Jon Stewart Exposes Billionaires’ Influence Over Elections with Teddy Schleifer & Ken Vogel

JON STEWART: Humility. Tenacity. Dick like Arnold Palmer. [LAUGHTER]. [MUSIC PLAYING]. Hello, everybody. Welcome, once again, to The Weekly Show Podcast. My name is Jon Stewart, and we have. a week to go about, a little bit more, I guess, than a week. And I got to say, I just--. I feel great.

I feel fucking great. How could you not? A week to go before one of the most consequential elections. of our lifetime and I have no idea, no idea, what's going to happen. And we've entered the phase of the election. that I like to call the Fellini era, the surreal fever dream, where you just turn on CNN and it was all about Donald Trump. actually does like Hitler.

And that's always comforting, in the run-up to an election, when one of the candidates is--. because his General John--. I'm sure you all understand his former chief-of-staff staff was. out like, yeah, the guy really thought Hitler. did a lot of good things. And I was thinking, well, you know, he was a vegetarian, but it's not really what he was known for, I. guess is what I'm saying. And we're in that form right now, where a model just came out and said, Trump groped me with Epstein.

And somebody else came out and said, Doug Emhoff hit me. And Elon's on stage just handing out a million. dollar oversized check. And by the way-- and I say this with all due respect--. the check that he is handing out has picked an in-between. It is not the giant novelty check of the Jerry Lewis. telethon, but it's also not the useful check. that you might use at a bank. It is a mid-sized check. Generally, the person's name is written on the line.

that you would put the dollar amount. So really, what are we doing? Can you then put that into the ATM? But the point is cash rules everything around me. Dollar, dollar bills, y'all. To quote, "It all really comes down to the RZA.". It always comes down to the Wu-Tang. Because Wu-Tang is for the children, and if there's anything that I can impress upon you. in this election, it is that. Wu-Tang is for the children.

And to that point, we are going to talk about cash. ruling everything around us. That would not have been a good song. Créu. Créu. C-R-É-U? No, that's just fucking stupid. That's why f was never allowed in Wu-Tang. But let's get right to it. We're going to talk money, billionaires. Let's do this thing. [DRUMS PLAYING]. All right, ladies and gentlemen, so we're.

going to get right to it. This episode is going to be "The Billionaire Boys Club.". We are happy to welcome into our Billionaire Boys Club Teddy. Schleifer, politics reporter for The New. York Times Ken Vogel, also a reporter. for The New York Times. Gentlemen, let's stop the niceties. Are we in oligarchy yet? I'm going to start with you, Ken Vogel. Is the amount of money--. if we're concerned about inflation in this country, inflation in politics, I mean, it makes.

us look like Argentina and Venezuela combined, the amount of money in these races. Are we the oligarchy that we fear? KEN VOGEL: I mean, every cycle, we've. seen an increase in the amount of money. that gets spent on politics. What we've seen more recently is. a change in the type of money, the type of donations--. increasingly larger proportions coming. from a smaller and smaller group of super rich donors,

and coming in new ways that, in some cases, make it more difficult to track and increase concerns. about the influence of money in politics and big donors. in politics. Because we can't even see who's giving the money, makes it a lot harder to assess the effect of it. on the candidates. JON STEWART: Teddy, do you do we have. a sense of what these billionaires expect. as a return on investment? Obviously, the Supreme Court, through certain decisions, has lessened the idea of corruption.

It has to be explicitly quid pro quo. and it has to be done prior to the act. Now, the person can do the act and you. can pay them afterwards. So, Teddy, what is the expectation from all. these billionaires? TEDDY SCHLEIFER: Proving the quid pro quo is really hard. I mean, if we don't even know the money that's going in, it's even harder to figure out what they're getting out of it. I mean, requires kind of piercing.

the world of what exactly happened. in that Oval Office meeting. What exactly did that billionaire megadonor. say to the politician behind closed doors? I mean, look, there are some donors. where the quid pro quo is completely. in front of the camera. Like if you think about a lobbying group or an interest. group that is donating. The crypto industry is a big player in 2024. JON STEWART: Right. TEDDY SCHLEIFER: There's no big scoop about what the crypto.

industry wants out of their donations. to various politicians. They want looser regulations on crypto. KEN VOGEL: Right. [LAUGHS]. Or no regulations on crypto. TEDDY SCHLEIFER: Well, if true, there is no scandal. I think the harder edge cases to prove, at least as reporters, you know, like are the times when. a donor--. and let's play the violin for the lowly billionaire here. But some of these mega donors, as partisan and ideological.

as they may be, legitimately think that their giving. is capital P philanthropy. You know, like if you talk to-- JON STEWART: Really? TEDDY SCHLEIFER: Yeah. I mean, we can debate whether that's true or not. I mean, at a technical level, oftentimes it's not. because these are not donations to the Red Cross through. a 501(c)(3.) But is it a quid pro quo if you genuinely. believe that free markets are the antidote to American. poverty, and that if only we had more tax cuts,

we would lift millions of people. out of the poverty system? JON STEWART: And if it happens to benefit you as well? TEDDY SCHLEIFER: It kind of happens, sure. And, obviously, to liberals, they. would never see what Charles, David Koch did as philanthropy. But you talk to some of those donors, and as reporters, you do, like they genuinely do. And frankly, on the right, if you are watching. a liberal donor give charitable money that just so happens.

to register Black voters in Detroit, Philadelphia, and Milwaukee, a liberal donor might say, hey, I'm just helping people vote, right? If you're a Republican, you see that. and you're like, that is not philanthropy. That is BS. So those are the quid pro quo types that are really hard. JON STEWART: Right. Well, we're so accustomed to this idea--. if you think about the Illuminati fever dream, that is, what people think about money and politics--. and the general, from what I have seen, is this idea that George Soros is.

