0:00

On May 10th, Kingdom of the Planet of the

0:03

Apes is coming to

0:05

IMAX and theaters everywhere. What

0:07

a wonderful day! This

0:10

summer, one movie event will rain.

0:12

It is all time. I stole

0:15

my verse. I know where they're

0:17

taking your clan. Bend

0:19

for your king. Never. Kingdom

0:22

of the Planet of the Apes, only in theaters

0:24

May 10th. Tickets on sale now. Rated PG-13. Some

0:27

material may be inappropriate for children under 13. Hello

0:36

from Washington. I'm Chuck Todd, and this is the Chuck

0:38

Todd cast. So last weekend was

0:41

the White House Correspondents Dinner, which is

0:43

really a four-day affair, although it's becoming

0:45

five and six days long with the

0:47

pre-pre-pre parties. But it's become quite

0:49

the event, if you will, for the

0:51

District of Columbia. You

0:53

have parties all over the place. Embassy

0:56

residences, sponsored by advocacy groups, there's

0:58

media companies, and even the occasional

1:01

sovereign nation sponsors a party. I'm

1:03

looking at you, Qatar. It's

1:06

probably the most visible sign of money in Washington,

1:08

but the truth is that big money plays a

1:10

huge role in government, really at all times. And

1:12

usually the people behind the scenes aren't printing their

1:14

names on cocktail napkins. My guests

1:16

today are Brody and Luke Mullins. They are

1:18

brothers. We're both investigative reporters. They're based in

1:20

Washington, D.C. And they have a new book

1:23

out called The Wolves of K Street.

1:26

Do I even have to say much more than that, other

1:28

than explain to you that K Street is

1:30

loosely the original street address

1:33

for many of the first

1:35

generation of lobbyists here in Washington, D.C.

1:38

That's why K Street is sort of shorthand

1:40

for lobbying, if you will. And you're going

1:42

to hear that a lot in this interview.

1:45

But Wolves of K Street almost tells you everything you

1:47

need to know about at least the topic of this

1:49

book. And we're going to

1:51

dive into it before we get started. Do remember

1:54

to stick around for another listener question. Please

1:57

remember to submit your questions to the

1:59

Chuck Todcast. at gmail.com. Don't forget

2:01

the duh. So with that,

2:03

Brody and Luke, welcome to

2:05

the Toddcast. And for Brody, this

2:08

is a repeat, a previous iteration,

2:12

because this book in some ways was a launch of

2:14

an investigative piece on one

2:16

of the wildest lobbying sort

2:19

of ripoff stories that we've had

2:21

that ended with perhaps

2:24

a murder or a suicide or, as you

2:26

say, there's nothing that makes lobbying more interesting than

2:29

if you find a dead party in a golf

2:31

course, which is how this book starts. And the

2:33

last time you and I talked was

2:35

the subject of a piece you wrote about.

2:37

So the Wolves of K-Stream, what's

2:39

the story you're trying to tell? Yeah, we're trying

2:41

to tell the story of the rise of modern

2:44

lobbying and the rise of corporate power in Washington.

2:46

And something that we found out, Luke and I

2:48

are both from Washington and sort of always thought

2:50

that lobbyists and corporate power was at its height

2:52

here for the

2:54

entire history of our country. It turns out that

2:56

we're sort of just in a period of heightened

2:59

corporate power. It started in the 1970s and may

3:01

be sort of trailing off right now if you

3:03

follow the populist on the right and the AOCs

3:05

on the left. So we

3:08

basically trace the rise of corporate power and their

3:10

influence over public policy in 40 years. And we

3:12

do that by following four or

3:14

five super interesting lobbyists and

3:17

influence peddlers who are following their rises

3:19

and falls in Washington and some very

3:21

dramatic. It's interesting you use the 70s.

3:24

Josh Green has a book about the

3:26

rise of the new left, if you will. And one

3:28

of the main characters in his book is Tony Cuelo,

3:31

who was one of the first members of Congress

3:33

on the Democratic side to say, hey. So Cuelo

3:35

is in our book. I imagine, I'm just about

3:37

to say that. I'm sure he is. He's sort

3:39

of an internal character, but completely fascinating. It is.

3:41

And it was almost, I sit there the minute

3:43

you said that and you talked about the 70s.

3:46

The 70s really were the sea change here in Washington.

3:48

In fact, I think if you did a study

3:51

of income and

3:53

of the richest counties on income, Montgomery

3:56

County, Fairfax County, Arlington County, and the

3:58

state of Washington, I think you did a study of income and would

4:00

not, would be sort of, you

4:03

can actually see the rise of financial

4:05

power of this region by watching them

4:07

move up the wealthiest county list. Sure.

4:10

It's sort of a fascinating divide. So if it

4:13

starts in the 70s, because

4:16

K Street, I

4:18

guess, who's the first lobbyist? Did

4:21

you guys go back and decide like, okay, where did

4:23

this begin? Who's the founding father of

4:25

K Street? We do. His name is

4:27

escaping me. He is in the book, Brode. It

4:29

was. Tommy Corcoran and.

4:33

Well, they weren't technically the first, right? There

4:35

was an ex-general

4:37

from like the Revolutionary War.

4:39

Yes. There was a former

4:42

Revolutionary War veteran who on behalf of

4:45

soldiers came to Washington to try to

4:47

get pay raises or back pay for

4:50

some of the people who served. That

4:53

was unsuccessful as far as we can tell. But you

4:55

know, the right to petition your government has been around since

4:57

as long as our country's been around. And

4:59

what corporate lobbyists say is that's all we're doing

5:01

is we're petitioning our government. What

5:03

we have found in our book is that at this point, starting

5:06

in the 1970s and reaching to now, the

5:08

companies have just had so much more power

5:10

than labor unions and public

5:13

interest groups. Well, back in

5:15

the late 60s and early

5:17

70s, it was unions and consumer groups

5:19

and public interest groups like

5:21

Ralph Nader were running Washington and

5:23

really creating this regulatory state. And

5:26

what happened was that business

5:28

interests found that they were getting steamrolled.

5:31

They weren't organized. So in some ways,

5:34

you guys see the rise of K

5:36

Street in the 70s almost as a response to

5:39

the rise of Ralph Nader. Ralph

5:41

Nader has shorthand for all of these groups.

5:44

I mean, if you look at the

5:47

constellation of groups that basically were founded

5:49

from his ethos, it's

5:51

huge. Absolutely. And he was remarkably powerful

5:53

as a consumer activist. Get in your

5:55

car today and hear your car tell

5:57

you to put your seatbelt on. a

6:00

rough nadir to thank for that. Yeah, definitely. So just

6:02

go back to about a quick 100 years of history.

6:05

We all know about the trust-busting era, and

6:08

that came from JP Morgan

6:10

and the railroads and the Rockefellers and

6:12

Standard Oil being incredibly powerful. The

6:15

country and government then revolted from that,

6:17

and we moved into

6:19

the trust-busting era, and then we had the

6:21

rise of the FTC, and we created antitrust

6:23

laws for the first time, and pro-competition rules.

6:26

That led to the New Deal, and from the

6:28

New Deal to the Great Society, it was

6:30

50 years of sort of uninterrupted power

6:32

of labor unions and consumer groups, and

6:34

the government creating more and more rules

6:36

and regulations for the economy and industry.

6:38

And corporate America essentially accepted this. Absolutely.

