money laundering corruption, vast losses and embezzlement. this smuggled that money, of course, with the knowledge offered hi offices in de la al jazeera well tells the story of the ne, a $1000000000.00 collapse of cobble back in 2010. where are these people help them? they were never person to help them. i was number person questions that hung over afghanistan for the next decade and beyond. the cobbled back press on al jazeera reason to stand the differences and similarities of cultures across the world. so no matter how you take it will bring you the news and current affairs that matter to you. ah, hello, i'm darn jordan and dough. with a quick reminder at the top stories here on al jazeera, at least a 149 people have died in a crowd crush in south korea's capital sold. the victims were celebrating halloween

teams of emergency workers from across the country had been sent to the sea. around 76, people were injured. many of them seriously. the president answered fuel as ordered an immediate review of safety at all festival sites. ra mcbride has more from the scene. soul is waking up to this tragedy this sunday morning. ready assessing the scale of just what is taken place here. this is that we are in the middle of each one. it's the traditional bar and that time a district of sole, if i stand back, i can you see the, this is the actual out of the way where this tragedy happened. and the whole of each one is like this is a very congested area, with small alleyways at small streets. this was thronged by thousands of people out celebrating halloween. and this is where the tragedy unfold. it, it seems as though for whatever reason that is being investigated, crowds converged on this one alleyway from different directions. this is where the

crush happened a short while ago, a team to police moved in here starting to work through this alleyway, picking up debris and pieces of evidence, possibly as they start their investigation. but of footage that has emerged from the scene of the 1st responders coming to this place, i've shown people those both responders desperately trying to pull people out of the crush of people that had the mass here. and also in the streets around here on the side walls, there was seen desperate scenes of people trying to resuscitate some of the victims that through the school the people who were pulled out of the crush part of the problem it seems was they were just so many people here trying to get people from here to to the hospitals nearby was simply very, very difficult in the nearest hospital here. we can just pound around it's, it's quite a short distance away. it's about a kilometer further down this road and down the hill. that's the nearest hospital

here. but according to some of the 1st responders, it took them literally an hour to get through the crowds of people to try to get to some of the victims there. to the help that 1st a that to the emergency services where they could receive help. and that was part of the problem. that was literally the case that thousands of people simply didn't know that this tragedy was unfolding. but he said people have been killed in a suicide attack in somalia. as capitol mogadishu. 60 others were injured to car bombs exploded at a busy intersection near several government offices. the 1st blossoms a plume of smoke over the city. several minutes later, there was a 2nd explosion, just as ambulances arrived at the sea. russia says it suspending its participation in the un bro, good grain export deal with ukraine. after attacks on it, ships anchored of crimea. just 3 months ago, russia agreed to allow exports from ukraine to resume to stem

a global hunger crisis. yes, president joe biden has called moscow's move purely outrageous ang, it'll drive starvation around the world. and rushes accusing. the british military of blowing up the nodes, drink, gas pipelines in the baltic sea. last month. moscow says british personnel took part in the planning provision and implementation of what it called a terrorist attack. britain denies involvement. the 2 men vine to be brazil, next president of held their final campaign events ahead of sundays election incumbent giant both and i wrote led one of his signature motorcycle values in the southern city of bella, or isn't it wearing brazil's national football team t shirt and his former rival, president luna, the silver paraded through the city of south palo opinion. polls show the presidential, race is getting tighter. the bolts and i was sitting in about 48.9 percent support and newly pulling at 51 point one percent. and the husband of us house peak and nancy pelosi is recovering from surgery after being attacked inside their home in

san francisco on friday. the suspect to set you up shouted, where is nancy before beating a 2 year old pool? pelosi with a hammer. he suffered a fractured skull and injuries to his right arm and hands. so those were the headlights that he's continues here and al jazeera after the bottom line statement. that's what the hi, i'm steve clements and i have a question with special interest groups pouring more than a $1000000000.00 into the mid term us elections next month. has big money become a threat to american democracy? let's get to the bottom line. ah. the amount of money flowing in from billionaires and huge lobby in groups. the fun candidates running in next month's mid term elections busted. all previous records . $1300000000.00 in counting. that's a big number. on the one hand, it's not under the table. that's how campaign financing works in the u. s.

