Latest / The Chuck ToddCast / Interview Only w/ Jeff Clements - How To Get Money Out Of Politics For Good

Transcript

Interview Only w/ Jeff Clements - How To Get Money Out Of Politics For Good · The Chuck ToddCast

0:00
Speaker 1: It's sponsorship time. But you know what, it's really great
0:02
Speaker 1: when you get a sponsor that you already use.
0:05
Speaker 2: And guess what.
0:06
Speaker 1: Quint's is something that in the Todd household we already
0:09
Speaker 1: go to. Why do we go to Quint's Because it's
0:11
Speaker 1: a place you go where you can get some really
0:13
Speaker 1: nice clothes without the really expensive prices. And one of
0:17
Speaker 1: the things I've been going through is I've transitioned from
0:19
Speaker 1: being mister cot and ty guy to wanting a little
0:22
Speaker 1: more casual but to look nice doing it. Is I've
0:25
Speaker 1: become mister quarter zip guy.
0:27
Speaker 2: Well guess what.
0:28
Speaker 1: Guess who's got amazing amounts of quarter zips? It is Quints.
0:32
Speaker 1: I have gotten quite a few already from there. The
0:36
Speaker 1: stuff's really nice. They have Mongolian cashmere sweaters for fifty dollars.
0:40
Speaker 1: I just know, hey, cashmere, that's pretty good. You don't
0:43
Speaker 1: normally get that for fifty bucks or less. Italian wool
0:46
Speaker 1: coats that look and feel like designer the stuff. I'll
0:49
Speaker 1: be honest, right, you look at it online, you think, okay,
0:51
Speaker 1: is this really as nice as it looks? Well, when
0:52
Speaker 1: I got it, I was like, oh, this is real quality.
0:54
Speaker 1: So yeah, I'm going to end up making sure I
0:57
Speaker 1: take it to my dry cleaner so I don't screw
0:59
Speaker 1: it up when I clean it. But I've been quite impressed.
1:02
Speaker 1: In Hey, it's holiday season. It is impossible to shop
1:06
Speaker 1: for us middle aged men. I know this well. Tell
1:08
Speaker 1: your kids, tell your spouses, tell your partners. Try Quints,
1:12
Speaker 1: or if you're trying to figure out what to get
1:14
Speaker 1: your adult child, what to get your mom or dad,
1:18
Speaker 1: I'm telling you you're going to find something that is
1:20
Speaker 1: going to be comfortable for them on Quints. So get
1:22
Speaker 1: your wardrobe sorted and your gift list handled with Quints.
1:26
Speaker 2: Don't wait.
1:27
Speaker 1: Go to quins dot com slash chuck for free shipping
1:30
Speaker 1: on your order and three hundred and sixty five day
1:32
Speaker 1: returns now available in Canada as well. That's qui nce
1:37
Speaker 1: dot com, slash chuck free shipping and three hundred and
1:41
Speaker 1: sixty five day returns quints dot com slash chuck use
1:46
Speaker 1: that code.
1:50
Speaker 2: So joining me now is Jeff Clements.
1:53
Speaker 1: He's co founder and president of an organization called American
1:56
Speaker 1: Promise Best Way. They describe themselves a cross partisan organization
2:01
Speaker 1: that's advocate advocating a constitutional amendment to limit the influence
2:06
Speaker 1: of money and politics.
2:07
Speaker 2: As many of you guys know, I think we are.
2:09
Speaker 1: We are if you look at our history as a country,
2:13
Speaker 1: we're at one of those moments where the appetite for
2:19
Speaker 1: adding a couple of constitutional amendments should be pretty big.
2:23
Speaker 1: Anytime we've had a consequential era of ten or more
2:27
Speaker 1: years like the one we're sort of at the tail
2:29
Speaker 1: end of here with the Trump era, just like after
2:32
Speaker 1: FDR we added the twenty second Amendment, during the beginning
2:35
Speaker 1: of the Industrial Revolution and the controversies in and around that,
2:40
Speaker 1: and the teens. In the twenties, we added direct election
2:42
Speaker 1: as senators, the income tax prohibition, both positive and negative.
2:47
Speaker 1: So I think we're in one of those moments.
2:50
Speaker 2: And I believe Jeff Clements thinks we're in one of
2:52
Speaker 2: those moments. Of course, the question is what.
2:54
Speaker 1: We'll get priority if we are going to start adding
2:57
Speaker 1: constitutional amendments. He's advocating campaign finance. He's alone there. What
3:01
Speaker 1: else would be on that docket. We will dabble in that,
3:04
Speaker 1: as you know, I've been dabbling in that on this
3:06
Speaker 1: feed for some time.
3:07
Speaker 2: But Jeff, welcome to the podcast.
3:09
Speaker 3: Hey, thank you, Chuck. Good to be here.
3:11
Speaker 2: So let's start with it's I know why.
3:15
Speaker 1: You know, look, it's pretty clear the courts have unless
3:19
Speaker 1: you want to wait forty years to alter the ideological
3:22
Speaker 1: makeup of the courts.
3:24
Speaker 2: And it's not even ideological makeup, the.
3:26
Speaker 1: Sort of the this belief that corporations are people too.
3:30
Speaker 1: If that is the case and money is speech, well,
3:33
Speaker 1: then the only way to limit it.
3:34
Speaker 2: Is to add a constitutional amendment. Is that the conclusion
3:39
Speaker 2: you've come.
3:40
Speaker 3: To absolutely, Chuck, and I come to it after you know,
3:44
Speaker 3: three decades nearly in practicing law, and I believe that
3:48
Speaker 3: the courts were where these kind of issues got worked out.
3:52
Speaker 3: Over the course of my legal career, the Supreme Court
3:56
Speaker 3: has taken dozens and dozens of cases involving campaign finance laws,
4:00
Speaker 3: basically making the system we have now with a handful
4:05
Speaker 3: of judges and lawyers in Washington, d c. No American
4:08
Speaker 3: asked for twenty billion dollar elections, you know, six hundred
4:11
Speaker 3: million dollars Senate raises, foreign money coming in, all the
4:15
Speaker 3: things you've talked about on this on this on the podcast.
4:18
Speaker 3: So it is a court created crisis, and it is
4:24
Speaker 3: not a constitutional crisis because there's something wrong with the concert.
4:29
Speaker 2: You know, that's an interesting way of putting it.
4:31
Speaker 1: Let's let's I want to dig into that for a
4:33
Speaker 1: couple of minutes, because essentially, I see where you're going.
4:38
Speaker 1: Just about everything we don't like about the current way
4:41
Speaker 1: campaigns are financed was due to a loophole created by
4:46
Speaker 1: illegal ruling in response to a challenge to a congressional
4:51
Speaker 1: law that was passed whose purpose was to actually try
4:54
Speaker 1: to limit the influence of money in politics.
4:58
Speaker 3: Absolutely, and you know a a lot of The most
5:02
Speaker 3: recent famous case, of course, is Citizens United versus Federal
5:06
Speaker 3: Election Commission. But the first time the court ventured into
5:10
Speaker 3: this sort of experiment and what would happen if justices
5:14
Speaker 3: decided our campaign finance policy instead of the American people
5:18
Speaker 3: was in nineteen seventy six with a case called Buckley
5:21
Speaker 3: versus Valais.
5:22
Speaker 2: I'm just going to ask about it. It's Buckley Valeo right now.
5:24
Speaker 3: Yeah, exactly.
5:25
Speaker 2: For there was Citizen United, there was Buckley Valeo.
5:27
Speaker 3: Yeah. In nineteen seventy six was our bi centennial that
5:30
Speaker 3: we'd had the first Amendment for nearly two centuries. We'd
5:33
Speaker 3: had any corruption laws for well over a century by
5:36
Speaker 3: that point, limiting money in politics. Not once in two
5:39
Speaker 3: hundred years had the First Amendment been interpreted by the
5:42
Speaker 3: Court to mean that the American people were stripped of
5:46
Speaker 3: the ability to have limits on the power of wealth
5:49
Speaker 3: to influence election outcomes. The Court made up this rule
5:52
Speaker 3: in nineteen seventy six by saying that spending money is
5:56
Speaker 3: free speech. It sure has something to do with free
5:59
Speaker 3: speech First Amendment, but the Court simply said, no, it
6:03
Speaker 3: is free speech. And then they started on a fifty
6:07
Speaker 3: year experiment. And because they're not that good at politics,
6:11
Speaker 3: nor should they be, the justices they increasingly created new
6:16
Speaker 3: problems for themselves and then had to make up a
6:19
Speaker 3: rule for that. So what we're doing at American Promise
6:22
Speaker 3: is saying enough is enough. This has failed. Let's bring
6:25
Speaker 3: it back to the people with a constitutional amendment that says, Justices,
6:29
Speaker 3: this is not your job. It's the job of Congress
6:32
Speaker 3: and the state legislatures to make the rules for how
6:35
Speaker 3: money influences our elections.
6:37
Speaker 1: You know, what would the you know, McCain fine gold
6:42
Speaker 1: to me is turns out to be the one of
6:44
Speaker 1: the worst pieces of legislation that Congress passed. What could
6:49
Speaker 1: it have been good legislation had you had an interpretation
6:53
Speaker 1: of money and politics differently like would that have under
6:57
Speaker 1: in a world where money isn't speech. Is McCain fine
7:02
Speaker 1: gold good legislation?
