Alex Morse on Congress's Fundraising Lifestyle

This podcast is part of the Democracy Group. This is the second episode in the fourth season of the podcast, Another Way. As I explained in the first of these episodes, our third season was focused on presidential candidates. We, along with Represent Us in Citizens United, were committed to getting every major candidate to pledge to support fundamental reform. We called this the POTUS 1 project, which was a riff off of HR1, the incredible package of fundamental reform that was passed in the House of Representatives in 2019. Nancy Pelosi took the lead, made the promise, and made that promise come true. And we succeeded, not just us, but others, including n Citizens United and Represent Us, in getting every major candidate committed to fundamental reform in the first hundred days in office. That was an important success because it sets up a very critical way to understand what this next election will be about, at least in the choice for the presidency, because we have a chance, if we displace the current president, to elect a president who has committed to making fundamental reform happen in the first days of his administration. But we're talking in this season to candidates for Congress, and we'll also talk to people in the media about this issue, too, because obviously, despite the fantasies of the current president, the President can't just will reform into being. He can't just pass or sign an executive order that changes the corrupt influence of money in politics. Instead, he needs a Congress to pass the legislation that would fundamentally change the way the current system works. And so we need to talk about how people run for Congress and make this issue central. And we've begun to identify candidates who are not just checking off the box supporting fundamental reform, but for whom fundamental reform is a central part of their campaign. This week we are honored to have a chance to talk to Alex Morse, who is a Democrat running in the Democratic primary for the First District of Massachusetts, which is a district that covers parts of western and central Massachusetts. The big cities are Springfield and Holyoke. It is a district that's mainly white, 70% white, although there are many immigrants in this district, including a large number of people from Puerto Rico. It's a solidly Democratic district. There are 60% votes for Democrats in the presidential elections from that district. And there doesn't look like there will even be a Republican running for Congress in that district against whoever the Democratic nominee will be. Instead, Alex Morse is running against one of the most powerful members of the Democratic Caucus, Democrat Richard Neal. Richard Neal is a member who went to Congress in 1989, which of course is a long time ago, and he has now risen in Congress to be the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee. Now, the Ways and Means Committee is the committee that sits at the center of basically everything touching money, especially touching the tax system, which means that people or corporations or very wealthy people who have a very vested interest in making the tax system work for them, have an even stronger interest in making sure that Richard Neal is interested in them. And Richard Neal has not shied away from the opportunities that this position gives him. He is the number one recipient. Number one recipient. I don't mean in the Democratic Party. I mean the number one recipient of corporate PAC money in America. And as we'll explore in this episode, it's not just that his campaign receives corporate PAC money, but he lives the loophole of this currently corrupt system that gives him the chance to basically live like a billionaire as he lives life as a member of Congress, funding and fueling the opportunity to make the Democratic Party and his own campaign richer. So the reason why Alex Morse is so important in this story is that he is building a campaign in the first District to get people in that district to recognize why fixing this corrupted system is critical if we're going to get any of the changes that we need enacted. As I've said many times, and I've encouraged people to copy, even without attribution, it's not that this reform is the most important issue. It's not. It's just the first issue, the issue we must get ratified or enacted if we're to have any chance to achieve anything else. Alex Morse is the current mayor of Holyoke, Massachusetts. He closed the state's last coal power plant. He implemented a needle exchange program to fight the opioid addiction. He was the first mayor in the state to endorse recreational marijuana legalization. He declared Holyoke one of the first sanctuary cities in the country in 2014. And in 2018, Holyoke welcomed hundreds of Puerto Rican families displaced by Hurricane Maria. He was first elected mayor at the age of 22, becoming the youngest and first openly gay mayor of Holyoke. He is currently a candidate for Congress, and we are really honored to have a chance to talk to him now. So, Alex Morse, thank you so much for talking to us. As I've just introduced, you obviously have been a politician from a young age as a leader in a progressive cause in the city of Holyoke. But I want to start by talking a little bit about the candidate you're challenging. We've had a lot of people who've wondered whether the cause of reform is really just a cover for pro Democrat, anti Republican rhetoric. And though I'm the first to assert that Democrats have taken the lead in talking about real changes to the system of our democracy that would make our democracy responsive, it's important to recognize that the existing system is exploited by both Republicans and Democrats. And that incumbent that you are challenging, who came to Washington when there was still a Berlin Wall, is a person who has become a kind of poster child for the compromise of integrity that our current system has produced. So why don't you talk a little bit about why you think it's important to challenge Richard Neal and what you understand his experience in Washington to be emblematic of.

