It's sponsorship time.

But you know what, it's really great when you get a sponsor that you already use.

And guess what.

Quint's is something that in the Todd household we already go to.

Why do we go to Quint's Because it's a place you go where you can get some really nice clothes without the really expensive prices.

And one of the things I've been going through is I've transitioned from being mister cot and ty guy to wanting a little more casual but to look nice doing it.

Is I've become mister quarter zip guy.

Well guess what.

Guess he's got amazing amounts of quarter zips.

It is Quints.

I have gotten quite a few already from there.

The stuff's really nice.

They have Mongolian cashmere sweaters for fifty dollars.

I just know, hey, cashmere, that's pretty good.

You don't normally get that for fifty bucks or less.

Italian wool coats that look and feel like designer the stuff.

I'll be honest, right, you look at it online, you think, okay, is this really as nice as it looks?

Well, when I got it, I was like, oh, this is real quality.

So yeah, I'm going to end up making sure I take it to my dry cleaner so I don't screw it up when I clean it.

But I've been quite impressed.

In Hey, it's holiday season.

It is impossible to shop for us middle aged men.

I know this well.

Tell your kids, tell your spouses, tell your partners.

Try Quints.

Or if you're trying to figure out what to get your adult child, what to get your mom or dad, I'm telling you you're gonna find something that is going to be comfortable for them on Quints.

So get your wardrobe sorted and your gift list handled with quints.

Don't wait, go to quins dot com slash chuck for free shipping on your order and three hundred and sixty five day returns now available in Canada as well.

That's qui nce dot com, slash chuck, free shipping and three hundred and sixty five day returns quints dot com slash chuck.

Use that code.

Hello there, Happy Wednesday, and welcome to another episode of the Chuck Podcast.

So got another loaded show today.

The guest is a gentleman named Jeff Clements.

He's part of an organization called American Promise.

They are an organization that is campaigning a state by state to get I think they're up to twenty three state legislatures right now to approve a constitutional amendment that would allow for regulation of the financing of campaigns.

Essentially thanks to Citizens United and thanks to the belief in our judiciary system that money is speech that without a constitutional amendment, there really is no law that will successfully sort of get through the courts and pass muster in order to limit the influence of money.

I think the debate about the First Amendment is I think we are having a debate about amplification of your right to free speech.

I think we all agree everybody's a right to free speech.

The question is who's got the right to amplify who should have access to amplification?

How does that work?

If you will, And it's pretty simple.

Well, we go through it quite a bit.

As you know.

I've one of if I have a pattern of guests that I will that I will default to.

It is those that are looking to improve the infrastructure of the democracy.

I've had a conversation about open primaries and how do we get rid of partisan primaries.

In this case, I think there is agreement that we've gotten sort of you know, we don't know how to do anything anymore in moderation, right, we take a little thing and we go to an extreme, right.

I mean we do this in society all the time.

We should pay players in college sports, yes, but the system we created creates all sorts of essentially absurdities in the market.

Should sports betting be open to all fifty states instead of the state of Nevada?

I think we thought, okay, that's fair.

How we've allowed this system to populate and sort of consume the lives of some people is kind of out of control, right, every we go from we have a system that seems to only know how to regulate when we let things go to excess, right, We don't seem to know how to do it that way.

So in this case, I think we all know now money and politics has gotten crazy.

Just to give you a sense of it.

In twenty twelve, I had this idea at NBC to audit the two presidential campaigns after the fact, Obama and Romney.

And my thesis was, this was the first time that both campaigns each spent a billion dollars.

It's the first billion dollar campaign.

Obama had a billion, Romney had kind of just under a billion, but if you throw in all the outside money, it was Basically it was the first time we had a billion.

To put that in perspective.

In two thousand, both Al Gore and George W.

Bush were within state, within the system, which meant it was publicly funded general election campaigns.

Bush did not take public funding during his primary campaign, but he did during his general election campaign.

Basically, it limited both sides to sixty five million dollars, so we more than ten x from the general election in twenty to twenty twelve.

Well where are we today?

In twenty twenty five, North Carolina is likely to be the first billion dollar Senate race.

So in twenty twelve we had a billion.

We had one campaign spending a billion dollars, so it combined two billion dollars.

And now we're gonna have one singular US Senate race.

They might not even decide the balance of power in the United States Senate.

Okay, cost a billion dollars.

So we have gotten to absurd degrees of money.

And I think everybody's fine with small donors populating these things.

You're not going to see many people say that that's a bad idea.

It's the large donations.

It's the anonymity of the large donations, etc.

It is the idea that an outside group can essentially spend more than the two actual campaigns combined, and they can decide what the agenda is, not the actual voter powered campaign.

So, you know, we have created a system that is definitely in need of some sort of regulation.

Congress is actually tried, but the courts have said they're all unconstitutional.

So if that's the case, then there really is only one answer on the on campaign finance, and it is that is that's why if you believe in term limits, well those have all been struck down as unconstitutional.

It was a big movement in the nineties.

A bunch of states past term limits for members of Congress.

None of them pass constitutional muster because once you put in age required, you know, it's sort of that was the only there was.

The only requirement was age in the constitution, and so they were not considered constitutional.

If you want term limits in, you're going to have to put a constitutional amendment in.

We have one constitutional amendment that has to do with term limits.

It's term limits for the presidency.

So there are certain things where the judiciary decided to overrule the legislative branch.

And when it turns when it comes to campaign finance laws, the judiciary has written the legislation.

They are legislating from the bench.

There is nobody that passed a law wanting super PACs.

There is nobody that passed the law that wanted unlimited money in politics.

Those laws did not pass, they were interpreted after legal rulings.

And so I think the case to put in to put this in and it's interesting and you'll hear I don't think this is you know, this gets you know, we get to the you know where each party on this.

But there's an argument for both conservatives and progressives that you want to you want to you want a fair fight, and the way we finance our campaigns makes it where there is no such thing as a as a fair fight.

So that's the conversation.

I kind of think we're we're, uh, we're on the cusp, as I've said before, where we're going to get more and more interest in doing this with our constitution.

Can we get thirty eight states interested?

Can you get Congress to pass a law anyway?

We go through all the mechanics of this as well as the larger idea with Jeff.

I think it's for those of you concerned about that issue, I think you will enjoy that conversation.

I'm also going to have my top five list, and for those of you looking for a holiday guide.

In some ways, my Top five list will serve a bit as a holiday guide buying guide for the for the person who wants to feel extraordinarily well informed about the zeitgeist of the world and of America.

I hope my Top five list will do that for you.

But before we begin, I want to pick up on something that I did a you know, which is, you know, we're in one of those moments where we're trying to figure out does this latest outrage mean anything, And of course the outrage being you know, Donald Trump's just horrendous comments about Rob Reiner and his wife and the death and the murder of Rob Reiner and his wife.

And you know, in some ways it's not a new debate, right Donald Trump has put us in this position before.

Donald Trump has embarrassed us collectively as a country, collectively, as a society, collectively as a human species.

Right he just this is what he does.

And I know that we've been at these moments before or where he says something so outrageous, Well this, you know, nobody can survive this, well, nobody other than Donald Trump.

Right.

He seems to be teflon don on just about everything, but the reaction on this one he has been fascinating because it seemed as if it was a bridge too far for a lot of people.

And what he did, especially so soon after the Charlie Kirk assassination, so soon after, so many on the right targeted anybody who said anything remotely negative about Charlie Kirk, you know, in some cases, got him doxed, got him fired, cost them jobs, And then all of a sudden, we have behavior modeled by the President of the United States that if anybody else behaved this way in the workplace, they'd be fired.

Of course, he's done this multiple times, right, this is not the first time he's done something that if any of us did it, it would cost us our marriage, it would cost us relationships, it would cost us our jobs, it would cost us our cost us our you know, whatever, our whatever place we feel like we are in society, you know, we might be shunned, we might be ostracized, and frankly, in some of the behavior you know that is that is it's sometimes the only the only thing we have.

You'd be shamed, right, We know that the real superpower of Donald Trump is shamelessness.

It's fascinating to see on the heels of this story because I'll tell you what, really what I couldn't shake with the with the Reiner story with Trump.

As appalling as the first tweet was, it was the second it was the second time he dealt with it when he when he sort of reinforced the tweet on camera.

Because I actually think that this space signal a larger, more alarming issue that if we take seriously people's concerns about Joe Biden and his loan term, then we need to start taking seriously about whether he's all there and how quickly you know you're going to it's going to sound like I'm trolling him, but you know, at what point is his behavior twenty fifth Amendment alarming type of behavior?

Because think about it this way, there's probably two things that may have happened in between Donald Trump tweeting what he did on social on his truth social platform and reiterating what he said on camera about Rob Reiner.

One would two things happened or didn't happen, right, Either somebody said to him, perhaps it was the chief of staff, Susie Wiles.

We're going to get to her in a minute, but perhaps it was said, hey, you know at the Reiner stuffs, they'd be careful that didn't you know, I don't know what you intended to say.

It didn't play well.

Why don't you, you know, express just straight up condolences and sort of, you know, move on, or nobody said anything.

Either.

Either potential outcome is alarming to me.

Why is it alarming because either he was told don't do it again, and he did it anyway, and he is that sort of stubborn that caught up in his own filter bubble, that delusional, right, or nobody has the guts to tell him, hey, this is not good.

Don't do it, don't talk about it, don't say it.

That's so either way, you have to ask yourself, oh my god, what's going on here?

And for me, it is a different Donald Trump, you know, I know.

So with Joe Biden, when you know, as folks started making the case asking questions about whether Biden was the same Biden, you would show Biden clips doing interviews in twenty fifteen, twenty fourteen, even twenty sixteen, and you would see, my god, that's not even the same Joe Biden as twenty nineteen.

That's it was my impression.

I spent a lot of time at Joe Biden in twenty nineteen and twenty twenty before the pandemic, and I thought he had definitely slowed down.

It was the same Joe Biden, but an older version, and he definitely seemed to lack the same energy he once had.

He wasn't the glad hander.

He was certainly a talker, but he wasn't as fast as a talker, you know.

There was definitely And then the difference between Joe Biden circa twenty nineteen and circa twenty twenty three was even more so.

But the real contrast was between the Joe Biden that I covered in the Obama era and the Joe Biden that I was covering for the one term of his presidency.

It was a big difference.

So in some way the questions were natural, Hey, he's definitely getting older, you know, the younger Joe Biden would be traveling the country.

Why isn't older Joe Biden traveling?

And it was you know, they never wanted to say it was because he can't, or because he gets tired, or because they don't you know, it was always some other excuse and things like that.

It was definitely some form of a you know, you can call it a cover up, but it was definitely, you know, it was definitely some form of rationalization for why there is they were.

They were certainly concerned and sensitive to the age issue, sensitive to the idea that he wasn't and they were kind of always trying to push back on this idea that he wasn't up to the child, up to the job, or as energetic as he once was.

With Donald Trump, it's admittedly a little bit harder, right because you know, Donald Trump has had erratic behavior for years.

Right, this is not new his erratic behavior.

And so as the title of my substack goes, how will we know?

Right, we had a clear idea that something had changed about Joe Biden because his speech text had changed.

His energy levels were clearly different.

He was you know, more spry, he was walking, he was younger, you know, all those things.

There were physical changes that you couldn't ignore and the public side, right some eight you know, that's why the numbers were consistently in the seventies and eighties, you know, which is why I've just sort of, you know, the false narrative that somehow the media was covering this up?

What is there to cover up?

Media was the one asking pole questions.

Do I think there were some within the White House Press score that could have been more aggressive?

Absolutely?

But I kind of think, you know, we you know, it's not like the media didn't show the footage.

It's not like the media didn't let you know he was taking the short staircase.

It's not like the med you know, media didn't show you him shuffling around and tripping over sandbags, things like that with trumpets.

Admittedly a little harder, right, you know, when you see him behave radically, you know, but this was a moment with the Reiner thing where ten years ago, you know, Donald Trump is no more or less narcissistic today than he was ten years ago.

But ten years ago he was still sensitive to what the public thought of him, and he didn't quite live in his own bubble is filtered bubble that is more so today than he's ever had before.

He's got surrounded by yes people and sycophans, who don't want I don't think want to present him with the with reality if reality the only show him reality when reality looks good for him.

They don't show him reality when it paints an ugly picture for him.

And so he definitely seems more detached from reality today than he did when he first entered the political arena.

But you know, the Donald Trump of ten years ago, when a celebrity died, his narcissism would put him, would sort of link him up.

He would say, you know I was in his movies, or you know I was able.

You know, he's most and in this case with Michelle Reiner who took the photo, who was the photographer for the Art of the Deal photo that Donald Trump posed for back in the eighties, you know, the old Donald Trump, the guy who was you know, just as shameless, but in that sort of I've got something to sell you shamelessness would have said, boy, her career would have been nothing without me, Her career wouldn't have happened without me.

