January 10, 2023 • 44 mins
Tiffany Muller with End Citizens United returns to the show to discuss how democracy performed on the ballot in 2022, and what’s ahead for 2023. (Read the End Citizens United State Democracy Report Card )
(Originally aired 10Jan23)
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
S1 (00:00):
The views and opinions expressed in this program are those
of the Speaker's and do not necessarily reflect the views
or positions of any entities they represent, including OLAS Media
(00:21):
OLAS Media presents Nation state of play. Welcome to the Nation
State of Play podcast. I'm your host, Bryan Miller. And
each episode we explore the political stories that are driving
(00:43):
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's state. Thanks so much for listening. Today,
we have one of my favorite repeat guests on Tiffany Miller,
who writes in Citizens United that this organization has their
(01:05):
hands in so many races across the country this cycle.
And we had her a few weeks before the election
to talk about what she was focused on. So in
this conversation, do a little bit of election recap, but
spend most of our time on what's ahead for 2023
and even 2024 and how dark money, big money made
an impact in the last cycle, but also how the
(01:27):
concern about democracy is really starting to become first and
foremost to candidates and voters across the country. So Tiffany
is really the expert in these issues across the entire country.
And she's got some great insights on what candidates can do,
but also what voters should be paying attention to. So
stay with us. Tiffany Miller with End Citizens United right
after this.
S2 (01:47):
American democracy is good, but we can make it better.
The National Association of Nonpartisan Reformers includes organizations across the
country that are working right now to build a better
democracy by opening primaries, implementing safe, secure voting systems, reducing
corruption and increasing transparency. Listen to our weekly podcast, How
to Win Friends and Save the Republic. To hear the
(02:09):
latest updates from the Democracy reform space, subscribe and learn
more about us at nonpartisan Reformers dot org.
S1 (02:17):
Welcome back to the Nation State of Play podcast. Tiffany,
thanks so much for coming back on the show. Really,
really lucky to have you to talk a little bit
of recap and what's ahead for 2023. We appreciate you
being here.
S3 (02:30):
Thanks so much for having me back on, Bryan, and
I really appreciate that.
S1 (02:33):
And so you were here a couple of weeks before
the election and just took a bunch of races. You
had you had your hands in across the country. A
lot of interesting stuff. And so I'm curious, what was
your election night like? What were you watching? Was carefully
what was on your constant refresh screen on your computer
early in the night as you're trying to figure out
where things are headed?
S3 (02:54):
Well, Brian, our whole team had gathered to watch the
election results come in. And as those first election results
came in, I remember making this speech to the team
about about why we do the work we do and
that it really matters that we fight for the vision
of our country that we believe in, that we fight
(03:17):
for our democracy, even when the outcomes are not guaranteed. Right,
which they never are, and in an election. And by
the way, that's the speech you give when you're pretty
sure the election night is going to be bad and
you want to keep that. And then as we start watching,
I mean, obviously, one of the first things that rolls
(03:38):
in is Florida. Florida always feels bad. But then outside
of that, there were lots of really hopeful signs. Right.
Some of the races that we were watching most closely
that felt like they were going to be real bellwethers
of how the night was going to go. Were coming
in strong, much stronger than I think we had thought
(04:00):
that they would initially. For example, Abigail Spanberger in Virginia, seven,
that felt like a race that was really going to
tell us what kind of night we were going to have.
The Pennsylvania Senate race, obviously, with Fetterman. These were races
that we were watching really closely and trying to get
a sense of where the election was going. Michigan was
(04:25):
another one where, you know, just up and down the ballot,
we were so fully invested in Michigan that we were
really watching. How close were those elections going to be
and what did it mean for across the country? And honestly,
I think that we had been saying over and over again,
(04:45):
the voters are really concerned about democracy, and democracy is
on the ballot and it's going to show up on
election night. But I think that we underestimated how right
we were about that. Right. So whether it is the
fact that we actually gained a seat in the Senate
or we picked up four legislative chambers across the country,
(05:07):
or that we held every single incumbent Democratic governor, or
that we we just had a complete clean sweep of
the secretary of state and ag races in battleground states
across the country against massive election deniers. Right. What whatever
kind of metric you're looking at. Democrats and democracy had
(05:33):
a historic performance on election night.
S1 (05:36):
Yeah, I mean, so, so many things there. I'd love
to unpack, but let's talk about that AG and Secretary
of State story, because I do think maybe that's the
one that speaks most directly to election deniers and democracy,
and also that, you know, it's of course, just not
(05:57):
going to get covered as much as high profile Senate
and House races and governors races. But but I was
really heartened to see that. To what what were the
states in those races that you were looking at the
most closely?
S3 (06:09):
Yeah, we were we were involved in, I think, about
16 races overall. 14 of those ended up being wins.
But the big states I was watching most closely were
the secretary of state and ag races in Michigan, Arizona
and Nevada. And yeah, we also were watching, of course,
(06:34):
Wisconsin and Colorado and Georgia. But really that Nevada and
Arizona and Michigan. Those were the three that we were
paying the most attention to. And what we saw in
those states were election deniers. On the other side, people
who are extremists on both overturning elections, denying the outcome
of the 2020 election, and really extremists on almost every
(06:58):
other issue that voters care about. And in many of
those states, whether Michigan or Arizona in particular, you also
had these top of the ticket races that were really,
really expensive. And so it was really hard to cut
through a media market that that was that crowded. Right.
And Arizona, you had a, what, $200 million in. That
(07:21):
race was a really competitive governor's race, and yet it
was Adrien Fontaine as the secretary of state candidate who
actually got the most votes on the Democratic side of
the ticket. There's no way that happens unless voters are
really prioritizing someone who's going to protect their vote at
(07:41):
the ballot box as one of their main issues of concern.
And that's what we saw happening all across the country.
And we actually went in right after the election and
did a post-election poll and it backed up those findings. Right. That, yeah,
we were seeing it anecdotally and election turnout. But what
(08:02):
we found is that voters listed without being prompted just
an open end. Why was this election more important than
previous elections? Protecting democracy was the biggest issue that they
just in an open end said. And by a ten
point margin, voters trusted Democrats more than Republicans to stand
(08:25):
up to the threats to democracy. And it was a
really key reason why we were able to actually win
these independent voters in races across the country. So I
just think that that those races, those secretary of state
races in particular, is a place where it just became
so crystal clear.
S1 (08:43):
Yeah, I love the Arizona example. And speaking on the
ag race, I don't know what the betting odds of
Chris Mayes becoming the Arizona attorney general were. Right. But
my guess is they were let's let's just say lower
than the 40 Niners winning the Super Bowl.
S3 (08:58):
Okay.
S1 (08:59):
And and she's got she's amazing. We got to work
with her years ago and she was back on the
Arizona Corporation Commission. But but I think he put up
such a good example there of a state that, you know,
still has some pretty hard right elements. And the fact
that secretary of state candidate gets more than even Mark Kelly.
I think that what a great example of how this
(09:20):
stuff is playing out. So clearly it was it was
moving Democrats, it was moving independents. Was it moving Republicans
at all?
S3 (09:29):
Even Republicans are concerned about it. Right. Even so, our
poll found that 69% of Republicans and independents who voted
for a Democratic House candidate actually said that protecting democracy
was extremely important. So, you know, you always peel off
(09:50):
some amount of Republicans, not that many. But in this election,
what we found were that the Republicans that we were
able to peel off, that democracy was what was motivating
them to vote for a Democratic candidate.
S1 (10:05):
Yeah, exactly. Because I was making this point. He's like, look,
you can look at the numbers that few Republicans offered.
Any particular issue. They could sound really small. It could
be in the single percents, it could be even below 5%.
But those are the kind of numbers that change election
outcomes in a world of close elections. Right. So it's
just just that little bit around the margin that's too extreme.
Winning a Georgia Senate race, for instance, right there.
S3 (10:27):
That's exactly right.
S1 (10:29):
The up and down the ticket. So.
S3 (10:31):
That's exactly right.
S1 (10:32):
Yeah. So those little numbers are great to see. Oh, go.
S3 (10:35):
Ahead. I was just going to add in races where
it wasn't a Democratic candidate versus Republican candidate. So the
democracy ballot measures that were across the country as well.