the only billionaire in the world who. puts money into politics and pulls strings. And then you step back to realize--. I mean, for God's sakes, on the right, it's shocking to me. how much more Trump's campaign is aligned. with billionaire donors. He's, from what I can reckon through some of the weave. that he does, he's the populist. And Kamala Harris has raised, from the lower.

donors, far more money. But in popular opinion, it's as though right wing. billionaires don't count or aren't doing this. Or Mellon and Adelson and now Musk, that's. not corrupting the system. Only Soros corrupts the system. Is that the general tenor of the public? KEN VOGEL: I mean, certainly, Republicans. have made a great effort over the years.

to vilify Soros and other liberal donors. And I should say that Democrats have done. a pretty effective job at vilifying. some of the Republican donors. Teddy mentioned the Koch brothers, Charles Koch and his now deceased brother, David. JON STEWART: Koch brothers are probably the ones that I know, and I would consider them probably more libertarian. even at this point. KEN VOGEL: Yeah, 100%. And it's also a good example of, like, they would say--. and there's maybe like a little bit of a discordance. or a divergence between how they would characterize.

their donations and how an outsider looking in, or a reporter trying to assess the impact of their donations, would see them. Teddy's right. They would say, well, we're in favor of small government. and lower regulation, and there is. a delta between that and their bottom line interests. That said, I don't doubt, having talked to people. around them for years, that they genuinely. do believe that in libertarian, small government, low taxation, low regulation principles, and Soros believes in a more.

robust social safety net. Perhaps Soros and the Koch stand out. as among the more effective donors on either side, as far. as really systematically giving their money. to build particular capabilities. on their respective sides to help. their sides win, both elections and also policy debates. As to the irony, I guess, of Trump, this populist who claims.

to be trying to disassemble the system, getting all this money. from people who benefit from the system, I mean, it is a great irony. And initially, when he ran in 2016, most of these folks--. the billionaires on the right, the traditional Republican. donor class-- were pretty leery of him. and kept their distance from him. And it's not like he's necessarily--. I mean, the thing that he's done. that really suited their interest was were the tax cuts. JON STEWART: Right. Right. KEN VOGEL: And it's been interesting to watch some.

of the folks who've had like different justifications. for like, OK, I'm not going to give it to him, but I'll give to some of the outside. groups on the right that's--. JON STEWART: That's right. I got like Ken Griffin. Ken Griffin of Citadel, he might not give directly. to Trump, but he'll throw $100 million. into these down ballot race and things like that. KEN VOGEL: That's a great example. TEDDY SCHLEIFER: Or I reported earlier this fall. that, for instance, Peter Thiel, who has pledged to not. get involved in the presidential election. and has pledged to not give to a Trump Super PAC,

and he has serious misgivings about Trump--. Peter Thiel did manage to donate. to a pro-Trump legal group that is helping justify, or helping Trump push back against what. they see as lawfare. And you can twist yourself into a pretzel to find ways. to justify being involved. Because I think one thing for Ken. and I, both of our reporting over the years, is there's nothing these people hate. more than being irrelevant. JON STEWART: Right. TEDDY SCHLEIFER: Like if you want. to be a Republican player--.

to be clear, the Republican Party is about Donald Trump. Like sure, you can go donate $20 million. to help Larry Hogan in Maryland. JON STEWART: [LAUGHS]. Do you have to say it like that, Teddy? TEDDY SCHLEIFER: But no, I just think, like, you know, I think it's going to be--. if Trump is to win--. I think a storyline that's always fun is like, who funds the inaugurations? JON STEWART: Right. Right. TEDDY SCHLEIFER: Because all those contributions. are just pennants. It's like, well, I did not help Trump and he won anyway.

Now it's time to make a tax-deductible, often, donation to some sort of--. JON STEWART: I will give them all the shrimp they. can eat for the inauguration. It is true. You said the one thing they hate is not to be irrelevant. The other thing that they seem to hate is to be known. It's this weird dichotomy. I guess they want to be relevant within the circles. of the powerbrokers, but boy, are. they allergic to being named and having a light shone. on just how much fucking money they're.

pouring into these races. TEDDY SCHLEIFER: Yeah. And I'll say, Jon, I think you were talking about the way. that the left mega-donors are different than the right. JON STEWART: Yeah. TEDDY SCHLEIFER: I do think liberal givers. and liberal billionaires have gotten better over the last, like, four years at hiding their giving. JON STEWART: [LAUGHS]. TEDDY SCHLEIFER: It's funny because every couple of days. now, frankly, there's federal election commission. filings, which is supposed to be the sunlight.

everyone's waiting for. You're going to see all the billionaires--. JON STEWART: Democracy dies in darkness, Teddy. I don't know if you knew that. TEDDY SCHLEIFER: Right. Right. That's not the other paper, yes. JON STEWART: [LAUGHS]. TEDDY SCHLEIFER: But you expect you'll see, oh, here's. all the money that comes in. For instance, the main Democratic Super PAC this cycle. is called Future Forward, and they. spent hundreds of millions of dollars to elect Kamala Harris. And actually, the biggest donor of Future Forward. was not George Soros or Tom Steyer, or any other liberal billionaire any listeners.

heard of. It's actually a nonprofit entity. that is also run by Future Foward, which, in turn, does not disclose its donors. JON STEWART: What? TEDDY SCHLEIFER: So it's like, yes, Future Forward's nonprofit has real people that donated money, but you'll never know who those people are. KEN VOGEL: It could be George Soros--. TEDDY SCHLEIFER: It could be George Soros. KEN VOGEL: We'll never know. And just to piggyback on that, Teddy and I and other reporters. spent a lot of time trying to pierce this veil. And the fact of the matter is, if you have good lawyers. and discreet operatives, there are ways to structure these.

giving arrangements, these dark money giving arrangements, such. that we will never be able to find out. And sometimes some of it leaks out years later. I remember there was a Koch brothers case where. one of the key Koch brothers operatives. was engaged in a contentious divorce, and his wife in the divorce filings. ended up disclosing a bunch of stuff that allowed us. to piece some things together. JON STEWART: Wow. KEN VOGEL: Or years later, we were able to determine. that a lot of money was coming into the extra party.