7:04
Speaker 3: Well, you know, at American Promise, honestly, we're sort of
7:08
Speaker 3: agnostic about specific policy because we're looking at the long term,
7:13
Speaker 3: and America needs to look at the long term. We've
7:15
Speaker 3: got AI coming, we've got global digitalized currencies, we've got
7:18
Speaker 3: all kinds of problems with trying to maintain control of
7:21
Speaker 3: our political experiment here. McCain fine gold was a law
7:27
Speaker 3: around two thousand and two three period when Congress was
7:32
Speaker 3: in some ways trying to deal with the handcuffs that
7:35
Speaker 3: the Supreme Court had put on them. So money, as
7:38
Speaker 3: you've said before, Chuck, we'll find a way in politics.
7:42
Speaker 3: That does not mean just like and I.
7:44
Speaker 1: Always compared to the Michael Crichton's character in the original
7:47
Speaker 1: Jurassic Park, where the Jeff Goldblum character says it in
7:51
Speaker 1: the movie, but it's also in the book where the
7:54
Speaker 1: old man claims he's going to keep the dinosaurs from procreating,
7:57
Speaker 1: and he's like, life finds a way.
7:58
Speaker 2: Well, in politics, money finds a way. Yeah, no matter what.
8:03
Speaker 3: Absolutely, But that doesn't mean that the American people just
8:07
Speaker 3: say Okay, I guess money decides things. I think you know,
8:10
Speaker 3: murder and mayhem find a way too in the human condition.
8:12
Speaker 3: But we have law and we have real clarity about
8:18
Speaker 3: who decides, and in America it's the American people who
8:22
Speaker 3: decide ultimately. And so in the past we have had
8:27
Speaker 3: yes money. I'm from Boston. You know. Mayor Curley got
8:30
Speaker 3: re elected from his jail cell. So I get this.
8:33
Speaker 3: I'm not naive about this. But the American people have
8:36
Speaker 3: always had the ability and acted on it to enact
8:40
Speaker 3: new rules for new situations. So corporations became powerful in
8:44
Speaker 3: the Gilded Age, as you mentioned, and we had any
8:47
Speaker 3: corruption laws which limited corporate money coming in. Teddy Roosevelt
8:50
Speaker 3: pushed it. The unions became powerful spenders, and by nineteen
8:54
Speaker 3: forty eight we had taft haartly. So the laws that
8:57
Speaker 3: the Buckley Court in nineteen seventy struck down followed the
9:02
Speaker 3: catastrophic in many ways money and politics scandal of the
9:05
Speaker 3: Nixon White House, leading to the resignation of a president.
9:08
Speaker 3: So this is not about the final one answer that
9:12
Speaker 3: will fix everything. It's about who decides what is needed
9:16
Speaker 3: in order to address the problems that inevitably occur with
9:20
Speaker 3: money and corruption and the political system. So McCain Feinegeld
9:24
Speaker 3: was an attempt to solve a new problem, which is, Okay,
9:27
Speaker 3: we've got soft money coming in. It's going around the
9:29
Speaker 3: limits that the candidates are supposed to be able to
9:33
Speaker 3: be limited to in terms of taking money and some
9:36
Speaker 3: other problems like that. But they were the Congress was
9:39
Speaker 3: constrained by the courts at that point forty year invention
9:43
Speaker 3: of all these rules. Independent expenditures can't possibly corrupt, therefore
9:47
Speaker 3: they can't be limited, but giving it to the parties
9:50
Speaker 3: or the candidates could corrupt, so those are going to
9:52
Speaker 3: be limited. So the states and Congress have been put
9:55
Speaker 3: in this straight jacket by the courts rules that don't
9:58
Speaker 3: really make sense, and they start they don't protect free
10:00
Speaker 3: speech of most Americans, and so you end up with
10:03
Speaker 3: messy and often bad legislation. That's why we need the
10:07
Speaker 3: constitutional reset.
10:08
Speaker 1: Which of course is why if you're wondering why political
10:11
Speaker 1: parties have no ability to purge itself of bad candidates,
10:16
Speaker 1: it's because they've lost the ability to fund campaigns. They've
10:19
Speaker 1: lost the ability to you know, in some ways, you know,
10:21
Speaker 1: this is where McCain Feingeld was a bad law with
10:26
Speaker 1: good intentions that ended up only making polarization worse and
10:31
Speaker 1: making it even harder for the parties to have any control.
10:34
Speaker 1: But let's talk about what's the wording of a constant?
10:37
Speaker 1: You know, the hallmark of the Roberts Court for the
10:40
Speaker 1: most part, on many issues, it's usually Roberts comes down to, hey, Congress,
10:46
Speaker 1: do your job. But in this case, Congress tried to
10:49
Speaker 1: do jobs and the Court said no. A lot of times,
10:52
Speaker 1: this is a congressional failure. You know, whether it comes
10:55
Speaker 1: to you could argue it's a congressional failure when it
10:59
Speaker 1: comes to some of these issues, specificity about independent agencies
11:04
Speaker 1: and things like that. This is not a congressional issue.
11:07
Speaker 1: This is truly an invention of the judiciary, sort of
11:11
Speaker 1: creation of precedence that suddenly become So so, what's the
11:16
Speaker 1: wording of the amendment that would take this power away
11:18
Speaker 1: from the judiciary.
11:20
Speaker 3: Yeah, so the flat out the wording fits on a napkin.
11:27
Speaker 3: This is not complicated most constitutional amendments.
11:30
Speaker 1: Better if it's in fact, that's three graphs. Do you
11:33
Speaker 1: need it down to two?
11:34
Speaker 3: I'm happy we could And this doesn't have to be
11:36
Speaker 3: the final language. So what this amendment does though that
11:39
Speaker 3: we call it the for our Freedom Amendment. You know,
11:41
Speaker 3: the first section just reminds the court, frankly, in all
11:44
Speaker 3: of us that we the people have sovereign interest in
11:46
Speaker 3: free speech and federalism and the equal rights of every
11:50
Speaker 3: voter and anty corruption and all the things that a
11:53
Speaker 3: lot of those the Court took off off the First
11:56
Speaker 3: Amendment balance. So the Court says, and they and let's
11:59
Speaker 3: be cleared, McCain Fengel didn't create the super PACs and
12:03
Speaker 3: everything else that was the Supreme Court by saying that
12:06
Speaker 3: independent expenditures never corrupt and making up these different kinds
12:11
Speaker 3: of rules. And so the Court did that because the
12:14
Speaker 3: Court decided it was its job to decide free speech
12:17
Speaker 3: questions around money and politics with only one question quid
12:21
Speaker 3: pro quo corruption or the appearance thereof, as they say,
12:25
Speaker 3: and that's basically Latin for bribery practically. You know, I'll
12:29
Speaker 3: give you this if you give me that. Well, the
12:31
Speaker 3: American people and the founders, frankly long understood that there's
12:35
Speaker 3: a much wider constitutional balance to protecting the equal rights
12:39
Speaker 3: and freedom of Americans and self government in a republic
12:43
Speaker 3: and there's things like federalism. There's things like the equal
12:46
Speaker 3: rights of a citizen. It doesn't mean you have equal
12:48
Speaker 3: outcomes economically, but in the political sphere, we're all equal citizens.
12:52
Speaker 3: So there's things like that. Section one makes that clear,
12:54
Speaker 3: and then Section two moves that Who decides question? Who
12:58
Speaker 3: decides these rules? It's the legislatures in Congress because they're
13:02
Speaker 3: accountable to the people. The judges aren't. So we the
13:05
Speaker 3: people will decide do we want limits, do we not
13:08
Speaker 3: want limits, do we want super PACs? Do we not
13:11
Speaker 3: want super PACs? Those will be decisions, and federal elections
13:14
Speaker 3: for Congress, in state elections for the states, just like
13:17
Speaker 3: it's always been until the Court intervened. And then Section
13:20
Speaker 3: three pretty interesting, it distinguished. It says Congress and the
13:23
Speaker 3: States may distinguish between corporations and entered other artificial entities.
13:29
Speaker 3: It uses the word artificial entities because.
13:31
Speaker 2: We've got to be thank for super pac.
13:33
Speaker 3: Well it could be or what about artificial intelligence. The
13:36
Speaker 3: Court's approach to free speech essentially is if it can
13:40
Speaker 3: spend money and broadcast noise into the political system, it
13:46
Speaker 3: has a free speech right. And I use it intentionally
13:49
Speaker 3: because the Court does not distinguish between human beings or
13:52
Speaker 3: any other entity. So now you have bots and AI
13:55
Speaker 3: and who knows what in ten years, twenty years, fifty
13:59
Speaker 3: years that we have to be thinking about. So this
14:02
Speaker 3: doesn't solve the problem, and it simply says we're allowed
14:05
Speaker 3: to solve that problem.
14:07
Speaker 1: So here's the question that I have of why the
14:11
Speaker 1: First Amendment itself couldn't be used as an interpretation of
14:16
Speaker 1: it without needing this and it would go as follows.
14:19
Speaker 2: And I didn't go to law school.
14:21
Speaker 1: I just play when I play a lawyer on a podcast.
14:24
Speaker 1: So excuse please mock away. But I'm guaranteed free speech.
14:31
Speaker 1: I'm not guaranteed amplification of speech. And it seems as
14:37
Speaker 1: if the courts have decided if you deny the ability
14:41
Speaker 1: to amplify.
14:42
Speaker 2: Speech, you have violated free speech.
14:45
Speaker 1: And the reason I'm saying the words amplification because I
14:48
Speaker 1: also wonder if this is a way to crack down
14:52
Speaker 1: on to allow for more social media regulation in addition
14:57
Speaker 1: to campaign finance regulation. You know, obviously, look I consider myself,
15:04
Speaker 1: you know, any if we can do this without a
15:06
Speaker 1: constitutional amendment, the better. Is there a First Amendment argument
15:10
Speaker 1: against amplification? It's sort of like a corporation's ability to
15:14
Speaker 1: amplify its access to free speech overwhelms mine.
