Sen. Murphy vs. Trump's corruption — Today, Explained

[0:00] So here's the thing about Donald Trump's blatant, sometimes open corruption. [0:04] If it's happening out in front of us, if it's largely been accepted by the public [0:08] and seemingly the courts, is it even fair to call it corruption at all? [0:13] That was my first question to Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy at a recent forum about [0:18] corporate monopolies and corruption held by the American Economic Liberties Project in [0:23] Washington, D.C. [0:24] That's this week on Today Explained Saturday. [0:26] Let's dig in. [0:36] Thank you to the American Economic Liberties Project. [0:38] Obviously, thank you to Senator Murphy for being here. [0:41] And thank you to you all, too, for being interested in this topic. [0:44] You know, when I think about corruption, particularly this bending the knee kind of framework, one [0:49] thing that comes in—one thing that immediately jumps to mind for me is that, you know, when [0:54] we think about the Trump administration, this isn't happening in backroom deals. [0:57] This isn't happening in some secret basement. [0:59] A lot of these things are happening right in front of us. [1:02] So I guess my first question was, is corruption the right word to even use when it's been [1:06] broadly sanctioned by legal— [1:08] Well, that's a good question to start with. [1:13] I guess I haven't really thought about it. [1:14] I think corruption is still a word that resonates. [1:17] I think people understand that corruption is a bad thing, that it is something that [1:23] we have broadly tried to expunge from our politics. [1:29] And I do think that people generally understand corruption, though, to be something that happens [1:36] quietly behind closed doors. [1:39] Corruption is something you try to hide. [1:42] And so I do think the most important piece of this moment, in some ways, is trying to [1:47] understand what to do with the brazen public way that Trump is engaging in corruption. [1:53] Because simply by the very fact that he does it every day, that he does it openly, publicly, [2:00] and proudly, it is causing some people to question, wait, wait, is this corruption? [2:06] Because this isn't what I learned corruption is. [2:08] Yeah. [2:09] There's supposed to be shame in this. [2:10] And generally, there's supposed to be shame in corruption. [2:13] But I don't necessarily know it means you change the word. [2:16] And I guess as I'm literally just thinking out loud, if you change the word, you're kind [2:21] of ceding to his terms, right? [2:25] He's trying to change the very notion of corruption by doing it publicly. [2:29] And so if you call it something different, then I think you're probably playing his game. [2:34] Your corporate partners report documents over 160 companies that have had federal enforcement [2:39] actions. [2:39] And I'm going to take a moment to get into that. [2:40] So let's start with the way the world is treating current voters and the way we see them [2:43] dealing with it. [2:44] Well, I think this is a relatively new time for the election. [2:47] It's been a little bit more than a year, I would say. [2:50] It's been a little bit more than a year, but it's definitely a lot of work to do. [2:54] And we've all seen these numbers drop and they're not growing any closer with the trend [2:58] that they've been seeing. [2:59] Which is why I know it's hard to say whether or not it's going to be a decision about [3:03] who's going to be the next King or who's going to be the next President. [3:06] There are multiple choices. [3:07] I mean, what would you say? [3:08] Any way? [3:08] Yeah. [3:08] to donations, whether it's the money that Zelle pumped into the administration, you [3:13] know, it now doesn't happen through slowly putting money into the political system, slowly [3:20] building up connections. [3:22] It's literally just a million dollars for a corporate pardon. [3:25] And that now happens, you know, within weeks or months. [3:29] It's put Eric Trump on your board, the lawsuit or the enforcement action is dropped, right? [3:36] It's just so nakedly quick and transactional that it's hard to hide. [3:43] And again, it's that same problem. [3:45] It's so public, it's so transactional that to some people, it doesn't look like they're, [3:50] you know, bread and butter corruption. [3:52] But the story is just a lot easier to tell, it doesn't make it any, any less forgivable. [3:59] The slow sort of building of influence in Democratic and Republican administrations [4:05] is still unacceptable. [4:06] But. [4:07] In some ways, the way they're doing it makes it easy for us to explain. [4:12] What do you think is the impact of that kind of flagrant degradation of the process or [4:16] just doing it out in the open? [4:18] I mean, we've, we've established kind of how different this moment feels and that's in [4:22] your face nature of it. [4:24] Does that have a democracy corroding impact? [4:25] Like, what do you think is the, is the consequence of it's being in our face in this way? [4:31] Yeah, so I, listen, Trump takes over at a moment when. [4:36] A lot of Americans were seriously contemplating giving up on democracy, right? [4:42] And while that conversation may not be sort of on the surface of kitchen table talks in [4:48] our country, it's right below the surface. [4:50] People just don't think that their voice matters any longer. [4:55] They for a long time have believed that the elites get whatever they want out of the system. [5:00] And the way in which Trump has chosen to do this so transparently. [5:05] I think. [5:06] Is an effort to permanently shatter people's faith in the entire enterprise. [5:13] So as to transition the country to a kleptocratic