Ep. 241 - Tiffany Muller

Tiffany Muller with End Citizens United joins us to discuss the impact of big money in politics, what states can do now to address this issue and the impact of big money on the 2022 election cycle.

(Originally aired 1Nov22)

 

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

S1 (00:00):
The views and opinions expressed in this programme are those
of the speakers and do not necessarily reflect the views
or positions of any entities they represent, including Alliance media.

Bryan (00:11):
Olas Media. Olas media presents nation state of play. Welcome

(00:37):
to the Nation State of Play podcast. I'm your host,
Brian Miller. And each episode we explore the political stories
that are driving public policy in California. We explore these
stories with political insiders, business leaders, journalists and policymakers themselves
to get below the surface of the headlines and show
you the true forces shaping our nation state. Thanks for listening. Today,

(00:57):
we have a great guest, Tiffany Muller with Citizens United.
Tiffany is one of the foremost leaders in the country
on the topic of big money in politics. And we
have a conversation about what we can do at the
federal and state level to limit that and in the
long run, get rid of it. But also how candidates
can be talking about these issues right now in a
way that connects voters to the issues that seem top

(01:20):
of mind to them, but that are really being impacted
by big money in politics. So it's a pleasure to
have Tiffany on. We have a bit of a focus
on the California congressional races that are really going to
determine the outcome of this election, but also the long
term efforts in this space. So stay with us. Tiffany
Mueller with Citizens United. Tiffany, thanks so much for being

(01:41):
here today. It's a pleasure to have you on the show.

Tiffany (01:44):
Thanks so much, Ryan. It's great to be here.

Bryan (01:46):
All right. So I actually was a little bit of
a high level refresher for what Citizens United is because
it's been a dozen years since the cases. Is that
about right?

Tiffany (01:57):
Can you believe that? It has that.

Bryan (01:59):
Here is sort of like a curse word on the
top of my tongue. So let's what if we could,
for the listeners, you've heard of it, which I assume
is just about everybody. But but given that it's been
over a decade, what did the case do? Where does
it leave campaign finance law in the United States?

Tiffany (02:19):
Well, it leaves it in a pretty bad position. And
it's kind of the long and the short of it.
But the Citizens United decision was decided by the Supreme
Court in January 2010. So we are a little over
a dozen years out from the decision and it on
a high level it did. It took two really terrible

(02:40):
ideas and it merged them together. First, the decision said
corporations are people and it said that money equals free speech.
And so basically what it was saying was that corporations
had the right to spend unlimited amounts of money in
our politics and to impact and influence our elections, because

(03:01):
if they didn't have that right, it would limit their
right to free speech. And so what we saw from that,
the warnings right after the Citizens United ruling were that
this was going to cause a tidal wave of money
to come into our elections. And those have absolutely proven
to be true. Right. If you look at the election cycles,

(03:23):
right before the Citizens United case, there was about $175
million of outside spending in our elections in 2020. I
think that had skyrocketed up to just about $5 billion
or something to that effect. The other thing it's done

(03:44):
there was a part of the decision that said the
way that you make sure that this money isn't corrupting
is you make sure that there's disclosure and transparency around
the money that's spent and or given in elections. And Brian,
what we've seen is that that's just simply not true.
Prior to the Citizens United decision, about 86% of the

(04:10):
money spent in our elections was fully disclosed and transparent.
You could trace it back to where it originally came from. Today,
that's only 25% of the money spent in our elections
is fully disclosed and transparent. So the foundation of that
case really rested on being able to have that disclosure

(04:30):
and transparency so that you could make sure that there
wasn't corruption being built into the system. What we know
is that the sheer influence of this amount of money
is corrupting. It corrupts Americans faith and trust in our government.
It corrupts policy outcomes. But also we don't have the
that disclosure and transparency as well.

