Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar

Episode Date: August 27, 2025
Themes: Political fundraising "spam" and the 2026 election, debate on school phone bans with Taylor Lorenz, and mass protests/anti-corruption movement in Serbia.

Overview

This episode explores three headline topics:

1. The deepening issue of aggressive email/text fundraising in US politics and its effect on the 2026 Senate race, specifically in Maine.
2. A wide-ranging, nuanced debate with tech journalist Taylor Lorenz on the surge of phone bans in American schools, addressing civil liberties, mental health, and generational divides.
3. A field report on the explosive student-led mass protests in Serbia, following a deadly railway station collapse linked to high-level corruption.

The episode is packed with reporting, analysis, and direct debate, all with Breaking Points’ trademark skeptical and conversational tone.

Segment 1: Spam Email Fundraising & the 2026 Maine Senate Race

[02:38–23:05]

Key Points & Insights

• Mothership Strategies’ Role in Fundraising:

  • The Democratic fundraising firm Mothership Strategies is profiled for its "hair-on-fire" fundraising tactics (mock bills, manipulative messaging) that raise vast sums, but direct only a sliver to actual candidates.
  • Out of $678 million raised since 2018, only $11 million reached candidates, while $159 million went directly to Mothership.

    "The firm pioneered the hair on fire fundraising tactics that often send more money to political consultants than to political candidates." – Ryan Grim [03:00]

• The Jordan Wood Candidacy:

  • Jordan Wood, a Democrat running for Senate in Maine, is deep in the Mothership ecosystem; his husband is a co-founder.
  • Wood denies that his campaign is currently working with Mothership, insisting he’s hired a competitor.

    "Jordan for Maine, has not and will not hire Jordan's husband's firm. We are working with a competitor." — Sarah McCarthy, Wood’s spokesperson [09:08]

  • Wood was a key figure in several PACs tied to Mothership, which continue to endorse and fundraise for him, often before major other candidates even entered the race.

• Circular Money Flows & Endorsements:

  • Describes how PACs like Progressive Turnout Project (PTP), Defend the Vote, and Democracy First route money through Mothership, blurring lines between field operations and consultant profit.
  • Even Wood’s "independent" affiliated PACs often circle back to Mothership for fundraising operations.
  • Other candidates are emerging, such as working-class challenger Graham Platner, who aims to challenge billionaire influence and the revolving door of consultant money.

• Grassroots Donor Fatigue:

  • The aggressive, fear-based fundraising tactics are driving away traditional grassroots engagement. Both Democratic and Republican voters are growing to hate constant spam texts and emails.

    "It drives people crazy... Mothership was the pioneer of all this stuff." – Ryan Grim [16:11]

  • High-profile politicians like Bernie Sanders and AOC raise funds with inspiring messages, not predatory ones.

• Market Saturation & Voter Backlash:

  • In Maine, the sheer volume of spending has reached the point of absurdity—local ad space is exhausted, voters are bombarded, and mailers become literal garbage.

    "There's only so much space in somebody's mailbox to cram flyers." – Ryan Grim [21:46]

  • The discussion hints that at some point, the tide could turn, and candidates who run against these tactics may gain new appeal.

Notable Quotes & Moments

• On Voter Cynicism:

  "You hit a tipping point when people catch on... we're not yet at peak text or email, but we will at some point." – Saagar Enjeti [20:19]

• Joking about spam:

  "We will be texting him 10 times every hour until he agrees to come on. That's right. Yes. We emailed him 155 times..." – Saagar Enjeti & Ryan Grim [22:44]

• Policy Takeaways:

  • The political fundraising arms race is unlikely to resolve until there is clear voter pushback, as the current structure pushes ever more money to consultants over actual campaign work.

Segment 2: Taylor Lorenz Debates School Phone Bans

[25:56–49:38]

Main Discussion Threads

The Bans in Schools

• The Policy Context:

  • A wave of schools and states are enacting blanket bans on student phone use, with enforcement often left to school police/resource officers.
  • Students overwhelmingly oppose these bans; Lorenz argues their views deserve more weight.

• Taylor Lorenz’s Stance:

  • Strongly opposes legal/codified bans enforced by law enforcement, but supports individual teachers/schools managing phone use via rules, routines, or classroom policies:

    "No one wants any kids on their phone during class... My opposition is specifically to the laws." – Taylor Lorenz [27:25]

• Civil Liberties Concerns:

  • Drawing parallels to the "beeper ban" moral panic of the ‘90s, Lorenz argues phone bans will disproportionately expose students to policing and criminal records, especially in marginalized communities.

    "It ends up just being this quite discriminatory policy where they just sort of harass kids and it just leads to more interactions with kids and police." – Taylor Lorenz [29:08]

Debating Impacts: Mental Health and Research

• The Research Dispute:

  • Hosts press Lorenz on studies correlating increased screen time with higher anxiety/depression.
  • Lorenz emphasizes the research consensus is that links are unproven or much weaker than widely believed, and that panics about technology have repeated for generations without support in data:

    "All of the top researchers on this topic... issued an 82 page report... debunked this." – Taylor Lorenz [38:20]

  • Points to other leading causes of stress (poverty, social issues), not phone use per se.

