Interview with Senator Kirsten Gillibrand [06-13-19]

This is Larry Lessig. This is season three of the podcast Another Way, our second episode. And I'm so extraordinarily happy that we can introduce this podcast in substance with Senator Kirsten Gillibrand from New York. Senator Gillibrand has made reform, as you will hear, a central part of her campaign. And in the course of this 45 minute podcast, I think you'll understand exactly what has motivated her to make this so central. At the end of this podcast, I'm gonna make an ask. It's an ask not to endorse a candidate or to support a particular candidate, but it is an ask to make this issue central in this presidential campaign. And it's a particular step you can take to make it so that we see this issue as central. This podcast is brought to you by equal citizens, us and me. We don't have sponsorships as in people paying us money to do this, but it's important that the movement for reform begin to spread the message of the reform movement broadly. So each episode will include us talking about another organization who's doing great work and the priorities of that organization that you can follow as well. The first of these other organizations is the Leadership Now Project, which is a membership organization that was started by an extraordinary group of women who were business professionals, investors, innovators, some think influencers, who are building a project to renew our democracy by getting a generation of leaders to step up. There are four founding principles to their organization. Number one, to protect democracy while renewing it. Number two, to promote fact and evidence based policy making. Number three, to create an economy that works for all. And number four, to embrace diversity as an asset in this democracy and that economy. I've been incredibly impressed with the work that LeadershipNow project has done. You can find them on the web at leadershipnowproject. All one very long word.org and you can see the campaigns they're getting involved in to bring new leaders into the fight. So again, we begin this podcast with Kirsten Gillibrand from New York. Senator, thank you so much for agreeing to be our test pilot on this podcast.

Well, I'm so excited about the opportunity. Thank you for having me.

So many people, of course, know you're the senator from New York. Most people, I think, don't have a clear sense of the New York you're the senator from. You're the upstate New York senator. Or at least you come from upstate. I was reminded of this two days ago. I spoke at the Bethlehem Central High School.

Oh, amazing.

Those kids were so proud to claim you as their senator. And they told me all about the work that you did. You lived, I guess you grew up close to that high school, is that right?

I did. My home is probably a couple miles away from that high school.

Yeah. And so you grew up, your parents were lawyers in New York?

Yes, so my mom was a really a family lawyer, somebody who helped parents adopt a baby or buy a home or small businesses start their businesses. My dad started out as a public defender and he worked at the Albany public defender's office for a long time. And then together my parents started their own firm. And. Yeah, so I grew up working in their law office during my summers finding filing papers. So I got a little bit of the legal bug as a kid.

Wow. And so then you went to Dartmouth, just over the line, but then the UCLA for law school.

Correct.

So when you went to law school, did you think you were going to be a lawyer?

You know, I definitely wanted to have the skills of a lawyer. I really admired my mother and I loved the way she helped people. And I thought if I could navigate complex legal issues for people who need my help, that I'd really enjoy that. But I did aspire as a young girl to public service. I just didn't know how and I didn't know when. And I thought being a lawyer would give me good tools.

And so when you thought about the good tools part is there, did you. I mean, you spent some time practicing as lawyer, obviously, and you worked at HUD before you got into public service. I mean, elective public service. When you had this experience as a lawyer, did you have a sense of something that the law could give us? I mean, is there something edifying in the story? You know, I make lawyers for a living, so I'm always looking for reasons to believe in what I do.

Yeah, I do. I think being a lawyer taught me how to listen to constituents, to just really listen to what's happening in their lives and what needs to be fixed. Being a lawyer taught me how to organize complex ideas and simplify them so. So that I could explain what I want to do and how I'm going to get it done. It also gave me the tools to be a really good cross examiner. And so when I'm sitting in an armed services hearing and I'm getting a lot of what should say obfuscating from generals about why they won't take sexual assault in the military seriously, I used my litigation skills and my cross examination skills to really drill down on the lies they were telling and the unwillingness to hold Perpetrators accountable. So I've used my legal skills a lot, and I think they're super helpful in also finding common ground, because if you're listening to your Republican colleagues and finding out what they want to accomplish in their states or districts, you can pinpoint exactly where you agree and then build from there. I really credit it to why I passed so many bills.