They in some ways that would have been the normal.

Oh boy, there he goes, putting, making everything about himself, which he always does, but sort of within his own weird semi positively, it would at least try to say, hey, they were successful, but he would try to take credit for their success.

This time, he's in this really ugly place right where he just assumes, you know, because by the way, imagine like, you know, he because there's another alternative here that he said that because he feared one of his supporters did this, which in itself is such a warped version of thinking.

Right, can you imagine that he actually said it because that's what he thought was going to be the case, That in itself is troubling behavior.

But you know, he's an eighty year old man, and any of us with older relatives have experienced the older relative with no filter or with less filter who doesn't feel like they have to round the edges of commentary anymore, that they can just well, it doesn't matter, man, Grandpa's got to be grandpa, grandma's got to be grandma, uncle's got to be uncle.

Ann's going to etcetera, etcetera.

But he's president of the United States, and we don't know when he blurts one of these bizarre things that he says in front of a world leader that actually changes the nature of our relationship with said country.

These are things that should concern us and if you were is you know, do we have and given what we just learned with the Vanity Fair story that you know, it's funny with the Vanity Fair story, it sort of confirms everything that I'd been hearing about the role Susie Wilds plays that she is try She is the sort of the reality you know, she's the reality check.

But she's got a light touch, right, She's kind of a she sees things the way most normal people see things.

But she's gonna let the process play out and just clean up the worst messes, you know, just try to try to steer a choppy shift a ship through choppy waters.

And you know, they've sort of given up on the small stuff, and I think they would put mean tweets under the category of small stuff.

Having good life insurance is incredibly important.

I know from personal experience.

I was sixteen when my father passed away.

We didn't have any money.

He didn't leave us in the best shape.

My mother, single mother, now widow, myself sixteen trying to figure out how am I going to pay for college?

And lo and behold, my dad had one life insurance policy that we found wasn't a lot, but it was important at the time, and it's why I was able to go to college.

Little did he know how important that would be in that moment.

Well, guess what.

That's why I am here to tell you about Etho's life.

They can provide you with peace of mind knowing your family is protected even if the worst comes to pass.

Ethos is an online platform that makes getting life insurance fast and easy, all designed to protect your family's future in minutes, not months.

There's no complicated process, and it's one hundred percent online.

There's no medical exam require you just answer a few health questions online.

You can get a quote in as little as ten minutes, and you can get same day coverage without ever leaving your home.

You can get up to three million dollars in coverage, and some policies start as low as two dollars a day that would be billed monthly.

As of March twenty twenty five, Business Insider named Ethos the number one no medical exam instant life insurance provider.

So protect your family with life insurance from Ethos.

Get your free quote at ethos dot com slash chuck so again, that's Ethos dot com slash chuck.

Application times may vary, and the rates themselves may vary as well, but trust me, life insurance is something you should really think about, especially if you've got a growing family.

To me, it's an alarming moment where you have to start the question is he all there all the time?

Is he so consumed with himself?

The fact that he can't concentrate all the time?

I bet the fact that in the Wall Street Journal interview, he's doing an interview and then he takes a call, and then the Interior Secretary, Doug Bergham, wants to talk with him about remodeling the DC golf courses, and you're what what And you're in the middle of doing this interview.

I mean, I appreciate that the journal people told us about that.

I mean, I think it's a terrible look politically that he cares more about redesigning Washington, DC's three public golf courses than he does about lowering the price of electricity or lowering the price of groceries, right, like you could those TV ads right themselves.

But that's also another sign of of sort of you know, where you can't keep concentration, you can't keep focus that you're sort of that you're erratic.

Now again, he's kind of been this way all the time, So it is going to be harder.

While it was easier us for us to see sort of the the you know, we could just see boy Biden used to be this, Now he's this.

That evolution of Trump is harder to fully appreciate because he's kind of always been kind of outrageous, He'll always say, but it was sort of it felt like it was planned outrage in twenty fifteen, twenty sixteen, twenty seventeen.

This feels a lot more sort of unfiltered, unpasteurized, if you will, on this front.

But my point is is that for all of those folks on the right that we're concerned about whether or not the staff was running things, whether it's about Joe Biden's faculties were all there, I would argue the behavior we've seen of this president, particularly over the last few months, given his age, given how quickly this stuff happens.

I mean, look, we are not getting a straight story about his current health.

You don't go through as many he's had I think three annual physicals this year.

You get my point, right, That's what they keep calling him, he keeps going back.

They keep calling a routine you know, you know, it's not routine going back to the doctor more than once a year.

I mean, something out of the ordinary that they're concerned about the fact that, you know, he seemed to tell us that the last time he took a one of these cognitive tests, there was an audience.

That's interesting.

Why was there an audience?

Why were there so many people observing this?

What was the concern?

Were there more experts that were brought in?

It is, there is something different, and there is more You can feel the sort of concern about I don't know, you know, I'm not going you know, there's fear of ever contradicting him.

There's fear of pushing back at him.

There's fear of telling him news he doesn't want to hear.

These were all concerned that people had on the right, in particular with Joe Biden in twenty twenty three and twenty twenty four.

So again, if you're looking to to find out who's high on the hypocrisy scale of concern, you know, watch the people that express the most concern about Joe Biden's faculties.

See pretty much everybody in primetime on Fox News and ask them if this behavior were at all being you know, if this were Biden a second term of Biden behaving this way, I wonder what the coverage would be on primetime of Fox right.

But in all, you know, snark aside, this unfiltered behavior is alarming for either one of two things.

One, he was told this is not good and he still can't help himself, which means he's got a self control issue, or he's got a staff so afraid of telling him bad news that they won't do it, and therefore he was why he ended up doubling down on this in the first place.

Whatever the answer is, neither is good for the country.

Neither is good, by the way, for the Republican Party.

And I'll ask you know, if JD.

Van's and Marco Rubio right, they're going to have to they want to succeed this presidency, one of them does.

Look at how unhappy the voters are with the Democratic Party, even though they're voting for Democrats right now.

Right, we saw this in Virginia, majority had an unfavorable view of the party.

Well, what's driven that?

What what's driven that?

Was this idea that they all had their head in the sand when it came to Biden in twenty twenty four, And there's a lot of resentment among Democrats for how Democratic leaders look the other way when there was an obvious, slow motion train wreck taking place with the vot voters were concerned about long before there was a debate between Trump and Biden on June twenty seventh, twenty twenty four.

The voters have been pretty angry about it.

You know, I think if you want to know why there's such limited trust in Chuck Schumer by fellow Democrats and Akeem Jeffries, it's the entire Democratic leaders in Washington are just seen as somehow they were in kahoots and they had their head in the sand when it came to the Biden thing.

Well, these same voters are going to have the same reaction if it appears that Trump progressively gets worse, his behavior gets more erratic, you have sort of more you know, enablers not wanting to either say something, and you know we're finding out today.

Look the few sober quotes that Susie Wiles did give a reporter and this case a biographer and Chris Whipple.

She didn't like what it looked like once they went public, and there's a fear that the president can't handle any sort of criticism or analytical criticism, or even just sort of acknowledging when there are tough moments or when there are awkward things that happen in the administration, which only serves to concern me that when you really need somebody to step in, are they going to be willing to do it?

Are they going to be willing to say, hey, man, the emperor has no close here.

We have got to acknowledge this.

We cannot continue to pretend this isn't happening.

I think it's a legitimate concern, and I think in some ways the president's own behavior, the odd things he has said about his own health, and then the erratic nature of what he did with Reiner and some other folks.

I think this is a storyline that's only going to grow.

And you know, he's not getting younger, This is not going to get better.

This is only going to become more obvious.

Look, we don't see him travel the country, and I think there's a reason for it.

Right, just like with Joe Biden, you got to ask yourself.

Boy, Normally in a president in this situation, would be traveling the country to try to sell his agenda and he's not doing it.

Why is that right?

That is what began the conversation for folks who were concerned about whether Biden was up to the job.

Certainly not up for a second term.

He couldn't do the job to self to sell his agenda in the first term.

Well, I think we've entered that same situation.

And again, if you were truly concerned about Biden because of his physical ailments and not due to your own politics, then you should be equally alarmed by the currents situation with our current president and the situation that he's in.

Now, all right, before I go to my interview, I want to share with you a poll that came to me via the search Light Institute.

Now, if you recall that may seem familiar to some of you listeners out there, I had interviewed the founder of search Light Institute, which is search Light is the hometown search Light, Nevada is the hometown of Harry Reid.

Adam Gentilssen and former Harry Reid staffer started this up, and it's basically an attempt to try to move the Democratic Party in a more pragmatic direction.

I wouldn't even say ideologically moderate, just more of a mainstream sort of try to make the party more big ten again between progressive in the center a little bit and so.

But they did a poll on corruption, and why I find it interesting, it's sort of it was sort of the question is what is corrupt?

What do the voters think is corrupt versus sort of what the definition perhaps we in the media have, you know, you know, when I say think of the word corrupt, I think of like, who's ripping off taxpayers?

Right?

But what's interesting is what the voters themselves view as corrupt.

And they asked a terrific question, and the question was this, if you describe a politician as corrupt, what are you saying about them?

And then they offer, please select one that comes closest to your view, and the number one answer was not somebody that was stealing taxpayer dollars.

It was using public office for personal financial gain.

Right.

That could mean insider trading on stocks.

That could mean finding out that you're buying a piece of property that's about to be zone for a government funded highway or something like this, that somehow your net worth grows that your own relatives get to start a lobbying business and use your last name to get on a board, say with a company in Ukraine, or they use your last name to start a meme coin and you make money off of the crypto market.

Jeez, I don't know what two families might might have qualified for that, but that was the number one definition of corrupt.

The number two most popular definition of corrupt politician was this they change rules to hold onto power instead of improving lives.

Well, basically that's re redistricting.

They simply want to pick voters, pick voters that they don't have to persuade.

They pick more voters that are already on their side, so they don't have to do the hard work of representative democracy.

Right.

That was the second most popular.

The third most popular definition was they only serve wealthy donors instead of regular people.

Well, I just told you about we're going to have our first billion dollar center rights.

Do you think that ten dollars donor to a Senate race as much as one hundred million dollars or even the one the ten million dollar donor I've had.

I've had donor sources of mine who only give six figure donations okay, which for just about all of us, writing a check for one hundred thousand dollars or more is a lot of money.

Okay, you know, that's purchasing a home type of money that you write that to send your kid to college type of money.

And they're considered they're not considered big donors anymore.

They're just considered middle class donors.

Okay.

You know, a lawmaker will spend a lot more time persuading that finding a ten one ten million dollar donor then they will looking for one thousand, one hundred thousand dollar donors because that's you know, it's the law of efficiency.

Right.

The fourth most popular is they let corporate influence overwhelm the influence of voters.

Arguably that's arguably the big donors.

And then in the single digits you have they trade favors with lobbyists or special interests.

They cater only to the extremes that don't look out for everyone.

What's interesting is that none of the definitions were they steal money.

Right.

So the point is is that what the word you know, and I it is what the voters think is corrupt is fascinating, and I think that it is in some ways.

It is sort of like you're you're you're ripping off the democracy, right.

And what I appreciate about this about where the donors are the voters are on this.

Listen to me, the donors the voters are on this, is that they're a little more sophisticated on what's corrupt.

They say that, hey, that that corrupts the democracy, that gets in the way of you representing the average person.

And this is a case where the voters are ahead of the politicians, right.

The politicians don't speak of corruption this way.

Right.

They speak of corruption like breaking the law, corruption thinking, because I think they're all afraid that if you define corruption the way the public defines it, which is profiting, you know, having you know, essentially personal financial gain while serving in office, you know, trying to just stay into office, always worrying about raising money, always catering to donors.

A lot of politicians, if you said, do you think that's corrupt, I'm like, wow, the system's corrupt, But I'm not, you know, they might blame the system.

They wish they wouldn't do it that way.

But the fact that voters think this is anyway just it's interesting and it also tells me that voters are man the pitchforks are out, the pitchforks are ready, and I don't think.

I do not think large corporations and the tech industry is aware of this and is ready for what's coming.

And I certainly think leaders in both parties don't fully appreciate it.

Here's another question that came through that I want to share it.

How well do you think government serves each of the following groups?

Okay, the very wealthy, eighty six percent said they think government serves the very wealthy somewhat or very well, eighty six percent.

About businesses, all right, seventy four percent say the government serves it serves businesses somewhat or very well.

How about racial and ethnic minorities, Well, guess what, Only thirty six percent believe government serves them well.