enshrined by a supreme court ruling called citizens united in 2010. but it begs the question, is all this money pulling lawmakers away from the will of the majority and into the narrow interests of their donors and friends? will billionaires have an outside ability to control the policy agenda? and does anyone see this is a threat to the future of representative democracy. today we're talking with trevor potter, the former chairman of the federal election commission, and current president of the campaign legal center. here in washington, d. c. and andrew gumble, journalist and author of down for the count dirty elections and the rotten history of democracy in america. gentlemen, thank you so much for joining me. trevor. let me just start with you. the bread and center in new york ran numbers for this election season. and found that there are just 12 mega donors and this is remarkable. but 12 mega donors, 8 of them are billionaires, have paid $1.00 out of every $13.00 spent in this election cycle. 12 people versus

170000000 people are to say, i just want to kind of understand the scale of something you live and breathe. you and andrew gumble both. but i'm not used to seeing these numbers. it's an extraordinary level of 1000000000 area and engagement. it is an extraordinary level . i was looking at some of the numbers open secrets has a good list of people who have spent and you know, the top 10 people spend 500000000 dollars just unbelievable some. and they are sort of like horse race owners. they're backing specific candidates. they're not. they're winning primaries by peter deals. spend enormous sums of money to make sure j. d. vance was the republican nominee and ohio . it's backing a prize fighter, something like that. and we just haven't seen that before, steve. but 10 years ago,

i was asked by a german television producer of i would like to comment on the role of the oligarchy. and i said, well, you know, i'm really a specialist in american elections. i don't know much about russia. and he said, no, no, i mean the american allah, galks. and that was of just a shocking praise at the time i, i hadn't thought of it that way. we've always had people who have supported party committees, but we haven't had up until the last couple of years. and really and show this year, people who sort of go off freelancing on their own decide which candidates they want to see in the senate or governorship. and then simply finance their, their races. and that is a role that i think excludes ordinary citizens we, we look at this money being spent and think, well don't they're picking the candidates and ultimately the office holders. and

even though we know this money is being spent, because we see contributions to various groups to important, remember that a lot of this is essentially secret. because when you see a television ad, it doesn't say paid for by peter deal or paid for by george soros, or who mean because both parties are, are being supported. but candidates of both parties by these individuals. instead it says something like paid for by americans for a better country. you have no idea who that is. yes. groups like the brendan, or the crit, can report on these overall totals, but it is hard to know exactly where the money is going because a lot of it is going to groups. they don't disclose their donors. and then the advertising itself doesn't tell you who pays for it. so the american public is

really left in the dark except for shows like this and discussions like this about who is financing running, which candidates. thank you for that way, andrew gumble, you've been writing about america's oligarchy. you've been writing about peter. feel in a fascinating article called peter fields, mid term bet, the billionaire seeking to disrupt americas democracy. and i'm really interested in trying to get understand is has it become a dynamic where one party says, hey, i've got, you know, i'll meet your billionaire and i'll, and i'll double with to, i mean, is this become so normalized as you write about that that, that we've just beginning to accept the fact that large players, large financial players are legitimate in the american political system should have sway should be able. as trevor potter said, this simply to pick candidates and price fighters. what's your take on this? well, the way you framed it is interesting because i think that the notion that the parties

are in charge of who runs and wins elections. and then what happens once they get his office is be challenged in and of itself. that i think that the big money is talking louder than the parties in many important respects. it's come back to another one of your premises from earlier. i think the basic point to make is the individuals a putting in this vast amount of money into the political system. they expect something for their money and what they get to their money is not only the candidates that choice prevailing in primaries having huge financial advantages going in the general election. if that's the case. because as you point out, that is fundraising on both sides. but it's also about determining the policy agenda and that happens outside of the context of elections as well as within the context of elections. so just give one very brief example of what i need, you know, the, the huge amount of money that was put into republican party politics. starting with the coat brothers after about 2008 as all but eliminated the possibility for the