Bryan (04:52):
Yes. And those numbers and spending are fascinating. I mean,
just for context, we've got two competing ballot initiatives on
gaming on the ballot right now in California. Those initiatives
alone are going to spend over $200 million just this cycle.
So that so that's more than. So you're saying all
of the spending was prior to Citizens United as a
one ballot initiative in one state for context? Okay. So

(05:14):
that's very helpful. I think I think where a lot
of us individually have to slow down and get tripped
up then is as a general matter, it is it's
a complicated legal legal topic. But what is the interaction
of Citizens United with state campaign finance laws of these topics?
How do those two legal regimes work together at a

(05:35):
high level?

Tiffany (05:36):
All right. So I'm going to take Montana as a
good example, because I think Montana is often a good
example around money and politics. But Montana attempted it had
had a ban on corporate money in their elections for
over 100 years when Citizens United was was ruled on

(05:58):
because they had a long history of copper mining, trying
to buy seats in their legislature and their governor. And
so they had outlawed corporate spending in their elections. And
they also had some of the most strict disclosure and
transparency laws on the books. And Steve Bullock, who at

(06:20):
the time was attorney general prior to becoming governor, took
the took an appeal of Citizens United all the way
up to the Supreme Court to try to get the
state restriction on corporate money upheld. Right. Fine. You do
whatever you're going to do, Supreme Court on federal elections.
But here in the state of Montana, Montanans made this decision.

(06:42):
They voted for this. They put it in our constitution.
This is what we should be able to continue to
operate on. And the Supreme Court said, no, you can't. Right.
So while states are still allowed to set limits, they're
still allowed to set disclosure rules. They're not allowed to
just do an outright ban on corporate money in elections

(07:07):
because the Citizens United Supreme Court ruling overrules that. So
there's a lot of things we've seen states do on
the proactive level, everything from disclosure, transparency, limits, limits on
lobbyists giving, or also we've seen things like incentivizing small
dollar donors, some of the states across the country. So

(07:31):
different states definitely have have tried different things, but kind
of just the heart of Citizens United about corporations being
able to spend to influence our elections, that art has
been upheld even over state law.

Bryan (07:47):
Well, that's an interesting topic. Let's let's impact that a
little more. Do you have a view on what some
of the best practices are at the state level that
that states can do now that are not going to
get sideways with the Citizens United?

Tiffany (08:01):
Yeah, there's there's still a lot of room to work. And,
you know, I really think that what we have to
do is figure out what's our what's our goal. And
I think our goal is that right now, too many
Americans feel like both state and federal government isn't working
for them. Right? That it's just working for folks who
have the biggest pocketbook or the special interests. And it

(08:22):
really has hurt faith and trust in in our in
our basic representation and in our system of government. Right.
There is a reason that people feel like big pharma
has more say than they do. Big part of it
is the hundreds of millions of dollars that big pharma
spends and the 1500 lobbyists that they have on any
given day. Right. So I think what we need to

(08:44):
look at is how do we restore that faith and
that trust in government and what can states do to
help with that? And there are lots of options. Disclosure
and transparency, I think, is, number one, knowing who's spending
what and why. Right. Because if you don't know who's
running that ad on your TV, you're not sure whether

(09:05):
or not you should be skeptical of it. Cynical of it,
trust it or not. And here's the other thing. We
have found that disclosure and transparency also bring some of
the money out of the system. And turns out AT&T
doesn't want you to know that they helped fund the
Republican attorney general and that they were running, you know,

(09:25):
anti-democracy pieces right before January six. It turns out they
don't want that disclosure to be found. So first disclosure
and transparency. That's how we can root out corruption. That's
how we can hold public officials more accountable. Number two,
we push for limits. And, you know, there are a
few states that still have unlimited contributions, Texas being one

(09:47):
of them. Right. Or it's just kind of the wild,
wild West. And you see politicians are asking for $1,000,000 donations.
We think that there should be real limits on what
someone is able to give, whether that is a business
or a person. And then I think, number three, that

(10:08):
there are ways to also put limits around who can give.
In some states, they have been able to put limits
around state contractors and whether or not they can give
to statewide officials, for instance, so that there's not that
pay to play angle going on. And then the last
one that all brought is the small dollar donor matching.