Is there an idealism to the lawyers you worked with?

I think so. You know, a lot of people who decide to go to law school want to change the world, and sometimes you don't know how to do that or where to do that. But the skills you actually build will let you change the world because you learn how to solve problems and to identify the root of a problem and identify what is necessary to fix it. And I've really used those skills my entire 12 years in public service.

Okay, so this has been a long time in public service, and you're going to. I'm just gonna make sure people are aware of exactly the range of experience you've had, which I think is quite impressive. So you went to Congress in 2006, and strikingly, you ran in a Republican district. Two to one Republican. The person you ran against, Congressman Sweeney, is reported to have said, quote, no Republican can ever lose the district. And that was true until he did lose that district. Is that correct? Correct.

Yes.

That was a difficult fight, I imagine. I mean, you won the race ultimately by. It was, I think, 53% of the vote. But one thing that's interesting about New York politics that I think many people don't have a sense of is you have a fusion ticket system in New York. So you are actually the candidate both for the Democratic Party and. And for the Working Families Party.

Correct.

And so how does that typically change the dynamic of being a candidate in a state like New York?

Well, for me, the Working Families Party represents my values. The Working Families Party is about rewarding work, making sure workers have fair wages, have good benefits, really supporting unions and supporting the right to organize, really supporting card check and fighting against right to work states. And so our values were very much aligned. And I was really grateful because part of the reason why I won in 2006 is because I had so many people going door to door for me by election Day, we were knocking on 20,000 doors every weekend, and we were making 10,000 phone calls every night. And it was the teachers, it was union members, it was pipefitters and plumbers. It was this amazing activism from our unions to speak their minds and support a candidate who shared their Values. And it was a very grassroots campaign and we surprised everybody. The only person who thought I could actually win was my mother. And that tells you a lot about my mother. She was a very strong woman. By the time she was my age, she was a second degree black belt in karate. So I come from very strong female blood, particularly my mother and my grandmother who really never gave up and always believed that you can make a difference no matter who you are.

Yeah, so you surprised everybody. You won in 2006 with 53% of the vote. 2008, the Republicans came back and spent an extraordinary amount of money to try to beat you. But you were reelected again with like 62% of the vote.

Yeah, I won that second election by 24 points.

That's amazing.

And they did run a very mean campaign. It was all very negative, very negative ads. But voters knew what I was there for, what I believed in, and they supported me. And interesting, Larry, even in that two to one Republican district, I ran on really progressive causes. I ran on getting our troops out of Iraq. It was the number one issue in my district. And when I started running on that, only 30% supported getting out of Iraq. By election day, 70% supported it. And I ran on Medicare for all because that was before Obamacare. So a lot of people were being denied coverage because of pre existing conditions. And so I really focused on a solution. And I figured out back then that if people could buy into Medicare at a price they could afford like 4 or 5% of their income, you could have a not for profit public option that would create competition against the insurers. They that the insurers wouldn't be able to compete if they didn't lower their rates. And people would have an option to have something that was better coverage for less money, which was a good solution. And that's one of the reasons why I helped to write Senator Sanders bill and I got to write the buy in phase because I think it's the quickest way to get to universal healthcare as a right and to single payer.

So that's striking that that won in a 2 to 1 Republican district. Maybe less surprising that it wins in the state of New York generally. But again, in the state of New York, when you ran as senator, of course, at first in 2008 when President Obama was elected, he appointed your then junior senator, Senator Clinton to be Secretary of State. And then you were appointed by the governor to be the interim senator. And then you ran your first election in 2010 where you won again with 63% of the vote you had to run in 2012, you won with 72% of the vote. And then you just won this last election with, again, 67% of the vote. So you've had this experience of winning in a very big way. Now, I'm not sure. I don't think there's any reason why you couldn't win the Democratic nomination, but I'm pretty sure you're not gonna win it by 60% of the vote or greater. So you've been incredibly successful. But this is a very difficult fight you're in right now.