Fifty seven percent believes they do not serve racial or ethnic minorities very well at all, or not well at all completely or not not well completely all.

How about you personally?

You personally, that number is thirty is just under forty percent.

So this isn't one of those cases where well, I think Congress is, but I like my member of Congress.

I don't think Congress looks out for the interest of everybody else, but they also look out for me.

Nope, you know they most people think they they're served slightly better in government than racial and ethnic minorities, but not too well.

And then when you throw out ordinary people, that number is that means three and four voters believe ordinary people are not served well at all in some form or another by government.

What it tells you is that there's a there's an appetite out there for government reform, for democracy reform.

You just have to frame it in a way that just say, hey, do you want government to serve you better?

This is why it doesn't serve you well.

The system is rigged against you, which I think the folks believe the system is rigged against them.

They just have yet to find a politician that has sold them a struck sure that makes sense and that they believe will work right.

That I think is the missing piece here, right.

Bertie Sanders and a Donald Trump have convinced seventy percent of America that the system's rigged against them.

Okay, that's that's the beginning.

What there is an agreement on is whether government itself is redeemable to do it, and whether it's you're going to need a singular individual.

That's what Donald Trump believes that you can't the system can't be trusted to do it, versus Bertie Sanders, who said, well, you got topend the entire system, but then the system can be can be can be trusted on this.

Here's one more question to share with you, just to show you the definition of how much corruption do you think there is in the Trump administration?

Well, among independents, forty percent said there's a great deal and another twelve percent said there's a moderate amount.

So fifty two percent said there's at least a great deal or a moderate amount of coruption in the Trump administration.

And if you throw in the nine percent that say a small amount, right, so there's only thirty nine percent says that there's no corruption at all in the Trump administration.

All right, but guess what how much corruption do you think there was in the Biden administration?

Well, twenty eight percent said there was a great deal, another thirteen percent said there was a moderate amount, another twelve percent said there was a small amount, which means you had a majority that believed there was some corruption.

You only had forty seven percent.

So you have thirty nine percent believe there's no corruption in Trump administration, and you have forty seven percent believing there's no corruption.

This is just among independents, but a majority of independents believe there's some form of corruption in the Biden administration.

A majority of independents say there's some form of corruption in the Trump administration.

Look, the point they're trying to say.

I think the point that Searchlight is trying to say is we look framing Framing reform issues through the lens of corruption might get people's attention better.

Right, If you talk about the financing of campaigns through a through the prism of corruption.

If you talk about the lack of regulation of big tech through the prism of corruption, if you talk about entrenched power in term limits through the prism of corruption, you're more likely to get an audience to listen to you.

And most importantly, you're going to be able to talk to the voters who are the most skeptical of the two parties.

Right now, those that are self described independence are no parties.

So anyway, in this moment that we're living in, right, we're basically, you know, we've got back to back presidencies where we're not quite sure that the actual president you know, is up to the job, you know, has the temperament of the faculties to do the job the way it needs to be done.

You also then have a growing coalition of voters that are believing the system itself is rotting.

And this is this Look, yes, it's about affordability at home, and in order to speak to a certain segment of voters, you're going to have to make it about that.

But connecting the struggle to affordability through corruption is potentially a potent force.

And I will just tell you this.

Anytime we've had big changes in election, big midterm waves, there's always been an element of corruption that has helped fuel it.

You know, in nineteen ninety four, we had members of Congress.

We were just two years removed from a check where members of Congress could bounce checks without having a bank account.

It was just the weird system where only Congress could write checks for money that they didn't have.

It was crazy.

And if you want to know more about it, you know, I'll go back on my time machine in a couple months.

We'll talk about it.

But but go take a look.

In two thousand and six there was sort of the corruption of Jack Abramoff and Tom Delay was that arguably in twenty ten and in twenty fourteen, Republicans were using more of sort of the fear of sort of the growth of government.

It was less so less so corruption fueling that one.

But when you see for the most our corruption usually plays role, especially when you see a total flip.

Right ninety four, both the House that Republicans went, both the House and the Senate.

There was this, you know, movement for term limits, movement for against entrenched power.

You had the check bouncing scandal, et cetera.

Two thousand and six also saw both houses flip.

In this case it was Republican a Democrat.

You know, the addition of the Jack Abramoff stuff and sort of the takeover of K Street.

You know, that had a and I do think that is a potential potent force here if if Democrats figure out how to tap into it in a credible way.

Right, It's important It's important to note they think, you know, independence think Trump's corrupt, more corrupt than Biden, but they also majority thought the Biden administration was corrupt too, So it's not the easiest road for Democrats to go down.

But it will make sense if you're a new candidate, if you're somebody without the baggage of a previous era, a previous entity, or a previous administration.

All right, with that, let me put a pin in this botologue.

Sneaking a break, and when we come back, we're going to talk about what would a constitutional amendment on limiting the financing of campaigns look like.

We'll sneak it a break and we'll talk about that data side.

Do you hate hangovers?

We'll say goodbye to hangovers.

Out of Office gives you the social buzz without the next day regret.

They're best selling.

Out of office gummanies were designed to provide a mild, relaxing buzz, boost your mood and enhance creativity and relaxation.

With five different strengths, you can tailor the dose to fit your vibe, from a gentle one point five milligram micro dose to the our newest fifteen milligram gummy for a more elevated experience.

Their THHC beverages and gummies are a modern, mindful alternative to a glass of wine or a cocktail.

And I'll tell you this, I've given up booze.

I don't like the hangovers.

I prefer the gummy experience.

Soul is a wellness brand that believes feeling good should be fun and easy.

Soul specializes in delicious HEMP derived THCHC, and CBD products, all designed to boost your mood and simply help you unwine.

So if you struggle to switch off at night, Sol also has a variety of products specifically designed to just simply help you get a better night's sleep, including their top selling Sleepy Gummies.

It's a fan favorite for deep restorative sleep.

So bring on the good vibes and treat yourself to Soul today.

Right now, Soul is offering my audience thirty percent off your entire order, So go to gitsold dot com use the promo code todcast.

Don't forget that code that's getsold dot Com promo code todcast for thirty percent off.

So joining me now is Jeff Clements.

He's co founder and president of an organization called American Promise Best Way.

They describe themselves a cross partisan organization that's advocate advocating a constitutional amendment to limit the influence of money and politics.

As many of you guys know, I think we are.

If you look at our history as a country, we're at one of those moments where the appetite for adding a couple of constitutional amendments should be pretty big.

Anytime we've had a consequential era of ten or more years like the one we're sort of at the tail end of here with the Trump era.

Just like after FDR we added the twenty second Amendment during the beginning of the Industrial Revolution and the controversies in and around that, and the teens.

In the twenties, we added direct election as senators, the income tax prohibition, both positive and negative.

So I think we're in one of those moments, and I believe Jeff Clements thinks we're in one of those moments.

Of course, the question is what will get priority if we are going to start adding constitutional amendments.

He's advocating campaign finance.

He's not alone there.

What else would be on that docket.

We will dabble in that, as you know, I've been dabbling in that on this feed for some time.

But Jeff, welcome to the podcast.

Hey, thank you, Chuck.

Good to be here.

So let's start with it's I know why you know, look it's pretty clear the courts have unless you want to wait forty years to alter the ideological makeup of the courts.

And it's not even ideological makeup, the sort of the this belief that corporations are people too.

If that is the case and money is speech, well, then the only way to limit it is to add a constitutional amendment.

Is that the conclusion you've come.

To absolutely, Chuck, and I come to it after you know, three decades nearly in practicing law, and I believe that the courts were where these kind of issues got worked out.

Over the course of my legal career, the Supreme Court has taken dozens and dozens of cases involving campaign finance laws, basically making the system we have now with a handful of judges and lawyers in Washington, d C.

No American asked for twenty billion dollar elections, you know, six hundred million dollars Senate races, foreign money coming in, all the things you've talked about on this on this on the podcast.

So it is a court created crisis, and it is not a constitutional crisis because there's something wrong with the concert.

You know, that's an interesting way of putting it.

Let's let's I want to dig into that for a couple of minutes, because essentially I see where you're going.

Just about everything we don't like about the current way campaigns are financed was due to a loophole created by illegal ruling in response to a challenge to a congressional law that was passed whose purpose was to actually try to limit the influence of money in politics.

Absolutely, and you know a lot of the most recent famous case, of course, is Citizens United versus Federal Election Commission.

But the first time the court ventured into this sort of experiment and what would happen if justices decided our campaign finance policy instead of the American people was in nineteen seventy six with a case called Buckley versus.

Valais I was just going to ask about it.

It's Buckley Valaeo right now, Yeah, exactly.

For there was Citizen United, there was Buckley Valeo.

Yeah.

In nineteen seventy six was our bi centennial that we'd had the First Amendment for nearly two centuries.

We'd had any corruption laws.

For well over a century by that point limiting money in politics.

Not once in two hundred years had the First Amendment been interpreted by the Court to mean that the American people were stripped of the ability to have limits on the power of wealth influence election outcomes.

The Court made up this rule in nineteen seventy six by saying that spending money is free speech.

It sure has something to do with free speech and First Amendment, but the Court simply said, no, it is free speech.

And then they started on a fifty year experiment.

And because they're not that good at politics, nor should they be, they're justices, they increasingly created new problems for themselves and then had to make up a rule for that.

So what we're doing at American Promise is saying enough is enough.

This has failed.

Let's bring it back to the people with a constitutional amendment that says, justices, this is not your job.

It's the job of Congress and the state legislatures to make the rules for how money influences our elections.

You know what would the you know, McCain fine gold to me turns out to be one of the worst pieces of legislation that Congress passed.

It would have been good legislation had you had an interpretation of money and politics differently, Like would that have under in a world where money isn't speech.

Is McCain fine gold good legislation?

Well, you know an American promise.

Honestly, we're sort of agnostic about specific policy because we're looking at the long term, and America needs to look at the long term.

We've got AI coming, we've got global digitalized currencies, we've got all kinds of problems with trying to maintain control of our political experiment here.

McCain fine gold was a law around two thousand and two three period when Congress was in some ways trying to deal with the handcuffs that the Supreme Court had put on them.

So money, as you've said before, Chuck, we'll find a way in politics.

That does not mean just like and I.

Always compared to the Michael Crichton's character in the original Jurassic Park, where the Jeff Goldblum character says it in the movie, but it's also in the book where the old man claims he's going to keep the dinosaurs from pro creating, and he's like, life finds a way.

Well, in politics, money finds a way.

Yeah, no matter what.

Absolutely, But that doesn't mean that the American people just say, Okay, I guess money decides things.

I think, you know, murder and mayhem find a way too in the human condition.

But we have law, and we have and we have real clarity about who decides.

And in America it's the American people who decide ultimately.

And so in the past we have had yes, money, I'm from Boston.

You know.

Mayor Curley got re elected from his jail cell.

So I get this is I'm not naive about this.

But the American people have always had the ability and acted on it to enact new rules for new situations.

So corporations became powerful and the Gilded Age, as you mentioned, and we had any corruption laws which limited corporate money come and Teddy Roosevelt pushed it.

The unions became powerful spenders, and by nineteen forty eight we had taft haartly.

So the laws that the Buckley Court in nineteen seventy struck down followed the catastrophic in many ways money and politics scandal of the Nixon White House, leading to the resignation of a president.

So this is not about the final one answer that will fix everything.

It's about who decides what is needed in order to address the problems that inevitably occur with money.

And corruption in the political system.

So McCain Feingeld was an attempt to solve a new problem, which is, Okay, we got soft money coming in.

It's going around the limits that the candidates are supposed to be able to be limited to in terms of taking money and some other problems like that.

But they were the Congress was constrained by the courts at that point forty year invention of all these rules.

Independent expenditures can't possibly corrupt.

Therefore they can't be limited giving it to the parties and the candidates could corrupt, so those are going to be limited.

So the states and Congress have been put in this straight jacket by the court's rules that don't really make sense, and they certainly don't protect free speech of most Americans, and so you end up with messy and often bad legislation.

That's why we need the constitutional reset.

Which of course is why if you're wondering why political parties have no ability to purge itself of bad candidates, it's because they've lost the ability to fund campaigns.

They've lost the ability to you know, in some ways.

You know, this is where McCain fein Goeld was a bad law.

With good intentions that ended up only making polarization worse and making it even harder for the parties to have any control.

But let's talk about what's the wording of a constant.

You know, the hallmark of the Roberts Court for the most part, on many issues, it's usually Roberts comes down to, hey, Congress, do your job.

But in this case, Congress tried to do jobs and the Court said no.

A lot of times, this is a congressional failure.

You know, whether it comes to you could argue it's a congressional failure when it comes to some of these issues, specificity about independent agencies and things like that.

This is not a congressional issue.