We saw those win by massive margins, right. In Arizona,
the dark money measure, basically getting rid of dark money,
(10:57):
making sure that there's disclosure about who is funding our elections.
That was the top vote getter because it pulled a
lot of Republicans over. And what we saw was across
the country, every single democracy ballot measure, one, whether that
was in Arizona and Michigan or in Oakland, California, where
they instituted democracy vouchers all across the country, we saw
(11:20):
these democracy ballot measures really do very, very well.
S1 (11:25):
Well, it's a perfect segue into the next question I
want to ask you, which is what does what did
those results, those outcomes suggest to you about strategies going forward?
Should we be pushing for more ballot measures about democracy?
I'm sure you I'm sure you would think we should
be talking about these issues more generally. But but yeah,
how how do you look back at the cycle and say, okay,
(11:47):
this worked with certain demographics, this worked in certain states,
and and how does that inform your strategies going forward?
S3 (11:54):
Yeah, I, I think that we should always be looking
for opportunities to put democracy on the ballot because it
is a winning issue and a good motivator. And the
right policy. As you know, a ballot measures are not
always easy to get funded, to get the signatures to
get on the ballot. But in this, in the places
(12:16):
where we are able to do that and are able
to get them on the ballot, I think that, again,
this past cycle, we we had a really good instruction
manual of how to do this in Michigan. They solidified
and put into their constitution the expansion of voting rights.
(12:38):
In Arizona. It was about dark money. In Oakland, it
was about, you know, public financing, anything that is that
is shoring up people's power in our democracy is really
popular and doing great. And we've seen that for the
last few cycles. So I think we should absolutely be
looking at where are there opportunities where we can continue
(13:00):
to push that and expand that. But I think you're
right on your other point as well, Brian, which is
that we also need to make sure that candidates have
the resources they need in order to continue to run
on and talk about these issues because they are really
important to voters. And I think, you know, in 2018,
we did a great job making sure that candidates had
(13:22):
the resources they needed to be able to talk about
corruption and to talk about money in politics. But throughout
this past cycle, I think sometimes there was a sense of, well,
what does democracy mean to voters, Right? Is it money?
Is it corruption? Is it voting? Is it overturning elections?
And the answer is yes. And the answer is it
(13:43):
is actually all of those things to voters. And so
we are working we're working constantly to make sure that
we have the most up to date research and that
we actually are being able to provide candidates and committees
with the guidance that they need to feel really confident
and really comfortable talking about these issues in their campaigns
(14:07):
because it's going to continue to be a huge issue.
I mean, the front runner for the 2024 GOP nomination
is the ringleader of the threats to our democracy, Right?
They are not going to let up with election denial denialism,
even though it just cost them at the ballot box.
So we're going to have to continue to make sure
(14:28):
voters understand that contrast and understand what's at stake and
continue to feel the urgency that they clearly did in
this election.
S1 (14:38):
Yeah. So, Sarge, so we're thinking about the 2024 issues,
But but let me turn our attention to the states here,
because as you pointed out, some really huge progress in
places like Michigan and Arizona and other states at the
state level, which which gives you some opportunities now to
really be proactive. And you guys have some great resources
(15:01):
online with the state report card you do talking about
democracy in the States. So, yeah, tell me as we
go into 2023, how do you think about the landscape
for your priorities with these legislative sessions and potentially things
that can be done with executive power?
S3 (15:18):
Yeah, I mean, I think that first we have to
do the deeper dives that we were just talking about
in 2023 around the research, around the policies. But we
also know that we're going to have to immediately defend
against some of the attacks that we'll see in Republican
trifecta states. Right. I think in 2022, there were somewhere
(15:42):
close to 300 bills introduced that were aimed at rolling
back the right to vote. We've seen 80 of those
become law in the past two years. So we know
that first and foremost, we're going to have to continue
to fight back against some of those and then look,
looking toward 2024. I think it continues to be how
(16:03):
do we drive the messaging around everything from money and
politics to anti-corruption to voting rights to making sure our
elections are safe and secure? And how do we it's
going to be hard to get anything passed on the
federal level. How do we use that messaging to help
us win the House back in 2024? But on the
(16:27):
state level, thanks for mentioning the state democracy scorecard. I,
I think that the State democracy scorecard does a great
job of laying out a roadmap for state legislators who
are concerned about these issues to start to look for
places that they can improve their own state. We looked
at ethics and anti-corruption money in politics, at voting rights,
(16:52):
at redistricting, and basically looked at the state every state,
and put together a comprehensive kind of democracy score. And
so there are some places that have really great scores around, say,
voting rights and voting access, but could actually still do
some work around money and politics. And so in those cases,
(17:15):
we're looking at, okay, who are the state legislators that
really want to take a lead? How do we work
with them? How do we activate our members across the
country to help drive those agendas forward?
S1 (17:27):
Yeah. I love this report. Let's. Let's put a link
to it in the minutes. It does a great job
of digesting a lot of information in a really, really
easy to read it, make sense of format. So compliments
to your team and you for putting this together. And
if we could, I'd like to pull out an example
along the lines of what you just mentioned here in
(17:48):
our state of California, because this is an example of
where we're doing most things right, but not everything as
well as we could have. And that never that never
sits right with the California exception. So let's let's let's
talk about but let me just give kind of a
summary of what you're saying, and then we'll show some
of the areas you fire for approval. So good on
(18:08):
voting rights laws, good on democracy, subversion protections. One thing
you have flagged can come from here, though, is that
we have high contribution limits for individuals, PACs and corporations,
which can open the door to undue influence from big
money donors and special interests. So so in an ideal world,
what would you want to see on this issue in California?
S3 (18:30):
Yeah, I think that's exactly you're exactly right. I mean, first,
California overall, you all should be incredibly proud of the
score that you have and the strong democracy score overall.
I think it's like fourth overall, but it's really the
campaign finance and ethics scores that take a hit because
of those high contribution limits and because of a lack
(18:55):
of some cooling off period for the revolving door between
government and lobbying. And so, you know, there are there
are things that we're seeing happen in California. Number one,
we can pass lower contribution limits, more disclosure, also making
sure that lobbyists don't have undue influence. So implement a
(19:19):
cooling off period of at least two years after legislators
have left office. But we've also been seeing cities in
California really take the lead on trying to root out
big money in politics. And so you've seen Los Angeles,
San Francisco, Long Beach, all past public campaign financing programs.
(19:42):
And then Oakland just this year passed the democracy dollars
program and it passed with 74% of the vote. What's
great about these programs is obviously it makes sure that
no matter who you are or what your network is,
you are able to run for office and you can
do it without depending on money from special interests. And
(20:05):
you can really empower grassroots donors. What we've seen in
other cities where they've implemented this is actually more people
participating in democracy from voting to contributions than it actually
brings more people into the system, which is what we
should be able to do. So, you know, California could
(20:25):
also look at passing a statewide public campaign financing program
in order to take the lessons learned on the city
level and implement them statewide.
S1 (20:35):
Yeah. Let me ask you about one more specific bill
you flagged in California, and then I want to ask
you about the statewide financing issues. But I hadn't heard
of this before. And I noticed interesting in your report
that we there was a bill pending in 2022 in
California called the Stop Foreign Influence in California Elections Act.
I take it that didn't pass. Is that right?
S3 (20:56):
I believe that is correct. And this is actually something
that the FEC even just put out their recommendations for
the year. So on the national level, it's something that
we're working on, too. Here's the thing. We've been seeing
a lot of foreign companies and individuals get involved in
(21:18):
ballot measures across the country. So foreign companies and foreign
nationals can't contribute to candidates or political committees. But guess what?
They can actually get involved in ballot measures. And that's
what we've been seeing happen. And so it's a loophole
in our campaign finance system that was never meant to
(21:39):
be that way. And so we are advocating at both
the national and in the state level to crack down
on that and to make sure that the laws around
that are really clear and that we outlaw any foreign
interference in our elections, including in our ballot measures. We've
seen this play out in Montana and Maine, obviously, California,
(22:02):
which has been looking at addressing it. So we we
need to pass it at both the national and at
the state law levels.
