Matt (5:46)

Yeah, unlike rfk, we take germs seriously here.

Sam Cedar (5:49)

I take germs seriously. You saw that, right? Yeah, yeah, he, yeah, he was doing. What was it he was doing?

Matt (5:58)

A blow off a toilet.

Sam Cedar (6:00)

A toilet seat. I mean, I, I don't, I don't know. I mean, I guess if you wash your hands afterwards.

Matt (6:10)

Not like he has an important job or anything.

Sam Cedar (6:12)

Yeah, I mean, who is. He's not doing that still, is he? I don't know. His blood pressure looks pretty high. He's. He looks like he's really excited. I had. Now, where is that Shoot, I lost that email. I wanted just to give a heads up, we have a link in the podcast and YouTube and Majority FM for a survey if you are 18 years or older and you voted for mom, Donnie, a high school kid who listens to the program from Frank Sinatra High School, is doing his. An AP course, I think, in government and has a survey up. So if you are a. We're a voter in New York City over the age of 18, you voted for Momdani from one of the five boroughs. Head over there and help a kid out who is, who's doing a really interesting project. It's very exciting when we hear from high school students, really any type of young people doing this kind of stuff. And then I start to feel like, did I screw up as a dad? Like my, my kid, you know, organizer. We met at that Momdani rally. Yes. In the, in Manhattan. I run into this problem quite a bit. There's a lot of times, I mean, and my daughter's doing, she's doing great right now. She's like, she's a voracious reader and she's got not going to brag about my kid getting a 3.6 GPA through her junior year. Right. I did not get that when I was. So go over and if you are one of those votes, it's going to take you about 10, 15 minutes to fill out that survey. But it would really help. But obviously don't do it unless you are a voter because, you know, you don't want to screw up the guy's stuff. Great job by Matt yesterday says no sleep till.

Matt (8:22)

Thank you.

Sam Cedar (8:24)

And looks like Emma wasn't listening when Sam taught the crew about Wally Pip. Wally Pip filled in. Wally Pip was the guy who took the day off when Sandy Koufax took over.

Matt (8:39)

Mentioned on here like once every two months.

Sam Cedar (8:41)

Exactly. It's the one story I know this is a big deal. The Trump administration is. The fundamental building block of dealing with climate change was the EPA finding that greenhouse gases were a form of pollution. And almost all of the US Government's regulatory actions to inhibit climate change have been born out of that finding, whether it's CAFE standards for vehicles or emissions standards for factories or the idea that we're going to create a mechanism to discourage the use of coal and build upon sustainable and regenerative power. On and on. And the Trump administration did away with this yesterday. And in many instances, US Corporations may or may not change what they're doing because of it, because most of them recognize that climate change is real and that the body politic does and that this is going to get reversed. But it's going to be a field day for some places. And I will just note that, like it was maybe four or five years ago when the right was saying why should we do anything when China is such a problem? And within those five years, like China has now overcome Ford in terms of producing EVs and has seriously started to whittle down its emissions. Yeah.

Matt (10:50)

To the extent that it may have peaked early.

Sam Cedar (10:54)

Here is Stuart Vonnie and Doug Burgum excited about the prospect of drill, baby, drill.

David Dayen (11:07)

According to the Wall Street Journal, President Trump is set to repeal the 2009 endangerment finding, which will end the regulation of greenhouse gases virtually. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum rejoins us this morning. Mr. Secretary, is this the last nail in the coffin for the Democrats Green New Deal?

Doug Burgum (11:26)

Stuart, this is fantastic news. Under President Trump's leadership and our great EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin, this is historic. This is going to be the largest cutting of red tape ever by an administration. This is going to. This endangerment finding was on top of. It was a house of cards. This knocks over the whole thing. This has been since the Obama administration forward. There's been 20 years of cost placed on the American consumer. But it wasn't like they had a chance to vote on it. It wasn't like Congress had a chance to have a say. I mean, the cost of whether it was your automobile that you were driving or the gas heater that you were putting in your home, any of these things just raised the cost on American consumers without their choice. And, and then some states following suit and then banning consumer choice and saying it must be a certain type of product, like it has to be electric, it can't be natural gas. All of these things driven by the endangerment finding. This is a huge, huge break for every American. This is part of President Trump making things affordable again in this country and a policy of energy abundance and energy dominance. I mean, this is just a massive change.

Sam Cedar (12:42)

First off, in the main, the US Consumer does not get to choose the prices. And it's really up to what is driving the most amount of profit at any point. What we also will lose is the capacity to assess the cost of these things. The cost of wildfires, the cost of flooding, the cost associated with extreme weather events, the cost associated associated with cancers and asthma and health. None of that is on the ledger or, you know, the future of the planet. None of that's on the ledger. This is the ultimate in borrowing against the future and looking at one side of the ledger now. So some things may be cheaper if we didn't have regulations on, let's say, cars. I'm not even talking CAFE standards, but like that you need to have functioning brakes. You could probably get cheaper cars. Once I had a libertarian call in and say, like, they should have just kept selling the Ford Pinto and people would just get a cheaper car with the chance that occasionally it might blow up. You might be the opening seat of casino. Right? I mean, it's just possible, you know, somebody bumps into the back of you and you just to get the luck of the draw. But that's where we're at here. Is Donald Trump also bragging about this? Oh, he's getting an award. Yeah, yeah. The day after they announced this, he's getting an award as the undisputed champion of clean, beautiful coal. Oh, yeah, here we go. The biggest question about this is, like, what coal magnet paid him a million dollars?

Matt (14:43)

Well, actually, I'll just go back to Burgum Here who people should know is a billionaire because he did a deal with Bill Gates and he's, he's a tech guy. So this coal stuff is not just for coal miners. It's actually for tech guys who want to burn coal to power their AI machines.

Sam Cedar (15:01)

Platus, sir, to show our appreciation, the trophy says the undisputed champion of beautiful clean coal. Thank you, sir. Trump. Catching the crotch of a different kind of miner. Yeah, as if there's a. The reason why he's the undisputed champion of beautiful clean coal is because there's no one else vying for that title.

Matt (15:35)

Yeah, ridiculous doesn't even apply.

Sam Cedar (15:38)

It was a right winger. There was a right winger who was on Albany radio years ago. I think he's on XM now. And he, he, I can't remember what his name was. Had something to do with not man cow, but something like that. Andrew Somebody. And his opening was the undisputed champion of. The second wave of conservative talkers was like okay, here's Lee Zeldin, former New York politician, complete lunatic. He is now the EPA administrator. He does not believe in climate change. Again, this has nothing to do with the Green New Deal. Insofar as. Seventeen years after this finding by the EPA to allow for dealing mitigating the problems of climate change, we never had a Green New Deal. This is about essentially just being able to fight climate change. Here's Lisa.

David Dayen (16:52)

You believe that the talk of climate.

Matt (16:55)

Change is a hoax.

