Support for this episode comes from the University of Chicago people, argue about anything and everything, but when we argue about human rights, though there is a lot at stake, there's a new podcast out of you, Chicago about human rights, is called entitled co hosted by lawyers Tomkins. Claudia Flores they'll use their expertise, advising governments across the world on all sorts of human rights issues to accept or why rights matter, and what's the matter with rights? The show launches later this summer subscribe wherever you get your podcast Miss episode, has brought you by wine dot com, hey wine lovers, tired of staring aimlessly at the wine I'll, go to wine dot com and pick the perfect bottle with confidence. Every time filter your search by

ratings and even chat with wine exports for recommendations. It's the world's largest wine stores, delivered to your door, get fifty dollars off your first order. By going to wind outcome, Slash Spotify terms apply from CAFE, welcome to stay to our people. Once you undermine that basic faith that people have in their democratic institutions, that things are going to be done in a regular order and the votes will be counted properly and they'll be counted accurately and people will have access to sure size, fair choices in a free and fair manner. When you undermine the trust in that system, it is very hard to build back up. So I really feel that This is a very fraught time for democracy and I feel and obligations to stand up for truth and facts and to make sure that

people understand? What's real and what's not that's wonderful The commissioner on the: U S: Federal Election Commission, the Effie see where she, Sir since two thousand to this week. We divert a bit from the usual format of stay tuned, to bring you a special segment before to my conversation with Effie, see, commissioner, on Weintraub, I'm joined by my friends, LISA Monaco and can wasting, in kind of serve at the highest levels of government and their career paths strikingly similar- through alarms DC was attorney's office. Both had a deal these National security division, both for chief of staff to them The director Bob Mahler and both as a system to the president and homeland security and counter terrorism, they join me. because they now add another impressive prudential to their sterling resident colossal cafes, new podcast, United Security. This by weekly part, ass will be exclusively available for members of the cafe insider community,

just as an Milgram and breakdown politically charged legal matters lease and can we making sense of politically charged national security issues. The podcast launches tomorrow and for a limited time you can see have to listen to the full episode for free, a cafe, dot com, Slash United, that's Cathay, dot com, slash I did if you already receive emails from CAFE than check your inbox you'll find it can the July tenth issue of the CAFE brief newsletter? And now my conversation would listen? Camp. LISA Monaco and can wasting it's good to be with you thanks for joining me great beer, great to be here with you pray you guys doing. Ok, don't write oh good, I'm very excited, and if you can tell from my voice how excited I am there, there were launching this thing. We ve been talking about it for a long time. Perhaps we can begin with it with a legal issue, and maybe you can spare by the statute, because you guys you're so smart when it comes to law, whereas

in federal law that former higher and government officials are required to start a podcast. It is their right, it's absolutely there and there was a pre of an addendum. As I recall, a treaty amendment yeah, I just did it at face value. When you're you had my arm behind my back and telling me that I had to do a partner, There was something in love you believe in the rule of law. I appreciate that about you so once you are, how are you able to be persuaded to do this park s about national security and and at this time, what print I'd like tat wax on about your persuasive parish. Please do, but instead I am going to say that I was right we convinced to do this, because I wanted to spend more time with my friend can now, Kennedy I compliment and likewise absolutely, though I will not bypass the pre wasted powers, as I said,

judging by the you have my arm behind my back, I was a complete joke. I remember commerce with you a few months back actually nine months now and you didn't have me quartered in the car there are threatening to cut off my my drink tab. Unless our gas, our men and I thought I I don't know that I want to do a podcast for the sake of doing a podcast, but the opportunity to do with LISA work with you in your incredible team, but also to do it in a country in a way that you know is is showing what doesn't in should unify us more than what does unfortunately divide us. These days was pretty peeling and that seems to be the weights played out and now among side to be a part of it. Further to that, we spent some time. bring out what the title should be in your pockets of a national security is entitled United Security.

The tunnel but about why you guys arrived at that- and I think it's further to what you were saying- Ouch I mean here I think can, and I both wrestled with a number of different potential titles, and we knew we wanted to hit upon the theme of unity and the need to have unity in particular. On shall security issues. I know for me, and here prayed I'll I'll can play to your noted affection for words when I was thinking about what should be

will this be the phrase United Security seem to make a lot of sense, because, if you think about it- and if you look at the dictionary United is about joining for a common purpose and I think cannon, I can speak for himself, but I can- and I both felt like we ve kind of lost something in the discourse these days when it comes to national security issues and we're we're losing a lot of kind of reasoned debate in there's too much shrillness in the debate these days and seems like we need more space. Kind of reasoned discussion of complex issues and trying to find some common ground on them. You concur that completely looked. Does the old saw, the politics should stop at the water s edge and look nervous is naive and he's gonna think national security matters there's nothing political about ass, a scary matters but

There really is a reason why we should believe and demand of our leaders and government officials that you know as best they can, when you talking about securing America against overseas adversaries and threats we should be united and they might be difference in the way we see the means to protect our country, but the principles. The online so those are the same. We all share them in. So we really to be able to talk about these issues in a torrent on partisan, unknown for cereal way. Not just doesn't seem to be the case these days, and this is our small effort to try to recover that notion. In Poland do you guys aren't scream at each other and we we better yeah yeah? Well, we might do alone then screaming at each other. But probably not that much I mean, but the other thing is we want to give folks away. I went to some of the communists,

variances cannon I had in are prior rules that we ve had right. We have parallel jobs, indifferent administrations, but very similar experiences when it comes to trying to think about what it takes to secure the United States, what it takes to speak rationally and from a fact based perspective about these issues and so the route we ve got a lot in common that I think we want to share with you belong in autism, robes indeed, and the Serbs give. so someone. So what do you think of the major national security issues that you'll, be talking about that America will be focused on in the coming months well I'll go start looked at me. One of them is what we just talking about the vision and in the position of national security and the impact has had on our ability to actually Jack our interests overseas and to secure ourselves against external threats. That's a big issue,

and you know we ve seen it play out and what this is about casting blame against one party or another against one elect official another. But it's about sort of calling The situation there were in seeing me that is having on our policies. Institutions in all right now, the until this communities were of under assault and the impact that having in this having on our readiness to address are Tell just needs this kind of thing, and so that that's one of the issues that we're gonna be dealing with, and I think that's actually, unfortunately, a constant throughout Europe various policies we discuss that physician backdrop is gonna, be there and we're going to try to get beyond that and really do ratification, the balancing of the policy interests in each of these situations, that we see, whether it's the? U S and Russia relationship whether it's had an ensure election security and alike. So that's gonna be a constant refrain

so pre want to make sure that we don't take our eye off the ball both in the things it. Liar discussing in the issues we want to discuss with with listeners in whether fielding questions and the like There's so much these days in the news that has driven by the latest tweet or the latest outrage, and I think canonize bows worried that were sometimes missing a discussion of some really important issues that are getting drowned out in the daily disco. you look. It's also the case in Belgium, and I are fernand- and I have this experience- we do the the coffee insider forecasts. story I'm here that it gets three minutes of of attention on a cable news and no one ever goes deep and explains it You know you never get anybody who had the expense. it's like you guys have had to go deep and I think

social security issues sometimes them into competitively, I'm very psychopathic because I'm hoping learn a lot from you guys, personally, myself and others The vote will choose. Others, there's an explanation and explain or function in this too. You're in a news flash that you know there isn't it act on solar money for examples from some months ago and allow The discussion you see is very superficial or you get a lot of politicians who are currently involved in Finally, reelection who have a particular talking point get across, but you? U dont often have sort of arms length, dispassionate discussion on the part of people who have been in a position to make those decisions before talking about this, so I am looking forward to hearing you guys explain a lot of stuff. Did I don't fully understand we want it. We want to do the explaining and we also want to get past the point. Counterpoint right do more than the thirty second sound bite and every national security issue that and foreign policy issue

that makes a headline these days or create a pop up on your phone really needs. I think both the explain or function and to get beyond the The partisan talking point jiggers have a view of what is the greatest threat and we can you in a minute You agree on it or not the greatest national security threat. We should be concerned about in the coming months and years at some level. I think it is our dysfunction and paralysis, our inability to come together on issues to get beyond the politics, the divisiveness at some level? I think that poses a really significant threat to our ability. To respond in a way that is going to to secure us, and you can look at some of the issues with the crowd of irish response. As a good example that the unjust servers sub answer to that is process matters.

