Democratic Debate Recap with Dave Daley [08-08-19]

Welcome to season three of Another Way subtitle POTUS 1. This season we'll be bringing you interviews and discussions about how to improve our democracy following the 2020 election and beyond. This is the first time, listeners, you're hearing my voice. I'm Jason Haro, the chief counsel and executive director of Of Equal Citizens. I'm joined today by Adam Eichen, who you've heard before. He's our campaign's manager. Hey, Adam.

Hey.

Great to have you on. And we have our first repeat guest, Dave Daly. Dave is a former editor of Salon. He's the author of the national bestseller Rat Fucked. Great title, why youy Vote Doesn't Count, and the forthcoming How Americans Fought Back, Slayed the Gerrymander and Reinvented Democracy. He's a senior fellow at FairVote right now. Uh, before we introduce him, Dave, I'll say we. You did an awesome conversation with Larry on July 4th. Appropriately so. Listeners, if you want a really deep conversation, especially about gerrymandering, Dave is awesome on those issues and there's a whole, like, 90 minute conversation, go back to the Independence Day episode. Um, but, Dave, we're happy to have you on once again. How are you?

I'm great. Good to be here. Thanks, guys.

Of course. So we brought you on because today's episode is a special debate extravaganza. We want to recap what happened last week at the two Democratic debates from a democracy reform angle. And, Dave, you came out last week after the first debate and you said there have now been 27 debates, Democratic debates, and general election debates since the Shelby county decision. And the Shelby county decision, if you want to explain it just a little bit. But that basically, I think the bottom line is that really gutted the Voting Rights act and unleash states to pass many new restrictive voting laws that make voting harder and more complicated and more difficult, especially for those inclined to vote for Democrats. And the media has not asked about voting or democracy or gerrymandering in any of these debates. So I guess the first question that your piece raises is, what in the world is going on? Is it the media's problem or the people's problem?

I think it's the media's problem. I think the people get this topic right. I mean, in 2018, there were 16 different democracy initiatives on the ballot across the country. And this was not just in blue states. This was in Utah, this was in Idaho. And 15 of the 16 of them passed. And these are issues that pass with huge bipartisan support. If you look at felony Enfranchisement in Florida, for example, passes with a Super majority of 64% of voters in Florida in the same year that Floridians elect a Republican governor and a Republican US Senator. So clearly, these electoral reform and democracy issues resonate across the aisle with all kinds of voters in all kinds of states. It's the media that refuses to talk about these questions. That's the common denominator here, right? We're talking now about 27 Democratic debates and general election debates, as well as the dozen Republican debates in 2016, because I think we ought to be asking Republicans about these topics as well. The media is happy to talk about Hillary's emails. They are happy to foment and kind of gin up this weird conflict between the candidates on stage in the Republican debates in 2016. There was a long conversation about what would be your Secret Service nickname, But they won't ask about gerrymandering or the Electoral College or the makeup of the Senate or voting rights or voter id. This, to me, is an abdication of a fundamental responsibility to all of us.

So, Dave, you know, the other thing, right, is that this took. This debate took place in Michigan. And Michigan, as you know, you've been there multiple times examining the. And embedding yourself into the democracy movements there, both when you're writing your book about gerrymandering as well as when you were writing your book about the ballot initiatives in 2018. I mean, does that, does that play a role in the shock here that they didn't mention one of the most gerrymandered states in the nation, as well as one of the states where they actually had passed reform to try and tackle gerrymandering.

That's a great observation. I mean, in 2018, you had something like 62% of all voters in Michigan that signed on to the voters, not politicians. You know, a very bipartisan, nonpartisan drive to fix redistricting in Michigan. And Michigan is one of the states in this country that has been fundamentally turned upside down by gerrymandering. Democrats have won more votes for the state House in Michigan in 2012, 2016, and 2018. And it depends on how you count a special election in 2014. So possibly every single electoral cycle on these maps, Democrats have won more votes. They've never held more seats. So a democracy and policy in Michigan has been turned completely upside down, and the media still could not bring themselves to ask about it. But, I mean, I think a bigger fundamental problem happened in the MSNBC debates a month ago in which you had two presidential debates that bookended these monumental Supreme Court decisions on partisan gerrymandering and on the census question back at the end of June. And there were no questions about these topics the night before. The Supreme Court was about to deliver these two key decisions, which everyone knew was coming because it was the last day of the session. And then there were no questions about them that night, even after the Supreme Court slammed the door shut on future partisan gerrymandering claims at the federal court level and essentially pumped the brakes on the citizenship question at the time. If MSNBC isn't going to ask about it on that night, when are we ever going to get this conversation on the main stage?

So I don't have the answer for that, Dave, but I want to turn it back to you precisely because I don't have the answer for it. And you've written books and been on the ground for a long time. So say a little bit about what you think is behind this. Right? It can't be. And let me give a little me to that. It can't be, as you said, that MSNBC doesn't know about these issues. It can't be that someone like Rachel Maddow or Jake Tapper are unaware of these problems, unaware of the facts that you've mentioned, unaware of the ballot measures in 2018. And yet. Right. They don't seem, they have not asked about them at any debates and they don't seem to come up a lot on the Sunday morning shows or in the sort of five minute interviews. You can get candidates talking about these and get questions about, on things like the Daily show and like a long form interview that Trevor Noah has done with let's say, Mayor Pete. But the five minute talking head kind of cable news things don't often bring these issues up. So why have you investigated this or have any sense of what's going on there?

