Moyers & Company; 345; The Bare Knuckle Fight Against Money in Politics

You You You This week a warriors and company

Our democracy is flat-lined because when you can show clearly there's no relationship between what the average voter cares about only if it happens to coincide with what the economic elite care about, you've shown that we don't have a democracy anymore. When you talk about the corruption in Congress people are talking about the same thing that Madison was talking about this sense that our public servants are just serving themselves that are running away with the resources of our country. Funding is provided by and gumowitz, encouraging the renewal of democracy. Carnegie Corporation of New York supporting innovations in education, democratic engagement and the advancement of international peace and security at Carnegie.org. The Ford Foundation working with visionaries on the front lines of social change worldwide. The Herbalpert Foundation supporting organizations whose mission is to promote compassion and creativity in our society. The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation committed to building a more just, verdant and peaceful world.

More information at macfound.org. Park Foundation dedicated to heightening public awareness of critical issues. The Colbert Foundation, Barbara G. Fleischman and by our sole corporate sponsor, Mutual of America, designing customized individual and group retirement products. That's why we're your retirement company. Welcome. What happens when two college professors leave the theories of the classroom behind for the real world of bare-knuckle politics? Well, they learn a lesson the hard way. Just ask, Zephyr teach out in Larry Lessing. Each is an outstanding scholar. She teaches constitutional and property law at Fordham Law School here in New York and recently published this highly acclaimed book Corruption in America from Benjamin Franklin Snuff Box to Citizens United. Larry Lessing teaches law at Harvard and directs that university's Edmund J. Safry Center for Ethics. Both champion free and fair competition in our economy and our elections. Zephyr teach out ran for governor of New York in the Democratic primary

against incumbent and friend of Wall Street Andrew Cuomo. My name is Zephyr teach out. I'm running in the Democratic primary for the governor of the state of New York. A political unknown with no money, she's surprised just about everyone, including Cuomo, by getting more than a third of the votes. A good showing given that he spent $60 and 62 cents for each of his votes while she could only spend $1.57. But nonetheless still a defeat. Larry Lessing decided to fight fire with fire. He raised several million dollars for a super-pack called Mayday and backed congressional candidates who favor reducing the influence of money in politics over those who just can't get enough of that sweet campaign cash. If he could prove that people care enough about corruption to have it make the difference when they vote, it might become politically toxic for politicians to oppose reform. But Lessing lost two. His six picks and truly competitive races went down to defeat. So Larry Lessing and Zephyr teach out are back in class for now.

But Ring the Bell, word has it. They've only begun to fight. Welcome to both of you. Thanks for having us. So you tried nobody to challenge the system from inside and it didn't work out for either of you. Was it naive? No, I actually think we got a lot done. I mean, I'd love to be governor right now. But we showed that people out there, there's a sleeping giant out there of people who actually want a true responsive democracy. But your money didn't wake that John up? Well, you know, I mean, the critics have been gloating, of course. They call me an egghead. They say it's a complete failure. Look, they're right about me being an egghead. There's no doubt about that. But it wasn't a failure in the sense that the data we have shows that people care about this issue. Zephyr's campaign, I think, showed that. But in the races that we were in, we moved people to care about this issue and to vote on the basis of this issue.

Now, of course, not enough to overcome the tsunami of Republican victories. Obviously, we were not able to overcome that. But that's not what we were pushing against. We were pushing against a view expressed in political. The view was this is a quote zero issue. It doesn't move voters at all. And that's just not true. We think it moves voters more than issues that I think of as fundamental, like climate change or unions. This is an issue that really rallies people because they are so tired of the corruption of the system. So what did you learn new about money that you hadn't known in your long and thorough examination of corruption in America? I knew that candidates have to spend half their time or more fundraising. And I knew how corrupting that was. What I didn't realize is how, in some ways, humiliating it is. But you feel like a vacuum cleaner salesman or something. You're sitting in a room with your fundraiser, making dial after dial. You're supposed to dial 30 times an hour.

You're supposed to hit a quarter of your calls. And if people are sort of dispirited with the leadership we have now, I think it's in part because we're selecting leaders based on who is good at sitting in that room being a vacuum cleaner salesman, as opposed to traditional understandings of leadership, which is who has real ideas about how to change things, who has special capacities for inspiration or management. What did you learn about money? You didn't know. Well, I think that one thing we saw is how fearful the powerful are. To stand up against the system. In one of our races, we were running against the chairman of the Energy Committee and a Republican. And once he knew we were running, he started reaching out to our top donors and saying, what's going on in our top donors? We're like, what are you doing? Calling you? They called you? Well, they didn't actually directly call me, but we knew indirectly that they were anxious about what had happened. I remember reading this story. This is a Silicon Valley high-tech tycoon.