15:19
Speaker 2: Is that the intent of the founders?
15:21
Speaker 3: Yeah, well, that it is not the intent of the
15:24
Speaker 3: founders that the corporations and you know, the wealthiest among
15:28
Speaker 3: us should drown out everybody else's that's antithetical to the
15:33
Speaker 3: First Amendment. And I want to mock your interpretation, Chuck.
15:36
Speaker 3: It's right on in my view. I agree with it.
15:39
Speaker 3: I think most Americans agree with it. It's what the
15:43
Speaker 3: dissenters and these many many Supreme Court cases would have said.
15:48
Speaker 3: So this isn't a question about whether there's anything wrong
15:51
Speaker 3: with the First Amendment. There's nothing wrong with the First Amendment.
15:54
Speaker 3: We are a free speech organization where free speech nation.
15:58
Speaker 3: We want free speech. What we have right now in
16:01
Speaker 3: the political system with money isn't free speech. For exactly
16:04
Speaker 3: the reasons you're saying. The Court ma need a mistake
16:07
Speaker 3: in how it interprets the First Amendment and is laid
16:10
Speaker 3: down this mandate, which basically means amplification until nobody can
16:15
Speaker 3: hear anyone anymore except those with the biggest this ability
16:21
Speaker 3: to spend. And so what our amendment does is not
16:25
Speaker 3: replace the First Amendment. It strengthens the First Amendment, it
16:28
Speaker 3: makes it much more like the one you're describing. I
16:31
Speaker 3: can just tell you one story, and I've been all
16:33
Speaker 3: over the country with this amendment. There's a wonderful guy
16:37
Speaker 3: in Maine. David Trahan runs the Sportsman's Alliance of Maine.
16:41
Speaker 3: He's on our advisory council as well. After Susan collins
16:44
Speaker 3: Is two hundred million dollars Senate race in twenty twenty
16:48
Speaker 3: now looks kind of quaint. They're talking about a six
16:50
Speaker 3: hundred million dollar race in twenty twenty six there, but
16:54
Speaker 3: all of the super Pac money was pouring in from
16:56
Speaker 3: outside the state. And these are people who spenders have
16:59
Speaker 3: no idea where Maine is on a map, probably let
17:02
Speaker 3: alone caring about what the people of main things. It
17:05
Speaker 3: was a battle for control of the US Senate. And
17:07
Speaker 3: so this guy is pretty politically savvy and a free
17:11
Speaker 3: speech absolutist as well as a Second Amendment advocate. Is
17:14
Speaker 3: saying he said, Jeff, we can't be heard and we
17:18
Speaker 3: can't hear each other with all this money. And I
17:21
Speaker 3: thought that was such an interesting way to think about
17:23
Speaker 3: the First Amendment issue in this case. In this situation,
17:27
Speaker 3: which is we want free speech, and actually we want
17:31
Speaker 3: to hear what our fellow citizens think as well, and
17:34
Speaker 3: engage about it and argue with each other and then
17:38
Speaker 3: get out and vote. That's what a republican self government
17:41
Speaker 3: looks like. It does not look like this. So your
17:44
Speaker 3: first amendment, David Tryan's first amendment, I think it's the
17:47
Speaker 3: American first Amendment, and that's the first amendment we'll get
17:50
Speaker 3: with our constitutional amendment to get us there.
17:55
Speaker 1: Having good life insurance is incredibly important. I know from
17:59
Speaker 1: personal experience. I was sixteen when my father passed away.
18:02
Speaker 1: We didn't have any money. He didn't leave us in
18:04
Speaker 1: the best shape. My mother, single mother, now widow, myself
18:09
Speaker 1: sixteen trying to figure out how am I going to
18:10
Speaker 1: pay for college and lo and behold, my dad had
18:14
Speaker 1: one life insurance policy that we found wasn't a lot,
18:17
Speaker 1: but it was important at the time, and it's why
18:20
Speaker 1: I was able to go to college. Little did he
18:23
Speaker 1: know how important that would be in that moment.
18:27
Speaker 2: Well, guess what.
18:28
Speaker 1: That's why I am here to tell you about Etho's life.
18:31
Speaker 1: They can provide you with peace of mind knowing your
18:33
Speaker 1: family is protected even if the worst comes to pass.
18:37
Speaker 1: Ethos is an online platform that makes getting life insurance
18:40
Speaker 1: fast and easy, all designed to protect your family's future
18:43
Speaker 1: in minutes, not months. There's no complicated process, and it's
18:47
Speaker 1: one hundred percent online. There's no medical exam require you
18:51
Speaker 1: just answer a few health questions online. You can get
18:54
Speaker 1: a quote in as little as ten minutes, and you
18:55
Speaker 1: can get same day coverage without ever leaving your home.
19:00
Speaker 1: You can get up to three million dollars in coverage
19:02
Speaker 1: and some policies start as low as two dollars a
19:04
Speaker 1: day that would be billed monthly. As of March twenty
19:07
Speaker 1: twenty five, Business Insider named Ethos the number one no
19:10
Speaker 1: medical exam instant life insurance provider. So protect your family
19:15
Speaker 1: with life insurance from Ethos. Get your free quoted ethos
19:19
Speaker 1: dot com slash chuck. So again, that's Ethos dot com
19:23
Speaker 1: slash chuck. Application times may vary and the rates themselves
19:28
Speaker 1: may vary as well, but trust me, life insurance is
19:30
Speaker 1: something you should really think about, especially if you've got
19:33
Speaker 1: a growing family. You brought up Maine, and I'm glad
19:40
Speaker 1: because Larry Lessek, who I know you're very familiar with,
19:44
Speaker 1: and no, and I think you said, he's on your board,
19:45
Speaker 1: so you're familiar. He believes he has found a way
19:49
Speaker 1: to essentially use originalism, which is sort of the current
19:55
Speaker 1: makeup of the Conservative Court. Arguably three of the nine
19:58
Speaker 1: are more originalists. I think the other three Conservatives are
20:02
Speaker 1: probably a little more nuanced than being textualists or originalists,
20:06
Speaker 1: but that's probably open to interpretation. But that there's actually
20:10
Speaker 1: an originalist argument that would overturn Citizens United.
20:15
Speaker 2: Do you buy it?
20:18
Speaker 3: Oh, I buy the argument. But if I thought that
20:22
Speaker 3: the right argument would win the court, I think we
20:24
Speaker 3: want to need this amendment. As you say, we would
20:27
Speaker 3: get a reinterpretation of the First Amendment as to be
20:31
Speaker 3: more aligned with what it was supposed to mean, and
20:33
Speaker 3: that's originalism. I mean, can you imagine those who ratified
20:37
Speaker 3: the amendment. Remember, the First Amendment was an amendment too
20:39
Speaker 3: happens to be our first one. It wasn't didn't come
20:42
Speaker 3: out of Philadelphia's convention. It came because the American people
20:45
Speaker 3: at the time demanded the Bill of Rights and passed
20:48
Speaker 3: and ratified amendments in this way, and the first Amendment
20:52
Speaker 3: protecting free speech. Can you imagine in that ratification the
20:56
Speaker 3: people who just won the revolution saying, yeah, this is
20:59
Speaker 3: intended to protect the right of corporations to spend unlimited
21:03
Speaker 3: money and the wealthiest you know, among us they even
21:06
Speaker 3: have billionaires. Then to spend unlimited money, they would have
21:09
Speaker 3: been preposterous. And originalism in constitutional interpretation means what did
21:14
Speaker 3: the words actually mean? What did the people who put
21:18
Speaker 3: those words and voted on those words and lived by
21:20
Speaker 3: those words intend and mean by it? And so I
21:23
Speaker 3: think the originalism argument is powerful. We make the same
21:26
Speaker 3: case at American Promise. In many ways our amendment is
21:30
Speaker 3: an originalist interpretation of the First Amendment. And so you know,
21:36
Speaker 3: I welcome and applaud Very few people have worked as
21:39
Speaker 3: long in his hard in this effort around responding to
21:43
Speaker 3: the money in politics crisis as Larry Lessig, and I
21:45
Speaker 3: applaud him for it. And I know he is also
21:49
Speaker 3: a fan of the constitutional amendment approach. There's no reason
21:52
Speaker 3: you don't try all the different leavers. So Professor Lesg's
21:57
Speaker 3: theory is is, Look, the Court didn't act invent the
22:00
Speaker 3: super pac literally, it was the District Court. There was
22:04
Speaker 3: the DC Court of Appeals. It never went to the
22:07
Speaker 3: Supreme Court in a case called speech now, and they said, well,
22:11
Speaker 3: the court, the Supreme Court tells us that independent expenditures
22:14
Speaker 3: can't corrupt, therefore there's no reason to have a limit
22:18
Speaker 3: on packs. Because remember Congress and the American people actually
22:21
Speaker 3: said we want a five thousand dollars limit on packs.