It's a great question and I wish I had a better answer. I mean, I've thought about it a lot and I think that there's just a rhythm and a structure to these interviews in, in which journalists like Tapper, like Maddow, of course they know about this. I mean, Maddow has done some, a really good coverage of democracy issues and voting rights questions. I did a talk in Philadelphia and Jake Tapper's dad was there and came up to me. So I mean, I know firsthand that both of these journalists, very good journalists, understand these issues. But there is something performative about these debates, right. And it's a performance of objectivity and it's a little bit of a. Of a quiz. So these candidates are being quizzed and drilled on the specifics of their health care policy or what would you do, you know, to rein in North Korea or Iran's nuclear ambitions. There's a performance ness of seriousness and objectivity that I think gets in the way of asking about some of these fundamental questions. Something like a question about a democracy or gerrymandering requires taking a side, right? It requires suggesting that something has gone wrong in our democracy and that someone has done this. And these journalists on a stage like that, I think are profoundly uncomfortable taking sides in such a way that would bring a conversation like this forward.

So, Dave, I mean, to play devil's advocate, right, maybe the answer is, well, they just don't believe that people really care about this, that Americans fixate on democracy, a process issue, as opposed to something like health care, which is a bread and butter issue or jobs. What would you say to that? What would be your response? You've been embedded, you were Embedded all throughout 2018 in campaigns, democracy campaigns and grassroots campaigns of people coming together to fight for these kind of reforms. What would you say in response to that?

When I did the first book, and I can say its name here, when I did Rat Fucked, I talked to a lot of Democrats in Congress and I would say to them, why don't you make an issue out of democracy issues and electoral reform and explain to people that they'll never see action on the issues that they want until the rules of the game are fundamentally fixed. And they would sort of sigh and throw their hands in the air and say things like, we focus tested this and we think that it would be a loser for us and that it would seem like we were complaining and not just doing our jobs. So we're not going to do that. And this was 2014, 2015. But then what was the first bill that Democrats introduced when they took over the House of Representatives? I mean, it's HR1, right? And it's one of the most robust packages of pro democracy reforms that the country has ever seen. And Democrats made this their top priority, not because it's Nancy Pelosi's top priority. I mean, Nancy Pelosi has, you know, had zero problem with partisan gerrymandering over the years. The Democratic leadership has engaged in lots of it. I mean, look at what Steny Hoyer has done in Maryland. I mean, I mean, Nancy Pelosi fought to kill the independent redistricting commissions in California. But when the Democrats took over the House, their fundamental first priority was democracy reform, not because it was their top priority, but because something has changed in the public and it is the public's priority. The public now fully understands that they're not going to get action on things like guns or immigration or any of these issues that seem so controversial, but that there's actually a really clear road forward on almost all of them. And Democrats acted on it. So if the media believes that the public is not interested or aware or that their eyes glaze over on this, they are operating in the past. They're stuck behind the politicians.

So before you have to go, Dave, I want to turn it around because I think that all of us on this podcast don't view many of the laws related to voter ID and gerrymandering and the like that have been passed in Texas and Southern states and North Carolina to be true democracy reform bills. But in some senses, they actually are pitched that way to the Republicans, Republican electorate. Right. They protect election integrity. And those have been remarkably successful. So. Well, successful at accomplishing their goals and successful in getting through the legislatures. So is there anything to be gleaned from what Republicans are doing in terms of are these popular measures? Does this put, do people vote on this issue on that side and, and. Or is this something that they're sort of jamming through, perhaps in spite of what their constituents want? And so there's really not to learn for the pro reform side?

That's a really good question. I don't think that there's any great demand on the Republican side for voter id, but it's still, it's one of the very first things that most gerrymandered state legislatures take on. I mean, when the President launched his voter fraud panel, I think the entire country largely looked at that with a rolled eye and sort of understood that there were not millions of voters being bussed from Massachusetts to New Hampshire to vote. And that in fact, Donald Trump did not actually win the popular vote in California or any of these insane things that he has claimed. I mean, I do think that there's a really easy way to communicate voter ID to Republicans in some of these states and that the reform movement could probably stand something to learn from from that. Right. I mean, it's really easy to say something like, you need an ID to get into an R rated movie or to buy certain allergy medication or to board a plane. Why shouldn't you have to show ID to vote? There's a common sense, a reasonableness to that that I think masks the nefarious intent behind it. And we probably have to get better at explaining that. Explaining that away requires three or four levels of discussion about who actually doesn't have those IDs, and why they don't have those IDs, and how those IDs are actually very difficult to get, and that the state, while they require them, they'll also close down offices in parts of the state where they don't want voters to get them and continually kind of put up those kinds of barriers. So I do think that there's a messaging lesson to be learned. But on the other hand, I think it's really, it's, it's pure power politics, which is what the Republicans have been doing in a lot of these states, and it's been really, really effective. And that sort of brings me to, you know, when democracy itself becomes this kind of political football, it puts us, it puts us in a really complicated place in a representative democracy. But on the other hand, we should look at the fact that 15 of those 16 bills passed last year, that they passed in Utah, in Idaho, in Florida and Missouri, in Colorado, all around the country with bipartisan majorities in blue states and red states and purple states, and understand that there is something happening out there, that there is still a new need and the demand for fairness and people want actual honest rules of the game.