Yeah, absolutely. And thank you so much for having me and giving this opportunity to talk about the importance of this campaign and the contrast between the two of us. And, I mean, Congressman Neal represents everything that is wrong and broken about our democracy and about Washington. And Congressman Neal celebrates and proudly proclaims that he knows how Washington works. And that is true. And the fact is, Washington just isn't working for just everyday people here in Western Massachusetts and around our country. But he's certainly not doing anything to change how Washington works and who it works for. He's the number one recipient of corporate PAC dollars of any member of the House, Democrat and even Republican. And that is not a distinction that he should be proud of. And there's a direct correlation between that money and the policies that he has been complicit in, even with the Trump administration. And, you know, the fundamental argument of this campaign is Congressman Neal has power. He's the chair of the House Ways and Means Committee, but he's using that power to benefit the corporate and special interests that invest vast amounts of money into his campaign. And he's certainly not using that power to benefit the people in places here in his district or just, again, everyday people around our country. And so Congressman Neal represents, again, everything that's wrong with our democracy. The influence of money in politics and, you know, the problems that we're faced today existed before Trump, and they will exist after Trump. And it's Democrats like Congressman Neal that have created a democracy and political environment where someone like Trump can rise to the presidency.

So I want to dig down on this because it's really important to give people a really clear, visceral sense of what that means, what it means to have this kind of power, and what kind of corruption it entails. One particular example that's always struck me as astonishing is the turbo tax scandal. Right. So, you know, there are many countries around the world where you don't fill out tax returns or most people don't fill out tax returns. They basically, you know, like a credit card bill. You get a bill and you can argue about it. You can say, no, I didn't earn this income or I shouldn't be taxed with this income. But you know, you get a bill and you write a check or you have that payment made. We don't do it like that. We instead have an incredibly complicated tax system which for 85% of individuals is completely unnecessary because the government knows everything about their income already. But we have this complicated tax system in part because special interests, in particular the Intuit Corporation, have spent so much time and money lobbying against obvious reforms that would make it easier for ordinary people to pay taxes. And Congressman Neil has played a pretty important part in making sure that the special interest of TurboTax and other companies that make money by exploiting a complex tax system continue to exploit the complex tax system. So can you talk a little bit about what that story was about?

Yeah, absolutely. I mean, one of you know, he took the chairmanship of the House Ways and Means committee in early 2019, soon after the Dems took back the House. And one of his first uses of his power was to ban, to support banning low income tax filers from using the IRS's free tax filing Service. And this is after taking thousands of dollars from Intuit and H and R Block, before taking the leadership of Ways and Means. He talked about wanting to use that power to reform the tax code and, and make it more fair. And he hasn't lifted a finger in a year and a half to do just that. And so, I mean, whether it was, you know, refusing to use his power to hold this President accountable on the President's tax returns, and again using his power to do nothing about our complicated tax code and process because of the money he takes from Intuit and H and R Block represents that corruption. Again, the influence of money in politics. And there's been other instances since he became chair of the Ways and Means Committee as well. I mean, weakening a drug prescription pricing bill, single handedly killing a surprise medical billing piece of legislation last December that even had bipartisan support. And I mean, talk more about this, but even in the middle of this pandemic, I mean, killing the Paycheck Guarantee act and monthly recurring payments. And so I mean, time and time again, from the tax complicated tax process and Intuit, H and R Block to even now what our people are struggling with on the ground, Neil is certainly not using his power to benefit real people.

Now if he were here, not that he would be likely to be here, but if he were here on this podcast, he might defend himself by saying, look, yeah, I'm doing what people who have enormous resources want me to do, because that's what the Democratic Party needs. Because the Democratic Party needs these resources if we're going to have the opportunity to beat Republicans in the 2020 election. Now, whether you're a Republican or Democrat, that's an understandable argument. What's wrong with that argument?

Yeah, I mean, number one, it's just not true. I mean, the two presidential candidates, Warren and Bernie, that swore off big fundraisers and corporate back dollars quarter after quarter, raised the most money from gratuits contributions around the country. Granted, obviously, our political finance, campaign finance system is broken currently, but within those rules, two candidates that swore off that type of fundraising far exceeded their Democratic challengers. And I think that's the type of campaign we're running here on the ground, not taking a single dollar from corporations, corporate PACs, or special interests. And here in the district, I mean, for every one donor that Congressman Neal has that lives in the First District, we have 25 times that amount. And just speaking, it just speaks to the, you know, the grassroots enthusiasm and support we have here on the ground, the grassroots contributions we have from. From all 50 states. And I always tell my constituents and the people here, I never want them to wonder why I take a particular vote or make a decision who I'm spending my time with. And on top of who he takes money from, this is a guy that hasn't had a town hall in the district in nearly three years. And so not only is he ignoring people here, but he's giving access not to his constituents, he's giving access to corporate CEOs time and time again. And regardless of the amount of power you have, there's still an expectation to show up and be held accountable by your constituents.

