mariana. it has been an incredibly busy time in the us for political news. and if you americasters want the latest, do make sure you subscribe to the podcast on bbc sounds. it's all there. but right now, as we say, this episode is going to step back and look at campaign finances. and you can send us a whatsapp on ”443301239480. and if you have the kind of bank balance that that number sort of equates to, then you will be particularly interested this week because... or this day. whis week, what am i talking about? we're doing this every day. anyway, you will be interested because we are going to talk completely about money, and we're going to do it right now with someone who knows more about campaign finances than most, who knows an awful lot about the way money is raised, but also, crucially, on the way it is spent and the impact that it has on american politics. sarah bryner is director of research and strategy

from opensecrets, which is a research group. it tracks the money, the lobbying, the conflicts of interest, both real and potential, the effect that all of this money has on elections and indeed on policy. sarah, hello, and thank you forjoining us. i am so happy to be here. well, it's really good to talk to you because, as i was saying, you really do know about this stuff. and i think probably the place to start is with the basics, actually. so how does it work? who can donate money, who typically does donate money? and you think of all those small amounts that people are allowed to give — kind of talk us through what the process is. yeah, sure. so anyone who is an american citizen can donate to - american politicians. but ultimately, you know, i you're not going to give $25 to a politician when you're . in the lower income brackets. you need that $25 to pay your electric bill or to buy some . bread or whatever, i so we're talking more

about people of means. and that'sjust- for the small donors. the other side of the coin i is that we also have people donating millions and millions of dollars to american - political groups. so who gives? wealthier and upper middle i class and middle class people. as for the mechanics, i there are a lot of rules. so you can give directly - to a candidate, but that money is limited in how. much you can give. you can give to super pacs, . which are political committees that support candidates. that money is unlimited . in how much you can give. but the super pac can't give it to the candidate. - they can't co—ordinate. you can give it to the party. and that money is limited, but in bigger amounts. - you can give it to political groups like the nra, - and then they can do . with it what they want. so really the possibilities are endless if you have . a well—stocked bank account. yeah.

and what. .. what really fascinates us this time round is what happens to that money and, in a sense, whether it's worth raising it in the kind of amounts...that we talk about. because, marianna, do you remember we had that conversation with jake tapper, who sarah will know very well? jake tapper, who told us about going viral and never quite knowing what does go viral and what doesn't go viral in the modern world. and thatjust seems to me to be really important when it comes to what you get for your money in this day and age. in other words, you can't be as sure. you used to just run a tv ad, didn't you? and nowadays, in marianna's world, which is increasingly all of our worlds, you can't, can you? yeah. i mean, one of the things that i've really noticed — i'm sure you've probably spotted this, sarah, as well, and anthony and justin, as we've chatted about — is how, particularly since kamala harris has announced that she's running, this kind of massive, very loud, online, organic

social media movement. and organic is the word we use for content that doesn't necessarily feel like it's coming specifically from the campaign itself, or is necessarily super organised, like, like you say, justin, like a tv ad. instead...it's all this stuff we've been chatting about — the coconut tree meme, which is this clip of kamala harris talking about something her mum used to say about falling out of a coconut tree, this whole "brat summer" thing, which the teams and the accounts supporting kamala harris have really embraced. so "brat summer" is all about charli xcx, who's a british pop star, and she's got an album out called brat, and people are saying that some of kamala harris's stuff kind of aligns with some of the stuff she talks about in her songs, and so they've accepted kamala harris as a brat, to quote, and all of that has just absolutely taken social media by storm. and what strikes me is that that really can't have cost very much money. i mean, it costs a bit of money now if you decide you want to, "0h, right, let's, like, kind of push this on our own social

media platforms "and let's reshare the memes "and let's create our own content. " but broadly, this stuff is really, really cheap. it's like creating a banner on your profile on twitter or resharing a video that someone'sjust made at home. and that's obviously something that donald trump in particular has been very good at — kind of capitalising on these online fandoms, so to speak, who will create content in support of him, who will share it. and it's really, really cheap. i don't know what you think about that, sarah, in terms of where your money can and should go when it comes to particularly social media advertising. cos you can't buy bratness. i know that, i've tried. you know what it is now. doesn't work. you know what it is. i know what it is, but i still don't think i could buy it. as much as you might want to. i think that it is tricky- because you can't predict when that social media i storm is going to happen. but there are two things that i think really mobilised - donors this cycle. one is obviously the switch between biden and harris. | and you can buy a better social media staffer or a social- media staff army.