Yes. And I really feel that all of us have to do whatever we can to defeat President Trump, because he's truly destroying the fabric of our country, making us fearful of immigrants and refugees, dividing us on every racial line, religious line, socioeconomic line, breeding hate and fear and anxiety. And so I feel called at this moment because we need a president who's going to fight for all of us, one who's actually brave. And President Trump demonizes the vulnerable, he demonizes the weak, and he actually punches down. And I know that I will stand up to the special interests in Washington. I will fight against the greed and corruption that decides everything. I will fight to get money out of politics as a first step, because if you want to do any of the stuff that we want to do, like health care is a right, or better public schools or better job training so more people can earn their way into the middle class, then you're going to have to take on the corruption and greed and the special interests. And I don't know if all of the Democrats will do that. I don't know that they will do what's right. I don't know that they will go through fire to take on the battles. I've always taken on the battles that other people won't. And it's why I decided to run. I really think we need bravery at this point. We need courage and fearlessness. And that's who I am. I've taken on a 2 to 1 Republican district and won twice. I've taken on the Pentagon twice. Once over sexual violence, once over don't ask, don't tell repeal, and the second time over sexual violence in the military. I take on Congress all the time. As a freshman House member, I posted my earmarks, my schedule, my financial disclosure and my taxes. And as a presidential candidate, I posted 12 years, first presidential candidate to do that in this cycle. And I've taken on the banks. Even as a member of Congress from New York, I read that bailout Bill, and maybe that was part of my legal training, but I gotta tell you, it was written to leave the taxpayer holding the bag. So I voted against that bailout bill twice.

That was extraordinary. As a senator from New York voting against that bailout bill. That was a. Yeah.

I think there were literally only two of us in the whole delegation that voted against it. I think it was me and Maurice Hinchey. And I could tell you there was a backlash. People were angry. But my training, Larry, is to read stuff, to find out what it actually says. And I knew that that bill was intended for people to pay a dollar on the dollar for the worst assets imaginable, and it would have left the taxpayers paying the bill. And I knew it was wrong. And I knew we should have been allowed to buy equity like Warren Buffett. Eventually we did, but not because the bill allowed it. They had to change the bill to do it.

Yeah. So I want to talk about this campaign, and I want to talk about two things in particular. I want to start, though, with this framing around brave. I've got to say, and if you haven't seen this, you should go to the website and you should watch this launch video about Brave, because it is really an extraordinary, one of the most moving campaign videos that I've seen. And I think it sets up the issue of this campaign in a really powerful way. I mean, not only this contrast with the president who operates through fear, which is the opposite of bravery, but actually the way you open this video where you point out that this line from Home of the Brave actually, in the first time that it appears, appears with a question mark, oh, say, does that star Spangled banner yet wave? Or the land of the free and the home of, of the brave? Question mark. And of course, that question mark was incredibly important because this was the War of 1812, and we were fighting Britain again, and many people feared our unorganized military was not going to be able to resist this very powerful nation getting its second bite at the apple. And so Francis Scott Key is writing about this moment of anxiety and whether these ideals will survive in that moment of anxiety. And that's really the feeling, I, at least, feel that we are of where we are right now, this nation who recognizes ideals and values that are so important, really wondering at this moment whether this is who we still are. Is this something we can continue to sustain? And that powerfully sets that up. So when you go around the country, does this point resonate with others? As powerfully as I feel like it

resonates with me, I Believe it does. People know, I mean, the anxiety and the fear that people face right now, they don't know what to do. And they feel like our democracy is on a precipice. They feel like at any moment President Trump can destroy what this country stands for. You know, when he attacks the judiciary the way he does, when he attacks freedom of the press the way he does, the way he refuses to stand up to oligarchs and world leaders who are actively trying to undermine our democracy. Democracy like Russia, the fact that he won't lead, he walks away from leadership, he won't lead on global climate change and be part of the Paris Global Climate Accords. He's actually trying to change science now and make sure his administration doesn't publish data about global climate change. So he is a fear driven and fear mongering president that's making people feel anxious. And, and so I believe, Larry, this is a moment where we have to have a nationwide call to action, where all of us have to do our part to restore what's being destroyed and restore what's being lost. And I'm creating that call to action in this campaign. It's why I want to blow up the status quo system that leaves so many Americans behind. It's why I want public funded elections. It's why I want to take on the greed and corruption and lies of this administration and all the lobbyists and all the special interests that make everything we want to accomplish impossible. So I do think it's a moment for our country to decide what kind of country are we, are we going to be brave? Are we going to take on the battles that other people won't?