Did I hear you say that when he got word that you were taking on Fred Upton, who oversees the committee that has jurisdiction over his company, he got nervous? Well, there's a couple of stories here. One is that people who actually contributed got nervous. They were anxious to quickly distance themselves from our attack on Fred Upton. But just before all of that happened, we had a very large donor who was willing to give us a very large amount of money and then heard that we were going to take on Fred Upton and said, we can't be on the wrong side of Fred Upton. So we have this system where people are afraid even the richest are afraid to step up against this power because they know the way in which the power is. I actually think we have a lot of fear in our politics now in ways that people sense. A lot of people didn't come out to vote in this midterm election, and I think it's hard to vote for somebody who feels fearful. I started seeing fear in Andrew Cuomo's eyes, and I don't think it was just of me or of a challenger,

but sometimes I feel like it's a sense that politicians know that they aren't really in control, that their donors are. That's a scary feeling, that lack of power. And I think you see somebody like Elizabeth Warren or others who speak fearlessly, and there's genuine excitement around that. Too often, I think Democrats just focus on the message box. What is the correct message to say? As opposed to really engaging in leadership itself and the fearlessness that's required there? And the other thing that I learned, I went into this thinking we were going to have to turn to a lot of big funders to raise the money that we needed to actually run this campaign. And then we opened up this crowdfunding site, and more than 50,000 people reached into their checkbook to make it possible for us to run this campaign. And this was a number that I just had no idea we would ever reach. And I think if you inspire people, the way I think Zephyr plainly did in her campaign, with this ideal, they rally. Lots of people rally to the site.

Do you think that elections run by and for donors give voters a false sense of power, a false sense of control over our democratic process? I think that in the last decade or so, I mean really since the early 90s, there's been a real shift to candidates focusing and serving donors. And if you have to spend half your day talking to donors, or 70% of your day talking to donors, and then turn around and give a speech, engaging people on the issues that matter to them there. You know, dental care, credit cards, you know, the real difficulty finding a job. It feels false, because it's hard to have those two conversations at the same time. And gradually I think people have gotten more and more disillusioned, because they feel like they aren't being served. They're being sort of spoken to superficially, but fundamentally not listened to. And I don't blame them. I'm not democratic then. It's not democratic. And if elections are not democratic, can we get anything else right?

Or is it just all cosmetic? Well, we've got to make a democratic choice. But it's not. You both have said it. It's not. It's a donor driven election. Yes, yes. I mean, we have the data to show this now. There was a Princeton study by Martin Gillens and Ben Page, the largest empirical study of actual policy decisions by our government in the history of our government. And what they did is they related our actual decisions to what the economic elite care about, what the organized interest groups care about, and what the average voter care about. And when they look at the economic elites, as a percentage of economic elite who support an idea goes up, the probability of it passing goes up. As the organized interest care about something more and more, the probability of it passing goes up. But as the average voter cares about something, it has no effect. At all, statistically no effect at all on the probability of it passing. If we can go from 0% of the average voters caring about something to 100%, and it doesn't change the probability of it actually being enacted. And when you look at those numbers, that graph, this flat line,

that flat line is a metaphor for our democracy. Our democracy is flat-lined because when you can show clearly, there's no relationship between what the average voter cares about, only if it happens to coincide with what the economic elite care about. You've shown that we don't have a democracy anymore. And we don't, but we have still these forms that allow for access to power. I mean, I look and I'm really inspired by what's happening in Hong Kong. And those young students would do so much to have the access to the levers of power that we have now. So I think of it more like where we were in 1901 or 1902, where we had formal access to power. But if you and I were talking then, we'd be just as dispirited. Now, the big trusts really ran politics. I bet if there was a Princeton study of 1901, you'd find a flat-line relationship between what people wanted and what was happening. And yet, what you saw is this decades-long populist effort, finally finding fruit in the Tillman Act, the 1907 law,

which banned direct corporate contributions to campaigns. And so I find hope, actually, from history, because we've had this disconnect between democracy and our formal rules before. Why is it we are failing? You as scholars and activists, we as journalists, in helping people understand that much of what happens to them is the consequence of how our elections are funded. Because many of the people that you care about voted against you. I don't think the people are confused about whether democracy is working for them. I think they understand the problem. What we've got to do is to give them a sense that there's a solution. We've got to prove that there's a way to fix this problem. And that's what lots of different efforts you're trying to do, trying to give people a practical sense that there's something they can do. You know, when we marched in across New Hampshire, we would meet people on the street. There was such deep passion for finding a way to finally get back control over our government.

