Loading summary
Transcript30 lines
- [00:00]
Back Market Advertiser
Back Market is the best place to get the tech you need for the school year for less. Like professionally refurbished smartphones to take those first day pics.
- [00:09]
Podcast Host Isaac Saul
Mom, your finger's blocking the camera or
- [00:12]
Back Market Advertiser
laptops to write that essay.
- [00:14]
John Law
How many EM dashes would you like?
- [00:16]
Back Market Advertiser
No matter what you need it for? The premium refurbished tech on backmarket is guaranteed by the Back Market Promise. Professionally refurbished with a one year warranty and free 30 day returns. Save now@backmarket.com a better help ad.
- [00:32]
Sponsor Announcer
Hold on one second, I just need to. What if you had a room where no one interrupts? No notifications, no expectations, just space to talk with? BetterHelp therapy happens in a space that's yours. Visit betterhelp.com randompodcast for 10% off your first month of online therapy.
- [01:04]
Podcast Host Isaac Saul
Decisions made in Washington can affect your portfolio every day, but what policy changes should investors be watching? Washington Wise is an original podcast from Charles Schwab that unpacks the stories making news in Washington right now and and how they may affect your finances and portfolio. Listen@schwab.com WashingtonWise
- [01:32]
Sponsor Announcer
from executive producer Isaac Saul, this is Tangle.
- [01:47]
Will K. Back
Good morning, good afternoon and good evening, and welcome to the Tangle Podcast, a place where you get views from across the political spectrum, some independent thinking and a little bit of our take. Happy Tuesday. This is Senior Editor Will K. Back Yesterday was one of those days that felt like the news cycle was almost tripping over itself, trying to keep up with all of the breaking news that was coming in short succession. I think top of mind for everyone right now is whether Democrat Graham Platner is about to drop out of the Senate race in Maine. But there's also new swirling questions about Senator Mitch McConnell's health, whether he's okay and whether he'll actually be able to return to serve. And then, of course, President Trump's intervention to help overturn a U.S. soccer player's world cup suspension, which was only followed by the team losing decisively and in somewhat embarrassing fashion last night against Belgium. All these things are swirling around the news cycle right now, and we will have more on them as we get a bit deeper into the week, particularly on platner's campaign and McConnell' but today we're going to cover a Supreme Court case that's not as flashy, not quite as top of mind, but I think just as important, and that is last week's decision to strike down restrictions on coordinated campaign spending between parties and candidates. We're going to get into the legal arguments and the practical implications in today's edition, and then I'll also answer a reader's question on what it means to define yourself as on the left or on the right. And then John will bring us home with an uplifting story about how one bookstore is supporting local artists. All right, without further ado, let's get into it. I'll pass it over to John to get us started, and then I'll be back in a bit to read my take. John over to you.
- [03:40]
John Law
Thanks, Will, and welcome everybody. Here are your quick hits for today. First up, a woman who dated Maine Senate candidate Graham Platner accused him of raping her in 2021, prompting Democratic lawmakers to pull their endorsements and call on him to drop out of the race. In a video statement, Platner denied the accusation but said he is taking time to reflect on the best path forward. Number two President Donald Trump traveled to Turkey for a North Atlantic Treaty Organization summit. Leaders are expected to discuss the latest on the wars in Ukraine, as well as Trump's calls for member states to increase their defense spending. Number three U.S. officials claim that Iran fired missiles at two commercial strips transiting the Strait of Hormuz in violation of the memorandum of understanding between the United States and Iran. Hamas said it will dissolve its government in Gaza and transfer power to the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza in accordance with the US Brokered peace deal. However, the group did not indicate whether it intends to disarm another key provision of the agreement. And Number five A five day preliminary hearing in the case against the man accused of murdering conservative activist Charlie Kirk Begin in Utah.