Yeah. Now, there's another part to this that I think is really important for people to understand in the way Washington works. You know, congresspeople get paid under $200,000, which for most people is a lot of money. But, you know, I make law, I make lawyers for a living. My students, in their first year at a firm on Wall street could be making more than a congressperson makes. So in the scheme of things, it's, you know, for the level of work, you would think it's not a terribly large amount of money. But there's an incredible loophole in the way congressmen live their lives. And that is that if the congressperson is raising money for his or her campaign or is running what's called a leadership pac, then the expenses of raising that money can be charged to that leadership pack. So what are the expenses? Well, you know, you need a limousine to pick you up, to drive you to a fundraiser. You, you need to have a fundraiser at a five star resort. You need to go to the most expensive fancy restaurants in Washington, which are incredibly expensive in Washington, to entertain the lobbyists who might be willing to fork over money from their clients or from organizations that they represent. All of this fundraising, quote unquote, is actually what ordinary people think of as just the cost of living. But because they can expense this fundraising, it becomes a way for them to live like they were millionaires or maybe billionaires. Dave Daley, who's a hero of ours, who's done extraordinary work on many areas of reform, but obviously also gerrymandering reform, he wrote an amazing piece in the Boston Globe about Congressman Neal's techniques for fundraising and the high, as he called it, Richard Neal's Washington High Life, emphasizing the way that this system allows, through this loophole, people to exploit this money to basically give themselves an incredible pay raise. Kind of like the president spending $130 million to golf while saying he's such a great guy because he's giving away his $400,000 salary to the government.

Yeah, absolutely. And grateful to that piece and other writing about, you know, Congressman Neal's way of life and again, who, who he gives access to, how he spends his time. But, I mean, it's a complete slap in the face to the residents and constituents of the First District when we have a member of Congress that is living a high life, spending time with corporate executives and lobbyists at the country's fanciest steakhouses and resorts and golf clubs to all with a goal of just accepting more corporate PAC money. And, you know, you asked before about, you know, is this the, the price that Democrats pay to have the resources to win elections? It doesn't have to be that way. And people give up on the process because it's not just the Republican Party, it's the Democratic Party. It's, it's, it's the system altogether. And we can't seem to make progress on substantive policy issues because of the influence of money in politics. And so, you know, I'm a mayor. I've been mayor for, for nine years, and see firsthand what my constituents and residents face and deal with, particularly now in the middle of this pandemic. And Meanwhile, we have an absent member of Congress that doesn't do town halls, doesn't allow for folks to hold them accountable, but is making time again for these types of fundraisers to live a life that you don't go to Washington for. And you know, again, just as a mayor, as a candidate, just as a person here in the district, never feeling like we have a strong federal partner that is really caring about us. And just go back to what I said at the beginning. I mean that the decisions that Neil makes, again, he's just the face of everything that's wrong with Washington right now.

He is the face. And understanding what that face shows is critical. It doesn't show corruption in the old fashioned sense. It's not that anybody's accusing anybody of bribery. It's just a system of influence that makes it so hard for the ordinary voters, views or problems to even be heard because they're so obsessively focused on what the tiniest fraction of the 1% care about. So I want to shift now to focus on how you would be different or what you see is different. You've mentioned a couple times, let's just make clear people understand this. You've actually been since a very young age, 22, you were elected mayor in Holyoke, Massachusetts, which is a beautiful but not incredibly wealthy part of an incredibly wealthy state. And you have worked through many of the issues that local leaders need to work through, from opioid addiction fights to the questions of legalizing recreational marijuana. And you took the lead in making Holyoke one of the first sanctuary cities in the country and all of those progressive steps that you've taken. I know that many of the people listening to this podcast would be very proud to support and very proud to support someone who is pushing for those types of changes. But the focus of this podcast is to try to think about what you just were saying, which is, until we fix this corrupt system, we're not going to get any of the issues that we cared about, we care about addressed in a serious way. So I'm going to talk about what you think of when you think of how we're going to fix this corrupt system. And so let's start with public funding or the funding of campaigns. Right now we have a system where members of Congress and candidates for Congress spend anywhere between 30 and 70% of their time raising money. Our first podcast in this series, we spoke to a candidate from Westchester county who was spending 90% of his time on the phone raising money because this is the way the system works. And of course they're raising money not from the average American. They're not just randomly dialing telephone numbers. They're raising money from the tiny fraction of the 1% who are keen to get influence in Washington. So how would you change that system? What's the right way to fix that part of the problem?

