ICYMI – On today’s episode of Pod Save America, hosts Jon Favreau, Jon Lovett, and Tommy Vietor discuss the powerful political message candidates can send to voters by rejecting corporate PAC money and the important policy implications for getting corporate money out of politics.
LISTEN at 23:50: Pod Save America – “The White Nationalist Variety Hour” [August 14, 2018]
Abbreviated transcript below –
Jon Favreau: So I want to talk about the Democrats’ relationship to corporate money. The New York Times ran a story recently about how more and more Democratic candidates are rejecting money from Political Action Committees sponsored by corporations or industry groups. These candidates are people like Beto O’Rourke, who’s raised more than $23 million this cycle without accepting PAC money—Political Action Committee (that’s what that stands for). The Times cites a report by Pew that found that 75 percent of the public feels there should be limits on the amount of money individuals or organizations can spend on political campaigns. Guys, why do you think it’s important that Democrats do this? Do you think it’s important Democrats do it?
…
Tommy Vietor: I mean, from a political perspective—Ok from a crass political operative perspective, I think Beto’s campaign shows you can do ok without taking PAC money. He’s raised $23 million this cycle! He’s outraising Ted Cruz. Again, from a crass political perspective, it is a potent message. In 2008 we painted on the walls of our Iowa offices – the exterior – not paid for by PAC or lobbyist money. People loved that about Barack Obama. Granted, we muddled that message in 2016, but it was a very important distinction not to take that money.
Because you can’t ever—you will not ever convince me that getting a big PAC check or getting a lobbyist check doesn’t change the way you think about an issue, or change the way you think about an individual’s interest before you. I don’t believe that that’s the case. It just does. So, from a political perspective, I think it’s a potent message. Especially in this environment, when you have more corruption in DC than we’ve ever seen in decades
From a policy level, I think we should try to be better than them. So for the DNC, I think we have the right climate change policies—we believe in cap and trade, we believe in the Paris Climate Accords. But I also think we should practice what we preach by not taking PAC money from say Exxon. I think that’s fitting.
JF: Well, I want to get to that in a second. I would just—I want to echo the point—In 2008, you’ve never seen polling like this in your life. Or focus groups like this. The amount of people who tell you that money in politics is an issue, that corporate money in politics is an issue, that politicians are too influenced by money and lobbyists, it is insane! I’ve never seen anything like it. It cuts across all parties—it’s Democrats, Independents, Republicans. And the Clinton campaign underestimated it in 2008. They still took money from lobbyists.
…
Jon Lovett: Yeah I mean I think there’s a policy question and there’s a politics question. The politics question is incredibly clear. It is incredibly clear that people are hungry for this and they see it as a signal. A signal that they understand that this is an under appreciated issue for millions and millions of people. And I think all the evidence points to what Jon’s saying, that you more than make up for the lack of corporate PAC money with enthusiasm, small-dollars, etc. etc.
…
JF: Low-dollar donations can fund any campaign in 2018. And I double-checked this with all of our friends who are fundraisers, because these are the people who have to raise money for a campaign. Every single one of our friends who are fundraisers, who are on the finance staffs, will tell you that low-dollar donations can fuel—can more than make up for any kind of money you get from lobbyists or corporate PACs. So rejecting corporate PACs—Tommy this is what you were talking about a couple seconds ago—rejecting corporate PAC money sounds like a no-brainer for Democrats.