22:23
Speaker 3: That used to be the law, and the law fell
22:28
Speaker 3: down in that case because the District Court of DC
22:32
Speaker 3: Court of Appeals said that that doesn't make sense after
22:35
Speaker 3: citizens united because they say independent expenditures can't corrupt, and
22:38
Speaker 3: then we therefore get the super pack when one person
22:42
Speaker 3: can put three hundred million dollars into it or one
22:44
Speaker 3: hundred million dollars into it would have been wildly illegal
22:47
Speaker 3: before this case. So Larry's argument as, hey, the Supreme
22:51
Speaker 3: Court didn't say that, and actually independent contributions to independent
22:56
Speaker 3: expenditures are super packs can corrupt. You can corrupt and
23:01
Speaker 3: influence the outcome of legislation by telling the person and
23:05
Speaker 3: heads the committee or whoever is needed to say, hey,
23:09
Speaker 3: I'll put some money in the superpack and you get
23:12
Speaker 3: the legislation. So of course it can corrupt. I think
23:14
Speaker 3: most Americans would agree with that, like, yeah, super PACs,
23:17
Speaker 3: of course they're corrupting. There's all kinds of Shenanigans going
23:20
Speaker 3: on with them. So that's the theory, and Larry's the
23:26
Speaker 3: main people of Maine agreed and adopted a low saying
23:28
Speaker 3: contributions to super PACs are limited to five thousand dollars.
23:32
Speaker 3: And it's been struck down by held up by the court,
23:36
Speaker 3: federal courts. It's now Larry hopes to go to the
23:38
Speaker 3: Supreme Court and have the Supreme Court say, you know what,
23:43
Speaker 3: you're right, we never said that, and you can limit packs.
23:47
Speaker 3: So I think the theories right. I wish the court
23:51
Speaker 3: would buy it. I'm less skeptical. I'm more skeptical than
23:54
Speaker 3: Larry is that they will given that.
23:56
Speaker 1: Like I hear you, except where I think Larry's case
23:59
Speaker 1: is strong, It's like, well, one of two things are
24:02
Speaker 1: going to happen. Either they strike down all limits for individuals,
24:09
Speaker 1: because how is it that you can have a situation
24:11
Speaker 1: where you can have unlimited contributions to an independent expenditure,
24:16
Speaker 1: but you can limit contributions directly to a campaign, right,
24:20
Speaker 1: It's sort of it's a distinction without much of a
24:22
Speaker 1: difference anymore. So I wonder if that is if actually
24:26
Speaker 1: it's one of two outcomes. Either he's right and they say,
24:28
Speaker 1: you're right if you can limit in contributions of individuals
24:32
Speaker 1: to campaigns and you can limit contributions to packs, or
24:37
Speaker 1: it goes the other way and there are no more limits.
24:41
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think that's that's that's a fair scenario assessment.
24:45
Speaker 3: I think you know, the other case that was argued
24:47
Speaker 3: last week in the Supreme Court NRSC versus FEC has
24:51
Speaker 3: a similar kind of situation where there's a limit on
24:55
Speaker 3: the party's ability to spend in coordination with candidates that
25:00
Speaker 3: the court upheld twenty years ago but now doesn't see.
25:03
Speaker 3: The argument is it doesn't make sense given that you
25:06
Speaker 3: can put anything you want and spend anything you want
25:09
Speaker 3: in other vehicles. So but the problem, I have two problems,
25:12
Speaker 3: not problems, that's the wrong word. I have two reasons
25:15
Speaker 3: why we need this constitutional amendment more than ever, even
25:19
Speaker 3: as I'm rooting for Professor Lessig's success. One is that
25:26
Speaker 3: even if the Court does begin to see that there's
25:31
Speaker 3: some weird contradictions in the system that they have built
25:34
Speaker 3: around money in politics, which believe me, it has been
25:37
Speaker 3: messed up for a long time, and that hasn't seemed
25:39
Speaker 3: to bother them. But maybe this time they take this
25:41
Speaker 3: and say, Okay, we're going to allow some limits on
25:45
Speaker 3: contribution to certain kinds of super PACs that might create corruption.
25:50
Speaker 3: There's still all kinds of other avenues that should not
25:53
Speaker 3: be up to the Court to decide how to deal
25:55
Speaker 3: with it, should be up to the legislatures. But the
25:57
Speaker 3: most important reason, Chuck, I'd say more than ever, is
26:02
Speaker 3: that it's not so much the specific policies and we
26:04
Speaker 3: can get in the weeds around all these different vehicles
26:07
Speaker 3: and the different systems. Fundamentally, the constitutional crisis, in my view,
26:12
Speaker 3: is not specific cases or specific policies. It's the fundamental
26:17
Speaker 3: question of who decides. And another five to four or
26:20
Speaker 3: even six' three decision out of The Supreme, court no
26:23
Speaker 3: matter which way it comes, out does not solve that
26:26
Speaker 3: problem we have had for half a. Century The american
26:29
Speaker 3: people disabled from just about what any democracy in the
26:33
Speaker 3: world does what we used to do before The court gone,
26:36
Speaker 3: involved which is we make the rules around, this not
26:39
Speaker 3: the justices In. Washington so that's what we got to.
26:42
Speaker 1: Fix, well this goes to you, Know i'm old enough
26:44
Speaker 1: to remember when my friends and the right were complaining
26:47
Speaker 1: that the judiciary was legislating in campaign finance laws. Ninety,
26:53
Speaker 1: basically most of the law that governs campaigns has been judicially.
27:01
Speaker 1: Written absolutely it.
27:03
Speaker 2: Is it has been.
27:04
Speaker 1: Over you, know overturning a state, legislature overturning a congressional,
27:09
Speaker 1: law none of, them, right it has not BEEN i
27:13
Speaker 1: can't think of a legislature that has passed a law
27:17
Speaker 1: that the court you know that that you, KNOW i
27:20
Speaker 1: can't think of a legislature that, said, yeah we should
27:22
Speaker 1: have unlimited this and we should have it, unlimited LIKE i.
27:25
Speaker 1: Can't i'm trying to find the legislative law that has done,
27:28
Speaker 1: that can You.
27:29
Speaker 3: Yeah and you know it's you're absolutely, right it's constant
27:32
Speaker 3: legislation by. Judges it's all of these are policy questions
27:35
Speaker 3: you can we could agree or disagree or argue.
27:38
Speaker 2: About but they have made the. Decision but these are
27:40
Speaker 2: not the.
27:41
Speaker 1: Questions is not a legislative, intent, right because it has
27:44
Speaker 1: not been legislative, intent.
27:46
Speaker 3: Not at, all exactly. Right and so you know that's
27:49
Speaker 3: the fundamental reason we need this constitutional amendment because it's getting.
27:53
Speaker 3: URGENT i, mean The american people now call money in
27:55
Speaker 3: politics the top, issue the top threat to our Democracy Pew.
28:00
Speaker 3: Research after the twenty billion dollar election in twenty twenty
28:03
Speaker 3: four did their usual survey of The american people's, Priorities
28:07
Speaker 3: reducing money in politics was number, one ahead of, immigration
28:10
Speaker 3: ahead of, crime and, so and there's a good reason
28:13
Speaker 3: for it because people see it now where they. Live
28:15
Speaker 3: it's the corruption is coming, home and we've got to fix.
28:19
Speaker 1: This SO i accept the, premise and Then i'm going
28:22
Speaker 1: to challenge you on, it because you, know there's always
28:24
Speaker 1: the correct answer the public, gives and then there's how
28:27
Speaker 1: they actually vote right during, elections and you AND i
28:31
Speaker 1: both know the following, truism which is there's not a
28:34
Speaker 1: single person that is won on.
28:36
Speaker 2: This issue where they've made it the.
28:38
Speaker 1: Issue and that is why, POLITICIANS i, think shy away
28:42
Speaker 1: from making it a centerpiece of their, campaign right because
28:46
Speaker 1: ultimately you're, like, yeah, OKAY i agree with, that but
28:50
Speaker 1: what are you doing about the price of?
28:51
Speaker 2: Groceries? Right like it has been hard to make this.
28:55
Speaker 1: Issue you can get voters to engage with it if
29:00
Speaker 1: they see the corruption and it's a corruption directly impacting
29:04
Speaker 1: said candidate and said. Campaign but BECAUSE i, LOOK i
29:10
Speaker 1: always say there's you, know there's eighty percent issues where
29:14
Speaker 1: there's only where half of those folks it. Isn't it
29:17
Speaker 1: isn't the single voting issue that they will go to
29:19
Speaker 1: the polls to vote. On but they're an eighty percent, agreement, right,
29:22
Speaker 1: gun some sort of control over you, know some sort
29:25
Speaker 1: of legislative additional hurdles to purchase guns as falls into that,
29:30
Speaker 1: category which is there's general, agreement but it's not the
29:34
Speaker 1: people that are the most passionate about it actually vote
29:37
Speaker 1: the other. Way why do you think it's been so
29:40
Speaker 1: hard to make it a voting.
29:42
Speaker 2: ISSUE i.
29:42
Speaker 1: UNDERSTAND i see the polling, too but there's you AND
29:45
Speaker 1: i both know there's type certain issues that poll well
29:48
Speaker 1: that don't get you to the, vote actually get people
29:51
Speaker 1: to the ballot.
29:52
Speaker 3: Box, YEAH i think we have to unpack that a, Bit,
29:55
Speaker 3: chuck because you, know The american people have never been
29:59
Speaker 3: offered the voice we Had american promise are, offering which,
30:02
Speaker 3: is do you want the power back to actually make
30:05
Speaker 3: the rules around money and, politics or do you want
30:08
Speaker 3: to leave it the same way it is now leave
30:10
Speaker 3: it to the, Judges BECAUSE i think we got to
30:12
Speaker 3: give The american people more. Credit they know that for
30:16
Speaker 3: fifty years we've lived with judge made rules that have
30:19
Speaker 3: just moved power into the hands of the wealthiest and
30:23
Speaker 3: the most global corporate, interests and everybody knows. THAT i
30:30
Speaker 3: think that's so when they, say, Hey i'm going to
30:33
Speaker 3: run on passing, McCain finegeld vote for, me the voter isn't.