Yeah. So that's a hopeful note. I won't let you end there, though, because you wrote about the 27 debates over. 27. I need a prediction. People listening, equal citizens. They don't want us to go 28, 29 or 30 debates without it. We're doing everything we can. As you know, we've sent petitions to the moderators, we're hosting town halls with candidates. We, we, we are trying, as you are, to, to get the issue even further up on the agenda. What's your prediction? Will we get to 30 with none, or can you give us a number of, of when you think the, the first questions will be asked?

Well, the next debates are in Texas. Right. And Texas has been a, a hotbed of gerrymandering and voter suppression. So there will certainly be a great opportunity for Democrats to talk about this and for moderators to bring it up. I certainly hope they do. I think that we are reaching a point where perhaps all of this shame will get to them. And I will be optimistic for the time being that some of this is going to work. And I think as soon as they do ask this question, that the level of the debate will become so interesting and that so many interesting ideas will bubble forth that the press will sort of learn about how much of a hunger there is for a discussion of these topics. And perhaps as soon as we get one, the dam breaks and we actually get a real honest conversation about the structural reforms we need to make.

Yeah. Adam, you live tweeted the last several debates. Do you think you'll be live tweeting about a democracy question at the Texas debate in September?

I certainly hope so at this point. It's getting pretty lonely.

Indeed.

Indeed. All right, well, Dave, we'll let you go. Listeners, we're going to continue our conversation, just the two of us, Adam and I. But again, you can find Dave's pieces on Salon, You've got his books. The Independence Day episode with Larry was a great conversation, a really deep dive into gerrymandering. Dave, hope we have you on for a third time soon.

Anytime. A pleasure. And I'm just going to note for the record that I was officially more optimistic than Adam on that last question.

Yeah, you won that one, I think.

That's right. Yes. Thanks, Dave. Okay, so for part two of our debate Extravaganza podcast, it's just me and Adam. Adam, glad you stuck around even when Dave left. Thought that was a great conversation with Dave, by the way.

Yeah, Dave is absolutely amazing. For those who haven't read his book, I highly recommend it. It's probably the most. The most scary and informative book on gerrymandering out there.

Yes, great stuff. So, but what we're now going to do is recap the debate. We want to dive deeply into what happened last week and what some of the candidates said about democracy reform. Because even though, as we just lamented, there were no questions about democracy reform, that doesn't mean there were no answers and no discussion about it. So, Adam, you were at your computer. You were live tweeting all of the hours and hours of the debate, waiting for a democracy reform question that you didn't get, but you got a couple of statements. So give us a sort of high level overview of how issues of democracy reform, of money in politics, of gerrymandering, things like that were brought up by some candidates and who brought it up. Right.

I mean, so, you know, Jason, I rarely ask for more work to do, but I have to say that the candidates made it way too easy on me when I was live tweeting it, because I'd only have to send out a tweet every 15 minutes or even further in between because they really didn't mention democracy reform much at all. As you said, we've talked about the moderators didn't ask any questions about it. But there were a couple of candidates like in the first debate that did bring up some of the reforms that we endorse. Unprompted. Most of the discussion was in response to a question about the NRA on the first night. But there were a couple other questions or at least reference to special interests like the fossil fuel industry or healthcare and pharma that were monopolizing political influence, making it harder to create change for ordinary Americans. So there was kind of a lot of implicit references to the need for democracy reform insofar as, look, the people are powerless in the face of these big industries. But again, as I said, there were a couple of candidates, namely Mayor Pete, Marianne Williamson, Steve Bullock, a little bit, the governor of Montana, who did mention specific policy reform ideas for how to fix our democracy. So I figure we can just jump right in. Jason, do you want to, you want to say a little bit about Mayor Pete?

Yeah, let's do it. Let's start with our A candidate. So as some listeners know at =citizensus/potus1, we've got a comprehensive list of where candidates stand on lots of democracy reform issues. And we've put it all together in part through your excellent work, Adam, into A grade so that you can easily see what we think of the candidates positions and policies on these issues. And Mayor Pete is one of our A candidates. He gets a really good grade. And what he brought up unprompted is structural democratic reforms, what he called them. So what he said was that, and I'm quoting him here, he said when I propose the actual structural reforms that might make a difference. And here's his list. He said, emmy, Electoral college, amend the Constitution if necessary to clear up Citizens United, have D.C. washington, D.C. actually be a state, which it is not now. They don't get to have any senators or representation in the House. And he says depoliticize the Supreme Court with structural reform. People look at me funny, as if this country was incapable of it. But then he says this is a country that once changed its constitution so you couldn't drink, that's prohibition, and changed it back because we changed our minds. You're telling me we can't reform our democracy in our time? We have to or we will be having the same argument 20 years from now. So Adam, he said kind of two different things and I want to go deeply into both of them. The first is that he's got this package of structural reforms. End the Electoral College, clear up Citizens United, have D.C. be a state, depoliticize the Supreme Court. And those are interesting and we should talk about them. And then he says, and we need structural reform to actually get anything done, otherwise we're going to be going around and around in 20 years. So let's talk about these four proposals that are not necessarily the, the biggest focus of some of what people are talking about, of what we do, especially like making D.C. a state, especially the Electoral College, depoliticizing the Supreme Court, which is, which is somewhat difficult. But what do you think of these in general? Or pick one or two specifically that you think either in terms of its political impact or its need in the reform movement?