6:40

Well, for the most part, they weren't

6:42

happy about it. In some cases, they

6:45

supported it. Okay, what's an example

6:47

of that? And they supported it, though, because the economy was

6:49

doing well. Everyone was making money. You were supporting the Little

6:51

League baseball team. You got the dads

6:53

and the moms are working for you, and everything's good. Yeah,

6:56

highways, the building of highways, the

7:00

Great Society, a lot of urban renewal

7:02

things were- And what was it? Education

7:04

space. Public investment is usually good for

7:06

the private sector. Yeah, exactly. They were

7:08

gonna be happy, of course, right? Right.

7:11

Right, but the point is- And

7:13

what changed? Sorry, we're brothers. We allowed to jump in and-

7:15

I see that. No, no, no, no, no, it's very helpful.

7:18

What changed was the economy tanked in 1970. Exactly.

7:20

And all of a sudden, companies said, well, wait a

7:23

second. We have all these rules and regulations, and now

7:25

we're not making any money. Corporate profits are down. We're

7:28

getting crushed here, and oh my gosh, look at

7:30

all these regulations we have to deal with. Though,

7:32

like any smart business people, they invested in pushing

7:34

back on those regulations. That investment

7:36

is basically hiring lobbyists to come

7:38

to DC to block new regulations,

7:40

roll back existing regulations, and give

7:42

companies more of a say in

7:44

public policy here. You know,

7:46

in your book, after your dedication, which

7:49

appropriately since you're brothers, it's for your

7:51

parents, the

7:54

next page is marketing, is an excerpt

7:56

from a marketing material from one of

7:58

the most famous. Lobbying

8:01

firms of the 70s 80s still around

8:03

patent box patent box was building

8:05

the idea that the law can be changed to achieve

8:07

client objectives we see the laws of dynamic process not

8:10

as. Immutable rules and procedures but

8:12

it's at first sentence guys yeah the

8:14

law can be changed to achieve client

8:16

i know it's chilling i mean like

8:18

it does like let's not hide it

8:20

right it's right there. Well

8:23

let's remember also that that line made

8:25

patent bogs into the most profitable and

8:27

most successful lobbying firm maybe of all

8:30

time and who was patent. Pat

8:33

was james patent a former CIA officer who

8:35

did a lot of foreign policy work more

8:38

important important person Tommy ball i was just

8:41

gonna say and then who's bought you asked

8:43

before who the first lobbyist in our book

8:45

we consider the first modern lobbyists to be

8:47

Tommy boggs interesting way to you wait wait

8:49

to people here the family tree of Tommy

8:52

boggs. Go brody Tommy boggs we can start

8:54

with my boggs because he was the ultimate

8:56

DC insider at a time when cozy relationships

8:58

and campaign donations could get you a lot

9:01

in Washington. His dad was a

9:03

member of congress hail boggs i rose up to

9:05

be the number two house democrat

9:07

a time when democrats are the only

9:09

people who mattered in

9:12

1972 we went on a fundraising trip to

9:14

Alaska and his plane disappeared. And

9:17

he was never found to replace him in

9:19

the house the citizens of

9:22

new orleans elected time of mom. So

9:25

time of mother lindy boggs became a member of

9:27

congress for more than a decade so here's a

9:29

guy who grew up with both parents members of

9:32

congress. And he

9:34

was friends with him very close with

9:36

the speaker of the house with a

9:38

lbj with the time with senator leader

9:40

and then later became president of the

9:42

elevator operator in his summers and one

9:45

of his jobs was to carry lbj

9:48

whiskey around capital hill so he wouldn't

9:50

get caught. I don't know if no

9:52

one was more insider than Tommy boggs

9:54

and therefore what time boggs when he

9:56

hung out of shingle as a lobbyist

9:58

company came to him because. he had

10:00

a year of all the important people

10:02

in Washington. It's fascinating to this day,

10:05

sharing a last name, whether

10:08

it's Biden, whether

10:11

it's Hastert – I remember when Dennis

10:13

Hastert's son decided to suddenly become a lobbyist after his

10:15

dad became Speaker of the House. You

10:18

name it. I feel like there are –

10:21

the number of registered lobbyists related to a current

10:23

member of Congress or a former member of Congress

10:25

has probably got to be over 50%. And

10:29

we're jumping ahead in our

10:31

story, but Tony Podesta is

10:34

one of our main lobbyists. And part of

10:36

his special sauce was his last name and

10:38

his brother, John Podesta, who is

10:40

high ranking in the Obama administration. Here's

10:44

the thing. We can go – you

10:46

can do this with a whole bunch of people. And

10:49

it's left and right. Absolutely. Yeah, another thing

10:51

we're saying in this book, this is not a Republican

10:53

problem or a Democratic problem. This is just a problem.

10:57

The other thing that happened – so you have the rise

10:59

of lobbyists, but there was a

11:01

mindset the corporations had,

11:03

Luke, that said, well,

11:06

our interests aren't individual. We have

11:08

collective interests. So let's start the

11:10

U.S. Travel Association. So for instance,

11:12

all airlines became members of that.

11:15

And then at some point, things

11:18

changed when corporations decided, you

11:20

know what? I need to worry

11:22

about me. I don't care about my friendly

11:25

competitor anymore. So we consider that period to

11:27

start around, you know, the late 1990s. And

11:30

it's really – that's what I think. Associations

11:32

were the dominant source of lobbying power,

11:34

corporate lobbying power in the 80s and

11:36

90s. And we really

11:39

connect that to the broader trend

11:41

of essentially the corporate lobby as

11:43

a monolith sort of vanquishing all

11:46

of its real adversaries in

11:48

the labor movement, the

11:51

consumer groups. The consumer groups. And

11:53

even now the Chamber of Commerce. I would

11:55

argue they're on their last legs of relevance simply

11:58

because they're an And all

12:00

associations are just not succeeding anymore.

12:03

But the big transition is lobbying

12:08

office starting to be viewed as a profit center

12:10

and away from sort

12:12

of a way to sort

12:15

of protect our interests as

12:17

an industry. All right. Let me apologize. Lobbying

12:19

office as a profit center. Sure. Not a

12:21

– something you have to do – the

12:24

price of doing business, which would

12:26

mean it's a loss. But

12:28

companies think they make money now in lobbying? Well, 100%.

12:31

They do. I mean, look at government contracts.

12:34

Look at fighting antitrust.

12:36

Right? Look

12:39

at regulations, shaving down regulations.

12:41

I mean, it's another way

12:43

to sort of outcompete your

12:45

competitor. Yeah. More and more

12:47

– I think companies first invested in Washington because

12:49

they're on defense, as we just talked about. And

12:52

then once they're winning, once – as Luke said,

12:54

once they'd vanquished their rivals in

12:56

organized labor and in the consumer movement,

12:58

they realize like, hey, let's – we can make

13:01

money here. We can take regulations and proactively

13:03

change them so they help us or hurt our

13:05

competitors. I mean, look at Dodd-Frank. I mean, there's a

13:07

reason there's only been five big banks in this country

13:09

for a long time. It's because the rules say you

13:11

have to have all this extra capital

13:13

on hand and only some companies could do

13:15

that. Those companies supported Dodd-Frank. They wanted the

13:17

rules and regulations because it keeps their competitors

13:20

out. Well, let's spend the argument about big

13:22

tech regulation. Who's going to decide it? And

13:24

Facebook says, hey, we want

13:26

this regulation. So it makes it sound like they're

13:28

for regulation, but they just want regulation that probably

13:32

allows them to keep doing business. And they

13:34

can afford to hire the lawyers and lobbyists

13:36

that other companies can't. What

13:39

– one of

13:41

the things, though, take Pat and Boggs. Is

13:44

there a specific – do

13:47

these firms just have a shelf life where

13:50

about every 10 years they're

13:52

thought of up, they don't have the right connections anymore,

13:55

and some other former member of Congress seems a little

13:57

more modern? Why is it? I

14:00

have noticed most of these firms have about a

14:02

10-year lifespan. No, I think that's true. I mean,

14:04

I don't know. Success lifespan.