Lee Zeldin (16:58)

When you're putting forth tens of billions of dollars to pay off your well connected former Obama and Biden admin officials and Democratic donors wasting taxpayer dollars. Yeah, that's a problem. Trillions of dollars of regulation and costs on American families, that's a big problem. It has been a con job of using this for more power and control. You know, for example, they push environmental justice, they appropriate a dollar and rather than remediating an environmental issue with it, they want to spend the dollar on an activist group to train other activists to come be activists and advocate in D.C. to get more money so that they could advocate like I mean sounds. Wrap your head around the way the money's wasted.

Doug Burgum (17:43)

These waters run deep.

Sam Cedar (17:44)

That's what I take from all this, sir.

David Dayen (17:46)

Thank you.

Sam Cedar (17:46)

You believe these waters run deep?

Matt (17:51)

Glass does as well.

Sam Cedar (17:52)

Running a lot deeper soon. Zeldin is a longtime climate change denier and he won't sort of avoid saying it specifically there because he realizes how bad that sounds.

Matt (18:03)

Burgum is a guy who says that carbon isn't a pollutant and also that we should invest in carbon capture technology. So these are all liars?

Sam Cedar (18:09)

Yes, but that's where we're at. It's just put it on the list of of things that are going to have to be reversed. And we were already 5, 10, 15 years, 20 years too late in terms of climate change. And this is not just going to inhibit our ability to mitigate climate change, this is going to inhibit our ability to adapt to climate change. So it's going to be a disaster, but like many of these things, it's going to be a disaster years out from when it happens and in a way that our society seems incapable of drawing a direct line from. And to. In a moment, we're going to be talking to David Dayan about some other horrors of the of the past week. But first, a word from our sponsor. Well, a word from me about our sponsor right now. And for a while we've been experiencing near spastic economic uncertainty thanks to technology politics. The New York Fed today say that U.S. consumers paying virtually all the tariffs, The various crypto and dollar markets, et cetera, many of us are probably underinsured, overpaying and underprotected. Especially if your policy is through your job. One way to protect your future is through life insurance with Select Quote. I think Matt mentioned this yesterday, but for me, having life insurance hanging over my head when my daughter was born was terrifying. And the beauty of this is it's once and done. But somehow getting to that once is very, very difficult for people. And it's understandable. It can be extremely intimidating. But here's a way to make it much easier. For over 40 years, SelectQuote has been one of the most trusted brokers in insurance, helping More than 2 million Americans secure over $700 billion in coverage. Their mission is simple. To find you the insurance policy for your unique needs. They shop, you save. Unlike other one size fits all insurance companies Select Quotes License agents work for you in as little as 15 minutes. They'll compare policies from top rated carriers to find you the best fit for you. And they work for you for free. Head to select quote.com Majority a licensed insurance agent will call you right away with the right policy for your life and budget. No medical exam. No problem. They partner with providers offering same day coverage up to $2 million without needing to visit your doctor. Have high blood pressure, diabetes, heart disease. Select Quote is partners with policies designed for many pre existing health conditions so you get the protection you deserve. Life insurance is never cheaper than it is today. Select Quote they shop, you save. The point being as you get older, life insurance gets more expensive. So now is the time to do it. Check out whole life insurance, term life insurance. They'll explain to you the difference. Google and see what's, you know, do some research, find out what's best for you. But it's a great, straightforward way to make sure you're getting the best deal from legitimate carriers, get the right life insurance for you for less and save more than 50%@SelectQuote.com majority save more than 50% on term life insurance@SelectQuote.com majority today to get started that SelectQuote.com majority I don't give financial advice, but I got term life insurance. That's that, you know, so I do it, you know, for a certain period of time to my kids are out of college when they were young. So check it out. We will put the link in the podcast and YouTube descriptions. And quick break. When we come back, David Dayan, executive editor of the American Prospect and co host of the Organized Money podcast. Right back, Sam j. It. Sam, We are back. Sam Cedar and David Dayen, I should say Emma Vigland is out today, still a little bit under the weather. Welcome back to the program. David Dayen, executive editor of the American Prospect, co host of the Organized Money Podcast. David, welcome to the show. There's going to be, I mean, almost guaranteed a shutdown of DHS, 240,000 some odd employees. Let's just start like what is your understanding what will happen to ice? ICE is the only thing that's going to function, it seems like out of the DHS after this.

David Dayen (25:58)

Yeah. So we're going to be reporting today that Democrats actually made an offer to Republicans to cleave off ICE and CBP and fund the rest of dhs. And Republicans said no. So Republicans are gonna come out today and say Democrats are shutting down tsa, they're shutting down the Coast Guard, they're shutting down fema. In fact, Democrats had offered to fund all of that because their core issue is with how ICE is functioning and how the Customs and Border Patrol are functioning. So yes, you are correct that because of the big beautiful bill which gave $75 billion to ICE and something like $65 billion to CBP, those agencies will continue to function despite DHS being shut down. However, I think we should see this as an opportunity to go after the base funding of these agencies. As long as they're funded supplementally by additional funding, that's certainly what Republicans would do.

Sam Cedar (27:11)

Right.

David Dayen (27:11)

So when Democrats increased the budget for the irs, what Did Republicans immediately do. They went after the base funding of irs so that that funding was not supplemental but a replacement for the base funding. And I see no compelling reason to fund ICE in the next three years. They have, like you just said, they have all the money they need. So we should, Democrats in my view should, should say, okay, well this base funding doesn't need to exist anymore as long as you got 75 billion, which is seven and a half times the annual budget of ICE. As long as you have that, okay, just, we won't fund ICE anymore. So I see this as a prelude to that.

Sam Cedar (27:59)

How does the appropriation of that, of that extra bump, like was that a one time. We're just putting into your, your, your onto your basically onto your ledger or your, you know, your, your, your checking account essentially. And so that money's already there. Okay. And so they're going to be able to continue on with their operations because they're using that essentially their slush fund as opposed to the operating budget. Okay. That seems like a very obvious thing to basically say, like we're not going to shut, we don't have the ability to shut down ice. But why do, why do they need this extra money? They're not showing. There's no.

David Dayen (28:40)

It makes, it makes all the much more sense when you recognize that Tom Homan has taken ICE out of Minnesota or claims he will be anyway and that they are moving ICE to a targeted operations mode. This is their claim. I don't know that it's true or not, but this is their claim. Right. We're just going to targeted operations. We're not doing these roving patrols. We're not doing stop and grab anymore. Well, what do you need all that money for? I mean, the whole point of the surge was because you were doing expanded operations. If you're not expanding the operations, you sounds like you don't need that money. So one way to claw it back is by just defunding the base budget.

Sam Cedar (29:28)

Well, have the Democrats been like, how public have the Democrats been with the offer that they made to fund all of dhs but for ICE and cbp.

David Dayen (29:40)

It'S going to be public in about two and a half hours when we report it.

Sam Cedar (29:45)

So I mean, with all due respect to you, why didn't they come out and announce this? It sounds like, why aren't they doing any politics around this?

David Dayen (29:56)

You know, I mean, I think obviously this is going to come out and you know, the list of demands that we've seen are all about reform. You know, there has been no demand to claw back that money from last July.

Sam Cedar (30:12)

Right.