Well, so I think what's interesting about this is that Mayor Pete has kind of a very substantial democracy reform plan. It's one of the best out there. And there's a lot of stuff that he didn't mention. I get this was kind of an aside, but what's interesting to me about this is he really focused on these grand ideas of restructuring representation, which I'm all in favor of. I mean, I think that especially something like reforming or getting rid of the Electoral College is something that both Jason, you and I care about a lot. I mean, we're filing equal citizens, has filed litigation on this subject. And D.C. statehood is also incredibly important to counteract a bit of the imbalance in the Senate in terms of population and just basic representation. But the thing that was missing for me is that there's a lot that we could do just via statute, just via up or down vote in Congress, like automatic voter registration or same day voter registration or public financing of elections, which Mayor Pete's on board with. But he didn't mention that. And to me, that was a little bit frustrating. I think this is a good start to a conversation. But we don't need to change the Constitution to fix our democracy. I think that to make it a better democracy, there is room to alter the Constitution, that we could make it more democratic via that route. But there is a lot of stuff that we can do within the confines of our current Constitution. So that that was the first thing that really struck me about this, is that we don't necessarily need to pass a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United to deal with money in politics right now. It's certainly a part of that, but we could do public financing right now to really change things and democratize political influence.

Yeah, you know, that's a really great point and I think does show just what a big thinker Mayor Pete can be on the trail and how big these ideas are. But it does highlight to me, it makes me think, I mean, you know, he did what he didn't mention in Prohibition, right. Was all of the sort of the temperance movement itself, right. All the state level groups and all of the people laying the groundwork for this. And these are. The Constitution is incredibly difficult to amend, it turns out. And so I think shooting for things that either require a constitutional amendment or are so deeply, deeply upset our current understanding of, you know, the rules of the road, like trying to do reforms to depoliticize the Supreme Court, as he said, which most people aren't aware the Supreme Court is not. Its size, for instance, is not necessarily set by the Constitution. So even just by a regular statute, you could, for instance, expand the size of the U.S. supreme Court to perhaps depoliticize it. But that, you know, I think he's got to give me a little more on the laying the groundwork of that. And Adam, as you mentioned, the groundwork could be laid by taking some of the steps that we think are necessary to really take down the temperature and restore effectiveness to government and faith in government and restore an ability to, of citizens to navigate the system that feels so out of reach to them right now because it's so dominated by special interests. Right. So these are things like public funding of campaigns. These are things like ranked choice voting, making voting easier and less burdensome, making registration easier and less burdensome, you know, ending gerrymandering to restore a better mix between representatives and votes. And I think with this groundwork, then, you know, taking on the Constitution, taking on the Supreme Court, making D.C. a state, maybe those, those become both less politically charged and more feasible. I do want to separate out though the electoral College point. You know, we at equal citizens believe firmly in that one. That is one that I think since the 2000 election has been more on people's radar and there is more of a movement for that right now. There's national popular Vote, interstate compact, that's been going along for 15 years or so. So I love his emphasis on that one. And that's presidential leadership there, I think is really important. So I'll bracket that one. But Adam, what do you think of this point of without these things, without depoliticizing the supreme court, without making D.C. a state, we're going to keep going around and around. How do you sort of interpret that?

Well, I mean, it's ambiguous whether or not he means that those specific reforms are needed to prevent going round and round in circles for the next 20 years or just democracy reform writ large? If it's the latter, I think that's the case that if I agree that without systemic democracy reform we won't get changed, that we will have the same arguments that we're having now in 20 years. But again, I think that's more about his entire platform, which deals with voting rights and more structural stuff like he talks about, but also gerrymandering reform and public financing. That yeah, if we address all of those things together, he is right that we will not be having the same argument 20 years from now. That I think that as a country we will have made tremendous changes for the better. So, I mean, I agree with him on that point, assuming that he means a broader package, not just these four specific reforms, which I would think in his short answer, I mean, Jason, as we both know so well, and I'm sure as the listeners know, these debates are not actually really designed to allow people to elaborate deeply on what they're saying. You have to get a lot into a little bit of talking time. So, you know, these may just be the first four things that came onto into his mind. But you know, he couldn't quite articulate his entire democracy reform platform in the 30 seconds he had to respond, which just by the way, and I'm sure we'll talk about this more, I mean, it would be so much better if we had a full debate just on democracy reform where we could really see what he believes on this, if he really thinks that these four solutions are all you need, or if indeed he thinks the everything on his webpage about democracy reform is actually needed to get us to a place where we can make that change.

