June 30, 2025 • 49 mins
Dan McMillan, J.D., Ph.D., the founder of Save Democracy in America, and author of "How Could This Happen?" delves into the connection between campaign finance and the persistence of elderly candidates. Contributing to the true threat on our Democracy is the need and primary goal for our elected officials to raise money for their next election. So what has contributed to this political paradigm that subordinates the will of the people to campaign finance? The constant need for campaign funds.
Bill Martinez Live is broadcast live Mondays at 3PM ET on W4CY Radio (www.w4cy.com) part of Talk 4 Radio (www.talk4radio.com) on the Talk 4 Media Network (www.talk4media.com). Bill Martinez is viewed on Talk 4 TV (www.talk4tv.com).
Bill Martinez Live Podcast is also available on https://www.billmartinezshow.com, Talk 4 Media (www.talk4media.com), Talk 4 Podcasting (www.talk4podcasting.com), iHeartRadio, Amazon Music, Pandora, Spotify, Audible, and over 100 other podcast outlets.
Bill Martinez Live is broadcast live Mondays at 3PM ET on W4CY Radio (www.w4cy.com) part of Talk 4 Radio (www.talk4radio.com) on the Talk 4 Media Network (www.talk4media.com). Bill Martinez is viewed on Talk 4 TV (www.talk4tv.com).
Bill Martinez Live Podcast is also available on https://www.billmartinezshow.com, Talk 4 Media (www.talk4media.com), Talk 4 Podcasting (www.talk4podcasting.com), iHeartRadio, Amazon Music, Pandora, Spotify, Audible, and over 100 other podcast outlets.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
The topics and opinions expressed in the following show are
solely those of the hosts and their guests, and not
those of W FOURCY Radio. It's employees are affiliates. We
make no recommendations or endorsements for radio show programs, services,
or products mentioned on air or on our web. No liability,
explicit or implied shall be extended to W four c
Y Radio or it's employees are affiliates. Any questions or
comments should be directed to those show hosts. Thank you
(00:20):
for choosing W four c Y Radio.
Speaker 2 (00:38):
Well you've heard it said that, you know, words matter
and names matter, like democracy, And it would appear that
ever since our democratic idea came into being, there's been
these antithical forces to undermine and knock it down. People
have said, well, this doesn't make sense, it's never been
done before, how can how can this happen? But yet
(01:01):
here we are, almost at two hundred and fifty years,
and this democratic republic keeps on marching about in spite
of antithical forces suggesting that, you know, we're going to
lose this democracy. And you know, sometimes I wonder if
they even understand what democracy is all about. Doctor Dan
McMillan is going to be joining us in just a moment.
(01:23):
He's the author of the book How Could This Happen,
which was about the Holocaust. We may touch on that,
but more importantly, what we want to talk about is
the group that he leads, which is Save Democracy in America.
It's a non partisan campaign to put the American people
back in charge by making voters the donors who fund
election campaigns now. Dan earned a PhD in German history
(01:46):
from Columbia University as well as a law degree. He's
taught college level history and prosecuted criminal cases at the
Brooklyn DA's office. I want to bring Dan on right now.
Dan McMillan, welcome the show. Good to have you with us, sir.
Speaker 3 (02:00):
Be with you. Bill.
Speaker 2 (02:01):
Well, our democracy has quite the history, and you know
today you wonder with some of these kids talking about
how our democracy is coming under threat, and I say kids,
there's politicians as well, and it's almost like going to
hit the pause button. Say, would you explain to me
what you mean by democracy? Is that a fair question?
Speaker 3 (02:21):
Well, I think there's some confusion out there, and I
think especially the folks in Washington, I think are very
confused about it. In fact, I think they've kind of
forgotten what it is. And to me, it's what Lincoln
said at Gettysburg. Government of the people, by the people,
for the people, and the government is really no longer
of us or by us, because long ago the people
(02:46):
stop being the true constituents of our elected representatives, especially
at the national level, they're donors. The people who pay
for the stratospherically high cost of their election campaigns are
their true constituents. That's who they listen to. And we
the people have become a nuisance. I mean, we're a
(03:06):
necessary evil because they still need our votes to get
into office. That makes us necessary. But we're an evil
because ultimately it's the donors they have to answer to,
and then they just have to figure out what slogans
to offer us or ugly personal attacks on their opponents
to get them to fifty one percent. So and for
(03:28):
that reason, also, we're not really getting government for the
people either. Ultimately, now we're getting government that kind of
isn't really working for anyone because in order to raise
the kind of cash that you need to run for office,
and you know, the minimum price to the Senate has
to be at least ten million for a campaign, and
we're seeing campaigns north of one hundred million now is
(03:50):
not at all in common. A cool billion or more
for the White House seems to be the minimum. And
to raise that money, you basically have to take money
from everyone. It's not enough just to take money from
if you're in the House, to take money from the
top industry in your district. You've got to take money
from every single special and just out there who will
throw it at you. And what that means is you
(04:12):
sense yourself to avoid offending any of these special interests,
and the end result is that both parties are kind
of blocked from offering a real positive program. There's no
way forward. I guess the most dramatic example of how
the system has broken down because of this is that
we're looking at we're staring down federal budget deficits a
(04:34):
two and a half even three trillion dollars as far
as the eye can see, and we're already getting to
a point where all this public borrowing is going to
start crowding up private borrowing, driving up interest rates. A
lot of foreign borrowers who have been buying American public
debt are now saying maybe We're not a good credit
risks after all. Another example, of course, is the cost
(04:57):
of healthcare and how difficult it is to add access it.
We pay twice as much per healthcare per American per
capita as in many other wealthy societies that were getting
terrible results. But you can't you can't even talk about
how we're going to fix that without if you have
to kowtow to the lobbyists for pharma, for health insurance
(05:19):
companies and saw on. Anyway, I'm taken too long to
get to the point, but I think the thing is,
what I'm saying is that the desperate hunger for this
campaign cash you can paralyze the system, and long ago,
decades ago, already it excluded us, the American people, from
the process.
Speaker 2 (05:35):
Okay, I want to get into that, but before we do,
let's go back. Even in terms of people who are
put up, you know, that are running for office. These
have been predetermined, They've been already, you know, whether it's
the party or other interests, other money, people who have
determined who we're going to vote for. You know, what
(05:56):
choices do we have?
Speaker 3 (05:57):
Then? Yes, and that's a very good way of putting it.
Bill and now It's not so much that I think
groups of donors get together and pick candidates, but the way,
by default, in effect, the donors do choose the candidates
that we're allowed to vote for, and set and set
limits to what the candidates can say, because you know,
if you're going to be even taken seriously by the media,
(06:19):
if your campaign's going to be viable, then the year
before the election year, you already have to have raised
an enormous sum. If you're running for the House, it's
got to be I think at least a half a million.
In the Senate, you're talking several million dollars and so on.
And if your idea, if you or your ideas are
unattractive to deep pocket of donors or even uninteresting, you
(06:40):
don't draw their money, and your ideas and your candidacy
die out, out of sight and out of mind. And
so you've got this Darwinian process where only candidates that
are attractive to donors come to the surface, and those
are the candidates we're allowed to vote for.
Speaker 2 (06:55):
So even having some other ideas that are you know,
that need to be represented and discussed, are marginalized right
from the get go. They're scrutinized, so they're not even
part of the national debate. If it's a federal candidate,
even on a local level or a state level, that
(07:15):
that bit of the conversation is limited because they've hand
selected or they've already predetermined. Quote is that we're going
to vote for so Dan, you know, you talked about
this shift, this paradigm shift that occurred. What happened. Let's
go back historically and remind the people of what happened.
What opened up the door to big money coming in
(07:39):
and controlling our elections.
Speaker 3 (07:40):
Probably the pivotal event was a Supreme Court case in
nineteen seventy six called Buckley v. Valeo, and that was
the Buckley Vivaleo is the parent case of Citizens United
and many other cases that we hear about. Citizens United
is an important one, but it all goes back to
Buckley and what happened to Buckley. It was a crucial
(08:00):
shift in that case. These seven justices decided that money
spent to purchase influence in government by helping candidates, that
this money is itself free speech. Up till that point,
free speech was just what you and I are doing,
and what free speech means kind of in every pretty
much in every other country on earth. That is, free
(08:23):
people get together and express their ideas without fear of
any kind of punishment or coercion for expressing the ideas.
It didn't include the money you might spend to purchase
an audience for your speech. And more directly to the point,
these days, if you have enormous amounts of money, you
can drown out the speech of ordinary citizens like you
(08:46):
and myself. And so that shift it crippled that ruling
in Buckley Byoboleo, they struck down parts of the Federal
Election Campaign Act of nineteen seventy four, which was a
great finance law regulation. And I guess another development was
that toward the end of the seventies, the party organizations
(09:08):
ceased to be the chief vehicle through which candidates reached
the voters. They used to be mass organizations at the
local level and were replaced instead of by expensive media
buys by TV ads That made campaigns more expensive, and that,
between that and Buckley v. Balo, perhaps a couple of
other factors, by the end of the seventies, the arms
(09:29):
race in campaigns between the parties in fundraising and spending
took off, and the cost of campaigns has risen much
faster than inflation ever since Citizens United opened the floodgates.
Together with another decision was a decision by these Court
of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Speech now
(09:51):
made possible to super pack, which is a political committee
that nominally is independent of campaigns, but in fact does
core need extensively with the campaigns. They helped that the
non coordination is a fiction. It was required by the
court decision, but the rules determining coornation or a joke.
(10:11):
And basically a super pac can take donations of unlimited
size and spend unlimited amounts of money to help a
candidate they like or hurt the candidate's opponent. And you
can mean if if well. Elon Musk, for example, spent
close to three hundred million dollars last fall helping President Trump.
(10:32):
There was also also an enormous super pac spending, for example,
I think by George Soros and billionaires in the Democrat side.
This problem is one hundred percent by partisan both parties.
Amazing use of super PACs.
Speaker 2 (10:45):
Is there unintended consequences here? Dan? When this was first
addressed by the court, was there some positive benefit to
consider when they were looking at citizens United.