To sound to waggish, but it really does especially the national security space, so whether its covered and the process that in place too with a covert situation at its very onset or a you know about the situation with the Russians, is there a problem some place the interagency process in the federal government which a well oiled should be a well oiled machine for taking incoming threats like that, making sure all the players throughout the federal government and if necessary, state local governments are at the table bringing too to bear all the resources assets they have in coming up with a goods our decision making process results in an action plan, is that in place and are the right people in place and what would have happened when lease and I were involved the urge and process in our respective administrations and how did that work will not work.

And hear what lessons would we draw from our experience? They can be applied to the threats and crises of today because above had incredibly important jobs, stressful job, allow the power of the save jobs. I was just thinking before we came on and started taping Can I think I actually met you when you were there. the tree in D C and had been nominated to be the first head of the National Scary Division Subdivision the Department of Justice, is called for by the nine Eleven commission and talk to you a lot during your kind, asian process, then LISA became the National Security Division chief fears over the first woman to hold that role, and then you ve had other roles that it will take me Time we have together together your Erasmus. The weird thing is, So parallel, you guys do you got me, the prior life free related in any way and Anne, and my real question is for each of you: has anyone Those particular jobs. You ve had a national security and law enforcement to anyone

those jobs inform you were inform your views and how you go about addressing us if you're, using more than any other first of all a joke that, because I'm a lot shorter unkind of the many me version of CAN Wednesday and so on and off. He takes it as a compliment. Her or But look for me, there is a threat that runs through all the jobs that I slash Kevin. I have had, in this sense of meeting to balance both the responsibility of government to respond to threats. How you talk about those issues had that in and of itself becomes an issue of security, so, for instance, we both spent the majority of our careers in the Department of Justice, which has a real ethos about not talk

outside of the particular court documents that maybe you were engaged in when I went down to the White House. It was very different approach, trade and I learned I had to talk about security issues publicly and that that was as much a part of the homeland security enterprise as the kind of operational aspects of it, and so the responsibility of government to actually address the public's fears about their security is a threat that I think has run through. All jobs that I and we have had one thing that will probably see resonate with you. Pragmatism were our prosecutors and one thing you have to do is prosecutor? Is you know your job is to put together cases and prosecute hopefully effectively and, your convictions, but your job is also to be looking for a three hundred and sixty in an issue and make sure that due process is being protected, that the defendants rights being adhered to, etc, which

he's good training ino, and we all do that to a greater or less degree, but it's good training. it makes you then look at issues shorter from all sides and pretend to be, moreover, minded than the next person, but it was good training for us, then port international security experience. I think we all post nine eleven in our own way went from being prosecutors to sort of move over the national security space, so least release, and I we both headed up in the home pretty council marriage was to get all the p? all the cabinet officers and others who had a role in a particular nessus. Courteous you around table talk about how to deal with the issue, what the plan of action should be and try to see it. Every agencies perspective it's hard to do, but that was that was our job, and so I think, if there's one thing, we talked about sort of our common experience between LISA and me. It's that that we sort of we tried to try to do that once again

sometimes failed, sometimes succeeded, but it it helps. I think it's also sought to help one now being on the outside, watching but it s the security issues as they play out within the government is right expect to disagree on it Can I have a similar philosophy about the role of public service, the role of government in providing security for the country and for the people, but I think we might differ in the relative responsibilities of institution trade. We might see some differences there as to how much power government should have versus the individual in a where should the sector come in and take some more responsibility, maybe some privacy issues at the margins, but overall, I think our philosophy a similar but allow. Maybe this is the first it first opportune can disagree with me the disagreements and yet look. We

talk things through as fell apart, castors, but also as friends of guns, for years, and we take a different angle to each issue. I think, though, This is right. We sort of look at the principles the same way, so we have a lot more common. On and on common ground, but you know are served the maybe asleep, it would bring to bear. My differ in degree. Also, don't underestimate the value of experience and we each even though it had almost identical jobs. We dealt with different crises, different situation, and every one of those gives you an understanding of the extenuating circumstances that contradiction. so you're LISA resume. She got in office had to deal with the Boston bombing in all the peculiarities of that so she see something like that now, she's gonna through able to draw on those experiences in a way that maybe I can't or she dealt with Ebola, and so I think her covert observations are particularly valuable because she's went through that way. I didn't than I do

another situation, so I think that we do see things differently there when you peel it away. It's often not because we have different values and principles, but they do. We've often had different experiences and inform the policy prescriptions and come up with you know, as we address. Let me as regards it as a simple, yes or no question to see. If you agree or disagree should apply, of United States. Read the presents daily brief. Emphatically, yes, can hear one of the first responsibility of being president. That was easy to spend our time on that of the bank s. So the first episode of United Security will available tomorrow, Friday gives a preview of the kinds of things that will be hearing about a look. I think people here turn into the podcast should expect to hear us discuss the lake. Still issues about the russian bounty story right? This is the discussion about

intelligence that was provided to the present in his daily brief about russian plot to put bounties on you. Service members in Afghanistan and hear us talk about what does it mean for president to get that kind of information in the president's daily brief? How did can, and I both who are recipients of that intelligence product everyone How do we deal with that? Whether the types of things that should happen when president gets that type of information was the decision making that goes on or should go on after receiving something like that and then we'll talk about what's the latest stir in the news about the Krona virus, the latest developments in corona virus. What that means for people going back to school going back to work? What does it mean for the challenges we're going to face for the next couple of months? Khazars there's a lot of new developments in that both on the site.

And on the policy for you, and I think we also touch on the whole Bolton book issue and not the kiss intel sort of anecdotes lays out ass. She read it at that. press, you know, I've read bits of it, but I have not read it. I will admit- and I haven't gotten to yet, but what is interesting sort of back story is just the fact of it. The fact that leave her It s. True visor he's putting out a book with her a short time after departing office. the issue that raises at the intersection of his first amendment rights too tell his story and the governments need to protect national security, information and secrets and how that issue plays out with a publication review process. That is now a matter of litigation and why is such a process and soda Howard evolve. It actually, Sir sounds a little. Water sports actually serve a fascinating case study.

The balancing of first amendment issues for some common interests and the absolute imperative to protect government secrets so topical, but about that as well, you know absolutely I'm looking forward to it here. As I say, as I said, the amber excited about this. We ve all been friends for years and years So it's nice to be working with you again in this capacity so to everyone else who is listening, mysteries, got the new podcast. United security will be published Friday morning and, as always, you can write to us, including two cannon LISA at letters, a cat, I come with any thoughts and questions lease again thanks again, thanks so much breakneck speed. There's more coming up stay too.

Well, it's finally happened in the world is opening up again and we're hearing the word normal being tossed around a lot more. But after the year we ve had truly feeling normal is going to take some time and a little bit of work. If you're one of the many people who might be feeling overwhelmed and anxious or if you find yourself having more bad days and you care to talk, space might be for you now more than ever It is important for us to be patient with ourselves and seek out the support.