14:06

They may exist for 20 or

14:08

30 years, but they're sort of

14:10

peak period. Frankly, it's like political

14:12

news operations in Washington. Everybody

14:15

has about a five-year cycle, no-call hotline,

14:18

no offense, political, but I'm just saying. I'm

14:20

not saying I'm saying. Anyway. But

14:23

no, I hadn't thought about this before, but

14:25

it does make sense. I mean, you look at how

14:28

valuable your connections are. And

14:31

Tony Podesta was doing really

14:33

well during the Obama administration and was poised to do

14:35

really well in the Hillary Clinton

14:37

administration. Well, then take a guy

14:39

like Brian Ballard. Exactly. Who was

14:41

well-wired in Florida, Republican politics. Came out of nowhere.

14:44

And then was like, oh, hey, no one else

14:46

wants to be friends with Trump? All right, I'll

14:48

do it. He made like $100 million

14:50

in four years under Trump. He's now a bipartisan

14:52

firm. He's been hiring Democratic lives. I mean, he

14:54

has got offices now all over the country, and

14:56

he simply did it because he realized,

15:00

oh, I'm going to go where many people are afraid

15:02

to go. Donald Trump's living room. But

15:06

also getting back from the point, you know, Black Man Affordin's

15:08

Stone, really powerful during the two

15:10

Reagan administrations and the first Bush

15:12

administration. Charlie Black, Paul Manafort, Roger

15:14

Stone. Yeah. So yeah, I

15:17

had never thought about it that way. But yeah, in terms

15:19

of the sort of peak of your power, now you're able

15:21

to still survive. For

15:25

years, as you mentioned, you know, patent

15:27

bogs now exist in the form of squire

15:29

patent bogs. Right, but it's not the same

15:31

is what it was. And it's certainly squire

15:33

is sort of a part of an old firm

15:35

too, right? You know, so Congress keeps making laws

15:37

that are supposed to curtail the power of lobbyists.

15:40

Why has that not worked? You

15:42

know, I think, one, lobbying is protected by

15:44

the First Amendment, so it can't be banned. Corporations

15:46

are people too. Two,

15:49

campaign donations are protected by the law. So companies

15:51

have the power and their lobbyists have the power

15:54

to make friends with these members of Congress.

15:56

So I think that's two important

15:58

reasons. What I found is that

16:00

every time Congress makes a law, lobbyists just figure an easy way

16:02

around it. There's a couple of good examples, a couple of good

16:05

quotes in our book. Tony Podesta

16:08

told us, or I think we quoted him saying, if

16:10

Congress banned lobbyists from driving cars, we'd always

16:12

get cars and drivers. And that's

16:14

true. It just shows that there's very easy ways of

16:17

getting around things, including campaign donations. Yeah, and I mean,

16:19

just to that point, one

16:21

of the things that happened after the

16:23

Jack Abramoff scandal was a Congress crackdown

16:25

on being able

16:27

to give gifts to members of Congress or whatever, and state

16:30

dinners, tickets. How about the idea that you had to now

16:32

stand up to eat? I mean, that

16:34

was like one of the more ridiculous, like, you

16:36

know, reports where it suddenly is like, well, as

16:38

long as there are no chairs… Yeah,

16:40

right. No, no, no, it's true. As long as there are

16:42

no chairs, you literally can serve the

16:44

best gourmet food possible because you can

16:46

call no forks and it's right. So

16:49

we've got those fancy lamb chops all over the bottom. But one

16:51

of the things that it did, one of

16:53

the things it did is drive a lot of the socializing

16:55

to campaign

16:57

frontiers, which we're not. Or actually to media

16:59

organizations. Is that right? Think

17:03

about that. Is that right? Does the

17:05

Wall Street Journal have salon dinners? Does the political

17:07

have salon dinners? Yeah, yeah. I mean, we've

17:09

all done it. And one of the

17:11

– I was at a news organization

17:14

and said, hey, this new law means they

17:16

can't – we can be the go-between. We can

17:18

be – we hold an event. Lobbyists and members

17:20

of Congress just happen to show up. Wow. So

17:23

it created an

17:25

entire – this entire eventized industry

17:27

of Washington, I would argue, sort

17:29

of came out of the regulations

17:31

that limited interactions between living

17:33

for a minute. Well, Luke, it looks like we need

17:35

to add another chapter. I know. But

17:38

I mean if you – and I say this, look,

17:40

as a journalist, I love these things because

17:43

sources are coming. You've

17:45

invited your actual sources. So

17:48

I can't sit here and say, well, but

17:50

it does feel like we've all

17:52

participated in the system in a way

17:54

that maybe we don't fully appreciate.

17:56

Yeah. And you know, another –

17:58

we also get into – how the media is

18:01

used in lobbying as well. There's a couple of

18:03

our characters who sort of

18:05

became media lobbyists. They would sort of become friends with

18:07

lobbyists and try to get – I'm

18:09

sorry, become friends with reporters and try to get reporters

18:11

to write stories. That's how we get the gas stove

18:14

stories now, rightly, or almost is like a bunch of

18:16

small lobbyists who like say, hey, they're thinking about a

18:18

regulation here. Let's kill this in the crib. Right.

18:20

Well, as you know, if you're a reporter for Politico

18:23

or for Roll Call or The Hill, you're constantly looking

18:25

for stories. And if a lobbyist comes in and is

18:27

like, hey, here's a story about some new

18:29

bill has become law or some lawmaker that's going

18:31

to kill something. But the fundamental issue that's driving

18:33

that is the sort of movement away from the

18:36

sort of traditional inside lobbying that

18:38

Tommy Boggs was doing to

18:40

this sort of outside lobbying

18:43

where the goal is not so much to pressure

18:45

a member of Congress directly in

18:47

a smoke-filled room but rather to get –

18:49

to whip up support for or against something

18:52

among that member's constituents.

18:54

There's constituents. And that's where the media and

18:57

the media lobbying comes in. I was at

18:59

– I had three different

19:01

lobbyists come up to me after an event who

19:03

told me that there is – there

19:05

are now firms who specialize

19:08

in just, all right, we're

19:10

trying to build opposition to

19:13

this arcane bill that no one understands.

19:17

And these firms know – Grassroots firms is what they

19:19

know. Right. Yeah. Right.

19:22

Who do we want to kill this? If you need the Democrats

19:24

to kill it, then it becomes a progressive – Well,

19:26

it's even more – A media campaign and if you need the MAGA to

19:29

kill it, then it becomes something – And a lot of times it's more

19:31

advanced than that where you want

19:33

to target specific members of Congress with

19:35

a specific message because there's –

19:38

we actually don't get into this book but

19:40

we did reporting along these lines. Because there

19:42

are so few members of Congress that are

19:44

actually persuadable on any given issue that those

19:46

members that are persuadable, firms

19:50

will create sort of an echo chamber around them

19:52

in their home state in order to

19:54

try to pressure them on a federal

19:57

bill. On

20:02

May 10th, Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes

20:05

is coming to IMAX and theaters

20:07

everywhere. This

20:12

summer, one movie event will rain.