David Dayen (30:12)

But I think there's a way in which we're kind of backdooring into that by not funding the base budget. And as long as those, you know, there's an impasse there. I don't realistically think there's going to be an impasse for three years, but there's a compelling case for there to be an impasse for three years on the ICE budget and Customs and Border Patrol budget.

Sam Cedar (30:38)

Democrats could just at this point come out and say, we're willing to fund all of dhs, but there's been no need for additional funding for ice, and it's that simple of a message. Right.

David Dayen (30:51)

And essentially they did that back channel to the Republicans. They said, we'll fund the rest of the DHS budget. And when this comes out, fortunately, nobody listens to your show. So we're going to.

Sam Cedar (31:07)

We're not going to. We're not scooping you. We're not scooping you. People can. But I would say suggest, because. Because Chuck Schumer and Jefferies don't seem to want to go out and tell people that this is the offer they've made, which seems to me to be absolutely bizarre. Like I would imagine, like this is what I would have been coming out with at the beginning of the week and going on whatever it is that they go on Morning Joe or the weekend shows or whatnot.

David Dayen (31:34)

I mean, it's kind of an extension of what they did two weeks ago, because two weeks ago there were so many. Six funding bills that were outstanding.

Sam Cedar (31:42)

Right.

David Dayen (31:42)

And they said, we'll pass five of them. We're just not going to pass dhs. We want to negotiate on that. And eventually Republicans caved and said, okay, we will pass those other five bills and we will negotiate on dhs. Now you can see the circle tightening even more. Okay, we'll pass all of DHS except for the ICE budget and the CBP budget. And Republicans initially balked at not passing the five bills without dhs. And I feel like you could get them to eventually agree to pass the rest of VHS without Bison cbp.

Sam Cedar (32:17)

Well, they would rather do that than say any of this money is contingent upon, let's say no masks or whatever, you know, or a willingness to abide by the Constitution when it comes to judicial warrants.

David Dayen (32:32)

They've said those are non starters. I mean, Republicans have come out and said, we, we are not going to do that. And so at this point, I think Democrats are justified to say, okay, fine, and you can deal with the 75 billion that you got last July.

Sam Cedar (32:52)

You know, it's so frustrating. And I know obviously this is, I'm howling at the moon here, but it feels like the Democratic leadership could come out and say, you know, the Republicans agreed that, that dhs, that I should not be wearing masks. And they've reversed themselves and just make Republicans say, we have not. No, we're in favor of masks because it is such a, like, this is not even like a 7030 type of thing. This feels like a 9010 thing, particularly after all the Second Amendment stuff. And they just are not. It is, it continues to shock me how little politics the Democrats feel like they need to do for the fall.

David Dayen (33:40)

Well, and yet, in spite of that, I mean, I think they have gotten on the right side of this issue.

Sam Cedar (33:46)

Right.

David Dayen (33:47)

I mean, they, they are in a place where they are, they're really, they've put Republicans up against the wall, forcing them to have to, first of all, back off of the aggressive enforcement. I saw a story today about how Republicans think backing out of Minnesota is going to help them in the elections. Right. So now that's kind of the way they're thinking, is that we can't do this anymore, number one. And number two, agreeing with the basic premise that the way things were going, whether in Minneapolis or elsewhere, needs to be changed. So Democrats got that far. Now I think they're backing into what I think is the other correct circumstance here, which is just defund ice, just claw back the base funding because they already have enough money to last them seven years.

Sam Cedar (34:51)

Yeah, I guess I, I want to see more aggressiveness. I'm of the school of, like, when you're, when your opponent is injured, it's a great time to injure them more. But that's just my, that's the way I work. But speaking of which, I mean, with.

David Dayen (35:14)

That said, that's why you were banned from the National Football League, because of that mentality.

Sam Cedar (35:20)

It was, there was, there was a, there, there was a. What do you call it? There was one or two times where I had problems at school, high school. But nevertheless, let's talk Epstein. There's a lot of fallout from Epstein. I know you guys are working on a bunch of big stories that you can't talk about and won't even say.

David Dayen (35:41)

To me, I gave you one scoop. I can't give you another.

Sam Cedar (35:44)

No, I understand. And, but today, Barack Obama's former White House lawyer and now the chief lawyer, Goldman Sachs, she had to resign. It is, it's sort of fascinating I mean, I guess we've seen it across the board, but not none of like the hardcore Republicans associated with this seem to have resigned. It seems to be. And I think everybody should. I would like to have all these people excited, excommunicated from society. But it's interesting to watch the dynamic where, you know, for the most part, not across the board, to the extent that there's any accountability, it's happening not with some of the most prominent players.

David Dayen (36:34)

I mean, that's more pronounced if you go outside of America.

Sam Cedar (36:38)

Right.

David Dayen (36:38)

So there's. There's this kind of shame meter. And the shame meter in Norway or England is more towards the side of actually having some. And then you get to the Democratic elite and there's less ability to have shame, but maybe some existing vestigial sense of shame. And that's what we see in Rummler. And then you get the Republicans, there's no shame at all. And so Howard Lopnick is still the Commerce Secretary, for example.

Sam Cedar (37:10)

It's really impressive how Lutnick has been able to maintain. We should also say though, I mean, to fair. I mean, Larry Summers seems to be, for the most part, you know, off the scene, as it were. Nobody who has lauded this guy or promoted this guy. I mean, this is someone who's probably one of the most significant players in Democratic economic policy for a couple of decades. And nobody who has been propping this guy up in many respects seems to have paid. Have even had a word to say about it. I mean, this guy was sitting on Project 2029 for the Democrats up until moments before this. And the. It just. It's shocking.

David Dayen (38:04)

Yeah. I mean, I think I wrote sort of last summer when this was really bubbling up, that the Epstein scandal is a policy issue and people aren't looking at it that way. It just looks like a window into how elites talk to each other when they think nobody is listening. But the policy issue is elite impunity. That's the policy issue that has really engulfed this country for the last 25 years, if not longer. The fact that nobody went to jail for torture under the Bush administration or lying the country in the war, the fact that nobody went to jail for the financial crisis and the mass unemployment and 10 million foreclosures that that engendered built upon a mountain of fraud. All of these things have sapped faith in institutions to a level that is really debilitating for progressive politics. On our next episode of Organized Money, we actually have Ro Khanna on. He wrote the Epstein Files Transparency act. That is the Reason we're seeing all these emails right now and it was really fascinating. He talked about how his politics almost have changed because of his association with this piece of legislation that he recognizes now that accountability actually has to come first. Before policy, he was kind of a policy wonk and someone who, he really was more comfortable talking about what we need to do in rural America or this policy or that policy. But he realizes now that accountability actually is what gets you the buy in to go forward with an activist government. And what we're seeing right now is only a part of that accountability. You know, what we're talking about, getting people to step down. It's kind of like a neoliberal version of accountability. We hope the market will discipline these people into shame. But that's not real accountability. It's transparency, which is certainly part of it. But until we have the courage to use justice dispassionately and be willing to follow evidence where it leads and take action, then we're not going to have that accountability. And I think the way that Democrats are starting to talk about this, the fact that many of them agreed to issue a subpoena to Bill Clinton, for example, it shows that their, their understanding that this accountability issue, which I described literally 10 years ago in my book chain of Title as a rot at the heart of our democracy, is much more important than they had expected.