We might need. After all, half of american struggle with mental health tax base is here to help talks base is secure, affordable and easy to use your mental health matters and whether your apparent student or even part of a couple, that's looking for more support talks base, has the right sort of professionals to meet your needs. Why wait leaks for unemployment when you can match with a licensed therapist today, with the tax base app set goals with your therapist on your schedule, chat any time and conduct live video sessions from anywhere all part of my talk, space is the One online therapy platform to help you sort through any issue match with the license therapists. When you gonna talk space, not come and get one hundred dollars off your first month with a promo code preach. That's. Why dollars off. When you use code preach a talk, space dot com, when simply save homesick

These founders, Chad and Eleanor Laurens Design, their first security system in their kitchen. They didn't for a very personal reason. Their friends had just gone through a home breakin theirs. Going to find a security system that was simple to set up and that could help them feel safe again. Making people feel safe is would simply say has been doing ever since that moment, fifteen years ago, a passion to protect people drives every engineering detail in their products, but it motivates every interaction with their customers. Simply safe has highly trained security experts ready whenever you need them, whether that's during a fire, a burglary, a medical emergency or even when you're just setting up the system. So there's always someone there. Who has your back to keep you safe and to make sure you feel safe? As my listen, you can save twenty percent on your simply saved security system and get

first month, free when you sign up for interactive monitoring service, just visit simply saved our com, slash priest to customize your system and start protecting your home and family today, again that simply saved outcome, Slash preach. Ellen Weintraub has served as a commissioner on the Federal Election Commission since two thousand to entertainer, If you see she's been the chair three times most recently, in twenty nineteen, Weintraub isn't spoken advocate for campaign finance reform and has developed quite the powerful twitter presents, including a recent sixty six tweet thread about the security of absentee ballots. President trumps claims of mail and voter fraud. As we approach election this November. There is one thing that we can count on us and that's uncertainty. That's there has never been a better time to have one tribe on the show with me today,

Commissioner Ellen Weintraub. Thank you so much for being on the show. It's my pleasure are you? U dont? Ok, I'm doing fine. My family is safe and healthy and Billy still complaints that so we're gonna get into some of this in a moment, but you sometimes criticising in trouble for speaking your mind or are you gonna, get in trouble for being on its past. possibly I suppose it depends on where the conversation guerrilla, that's good, that's girl! Only if its Trouble, though, so that it be ok, good trouble. I think, on those who talk about your trouble. Yes, I saw you are a commissioner of the Federal Election Commission, the FBI To close, I would sum basics sure, but it was the ABC. Do its powers. What's the purpose, the Federal Election Commission was set up in the wake of Watergate for people who still remember back that far to follow the money

was our primary purpose was to administer and enforce the laws governing federal campaign finance and make sure that the public is informed about where the he's coming from and where the money is going to make sure that the limits and source restrictions are obeyed disclosure is, are, is our core mission, but we are also a law enforcement agency. We issue advisory opinions. We provide advice to anybody who wants advice on how the law works. We rule makings. We also have some semi adjudicate. Function, we do enforcement actions. Our lawyers will investigate complaints. Anybody can finally plate and our lawyers will take a look at it and if there are four votes, the commission to investigate than we can do it investigation. There are six supposed to be six members.

Commission, by law, no more than three, can be of any one political party. So all decisions have to be by partisan. It requires four votes to make most major decisions. If you see- and that is regardless of how many commissioners there are so even if there are- A number of commissioners you still the same by partisan for vote majority in order to get anything done, you keep. Does the FCC keep databases on camping finance spending? Is that you guys to yes? Yes, all of the information that you know every that you read about how much more is being raised and spent by federal candidate super packs, political parties. All of that information comes from our database people report to us the committee's report. To us. We put it up on the web and then journalists and analysts and the

or public can get access to it. When the agency was first instituted back in the nineteen, seventy people had to come into our public records room to find those data out, but now anybody can access it on their computer at the OECD, Gov sort we're help her is the staff that seems like a big administrative undertaking, no way. we have. I think right now we have but three hundred and fifteen, it has varied over the years from that I've been there between the low three hundred to the high three hundreds and how to commissioners appointed nominated the president and confirmed by the Senate, but there's does a tradition of there being usually that's fallen by the wayside from time to time? Evident rat and republican pair being pointed at the same time as a true it is the way it used to work. It hasn't been, king. That way of late and of right now we don't have a quorum. Only have three commissioners right now we had

three commissioners for about nine months and then about the go. Fourth, commissioner was appointed and everybody, was very excited to get back to work and get our job on and then just last week. Another commission decided to leave. So now we're down three again spit a nomination. I believe- or actually I think, that it's just been and intend to nominated I don't think, there's been a formal nomination ahead of the fourth commissioner. So when you don't have a quorum was only three of you display guy european language, you do I dont. Well, it there's still a small federal agency to run so there is still no budgetary and personnel and all those kinds of the decisions that have to be made for four organization, but our staff, You need to do their jobs, which means that we continue to get reports from our staff with recommendations.

on how to proceed in enforcement matters and audits in how we should think about advisory opinion request that might be pending and I keep reading those documents and an ogre daring to deal with them. get aquarium just like an example, a simple garden right example of a breaking of a federal election law that your commission will address or, for example, if a candid for Congress it becomes now but that candidate has raised from an individual way more than the maximum aloud and it comes to Finally, if the see what happens, what happens that to come to our attention one of two ways, one they might not know what contribution limits aren't so they might report that on them regular reports to the commission and our analysts would pick that up and said

a request for additional information say: hey. What's the fact that an excessive contribution did you know that you have to wait a minute that does not happen only for Congress in actually reports the illegal contribution? Yes, yes, it does Can you tell us as any anybody? We know why I dont dogma specifics, but I guess it as is often was experienced, candidates who may be running for the first time- and maybe they read something about citizens united and they thought all the limits were gone, and so they could accept anything. They were well we're gonna get her we're gonna get the zoos united. Here I mean look in your right, everyone. What would it one of the federal limits drives right now? It's sad twenty eight hundred dollars any person can give up to twenty eight hundred dollars per candidate per election. So twenty hundred dollars for the primary twenty eight hundred dollars for the general its thousand dollars to a traditional pack which makes contributions. And its unlimited to a super pack

Ok, so what the second way you might find out about a campaign, violence violation like that somebody might file a complaint. That's thee! Actually, my most of our enforcement dog. It comes from complaints, as I said, Anybody can file a complaint with the ever see It has to be no derisory. It helps if there's some information attached to it. If it sir to speculative, then there's not much, we can do with that. No probably get rejected that it was to our lawyers. The complaints go to our lawyers and they take a look at it and I will write up a year what we call a first General Council's report, which goes to the commission. where they recommendation from the lawyers that either says we should dismiss them We should investigate this or based on the complaint and the rest France, because we always give see, am person, who's been complained about an opportunity to respond, based on all the information we can already tell, the law has been violated, so let's just go straight to settlement negotiations, what we call conciliation- and that happen sometimes too

say the determination is made that it was central violation of the rule. What would you do about it? Well, as I said it days for votes to, do anything and then we might investigate if we feel that we need more facts, we have subpoena authority, we have lawyers, we have auditors, we have investigators, we have a lot of skilled people at fighting acts or, as I said, if, if it's completely clear from the cat co that the law was violated, then we might go straight into negotiating the consumers, in agreements usually have a recitation of the law and the facts, and often people will acknowledge that they violate the law. Sometimes they will insert what we call contention language where they say well response, its content that they didn't realize they were violating the law. Most most violations are not intention, we do let us go dear. Yes, we do get some, but do you may referrals to that from Brussels yes, if its knowing and wilful that comes at a slightly late or stay

to the proceedings. If we find probable caused either the law was violated. We can then make a referral to the Department of Justice, and sometimes we'll just send something over. they are well site, it's more appropriate for them and for us sometimes they say in some things to us because they say well. Business violation here, but there might be a civil violation we have, exclusive civil enforcement authority do need for votes just to make a referral, yes, Is there anything you guys can do without for were also to give a sense of countries where you what you week is gonna, look like with only three well. And having formal meetings of the commission? My weak doesn't look that much different with or without a quorum as the debate, and butter of my day is. I get recommendations from staff as but the commission ought to do and then I will read those and review them and dig into the wall with my own personal staff and try and figure out. If I agree with what our lawyers are suggesting or not.