30:38
Speaker 3: Stupid they know that the elected official is not actually
30:42
Speaker 3: going to be able to do very much because The
30:44
Speaker 3: Supreme court has said has basically invented this right to
30:49
Speaker 3: spend onlimited, money no matter what you might think about.
30:52
Speaker 3: It and SO i think that the passion is already.
30:57
Speaker 3: There you've said it. YOURSELF i thought you're an alice
31:00
Speaker 3: of the twenty twelve election Of Barack. Obama chuck was
31:04
Speaker 3: really astute when you said that was misread as somehow
31:07
Speaker 3: this grand demographic coalition rather than a populist. Election he
31:12
Speaker 3: went After Mitt, romney AND i thought that was right.
31:15
Speaker 3: On and why Did Bernie sanders go head to head
31:19
Speaker 3: an unknown at the, Time Bernie sanders go head to
31:21
Speaker 3: head With Hillary? Clinton why Is Donald? Trump they had
31:25
Speaker 3: taken over The Republican party and He's president of The United.
31:28
Speaker 3: States the answer to all of those, QUESTIONS i think
31:30
Speaker 3: is the same which The american people are, smart they get,
31:33
Speaker 3: it is that this system is completely corrupted and the
31:36
Speaker 3: normal politics isn't going to fix, it and so they're
31:39
Speaker 3: looking for. Answers and SO i, think as usual In,
31:42
Speaker 3: america that comes down to a constitutional. Question and SO
31:47
Speaker 3: i think there's passion for the constitutional question in a
31:50
Speaker 3: way that you are not going to render up a
31:52
Speaker 3: voting passion around you, know should the limit be five
31:55
Speaker 3: thousand dollars to ten thousand dollars or disclosure versus public,
31:58
Speaker 3: Finance and that's not what this is. About we face
32:01
Speaker 3: a fundamental constitutional.
32:03
Speaker 1: Question, well let's talk about this issue OF i, MEAN
32:05
Speaker 1: i feel like we're hitting there's a few different. Issues
32:10
Speaker 1: people that are passionate about certain issues THAT i feel
32:13
Speaker 1: like are where we basically the only answer is a constitutional.
32:17
Speaker 1: AMENDMENT i think IT'S i think campaign finance is one of.
32:20
Speaker 1: THEM i think those my friends that worry about the.
32:22
Speaker 1: DEBT i think the balanced budget amendment is another. ONE
32:25
Speaker 1: i think age, limits, Right if you have age minimums
32:29
Speaker 1: in the, constitution it means there's only one way you
32:31
Speaker 1: can create age. Limits you're going to need a constitutional,
32:34
Speaker 1: amendment right if you care about the electoral. College, NOW
32:37
Speaker 1: i think there are ways around, that which include expanding
32:41
Speaker 1: the Physical house Of, representatives which would actually fix the
32:45
Speaker 1: electoral college, issues and you wouldn't need a constitution. One
32:48
Speaker 1: there are a few places where you wouldn't need. One
32:51
Speaker 1: but we're at a moment WHERE i think there's enough.
32:54
Speaker 1: Issues is it worth working in concert with some of
33:01
Speaker 1: these other affinity groups who are fighting for this sort
33:07
Speaker 1: of what the infrastructure reforms for our democracy or our constitutional?
33:11
Speaker 2: Republic?
33:11
Speaker 1: Right you, know and if you look at our, history
33:14
Speaker 1: we basically have had three periods where we've actually fixed
33:18
Speaker 1: up our, house our constitutional, house right at the, beginning
33:22
Speaker 1: right during and after The Civil, war and essentially during
33:26
Speaker 1: and after The Gilded. Age and then you could say
33:30
Speaker 1: the twenty Second, amendment in the twenty Fifth amendment also
33:34
Speaker 1: that was, about you, know sort of REACTION fdr And
33:37
Speaker 1: kennedy and sort of in what.
33:39
Speaker 2: Incapacitation but is this a moment that is?
33:43
Speaker 1: Similar is this a period is it worth working with
33:47
Speaker 1: others to try to force a larger conversation about amending
33:51
Speaker 1: the constitution or is your time better spent just galvanizing on.
33:55
Speaker 2: The single issue of campaign.
33:57
Speaker 3: Finance, WELL i think the conversations well. Underway The american
34:02
Speaker 3: people are talking about constitutional change all the. Time now
34:06
Speaker 3: you left term limits, Off i'd put.
34:07
Speaker 1: That it's another, one, yes where you probably it's only
34:10
Speaker 1: going to Take you're going to need a constitutional amendment for.
34:12
Speaker 2: You. Yeah.
34:12
Speaker 3: Yeah The Supreme court is also ruled we're not allowed
34:15
Speaker 3: to have term, Limits SO i THINK i think that
34:18
Speaker 3: also there's a viable and energetic support for that kind
34:22
Speaker 3: of constitutional. Amendment so you're. ABSOLUTELY i couldn't agree more
34:26
Speaker 3: that we are in a moment In american history where
34:28
Speaker 3: we will see fundamental change and if we if we
34:32
Speaker 3: focus and make that constitutional change and other kinds of,
34:37
Speaker 3: reform it'll be a very positive. Thing but at the same,
34:41
Speaker 3: time if we, don't there's. Dangers AND i think that's
34:44
Speaker 3: what you saw if you look at all those periods you,
34:46
Speaker 3: mentioned and i'd ad you, know we did four, amendments
34:49
Speaker 3: four constitutional amendments between nineteen sixty one and nineteen seventy,
34:53
Speaker 3: one lowering the voting, AGE dc got some, representation the poll.
34:57
Speaker 3: Tax those are pretty big. Deals and if you look
35:01
Speaker 3: at all those, periods it was very much like our
35:03
Speaker 3: own political. Assassinations division the wheels coming off The american,
35:09
Speaker 3: democracy AND i think people realize that we can't go
35:13
Speaker 3: on with the status quo constitutional structures we've, had and
35:19
Speaker 3: there's fundamental, change AND i think that's what we're going
35:21
Speaker 3: to see. Now that doesn't mean, necessarily, though that there's
35:26
Speaker 3: some grand constitutional. COALITION i think maybe after The Civil,
35:29
Speaker 3: war The Civil war, amendments The Republican party at the
35:33
Speaker 3: time was the grand coalition around constitutional. Amendments we need
35:38
Speaker 3: to once and for all overturn the Dread scott decision
35:41
Speaker 3: and slavery In, america enfranchise All americans regardless of. RACE
35:46
Speaker 3: i think that was the. Exception the other, ones, THOUGH
35:49
Speaker 3: i think amendments happen in a dynamic systematictic process where
35:55
Speaker 3: there's opportunity because the old way is, crumbling the old
35:58
Speaker 3: stabilities there, anymore and you can actually put together new
36:02
Speaker 3: coalitions and new votes to actually get a two thirds
36:05
Speaker 3: vote In congress and ratification in three quarters of the,
36:09
Speaker 3: states which remain very. Different SO i don't think you
36:11
Speaker 3: need to march and lockstep and have different arguments that.
36:15
Speaker 3: Might you, know it isn't necessarily people will vote for
36:19
Speaker 3: our amendment who will be against electoral college, reform or
36:23
Speaker 3: people will like term limits but not the balanced, budget
36:26
Speaker 3: or you name. It that's. OKAY i think it's a
36:28
Speaker 3: much more dynamic. Process if Every american go for whatever
36:33
Speaker 3: it is that you want to, see will be just.
36:35
Speaker 3: Fine AND i would predict in a decade we'll have
36:38
Speaker 3: three or four amendments again like previous. Times but if
36:42
Speaker 3: we have a try to make it with some grand
36:43
Speaker 3: coalition coming out Of washington Telling americans what to, do
36:47
Speaker 3: it goes. Nowhere we go to the, states we go
36:50
Speaker 3: to the, people AND i think that's what smart amendments.
36:53
Speaker 3: Do so we have twenty three states already on board
36:56
Speaker 3: for Our Freedom amendment At american. Promise that why you get,
37:00
Speaker 3: ratification that's why you get the vote In, congress because
37:03
Speaker 3: we've actually shown that states as widely disparate As alaska
37:08
Speaker 3: And utah and, yeah you Know wyoming And montana Versus,
37:14
Speaker 3: California New, York. Massachusetts they're all doing, this they're all moving,
37:18
Speaker 3: forward and the politics of it are. Changing and so
37:21
Speaker 3: whether you're A republican Or democrat and you actually want
37:24
Speaker 3: to vote for our, amendment that'll happen with some of
37:26
Speaker 3: the other amendments.
37:27
Speaker 1: TOO i think what's Your so what's it's, Interesting, look
37:30
Speaker 1: the four states you just talked about that Are republican.
37:32
Speaker 2: Leaning don't surprise me right.
37:35
Speaker 1: There there there's a there's a history In montana of
37:39
Speaker 1: sort of skepticism of corporations and corporate. Money that's a
37:42
Speaker 1: very little more bipartisan concern about it than you see
37:45
Speaker 1: in most States, utah, right it's civic, Mindedness, alaska Even,
37:52
Speaker 1: wyoming the small states sort of get. It what's your biggest, Hurdle,
37:58
Speaker 1: right you need thirty eight, states you, know it means
38:01
Speaker 1: you're going to need you, KNOW i guess in theory
38:04
Speaker 1: you could do this without The Deep south red. States
38:06
Speaker 1: but make the case to The alabama legislature of why
38:09
Speaker 1: they should be for this.