Sam Cedar (41:06)

Yeah, that type of like, like literal, almost material accountability is the scaffolding for all the rhetoric and all the sort of cultural and the shaming and whatnot. All of that stuff falls, falls, crumbles and actually I think cuts the other way. Without the actual material accountability, it feels like we've got a lot more of that coming. I also want to, you wrote this week, I think with Ryan Grimm about a couple of candidates in Illinois getting sort of not quite APAC funding, but sort of like, or, or I guess maybe sort of laundered.

David Dayen (41:50)

One of them, one of them's direct now. So they're actually, I, I did two pieces on this. One with Ryan and, and one individually. The one with Ryan, yes, Talks about two ways in which aipac, without endorsing candidates or without using its designated super pac, which is called United Democracy Fund, is finding ways to support and influence elections in favor of their preferred candidates. They're doing this in a couple different ways. One is by using super PACs with very neutral sounding names like Elect Chicago Women or Affordability Chicago now didn't like.

Sam Cedar (42:34)

Andrew Cuomo run on the like New York Women for Women line. I think one year he did or something. Yeah.

David Dayen (42:43)

So they're using these super PACs to deliver support. There are three candidates. One is Melissa Bean in the 8th district of Illinois where Raja Krishnamoorthy is running for US Senate. So these are all open seats, all three of these, actually. So Melissa Bean, she used to be a member of Congress, she was a banker, she was the head of the new Dems. She's really a nightmare. She's getting support from Lex Chicago women. Laura fine in the 9th district, where Jan Schakowski used to be the congresswoman, she's stepping down. She, she's getting this support. She's a state senator also from Elect Chicago Women. And then this woman, Donna Miller. This is the most interesting case to me. She is a Cook county commissioner. She's running in the south side, second District of Illinois. Now, I'm not remembering there's so many of these open seat races, but oh yeah, Robin Kelly, Robin Kelly is also running for U.S. senate. And she actually had very little money in the bank. She wasn't really gaining a whole lot of traction. It's a very crowded field. And he ends up fundraising a million dollars in the fourth quarter of 2025. And all of a sudden there's a super PAC, affordable Chicago now, that is supporting her with millions of dollars of ads.

Sam Cedar (44:17)

And.

David Dayen (44:19)

Subsequent research, this is the second way now that AIPAC is supporting these candidates. Subsequent research showed that about 83 to 84% of Miller's donors had previously donated to APAC. All those fourth quarter 2025 donors, out of the million plus dollars, something like 850,000 came from former APAC donors. And those donors, that's stunning.

Sam Cedar (44:47)

That's quite an email list that somebody has.

David Dayen (44:49)

Well, and you see it even more so with the fact that 65 of those donors also donated to Laura Fine and 230 of those donors also donated to Melissa Bean. So there's a coordination that's going on where AIPAC is sending emails, setting up unlisted fundraising websites where you can donate to one and the other. Many of these donors were giving the same amount of money to different candidates on the same day. You can see that in the, in the campaign finance data. So Apex sets up these websites or emails, their donor list and says, hey, go directly support. So normally this would be like APAC bundling money.

Sam Cedar (45:43)

Right.

David Dayen (45:43)

Give to these candidates. But the way that they're doing it, they are basically saying, you go give money to these candidates. And unless you dig through the campaign finance data, you don't notice the pattern.

Sam Cedar (45:57)

The associations whatsoever, and who Even pointed them in that direction. Correct.

David Dayen (46:03)

You can't even find them. They're unlisted campaign websites that is coordinating all these efforts. So those are three. And then a few days later, I found there's a fourth. So there's a race in the. God, now I'm forgetting all the numbers. It's like the seventh district, I think this is the west side of Chicago. Danny Davis was the congressman. He's stepping down. And this candidate, Melissa Conyers Ervin, is actually getting direct support from United Democracy project, which is AIPAC's super PAC. And she's getting $2.8 million in support. And she was previously kind of an also ran in the campaign fundraising race. She only has a few hundred thousand dollars in the bank. So this is a massive amount of support. And you see it in a city like Chicago where it takes a lot of money to get noticed. These super PAC ads are very, very useful to break out of the pack because a lot of the other candidates can't afford to public, you know, put. Put ads on the air at all.

Sam Cedar (47:11)

Particularly when you have half a dozen.

David Dayen (47:14)

You know, eight, 10, 12 candidates. And by the way, this primary is in March. This is why we're learning about Illinois first, because Illinois is one of the first states to have its primary. The primary is March 17.

Sam Cedar (47:28)

And there's no analysis as to. So the functional equivalent would be if on the majority port we said, hey, go support this candidate. Go directly to their website. There'd be no, you know, unless you knew that, you know, somebody was paying attention what the majority report was doing. You wouldn't know that's where those 50 donations came from. But I'm curious.

David Dayen (47:53)

There's nothing illegal.

Sam Cedar (47:54)

There's nothing illegal about this. I mean, but I'm curious about any candidate you want, of course. But, you know, it's helpful to know if, like, if 50 donations are coming via the Majority Report. It gives you a sense of what the politics are that are. That are supporting that candidate.

David Dayen (48:10)

There are progressive organizations that do this. Like the Progressive Campaign, Progressive Change Campaign Committee does this, but they do it in public. And they say, we're putting up a public fundraising website because we want the candidates to know.

Sam Cedar (48:25)

Oh, that we do. We take credit.

David Dayen (48:27)

Yes.

Sam Cedar (48:27)

There's another way to do it is where go to the Majority Report Act Blue page and that money will go there. But here's the other question, is that like, do we have a sense of those. Whatever that pool of donors are that AIPAC can basically say, hey, go donate here, go donate there. And they do it like one to one conversion rate. Do we know who those people are insofar as, like, what their history of supporting candidates are? Because my guess is at best it's 50, 50 Republican, Democrat, maybe worse.

David Dayen (49:06)

Well, we know that there are a lot of APEC donors that support Republicans in one race, the Donna Miller race. We know that she received of that million dollars about that she raised in the fourth quarter of last year. About 40,000, I believe, came from Trump donors, like people who donated to Donald Trump. And that's true to a smaller degree for Bliss, Bean and Laurfein. So there's a lot of cross pollination there. There's no question.

Sam Cedar (49:38)

And.

David Dayen (49:41)

JP Pritzker came out today in an article on Mother Jones and said that AIPAC is now an adjunct of the Republic Party. And yet they continue to play in these primaries on the Democratic side. And they're not even the biggest.

Sam Cedar (49:58)

Where's the Democratic Party in this? Like after Malinowski made that proclamation, after he lost in New Jersey, 11th to a progressive Mejia candidate, where is the Democratic Party in. Basically, because they have the capacity, if not, they can't say they can't outlaw aipac, but they can really discourage money from playing, you know, entering in and punish, you know, candidates who receive that money and take it. Where's the Democratic Party in this?