or I wanna make suggestions for changes I'll? I'm still thinking about rule making that we could do and heading for when we will have a quorum again, which I hope will be another nine months that we go without a quorum I can do a lot of work in anticipation of the final decision. So that once we get a quorum obvious, the new commission will have to get up to speed, but if the rest of us already know what we want to do that really help expedite matters once the quorum is restored. So even when you have a quorum, let's say you have all six, which is your guess, a privilege in recent history. How do you folks get along how functional is the Effie see cause? I think some people sometimes suggested? Is it doesnt work Finally, I would be one of those present so would say it doesn't work perfectly and it the question of getting along I'm gonna, get along just fine with everybody, but the commission as an

evenly divided body. It's not surprising that as Washington has become more polarized, that the recession has really played out in a non productive way. At the F p c, I first started at the commission. There was a lot of effort that went into trying to find agreement trying to find for votes for particular proposition. Just we could clarify the law answer. People's questions make sure people knew what the rules of the road were and make it clear Wendell when those rules had been broken and many times the results were not results that any individual, commissioner might think was perfect, but It was close enough to form a for a vote, consent on something that for commission thought they could live with and for the sake of answering questions and and clarifying the law but starting in two thousand eight. We got a yeah where there is major over on the commission and the

Hu commissioners were more ideological, then the previous batch of commissioners and it became just a lot harder to find that common space, and I would have to say, did not see as much interest in in in people finding that that common ground one would think that the commission has just set up for a constant gridlock with three three balance. But the truth is that, for most of the commission's existence, split votes were fairly unusual. It happened between one in three percent of the time. That's it the rest of the time we found a way. Commissioners found a way to move forward, and how does it happen more recently, now I mean different people have come up with different ways of counting it, but it's more on the order of twenty five. Thirty percent and they are the most important cases there. The most you know it's it's easy to agree on cases that obviously dont present any in France

and we can all agree that this should be dismissed its harder when they Shoes are more complicated and some commissioners believe that, vigorous Lee set of campaigns. Thence laws. Will intrude on people's first amendment rights will intrude on their ability to raising, spend money and therefore to get their political message out, and commissioners, I believe that we do have still some myths and the law, and they are designed to prevent corruption that very large contributions, as the Supreme Court is held, have the inherent risk of of corruption, and we need to make sure that those rules and laws and lines are are obeyed and that the public is informed about where money is coming from and that we don't allow dark money to flourish in our system, so that people can't really tell whose pulling the levers of power and who has influence and who doesn't. This is all

potent information for the voters. To now is that difference of opinion, indifference in perspective? Does that fall alone? Party lines generally get that's? It falls very neatly of a party of luck with the exact. possibly the late Senator Mccain. Well, I mean I'm only talking about commissioners a theocracy so that there are republicans who actually do believe and capping finance regulation, but they're, just Commissioner, as you have said to elected members, Congress and other officials. Elected officials want the Effie, see as a matter to be robust or not, hard to say you're gonna get you in trouble is so I don't want it. I don't want to speak for four. Other people. I do want to train get into other people's heads, but they might Alex would say that they have a strong idea, logical concern about protecting people's first amendment rights.

I also care about protecting people's first amendment rights, but I think there are some laws that have been upheld, this constitutional even by a Supreme Court- that's not terribly friendly to campaign finance regulation and that we need to abide by them. And it depends on the issue. There are some issues where we find more common ground on and again with new commissioners coming on board everything's up in the air, which I don't really have a good feel for where their lines maybe- but I can say over the past number of years, we ve had a little bit more success on issues involving a foreign national allegations. Elegance The foreign nationals are spending money in our elections that something that I think is of general concern. The commission has agreed to prioritize those kinds of complaints. We when agreed on all of them, but we have agreed on more of them than we do in other areas when it comes to,

he was like whether five or one C4 organization has crossed the line and is not no longer engaged in issue advocacy, but is really set up for the major purpose of trying to influence the election and therefore should be reporting to the efficacy and disclosing their downers way cell agree on that. We seldom me on cases alleging coordination between super packs and outside spending groups and candidates. You know, they're dead, some issues that we almost never find common ground on a mutual coordination. Why would that be a divergence point I don't know, it seems obvious to me that some of these groups are coordinating. I don't know why we can fight decree, but the combat zone. before that in a people do get along, and maybe that was not the right way forward raised, but I have found it unusual that there are members of the Epp. from time to time in your one of them who make public remarks

criticising other members of the commission. You did that At one point one Don began, your former colleague was about to become White House Council, the most recent chair Helen Hunter made a lot of remarks. Critical of you is there something about that immunity, even the Supreme Court, which is actually different kind of institution, The various members can be scathing with respect to the other people's opinions in their written decisions, but don't see the sort of public criticism of their colleagues. Do you come in on it? I think it's really just an extension of the statements made people not that many people read. Statements you should, if you read the statements than you, would see, there's all there's a lot of criticism back and forth. on both sides. I think that, from my perspective, I've been very frustrated that we cannot agree on some issues that I think really are fairly.

the summit, to take the issue of coordination, where you said what why can't you agree on that, while we ve had, we ve had outside groups that are set up established, by close friends, relatives, parents, siblings of the candidate or former staff people of the candidate, they are taken Video offer the candidates website the her sending me it to each other on Twitter with me In all sorts of bizarre formulations that in anybody's common sense interpretation of what's going on people's, they will of course that's coordinated. We actually had and advice, the opinion where some He came in and said. Well you have these rules that interpret what these statutory ban on coordination means and their restrictive rules within a certain time limits. So if I back myself up before those time limits can coordinate then, and

We basically said it in the question. I am going to coordinated, I'm just gonna. Do it outside the time limits and half the commission said well that still sounds like nation, which the statute prohibits. Yes, the regulation provides more detail, but the statute still prohibits coordination, which you have told us you're going to do so. Said? Yes, that's coordination and our colleagues on the other side of the table said no its not taken who's. The way the rules are written to coordinate their hearts content so that very frustrating. I will tell you from a former prosecutors perspective the idea of being able to prove coordination and how to know when people are coordinating to me seems most impossible without subpoena power. Without wiretaps, without can people's electronic communications. Will you have someone setting up what is in it purports to be an independent pack or something else, and it's a close friend or

if it did, it seems to me again very cynical about this. Seems very easy for people to take a walk in the park and coordinate all day long, in no way one agency like yours be able to find out about it. So it seems like an exercise in entrust it may be that warranted in this area. While what yet jesting is that it would be happening, but the agency wouldn't be able to prove it that's my cynical view how people conduct themselves and particularly in a given our experience with with corruption in New York. It seems to me it's a very difficult thing to prove coordination and when you get the kinds of things that you're talking about what should be unusual, because people were still, you can very intelligently Hydra conflict, I sure coordination. It seems to me and when they're, not even capable of doing that, that's pretty decent common sense evidence that it is coordination well? As I said, and in this case they basically came in and told us that they were going to coordinate. So I mean. Are we supposed to ignore them