This is truly an invention of the judiciary, sort of creation of precedence that suddenly becomes So so, what's the wording of the amendment that would take this power away from the judiciary.

Yeah, so the flat out the wording fits on an apkin.

This is not complicated.

Most constitutional amendments.

Better if it's in fact, that's three graphs.

Do you need it down to two?

We could, and this doesn't have to be the final language.

So what this amendment does though, that we call it the for our freedom Amendment.

You know, the first section just reminds the court, frankly, in all of us that we the people have sovereign interest in free speech and federalism and the equal rights of every voter and anty corruption and all the things that a lot of those the Court took off the First Amendment balance.

So the Court says, Andy, and let's be clear, McCain feinel didn't create the super PACs and everything else that was the Supreme Court by saying that independent expenditures never corrupt and making up these different kinds of rules.

And so the Court did that because the Court decided it was its job to decide free speech questions around money and politics with only one question, quid pro quo corruption or the appearance thereof, as they say, and that's basically Latin for bribery.

Practically, you know, I'll give you this if you give me that.

Well, the American people and the founders, frankly long understood that there's a much wider constitutional balance to protecting the equal rights and freedom of Americans and self government in a republic.

And there's things like federalism, there's things like the equal rights of a citizen, it doesn't mean you have equal outcomes economic, but in the political sphere, we're all equal citizens.

So there's things like that.

Section one makes that clear, and then Section two moves that who decides question, Who decides these rules?

It's the legislatures in Congress because they're accountable to the people.

The judges aren't.

So we the.

People will decide do we want limits, do we not want limits, Do we want super PACs?

Do we not want super PACs?

Those will be decisions, and federal elections for Congress, in state elections for the states, just like it's always been until the Court intervened.

And then Section three pretty interesting, it distinguished.

It says Congress and the States may distinguish between corporations and other artificial entities.

It uses the word artificial entities because we've got to be thinking, pac, well it could be or what about artificial intelligence.

The Court's approach to free speech essentially is if it can spend money and broadcast noise into the political system, it has a free speech right.

And I use it intentionally because the Court does not distinguish between human beings or any other entity.

So now you have thoughts and AI and who knows what in ten years, twenty years, fifty years that we have to be thinking about.

So this doesn't solve the problem.

It simply says we're allowed to solve that problem.

So here's the question that I have of why the First Amendment itself couldn't be used as an interpretation of it without needing this, and it would go as follows.

And I didn't go to law school.

I just played when I play a lawyer on a podcast.

So excuse please mock away.

But I'm guaranteed free speech.

I'm not guaranteed amplification of speech.

And it seems as if the courts have decided if you deny the ability to amplify speech, you have violated free speech.

And the reason I'm saying the words amplification because I also wonder or if this is a waiting to crack down on to allow for more social media regulation in addition to campaign finance regulation.

You know, obviously, look I consider myself, you know, any if we can do this without a constitutional amendment, the better.

Is there a First Amendment argument against amplification, sort of like a corporation's ability to amplify its access to free speech overwhelms Mine?

Is that the intent of the founders.

Yeah, well that it is not the intent of the founders that the corporations and you know, the wealthiest among us should drown out everybody else.

That's that's that's antithetical to the First Amendment.

And I want to mock your interpretation.

Check it's right on in my view.

I agree with it.

I think most Americans agree with it.

It's what the dissenters and these many many Supreme Court cases would have said.

So this isn't question about whether there's anything wrong with the First Amendment.

There's nothing wrong with the First Amendment.

We are a free speech organization, where a free speech nation.

We want free speech.

What we have right now in the political system with money isn't free speech for exactly the reasons you're saying.

The Court need a mistake in how it interprets the First Amendment and is laid down this mandate, which basically means amplification until nobody can hear anyone anymore except those with the biggest this ability to spend.

And so what our amendment does is not replace the First Amendment.

It strengthens the First Amendment.

It makes it much more like the one you're describing I can just tell you one story, and I've been all over the country with this amendment.

There's a wonderful guy in Maine, David Trahan runs the Sportsman's Alliance of Maine.

He's on our advisory council as well.

After Susan Collins his two hundred million dollars Senate race in twenty twenty now looks kind of they're talking about a six hundred million dollar race in twenty twenty six there, but all of the super pac money was pouring in from outside the state.

And these are people who spenders have no idea where Maine is on a map, probably let alone caring about what the people of main things.

It was a battle for control of the US Senate, and so this guy is pretty politically savvy and a free speech absolutist as well as a Second Amendment advocate.

Is saying he said, Jeff, we can't be heard and we can't hear each other with all this money.

And I thought that was such an interesting way to think about the First Amendment issue in this case, in this situation, which is we want free speech and we actually we want to hear what our fellow citizens think as well.

And engage about it and argue with each other and then get out and vote.

That's what a republican self government looks like.

It does not look like this.

So your first amendment, David Tryan's first amendment, I think it's the American first Amendment, and that's the first amendment we'll get with our constitutional amendment to get us there.

You brought up Maine, and I'm glad because Larry Lessek, who I know you're very familiar with.

And no, and I think you said he's on your board, so you're familiar.

He believes he has found a way to essentially use originalism, which is sort of the current makeup of the Conservative Court.

Arguably three of the nine are more originalists.

I think the other three Conservatives are probably a little more nuanced than being textualist originalists, but that's probably open to interpretation.

But that there's actually an originalist argument that would overturn Citizens United.

Do you buy it?

Oh?

I buy the argument.

But if I thought that the right argument would win the court, I think we want to need this.

As you say, we would get a reinterpretation of the First Amendment as to be more aligned with what it was supposed to mean.

And that's originalism.

I mean, can you imagine those who ratified the amendment.

Remember, the First Amendment was an amendment too, happens to be our first one.

It wasn't didn't come out of Philadelphia's convention.

It be came because the American people at the time demanded the Bill of Rights and passed and ratified amendments in this way, and the first Amendment protecting free speech.

Can you imagine in that ratification the people who just won the revolution saying, yeah, this is intended to protect the right of corporations to spend unlimited money.

And the wealthiest you know among us didn't even have billionaires then to spend unlimited money, they would have been preposterous.

And originalism in constitutional interpretation means what did the words actually mean?

What did the people who put those words and voted on those words and lived by those words intend and mean by it?

And so I think the originalism argument is powerful.

Well, we make the same case at American Promise.

In many ways, our Amendment is an originalist interpretation of the First Amendment.

And so you know, I welcome and applaud very few people have worked as long in his heart in this effort around responding to the money in politics crisis is Larry Lessig, and I applaud him for it, and I know he is also a fan of the constitutional amendment approach.

There's no reason you don't try all the different leavers.

So Professor Lesg's theory is is, look, the court didn't actually invent the super pac.

Literally, it was the District Court.

There was the DC Court of Appeals.

It never went to the Supreme Court in a case called speech Now, and they said, well, the court, the Supreme Court tells us that independent expenditures can't corrupt.

Therefore there's no reason to have a limit on packs.

Because remember Congress and the American people actually said we want a five thousand dollars limit on packs.

That used to be the law, and the law fell down in that case because the District Court, DC Court of Appeals said that that doesn't make sense after citizens united because they say independent expenditures can't corrupt, and then we therefore get the super pack.

When one person can put three hundred million dollars into it or one hundred million dollars into it would have been.

Wildly illegal before this case.

So Larry's argument as, hey, the Supreme Court didn't say that, and actually independent contributions to independent expenditures are superpacks can corrupt.

You can corrupt and influence the outcome of legislation by telling the person and heads the committee or whoever is needed to say, hey, I'll put some money in the superpack and you get the legislation.

So of course it can corrupt.

I think most Americans would agree with that, like, yeah, super PACs, of course they're corrupting.

There's all kinds of shenanigans going on with them.

So that's the theory, and Larry's the main people of Maine agreed and adopted a loss saying contributions to super PACs are limited to five thousand dollars.

And it's been struck down by held up by the court, federal courts.

It's now Larry hopes to go to the Supreme Court and have the Supreme Court say, you know what, you're right, we never said that, and you can limit packs.

So I think the theories right.

I wish the court would buy it.

I'm less skeptical.

I'm more skeptical than Larry is that they will given that.

I hear you, except where I think Larry's case is strong.

It's like, well, Lilly, one of two things are going to happen.

Either they strike down all limits for individuals, because how is it that you can have a situation where you can have unlimited contributions to an independent expenditure, but you can limit contributions directly to a campaign, right, It's sort of it's a distinction without much of a difference anymore.

So I wonder if that is if actually it's one of two outcomes.

Either he's right and they say you're right if you can limit contributions of individuals to campaigns and you can limit contributions to packs, or it goes the other way and there are no more limits.

Yeah, I think that's that's that's a fair scenario assessment.

I think you know, the other case that was argued last week in the Supreme Court n RSC versus FEC has a similar kind of situation where there's a limit on the party's ability to spend in coordination with candidates that the court upheld twenty years ago but now doesn't see.

The argument is it doesn't make sense given that you can put anything you want and spend anything you want in other vehicles so, but the problem I have two problems, not problems, that's the wrong word.

I have two reasons why we need this constitutional amendment more than ever, even as I'm rooting for Professor Lesseg's success.

One is that that even if the Court does begin to see that there's some weird contradictions in the system that they have built around money in politics, which believe me, it has been messed up for a long time, and.

That doesn't seemed to bother them.

But maybe this time they take this and say, Okay, we're going to allow some limits on contribution to certain kinds of super PACs that might create corruption.

There's still all kinds of other avenues that should not be up to the Court to decide how to deal with it, should be up to the legislatures.

But the most important reason, Chuck, I'd say more than ever, is that it's not so much the specific policies, and we can get in the weeds around all these different vehicles and the different systems.

Fundamentally, the constitutional crisis, in my view, is not specific cases or specific policies.

It's the fundamental question of who decides and another five to four or even six' three decision out of The Supreme.

Court no matter which way it comes, out does not all of that problem we have had for half a.

Century The american people disabled from just about what any democracy in the world.

Does what we used to do before The.

Court gone, involved which is we make the rules around, this not the justices In.

Washington so that's what we got to.

Fix, well this goes to you, Know i'm old enough to remember when my friends and the right were complaining that the judiciary was legislating in campaign finance laws Ninety basically most of the law that governs campaigns has been judicially.

Written absolutely it.

Is it has been over you, know overturning a state, legislature overturning a congressional, law none of, them, right it has not BEEN i can't think of a legislature that has passed a law that the court you know, that you, KNOW i can't think of a legislature that, said, yeah we should have unlimited, this and we should have it.

Unlimited LIKE i.

Can't i'm trying to find the legislative law that has done.

That can You, Yeah and you, know you're absolutely.

Right it's constant legislation by.

Judges it's all Of these are policy questions you can we could agree or disagree or argue.

About you, know they have made the, decision but these are not the.

Questions is not legislative intent, right because it's not been legislative, intent.

Not at all exactly.

Right and so you know that's the fundamental reason we need this constitutional amendment because it's getting.

URGENT i, mean The american people now call money in politics the top, issue the top threat to our.

Democracy Pew, research after the twenty billion dollar election in twenty twenty, four did their usual survey of The american people's.

Priorities reducing money in politics was number, one ahead of, immigration ahead of, crime and so and there's a good reason for it because people see it now where they.

Live it's the corruption is coming, home and we've got to fix.

This SO i accept the, premise and Then i'm going to challenge you on it because you, know there's always the correct answer the public.

Gives and then there's how they actually vote right during, elections and you AND i both know the following, truism which is there's not a single person that is won on this issue where they've made it the.

Issue and that is why POLITICIANS i think shy away from making it a centerpiece of their, campaign right because ultimately you're, like, yeah, OKAY i agree with, that but what are you doing about the price of?

Groceries?

Right, like it has been hard to make this.

Issue you can get voters to engage with it if they see the corruption and it's a corruption directly impacting said candidate and said.

Campaign but BECAUSE i, LOOK i always, say there's you, know there's eighty percent issues where there's only where half of those folks it isn't it isn't the single voting issue that they will go to the polls to vote.

On but they're an eighty percent, agreement rightne some sort of control over you, know some sort of legislative additional hurdles to purchase guns as falls into that, category which is there's general, agreement but it's not the people that are the most passionate about it actually vote the other.

Way why do you think it's been so hard to make it a voting.

ISSUE i.

UNDERSTAND i see the polling, too but there's you AND i both know there's type certain issues that poll well that don't get you to the, vote actually get people to the ballot.

Box, YEAH i think we have to unpack that a, Bit, chuck because you, know The american people have never been offered the choice we Had american promise they are, offering which, is do you want the power back to actually make the rules around money and, politics or do you want to leave it the same way it is now leave it to the, judges BECAUSE i think we've got to give The american people more.