David Dayen (50:39)

Let me talk about two things. I will get to that. But first, one thing we should say is that AIPAC learned from what was a total colossal mistake in the New Jersey race, right? They go out and attack Tom Malinowski basically because he wouldn't bend the knee to say unconditional support for Israel. He left open the idea. This is a guy that AIPAC supported in the past, Malinowski, when he was in Congress, they said, we're gonna make a lesson of you. Like, you have to toe the line completely. And if you don't, we're gonna attack you. And by attacking him, they left open the ability for Analia Mejia to win the race. And she did. And so the spots that we're talking about in these Chicago area races are all positive. They are not attacking some other candidate. They are all, you know, biographical positive spots about Melissa Bean, Donna Miller, Laura Fine, Melissa Conyers, Ervin. That's that. So there was a lesson learned there. I feel like that, okay, we're not going to sort of attack people for having diminished loyalty. We're going to uplift in these open seat races and try to cut through the clutter by raising them up. Now, as far as what the Democratic Party can do. It's a bigger story than aipac. Right? So in that same race where Donna Miller is getting all this AIPAC money, the other aipac, which is AI PAC money, right, money from the artificial intelligence industry, is supporting a different candidate, supporting Jesse Jackson Jr. Who is trying to get back to Congress after he was put in jail for corruption. And the AI pack that is called Leading the Future actually has more money in its war chest than APAC does. It has 125 million, whereas APAC does about 95 million. And a separate pack for crypto, which we saw try to buy the 2024 elections, has $190 million.

Sam Cedar (52:50)

And we should say they got rid of Sherrod Brown in Ohio. There was a couple other races where they were quite successful in.

David Dayen (53:00)

Oh, many other. I mean, yeah, but they're sort of biding their time because there's active legislation in Congress right now and they wanna see who's gonna pass it and who's not. And whoever defies them there, they'll probably throw a bunch of money against those guys. So this is a cancer. I mean, this is the real issue in Democratic politics right now, as I see it. There's a lot of talk about the soul of the party and whether they should go to abundance or whether they should go towards populism. But the real story is that there are hundreds of millions of dollars being put forward to elect candidates. And the question is, why are these candidates accepting it? And there's a real cross pattern between people who have shown the tendency or capacity for corruption in other forms and people who are all too willing to take this money. And so it goes actually back to the Epstein thing. If you're willing to be personally cor. Then big money and elites are going to be able to buy you much more easily. And this. Ultimately, the fact that this is indulged within the Democratic Party is a big part of the problem.

Sam Cedar (54:13)

And I imagine. I mean, I read the other day that Schumer was really pushing hard to get this crypto legislation, I guess, buttoned up on some level. It is. It's. It permeates. I mean, the crypto money in particular.

David Dayen (54:33)

He did this in 24, right?

Sam Cedar (54:34)

He.

David Dayen (54:35)

He went on a conference call and said that. That we're, you know, Democrats are the crypto fans and we're. We. We want this industry to thrive.

Sam Cedar (54:45)

Amazing timing. We're 18 months out from essentially the crypto market. Everybody turning around, going, like, what was this for? Again, Like. Like, these are the. Like, I can See, even the, the, the, the, like finance guys on Instagram are like, the use case of crypto really seems to have fallen apart at this point.

David Dayen (55:06)

The bottom line is that this level of money that, you know, we've always seen special interests play in elections, but not with these kinds of numbers in primary races where they're, they're, you know, the battle for the soul of the party. We have all these discussions about it, but it's happening because massive sums of money are being thrown at people to toe the line on their particular issues. And until the party adopts some way to do something about this. Now, there have been ideas that in party primaries, maybe you can discourage or maybe even limit the use of super PAC money as a condition of being the endorsed candidate of the party. I don't know exactly how viable that is. I know it was a subject for discussion at the Democratic National Committee. Larry Cohen, who was a Bernie Sanders fan, former head of the Communications Workers of America, this is a real crusade for him and Sanders as well. Something needs to be done. And maybe the Mejia race is an example that she was outspent by massive amounts of money and she ends up winning the race. The guy down in Texas who won the state senate race was outspent 10 to 1, still won the race. So maybe there's diminishing returns this money, maybe the fact that people watch less and less television, more and more are online and streaming, maybe that changes the game. But I think we overrated these ideological debates as a factor, and we underrate the massive power of big money as a fact.

Sam Cedar (56:54)

Although that money obviously in many ways is, is another is like one is the vapor form and one is the solid form of, of the same argument in many respects.

David Dayen (57:05)

I agree, I agree there's cross pollination there, but ultimately it's the money that's winning out.

Sam Cedar (57:10)

And we got just kudos on the, on the reporting because this stuff can't be. There can't be diminishing returns for that money if people aren't aware of where it comes from. And that's why it's so important about the reporting you guys are doing.

David Dayen (57:27)

I appreciate that. And if you want to be hopeful about this, it's the fact that AIPAC realizes they have to be sneaky about this, right? They have to conceal their preferences because obviously after the genocide in Gaza and after all of these, you know, the severe change in public opinion around the Israeli government and the entire situation, they realize that they're a toxic brand. And if this is publicized to a greater degree that money will start to look kind of like Elon Musk's money looks in these political races.

Sam Cedar (58:13)

And people should remember Wisconsin in April of last year, I guess it was now in terms of Elon Musk's money, although he's putting a lot more back in in these races. But that's for another day. All right, lastly, I want to talk about antitrust. I want to talk about the sports that you are covering, like, sort of all the facets of how sports have become worse because of largely around antitrust issues. This coming on a day when the the chief antitrust lawyer from the DOJ has been ousted as like Trump's about to go on a merger spree or signing off on a bunch of mergers ranging from like nexstar to there's Ticketmaster stuff. Tell us about the nexus of all that. Well, right.

David Dayen (59:09)

Well, we'll separate the two out. So, yes, Gail Slater was the assistant attorney general for antitrust at the Justice Department. When she came in, there was this thinking that she was a little aligned with the more aggressive antitrust posture that was taken by people like Lena Khan and Johnson Kantor. She quickly realized that actually what rules Washington at this moment is lobbyist money. And in particular, Mike Davis, who is with the Article 3 project. And he's a big MAGA guy. He's taken millions of dollars from companies who want to get their antitrust problems resolved. And it's not just Mike Davis. Kellyanne Conway and a guy named Arthur Schwartz is a little more low profile. These guys have appealed to Pam Bondi and her office and had them overrule the antitrust division in a number of cases, whether to greenlight mergers or to stop monopolization cases from going forward. And the next one that's coming down the pike is TicketMaster, where in 2024, the Biden administration's antitrust division of the Justice Department filed a case to break up Ticketmaster and Live Nation, which controls event ticketing, venues, artist promotion and even artist management, and uses that in kind of a flywheel effect where one enables them leverage over the other to create this huge, unaccountable monopoly in entertainment. And they hired Mike Davis. They hire Kellyanne Conway. They put Rick Grinnell, who's running the Kennedy center and is also like an envoy to some national security stuff in the Trump administration. They put him on the Live Nation board. He's on the board of Live Nation now. And they basically said, look, we want this case dropped. We want it settled. Well, you know, Ticketmaster will give some piddling fine and they'll move on to continue to monopolize live entertainment.

Sam Cedar (61:25)

And.