oligarchy. [5:19] And so, yes, I think this is a particularly vulnerable moment for the country in which [5:24] a lot of Americans are, are unfortunately ready to just say, fuck it. [5:30] Like this thing doesn't work any longer now, clearly doesn't work because we have an elected [5:36] president. [5:37] Who is just stealing from us. [5:39] I'm just gonna walk away from the whole enterprise. [5:42] And when people give up, right? [5:44] When people just retreat from public action, that's the moment that the oligarchs seize [5:50] power and never give it up. [5:52] So yes, I, I, the reason that I have been sort of raising the unacceptability of the [5:58] corruption, right? [6:00] Raising for people, the fact that it is abnormal, that we should not normalize it is because. [6:06] I think. [6:07] Trump's core case here is in, and is it, if he is successful in normalizing it, it may [6:14] be the death blow to people's faith in the entire democratic enterprise. [6:20] As you mentioned of kind of explicit examples, Donald Trump junior is a strategic advisor [6:24] at market Koushi. [6:26] He's joined the board of another prediction market. [6:28] Your bets off act targets, prediction markets, banning bets on government actions, war assassination. [6:34] But as we know. [6:35] This kind of insider trading isn't. [6:36] A, a, a, a, a bug of these kinds of things. [6:40] It's a feature and they, you know, these companies have kind of built it into the cost. [6:44] Has the train left the station on these prediction markets? [6:47] Is there a way, um, to reign them in as your bets off act tries to do? [6:51] No, it definitely hasn't left the station and, and, and you're right. [6:54] I mean, these, these prediction markets are right. [6:58] Designed, uh, to make insiders and powerful people filthy rich. [7:03] So what the bets off act essentially does is say. [7:05] Anytime. [7:06] First of all, you can't bet on government action, right? [7:09] Just period stop, right? [7:10] Nobody should be able to make money off of war or famine. [7:14] You can't bet on government action, but second, you also can't bet on an event when there, [7:19] where there is one person who controls and knows the outcome. [7:23] Um, because in almost every case where those bets are offered, you know, bets as benign [7:29] as what a celebrity is going to say on the Jimmy Fallon show that night, the, the bet [7:35] is controlled. [7:36] It's controlled by a powerful person meaning the powerful person and anyone who surrounds [7:42] the powerful person knows the outcome of the bet can place wagers that they know will make [7:47] money on the bet it's rigged and only an always rigged in favor of the rich and the powerful. [7:55] So the prediction market game is really all about. [7:59] That's where powerful people know the outcome and can profit. [8:02] And that's why Eric Trump and Donald Trump are. [8:05] You know, deeply. [8:06] into these industries because they and their friends are the ones that profit. They are the [8:12] ones, very likely, that placed those bets on Friday before the Iran war started that the war [8:18] was going to start 24 hours later. And they see an infinite amount of enrichment that comes from [8:24] these markets. Now, here's where your question is an interesting one, right? And I literally got it [8:31] two or three times yesterday. Is it too late? And of course, it's not too late. But people- [8:39] They feel kind of baked into the culture, baked in the- [8:42] Yeah, but people are beginning to smell how corrupt these markets are. A lot of people do know [8:48] what happened with those Iraq war bets. And here's where I just think the Democratic Party [8:56] perpetually suffers from lack of imagination, right? So we should say that if you're- [9:01] you elect us, we are going to take all these corrupt prediction markets down. Now, whether [9:07] we can or not, right, that's a question of the politics of the moment. But we should promise [9:12] that we are going to eliminate corrupt prediction markets the minute you elect us, just like we [9:17] should be saying to the broader case of the work that this organization does. If Democrats are [9:22] elected, we are going to break up all these big, corrupt, monopolistic media companies that have [9:29] been constructed under Donald Trump's regime. We should just say, like, okay, Paramount, enjoy this [9:36] well you have it, because as soon as we get elected, we're going to break you into pieces, [9:41] right? And people would respond to that boldness of vision when it comes to antitrust. And I think [9:49] they would respond to that boldness of vision when it comes to the most corrupt new ways that [9:54] people in and around the president are profiting, like the prediction markets. And people will [9:58] definitely respond. [9:59] I guess my question is, there is some form of a conflation between the overt corruption we were [10:04] talking about in the beginning and something like corporate consolidation. Or do you see those as [10:07] kind of a one and the same when we're talking about these monopolistic media companies? [10:12] Yeah, it's all part of the same story. The only way that Paramount, Skydance gets to be as big [10:20] and as corrupt and as manipulative as it is, is because of corruptions, because of an underlying [10:25] deal that is done between the Ellison family. [10:29] And the Trump family. I mean, Hegseth literally says it on stage, right? I can't wait until my [10:36] friends, the Ellisons, get control of CNN because then you'll stop telling the truth about the war. [10:43] The sooner David Ellison takes over that network, the better. [10:47] Like that's literally what he says on stage, is that I don't like the criticism that we're [10:52] getting, but