- [04:56]
Podcast Host Isaac Saul
In a 6, 3 decision along ideological lines, the Supreme Court, siding with a
- [05:02]
John Law
Republican led challenge ruling that coordinating spending limits for campaigns violates the First Amendment. Last Tuesday, the Supreme Court held that a federal law limiting the amount of money political parties could spend in coordination with campaigns violated the First Amendment. The court's vote was 6 to 3. Along ideological lines for context, in 1971, Congress passed the Federal Election Campaign act to set limits on spending in federal elections. A 1974amendment to FECA introduced limits on coordinated expenditures or political party or political party committee spending in direct collaboration with campaigns. In a 5, 4 decision, the Supreme Court previously upheld the law's coordinated expenditures limit in Federal Election Commission versus Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee. In 2022, then Senate candidate J.D. vance, then representative Steve Chabot, the National Republican Senatorial Committee and the National Republican Congressional Committee challenged the law in federal court, arguing that the 2001 decision should be overturned and that FEKA inappropriately prevented national committees from coordinating messaging with party candidates. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case in December. Justice Brett Kavanaugh authored the majority opinion writing that modern congressional limits on coordinated spending violate parties free speech rights under the First Amendment because they impair the party's traditional forms of communication, such as advertisement, preclude parties from amplifying the voice of their adherents, impose additional monetary costs and burdens on political parties, and inflict a stifling effect on the ability of the party to do what it exists to do. Justice Elena Kagan authored a dissenting opinion arguing that coordinated expenditure limits were meant to supplement candidate contribution limits introduced by FECA to curb corruption. The majority's decision ushers back in the same opportunities for quid pro quo corruption that the contribution limits were meant to check. Republicans have broadly expressed support for the ruling as a win for First Amendment rights. Senator Tim Scott from South Carolina and Representative Richard Hudson from North Carolina wrote, by striking down these unconstitutional caps on coordinated spending, the Court has restored core political speech and ensured parties can compete on a level playing field. Some Democrats criticized the ruling as opening paths for wealthy donors to exert undue influence on politics. And in a joint statement, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand from New York, Representative Susan Del Bene from Washington, and Democratic National Committee Chair Ken Martin said, today's ruling is a win for billionaire donors and special interests who want more influence over the GOP agenda and an invitation for corruption. Today we'll take a look at what the left and the right are saying about the ruling and then Senior Editor Will Kbach will give his take.
- [07:43]
Sponsor Announcer
Foreign.
- [07:49]
Podcast Host Isaac Saul
We'll be right back after this quick break. Hey everyone, quick thought before we get started. If you listen to Tangle, it's probably because you're trying to escape the media echo chamber. But even when you read broadly, it's hard to see which stories are being emphasized and which ones are being ignored. This episode is brought to you by Ground News. Ground News is not a publisher. It's an app and website that gathers reporting on every news story from across the political spectrum and shows you each outlet's bias rating, factuality rating and who owns it. It's more than just an aggregator. It gives you context on every perspective in one place so that you can make up your own mind. For example, a recent story about a bipartisan border deal collapsing was covered by 50 plus outlets. One left leaning headline read GOP sinks border deal under Trump Pressure, while a right leaning one said Democrats Blocks Trump Stronger Border Enforcement. Same event, very different framing. Ground News lets you compare that instantly and even flags, blind spots, stories disproportionately covered by one side. If you want unlimited access to these features, subscribe to the vantage plan for 40% off@groundnews.com tn that's ground news.com tn promo code tn again, groundnews.com tn code tn for 40% off. If you care about seeing the full picture, I think you'll really value this tool. One thing I love about summer is how easy everything feels. The days are a little more relaxed and I find myself reaching for the same comfortable go anywhere pieces again and again. And that's why I keep coming back to Quint. They focus on well made essentials that naturally become those everyday staples you actually live in all season long. Quince's 100% European linen pants and shirts are breathable, easy to throw on, and the summer upgrade your rotation needs Starting at is $34. Their tees are soft to live in all day and the lightweight cotton sweaters are exactly what you want when summer nights cool down. In my Quint rotation is three or four linen shirts and some Henley tees, all in different colors. They just look so good, they feel so good. I love putting them in my rotation and I'm especially excited that it's now summertime so I can rock them whenever I want. So if you want to make your summer wardrobe easier, go to quince.comtangle for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. That's right now available in Canada too. That's Q U I n c e.com Tangle for free shipping and 365 day returns. Quince.com Tangle.