S1 (22:12):
Yeah. Again, perfect segue away to what I wanted to
ask you about, because this this ballot measure issue in California,
I think for every Californian, he sees these ads over
and over and every cycle and is surrounded by this noise.
And certainly those of us who work in the space,
we just have this sense that this has gone off
the rails here. And we've we've really gotten into this
(22:35):
situation where there's essentially two legislative bodies. There is there's
the legislature, and then there's this whole ballot measure process.
And we have dozens of measures to try to qualify
each year and usually over a dozen that will ultimately
make it. But but that we've created this sort of
moral hazard in the legislature is the only way I
(22:57):
can describe it, where it's really tough decisions are being
punted to the ballot and members are kind of using
the ballot process as a way to hide behind things
like tax increases or tough votes that might upset a
particular constituency. And it's it's all just creating this sort
of vacuum of not making the hard decisions out of
(23:18):
Sacramento and going to the ballot, which on one hand,
you could argue, hey, that's good. Maybe that's direct democracy.
Maybe this is you know, maybe this is ancient Greece
where we all get together and vote. But I think
the reality that we know is is quite different. I mean,
we just had two competing ballot measures on the on
gaming spend over $200 million and they both lost both
(23:39):
by double digits. But just just it's got to be
the highest in American history. And I'll mail that down.
But but we've just gotten into these crazy, crazy spending numbers.
And as you said, if that's so bitter to foreign governments,
then we've got this whole system of loopholes. So, you know,
where do you come down on the ballot measure thing?
(24:00):
I mean, on the one hand, you get urges that
you could argue this is good for democracy in their
hand when the numbers get so high, particular and big
states could really bad for democracy. So how do you
think about it?
S3 (24:10):
Yeah. $200 million for a ballot measure. I mean, it
is shocking to me. How much money is it? What?
This midterm ended up being somewhere around $9 billion in
total for our midterms and the kind of money that
(24:32):
we couldn't even have imagined even in presidential campaigns less
than ten years ago. And I think to your point,
it it you have a couple of things happening. One, obviously,
we think legislators should be making decisions. That is what
our system is set up to do. We elect representatives
(24:55):
at the state and national level and they are supposed
to make decisions. We often see special interests in big money, frankly,
gridlock in our system of democracy. Right. And Congress, we
can talk about this all the time where, you know,
prescription drug prices are constantly being blocked by big pharma. Right.
(25:17):
And so if you have these big special interests on
both sides and then things are just being kicked in
the ballot and then you have hundreds of millions of
dollars being run up in election spending through ballot measures.
It just continues to drive a lot of the problems
that we are seeing in our elections and in our democracy.
(25:39):
And it continues to alienate people from feeling like their
voice matters and that they can be involved and can
make a difference. And on the other hand, you have
other states that are trying to keep anything from being
able to go to the ballot. They're creating processes that
are so hard that there is no way to collect
and defend the signatures to actually get on the ballot.
(26:01):
Or they're creating subject matters that are so narrow that
you can't actually, you know, pass it and get on
the ballot. So I think that there I think that
we have to be willing to reform our systems as
we see them getting out of whack and pulling power
away from people. Right. Like, that's always what I try
(26:23):
to think about, which is how do we make sure
that people are having power and voice and vote in
our system? And when ballot measures are one more way
that they're being drowned out, then we should reform it.
I guess that's where I fall down and fall on it. Yeah.
To be fair, without having done much study, without having
(26:44):
you know, I am not an expert on California's ballot
measures by any means. But I do think that it's
good mostly when we can have things on the ballot
and the people can weigh in, but not when it's
at the expense of people being able to have voice
in their democracy and being drowned out by big money.
S1 (27:03):
Yeah. So it's a difficult balance to strike. I mean,
I really struggle with whether it should be a simple
majority or, you know, 60% or something like that threshold
to see so many of these measures kind of in
that in that area between 50 and 60. And I
sort of hope that our members and legislators can get
back to the concept of a representative democracy and the
(27:27):
really tough stuff. And then I'm reminded to amend the
Constitution where we need to do things that are sort
of structural to particular states, laws that have been part
of the fabric of the way we do things. It
makes sense to me that those should go to the ballot.
But we have this other way. Yes. Yeah, go ahead.
S3 (27:43):
Oh, sorry. Go ahead. I was just going to say
in some states, too, even when we've seen you know,
we had Missouri a couple of years ago that passed
a really great comprehensive kind of democracy reform measure. And
then the state legislature just completely gutted it. Right. So
we've seen that happen across the country, too. And every
(28:05):
time these things happen, I also think it is one
more example of why we need national standards across our country.
National standards for voting, national standards around money in our
system and how we're doing it. Because the one offs
that we're seeing kind of around the country make it
more and more difficult to really have people feel empowered
(28:29):
across the country because you see some states rolling back democracy,
some states trying to expand it in herky jerky ways.
And we really do need some national standards.
S1 (28:40):
Yeah, it would be so much better in so many ways.
And let's let's talk about that. What are the biggest
areas when you look at your state report cards every
year that you see states falling down and what are
they what are the common things that keep coming up
that you want to see them do better?
S3 (28:54):
Well, this is a new report. We just put it
out for the first time this past year. So what
I'm interested in seeing is the movement and the progress
that states end up making. I mean, I think for
a lot of states, there's still a lot of room
that they can grow. On the voting access side, everything
from automatic voter registration to at least 14 days of
(29:17):
early voting to no excuse, absentee mail in ballot voting
right there. So a lot of states that can make
those kind of changes, which we know really impacts people's
ability to turn out. And then on kind of the
the ethics and the money and politics side, you have
a lot of states where there could be more disclosure
(29:40):
cracking down on that revolving door between lobbyists and government.
Actually having an ethics commission that has some teeth and
can actually hold folks accountable to the state laws because
to varying degrees, a lot of the state ethics enforcement
agencies are pretty weak. And there's also a lot of
(30:03):
states that have a lot of coordination allowed between basically
dark money groups and candidates. And so some additional disclosure,
transparency and cracking down on that coordination.
S1 (30:17):
So I would I would ask you about Supreme Court reform. Oh,
for sure. And this is just become such a disturbing
issue over the last few months as we've seen all
these stories about whether it's, you know, Jenny Thomas being
involved or January six there. You know, there's this weird
lobbying story which maybe we could talk about a little
(30:39):
bit more. But yeah, I was in the car with
my mom the other day. We need we should have
an age limit. She remembers the Supreme Court. She's well
above whatever that age limit would be. And, you know,
I was kind of conflicted about that. You know, the
founders put that in there for a reason. You know,
when I was born, a lot of reform ideas thrown around.
(31:00):
But it does really seem like the body has become
so politicized. And your organization is named after a famous
Supreme Court case. So how do you how do you
think about where we have at the Supreme Court right now?
What do you think needs to be done structurally, if anything?
S3 (31:15):
Oh, I think that the Supreme Court is going to
be known for two things when we look back on it.
One is obviously overturning of the dog's decision. And the
second is the the attacks that they have perpetrated against
(31:36):
our democracy for more than a decade. Right. From Citizens
United to Shelby v Holder to Janus decision weakening worker
power to the other voting rights and gerrymandering cases that
we have seen where time and time again they are
(31:56):
ruling on behalf of the special interests and not on
behalf of the people. And yeah, we are named in
the Citizens United because we think that the Citizens United
decision was one of the most damaging and terrible ones
in our history, and that it allowed our system to
(32:18):
become so flooded and overwhelmed with unlimited and undisclosed money
that our democracy can't really work like it's supposed to. So, yeah,
we have come out in favor of Supreme Court reform
and we think that it needs to be a pretty
comprehensive reform. I mean, first and foremost, we need ethics
(32:41):
and transparency for these justices.
S1 (32:44):
We have seen seems like the table stakes to me
with everything we've seen over the last few months.
S3 (32:48):
Right. I mean, this is insane to me that they
are they won their lifetime appointments and they are not
forced to basically adhere to any of the other ethical
anti-corruption kind of measures that our other elected officials all
(33:10):
have to follow. So, you know, if they're not going
to adopt their own code of ethics, and I don't
think that they should be policing themselves, but Congress has
to require it. And there are a couple of bills
out there that are looking at this. But, you know,
they all include more transparency, rooting out financial conflict and corruption,
(33:31):
making sure we know things like who Ginni Thomas is
being paid by. Right. Number two, we need to expose
the amount of dark money that's being spent on judicial nominations.