infrastructure of the left and the Democratic Party. from this Swiss billionaire named Hansjorg Wyss. And it was because a memo showed up in a Wikileaks. leak years ago--. JON STEWART: Wow. KEN VOGEL: --that allowed us to put some of this together. But again, without anomalous incidents like that, there's no reason that we would ever know. JON STEWART: How incredible that a divorce case would be. one of the-- the filings is, who. gets custody of our democracy? Which one of them will get custody over the Senate,

or something along those lines? But it's interesting, you guys bring up a point. We talk about the populism of Trump, yet billionaires dominate. Let's talk a little bit about the way. that the left-- everybody that I've. ever spoken with on the left is money is ruining politics. We have to get money out of politics. By way of anecdote--. I think we had Nancy Pelosi on The Daily Show. This was maybe 10 years ago, 12, 14. It was a long time ago. And still, gotta get money out of politics, all that.

And I don't know if she was the speaker at that time. or maybe the Minority Leader or maybe the Majority Leader. I don't recall. But in talking about having to get money out of politics, I said, well, it's funny you mentioned that. You raised $32 million in the last quarter. And she said, well, you got to fight fire with fire. You can't just disarm unilaterally. And I said, right, but if the point is money. corrupts politics, even if you have to play along,

how does that corrupt you or the left? And her answer, I thought, was revealing. She said, uh, it doesn't. She said, no, it corrupts the right, but we have somehow managed through--. I don't know what it is-- sheer will, perhaps, not to be corrupted by it. And is that the attitude that you've seen from the left? They decry citizens united. They decry the McDonnell case in Virginia. that sort of dumbed down corruption and bribery.

laws and money in politics. But there seems to be no will. And the money that they get apparently has no effect. KEN VOGEL: That's 100% the argument. And I would even take it a step further. They say, we need to participate. in this corrupt system so that we can win. and then change the system--. JON STEWART: Which they never do. KEN VOGEL: --which the fact of the matter is-- exactly. JON STEWART: [LAUGHS]. KEN VOGEL: The system has benefited-- every single person. who's in elected office has been able to navigate. the system effectively.

And so there's really no incentive for them--. electorally, just from a crass electoral perspective--. to change a system that work for them. And in fact, there are impediments to so doing. In some cases, they would anger their donors. And so short of a major scandal, which tends to be what prompts these cycles of reform, you're not really going to see the political will for reform. And then you have to ask yourself the question, well, what is a major scandal, if not like a billion dollars. of dark money being spent to influence elections.

JON STEWART: Right. KEN VOGEL: That should be a scandal in and of itself, but just simply not. JON STEWART: And if money corrupts, it corrupts you, too. Teddy, what are your thoughts on that? TEDDY SCHLEIFER: Yeah. To be frank, I think this debate is over. JON STEWART: Oh, Teddy. TEDDY SCHLEIFER: There will be Super. PACs until the day we die, or whatever, Super Super PAC. JON STEWART: Right. TEDDY SCHLEIFER: I think the direction. here is pretty clear toward greater. and greater amount of money.

I mean, obviously capitalism is continuing its course. Fortunes are only going to get bigger. I think some of the more interesting reforms. that I think are plausible, I think. you could see some reforms around disclosure, like more disclosure or faster disclosure. JON STEWART: But as we see, does that do anything? TEDDY SCHLEIFER: No, yeah. JON STEWART: Now that you know their names, like, what does that do? TEDDY SCHLEIFER: Yeah. I think Ken has done a lot of reporting on foreign money, specifically. JON STEWART: Ah, OK. TEDDY SCHLEIFER: You could see some reforms around that. But I think the general the way the tide is going here.

is I think wealthy people are going to have more influence. I think, actually, the one possible countervailing force. here is the power of small donors, and that power is not all good. There's some interesting incentives. that have been presented by the digital fundraising. and technology boom over the last couple of years. That might be the antidote to the power of big donors, is the power of small donors, though, frankly,

I think there's a good intellectual debate that we can. have, if we want, about which kind of America we would. prefer, like an oligarchy run by big donors or a direct. democracy where small donors, who are well-meaning. people but have the same problems as any human. beings, too--. whether we want that America because that America. has drawbacks, also. JON STEWART: Well, if you're looking. for a good intellectual debate, Teddy, I'm afraid you're on the wrong podcast. So we're going to have to switch things up. But it does remind me, I'm just trying to think of--.

I remember McCain-Feingold. Do you remember the days of McCain-Feingold? Feingold, the progressive; McCain, the classic conservative. And they restricted this idea of campaign contributions, and it reminds me of the days of Prohibition. The temperance movement came in and they did Prohibition. People tried that for like a month and were like, no. And then it was just the roaring.

'20s, and we're in the roaring '20s. So is there an argument to be made that, if we're unable to restrict the money, which I think we can't. do, unless the Supreme Court decisions are overturned--. and we all know how they value precedent. I don't think the Supreme Court would. ever go against precedent. But if you can't do that, what's the only other thing. we can restrict? That's time. What if we restrict time and made this more like England,

where it's you get eight weeks. Throw everything you can at it. But we can't do that fire hose all the time. Does that do anything? KEN VOGEL: I don't think that would work because--. JON STEWART: Dammit. KEN VOGEL: --we've already seen the establishment. of a permanent campaign. And even when there's not a campaign, an actual campaign. being run, there are groups funded by major donors that.

are spending money to try to lay. the groundwork for the next campaign, or lay the groundwork for the actual current policy fight. JON STEWART: Or influence the legislative session. Yeah. TEDDY SCHLEIFER: Exactly. JON STEWART: No, you're probably right, Ken. Teddy, do you think that has any viability? TEDDY SCHLEIFER: I mean, we kind of saw this this year. We saw a snap election, where Kamala Harris. took over in July of 2024. In fact, it unleashed more money into the system. JON STEWART: Right. TEDDY SCHLEIFER: The other thing that I keep in mind.