it's cool because pretty soon my buddies will be in charge of the storytelling. [10:59] So, no, it's all part of one story. And again, back to how you message this. Yes, I understand [11:07] that it's a hard thing to break up that corrupt consolidation. Yes, I understand that by the time [11:13] we get control of things here, the prediction markets will be even more mature. But by stating [11:21] what you are going to do, you can actually bend reality, right? By being bold in your [11:29] claims, [11:29] about what you will do with power, people start signing up for the project. Not just people out in [11:37] the public, but members of Congress, right? Start signing up for the project, the bolder it is. [11:43] So, yes, those are hard things to unwind, but they become less hard if you state very clearly [11:50] at the outset about what your intentions are. To this point, you signed a memo with Senators [11:54] Schiff, Warren, and Smith that argues the Democrats can't run on affordability without naming the [11:59] corporations and the billionaires driving the crisis. I guess I wanted to ask about that with [12:05] the context of what the Democratic Party's history has been in mind. You know, there's close [12:09] relationships between the Democratic Party and some of these, let's say, Silicon Valley money [12:14] or tech money. There's close relationships between Democrats and folks in big law. [12:19] Are those relationships an impediment for Democrats doing that clear naming and shaming [12:24] that you're talking about? Absolutely. I mean, like, absolutely. So, we, you know, [12:29] so what did we do last year? We passed a bill essentially greenlighting the massive expansion [12:38] of the crypto industry and corruption inside the crypto industry with Democratic votes, [12:44] right? The Stablecoin Act, the Genius Act, which has like a modicum of consumer protections, [12:52] literally has in it a carve out from ethics rules for the President of the United States [12:59] to be able to issue his own cryptocurrency. Like, that's incredible that the Democratic Party [13:08] signed off on a crypto regulatory bill that greenlights Donald Trump's corruption scheme. [13:16] There's no explanation for why we did that other than the integration of parts of our party [13:23] and very powerful people in the crypto industry, or maybe more charitably, our fear [13:30] that the crypto industry is going to spend a ton of money against Democrats in the next election [13:35] if we don't do what they want. But that's, you know, just a slightly more acceptable form of [13:39] corruption, right? Just the, I'm going to do what you want because I fear that there's going to be [13:45] political consequences in the next election. So, yeah, the memo that Adam and Elizabeth [13:51] and Tina and I sent says very simply, you're not going to win over the public unless you tell, [14:00] you know, a story about corporate and billionaire corruption because people are smarter than a lot [14:07] of us think they are. People understand that the corruption of the economy, right, [14:12] their stagnation in their economic lives is derivative, is downstream of the corruption [14:19] of our politics. Like, they get that. And if you don't tell that full story, the influence [14:25] that the corporations and the billionaires have in our politics and how that has limited your economic, [14:30] opportunities, it's, your message is just not believable. If you just, like, start with, [14:37] let's trim the sales of the way that the pharmaceutical companies price drugs. It's like, [14:44] you're not telling me the whole story. Like, the real story is that we got into this mess with [14:48] prescription drug prices that are so high because our politics is corrupt. And the prescription drug [14:54] companies have way too much control over Washington. So, don't just tell me your plan for [14:59] lowering prescription drug costs. You're going to have to lower the price of drugs. You're going to [15:00] have to lower the price of drugs. You're going to have to lower the price of drugs. You're going to [15:00] have to lower the price of drugs. You're going to have to lower the price of drugs. Tell me your plan [15:02] for knocking out the prescription drug industry's power in Washington. Like, I need to know both [15:08] things. I mean, that really rings true from, you know, even my some experience on the road. I mean, [15:13] oftentimes, leading up to 2024, things like corporate capture or corporate consolidation [15:19] were things I heard even more Trump supporters or RFK supporters sometimes talking about, [15:24] and not necessarily coming from Democrats. What took so long to name this, to name something [15:30] that feels like it's been in the populist air for a while? [15:34] I mean, listen, I think inside the Democratic Party, there is an enormous hangover from Barack Obama. [15:45] And I mean this, I must do this in a complimentary way to Obama, right? So, Obama lifted our party, [15:53] right, into power. And we did really important things with him. He did not use this frame for the [16:00] world, right? A frame of corporate control, right? He did not use this frame for the world, right? A [16:01] frame of corporate control, right? A frame of corporate control, right? A frame of corporate [16:02] capture and an agenda of release from that capture. He was more technocratic, right? More [16:13] market-based in his reforms. And we got away with that as a Democratic Party because of the unique [16:20] talent of Barack Obama as a messenger. He was just somebody that we were never going to be [16:26] reproduce in our party as someone who just made folks feel better about government, because he was [16:32] in power. And he was in power. And he was