The Leonard Leo Federalist Society has spent somewhere around five
(33:52):
or $600 million in just the past decade to stack
the court with these conservative justices. And that same network
of dark money then does things like host weekend getaways
and fancy dinners. And it is clear that there is
(34:14):
a even if it's not an outright quid pro quo,
there is no way that that amount of money going
into these confirmations is not creating a sense of obligation. Right.
And then we're seeing these justices actually rule in favor
of those same special interests over and over and over again.
(34:37):
Number three. So the first one we have or the
ethics and financial transparency. Second one is make sure the
money being spent is transparent and fully disclosed. Third, we
need term limits for future justices. I think that would
help reduce the partisan influence. It would help bring down
(35:01):
that temperature around nomination debates and campaigns wouldn't make it
feel like it was the only one that was going
to happen in the next 20 years. Right as each
of these fights feel right now. And then fourth, we
support expanding the number of justices on the court as well.
But I want we support all of that as a
(35:23):
comprehensive package. I actually don't think that expansion alone works
unless we have some of the others on there. Right.
Unless we have some of the anticorruption pieces, the disclosure
and transparency, the term limits, like all of it needs
to happen together in order to really reform the court
(35:44):
and the court itself should be wanting these reforms as well,
because the public has lost faith and trust in them. Right.
The public now views them as another partisan ideological outlet
as just, you know, just like Congress, kind of like
pox on all your houses. And that is now how
(36:05):
the public views the Supreme Court. And that's really, really
concerning for for their credibility and validity and the ability
to make real change in the future. So those are
the changes that some of the changes that. We have
endorsed as an organization.
S1 (36:24):
Well, let me see. Within a few minutes we're going
to pack a few of those. So it may be
in the order of what what would be the easiest
to actually implement pass without constitutional changes or even legislative changes? Theoretically, because, look,
if like as you say, if the Supreme Court wanted
to have an ethics procedure themselves, they could just do that. Right.
(36:49):
I take it Roberts could just make that unilaterally even.
Is that is that your understanding of it?
S3 (36:54):
That's my understanding. I, I what's funny is I almost
listed them in the order of ease, of which I
think they can be done. Yeah, I didn't mean to,
but coincidentally, that that's true. Yeah. I mean, the Supreme
Court could enact their own code of ethics tomorrow. Right?
And again, if we're nothing else than to restore faith
(37:17):
and trust in the American public and the credibility of
the court with the American public, they should want to.
So they could do it themselves. But if they're not
going to, then I think members of Congress on both
sides of the aisle could find common ground around making
sure that at the very least, Supreme Court justices are
(37:38):
adhering to the same kind of ethical standards that they
have to adhere to themselves as members of Congress, like
we should at least be able to get that done.
S1 (37:48):
Right. And there's no your understanding is there's no constitutional
separation of powers issue with Congress legislating that. Right. That's
that's their role to set up the court system in
their realm to pass rules regulating federal courts, that that's
not running afoul of any separation of powers arguments that
we know.
S3 (38:06):
It's not that I know of. I am not a
constitutional law professor and that but, you know, we know
every other federal judge has an ethics standard, right, Like
every other division of our federal judiciary system has to
follow these. So my understanding is that, no, there is
(38:29):
no no problems with us enacting that.
S1 (38:33):
So I'm not sure I'm I get these exactly right
in order. But in terms of term limits, that's my understanding.
You're going to say this with much more knowledge than me.
But it's that's kind of a gray area of constitutional law.
Is that fair? The Constitution uses the phrase good behavior
or something. Or something or.
S3 (38:54):
Yeah, I mean, I think that this is both term
limits and expansion. There are debates around what that looks like,
but we have seen expansion. I'm going to jump to
expansion a little bit in my answer here. We have
seen the size of the court change throughout history. Right.
And there's consensus that term limits are also allowed. And obviously,
(39:20):
it would be ironic because I'm sure the argument would
go up to the Supreme Court.
S1 (39:24):
But I think.
S3 (39:26):
Congress Congress should be Congress should be able to to
be able to put that into place. The other one
that we talked about was the exposure of dark money.
And that one's easy, right? Like that absolutely could be passed.
The Supreme Court has written in opinions, including Citizens United,
(39:46):
that we should have full disclosure and transparency. Even very
conservative Justices Scalia himself who have talked about the need
for transparency to root out corruption. So that one, absolutely,
we should be able to get that.
S1 (40:02):
Well, any one of those things, as I'm sure you're right,
that they need to work as as a whole. But
I just couldn't agree more that we're at this inflection
point where the Supreme Court used to be one of
those institutions that there was at least some some sense
that it was removed from the day to day political
infighting and just completely lost that over the last two years,
(40:25):
both in the confirmation process and how this, you know,
incredibly partisan decisions have come down.
S3 (40:31):
But, yeah, I mean, as you know, on the R
through the Leonard Leo and the Federalist Society, you know,
they they have lists and they they hand over a
list and they say you are allowed to choose from
this list. And those lists have been curated and not
just vetted. Right. But these are judges who have gone
(40:53):
through their program and who do the dinners and do
the weekends and are, you know, engaged in a lot
of their programming and lots of different ways. And so
they feel very confident about how they would rule.
S1 (41:06):
On constitutional.
S3 (41:07):
Matters like pro.
S1 (41:09):
Yeah. I mean, they perfectly subverted the principles of the
Constitution in this regard, right? Like, even even if you
were to accept that the founders wanted it to be
lifetime appointments and it didn't, doesn't sound like that's what
it says. But let's, let's just assume the logic in that.
The idea is, well, they can change their minds. They
can you can insulate them from the political process. And
(41:31):
they they don't have to, you know, fear the repercussions
or about what future jobs they're going to get. And
that was happening for a long time in our history. Right?
We had Justice Kennedy, Right. And we had justices who
evolved dramatically when they got there, almost always to the
progressive side. And then the Republicans decided they had enough
of that. And they started these lists where they got
(41:52):
the answers. Decades before the folks wound up at the
Supreme Court, they completely subverted these institutional protections, this this
political insulation concept. Right. So if that's not the argument
for why something needs to change or something just doesn't
serve you anymore, I don't know what it is. You know,
it reminds me of the Electoral College, which is just
(42:15):
not working. I think we can hopefully, I'll admit that
at many levels when you when you don't have electors
who are allowed to do anything different than the state,
which is not not why they were put there. So
I don't know. I sometimes feel like we're too hesitant to.
Talk about amending the Constitution. I don't think it should
(42:36):
be done willy nilly at all. But, you know, the
great the great Jefferson, here's the here's the Australian comedian
is in search for it and said people say you
can't amend the Second Amendment. I say, sure you can.
It's called an amendment. And, you know, there is a
process for doing these things. And yeah, yeah. And I
(42:57):
think it's great that you all are willing to have
these conversations. This is a nice, really bold thing is
that the time has come for. And yeah, and I
hope you can be successful in these conversations for as
we get into the next cycle. So thanks so much
for coming back on and for everything you're doing. And
where where can people find out more about your organization?
(43:17):
And we'll put a link a specific went to the
to the state report card but what's your website so
people can read more about what you're up to?
S3 (43:25):
Well, it's been such an honor to come back on
and thank you so much. I look forward to the
next time I come back on this as we're knee
deep in the 20/24 cycle. I can't believe we're already
saying 2024. How did that happen? And we'd love for
anyone who wants to help fight to save our democracy
(43:45):
and get money out of politics. Join us. We are
at end. Citizens United dot org and Citizens United dot org.
Or you can follow us on Twitter. We are at
Stop Big Money. And my Twitter handle is Tiffanie underscore Muller.
There we go.
S1 (44:04):
Tiffany, thanks so much. Pleasure having you.
S3 (44:07):
Thanks so much for having me.
S1 (44:10):
We invite you to share story, ideas, comments and questions.
Find us at Neptune Ops dot com or on Twitter at at
Nation State of P one, again, that's at nation State
of P and then the number one. Follow us and
subscribe to listen to all of our episodes as we
continue to explore the inside stories driving California policy. Thank
(44:32):
you for listening to the Nation State of Play podcast
Powered by Neptune Ops. OLAS media.