20:17

I know where they're taking your clan. Kingdom

20:24

of the Planet of the Apes. Only in theaters May

20:26

10th. Tickets on sale now. Rated PG-13.

20:29

All material may be inappropriate for children under 13. Kevin

20:34

Hart here. This basketball season, Chase Freedom

20:36

Unlimited is helping me cash back on

20:38

everything. Even the sound system that auto

20:40

tunes the game. Curry

20:43

from way

20:45

downtown! Defense!

20:48

Will the owner of a red sedan

20:51

please visit guest services? Bet

20:53

you've never heard cash back and sound like

20:55

that. Cash back like a pro with Chase

20:57

Freedom Unlimited. Chase. Make more of what's yours.

20:59

Restrictions and limitations apply. Cards are issued by JPMorgan

21:01

Chase Bank and a member FDIC. Other

21:04

than more transparency, isn't

21:06

in a free society this inevitable?

21:10

So I mean I feel like lobbying is inevitable.

21:13

Lobbying is inevitable in a democracy. We don't say

21:15

that lobbying shouldn't exist. What we're saying is that

21:17

we're living in an era where lobbyists, corporate lobbyists

21:19

are the only ones with their thumb on the

21:21

scale. That labor unions are not.

21:24

How do we, I mean, labor unions had a ton of

21:27

power for a long period of time. They had a ton

21:29

of power and they used it and they created a bunch

21:31

of laws that helped them and now we're on the other

21:33

side of the spectrum here. I

21:35

think that one way that things could be

21:37

quote unquote fixed is if labor unions sort

21:39

of got their act together and organized their members.

21:41

Is this just a labor union issue though? It's

21:44

not just a labor union issue but

21:47

if you look out at the pantheon

21:49

of potential, you know,

21:51

we call these countervailing forces, right,

21:53

business. Labor

21:55

is the only one that I see that currently

21:57

exists that could make any sense now. your

22:00

point as we get it. Let's talk tech.

22:02

For a minute. Basically,

22:04

we're in a, some would argue,

22:07

an existential struggle against big tech

22:09

here. And there really isn't

22:11

a lobbying community against big tech. Correct. It's

22:13

called the American public. Their

22:16

public opinion is there, but there isn't... When

22:18

all the lobbyists

22:21

are basically working for big tech, who's working

22:23

for the public? Nobody is. I mean, that's

22:25

the... That's the scary thing on this specific

22:27

topic, to me. Oh, I mean, and again,

22:29

it's not

22:32

necessarily just that specific topic, right?

22:35

It's, again, lobbying itself is not

22:37

a problem, but this sort of profound

22:39

structural imbalance of power.

22:42

Is there a way that the system can get

22:44

changed where you balance this out other than, hey,

22:46

labor, get your act together? I think they're gonna

22:48

sort of fix itself in the marketplace. I mean,

22:50

if we look at what's happening in politics right

22:52

now, you have more and more populist

22:54

Republicans and AOC progressive Democrats are

22:56

coming out against big tech for

22:59

completely different reasons. But they both

23:01

think they concentrate economic power is

23:03

as bad or worse than government

23:05

power. And as that movement grows

23:07

on the right, I think

23:09

you could really push back on some of these big

23:12

tech companies. Well, it is interesting. If I were corporate

23:14

America, the thing I would be most worried about is

23:16

that there is starting to become bipartisan

23:18

agreement that government needs to get stronger. Right,

23:21

right, exactly. Yeah, yeah. It's really

23:24

been jarring on the right. You know, I was talking

23:26

to somebody at the Heritage Foundation about tech, and

23:29

they were talking about, you know, problems

23:31

with concentrations of power and ultimately,

23:35

they would never say it this way.

23:37

But you're talking about they need the

23:39

government to be more aggressive. I just

23:41

read a very provocative book by basically,

23:43

I think, a recovering Republican businessman who's essentially

23:45

calling for the breakup of big tech but

23:48

is afraid to ask for government to do

23:50

it because his own DNA. Like, he knows

23:52

it's bad, but he's not quite there. And

23:54

I get it because I think for many

23:57

lifelong sort of pro-business Republicans,

24:01

the government's the last place they wanted to turn.

24:04

But that is what's happening. That's the changes going

24:06

on in the Republican Party. So you're asking what

24:08

are the fixes? I think it could happen on

24:10

its own in the free marketplace where more

24:13

and more Republicans think that the government needs

24:15

to take down these tech companies. But

24:20

let's be honest. This book, by

24:22

title alone, creates

24:25

the mindset that this is a

24:28

bad thing that happens in America.

24:34

And I think it's really hard. I have a friend

24:36

of mine who's a lobbyist for Sierra Club. And

24:39

when his kids were little, he

24:41

told them what he did. I'm a lobbyist for an environmental

24:43

group. And all they would hear,

24:46

his kids are in their mid-20s now, so imagine the

24:48

conversations that's been had about lobbyists over the last 20

24:50

years. So they just assumed their dad

24:52

was horrible because all they heard

24:54

were these horrible things that lobbyists do. And

24:56

it's like, look, one person's lobbyist is another

24:58

person's advocate. I

25:00

get what you're saying. I don't

25:02

think that lobbying itself is bad. I

25:04

think the impact of lobbying on America

25:07

over the past 40 years has

25:09

been harmful to most

25:12

Americans. Is it more harmful on the federal level

25:14

or the state level? We didn't really look at

25:16

the state-level lobbying. That absolutely could be the case.

25:19

But we were doing federal. I will tell you

25:21

a story of a friend of mine who was a state rep

25:24

out in Colorado. They're not a

25:26

full-time legislature. And I said,

25:28

and each caucus shares two researchers. And

25:33

I said, so how do you read every bill? And

25:35

he says, no, I read the bills that I

25:37

care about. And then I go to a

25:39

lobbyist friend of mine who I trust on the other bills to find

25:41

out how to vote. I

25:44

just, my jaw fell open, eyes wide. And

25:46

he goes, it's how we all do

25:48

it. We don't have a staff. It's how every state

25:50

legislature has topper. It's interesting. And that

25:52

was fascinating. And this is where I've always been. I think term limits are

25:54

one of the... A

25:57

good idea with a bad outcome. Only

26:00

people that aren't term limited in a state house are

26:02

the lobbyists. Well, I mean, on that

26:04

point, one of the issues that reformers

26:06

will bring up as a way to kind

26:09

of prevent staffers from

26:12

leaving government service in

26:14

Gondia would be to build capacity, essentially pay

26:16

staffers more, create more budget to have more

26:18

staffers so they have people there that can

26:20

do that. It does seem that... Now, again,

26:22

you're talking there about... I know. ...bending

26:24

out governments. No, it's funny you say that. One of the

26:26

biggest problems with how

26:29

Washington works is members of Congress don't... They

26:31

have to keep two houses. They don't get paid well.

26:33

If you created a system that gave them DC housing

26:37

that paid staffers, essentially,

26:40

a living wage on

26:42

an 80-hour week, because that's what

26:44

these guys do, then

26:46

they don't easily get tempted by the $500,000 a

26:48

year starting salary at some of these firms. Let's

26:54

go pass the bill to raise wages on Capitol Hill.