Credit they know that for fifty years we've lived with judge made rules that have just moved power into the hands of the wealthiest and the most global corporate, interests and everybody knows.

THAT i think that's not so when they, say, Hey i'm going to run on passing, McCain finegeld vote for.

Me the voter isn't.

Stupid they know that the elected official is not actually going to be able to do very much because The Supreme court has said has basically invented this right to spend unlimited, money no matter what you might think about.

It and SO i think that the passion is already.

There you've said it.

YOURSELF i thought your analysis of the twenty twelve election Of Barack, Obama schuck was really astute when you said that was misreads somehow this grand demographic coalition rather than a populist.

Election he went After Mitt, romney AND i thought that was right.

On and why Did Bernie sanders go head to head an unknown at the, Time Bernie sanders go head to head With Hillary?

Clinton why Is Donald trump the had can over The Republican party and as The president of The United.

States the answer to all of those, QUESTIONS i think is the, same which The american people are, smart they get it is that this system is completely corrupted and the normal politics isn't going to fix, it and so they're looking for.

Answers and SO i, think as usual In, america that comes down to a constitutional.

Question and SO i think there's passion for the constitutional question in a way that you are not going to render up a voting passion, around you, know should the limit be five thousand dollars to ten thousand dollars or disclosure versus public?

Finance and that's that's not what this is.

About we face a fundamental constitutional.

Question, well let's talk about this issue OF i, MEAN i feel like we're hitting there's a few different.

Issues people that are passionate about certain issues THAT i feel like are where we basically the only answer is a constitutional.

AMENDMENT i think IT'S i think campaign finance is one of.

THEM i think those my friends that worry about the.

DEBT i think the balanced budget amendment is another.

ONE i think age, limits, Right if you have age minimums in the, constitution it means there's only one way you can create age.

Limits you're going to need a constitutional.

Amendment.

Right if you care about the electoral college, NOW i think there are ways around, that which include expanding the Physical house Of, representatives which would actually fix the electoral college, issues and you wouldn't need a constitution.

One there are a few places where you wouldn't need.

One but we're at a moment WHERE i think there's enough.

Issues is it worth working in concert with some of these other affinity groups who are fighting for this sort of what the infrastructure reforms for our democracy or our constitutional?

Republic?

Right and if you look at our, history we basically have had three periods where we've actually fixed up our, house our constitutional, house right at the, beginning right during and after The Civil, war and essentially during and after The Gilded.

Age and then you could say the twenty Second amendment in the twenty Fifth.

Amendment also that was, about you, know sort of REACTION fdr And kennedy and sort of in what happened.

Incapacitation but is this a moment that it's?

Similar is this a period is it worth working with others to try to force a larger conversation about amending the constitution or is your time better spent just galvanizing on the single issue of campaign.

Finance, WELL i think the conversation's well.

Underway The american people are talking about constitutional change all the.

Time now you left term limits, Off i'd put that it's.

Another, one, yes where you probably it's only going to Take you're going to need a constitutional amendment for.

It.

Yeah.

Yeah The Supreme court is also ruled but not allowed to have term, Limits SO i THINK i think that also there's a viable and energetic support for that kind of constitutional.

Amendment so you're ABSOLUTELY i could agree more that we are in a moment In american history where we will see fundamental change and if we if we focus and make that constitutional change and other kinds of, reform it'll be a very positive.

Thing but at the same, time if we, don't there's, dangers AND i think that's.

What you saw if you look at all those periods you.

Mentioned And i'd ad you, know we did four, amendments four constitutional amendments between nineteen sixty one and nineteen seventy, one lowering the voting, AGE dc got some representation the poll.

Tax those are pretty big.

Deals and if you look at all those, periods it was very much like our own political.

Assassinations division the wheels coming off The american, democracy AND i think people realize like that we can't go on with the status quo constitutional structures we've, had and there's fundamental change AND i think that's what we're going to see.

Now that doesn't mean, necessarily, though that there's some grand constitutional.

COALITION i think maybe after The Civil, war The Civil war, amendments The Republican party at the time was the grand coalition around constitutional.

Amendments we need to once and for all overturn the Dread scott decision and slavery In, america enfranchise All americans regardless of.

RACE i think that was the.

Exception the other, ones, THOUGH i think amendments happen in a dynamic systematictic process where there's opportunity because the old way is.

Crumbling the old stabilities aren't there, anymore and you can actually put together new coalitions and new votes to actually get a two thirds vote In congress and ratification in three quarters of the, states which remained very.

Different SO i don't think you need to march and lockstep and have different arguments that.

Might you, know it isn't necessarily people will vote for our amendment who will be against electoral college reformer people will like term limits but not the balance you name.

It that's.

OKAY i think it's a much more dynamic.

Process if we Every american go for whatever it is that you want to, see we'll be just.

Fine AND i would predict in the decade we'll have three or four amendments again like previous.

Times but if we have a try to make it with some grand coalition coming out Of washington Telling americans.

What to, do it goes.

Nowhere we go to the, states we go to the, people AND i think that's what smart amendments.

Do so we have twenty three states already on board the for Our Freedom amendment At american.

Promise that's why you get, ratification that's why you get the vote In, congress because we've actually shown that.

States as widely disparate As alaska.

And, utah and you, Know wyoming And montana Versus, California New, York.

Massachusetts they're all doing, this they're all moving, forward and the politics of it are.

Changing and so whether you're A republican Or democrat and you actually want to vote for our, amendment that will happen some of the other amendments.

TOO i, think what's Your so what's it's?

Interesting, look the four states you just talked about that Are republican, leaning don't surprise.

Me right.

There there there's a there's a history In montana of sort of skepticism of corporations and corporate.

Money that's a very little more bipartisan concern about it than you see in most.

States, utah, right it's civic, Mindedness, alaska Even.

Wyoming the small states sort of get.

It what's your biggest?

Hurdle, right you need thirty eight?

States you, know it means you're going to need you, KNOW i guess in theory you could do this without the Deep south red, states but make the case to The alabama legislature of why they should be for this.

Amendment, OH i think.

We can win anywhere so and you, Know, ALABAMA i, HOPE i hope we'll come on board.

Soon but you, know we passed The Oklahoma house.

Unanimously we still got to go through The, senate but the vote In oklahoma was unanimous in The.

House we've passed The.

Senate AND i, mean so this lead sponsor In, Texas Senator Angela.

Paxton you don't get to the right of The paxtons In.

Texas and and you know she's the.

Least It's Ken paxton soon to be ex, wife who's the chief sponsor for.

You you know this is this is the trick about them, fellows, Right, Yeah.

Yeah the thing about amendments is especially if you do it in a way that is respectful and actually like we're service.

Minded we serve The american people to get done.

With we want to get.

Done everybody wants to get, done but we want to get it done for different.

Reasons so we just let people do it for their own.

Reason and you start to put up these these these.

Wins so the question is why Would alabama want to do?

This not why WOULD i want to Tell alabama to do?

This In alabama's best, Interesting.

Yeah so the question for The alabama legislature is do you want to make the rules For alabama elections or do you want them to be made by five justices In.

Washington, right that's fundamentally.

It's the strongest argument you can, make almost like a states rights.

Argument, YEAH i just have a hard time If i'm an elect the legislature In alabama saying, WELL i don't really want to make the.

RULES i like the way it, is and that it's coming From.

Washington i've never heard that In.

Alabama SO i think that they will very much be behind this because, again The, amendment very, simple is a question of who decides it puts it back in the hands of the people and our.

Representatives and so we're not Telling, alabama, oh you got to.

Have this rule or you've got to have that.

Rule we're saying To, alabama we Want alabama's to decide what the rules.

Are and SO i think it's a compelling.

Case there's a reason results matter more than, promises just like there's a Reason morgan And morgan Is america's largest injury law.

Firm for the last thirty five, years they've recovered twenty five billion dollars for more than half a million, Clients it includes cases where insurance companies offered next to, nothing just hoping to get away with paying as little as.

Possible morgan And morgan fought back ended up winning.

Millions in, fact In, pennsylvania one client was awarded twenty six million, dollars which was a staggering forty times the amount that the insurance company originally.

Offered that original offer six hundred and fifty thousand dollars twenty six, million six hundred and fifty thousand.

Dollars so with more than a thousand lawyers across the, country they know how to deliver for everyday.

People if you're, injured you need a.

Lawyer you need somebody to get your.

Back check out for The people dot, Com slash podcast or now Pound, Law pound five two nine law on your cell.

Phone and remember all law firms are not the.

Same so check Out morgan And.

Morgan their fee is free unless they.

Win what's been the toughest pushback you you've had to deal?

With, WELL i think there's two forms of opposition AND i respect them both and we take them both.

Seriously one is the intellectual opposition is.

LEGIT i, mean The Supreme court isn't filled with dumb.

PEOPLE i mean this.

Theory, no this is a libertarian, argument.

Right.

Yeah the first having something to do with spending the money in politics is a serious, argument and there are still a fortunately small number of people who agree with.

It but the data on it now after fifty, years is not very supportive of that.

Theory so the, idea.

Even if one thought it made, sense now that we see it in, practice it doesn't really seem very supportive of free speech principles unless your view of free speech is different than what Most americans seem to, think which is free speech does not mean you get to drown out every other.

Person and, so but that argument is still.

There the court sticks with, it many.

Others you, know relatively, speaking it's probably ten percent in the, polling ten to fifteen.

Percent and so we respect.

That we'd love that debate because we win it every, time and because that's not where people.

Are we've seen the, data we've seen the.

Results but that's constitutional issues always have two.

Sides there's no reason why this one.

Won't so that's.

Okay we'll argue that one out we think will win the, votes and the for a freedom amendment will be the new.

Rule the second one is more, serious and that's the ones you don't see that the, operatives the multi billion dollar political industrial complex now that's made a lot of money off the.

System they're not coming out to debate, necessarily they're coming out to just try to stop.

This AND i this is.

Ject this is WHAT i fear the.

Most there is so many wealthy people In washington who have made a killing off of super.

Packs, yeah and they're mere existence and there's an entire ecosystem that is now close to twenty years old when you think back to really it began with the two thousand and four you Know act was sort of the first one of these, then and it was, like, hey you don't even have to do that.

Anymore you you don't even have to pretend there's a distinction between The kerry campaign and your independent.

Expenditure you can have the candidate themselves can raise money for both.

Entities, now, right that's essentially what since The united allowed and it's now a generational.

Industry.

Right there are people that have whose livelihoods depend on these independent.

Expenditures and you're, right like that's probably the biggest impediment you.

Have are you, know people who are afraid of losing out on.

Cash.

YEAH i think that's absolutely right when we take it.

Seriously but you, know that is the.

Fight that is the.

Question about are we able to overcome that or is this our?

Future and if it's our, future remember we're only twenty years, in as you, said back to two thousand and.

Four if imagine what it looks like twenty years from, now fifty years from, now is not.

Sustainable and so the question is are we willing to fight for what we?

Got AND i don't mean fight, VIOLENTLY i mean fight with a constitutional battle which will decide the.

Issue and we're not the first ones who had to do.

This imagine you mentioned the progressive income.

Tax imagine the amendment that had to go around saying we're going to raise, taxes, right so ours?

Bad it was because people had had.

IT i mean this is where the moment people had had it with wealthy.

People and back then the income text really only applied to a small group of.

People, yeah and there's pretty good analogies, today don't you think you, LOOK.

I think absolutely that sort of should money equal.

Power we understand money equal.

Speech but what you've actually done is you've equated those with the most money has the most.

Power was that actually the founder's?

Intent, yeah, Exactly and SO i like our.

CHANCES i don't underestimate the opposition and the.

Power but that's what this is is a power, struggle and that's what that's the that's The american story.

Is can you assuage my libertarian friends by, saying, hey this amendment doesn't prevent a state legislature or even a FUTURE Us congress from creating a system with minimal.

Limits, yeah that is the argument that gets libertarians on our, side and we have many which is WHAT i.

Thought you, Know, yeah because the WAY i read, this it doesn't it's not one.

Sided if the state Of wyoming wants to be a libertarian wants to be the inin rond experiment and essentially take away all regulate regulations and markets and on that go to, it this amendment would guarantee that within the confines of the state Of.

Wyoming, Right, yeah there's no reason a libertarian would prefer the current system over our, amendment which has a much more libertarian orientation than the current.

SYSTEM i, think you, know a lot of, libertarians just like a lot of, businesses just like a lot of wealthy.

People they, see like you, said money equaling power means government gets more and more power because it's a pay to play system and this sort of you, know and it's going up in orders of magnitude in terms of who can play and who, pays and so what you don't get is a lot of liberty going.

Around and SO i think real libertarians think about you, Know John locke and the sort of order ordered, libertarianism which, is you, know it's it's again that question of who, decides not not what the answer.