The views and opinions expressed in this program are those
of the Speaker's and do not necessarily reflect the views
or positions of any entities they represent, including OLAS Media
(00:21):
OLAS Media presents Nation state of play. Welcome to the Nation
State of Play podcast. I'm your host, Bryan Miller. And
each episode we explore the political stories that are driving
(00:43):
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's state. Thanks so much for listening. Today,
we have one of my favorite repeat guests on Tiffany Miller,
who writes in Citizens United that this organization has their
(01:05):
hands in so many races across the country this cycle.
And we had her a few weeks before the election
to talk about what she was focused on. So in
this conversation, do a little bit of election recap, but
spend most of our time on what's ahead for 2023
and even 2024 and how dark money, big money made
an impact in the last cycle, but also how the
(01:27):
concern about democracy is really starting to become first and
foremost to candidates and voters across the country. So Tiffany
is really the expert in these issues across the entire country.
And she's got some great insights on what candidates can do,
but also what voters should be paying attention to. So
stay with us. Tiffany Miller with End Citizens United right
after this.
S2 (01:47):
American democracy is good, but we can make it better.
The National Association of Nonpartisan Reformers includes organizations across the
country that are working right now to build a better
democracy by opening primaries, implementing safe, secure voting systems, reducing
corruption and increasing transparency. Listen to our weekly podcast, How
to Win Friends and Save the Republic. To hear the
(02:09):
latest updates from the Democracy reform space, subscribe and learn
more about us at nonpartisan Reformers dot org.
S1 (02:17):
Welcome back to the Nation State of Play podcast. Tiffany,
thanks so much for coming back on the show. Really,
really lucky to have you to talk a little bit
of recap and what's ahead for 2023. We appreciate you
being here.
S3 (02:30):
Thanks so much for having me back on, Bryan, and
I really appreciate that.
S1 (02:33):
And so you were here a couple of weeks before
the election and just took a bunch of races. You
had you had your hands in across the country. A
lot of interesting stuff. And so I'm curious, what was
your election night like? What were you watching? Was carefully
what was on your constant refresh screen on your computer
early in the night as you're trying to figure out
where things are headed?
S3 (02:54):
Well, Brian, our whole team had gathered to watch the
election results come in. And as those first election results
came in, I remember making this speech to the team
about about why we do the work we do and
that it really matters that we fight for the vision
of our country that we believe in, that we fight
(03:17):
for our democracy, even when the outcomes are not guaranteed. Right,
which they never are, and in an election. And by
the way, that's the speech you give when you're pretty
sure the election night is going to be bad and
you want to keep that. And then as we start watching,
I mean, obviously, one of the first things that rolls
(03:38):
in is Florida. Florida always feels bad. But then outside
of that, there were lots of really hopeful signs. Right.
Some of the races that we were watching most closely
that felt like they were going to be real bellwethers
of how the night was going to go. Were coming
in strong, much stronger than I think we had thought
(04:00):
that they would initially. For example, Abigail Spanberger in Virginia, seven,
that felt like a race that was really going to
tell us what kind of night we were going to have.
The Pennsylvania Senate race, obviously, with Fetterman. These were races
that we were watching really closely and trying to get
a sense of where the election was going. Michigan was
(04:25):
another one where, you know, just up and down the ballot,
we were so fully invested in Michigan that we were
really watching. How close were those elections going to be
and what did it mean for across the country? And honestly,
I think that we had been saying over and over again,
(04:45):
the voters are really concerned about democracy, and democracy is
on the ballot and it's going to show up on
election night. But I think that we underestimated how right
we were about that. Right. So whether it is the
fact that we actually gained a seat in the Senate
or we picked up four legislative chambers across the country,
(05:07):
or that we held every single incumbent Democratic governor, or
that we we just had a complete clean sweep of
the secretary of state and ag races in battleground states
across the country against massive election deniers. Right. What whatever
kind of metric you're looking at. Democrats and democracy had
(05:33):
a historic performance on election night.
S1 (05:36):
Yeah, I mean, so, so many things there. I'd love
to unpack, but let's talk about that AG and Secretary
of State story, because I do think maybe that's the
one that speaks most directly to election deniers and democracy,
and also that, you know, it's of course, just not
(05:57):
going to get covered as much as high profile Senate
and House races and governors races. But but I was
really heartened to see that. To what what were the
states in those races that you were looking at the
most closely?
S3 (06:09):
Yeah, we were we were involved in, I think, about
16 races overall. 14 of those ended up being wins.
But the big states I was watching most closely were
the secretary of state and ag races in Michigan, Arizona
and Nevada. And yeah, we also were watching, of course,
(06:34):
Wisconsin and Colorado and Georgia. But really that Nevada and
Arizona and Michigan. Those were the three that we were
paying the most attention to. And what we saw in
those states were election deniers. On the other side, people
who are extremists on both overturning elections, denying the outcome
of the 2020 election, and really extremists on almost every
(06:58):
other issue that voters care about. And in many of
those states, whether Michigan or Arizona in particular, you also
had these top of the ticket races that were really,
really expensive. And so it was really hard to cut
through a media market that that was that crowded. Right.
And Arizona, you had a, what, $200 million in. That
(07:21):
race was a really competitive governor's race, and yet it
was Adrien Fontaine as the secretary of state candidate who
actually got the most votes on the Democratic side of
the ticket. There's no way that happens unless voters are
really prioritizing someone who's going to protect their vote at
(07:41):
the ballot box as one of their main issues of concern.
And that's what we saw happening all across the country.
And we actually went in right after the election and
did a post-election poll and it backed up those findings. Right. That, yeah,
we were seeing it anecdotally and election turnout. But what
(08:02):
we found is that voters listed without being prompted just
an open end. Why was this election more important than
previous elections? Protecting democracy was the biggest issue that they
just in an open end said. And by a ten
point margin, voters trusted Democrats more than Republicans to stand
(08:25):
up to the threats to democracy. And it was a
really key reason why we were able to actually win
these independent voters in races across the country. So I
just think that that those races, those secretary of state
races in particular, is a place where it just became
so crystal clear.
S1 (08:43):
Yeah, I love the Arizona example. And speaking on the
ag race, I don't know what the betting odds of
Chris Mayes becoming the Arizona attorney general were. Right. But
my guess is they were let's let's just say lower
than the 40 Niners winning the Super Bowl.
S3 (08:58):
Okay.
S1 (08:59):
And and she's got she's amazing. We got to work
with her years ago and she was back on the
Arizona Corporation Commission. But but I think he put up
such a good example there of a state that, you know,
still has some pretty hard right elements. And the fact
that secretary of state candidate gets more than even Mark Kelly.
I think that what a great example of how this
(09:20):
stuff is playing out. So clearly it was it was
moving Democrats, it was moving independents. Was it moving Republicans
at all?
S3 (09:29):
Even Republicans are concerned about it. Right. Even so, our
poll found that 69% of Republicans and independents who voted
for a Democratic House candidate actually said that protecting democracy
was extremely important. So, you know, you always peel off
(09:50):
some amount of Republicans, not that many. But in this election,
what we found were that the Republicans that we were
able to peel off, that democracy was what was motivating
them to vote for a Democratic candidate.
S1 (10:05):
Yeah, exactly. Because I was making this point. He's like, look,
you can look at the numbers that few Republicans offered.
Any particular issue. They could sound really small. It could
be in the single percents, it could be even below 5%.
But those are the kind of numbers that change election
outcomes in a world of close elections. Right. So it's
just just that little bit around the margin that's too extreme.
Winning a Georgia Senate race, for instance, right there.
S3 (10:27):
That's exactly right.
S1 (10:29):
The up and down the ticket. So.
S3 (10:31):
That's exactly right.
S1 (10:32):
Yeah. So those little numbers are great to see. Oh, go.
S3 (10:35):
Ahead. I was just going to add in races where
it wasn't a Democratic candidate versus Republican candidate. So the
democracy ballot measures that were across the country as well.
We saw those win by massive margins, right. In Arizona,
the dark money measure, basically getting rid of dark money,
(10:57):
making sure that there's disclosure about who is funding our elections.