26:56

I know. That's the problem. In

26:58

fact, they've gone out of their way. They've actually had

27:00

automatic pay raises that they go out of their way

27:02

not to let happen, which if

27:05

you're a rich guy, that's fine. But

27:08

there actually are some members of Congress who

27:10

drive really bad cars because they can't afford

27:12

no one's. I know no one's

27:14

crying for members of Congress. Yeah, it is true

27:16

that. But it is how you end up with

27:18

only rich people in Congress. Absolutely. And why they're

27:21

so dependent on corporations for fundraising to stay

27:23

in office. Barney Frank was talking about this.

27:25

I forget, Silicon Valley Bank, he was on the board of some

27:28

bank recently, and he got caught up in that little when the

27:30

bank went under, and one of the things he was saying was

27:32

like, I had to make money. Right. Yeah.

27:35

No, I mean, it is one of those things. And

27:38

individually, we're in this world where individually, you're like, everybody's

27:40

got to get theirs. And you're like, but

27:42

collectively, it's just good for society. And it

27:44

feels like how K Street currently

27:46

operates, it's

27:48

sort of like how it operates needs to change,

27:50

not what they do is the wrong. Is

27:53

that the moral of this story? I mean,

27:55

again, like, I think the issue here is

27:57

when our sort of interest group competition

28:00

was working well in the 60s and 70s. By

28:04

the way, our founders assumed that there would be

28:06

interest group competition. No, they wanted it. They were

28:08

hoping for it. But they said it'd be a

28:10

fair fight. We need

28:12

to have these countervailing forces, right? That's how

28:14

it works well. And that's something we haven't

28:16

had in 40 years. So that

28:18

a member of Congress talks to the lobbyists, but

28:21

then also talks to the union, and then also talks

28:23

to the Ralph Nader's and comes up

28:25

with their own opinion. Do we need a new Ralph Nader?

28:27

I mean, I say that like, you know, he was a

28:29

– I mean, he had Joan Clabro. They were real power,

28:31

yeah. They were two forces of

28:33

nature. Yeah. Public citizen,

28:35

the purgs, and all these things,

28:38

arguably there hasn't been a new

28:40

generation of these citizen sort of – citizen-consumer protectors.

28:44

Well, they exist, but they don't have nearly the power that they – No. No,

28:47

this is something that I think Luke and I disagree on, but I think that

28:49

that force is inevitably going to

28:51

come certainly on the right. I mean, the

28:53

Heritage Foundation used to be, you know, for Ronald

28:55

Reagan. It was a corporate-owned. Now they switched.

28:57

Yeah, they want it. They're against corporate America. The

29:00

Federalist Society, like what more conservative organization

29:02

is there out there than the Federalist

29:05

Society, they're now pushing for some of

29:07

Lena Khan's agenda, which sounds crazy, but

29:09

that's true. There's certainly been a political

29:11

realignment on some of these issues, but

29:13

you need real structural

29:15

power on

29:18

behalf of consumers

29:20

in order for consumers

29:23

to have a fair fight. Is there any

29:25

way to take campaign money out of the

29:28

leverage system, right, the incentive structure here or

29:30

no? I mean, is it just – Well, what's interesting,

29:32

one of the things that in Brody's research

29:34

he found was that, you know,

29:36

PAC's money is

29:39

becoming less important. Forgive me. Corporate

29:41

PAC money is becoming – Because there's a limit in what

29:43

they can get. No. Isn't

29:46

that the issue? Part of it's a limit. Part of

29:48

it is that more – lots of Democrats are not

29:50

taking PAC money. Some Republicans are not taking PAC money.

29:53

Gotcha. And So there's so much

29:55

now. billionaire money and small dollar donations out there. By

29:57

The way, I'm old enough when PAC's for reform. An

30:00

idea of a political editor amity, the

30:03

I'm in the Nineteenth and all of

30:05

the post Watergate reforms. The. Political

30:07

Action Committee was it was basically a

30:09

creation. There was a major be reformed

30:11

death. In order to have

30:14

more transparency yes into what. What?

30:17

Corporate America's gender worth friend is that I

30:19

think that that worked. In terms of transparency,

30:21

there are about a decade. The problem is

30:23

it now. episodes The Day We have all

30:25

this money flowing from Billionaires that says you

30:27

know didn't open up money for corporations a

30:29

local brains are allowed to arm. I think

30:31

corporation still give money to packs for that.

30:33

Money is being overwhelmed by small dollars and

30:35

by billionaire. sorry you brought up Citizens United

30:37

Men A listener is easily going to say,

30:39

well, that's the issue. That's.

30:41

The real issue? that if you don't, if

30:43

corporate America was limited in how much money

30:45

they could contribute to politics, they would be

30:47

this powerful in Washington. Be

30:50

you seen the opposite? Happened after after Citizens

30:52

United. Oh I'm most people here. Most evil

30:54

thing that says the United open the door

30:56

to a flood of corporate money in politics

30:58

or I didn't get the case. If you

31:00

look at the numbers there are some companies

31:02

know it's been individual billionaires though. They are

31:04

they rebuilding right? That has been the and

31:06

create and the money on our individual billionaires

31:08

are are them them that bigger share of

31:10

the pie? They take up over corporations a

31:12

corporation you'd have a all the say and

31:14

money now these billionaires art arts from taking

31:16

up some Milan. Now if you read the

31:18

history the United States closely. Individual rich

31:20

people. They weren't billionaires, then they were

31:23

just multimillionaire. Have. Always had this

31:25

outside influences. That serve as we're They

31:27

found a great act out in the air

31:29

Roseville campaign where ah in nineteen thirty two

31:31

wedding was one of his top aides or

31:33

the news might have to run his campaign

31:36

is one of to New York gotta did

31:38

he doesn't or check from Bangor came back

31:40

in Atlanta or campaign I mean. You.

31:42

Know the entire new grant book by turn. I say

31:44

it's knew what is about three or four years old

31:46

which is an attempt to sort of like wow, he

31:48

didn't mean to be corrupt. Ah, You

31:51

know, sort of a bit sort of softening, but

31:53

it was clear there were a lot of. Financial.

31:56

forces that had influence on grant throughout his

31:58

presidency and part of it was He

32:00

needed money like he was just but there

32:02

was always some big-punny interest hanging around

32:05

I mean, I think we'd all agree that taking

32:07

money out of politics would be great. I just

32:09

don't think that's everything Okay, I'd like

32:11

to take a lot of things out of pot, right? That's

32:13

right. There shouldn't be any negative campaigning Okay,

32:16

change human behavior, right? Like so and

32:18

so until the incentive structure is that So

32:21

who are today's? Wolves of

32:23

K Street Brian Ballard one of them Brian

32:26

Ballard certainly was during the Trump administration. He's in

32:28

our book. He's not one of our main characters

32:31

I mean, he was the most successful Trump lobbyists.

