Trump forty seven committee, and then you can
give more to the party, and you can give more
to the super pac and all that. You say this,
each person can only give two thousand dollars in a
political campaign season.
Speaker 6 (40:18):
Yeah, that sounds like public financing, and I think that
what we have in the US.
Speaker 5 (40:24):
So there's all of the questions.
Speaker 6 (40:25):
We very nicely together, and somebody said, let's limit the
campaign season.
Speaker 5 (40:31):
That would be nice.
Speaker 6 (40:32):
That I think is unconstitutional, as our Supreme Court has
decided based on the freedom of speech. So taking that
off the table, Let's have public financing. Let's not make
this be privately financed. That worked for a while, but
then Barack Obama actually said, you know what, I can
raise a lot more money than I could get from
the public financing program. I'm going to go do that.
(40:54):
But by public financing. That terminated the public financing program
essentially for presidential races. And so there have been states
and cities that have taken efforts to return to public financing,
and I think that there are varying degrees of success there,
and one of the sort of metrics that we look
at is how much the candidate takes from the city
(41:17):
that they represent.
Speaker 5 (41:18):
But there needs to.
Speaker 6 (41:19):
Be political will behind those programs, because it is a
lot easier to raise a million dollars from a private donor,
which the courts have routinely held is something that you
have the right to do, than it is to go
out and take, you know, a couple thousand dollars from
the people. So to reform the financing program, I think
(41:41):
is a much bigger process. I think that there's a
lot of different components here that are interconnected.
Speaker 1 (41:48):
Well, Terry Goddard, is you know, we've heard a lot
of people talk about how things have already gone too far.
There's no way to take the money out of politics
at this point. But do you think that there's a
moment when the amount of money flowing into a campaign
goes from just the process of funding a campaign and
making it work to corrupting our politics?
Speaker 7 (42:10):
Oh okay, I was going to get into public finance,
but which I think is a great idea and we
need to pursue it further.
Speaker 4 (42:18):
I don't know where that magic point is.
Speaker 7 (42:21):
We use the word corruption because the Supreme Court did,
and that they made it one of the standards for
when you've gone too far. And what we're talking about
generally with political contributions is not money in the pocket
of the politician, but money for media, money for the
very expensive things that it takes to be known to
(42:42):
the public. And I think there's hope here, and the
last caller I think really touched on it. I've seen
some very innovative ideas I think they're in Maine where
they basically public finance would be two thousand dollars per voter,
and they could contribute to whoever they want to during
the cycle, all to one or spread it out. And
(43:04):
then if you add that to complete transparency, so that
the voters will know exactly where everybody got their funding,
they will be able to make their own choice. In
other words, if it's only from millionaires, I think the
voters will have that to take into consideration. If it's
all from small contributors who use their chit of their
thousand dollars to put somebody up as a candidate. And
(43:29):
the other part has got to be media reform. I mean,
you have to have access to the airways. Public radio
does a lot of good in that way, but the
commercial airways basically dominate the campaign. So is a corruption, No,
not exactly, but it certainly is a domination of our politics,
and it has degraded the process. And I think that's
what I'm hearing from all of your callers, hopefully not.
Speaker 4 (43:52):
To the point of despair.
Speaker 6 (43:54):
There also needs to be fact checking. Media doesn't need
to let there be content on the airwaves that is
actually untrue that's bought and paid for by millionaires, and
that's something that publicly financed media could do with political will.
Speaker 1 (44:09):
I will point out that it seems that we're moving
in the opposite direction because the debate that is supposed
to happen next week is not going to be like
a normal presidential debate. It's a CNN presidential debate, and
every network that runs it has to run the CNN
commercials and all that stuff. I mean, it's like it's complete,
it's putting more money into that system rather than less.
Let's go to John in Fort Worth, Texas. John, Welcome
(44:33):
to the middle.
Speaker 16 (44:33):
Go ahead.
Speaker 20 (44:35):
Yeah. I mean, I don't think it's a question of
if the money is influencing you know everything right now.
It definitely is, and I think it's more so importantly,
I think at a federal level, obviously, you know the
elected officials, you know, camping, donating to them, that's one thing.