Yeah. And the word you just uttered, public funding of elections, is a signal of your own bravery, because I can tell you, I've been in this fight for a dozen years. It seems to be a word that is almost impossible for elected officials to utter. Somehow it gets stuck in their mouth and they can't really speak it. But you've not only spoken it, you've outlined the most aggressive system for changing the way we fund elections of anybody. I mean, Andrew yang has a $100 voucher program, which I was very excited to see him announce. But your Clean Elections Democracy doll is by far the most aggressive, most ambitious, most transformative of any that's out there right now. So let's just make sure everybody's on the same page about what this is. You announced it about a month ago. It's building an idea on an idea that Rick Hazen and Bruce Ackerman and Ian Ayers have been talking about for 20 years. And the plan that you have says that every voter who asks for it can get up to $200 per election in that election cycle. So if in a particular election cycle the only person who's running is a member of the House, then you can get $200, $100 in the primary, $100 in the general election. If the House and Senate is running, you can get $400. If the house, Senate and President are running, you can get $600. But it's basically $200 per election that you can give to a candidate if that candidate agrees to restrict donations that he or she takes to $200 or less. And you're restricted in giving just to candidates in your own state. So the element of this is a quid pro quo. With candidates, you agree to fund yourself with small dollar contributions only. And if you do, then you can take the small dollar contributions, Democracy, dollar contributions from citizens in your own state. That's the basic structure of your plan.

Exactly.

And you fund it by a limitation on corporate deductions for excessive executive compensations. And the estimates from your office is probably an underestimate, but your estimate of your office is that would raise $60 billion in 10 years. And that's plainly enough to fund the, the kind of program that you're talking about in the election. So you have a way to fund what would fundamentally transform the way Washington works. And that's because when you describe this in your Medium article, you had me in the first sentence. Your first sentence of the Medium post says, show me a supposedly unfixable problem in Washington and I'll show you the political corruption standing in the way. And that insight, of course, is behind the whole movement that we've seen break out in this country over the last 10 years. And that insight is obviously something you've come to by watching the way Washington works. So I'd like you to explain. Is there a moment where this became so obvious to you, or how did you come to this extremely aggressive, transformative position?

Well, I've been watching it now for 12 years, and I can tell you, you can't imagine how corrupt it is. So let's just look at the price of medicine when under George W. Bush, when they passed Medicare Part D, they made a deal with the drug companies that Medicare wouldn't be able to buy in bulk to get the lowest prices. Canada gets to do it, but. But not America and not our seniors. And it was a sweetheart deal. That was probably written in the dead of night by a bunch of lobbyists who were paid millions of dollars by the drug companies to make sure drug companies could have record profits off of Medicare Part D. It's pathetic and it's corrupt and there's not an issue that again, you can't look at. You know, we could have had Medicare for All. We could have had Medicare for All when President Obama was trying to pass the Affordable Care Act. We had it for a whole week where at least we were going to have a buy in of 55 to 65 year olds could buy in to get Medicare as a not for profit public option at a percentage of their income. It would have laid the groundwork for Medicare for All. It would have showed how popular it was and how successful it was. But no, as soon as the insurance companies got in on it, they said, nope, we gotta block this. And they blocked it and they were able to peel off the vote they needed. And I gotta say, it's just so sad because all the things that would make people's lives better are stopped and undermined by special interests that have billions of dollars. The most obvious example, let's look at the tax cut that President Trump just signed. That tax cut overwhelmingly gave a trillion dollars to the wealthiest companies in America and the wealthiest individuals. And we actually heard Republican members of Congress say, well, we have to pass this bill because our donors demand it. They put profits over people. Every time you look at the nra, you look at the amount of money that the NRA and NRA related groups pour into campaigns. And so a guy like Marco Rubio, when a survivor of a massacre shooting in his state stands up to him and says, I dare you not to take NRA money, he didn't have the courage to say, yes, that is the greed and corruption that makes the most common sense obvious things impossible.