- [10:22]
John Law
All right, first up, let's start with what the left is saying. The left is mixed, with some saying the ruling will enable unchecked corruption. Some suggest that the ruling won't change much about money in politics. Others argue the decision could have positive downstream effects for the Brennan Center, Daniel I. Weiner and Joanna Zadanas said the Supreme Court Continues to Dismantle Anti corruption Laws On Tuesday, the Supreme Court struck down yet another federal campaign finance law continuing its nearly two decade drive to destroy anti corruption guardrails, Wiener and Zodanez wrote. Since its infamous 2010 Citizens United decision, the conservative majority has reinforced the unprecedented fusion of private wealth and political power that now shapes our government. But the court is not the only branch of government at fault. For decades, Congress has ceded its authority to presidents and the judiciary and failed to pass long overdue reforms to repair our warped campaign finance system. Amid growing public outrage at corruption this ruling must be a wake up call for lawmakers. Congress must pass a robust anti corruption agenda that would help end the era of massive money in politics that the court ushered in. Weiner and Zidanes said Congress should take the NRSC ruling as a sign to start reasserting its constitutional role to better deliver for the American people. In Slate, Richard Lhassen called the ruling not nearly as bad as expected. It's possible that the NRSC v. FEC decision makes our campaign finance system a bit less distorted in bringing candidates and parties closer together, hasan wrote. All of these super PACs are unaccountable, spreading negative messages. Parties help preserve democracy in the Court's majority view, and it was only fair to free the parties of limits themselves. It's not clear that the court is wrong. Super PACs in many ways are worse than parties and campaign spending, but maybe funneling money through the parties could strengthen them. But I suspect the NRSC will hardly make a dent in either the weakness of political parties or the current deregulated campaign environment, hasan said. The ultra rich will still use super PACs and other means of spending big bucks on campaigns. In the 2016 campaign, there were no individuals spending at least $100 million in a campaign season. In 2024, there were nine individuals or couples doing so with all supporting Republican candidates. The plutocracy is real. In the Atlantic, David A. Graham suggested the decision might improve politics. The idea that political parties should be stronger may be counterintuitive to most Americans who hold both the Democratic and Republican parties in low esteem, Graham wrote. But many political scientists have argued that one reason American politics is such a mess is that party organizations have been weakened for decades. Weak parties are less able to squash candidates whose positions come from the fringes of their coalitions or or massively wealthy candidates. Lifting the ban on coordination won't eliminate super PACs, which raised $5 billion in the 2024 election, but it will make them less alluring to donors, Graham said. Money can be used more efficiently if it's going directly to a party and candidate, rather than going to a super PAC that is legally barred from coordinating with a candidate. One reason Democrats reacted angrily to the ruling is that in the immediate term, the GOP will likely benefit. In the long run, though, both parties will. Alright, that is it for what the left is saying. Which brings us to what the right is saying. The right supports the decision, with some arguing it will improve election transparency. Others framed the ruling as a clear win for Republicans. Some say the outcome upholds free speech principles in the Daily Wire, Trey Traynor argued the decision restored common sense to campaign finance. The Supreme Court got this one right, treanor wrote. For decades, these restrictions rested on a bizarre fiction that a political party could somehow corrupt the very candidate it nominates. Nobody who has ever worked in politics believes that parties exist to elect candidates, the court has now said what practitioners have known all along. The government cannot punish them for doing so. Coordinated limits did not reduce the amount of money spent on politics. They just pushed spending away from political parties and toward outside groups, traynor said. It is important to remember parties disclose their donors. The leadership is public. They file detailed reports with the fec. If you care about transparency in elections, you should want more money flowing through parties, not less. In the Washington Examiner, Alexandra Kingston said the ruling helps Republicans having spent more than a decade raising money for Republican Senate campaigns. I can tell you plainly what this ruling means in practice, kingston wrote. The single most frustrating conversation in political fundraising has been explaining to donors why their money could not be used where it was most needed. The ruling fixes it. Campaigns and their party committees can now work together directly, pooling strategy data and resources without legal firewall previously required. The practical effect is immediate. Every dollar now goes further, and the party best positioned to act on this advantage comes out ahead, kingston said. For Republicans fighting