There was no argument that we had to have with them to prove. Here's a Princeton study that shows that they got the Princeton study before the Princeton study. They were the Princeton study. And so it's just giving them hope, giving them a sense that there is something to do. And when we give people a map, a way to understand how it's possible, you know, we could fix 80% of this problem tomorrow with one statute that would establish a different way to fund campaigns. We don't have to change the constitution. What do you mean? You could do it without a constitution. We could pass small dollar public funding of elections. Even with this Supreme Court tomorrow. What does that mean? Well, that means, for example, John Sarbanes has something called the government by the People Act. And that act says small contributions like in New York, city, small contributions get matched by the government. In Sarbanes case, up to 9 to 1. Or Republicans have begun to push the idea of vouchers. Give every voter a voucher, which they can use to fund campaigns. Now, the point is, both of those are perfectly constitutional. They could be passed tomorrow, and they would radically change the focus candidates now give

to the tiny fraction of the 1% to fund their campaigns, because they'd be much more interested in talking to the many thousand who they need to fund their campaigns. And I mean, Larry and I really share this belief that we need to communicate. Because I mean, I'll tell you, in New York City, we have a system like this. And it has transformed, look, we don't have a perfect government. But it has- Overwhelmed you, let's be honest. I mean, we do, I've been a supporter of public financing in this city for a long time, but it doesn't work when big money comes rolling, and as Larry said, like a tsunami. But what it has done is we have, you know, as a feminist. Public financing is a real feminist issue. Far more women are running for office. Under public financing systems, because they don't need access to the old boys club, the old power club. Far more people of color are running for office. In fact, the city council is now a majority, people of color in New York City, because you don't need access to the same old boys club. I'm not saying it's fixed every problem, but it changes if I want to recruit people to run,

which I do. If you walk up to them and say, I want you to go out there and do this incredibly difficult, harrowing, exciting thing. And if you show that you have grassroots support, you'll have enough money to get heard. That's entirely different than I want you to go out there and do this exciting, harrowing thing. And half of your day, you have to spend begging at the feet of oligarchs and asking them for their permission to run for office. And realistically, though, if you have a statute or law, a piece of legislation that could solve some of the problems, not all of it, you have no hope of getting it through in a Congress that's run by Senator Mitch McConnell, who more than any other man in Congress today has enshrined the notion of monopoly as the game of policy. No, that's right. But we can imagine, in 2016, changing control of Congress, and critically recruiting a number of principled Republicans to the idea that this corrupt system is corrupt, then I think it's completely possible.

And more and more grassroots Republicans are recognizing that they're not going to get what they want, either, under this system, where they have to sell out to the big interest. Look at David Bratz, victory over Eric Cantor. In the Republican Party. In the Republican Party. He's now in Congress by beating the major leader of the House. That's right. And what his argument was is that Eric Cantor had become a crony capitalist, because he spent all of his time sucking up to the Wall Street bankers, rather than advancing conservative causes. Now, the conservatives are increasingly getting this, just as the liberals have understood this. And if we can begin to get people to recognize that, look, we can differ on fundamental issues, but this really fundamental issue, we don't differ about. We have to find a way to make a democracy responsive to the voters. But I want to also talk about the Democratic Party here, though, because there's a real split within the Democratic Party, between this Wall Street wing and the progressive populist wing. I'm a Democrat. And you may not know this, but in 1924, I believe, the part of the Democratic Party platform was public financing of elections. I did. I was just kind of gardening.

But I actually think, you know, when we look at democratic losses, it's in part because enough some Democrats aren't telling the truth about what's happening in the economy. And people are going to respond. If they hear a candidate who's lying to them about everything being okay, instead of some real truth telling and some real truth telling about what's wrong with politics and what's wrong with power. And if Democrats can truly embrace public financing as a root issue, not as a sort of fussy side reform, but as the root issue which enables Democrats to actually care about, you know, what's happening in working class people's lives. I think you're going to see a lot more excitement. It's the sense that Democrats aren't really telling you the truth. And, or they're really working for Wall Street, and they say they're not that I think turns people off. And I think there's an extraordinary opportunity. Look, I know the odds are low. I, Vachlav Havall has this wonderful. I'm not going to get it back here.