(10:29):
How do we incentivize and grow, democratise, really our campaign
finance system? How do we bring more people into it?
And in states where they have had small dollar donor
matching programs or voucher programs, what we've seen is it
changes the makeup of not only who, who gives money,

(10:51):
who is able to participate in our democracy, but who
is even able to run for office and who wins.
And so in Maine, I'll take Maine as a good example.
They enacted a public financing system, a clean election system,
and it actually changed the makeup of their state legislature
to where it became the most blue collar working state

(11:14):
legislature in the country. Seattle instituted a voucher program, and suddenly,
for the first time, candidates of color and women candidates
were able to run and win at a much higher
rate because they were able to use their network of people.
They had strong grassroots support, but those grassroots supporters didn't

(11:36):
always have the same wealth. And so by incentivizing these
small dollar donors, we can really grow our democracy.

Bryan (11:43):
Let me ask you about the limits, because because I
struggle with this, I certainly agree on the logic of limits. But,
you know, I'll just use California's examples. One must have
different limits at different state office levels. And it really,
I think, just pushes money into the outside spending because,
you know, because I guess that's inherently part of the

(12:04):
Citizens United framework. Is there really there's no way to
put a limit on outside spending, I assume, right?

Tiffany (12:11):
That's right. I mean, I think that that has been
one of the biggest problems of Citizens United, whether at
the state level or federal level. What we've seen is
that candidates no longer are the primary drivers of campaign
spending that it truly is outside outside groups and super PACs. Right.

(12:31):
And that state by state differs on whether those can
coordinate with candidates or not. So in a lot of ways,
in a lot of states, they end up just acting
as another vehicle of the can campaign and candidate itself.
It feels like this is just how business is done now.
But it really wasn't that long ago when candidates controlled

(12:54):
about 75% of the messaging and spending in their races,
and outside spending really was kind of an afterthought. Today,
it's like the candidates themselves are afterthoughts and the outside
spending is driving about 75 or 80% of the spending
in these races. I actually think it's one of the
reasons why you can see really, really, frankly, unqualified and

(13:19):
incompetent people be able to run for office and be
able to still be competitive because they're just being propped up.
Their campaigns are in essence, a shell and they're just
being propped up by the outside special interests. But you
are right. It's one of the big, big problems that
came with the decision.

Bryan (13:38):
Okay. So it sounds like you're advocating at the state
level as well as the federal level on some of
these reforms. Am I ever saying that?

Tiffany (13:46):
No, not at all. Yeah. We have worked on both
ballot measures and state laws in states across the country.
You know, we the Maine Clean Elections bill that I
was talking about, we actually worked on that back when
it initially passed the Seattle voucher program. We did as well.
But we also were trying to fight back against the

(14:07):
rash of voter suppression laws that we've seen across the
country and trying to help stop those and trying to
push for good campaign finance reforms in states across the country.
So Oregon is a state, for example, that really has
no limits, has a lot of room to grow on

(14:28):
their campaign finance reform. And we've worked closely with both
Governor Kate Brown and Speaker Kotek, who's obviously running for governor,
to come up with policies that would really, one, both
be upheld by their Supreme Court and and the Supreme
Court of the United States, but also would have meaningful

(14:48):
changes to their system. Just as a few examples.

Bryan (14:52):
Yeah, and it's great to hear those examples because it
sounds like the path to actually overturning Citizens United, at
least to both two Supreme Court justices away or maybe
even more, but at least at least two, probably probably
two or three months.