And I assume it's the latter. Adam, of course, yeah, he has talked about a lot of these. I do think that his point though goes to something even more fundamental than just sort of changing the rules of the road, which a lot of candidates rightly want to do. But I think he's really getting at the long term effects of the, this extreme mismatch between representation and voter sentiment. And I think he's a student of history. He's an extremely smart, sort of well read, academic type person, has almost a Barack Obama air in that sense. And I think he recognizes that in if you look at history and countries or times in US History where the political system has not been responsive to the, the actual democracy, right. Because people are systematically disenfranchised or because things are very askew, think about the American south in the Jim Crow era, right, where, where African Americans had had no right to vote. And so even though there was much more support for civil rights than, than there was being reflected in the representatives, there was sort of minority rule by, by the white supremacists would, you know, minority in the country and in the region, but able to really impose a lot of the will on the country. Same thing if you look at other countries in history. And I think Mayor Pete is getting at something like that, which is the danger in the long run of having entrenched minority rule because, you know, they, they see it coming. Right. And I don't mean to single out all Republicans here or say there are no Republicans of good faith. Indeed, the 2012 sort of post mortem for the Republican Party said exactly this, which is we are going to be a minority party if we continue to make the same kinds of appeals that we're making. We need to expand the base. We need to become a majority party once again in order to rule with any legitimacy. And of course, that didn't really happen in 2016. The President won election despite losing by many millions of popular votes. And so they're kind of doubling down on this minority rule aspect. And I think that's the deep truth that Mayor Pete is getting at. It's a hard one to explain. I think it's certainly a long term structural issue. But I think, Adam, we agree that Mayor Pete wants to put both those really deep structural issues and also the near term, how to make things better, how to cool heads and how to get legislation through and make a functioning system once again. Okay, so. So that's Mayor Pete. We could, of course, continue to talk about Mayor Pete's proposals all afternoon because they're super fascinating and he's got a lot of them there. But Marianne Williamson we want to move on to because she scores an A on our list. And she was really direct in her talks and on the campaign trail as well as at the debate. She targets corruption and she says that corruption is all about money and politics. And here's what she said. She says that the issue of gun safety is that the NRA has us in a chokehold. But then she went on, so do the pharmaceutical companies, so do the health insurance companies, so do the fossil fuel companies, so do the defense contractors. And none of this will change until we either pass a constitutional amendment or pass legislation that establishes public funding for federal campaigns. So, Adam, what do you think of that?

I mean, that's a perfect answer right there. That without democratizing political influence, which public financing would do real, meaningful change, is just not possible. I think on all those examples. And the NRA is, I think that example is not perfect. Last year I wrote an article for NBC with Equal Citizens about this that I think the NRA is a little bit more complicated because it's a massive membership organizations. So the other thing that they can do is turn people out to vote. People that they turn out to vote are not necessarily representative of the broader population, which again, highlights the need for both campaign finance reform as well as voting rights reform. But she certainly gets half of that correct there. And certainly on pharmaceuticals, health insurance and fossil fuel companies and defense contractors. These are all, you know, policy areas where those companies and industries do have outsize influence, both through campaign contributions, lobbying, lobbying expenditures and the like. So she's right. I mean, absolutely. I mean, this is, this is our motto at Equal Citizens that, you know, until you change the way candidates raise money, you're not going to change their priorities, you're not going to change their incentives. You know, the reliance on a small number of big donors, whether explicitly or implicitly, skews priorities.

So I think that's exactly right, Adam. I mean, federal funding or public funding of federal campaigns is incredibly important. It's interesting that Williamson talks about a constitutional amendment or past legislation. You know, we have supported legislation. Regular old statute just takes the vote of, you know, 51 senators, plus a majority of the House and signature by the president. That would put some really robust programs in place here, including a voucher program or a Democracy Dollar program that you talked about previously on the podcast, Adam, which would give folks, voters and citizens money from their tax dollars to donate to political campaigns to make sure that everyone can participate in this funding process. That doesn't take a constitutional amendment. I take her point here to be that this is a big change. If one is required, we'll do it. Right. If it's, if a statute is struck down, we'll keep going. Or perhaps that this is so important that it should be elevated to the art of the Constitution. So I like that she's sort of bringing up both, in a sense, she's not committed here, obviously, to the text of any particular constitutional amendment. I think she would be very strongly for legislation on this issue. And, Adam, that's your understanding as well, right, that there's some really great legislative proposals and they could be implemented on January 21, 2021, if, if a president who supports it, including President Trump, if he wants to support it, is inaugurated and the Senate and the House pass it?

Yeah, absolutely. I mean, public financing can be passed via statute. I, to be honest, I don't really know what she is referring to with a constitutional amendment, you know, as we talked about on last week's podcast with Danny and Naomi, is that that's on her website as well. So there's just some weird ambiguity. Ambiguity about what she's talking about when she keeps referencing a constitutional amendment to establish public financing because you don't need that. And moreover, Jason, I don't know about what you think about this. I wouldn't want necessarily that to be in the Constitution, certainly not any sort of detailed policy. You know, you want your public finance system to be robust and easily changeable to adapt to modern campaigns, ever evolving campaigns, but maybe some sort of guarantee that there would be some system, wouldn't be the worst thing in the world. I could be convinced.