The other aspect to this is there's an initial determination as to whether we're even going to investigate, and yes that might be difficult to prove some of these allegations. But then does that mean, Jude, throw your hands up at the beginning and say well we're not even gonna. Try would not even get going to investigate, because we can't get the four votes to even launch an investigation. In most of these cases. Before voting, we should rethink There has been some interesting thinking on that. There is a proposal which I think would be a great idea that the presumption should be switched that, rather than it taking four votes to start, an investigation that it should require four votes. Block an investigation. If the professional non partisan staff thought one was warranted, that they could go ahead and do that It also seems to me- and I haven't said sensibly how the commission's work. But it seems to me that for votes majority. We have all six makes sense for certain idle determinations, but for other things,

the commencement of investigations. Things are the fall short of a file determination. You could do that on a few in number of votes and that's the exactly the point of this proposal. You can at least get the information you get the investigation going, assuming that the professional staff thought one was warranted and when all that information was assembled, it would come back to the commission and then what have the for vote determination as to whether the law had been violated, but at least we have a record in front of us, so you may go public statements and you do interviews, as I said at the outset, and you have an active twitter account. Yet I which high enjoy thank you and I'm wondering how you, conceive of your role as an see, commissioner, you ve come up on the radar screen of a particular congressmen representative Davis, who has complained about the kinds of statements you making. You responded with a very strong statement of your own. Like. These data begins with this I will not be silenced, and I think it with the statement. I will not be silenced

you think about your public statements and, and would you make a people who say that you should keep your mouth shut a bit more because You are a public official and in some ways your kind of like a judge who is going to come into consideration of matters and it may present a conflict of some sort. He'Ll- be making statements outside of your official role, I think, is very much within my official role. And I don't make any statements about individual enforcement actions that are pending before the commission. When I talk about a state of the law- and I think that have an important role in helping to explain the law particularly the commission is so gridlock and can't which job in the normal way, as I think that I am somebody was pretty expert in the law and I have a young, a role in making sure that people understand where the limits are and where the lines are, what people complain out as they say well, you should really should really not talk about anything, that's in front of the commission, because which I don't, but you should also

talk about things that aren't in front of the commission. that's. None of your business. That's out outside of your we'll house. Again The federal election Commission everything talk about is related to elections. I also talk about voting because as the that is the that elections happen and The information that we collect is collected for the express purpose of informing the voters and voters can vote. There is no point thing that we do and I've never been one to get bogged down in the trees and and not see the forest. I've been working in the field of protecting the integrity of our of our gut. Eleanor elections for my entire career, it very important to me and making sure. that everyone has the right to vote and connections. Is that that right freely and fairly and equally that's important to me and I'm not can allow people who just don't like what I have to say say. Well, we don't like your opinion, so you don't get to say them. It is ironic,

the people who most complain about my speaking claim to be strong, First amendment advocates there very strong advocates for the right of corporations to speak, not so much for me, but, as I said before I'm not going to be silenced. I think that I have a platform here, and that That is the only way that I can help to move. The ball forward is by making public statements. Then that's that's the route that I will choose. Let's talk about voting, because, obviously that you mentioned it in its top of mine for everyone. I think who cares about the country about the election. My first question is spectre the Effie see officially, have any role in how people vote or protecting the right to vote we don't have a formal role in that. As you know, the election administered at the at the state and local level you care about, and it's something you have expertise in we're on the subject of your public statements. You, you have taken the floor. The task a little bit, because our president

made statements repeatedly about how mail and balloting would be superfluous. really you are using up in part as election. Last month, I wrote by male further well that's called out of state big. You know why I voted because it happened. in the White House, and they will be able to go to Florida. Look for somebody, this out of state and does a ballot and everything sealed certified and everything else. You see what you have to do with the certifications and you get that thousands and thousands of people sitting in somebody's living room signing ballots all over the place. No, I think that Ellen Voting is a terrible thing. I think of you vote. You should go and even concept of early voting is not the greatest because a lot of things happen. But it's ok, but you should go. You should vote. I think you should go and you should work. You look at what they do

where they grab thousands of male in and they dump it I'll. Tell you what and I don't have to tell you- can look at the statistics there's a lot of dishonesty going along with male in voting male back in may tweeted. There is no way zero that mail in battle will be anything less than substantially fraudulent and I think at that time, and even more recently, you have contested that view. I don't believe in our view myself and we ve had other people on the show talk about that on the first of July, you tweeted quote there under twenty five days until election day. The earth is still around. and there is still no basis for the conspiracy theory that hash vote by mail with corrupt will correct the election when elaborate on an why you're so confident that vote by mail is ok. look. This is gonna be a challenging election. I think everybody agrees on that, and Secondly, we have two options. We can vote by mail or we can vote in person. That's really the Balkans

and what we are finding in this era of covert nineteen, where people are strongly I'm not to gather together in groups, particularly not in indoor settings that voting in when is it going to be problematic? For one thing, a lot of the people who are poor workers are older and in a high risk group so they and we ve, seen this throughout the primary is that the jurisdictions have to shut down polling places because they don't have enough staff. So there's been, real consolidation of pulling places. It's been harder for people to vote in person. longer lines. Some actions have handled this better than others, but we have seen a lot of long lines and a lot of complaints about people who felt the FED in person. Voting was working very well or that they didn't feel safe doing it. So if, in if you're gonna be shutting down pulling places and and limiting the right to vote in person, Then the only other alternative is voting by mail and people have done

studies of this there has been extensive studies of the risk of fraud, both in person voting and invoked by mail, and it just doesn't pan out. People are trying to whip up a sum of hysteria about this in order to make it harder people to vote by mail and to discourage states from making it easier for people to vote by male, particularly this. Here. But what we are seeing is a great demand by voters who say we don't wanna go stand in line and vote in person. We we need to have this option and many states have made it more available this year, really menaced many local state and local official. are trying to rise to the challenge and trying to make this available to people but if we want to have an election which you know that the statutes in the Carolina how relations? Yes, I'm gonna have one this year right, people

need to be able to vote and there's only two ways of doing it, so to stir people up and suggest that there is going to be fraud of people more people vote by male when no study has documented this- and people have looked into this and the people who are most adamant about the risk can only come, up with a small number of cases over billions of votes taken over decades, so there Why is no back up for this and its harmful to make people feel that the vote is not going to be fair, that they can't first it. This is where there is a real risk here that we are destroying something that's very precious broke into a lot of groups that come in from developing democracies and trying to learn how this whole democracy thing works, and one question that I get asked from time to time is: why do people trust the results? Why do people believe that- when the results were announced that those are the accurate results