Is and so by moving it back to the, people you're absolutely.

Right if a libertarian legislature, says, hey our view, is you, know no, rules then they this doesn't force them.

Otherwise and this is a you, know it's interesting reading your Amendment.

Again the idea of paid campaigning was probably not something the founders fully thought.

About they knew there'd be, factions they knew there'd be moneyed interest per, se but it was not A i think it's.

Fairness but you're a bit more of a historian on.

THIS i, mean how front of mind was the idea of of of wealth having a contributory factor to the.

Democracy, WELL i think there's two different things.

There one is you're, right absolutely no ability even to foresee the kind of money in, politics specifically around elections and campaigns that we have they.

Did they were distrustful of, Parties they were distrustful of even acting like you're, running you, Know George washington famously, saying, Well i'll, serve But i'm not going to run around and ask for.

Votes you, know it was a it was a different kind of.

Thinking but they were obsessed with.

Corruption they were obsessed with the power of money to corrupt the political system in a lot of.

Ways the revolution was, around you, know was again it was a question who decides not not whether there should be a tax on, tea but whether who gets to make.

The people get to?

Decide, Right, Yeah.

And so you know, this a notion that it's going to be a republic versus an aristocracy is essentially saying we're going to be a place where wealth won't decide those.

Questions AND i think the the consistency of our constitutional solution of money in politics with that founding vision of What american is is really.

Profound and, LOOK i think one of your other challenges and fair unfair is limiting campaign, finance limiting putting limits on on the financing of.

Campaigns is it is perceived to help the left over the.

RIGHT i, CAN i can argue it both, ways So i'm.

NOT i am, not but that is to me a perception hurdle you, have, right anytime you can Have it's, like why IS dc not a state?

Yet and you know why can we GET dc And Puerto rico to come in?

Together you, know they because the right has to be convinced that they'll Have you know that it isn't automatically going to change the balance of, power, right that there's a equal opportunity here in having new states added that they write D c.

Alone, right the right opposes not on on on high minded grounds but on simply pure political power.

Grounds and so anytime you can have an, amendment that is that, it you, know benefits they both that ideologues on both sides could make the case helps them better off you.

Are how do you break through this idea that that limiting camp putting restrictions on the financing have campaigned only helps the?

Left, well the facts are the best argument against, that AND i think increasingly with every election cycle somebody has been punched in the face by money in, Politics so each time we have an, election we get more, data and SO i think that's that's no longer the.

Case SO i think in the early days After Citizens, united The mitch McConnell kind of Public republican party, thought, hey we can win with with unlimited money and it'll hurt The.

Democrats so why would we be Against Citizens?

United that that's no longer.

TRUE i, Mean republicans have lost The wisconsin judicial race because of, money hundred million dollars coming in for that.

One don't you want to Stop George?

Soros?

Right is that your best line to the?

Right, WELL i don't have.

To they'll say it to.

Me they'll tell me, that and it's a true.

THING i, Mean George soros really does spend a lot of money in, politics and it comes down to the local, level which it really.

Affects if you.

Think About republican, interests it's it's, local it's state.

Based and now every election has been, nationalized right down to the DA's DA's races and even school.

Committee so that's A republican.

Issue but, Look democrats have gotten very good at this game, too and nobody is too confident that they'll be able to prevail over the long haul with one system or.

ANOTHER i was talking to A Texas republican In.

Dallas he looked at our map of.

States twenty three states have gotten behind this, amendment and he looks and he, says you Got california In New.

York why would The democrats vote for?

This because in his, mind it's The democrats who have the advance with big.

Money and if you're In, texas you know this Turn texas.

Blue outside money coming in all the.

Time their experience is The democrats are using the system against, them and so everyone has their own.

Experience AND i think we're getting to the point now which which we thought would, happen and why the amendment is actually going to get done where both sides know that they actually won't have a sustained advantage in the current, system and both have an interest in.

THIS i assume you'd love if a mainstream presidential candidate or both got behind.

This, obviously if you could get both dominees behind this in twenty eight you'd get to thirty eight states pretty.

Quickly is that your hope that you're going to influence the debate, itself or how do you hope to galvanize here to get to the to get you, know twenty three states is one, thing thirty eight to?

Another or do you want to do you really Think, Congress i'm skeptical you can get it through This.

Congress you, know we look at how other amendments were.

Done you, know it's interesting the founders intentionally took the president out of the.

Deal there's no veto of, this there's no signing of.

This it's the one thing That congress does where the president has no role and the governors have no.

Role the legislatures when they, ratify do the, vote there's no governor.

Roles SO i think that's.

Intentional but obviously presidential races are focused a lot of.

Attention we would welcome both presidential candidates from both parties endorsing.

This but in the, end this isn't a top down kind of.

Thing this Is god have come up from the people from the.

States that's how you get the vote In.

Congress that's why we do the work with The americans in every.

State we don't care who you vote.

For we're on the ground and Supporting americans to get this.

Done and that'll be plenty to get our congressional vote and ratification in The.

States the presidential politics of, it you, know it could help or could.

Hurt if one side supports and the other side, doesn't then it's we're pushing up against partisan.

Perceptions and so our job is simply to Support americans where we live in The, states and we'll get we'll get the.

Votes, so.

You, know we do have a candidate pledge and we invite all candidates to sign, it and and we have about half and Half republicans And.

Democrats but in the you, know the politics of the presidential race in twenty eight will we'll do what they.

Do and in the, meantime there's a lot of work that we all can do where we.

Live and that's get you, know get behind this, amendment move it forward and ask our elected, representatives no matter which party they, are to support.

It and then it'll be in the presidential candidate's interest to do so, too because that's where the votes will come.

From where is the most amount of your efforts to galvanize people Go is it on the ground in state legislative?

Races is it?

More Where how is it that you feel you guys can be the most?

Effective, Yeah the biggest THING i would say about, That, chuck is we don't we always say we're not going to end the.

Constitution american promise isn't going to do.

It The american people will do.

It our job is to.

Serve and so what is the highest, leverage fastest way we can Move americans behind this constitutional solution to money in.

Politics and so a lot of our staff support is in the, states supporting people, there and we have replicable work through networks like business, networks local, chambers local.

Rotaries and if we do, that not only are we getting the wins in the state, legislatures we're leaving in those states after they pass.

This it's not like we're parachuting it in and then.

Leaving we're leaving behind a well informed electorate that is eager to see this, done that's carrying it forward with leadership from state, legislators from business, groups from civic.

Groups so that's where we focus our.

Attention it's not really about just you, know landing in trying to get wins and moving.

On it's about support through these kind of, networks network.

Strategy and, so, yeah we want votes and.

Legislatures we've we've racked up a whole bunch of.

Them we've won ballad.

Initiatives we're seven and zero in states on ballid initiatives the most, recent And maine was eighty six.

Percent so we do the work that Lets americans be heard on this and then gets legislators voting for, it no matter which party they.

Are, so you, know a lot of times having you, know there's nothing like a reform smoker to tell you not to.

Smoke you, know do you have a Living koch brother And George soros jointly supports something like.

This do you have super wealthy donors that have that have benefited from the system come out and Favor does that help or hurt your?

Cause, WELL i will, say, first we disclose all our, donors SO i encourage you to sign up At americanpromise dot net check out our annual.

Report and the REASON i say that the beauty of it is you can look at all our donors AND i bet you won't know any of.

Them it's regular.

People and it doesn't mean they're all small dollar.

Donors there are people wealthy people too who are very concerned about this.

Interest, yeah and, yes many of them participate in the current.

System spending, wise but it's not working for, them just like it's not working for most.

PEOPLE i, remember you, know we're talking to somebody who's fairly, wealthy basically telling, us you, know ten million dollars doesn't get your phone calls returned.

Anymore so it's like when they start feeling like they have no, voice you know.

That, well it's, funny, right the seven figure donor is just another.

Donor, yeah major parties, now so it really it's.

Funny it's sort of like what used to buy?

Access does?

It?

Well you you don't get what you're paid for, anymore, Right like.

All sorts of.

THINGS i remember WHEN i remember when bribing a politician was a, nickel, Right, no, yeah maybe that is maybe that is a way to get some of these folks on.

Board, yeah but you, know the we have no, cokes we have no, sources we have no famous.

Downers But i'd encourage all of them to like ask, themselves you, know whether you're the coach or the, sarus is this really working for you and for the.

Country and it would be great to see them, say, hey we can keep doing, this but let's join together and put an end to.

It jeff.

Clements it's, Look I'M i am one of those who believes we are in a moment that, FRANKLY i think we could use from civics, education we could use a moment focusing on The constitution and sort of getting people.

THERE i think, inevitably you, know in some, days you know this is never let a crisis go to.

Waste this is one of.

Those we're in a crisis moment for.

Democracy it's an opportunity to do some.

Repairs so we'll see if we'll do.

It we'll see if we can get.

Traction absolutely, Well thank, You, chuck really enjoyed talking with you.

Today appreciate, It appreciate the, Time, john good luck with.

It thank you so.

Much thank Care.

WELL i hope you're ready to sign.

Up as at the point there is is simply this is an amendment about giving our legislative branches on the federal level and on the state level the power to do.

This, ultimately the judiciary has taken away the legislative branch's ability to actually regulate the financing of campaigns because there's been an interpretation that money equals.

Speech so if you want to have regulating any sort of regulation regulating on, spending regulating on, giving you're going to have probably you're going to have to.

Have it's clear our judiciary has, said you, know you could spend fifty years hoping you can convince judges to look at the content The First amendment differently on that, front or you'll put in an amendment that is because guess what this won't take Away and that's WHY i ended it.

There this is not about putting in an amendment to regulate the financial doesn't mean a state might, say, hey we're gonna have unlimited.

Financing you, know there's just but the point is is giving that power to the legislature rather than giving that power to the, judiciary which in this, case we've allowed unelected judges to decide our campaign finance.

Laws and that is not what anybody.

Intended All, RIGHT i got my top five.

List it Is, Wednesday Top top AND i thought i'd give you the opportunity to give you maybe The Chuck Todd holiday book buying gift, guide if you.

Will these are five books THAT i think are worth reading this.

Year doesn't mean they're my five favorite books of the, year but they were five books THAT i found, informative, important or interesting or a little bit of.

Both so number five on that list is a book that did not come out this.

Year it actually came out a few years, ago and it's not a book that got a lot of.

Attention but it is now a book THAT i would recommend to anybody that works in the world of finance or works in the world of business that they need to go pick up a copy in the next few weeks and.

Read and it is Called The, drift and it is By Kevin.

Hassett so why DO i say you need to write this book read this?

Book, well this is a book that got very little attention when it came.

Out he wrote this book probably assuming he was never going to work in Another trump.

Administration the book came out just after the twenty twenty.

Election Kevin hassett worked in the First Trumpet he's one of the few people that worked in a high profile position in the First trump administration as an economic advisor and has made it to a Second trumpet.

Administration it's basically Him Stephen, miller, right AND i Guess russell voightd was was, there but but more in a in a in a lower.

Capacity But Kevin hassett very well maybe the next chair of The Federal, reserve and so understanding his worldview and much of his, worldview he's sort of the point of the drift is he basically defends The trump, era defends his work With trump and The trump era as, look there may be a lot of things not to like About Donald, trump the, person which he sort of which he hinside in this, book but that he was a necessary correction for what was a drift towards socialism that was taking place not just inside The Democratic party but in various institutions of academy and the, media et.

Cetera it is how he frames his.

Book regardless of whether you agree with that framing or, NOT i would, argue if you want to be a well informed person about understanding where's THE fed, going what Does hassett?

Believe how does he Interpret trump's?

Beliefs how does he Defend?

Trump Kevin, asseid who somebody who sort of came up in the, world the same world That Alan greenspan came up.

Through you, know he was sort of an acolyte at times of Green.

Span SO i think it it.

Is it is as illuminating as any ex staffer book is going to be because what this book wasn't unlike Say pence's book Or John bolton's.

Book it isn't a total evisceration Of Donald.

Trump it is more of an.

Observation you, know there's he takes, Pride so it is not an antagonistic book On.

Trump BUT i think it's one of.

THESE i don't think people realized he wrote a.

Book didn't get a lot of.

Attention it's you, know it's not The i'm not going to tell you it's the world's greatest, read BUT i think it's an important.

READ i know some of you listen to my podcast just for you, know whether you love or hate the DIRECTION i take this.

Podcast you were looking for usable, information, WELL i would tell you reading this book will give you plenty of usable information to navigate A fed and a central bank that could be run By Kevin.

Hassett and you get to get ahead of the, game get to know the book before senators start asking him questions during his confirmation hearing about the.

Book all, right so that's number.