(44:57):
But even I think at a local level, for example,
like here in Trent County, you know, there's there's been
a I think I've seen a couple of corruption cases
that have come up from elected officials, and so I
don't you know, and I would say it's probably even
more important at a local level, to where you know,
(45:17):
it probably affects us a little bit more because we
live in the cities and the counties, and so they
obviously make laws. At a federal level, it's one thing,
but I think people we need to pay more attention
also at a local level what's going on.
Speaker 1 (45:31):
Yeah, well, and that's exactly why Terry Goddard, I guess
got this, uh this ballot measure through at the local level.
H in Arizona, John, Are you do you pay attention
to who donates to various campaigns? Do you go online?
Do you look up who's who's funding these candidates?
Speaker 20 (45:51):
It's it's weird, but you know when I see, like,
for example, I think you guys brought it up earlier
American and I forgot what what what institution or something
like that, and I was like, okay, who's really behind that?
So I started doing a little bit of research. I'm like, okay,
this is really you know this, And so I kind
of find my way to find out where the money's
(46:11):
kind of really coming from. And it is interesting to
see that, you know, in some cases there's these big
corporations behind it, and I'm like Okay, well this really
doesn't sound and I'm not sure if I'm really behind
this anymore.
Speaker 1 (46:25):
You know, yeah, John, thank you very much, Sarah Briner
than last word to you on this. You know how
many people like John and across America are going into
places like open Secrets and looking up who's funding what
and making a decision based on that information.
Speaker 6 (46:41):
Not enough, And I think that John is the perfect
example of like when you hear that Americans for a
Better America or what have you is actually x y
or Z.
Speaker 5 (46:53):
Thank you Arizona law and Alaska law main law.
Speaker 6 (46:58):
You have a different reaction. But like most people, you know,
we're busy buying groceries. You're busy paying for child care.
We're busy, you know, enjoying our lives. We're not going
out there researching our political donors. And I think that
the law needs to predict the citizenry, not vice versa.
Speaker 1 (47:15):
Okay, I have I have good news. First of all,
thanks to everybody who called in, and you can still
leave messages on our voicemail which we listened to and
we will play some of them next week. But the
good news is, Tolliver, it is time for a brief
quiz for our guests.
Speaker 2 (47:26):
Oh my god, and this one's a little biased, I'm
sorry to say. According to OpenSecrets dot com, what percentage
of political contributions come from men? Fifty eight percent, fifty
forty percent or forty percent?
Speaker 5 (47:40):
Fifty eight percent the biggest number.
Speaker 1 (47:43):
She she wrote the book.
Speaker 2 (47:49):
It was an open book test.
Speaker 5 (47:51):
Ah, women know the answer to that question.
Speaker 1 (47:54):
Oh that's interesting. Well, I want to thank my guests
for the our former Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard and
Sarah Briner, director of research at Open Secrets. Thank you
so much to both of you.
Speaker 5 (48:05):
Thank you so much.
Speaker 4 (48:06):
Thank you for opening this subject. It's so important.
Speaker 1 (48:09):
It is very important. And Tolliver. Next week we have
a special late live edition of The Middle.
Speaker 2 (48:14):
YEP, we'll be live right after the Trump and Biden debate.
I'm sure it'll be very civil. You can join the
conversation with your reaction by calling eight four four four
Middle or going to listen to the Middle dot com.
Speaker 1 (48:26):
And you can always sign up for our weekly newsletter.
The Middle is brought to you by Longnok Media, distributed
by Illinois Public Media in Turbana, Illinois, and produced by
Joann Jennings, Harrison Fatino, Danny Alexander, and John Barth. By
the way, it's Harrison Patino's birthday today, so Happy birthday, Harrison.
Our intern is Anikadeshler. Our technical director this week is
Jason Croft. And thanks to KJZZ in Phoenix for hosting
(48:49):
Terry Goddard this hour. Actually it's in Tempe. Our theme
music was composed by Andrew Haig. Thanks to Nashville Public Radio,
iHeartMedia and the more than four hundred and ten public
radio stations that are making it possible for people across
the country to listen to the Middle I'm Jeremy Hobson
and I'll talk to you next week.
Host
Jeremy Hobson
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
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