That was the top vote getter because it pulled a
lot of Republicans over. And what we saw was across
the country, every single democracy ballot measure, one, whether that
was in Arizona and Michigan or in Oakland, California, where
they instituted democracy vouchers all across the country, we saw
(11:20):
these democracy ballot measures really do very, very well.
S1 (11:25):
Well, it's a perfect segue into the next question I
want to ask you, which is what does what did
those results, those outcomes suggest to you about strategies going forward?
Should we be pushing for more ballot measures about democracy?
I'm sure you I'm sure you would think we should
be talking about these issues more generally. But but yeah,
how how do you look back at the cycle and say, okay,
(11:47):
this worked with certain demographics, this worked in certain states,
and and how does that inform your strategies going forward?
S3 (11:54):
Yeah, I, I think that we should always be looking
for opportunities to put democracy on the ballot because it
is a winning issue and a good motivator. And the
right policy. As you know, a ballot measures are not
always easy to get funded, to get the signatures to
get on the ballot. But in this, in the places
(12:16):
where we are able to do that and are able
to get them on the ballot, I think that, again,
this past cycle, we we had a really good instruction
manual of how to do this in Michigan. They solidified
and put into their constitution the expansion of voting rights.
(12:38):
In Arizona. It was about dark money. In Oakland, it
was about, you know, public financing, anything that is that
is shoring up people's power in our democracy is really
popular and doing great. And we've seen that for the
last few cycles. So I think we should absolutely be
looking at where are there opportunities where we can continue
(13:00):
to push that and expand that. But I think you're
right on your other point as well, Brian, which is
that we also need to make sure that candidates have
the resources they need in order to continue to run
on and talk about these issues because they are really
important to voters. And I think, you know, in 2018,
we did a great job making sure that candidates had
(13:22):
the resources they needed to be able to talk about
corruption and to talk about money in politics. But throughout
this past cycle, I think sometimes there was a sense of, well,
what does democracy mean to voters, Right? Is it money?
Is it corruption? Is it voting? Is it overturning elections?
And the answer is yes. And the answer is it
(13:43):
is actually all of those things to voters. And so
we are working we're working constantly to make sure that
we have the most up to date research and that
we actually are being able to provide candidates and committees
with the guidance that they need to feel really confident
and really comfortable talking about these issues in their campaigns
(14:07):
because it's going to continue to be a huge issue.
I mean, the front runner for the 2024 GOP nomination
is the ringleader of the threats to our democracy, Right?
They are not going to let up with election denial denialism,
even though it just cost them at the ballot box.
So we're going to have to continue to make sure
(14:28):
voters understand that contrast and understand what's at stake and
continue to feel the urgency that they clearly did in
this election.
S1 (14:38):
Yeah. So, Sarge, so we're thinking about the 2024 issues,
But but let me turn our attention to the states here,
because as you pointed out, some really huge progress in
places like Michigan and Arizona and other states at the
state level, which which gives you some opportunities now to
really be proactive. And you guys have some great resources
(15:01):
online with the state report card you do talking about
democracy in the States. So, yeah, tell me as we
go into 2023, how do you think about the landscape
for your priorities with these legislative sessions and potentially things
that can be done with executive power?
S3 (15:18):
Yeah, I mean, I think that first we have to
do the deeper dives that we were just talking about
in 2023 around the research, around the policies. But we
also know that we're going to have to immediately defend
against some of the attacks that we'll see in Republican
trifecta states. Right. I think in 2022, there were somewhere
(15:42):
close to 300 bills introduced that were aimed at rolling
back the right to vote. We've seen 80 of those
become law in the past two years. So we know
that first and foremost, we're going to have to continue
to fight back against some of those and then look,
looking toward 2024. I think it continues to be how
(16:03):
do we drive the messaging around everything from money and
politics to anti-corruption to voting rights to making sure our
elections are safe and secure? And how do we it's
going to be hard to get anything passed on the
federal level. How do we use that messaging to help
us win the House back in 2024? But on the
(16:27):
state level, thanks for mentioning the state democracy scorecard. I,
I think that the State democracy scorecard does a great
job of laying out a roadmap for state legislators who
are concerned about these issues to start to look for
places that they can improve their own state. We looked
at ethics and anti-corruption money in politics, at voting rights,
(16:52):
at redistricting, and basically looked at the state every state,
and put together a comprehensive kind of democracy score. And
so there are some places that have really great scores around, say,
voting rights and voting access, but could actually still do
some work around money and politics. And so in those cases,
(17:15):
we're looking at, okay, who are the state legislators that
really want to take a lead? How do we work
with them? How do we activate our members across the
country to help drive those agendas forward?
S1 (17:27):
Yeah. I love this report. Let's. Let's put a link
to it in the minutes. It does a great job
of digesting a lot of information in a really, really
easy to read it, make sense of format. So compliments
to your team and you for putting this together. And
if we could, I'd like to pull out an example
along the lines of what you just mentioned here in
(17:48):
our state of California, because this is an example of
where we're doing most things right, but not everything as
well as we could have. And that never that never
sits right with the California exception. So let's let's let's
talk about but let me just give kind of a
summary of what you're saying, and then we'll show some
of the areas you fire for approval. So good on
(18:08):
voting rights laws, good on democracy, subversion protections. One thing
you have flagged can come from here, though, is that
we have high contribution limits for individuals, PACs and corporations,
which can open the door to undue influence from big
money donors and special interests. So so in an ideal world,
what would you want to see on this issue in California?
S3 (18:30):
Yeah, I think that's exactly you're exactly right. I mean, first,
California overall, you all should be incredibly proud of the
score that you have and the strong democracy score overall.
I think it's like fourth overall, but it's really the
campaign finance and ethics scores that take a hit because
of those high contribution limits and because of a lack
(18:55):
of some cooling off period for the revolving door between
government and lobbying. And so, you know, there are there
are things that we're seeing happen in California. Number one,
we can pass lower contribution limits, more disclosure, also making
sure that lobbyists don't have undue influence. So implement a
(19:19):
cooling off period of at least two years after legislators
have left office. But we've also been seeing cities in
California really take the lead on trying to root out
big money in politics. And so you've seen Los Angeles,
San Francisco, Long Beach, all past public campaign financing programs.
(19:42):
And then Oakland just this year passed the democracy dollars
program and it passed with 74% of the vote. What's
great about these programs is obviously it makes sure that
no matter who you are or what your network is,
you are able to run for office and you can
do it without depending on money from special interests. And
(20:05):
you can really empower grassroots donors. What we've seen in
other cities where they've implemented this is actually more people
participating in democracy from voting to contributions than it actually
brings more people into the system, which is what we
should be able to do. So, you know, California could
(20:25):
also look at passing a statewide public campaign financing program
in order to take the lessons learned on the city
level and implement them statewide.
S1 (20:35):
Yeah. Let me ask you about one more specific bill
you flagged in California, and then I want to ask
you about the statewide financing issues. But I hadn't heard
of this before. And I noticed interesting in your report
that we there was a bill pending in 2022 in
California called the Stop Foreign Influence in California Elections Act.
I take it that didn't pass. Is that right?
S3 (20:56):
I believe that is correct. And this is actually something
that the FEC even just put out their recommendations for
the year. So on the national level, it's something that
we're working on, too. Here's the thing. We've been seeing
a lot of foreign companies and individuals get involved in
(21:18):
ballot measures across the country. So foreign companies and foreign
nationals can't contribute to candidates or political committees. But guess what?
They can actually get involved in ballot measures. And that's
what we've been seeing happen. And so it's a loophole
in our campaign finance system that was never meant to
(21:39):
be that way. And so we are advocating at both
the national and in the state level to crack down
on that and to make sure that the laws around
that are really clear and that we outlaw any foreign
interference in our elections, including in our ballot measures. We've
seen this play out in Montana and Maine, obviously, California,
(22:02):
which has been looking at addressing it. So we we
need to pass it at both the national and at
the state law levels.
S1 (22:12):
Yeah. Again, perfect segue away to what I wanted to
ask you about, because this this ballot measure issue in California,
I think for every Californian, he sees these ads over
and over and every cycle and is surrounded by this noise.