David Dayen (61:25)

And the prelude to this is getting Slater to resign. So, functionally, there is no antitrust division at the Justice Department anymore. There is only Pam Bondi and Todd Blanche and what the lobbyists tell them to do because they're just a bunch of sock puppets. That's what's going on now. And J.D. vance was, you know, Gail Slater was his staffer, and allegedly, he was going to be sort of the protection for Gail Slater, and it turns out he's just a coward in the face of money and didn't happen at all.

Sam Cedar (62:00)

Wait, what? Yes, I.

David Dayen (62:03)

Exactly.

Sam Cedar (62:04)

Are you telling me that J.D. vance's populist and antitrust fostering was. Was. Was just a ruse?

David Dayen (62:15)

I'm sad to break this news to you. I'm. I. I don't want to be the one who. Who crushes your dreams and hopes of a bipartisan attack.

Sam Cedar (62:26)

Maga Populism. I mean. Right?

David Dayen (62:29)

I know. I feel bad having to be the one to say this to you, but I'm sad to say that that is.

Sam Cedar (62:35)

Wow, that is shocking. But at least he put up the good fight and lasted 13 months, right? Or I guess 11 or 12 months.

David Dayen (62:44)

Really? I mean.

Sam Cedar (62:47)

I don't want to.

David Dayen (62:47)

I don't want to uplift Yale Slater as sort of the last bastion against all of this. In her 13 months, the Justice Department antitrust division didn't bring a single monopolization case. They didn't bring a single merger challenge. She basically thought, like, okay, if I am still here and I sort of meekly disagree with this pay to play corruption, then, you know, I can justify my job. But she had no intention of leaving until she was basically told, you either fire. You're either going to be fired, or you resign. And then she resigned. That was how this went down.

Sam Cedar (63:24)

Why would you do the happiness? Why would you resign instead of getting fired?

David Dayen (63:30)

Well, because now she can go back and say, look, I had principles, and I wasn't someone who just sat there and was willing to take it. And so she stepped down. And maybe now there'll be some narrative that Gail Slater, the bold person inside the Trump administration who bravely quit rather than do the bidding of lobbyists. But it's all bullshit, right? I mean, she was totally ready to do that bidding with sort of mild opprobrium until she was told she wasn't allowed to do that anymore.

Sam Cedar (64:07)

That's why I don't understand. I mean, this is neither here nor there. I don't understand the logic, why wouldn't you resign so that you could show that you are. We're at loggerheads with them like anybody.

David Dayen (64:17)

Six months ago, when, when, when they settled her one merger challenge, they went over the heads of the antitrust division and settled. It was a Hewlett Packard Enterprise and Juniper Networks. And actually we're going to have a proceeding, we're going to have a hearing before a federal judge on that, that merger settlement where Mike Davis and Arthur Schwartz and some other people at the Justice Department are going to be deposed by state attorneys general. And we're going to hear about all of this, all of this rot is going to come out.

Sam Cedar (64:54)

That's the last sort of like bastion is the state attorney generals who, these companies that they have a claim because they, a lot of them have antitrust laws on their state books. How much is it possible, Can a judge, can a judge say, you know what, based upon this action brought by the attorney general from California or from Massachusetts or New York, wherever it is, Kansas, for that matter? Well, not Kansas, but we're going to revert, we're not going to accept this, this deal. I mean, can a judge.

David Dayen (65:28)

Yes, and that's, in fact, exactly what's at issue in the Hewlett Packard Juniper case. It's a law called the Tunney Act. And the Tunney act says that a federal judge can look at a settlement that was made in a case and decide whether or not it was in the public interest. And the state attorneys general are saying, actually this was not in the public interest. It was done because lobbyists wanted it to be done. And the judge can look at that evidence, let those people who are at the heart of this be deposed and then decide, no, this was not in the public interest, and I'm not allowing this settlement to go through. And in addition, state attorneys general have the ability to sue under the Sherman act, under the Clayton act, and 40 states joined the Justice Department on the Ticketmaster case. And I have every belief that at least some of them will stay on that case and, and that we will have a trial in that case, which was supposed to be, it's supposed to start at the beginning of March, actually. So that's probably still going to happen, but they're going to have fewer resources, obviously, if they don't have the federal government involved. And the fact that the federal government settled is going to be a factor probably in the judge and how they look at the case. So this obviously still is a blow. And, but, you know, I think we have to look at this for what it is. It's total corruption. And if Democrats get back the White House and Congress in 2029, they should move to basically nullify everything that this Justice Department antitrust division has done and reverse all of these merger approvals, reverse all of these settlements in these monopolization cases, and go right back to square one.

Sam Cedar (67:22)

And they should go on record now to do that so that these companies can't pretend like they didn't know come that day. All right, so let's talk about the sports issue. Yeah, I'm sorry Emma's not here because she obviously is, you know, very sports oriented. But. But within the context of this, like, sports wrapped up in questions of affordability, in questions of how much a municipality or a state for that matter, should be subsidizing a private enterprise. Tell us the scope of what you're covering on this issue.

David Dayen (68:06)

So we had a partnership on this with the Groundwork Collaborative, and all of the stories are out now. They're@prospect.org sports. You can find every single story there. And the reason that we did it is that sports is kind of like the last thing that we all have a mass culture around. In America, 93 of the top 100 television programs in terms of audience were sports in the last year. You know, you can go into any bar in America and talk about sports, and you probably get a real reception. There are common sort of facts that we point to. These guys won the tournament, or these guys were the super bowl champions. It's hard to be in dispute on that. And people understand the game, and they actually understand the economics of the game, whether it's salary caps or, you know, they understand it in the context of their teams, of their fans. And on the field, I think the reason that there's such commonality there is that on the field, the principles of competition and fairness are really paramount. We have umpires and referees that look at the game. The idea is that between the lines, if you're overconfident, you can lose to a team that works harder. All of those things are very American, or we tell ourselves they're very American ideals. Off the field, we've completely migrated away from that. 20% of all billionaires own a share, at least of a sports franchise. In this case, it's an incredible statistic. The top level of sports is dominated by the oligarchs, who are like the kings and queens of our previous eras. And the rest of us are kind of poking our way to even see inside the prices for entry into sports arenas. And stadiums has gone up precipitously, especially since the pandemic. There are now fewer seats in most stadiums because they reserve more space for luxury boxes. So there were actually more tickets on sale for Major League baseball in 1994 than there were today than there were last year because of this phenomenon of smaller ballparks with more luxury seating. So we've. We've turned sports into kind of a gated community where if you're rich and powerful, you can get in to see, and if not, you can sort of poke through the fence hole and watch. But even there, we're. We're paying for that through streaming prices and things like that. And then, you know, many of the struggles that we see in sports are mirrors of struggles we see in other contexts, whether it's labor. A good example is the WNBA is probably going to go on strike this year. Other sports franchises, because I think I.

Sam Cedar (71:14)

Remember agreements, a fact that I saw in the piece about that they get about 9% of their league's revenue relative to, like, all other sports, where it's closer to, like, 30% of the revenue.

David Dayen (71:25)

No, closer to 50%.

