ah, dizzy was select on it every 3 days, a woman is kinda in the murder of women and unprecedented levels of domestic violence have shopped to italy to the call. the violence is more violent, violent men are younger. why does it keep happening? and what can be done to stop it. this is not deprived. i want my daughter and all the daughter's to pay. that's not the country i want witness. felicity for me is very simply a question of power on al jazeera. ah, this is al jazeera, i'm dead in applegate, i will check on your world headlines. the left us leader lula is a sofa. husband declared the winner of

a knife edge presidential runoff election in brazil. with all ballads counted, he's taken 50.9 percent of the vote, the incumbent j. your ball scenario took 49 point one percent. you good official door. there's only one big winner. the people does neither mine nor our parties. victory? no, no. this is the victory of an immense democratic movement that's beyond political parties or ideologies. the majority of the people want more democracy. they want more social inclusion. they want more respect and understanding between people. they want more freedom inequality. meanwhile, supporters of the incumbent, your ball scenario have been left in deep disappointment and near this belief the right wing leader has not yet made a speech. conceding the election. brazilian state media is reporting that the president of congress and president of the senate have acknowledged the victory. both are political allies of the year. both scenarios series of bo has more from outside the presidential residence in brazil. yeah. it's also unlikely that he will

call elected president new le feel about that. he will concede to fade. so this only adds up to the tension that this country has been in for the past weeks since the 1st round table tonight has been questioning this country's electronic voting system for 8 weeks. he has question the electoral trivial question. the supreme court, you have even asked the military to carry out the counting process. so certainly there's been lots of tension, lots of facial in the country. south koreans are paying tribute to the victims. if a crowd crush that killed at least a $154.00 people during halloween festivities on saturday, people gathered and sold it to one neighborhood to lay flowers and express their condolences. rob mcbride has more from so been getting a briefing monday morning from the government on ways that he will deal with the aftermath of this tragedy. it includes things like the declaring of the area around

detail, one where the tragedy happened as a disaster zone. that way, it would then be entitled to various support schemes. there's been the announcement of financial support for funeral arrangements. there will be many funerals in the coming days, also for the payment of medical bills. we still have scores of people in hospital, but at the same briefing, some very tough questions being asked, and that will be further questions about this, about the level of policing on a saturday night when this tragedy happened. which does it with the value of hindsight to a certain degree, seem locally and either quite, according to the many of the people who would, that we would simply turned into the scenes of chaos as part of the morning process that we're going to have for the coming week, we're having the setting up of these memorial alters in cities across south korea. this one is outside of city hall at there is another alter across in tell you one, the other scene of the tragedy there is, i think, a sense of disbelief, almost numbness from people here in south korea. it's a country that, you know,

he's renowned for self control following the rules. and we saw that during the pandemic that people weren't allowed to meet up. so they didn't, people had to wear masks, and everyone wore a mask. and when people were allowed to gather again for things like k, pop concepts, offer protest rallies in march, then it's all very well organized very well. police didn't very well marshal. so lots of questions being asked about how this was allowed to happen. we know from precedent unit, so y'all who has been down to this altar, that things will be different in the future that all that the of the staging the crowd control measures the big events in the future will be, will be looked at very strongly indeed. but it, as many people here will tell you, have sadly taken this tragedy for that to happen. that's whole has climbed in a suspension bridge collapse and india at least a 132 people have been killed in the disaster. and the city of being would say, hundreds of people fell into the river below when cable supporting the pedestrian

bridge snaps the un turkey and ukraine have agreed on a plan to health move 14 green ships in circus waters. he says a total of $218.00 vessels are effectively blocked, following russia decision to pull out of greenville. those are the headlines up next. it's the bottom line. thanks for watching a by ah, 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 lobbying groups to fun

candidates running in next month, 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 interest of their donors and friends? will billionaires have an outside the 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. that 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 don't her. so 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 so 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 tails spent enormous sums of money to make sure j. d. vance was the republican nominee. and

ohio it's, you know, backing a prize fighter or 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 ali galks and that was of just a shocking breeze 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 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 that 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 appeals mid term bet, the billionaire seeking to disrupt america's democracy. and i'm really interested in trying to get to understand is has it become a dynamic where one party says, hey, i've got, 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 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 spiders. what's your take on this was 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 if 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 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, paul, 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 party 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 relief and defending present biden's plan for that. maybe

it's, you know, some other area of fiscal policy or something else that is a direct benefit or reverses, but threatens the interests of the narrow bands. a 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 for center. not only by the voters themselves as they vote, but also by the candidates. trevor, you have been working on this issue longer than any one 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 outmanned depending on where the billionaires are stacking their chips. but i'm just interested in unit because you do know this area, well, 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, or the, the american public 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. ready people knew who was giving and they were giving in relatively small amounts the amount that a wealthy. 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 bank roll

a candidate do so either overtly or covertly sort of take 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 xander 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 $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, 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 and elections. now technically it was just corporate money than 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 the 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 balance initiatives to kansas certain aspects of what you know, i would call the corruption of the system, whether it's gerrymandering seats, whether it's campaign finance that allows unlimited donations to independent groups you see that, you know, those boss initiatives succeed in red states as well as blue states groups i represent are 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 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 that can work, but it does generally require a candidate and the race that has tremendous media visibility and not work for the average school board race. for example, something else, you know, make it a water 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 fact is in politics, you know, you are the holden 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 unaccountable money. and corruption is the problem in our system. then having somebody who is a bill in a pouring 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 hill 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 money can be more powerful than people's vote, right? so it is inherently on democratic and now we're seeing explicit calls to tear down the institutions and credit system coming from the phone donors who are taking advantage of a system that they come to learn. well, you know, this race of 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 thing 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 and 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 teal 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 the falling 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 the 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 when areas and 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 then 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 mont, by really wealthy, special interest, right. and then there 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. he was 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 who can be more easily swayed by the big money interested society who get to ron and the fact that you now have massive advance before them. you have people who are already in the senate like ted

cruz holy, who on the very far right of the party, who believe in being gadflies you believe and you know, pushing against everything that has been held sacred by the republicans of mind 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 listen. thank you. fast saying 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, andrew 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 with the little guy. if that movie was adapted for today, at the end, mister 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, in these turbulent terms, up front returns for new seasons. join me, mark them on hill as we take on the big issues from the state of democracy around

the world to the struggles faced by the under represented. we will challenge the conventional wisdom upfront one out 0. when the news breaks, it's not just personal property, but also infrastructure that now needs fixing from power lines to water. me when people need to be heard and the story told they would get punished. the spoken crania, i'm afraid i won't be able to return home with exclusive interviews and you get through south african penguins, white and heavy al jazeera has teens on the ground to when you moved, when documentaries and life oh this is al jazeera, i'm getting obligated with a check on the road headlines left us leader luther silva hasn't declared.