Yeah. So I want to, before we move on from Marianne Williamson, I want to go to something else she said and get your opinion on it because I don't know, there could be a little area of disagreement. Not that this is a debate podcast or something, but this I think is more controversial. She then said, for politicians, including my fellow candidates, who themselves have taken tens of thousands and in some cases hundreds of thousands of dollars from these same corporate donors, to think that they, that is, those other candidates now have the moral authority to say we're going to take them on, we're going to take these big companies on. I don't think the Democratic Party should be surprised that so many Americans believe yada, yada, yada. Good line. She's saying two things there, Adam, and I want your, your take on both. The first thing she's saying is, you know, boy, nothing's going to change, even in our party, which talks a lot and increasingly, as we've mentioned, about reforming democracy and making a better system and that dastardly influence of special interests, nothing is going to change if you all on this stage keep taking corporate money. That's point one. And point two is it's about what the American public perceives. Even if you have it right in your heart that you're going to take pharmaceutical money, but you're going to do the best thing for most Americans, health insurance, and not take the special interests into account, how are Americans going to believe you? So what do you think of each of those points?

Well, I mean, I, I have an interesting take on this and I fluctuate actually between.

I love interesting takes. Yeah, give us your interesting takes.

Well, so I mean, I think that I agree a lot with Lessig on this, that Oftentimes, I care less about the money that candidates are taking in the current system, the current model that produces, you know, our skewed incentives. And I care more about what politicians plan to do once elected. In other words, are they pledging and endorsing the policy reform that will change the system? So, in other words, are candidates endorsing public financing? That question to me is probably more important than the history of their campaign fundraising. That said, I think she has a very valid point that if you continue to take money from industries that are perceived as corrupting, I think a good point is the fossil fuel industry. I think that there's a compelling case to be made that the American people are rightfully distrustful. So in other words, I may care less about that from a policy perspective because I think I care most about getting that policy. And I recognize that you do have to raise money to win. And not all candidates, especially on the congressional level and lower, have access to these small dollar donor networks like someone like Bernie Sanders has. You know, all that said, I think that there is a compelling reason to, to find lavish fundraising not only distasteful, but not trustworthy.

Yeah, you know, it's. That one is such a tricky issue. I have mixed feelings as well. I think the perception point is a great one. I'm not going to add to it because you said it well. But, you know, candidates right now are playing by the rules of the road and they've got to win. And that's exactly, you know, the point we're trying to make, which is the rules of the road are bad rules. But, you know, if you're saying you're going to reform them, you've also got to get in, in some way. Right. You know, it's a little, you know, like fossil fuels or carbon emissions or something. You know, we, I think many people think we, we have bad regulations, we have bad laws that are permitting way too much carbon dioxide to go into the air. But, you know, until we do, right. The fact is that there are cars, for instance, that, you know, that, that emit carbon at rates perhaps they shouldn't. If you can't afford a car that is, you know, has less emissions, well, what are you going to do? Right? You wish those were taken off the market. You wish there were more economical ways to, you know, fight climate change. But these are the rules of the road. And so the Bidens of the world, who. I think she was referring to the Kamala Harris of the world, who are taking some money from, from large donors, well, they want to get elected. And, and, you know, I think we think, Adam, that while we love Marianne Williamson's rhetoric, the fact is, in part because, not fully, but in part because she has fewer resources than them, her odds probably go down. So that puts the candidates in a really tough place. We hate to say it because we want to see money out of politics, but it's just a really tough issue.

So, Jason, the other thing that Williamson is getting at here, which I think is important for Democrats to acknowledge, is to acknowledge publicly their own past spending and raising habits, and to acknowledge that Democrats haven't always acted in, in the best manner when it comes to campaign finance and fundraising in the past, and to acknowledge that history, acknowledge that present and say, look, I've run and won in this environment. I'm not happy about it. I'm doing it now potentially a little bit. I think we've made strides to make it better. But I ultimately want to end this arms race of fundraising, to make it so that no candidate in the future has to do this. I think that is somewhat what she's getting here, that someone who has done fundraising in the past isn't disqualified from being a reformer. But just to acknowledge that, to acknowledge that the system has been broken even when you've won a race in the past, I think would actually be a very compelling message for voters to say, yeah, you know what, the system has been broken for a long time. I've benefited from that system, but look, I've been convinced it's broken. We should end this now. Let's call for public financing. To me, that's a very fair way to acknowledge the history of the systemic corruption, acknowledge your place in that history of systemic corruption, but also convince voters that we're not doomed to stay in there and that you can be a reformer in moving forward.