to hold and expand a narrow majority across a map with genuine opportunity, the ruling clears away a hindrance on performance. At exactly the right moment, money will still matter. Candidates will still matter. Turnout will still matter. But the wall between party and candidate spending was costing Republicans real votes in close races, and it no longer will, the Washington Post editorial board wrote. Political speech wins again at the Supreme Court One laudable project of the current Supreme Court has been incrementally restoring the First Amendment right of Americans to spend on political campaigns, the board said. Political parties are weaker than ever, and one Reason is a 1974 Campaign finance law that limits how much parties can spe in coordination with candidates. Congress limited coordinated expenditures to reduce what it saw as wasteful and excessive campaign spending, justice Kavanaugh writes. Such limits run headlong into the court's First Amendment precedents, which have repeatedly held that Congress may not dictate how much political speech is too much or how much spending on speech is too much, justice Kavanaugh writes. The board wrote. The root cause of such political distortions is the court's blunder in Buckley v. Valeo, which upheld donor contribution limits under a lower level of First Amendment scrutiny than campaign spending limits. A First Amendment distinction between political spending and contributions is dubious. Sooner or later, the court has to wrestle with its Buckley mistake. All right, let's head back over to Will for his take.
- [16:50]
Will K. Back
Thanks, John. All right, Will, back here to read my take in 2020. Immediately after graduating from college, I started working on a House race in the district where my school was located, New York's 22nd congressional district. My candidate, Anthony Brindisi, was a moderate Democrat who flipped the seat in 2018 and then was in a rematch against the former congresswoman. He had beaten Claudia Tenney in 2020. It ended up being a fairly consequential race that was decided by the slimmest of margins. We went through months of audits after the election, as well as recounts and legal challenges, and eventually Tenney was certified as the winner by just 109 votes out of more than 300,000 cast. And like I said, it ended up being a fairly important race because it was a key flip and pickup for Republicans in the very closely divided 117th Congress. So as competitive and unpredictable as all those elements of the race were, there was one other aspect of it that actually stood out more in my memory, and that was money. Representative Brindisi had to carve out huge chunks of time every day for fundraising calls. And as a field organizer, I knew that any time he could allocate to us to speaking with volunteers or participating in phone banking sessions was precious and limited because every call to a prospective voter was a call that could have been made to a prospective donor. The importance of fundraising was even greater than I imagined going in, but the campaign finance rules that controlled how money was deployed made an even greater impression on me. Believe it or not, candidates, at least mine, at least Brindisi played by the rules when it came to campaign finance regulations. The National Democratic Party did support us indirectly, but we could do relatively little side by side. And we at the campaign had to be extremely careful in how we communicated with anyone outside of our campaign. We knew which advertisements were ours and which the party was running on our behalf, but we had no advance knowledge of its timing or its content. We knew that the party was investing in getting out the vote, but it had no strategic coordination with our own GOTV efforts. I would describe this dynamic as an awkward dance in which the party knew the song and steps, but the campaign had to dance with blindfolds on and earplugs in. But after NRSC vs FEC, the Supreme Court case that was decided last week, the blindfolds are fully off and the earplugs are fully out. Now A lot of commentary on this case has suggested that the decision will open the floodgates to more money in politics. In reality, though, it won't affect the amount of money in politics just the way that it's directed. And the legal question that the Court was answering was fairly narrow. As Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Alina Kagan explained in their majority and dissenting opinions respectively, the question before the Court centered on whether limits on coordinated campaign spending were necessary to guard against, quote, actual and apparent quid pro quo corruption, despite them representing a restriction on political speech. Kavanaugh writes that restricting speech for this purpose can be permissible, but the government, quote, bears the burden of proving the constitutionality of its actions for me. He convincingly dismisses three of the four potential justifications. First, he notes that the Court has previously held that establishing coordinated spending limits for, quote, the purpose of reducing what Congress saw as wasteful and excessive campaign spending, end quote, was a clear First Amendment violation. Second, he finds that the government does not have a compelling interest in preventing parties from exerting influence over candidates because the relationship between the two is, quote, so thoroughly