Five number four is The Mark twain book By Ron.

CHERNOW i enjoyed it for the most, part But i'll be, honest not as much AS i enjoyed His grant.

BOOK i did enjoy His grant book, more BUT i learned a lot About Mark.

Twain and in some, Ways Mark twain is, arguably you, know the closest thing that we had in the nineteenth century to a quote unquote, influencer, right an outsider and outside force who could who could stir the pot of the country and could galvanize the country on certain issues if he so.

Chose you, know now we have a Million Mark twain's.

Right you, know would Today's mark Would Mark twain himself be on?

YouTube he probably.

Would he certainly would have A would he have a podcast or would he be more of a monologue kind of?

Guy?

Right would he interview others or would he just simply opine on a given?

Day but, uh it's A i enjoy sure now because he's WOULD i do the best part of his.

Books it isn't just learning more about the individual he's talking, about but he just does a great job of capturing the era as.

Well you, know it's the little, details it's that, stuff trying to understand the world that these folks were living in at the, time not just trying to understand the psyche of them in that.

Moment so BUT i think That twain in some ways the Quintessential, american a model for so, many so many of, us, good bad or otherwise just a it's a timely it's a timely.

Moment it's, timely you, know it's it's timely's the wrong.

Word, no it's more of a timeless, biography if you.

Will BUT i think an important, one and it came out this, year SO i definitely think it should be on your on your gift.

Liss number three is is one that you may not be surprised And I'm i'm pushing again and it's the Right thompson book Called The.

BARN i don't know if it technically came out this year or.

NOT i don't think it.

DID i think it came out last.

Year but as you, know you know it's this first of, all it's just this is a really just a great book to.

Read it is if you want to, write what it's like to read somebody who just is just better with words than most people in your life.

Are that's Right thompson AND i LOVE i hope you had a chance to listen to the interview with.

Them those of you that.

Did i'm sure you've already bought the.

Book it is such a compelling.

Read but the sort of the idea behind the, book, right that here was something that happened within twenty five miles of where he grew.

Up, Right Emmett till killed in a barn just within essentially the same neighbor you, know in the same larger community that he grew up.

In that Right thompson grew up, in and he didn't know anything about.

It it's amazing how little of our own a little of our local, history we sometimes know the good or the bad.

History and so in some, ways reading the, BOOK i hope a lesson to, hey don't forget to look around where you.

Live don't forget to learn the history of your own.

Neighborhood you may be surprised on how much you learn and how much it may matter in the in the grand scheme of.

Things so that's number.

Three number four on my list is one hundred and Seven, Days Kamala harris's memoir about her.

Campaign, Look i've spent a lot of time talking about the book when it came, out BUT i did enjoy.

IT i you, know we can debate whether this was good for her future political career or bad for her future political.

Career but guess what it felt.

Like it was sometimes these memoirs are so, dishonest are or they're, honest but they're but they're.

Sanitized this didn't feel very.

Sanitized this felt.

Different and you know it's interesting about.

HER i was having this conversation With crystalism and he, said you know who had the, yes who had the best or worst twenty twenty.

Eight you, know we both agreed That Gavin, newsom for anybody think about running for president of The democratic, Side Kevin newsom probably had the best twenty twenty.

Eight he believes That Kamala harris at the.

WORST i.

DON'T i disagreed with him on.

IT i understood the case, saying, well you, know she made everybody, mad and it's, true, right she seems to.

Have she seems to have thrown a few matches at a few of the bridges that she's crossed over the.

Years right, then maybe she burned a bridge With Biden, world maybe she burned a bridge with Jos, Shapiro maybe she burned a bridge With Mark.

Kelly maybe she burned a bridge With Gavin.

Newsom but there was another part of me that was surprised at her, candor and she didn't play the.

Type you, know she's been a politician that's been very careful over the, years and she chose to be less careful in this.

Memoir is this a Different Kamala?

Harris is this the beginning of a different relationships she wants to have with with her political, career a different way she'd go about running for.

Office the point is is THAT i think there's a lot to learn about one hundred and scent about sort of the state of The Democratic party circa twenty twenty.

Four BUT i found it quite, compelling and it, was you, know not a hard.

Read especially you, know it was sort of like it's like reading the director's notes on a movie you already, saw but in some ways the director's notes help you understand the movie even a little bit.

BETTER i think you're not wasting your time by reading this.

BOOK i think there's something to learn and the number one book And i'm in the middle of it, now BUT i think it is absolutely consequential reading circa twenty twenty five is a book Called Fateful.

Hours it is by Vulkar ulwrich And it's been translated from the Original german by a gentleman Named Jefferson, chase and it is a new take on the collapse of the we are, republic the democracy that was in place After World War one and before the rise Of.

Hitler why did it?

Fall how did it?

Collapse what were the warning?

Signs there's a lot of commentary about how democracies, fail how republic how republics.

Die, well this is an example of a republic that died one hundred years ago and in its place came made Off.

Hitler how did it?

Happen how could such a modern westernized place do.

This let's just SAY i have found it both reassuring and, alarming but most importantly it's eye.

Opening and, LOOK i a is the the the the the they must read article of the month THAT i gave you last episode from the political quarterly of the count On Foreign relations Called Foreign, affairs about this idea that we The United states have slipped from a democracy to something called competitive.

Authoritarianism let's just say this is a pretty good companion, read AND i think one that will round.

Out you read all five of these, Books, okay you read all five of these books AND i think you will be as well informed and as ready for the political landscape that we are all having to navigate going in to twenty twenty.

Six so my five Books The drift By Kevin, hassett The Mark twain biography By Ron Chernow The Barn The Place where A Mattil Was killed By Right, Thompson one hundred and Seven days By Kamala, harris and my number one recommendation book that you should be reading going into twenty twenty, Six Faithful Hour The collapse of the Wim Are.

Republic so there you.

Go there's your shopping list for the political junkie in your.

Life all, right let's do a little, Ass chuck Asked.

Chuck first question today comes From jason IN ny otherwise known As New.

York he, Goes, HEY i really appreciate the bonus episodes that you put out, recently as political events have.

WARRANTED i too believed that The indiana GOP's rebuke Of trump And trump's revolting comments About Rob reiner were significant enough moments to call for quick.

Reactions hope to see if more of those in the.

Future, WELL i appreciate.

It, LOOK i go hot and cold on THAT i don't want to Be i'm not you, know somebody who's just, chasing you, KNOW i don't want to be here quote chasing the, news if you.

Will BUT i also think that that IF i THINK i have something to add and trying to add a perspective about how you should think about a major, event that's WHEN i try to try to chime in on.

That AND i think these were both significant, events AND i think that they're going to trigger larger.

Discussions.

RIGHT i think The indian Of gyop rebuke is a reminder that something That i've been sort of forecasting for the last three.

MONTHS i send you back to a sub STECK i THINK i wrote in Late september Early, october which the cracks in the coalition were beginning to.

Show and then you, know right after that, piece we've seen more and more examples of.

It, right whether It's Marjorie Taylor, green whether it's The Indiana, republicans and, yaha, YadA.

YadA so it, is you, know it is part of this is just, time.

Right no political movement has THAT i can think of in our, history has been able to go more than more than eight to ten.

Years and we're sort of we're at the, end, Right we're at The we're at The we're at the beginning of the.

End we're at the.

End it's not the end of the.

End it's not the end of the.

Beginning, OKAY i think that's that we're past the end of the.

BEGINNING i think we're at the beginning of the.

End and this is you, know it's everything is going to get is going to get worse for.

Him.

Everything you, Know you're going to see The republicans fracture a little bit more the closer we get to election.

Day, Look i'm not saying some new outside event that none of us have thought of won't create a rally around the flag.

Effect there's always there are always.

Possibilities there's always the one, percent the two percent chances where things go another.

Direction but on the trajectory we're on and assuming sort of you, know events that take place within the normal sort of set of expectations that we, have this is only going to get more.

Acute and, then of, course on the writer, THING i really think.

IT i think there's a Reason i'm framing it as a do we need to be thinking about whether he's this is the beginning of his own downfall of is just his basic.

Capacity if you don't have a filter for something like this, anymore what else is not going so?

Well SO i think this is one of those that we needed.

This this for me is a bit more alarming because either staff was afraid to tell him this was, crazy or they did and he did it, anyway, Right and so these felt significant.

Enough SO i appreciate you, noticing BUT i promise YOU i don't want to go, down you, know chasing every squirrel down that.

Road all.

Right next question comes From eric from another question From New.

York given the competitiveness Of ohio And IOWA Us center, races do you think A democrat could win The Florida senate?

Race?

Thanks, Eric, well, look all the ingredients are there for a competitive.

Race you have an appointed.

Senator the history of appointed senators in general indicate, that you, know they're the most you, know they're more vulnerable than even a first term senator trying to seek.

Reelection appointed, senators you, know have the have the worst of all, worlds, Right they they have the they're an incumbent without any of the upside of.

Incumbency they only have the downsides of.

It so there's that, right And Ashley moody's you, know she's not a well known political figure, yet and But florida's very, expensive and The Florida Democratic party is just structurally so far.

Behind you, know Shared brown has an organization that these almost turn key For Ohio.

Democrats and even though that's a state where overall The Democratic party is in Worsh democratic maybe brand is in worship In ohio than it is In.

Florida structurally they're already more.

Competitive They're iowa being a smaller.

State they have a very strong gubernatorial candidate In rob sand that also helps it be.

COMPETITIVE i do think that if the governor's race gets, competitive then The senate race will automatically start to get more.

Competitive keep it eye out On Jared.

MOSCOWITZ i think if he ends up, running he's a member Of.

Congress he's been on this, podcast he.

SAID i asked him point blank if he was thinking about running, statewide and he, said, well if they redistrict me and he would be among the.

Targets AND i do Think florida still.

MIGHT i, Mean i'll be curious to see Whether indiana's rejection of redistricting that if it means the fever's.

Broken but if we do have two more states that engage in, this it's gonna Be florida And, virginia one for the Team red and one For Team.

Blue and we'll see what kind of we'll know pretty.

QUICKLY i Think jared Moscow it's could be a very Powerful senate candidate if because he said if he gets redistrict he represents sort of Northern Broward, county Southern Palm Beach, county they could sort of make it a bit you know already was only sort of A i think a plus Two harris.

District he could turn it could turn into something that he's.

Buying and he sickly said if they go after his district and he'll probably just run for The.

Senate there's a candidate in there, now somebody who's a school board part of the school board wars with The moms Of.

Liberty it's an organization on the left that went After moms For liberty and somebody.

There but you know she's got a you're not going to get a financial commitment unless you get a higher profile.

Candidate moscowotz might be a high profile enough where he could bring a decent a decent financial following with.

Him BUT i don't think The senate race gets competitive without the governor's race being, competitive and that's an open.

QUESTION i do think That democrats ended up with two pretty good candidates in the governor's, race And David johny And Jerry.

Demings one could argue one of them out of run in The senate race that they've got too many good candidates in the governor's, race not enough good candidates in The senate.

Race but we'll say BUT i do think it should.

Be but the cost is it's so.

PROHIBITIVE i think they're more likely to spend money Targeting mississippi and trying to Put mississippi in, play which is not as far fetched as you might, think because five million, dollars you, know an extra five to ten million dollars In mississippi would have a huge.

Impact an extra five to ten million dollars In florida would have minimal.

Impact next question comes From Tboor shinto From.

Toronto he, says longtime listener watcher From toronto, HERE i have a possibly naive question about journalism in THE.

Us why didn't reporters directly challenge the president when he makes inappropriate offensive statements like the ones About Rob ryner are calling journalists.

Stupid many in the media react ON tv or in, print but rarely pushed back to his face in the.

Moment why isn't anyone asked him directly why he behaves that, way maybe using more polite, Language just curious why no one takes that?

Shot thanks for all the great, Insights, WELL i would argue in the first, term we all.

DID i would ask him questions about.

IT i confronted him directly at an off the record meeting during when he was president, elect basically saying when he name checks our correspondence in the, field he puts their lives at.

Risk he puts a spotlight on him in ways that he.

DOES i believe he didn't, intend is HOW i put.

It but you, know there's a REASON i think In trump two point, zero why so many people in these same positions that some of us were in have chosen not to do it because none of you, know nobody wants to be fodder to help somebody else's social media, following and SO i think there's this belief that it it doesn't do what you think it's going to, do and if, anything it only it only it only puts you in a position of having to debate the, president, right which is you're just.

So it's a lot of us don't want to be a, story and we don't want to insert, ourselves not out of, fear out of.

Distraction we don't want to be used as a you, KNOW i didn't like.

IT i always WHENEVER i got a whiff of a guest trying to use an appearance to raise money to don't, fundraise you, KNOW i did my best to gum that.