38:10
Speaker 3: Amendment, OH i think we can win. Anywhere so and you, Know,
38:15
Speaker 3: ALABAMA i, HOPE i hope we'll come on board. Soon
38:17
Speaker 3: but you, know we passed The Oklahoma house. Unanimously we
38:20
Speaker 3: still got to go through The, senate but the vote
38:22
Speaker 3: In oklahoma was unanimous in The. House we've passed The
38:25
Speaker 3: senate In. Wyoming so this lead sponsor In, Texas Senator Angela.
38:29
Speaker 3: Paxton you don't get to the right of The paxtons In.
38:31
Speaker 3: Texas and you know she's.
38:34
Speaker 1: The least It's Ken paxton soon to be ex wife
38:36
Speaker 1: who's the chief sponsor for? You?
38:37
Speaker 3: There you know this is this is the truth about.
38:39
Speaker 2: The, fellows, Right, Yeah.
38:41
Speaker 3: Yeah the thing about amendments is especially if you do
38:44
Speaker 3: it in a way that is respectful and actually like
38:47
Speaker 3: we're service, minded we serve The american people to get done.
38:51
Speaker 3: With we want to get. Done everybody wants to get,
38:53
Speaker 3: done but we want to get it done for different.
38:55
Speaker 3: Reasons so we just let people do it for their own.
38:58
Speaker 3: Reason and you start to put up these these these.
39:01
Speaker 3: Wins so the question is why Would alabama want to do?
39:03
Speaker 3: This not why WOULD i want to Tell alabama to do?
39:06
Speaker 2: This In alabama's best?
39:09
Speaker 3: Interesting, Yeah so the question for The alabama legislature is
39:12
Speaker 3: do you want to make the rules For alabama elections
39:14
Speaker 3: or do you want them to be made by five
39:16
Speaker 3: justices In. Washington, right that's fundamentally.
39:19
Speaker 1: It's the strongest argument you can, make almost like a
39:22
Speaker 1: state's rights.
39:23
Speaker 2: Argument.
39:23
Speaker 3: YEAH i just have a hard time If i'm an
39:25
Speaker 3: elected legislature In alabama saying, WELL i don't really want
39:28
Speaker 3: to make the. RULES i LIKE i like THE i
39:30
Speaker 3: like the way it, is and that it's coming From.
39:32
Speaker 3: Washington i've never heard that In. Alabama SO i think
39:35
Speaker 3: that they will very much be behind this because, again the,
39:39
Speaker 3: amendment very, simple is a question of who decides it
39:42
Speaker 3: puts it back in the hands of the people and our.
39:45
Speaker 3: Representatives and so we're not Telling, alabama, oh you got
39:48
Speaker 3: to have this rule or you got to have that.
39:50
Speaker 3: Rule we're saying To, alabama we Want alabama's to decide
39:54
Speaker 3: what the rules. Are and SO i think it's a compelling.
39:57
Speaker 1: Case do you hate, Hangovers we'll say goodbye to. Hangovers
40:03
Speaker 1: out Of office gives you the social buzz without the
40:05
Speaker 1: next day. Regret their best selling out Of office gummies
40:08
Speaker 1: were designed to provide a, mild relaxing, buzz boost your,
40:11
Speaker 1: mood and enhance creativity and. Relaxation with five different, strengths
40:14
Speaker 1: you can tailor the dose to fit your, vibe from
40:17
Speaker 1: a gentle one point five milligram micro dose to their
40:21
Speaker 1: newest fifteen milligram gummy for a more elevated. Experience THEIR
40:25
Speaker 1: thhc beverages and gummies are a, modern mindful alternative to
40:28
Speaker 1: a glass of wine or a. Cocktail And i'll tell you,
40:31
Speaker 1: This i've given up. BOOZE i don't like the. HANGOVERS
40:34
Speaker 1: i prefer the gummy. Experience soul is a wellness brand
40:38
Speaker 1: that believes feeling good should be fun and. Easy soul
40:41
Speaker 1: specializes in DELICIOUS hemp DERIVED thhd AND cbd, products all
40:45
Speaker 1: designed to boost your mood and simply help you. Unwine
40:48
Speaker 1: so if you struggle to switch off at, Night soul
40:50
Speaker 1: also has a variety of products specifically designed to just
40:53
Speaker 1: simply help you get a better night's, sleep including their
40:56
Speaker 1: top selling sleepy. Gummies it's a fan favorite for Deep
40:59
Speaker 1: restore to. Sleep so bring on the good vibes and
41:02
Speaker 1: treat yourself To sold, Today right, Now soul is offering
41:05
Speaker 1: my audience thirty percent off your entire. Order so go
41:09
Speaker 1: to get sold dot com use the promo code. Toodcast
41:12
Speaker 1: don't forget that. Code that's get sold Dot com promo
41:16
Speaker 1: code toodcast for thirty percent. Off what's been the toughest
41:24
Speaker 1: pushback you've had to deal?
41:26
Speaker 3: With, WELL i think there's two forms of, opposition AND
41:31
Speaker 3: i respect them both and we take them both. Seriously
41:33
Speaker 3: one is the intellectual opposition is. LEGIT i, mean The
41:39
Speaker 3: Supreme court isn't filled with dumb. PEOPLE i mean this.
41:43
Speaker 2: Theory this is a libertarian, argument, Right, yeah.
41:45
Speaker 3: The First amendment having something to do with spending the
41:48
Speaker 3: money in politics is a serious, argument and there are
41:51
Speaker 3: still a fortunately small number of people who agree with.
41:56
Speaker 3: It but the data on it now after fifty, years
41:58
Speaker 3: is not very supportive of that. Theory so the, idea
42:02
Speaker 3: even if one thought it made, sense now that we
42:05
Speaker 3: see it in, practice it doesn't really seem very supportive
42:08
Speaker 3: of free speech principles unless your view of free speech
42:11
Speaker 3: is different than what Most americans seem to, think which
42:15
Speaker 3: is free speech does not mean you get to drown
42:17
Speaker 3: out every other. Person and so but that argument is still.
42:21
Speaker 3: There the court sticks with, it many. Others you, know relatively,
42:25
Speaker 3: speaking it's probably ten percent in the, polling ten to fifteen,
42:28
Speaker 3: percent and so we respect. That we'd love that debate
42:32
Speaker 3: because we win it every, time and because that's not
42:35
Speaker 3: where people. Are we've seen the, data we've seen the.
42:38
Speaker 3: Results but that's constitutional issues always have two. Sides there's
42:42
Speaker 3: no reason why this one won't. It so that's. Okay
42:44
Speaker 3: we'll argue that one out and we think we'll win the,
42:47
Speaker 3: votes and the for Our Freedom amendment will be the new.
42:50
Speaker 3: Rule the second one is more, serious and that's the
42:54
Speaker 3: ones you don't see the, operatives the multi billion dollar
42:58
Speaker 3: political industrial complex now that's made a lot of money
43:00
Speaker 3: off this. System they're not coming out to debate, Necessarily
43:04
Speaker 3: they're coming out to just try to stop.
43:05
Speaker 2: THIS i this. Eject this is WHAT i fear the.
43:09
Speaker 1: Most there is so many wealthy people In washington who
43:11
Speaker 1: have made a killing off of super. PACs, yeah and
43:14
Speaker 1: they're mere existence and there's an entire ecosystem that is
43:18
Speaker 1: now close to twenty years old when you think back
43:20
Speaker 1: to really it began with the two thousand and four
43:23
Speaker 1: you know act was sort of the first one of,
43:25
Speaker 1: these and then and it was, like, hey you don't
43:27
Speaker 1: even have to do that.
43:28
Speaker 2: Anymore you can.
43:30
Speaker 1: You don't even have to pretend there's a distinction between
43:33
Speaker 1: The kerry campaign and your independent. Expenditure you can have
43:37
Speaker 1: the candidate themselves can raise money for both. Entities, now,
43:40
Speaker 1: right that's essentially what since The united allowed and it's
43:46
Speaker 1: now a generational. Industry. Right there are people that have
43:49
Speaker 1: whose livelihoods depend on these independent. Expenditures and you're, right
43:57
Speaker 1: like that's probably the biggest impediment you. Have are you,
44:02
Speaker 1: know people who are afraid of losing out on.
44:05
Speaker 3: Cash, YEAH i think that's absolutely. Right when we take it.
44:08
Speaker 3: Seriously but you know that is the. Fight that is
44:13
Speaker 3: the question about are we able to overcome that or
44:21
Speaker 3: is this our? Future and if it's our, future remember
44:23
Speaker 3: we're only twenty years, in as you, said back to
44:26
Speaker 3: two thousand and. Four if imagine when it looks like
44:28
Speaker 3: twenty years from, now fifty years from now is not.
44:31
Speaker 3: Sustainable and so the question is are we willing to
44:34
Speaker 3: fight for what we? Got AND i don't mean fight,
44:36
Speaker 3: VIOLENTLY i mean fight with a constitutional battle which will
44:40
Speaker 3: decide the. Issue and we're not the first ones who
44:43
Speaker 3: had to do. This imagine you mentioned the progressive income.
44:46
Speaker 3: Tax imagine the amendment that had to go around saying
44:48
Speaker 3: we're going to raise, taxes, Right so ours it.
44:51
Speaker 1: Was because people had had. IT i mean this is
44:53
Speaker 1: where the moment people had had.
44:56
Speaker 2: It with wealthy.
44:56
Speaker 1: People and back then the income text really only applied
44:59
Speaker 1: to to a small group of.