Yeah, no, I appreciate that framing and that question. And I would just start by saying I oftentimes say Congressman Neal fails to grasp the urgency of the moment we're in as a country. And because he fails to grasp the challenges we have, he is just not capable of even formulating or thinking about the magnitude of the solutions we need to these problems. And without reforming our democracy, restoring our democracy, we're not going to be able to make substantive progress on the policy priorities we have, whether it's around healthcare or climate, you name the policy. We have to fundamentally restore and fix our democracy first. And Congressman Neal is unable of, of seeing the issue in that lens. He only sees on the other end, the policy, without actually taking any time to think about the underlying democracy and forces that make it impossible for us over so many years to make progress on these issues that would actually make a difference in people's life. And again, as you say, money in politics is a root of that. I, as a, you know, I've run four campaigns for mayor. I mean, much on a smaller scale and running for Congress and so less time doing call time. But yeah, I mean, just as a candidate and a person and as an incumbent mayor currently, I should not be spending as much time as I do on the phone asking folks for money. And yes, it's from every day. It's from individuals, it's not from corporations or corporate PACs. But we need to fundamentally fix our system. And I believe we need more members of Congress that are willing to support publicly financed elections. Look at those cities in our country that have modeled certain reforms at the local level, be it a matching system that we see in New York City or even a democracy voucher system that we see in Seattle. And so we have seen some pockets of reform and success on a local level. But the problem is we don't have a big enough contingent of members of Congress that are willing to actually fight to change this broken system. And I want to be one of those members of Congress that gets there and focuses on this, because this is one of those fundamental parts of our democracy that are broken. And I think there is some appeal for this to be a bipartisan issue. And then when people do get to Washington again, they're still on the phone with wealthy donors and an exclusive class of people rather than actually doing the work for their constituents without actually attending committee hearings. And that's just bad government at the end of the day.

So Nancy Pelosi in 2018 said that if her party, the Democratic Party, gained control of the House in that election, she would guarantee that the first major piece of legislation that would pass HR1 would pass, and it would include public funding of elections. And she succeeded in that. It was an extraordinary success. Of course, she didn't get any Republicans to support her in that bill, but it did signal that the Democratic Party was at least willing to go on the record in supporting this kind of fundamental change. And the big choice is, as you've described it, between these matching systems like New York City and the voucher systems. And so I take it from your answer, you think we should experiment between the two. Right now you're not committed in one side or the other?

Well, I think the, if our, if our goal is to make the process as equitable as possible and ensure that as most people, most people as possible have equal access to the process, a voucher system would be the better route to go. I also, you know, the matching system and even the current system, we have, yes, we have contribution limits, But I mean, $2,800 is much different than a $5 or a $10 contribution. And most candidates aren't on the phone asking people for five or ten dollars or on the phone asking for much more than that. And even in a matching system, it still allows there to be space for a big discrepancy between big donors and small dollar donors, although it does take steps in the right direction. And I think a voucher program actually empowers people that just wouldn't have access otherwise to support candidates and to collectively come together to build influence. You know, whether it's neighborhoods or communities, populations in certain places to come together and support particular candidates and then in turn, making sure that those candidates and incumbents are then responsive to groups of people that have historically been forgotten about and left behind and taken advantage of.

Yeah, I think that that's the critical insight. There's an amazing exchange that we had with Bernie Sanders when we were doing these interviews with presidential candidates. And Bernie, of course, has always supported public funding, but it was in this election where he finally came around to recognizing the importance of vouchers as a solution. And he gives really, I mean, for somebody I've spent the last 12 years selling the idea of vouchers, but Bernie's three minute pitch about why vouchers were so important is the best thing I've ever heard. And it's exactly in the way that you have described it. Think of the business model raising money when you're raising money from $2,800 contributors or even $500 contributors versus raising money from people who have $20 or $25 to give you in the form of voucher. The point is the voucher business model forces you to talk to ordinary people and to build coalitions of ordinary people and neighborhoods and constituents who right now no fundraiser ever thinks to include in the dynamic of fundraising. And that, I think is the real selling point. I think it's important to say both systems would be an improvement and I support matching funds as an improvement over the existing system. But I think this is such a chance to embrace something that would be fundamental, radical change that could absolutely change the dynamic of the corruption that your opponent is obviously living within. So this, I think is important. And so the question, the real question for you is we, when we were talking to the presidential candidates, you know, asked, would you commit to making fundamental reform the first thing that you would do, you know, for a congressional candidate, you know, would you commit to supporting, to co sponsoring something like HR1 as one of the first acts that you make as an elected member of Congress?

Yes, absolutely. It would be, again, as I said before, I mean, we need to fix our democracy. And it would be a very simple, easy thing to do to make this. The first thing that you do when you get to Washington is co sponsor this legislation and elevate it. Because I also worry that there's not enough. There may be some members of Congress that support, but in terms of the public consciousness isn't certainly something that is talked about enough where, you know, the average participant in our democracy is familiar even with these options. And so we need more members of Congress to actually, you know, verbalize and publicly advocate for a system change. Because these, these changes aren't oftentimes like the sexy policies that people get excited about, but we need to be able to frame them in a way that directly ties people's lives and outcomes in their communities to these fundamental changes to our democracy. And right now there aren't enough members of Congress, perhaps a handful that are really talking about that and making that real life connection to people on the ground. And I would also say, you know, this is directly related to policy, but for me, it's also about access to everyday people feeling like they can, they themselves can run for office and participate. And I mean just the intimidation of money and politics and of call time and of who has access and who doesn't deters so many people that would benefit from being in public office that just decide, you know, I don't have, I am not independently wealthy, I do not have a vast national network. How can I as an ordinary person participate in American democracy? When you look at the average wealth of members of Congress and age our democracy, our government institutions do not reflect the diversity in any sense of the word of the American people as a whole.