32:33

He clearly were like a period to hands down

32:36

He'll be back if Trump wins. Um

32:38

in the Biden world. It's unclear. I think

32:40

there have been a SKD K Right the

32:43

need of guns old there and

32:45

technically not lobbyists. But yes, they represent a

32:47

lot of corporations. Right? I mean we write

32:49

about Tony

32:52

Podesta and now Heather Heather Podesta, I mean

32:54

she was a lobbyist back then but you

32:56

know, her firm is bigger

32:59

now than Tony's ever was and It

33:04

Does ideology matter less and less now with these

33:06

firms? I mean they're almost all by bipartisan

33:08

or is there I mean SKD K hasn't

33:11

done that they've stuck to and in some

33:13

ways I guess global park whatever the Current

33:15

iteration of it is I know they've changed

33:17

their think they've changed their name, too But

33:20

what is the trend is the trend to do what

33:22

Ballard did and try to add more democratic lobbyists so

33:24

he can balance out What's any new

33:26

trends here companies feel like sometimes naively? But they

33:28

still feel like they need to hire lobbyists who

33:31

are connected to the parties in power So if

33:33

that's if you know if Trump wins you're gonna

33:35

want to hire Republicans if Biden wins You're gonna

33:37

want to our Democrats and same thing on Capitol

33:39

Hill. So that's how it's always worked and that's

33:42

not there's no in But

33:44

are we seeing are more firms still trying to

33:46

be bipartisan is my point I think firms are

33:48

going bipartisan to sort of have some staying power

33:50

in Washington You're saying that right only lasts for

33:52

10 years. Well every 10 years more than every

33:55

10 years There's a change in political power. So if

33:57

you're all Republican, you've got a lot of eggs in one basket

33:59

So if you higher Democrats, maybe you can

34:01

stay around for a little bit longer. And how

34:03

would you guys assess the pervasiveness of members of

34:05

Congress moving to the lobbying community? Gosh,

34:08

it's not... It's interesting. It's one of the

34:10

issues that we didn't really dive into, quite

34:12

frankly. I mean, we followed these handful

34:14

of lobbyists over 40 years,

34:17

essentially. That's obviously

34:19

an issue. But

34:22

it is it. I'm trying to think of the

34:24

most powerful lobbyists. You

34:26

know, Packwood became successful. I don't know if

34:28

he became powerful. But I'm trying to think

34:30

of former members themselves who truly

34:33

wielded lobbying power in lot

34:35

and John Roe. Came close for a small period of

34:37

time, I guess because they were the faces of Patton

34:40

Boggs. One

34:43

could argue they were in

34:45

the last run of Patton Boggs before they became

34:47

an entire Patton Boggs. But, you know,

34:50

there's power and there's the perception of power. And

34:52

a former member of Congress, people believe, are super

34:54

connected and super powerful. And for companies who don't

34:56

know much about how Washington worked, it's really easy

34:58

to hire a trendlader or a former

35:02

member and think that you can get whatever you want. In

35:06

the 1980s, most corporate,

35:08

how much of the Fortune 500 have their

35:10

own offices in Washington versus today? Did you

35:12

guys do comparison to that? I'm going to

35:14

guess that was probably a tiny

35:17

percentage of Fortune 500 companies with

35:19

their own offices in Washington. There's

35:21

an explosion of

35:24

corporate offices opening in the

35:26

1970s. In the 70s. That

35:28

was really the switch. But I don't know. Relative

35:31

to that, I don't know. That was the question. But

35:33

it basically goes from almost none to everyone. Exactly. Yeah.

35:36

I mean, Washington office was like where you

35:38

would send people out to pasture. You

35:41

know, it was not viewed as something that was...

35:44

I think no corporation represents this move,

35:47

this sort of move to

35:49

how powerful being in Washington is than Boeing.

35:52

We essentially decided to move its headquarters to Arlington.

35:54

Yeah. Well, their biggest customer is Washington.

35:56

Right. Well, HQQ2 as well. I

35:59

Was just going to say, government... The tracks are your life ally

36:01

and and you can be based here and

36:03

and I trust to mean if you're if

36:05

you're looking at an Amazon Zero like that's

36:07

a lot of these big companies their lives,

36:09

they have their can only grow through Washington

36:11

and sense. One of the other.

36:14

I'm when I worked at the National Journal. A

36:16

person is to sell advertising said. We. Don't

36:18

care who controls Congress would just wanted

36:20

to take up really big divisive issues

36:22

that have money likes. Don't think of

36:24

abortion. there's no money and abortion. there's

36:27

no money. Guns so like to take

36:29

those Jewish. It's healthcare. The. Heck

36:31

you know and they start rut that the

36:33

ad sales people would rub their hands together.

36:35

As as said still the case likes the

36:37

next like taste streets be economic future is

36:40

really bright because big tax on the chopping

36:42

block read yet most the law is the

36:44

white of even a republicans one one say

36:46

they love it when democrats are control because

36:48

when democrats here and they want allege royals

36:51

right they they wanted a more poorly companies

36:53

think they're endlessly so company for Yabloko no

36:55

definite out our me to hire lobbyists whereas

36:57

when republicans are electric company think our safe

36:59

so divided. Washington. Is the

37:02

best. Washington doesn't for this for this

37:04

around right now. Zeppelin, I'm. Your.

37:06

Brothers. Are you right?

37:09

together? I don't know if

37:11

my daughter and son. And can

37:13

barely get them the take the garbage out

37:15

the go read or we deadly you know

37:17

had our had our fights but I always

37:19

recovered but we i'm wish had pretty commentary

37:21

styles ah I to right quick and dirty

37:23

and liquid sort of take that in and

37:25

make into I was just gonna say those

37:27

whose of your that that was your first

37:29

drop your second draft I'm on my back

37:31

on his magazine raining so a little bit

37:33

more on you know narratives might not sort

37:35

of my my background and how we wanted

37:37

to the books and i met this guy

37:39

national journal where we did not like anybody

37:41

to have style the of. Course the facts

37:43

I am entity. do it really? you me

37:45

to into words can give a hundred fifty

37:47

a side? I'm on Jimmy to others path

37:50

to other dispatches right? That was the Congress

37:52

Daily way. Exactly exactly so down I could

37:54

see where you guys have competing. exact

37:56

ended of also journal we don't use adverbs or adjutant

37:58

so that was hard for me The

38:00

state of investigative journalism, you

38:03

guys are both investigative journalists.

38:06

Would you sit there and say that there's

38:10

less being done or that there

38:12

is just more not being

38:14

consumed? Oh, definitely less being done. I

38:17

mean the reporters

38:19

now just cover the White House. They cover the bills

38:22

around the floor. And you mentioned Congress daily. I

38:24

spent six years just covering a subcommittee. And

38:26

there was story after story after story about

38:29

companies doing things and packed donations and members

38:31

of Congress doing wrong – behaving badly. And

38:34

people just don't follow this up anymore. It's all about who's

38:37

in the White House and what they're saying

38:39

and what's going on on the House or

38:41

Senate floors. It's also investigative journalism is expensive,

38:43

probably the most labor capital intensive part of

38:46

journalism. And then it's the first thing you

38:48

can let go of when things are – Well,

38:50

because the better the investigative piece is, the

38:52

more of a headache it is for the

38:54

– especially if you work for a company

38:57

that's owned by a corporation. I

39:00

mean that does matter. It

39:03

just creates and suddenly –

39:06

But you're also going to be less productive

39:08

than – you're going to write fewer stories

39:10

in a year, right? No.

39:13

And like I said, where Brody and I first met

39:15

back then, it was Story Count.