The first time somebody asked me that I was really taken aback because it had never occurred to me that people wouldn't trust the results. But once you, undermine that basic faith that people have in their democratic institutions. that things are going to be done in a regular order and the votes will be counted properly and they'll be counted accurately and people will have access to. Exercise their choices in a free and fair manner. When you undermine the trust, in that system. It is very hard to build back up, so I really feel that this is a very fraught time for

democracy, and I feel and obligations to stand up for truth and facts and to make sure that people understand what's real and what's not. Our world is changing rapidly. A global pandemic pushed us to rely on the internet even more than before. Climate crises are challenging. The best and brightest innovate with urgency, and the way we work is changing drastically. Workers have more needs than ever, not just standard health benefits, but the support that caters to a new online based work environment. So how can employers find a balance across a wide range of need and with many of these changes, the likely to be temporary? What would you want to change or leave the same. You don't have to navigate these ups and downs alone, introducing reshuffle linked in new many theories, all about the future of work and what that will mean for you through six episodes. Six cities with six inspiring store

these posts, tamarind hall, will share new perspectives on how the world of work is changing and how we adjust, whether it's the instant gratification of retail business or how workers juggle and at home and in office hybrid reshuffle, examines the ways the pandemic has changed. The way we work and how workers and businesses are navigating these changes. Watch this week's episode on linkedin dot com, slash future of work and joined the conversation with the hashtag future of work linked, we're in it together on male and voting. What are really also don't understand is be the case that some people politically for the president, for example, you want to make the case that mail in voting is bad because try to explain something away or caused out in the minds of people, who are on your side, but is there any evidence that the interest in mail in voting is stronger, on. The democratic side with republican Centre would seem to me that that would be a non partisan issue also and that there be

equal concern about the quota, in some cases, but also in ITALY having the ease of voting from your home. you. Don't studies show that there is no advantage to one party where the other from male and vote that they they fall. You know and roughly equal proportions for Democrats and Republicans. Democrats and Republicans or are at least historically have been justice willing to use this and its particularly you full for older people and for people who live in more out of the way places you know these are. These are places that are republican stronghold. So there is no reason to think that there is going to be a partisan advantage, one way or another. There may well be more people who are unable to vote, but that's something that everyone oughta think is a good thing. That's how we have a government that is empowered by the consent of the government. That's one of our are based

principles that the government derives from its authority from the consent of the government, and if people cannot vote then cannot exercise that consent we live in. representative democracy. It is a stronger representative democracy. It is more representative when more people vote so there's no reason for people to be afraid that this is gonna have a partisan advantage. In fact, some Republicans come out and said hey. This is good for our people so we should encourage this an idle I care whether people are Democrats and Republicans. I just think that every Ellen citizen should be able to vote in a way that is and and safe there. Here's one consequence of massive mail in voting that would take place, in November, and you ve written about this and that if you hadn't were cynicism primers we saw this in the near a primary in which I voted a couple a couple weeks, that there will necessarily be a delay and if it's a closer election they're not

then they will almost certainly be a delay before the winner can be announced in you We used to know who the winner of the presidential election is on the night of you wrote a piece: and you're a times. A couple of months ago, with our friend and former podcast guess: cabin crews historian that's entitled, take some deep red. And prepared to wait for election results. That's Well, I'm good are you? Are you worried and made, the reason you wrote it. He hurried The delay in knowing whether Joe Biden has one or about Trump is one week further undermining the faith of the election and and conspiracy theories to thrive. That is definitely a concern and you're right. That is one of the reasons that we wrote it. I dont want people to feel if they don't know an election night. It's because there's some nefarious activity going on. In fact, if at all no on election night. It's because the election administrators are being very careful and they are making short account every thought and they want the vote to be accurate. That's a good thing, it'll be frustrating it'll, be stressful, but has the

headline writer said I didn't write the headlines, but where it we're all gonna have to be patient and take a deep breath try not to lose our minds, we have to wait a little bit to find out who and it may not just affect the it may affect the presidency. It may also affect various races. There are often races that are too close to call and are not known immediately on election night. That's not fair unusual we are but spoiled. We expect art our news, castors to say up the poles of closed, and this is where this statement tat were very impatient where you want to know? Yes, that's frustrating, but it's better to get an accurate count, a few days later than tat not count. Every vote, I mean that's really. What's critical, we want to make sure that every vote counts What's the deadline under which were operating for some states to switch to more extensive mail in voting? Are we re about to, have those deadlines expire, and so this will become an academic conversations him well

It's not an academic conversation in that there are many many states that really are trying to deal with this. There are not that many states that are fighting it and of those swing states for people who are interested in the horse race Most of the swing states have gone to. Anybody can vote by mail if they, if they make that request, but it does require preparation and it requires resources. The Brennan Centre in New York has estimated that it could cost up to four billion dollars for every state to get all of the equip. they would need and to get up to speed and get their training done and and do everything they would need to do What did you run a fully? a single vote by male election. That's a lot of money and obviously this It's an localities are suffering in this economy like businesses are, unlike individuals are so where's that money gonna come from. Well, it could come from Congress.

MRS appropriated four hundred billion dollars. Four hundred million wanna be clear on the continent's there. It's it's not nearly enough. It's just not enough and we should value. Aren't democracy enough to appropriate the funds, to make sure that the states and localities have the resources to ensure that everybody can vote political adds, the special social media. Who is a lot of debate about that? And a lot of anxiety about that you written about this also- and you have said leave that you don't think political ads on social media should be banned. You made an interesting proposal and suggested that what these social media platforms might think of doing is to bar was called micro targeting of small. Of the population explain what micro targeting is and why you think that is a good idea to to stop. so micro, targeting as when you're using your social media, and they are just sucking all this data,

Out of your data day interactions online and these, everybody's on their computer all the time anyway. So there's even more of that kind of data of but every time you like something every time you share something the eyes just collecting all that information, and they use that to target adds to you now when their targeting ads for shoes. That's one thing, but a third, targeting ads for candidates. Maybe that is something we are, take a closer look at because some of those ads they are very narrow, narrowly targeted to address your own set of policies, but the people who are not going to be. quite in sync, with the ads they're, not getting. Those adds they're, not even seeing that so There's no counter speech, that's what our first amendment no lies upon is that you know what somebody saying fine you get out there and make a better argument that only one

if you can see or hear the argument that is being made, and these micro targeted ads are going specifically to people to, and they changed up for every person, basically based on on their own sets of biases, as derived from all of the information that the platforms get out of you when you're, not even thinking about it, and what wanna do is is broadened the number of of listeners, the number of readers for these ants the number of observers, let but more people into the conversation, some people time. You talk about anything but the platforms. Do they jump immediately to saying? Well if the platforms impose any limits whatsoever, it's all censorship. Well, first of all, first amendment applies to from an action. It doesn't plight of private sector action, but second of all I'm not trying to stop people from saying anything. What I, what I think would be better if more people could see arguments that are being made so that it would be

easier for people to see when they saw an argument where misleading or reducing facts and ended it appropriate in a way that was misleading or amounted disinformation than they. Spawned, too, that in summit elegant fashion end and that we would have the kind of robust debate about ideas and politics and policies that the first moment thrives on and celebrates rightfully so so I think at the platforms would do us all a favour if they would would share those adds more more broadly and not have these kinds of very, very narrowly micro targeted adds that you know. Basically, nobody other than you is seeing the exact same things reaction to that proposal from the social media folks, Well, Twitter decided it was just Gonna. Do political adds altogether, they said this is just to fraught we're getting out of the gate and which I heard I guess he's united motivated

yeah. I didn't have a lot of political ads on their platform to begin with, so maybe it wasn't much of a sacrifice for them Google has adopted something along the lines that I am suggesting. They say they won't take, adds that are micro, targeted below the level of sip code, age and gender, so that sounds okay except zip, sir about eight thousand people and as a code. So then, once you start slicing that up by age and gender you stole could be looking at a pretty narrow slice of the population is looking at those adds. I think that the boundaries oughta be drawn up. Broader than that book is sad, basically said note. Now we're not gonna do that at all. We we like, I might go targeting that's our business model and waken a stick with, can ask a broad question boats, a basic question that has a lot of people scratching their heads, and maybe it's it's too complicated question briefly? But why is it and twenty twenty in state after stay to state you see images