45:00
Speaker 3: People, yeah and there's pretty good analogies, today don't you.
45:04
Speaker 3: THINK i, LOOK i.
45:06
Speaker 1: Think absolutely that sort of should money equal? Power we
45:12
Speaker 1: understand money equal. Speech but what you've actually done is
45:15
Speaker 1: you've equated those with the most money has the most.
45:18
Speaker 2: Power was that actually the founder's?
45:20
Speaker 3: Intent, yeah, exactly and SO i like our. CHANCES i
45:24
Speaker 3: don't underestimate the opposition and the and the. Power but
45:28
Speaker 3: that's what this is is a power, struggle and that's
45:31
Speaker 3: what that's the that's The american story.
45:33
Speaker 1: Is can you assuage my libertarian friends by, saying, hey
45:36
Speaker 1: this amendment doesn't prevent a state legislature or even a
45:39
Speaker 1: FUTURE Us congress from creating a system with minimal.
45:43
Speaker 3: Limits, yeah that is the argument that gets libertarians on our,
45:47
Speaker 3: side and we have many which is WHAT i. Thought you, Know,
45:50
Speaker 3: yeah because.
45:50
Speaker 1: The WAY i read, this it doesn't it's not one.
45:53
Speaker 1: Sided if a if the state Of wyoming wants to
45:56
Speaker 1: be a libertarian wants to be the inin rond experiment
46:00
Speaker 1: and essentially take away all regulate regulations and markets and
46:04
Speaker 1: on that go to, it this amendment would guarantee that
46:10
Speaker 1: within the confines of the state Of.
46:11
Speaker 2: Wyoming, Right, yeah.
46:12
Speaker 3: There's no reason a libertarian would prefer the current system
46:15
Speaker 3: over our, amendment which has a much more libertarian orientation
46:20
Speaker 3: than the current. SYSTEM i, think you, know a lot of,
46:22
Speaker 3: libertarians just like a lot of, businesses just like a
46:24
Speaker 3: lot of wealthy, people they, see like you, said money equaling,
46:28
Speaker 3: power means government gets more and more power because it's
46:31
Speaker 3: a pay to play system and this sort of you,
46:34
Speaker 3: know and it's going up in orders of magnitude in
46:37
Speaker 3: terms of who can play and who, pays and so
46:40
Speaker 3: what you don't get is a lot of liberty going.
46:42
Speaker 3: Around and SO i think real libertarians think about you,
46:46
Speaker 3: Know John locke and the sort of order ordered, libertarianism which,
46:51
Speaker 3: is you, know it's again that question of who, decides
46:55
Speaker 3: not what the answer. Is and so by moving it
46:57
Speaker 3: back to the, people you're absolutely. Right if a libertarian legislature, says,
47:02
Speaker 3: hey our view is you, know no, rules then they
47:06
Speaker 3: they this doesn't force them, Otherwise.
47:08
Speaker 1: And this is a you, know it's interesting reading your Amendment,
47:11
Speaker 1: again the idea of paid campaigning was probably not something
47:16
Speaker 1: the founders fully thought. About they knew there'd be, factions
47:18
Speaker 1: they knew there'd be moneyed interest per, se but it
47:23
Speaker 1: was not A i think it's. Fairness but you're you're
47:26
Speaker 1: a bit more of a historian on. THIS i, mean
47:28
Speaker 1: how front of mind was the idea of of of
47:33
Speaker 1: wealth having a contributory factor to the.
47:35
Speaker 3: Democracy, WELL i think there's two different things. There one
47:39
Speaker 3: is you're, right absolutely no ability even to foresee the
47:45
Speaker 3: kind of money in, politics specifically around elections and campaigns
47:50
Speaker 3: that we. Have they. Did they were distrustful of, Parties
47:53
Speaker 3: they were distrustful of even acting like you're, running you,
47:56
Speaker 3: Know George washington famously, saying, Well i'll, serve But i'm
48:00
Speaker 3: not going to run around and ask for. Votes you,
48:01
Speaker 3: know it was a it was a different kind of.
48:04
Speaker 3: Thinking but they were obsessed with. Corruption they were obsessed
48:07
Speaker 3: with the power of money to corrupt the political system
48:11
Speaker 3: in a lot of. Ways the revolution was, around you,
48:15
Speaker 3: know was again it was a question who, decides not
48:18
Speaker 3: not whether there should be a tax on, tea but
48:20
Speaker 3: whether who gets to make.
48:22
Speaker 2: The people get to? Decide, Right, Yeah.
48:25
Speaker 3: And so you know, this a notion that it's going
48:27
Speaker 3: to be a republic versus an aristocracy is essentially saying
48:31
Speaker 3: we're going to be a place where wealth won't decide those.
48:34
Speaker 3: Questions AND i think the the consistency of our constitutional
48:40
Speaker 3: solution of money in politics with that founding vision of
48:43
Speaker 3: What american is is really.
48:46
Speaker 1: Profound and, LOOK i think one of your other challenges
48:49
Speaker 1: and bear unfair is limiting campaign, finance limiting putting limits
48:56
Speaker 1: on the financing of campaigns is is perceived to help
49:03
Speaker 1: the left over the. RIGHT i, CAN i can argue
49:08
Speaker 1: it both, ways So i'm NOT i am, not but
49:10
Speaker 1: that is to me a perception hurdle you, have, right
49:14
Speaker 1: anytime you can have it's, like why is D c
49:16
Speaker 1: not a state? Yet and you know why can we
49:19
Speaker 1: GET dc And Puerto rico to come in? Together you
49:22
Speaker 1: know they because the right has to be convinced that
49:24
Speaker 1: they'll Have you know that it isn't automatically going to
49:27
Speaker 1: change the balance of, power, right that there is an
49:29
Speaker 1: equal opportunity here in having new states added that they
49:34
Speaker 1: write D c.
49:34
Speaker 2: Alone, right the right.
49:36
Speaker 1: Opposes not on on on high minded grounds but on
49:40
Speaker 1: simply pure political power.
49:42
Speaker 2: Grounds and so.
49:43
Speaker 1: Anytime you can have an, amendment that is that, it you,
49:46
Speaker 1: know benefits that that both that ideologues on both sides
49:51
Speaker 1: could make the case helps them better off you. Are
49:56
Speaker 1: how do you break through this idea that that limiting
50:00
Speaker 1: camp putting restrictions on the financing of campaigned only helps the.
50:04
Speaker 3: Left, well the facts are the best argument against, that
50:09
Speaker 3: AND i think increasingly with every election cycle somebody has
50:14
Speaker 3: been punched in the face by money in. Politics so
50:17
Speaker 3: each time we have an, election we get more, data
50:21
Speaker 3: and SO i think that's that's no longer the. Case
50:24
Speaker 3: SO i think in the early days After Citizens, united
50:27
Speaker 3: The mitch McConnell kind of Public republican party, thought, hey
50:31
Speaker 3: we can win with with unlimited money and it'll hurt The.
50:34
Speaker 3: Democrats so why would we be Against Citizens? United that
50:39
Speaker 3: that's no longer. TRUE i, Mean republicans have lost The
50:43
Speaker 3: wisconsin judicial race because of, money one hundred million dollars
50:47
Speaker 3: coming in for that. ONE i don't.
50:51
Speaker 2: You want to Stop george sorows? Right is that your
50:53
Speaker 2: best line to the.
50:54
Speaker 3: Right, WELL i don't have. To they'll say it to.
50:56
Speaker 3: Me they'll tell me, that and it's a true. THING i,
51:00
Speaker 3: Mean George zories really does spend a lot of money
51:02
Speaker 3: in in, politics and it comes down to the local,
51:05
Speaker 3: level which it really affects if you think About republican.
51:09
Speaker 3: Interests it's, local it's state. Based and now every election
51:13
Speaker 3: has been nationalized right down to the DA's races and
51:16
Speaker 3: even school. Committee so that's A republican. Issue but, Look
51:20
Speaker 3: democrats have gotten very good at this game, too and
51:23
Speaker 3: nobody is too confident that they'll be able to prevail
51:27
Speaker 3: over the long. Haul with one system or. ANOTHER i
51:30
Speaker 3: was talking to A Texas republican In. Dallas he looked
51:32
Speaker 3: at our map of, states twenty three states that have
51:35
Speaker 3: gotten behind this, amendment and he looks and he, says
51:38
Speaker 3: you Got california And New. York why would The democrats
51:41
Speaker 3: vote for? This because in his, mind it's The democrats
51:45
Speaker 3: who have the advantage with big. Money and if you're In,
51:48
Speaker 3: texas you know this Turn texas. Blue outside money coming
51:52
Speaker 3: in all the. Time their experience is The democrats are
51:55
Speaker 3: using the system against, them and so everyone has their own.
51:59
Speaker 3: Experience AND i think we're getting to the point now
52:03
Speaker 3: which which we thought would, happen and why the amendment
52:06
Speaker 3: is actually going to get done where both sides know
52:09
Speaker 3: that they actually won't have a sustained advantage in the current,
52:12
Speaker 3: system and both have an interest in.
52:14
Speaker 1: THIS i assume you'd love if a mainstream presidential candidate
52:18
Speaker 1: or both got behind. This, obviously if you could get
52:21
Speaker 1: both dominees behind this in twenty eight you'd get to
52:23
Speaker 1: thirty eight states pretty.
52:24
Speaker 2: Quickly what is that your.
52:27
Speaker 1: Hope that you're going to influence the debate, itself or
52:30
Speaker 1: how do you hope to galvanize here to get to
52:32
Speaker 1: the to get you, know twenty three states is one, thing.