Sam Cedar (71:27)

50% of the revenue.

David Dayen (71:28)

Collective bargaining agreements.

Sam Cedar (71:30)

Right.

David Dayen (71:30)

And who are the talent? Like, you don't go to a game to watch the owners. So, you know, there's the labor aspect. There's the aspect of, you know, in college sports, for example, where players didn't get paid at all for a long time. And now that they are, the NCAA and college administrators are appealing to Congress to try to stop the crisis of sports in college. And that crisis is that the players are actually getting paid for their value. We have a great story in there about these. They're almost like payday loans that agents place upon young players, telling them, oh, we'll give you $2 million upfront, and all you have to do is give us 10% of your income in perpetuity. And they did this to several players, including star players who signed $300 million contracts in baseball and then have to give tens of millions of dollars to this agency that gave him a little bit of money up front. They call it athlete finance, and it's a predatory lending scheme that we go into in this issue. And so a lot of the things that we see in our economy and society, runaway inequality, financialization, struggles of labor, it's all mirrored in sports in a way that I think people who aren't tuned in to these debates can actually readily understand. And so that's why we put this together.

Sam Cedar (73:04)

I mean, that's what I think the utility. I mean, the stories are fascinating. Like the. Just the one that you cited, too. The sort of like venture capital for human beings on some weird way. But all these stories are great things to send to your relatives because it is an entree into understanding some of the fundamental problems that we have in our economy and the way it's structured and the exploitive nature of our economy without it seeming like you're talking about politics on some level. And that's what I appreciate about it so much. And you also have. There's a great piece about the online sports betting which has become. Right. Nuts.

David Dayen (73:57)

Yeah, I should have mentioned that one. Yeah. That's absolutely insane. And one of the things we get into that I haven't seen in other. There's been a lot of stories about gambling is how this is dropping down into not just college, but high school and even junior high school. We talked to a principal who's like principal of the year who says, I hear kids talking about parlay bets who are like 14 and 15 years old. And so it's obviously like this huge social epidemic that is particularly infecting, like, young men and young boys and the rise of prediction markets who are trying to get out of the actual gambling, the gambling regulation. They're just sports betting that they use the fact that the technology is somewhat different to say that, oh, actually we don't have to apply, we don't have to comply with any state gambling laws. It's absolutely insane. And we're starting to see some pushback. Maryland and Vermont have bills to actually end online sports gambling in their states. And I suspect we're going to see more in the years to come.

Sam Cedar (75:15)

The predictive markets thing, my God. The best was that we were talking about this, I think, at the beginning of the week, Jesus, 5% chance coming back by 2027. Did you know that?

David Dayen (75:27)

Do you know why that is?

Sam Cedar (75:29)

Yes, because we explained the derivatives market. Yes.

David Dayen (75:33)

There is a separate prediction market that is betting on whether the prediction market on Jesus will get to a certain number.

Sam Cedar (75:42)

So in other words. So in other words, what people are betting on is whether there are enough people who think that Jesus is coming back in 2027 that they will bet in that first bet that Jesus is coming back by 2027. The number will go from. Because it's predictive, not a. Not an odds line. Because it's a prediction that 7% of people will bet that Jesus is coming back by 2027. And you're betting on whether it will go from 5% to 7%. And then there's another derivative market that is betting on where people will predict the prediction of Jesus returning. It's so.

David Dayen (76:27)

But the point is that, that there's no reason that the same people who are betting on whether that number will go from five to seven are the people who are betting on whether Jesus is going to come back. Right. So they're manipulating the first market so to cash in on the second market.

Sam Cedar (76:43)

The way you do that, just in case you're interested, is I will bet $10 that Jesus is going to come back by 2027 and I'm going to get, you know, a bunch of other people to bet 10 bucks. But on the secondary market, on the derivative bet, I'm going to bet 40 bucks that it's going to go up. So I'm going to lose my $10 bet, but I'm going to win my $40 bet because I place that $10.

David Dayen (77:06)

Bet and that's called rank market manipulation. And these are funny and sometimes these are really dangerous. Like there was a whale that made money off of Maduro being captured and there was a belief that this was a White House insider who was making money off of White House policy. And all of that is insane and it really calls into question a whole bunch of stuff. But the reality is 90% of the bets on prediction markets are sports betting. We should keep this in perspective. These are sports gambling sites that are trying to get around regulation of gambling.

Sam Cedar (77:46)

It is the. And to see guys like Maloney, Sean Maloney, who was the formal dccc, he is now like the chief lobbyist for predictive markets doing videos about how like, this is going to help us see the future and formulate policy and blah, blah, blah, like, you know, like, where's the Democratic Party on the idea that there's a 5% chance of Jesus coming in 2027? Like, how does that impact who we should choose for our nominee? Because if Jesus is back, I mean it's going to impact like, you don't want some out and out atheist to be the nominee in 2027 if Jesus comes back and then that person looks like they're an idiot. Right.

David Dayen (78:29)

I mean, but what are Jesus's views on land use? That's my real question. And zoning. That's the thing.

Sam Cedar (78:38)

Jesus is just going to be like, let the chicks fall where they may.

David Dayen (78:42)

Anyway.

Sam Cedar (78:44)

Yeah.

David Dayen (78:44)

So, well, I think it's just a great sports.

Sam Cedar (78:47)

And this is going to be up there. We should just tell people. All of these stories are evergreen and so they are great pieces to Send to your, like, I mean, obviously they're great to read yourself, but they have a utility that I think a lot of like stories about this don't, don't have in the same way because it is such a universal sort of like language in our society.

David Dayen (79:13)

And we are, to be fair, we are starting to see Democrats talk a lot about this stuff. I talked to Chris d' Aluzio for the issue. I know some other, others are talking about surveillance pricing, for example, at stadiums and things like that in New York ticketing.

Sam Cedar (79:30)

Well, I think we're putting like there's, there is now going to be some, what do you call it, notices of, of surveillance pricing in.

David Dayen (79:42)

Oh, yeah, well, that's a separate thing. But yes, basically, I mean this is disclosure law, which is second order. But any time you are on a phone, let's say, and you're making a purchase of, I don't know, a target or something, if that, if that price was derived using your personal information, there will be a disclaimer that comes up that says warning, this price was set based on your personal data and information. And companies attempted to have that thrown out of court and they were unsuccessful. So that is true in the state of New York. That is a reality now.

Sam Cedar (80:22)

And that's good stuff because I think a lot of people are going to be surprised.

David Dayen (80:25)

I think we can go further.

Sam Cedar (80:27)

Oh, without a doubt. But I'm not convinced that you can go further without people understanding what's going on. And that is a great way to let people know that as, as an interim step. David Dan, always a pleasure. Thanks so much for your time today. We'll put a link to the prospect.org sports because I do not see it, to be honest with you, up on the, on the, on your menu bar or your. What do you call those band.

David Dayen (80:55)

I think it's, I think it says current issue and that's where it is. But we'll change the language there for you.

Sam Cedar (81:01)

Thank you. I appreciate that. I want to see sports vertical.

David Dayen (81:05)

Yeah, you'll get there.