Tiffany (15:08):
That's the way I would count. Look, I think we
were if you look back to 2016 and we were
founded in 2015 and in 2016, as I'm sure all
of your listeners remember, we had an open Supreme Court seat.
Merrick Garland was nominated to fill that seat, and Mitch
McConnell blocked his appointment for until after the election went

(15:32):
for nine months, ten months, and then pushed through. Who
was the first one? GORSUCH Right for that seat. I
always say that we were a Merrick Garland away, overturning
Citizens United. We really were. That was a at the time,
that was a54 court. It sought to changed it to

(15:53):
be five four, I think, in favor of overturning Citizens United.
We were a Merrick Garland away. And now the court
obviously has been radicalized even more in large part because
of dark money, which I'm happy to talk about. But
the court is now six three. I still think the
path to getting five justices to overturn Citizens United is

(16:15):
probably closer than the path to passing a constitutional amendment. Sure.
But that doesn't mean that there isn't anything we can
do between now and then. There's so much that we
can do through, you know, anti-corruption measures, through the disclosure
and transparency that we were talking about, through strengthening the
Federal Elections Commission and actually getting it to enforce the

(16:38):
laws that are currently on the books, cracking down on
coordination between outside groups and campaigns, like there's a lot
of these loopholes that we could start to close. And obviously,
Democrats have been both pushing that and have passed that
time and time again, especially through the House. And it
got blocked by the filibuster in the Senate this time around.

(17:01):
But that's what we are focused on, is how do
we continue to push for legislative changes that would make
a difference today. While we're also working on that longer term.

Bryan (17:12):
The legislative changes at the federal and state level, state
legislative changes are going to confront the filibuster any time, presumably.
So it sounds like at the moment the most important
thing you do is work on the races, work on
the elections, elected people to Congress or whatever, turn that
work at the state level, or am I missing something there?

Tiffany (17:34):
No, I mean, that's pretty much our theory of changes
that first we have to elect have the right people
in office. And to do that, we have to get
the right people elected. What? We've been able to show
time and time and time again is how important these
issues are to voters. I think they are in our
line of work. There was a pretty widely held sentiment

(17:56):
that voters didn't care about any of these issues. I
think we've been able to show that actually voters really
care about these issues. It is central to their ideas
about whether or not government is working for them and
who government is working for, and it can actually help
us win all across the country, and particularly in tough races.

(18:17):
So in 2018, it was central to taking back the
House and we had a class of reformers who had
run on these issues across the country, who came in
and then were ready to take the fight on in
terms of federal policy and who passed a lot of
pieces of legislation in the House to have it blocked

(18:37):
by Mitch McConnell in the Senate, obviously. But that continuing
to show that power from the voters is also really important.
It matters in terms of who we get elected and
it matters for keeping the agenda at keeping this issue
at the top of the agenda.

Bryan (18:54):
Well, let's talk about some of those key members. And
you were out here in California last week and were
campaigning with a few of them. We you know, we've
talked to on the show a few times about this,
but we certainly have the most competitive congressional races in California.
The thing about being in California and saying it, the
most of anything is like we're supposed to be the big.

(19:18):
But we actually genuinely have about a half a dozen
competitive congressional races. And by all ways of doing the math,
I think control of the House is going to tip
depend more than half what happens with these races. So
let's talk about the candidates you were with and the
ones that are on your radar the most.

Tiffany (19:35):
Yeah. I mean, this is a good example of that
class of candidates who came in in 2018 running on
these issues. So I was out there with Mike Levin
and Katie Porter when I was with Congressman Levin. We
were also doing campaigning with Congressman Adam Schiff and Congresswoman

(19:55):
Sarah Jacobs, both who have really made democracy a central
part of their work as well. But, you know, Congressman
Levin ran on these issues in 2018. He obviously is
a leader on climate change and environmental issues, really takes
on big oil and connects it back to. He is

(20:16):
one of the members who took the no corporate tax pledge.
He really connects his work around taking on big oil,
being able to take on the fight for our environment.
To that stance of I'm not going to take their
money so I can do what's right for the people
of my district. So we we were out there campaigning
with him. And then I was also up in Irvine

(20:39):
doing a town hall with Katie Porter, Congresswoman Katie Porter,
who she's been probably one of the biggest allies fighting
this fight in Congress. And she came in. She also
doesn't take corporate PAC money, also refuses to take lobbyist money.
She was one of the members who started the End

(21:00):
to Corruption caucus. She she actually said during the town
hall she was like there were there are two different
I said, I made the joke that their caucus is
for everything in Congress, but there had never been a
caucus to take on corruption to. She reminded all of
us that there are actually two caucuses in Congress about concrete,

(21:23):
about different types of concrete.

