B (17:04)

Thank you very much for having me. I'm thrilled to be on your show.

A (17:07)

All right, so let's begin with the big question that everybody has something to say about sooner or later, which is the so called problem of money in US Politics. If we had time, of course, we talk about money in politics everywhere. The United States is not unique in this problem, but it's a big problem because it's a country with a lot of money and a lot of politics. So tell me, what is the reason that you spend all your time and energy fighting to get money out of politics? What's the point? What's the goal that motivates you?

B (17:47)

Everything in our political system comes down to the problem of money in politics. Who gets elected, who can even run for office, who they have to listen to. And therefore the decisions that that are made are all about.

A (18:06)

Having enough money.

B (18:07)

To run for campaigns. Big money, wealthy interest billionaires increasingly, year after year, spending as much as they can to get their candidates elected, force them and keep them in line, ensure that good candidates that the public would really support and that would work, stand up for regular people and not billionaires don't have a chance to compete. That's why we have to address, and they often do this in secret with dark money organizations that use misleading tactics to get people elected. Everything, every single decision that is made in our government falls prey to that, which is why we have to address big money in politics, secret money in politics, to get us out of this hole that we're in.

A (18:56)

Good. Let me follow up by asking you. At least for some of us, the money influencing politics happens in a variety of ways. One of them is giving donations to whoever you like. And the richer you are, of course, the more you can give. The second one is to funding an army of lobbyists, which we have learned are the people that spend full time in Washington or in any of the 50 state capitals, or for that matter in many city halls across the country. And of course, if you have the money to provide for a lobbyist and a budget for that lobbyist to use, that's another way of shaping the political. And the third one is what used to be called think tanks, in which the money from funds something that then floods the public airwaves with what's good for their point of view. So, you know, if they're businesses whose profits depend on it, they have learned to Use a portion of their profits to keep the profits flowing. And is this bill that you're working on, will it constrain all three of those ways of doing it or. Or only some of them?

B (20:18)

This bill, SB 42, the California Fair Elections act, attacks the first problem, which in many ways is the biggest and most important root of the problems. All those are very important issues, but they're all driven by the fact that people who are elected were elected with big money in the first place and weren't elected with the support of grassroots supporters. SB42 would allow public finance. It would put a measure, the California Fair Elections act, on the November 2020 ballot to repeal California's current ban on public financing of campaigns. California charter cities are allowed to. Los Angeles, San Francisco, Berkeley have very good matching fund systems like in New York that Mamdani just used to get elected. So it attacks that part, allowing good candidates the opportunity to run with public financing. Empower small donors so that their voice can matter and we can get elected good, strong legislators in the case of foreign Affair Elections act, and also city council members and boards of supervisors, because that all matters too, of course. And then when you have that, then you can also approach the problems of overspending in the lobbying domains and to a lesser extent, the think tank issue. California Clean Money Campaign works on all those issues, has worked on lobbying reform. But SB42 is the real route of ensuring that regular voters have a chance to elect candidates that were not bought with big money donations.

A (22:06)

Could I ask you, just for the benefit of our audience, if your bill passes, what would be the arrangement? Would all the money that a campaign puts into effect be the public money, or would they be able to also get private money? Would it be a choice? Exactly. How will that work? If you could just briefly explain it.

B (22:30)

SB42 won't actually put any system into place that'll make it possible for systems to come in place in all parts of California. Then it'll be the choices of the cities, the counties, and the state. Which kind? There are three major different kinds of public financing. There are small donor matching fund systems like in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Berkeley, that give six to one matches on small dollar donations. Candidates can still raise private money, though. They have to agree to expenditure limits. So they're limited in how much they can actually raise, but it boosts small donors. That's what Mamdani used. In New York City, there are also democracy voucher systems. Seattle just reaffirmed their democracy dollar system where each resident gets four $25 vouchers to give to the qualified candidate of their choice. So every voter has the ability to elect candidates and candidates don't need to raise money from big money. And then there's the third system, our full public financing systems, like in states like Connecticut, Maine and Arizona and places like Albuquerque, where candidates get all of their money from the public financing system after they've qualified. They have to show that they really are a qualified candidate and then they don't raise any money. So there are these three different options. It'll be the choices of the voters in the different jurisdictions in California which one they choose. But all three empower voters, as we've seen in each of those different places.

A (24:05)

I'm struck by your mentioning these other states. Would you happen to know what it looks like across the United States? In other words, where has there been progress made on limiting the money in the ways you've described one way or another, and where there's been no effort at all?