I love that point. I think that's a really great point. And we'll see if that happens over the course of the campaign. Okay, so those were our two A candidates. Adam, we also the other person who talked about it the most is Governor Steve Bullock of Montana, who was in his first debate because he was not in the June debates. He gets a C on our list, and we'll explain why. But I want to say what he talked about. He so Mayor Pete talked about big structural reforms. Marian Williamson emphasized public funding of campaigns. Bullock emphasized something different. Here's what he said. He said it's when we talked about climate, when we talk about prescription drugs, Washington, D.C. is captured by dark money, the Koch brothers and others. That's been the fight of my career. He says kicking the Koch brothers out of Montana, taking the first case after Citizens United up to the Supreme Court, making it so that elections are about people. That's the way we're actually going to make a change on this by changing the system. Most of the things that folks are talking about on this stage we're not going to address until we kick dark money on the post Citizens United corporate spending out of these elections. Okay, so he's really talking about two things, as usual. I can somehow always find two things, that these things are bad, even when they seem like they're only about one. The first thing is kicking dark money out, kicking the Koch brothers out of the state and, you know, avoiding this capture by dark money. That's the first thing. And then he sort of gestures to just changing the system and making it. I like, really like this quote, so. So that elections are about people. But, Adam, I think you think there's a disconnect between the first thing kicking the Koch brothers out of Montana and eliminating dark money and the second thing making elections about people. Am I right there? Do you think there's a little bit of a disconnect with Governor Bullock?

Yes, I really do. And I'm not even quite sure what he means by kicking the Koch brothers out of Montana. I just don't really know what that would even look like in terms of what kind of law he's thinking about or constitutional change. But look, Jason, Governor Bullock has done a lot for the reform community. He really has tackled big money in politics. But since he's declared his candidacy for the presidency, he really has only given the most milquetoaster forms of most candidates that are in the race. His main reforms are disclosure and dealing with dark money, which dark money is not even the biggest source of political expenditure. It's a problem, but just making political spending transparent is not the real problem here, and nor is Citizens United necessarily the main problem in our democracy. Our democracy has been broken long before Citizens United. The average American had near zero influence, according to political scientists, well before 2010, where the wealthy had significant influence. And so he's really looking at these kind of technocratic reforms that don't really alter the power dynamics in our democracy. Nothing he's saying is elevating the political power of ordinary Americans. It's just slightly decreasing the power of the ultra wealthy and making sure that their spending is transparent. And to me, that's not really enough. It's just actually plainly not enough that without a serious public financing plan I don't really think that's a good campaign finance reform plan. And Bullock, you know, the reason that he scores so lowly is also because nowhere does he mention voting rights and gerrymandering reform. And so this, to me, this statement is really emblematic of his candidacy so far, that I don't think he's doomed to have a C moving forward. But I think that until he integrates some more transformative policies into his talking points and platform, I personally am disappointed.

Yeah. I mean, so in some ways the theme is. Right. Making it so that elections are about people is great language. And what we are about at equal citizens, changing the system. Also what we're about at equal citizens. And, you know, him talking about money in politics and talking about the influence of donors is incredibly important. And he has been a fighter. And I think the context is also important. Adam. Right. I'm not trying to bump him up. I'm not trying to. You know, you're the ultimate arbiter of the grades. I'm not trying to argue him from a C to a C plus or something like that. I know the grades are locked right now until he changes his views. But I do think it's important to understand that he is a red state governor, right. In a rural area. He's got to appeal to a median voter, more of an independent voter. And I think that there is, you know, there's been enough water under the bridge and enough in the movement talking about how Citizens United is real. Boogeyman talk about how these couple big donors, perhaps the Koch brothers on the right, George Soros on the left, are really corrupting, corrupting things. And how if we just disclose and no one likes dark money. I mean, who likes dark money? We all like, I guess, light money or something like that, or transparent money. The, you know, dark money has shadiness kind of built in. Of course we want to get that out. I think what you're talking about, though, is right, which is that hopefully the governor can use this as a way to highlight even more substantial reforms and reforms that we think will have more of an impact on, on the system. So I think it's fair to say that maybe we should call him a C incomplete because he talks a lot about these issues. And I think there is a willingness to learn about and hopefully having substantive discussion and having the candidates push each other on these issues. That's the goal. That's what we want to do. That's what we want the moderators to do. That's what we want to do. Through our town halls and podcasts and like, is really dig in here, use this as a start to a way to build a better platform. And hopefully that's what this is. But I agree with you, Adam, that, that I'm, I'm not sure what it means to kick the Koch brothers out of Montana. And believe it or not, even though we are for campaign finance reform, I don't mean to speak for you, Adam. We don't believe in kicking the Koch brothers out of Montana. Everyone has a right to be a part of the political process. I mean, that's, that's called democracy. And what we want everyone to do is play on a player, on a fair playing field and not exercise undue influence. So, you know, I think he's got a ways to go, but it was great. Again, we got to give him props. He was one of the three candidates that we say sort of featured this most prominently. Okay, so we're running to the end of time, Adam. Let's do a quick lightning round. We mentioned that Amy Klobuchar also mentioned democracy reform. She had an angle that was really geared toward gun reform. And her angle is that the answer to large, big money groups is saying, the people are with us now. Right? Just have an even bigger popular movement. You know, she says, we elected people in the House of Representatives who want to pass GUNRO legislation, and guess what? It changed. And they passed universal background checks. And now that bill is sitting on Mitch McConnell's doorstep because of the money and the power of the nra. As president, I will take them on. So it's sort of like a personal thing combined with a. Just elect more Democrats and get it through is, you know, what do you think of that rhetoric? And again, we're going to do this kind of quickly in a lightning round sense.