Bryan (21:26):
Competition.

Tiffany (21:27):
And competition, but had never been an anti-corruption caucus. And
so she is you know, her work is always and
we see it with the whiteboard and we see it
with the questioning and hearings and how she's taking on CEOs.
It's all about being able to be the voice of
the people and how do we call out special interests
who might be getting the benefit of policies that are

(21:51):
being crafted for them? Right. How do we begin to
level that playing field of power? And she's so fantastic
on it. And her opponent, I mean, he is a
walking corruption scandal. So that contrast in that race is so,
so critical. Another one of our priorities end up in

(22:11):
northern California. Josh Harder, who has just been running a
fantastic race, you know, time after time, his district continues
to be such a crucial swing district and he is
so great. Another one of these folks who came in
in 2018 running as a no corporate PAC candidate, running

(22:32):
on reforming the system and also about delivering what's needed
for his district and keeping it very, very local. Right.
He really connects is so good about connecting every. Back
to what? To the very local politics. And I think
it helps him really be able to overperform the generic Democrat.

Bryan (22:53):
Speaking of caucuses, by the way, did the wine caucus
that Mike Thompson from Napa. Of course, that's that's 100% right.
It's one of the one of those events.

Tiffany (23:04):
The Oregon members are always complaining about the California wine
caucus instead of the Oregon wine.

Bryan (23:11):
Great wine country, too. But so is Washington or even
cooperation on this. Okay. So I'm curious how you see
members effectively talking about these topics to voters in this
cycle with so much else going on. Right. That has to,
of course, be a struggle in a lot of ways.

(23:32):
We've got a war of words. January six hearings going out,
probably related in a lot of ways. How what's your
advice to members on how to connect with voters about
this topic with so much other competition for voters attention?

Tiffany (23:47):
Yeah, we actually just did a big ad testing project
to actually figure out like, how can you talk about
these issues and have it really resonate with voters? And,
you know, one of the things that we see is
it's not enough to just say that your opponent has
taken money from big Pharma and then voted with them.

(24:08):
Voters expect that. Voters know that, right? It works. And
I'm not saying you shouldn't do it, but what we
find to be most effective is when you actually are
able to talk to voters and say, you know, we
know you're frustrated with a broken system that you feel
like is continuing to leave you behind. That is why

(24:29):
I have a plan or Democrats have a plan to
change the system so that we can address all of
these issues. Right. That positive piece of it is really important,
particularly with breaking through on cynical voters, independent voters, swing voters.
They need to hear the I'm going to change the
system because they're so fed up with the system that,

(24:52):
by the way, that's not new. Right. Voters have been
voting for change every two years for the last 20 years. Right.
And the and feeling like government is only working for
a few big, powerful interests instead of working for them
again for the last 20 years. And so I think
it's about being able to demonstrate and to say I

(25:16):
have a plan for fixing it. And one of the
things that we know about the No corporate PAC pledge
in particular to bring it back to that is that
that allowed someone to say, look, I am running my
campaign different. It's how, you know, I'll go and be
in Washington and serve different and it's how, you know,
I'll always work for you because I'm not going to
take their money out, money and then vote with them,

(25:37):
on the other hand. Right. That kind of messaging really resonates.
That's what we've seen. And look, inflation, I think, is
a really, really great place to talk about this. What
we're seeing right now with inflation and rising costs is
that about 53% of the rise in prices is due

(25:57):
to corporations just padding their own profit. Right. In the past,
that number is much closer to ten or 11% of
the rise in price being attributed to corporate profits. During
this time, it's 53%. Well, there's a whole lot we
could be doing to hold those corporations accountable. But they

(26:18):
have a lot of power in Congress right now. So
if we're able to break some of that power and
actually call them out, we can actually address both inflation
and rising prices while also addressing corporate power in our system.