republicans as a party to talk about climate change as a real and present threat that we need to confront. as a matter upon the urgency. if you look at a country like britain where there are certainly very conservative people in the conservative party, there is still an open debate about how to deal with climate change. the cross is both parties. that's not a coincidence. it's about the money. you see that in other ways as well, and it's not just about what doesn't get discussed by one policy can often be about what doesn't get discussed by anyone, especially in the context of an election. because if you know that a mega donor can drop one or 5 or $10000000.00 against you, if you talk about a certain subject, you know, maybe it's student debt really from defending president biden's plan for that. maybe it's, you know, some other area of fiscal policy or something else that is of direct benefit, ordinary voices, but threatens the interests of the narrow band of very rich people. you're going to

be very deterred from raising that on the campaign trail because you don't want $10000000.00 dropping against you. so even with that, spending the money there is a deterrent effect on a healthy, normal political debate where the interest of ordinary versus a being held front and center. not only by the voters themselves, they vote, but also by the candidates. trevor, you have been working on this issue longer than anyone i know, and i'm going to tell our audience, you were working closely with senator john mccain who himself was worried about these distortions in american politics. you've got, you've got a long time with this, and i haven't seen progress, substantial progress. and you can correct me if i'm wrong in transparency or beginning to raise this issue of what it's doing to corrode democracy. what does it say to a young person when you say to them, be engaged in politics, get engaged in the parties, try to make the world a better place,

but you're so outgunned and out mand, depending on where the billionaires are stacking their chips. but i'm just interested in unit because you do know this area, well, you know what, what should give us concern. and do you see any hope in this work on looking at, you know, building a better campaign, legal infrastructure and financing infrastructure than what we have today? well, unfortunately, and throughout my professional career, i started with the presidential campaign of the 1st president george h. w. bush then was at the federal election commission. it's not my fault, i promise you. but throughout that career, things have gotten significantly worse. i think, for the, the american public and in terms of how we finance elections. when i started, we had a public funding system for the presidency and candidates raised money and it was matched in the primaries, the general election. they had full public funding. they didn't take private

contributions on terms of the house and senate and the party committees. there were strict limits on how much individuals could give to candidates and to the committees. and there weren't the run around the work around that. now dominate the system so that there was full disclosure. people knew who was giving and they were giving in relatively small amounts the amount that a wealthy. ready ready individual could give to a candidate was a $1000.00 per election that has changed over time. not really because the limits have gone up much. they have a little, but because the money is going around, those limits the ability of wealthy individuals to come in. ready bankroll a candidate do so either overtly or covertly sort of pick their horse and ride it and put them in office is totally different from what it was. and i think andrew is

also right that the threat of that to office holders is a huge problem. sen sheldon white house has just written the book talking about what he sees as the corruption inherent and all of this. and the, the ability to shape legislation, which is after why people spend money on politics is they want particular outcomes or is andrew points out? they want to block particular outcomes and so when you have literally tens of millions of dollars, all these top donors that we're talking about have given $2550.00 more. ready $1000000.00 in this race, when you have that kind of money it's, it's very difficult for the average citizen due to counteract. it's very difficult for the parties. they end up as to some extent the hostages of wealthy individuals . if the candidate doesn't do what they want,

the individual cut their support. if the individual, if the wealthy individual, the special interests are bank rolling candidates around the parties outside of the party structure, the party really doesn't have much say in that. so the world has changed significantly. i, i think a lot of this goes back to the supreme court citizens united decision. i say that because the court really there gave a green light to spending unlimited amounts of money in elections. now technically it was just corporate money, then labor money that's being spent. but i think the fact that the disclosure system has not worked the way it is supposed to is an enormous problem here when john mccain was working on the mccain, feingold law. part of that was to limit the ability of wealthy special interest to

spend money by requiring disclosure, so that citizens would know who was paying for those ads and in citizens united itself. justice kennedy said, yes, it's true for the 1st time. we're going to allow unlimited corporate money in federal elections. but don't worry because it'll be fully disclose. and shareholders will be able to hold their corporations accountable for how they spend their money. and citizens will know who is paying for the advertising and therefore can judge the advertising based on the source of the money. as andrew says, if it's energy company spending money urging you to elect someone, you can make your own decisions about whether you agree with that energy company. but that's not what we have. we have a situation where the money is often routed through nonprofit organizations that don't disclose donors. and the result is that citizens are seeing all these ads.