Speaker 3 (10:57):
I don't I don't see how I think that What
they did is that the justices on the Court under
John Roberts decided that they wanted to apply this principle
that money is speech to kind of the most rigorous
way possible, and they thought that they were striking a
blow for the freedom of speech. And I guess in
some sense they did could make possible complete freedom of
(11:20):
speech for special interests or corporations, for billionaires, but at
the expense of everyone else's speech, which was not hurt
at all.
Speaker 2 (11:29):
Yeah, well, you would have thought, again, in terms of
doing no harm, that the courts would have looked at
this to say, what is this going to do to
the voter politic? And basically they needcap the voter politic?
Did they not?
Speaker 3 (11:43):
You know? Completely? And I have to tell you, well,
I have no insight into the motivations of our Supreme
Court justices. But you look at a decision, you know,
it's one thing to have made the decision of Buckley,
which I thought was really already a pretty clearly dumb idea.
To me, it's one of my favorite examples of the
triumph of book learning over common sense. I mean, you
(12:05):
need the handicap of a law degree for that to
make sense to you, right, I mean, I don't think
you could go into any bar in the country at
any hour and find seven, you know, normal people in
whatever state of ineberiation and get them to buy into
the idea that money equals speech. But there it goes.
At least in the Buckley decision, they had no way
to foresee only I think it was Lewis Powell wrote
(12:29):
the dissent and said this is going to cause problems.
But by twenty ten, by Citizens United, it was obvious
that money had done terrible damage to our democracy. Why
that did not bother the justices? Well, I don't know
them personally. I'm not a mind reader. It's, you know,
it almost enough to make you think that they are
(12:50):
hostile to government by the people. And as judges who
have life tenure on the court, they're accustomed to having
an enormous out of power in our political system and
not being accountable. And maybe they think it's better that
the people have less power and that people in Washington
are less and less accountable because the people can't be trusted.
(13:12):
There's a lot of that are politics. There are a
lot of people in Washington, I think, on both sides
of the isle, who think that the American people cannot
be trusted in some ways. I almost feel that that's
you know, I want to be quite a nonpartisan. But
on the Democratic side, when I think about Hillary Clinton's
(13:32):
Basket of deplorable's remarks or Joe Biden's Independence Fall speech
saying maga Republicans are a threat to democracy, and asked
the next day, well, who's a maga Republican? And he said,
anyone who doesn't accept the result of a legitimate election,
namely the election of twenty twenty. And yes, tens of
(13:52):
millions of Republican voters think or fear or suspect that
the twenty twenty election wasn't on the level. But that
does not mean that they don't want free elections. They
do want free elections exactly.
Speaker 2 (14:05):
And what's the problem. I mean, you got over sixty percent. Then,
even to this day, Democrats and Republicans that question the
result of the twenty twenty election, it's never been adjudicated.
It's handled, you know, by the media that just says, oh,
you don't believe that, Well, if you don't believe that,
then you know, you're some sort of neanderthal.
Speaker 3 (14:25):
Well, you know, I think it actually has been a
I think there were various you know, because there were
a lot of lawsuits at the time that the courts
all throughout. But you know, my perspective on that at
this point is that I almost don't even care whether
there was fraudulent voting, whether there was tampering or not.
What I care about is that tens of millions of
(14:46):
my fellow Americans think that there was, or fear that
there was. And what's so striking to me is that
neither party in Washington has made any effort to address
this fear. Because the fact that this many Americans have
this level of mistrust in our elections is itself a
constitutional crisis, and it shows to me how little respect
(15:11):
people in the system on both sides of the isle
have for us. Because if you really believe in government
by the people, then anything that's important to the people,
if the people have this fear a concern that that
is this important, Even if you feel the fear is groundless,
you make it your business to address that fear, because
(15:32):
anything that the people care about is by definition important
because the people should be king in our system exact
And if I had been, if I had been Nancy
Pelosi or Kevin McCarthy or Schumer or McConnell on January seventh,
my first order of business I would have gotten with
the other three and I would have said, look, the
American people. Americans don't trust, you know, the elections. What
(15:55):
we need to do is, first we need a commission,
say like the nine to eleven mission staff, and we
have to staff it be led by people that literally
everyone in the country trusts. And in our polarized environment,
finding a bunch of people that everyone trusts, I don't know,
maybe would be headed up by Tom Hanks or something
like that, you know, but whoever, you.
Speaker 2 (16:16):
Know, maybe yeah, maybe not, but still you're investigate it,
right and just like follow all the leads so the people.
Speaker 3 (16:26):
And the other thing to do is I think that
both parties could come together and do a grand bargain,
a bipartisan campaign bill. Republicans are more concerned about election security,
Democrats want easier access to the ballot. My feeling is,
you know, no American citizens should have to jump through
hoops to exercise this fundamental right. And on the other hand, no,
(16:47):
Americans should have to fear that anyone not entitled to
vote as voting And why won't they do that, because frankly,
both parties would rather milk this issue for anger, you know,
to to juice their base to fire and to get
their small daughter donations, then they would to actually address
this issue. And that, to me, that's such a lack
of respect to the American people. It's a powerful symptom
(17:11):
of what has happened to democracy in the land of
its birth.
Speaker 2 (17:15):
They do this at their own expense then, because what
happened is the issue is trust. If I don't trust you,
I don't care if you're a Republican or Democrat. If
I don't trust you, we got a problem we can't communicate.
And this is what it's come down to, is that
you've got, like I said, over sixty percent of the
people saying I don't trust a number, you know. And
(17:35):
then you say, well, it's been adjudicated. Yes, there's been
over sixty maybe seventy different court cases. But then on technicality,
I mean, there's been some wins out of it, and
there's things that are coming out, you know, slowly but surely,
because that's the process that we go through where you
find out that oh yeah, okay, we had people that
were dead voting and it wasn't just one or two.
(17:58):
They are sizeable numbers, these numbers that are coming out
right now, and even an error in Atlanta, in Georgia
where Rothensberger was so protective about all this stuff, but
he had no sense, there was no sense of earnestness
about hey looking into this. It was just hey, you know,
you're questioning me and your you know. And he took
(18:18):
it personally as opposed to as you're saying and suggesting.
And I agree with you that you've got to be
able to stand back, you know, from this and say,
all right, I've got to you know, if the issue
is the consent of the government, I've got to respond
to that, because that is a constitutional predicate. If if
there is no longer consent of the govern and it's
(18:39):
compromises something that you manufactured, well, then that's the constitutional
crisis in and of itself, is it not?
Speaker 3 (18:46):
It is. I mean to reaffirm, of course, my non
partisan stance or other bipartisan stance, because I feel that
I take the side of all Americans on both sides
of the Aisle. I'm not going to express an opinion
on whether or not the election was fair, but the
fact that neither no one in either party has attempted
to really address that fear on the part of so
(19:08):
many Americans that speaks volumes about how little they respect us.
Speaker 2 (19:13):
Well, it's an issue for ourselves, how little do we
respect the Constitution. We have to understand that integrity is
key to the validity of our constitution. If it gets compromised,
the foundation falls on itself. And you know, I mean
here we are, almost seventy years later, we still can't
figure out who killed JFK. And I know these are
(19:36):
conspiratorial issues, and I'm not trying to get you to
go down some rabbit hole here, but there's a lot
of questions here and doubts that should been solved, should
have been especially you know, when you think about the
millions of dollars that were spent investigating you know, JFK.
We avoided, to your point, investigating what happened in the
twenty twenty election. We spend a lot of money, millions
(19:58):
of dollars, investigating, adjudicating, and putting in prison hundreds hundreds
of patriots who just you know, came to d C
and said he got a problem, you know, and how
is that unconstitutional? I'm not talking about the people that
broke windows and did damage. I get that, although you know,
(20:20):
that's in contrast to the people who what six months earlier,
came to d C and destroyed property. And I didn't
hear about anybody going to jail for an endless amount
of time, you know, from Black Lives Matter or Antifa
during that period of time. So again, relevant to our
constitution and what's fair and right and just there just
seems to be this discrepancy and these these emotions and
(20:45):
questions are hanging in the balance, and it puts it
to me that's a threat to our democracy. You know.
Speaker 3 (20:52):
Again, I'm not going to offer an opinion on January
sixth because of my stance, but I think what we
need to focus on is how do we put the
American peaceeople back in charge? Amen, I'm with you, because
that's what we have to do. And maybe I can
say a little bit about my effort and about voter dollars,
because I think that's kind of germane at this point,
So please.
Speaker 2 (21:10):
Go go ahead. I'm sorry, you know, I no, no, No,
we're just.
Speaker 3 (21:14):
We're following the flow. We're going with the flow, and
I think we're covering a lot of important things and
this is really the issue. So I lead this effort.
My goal is to put the American people in charge
by making us the donors who pay for these election campaigns.
As I was saying earlier, these election campaigns are fabulously expensive,
(21:34):
and thanks to the Supreme Court, we can't place any
limit on the cost of elections the way they do
in every other wealthy democracy, because the Court decided in
its infinite wisdom that money is itself speech. Okay, that's
the hand we're dealt. But what we can do in
response is to make ourselves the donors. And the way
we do that is a system that I call voter dollars.
(21:57):
It has also been called democracy dollars democracy vouchers, but
it's been used in Seattle for city elections since twenty seventeen.
I don't like the implementation because they used paper vouchers
rather than a rather than online accounts. But the way
it would work is that when you register to vote,
you get an online account and a single national website,
(22:20):
and for every two year cycle federal election cycle, you
get an allotment of campaign cash one hundred dollars per
voter in a presidential year, of fifty dollars per voter
in the midterms, which are cheaper. You can't take the
money out and spend it, but you go online and
you direct that money to the candidates you support, so
you know, you'd log onto your account, and you know
(22:41):
that the races that you're in which you can vote
for and contribute money to come up for the for
your House district, if there's a Senate race in your
state that year, and of course in a presidential year
for the White House, and there'll be a pocket, you know,
pockets for the primary and for the general, and anytime
day or night when you access the internet, you can
(23:03):
send that money. It's much easier than the actual active voting.