here is so much of the money in politics. really comes at the end, like right now. If you look at how much Super PACs raised in like October--. or frankly, just campaigns from small donors who. are nervous or anxious or energized about the election. and donate at the very end. In fact, some of the early money in a presidential race. are the peanuts there. We really see a lot of the big contributions come at the end, so there's always going to be a lot of money.

that's spent at the end. And frankly, to make argument for the billionaires, if I'm playing that role here on this podcast--. JON STEWART: Please. Please, Teddy. You don't have to play it, but go ahead. TEDDY SCHLEIFER: Elections are important. I mean, this is a very basic point here. JON STEWART: Yes, very much so. TEDDY SCHLEIFER: And the system is what it is. And frankly, I talk with lots of wealthy people, or their advisors, and they say, why not spend more? If you believe that abortion access is extraordinarily. important and you're 80 years old, you can't die.

with the money, like, why not donate. a billion dollars to an abortion ballot measure. in your home state? JON STEWART: Well, everybody loves their billionaire. TEDDY SCHLEIFER: Sure. Right. JON STEWART: I think the question is when they talk. about money is speech, a billionaire. is tweeting in all caps, whereas. so many other people aren't. And so it speaks to, why is the billionaire? Because there have been a lot of studies that have been done. that show that the more access rich people have to the system,

the more what they want is what flows. through legislative bodies and process. KEN VOGEL: That's the idea, and that is how--. JON STEWART: Right. But it shows they're getting a return. on that investment, which tells me, oh, the system is corrupted. KEN VOGEL: I think in a lot of cases. they are getting a return, and sometimes. it's more concrete and acute and you. do see something specific. I mean, Trump famously told oil and gas donors.

that if they gave to him, he'd further deregulate. the oil and gas industry. Oftentimes it's not quite so overt. But yeah, it affects the system over time. Even if you put in place specific reforms. or restrictions that are intended to either reduce. the amount of money or reduce the ways. in which it can be spent, it's going to have an effect. And I'm even more pessimistic that there will. be any kind of move to reform. I actually see it going more the other way. You see a continued chipping away through court cases,

through advisory opinions from the Federal Election. Commission, that are weakening some of the last rules. that we have in place, restricting. how money can be spent. JON STEWART: On almost everything that we regulate, I mean, not just in that. But couldn't you make the case, guys-- and Teddy, I'll ask you this, if you're going to stand. in for our billionaires. TEDDY SCHLEIFER: Glad to. JON STEWART: The money that came into this system, maybe it's responsible for this turn to supply side economics. that we've faced since Reagan--. that once a lot of this money came in there,

hasn't that influenced the philosophy. even at government level? We can talk about individual policies, but on a much broader macro scale, the whole idea of supply side economics. is really kind of a fever dream of the wealthy. Oh, you know where you should really stimulate the economy? To us, and then we will trickle it down. f feels like a more populist sentiment.

TEDDY SCHLEIFER: What you're sort of getting at. is to what extent donors can play the long game. and just change the paradigm of what everyone. thinks about politics. And that's not showing up in FDIC disclosures. I think the best issue on this is abortion, where, over the last-- since Roe was made the law, conservative and Christian donors waged. a very, very long campaign. It wasn't always drawn up this way,

but I think in totality, in retrospect, we consider it. a campaign to use their money, to set up. interest groups that would vet and offer pedigrees. to conservative judges. And then that conservative judge. could have a protege who has a protege who has a protege, and suddenly Gorsuch is on the court. And suddenly Trump's elected and there's. people to overturn Roe. And that's how change happens, slowly.

JON STEWART: And they've got their billionaires. That's an interesting point, Teddy, because we're talking. more broadly about, oh, it's these Super PACs. and they're running these commercials. But each of these issues has, in some ways, their own patron saints. You've got Leonard Leo and Harlan Crow, who are billionaires on the right, who are taking judges. out to shoot quail in tiny boxes. and then getting them on the court. It brings up an interesting point. Like what are the ways that billionaires influence.

that aren't so obvious to us? The example would be Harlan Crow, Leonard Leo, but also Rupert Murdaugh. Donald Trump has said--. TEDDY SCHLEIFER: Or Elon Musk. JON STEWART: Or Elon Musk. Sure. Sure. TEDDY SCHLEIFER: Right. Right. JON STEWART: What do you see on that realm, the things that billionaires and money do to the system. that we don't think about as directly? TEDDY SCHLEIFER: Yeah. I think there's a lot of good examples. of this in the world of philanthropy, which I write about, also.

Having a lot of money and spending a lot of money, even on charitable causes, is a form of soft power. And a good example of this, let's. take Sergey Brin, who's one of the co-founders of Google. JON STEWART: OK. Sergey Brin had a family member who had Parkinson's. So Sergey Brin has spent-- and I. think has become one of the largest individual donors. of research to cure Parkinson's, a worthy cause, yada, yada, yada. A critic might say, why is Sergey Brin, with his hundred. billion dollar fortune, getting to decide what.

disease it's being spent on? Who said Parkinson's? Why not Alzheimer's? Why not skin cancer? Why not breast cancer? And that these public policy questions about how we, as a society, decide which disease we go after, which is like a public health question, are being decided by private philanthropists. JON STEWART: Let me ask you a question, Teddy, just to clarify this for myself. TEDDY SCHLEIFER: Sure. JON STEWART: Is he dictating to the government. that our tax money goes to Parkinson's, or is.

he himself funding this through his largesse? Because I do think those are two separate questions, and one. that I would feel very differently about one. or the other, I think. TEDDY SCHLEIFER: Well, I think it's the latter. It's through his private giving. But is Sergey Brin out there? This is an exact question I'm not going to know the answer. But is Sergey Brin out there right now calling for his taxes. to be raised because we need to have more federal government. spending against Parkinson's? Or is he fine with him being in charge of Parkinson's research.