Up there's a fairly memorable back and FORTH i had With Ted cruz one time that it was clear he accepted the invitation only to try to use me as an attempt for political fundraising.

Fodder but the tone of the conversation went in such a way that he would have been a self owned had he tried.

IT i didn't realize that's what he was up to until about halfway through the, interview and it was, like, oh NOW i know why you came, On and it was just.

Anyway it was during the first.

Impeachment if you want to go back and go find that back and forth THAT i had with, him let's just Say i'll just use three letters to give you a hint about where the conversation went TO jfk And i'll just let you know and you can sort of imagine where the where that part of the conversation.

Went SO i think that's the that's, why you, know it doesn't feel like it gets you, anywhere and IT i don't want to say journalists don't do it out of.

Fear fear is the wrong.

WORD i think it's sort of like is it?

Effective like, ultimately what is our?

Role is your role to get information out to?

UNDERSTAND i could tell you the private Conversations i've had with him about.

This i'm, like why do you you know you do?

That you?

Know he he sort of has always viewed the press as playing a, part like almost like the chorus and A shakespeare, play that that we're all playing a, role and his role is to go after the.

Press the press is sort of, that you, Know i've always equated.

It he sees us all as if you're familiar with THE wwf SLASH, Wwe AND i Have the REASON i USED wwf is back in my, day it was THE wwf and it was a guy named the press person was a guy Named Gene okerland mean Gene, oakerland and he was, who you, know all the wrestlers picked on because he was the, press you, know et.

Cetera AND i always said that That trump sort of viewed us as Mean Gene, oakland that we were kind of in on the.

Joke and he would say even say things to me, like, oh it's just good for your, ratings it's good for your.

NAME i d you, know it only gives you more, attention it only makes you more, money it only gives you more book.

Deals that was his mindset about it back.

Then IT'S i think that's a little more.

Nefarious BUT i, don't you, know what what do you?

Expect what do you expect him to?

Say sometimes when you, ask you, KNOW i understand sort of, like you, Know i'd rather press him on why is he pardoning a convicted Drug why did he pardon somebody who was convicted of being a drug?

Trafficker are you taking you?

Know did you?

Know did?

It you?

Know why do you pardon your?

Friends you?

Know why did you pardon you, Know Henry?

Kuayer you, KNOW i think there are other questions that if you have the chance at a, shot a question because let's, say you, know why did you say that About Rob bryner and his.

ANSWER i can tell you what his answer, Was, well he attacked me.

First it's always that's always usually his defense when they came after.

Me you, KNOW i wouldn't have said anything had they not said.

This you, know he always, SAYS i don't attack.

PEOPLE i defend, myself so BUT i.

Could BUT i definitely you're, right there is less of this Than trump two point zero because as many of us tried this In trump one point zero and it didn't seem to go, Anywhere it didn't seem to didn't really produce an.

Answer you, KNOW i think there's a lot of, people And i'm you know that listen to this podcast that want the press to express the outrage that they.

Have but it's the equivalent of punching your you, know punching a, wall a dry.

Wall you, know you might punch a hole in the wall and you might feel, strong but then you've got to go back and patch up the, wall and what have you really?

Accomplished you, know you can express your outrage in.

Him he doesn't say anything, satisfactory and whatever he says will outrage people who are already, outraged and so it's you, KNOW i think that's you, KNOW i don't and maybe that's not a satisfactory enter to.

YOU i get, it but you, know there comes a point of you, know is there anything to be gained and understanding more about him or are you just trying to go viral for yourself right To, hey, LOOK i took On Donald.

Trump some of us are not in the game of just making this about, ourselves, right and SO i think that's also also plays a role on that.

Front next question comes From adam w Any.

Rights i'm curious about your thoughts on.

This affordability seems to be the central theme That democrats seem to be winning.

On one of the sneaky culprits of rising costs is the complete lack of competition and various segments of the.

Economy perhaps it is the lawyer in, me BUT i don't understand Why democrats haven't begun at least bringing up the issue of breaking up big.

Monopolies Thanks ADAM.

W, well you're, RIGHT i think.

That in, FACT i think there's going to be a fear of doing.

That but you, know they're you, KNOW i think the the stuff that's popular is when you point out how these monopolies are costing you.

Money and SO i just had an interview with an economist on my newsphere show a couple episodes, ago where we spent a lot of time on the issue of surveillance pricing and the fact that you have, this we have this phenomenon these days of dynamic pricing where basically the new goal is to figure, Out, hey how DO i Maximize you, know, You Chuck, todd have a little bit more money to spend versus You Jane, doe who has less money to.

SPEND i want to have you both as.

Customers BUT i know you can pay more Than Jane.

Doe how CAN i get you to pay more In Jane doe to pay me?

Something AND i think that you, know whether we've seen that airlines are thinking about going down this.

Road it was a really good, story AND i think it was The Washington post about uber and lyft and how you, know on one, phone you, know based on information they may have about, you the price is one.

Thing on another, phone based on information they have on the person who owns that, phone the price for the same ride from the same location to the same location is suddenly, different and how much of it is based on what they think you're sort of, Oh i'm, Not i'm not that's too expensive for me versus.

That AND i think that's the type of of discrimination that will really sort of you, know middle class discrimination is when the middle class grabs the pitchforks watch out, right, like you, know when when the supposedly, comfortable you, know enough to own a, home you, know have a, couple have two, cars be able to afford kids, college all that, stuff and they feel as if they're being taken advantage of because they have a couple extra, dollars you, know the middle and the upper middle class.

Revolting that's that's when politicians sometimes finally finally start to pay attention to some of these.

THINGS i think it's possible you will see going after you, know tech monopolies on, this but we're not quite there yet BECAUSE i don't think the public sees the evidence, yet, RIGHT i don't think we're you kind of have.

To the public needs to be a bit better informed on, this AND i think you're seeing more and more coverage that's focused on sort of how consolidation in various industries has cost the consumer.

Money, now this is WHAT i think has been the you, KNOW i think local media used to do consumer reporting a lot better than national, media and the loss of local journalism has really gutted the consumer journalism.

World this is where, INFLUENCERS i, think come.

In and this is something THAT i, think if you, KNOW i think trusted media was higher when we had a lot more consumer reporters dedicated to saving consumers money and from being ripped.

Off and the lion's share of those reporters were on the local.

Level so the gutting of local gutted out the reporters that were providing a real service to Average.

Americans AND i think the you, know this is among my.

Goals why DO i want to revitalize local news BECAUSE i think this is the biggest missing piece when it comes to the lack of trust that we have nationally and met with media is we lost our local character references and they did a better job worrying about helping people on a local level than we have the ability to do on the national.

Level.

Uh and SO i think if once we you, know there's more reporting locally on scams and pricing discrimination and things like, that which is where you're more likely to see.

This then you'll hit critical mass and it becomes suddenly something that they want politicians to do something.

About all, Right the last question for today is going to come From, dave and he, writes Is chuck really enjoy the?

Podcast appreciate the mixture of, politics, history and college football right.

On also love the guests you have for interviews and all the information that comes from those.

Conversations can you tell us how interview prep has changed for you from the shorter time limits you had to meet the press to now being able to do long form interviews on the.

Podcast would love to hear some of your thoughts on what you think makes a great guest conversation on your.

Show thanks and happy.

Holidays, well the biggest thing is just right just having more.

Time it means THAT i spend more time on a specific policy idea that the guests may have in wanting to go four or five or six questions deep on seid right in to meet the, press if somebody was rolling out a policy proposal your eight to ten minute, interview you do one follow, up maybe you, know maybe a second if it's you think it's really interesting to the, viewers then you end up moving.

On we don't have to do that, here and that's you, know that to me allows for some of the nuanced debate and we end up what you get and WHAT i Think i'll tell.

You you ask me what makes a GOOD i think what makes a good conversation is when we end is when you end up understanding all sides of an argument without having me and the guests debate each, other because HOPEFULLY i have asked a few of the let me ask the perspective from the, left let me ask the perspective from the, right and you, know depending on what their point of view, is and that by the end of the, conversation if you feel like that you would understand how this issue would then get debated between sort of stereotypical left versus stereotypical.

Right Then i've accomplished.

Something right Then i've given you a, complete uh conversation that makes you prepared to understand this issue no matter where else you end up getting information about.

IT i think the best conversations are when THAT i WHEN i kind of know them a little.

BIT i think that always helps because they're more comfortable with me because they know me a little.

Bit SO i think those make good conversation better podcast.

Conversations, OBVIOUSLY i do take a much less antagonistic posture because this is you, KNOW i always say, this you know it meet the.

Press there was an expectation that this is an accountability, show and this is where we're gonna you, know you've gotta you're, test you're testing your your beliefs that you, know you're you, gotta you, gotta you gotta tell, them you, know you gotta explain your.

Rationale and it devoted to a you, know single issue or a topic or a couple of topics versus here WHERE i may, have you, know a large singular reason for booking that, guest, say on the issue of how do we open up primaries to all?

Voters but it means we can meander around a little.

Bit but it's also you, know not everybody can carry forty five, minutes so you have to be mindful of, that just like you, know some people are great ten minute, interviews terrible thirty minute interviews and vice.

Versa so in that, sense you've got to you've got to.

Know but it IS i will tell you, this there was only one, interview And i'm not going to say who it.

Is you guys might be able to figure it out by just.

Listening there's only one interview WHERE i felt LIKE i ran out of questions BEFORE i ran out of, Time and ultimately that means we're doing a good job of, booking BECAUSE i hope to have the type of guess where we you, know an hour is, great but believe it or, not there were some questions left on the.

Table if there are no questions left on the, table then probably the guest wasn't quite worth the forty five MINUTES i may have spent with.

Them BUT i actually think SINCE i started this podcast re upped this podcast On, APRIL i could think of only once THAT i sat here AND i, thought, Well i'm kind of exhausted from.

QUESTIONS i got to, go BUT i kind of IF i finally go twenty minutes with this, interview AM i sending the signal that this was a total?

Dud?

Right it's LIKE i almost didn't want to DO i didn't think that was fair to the, person SO i wanted to make SURE i hit a minimum a minimum time.

Slot my guess, Is I'M i don't want you guys to play the guessing game of who it.

Is but it's usually pretty obvious when you know somebody isn't working.

Out it's usually because they don't want to answer, questions and you're, like, well why the hell did you come on?

Here?

Right what did you think this was going to?

Be and, thankfully in some ways the format is self.

Selecting right if you if you're not comfortable sort of having a conversation for forty minutes with, me then you're not going to come on.

Anyway so in that sense it can be self.

Selecting, LOOK i Wish i've had there are there are a few More republicans That i've been trying to get to come on that won't or haven't said yes.

Yet hopefully they're listening right.

Now AND i THINK i know.

Why, like it's not that they worried about.

Me they just somehow think that their own voters will that that that they only want to spend forty five minutes talking to their to their.

Base they are not interested in talking to swing, voters talking to, independence talking to the intellectually, Curious and that's disappointing to.

ME i think in, IT i think once The Orange man leaves The oval, office these People i've been trying to get to come, on will come.

On but you, KNOW i know that for some for some of these, folks they don't want to they don't want to have to not answer a question that they know is logical for me to, ask which is just a, disappointment, Right but this is the world we live.

In look What look What Susie wilds just had to.

Do you, know she had to put out an apology tweet for an audience of.

One and there are people that are always looking to aggregate and cherry pick what somebody.

Says, hey you Know Tom cotton said this To Chuck todd on his to on his, podcast you, know and you know that's just unfortunately the way, things you, know things get weaponized on the stupid left and the stupid, right which is, right we know right that it's those it's those that are in the business of grifting you on.

Ideology and these people exist on the left and the, right my, friends that have scared off some of these folks from coming and swimming in the intellectually curious.

Pool but, hey come on in the water's, comfortable and if you're comfortable in your own, skin everything's going to be easy on the check.

Podcast but if you're not comfortable in your own, skin then, yeah it's going to be an uncomfortable forty five.

Minutes, hey, listen another round of great.

Questions there's, more a lot more to.

COME i am also.

WAITING i am.

Curious i've not gotten a lot of feedback yet from, you specific feedback on where you guys aren't prediction.

MARKETS i just would love an array of, experiences the, good the, bad the, ugly you know, again, nonsports the prediction, markets through the prism of non, sports everything.

Else i'm very curious good, experience bad, experience you, Know are you, curious are you?

Nervous any of those?

THINGS i am, Like Like i've expressed to, You i'm cautiously pessimistic about the prediction markets and yet and keeping an eye on them because SOMEHOW i have a feeling it's going to be more impactful than we want to admit.

Anyway with, That i'm going to shut it down for another twenty four, hours BUT i will be back in twenty four, Hours so thank you for, listening and until we upload, again