CTP (S3E109) The Hidden Agenda of Ranked Choice Voting

CTP Exploring more of the fascinating intersection of Activism, Community Engagement, Faith / Religion, Human Nature, Politics, Social Issues, and beyond   
CTP (S3E109) The Hidden Agenda of Ranked Choice Voting
We examine the deceptively marketed Ranked Choice Voting initiative brewing in Michigan and why it's designed to manipulate electoral outcomes rather than empower voters.
• RCV sounds reasonable in theory but implementation is deliberately misleading
• Alaska's experience shows how RCV protected establishment candidates like Lisa Murkowski 
• The 100-word ballot proposal summary dedicates only 5 words to actually mentioning RCV
• Left-leaning organizations push RCV because their analysis shows it advantages their candidates
• Third-party voters on the left reliably rank mainstream Democrats as second choice, creating asymmetrical advantage
• Ballot initiatives frequently hide their true intent behind populist-sounding electoral reforms
• When in doubt about complex ballot proposals, the safest approach is usually to vote "no"
This Michigan initiative could soon spread to other states - understand how it works before it arrives in your state.
Check buzzsprout version Transcript for related links 

Chapters

• 0:00 Introduction to Michigan Ballot Initiative
• 6:44 How RCV Actually Works vs Theory
• 12:34 Alaska Case Study and Manipulation
• 18:32 Democratic Strategy Behind RCV
• 25:26 Misleading Language in Ballot Proposals
• 34:12 Voter Awareness and 2024 Implications
• 40:08 Final Thoughts and Recommendations

Transcript

SPEAKER_02:  Welcome to the institutionalist politics podcast, aka CTP. I am your host Joseph M. Leonard and that L-E-N-A-R-D. CTP is your Nomus, no plus, just me, you can occasional guess type podcast. Really appreciate you tuning in. It's Graham Norton with a, let's get out of the show! Hello everyone! A brief special intro to this week's show. You know Saturdays I normally have on monologues that are in conjunction with a written article at thelevertybeacon.com. Well, we're working through some issues. So today's show, as well as an occasional other Saturday show here and there, may not be a monologue in conjunction with thelevertybeacon.com. As I work to sync and coordinate, juggle the foragenews.com, thelevertybeacon.com, as well as now introducing sub-stack as an outlet for my articles, needing to try to coordinate and sync them all together and some Saturdays that may or may not happen. So instead, like today, you're going to get what would normally be a Wednesday guest appearance drop. So just a brief intro to let you know what's going on to Hello everyone! Welcome to another episode of Christitutionalist Politics Podcast. Joseph M. Leonard, your host, in case of its first time anybody's seeing, and let me move to the side there, it looks French, it's not one-art, it's Leonard without an O, at any rake. Moving right along. Today would normally be a Saturday monologue show, but as you can see, if you're looking behind the scenes video, a couple other faces appear here. To the right box of me is Adam D'Anjalee of rescuemichigan.com. Hi Adam! Hello! And in the bottom box, put them in the bottom corner. Matthew Wilk, how are you Matthew? And you're a GOP state committeeman, yes? That is correct. That is correct. Okay, we, this is kind of a quasi-sequel. Season one episode two, I had like a 10 minute rant about Charlie Kirk going on about the Alaska rhinos and rank choice voting. And indeed, please go back to the episode. Indeed, the way the Alaska rhinos did it, it's a mess. Now don't react real quick, because I'm about to say something that at first might get your dander up. I support rank choice voting if there's a big but that goes with that. If and when it's done as it was originally intended and some places do it in a closed primary only, and I don't mean a fake closed primary like Michigan where anyone can walk up and say, oh, I'll be a Democrat today. Don't give me that ballot. Or I'll be a Republican today. Give me, no, I want you to have to be registers with the state for at least one year as a Republican or you don't touch our ballot, because that's how we get people like John McLean met Rynone and I love Bob Dole as a person, great war hero, RIP Bob, but presidential candidate? No, now rank choice primary, closed, real primary. I'm not saying it would have changed it, but it could have changed it. Adam, your initial thoughts on that?