intertwined. Third, he addresses the potential influence of donors, highlighting two recent Court rulings that barred Congress from restricting spending because of, quote, the possibility that political parties, individuals or outside groups may spend to impact elected officials decision making. With that said, one legitimate basis for capping coordinated expenditures remains preventing quid pro quo arrangements via political parties. Now imagine that you're a wealthy donor who wants to boost a specific candidate in a key Senate race in return for political favors. You're limited in how much you can give directly to the candidate, but you can give much more to their party. Still, restrictions on party spending in coordination with campaigns makes this an inefficient vehicle for a quid pro quo arrangement. So in theory, these restrictions prevent donors from using parties to work around the individual contribution limits that hinder money for favors schemes. Now, Kavanaugh asserts that these limits don't actually prevent corruption as the party is not obligated to use donors funds for their desired purpose. Now, donors can earmark their money for specific candidates, but the law already regulates and limits those funds. And separately, campaign finance disclosure rules offer transparency into how donations to parties are received and spent, creating a public record that acts as a strong, quote, anti circumvention tool. And of course, caps on individual donations to campaigns and parties are still in place. So this decision doesn't allow for new spending that wasn't possible before. Thus, the majority holds coordinated spending limits aren't necessary to shield against corrupt donor arrangements, at least not enough to overpower the First Amendment concerns. This all sounds nice, but I'm not sold. As Justice Kagan lays out in her dissent, the practical effect of this ruling will be to turn parties into candidates checking accounts covering all manner of expenses that have nothing to do with political speech. A candidate, for example, might forward the bill from his pollster, or the rent or electricity bill for campaign headquarters or the catering bill for a campaign, she writes. To me, this dynamic creates a clear pathway for at least apparent quid pro quo schemes, which Justice Kavanaugh himself acknowledges is a constitutional basis for imposing restrictions of this kind. The majority suggests that rules on earmarking and campaign finance disclosures are sufficient to prevent corruption, but I think donors, parties and candidates are just too savvy for that. As Kagan notes, candidates can form joint fundraising committees that allow a single donor to give over $550,000 in one fell swoop. Before this decision, that money could primarily be spent on indirect support, such as bolstering get out the vote operations or producing independent advertisements. But now that money can be spent without restriction, I don't know whether this ruling will actually result in new quid pro quo arrangements that weren't possible before, but the potential for apparent corruption is immediate and obvious. Donors direct impact on candidates was previously measured in thousands of dollars. Now it'll be measured in hundreds of thousands. I agree with Kavanaugh that the bar should be high for imposing restrictions on speech through political spending. But in this case, I also think Kagan is right that that bar has been met. So where does this all leave us? I'm biased, but I thought the best discussion of the practical effects of this case came in last week's Suspension of the Rules episode with legal analyst Sarah Isker. Isker said that the decision will empower parties in positive ways, allowing them to exert greater influence over the kinds of candidates that are elevated while reducing the power of super PACs. Quote, Parties were the things that bridged election cycles, had policy platforms and had carrots and sticks to hold candidates to those policies and those platforms, she said. But today what we have is, quote, reality TV politics where it's all personality driven and candidate driven, end quote. In that sense, rather than opening the floodgates to corruption, this decision could actually have a moderating effect, shifting us away from insurgent polarizing campaigns and towards candidates who better represent a party's voters writ large. That's another nice thought, but again, I'm not sold. I think Iskur is spot on that super PACs will have less power in the post NRSC world. Before last week Both parties and PACs were restricted in how they could work with candidates. But PACs could take in and spend unlimited funds on candidates behalf, making them a more strategic funnel for donors. Now parties ability to work directly with campaigns gives them a distinct edge over the PACs. But is shifting that money toward parties really any better, particularly when the pathways for wealthy individuals to exert disproportionate influence over candidates and elections remain? If parties could actually act as a moderating force in today's politics then maybe. But I think the degradation of party power over the past decade is much deeper than just money or campaign finance, and much more rooted in a loss of voter trust. Take one particularly top of mind example, Graham Platner. His rapidly unraveling Senate campaign perfectly represents the consequences of powerless parties, poorly vetted