    "One in six kids is growing up below the poverty line... They're growing up in a pretty stressful world..." [36:16]

• On Social and Equity Impacts:

  • For many kids, especially in lower-income or marginalized groups, the smartphone is their only computer and connection to community—total bans risk leaving them more isolated.
  • The issue of teaching digital self-control, rather than blanket bans, is emphasized as a vital modern skill.

    "We want to teach kids restraint and control... Otherwise you're just prolonging the inevitable." [40:07]

• Slippery Slope Toward Surveillance:

  • Lorenz warns widespread bans are often paired with expansion of surveillance tech in schools, such as facial recognition and biometric data collection.

Moral Panics, Parent Rights, and Nuance

• On Moral Panic:

  • Lorenz argues anti-phone politics resemble historic panics about video games, beepers, or baggy pants—scapegoating technology for wider societal ills.

• Parents’ Right to Restrict?

  • Hosts ask about parents who want a phone-free childhood. Lorenz points out social inclusion pressures and research now suggest kids with earlier phone access sometimes fare better mentally—largely via connectivity with friends.

    "We know actually that the mental health of kids that have the smartphone sooner is actually more positive... they're able to get in touch with friends." [44:29]

• Policy Nuance:

  • Lorenz supports balanced, individualized parental control, nuanced digital literacy education, and real privacy/data reforms over outright bans.

    "Join me in advocating for privacy laws and data privacy specifically... if this political effort to ban the phones and age restrict everything is successful [those laws won’t happen]." [45:25]

Notable Quotes & Moments

• Memorable:

  "The issue is very tied to a broader moral panic about cell phones where people are convinced that they're... making kids sort of mass unalive themselves..." – Lorenz [33:20]

• On Student Perspective:

  "If you polled the students in high school, it'd be roughly 99% if not 100% opposed to these bans." – Ryan Grim [26:28]

• Hosts' Take:

  "I'm a much, much different side of this than you are, Taylor. But we appreciate you coming here and allowing us to have this discussion." – Saagar Enjeti [49:13]

Segment 3: Mass Protests in Serbia – Field Report

[52:12–68:07]

Story Overview

• Tragedy at Novi Sad:

  • A deadly collapse of a newly renovated railway station canopy kills 16. The renovation was plagued by cost overruns, corruption, and false official claims denying responsibility.
  • Subsequent student- and citizen-led protests erupt, demanding transparency, accountability, and systemic reforms.

• Grassroots Uprising:

  • Protests began with weekly tributes, escalating after regime thugs assaulted student mourners.

  • Student-led blockades shut down over 60 universities, organized along direct democracy principles—demands include document release, accountability for assaults, release of arrested students, and increases for higher ed funding.

    "Decision making within the movement is based on the principles of direct democracy. Resolutions are adopted at general assemblies by a majority vote of those present." – Serbian Reporter [57:10]

Broader Political Context

• Corruption, Authoritarianism, and Foreign Influence:

  • The report details President Vučić's 13-year rule—formally pro-European, but increasingly autocratic, balancing ties with Russia and China. Explains how international and domestic pressures are sidelined by global crises and interests like the EU-backed lithium mine.

• Escalation and Repression:

  • Reports include violent attacks on students by regime loyalists, the resignation of the prime minister, and subsequent pardon of thugs by the president.
  • Students organize long-distance protest actions to European institutions, culminating in massive rallies—one protest draws 300,000 in Belgrade, the largest in Serbian history.

• Emergence of Authoritarian Tactics:

  • Government reportedly deploys sonic weapons (LRADs) to disperse crowds, denies claims despite evidence.

    "During the event, some form of sonic weapon was reportedly used, a claim supported by testimonies from over 3,000 citizens. The government denied all such allegations..." [64:12]

• Final Demands & Ongoing Struggle:

  • As original demands are unmet after six months, students call for early elections (without running themselves), intensifying despite growing political repression: arrests, surveillance, and international apathy.

Quotes & Moments

• On the movement:

  "The students advocate for the rule of law, the fight against corruption, strong institutions and respect for the legal system. They demand accountability. They distance themselves from political parties..." – Serbian Reporter [57:00]

• Sarcasm about endemic corruption:

  "Corruption in this society, in our country, so deep it reach all the way down to dinosaurs." – Serbian Reporter [58:13]

Selected Timestamps

• [02:38] – Spam email fundraising deep dive begins
• [08:16] – Challenger Graham Platner introduces working-class platform
• [14:15] – Mothership’s controversial impact summarized
• [19:08] – How fundraising emails rely on Facebook targeting
• [27:21] – Taylor Lorenz lays out her position on school phone bans
• [29:08] – Civil liberties and policing dangers of bans
• [33:20] – On the "moral panic" around phones and mental health
• [40:07] – Teaching self-control vs. blanket bans
• [44:29] – Mental health outcomes for early phone users
• [52:12] – Serbia student protests coverage begins
• [58:13] – Gravity of corruption highlighted
• [64:12] – Repressive measures and sonic weapon use documented

Summary

This episode delivers Breaking Points’ investigative and irreverent style on three fronts: exposing the self-dealing structure of political fundraising, facilitating a genuine left/right/cultural debate on school phone bans, and bringing international focus to a major anti-corruption movement in Serbia. Between references to “spam” emails, social panic, and grassroots revolt, the episode questions who really holds power—and who pays the price—in modern politics and society.