And certainly those of us who work in the space,
we just have this sense that this has gone off
the rails here. And we've we've really gotten into this
(22:35):
situation where there's essentially two legislative bodies. There is there's
the legislature, and then there's this whole ballot measure process.
And we have dozens of measures to try to qualify
each year and usually over a dozen that will ultimately
make it. But but that we've created this sort of
moral hazard in the legislature is the only way I
(22:57):
can describe it, where it's really tough decisions are being
punted to the ballot and members are kind of using
the ballot process as a way to hide behind things
like tax increases or tough votes that might upset a
particular constituency. And it's it's all just creating this sort
of vacuum of not making the hard decisions out of
(23:18):
Sacramento and going to the ballot, which on one hand,
you could argue, hey, that's good. Maybe that's direct democracy.
Maybe this is you know, maybe this is ancient Greece
where we all get together and vote. But I think
the reality that we know is is quite different. I mean,
we just had two competing ballot measures on the on
gaming spend over $200 million and they both lost both
(23:39):
by double digits. But just just it's got to be
the highest in American history. And I'll mail that down.
But but we've just gotten into these crazy, crazy spending numbers.
And as you said, if that's so bitter to foreign governments,
then we've got this whole system of loopholes. So, you know,
where do you come down on the ballot measure thing?
(24:00):
I mean, on the one hand, you get urges that
you could argue this is good for democracy in their
hand when the numbers get so high, particular and big
states could really bad for democracy. So how do you
think about it?
S3 (24:10):
Yeah. $200 million for a ballot measure. I mean, it
is shocking to me. How much money is it? What?
This midterm ended up being somewhere around $9 billion in
total for our midterms and the kind of money that
(24:32):
we couldn't even have imagined even in presidential campaigns less
than ten years ago. And I think to your point,
it it you have a couple of things happening. One, obviously,
we think legislators should be making decisions. That is what
our system is set up to do. We elect representatives
(24:55):
at the state and national level and they are supposed
to make decisions. We often see special interests in big money, frankly,
gridlock in our system of democracy. Right. And Congress, we
can talk about this all the time where, you know,
prescription drug prices are constantly being blocked by big pharma. Right.
(25:17):
And so if you have these big special interests on
both sides and then things are just being kicked in
the ballot and then you have hundreds of millions of
dollars being run up in election spending through ballot measures.
It just continues to drive a lot of the problems
that we are seeing in our elections and in our democracy.
(25:39):
And it continues to alienate people from feeling like their
voice matters and that they can be involved and can
make a difference. And on the other hand, you have
other states that are trying to keep anything from being
able to go to the ballot. They're creating processes that
are so hard that there is no way to collect
and defend the signatures to actually get on the ballot.
(26:01):
Or they're creating subject matters that are so narrow that
you can't actually, you know, pass it and get on
the ballot. So I think that there I think that
we have to be willing to reform our systems as
we see them getting out of whack and pulling power
away from people. Right. Like, that's always what I try
(26:23):
to think about, which is how do we make sure
that people are having power and voice and vote in
our system? And when ballot measures are one more way
that they're being drowned out, then we should reform it.
I guess that's where I fall down and fall on it. Yeah.
To be fair, without having done much study, without having
(26:44):
you know, I am not an expert on California's ballot
measures by any means. But I do think that it's
good mostly when we can have things on the ballot
and the people can weigh in, but not when it's
at the expense of people being able to have voice
in their democracy and being drowned out by big money.
S1 (27:03):
Yeah. So it's a difficult balance to strike. I mean,
I really struggle with whether it should be a simple
majority or, you know, 60% or something like that threshold
to see so many of these measures kind of in
that in that area between 50 and 60. And I
sort of hope that our members and legislators can get
back to the concept of a representative democracy and the
(27:27):
really tough stuff. And then I'm reminded to amend the
Constitution where we need to do things that are sort
of structural to particular states, laws that have been part
of the fabric of the way we do things. It
makes sense to me that those should go to the ballot.
But we have this other way. Yes. Yeah, go ahead.
S3 (27:43):
Oh, sorry. Go ahead. I was just going to say
in some states, too, even when we've seen you know,
we had Missouri a couple of years ago that passed
a really great comprehensive kind of democracy reform measure. And
then the state legislature just completely gutted it. Right. So
we've seen that happen across the country, too. And every
(28:05):
time these things happen, I also think it is one
more example of why we need national standards across our country.
National standards for voting, national standards around money in our
system and how we're doing it. Because the one offs
that we're seeing kind of around the country make it
more and more difficult to really have people feel empowered
(28:29):
across the country because you see some states rolling back democracy,
some states trying to expand it in herky jerky ways.
And we really do need some national standards.
S1 (28:40):
Yeah, it would be so much better in so many ways.
And let's let's talk about that. What are the biggest
areas when you look at your state report cards every
year that you see states falling down and what are
they what are the common things that keep coming up
that you want to see them do better?
S3 (28:54):
Well, this is a new report. We just put it
out for the first time this past year. So what
I'm interested in seeing is the movement and the progress
that states end up making. I mean, I think for
a lot of states, there's still a lot of room
that they can grow. On the voting access side, everything
from automatic voter registration to at least 14 days of
(29:17):
early voting to no excuse, absentee mail in ballot voting
right there. So a lot of states that can make
those kind of changes, which we know really impacts people's
ability to turn out. And then on kind of the
the ethics and the money and politics side, you have
a lot of states where there could be more disclosure
(29:40):
cracking down on that revolving door between lobbyists and government.
Actually having an ethics commission that has some teeth and
can actually hold folks accountable to the state laws because
to varying degrees, a lot of the state ethics enforcement
agencies are pretty weak. And there's also a lot of
(30:03):
states that have a lot of coordination allowed between basically
dark money groups and candidates. And so some additional disclosure,
transparency and cracking down on that coordination.
S1 (30:17):
So I would I would ask you about Supreme Court reform. Oh,
for sure. And this is just become such a disturbing
issue over the last few months as we've seen all
these stories about whether it's, you know, Jenny Thomas being
involved or January six there. You know, there's this weird
lobbying story which maybe we could talk about a little
(30:39):
bit more. But yeah, I was in the car with
my mom the other day. We need we should have
an age limit. She remembers the Supreme Court. She's well
above whatever that age limit would be. And, you know,
I was kind of conflicted about that. You know, the
founders put that in there for a reason. You know,
when I was born, a lot of reform ideas thrown around.
(31:00):
But it does really seem like the body has become
so politicized. And your organization is named after a famous
Supreme Court case. So how do you how do you
think about where we have at the Supreme Court right now?
What do you think needs to be done structurally, if anything?
S3 (31:15):
Oh, I think that the Supreme Court is going to
be known for two things when we look back on it.
One is obviously overturning of the dog's decision. And the
second is the the attacks that they have perpetrated against
(31:36):
our democracy for more than a decade. Right. From Citizens
United to Shelby v Holder to Janus decision weakening worker
power to the other voting rights and gerrymandering cases that
we have seen where time and time again they are
(31:56):
ruling on behalf of the special interests and not on
behalf of the people. And yeah, we are named in
the Citizens United because we think that the Citizens United
decision was one of the most damaging and terrible ones
in our history, and that it allowed our system to
(32:18):
become so flooded and overwhelmed with unlimited and undisclosed money
that our democracy can't really work like it's supposed to. So, yeah,
we have come out in favor of Supreme Court reform
and we think that it needs to be a pretty
comprehensive reform. I mean, first and foremost, we need ethics
(32:41):
and transparency for these justices.
S1 (32:44):
We have seen seems like the table stakes to me
with everything we've seen over the last few months.
S3 (32:48):
Right. I mean, this is insane to me that they
are they won their lifetime appointments and they are not
forced to basically adhere to any of the other ethical
anti-corruption kind of measures that our other elected officials all
(33:10):
have to follow. So, you know, if they're not going
to adopt their own code of ethics, and I don't
think that they should be policing themselves, but Congress has
to require it. And there are a couple of bills
out there that are looking at this. But, you know,
they all include more transparency, rooting out financial conflict and corruption,
(33:31):
making sure we know things like who Ginni Thomas is
being paid by. Right. Number two, we need to expose
the amount of dark money that's being spent on judicial nominations.