So we've seen this recognition we've just not yet seen anybody act on, was 11 years ago, April 2, 2007, when. I'm sorry, so 13 years ago, when Barack Obama gave a speech in Philadelphia where he said, if we don't take up that fight, and he's talking about the fight to change the way the system works, then real change, change that will make a lasting difference in the lives of ordinary Americans will keep getting blocked by the defenders of the status quo. And of course, he suffered exactly that dynamic in Obamacare, both because he too, even though on the floor of the Senate he was a vocal opponent to the Medicare prescription Part D compromise with the drug companies that you just described. And he was committed during the campaign never to see that as part of policy again. He rolled that same policy into Obamacare because it was the only way to keep the Democrats in line to be able to get that bill passed through the House. So he understood the problem the way you've understood the problem. But why do you think when he got to Washington, there was no appetite or no commitment to sort of carry through and to do something about it.

So I believe that you need a president who makes this the cornerstone of her administration. I really think it has to be your thing. And if it's not your thing and the thing you use all your human and political capital on, it is not going to happen because you need the bully pulpit. I mean, I've said I support publicly funded elections for a long time. I remember my first interview on late night television. I got asked about something and I said, I support publicly funded elections. And the crowd cheered because this is something that people understand to be necessary. And I'm just surprised. We've never had a president who's made it their thing. It's my thing and I'm going to keep it my thing and I'm going to keep fighting for it. And if nothing else, I'm going to bring the rest of the party to move towards towards it. Because its time has come. The elite of the elite. The haves versus the have nots. All policy created in the past 30 years has been written by the elite and the most well connected in society. The fact that we have such income inequality, Larry, is largely because of the people who write the laws. The fact that we no longer reward work, we don't even value workers, we look at work and call them a cost center. That's because for 30 years we've been teaching every business school student that shareholder value has supremacy. And so every decision that's made by every corporate CEO is about what's best for my shareholder and their profits. Their personal pay is related to the share price. And so the incentives is all geared to towards the owners, not the workers. And so if you want to deal with the big problems of society, like income inequality, like institutional racism, like global climate change, you have to understand what you're up against is everything. It's the status quo, it's the elite, the political elite, it's the financial elite, it's the powerful special interests that spend money on campaigns. The Koch Brothers, they put $300 million into every election season just to get a lower tax rate, just to make sure the status quo is maintained. And I can't tell you how many politicians are bought and paid for, but

they almost get it, right? They must all recognize, oh, they get it.

We heard it from the Republicans in delivering President Trump's tax cut. We need to deliver this tax cut for our donors. Our donors will be so angry if we don't deliver this tax cut. They get it. They know the name of the game. And the name of the game is money and political corruption.

So it's your thing. Let's understand it a little bit more so that people get a sense of what's distinctive about this.

How about we talk about why it's gonna work?

Yeah, that's right. So you've talked about the example we have out there, which is Seattle. Right? This is based on a Seattle example. Why don't you explain a little bit about how we know it's been working in places like Seattle?

So In Seattle, in 2013, before the program was started, small donations accounted for just less than 50% of the money donated for city council and city attorney races. In 2017, as a result of the program, almost 90% of support came from small donations. And it changed who participated. In 2017, there were three. Three times the number of people who actually donated. 84% were new donors. And the donor base was different. It was younger, it was female, it was people of color, and it was people who were less affluent. And it's going to change how the politicians act. Instead of going to fancy rooms and fancy homes day after day, raising money from wealthy people. And you can check the state stat, Larry, but I think it's something like only 0.5% of the electorate actually give money to campaigns. So instead of going after the big dollar donors from just big donors, they're going to go everywhere. They're going to go to their community center, they're going to go to public housing, they're going to go to young people in colleges, they'll go everywhere. They'll go to people who sign up to have democracy dollars because they want to have a say. And it will change who gets elected. Because if more women and minorities and less affluent people are giving, they're invested in your race and they're going to be voting. It'll change the outcome. And once we change the outcome and once we change the players list, we can then work to get money out of politics overall, because that has to be our goal. You gotta change how people look at campaigns and politics, and we gotta get the money out.