You don't have to go to a physical place. And
if we fund the system at the robust level that
I'm calling for, then candidates who want to serve us
can get enough money from us from the voters to
run a strong campaign and their opponent no longer has
an excuse for taking money from George Soros or Elon Musk,
(23:26):
big oil, big pharma. You need it.
Speaker 2 (23:28):
You got to find a way to cut that off,
that outside money, that particularly in these local races, when
you've got people that aren't locally involved having such grave
influence in these local elections.
Speaker 3 (23:42):
Yes, and particularly service of many of the smaller states
and swing states, you have huge amounts of out of
state spending. Now, unfortunately the Supreme Court won't let us
at this point cut off this outside spending. And so
people have said to me, well, then want the billionaires
just swamp your voter dollar system with the even more money.
But I have two answers to that. One is that
(24:03):
Jeff Bezos tried to do exactly that in Seattle in
twenty eighteen. He and his cronies decided they wanted to
I think stop it was a surcharge on the property tax.
They wanted a city council that was more, more pliant,
and so they invested an unprecedented million and a half
and seven city council races. And because the voters of
(24:25):
Seattle had been well educated to the role of money
in politics and to how their democracy vouchers were part
of their influence and say in how they were governed,
it completely backfired, and the press, the media were outraged,
that people were outraged, and the Bezos candidates went down
to defeat. Now, this reform that I'm talking for talking about,
(24:46):
it's not going to come from Washington because everyone they're
there are two dependent on their donors. They can no
longer They are not going to lead on this. But
when we get the really big ground swell of you
and cross you know, Americans, left right and center, which
for this reform to make it happen, the American people
will understand. And when they end any candidate that takes
(25:10):
that benefits from that kind of outside spending, or takes
money from corporate interests or other or unions, any other
special interest, the people are going to punish those candidates
at the polls. And also once we get once we
get a voter dollar system and have built that political
strength and institutionalize that, then we can take the final step,
(25:30):
which is a campaign finance constitutional amendment that will effectively
overturn but leave e Balo and all these other cases
and make possible us to make up make it possible
to limit spending, and then we can actually lower the
cost of elections, and then the voter dollar system will
cost less money because you won't need as much money
to run a campaign. But that's down the road.
Speaker 2 (25:51):
Dan, what do you say? People might say, well, look
at there's always the argument about voter ide. Eighty percent
of America says they want vote or id you do
something like this, and they say, well, there's and of
course the argument is, well, people can't access it's a
problematic they don't, you know, I mean, it's it's to me,
it's a bit of a silly argument, but that's just me.
(26:14):
You do this and you you give this money out,
and some people might say, well, what about poor people,
how are they going to access? Everybody across the board
gets fifty they get a hundred bucks and it comes
from you know, from the treasury.
Speaker 3 (26:26):
Yes, I mean it's it's part of the federal budget.
So but as far as well, I guess people who
don't own a computer or a smartphone would would you know,
if you can't access online, then that's that can be
a problem for them. But we can have just make
sure that there's a certain number of public computers in
public libraries or in police stations where have you, that
(26:48):
people can go to. We might also have a system
of paper vouchers as an alternative for people who don't
have a computer or who don't like computers, as far
as you know, as far as is given the concern
about who is voting and whether everyone who's voting is
entitled to you talked about voter ID. I think that
(27:10):
a voter ID law is fine as long as there's
flexibility on the documentation that you need to produce in
order to get identification, and as long as and I
think the government should provide this ID for free, so
that you don't have to have any money to exercise
this basic right. There's a lot to be said for
(27:32):
a national ID card as they have in I think
most other wealthy countries, that has all kinds of security
features so that it cannot possibly be forged. That could
also help with the enforcement of our immigration laws, for example.
So there's a lot that can be done there. I
think that issue that's an implementation issue that can be addressed.
I would like to address because you said federal treasury.
(27:52):
So one of the most frequent objection I get is,
wait a minute, my tax dollar is going for foodstad
as for politicians. I don't want to give these buns
any money. And I think I should respond to that,
And one first response is is a practical matter there.
These campaigns are very expensive. Candidates are going to get
this money from somewhere. If they don't get it from us,
(28:15):
they're going to keep getting it from the special interests
they have right now, and we the people are still
going to be out in the cold. My second response
is this reform will pay for itself dozens of times
over in wasteful spending that lobbyists extract from Congress. Because
the lobbyists and their clients donate to campaigns. Suddenly Congress
(28:35):
can tell these lobbyists to take a hike because the
Congress is getting its money from the voters and is
answering only to us. We're all kinds of wasteful spending.
Tax deductions for corporations that aren'tic have no economic value.
It would take us actually a long way toward balancing
the budget, which we need to do. So those are
(28:55):
those are my two responses, And thank you for bringing
that up.
Speaker 2 (28:58):
Well. To me, it's always been about who you're beholden to.
You know, you and I had this discussion before you
know today, and that is that when you get elected,
during your orientation, uh, you know, they'll ask these politicians,
you know these freshly you know these freshmen coming into
office and say, okay, what what are you going to do? Well,
(29:18):
you know, I'm fighting for this cause, for my constituent.
That's the most important thing I can do. And they
go bad, bad answer. You know your number one job.
Speaker 3 (29:28):
Your job, Your job is to raise enough money for
the next campaign.
Speaker 2 (29:33):
And guess what that starts as soon as this meeting
is over. So as soon as this meeting is over,
you go work the phones, right, you work.
Speaker 3 (29:40):
At both parties have both parties have call centers set
up from what within walking distance of the capital with
and you go into a cubicle like in a customer
service floor of any company, and there's for specifically for
you in your district is a whole list of donors.
And I think maybe the a little bit of personal
(30:01):
information for each about each donors so that when you
call them up you can say, you know, say Biff,
you know, how is Buffy enjoying the bar, you know,
the garden Club? And how is Biff Junior liking Princeton?
And you know, I depend on you for your leadership
and support and can you help me out with you
know five thousand dollars for my re election. A Republican congressman,
(30:23):
God bless him, David Jolly from Florida. I think he
only stayed there one term because he was so disgusted
and in twenty sixteen, so we're douking nine years ago,
he blew the whistle on this. He said that the
typical member of Congress was spending thirty hours a week
in DC dialing for they called it dialing for dollars, right,
instead of instead of doing the people's business. And of course,
(30:45):
since the cost of elections has skyrocketed across the last
four cycles, that they have to be spending a lot
more than just thirty hours today, one has to assume.
So it's really the most important skill that any politician
needs to have if you want to go into national politics.
(31:06):
Is fundraising, is begging for money, and you have to
ask yourself, does anyone become a leader that way? And
I think that's also one of the reasons why insident
in the presidential races. So many of the candidates are
just so lacking in leadership qualities, lacking in convictions and courage,
lacking in good ideas. It's very destructive. But on the
(31:29):
other hand, I think the good news in all of
this that we got to remember is this money driven
system has over time, it is it has caused our
so called elected, our representatives, to unlearned democracy, to forget
about the people, to lose respect for us, to not
(31:50):
listen to us. But for the rest of us, for
normal people. Politics is only a tiny sliver of our lives.
And the American people have not forgotten that. I'm America
stands for freedom for government by the people. The American
people very much. We want our rifles saying how we
are governed. We believe in democracy, and if we can
(32:11):
just put the people back in charge, the system's going
to work very well. Again. I mean, you've got to remember,
I'm speaking in my capacity as an historian. I mean,
the Smfield was German history. But I look at our
history and you think about the early thirties to the
early sixties before presidents lying to us about Vietnam did
so much damage to our democracy. But in that period
(32:32):
we elect a string of five presidents that are are
very good, are downright great, you know, Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, JFK.
Lynna Johnson was a good president. On the domestic front,
gave us Medicare, medicaid, civil rights. He ruined his presidency
with Vietnam. But at home and during those years, this
(32:53):
country was unstoppable. I mean, think about it. But because
the American people were in charge. You know, we reinvent
our government to survive the Great Depression, We invent you know,
we rescue people from destitution with social Security invented in
you know, nineteen thirty five. We defeat Tranny unto continents
(33:14):
in World War Two. We rescue Western Europe from economic
chaos and communism with the Marshall Plan, the greatest act
of generosity of any country in history. We lead the
way in founding NATO. And in the sixties we rally
to doctor King and to Presidents Kennedy and Johnson, and
we end segregation and black people get the vote back.
(33:35):
And in nineteen sixty five, with the Voting Rights Act,
our country became the world's first and only multi racial democracy,
which is a stunning achievement. And you just so, I
guess the point is democracy works when the American people
are in charge. This country can do amazing things. And
I think we will do amazing things again. And voter
(33:56):
dollars is not a magic wand but we don't need
to fix everything this year and next. What we need
is a shared goal, a concrete rallying point that's achievable
that Republicans and Democrats can rally to, can can join
hands together to take back, to take to restore the republic.
Speaker 2 (34:17):
Something that's going to take us out of the political
realm because politics has gotten so mean and ugly that
we've lost sight of the greater American idea. And that's
what I'm hearing you say, and I agree with you.
I think that there were certain things along the way.
You mentioned FDR and LBJ as well. I think that
(34:39):
part of the unfortunate thing with LBJ, as history is
is showing us, is that there was manipulation there. It
was it was politically driven some of that stuff that
he came up with, you know, as he as he
told somebody in one of his constituents that you know,
if they passed the bill, they would have blacks voting
(35:01):
for them for the next hundred years. Well, you know,
and when you look at the result of what happened
in in the mid sixties with you know, some of
these things that he put into play here. It didn't
elevate black people. I mean even Bob Woodson you know,
looks back historically and said, you know, blacks were much wealthier,
they were happier, the marriages were hanging together, there was
(35:23):
less fatherlessness. I think it was you know, single digit
that was in the black community. And as soon as
you know, Johnson comes in and passes, uh, you know,
passes the bill and has the influence on the black community,
all of a sudden, you got this dramatic increase of
you know, fatherlessness amongst the black black communities. And in
(35:49):
some of it, you know, I say, you know, you
get these unintentional consequences I referenced earlier, Dan, And you
know the challenge we have with the bureaucracy is once
something is in it's very rare that they can go
back and say, hey, look at let's adjust you know,
I think a good idea at the beginning, but the
way it's being implemented, you know, just like you talked
about with you know, with Citizens United, what was the
(36:12):
good things about it? What what was it that could
be derived that would be would have been helpful and
uh and what what adjustments If it's worthwhile to make adjustments.