39:17

Story Count. And we were 20-somethings that

39:19

were just being used for our

39:21

energy and ambition. And we had a lot

39:23

of energy and ambition. Yeah, we did. That's why they gave

39:25

us the free coffee. Free coffee and bagels

39:27

just to keep the hamster wheel going. So

39:35

television shows have been done by

39:38

K Street. How has Hollywood

39:40

portrayed K Street? Because I'll

39:42

be honest. Your introduction seems to make me

39:44

think you'd like to see a Wolves of

39:47

K Street. So what would the movie look like in your mind? That's

39:50

something we need to figure out now by talking

39:52

to Asians and talking to people in Hollywood. It

39:55

definitely is a sort of made-for-Netflix type book. The

39:57

question is which character? We have like five pretty

39:59

amazing – characters that could be. I could see

40:01

a big short-like style, right, where you're sort of,

40:03

you break the fourth wall every once in a

40:05

while. Because, you know, remember the TV show

40:08

K Street? Yeah. That HBO tried. Was it

40:10

just one season or maybe only got one

40:12

season? Might have been one episode. Shaky camera.

40:14

Yeah, it was, and it, I

40:17

think it just celebrated people you recognized, right?

40:20

Like it was like, hey, there's James

40:22

Carville, you know, and it didn't quite,

40:24

because the most effective lobbyist, I mean,

40:27

if Brian Balor could walk into the studio and he'd have

40:29

to introduce himself to me. I'm not gonna lie. I maybe have

40:31

met him, I don't know. Right. You know, I don't know if

40:33

I know his face. So, I think, because

40:36

I think in order to get the public to understand

40:38

how this works, we probably do need to put

40:41

it into Mark form. No? Yeah. Well,

40:44

again, it could be, I mean, we've tried to

40:46

figure out whether this is sort of a succession

40:48

type show or a billion show or something like

40:50

that. I mean, it could be pretty good. Well,

40:52

you could have the, the Podesta's and the

40:55

Boggs and like give these sort of the

40:57

ruling lobby of the game families, right? You

40:59

know, who's going, you know, who is going

41:01

to throw the best after party? It's

41:04

a big fight. Like you

41:07

could have, because what makes succession work, right?

41:09

The best episodes are the ones that force

41:11

everybody in the same room. Right. Well, with

41:13

Washington, there's always a party

41:15

to be thrown, somebody's wedding or somebody's

41:17

funeral, right? So you have easily where you

41:19

can bring all your characters into the room. Anyway,

41:22

these are little things we could do. The show

41:24

could be called the House of Podesta and have

41:26

Tony Podesta, Heather Podesta and John Podesta all fighting

41:28

it out. Well, it, what was that movie? There

41:30

was a movie with, I think

41:32

it was loosely about the Bulger brothers, essentially,

41:35

Bulger's being you had the Senate president and

41:37

then Whitey Bulger, the mobster, Senate president, and

41:39

this, I think Joe Piscopo played the mobster.

41:42

And I forget, I think it's, Michael

41:45

Keaton played the, the goody two shoes, but they were

41:47

brothers. One bad one could, I guess you could do

41:50

a John and Tony. Yeah. I think Tony would like

41:52

that. But It's like, the one is the do-gooder trying

41:54

to save the world and the environment. The other one

41:56

is just trying to make, you know, massive tons of

41:58

money. And you're like. And

42:01

their closest the pretty clear they are right. Yeah.

42:04

They said that they would fight over policy but always

42:06

get together for dinner on Sundays. It.

42:08

Is. The. Ultimate the best as in

42:10

some ways are the ultimate. You. Can make

42:12

a positive portrayal of them and say this is how

42:14

Washington works. Or. You could make a negative portrayal

42:17

and. Both. Are somewhat accurate. Yeah

42:19

yeah I mean didn't We didn't really get

42:21

too much into John Podesta but he oh

42:23

he went to work for of of major

42:25

trade group downtown where he represented corporate American

42:27

Front of Washington Also eat veal say there

42:29

he was more democratic liberal think tank but

42:31

they're funded by companies and they'd you're deaf

42:33

Lana Pro Corporate agenda is not as aggressive

42:35

as were some or moment of on Labor

42:37

of Love How long does take. This.

42:40

As a matter of dispute when it actually

42:42

I began been hiding seventy years has the

42:44

right. The. Right number is about seven years

42:47

ago that your piece ran on the dead Lotta?

42:49

yes, but we will. We didn't amelie decide to

42:51

write a book, goes with her, had a couple

42:53

of stories after then do we realize you for

42:55

peace? All these things together. but once we had

42:57

these various characters ago we still have a book.

42:59

It's weasel the know what the book said. So.

43:01

That's every couple years I feel exactly the hard Because

43:03

the hard thing about a book like this? You could

43:05

just be anecdote after anecdote. Rent And they are the

43:07

i don't really. They. Don't try to

43:09

gather of the nothing a while we'll get

43:12

his shit in A success with we don't

43:14

do that we have we have our a

43:16

point and our we have great stories are

43:18

illustrate a point and I'm. What

43:21

sir? What? Would be

43:23

the sequel what He Watch and for what do you think the

43:25

reaction them less empty streets going to be the the book. To.

43:28

Good question. I'm. Irrational.

43:31

Seen so far as is. very positive

43:33

several people were named in the box and so

43:35

you're most lobbies the icing arena love it i

43:37

think people result in love with are in love

43:39

really about their colleagues and and their adversary there

43:41

was a famous book in the eighties was at

43:44

the gucci what was a cold lived another reason

43:46

yes i write this book sort of a ya

43:48

play them before this boy if people were looking

43:50

for the definitive book about power power behind the

43:52

scenes in washington right away the good jumper bombshell

43:54

and a good you gold showdown a good to

43:56

go know which is the best lobbying book that

43:58

i do that i'd This one but that was

44:00

at the 1986 tax bill I mean that's

44:03

one how old we are but also how long

44:05

has been since someone's written a good book about

44:07

K Street and K Street's Completely changed. I mean

44:09

that was that the transformation of the 90s McCain

44:12

fine goal all the different weird

44:14

campaign finance attempts law reform

44:16

temps created this modern Version

44:19

of K Street now that is that is a lot by

44:21

the way, how many offices are left in K Street? On

44:25

the actual K Street. Yeah, you know that you're

44:27

moving downtown to the to the waterfront or Away

44:29

from downtown into the waterfront by there's still most

44:31

lobbying for the beer on K Street or L

44:33

Street are right right around there It's still a

44:35

downtown phenomenon because Muriel Bowser would like to know

44:38

And then yeah, and that and that second and third potbelly

44:40

that's about to go under would like to know. Yeah Congratulations,

44:46

thank you so much, you know, when do you

44:48

when when did when did the Netflix rights get

44:50

sold? Oh gosh, we gotta get out. We gotta

44:52

finish up this book and the promotions and then

44:54

get out there Well

44:56

get out there get promoting And

44:59

hopefully a few people buy it after listening to this Thank

45:02

you so much On

45:06

May 10th Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes

45:09

is coming to IMAX and theaters everywhere

45:15

This summer one movie event will

45:17

rain I

45:22

know where they're taking your plan Oh

45:27

Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes only

45:29

in theaters made 10 tickets on sale now

45:31

ready PG-13 some material may be inappropriate for

45:34

children under 13 Before

45:37

we go another question For

45:40

this episode Jim Coates writes in and

45:42

he writes this I have a problem believing polling

45:44

data results that you report Because I don't know

45:46

where you find people to answer your polling question

45:48

So who are these people who

45:50

answer the phone and then engage in answering your polling

45:52

questions? How many people do you have to contact in

45:54

order to fill the quota for responses? And what is

45:57

the motivation for those who do respond

45:59

to polls is my skepticism about polling

46:01

results unfounded. Look, I understand

46:03

why generically you may feel as

46:05

if your

46:07

skeptical polling results these days, you're

46:10

probably like, you know, I get

46:13

these weird survey monkey things. Is

46:16

this it? Is this how polling works now? You

46:18

know, it wasn't that long ago. It was a

46:20

phone call into somebody's house. So

46:23

look, I can just say how we

46:25

poll, all right? And there's different methodologies out

46:27

there. We still believe in a telephone poll.