in power. And he was in power. And he was in power. And [16:32] he was in power. And he was in power. And he was in power. And he was in power. And he was in power. And [16:32] he was in power. And he was in power. And he was in power. And he was in power. And he was in charge. [16:34] And what it exposed, though, in his absence is a lack of a narrative that the Democratic Party [16:42] tells about who has power, who doesn't have power, and how we're going to fix that. And so, [16:47] I do think our reliance on Barack Obama, as kind of a savior for the party's messaging, [16:53] exposed us as not having a coherent underlying message [16:57] when we didn't have a uniquely talented political figure at the top. [17:02] Makes sense. I want to end on a question about people's own kind of emotions in this moment. [17:07] I think the scope of Trump's corruption can feel disempowering. The administration seems immune [17:11] to public opinion at many times, undeterred by legal and kind of institutional restraints. [17:17] And it feels like, you know, we're kind of strapped in the beginning of a roller coaster [17:20] that, you know, you don't know where it ends. Is that true? Like, do we have, are constraints [17:26] coming? Is moderation coming? Or is it just a matter of like, you know, fingers crossed? [17:33] Yeah, I think it's, again, I think it's only coming if the Democratic Party, as we head into [17:39] this election, the 2020 election, makes the unrigging of our democracy a tent pole for our [17:47] party's messaging, right? If it's up to me, our party's message is unrigging the democracy, [17:52] unrigging the economy, kind of period stop, right? And, and, [17:56] and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, [17:57] if you're like signed up for those two projects, and we got to fill out what that means to unrig the [18:02] democracy, it probably means that we're running on a constitutional amendment to get dark money [18:07] and billionaire money and anonymous money completely out of politics. But like people [18:11] are up for that. And I guess I'll end here, because you are right that people are feeling [18:17] super discouraged and super powerless right now. And, and so we as a party have to sort of start [18:25] our analysis of what this moment, [18:27] what this moment means, you know, through a diagnosis of the way that people are feeling. And [18:32] people are feeling like they have no agency, like they have no control. So both our economic and [18:39] political messaging has to be about returning control to human beings and explaining to them, [18:45] as we've talked about a few times, that, that it goes both ways. The corruption of our economy [18:52] is downstream of the corruption of our democracy. But also, [18:56] and I'll try to say this the right way to end, the corruption of our democracy is also downstream [19:02] of the corruption of our economy in this way. When our economy is an economy that only cares [19:09] about profit and efficiency, it's a virtuous economy, it's an economy where morality doesn't [19:14] matter, where the health of workers or the health of communities is just irrelevant to economic [19:21] decision making. It becomes this just winner take all economy in which the folks who do well, [19:26] just grab it all. And we've normalized that because we've normalized the idea that, that, that sort of [19:34] shared prosperity is not a value any longer in our economy. Okay, when that becomes normalized inside [19:41] our economy, it becomes normalized inside our politics too. Our politics becomes winner take [19:46] all politics. So if a CEO is justified in making 1000 times more than the average worker and using [19:55] his power as a tool to make money, then he's a winner. And then he's a winner. And then he's a [19:56] winner, right? So if you're having an equal opportunity to cleanse yourself or to introduce yourself [20:01] to whatever force or några that the United States is disposed of to make money, but you can still [20:07] be a good CEO, to abuse workers in order to enrich themselves, and that's okay, then why is [20:16] it wrong for a president of the United States to use his power to abuse the people under his authority [20:22] and enrich himself maximally in the same way that a CEO would. [20:26] shouldn't matter in our politics either. And so that's why the project is so big, right? There's [20:31] cross currents between what has happened in our economy affecting our politics, what's happened [20:36] in our politics affecting our economy, which is why your willingness to confront this question [20:42] of corruption in government and in our economy and recognizing how they flow back and forth, [20:48] I just think is so critical and why I was so glad to help kick this off today. [20:52] Well, Senator Murphy, thank you for coming. [20:53] Appreciate it. Thank you. [20:54] That was Senator Chris Murphy. Every Saturday, we'll be in your video and audio feeds with a new [21:04] and interesting interview in politics or culture. And of course, you can catch Today Explained [21:09] every weekday, wherever you get your podcasts. I'm Ested Herndon, and thank you for joining us. [21:14] And I hope you tune in next week for the first episode of our new podcast, America Actually. [21:19] Now, what's the show about? It's about who we are beyond Donald Trump. He's been defining our [21:25] politics for more than a decade, but we're building to a presidential election that should [21:28] theoretically be a political election. And we're building to a presidential election that should [21:29] replace him. So who do we want to be? I'm going to start asking those questions. And I hope you [21:34] join me. Subscribe so you don't miss a thing at youtube.com slash Fox.