You just say, you know what, that was a bad
idea at the time, it's even a worse idea now,
and let's let's eradicate it.
Speaker 3 (36:29):
Well, you know, it'd be great to get rid of
Citizens United, but there are only two ways to get
rid of a Supreme Court decision about the constitutionality of laws.
One is for the Court to reverse itself, which is
not happening. I think that's clear that the Court's not
going anywhere, that the majority that supported that that decision
is not going out of anywhere. The other way is
(36:50):
via constitutional amendment. And there is a very good organization
called American Promise that is promoting a campaign finance constitutional amendment,
and they built an admirable amount of support, But realistically
it is so easy to block a constitutional amendment. My
view is that until we got to get voter dollars first,
(37:11):
because that will defang the special interest that otherwise would
block this amendment. And I also think that voter dollars
will reduce the polarization and part is an anger in
our politics because I think that first of all, because
it's something that it's a great way for Americans to
come together and affirm the shared ideals that make us Americans.
(37:34):
Because it's ideals that make us Americans. Government by the
people maybe the most important because we invented it in
its modern form. And I think if Americans, if we
can come together and not such a big win for
ourselves together, we're going to work together more effectively on
everything we need to do. But anyway, I'm rambling a
little bit and I cut you well.
Speaker 2 (37:53):
I think you bring up something your dan that triggers
the thought is that really, you know, like any organization,
people want to be hurt, you know, and particularly with
this great American idea. I mean, as we said several times,
a government of four buy and we the people. I
mean that statement in and of itself is quite the commandment.
(38:14):
I believe for the constituents that you cannot sit on
your couch, put your heels on the desk and just
think somehow you did your part because you voted. This
is the type of government that you need to activate.
I say, activate your citizenship. You've got to be involved.
I mean, how much time are you spending a week
or a month, even you know, calling your congressman, holding
(38:36):
them in check, just saying hey, look at I'm watching
you and this is what we have to do is
activate and if if doing it with donor dollars, begins
to do that and the people have say again in
their government, Wow, I mean, the sky's the limit, Dan,
I think you know the potest we have.
Speaker 3 (38:55):
So whether you see that, because and one of the
things that we'll get, we get a lot of things
with voter doar. We get better candidates who want to
serve us, we get a political system that works, and
we get better voters because now you have so much
more reason to inform yourself and you feel empowered. One
of the things I think that is one of the
political strengths of this reform and one of the ways
(39:18):
that it benefits the country is the way that it
directly and sort of vividly, concretely empowers each one of us.
Right now, so many Americans tune out politics because we
feel powerless. And that's not irrational because to a larger
ge we are powerless. But this way, we literally put
the coin of political influence into your hands to do
(39:40):
is U see fit? And candidates now come to you
not just for your vote, but for something they needed
a lot more urgently than the vote, which is the
money because if they don't have the money, they can't
ask anyone for their vote. And I think it will
really put us in the driver's seat where we belong,
as our founding fathers wanted for us when they wrote
our constitution. And I think that once again with the
(40:02):
people in charge, I think there's no limit to what
this country can achieve because we have so many strengths.
One thing I would like to say also about the
ugliness in our politics, it's coming from the political level.
It's coming because the money creates an incentive to divide
and conquer, because not because they're beholden to their donors,
(40:24):
neither party is delivering for us on the basic economic
needs that we all have. And so what they do
is they play upon our prejudices to turn us against
each other, to distract us from our failures. And the
thing is that, but below the toxic level of politics,
we actually are less divided by our prejudices than we
(40:47):
have ever been. I mean, you think just about racial
prejudice today versus sixty years ago. I'm not saying, look,
we still have a ways to go, and I'm not
saying there still is not prejudice and everyone has prejudices.
There's not just prejudice by rays, by class or religion.
Of course, we're human. Human beings have prejudices, but we
are actually below the toxic level of politics in our
(41:08):
communities and our workplaces, in our schools. We are more
open to each other. We are more fair to each other,
and we are more kind to each other than we
have ever been. So the notion that we Americans cannot
come together and you know, put our heads together, roll
up our sleeves, use our common sense and fix what's
broken in the country is nonsense. The only thing that's
(41:30):
holding us back and turning us against each other is
this money driven politics. We fix that, I say, this
country will be unstoppable.
Speaker 2 (41:37):
Yeah, I agree with you, Dan, because the thing is
is that politics is out of order. What should happen
is politics should be downstream culture. And something happened that
shifted politics to where they became upstream culture. So politics
is influencing culture, not the other way around. And that
(41:58):
I see as as cause an incredible amount of problem
and friction among the people because, as you say, and
I think the donor dollars would contribute to this, because
we would have a say and when we're being manipulated
by these politicians. We're not going to take them, you know,
as gospel. We're going to say, well, I'm going to
(42:18):
look into that. Or you know, that doesn't that that
doesn't square up because we're going to appreciate and honor
the culture above politics. And if we do that and
we're honoring our neighbor more than a politician, I think
you've got a different dynamic potentially that could occur here
that it's win win for all. What do you think that.
Speaker 3 (42:37):
You know, that's such an interesting and suggestive thought. I mean,
what you're saying about politics currently being upstream from culture,
I guess the main the main way in which that
resonates with me. And it may not be exactly the
same kind of mechanism or thought process that you're thinking about,
but what seems to me is that having a political
(42:58):
system where the public fail of politics is always fake.
Where As Hillary Clinton notoriously said in one of our
overpaid Wall Street speeches, politicians have two positions in every issue.
That the private position for the donors which is what
they which is what matters, and the public position for
the voters that's inherently corrupting and that, and that in turn,
(43:22):
it's morally corrupting. It is part of what I think
has damaged the moral fiber of American society. And I
think that when you have leaders, it prevents because the
problem is, you can go to Washington with the best
intentions and be a man or woman of integrity. But
if you have to play this game and raise money
and then turn around and try to buy off the
(43:43):
voters with some empty slogans, which is what they do,
it corrupts you. It ruins you, and it's not even
their fault. I think one thing I always like to
say is that I think this is not something that
any of us chose. The donors and the and the
and the donors who give the money, the candidates who
take it. I'm not saying that they that they haven't
(44:06):
become corrupted or selfish, but ultimately they're doing what they
have to do. They're responding to the perverted incentives of
this system. This has change the incentives. You start getting
better behavior. And so I always like to say, you know, ultimately,
the real dividing line in this country is not between
Republicans and Democrats. It's between the American people as a
(44:27):
whole against a broken system. Of a broken system is
the money. Our fellow Americans are not the enemy. The
money is the enemy.
Speaker 2 (44:35):
Yeah, look at the results, and you know you're you know,
you're an academic. You always look at the end to say, Okay,
what is the result that we're getting what we're putting
into it, and uh, and this is this is what
we're seeing. Quite clearly, I agree with you. The system
is broken. It doesn't give our politicians, people that we
(44:56):
want to represent us a fair chance to go and
be success because we're putting them into a meat cleaver,
so to speak, a system that's already defined. They can
go in with their idealism and everything, and in a
matter of weeks, if that long, they're chopped up like
hamburger meat.
Speaker 3 (45:14):
I think they already get chopped up during when they're
running the campaign. And the other thing is you got
to ask yourself how many good people aren't going into politics?
Because you get people out there with great ideas and
who've got the courage to lead, and then they go
talk to a campaign manager and the first question from
the campaign manager is how much money can you raise?
Speaker 2 (45:36):
Right?
Speaker 3 (45:37):
Can are you a millionaire? Can you sell fund Do
you have millionaire friends? Can we hold a fundraiser at
your country club? And if the answer to those questions
is no, that campaign manager is going to say I'm
not going to work with you, and you've got no chance.
So we're also missing out on all kinds of talent,
right we could have in Washington.
Speaker 2 (45:56):
The other great thing look at, for example, Dan, I'm
sorry to cut you all here because we've only got
a couple of minutes left here, But look at Elon Musk.
Elon Musk is a talent.
Speaker 3 (46:05):
He's a very impressive guy. I personally don't like the
idea of someone basically buying a kind of cabinet position
to campaign donations, but he is a really impressive guy.
In any case, there's no shortage of really talented Americans
who are patriotic and of goodwill, who want to make
(46:25):
the country stronger, who want to help each other Americans.
One other thing about this voter dollars system is that
because now, right now, in the present, if you want
to challenge an incumbent, even in the House of Representatives,
you almost have to be a millionaire with millionaire friends.
But with voter dollars, we can get people in Congress
from all walks of American society, so that all kinds
(46:48):
of different points of view and we are represented, and
we can have primary care physicians and school principles or
teachers or police officers who have you, you know, real
estate agents anyway, people have all kinds of different so
that we don't just have this rich person's view in Congress.
Speaker 2 (47:08):
You're exactly right, Doctor Dan McMillan has been our guest.
He leads Save Democracy in America. It's a nonpartisan campaign
to put the American people back in charge by making
voters the donors who fund election campaigns. Dan, we got
a minute left. I'm going to let you summarize and
bring us home if you would please.
Speaker 3 (47:25):
Okay, I think the thing I most want to say
is that it's easy to be discouraged. But let's not
forget that for every other people on earth, democracy is
an option. For us, it's existential because it defines us.
It's who we are, right and no one does government
by the people better than Americans, except when we are
(47:45):
thwarted by factors beyond our control. But the thing is,
we just have to remember this fight for voter dollars
to take our country back may not be easy, but
it is simple. All we really need to remember is
who we are and what our country stands for.
Speaker 2 (48:02):
Well, Dan McMillan, thank you so much for being with us.
Appreciate the time, sir, you take care.
Speaker 3 (48:06):
Thank you very much, Bill.
Speaker 2 (48:08):
Doctor Dan McMillan saved democracy in America. He's also the
author of the book How Could This Happen? Explaining the Holocaust?