Yeah, I think this is really an important point. Public funding, there's basically three models that we've seen in America. The one model is the old presidential public funding where basically the government just writes you a big check. The second model, which was in HR1, which passed the House of Representatives and which is in the bill that the Senate considered. The. The parallel to that or didn't consider, but was proposed by the Democrats in the Senate, is a matching fund system where small contributions are matched up to 6 to 1, like in New York. In some cases even higher than that. But still that system requires that somebody be willing to write a check for $100 or $150 for a small number

of people who contributes to campaigns is really small compared to who actually votes in campaigns. Right.

So that's the big difference of democracy dollars. Democracy dollars would mean that every single voter who at least takes the step to get the Democracy dollar would be able to make a contribution, which means that the candidates. This is what I think is critical. The candidates are dependent on the people and not on this tiny fraction of people who happen to have enough money to give to political campaigns. It's just like the way voting should work. All of us should be able to vote and the candidates should be dependent on all of us. All of us should be able to give to campaigns. And then the candidates would be reflective of all of us. That's the critical thing that you've pushed here. And I think that will break open thinking about how we could fundamentally change the system.

Correct. And let's just use one example because it's exciting. Imagine, imagine if in Florida, for example, that every young person who marched for their lives had $200 to spend. That would make it really easy to. To match the $3 million that Marco Rubio gets from NRA and NRA affiliated groups. It changes everything to have young people have as much power as the nra. You could change everything. And so I just believe that this is an idea whose times come. And I love all the other ideas because they help get us there. But I just want this idea to be part of the discussion because I think it's the best one. I think it's the one that's the most revolutionary and the most ground shaking.

And has its time come. I remember in 2016 when Bernie would be asked about public funding. Of course he supports public funding, but he would say it's something for the long term. I don't know if we have a long term anymore.

I don't think we do because look what just happened in the last election. It's shocking. So we need to change our democracy and restore it to what was intended. One person, one vote. That people have a say in who gets elected and what they do. And it's about restoring our democracy back to the community. I mean, it's really about our families, our communities, for the common good. Making sure that members of Congress and Senators and presidents spend their time in the community doing town halls, talking to people where they live about the issues they care about. Get out of the bubble. I mean, the bubble of Washington is corrupting. It is truly corrupting because the only people you see are the lobbyists. And even if you get to see your constituents, it's constituents who can afford to come to Washington. So again, you're just, you're stuck in this bubble. We need to get democracy back to the people to where it is intended to be. And this is the best way to do it. This and restoring voting rights, the combination of the two is the most powerful idea I think out there today.

So we've been asking candidates to articulate what we're calling the POTUS one commitment. You know, so HR one was great, not just because it had extraordinary reforms bundled together in a reform.

Yeah, I loved HR1 and I support and actually am the author and sponsor of huge pieces of it in the Senate.

Yeah.

So I love HR1.

So the substance is great. But what I think is equally as important is that it was HR1. It was a signal that it had to be first.

Yeah.

So what we've been trying to articulate or trying to get candidates to articulate is what is their POTUS want? What is the set of reforms that they want to commit that they will do immediately? Now, not every candidate will commit, but I've heard you a number of times essentially say you will make reform a primary issue that you will push as president. So what is in that package and will you actually commit to making this a primary objective of your administration?

I absolutely commit to making this the primary objective, not of just my campaign, but of my presidency. Because, Larry, everything I want to accomplish there is a big special interest standing in the way. Literally everything. Health care is a right and not a privilege. It's the insurance companies and the drug companies passing a Green New Deal and attacking global climate change. It's the polluters and the fossil fuel industry, better public schools, debt free college. There are so many special interests that pour money banks who want to have those high interest rates on our students. It's ridiculous. And so there's nothing that we can actually do. If you're unwilling to Take this first step. That's why it has to be the cornerstone. It has to be the cornerstone in which the entire objective of the presidency and the entire platform of the administration is built on. That's why it's a cornerstone. The building will fall without it. And So I am 100% committed. And that's why I think this combination. And I've been working on issues for voting rights for a very long time with John Lewis. And so you combine clean elections, which is why it was the first piece of legislation I introduced as a presidential candidate. The first major rollout of something that matters the most, combined with all of our voting rights advocacy and reform. You got to restore our democracy, first and foremost. You got to put it back into the hands of the people. You got to localize it and make it about our community and our families. And if you're not willing to do that, then good luck on anything else you want to accomplish. It won't get done. It'll just get mired in the BS of Washington.