Yeah. I mean, you know, you might even if you were a conspiracy theorist, say that, you know, it's a system designed by lawyers to benefit lawyers. Because if you, or especially male lawyers. Right. Because if you look at, if you look at the standard person who gets able, who's able to go to Washington, it's a person with a big, what we used to call Rolodex. Right. A person who has an endless list of rich people who they've done favors for or worked with and so people they can call to help support them to get, to get to Congress. And those, you know, lawyers are in a good class for that because that's exactly what they do. But if you're not a lawyer, if you're a teacher or blue collar worker or a mother who's not been in the workforce but has been working to raise a family, you have no access to that list of people and therefore no access to be a credible candidate. And by credible here, I mean credible for the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party will bring you in if you're a candidate. I'm sure you've had this conversation and the first question they'll ask you is how much money can you raise? And if you can't guarantee them you can raise enough money, they're not interested. And they're certainly not interested in spending any money to support.

They haven't asked me anything because I'm running against one of their favorite Democrats.

Yeah, I remember Zephyr Teachout, who's a big hero of mine, of course, was a big reformer. This is an issue that was at the top of her list. And she recounts like her conversation with the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. And they were like, yeah, we hope your ideas never win. We just don't think we could ever win if your ideas won. Which is crazy. Crazy. But you can understand it when they live with that system, it's the only system they know, so they defend it.

And yeah, once you're there, your decisions are revolved around how to Protect incumbents and protect the system. And so particularly when you spent over three decades there, I mean, you're just incapable of being self critical whatsoever of the institutions that you've helped create. And so it's almost impossible to reform it on the inside at this point after you've spent 30 years there.

Yeah, that's critical. Okay. I know another issue you've been really interested in supporting is ranked choice voting, which here in Massachusetts is a big issue right now. We're trying to make sure it's on the ballot and people will support it. Tell us a little bit about why you're a ranked choice vote supporter.

Yeah, ranked choice voting is important. I've supported efforts here in Holyoke locally, although on many issues our city council isn't as forward thinking or progressive on these reforms. And so I've supported lowering the municipal voting age here in town and also implementing ranked choice voting, supporting the statewide ballot question as well, and hopeful that that will move forward. I mean, just on a local level as well. I mean, Holyoke is a city 50% Latino, mostly of Puerto Rican descent. And when you look at our city council, historically, it has not been representative of the diversity and of our, of our community, frankly. And we for many years had eight at large counselors and seven ward councilors and perhaps two out of the 15 that identify as Latino in our community. And so then eight at large counselors, white men mostly coming from the same neighborhood. And so how do we build a democracy, even on the local level, that is responsive to the needs of people? And I remember when I first ran for mayor, you know, 22 years old, people told me, well, just knock on doors in the wealthy white neighborhoods, super voters, and don't spend any time in the downtown. It's going to be a waste of your time. And you know, we talk to people that always participate, but we spent just as much time, if not more time talking to people that had just given up on the process altogether. In over four local elections and through like, through a partnership of actually governing with people, we've been able to get more people involved, increase voter turnout. But there's still structural things without actually, you know, implementing ranked choice voting and other systems been able to increase turnout and engagement and strengthen our democracy. But without some of those core changes, we're not going to be able to achieve better representation. And you know, that such a small percentage of voters on the local, state and federal level are deciding who's in office that isn't reflective of actually the will of the people and the will of the voters. And we've seen what it's meant in Maine, for example, and the disaster that the former governor was. And we've seen how ranked choice voting can actually help ensure that we have better leadership that is more responsive and actually has the support of a majority of, of people who live there.

Okay, so you, you do politics at the retail level. How do you explain to people what ranked choice voting really is? I mean, because, you know, for an academic, it's something we live with. But what is it, what is it that gets people to understand why it would be different?

Well, so in Holyoke we have a, we have a nonpartisan preliminary system. And so it actually was advantageous to people like me, you know, 21 year old, openly gay kid back in 2011, deciding to run for mayor against the Democratic incumbent. If we had a strong Democratic primary system, everybody would have circled the wagons and prevented me from getting the Democratic nomination. But we have a nonpartisan preliminary system where everybody can run and then the top two vote getters in the September preliminary become the two candidates in the general. And so on the local level, we've made a case a very small percentage of people vote, number one, and then the top two vote getters are getting a small share of the vote and then becoming the two candidates for mayor in the general. And so, number one, it's a waste of resources to some extent without ranked choice voting to do it that way. And then again, such a small percentage of people are choosing the two candidates. And so to tell people with different values, for example, this doesn't just have to be a choice between two people, but, you know, rank your, you know, who's your number one choice, who's your second choice, who's your third choice will help guarantee that your interests when you vote are much more likely to be represented in the results than the traditional system that we have. And also gives strength to candidates that otherwise would be written off when we label people as different political ideologies and political parties and whatnot.