Thank you for sharing a part of your day with us,
and I hope you've been blessed and informed by what
doctor Dan has brought to the marketplace in order for
(48:28):
us to think about is it, you know, can we
do something different? Can we save democracy? Can we As
you've heard me talk before, I'm a firm believer in
a government of for by we the people, and we
have been undermined in so many different ways. And what
doctor Dan is bringing to the fore here is one
(48:51):
just I think, a great idea that has potential. But
it's not going to be anything that happens overnight. You
know this. We've been working on this for almost two
hundred and fifty years. But you know there is a
time for you know, revolutionary ideas to come into I mean,
forget about saving democracy. Let's really maximize our democracy and
this great American idea that benefits all of us. So again,
(49:15):
thank you for being with us, and God bless you.
And may God bless you and keep you. May make
His face shine upon you, May he be gracious unto
you and give you peace. Thanks again for being with us.
Take care, God bless
The topics and opinions expressed in the following show are
solely those of the hosts and their guests, and not
those of W FOURCY Radio. It's employees are affiliates. We
make no recommendations or endorsements for radio show programs, services,
or products mentioned on air or on our web. No liability,
explicit or implied shall be extended to W four c
Y Radio or it's employees are affiliates. Any questions or
comments should be directed to those show hosts. Thank you
(00:20):
for choosing W four c Y Radio.
Speaker 2 (00:38):
Well you've heard it said that, you know, words matter
and names matter, like democracy, And it would appear that
ever since our democratic idea came into being, there's been
these antithical forces to undermine and knock it down. People
have said, well, this doesn't make sense, it's never been
done before, how can how can this happen? But yet
(01:01):
here we are, almost at two hundred and fifty years,
and this democratic republic keeps on marching about in spite
of antithical forces suggesting that, you know, we're going to
lose this democracy. And you know, sometimes I wonder if
they even understand what democracy is all about. Doctor Dan
McMillan is going to be joining us in just a moment.
(01:23):
He's the author of the book How Could This Happen,
which was about the Holocaust. We may touch on that,
but more importantly, what we want to talk about is
the group that he leads, which is Save Democracy in America.
It's a non partisan campaign to put the American people
back in charge by making voters the donors who fund
election campaigns now. Dan earned a PhD in German history
(01:46):
from Columbia University as well as a law degree. He's
taught college level history and prosecuted criminal cases at the
Brooklyn DA's office. I want to bring Dan on right now.
Dan McMillan, welcome the show. Good to have you with us, sir.
Speaker 3 (02:00):
Be with you. Bill.
Speaker 2 (02:01):
Well, our democracy has quite the history, and you know
today you wonder with some of these kids talking about
how our democracy is coming under threat, and I say kids,
there's politicians as well, and it's almost like going to
hit the pause button. Say, would you explain to me
what you mean by democracy? Is that a fair question?
Speaker 3 (02:21):
Well, I think there's some confusion out there, and I
think especially the folks in Washington, I think are very
confused about it. In fact, I think they've kind of
forgotten what it is. And to me, it's what Lincoln
said at Gettysburg. Government of the people, by the people,
for the people, and the government is really no longer
of us or by us, because long ago the people
(02:46):
stop being the true constituents of our elected representatives, especially
at the national level, they're donors. The people who pay
for the stratospherically high cost of their election campaigns are
their true constituents. That's who they listen to. And we
the people have become a nuisance. I mean, we're a
(03:06):
necessary evil because they still need our votes to get
into office. That makes us necessary. But we're an evil
because ultimately it's the donors they have to answer to,
and then they just have to figure out what slogans
to offer us or ugly personal attacks on their opponents
to get them to fifty one percent. So and for
(03:28):
that reason, also, we're not really getting government for the
people either. Ultimately, now we're getting government that kind of
isn't really working for anyone because in order to raise
the kind of cash that you need to run for office,
and you know, the minimum price to the Senate has
to be at least ten million for a campaign, and
we're seeing campaigns north of one hundred million now is
(03:50):
not at all in common. A cool billion or more
for the White House seems to be the minimum. And
to raise that money, you basically have to take money
from everyone. It's not enough just to take money from
if you're in the House, to take money from the
top industry in your district. You've got to take money
from every single special and just out there who will
throw it at you. And what that means is you
(04:12):
sense yourself to avoid offending any of these special interests,
and the end result is that both parties are kind
of blocked from offering a real positive program. There's no
way forward. I guess the most dramatic example of how
the system has broken down because of this is that
we're looking at we're staring down federal budget deficits a
(04:34):
two and a half even three trillion dollars as far
as the eye can see, and we're already getting to
a point where all this public borrowing is going to
start crowding up private borrowing, driving up interest rates. A
lot of foreign borrowers who have been buying American public
debt are now saying maybe We're not a good credit
risks after all. Another example, of course, is the cost
(04:57):
of healthcare and how difficult it is to add access it.
We pay twice as much per healthcare per American per
capita as in many other wealthy societies that were getting
terrible results. But you can't you can't even talk about
how we're going to fix that without if you have
to kowtow to the lobbyists for pharma, for health insurance
(05:19):
companies and saw on. Anyway, I'm taken too long to
get to the point, but I think the thing is,
what I'm saying is that the desperate hunger for this
campaign cash you can paralyze the system, and long ago,
decades ago, already it excluded us, the American people, from
the process.
Speaker 2 (05:35):
Okay, I want to get into that, but before we do,
let's go back. Even in terms of people who are
put up, you know, that are running for office. These
have been predetermined, They've been already, you know, whether it's
the party or other interests, other money, people who have
determined who we're going to vote for. You know, what
(05:56):
choices do we have?
Speaker 3 (05:57):
Then? Yes, and that's a very good way of putting it.
Bill and now It's not so much that I think
groups of donors get together and pick candidates, but the way,
by default, in effect, the donors do choose the candidates
that we're allowed to vote for, and set and set
limits to what the candidates can say, because you know,
if you're going to be even taken seriously by the media,
(06:19):
if your campaign's going to be viable, then the year
before the election year, you already have to have raised
an enormous sum. If you're running for the House, it's
got to be I think at least a half a million.
In the Senate, you're talking several million dollars and so on.
And if your idea, if you or your ideas are
unattractive to deep pocket of donors or even uninteresting, you
(06:40):
don't draw their money, and your ideas and your candidacy
die out, out of sight and out of mind. And
so you've got this Darwinian process where only candidates that
are attractive to donors come to the surface, and those
are the candidates we're allowed to vote for.
Speaker 2 (06:55):
So even having some other ideas that are you know,
that need to be represented and discussed, are marginalized right
from the get go. They're scrutinized, so they're not even
part of the national debate. If it's a federal candidate,
even on a local level or a state level, that
(07:15):
that bit of the conversation is limited because they've hand
selected or they've already predetermined. Quote is that we're going
to vote for so Dan, you know, you talked about
this shift, this paradigm shift that occurred. What happened. Let's
go back historically and remind the people of what happened.
What opened up the door to big money coming in
(07:39):
and controlling our elections.
Speaker 3 (07:40):
Probably the pivotal event was a Supreme Court case in
nineteen seventy six called Buckley v. Valeo, and that was
the Buckley Vivaleo is the parent case of Citizens United
and many other cases that we hear about. Citizens United
is an important one, but it all goes back to
Buckley and what happened to Buckley. It was a crucial
(08:00):
shift in that case. These seven justices decided that money
spent to purchase influence in government by helping candidates, that
this money is itself free speech. Up till that point,
free speech was just what you and I are doing,
and what free speech means kind of in every pretty
much in every other country on earth. That is, free
(08:23):
people get together and express their ideas without fear of
any kind of punishment or coercion for expressing the ideas.
It didn't include the money you might spend to purchase
an audience for your speech. And more directly to the point,
these days, if you have enormous amounts of money, you
can drown out the speech of ordinary citizens like you
(08:46):
and myself. And so that shift it crippled that ruling
in Buckley Byoboleo, they struck down parts of the Federal
Election Campaign Act of nineteen seventy four, which was a
great finance law regulation. And I guess another development was
that toward the end of the seventies, the party organizations
(09:08):
ceased to be the chief vehicle through which candidates reached
the voters. They used to be mass organizations at the
local level and were replaced instead of by expensive media
buys by TV ads That made campaigns more expensive, and that,
between that and Buckley v. Balo, perhaps a couple of
other factors, by the end of the seventies, the arms
(09:29):
race in campaigns between the parties in fundraising and spending
took off, and the cost of campaigns has risen much
faster than inflation ever since Citizens United opened the floodgates.
Together with another decision was a decision by these Court
of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Speech now
(09:51):
made possible to super pack, which is a political committee
that nominally is independent of campaigns, but in fact does
core need extensively with the campaigns. They helped that the
non coordination is a fiction. It was required by the
court decision, but the rules determining coornation or a joke.
(10:11):
And basically a super pac can take donations of unlimited
size and spend unlimited amounts of money to help a
candidate they like or hurt the candidate's opponent. And you
can mean if if well. Elon Musk, for example, spent
close to three hundred million dollars last fall helping President Trump.
(10:32):
There was also also an enormous super pac spending, for example,
I think by George Soros and billionaires in the Democrat side.
This problem is one hundred percent by partisan both parties.
Amazing use of super PACs.
Speaker 2 (10:45):
Is there unintended consequences here? Dan? When this was first
addressed by the court, was there some positive benefit to
consider when they were looking at citizens United.
Speaker 3 (10:57):
I don't I don't see how I think that What
they did is that the justices on the Court under
John Roberts decided that they wanted to apply this principle
that money is speech to kind of the most rigorous
way possible, and they thought that they were striking a
blow for the freedom of speech. And I guess in
some sense they did could make possible complete freedom of
(11:20):
speech for special interests or corporations, for billionaires, but at
the expense of everyone else's speech, which was not hurt
at all.
Speaker 2 (11:29):
Yeah, well, you would have thought, again, in terms of
doing no harm, that the courts would have looked at
this to say, what is this going to do to
the voter politic? And basically they needcap the voter politic?
Did they not?
Speaker 3 (11:43):
You know? Completely? And I have to tell you, well,
I have no insight into the motivations of our Supreme
Court justices. But you look at a decision, you know,
it's one thing to have made the decision of Buckley,
which I thought was really already a pretty clearly dumb idea.