american citizens waiting in long long, long lines to exercise their right to vote in Georgia. We saw it in Kentucky. We see it all over the place. What? Why is that how was I tolerated and how can it be fixed and you have one minute, it shouldn't be tolerated. It is intolerable. Nobody should have to wait more than half an hour to vote. Yet we see that we see this in election after elections. This year is particularly bad because, as I said, they don't have enough pull workers so. I've seen some really lovely initiatives? Some of it is some of it. Dil What is it all just sort of elegance and lack of resources, or some of it in an attempt to suppress votes in certain places, because that's what people think Well again, I don't want to try and get into anybody's heads, but I dont think you have to worry about ten, as so much as the effect, they effect seems to be that people who in urban areas and frequently communities of color have longer lines and there has been

some studies of this that show that people in these communities weight on longer lines. That's unacceptable. It's just flat out unacceptable and I think we need to get the resources together too address. This is gonna, be particularly difficult this year, as I said, because of the restriction and pulling places due to the lack of poor workers, I am aware of at least one. A positive initiative by law students to try and encourage other law students to volunteer to be poor workers are. We could rely on people who have already demonstrated the desire to volunteer for public service through the American programme this year or We brought home all of our peace corps volunteers. They were all of these wonderful public, spirited, young, healthy people who were will

to travel all around the world to go to to live in in some places in and very simple environments and give up creature comforts in order to be of service, and maybe those people have now been brought home would like to volunteer to be pull workers. We could you know, look too National guard there's. There's also populations that we could look too to encourage younger people healthy people to volunteer to work in the polls. But we are, we are going to need to have pull workers. so by the way, on a slightly different topic. We're gonna need have a phone. A postal service. If we're gonna have all these people voting by mail so you know that's another. That's another problem. That's looming out there that would better make sure that the postal service is funded, Let's talk about an issue that has been there for a while, we refer to an earlier. We talk about on the show a number of times disappearing. case of citizens united from twenty ten. Just remind people what that case was

and the degree to which you believe it has affected money in american politics, while they impact has been huge. But it's not it's not so much in the in the details of the case as in the effects of it Citizens United said that independent spending cannot be corrupting as a matter of law. There cannot be corruption in any form of independent spending and that's either coordination issue becomes so important, because if it's not really independent, if its coordinated, then you still there a problem even under current Supreme Court Doctrine- fiscal, no reminding that the government, when it is acting to prohibit- particularly when it is acting to criminalize speech that is at the very core of the first and has a heavy burden to prove that there is a compelling governmental interest that judge that justifies that prohibition and that the regulation adopted

case, a criminal statute, is the most narrowly tailored necessary to accomplish compelling governmental interest. Mister Ellison are you taking The position that there is no difference in the first moment. Rights of an individual, a cooperation after all, is not in doubt its creator with an early noble rights, but independent spending can he corrupting according to the Supreme Court and corporations, have the same right to speak, that human beings do which is kind of interesting, as a left off. A trace it back to the court through the people who are behind the corporations. They seem to be were concerned with dissenting views when it comes labour unions than when it comes to corporations of IBM decides it wants to spend.

Huge amount of money to elect the trumpet Joe Biden or any one else. They can do that unfettered. So long is it and they can do that as long as they're not coordinating with the candidates, but the results of this has been so it is was independent spending cannot be corrupting that we as a result of a circuit court opinion that that was a follower, to Citizens united that super backs were created. They didn't used to exist before two thousand ten. Now they begin become big big players and they often funded by millionaire and billionaire donors, who give lots and lots of money. A lot of people were concerned. Beginning that this was going to empower all the big corporations to swamp the political field. That's not actually what has happened as much corporations, particularly big, publicly held corporations. I got a lot of stakeholder. They have shareholders, they have boards of directors, they have customers, they have employees, so it's hard for them to take over political positions.

they're gonna make somebody mad in their group of stakeholders and re frequent laid. You see that advertising yet have to be careful, but how they advertise as well, because they upset certain stakeholders right, so they they. They're going to spend money in politics, I tend to do it by giving to the Chamber of commerce or some other lobbying Organization Trade Association. What has happened is that it has the result of Lessons United has been the super empowerment of this class of mega donors who spent millions and millions of dollars trying influence, who gets elected and then what gets enacted and because these super packs can pop in individual races its exe, masturbated polarization of in Congress. I think because everybody is afraid of the primary and this particularly in gerrymander districts or in states that are predominantly redder blow everybody's afraid of getting primary, and I much afraid in the general election perhaps, but they are afraid of getting a primary

a challenge by somebody who gets funded by big big money on the outside, and it makes everybody just kind of go down into the most extreme positions, because there isn't any. There isn't a super pact that set up there to fund people who are willing to, promise and seek common ground. All of this big money is: exacerbating the influence of the very wealthy who are already pretty influential as well as driving polarisation in Congress and making it harder for us to get things. Done in Washington at all, so I think that Facts have been really negative. It's very unpopular opinion it's really out of with the way most people view money in politics. I mean, if you think about it, you can't give a three, thousand dollars to a candidate, because s considered to be inherently corrupting to go over the contribution limits, and that would be, but you can give three million dollars to a super pack that is get doing nothing but trying to alike that same candidate,

and the same court says well, there's absolutely no risk of corruption. Nobody could possibly be corrupted by their three million dollar contribution do with ease their election as long as it does go directly into their campaign committee. I think that justifies common sense and people across the country get that They get that you know whether their Democrats and Republicans or independence. There is a really strong sentiment against this opinion and I think the Supreme Court is really just out of step with the way most people in this country think about corrupt. and think about the role of money and politics you I think you know these are not quite pearl cases, but their publicly cases on which sometimes the Supreme Court rules nine zero, like with the former governor of Virginia, and I don't think they you know how to use this word, and I have great respect for the court but, though over naive on the issue of how Politicians can act, corruptly and how easily they can get corrupted

and how much influence they can have over the governments they lead and employs they led by defining out of the statute certain kinds of official action. So it's it's been of great frustration to two prosecutors, we're trying to cleaner local government and obviously great frustration to people who are trying to cleaner politics as well. Is there anything we have a constitutional amendment that can be done by sincere by Congress to mitigate what you believe. The bad effects of that decision well, There are a number of things that could be done that are consistent with that opinion. It would take us a constitutional amendment or a different court to really address some of the worst aspects of it, but we could cause what citizens united, we could improve disclosure there's been almost billion dollars in and dark money that flooded our elections in the ten years since citizens United was issued by the court and that doesn't need to be

as I mentioned earlier, it's one of those issues that the commission tends to deadlock on, but we could adopt stronger rules. The efficacy stop stronger wheels. Congress could adopt stronger statutes that would improve disclosure and make sure that at least people could follow the money in terms of new. Really behind these organizations, so disclosures completely consistent with citizens. United, I also this is kind of a sleeper issue that doesn't get a lot of attention. I worry a lot about the potential for coercion when corporations are empowered to be explicitly active in politics, corporations, don't actually have their own mouths, they have to work through people, and I worry about the potential for coercion of employees and we ve seen some cases where again we deadlocked at the commission. But I think this is a serious issue that could be addressed completely consistently worthy, rationale of citizens. United coordination we could do more to address coordination. Congress could do more to address coordination,

to really put some some teeth in and these rules. You know we. We have a situation now, where the candidate and go into fund raising forth the superpower that is supposedly independent. They announced publicly what they would like the soup with what there virtue. Pac is so donors know where to go. They post very on their website, so that the super packs can take that video and run adds with really good high quality pictures of the candidates. I mean it's really gotten kind of silly. It's like this coordination rules is like swiss cheese. Now, and they haven't been. They haven't been strengthened since since united the end weren't designed for this world? They were not decide for a world in which super packs exist, so naturally they had not doing a very good job of upholding the principles of independence and another area that I think we really could do more is an area of blocking foreign national spending in our elections. We know our intelligence. Can you