And so do you think that, for example, this recent Democratic presidential primary is the sort of case that helps people understand how things could be different or how it could have been better with ranked choice voting?

Yeah, I think, I mean, I oftentimes wonder why, I mean, why is it that such a small subset of the American people are choosing the Democratic nominee? The fact that some states and some people, I mean, the fact that, I mean, majority of Americans didn't even get a chance to vote before we had a nominee for president. And so, I mean, the system is just fundamentally broken. And I mean, even here in Massachusetts on super, I mean, candidates had already dropped out. And so, you know, why is it that certain states and whatnot have more influence over that process? But when you look at ideas and exit polls and whether it's the ideals of Warren and Bernie far surpassing the policies that were put forth by Biden and candidates in the, in the moderate lane. And so, you know, when you ask people, you know, and Bernie says this, I mean, they didn't win the primary, but they, they won the battle of ideas and policy. And I think if we had a ranked wise voting system, we wouldn't have just won the policy debate, we would have won the actual election and nominated a real progressive to lead the Democratic Party. And in a time where we need that type of leadership the most.

Yeah, I think the ideas point is powerful. If you think about, for example, a candidate like Andrew Yang, who of course was pushing an idea which when he started pushing it sounded crazy to most people, of course, in the middle of this Covid crisis, it seems like an obvious idea, but you know, the guaranteed guaranteed minimum income idea, which when he pushed it, you know, most people wrote him off and wrote the idea off. But if there were a ranked choice voting system, you could have imagined the calculation in campaigns to say, well, you know, we don't think that Andrew Yang is going to win, but at least let's make sure that we have the supporters from Andrew Yang when they have to vote on their second choice or their third choice. So that means let's take seriously his idea, let's talk about it, let's see whether it's part of our plan as well. So you can imagine a ranked choice system making it easier for people who have new ideas, better ideas, different ways of looking at the problem, to get their ideas considered inside of the system, even by mainstream candidates who are fighting obviously as fiercely as they can for whatever votes they can get.

Yeah, no, absolutely. I think it would have fundamentally changed the Democratic primary system and would just make our leadership and our system much more responsive to people that participate. So I mean, it's a, it's a no brainer. I'm happy to see local communities and states start to move in this direction and explore these conversations, but it also needs to be elevated to the national level as well.

You said something that I think is, it's really a nice way to think about it. You said that your influence would continue all the way to the end when the decision was made. And you think about it like that. So if you're an Andrew Yang supporter or any number of. Any number of, you know, these people who dropped out even before, once your candidate's gone, you're gone. Your influence no longer matters because you voted, and that guy's not part of the. Part of the mix. But if they're a ranked choice, okay, your first choice loses. Now your second choice is still part of the calculation, and then your second choice loses, then your third choice is still part of the calculation. So your views carry through all the way to the end. And as some people describe it, what this does is guarantee that at least, least the person who wins is supported in some sense by a majority of the people voting.

Yeah, absolutely. Because otherwise, and we've seen this over the last couple of weeks, people are making this connection. Well, you know, Biden won the nomination. Therefore, American people support, didn't support Medicare for All or a Green New Deal or this policy or that policy, because Democratic primary voters voted for Biden. And those are the wrong conclusions based on the data from exit polls. And so I think a lot of folks are taking from the primary process the wrong conclusions. And so when it's actually the opposite, that we need these bold policies now more than ever. And we're seeing this happening informally with some of the task forces and joint committees with Sanders. And so we're seeing some of it happen naturally, but we've had to be intentional about that happening. We don't have a system that actually has forced us to embrace those conversations or collaborations. And so I'm happy to see it percolating and happening to some extent. But to systematically ingrain that in our process would be a much more effective way of ensuring that the diversity of voices and policies aren't eliminated throughout the existence of a presidential campaign.

Now, there's this weird tension in the way we've evolved the presidential process between, on the one hand, making sure that people's votes count and they actually determine a result, and on the other hand, giving the party a chance to work out what's actually going to make it most likely for the party to be able to win. So going into this, whether there's convention or not, this decision about who the nominee is going to be, obviously the system is set up so that, you know, at a certain point, Joe Biden is the nominee because the people have no choice but to vote for Joe Biden. But what that does is it makes it harder in some sense for, you know, the people who supported Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders to have real leverage in the opportunity to make sure that Joe Biden or whoever the candidate is, is actually representing the thickest characteristic characterization of whom the Democratic Party is.