for the United States government? I'm exaggerating, but only a bit. The question is, is the private power that wealthy people have, is that at odds with a strong federal government. that takes care of everybody? And frankly, he's also accountable to voters. Like no one can unelect Sergey Brin from Parkinson's research. JON STEWART: Listen-- and I think you've brought. up a really interesting point. In some ways, hasn't that been the dynamic.

that we fought against for the entirety of our history? And Ken, I'll throw this to you. Think about when the government in, I think, the '20s was failing and they went to JP Morgan directly. This is before FDIC and before a social safety. net is in place. And you've got we need money, and so what do they do? They turn to a banker and go, hey, man, you don't have like a billion dollars lying around, do you? And so we put in place all these measures. of the government so that we're not.

reliant on this kind of largesse, but are we kidding ourselves? We all know of the robber baron era and the excesses. and the undemocratic and anti-worker. results of that era. And we put in all these different checkpoints. Are we kidding ourselves that it's any different than what. it's been since then? KEN VOGEL: I mean, certainly there. has been a sort of deregulatory impulse.

and a deregulatory push, particularly from the right, but also from like major corporations that are very. careful to not align themselves with one side or the other, even if some executives might to break down. the regulatory regime surrounding their businesses, whether they be finance or whether they be fossil fuels. or whether they be tech. Tech is the big fight that's happening now. You see some of the people, who are the biggest players.

in the industries, assuming roles, either with a campaign, as an informal advisor, or as a major donor, and inserting themselves into the process in a way that does. call into question the government's ability. to control, to have the upper hand when it comes. to the type of regulation. There's an example now. There are a number of donors on the left in the tech space. Teddy's written about some of them. Reed Hoffman is one, the LinkedIn founder, who are like openly supporting Harris to the tune of millions.

of dollars and are openly calling for her to fire Lina. Khan, the chair of the FTC. JON STEWART: Right. That's right. KEN VOGEL: Which, in some cases, the FTC is investigating some of the firms with which. these donors are associated. JON STEWART: And breaking up big tech is the thing. That's why guys on the left, like Cuban, when you talk about Lina Khan are calling for that. And guys like JD Vance are like, ah, she's pretty good. KEN VOGEL: Yeah. And that's a little bit of a realignment, but it gets to this question that you're raising about. whether the government's ability.

to regulate these industries, that. have a huge sway over our society, is compromised by funding that is coming from individuals. in those industries and these individuals taking informal, or sometimes formal, roles with the candidates. and the campaigns, and maybe even with the government. I mean, you hear Trump talking about making. Elon Musk the Efficiency Czar, or whatever it is. And that raises a lot of questions. because Elon Musk companies have--. JON STEWART: Contracts. KEN VOGEL: Hundreds of millions of dollars, right, in contracts with the US government.

TEDDY SCHLEIFER: And tons of federal investigations. JON STEWART: And turns out his contract, they're all good. They're fine. Teddy, what do you think of that idea? TEDDY SCHLEIFER: Yeah, sure. I mean, look, I think there's actually. not a ton of attention that's paid on corporate influence. I think, frankly, we get sucked in by the big names, and I'm a part of the problem here as much as anybody. JON STEWART: That's why we called you here today, Teddy. This is an intervention. TEDDY SCHLEIFER: Right, to atone. Teddy, cover more corporate giving. and less billionaire giving. JON STEWART: [LAUGHS]. TEDDY SCHLEIFER: Thanks, Jon.

Look, I mean, it's hard. To give myself an out here, it's hard. Companies are good at this. They're sending a staff member in a personal capacity. to a retreat in Jackson Hole and, you know, they're giving--. JON STEWART: Yeah, you're not allowed. to accept like a book or a ticket, but you are allowed to go on a ski trip with 10 of your best. friends from Raytheon. TEDDY SCHLEIFER: [LAUGHS]. JON STEWART: Yeah, I mean, it's crazy. KEN VOGEL: Or they're funding think tanks which are putting. out white papers that influence the debate on the issues that.

affect them most. Or they're paying lobbyists, an army of lobbyists, to go in and shop these white papers. And so yeah, corporations are more careful. They're allergic to controversy. They don't want to be seen as siding. with one side or the other. But they are currying influence in a more systematic, long-term way that gets at some of this stuff. that you're talking about, Jon, about just shaping the debate. gradually over time, such that, in some ways,

from an outside perspective, appear. to be dictating the terms of the regulations that. affect their industry. JON STEWART: And as we tighten down into this election window, the decisions seem to be coming fast and furious. from the candidates directly. Donald Trump, I'm going to ban TikTok, Chinese influence, and spies. And then his big donor is like, I'm an investor in TikTok. It's like, (TRUMP IMPERSONATION) I love TikTok. I love dancing. You should see me do the dance with the arms. I'll put it on TikTok.

Kamala Harris, same thing with crypto. EVs, now Musk is on board and Trump. is like, (TRUMP IMPERSONATION) I got to tell you. The EV. So now it almost seems the shame of it is gone. TEDDY SCHLEIFER: Yeah. I find there's an element of it that I. find gratifying, or at least--. I don't want to say charming, but--. JON STEWART: [LAUGHS]. TEDDY SCHLEIFER: --affirming of your preconceived narrative, so that's always enjoyable.