The Leonard Leo Federalist Society has spent somewhere around five
(33:52):
or $600 million in just the past decade to stack
the court with these conservative justices. And that same network
of dark money then does things like host weekend getaways
and fancy dinners. And it is clear that there is
(34:14):
a even if it's not an outright quid pro quo,
there is no way that that amount of money going
into these confirmations is not creating a sense of obligation. Right.
And then we're seeing these justices actually rule in favor
of those same special interests over and over and over again.
(34:37):
Number three. So the first one we have or the
ethics and financial transparency. Second one is make sure the
money being spent is transparent and fully disclosed. Third, we
need term limits for future justices. I think that would
help reduce the partisan influence. It would help bring down
(35:01):
that temperature around nomination debates and campaigns wouldn't make it
feel like it was the only one that was going
to happen in the next 20 years. Right as each
of these fights feel right now. And then fourth, we
support expanding the number of justices on the court as well.
But I want we support all of that as a
(35:23):
comprehensive package. I actually don't think that expansion alone works
unless we have some of the others on there. Right.
Unless we have some of the anticorruption pieces, the disclosure
and transparency, the term limits, like all of it needs
to happen together in order to really reform the court
(35:44):
and the court itself should be wanting these reforms as well,
because the public has lost faith and trust in them. Right.
The public now views them as another partisan ideological outlet
as just, you know, just like Congress, kind of like
pox on all your houses. And that is now how
(36:05):
the public views the Supreme Court. And that's really, really
concerning for for their credibility and validity and the ability
to make real change in the future. So those are
the changes that some of the changes that. We have
endorsed as an organization.
S1 (36:24):
Well, let me see. Within a few minutes we're going
to pack a few of those. So it may be
in the order of what what would be the easiest
to actually implement pass without constitutional changes or even legislative changes? Theoretically, because, look,
if like as you say, if the Supreme Court wanted
to have an ethics procedure themselves, they could just do that. Right.
(36:49):
I take it Roberts could just make that unilaterally even.
Is that is that your understanding of it?
S3 (36:54):
That's my understanding. I, I what's funny is I almost
listed them in the order of ease, of which I
think they can be done. Yeah, I didn't mean to,
but coincidentally, that that's true. Yeah. I mean, the Supreme
Court could enact their own code of ethics tomorrow. Right?
And again, if we're nothing else than to restore faith
(37:17):
and trust in the American public and the credibility of
the court with the American public, they should want to.
So they could do it themselves. But if they're not
going to, then I think members of Congress on both
sides of the aisle could find common ground around making
sure that at the very least, Supreme Court justices are
(37:38):
adhering to the same kind of ethical standards that they
have to adhere to themselves as members of Congress, like
we should at least be able to get that done.
S1 (37:48):
Right. And there's no your understanding is there's no constitutional
separation of powers issue with Congress legislating that. Right. That's
that's their role to set up the court system in
their realm to pass rules regulating federal courts, that that's
not running afoul of any separation of powers arguments that
we know.
S3 (38:06):
It's not that I know of. I am not a
constitutional law professor and that but, you know, we know
every other federal judge has an ethics standard, right, Like
every other division of our federal judiciary system has to
follow these. So my understanding is that, no, there is
(38:29):
no no problems with us enacting that.
S1 (38:33):
So I'm not sure I'm I get these exactly right
in order. But in terms of term limits, that's my understanding.
You're going to say this with much more knowledge than me.
But it's that's kind of a gray area of constitutional law.
Is that fair? The Constitution uses the phrase good behavior
or something. Or something or.
S3 (38:54):
Yeah, I mean, I think that this is both term
limits and expansion. There are debates around what that looks like,
but we have seen expansion. I'm going to jump to
expansion a little bit in my answer here. We have
seen the size of the court change throughout history. Right.
And there's consensus that term limits are also allowed. And obviously,
(39:20):
it would be ironic because I'm sure the argument would
go up to the Supreme Court.
S1 (39:24):
But I think.
S3 (39:26):
Congress Congress should be Congress should be able to to
be able to put that into place. The other one
that we talked about was the exposure of dark money.
And that one's easy, right? Like that absolutely could be passed.
The Supreme Court has written in opinions, including Citizens United,
(39:46):
that we should have full disclosure and transparency. Even very
conservative Justices Scalia himself who have talked about the need
for transparency to root out corruption. So that one, absolutely,
we should be able to get that.
S1 (40:02):
Well, any one of those things, as I'm sure you're right,
that they need to work as as a whole. But
I just couldn't agree more that we're at this inflection
point where the Supreme Court used to be one of
those institutions that there was at least some some sense
that it was removed from the day to day political
infighting and just completely lost that over the last two years,
(40:25):
both in the confirmation process and how this, you know,
incredibly partisan decisions have come down.
S3 (40:31):
But, yeah, I mean, as you know, on the R
through the Leonard Leo and the Federalist Society, you know,
they they have lists and they they hand over a
list and they say you are allowed to choose from
this list. And those lists have been curated and not
just vetted. Right. But these are judges who have gone
(40:53):
through their program and who do the dinners and do
the weekends and are, you know, engaged in a lot
of their programming and lots of different ways. And so
they feel very confident about how they would rule.
S1 (41:06):
On constitutional.
S3 (41:07):
Matters like pro.
S1 (41:09):
Yeah. I mean, they perfectly subverted the principles of the
Constitution in this regard, right? Like, even even if you
were to accept that the founders wanted it to be
lifetime appointments and it didn't, doesn't sound like that's what
it says. But let's, let's just assume the logic in that.
The idea is, well, they can change their minds. They
can you can insulate them from the political process. And
(41:31):
they they don't have to, you know, fear the repercussions
or about what future jobs they're going to get. And
that was happening for a long time in our history. Right?
We had Justice Kennedy, Right. And we had justices who
evolved dramatically when they got there, almost always to the
progressive side. And then the Republicans decided they had enough
of that. And they started these lists where they got
(41:52):
the answers. Decades before the folks wound up at the
Supreme Court, they completely subverted these institutional protections, this this
political insulation concept. Right. So if that's not the argument
for why something needs to change or something just doesn't
serve you anymore, I don't know what it is. You know,
it reminds me of the Electoral College, which is just
(42:15):
not working. I think we can hopefully, I'll admit that
at many levels when you when you don't have electors
who are allowed to do anything different than the state,
which is not not why they were put there. So
I don't know. I sometimes feel like we're too hesitant to.
Talk about amending the Constitution. I don't think it should
(42:36):
be done willy nilly at all. But, you know, the
great the great Jefferson, here's the here's the Australian comedian
is in search for it and said people say you
can't amend the Second Amendment. I say, sure you can.
It's called an amendment. And, you know, there is a
process for doing these things. And yeah, yeah. And I
(42:57):
think it's great that you all are willing to have
these conversations. This is a nice, really bold thing is
that the time has come for. And yeah, and I
hope you can be successful in these conversations for as
we get into the next cycle. So thanks so much
for coming back on and for everything you're doing. And
where where can people find out more about your organization?
(43:17):
And we'll put a link a specific went to the
to the state report card but what's your website so
people can read more about what you're up to?
S3 (43:25):
Well, it's been such an honor to come back on
and thank you so much. I look forward to the
next time I come back on this as we're knee
deep in the 20/24 cycle. I can't believe we're already
saying 2024. How did that happen? And we'd love for
anyone who wants to help fight to save our democracy
(43:45):
and get money out of politics. Join us. We are
at end. Citizens United dot org and Citizens United dot org.
Or you can follow us on Twitter. We are at
Stop Big Money. And my Twitter handle is Tiffanie underscore Muller.
There we go.
S1 (44:04):
Tiffany, thanks so much. Pleasure having you.
S3 (44:07):
Thanks so much for having me.
S1 (44:10):
We invite you to share story, ideas, comments and questions.
Find us at Neptune Ops dot com or on Twitter at at
Nation State of P one, again, that's at nation State
of P and then the number one. Follow us and
subscribe to listen to all of our episodes as we
continue to explore the inside stories driving California policy. Thank
(44:32):
you for listening to the Nation State of Play podcast
Powered by Neptune Ops. OLAS media.
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!
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy And Charlamagne Tha God!
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.