candidates who create problems for the party at the local and national levels. But let's say the national Democratic Party had more sway in this race. Is the result just Janet Mills? Democratic voters chose Platner over Mills in overwhelming fashion, even after some of his most consequential baggage was made public, a clear repudiation of the party's power centers. Simply put, I don't think we're going back to the days when the GOP and the Democrats were elevating distinguished candidates that voters just placidly accepted. I think it's an even tougher sell to voters when the reason we might return there is more coordinated political spending and centralized party control. So in a funny way, I disagree with this decision on the merits, but I doubt that it will upend the political landscape either. The vast pool of donor money is essentially unchanged. It's just likely to concentrate in a new area. Will parties benefit from this new dynamic? Yes, absolutely. But I don't think that that influence will do much to slow down the insurgency of the Platners, the Ken Paxtons, the Democratic Socialists or the populist right. More likely, these kinds of candidates will keep winning primaries and as a result, coordinated spending will eventually benefit, not hinder their campaigns.
- [27:38]
Podcast Host Isaac Saul
We'll be right back after this quick break. Decisions made in Washington can affect your portfolio every day. But what policy changes should investors be watching? Washington Wise is an original podcast from Charles Schwab that unpacks the stories making news in Washington right now and how they may affect your finances and portfolio. Listen@schwab.com Washingtonwise
- [28:09]
Sponsor Announcer
marketers. You know that feeling when your creative clicks, when that social post sends engagement through the roof when your outside of the box campaign hits ROI positive When a personalized homepage turns prospects into customers, it's utter marketing bliss. Contentful helps you create tailored omnichannel experiences without working overtime. No stress, no limits, only possibilities. Get the feels@contentful.com.
- [28:45]
Will K. Back
All right, that is it for my take. Now let's get into today's question from a member of the Tangle community. This comes from Aki in Providence, Rhode Island. Aki asks, what does it mean today to define yourself as left leaning versus Right leaning? I'm not a political buff, but I sense that the terms used to be connected to values, that is Government programs versus Free markets. Now it seems that people define themselves more by the people or the party that they support. I can't help but wonder if that helps explain why readers perceive your criticism of a person or party as a political leaning, even if your values remain consistent. Here's our response. Traditionally, the American political left believes that the government should play an active role in addressing social inequalities and pursue government regulation of the economy, specifically when that regulation involves protecting workers or the environment. Americans on the right typically coalesce around individual liberty, tradition and limited government intervention in the economy with an eye toward advancing the growth of the business sector. Of course, these are just general principles, not rules, and we can feel the ground constantly shifting beneath our feet. President Trump has influenced many on the political right to favor large scale government economic interventions like tariffs or public stakes in private companies. Democratic voters have become wealthier and more highly educated, while Democratic politicians have become increasingly critical and skeptical of Israel and American intervention in the Middle East. Things that are true today about Democrats, Republicans, the right or the left won't necessarily be true in a decade either. These are not fixed poles now. These days, Americans experience politics as a part of their social identity, so leaning left or right can be less about principles and more about belonging to a specific coalition of people, media sources, value sets, cultural attitudes and or political loyalties. While the left and right may sometimes feel miles apart, they're not opposites, and it muddies the waters to watch big names defect from their parties of record. Think Tucker Carlson and Marjorie Taylor Greene pivoting away from the GOP and Tulsi Gabbard and RFK Jr. Severing ties with the Democrats. And while the traditional lines may have blurred and grown more complicated over the past years, political parties have always involved some degree of loyalty and tribalism. That's why George Washington offered a warning against a two party system as a parting gift in his farewell address. But as you noted, Aki, our politics can carry an undeniable tense underbelly of if you're not with me, you're against me. In a charged and polarized political environment, it's understandable that criticism or praise may be interpreted through the lens of partisan conflict, even if that's not the intention of us or whoever might be leveling that criticism. We encounter that challenge in our work every day, but our hope is that we can be part of the push toward more curiosity, open mindedness, and independence, not to loyalty to one side or the other. All right, now I'm going to pass it back over to John to take us home on today's pod. John, over to you.