Yeah, absolutely. And I think, I mean, what we saw even happen in New York with this decision originally to remove the presidential primary from the ballot. I mean, just completely undemocratic. And thanks to Andrew Yang and others for, you know, investing the resources to bring that case forward. And I think, you know, that's why Bernie, when, you know, he endorsed Biden and dropped out of the race, talked about the importance of his supporters still showing up and still voting to support his campaign to ensure that they had as much leverage as possible on the party platform and on Joe Biden. And I think we have seen some benefit of that pressure and of that language. But again, I think we need to think about how the system disempower those conversations. And again, we make the wrong assumptions and conclusions from individual candidates winning elections and already a very weak, broken system where winning an election isn't necessarily a mandate for every one of the policies you supported or didn't support. And so how do we build a system that focuses on those policies rather than just focusing on the figurehead of those policies?

You and, you know, I guess your district, not Holyoke, but your district, is pretty solidly Democratic. 60% vote Democratic in presidential elections at least. But that means there are a lot of Republicans. So when you talk to, you know, your constituents who are Republicans, assuming they would identify themselves as such, about issues like this, do you find the same partisan divide that we find on issues like maybe Medicare for all or immigration?

No. And I think, well, what's interesting about me is, you know, mayor is a nonpartisan position. You know, I'm a progressive Democrat. I've been a Democrat my whole life. But being mayor is an interesting position where, I mean, you're focusing on, I mean, public schools and public safety, economic development, you know, balancing a municipal budget. And so, you know, you build coalitions as a mayor that may look different when you're in a different position. And so but I think when it comes to my campaign for Congress, yes, it's a very Democratic district. And yes, I'm progressive and yes, Neil is this corporate or conservative Democrat, but it's even less about those labels and more about this fundamental question. Do you want a member of Congress that represents you and real people, or do you want a member of Congress that represents corporations and special interests and people that have the means and have access to your member of Congress? And so, yes, I'm a candidate for Congress endorsed by the Justice Democrats and Sunrise and talk about the important importance of the single payer health care system. But we're building coalitions with people that are, that just want a member of Congress. They may just agree on some of the policy specifics, but they know that their member of Congress is looking out for the best interest of them as a person in their community. That they will do town halls and be available to be held accountable, that will be open and honest about when we disagree and why. And then just the act of showing up in hill towns and in the rural parts of our district, places that just have felt completely forgotten about and ignored just by me. I mean, in our first eight months we announced last July, you know, we were crisscrossing the district every day. And that was in great contrast to the incumbent who just doesn't show up. And so just by virtue of me walking into a coffee shop or a diner or a basement of a library to do a town hall or a community meeting, I mean, that alone speaks volumes about what type of members of Congress we want and stark contrast to what we currently have. And then this argument about the influence of money in politics, that is an issue that transcends political partisanship. When I say we're not taking a dollar of corporate PAC money and we're represented by the man that takes the most corporate money in Washington, that resonates with Republicans, with unenrolled, with independent, with Democrats time and time again. And so this is an issue that is really an opportunity for voters and people to build coalitions and demand accountability and change from their elected officials.

That is the most hopeful part about this fight. Because, you know, we remember the Donald Trump before he was President Trump. You know what was striking about Donald Trump, the candidate was, he was the only Republican up there who was calling out the influence of money. You know, from drain the swamp to talking about Super PACs as an abomination. Of course I don't think it, I didn't really see why anybody believed him on that. But the point is there were many Republicans who were incredibly excited to rally behind someone who said he was gonna drain the swamp and end this corrupt system. And I would imagine that you setting yourself up as the candidate taking no corporate PAC money against the candidate taking the most corporate PAC money has an opportunity to get. Obviously you can't get Republicans to vote in your primary, but there are more unenrolled than there are Republicans and Democrats combined in America. So in Massachusetts, for people who are not from the state, an unenrolled person gets to vote in whatever primary he or she wants. And to the extent there are conservative, unenrolled, and there certainly are, I would think this message on your campaign could get a lot of them to decide to cast a ballot for you in this primary.

Yes, absolutely. It's a great point. We've seen Republicans switch their party affiliation to unenrolled or independent to participate in the primary on September 1st. Because, listen, I mean, right now we don't even have a Republican opponent in the, in the general. And so for the for folks in the first district, your next member of Congress will be decided on September 1st. And do you want Richard Neal or do you support our campaign? And these are our differences. And it's important to show up and participate in the September 1 election. And what I also find there's not just conservative, unenrolled voters. What we're finding is a lot of unenrolled voters here in this district are younger, more progressive voters that are fed up with the Democratic Party and its inability to swear off the influence of money in politics. And it's a younger generation that has watched the Democratic Party in power when we had the White House and the House and the Senate and haven't been able to fundamentally advance big, bold policies that actually change people's lives. And so unenrolled voters here also just represent a more liberal, progressive class of young people that just don't want to be identified with a particular party.

Yeah. Let's talk about one more issue if we can. I'm not sure if something that you've talked about on the campaign trail, but I imagine something you thought about. What we're Looking at in 2020 is an election that could repeat 2016, where the election is decided by the Electoral College against the popular vote. And that if it happens again, I think is going to trigger the biggest movement for reform of the Electoral College that we've ever seen. So I wonder what you think about when you think about how you would fix or change the effect of the Electoral College.