Trump, let's take him, at least. He's been remarkably candid, I guess. you could say, or explicit, about the transactionalism. Ken mentioned that dinner where he offered a gazillion dollars. to oil executives if they gave him a gazillion dollars or EVs. Or Trump on crypto, as well, frankly. Typically, there's this like game that's played where you. don't appoint somebody to a position.

because somebody gave you a bunch of money. and they have influence. But Trump is just like, nope, here it is. Here's the quid pro quo. KEN VOGEL: And by the way, from the very beginning, when. he first ran in 2015 and people were calling out. his donations to Democrats, as well as Republicans, and he just admitted--. TEDDY SCHLEIFER: Yeah, he would admit it. KEN VOGEL: I give to them because they do what I want. And so now he's the one who's doing what they want. JON STEWART: And by the way, was brilliant. When he first came out, I thought it was so interesting. What he did is he exposed the reality. of the transactional nature of our government.

The system is rigged against. I know, I helped rig it. I benefit from it. I do that. Now, to his discredit, he didn't. dismantle that rigged system, he just rigged it more for him. It's more he wants the swamp, but more. in service of his interests. But maybe-- and this has been really helpful, guys, by the way--. and maybe this is the broader question, and I think Teddy just referenced it.

when he was talking about corporate influence. We think a lot about the structure of our government, and it's checks and balances. The founders, in their genius, designed a system that. would not allow any kind of section of the government. to garner more power than another, and that balance, the executive, judicial, and legislative would keep in there. But there's this fourth tent post, this fourth leg of the chair, that is, corporations. and corporate power.

And there is no grand design by the founders over how to check. their influence, how to balance their influence, but their influence is vast. And it gets us into globalization, which hollows out the infrastructure. and manufacturing the country. It gets us into a financial disaster in 2008. How do we effectively counter? And all we've really done is just said, OK, there are people.

and all their money is a right to free speech. But what is in the system to balance and check that? And his government may be the only entity. on earth that has the size and power to effectively balance? TEDDY SCHLEIFER: I'm pretty pessimistic. I mean, as I said-- JON STEWART: No. Teddy! TEDDY SCHLEIFER: I think the only saving grace here is.

kind of small dollar donors. Look, there are examples, I'll say, especially in primaries, of politicians who are backed by big corporations. and the ultra rich, who lose because they. are just fundamentally out of touch with their district. And they lose, in part, because their opponent has lots. of small dollar donors who can, at times, frankly, outraise. candidates who are backed by wealthy people, even if you include Super PACs.

JON STEWART: Right. But it's an unusual--. generally, that's pretty unusual. TEDDY SCHLEIFER: It's not happening. in a presidential race. I think the Mike Bloomberg campaign of 2020. is something that people reference all the time on this, where Bloomberg was a Democratic primary, to be. clear, but Bloomberg was one of the richest people in the world. and spent a billion dollars of his own money. and got absolutely creamed. And that's an example of money and corporate power. not buying influence. And look, I mean, sometimes it's hard to tell--.

we're painting a dichotomy here of like the populists. and corporate candidates. Like I don't know. Where do you put Joe Biden in 2020, who was supported by some wealthy donors but not a ton, and had populist rhetoric but not entirely? Like it's tough to categorize people. But there are examples of money not succeeding. KEN VOGEL: I mean, there are a lot of examples. That's the hope. JON STEWART: Hillary Clinton's campaign. was better funded than Trump. KEN VOGEL: And Bernie Sanders gave.

her a scare with small donors. So, that's the ultimate check, is the voters and the voters'. ability to say, I don't care how much money you're spending. I don't care which billionaire is behind you. I don't care what your ads say. Like I'm going to do be an informed voter. and do the research myself. I'm not necessarily super optimistic of that, either. I think that polarization has diminished the ability. for that to be a check. And I do think that the small donors. are also not necessarily the answer, as Teddy hinted at.

Small donors, they give and they. sort of reward the extreme partisans on either side. They're sort of tribal in a way that maybe big donors, in a perverse sense, are a little bit. of a moderating influence. JON STEWART: Not as nihilistic. KEN VOGEL: Well, it's the proverbial smoky back room. that these big donors, getting together, might actually arrive at a more moderate centrist candidate, if that's your cup of tea, than the small donors getting.

behind a flamethrower, like a Marjorie Taylor. Greene on the right or a real populist like, an AOC, on the left. Is that what we want? I don't know the answer, I'm just not optimistic that there. is a correcting force. JON STEWART: No, I get that. And in some respects, it's the difference between weather. and climate, to some respect, and we're. talking about the weather when it comes to elections. and the money and all that. And I guess the larger macro view. would be, well, then what's the climate that occurs after that? And is that 50 years of supply side economics.

or the ability to offshore? All the things that come downstream from the weather, which is the elections, versus that larger picture. of all those policies that end up. really changing the dynamics of the global economy. profound kinds. of Ways. And I think we're seeing it in some ways with AI now.

We have all these things that are introduced, globalization and all that. We see how disruptive they are, and yet AI comes along. and, once again, it's like, no, it'll be fine. We'll be good. And it's because the people who are running it. are these billionaire donors. And what would be an effective check on that? KEN VOGEL: I mean, government tends to move more slowly. than the private sector. And so yeah, some of these emerging fields,

the combination of the puzzling nature. of some of these new fields to government, they're just not--. I forget who-- was it Chuck Grassley? It was one of the Republican senators who famously referred. to the internet as like a-- JON STEWART: Ted Stevens. KEN VOGEL: Ted Stevens. Like you went after this. JON STEWART: It's a series of tubes. KEN VOGEL: A series of tubes, right. So they don't understand it. JON STEWART: [LAUGHS]. KEN VOGEL: And the entities that are pushing it, the corporations and the people around it, do understand it, and they have a lot of money to spend influencing it.