He says this thing about hope, which I find very powerful, that hope is not the same thing as optimism. Optimism is the belief something is likely to happen. Hope is the belief that it is possible and it is worth doing. I see the power structures in this country. And if I'm going to be telling the truth to people, I'll tell them honestly, we're in tough shape. Now, the house is on fire in terms of our democracy. We are flat lining in terms of responsiveness. But we still have opportunities. If we take the moment, take this moment of extraordinary frustration and engage people directly on the root issue, honestly, and provide a path through. And I think we have to go that way instead of these half measures that aren't really engaging the root issue. So Shane Goldmucker at the National Journal wrote, money didn't buy the midterm elections. Quote, few observers would place the blame on the lack of money instead most would point to a tough political environment,

a hostile Senate map, and more than anything else an unpopular president has the factors that drag down Democrats nationwide. To what extent do you think money mattered last week? It mattered enormously. It mattered in the selection of candidates. And long before we even heard their names, the candidates were selected if they were basically comfortable working for big money donors. And that in itself gets you out of the realm of inspiration for leadership. And of course it mattered in the drowning of ads and the sense that people outside of any accountable power, super PACs, outside of any accountable power or really sort of running the system. So I think it made a huge difference. And I think if you instead imagine the counterfactual, imagine this last election where in every competitive district you'd seen competitive primaries with people with publicly financed campaigns who stepped forward because they had something to say,

not because they were next in line, and not because they could raise money. We would have seen an extraordinary democratic, proud, fearless, populist fighting force, and I think they would have done very well. So you've got to think about the psychology that Defer describes of spending 50 to 70% of your time raising money. Those people were constantly aware about how what they say would affect the money in their race. And they said things that they knew would not risk too much relative to the money. So even if the money doesn't win, you know, when they said in 2012, Karl Rove lost. That was completely naive. Karl Rove won, even if he didn't win any race, because what he did was to define the lines that you couldn't cross. And what that has produced is exactly the kind of democratic party that's in Defer is attacking one that is more interested in making sure they can continue to get the Wall Street money by not being too anti-Wall Street. Instead of worrying about how we can get an economy again

that is actually responding to what voters care about. Let me give you an example from my campaign. So I did this fundraising. And I repeatedly heard from my bigger end donors that they were not particularly excited about teachers unions. I'm a big supporter of teachers unions. So I was very aware, and it was a choice I made, but I was very aware that every time that I went on television or Twitter or anywhere else talking about teachers unions, that would have an effect on my funding base. The easier thing to do is to just ignore the issue. To say, well, I secretly agree with it, but I'm not going to say anything because that's going to affect my funding base. And then you end up with these milk toast candidates and aren't saying anything because they know where the public is and they know where their donors are. And there's very little where there's an overlap. There was a wonderful leak in the course of this last campaign of a memo that Michelle Nuns campaign had developed.

In Georgia. She was running for Senate today. And a headline for the story was that the memo said she needed to spend 80% of her time raising money. But the really incredible part of the memo is where it went through every single issue that she was going to have to address and describe which position she would have to take to raise the most money. Now, you know, she's a Democrat. I think she's an exciting candidate, and I'm sorry she lost, but you can't believe that when she was running in Georgia, she was not thinking about exactly how that money would matter in just the way that Zuffer is describing. It seems to me as a journalist who's covered this for a long time that we are at some kind of tipping point where the present system becomes institutionalized because the people who run the system get the big donations and they have no incentive to make the changes that you would like to see. That's right. We're at that moment. That's why there's so much urgency right now. But the other part about being at this moment

is that it's produced a government that cannot function. Francis Fukayama talks about the vitocracy we now have. The war? The vitocracy. And the point is, because in large part of this enormous influence of money, it's trivially simple for a small fraction of that money to block any change, whether it's changed on the right or changed on the left. So we've built this system that is perfectly in power, but it now can't govern. It won't govern when it's a Republican president, it won't govern when it's a Democratic president, and that's building the incredible sense that we need to do something to change. And it's vetoing on so many different levels. I mean, what I see is the way in which this concentration of political power is happening at the same time as there's a concentration of economic power. So this extraordinary entrepreneurial tradition we have in this country is actually getting quashed. We have a pretty steep decline of the number of entrepreneurs in the last 25 years. But we have that tradition still. And if we can tap into that and instead of people running away from politics,

engaging directly in electoral politics, engaging directly in the kind of activism we need, we're not so far away from the best parts of our tradition that we just should give the game up. We'll continue this conversation online. Larry Lessig, Zephyr Teachout. Thank you for being with me. Thank you. At our website BillMoyers.com, we continue our conversation with Lawrence Lessig and Zephyr Teachout. And we remember Army veteran Thomas Young, who died this week at the age of 34. Thomas was severely wounded in Iraq ten years ago, and came back paralyzed. In 2008, we aired excerpts from Body of War, a documentary about Thomas Young, and we spoke with his producers Phil Donahue and Ellen Spiro. That's all at BillMoyers.com.

I'll see you there, and I'll see you here next time. Don't wait a week to get more moyers. Visit BillMoyers.com for exclusive blogs, essays, and video features. Thank you. Thank you very much.

See you next time. Bye. Bye.