and that's... you know, you get what you pay for, right? - like you can get a college - intern, or you can get a highly professional person who knows what they're doing, _ so there is a money story there a little bit. - but in trump's case, - his most effective fundraising days...were when he was convicted of 34 felonies l and after he got shot. and so getting convicted - of the felonies was expensive to him, but that's not really a money story. | so there is definitely this swell of support that can| happen and thatl you can't control. and i think thatjust goes to show that money isn't| everything, but it does matter. you know, sarah, you talk about this distinction between campaigns and candidates and political action committees — pacs — and how they're different things and there are rules for donating and limits to donating to candidates, but not to pacs. and i think i think our audience might be a little confused by that.

i mean, these super pacs, what are they? and can they support candidates? they can't co—ordinate. but is there really a difference? i mean, or is thisjust a distinction under the law? but in reality, you give to donald trump's super pac and you're giving money that he will use or will be used to support him. it really has become a distinction withouti a difference. super pacs were created . in the aftermath of citizens united, which was this big - supreme court case in 2010 that said that donating money i was essentially free speech, and you can't limit that. you can draw boundaries around it, which is to say that _ you can't say, "i'm - going to give $1 million "to donald trump directly," because that opens up — i in the supreme court's opinion — more opportunities- for corruption. but you can give to i trump—aligned groups and they can do with it what they will. - i don't think that there -

is a ton of direct coordination where the campaign says, "hey, i want you, super pac, - to do this thing on this day." and that's because they don't have to do that. l they can say, "i'm going to put a bunch of videos of myself - on youtube and anyone can grab them. - it's creative commons. have fun with that." and so they don't have to. you know, ultimately- the messaging is fairly well understood. and the super pacsjust have the ability to raisel so much more money. when we talk about, like, i trump fundraising or harris or biden fundraising, - we usually lump together the super pacs with - the candidate committees. and i think thatjust - goes to show how little a difference there is. right. i remember a few years ago, there was just b—roll of mitch mcconnell... yes! ..who was running for senate re—election, just kind of nodding and walking around, just released onto the internet. and it was obvious that they were doing that so their super pac could grab it and turn it into campaign commercials. that was the greatest. orwe had. ron desantis, who was... yeah, they called it

mcconnelling. - you had ron desantis, who was in... really? it's a... it's a word, mcconnelling? you had ron desantis, who was... mcconnelling. that's fantastic. laughter and you also had ron desantis, who was basically campaigning on the back of his super pac in iowa, being the "special guest" of this super pac. you know, there wasn't coordination, but they were inviting him onjust...to host him at these essentially campaign events in iowa. i mean, it's almost gotten to the point where it's absurd. yeah, it's... it's hard to say that there i isn't, you know, these direct lines and that it's really not that different any more. - i mean, there are specific. rules for super pac spending that candidates don't have to follow. - like, they get cheaper media buys, candidates do. - but ultimately, it all goes i to support the same cause. and people know that. and the other thing is, if you break the rules, you may not get penalised for that until after the campaign is over. so there's a certain amount of incentive to, you know, do first and ask permission later. yes. that's true.

yes, as donald trump has discovered, you do... they do eventually catch up with you, but it can be quite a long time. and then... it then leads to more money coming to your campaign, as sarah tells us. yes. should we... can i ask you this, sarah? itjust fascinates me — and it's been widely reported, hasn't it — that donald trump is among those who once contributed to a kamala harris campaign when she was attorney general in california? and there is... and i think it's true. i think he did. and she later said she gave the money to charity or something. but why would he have done that? so he gave, i think i'm right in saying, more than a million bucks when he was a businessman to various campaigns, democrat and republican. i mean, what is he buying?

yeah. back then, he was buying either access or good press. _ and people like... people with money like to give to candidates who can - ultimately open the doors for them later on — - approve a building permit, | you know, just take a shiny photo so that the personl looks like they have good connections. so, you know, you're buying that access, you're buying . that, you know, connection. and you also want to support people who will win. - and so if harris looked . like she was in a position to win, you wanted to be seen as a backer of that. _ you know, he gave to- republicans and democrats. he was sort of centre giving. clearly, since then, _ he has become much more aligned | with the far—right and has sortj of aligned the far—right around himself, but back in the early part of the century and, - you know, the late '905, - he was much more of a status quo-type giver - - because he needed to be.