Yeah, I mean, the Electoral College, it needs to be eliminated. And I mean, we've created a system like a winner take all system. And I mean, the fact is presidential candidates only spend time in perhaps a dozen to 15 states. And so, you know, we live here in Massachusetts. Our presidential votes essentially don't matter. And the only time a presidential candidate may come here in the general is is to raise money, not to talk about their campaign or why they deserve the support of the American people. And so, I mean, the system is just completely broken. And, you know, I think of this as, you know, just as sort of outsiders, we look into other countries and find that, hey, this candidate won 3 million more votes than the other candidate. And for some reason, in that country, the person who got 3 million less votes is becoming their leader. And so I think we need to look inward into what's broken about our country, that the person in charge doesn't even have the support of the majority of people that chose to participate or had access to participate. And so, I mean, the swing state system just. It's just broken the presidential campaign process, and it's not representative of our country. Swing states are often whiter and more rural than other communities. And so oftentimes, general presidential candidates have incentives to moderate their policies, only speak to a certain subset of the American people and ignore others. And so it's just a vicious cycle that we have that needs to be fixed. And I fear, as you say, that we potentially may have a repeat of what happened in 2016. Yeah.

And this is an issue there that we have to find a way to talk about to get both sides to recognize why the existing system doesn't help them. I mean, right now, the perception among Republicans is they win under the Electoral College and they lose if you change the electoral College. But if you get your points. Understood, you're right. In 2016, there were 14 swing states. This time, there'll probably be nine swing states, plus one district in Nebraska. That'll be a swing Nebraska district. What that means is that there are 41 or 42 jurisdictions in America where the vote does not matter for the president, where the president doesn't care about votes in that states, and that means doesn't care about Republican or Democratic votes in that state. So, you know, obviously, no, no Republican candidate cares about Massachusetts because they're not going to win Massachusetts. But neither does a Democratic candidate care about Massachusetts because they've already won Massachusetts. There's nothing they have to say to Massachusetts to convince Massachusetts to vote Democratic. So if you can get both sides to realize that the existing system screws them in more than three quarters of the states in America, maybe we can begin to get people to recognize, hey, wait a minute. More than three quarters of the states in America is what we need to get an amendment to the Constitution passed. And that could focus people on this really rare bird in politics, which is something that genuinely, honestly benefits both parties by changing the corruption of the existing status quo.

Absolutely. And that's where we need to head an amendment to the Constitution. And I mean, even under our current broken system with the Electoral College, I mean. Yeah, I mean, it's just incredibly disheartening that. I mean, Republicans have now made it their electoral strategy. I mean, the fewer people that participate and vote, the more likely they are to win an election. And state after state, and the fact that Hillary won the popular vote in 2016, even despite very concerted efforts in state legislatures, and whether it's gerrymandering, closing voting precincts, and majority minority communities on college campuses, the Republicans have been very intentional about making our democracy less accessible time and time again. And they've been successful on, you know, flipping state legislative seats as a Democrat. Sort of took their eye off of organizing on that level, and, you know, happy to see some. Some movement on combating this. But we still have so much more. More work to do to fix our democracy and make just voting participation more accessible.

It's kind of odd we have to have this fight, but Here we are 230 years into the history of the republic, and still we're arguing about the capacity of a democracy to actually function as a democracy. We're grateful for your time and for your leadership on this issue. I'm so hopeful that in the effort that you're making to persuade people to stand up to Neil, we have a chance to raise the issue in people's attention so that they understand why this is so critical. That's why we're running this special podcast series on this issue. And I'm grateful that you've become a leader for us on this issue, and good luck in the campaign through the end of the summer.

Yeah, no, thank you so much, Larry, for the opportunity and thank you for all the work that you do in this space and for your leadership and for elevating the discourse on it, and look forward to keeping in touch and certainly excited about our final three months here until September 1st, and would encourage folks to get more information, you know, visit alexmoresforcongress.com and look forward to making these issues central to our campaign, but more importantly, central to our work in Washington. So thanks again.

Thank you. That's the end of our episode. This is Larry Lessig. These podcasts are produced by Equal Citizens. You can find us on the web@equalcitizens.us. and you can find a simple way to share this podcast, which you must@equalcitizens us. Anotherway, there's a place there to give feedback and comments. Please give feedback and comments and ideas for other candidates you've come across who are making fundamental reform a central part of the message of their campaign. We'll continue talking to candidates and hopefully to the media. And we will be reaching out to candidates who are not necessarily reformers, including Congressman Richard Neal, who, after this podcast might not be eager to talk. But after this podcast, I certainly continue to be eager to talk to him. Please stay tuned for the next episodes as we continue the exploration of the candidates and media that might make reform possible. Thanks very much. This is Larry Lessig. Stay safe.