B (24:27)

Yeah, there's I believe over 14 states and a large number of jurisdictions that have public financing systems. The, the strongest systems have been in Arizona, Connecticut and Maine that have the full public funding, clean election systems where candidates get all their funding. New York State recently passed a very strong 8 to 1 small donor matching fund systems like New York systems like the one that Mamdani used to get elected. That's very important. Seattle has, as I mentioned, had this democracy system dollar system. Other places, Denver, Colorado, Albuquerque, there have been a number of cities that have passed public financing systems. Of course there's a whole bunch of states that do not use public financing. Florida had a small public financing system and the leaders there keep trying to completely dismantle it. So it's not everywhere, but in the places that we've seen it, like Arizona, Connecticut, Maine, and just starting in New York, we've seen very positive benefits, especially who can run and get elected despite big money against them.

A (25:40)

Okay, I now want to switch and ask you what we might say is a philosophical question or maybe a grand historical question. But you're in a good position to answer this question or at least to give us how it looks to you. The Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, one of the most famous Supreme Court justices in the history of that institution, was quoted and has been quoted for many, many years as basically saying that unequally distributed wealth is incompatible with democracy. And you know, one could infer from such a statement that he would be one of your biggest supporters. Because one of the ways unequal wealth destroys democracy or prevents democracy is by Pouring money into politics to corrupting money, corrupting politics with money. But here's the question I want to provoke you and your thoughts. Capitalism as a system, our system in this country, at least for the time being, is a system that produces and reproduces unequal wealth. I had to answer questions this last week on a number of radio and television programs where I appeared wanting my opinion about the offer just made by the Tesla Corporation board of directors to give Elon Musk a pay package of $1 trillion. In other words, we live in a system where one of the more successful corporations is going to give the person who's already the richest person on this planet with an estimated wealth of 3 to $400 billion to himself. They're going to give him a trillion more. It makes the argument about inequality of wealth ridiculous. And I picked the example of Elon Musk because, as you know, he threw an unprecedented amount of money, trivial for him, but unprecedented in American history, into the coffers of Donald Trump this last election cycle. So clearly the money of the unequally wealthy is finding its way into our politics. So here comes my question. Is your effort in some way forcing us as Americans at least to confront the fact that we live in an economic system that not only produces unequal distributions of wealth, but thereby corrupts its own politics?

B (28:53)

Yeah, that's an excellent point. Obviously, such incredible obscene inequality is tremendously problem for a tremendous problem for our democracy, especially after Citizens United, which unleashed billionaires and corporations and everybody else that have money like him to spend unlimited amounts of campaigns. It was a little less of a problem before that because they couldn't spend $250 million on campaigns before. But that's why we need public financing of campaigns and other controls and clear disclosure like in the California DISCLOSE act, so people see who's paying political ads so much we have to break that cycle. And I think that's part of the idea. If you allow good, strong candidates to get elected, as we've seen with public financing systems without billionaires, then they, pushed by the people, can stand up for policies that will at least, at the very least make billionaires pay their fair share, which they aren't right now, which right now they can block because of all the money they spend on campaigns. But with public financing like SB42.

A (30:11)

Will.

B (30:11)

Allow, we can ensure that regular voters, candidates that will stand up for regular voters will, will have a chance to run and win and put in policies that correct those issues. What people can do right now to help public financing advance in California is go to the California Clean money campaign's website, www.yesfareelections.org, sign the petition for SB 42, and then get involved so we can ensure that Governor Newsom, the legislature signs it, passes it, and Governor Newsom signs it into law next month.

A (30:47)

I wish we had more time, but I think you've covered and given really good answers to us about why it's worthwhile to do what you have been doing. So that's part of why we brought you on the program. We really want to show people that there is a way of pushing back. It has its limits, but it is something you can do. And we are often asked that question, what can I do? Well, here's one thing you can be supportive of efforts like this one in California to move this process forward. I'm reminded in closing, I was in Paris, France, once when the newspapers were full of a story in which the then leader of France, Sarkozy, had collected an enormous amount of money in his suitcase delivered to him by the CEO of one of France's largest corporations, and they got caught in the process of doing it. It was a wonderful moment in French politics, and it has led to them having a movement to do there what you are doing in California. So thank you very much, Trent Lang, and thank you all for being with us today. And as always, I look forward to speaking with you again next week.