SPEAKER_00:  Well, as you said, that's not the way it works in Michigan and it won't be the way it works anytime soon. So yeah, that's the I mean, yeah, it might sound nice in certain circumstances to have used to be called instant runoff voting, where what it means is you'd rank your choices and if you were the one that voted for the guy that came in last, your next best choice would be the one that would count towards. But that's not the way this works and that's not the way it was set up. It was designed. It's a it's all modeled after what happened with rank choice voting in Alaska, which was
SPEAKER_02:  and and also California, that's what this what I want ain't what this is. And that's why we're here to talk that your initial thoughts on that again, you know, if it were strictly a close, none of this jungle general election crap. It's not intended for that.
SPEAKER_01:  Yeah, I understand the point. However, like like Adam says, that we don't have party registration in the state. If you were following politics in the last cycle around November, you saw a lot of data coming from places like Nevada and Pennsylvania and Florida about how many people in a particular party had already cast a ballot. How did they know that? Because they knew that that person was party registered and they matched up with who with who already voted Michigan does not have that would mean Michigan be a better state election wise if it did probably because what you see is what you do as a as a party member is you then can do a couple things. You can make sure that your party members get out to vote number one. And number two, you spend a lot of time. All states, all the states I mentioned, allow for not no affiliation or independent. And then we spend our time talking to the independents and saying, Hey, this guy's a cooke. You don't want to vote for him. And I don't know if I'm going to get you to be a member of my party, but I certainly might get you to vote my
SPEAKER_02:  way the next time around. So this is not that. That exactly. That's my point. But I felt I had to say that at the start as full disclosure, because if you do listen to season one episode two, you will hear me say, Charlie didn't give you the full story. He was absolutely positively 1 billion percent right about Alaskarinos wanting to rig the primary for rank, Marino ski. And to also keep hailing from a house seat. Is that the way you seen it, Adam?
SPEAKER_00:  Yeah, that was exactly how it was set up. That's exactly why it was up that way. So in the case of Sarah Palin, what happened was there is this three way race between Sarah Palin, Nick Bejix or biggitch, I guess you pronounce it. Yeah. And then and then this Democrat, Mary Peltola. So what happens is, and this is the way, see, the thing people need to understand is Democrats don't play fair. And they're not honest people. So you'll have is you'll have the one candidate runs as the Democrat socialist of America candidate, the extremist, you'll have another one that runs out of the I'm just a moderate average ordinary working man Democrat type who's of course, actually, in this hardest extreme with any of those are. But the game plays well with voters and they'll go, okay, well, I don't want to vote for that extremist, but I'll vote for the Republican and then maybe the moderate as my second choice or if I'm a moderate Democrat, I'll vote for the moderate Democrat or the extreme Democrat as my second choice because the way the Democrats are is they they hate Republicans viscerally. Whereas Republicans, a lot of average Republican voters don't see things that way. So the way it shakes out inevitably is you'll either get the far left or the middle left. I mean, look at the governor race, you'll have imagine we won't, but imagine if we had a ranked choice voting system in 2026, where all the Democrats will vote for the Democrat for their first choice and dug in for their second choice. Republicans will vote for most of them, the Republican their first choice, dug in their second choice. And if not, some believe in vote for dug in for their first choice, the Republican for the second choice. So the odds, so the Republican has two candidates to beat. And that's the way it's going to always go because in any in any race, you have more Republicans or say a libertarian, they're taking votes away from the Republican side, whereas the Democrats are all going to get all of their votes counted. Like, I remember when I was a poll worker in Detroit, I saw Democrats spoil their ballots because they would vote for Democrat and also for the workers party. Like, there was all kinds of stuff like that going on in Detroit. Well, when you have ranked choice voting in your vote counts matter, what you can count, you can vote for both of them. Well, that this is the Democrats way of avoiding losing races for green party candidates and third party candidates being spoilers. All of it works to their benefit. And it works to their benefit for the extreme left candidates and it works to their benefit for the moderate left
SPEAKER_02:  candidates. Now, two things on what you said there, I want to one, real libertarians would generally pull from the Republican. What I call the modern day liberal Syrians would vote for the Democrats. So in some cases, there's a wash, but in the case of Trump, in the 2020 election, if just 10% of those voted libertarian in the battleground states, it could have shifted most likely would have swayed that election. And the other thing you said is about the left, the commie, fashies, so she's a crat as I call them liars. To put a, take not put on my partisan hat. I'm not all rah, rah, rah, rah, hooray from my side and hooray from my guy or gal, as long as they got an R by the name, we got plenty of rhinos, cenos, and I dares use the hashtag of late fake maga that I wouldn't trust as far as I could throw either. But now, Matt, what is your next thoughts on this?