there are where there's a lot of money being spent out there, but they don't really know who it's coming from. so you have these independent actors who are essentially supplanting the party committees, particularly, and things like senate races where you're, you spend $30000000.00, you're spending 10 times what a party committee would spend. right, andrew, you know, i'd love to get your take as well on this, but wondering, you know, from a, maybe a devil's advocate position saying, well, the american system in a way responded with something. i was surprised by, you know, particularly we saw the obama campaigns and the bernie sanders campaigns and, you know, the rise of the small donor, the $3.00 donor, the $2.00 donor, massive amounts of money. which in a way kind of gave me hope that there were that many people out there giving in small donors that it could make a difference. but, but, you know, in, in the real world does that small level don't, or in which we've seen proliferate because technology allows us to do that, to get past posted stamps in mailers. is that

a counter effect that balances the abuses? prayer, perhaps of you know, the billionaire crowd essentially in politics? well, 1st of all, i'd say that the rise is a small donor movement. if you want to call it that is a direct response to a universal. i would say, discussed at the level of unaccountable moneys flushing around the system. if you look around the country where they have been successful campaigns, usually through state level bows, initiative to kansas, certain aspects of what, you know, i would call the corruption of system, whether it's gerrymandering seats, whether it's campaign finance that allows unlimited donations to independent groups . you see that, you know, those bass initiatives succeed and read states as well as blue states groups represent us being very active in trying to make that happen. so i think what you see is that if you scratch the average american vote and get them to sort of stop the polarizing up versus then team sports view of how american politics works at

the tremendous amount of agreement that the system is corrupt. and that it needs to be reformed. now the question is, how do you do that? the small donor approach is one, the can work, but it does generally require a candidate and erase that has tremendous media. visibility is not something that's gonna work for the average school board race, for example, something else, you know, maybe it was a board where there's a direct interest of an energy company to get involved. then you have an argument. we've seen many times, most notably with donald trump, but not just within people from the business world saying, well i have lots of money of my own so i can't be corrupted. i think that's a very problematic argument. the factors and politics, you know, you are the holding to people for reasons that have to do with money, but also have to do with many other things. and as we saw with donald trump, you know, he ended up pursuing an agenda that was very friendly to the people who he felt vital to his political interests. you know,

whether it's evangelical christians with the abortion issue, or the federalist society on the nomination of judges. and so on and social. so this argument that, well, i've got so much money that i can't be corrupted, i think is a for swan. and what we're seeing now with people like pizza teal, jumping in, is a very explicit. let's tear everything down kind of argument. so it's taking, taking the previous arguments and pushing to another level thing. the system is so corrupt, we need to destroy everything. and the contradiction in what he's doing, of course, is this, the analysis, the most americans can get behind is the on the cannibal money. and corruption is the problem in our system. then having somebody who is a built in a poor, a tens of millions of dollars into races to back candidates who don't believe in american democracy is not the answer. and i think it's interesting that we now have impeded till a mega donor, who explicitly has raised doubts about the democratic system working within

the new limits or lack of limit to the system where money can trump ordinary people vote. the reason why all this money exists is because mommy can be more powerful than people's votes, right. so it is inherently on democratic and now we're seeing explicit calls to tear down the institutions while democrats system coming from the phone donors who are taking advantage of a system that the come to lose. well, you know, this race and the important question. trevor of you know what to do, i mean you and i both. i will say this publicly were friends with madeline albright madeline albright wrote a book on fascism and said, oftentimes, fascist, are elected and systems. and i'm, you know, as i listened to andrew saying very clearly that we have a democratic system, electing people who are opposed to democracy. we have a system with citizens united, creating the traffics of non transparency. as you said,

i guess my question to you is, do you look at campaign finance? is the greatest threat to american democracy now? and what is the strategy to, to get us onto a different track? i think there are a number of dangerous threats to democracy. now, the money in politics is part of it that it's really an indicia of what's going on . it's this overall attack was andrew was mentioning in the institution of democracy itself, the idea that we somehow can't govern ourselves, that individual americans can't be trusted. when i hear somebody like peter tail talking about, you know, destroying the system, breaking it down, starting again. not trusting what we have. i end up thinking well, he's protected by billions of dollars a personal wealth. so you know,

