Stay updated with breaking news from Soft money. Get real-time updates on events, politics, business, and more. Visit us for reliable news and exclusive interviews.
Powerful here are the special interest groups who give $30 million, $40 million, $50 million to keep the status quo going. there s only so many frebies you can give the to the rich. who are higher wages that they got in the new deal, trial lawyers, it was just there s a whole city full. but i guess the question i would have about that phillip is that i understand money came to stored elections, especiallily when you get lower on the ballot, but aren t we talking on a certainly level also here, when you start talking about restrictions and you start talking about new laws, we re running up against the essence of democracy, we keep running up against the voters who represent corporate interests or labor ....
Money election and then a voting election. to get that second vote, you need to keep that fraction of one percent happy. explain that assertion, unpack that a little for us. money is the mortar of the status quo. i mean everything knows that, you can have everyone in favor of reform and i have been there before and have one special interest oppose you and it won t even get to the floor of congress, even though you have consumer groups, industry, everyone else in favor of it. in my case it happened to be a reform that the trial lawyers imposed. but it happens with all interest groups, so we wonder why nothing ever changes and congress keeps kicking the can down the road. because there ee s relatively aw special interest groups that give all the money. i wanted to ask about one of the specific subjects in this piece. ....
Independent person wants to give $100 million they have the right of free speech to give that money. but the trouble is most people don t think they re independent. the one that gives the money ends up sitting next to th candidate on the campaign trail. you could certainly tighten up those rules not to have any communication with the candidate. isn t it inevitable that the people who have the most money, the super wealthy, the 1% of the 1%. to control politics, just the way they control every other aspect of life? i put thought out there. but i m just struck by the evolution of campaign finance law in this country, we re always sort of looking at the same problem, so in the 1990s, 1980s, soft money was the big thing, the method of influence to the rich was soft money to ....
The major national parties. so what popped up, the 527s, in 2004, the bush-kerry rate was all about the 527s, and that s not good. now we have the super pacs shows up. the 524s popping up. if people honestly can follow democracy and follow elections and public policy much more than they do, we would not be worried about that. isn t it inevitable that the rich will control these elections. money always finds the cracks so unless you change the frame of reference and have an electoral system that isn t based on your ability to give as much as you can. i think the rich are mainly dupes, the people who are really ....
Class, working class, i m very concerned about taking 4% out of their paycheck, they don t have parents and grandparents who can just give them money, i m talking about people who are living paycheck to paycheck can t afford to save for age 65 and even 45 when they might buy a home or these sorts of things. that s maybe never happens for them. this doesn t really work for poor americans. under phillips plan here, which i think he s positing more as a hypothetical than as actual policy, we could get into the politics of how impossible it would be to pass something like this with today s current congress. but also is a $500 credit for poor children. but what s interesting and we were talking about this a little bit before, in our little office upstairs, i think it s interesting and this is why i love this series because here is a suggestion from mandates and ....