To me, it's one of my favorite examples of the
triumph of book learning over common sense. I mean, you
(12:05):
need the handicap of a law degree for that to
make sense to you, right, I mean, I don't think
you could go into any bar in the country at
any hour and find seven, you know, normal people in
whatever state of ineberiation and get them to buy into
the idea that money equals speech. But there it goes.
At least in the Buckley decision, they had no way
to foresee only I think it was Lewis Powell wrote
(12:29):
the dissent and said this is going to cause problems.
But by twenty ten, by Citizens United, it was obvious
that money had done terrible damage to our democracy. Why
that did not bother the justices? Well, I don't know
them personally. I'm not a mind reader. It's, you know,
it almost enough to make you think that they are
(12:50):
hostile to government by the people. And as judges who
have life tenure on the court, they're accustomed to having
an enormous out of power in our political system and
not being accountable. And maybe they think it's better that
the people have less power and that people in Washington
are less and less accountable because the people can't be trusted.
(13:12):
There's a lot of that are politics. There are a
lot of people in Washington, I think, on both sides
of the isle, who think that the American people cannot
be trusted in some ways. I almost feel that that's
you know, I want to be quite a nonpartisan. But
on the Democratic side, when I think about Hillary Clinton's
(13:32):
Basket of deplorable's remarks or Joe Biden's Independence Fall speech
saying maga Republicans are a threat to democracy, and asked
the next day, well, who's a maga Republican? And he said,
anyone who doesn't accept the result of a legitimate election,
namely the election of twenty twenty. And yes, tens of
(13:52):
millions of Republican voters think or fear or suspect that
the twenty twenty election wasn't on the level. But that
does not mean that they don't want free elections. They
do want free elections exactly.
Speaker 2 (14:05):
And what's the problem. I mean, you got over sixty percent. Then,
even to this day, Democrats and Republicans that question the
result of the twenty twenty election, it's never been adjudicated.
It's handled, you know, by the media that just says, oh,
you don't believe that, Well, if you don't believe that,
then you know, you're some sort of neanderthal.
Speaker 3 (14:25):
Well, you know, I think it actually has been a
I think there were various you know, because there were
a lot of lawsuits at the time that the courts
all throughout. But you know, my perspective on that at
this point is that I almost don't even care whether
there was fraudulent voting, whether there was tampering or not.
What I care about is that tens of millions of
(14:46):
my fellow Americans think that there was, or fear that
there was. And what's so striking to me is that
neither party in Washington has made any effort to address
this fear. Because the fact that this many Americans have
this level of mistrust in our elections is itself a
constitutional crisis, and it shows to me how little respect
(15:11):
people in the system on both sides of the isle
have for us. Because if you really believe in government
by the people, then anything that's important to the people,
if the people have this fear a concern that that
is this important, Even if you feel the fear is groundless,
you make it your business to address that fear, because
(15:32):
anything that the people care about is by definition important
because the people should be king in our system exact
And if I had been, if I had been Nancy
Pelosi or Kevin McCarthy or Schumer or McConnell on January seventh,
my first order of business I would have gotten with
the other three and I would have said, look, the
American people. Americans don't trust, you know, the elections. What
(15:55):
we need to do is, first we need a commission,
say like the nine to eleven mission staff, and we
have to staff it be led by people that literally
everyone in the country trusts. And in our polarized environment,
finding a bunch of people that everyone trusts, I don't know,
maybe would be headed up by Tom Hanks or something
like that, you know, but whoever, you.
Speaker 2 (16:16):
Know, maybe yeah, maybe not, but still you're investigate it,
right and just like follow all the leads so the people.
Speaker 3 (16:26):
And the other thing to do is I think that
both parties could come together and do a grand bargain,
a bipartisan campaign bill. Republicans are more concerned about election security,
Democrats want easier access to the ballot. My feeling is,
you know, no American citizens should have to jump through
hoops to exercise this fundamental right. And on the other hand, no,
(16:47):
Americans should have to fear that anyone not entitled to
vote as voting And why won't they do that, because frankly,
both parties would rather milk this issue for anger, you know,
to to juice their base to fire and to get
their small daughter donations, then they would to actually address
this issue. And that, to me, that's such a lack
of respect to the American people. It's a powerful symptom
(17:11):
of what has happened to democracy in the land of
its birth.
Speaker 2 (17:15):
They do this at their own expense then, because what
happened is the issue is trust. If I don't trust you,
I don't care if you're a Republican or Democrat. If
I don't trust you, we got a problem we can't communicate.
And this is what it's come down to, is that
you've got, like I said, over sixty percent of the
people saying I don't trust a number, you know. And
(17:35):
then you say, well, it's been adjudicated. Yes, there's been
over sixty maybe seventy different court cases. But then on technicality,
I mean, there's been some wins out of it, and
there's things that are coming out, you know, slowly but surely,
because that's the process that we go through where you
find out that oh yeah, okay, we had people that
were dead voting and it wasn't just one or two.
(17:58):
They are sizeable numbers, these numbers that are coming out
right now, and even an error in Atlanta, in Georgia
where Rothensberger was so protective about all this stuff, but
he had no sense, there was no sense of earnestness
about hey looking into this. It was just hey, you know,
you're questioning me and your you know. And he took
(18:18):
it personally as opposed to as you're saying and suggesting.
And I agree with you that you've got to be
able to stand back, you know, from this and say,
all right, I've got to you know, if the issue
is the consent of the government, I've got to respond
to that, because that is a constitutional predicate. If if
there is no longer consent of the govern and it's
(18:39):
compromises something that you manufactured, well, then that's the constitutional
crisis in and of itself, is it not?
Speaker 3 (18:46):
It is. I mean to reaffirm, of course, my non
partisan stance or other bipartisan stance, because I feel that
I take the side of all Americans on both sides
of the Aisle. I'm not going to express an opinion
on whether or not the election was fair, but the
fact that neither no one in either party has attempted
to really address that fear on the part of so
(19:08):
many Americans that speaks volumes about how little they respect us.
Speaker 2 (19:13):
Well, it's an issue for ourselves, how little do we
respect the Constitution. We have to understand that integrity is
key to the validity of our constitution. If it gets compromised,
the foundation falls on itself. And you know, I mean
here we are, almost seventy years later, we still can't
figure out who killed JFK. And I know these are
(19:36):
conspiratorial issues, and I'm not trying to get you to
go down some rabbit hole here, but there's a lot
of questions here and doubts that should been solved, should
have been especially you know, when you think about the
millions of dollars that were spent investigating you know, JFK.
We avoided, to your point, investigating what happened in the
twenty twenty election. We spend a lot of money, millions
(19:58):
of dollars, investigating, adjudicating, and putting in prison hundreds hundreds
of patriots who just you know, came to d C
and said he got a problem, you know, and how
is that unconstitutional? I'm not talking about the people that
broke windows and did damage. I get that, although you know,
(20:20):
that's in contrast to the people who what six months earlier,
came to d C and destroyed property. And I didn't
hear about anybody going to jail for an endless amount
of time, you know, from Black Lives Matter or Antifa
during that period of time. So again, relevant to our
constitution and what's fair and right and just there just
seems to be this discrepancy and these these emotions and
(20:45):
questions are hanging in the balance, and it puts it
to me that's a threat to our democracy. You know.
Speaker 3 (20:52):
Again, I'm not going to offer an opinion on January
sixth because of my stance, but I think what we
need to focus on is how do we put the
American peaceeople back in charge? Amen, I'm with you, because
that's what we have to do. And maybe I can
say a little bit about my effort and about voter dollars,
because I think that's kind of germane at this point,
So please.
Speaker 2 (21:10):
Go go ahead. I'm sorry, you know, I no, no, No,
we're just.
Speaker 3 (21:14):
We're following the flow. We're going with the flow, and
I think we're covering a lot of important things and
this is really the issue. So I lead this effort.
My goal is to put the American people in charge
by making us the donors who pay for these election campaigns.
As I was saying earlier, these election campaigns are fabulously expensive,
(21:34):
and thanks to the Supreme Court, we can't place any
limit on the cost of elections the way they do
in every other wealthy democracy, because the Court decided in
its infinite wisdom that money is itself speech. Okay, that's
the hand we're dealt. But what we can do in
response is to make ourselves the donors. And the way
we do that is a system that I call voter dollars.
(21:57):
It has also been called democracy dollars democracy vouchers, but
it's been used in Seattle for city elections since twenty seventeen.
I don't like the implementation because they used paper vouchers
rather than a rather than online accounts. But the way
it would work is that when you register to vote,
you get an online account and a single national website,
(22:20):
and for every two year cycle federal election cycle, you
get an allotment of campaign cash one hundred dollars per
voter in a presidential year, of fifty dollars per voter
in the midterms, which are cheaper. You can't take the
money out and spend it, but you go online and
you direct that money to the candidates you support, so
you know, you'd log onto your account, and you know
(22:41):
that the races that you're in which you can vote
for and contribute money to come up for the for
your House district, if there's a Senate race in your
state that year, and of course in a presidential year
for the White House, and there'll be a pocket, you know,
pockets for the primary and for the general, and anytime
day or night when you access the internet, you can
(23:03):
send that money. It's much easier than the actual active voting.
You don't have to go to a physical place. And
if we fund the system at the robust level that
I'm calling for, then candidates who want to serve us
can get enough money from us from the voters to
run a strong campaign and their opponent no longer has
an excuse for taking money from George Soros or Elon Musk,
(23:26):
big oil, big pharma. You need it.
Speaker 2 (23:28):
You got to find a way to cut that off,
that outside money, that particularly in these local races, when
you've got people that aren't locally involved having such grave
influence in these local elections.
Speaker 3 (23:42):
Yes, and particularly service of many of the smaller states
and swing states, you have huge amounts of out of
state spending. Now, unfortunately the Supreme Court won't let us
at this point cut off this outside spending. And so
people have said to me, well, then want the billionaires
just swamp your voter dollar system with the even more money.
But I have two answers to that. One is that
(24:03):
Jeff Bezos tried to do exactly that in Seattle in
twenty eighteen. He and his cronies decided they wanted to
I think stop it was a surcharge on the property tax.