52:38
Speaker 2: Thirty eight to?
52:38
Speaker 1: Another or do you want to do you really Think,
52:41
Speaker 1: Congress i'm skeptical you can get it through This.
52:44
Speaker 3: Congress, well we you, know we look at how other
52:47
Speaker 3: amendments were. Done you, know it's interesting the founders intentionally
52:51
Speaker 3: took the president out of the. Deal there's no veto of,
52:54
Speaker 3: this there's no signing of. This it's the one thing
52:56
Speaker 3: That congress does where the president has no role and
52:59
Speaker 3: the governor have no. Role the legislatures when they, ratify
53:04
Speaker 3: do the, vote there's no governor. Roles SO i think that's.
53:06
Speaker 3: Intentional but obviously presidential races are focused a lot of.
53:11
Speaker 3: Attention we would welcome both presidential candidates from both parties endorsing.
53:16
Speaker 3: This but in the, end this isn't a top down
53:18
Speaker 3: kind of. Thing this Is god have come up from
53:21
Speaker 3: the people from the. States that's how you get the
53:23
Speaker 3: vote In. Congress that's why we do the work with
53:25
Speaker 3: The americans in every. State we don't care who you vote.
53:28
Speaker 3: For we are on the ground and Supporting americans to
53:32
Speaker 3: get this. Done and that'll be plenty to get our
53:35
Speaker 3: congressional vote and ratification in The, states the presidential politics of,
53:40
Speaker 3: it you, know it could it could help or could
53:42
Speaker 3: hurt if one side supports and the other side, doesn't
53:45
Speaker 3: then it's you, know we're pushing up against partisan. Perceptions
53:49
Speaker 3: and so our job is simply to Support americans where
53:52
Speaker 3: we live in The, states and we'll get we'll get the. Votes,
53:56
Speaker 3: so you, know we do have a candidate pledge and
53:59
Speaker 3: we invite all candidates to sign, it and and we
54:03
Speaker 3: have about half and Half republicans And. Democrats but in
54:07
Speaker 3: the you, know the politics of the presidential race in
54:11
Speaker 3: twenty eight will will do what they. Do and in the,
54:15
Speaker 3: meantime there's a lot of work that we all can
54:17
Speaker 3: do where we. Live and that's get you, know get
54:20
Speaker 3: behind this, amendment move it forward and ask our elected,
54:22
Speaker 3: representatives no matter which party they, are to support. It
54:25
Speaker 3: and then it'll be in the presidential candidate's interest to
54:28
Speaker 3: do so, too because that's where the votes will come.
54:30
Speaker 1: From where is the most amount of your efforts to
54:35
Speaker 1: galvanize people Go is it on the ground in state legislative?
54:40
Speaker 2: Races is it more Where how is it that you
54:43
Speaker 2: feel you guys can be the most.
54:44
Speaker 3: Effective, Yeah so the biggest THING i would say about, That,
54:49
Speaker 3: chuck is we Don't we always say we're not going
54:51
Speaker 3: to end the. Constitution american promise isn't going to do.
54:54
Speaker 3: It The american people will do. It our job is to.
54:56
Speaker 3: Serve and so what is the highest, leverage fastest way
55:00
Speaker 3: we can Move americans behind this constitutional solution to money in.
55:05
Speaker 3: Politics and so a lot of our staff support is
55:08
Speaker 3: in the, states supporting people, there and we have replicable
55:13
Speaker 3: work through networks like business, networks local, chambers local. Rotaries
55:18
Speaker 3: and if we do, that not only are we getting
55:20
Speaker 3: the wins and the state, legislatures we're leaving in those
55:24
Speaker 3: states after they pass. This it's not like we're parachuting
55:28
Speaker 3: it in and then. Leaving we're leaving behind a well
55:31
Speaker 3: informed electorate that is eager to see this, done that's
55:35
Speaker 3: carrying it forward with leadership fromstate, legislatures from business, groups
55:40
Speaker 3: from civic. Groups so that's where we focus our. Attention
55:43
Speaker 3: it's not really about just you, know landing in trying
55:48
Speaker 3: to get wins and moving. On it's about support through
55:51
Speaker 3: these kind of, networks network. Strategy and, so, yeah we
55:55
Speaker 3: want votes and. Legislatures we've racked up a whole bunch of.
55:58
Speaker 3: Them we've won ballot. Initiatives we're seven and zero in
56:01
Speaker 3: states ON vallid and this is the most recent And
56:03
Speaker 3: maine was eighty six. Percent so we do the work
56:07
Speaker 3: that Lets americans be heard on this and then gets
56:11
Speaker 3: legislators voting for, it no matter which party they.
56:13
Speaker 1: Are, so you, know a lot of times having you,
56:17
Speaker 1: know there's nothing like a reform smoker to tell you
56:19
Speaker 1: not to. Smoke you, know do you have a Living
56:24
Speaker 1: koch brother And George soros jointly supports something like. This
56:27
Speaker 1: do you have super wealthy donors that have that have
56:30
Speaker 1: benefited from the system come out and.
56:32
Speaker 2: Favored does that help or hurt your? Cause?
56:34
Speaker 3: WELL i will, say, first we disclose all our, donors
56:37
Speaker 3: SO i encourage you to sign up at The americanpromise
56:39
Speaker 3: dot net check out our annual. Report and the REASON
56:42
Speaker 3: i say that the beauty of it is you can
56:44
Speaker 3: look at all our donors AND i bet you won't
56:45
Speaker 3: know any of. Them it's regular. People and it doesn't
56:48
Speaker 3: mean they're all small dollar. Donors there are people wealthy
56:51
Speaker 3: people too who are very concerned about this. Interest, yeah
56:55
Speaker 3: and yes many of them participate in the current system spending,
56:58
Speaker 3: wise but it's not working for, them just like it's
57:01
Speaker 3: not working for most. PEOPLE i, remember you, know we're
57:04
Speaker 3: talking to somebody who's fairly, wealthy basically telling, us you,
57:08
Speaker 3: know ten million dollars doesn't get your phone calls returned.
57:11
Speaker 3: Anymore so it's like when they start feeling like they
57:14
Speaker 3: have no, voice you know.
57:16
Speaker 1: That, well it's, funny, right the seven figure donor is
57:20
Speaker 1: just another. Donor, yeah major parties, now so it really it's.
57:26
Speaker 1: Funny it's sort of like what used to buy?
57:27
Speaker 2: Access does? It? Well you you don't get what you're
57:29
Speaker 2: paid for, anymore, Right like all sorts of.
57:31
Speaker 1: THINGS i remember WHEN i remember when bribing a politician
57:35
Speaker 1: was a, nickel, Right, no, yeah maybe that is maybe
57:40
Speaker 1: that is a way to get some of these folks on.
57:41
Speaker 3: Board, yeah but you, know the we have No, cokes
57:45
Speaker 3: we have No, soross we have no no famous. Donors
57:48
Speaker 3: But i'd encourage all of them to like ask, themselves you,
57:52
Speaker 3: know whether you're The cochs or The, soros is this
57:54
Speaker 3: really working for you and for the. Country and it
57:57
Speaker 3: would be great to see them, say, hey we can
57:59
Speaker 3: keep doing, this but let's join together and put an
58:02
Speaker 3: end to.
58:02
Speaker 1: It Jeff clements it's, Look I'M i am one of
58:07
Speaker 1: those who believes we are in a moment that, FRANKLY
58:10
Speaker 1: i think we could use from civics, education we could
58:13
Speaker 1: use a moment focusing on the constitution and sort of
58:16
Speaker 1: getting people. THERE i think, inevitably you know in some,
58:20
Speaker 1: day you, know this is never let a crisis go to.
58:23
Speaker 1: Waste this is one of. Those we're in a crisis
58:25
Speaker 1: moment for. Democracy it's an opportunity to do some. Repairs
58:30
Speaker 1: so we'll see if we'll do.
58:31
Speaker 2: It we'll see if we can get.
58:33
Speaker 3: Traction absolutely. Well thank, You, chuck really enjoyed talking with you.
58:36
Speaker 1: Today appreciate, It appreciate the, Time, john good luck with.
58:39
Speaker 3: It thank you so. Much take.
58:41
Speaker 1: Care there's a reason results matter more than, promises just
58:46
Speaker 1: like there's a Reason morgan And morgan Is america's largest
58:49
Speaker 1: injury law. Firm for the last thirty five, years they've
58:52
Speaker 1: recovered twenty five billion dollars for more than half a million.
58:55
Speaker 1: Clients it includes cases where insurance companies offered next just
59:00
Speaker 1: hoping to get away with paying as little as. Possible
59:03
Speaker 1: morgan And morgan fought back ended up winning. Millions in,
59:06
Speaker 1: fact In, pennsylvania one client was awarded twenty six million,
59:09
Speaker 1: dollars which was a staggering forty times the amount that
59:13
Speaker 1: the insurance company originally. Offered that original offer six hundred
59:16
Speaker 1: and fifty thousand dollars twenty six, million six hundred and
59:19
Speaker 1: fifty thousand. Dollars so with more than one thousand lawyers
59:21
Speaker 1: across the, country they know how to deliver for everyday.
59:23
Speaker 1: People if you're, injured you need a, lawyer you need
59:26
Speaker 1: somebody to get your. Back check out for The people
59:29
Speaker 1: dot Com slash podcast or dial pound, Law pound five
59:34
Speaker 1: two nine law on your cell. Phone and remember all
59:38
Speaker 1: law firms are not the, same so check Out morgan And.
59:40
Speaker 1: Morgan their fee is free unless they win