SPEAKER_01:  Now, I would take it from a different angle. So the discussion is all about this kind of being a buff board. It's very not. Okay, so for example, in the same Alaska House race, so Nick Beggage lost to Lisa Markowski in the Senate race, and he turned around the next time and ran for House. And there were four Republicans and four Democrats and remembering that the top four advanced to their final one. Okay, and so the leader, the winning Republican, was Nick Beggage. He waited until after the primary was over, and then the other three Republicans dropped out. So what it did was it made the top three Democrats, and among the top three Democrats was a guy named Eric Haffner, and Eric was, if I recall, if I have it correct, Eric was a felon that was in prison in another state, that had thrown his name in the hat. It is very susceptible to rigging, to cheating. Okay, it is very easy to put another candidate on the ballot in state of Michigan, for example, to run this probably across country, to run for US House in a thousand signatures. Well, you grab a thousand signatures for somebody has not even exist. That's not really a lot. That's not a lot. And that person might not exist. And now you're rigging it. Okay, now I would give you one great example. And that's exactly why they want it here.
SPEAKER_02:  Electors, just like the Commission ballot initiative for redistricting, it was all a scam by the Democrats to have a commission created that they knew they would be able to control because the House and the Senate at that time was Republican control, and the districts wouldn't go their way. They saw the success of that as well as the lying of the ballot be for supposedly to codify Roe into that law is eliminated statutory rape, which means pedophiles, Rome free without consequence. What does that have to do with abortion other than he made a pedophile may in pregnant an underage girl and then of course Russia to a clinic to kill it. But yeah, I'm sorry,
SPEAKER_01:  I interrupted. Yeah, I was going to say the so when you talking about this particular thing, excuse me, they they're not doing it for funsies, right, as Adam's indicated, they're they're doing it. Democrats are doing it because they think it gives them an advantage and they have tried this lots of praises. Interestingly, it's failed lots of places. So in the last election cycle, Oregon and Colorado, those are pretty blue states. They both turned it down. So this is the left of the left wing that is pushing pushing this. In fact, I saw an interesting tweet today. It's someone who does some legwork that it is actually in the platform of the Communist Party of the United States. They're pushing for ranked choice voting. If that tells you, and I'm not a big like a my side likes it and knows that. But this one ought to tell you something. Yeah,
SPEAKER_02:  how many of us are supporting it? Yeah, again, to back to the top of it. If it were indeed above board, only for a closed primary, I'd be on board. But again, this ain't that. And exactly like those other initiatives, I said, the left only does it because they want it. Now, Republican outsiders might also think it's attractive thinking it will help defeat Rhino insider. You know, I've been involved in politics in 78. So people might consider me an insider. But I'm not part of the deep state establishment hack part wing of the GOP in Michigan. So outsiders think, well, hey, it'll allow us to beat those establishment hacks. But as we just discussed earlier, Alaska Rhinos get it to protect Marinosky, the insider deep state candidate. This is not what that is about.