And they try to get out front and say, look, look. We got this. We're going to self-regulate. We're going to tell you what the proper regulation. should look like. And oftentimes, just by definition, because they're moving faster, they're. able to outpace the government. JON STEWART: Of course. KEN VOGEL: By the time that the government is able to gather. itself and figure out how they're going to approach it, it's already too late. Maybe that's what's happening a little bit with AI. JON STEWART: There was a great Sam Altman who testifying.

in front of-- and I can't remember. it was a Senate or Congress or a joint session. or anything like that. And it was very clear that everybody. up there, they have no fucking idea what he's talking about. And at the end of it, one of the senators was like, well, Mr. Altman, it's obviously a very challenging time, and if you could help us with this, we'd really appreciate it. You're just like, you know he's running? KEN VOGEL: Yeah. JON STEWART: That's kind of not how you want. I mean, look, Elon Musk understands this system. He's throwing a million dollars. He's doing all these creative things with the money. And all the Democrats can do is,

you know we're going to have to look into this, right? Years from now, we are going to look back on this. and say, hey, that wasn't cool. So we really are--. how they catch up. Final thoughts on where you guys kind see this going. and whether or not the red flags are being raised. Is this a panic that I'm instigating. or is it truly something that we need to address?

KEN VOGEL: I mean, just more and more money is going to be. spent on these elections. And as I said, I am not optimistic. that there will be any significant, meaningful reforms. In fact, I see the pendulum swinging. in the other direction. It's already swinging in the other direction. We see that the rules that are restricting the amount of money. that can be spent, and what it can be spent. on, being chipped away at. I mean, Teddy mentioned disclosure. Disclosure is great. We love it as journalists. We want to be able to inform our readers.

how this money is flowing and what the donors want. But I actually even see, on the right, a move. to chip away at disclosure rules. Like that's the next front in this. And we see some of the groups in the sort of Leonard Leo. type of firmament who are looking. at disclosure as the next frontier. and chipping away at it. And Republicans used to say, that was Mitch McConnell's. thing, was like, as much money should. be in the system as possible, as long as it's disclosed. JON STEWART: That's right.

KEN VOGEL: And that's I think we see a shift away from that. now, And that is going to make it even. harder to even make sense of this, let alone staunch the flow. JON STEWART: Right. Teddy. TEDDY SCHLEIFER: I always wonder here-- as we. wrap up on election season--. I always wonder what we don't know. Here's a fun piece of information for listeners who. are hearing this right now. Any money that's donated after October. 15th through election day is undisclosed.

until after election day. So I always wonder what you don't know. Is there some entity that's going to be started tomorrow. that some billionaire is going to put in $500 million. and going to start doing some interesting hijinks. in the swing state, and you're never going to know about it. until after the election? Or frankly, maybe someone started a 501(c)(4) dark money. organization that will never be public, really, in any meaningful way until next year, or maybe ever, and you'll never know about it.

As a reporter, that's the nightmare. scenario, to some extent. I think as a democracy, maybe that's the nightmare scenario, of just you never really know, and it just being totally. unknowable until someone's in a grave and feels. gratified they pulled a fast one on everybody else. JON STEWART: [LAUGHS]. TEDDY SCHLEIFER: I mean, that's kind of a possibility. And yes, there are watchdogs and there are good reporters. and there's investigators, but it always. feels like the world of the wealthy is like a step. ahead here.

And it's sad to be playing a losing hand, but I feel like it's maybe an inevitable. JON STEWART: I appreciate, though, you guys being there. And if there are two people who are out there fighting. against the tide and fighting for disclosure, and things like that, it's you two, Teddy Schleifer, politics. reporter, New York Times, Ken Vogel, also of The New York Times. Thank you, guys, very much for the discussion. Very illuminating. Not particularly comforting. TEDDY SCHLEIFER: Leaks are welcome, for people.

who are listening to this. JON STEWART: [LAUGHS]. TEDDY SCHLEIFER: If you work for someone. or you want to know what you can do, you can find my contact information. JON STEWART: So that's what LinkedIn is for. I always wondered. Thanks very much for joining us, guys. TEDDY SCHLEIFER: It was a pleasure, Jon. [MUSIC PLAYING]. JON STEWART: OK, we are back. We, as always, are with our terrific production team, and I used to say "erstwhile," until somebody told me what. erstwhile means, and now I say great.

or terrific or fantastic--. Lauren Walker, Brittany Mehmedovic, and Gillian Speer. And we were having a discussion with those two New York. Times reporters, and it was a very. factual, very matter-of-fact. And then at the end, they sort of dropped a bombshell. Like it will never get better, it will get worse, and we. will have no idea who's--. [LAUGHTER]. And I was just like, wait, what? GILLIAN SPEER: Yeah, I feel great. I feel totally calm right now. JON STEWART: Did you expect any of that?

GILLIAN SPEER: No. It's so unfortunate that, as it was presented, money is both the problem and the solution. When it came out a few days ago that Bill Gates had donated all. this money, I saw all of these pro-Harris accounts. really elated, reacting positively. and with joy to this news. And I think that's fair because they exist in the context, as it were. JON STEWART: Right. The context being the money in politics.

is bad unless it's our money. GILLIAN SPEER: Yes. JON STEWART: And then, of course--. whether you view it as a necessary evil, or hey, it's free speech, it kind of doesn't matter, it just has to be in the system. GILLIAN SPEER: Yeah. We've all become so acclimated to it. that we're mistaking billionaires acting. in their own self-interest for generosity, like they're. going to save us all. JON STEWART: Bars. Gillian Speer, bars. LAUREN WALKER: Yeah. GILLIAN SPEER: And what's worse is when Teddy was saying,

that my small dollar donations are the solution. JON STEWART: The problem. GILLIAN SPEER: I can't help. JON STEWART: No. He was saying it's the problem. GILLIAN SPEER: Don't make me fight this fight. JON STEWART: Gillian, they were actually blaming you. We didn't use your name specifically. GILLIAN SPEER: Thank you. JON STEWART: We were going to. We were actually going to bring it up. But what they were saying is, well, we have to really decide what kind of democracy we want. Do we want this oligarchy, where. the billionaires are doing it? Or do you really want the mob to be able to give you. $5 out of their wallets and then fucking decide you don't. want them to decide, either.