- [32:01]
John Law
Thanks, Will. And last but not least, our have a nice day story. Lillian Lizon, an artist and bookstore community engagement manager in Minneapolis, Minnesota, wanted to give exposure to new artists in the area, but was finding it challenging. Then she had an idea. Set up a vending machine in the bookstore store, solicit submissions from local artists and create a $1 mini art vending machine. Selected artists paid no fee and the buyer's dollar goes directly to the artist. In eight months, the vending machine featured nearly 3,000 pieces by over 80 local artists. Artists have told me that people have come to their art fairs to buy more of their artwork because of what they got in this snapshot of their portfolio, luzon said. CBS News has this story and you can check it out with the link in today's Episode Description all right everybody, that is it for today's episode. As always, if you'd like to support our work, Please go to retangle.com where you can sign up for a newsletter membership, podcast membership, or a bundled membership that gets you a discount on both. We'll be right back here tomorrow For Isaac, Will and the rest of the crew, this is John Law signing off. Have a great day, y'.
- [33:03]
Will K. Back
All.
- [33:05]
John Law
Peace.
- [33:07]
Podcast Host Isaac Saul
Our Executive Editor and founder is me, Isaac Saul, and our Executive Producer is John. Today's episode was edited and engineered by Dewey Thomas. Our editorial staff is led by Managing Editor Ari Weitzman, with Senior Editor Will K. Back and Associate Editors Audrey Moorhead, Lindsay Knuth and Bailey Saul. Music for the podcast was produced by Diane75. To learn more about Tangle and to sign up for a membership, please visit our website@retangle.com.
- [33:45]
Sponsor Announcer
Marketers. You know that feeling when your creative clicks, when that social post sends engagement through the roof, when your outside of the box campaign hits ROI positive. When a personalized homepage turns prospects into customers. It's utter marketing bliss. Contentful helps you create tailored omnichannel experiences without working overtime. No stress, no limits, only possibilities. Get the feels@contentful.com Back Market is the
- [34:13]
Back Market Advertiser
best place to get the tech you need for the school year for less. Like professionally refurbished smartphones to take those first day pics.
- [34:20]
Podcast Host Isaac Saul
Mom, your finger's blocking the camera or
- [34:23]
Back Market Advertiser
laptops to write that essay.
- [34:26]
John Law
How many EM dashes would you like
- [34:28]
Back Market Advertiser
no matter what you need it for? The premium refurbished tech on Back Market is guaranteed by the Back Market Promise. Professionally refurbished with a one year warranty and free 30 day returns. Save now at backmarket.com Close your eyes
- [34:44]
Sponsor Announcer
Summer smells like sunshine, fresh citrus and salty air. What if your living room could feel just like that? With Pura's new Summer collection, it can restore your sense of well being with fragrances designed to move with your day from bright, energizing mornings to soft, relaxing evenings. Make the invisible unforgettable this season. Visit pura.com to find your new favorite summer scent.