he needed to be so that he could build those buildings| and get those golf courses and, you know, grease those palms. | he doesn't have - to do that any more. and so clearly, you know, things have evolved. - related to that point, sarah, but thinking about backers and who's donating to who and so on, one thing that i've really noticed is the way that the people who are often dubbed the tech bros, the very powerful people in silicon valley, the kind of tech billionaires, so elon musk, for example, only one quick look at his feed on x will tell you exactly who he's supporting, which is donald trump. and he announced that kind of straight after the assassination attempt happened. and he's continued to post that kind of content on his feed. but notjust him, people like peter thiel as well, who was kind of one of the key backers of facebook and founder of paypal and so on. why do you think these tech bros are throwing their weight behind trump in this way this time around? because, you know, before, it felt like they were always kind of trying to... people like mark zuckerberg, for example, or other tech bosses were trying to kind of have this bit of distance between them and trump, particularly when they were accused of, you know,

perhaps promoting his stuff over other people's stuff and making elections not fair and all that kind of stuff. why do you think that some of them have sort of changed their mind or are being so vocal this time in a way they haven't before? i think it's two things. one is that trump does social media, or did before he got l banned from various platforms, did social media like no—one - else. so he... any time he says - anything, it's a flurry. and a flurry on sociall media is more money for these companies. so that's one. the second is that i think- trump, at least two weeks ago, looked like he was all but a sure bet to win. that was what the mood of the country was. - and that actually coincided with...j ..the assassination attempt. and with all of these tech bros coming out of the woodwork to support him. _ like i said, you want to back a winner, you don't want - to back a loser. also, i will say that it is- really interesting to me that

musk claimed, or that it was widely reported that musk . was going to give $45 million a month to support trump, l and that two days after biden| dropped out of the race and it looked all of a sudden - like the shake—up was going to happen, trump walked back that number by a lot. - or not trump — musk walked back that number by a lot. _ so, you know, like i said,| you want to back a winner. and for a while there, trump looked like he was definitely| going to be a winner. now, things are a little bit more uncertain. - and you see the support, at least monetarily, - sort of getting - a little bit fuzzier. so i think that that's, you know, ultimatelyj what's going on. it strikes me as well that there's quite an interesting conversation about... you know, there's increasing pressure on the social media companies when it comes to regulation and the risk that... yes. ..legislation could be introduced and so on. and someone like elon musk has made very clear that the first amendment and kind of protecting freedom of expression ranks above all else on his site. and that seems to align perhaps more closely with a donald trump than it does a kamala harris, and so that could be playing a part, but i guess it's hard

to get in the mind of the tech bros. i'll tell you what, though. yeah, i try not to. i tell you what as well, though — there's a real conflict, potentially, isn't there, between the tech bros�* agenda, as it were — and we know what that is, and it's making a lot of money for them and their companies and getting more and more eyeballs and all the rest of it — and the kind of sense that you got, certainly at the republican convention — they had a union leader, the boss of the teamsters talking to them, this whole economic populism thing. i mean, we could discuss how real it is, but the whole kind of hillbilly elegy stuff that comes from jd vance actually is all about union people. it's about economic populism, it's about protecting communities, which, of course, ratherfamously, some of the tech bros are accused of not doing. and it's that... there is a tension there, isn't there? thatjust strikes me as one that hasn't kind of played out yet actually. we don't yet know how it ends. that's true. we don't know how it ends.

but also, i think that there... you know, you touched on it. there's a messaging thing here that isn'tl necessarily true, right? and that's true for| the tech bros, too. top givers, maybe - the teamsters' boss or, you know, wealthy people who claim to come from l a certain background - or whatever, don't necessarily represent the rank and file. and when you look at union giving and when you look. at silicon valley giving - from employees of these tech companies, they still fall. in line with the democrats — labour particularly. so, you know, what the top do and what everyone else - does is not... that's not equivalent. and i think that comes down to money, that comes down| to interests, that comes down to a lot of different things, . including that, you know, - individual human beings can... ..have their own motivations, whereas industries writ largel have different ones. so we're going to see how this plays out. i i think that the jd vance pick is particularly interesting - because he does come i from a more, you know,

ha rdscrabble background. but it's to be determined whether that's going - to actually, you know, resonate with people. | right. and i think it's interesting, justin makes a good point about issues that these tech companies care about. immigration is one of them. they lean heavily on labour coming from other countries on visas that the trump administration curtailed when they were in power. and they might again. so, you know, that will definitely be some sort of a source of tension. sarah, i've got a question for you about grey money. you know, we talk about the money the campaigns have that they can spend directly. it's very out, it's open. we've talked about dark money, where you don't know who the donors are to these super pacs. what is grey money and how does that... how is that becoming a more potent force in american politics? sure. that is donations to super pacs which are disclosed, _ but the donor is somethingl that we don't know anything