46:30

What do I mean by that? We're always

46:32

going to contact people via a phone number.

46:35

There's landline phone numbers, which are fewer and

46:37

fewer, and we call fewer and fewer landline

46:39

numbers. So about 20 to 30% of

46:42

our respondents, we get

46:44

via landline. And so there's different ways this

46:46

works. So we don't just, if somebody doesn't

46:49

answer, you know, we have a random, we

46:51

use a, we as a voter, we

46:53

use two voter file companies, our pollsters. We

46:55

have two polling firms that put

46:57

together our poll public opinion strategies as

47:00

a Republican firm. Heart

47:02

Research is a Democratic firm. Unlike most

47:04

media pollsters, we employ both a Democrat

47:06

and a Republican to our polling. And

47:08

here's the simple philosophy as to why.

47:12

Academic and media pollsters are not, are

47:14

not paid to get it right. They're paid

47:16

to get a story. Political

47:19

pollsters don't make a living if their

47:21

polling numbers are wrong, pure and simple.

47:24

The bottom line is I, you know,

47:27

I feel as if those that professionally

47:29

have to poll in order to make

47:31

a living are

47:33

incentivized to make sure their numbers are

47:36

right in ways that I think the

47:38

academic community while, while

47:40

meaning doesn't have the

47:42

same accountability, which

47:44

is why I'm personally sometimes more

47:47

skeptical of some of that polling than

47:49

what we do. So what

47:51

I'm trying to do is make my case, Mr.

47:53

Coates, for our polling and why we, so that's

47:55

number one. Number two, as I

47:57

said, we, we still use a phone number to try

47:59

to. contact people. We aren't doing this

48:01

via a panel survey. There's some people

48:04

that will you can belong to

48:06

a panel and then maybe you

48:08

get paid a dollar a month

48:10

if you respond to at least 10 polls

48:12

and fill out their polls. YouGov,

48:16

if you've seen them, that's kind of

48:18

how some of their

48:20

polling works. There's a random

48:22

sample, randomness to it. There's

48:25

waiting towards the census, etc.

48:28

I think it's done

48:30

with honest methodological

48:32

standards. I just don't think it's the best

48:34

way to get a true

48:37

good sampling of the public. We

48:40

use telephones. A lot of cell phones, I'd say 70% of

48:43

our responses are via people

48:45

who answer their cell phone. We

48:48

go mostly cell phones for the obvious reason.

48:50

It's more universal than landline. More

48:52

people have a cell phone number than have

48:54

a landline number. About 10

48:57

years ago, we started using cell phones and at the time,

48:59

it was to try to reach people who didn't have

49:01

a landline. Those are usually younger voters. That

49:04

demographic has totally changed. Most

49:06

people now only have a cell phone. If

49:09

you've moved in the last 10 years,

49:11

you don't have a landline. That's

49:14

probably the easy way to talk about it. Sometimes

49:19

it takes us four tries to

49:21

get somebody to respond. If

49:23

you're trying to get a thousand people in

49:25

your survey, you probably have to make 20,000

49:27

to 30,000 contacts. Response rates are

49:31

pretty low these days. They are in the single-ditch

49:33

it. When it comes

49:35

to that, we also then take

49:37

our responses. Sometimes we fill our

49:39

entire quota for

49:42

different demographic groups. Sometimes we're short and

49:44

you've got to use waiting. Then

49:47

we'll wait to the census. It

49:50

is an art and a science. There is science

49:53

in how we collect the data. There is art

49:55

at times in how you wait it, if

49:57

you will. All I can tell you is the way I

50:00

read polls is I stick with, you know,

50:02

I don't like to mix and match

50:04

polling data because different firms use

50:06

different methodology. I like to look

50:09

at one poll's trend

50:11

line and I'll look at another poll and I'll look

50:13

at their trend line. If you're skeptical

50:15

of the raw numbers, don't

50:18

be skeptical if you see a trend line

50:20

going one way or the other. Because if

50:22

you see the same methodology showing something that's

50:25

changing, that's more interesting than

50:27

the raw numbers itself. So

50:29

I understand why with so many good

50:32

polls and bad polls that get mixed together,

50:34

a lot of, look, I'm not

50:36

a big believer in these sites that aggregate polling. I

50:38

think it's actually made people's

50:41

understanding of poll numbers worse, not

50:43

better. Polls aren't supposed

50:45

to be exact answers. They

50:48

are estimates. They're just really, really good

50:50

estimates, but they are just that. And

50:53

if you're looking for precision, wait for the actual

50:55

results of the election. Maybe the election has precision,

50:57

although I used to make a joke that even

50:59

our election results have a margin of error of

51:01

plus or minus a half percentage point. That

51:04

was after the 2000 election. But

51:06

in all seriousness, if you're looking for precision, that's the only time

51:08

you're going to get it. But

51:12

it's good to assume there's some skepticism

51:14

with polling. All

51:17

I will say is look to see who the

51:19

pollsters are. Do they use telephone numbers?

51:22

Are they using the web? Do

51:24

they have partisan professional

51:26

pollsters? Do they have academic pollsters?

51:29

There's different ways to judge whether

51:31

the reliability of a poll. And

51:34

then look at their track record over time. Our

51:37

poll's been doing this for 30 years. Perhaps

51:40

our biggest miss was 2016. Other

51:42

than that, we've been within two

51:45

or three points of the actual results

51:47

every single election, both midterms and national.

51:50

And the 16 result was a miss by a lot of us. We

51:53

had one number, right? We just didn't have the other one right. And

51:57

it is true. Undecided voters sometimes wait.

51:59

until the very last minute to

52:02

tell you what you think. And that's why many

52:04

of good pollster number

52:07

one attribute is humility. I

52:10

hope that helped you a little bit. Mr. Coates

52:12

have a little more confidence in at least the

52:14

NBC News polling. But

52:16

if I've confused you more, then shoot me another question

52:18

and I'll try to clear it up. And

52:21

with that, thank you all for listening. You've

52:24

been listening to the Chuck Tonkass from NBC

52:26

News. If you enjoyed this show, download it

52:28

for free on Apple Podcast, Spotify, wherever you

52:30

get your podcasts. We'll take great reviews. If

52:34

you have a negative review, just shoot me an email instead of

52:36

a button. Right, we'll do it then.

52:38

How's that? We wanna hear your

52:40

feedback. We just don't want some algorithm. Just

52:42

move out. Today's episode was

52:44

produced by Live Metal. And that's in there. Thank

52:47

you. Thanks for listening. And

52:50

until we upload a video. We'll see

52:52

you next time. Kevin

53:03

Hart here. This basketball season, Chase

53:05

Freedom Unlimited is helping me cash

53:07

back the sound system that auto-tunes

53:09

the game. Curry from downtown! Chase

53:11

Freedom Unlimited. How do you cash

53:13

back? Restrictions and limitations apply. Cards

53:15

are issued by JPMorgan Chase Bank and a member FDIC.