I mean, you know, look, I'm, I'm a huge proponent of social movements. I think that the only way to get change in American society is through mass mobilizations. You've seen that throughout American history. And you see this also in the rhetoric of someone like Bernie Sanders, you know, the political revolution. But, but even kind of mass mobilizations are going to come up against the brick wall of systemic corruption in American society. You know, you saw, you see this again and again and again in modern politics that even the most robust reform movements, you know, can only get so much before industry rallies and coalesces to block reform. So, yes, this is a part, and this is what we're doing. We're trying to build a democracy, A mass mobilization around Democracy reform to then unrig the system that will then allow other mass mobilizations to exert their rightful democratic, you know, power in our political system. So, look, I agree with her that if you really do want gun control, you have to mobilize. But it's missing a key component that you're not going to win until you unlock the other things that are blocking reform.

Yeah. And I'll just add, I like the I will take them on rhetoric, but it's got to be paired with, you know, legislative proposals. Right. Because this idea that one great president is going to solve things, I think if. If it wasn't dashed by just looking at history and how difficult it is to move everything, even in a better functioning era. Right. I think the Obama presidency proved that one transformative president, one president who's a constitutional scholar, who wanted to do these things. Not enough where we. Exactly. We need policy proposals. We don't just need a fighter in there. We need someone with the policy chops and the willingness to, you know, really fight for these democracy reforms as well, and not just personally stand up to

the NRA and Anna movement behind him or her.

Indeed, indeed. And that's what we're working on. Adam, as you know and listeners, I hope you join us. Okay, so really quick end of the lightning round. Beto o' Rourke said, I will sign into law a new Voting Rights Act. That was the sum and substance of his talking about democracy reform, but it's a mention of voting rights.

And Jason. Sorry, Yeah, I was gonna say, you know, Jason, very quickly today as we're recording, this is the anniversary of the Voting Rights act being signed into law. So I do give o' Rourke quite a bit of credit for mentioning that, that we really do need a new vra. It's incredibly important. Since the Supreme Court struck down the Voting Rights act in Shelby county, voter suppression has been a huge problem.

Indeed. No, that. That's definitely true. And again, we just. We want to see a little more. Right. Maybe if the. The moderators asked the candidates about voting rights reform, you know, they could have more of an opportunity than just to give one sentence. But, you know, c' est la vie. He moved on without explaining what that new Voting Rights act would contain. Senator Michael Bennett acknowledged the need to fight for democracy. Governor Jay Inslee of Washington talked about the need to confront the fossil fuel industry, climate change. His is his big issue. Representative Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii said that we need to get the health industry out of the bill drafting room. Talking about the kind of lobbyist interest. Cory Booker brought up voter suppression and efforts to suppress the African American vote. And Bill de Blasio, mayor of New York, who gets a D on our list, opened the night by attacking Joe Biden for telling his donors not to worry about too much change if he's president. I guess that's a reference to, you know, his corporate fundraising and perhaps a sideways reference to some improvements he wants to see in the system. So, you know, I'll just leave it to you, Adam, for closing words. You could, you know, address any of those little bits and pieces, but closing words for how you feel about how democracy has gone in the last debate and what you're hopeful for coming up.

I think that the only solution moving forward is a debate focused only on our democratic crisis and, and how to reform it. I think that these debates so far have proven that 30 seconds to respond to war, to bring up democracy reform is just not enough. There's too much ambiguity and there's too much variance in these plans. There are too many parts of our broken democracy that need to be addressed, whether it be gerrymandering, voting rights, money and politics, the more structural stuff. I mean, Jason, it's really clear to me now more than ever that if we are really going to fix this democracy and if the Democrats, moreover, are going to be ready to go into a general election debate with Donald Trump, who in 2016 ran on a message of draining the swamp if they want to be ready to combat that messaging again. Now, it may sound absurd to us that he would use that rhetoric again since he really has done nothing to drain the swamp, but I'm pretty convinced he'll probably use it again. And if the Democrats want to be ready to go in there and say, Listen, Mr. President, you have not drained the swamp. I will drain the swamp, and this is how I will do it. If they want to be ready to have that conversation, they need to start practicing now in this primary because that's what primaries are for. And the only way to do that is with a substantial, thoughtful and constructive democracy debate.

I was going to end this by saying from your mouth to God's ears, but it's actually much more important. Adam, I'll say from your mouth to Tom Perez ears. Chairman Perez, if you're listening, we need more democracy. Put it in its own debate ideal. Make sure your moderators ask about it. It's something that people care about. It's something incredibly important to our system, something that can get people to the polls. Enough of let's not go over 27 as we talked about or over 28 as we talked about with Dave. We're now over 27. Let's change it here in September. Okay, Adam, this was a lot of fun. We'll talk to you soon. I'll remind listeners before we go, you can find us at Equal Citizens, Us Anotherway. That's what this podcast is called. Larry Lessig should be back next week with another interview episode, and we hope you've enjoyed it. We'll talk to you soon. See you, Adam.

Thanks so much,

Sam.