GILLIAN SPEER: The electorate, why. would we want them to decide? JON STEWART: Right. Yeah. They already get a vote. How much more can you expect them to have? GILLIAN SPEER: They're getting greedy now. JON STEWART: That's what I'm talking about. What? Jeopardy, why won't you let Gillian Speer on your show? GILLIAN SPEER: No response. Can you believe that? JON STEWART: Still. LAUREN WALKER: Deafening. Deafening. JON STEWART: Zero response. GILLIAN SPEER: Yeah. I check my spam folder. [LAUGHTER]. JON STEWART: I call upon Ken Jennings and all. that is holy to respond to this woman's audition,

for God's sakes. Lauren, being someone who has been in journalism for so long. and been around all that, their demeanor was very people that--. almost like war correspondents. There was a certain, like, an inevitability. LAUREN WALKER: Well, I think outside of even the topic that. they're covering, the world they exist in is. also dealing with billionaire buy-ups.

And something that was--. JON STEWART: Oh. LAUREN WALKER: --in the news this morning, or I think yesterday, was that The LA Times'. owner wasn't going to allow the paper to endorse Kamala Harris. He's a billionaire who bought up the paper. Their journalists are getting it. from all ends at this moment. JON STEWART: Right. Right. Right. And then their editor-in-chief, I think, resigned, yes? Based on that? LAUREN WALKER: Oh, yes, over it. JON STEWART: Yeah. Yeah. GILLIAN SPEER: Yeah. JON STEWART: But you're right. It's a vexing problem, but I'm telling.

you, man, one or two more podcasts. and I think we'll fix it. GILLIAN SPEER: Yeah. LAUREN WALKER: Something, I think, really illuminated things for me, just how much has changed, is that Obama brought in $750 million. for his 2008 presidential campaign. JON STEWART: Is that total? That's total. LAUREN WALKER: Yeah. At the time, that was a record amount. that exceeded what all the candidates combined collected. in private donations in the previous races. for the White House. And then for comparison, this week.

we learned Harris sets the record for the biggest. fundraising quarter ever--. JON STEWART: Three months. LAUREN WALKER: --raising $1 billion in three months. JON STEWART: Three months. GILLIAN SPEER: Crazy. JON STEWART: And that's not including. all the dark money and all the other shit that's going on. As we say, we talk about inflation, but, man, eggs got nothing on politics. That's for fucking sure. GILLIAN SPEER: But can I just say, according to my inbox, Harris has exactly $0. [LAUGHTER]. LAUREN WALKER: Right. They are paupers. GILLIAN SPEER: So. JON STEWART: Yeah, you are being constantly hit with that.

Like oh my God, I don't have any money. and I need to get home. Can you send me $2? Well, this has been fabulous, as always, guys. Phenomenal job on the research and on the organization. and allowing me to at least hold. a cogent conversation with those experts and all that. What are the listeners got for us this week there? BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: All right, we've got. two questions this week, Jon. JON STEWART: Bring it. BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: OK. If you could portrait an ideal candidate for presidency,

which three qualities would you list as indispensable? There's nothing ideal in the world, but I'd love to hear your perspective on what. matters the most to you. JON STEWART: Humility. Tenacity. Dick like Arnold Palmer. [LAUGHTER]. So three. There'd be three. LAUREN WALKER: Metaphorical. [LAUGHTER].

JON STEWART: I'm trying to think. I went to the joke one. You know, and courage. LAUREN WALKER: Yes. JON STEWART: Character is destiny, and I've always felt that way. And I think that you're not always. going to get the right outcome with those kinds of qualities, obviously, but more often than not, your process will get you a better product. And I'm hoping that that means something, but we'll see. That's a good one, though.

That's a good question there. What else? What's the next one? I'm a little scared now about the next one. BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: Me, too. JON STEWART: Uh-oh. BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: For HR purposes, I'd like to clarify that this question is from a listener. JON STEWART: No. This is terrible. BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: Yeah. JON STEWART: Do we even have HR? I don't even know. BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: I think it's you, honestly. JON STEWART: Oh, all right. Fair enough. LAUREN WALKER: You've been promoted. BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: Yeah. JON STEWART: All right. BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: Is Jon aware he is a certified DILF? [LAUGHTER].

JON STEWART: I'll address that question. First of all, I don't know the board that certifies that. [LAUGHTER]. And I have not been contacted by that organization. But I will tell you this, when I spoke earlier about humility, I'm going to have to disagree. [LAUGHTER]. I don't even shower naked anymore for that very reason.

So it is a much appreciated boost, but unfortunately, knowing what I know--. [LAUGHS]. --I vehemently disagree. But that's lovely. But keep the damn questions and things coming on. and the insights. Brittany, how would they do that? BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: Yeah, we actually got a question. Somebody said, how do they ask us questions? JON STEWART: Oh, great. BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: So they can. comment on our YouTube, Instagram post, Tweet.

Spoiler, we read all of your comments. JON STEWART: Oh, OK. Very good. I'm sorry. [LAUGHS] BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: Clearly. JON STEWART: Yeah. BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: Twitter, we are Weekly Show Pod. Instagram threads and TikTok, we are Weekly Show Podcast. And please like and subscribe to our YouTube channel, the. Weekly Show with Jon Stewart. JON STEWART: Boom. Thank you guys very much. Again, Lead producer, Lauren Walker. Producer, Brittany Mehmedovic. Video editor and engineer, Sam Reed, standing in for Rob Vitola, who is on a paternity. leave with a new baby.

So deliciously cute. Audio editor and engineer, Nicole Boyce. Researcher and associate producer, Gillian Speer. Executive producers, Chris McShane, Catie Gray. Thanks so much. So we will see you guys next week for our final episode. before the election. And appropriately enough, it's around Halloween, which. what's scarier than that? All right, guys, see you next time. The Weekly Show with Jon Stewart. is a Comedy Central podcast that's produced by Paramount.

Audio and Busboy Productions. [MUSIC PLAYING].