Bryan (26:31):
So your point to members of this part of your
point is take these specific issues and show voters how
they're linked to the influence of big money in politics.

Tiffany (26:40):
Yeah, absolutely. You got to make money in politics. Voters
hate money in politics, but they also are a little
bit cynical. They're a little bit like, well, money in
politics has always been a problem. Well, there's nothing you
can do about it, Right? But if you start talking
to them about individual, how money in politics impacts issues
that they really care about, then you make it more

(27:02):
real for them. So how does it impact the policy
debate and outcome on climate change, for instance? Right. Well,
big oil and gas is the largest spender on the
Republican side in campaigns. And they have I know I
said this earlier about pharma, but it's true of big
oil and gas to their 1500 lobbyists on Capitol Hill.

(27:23):
On any given day. It's three for every one member
of Congress. Right. So it's very clear how the money
is impacting the outcome of policy, gun safety, the power
of the NRA and the money from the NRA and
the gun lobby has long caused there to be a
25 or 30 year stagnation on what we've been able

(27:43):
to pass. Obvious. Around gun safety, prescription drugs, even the
fight over a $35 insulin. So much of this can
be traced back to the power of big Pharma directly
related to the checks they hand out or the money
that they're spending in elections. Make it personal. Make voters
understand how it impacts their day to day life and

(28:04):
tell them how you have a plan to make it better.

Bryan (28:06):
But that's such good advice. So much there. I love
to unpack. But I want to be respectful of your time.
But let me ask you one, one more issue that
I wonder how you talk about the connection. If you
do it all and that's the January six hearings, because
I think this is a hard one for me to
understand how it's actually going to change voter behavior. There's

(28:29):
certainly an element of preaching to the choir in the
civic box, not even run hearings, for instance, which is
not at all to suggest it's not tremendously important. I
think the work they've done is incredible, and I think
it's going to advance the Justice Department investigation. And Merrick
Garland probably becomes a more important figure in history in
this role than than even on the Supreme Court. But

(28:52):
probably we'll leave that to another episode. But but how?
When that comes up, what was the relationship with big
money in politics and what happened on that day?

Tiffany (29:01):
Yeah, so it's hard. I think that there is a
future of our country answer and there is. We're 14
days out from a midterm answer, right?

Bryan (29:10):
So if you.

Tiffany (29:12):
Tried to do that a.

Bryan (29:12):
Few minutes, super.

Tiffany (29:13):
I got to number one, I think that, look, our
democracy is being attacked in a lot of different ways, right?
The money in politics is a direct attack on our democracy,
The voter suppression that we're seeing across the country, the
gerrymandering that we've seen that really blocks out people's voices

(29:33):
and power. And obviously this very direct election subversion and
big lie and how it led to a literal insurrection.
And I think that the January six hearings, I think
one of the things that surprised me anyway, I won't
speak for other people, but what surprised me is it
actually did move public.

Bryan (29:55):
And really do.

Tiffany (29:56):
It really.

Bryan (29:57):
Matter.

Tiffany (29:58):
And so I think what they did was so incredibly,
tremendously important. And for the future of our country and
for the future of our democracy, it is something we
have to continue to show the evidence, show the facts,
draw it out, and show how it also relates back
to all those other attacks that I just talked about. Right.