They wanted a city council that was more, more pliant,
and so they invested an unprecedented million and a half
and seven city council races. And because the voters of
(24:25):
Seattle had been well educated to the role of money
in politics and to how their democracy vouchers were part
of their influence and say in how they were governed,
it completely backfired, and the press, the media were outraged,
that people were outraged, and the Bezos candidates went down
to defeat. Now, this reform that I'm talking for talking about,
(24:46):
it's not going to come from Washington because everyone they're
there are two dependent on their donors. They can no
longer They are not going to lead on this. But
when we get the really big ground swell of you
and cross you know, Americans, left right and center, which
for this reform to make it happen, the American people
will understand. And when they end any candidate that takes
(25:10):
that benefits from that kind of outside spending, or takes
money from corporate interests or other or unions, any other
special interest, the people are going to punish those candidates
at the polls. And also once we get once we
get a voter dollar system and have built that political
strength and institutionalize that, then we can take the final step,
(25:30):
which is a campaign finance constitutional amendment that will effectively
overturn but leave e Balo and all these other cases
and make possible us to make up make it possible
to limit spending, and then we can actually lower the
cost of elections, and then the voter dollar system will
cost less money because you won't need as much money
to run a campaign. But that's down the road.
Speaker 2 (25:51):
Dan, what do you say? People might say, well, look
at there's always the argument about voter ide. Eighty percent
of America says they want vote or id you do
something like this, and they say, well, there's and of
course the argument is, well, people can't access it's a
problematic they don't, you know, I mean, it's it's to me,
it's a bit of a silly argument, but that's just me.
(26:14):
You do this and you you give this money out,
and some people might say, well, what about poor people,
how are they going to access? Everybody across the board
gets fifty they get a hundred bucks and it comes
from you know, from the treasury.
Speaker 3 (26:26):
Yes, I mean it's it's part of the federal budget.
So but as far as well, I guess people who
don't own a computer or a smartphone would would you know,
if you can't access online, then that's that can be
a problem for them. But we can have just make
sure that there's a certain number of public computers in
public libraries or in police stations where have you, that
(26:48):
people can go to. We might also have a system
of paper vouchers as an alternative for people who don't
have a computer or who don't like computers, as far
as you know, as far as is given the concern
about who is voting and whether everyone who's voting is
entitled to you talked about voter ID. I think that
(27:10):
a voter ID law is fine as long as there's
flexibility on the documentation that you need to produce in
order to get identification, and as long as and I
think the government should provide this ID for free, so
that you don't have to have any money to exercise
this basic right. There's a lot to be said for
(27:32):
a national ID card as they have in I think
most other wealthy countries, that has all kinds of security
features so that it cannot possibly be forged. That could
also help with the enforcement of our immigration laws, for example.
So there's a lot that can be done there. I
think that issue that's an implementation issue that can be addressed.
I would like to address because you said federal treasury.
(27:52):
So one of the most frequent objection I get is,
wait a minute, my tax dollar is going for foodstad
as for politicians. I don't want to give these buns
any money. And I think I should respond to that,
And one first response is is a practical matter there.
These campaigns are very expensive. Candidates are going to get
this money from somewhere. If they don't get it from us,
(28:15):
they're going to keep getting it from the special interests
they have right now, and we the people are still
going to be out in the cold. My second response
is this reform will pay for itself dozens of times
over in wasteful spending that lobbyists extract from Congress. Because
the lobbyists and their clients donate to campaigns. Suddenly Congress
(28:35):
can tell these lobbyists to take a hike because the
Congress is getting its money from the voters and is
answering only to us. We're all kinds of wasteful spending.
Tax deductions for corporations that aren'tic have no economic value.
It would take us actually a long way toward balancing
the budget, which we need to do. So those are
(28:55):
those are my two responses, And thank you for bringing
that up.
Speaker 2 (28:58):
Well. To me, it's always been about who you're beholden to.
You know, you and I had this discussion before you
know today, and that is that when you get elected,
during your orientation, uh, you know, they'll ask these politicians,
you know these freshly you know these freshmen coming into
office and say, okay, what what are you going to do? Well,
(29:18):
you know, I'm fighting for this cause, for my constituent.
That's the most important thing I can do. And they
go bad, bad answer. You know your number one job.
Speaker 3 (29:28):
Your job, Your job is to raise enough money for
the next campaign.
Speaker 2 (29:33):
And guess what that starts as soon as this meeting
is over. So as soon as this meeting is over,
you go work the phones, right, you work.
Speaker 3 (29:40):
At both parties have both parties have call centers set
up from what within walking distance of the capital with
and you go into a cubicle like in a customer
service floor of any company, and there's for specifically for
you in your district is a whole list of donors.
And I think maybe the a little bit of personal
(30:01):
information for each about each donors so that when you
call them up you can say, you know, say Biff,
you know, how is Buffy enjoying the bar, you know,
the garden Club? And how is Biff Junior liking Princeton?
And you know, I depend on you for your leadership
and support and can you help me out with you
know five thousand dollars for my re election. A Republican congressman,
(30:23):
God bless him, David Jolly from Florida. I think he
only stayed there one term because he was so disgusted
and in twenty sixteen, so we're douking nine years ago,
he blew the whistle on this. He said that the
typical member of Congress was spending thirty hours a week
in DC dialing for they called it dialing for dollars, right,
instead of instead of doing the people's business. And of course,
(30:45):
since the cost of elections has skyrocketed across the last
four cycles, that they have to be spending a lot
more than just thirty hours today, one has to assume.
So it's really the most important skill that any politician
needs to have if you want to go into national politics.
(31:06):
Is fundraising, is begging for money, and you have to
ask yourself, does anyone become a leader that way? And
I think that's also one of the reasons why insident
in the presidential races. So many of the candidates are
just so lacking in leadership qualities, lacking in convictions and courage,
lacking in good ideas. It's very destructive. But on the
(31:29):
other hand, I think the good news in all of
this that we got to remember is this money driven
system has over time, it is it has caused our
so called elected, our representatives, to unlearned democracy, to forget
about the people, to lose respect for us, to not
(31:50):
listen to us. But for the rest of us, for
normal people. Politics is only a tiny sliver of our lives.
And the American people have not forgotten that. I'm America
stands for freedom for government by the people. The American
people very much. We want our rifles saying how we
are governed. We believe in democracy, and if we can
(32:11):
just put the people back in charge, the system's going
to work very well. Again. I mean, you've got to remember,
I'm speaking in my capacity as an historian. I mean,
the Smfield was German history. But I look at our
history and you think about the early thirties to the
early sixties before presidents lying to us about Vietnam did
so much damage to our democracy. But in that period
(32:32):
we elect a string of five presidents that are are
very good, are downright great, you know, Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, JFK.
Lynna Johnson was a good president. On the domestic front,
gave us Medicare, medicaid, civil rights. He ruined his presidency
with Vietnam. But at home and during those years, this
(32:53):
country was unstoppable. I mean, think about it. But because
the American people were in charge. You know, we reinvent
our government to survive the Great Depression, We invent you know,
we rescue people from destitution with social Security invented in
you know, nineteen thirty five. We defeat Tranny unto continents
(33:14):
in World War Two. We rescue Western Europe from economic
chaos and communism with the Marshall Plan, the greatest act
of generosity of any country in history. We lead the
way in founding NATO. And in the sixties we rally
to doctor King and to Presidents Kennedy and Johnson, and
we end segregation and black people get the vote back.
(33:35):
And in nineteen sixty five, with the Voting Rights Act,
our country became the world's first and only multi racial democracy,
which is a stunning achievement. And you just so, I
guess the point is democracy works when the American people
are in charge. This country can do amazing things. And
I think we will do amazing things again. And voter
(33:56):
dollars is not a magic wand but we don't need
to fix everything this year and next. What we need
is a shared goal, a concrete rallying point that's achievable
that Republicans and Democrats can rally to, can can join
hands together to take back, to take to restore the republic.
Speaker 2 (34:17):
Something that's going to take us out of the political
realm because politics has gotten so mean and ugly that
we've lost sight of the greater American idea. And that's
what I'm hearing you say, and I agree with you.
I think that there were certain things along the way.
You mentioned FDR and LBJ as well. I think that
(34:39):
part of the unfortunate thing with LBJ, as history is
is showing us, is that there was manipulation there. It
was it was politically driven some of that stuff that
he came up with, you know, as he as he
told somebody in one of his constituents that you know,
if they passed the bill, they would have blacks voting
(35:01):
for them for the next hundred years. Well, you know,
and when you look at the result of what happened
in in the mid sixties with you know, some of
these things that he put into play here. It didn't
elevate black people. I mean even Bob Woodson you know,
looks back historically and said, you know, blacks were much wealthier,
they were happier, the marriages were hanging together, there was
(35:23):
less fatherlessness. I think it was you know, single digit
that was in the black community. And as soon as
you know, Johnson comes in and passes, uh, you know,
passes the bill and has the influence on the black community,
all of a sudden, you got this dramatic increase of
you know, fatherlessness amongst the black black communities. And in
(35:49):
some of it, you know, I say, you know, you
get these unintentional consequences I referenced earlier, Dan, And you
know the challenge we have with the bureaucracy is once
something is in it's very rare that they can go
back and say, hey, look at let's adjust you know,
I think a good idea at the beginning, but the
way it's being implemented, you know, just like you talked
about with you know, with Citizens United, what was the
(36:12):
good things about it? What what was it that could
be derived that would be would have been helpful and
uh and what what adjustments If it's worthwhile to make adjustments.
You just say, you know what, that was a bad
idea at the time, it's even a worse idea now,
and let's let's eradicate it.
Speaker 3 (36:29):
Well, you know, it'd be great to get rid of
Citizens United, but there are only two ways to get
rid of a Supreme Court decision about the constitutionality of laws.