SPEAKER_00:  Adam, sorry. To start with, you have to understand our whole system of government leans towards the left that leans towards people that want to spend taxpayers money, people that want to have power. And therefore, the limited government types are always going to be on the fringes. So the result of that first off is that the left acts as a more cohesive unit. So suppose you had insert runoff voting ranked ways voting in a general election. And you'll have there's two wings of the Democrat party. There's the progressives, the far left, and then there's the establishment left, right? And the right side, same thing, you've got the mega movement in the libertarian people versus the establishment Republican types. The issue is, okay, the third party voters, the Greens will all bubble in Democrat for their second choice. Libertarians may very well not bubble in Republican for their second choice. Right,
SPEAKER_02:  because as I said, a lot, a lot of them are liberal Terrians. These days,
SPEAKER_00:  well, but some of them are going to say the lesser of two evils is still evil and up here enough for me and yada yada. Whereas the Greens are much more likely to say, you know, I'd rather a Democrat than a Republican. So this way, I can vote green. And then I can vote for socialist workers party for my second choice and the Communist Party for my third choice and the Democrat party for my fourth choice and the law account because I get to vote for all of them. That's the way it's going to work. So it's inevitably going to ignore towards the center left, which is what they want. They want to make it so that they will first of all have their center left candidates beat their far left candidates. And they'll also let their center left candidates beat any Republican candidate. And that's the way it's going to never really turn out. And as Matt said, they know what they're doing. The Democrats never pursue any election reforms that are not going to benefit them politically. They know better. And that's exactly where this push is coming from. That's where
SPEAKER_02:  the money's coming from. That's what this is all about. Absolutely. Now, Matt, before I get your next comments, I have an email from the, oh, the Oakland County Republicans. As you heard, as we head into summer events and festivals, you'll likely be approached to sign a petition for our CV proponent claim it's a common sense reform. But don't be fooled. The OCRP stands with Michigan Fair Elections Institute and strongly opposing our CV. The system is misleadingly marketed as voter friendly when in reality, it's confusing, disenfranchising, and undermines the integrity of our elections. I won't read the rest of it. But Matt, I take it. You agree with that. Yes.
SPEAKER_01:  100% agree with my good friend, Vance Patrick, who penned that letter. I can give it a very easy example for anyone who lives in Southeast Michigan. One of our largest suburbs is LaVonia. LaVonia is holding a primary coming up in a couple of weeks. LaVonia has 20 candidates for four seats. How many do you do the vote for in your ranked choice voting? 4, 8, 12, 16. Who knows? Nobody knows. It's beyond that it's confusing to me. It appears to me to be a ripoff. If I walked up and knocked on your door and I said, I get this great plan and all it requires is that you give me a thousand bucks, you probably pull out a gun. Okay. You would not believe me. You earned that thousand dollars and you're not going to give it away based on what I tell you. Now, how valuable is your vote? Is your vote worth thousand dollars? You bet it is. It's worth a lot more than that. And they're walking in saying, trust me, this isn't going to take away your vote. I don't believe it and I
SPEAKER_02:  don't think anyone else should either. Yeah. And I also have an email from Darlene Hennessy from earlier before, stating on June 27, the Michigan Board of State canvassers will review the 100 word summary for the petition and place our CV on the 2026 ballot. blah blah blah blah. If you choose to speak, focus on concerns such as, and I couldn't go, but I did write a letter. The dishonest or misleading wording of the proposal, which is true, the fact that it does not clearly explain what our CV is. Purposely, they don't want to do that. They want to keep it murky and high level. And one or two better selling points while they're sneaking a bunch of crap like ballots in the back door via a van at Cobo Center in the middle of the night. Oh, and I meant to say at the top of the choke, I hope people haven't tuned out, you know, if they're not from Michigan. This is important for you, because if they do this here in Michigan, it may be coming to a purple state near you. This is mainly about purple states or even blue states, some red, so they can weaken the red states, strengthen their blue states, corrupt the purple states, like they have other initiatives. So this applies to Michigan and to probably you next. And misleading crank claims that present existing election laws as if they were new reforms. Right, Matt, that's what I wrote in about your being clearly deceptive. If ABC and D, but A and B are already in the law, and you're trying to highlight them, that is clearly purposely, willfully,
SPEAKER_01:  malice of forethought deceptive. There's no question. If you recall, remember our ballot initiative about voting, and they put on an ad, the left put on an ad that said, this protects voter ID. What they had left out was that it didn't make voter ID mandatory. So they were pushing this ad. And if you looked at the language that they've proposed, you have to have a summary language, and it can be no more than 100 words. And in 100 words, rank choice voting was like five of the hundred. And we're doing this, and we're doing this, and we're doing this, so they can sell it as this broad reform of a whole bunch of things when the first thing on the list is what they're really trying to get out of it. Right? So and they've done it before, and they'll
SPEAKER_02:  do it again, for sure. And I this to harken back, and most people out of state will not understand this, but it's why I opposed what Catherine Henry put together a few years ago. Michigan had a law that the governor could do whatever under emergency for an X period of time, and with or completely ignored it. But the Supreme Court with one trader, supposed fake conservative on it, sided with her and let her go. The Catherine Henry thing was yet another thing, rather than just repealing the emergency act, and replacing it with simple language, she had like 10 pages of all kinds of shit packed in there, and I'm like, no, but just repeal the one law, put another one law, one paragraph thing into the Constitution, not 20 different things all crammed into one.