(30:19):
How they're using it to attack our right to vote,
how it was all funded by these big dark money sources,
which is why we need to get the big dark
money out of our system. Right. Like there are all
of these are really interconnected. So that's one piece. But
the other pieces, you know, frankly, what we've also seen
is that talking about January six in TV ads has

(30:40):
the tendency to it definitely motivates part of our base.
It also has backlash with some of the Republican base. Right.
And so particularly for voters under the age of 45,
for instance, we know through lots of different ad testing
that these messages are great for black voters under the

(31:03):
age of 45. That's great. But it also has an
almost it has a backlash effect with white voters under
the age of 45. So I think it is about
finding making sure that you're targeting the right voters with
this message, making sure that you are delivering it to
the right voters. And then when you are talking about
it on a broader scale, really leaning into the what

(31:26):
we found anyway is that leaning into the attack on
the police on that day is the part that really breaks.
So breaks through and brings independent voters over to you.

Bryan (31:40):
Yeah. I mean, that's that's we get a massive surge.
We've seen that anecdotally in my in my own conversations with,
you know, conservative colleagues, friends, people are people I know.
But there's this really maddening part about the topic. And
you alluded to this where there's a certain group of
people actually it's a pretty large group of people who
can't even say what happened on that day. It's weird

(32:02):
cognitive dissonance that like, you can't even say there was
an insurrection. You can't even say there was a pro-Trump
mob that invaded the Capitol and killed people. It's facts.
And and they get it. They oddly get offended by
you saying even the most innocuous description of it. Yes.
It's just one of those things that's so polarizing that

(32:24):
I feel like that's all the more reason we have
to talk about it. Right. There's there's this element of
sort of trying to scrub history from the other side
of it. And I think that's where the committee hearings
have been really effective.

Tiffany (32:35):
I mean.

Bryan (32:35):
Driving.

Tiffany (32:36):
At it, it's so clear how quickly the whitewashing started. Right.
And but even before. The alternative history narrative started to
take off, which was really just within days of January six.
I mean, think about it. On January six, they came
back at 4 a.m.. And we've now seen, especially in

(33:01):
this latest hearing, you see Kevin McCarthy standing by Speaker
Pelosi as she is, you know, coordinating help. Right now,
you see Steve Scalise standing there as all of the
leadership together is trying to make sure that they get help,
that they secure the Capitol, but they make sure the
members of Congress on both sides of the aisle are

(33:22):
safe and okay, that they make sure Mike Pence is okay.
And Kevin McCarthy walks back into that House chamber and
votes to overturn the election, along with 146 other of
his colleagues. The fact that what he decided in that
moment was it was going to be more beneficial to
his political power to still try to go ahead and

(33:44):
overturn the election and that our country at that moment
did not matter more to him than his own political
future is both frightening and maddening and saddening. But it
really tells us about all we need to know about
most of the House GOP caucus, I think.

Bryan (34:02):
Well, well said. And we're going to throw out there.
But I'd love to have you back after the election.

Tiffany (34:07):
I'd love to.

Bryan (34:08):
It's a time to talk about priorities for this Congress. And,
you know, Kevin is going to be there virtually one
way or the other. The role is going to be and,
you know, we we want to make sure that as
a Californian, that his constituents get a dose of these topics,
because we know they're not hearing it from himself. Would
love to have you back on at some point after that.

(34:28):
And that's what we're what you do in the next
few weeks. If people want to read more about your organization,
get involved, support your work. Where where can they find out?

Tiffany (34:37):
Well, first, thanks so much for having me on. And
I'd love to come back and continue the conversation. And
for anyone interested, you can go to end Citizens United,
org end Citizens United Board and get involved.

Bryan (34:51):
Tiffany, thanks so much for everything you're doing. Pleasure to
have you on the show.

Tiffany (34:54):
Thanks so much.

Bryan (34:56):
We invite you to share story, ideas, comments and questions.

S4 (34:59):
Find us at Neptune Ask.com.

Bryan (35:01):
Or on Twitter at.

S4 (35:02):
That nation state of P one. Again, that's at nation
State of P and the number one.

Bryan (35:08):
Follow us and subscribe to listen to all of our
episodes as we continue to explore the inside story of
driving California policy. Thank you for listening to the Nation
State of Play Podcast Powered by Neptune Apps o Mass Media.