about, so a shell company. so, if you give and you're i giving as abc, llc, and that means nothing to anyone, that is what we call, - like, grey money or shadow money, partially disclosing i groups. and that is the way - that this is happening more. in the past, we saw money. spending by groups that didn't have to disclose their donors — non—profits, etc, americans. for financial prosperity, groups like that. - now, that's happening less- and less, and we're seeing more and more of sort of non—profits giving to super pacs _ and the money being. "disclosed", according to federal election commission rules, but not meaningful. - so i think that it's the same thing. l i mean, it's still... it's the same problem. like, it's still dark, - even if we know that it is dark, if that makes sense. yeah. yeah, i'll put a plug

in for your website, opensecrets.org, because you really do a lot of sniffing around and trying to follow the money. i mean, how much effort does it take and how much poring over documents does it require to eventually find where this money is coming from? are there times where you just hit a dead end? oh, yeah. or is there a method that you have that helps come up with some information? you do feel a little bit- like a detective sometimes, looking at addresses. i've done geolocation before. i've, like, done google maps, where i like, look at - the street view and say, - "that'sjust some random house "in the middle of suburban, you know, cleveland, - "but they're giving $1 million. that's weird." you do geolocation and look| at the address and it's a ups store because they have . an address that's a po box, essentially. so there is some stuff - like that, but you hit dead ends all the time. sarah, thanks so much for talking to us. we all are fans of the opensecrets website as well, and people around the world who listen to us now might want to have a look at it, because it is all fascinating stuff and it's a real

pleasure to talk to you. thank you. yes. thank you. let's talk again, perhaps after the money has either bought or not bought the presidency this time around. she laughs thank you so much. it was such a nice time being here.| all right, well, let's keep this conversation moving along. i was remembering an old quote by phil gramm — he was a senator from texas back in the �*80s and �*90s, he ran for president. he raised a lot of money, and he said, "the best friend "you can have in politics is ready money." so the question is, you know, is that your best friend and can ready money, can big coffers buy the white house? what do y'all think, mariana, justin? it's interesting you mentioned phil gramm because he didn't make it, did he? and i... no, he didn't! it's... i mean, i've always thought of phil gramm. it's a fascinating idea, isn't it, because he was really kind of up front about, "hey, i'm going to have..." was he from texas? he was kind of... he was... he was from texas. yeah. he was comfortable talking about big things, including big

amounts of money. and everyone thought, "oh, goodness, he's going to make it big." but he didn't. and i've seen it used in the past by those who defend money in american politics as saying, "hey, look at phil gramm — "he had all this money and he made a great fuss about it "and actually he didn't get anywhere." or indeed look atjeb bush, i suppose, in the primary, the primary that trump eventually won, where he... what did he burn through, 100 million or something, and reduced his percentage approval by a couple of points? yeah, yeah. it got to the point where he was sending out dvds with his campaign video, and he had so much money, he didn't know how to spend it and was just throwing it out there. and none of it made a difference against the force of nature that was donald trump. yeah. so what does that tell us? i mean, seriously, what does it tell us about the kind of balance that there is between simply being able to buy people's votes? and you look now at kamala harris and you look at people saying, "oh, goodness! money is a proxy for enthusiasm" and all that kind of thing. but is it as simple as that?

does the more money you have allow you to, i don't know, get in people... you don't really knock on doors in the modern era, do you? but is it... what does it actually buy? that's my question. because, you know, as we'll hearfrom marianna in a second, the idea ofjust buying tv ads in the old way is really for the birds now, isn't it? one thing that i do think is worth saying on this — this kind of idea that, you know, donations tend to come from people who are very, very wealthy and are able to give it is that does tend to spawn quite a few conspiracy theories in the world that i inhabit online, some of which is legitimate questions about exactly as we've been discussing — how powerful people could, you know, leverage donations to try and impact, you know, decisions in their favour and so on and the consequences of that, but some of which really kind of delves into the quite deep and extreme conspiracy theories about, you know, an elaborate deep state that's looking to undermine donald trump, for example, at every turn. and there's been a bit of conspiracy theory content like that about kamala harris, a bit more general and less necessarily all about funding.