however much chaos we have. and however, bad things are, he's probably ok. but what about the rest of us when you hear the republican leadership in congress talking about defaulting on our deck and the potential global, calamitous financial results of that. again, it may serve a partisan interest, but it's not very good for the country. so i, i think the attacks on the integrity of election officials, the threats to election officials, everything i've seen says that their officials who are leaving their office by if they're in office or they're not volunteering because they fear violence and threats at the polls. that's dangerous for a democracy. the whole thing we've heard for 2 years about how elections are fraudulent and rigged, and you can't trust one type of voting or another type of voting and the,

the certified winner isn't somehow really the winner. all of that is dangerous for democracy because it, it, it leaves voters feeling that somehow the system is, is not secure. and steve, remember that when we talk about voters putting people in power, you start with the fact that in most states you have primaries for each party with very small turn out. so if somebody wins a primary, 35 percent, 33 percent were talking about a couple 1000 votes, then ending up deciding who the party nominee is and in the house and the senate. many of these are very safe seats. so the election is actually decided there. so, and then you have the big chunk of the country who don't even vote on election day . right. so it's, it's a small piece that end up deciding who were going to have an office. and if that small piece is bought for mot by really wealthy, special interest,

right. and then they're beholden to them when they get there and those interests don't like democracy. that's a problem. just in the last minute we have andrew, 2 of the acolytes of peter thiel are blake masters. he's running for senate in arizona and j. d. vance, who is running for senate in ohio. should they, when is the practice that you've been sort of right, you know, putting a spotlight on going to get much worse in the future. i think it's going to get worse regardless of whether they win or not. i think that is the real problem. the, to travis point, we now have a primary system where very small groups of those, as you can be more easily swayed by the big money interested society who get to run . and the fact that you now have massive advance before them. you have people who are already in the senate like ted cruz wholly on the very far right of the posse who believe in being gadflies you believe and you know, pushing against everything that has been helped take her by the republican. some of

mine behind itself in the past, this creates an atmosphere in which these candidates with these views become the norm, right. and that we can expect a lot more of them in the future or listen, thank you, passing conversation, important conversation on what you know, the solvency of american democracy is today. trevor potter, former chairman of the federal election commission and current president, the campaign legal center, nadra, gumble, journalist, and author. thank you both for being with us today. thank you, steve. so what's the bottom line? if your idea of american politics is based on the hollywood classic, mister smith goes to washington with jimmy stewart, you're seriously in need of a software update that sort of thinking. an upstanding american citizen decides that his voice or her voice is worth something and should be heard. so they watch a campaign with almost no money, but people love them and they vote for them. and then they wind up in congress and they stand up for the little guy. if that movie was adapted for to day at the end,

mr. smith would wake up realizing that his whole adventure was just a front for a billionaire pulling strings from behind with tens of millions of dollars spent in political action committees, with virtually no transparency, big money and big power or the name of the game in today's america there are a lot of david and goliath stand offs in american politics to day. but usually goliath winds, there are folks out there who still are brave enough to run for public office and sincerely want to serve their constituencies. but it's getting harder and harder to break through the money barrier. and that's the bottom line. ah. after world war 2, frances great empire began to unravel in vietnam to most heavy, but he was staying themselves in the street, dusting with joy kissing each other. and algeria, he does, and does, she knew as if the indo chinese that managed to beat the french army? why not die?

the decline continues and episode 2 of blood and tears. french tea colonization on al jazeera action to act is a different stages of their life. share the highs and lows of following dreams of fame and fortune. i'm going to commit a gall goodbye bessy gl mother. endlessly seeking to fulfill the ambitions you would give me. i thought you were in the awkward while struggling with family expectations. volleyball dreams on. on jesse durham, lou ah, hello, i'm darren jordan dough. with a quick reminder, the headlines head on the al jazeera, at least a 151. people have died in a crowd crush.