Sam Cedar (81:07)

All right. See that? Getting results. David Dan, thanks so much for your time.

Doug Burgum (81:11)

I really appreciate it.

David Dayen (81:12)

Thanks a lot.

Sam Cedar (81:13)

Bye bye. Well, I'm going to go around to all the websites and see if it's that easy.

Matt (81:20)

See if you can get a carpentry.

Sam Cedar (81:21)

One Executive Executive editor. I got a lot of issues with the Handyman Monthly. Tell me about it. Don't get me started on Handyman Monthly. I really want to work this. I really want to sit down with somebody who can show me with his derivatives. Because I want to make a. I want to make a buttload on this whole Jesus thing. I know.

Matt (81:47)

Beautiful sentence. That's pretty much what every starter of every mega church has said.

Sam Cedar (81:58)

I mean, but here's the thing is that like that's. That's when you're gonna know, like, I'm about to ride off into the sunset where I'm like, listen everybody, I want you all to go place a bet that Jesus is coming 20, 27. And then I'm in the derivatives market and just cashing it in. We are definitely we. I cannot tell people how many times. It's at least once a week where I'm like, how did we not capitalize on the whole accusation that we. That we. That tyt leveled against this, that. Or that Anna. What's her face. Leveled against this. That we were advertising for Kamala Harris because the bet was live. And I 100% knew that we had not. We've never taken any money from a politician or a political group. And it was because polymarket was. You weren't allowed to bet on it. Right. But I mean, somebody must have had.

Matt (83:08)

Told one of our European listeners, my.

Sam Cedar (83:10)

Sister has friends in Europe and I could have just like somehow like got money there and just made a killing. Does it matter? Like, do other people have to bet? Yeah, that's how you. So that was the problem is that like there's only like. There's only like three. Three people. Like for instance, tyt listeners who elite. Doesn't matter what the odds are. I think the Jesus pot is like over 20 million now. Really? Yeah.

Matt (83:38)

Smart thing would have been to act as if we were embarrassed by what Anna said and then place all the bets so that there's.

Sam Cedar (83:44)

We are so outraged by this, we're not going to even address it.

Matt (83:48)

It's beneath us.

Sam Cedar (83:49)

It's totally.

Matt (83:53)

Bye bye. Bye bye.

Sam Cedar (83:59)

Just in case. Think quick enough on this whole thing.

Matt (84:02)

I still feel bad about the. What was it the. Was the thing that all the money went to businesses during COVID ppp less reckoning could have easily got some of that. We just. I just was too lazy. Yeah.

Sam Cedar (84:20)

Lazy coin folks. It's your support that makes this show possible. You can become a member@jointhemajorityreport.com when you do, you not only get free show free of commercials, but you also get the fun half. And you can imus via the fun half or during the fun half also. That's join the majorityreport.com also just coffee.co op, fair trade, coffee, tea Chocolate? No, just fair trade coffee and hot chocolate. Use the coupon code. Majority get 10% off. Many, many psychologist maybe figure out some social media basics like your own camera's white balance before offering unsolicited advice on optics. Love you. Left is best. Ah, this is like a mood filter. Yeah. I'm sorry. Listen, I have no problem with people having an issue like preferring a different vision of the show. But understand there isn't a. There isn't a pixelated version or a blurry When I'm out of focus. It is completely a function of my. My artistic vision for the show.

Matt (85:38)

It's intentional.

Sam Cedar (85:39)

Yeah. Yes. There is a. There is a vernacular that we use here, and it is. You don't go and say to Picasso, like, why all the weird shapes? Right. Maybe you learn how to draw human. Right. Exactly. For you give unsolicited. Dude, the face is round. What are you doing, Matt? Left reckoning.

Matt (86:07)

Left reckoning. I have a Sunday show coming up for patrons. Patreon.com reckoning But Jacobin, new Jacobin show. We had Sasha Abramski of the Nation talking about his new book on Doge. We also talk about Mark Zuckerberg moving to Miami and also Hasan Piker making a lot of people mad. Check that out over on the Jacobin show that was up this morning. Jacobin Meg YouTube channel.

Sam Cedar (86:29)

See you in the fun half three months from now, six months from now, nine months from now. And I don't think it's gonna be the same as it looks like in six months from now. And I don't know if it's necessarily gonna be better six months from now than it is three months from now, but I think around 18 months out, we're gonna look back and go like, wow. What? What is that going on? It's nuts. Wait a second. Hold on. Hold on for a second. Emma. Welcome to the program. What is up, everyone? Fun hack. No.

David Dayen (87:10)

Mickey, you did it.

Sam Cedar (87:12)

Fun half.

David Dayen (87:13)

Let's go, Brandon.

Sam Cedar (87:14)

Let's go, Brandon. Bradley, you want to say hello? Sorry to disappoint everyone. I'm just a random guy. It's all the boys today.

David Dayen (87:25)

Fundamentally false.

Sam Cedar (87:26)

No. I'm sorry. Women. Stop talking for a second. Let me finish.

David Dayen (87:30)

Where is this coming from?

Sam Cedar (87:31)

Dude? But. Dude, you want to smoke this? 7A. Yes. Hi. Me. Is me. Yes. Is this me? Is it me? It is you. Is this me? Hello? Is this me? I think it is you. Who is you? No sound. Every single freaking day. What's on your mind?

David Dayen (88:01)

We can discuss free markets and we can discuss capitalism. I'm gonna go throw it.

Sam Cedar (88:06)

Libertarians. They're so stupid. Though common sense says. Of course.

David Dayen (88:09)

Gobbledygook.

Sam Cedar (88:10)

We nailed him. So what's 79 plus 21? Challenge.

David Dayen (88:15)

Man, I'm positively quivering.

Sam Cedar (88:16)

I believe 96. I want to say 8, 5, 7, 2, 1, 0, 3, 5, 5, 0, 1, 1 half. 3, 8, 9, 11.

David Dayen (88:23)

For instance, $3,400.

Sam Cedar (88:25)

1900. 5, 4. $3 trillion. Sold. It's a zero sum game. Actually.

David Dayen (88:32)

You're making me think less.

Sam Cedar (88:33)

But. But let me say this.

David Dayen (88:36)

You call it satire, Sam goes satire on top of it all.

Sam Cedar (88:41)

My favorite part about you is just.

David Dayen (88:42)

Like every day, all day, like, everything you do.

Sam Cedar (88:45)

Without a doubt. Hey, buddy. We see you. All right, folks, folks, folks, folks.

David Dayen (88:56)

It's just the week being weeded out, obviously.

Sam Cedar (88:58)

Yeah. Sun's out, guns out.

David Dayen (89:03)

I. I don't know, but you should know.

Sam Cedar (89:08)

People just don't like to entertain ideas anymore. I have a question. Who cares?

David Dayen (89:14)

Our chat is enabled, folks.

Sam Cedar (89:16)

I love it. I do love that. Gotta jump. Gotta be quick. I gotta jump. I'm losing it, bro. Two o', clock, we're already late, and the guy's being a dick. So screw him. Sent to a gulag. Outrageous. Like, what is wrong with you? Love you. Bye. Love you. Bye. Bye.