but it's certainly sort of picking up steam online after what has been a pretty busy past few weeks. right. you see, you see the george soros conspiracy theories — for the republicans — and the koch brothers, although there's only one surviving koch brother, but that sort of thing for republicans as well. they see the big donors behind the scenes like puppet masters pulling the strings. ok, here's something you can get for free. from next week, americast is going to be publishing episodes on mondays, wednesdays and fridays on bbc sounds or, indeed, wherever you get your podcasts. so there we are. not everything in life has to be paid for. it's been quite a wild ride, hasn't it, over the last two weeks? so much news and so many episodes that we've already brought out. we're going to make it regular now. so we're aiming not to do the emergency episodes in between those three, but i'm not making any promises. that's it. we are in a constant state of emergency.

bye! goodbye, everyone. laughter bye! americast. americast from bbc news. i see myself in the girls that we're fighting for.— we're fighting for. climate chan . e we're fighting for. climate change is _ we're fighting for. climate change is real— we're fighting for. climate change is real and - we're fighting for. climate change is real and we - we're fighting for. climate - change is real and we must act now. �* , ., ., , now. argument is full emotions, and negative _ now. argument is full emotions, and negative emotions - now. argument is full emotions, and negative emotions is - now. argument is full emotions, and negative emotions is more | and negative emotions is more powerful than positive emotions we have more feminist story teller, things will change. when big names talk, they talk to us.

hello there. the weekend started with some more showers around, but those showers have moved away now, and for the next few days at least we can look forward to some dry weather and some sunshine. temperatures are going to be rising, particularly across england and wales. the reason for the change in the weather — well, high pressure that's building across the uk, giving us the clear skies overnight. it will be a little chilly first thing on sunday morning. it'll warm up quickly, though, in the sunshine. some cloud will affect the far north—west of scotland. otherwise it's just a bit of fair weather cloud bubbling up. not much of that, really — lots of sunshine to come and the winds will be quite light. a gentle southerly breeze developing. some sea breezes are possible, but it's going to be a warmer day on sunday than it was on saturday. two degrees warmer generally for scotland and northern

ireland, and for many parts of england and wales, temperatures will be four degrees higher than they were on saturday. the high pressure is still around as we move into monday, particularly across england and wales. there is this weather front, though, approaching the north—west. it does mean the sunnier skies will be for england and wales. the far north of england, but more especially scotland and northern ireland, will see more cloud and breeze. that weather front bringing a little bit of rain, but many places will be dry. some sunshine coming through. temperatures in scotland and northern ireland aren't going to change too much. it's across england and wales that the heat will be building. we could be getting close to 30 degrees in the south—east on monday afternoon. and generally across western parts of europe, temperatures are on the rise. that heat is pushing up from iberia, into paris for the olympics as well, and also across the uk. those temperatures rising quickly again for england and wales on tuesday. could be over 30 degrees across the south—east of england. now, temperatures aren't going to be as high for scotland and northern ireland — 20 or 21 degrees quite widely. there will be a bit more cloud around here,

but still some sunshine. it looks like being dry. plenty of sunshine for england and wales. there is more cloud, though, threatening to move from northern france across the channel, maybe bringing one or two showers. and this is where things start to change, really, because the pressure is going to be falling as we head into wednesday. some heavy showers moving up from the south, heading northwards overnight, and then this is when the weather changes. we've got showers and more cloud and slightly lower temperatures, i think, through thursday and friday. but the start of the week is going to be very warm and hot in places.

live from washington, this is bbc news. dozens of projectiles are fired towards northern israel. at least people are killed in a town in the israeli—occupied golan heights. ——at least 12 people are killed in a town donald trump says he'll carry on holding outdoor rallies, despite advice not to from the us secret service. venezuelans are preparing for what could be the most consequential presidential election in more than a decade.

hello, i'm carl nasman. un officials in lebanon have urged restraint along the lebanese—israeli border after a rocket attack in the israeli—occupied golan heights. at least 12 people were killed and many others injured when a rocket hit a soccer field in the town of majdal shams. many of the casualties are thought to have been children who were playing at the time. the israeli military described the attack as the deadliest in the area since october 7th and blames hezbollah, a lebanese armed group. hezbollah has denied responsibility. israel's foreign affairs minister, israel katz, said the country is "approaching a moment of all—out war" with hezbollah. israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu is flying back early from his trip to the us and has warned that hezbollah will pay a heavy price. translation: since l was. updated about the disaster, i have been holding continuous security consultations, and i have directed that our return to israel be brought forward. as soon as i arrive, i will immediately convene

the security cabinet. i can say that the state of israel will not let this