Okay, so we're in agreement on that. You want to add voter voting rights to the reform. I think that's incredibly important. What about gerrymandering?

Gerrymandering is part of it. And I'm 100% against the gerrymandering that both political parties do today. So I do support the redistricting reform as part of HR1. I think it's a really strong bill to make sure we have fair redistricting criteria and ensuring that states draw congressional districts using independent redistricting commissions. It's necessary. It's all necessary. And we need far more greater transparency in the process.

Okay, so you've got a package. It's just as robust as HR1. It's more aggressive on campaign funding than HR1, I think, again, as I said at the very start, it's the most ambitious one that we have out there. I want to bring this to close with this point. So we're obviously talking to every candidate we can, and we're trying to build understanding around these issues through this podcast and through the work that our organization does. And so we're not in a position to endorse a candidate or not endorsement a candidate, but here's what we can endorse. Kirsten, have you yet qualified for this debate?

So I've qualified based on polling only. I have not guaranteed my spot. Cause I haven't reached the 65,000 individual donor threshold.

Okay, so here's what we want to do. We want to launch a let Kirsten debate campaign and what we want to do is to get everybody in this movement who's not necessarily yet convinced you should be the next president, but is absolutely convinced that the views that you're articulating here need to be on that stage. And that the person who's had the courage, the bravery to step forward and to articulate the most transformative package that we've seen that's been introduced should at least have the chance to defend it on that stage. So what we want to do is launch a campaign to get people to make the minimal contribution necessary to get you over that 65,000 donor limit. And so that has to be done, I understand, by June 13th.

Yes.

And so we want to recruit as many of that 65,000 as we can so that in that first debate, there's at least one clear voice for what seems to us to be completely obvious point, that we need this to be the cornerstone, this POTUS one, to be the cornerstone of this next debate. Are you optimistic that we can make that happen?

I'm really optimistic, Larry. I've seen your followers, and they're amazing. So I believe in you, and I believe in your vision for this country, and I share it. And I think this vision for the presidency is the most radical, inspiring, exciting thing that all of America can fight for.

Okay, so this is the final message. I want everybody listening to this, and we'll be pressing in every other context that we can to understand there are a lot of great candidates who are running for president this time, and it's a hard choice for a lot of reasons. And nobody at this stage, I think, should close their mind and say, this is the only person that I'm going to support. I think we should be open as Democrats to the range and the diversity. It's an extraordinarily diverse field for the first time in so many years. But whether whoever you're supporting and whether you've committed one way or the other, here's the thing. We need there to be on that debate stage, people who are articulating this fundamental truth that this democracy will get nothing unless we fix this first. As Barack Obama said, if we don't take up this fight, then real change, change that will make a lasting difference in the lives of ordinary Americans will keep getting blocked by the defenders of the status quo. So I am 100% behind your effort to get on that debate stage, Senator, and I'm gonna do everything I can to help make that happen. Not by saying to people, look, you gotta promise to me you're gonna vote For Kirsten Gillibrand, that's good or bad. Regardless. I don't care right now about that. What I think we need to get people to commit to is she and her voice needs to be on that stage. So at least there is a clear articulation of this argument. And if it's clearly articulated, my view is, having seen literally hundreds of audiences react to this message, my view is it will begin to rally in the Democratic Party and make this possibility a reality in 2021. So I'm grateful to you for launching us on this podcast and I'm so grateful to you for taking the step, the brave step, to lead on this issue. Because if we have that leadership, I'm sure America will be inspired to step up and support.

Thank you, Larry. I am so grateful for your leadership and for giving me the opportunity to speak with you today.

Okay, great. Good luck on the campaign.

Take care. Bye. Bye.

So that's it for this week. Thanks to EqualCitizens US for sponsoring this third season of the podcast another way, the POTUS One Project. We'll be back with more candidates and with more talking about the fundamental issues of reform and how reform would work. We believe not that this is the most important issue. We believe reform is the first issue. Nothing else will happen until we solve this problem first. Thanks to you for your feedback and for spreading this message broadly. And thanks to Equal Citizens for making this podcast possible. Sa.