He has warned us that there are numerous foreign governments that are trying to get into our heads, spread disinformation trying to foment chaos in our society and in our elections, and I believe we could do more about that and we currently doing and again it would be completely consistent with the rationale of citizens United, Do you have a view on the electoral college and have you had a chance to take a look at today's Supreme Court decision? I should note that were recording on Monday July six than there was a nine zero opinion authored by Justice Kagan about faithless electors I have not had a chance to to read that opinion. Yet that's I'm aware of it, but I just don't know what I'm already what I'm aware of what are your listing because it dropped shortly before we start recording in from social media which is not the best way to get a good handle Supreme Court decision, but his Kagan was trending in part, because in that in which I have not read in full. She makes work

is to both Hamilton and deep, which makes her the most popular justice in America. Today well, I think references to popular culture are are a good way for this Supreme Court to try and help people understand, they're, trying to say and since the Hamilton are always in order people will read at least those few paragraphs of the Supreme Court decision that would have been would have otherwise, because they want to see what they want to see what the jokes were Well now, I'm really looking forward to it. I haven't had a chance to read it yet myself and I'm really looking forward to it, but did you electoral college overall better, but the wretched reflect further comment that the commissioner's side very heavily thinks. I am I It was designed in the world in another era and the

outside. Of my judges is nothing the efficacy could do about this, but I do think that it is troubling to a lot of people when the popular vote and the electoral college phone diverge and this is again a topic that people from other countries have asked me about. They really cannot that their mind around the electoral college, it's interesting that, even though you s Citizens have gone around the world and try to help developing democracies says set up rules. I don't think we have advocate than any other country set up an electoral college system, it son its fairly unique to us, and I think, that again, because I worry about people's faith in their democracy and faith in their in their government, that it is just inevitable people are going to feel that they are not being accurately represented.

The popular vote in the electoral college vote diverge and the loser of the of the popular vote ends up winning we don't we don't do that. where else we don't do that in state local elections and it sir it's hard to then imagine another contest where the rules be set up in anything like that fashion. So, can I ask you about something I mentioned earlier in the interview Don began. whom you wrote a very critical, a bad when he was to ascend to the position of White House Council. Of course, why has cancel this present is a particularly I think, difficult job to have four lotteries and he became well known unlike a lot of what has councils to a lot of people in the country, because he figures prominently in the Mulder report given reaction to his car. as described in the Mulder report, real. We gratified in any way that this person who you had critical things to say about ITALY's. Accordingly,.

fort in some instances resisted his. MRS efforts to get him to do something that he thought was inappropriate. Well, I I never I expected to see him in jail. I never expected that he would commit obstruction of justice and and courage. Fifth, the big is much smarter than mad We have as much smarter than not much A man are much better than that. Yours it's more than that. Well, I think it should be the Sir floor and not the ceiling that we would expect. The White House Council would not violate the law, would not commit obstruction of justice, will try and prevent in fact obstruction of just somebody. You were way about the president himself. I you don't come in The. I don't think I well, but you know, Mcgann wasn't obstruct. I was a young disruptor at the Effie see he he wanted to work. table over and change over all the rules and an break all the norms. So

I wasn't really surprised to see him form an alliance with a candidate who was known for being it. after his well, he may found somebody who is an even more of a disruptive. actor than than he was but, like I said, I mean that the I wasn't surprised her gratified to see a White House Council not break the law that really ought to be our baseline. Not are not our aspiration. Rwanda have thanks again for being on the show and for informing us in advising us and so many important issues, especially this year when we have an important election coming up, everybody stay. And don't forget to vote, but do it safely? My conversation with own Weintraub continues for members of the cafe insider community, insiders Bonus data and content. The exclusive weekly podcast Co within with now the United Security pot go hosted by LISA Monaco and can wasting recordings. Are we

notes by only honing and me and more to get a free to a trial had to cast. Dot com, slash insider, that's, Cathy DOT, com, Slash insider, hey, folks! I hope you had a good for them. I think it's a special day. I've always celebrated with my family, and I always intend to act. You done independence day, quote Immigrant who loves America and its promise more than I can describe, and I join every patriot who wants to Our country more just and fair and equal and its promise level to all happy forth. So it is true. The July fourth is a day on which many American celebrate American Freedom, but also our thinking about some other things as well. on the data declaration was signed Aspiring nation did not live up to the ideals embodied in the document and so too

I want to end with some important words from the past from Frederick Douglass. After escaping slavery, abolition and writer. Frederick Douglass gave a speech in Rochester New York on July. Fifth in eighteen. Fifty two, it's entitled what to the slave is. This the July Douglas, as you may know, authored several notable works and biographies was an avid debater and unintentionally nominated as a vice president to pay central nominee Victoria would hall of the Equal Rights Party in eighteen. Seventy two, though he declined the nomination you're outspoken suffrage activists Douglas himself, how to read and write at a young age. Any famously said? That quote, knowledge is the pathway from slavery to freedom. End quote: This year, on the fourth, five young descendants of Douglas recited his famous speech and a short film by NPR, which asks all Americans

instead of the country's long history, of denying equal rights to black people one day later on July. Fifth, one hundred sixty eight years after Frederick Douglass deliver that speech a stand you have him in Rochester was vandalized and ripped from the base it stood on in maple would park. Park had once been a site along the underground rail road Douglas and Harriet Tubman had risked their lives to move enslaved people to freedom and safety. The statue was found destroyed about fifty feet away, no arrests of yet it made in the years and status first delivered his speech the world has indeed changed dramatically and yet from Frederick Douglass to George floor. Racism in this country is still a problem and it still killing black Americans So I want to leave you with an excerpt from the speech. What to the slave is the fourth of July, and I hope you'll take a moment to reflect on those words, fail

citizens. Pardon me allow me to ask: why am I called upon to speak here today? What have I or those I represent To do with your national independence are the great principles of political, free, and of natural justice embodied in that declaration of independence, and to us. And am I therefore called upon to bring our humble offering to the national alter and to confess If it's and expressed about gratitude for the blessings resulting from your independence to US law to the american slave is your fourth of July. I answer a day that reveals to him more than all other days in the year. gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the constant victim to him, you're celebration is your boasted liberty, an unholy licence, your now our greatness: swelling vanity

sounds of rejoicing are empty and heartless. you're denunciations of tyrants, brass fronted impotence. You're shouts of liberty and equality hollow mockery prayers and hymns your sermons and thanks with all your religious parade and solemnity, are to him mere bombast fraud, deception, impiety and hypocrisy. A thin. To cover up crimes which would disgrace a nation of savages There is not a nation on the earth guilty of practice. Is more shocking and bloody than other people of the United states at this very our Frederick, Douglass eighteen, fifty two

Well, that's it for this episode of stay too thanks again to my guests, Ellen Weintraub, LISA Monaco and can wasting If you like what we do right in you the show an apple pie casts or wherever you listen. Every positive review, new listeners, find the show. Send me your call friends about news politics, injustice, tweet them to me a prick Russia, with a hashtag, asked pre can call and leave me a message at six hundred and sixty nine, two hundred and forty seven, seven thousand three hundred and thirty, eight that's six thousand six hundred and ninety two. praetor or you can send an email to stay tuned. A cafe, dotcom stay tuned is presented by cafe. The executive producer is tomorrow However, the senior audio producer is David, TAT ashore and a cafe team is Matthew. Billy David curl Andor, SAM ozone.

Calvin, Lord, no as Ally and Jeff eyes. Our music is by Andrew Dust, I'm priest or our stated.