One is for the Court to reverse itself, which is
not happening. I think that's clear that the Court's not
going anywhere, that the majority that supported that that decision
is not going out of anywhere. The other way is
(36:50):
via constitutional amendment. And there is a very good organization
called American Promise that is promoting a campaign finance constitutional amendment,
and they built an admirable amount of support, But realistically
it is so easy to block a constitutional amendment. My
view is that until we got to get voter dollars first,
(37:11):
because that will defang the special interest that otherwise would
block this amendment. And I also think that voter dollars
will reduce the polarization and part is an anger in
our politics because I think that first of all, because
it's something that it's a great way for Americans to
come together and affirm the shared ideals that make us Americans.
(37:34):
Because it's ideals that make us Americans. Government by the
people maybe the most important because we invented it in
its modern form. And I think if Americans, if we
can come together and not such a big win for
ourselves together, we're going to work together more effectively on
everything we need to do. But anyway, I'm rambling a
little bit and I cut you well.
Speaker 2 (37:53):
I think you bring up something your dan that triggers
the thought is that really, you know, like any organization,
people want to be hurt, you know, and particularly with
this great American idea. I mean, as we said several times,
a government of four buy and we the people. I
mean that statement in and of itself is quite the commandment.
(38:14):
I believe for the constituents that you cannot sit on
your couch, put your heels on the desk and just
think somehow you did your part because you voted. This
is the type of government that you need to activate.
I say, activate your citizenship. You've got to be involved.
I mean, how much time are you spending a week
or a month, even you know, calling your congressman, holding
(38:36):
them in check, just saying hey, look at I'm watching
you and this is what we have to do is
activate and if if doing it with donor dollars, begins
to do that and the people have say again in
their government, Wow, I mean, the sky's the limit, Dan,
I think you know the potest we have.
Speaker 3 (38:55):
So whether you see that, because and one of the
things that we'll get, we get a lot of things
with voter doar. We get better candidates who want to
serve us, we get a political system that works, and
we get better voters because now you have so much
more reason to inform yourself and you feel empowered. One
of the things I think that is one of the
political strengths of this reform and one of the ways
(39:18):
that it benefits the country is the way that it
directly and sort of vividly, concretely empowers each one of us.
Right now, so many Americans tune out politics because we
feel powerless. And that's not irrational because to a larger
ge we are powerless. But this way, we literally put
the coin of political influence into your hands to do
(39:40):
is U see fit? And candidates now come to you
not just for your vote, but for something they needed
a lot more urgently than the vote, which is the
money because if they don't have the money, they can't
ask anyone for their vote. And I think it will
really put us in the driver's seat where we belong,
as our founding fathers wanted for us when they wrote
our constitution. And I think that once again with the
(40:02):
people in charge, I think there's no limit to what
this country can achieve because we have so many strengths.
One thing I would like to say also about the
ugliness in our politics, it's coming from the political level.
It's coming because the money creates an incentive to divide
and conquer, because not because they're beholden to their donors,
(40:24):
neither party is delivering for us on the basic economic
needs that we all have. And so what they do
is they play upon our prejudices to turn us against
each other, to distract us from our failures. And the
thing is that, but below the toxic level of politics,
we actually are less divided by our prejudices than we
(40:47):
have ever been. I mean, you think just about racial
prejudice today versus sixty years ago. I'm not saying, look,
we still have a ways to go, and I'm not
saying there still is not prejudice and everyone has prejudices.
There's not just prejudice by rays, by class or religion.
Of course, we're human. Human beings have prejudices, but we
are actually below the toxic level of politics in our
(41:08):
communities and our workplaces, in our schools. We are more
open to each other. We are more fair to each other,
and we are more kind to each other than we
have ever been. So the notion that we Americans cannot
come together and you know, put our heads together, roll
up our sleeves, use our common sense and fix what's
broken in the country is nonsense. The only thing that's
(41:30):
holding us back and turning us against each other is
this money driven politics. We fix that, I say, this
country will be unstoppable.
Speaker 2 (41:37):
Yeah, I agree with you, Dan, because the thing is
is that politics is out of order. What should happen
is politics should be downstream culture. And something happened that
shifted politics to where they became upstream culture. So politics
is influencing culture, not the other way around. And that
(41:58):
I see as as cause an incredible amount of problem
and friction among the people because, as you say, and
I think the donor dollars would contribute to this, because
we would have a say and when we're being manipulated
by these politicians. We're not going to take them, you know,
as gospel. We're going to say, well, I'm going to
(42:18):
look into that. Or you know, that doesn't that that
doesn't square up because we're going to appreciate and honor
the culture above politics. And if we do that and
we're honoring our neighbor more than a politician, I think
you've got a different dynamic potentially that could occur here
that it's win win for all. What do you think that.
Speaker 3 (42:37):
You know, that's such an interesting and suggestive thought. I mean,
what you're saying about politics currently being upstream from culture,
I guess the main the main way in which that
resonates with me. And it may not be exactly the
same kind of mechanism or thought process that you're thinking about,
but what seems to me is that having a political
(42:58):
system where the public fail of politics is always fake.
Where As Hillary Clinton notoriously said in one of our
overpaid Wall Street speeches, politicians have two positions in every issue.
That the private position for the donors which is what
they which is what matters, and the public position for
the voters that's inherently corrupting and that, and that in turn,
(43:22):
it's morally corrupting. It is part of what I think
has damaged the moral fiber of American society. And I
think that when you have leaders, it prevents because the
problem is, you can go to Washington with the best
intentions and be a man or woman of integrity. But
if you have to play this game and raise money
and then turn around and try to buy off the
(43:43):
voters with some empty slogans, which is what they do,
it corrupts you. It ruins you, and it's not even
their fault. I think one thing I always like to
say is that I think this is not something that
any of us chose. The donors and the and the
and the donors who give the money, the candidates who
take it. I'm not saying that they that they haven't
(44:06):
become corrupted or selfish, but ultimately they're doing what they
have to do. They're responding to the perverted incentives of
this system. This has change the incentives. You start getting
better behavior. And so I always like to say, you know, ultimately,
the real dividing line in this country is not between
Republicans and Democrats. It's between the American people as a
(44:27):
whole against a broken system. Of a broken system is
the money. Our fellow Americans are not the enemy. The
money is the enemy.
Speaker 2 (44:35):
Yeah, look at the results, and you know you're you know,
you're an academic. You always look at the end to say, Okay,
what is the result that we're getting what we're putting
into it, and uh, and this is this is what
we're seeing. Quite clearly, I agree with you. The system
is broken. It doesn't give our politicians, people that we
(44:56):
want to represent us a fair chance to go and
be success because we're putting them into a meat cleaver,
so to speak, a system that's already defined. They can
go in with their idealism and everything, and in a
matter of weeks, if that long, they're chopped up like
hamburger meat.
Speaker 3 (45:14):
I think they already get chopped up during when they're
running the campaign. And the other thing is you got
to ask yourself how many good people aren't going into politics?
Because you get people out there with great ideas and
who've got the courage to lead, and then they go
talk to a campaign manager and the first question from
the campaign manager is how much money can you raise?
Speaker 2 (45:36):
Right?
Speaker 3 (45:37):
Can are you a millionaire? Can you sell fund Do
you have millionaire friends? Can we hold a fundraiser at
your country club? And if the answer to those questions
is no, that campaign manager is going to say I'm
not going to work with you, and you've got no chance.
So we're also missing out on all kinds of talent,
right we could have in Washington.
Speaker 2 (45:56):
The other great thing look at, for example, Dan, I'm
sorry to cut you all here because we've only got
a couple of minutes left here, But look at Elon Musk.
Elon Musk is a talent.
Speaker 3 (46:05):
He's a very impressive guy. I personally don't like the
idea of someone basically buying a kind of cabinet position
to campaign donations, but he is a really impressive guy.
In any case, there's no shortage of really talented Americans
who are patriotic and of goodwill, who want to make
(46:25):
the country stronger, who want to help each other Americans.
One other thing about this voter dollars system is that
because now, right now, in the present, if you want
to challenge an incumbent, even in the House of Representatives,
you almost have to be a millionaire with millionaire friends.
But with voter dollars, we can get people in Congress
from all walks of American society, so that all kinds
(46:48):
of different points of view and we are represented, and
we can have primary care physicians and school principles or
teachers or police officers who have you, you know, real
estate agents anyway, people have all kinds of different so
that we don't just have this rich person's view in Congress.
Speaker 2 (47:08):
You're exactly right, Doctor Dan McMillan has been our guest.
He leads Save Democracy in America. It's a nonpartisan campaign
to put the American people back in charge by making
voters the donors who fund election campaigns. Dan, we got
a minute left. I'm going to let you summarize and
bring us home if you would please.
Speaker 3 (47:25):
Okay, I think the thing I most want to say
is that it's easy to be discouraged. But let's not
forget that for every other people on earth, democracy is
an option. For us, it's existential because it defines us.
It's who we are, right and no one does government
by the people better than Americans, except when we are
(47:45):
thwarted by factors beyond our control. But the thing is,
we just have to remember this fight for voter dollars
to take our country back may not be easy, but
it is simple. All we really need to remember is
who we are and what our country stands for.
Speaker 2 (48:02):
Well, Dan McMillan, thank you so much for being with us.
Appreciate the time, sir, you take care.
Speaker 3 (48:06):
Thank you very much, Bill.
Speaker 2 (48:08):
Doctor Dan McMillan saved democracy in America. He's also the
author of the book How Could This Happen? Explaining the Holocaust?
Thank you for sharing a part of your day with us,
and I hope you've been blessed and informed by what
doctor Dan has brought to the marketplace in order for
(48:28):
us to think about is it, you know, can we
do something different? Can we save democracy? Can we As
you've heard me talk before, I'm a firm believer in
a government of for by we the people, and we
have been undermined in so many different ways. And what
doctor Dan is bringing to the fore here is one
(48:51):
just I think, a great idea that has potential. But
it's not going to be anything that happens overnight. You
know this. We've been working on this for almost two
hundred and fifty years. But you know there is a
time for you know, revolutionary ideas to come into I mean,
forget about saving democracy. Let's really maximize our democracy and
this great American idea that benefits all of us. So again,
(49:15):
thank you for being with us, and God bless you.
And may God bless you and keep you. May make
His face shine upon you, May he be gracious unto
you and give you peace. Thanks again for being with us.
Take care, God bless
Popular Podcasts
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.