SPEAKER_00:  Do you remember that, Adam? Yeah, I mean, this is this is the problem we always have with these with these amendments is that people don't know what they're actually voting for. And I'm surprised the board of campuses allowed it to be honest with you, but apparently they have even though I think they've actually admitted they said we couldn't quite understand what this amendment was calling for. Well, you should probably voters are inclined to go to vote no on things they don't understand. But well, that question of we're going to have the organized opposition to it that the Democrats are going to have in support of it because they got proposal three or proposal to push through a couple of years ago, just because that we were out we were out mobilized, we were outfunded, and they just were able to persuade Vars, this is just a no big deal. This
SPEAKER_02:  is election integrity stuff. The board of canvassers were clearly leaning left, and they wanted any
SPEAKER_00:  excuse to allow it on. There's two Democrats and two Republicans in the board of canvases.
SPEAKER_02:  Yeah, I would think really Republican. Yeah, Tony Don Tony Dontis, the chair,
SPEAKER_01:  and he is a very staunch Republican. What they are facing is a two to vote puts it to a local court in court of claims or in England County, both of whom they couldn't possibly be further left. So the question before them is, do you take your medicine now or do you take it later? Yeah, and they they they want to get this to have some time to build the money necessary to fight this. And they've got their own, you know, they've got, we've got a bunch of ballot initiatives that are out there. I think there were five, three that were approved that day, including taxes on on wealthy people. I can't remember what the other the other couple were. But there were cases increases would
SPEAKER_02:  be there. The left are always pushing for that. We're already illegally above the state allowed income tax level. Rhino Rick Snyder did that. And of course Whitler wasn't going to undo it. So we're already above a constitutional level there. But Adam to what we were all alluding to the 100 words that they put the flowery stuff in the 100 words. And nobody reads the other 400 500,000 words of the full thing to be deceptive. Yes, Adam. Well, precisely.
SPEAKER_00:  Please elaborate. Yeah. That's all there is to it. If the bill, if the Constitution amendment is 100 things, like, for example, in in a couple of years ago, proposal three, not only legalized all abortion up until the moment of birth, but also created an individual right to be sterilized. Well, people didn't know that was in the that was in the proposal at all. And anything that's even if things are in the 100 words, people must pay for the no or the elimination. I mean, that actually was in the 100 words summary. People didn't realize
SPEAKER_02:  what that was actually college. Yeah. Neither was the elimination. Neither was the elimination of statutory rape or and that, of course, the slippery slope, we knew it would be pushed to be event aside post birth. Like what does now is in prison for still in Pennsylvania, birthing a baby on a botched abortion and just leaving it there to die on attendance to heck with the Hippocratic oath of, uh, do no harm in and treating both patients. And yeah, other things that was stuck in that, uh, abortion proposal. But again, they sold it as I would just codifying row. But like you said, most people are opposed to abortion up to the point of birth and especially not beyond, but they didn't listen to what all was really in it. Well, that's the problem with
SPEAKER_00:  direct democracies. People vote for things they don't understand. Unfortunately, that's also the problem with the constitutional republic is that lawmakers also vote for things they don't understand. But that's just kind of the way things go with a few, with a few great exceptions, but for the most part, yeah, they be past things and then find out what's in them later. All right. I mean,
SPEAKER_01:  look, the thing about it is that probably most of your viewership, they're on the top end of knowledge about politics. Drive down the street. If you're in the 1% and a 99 people go by you, they need to know North care, right? They don't care when things start getting bad, but they don't know and they don't care. Now for the, the worry for Republicans is that Donald Trump's not going to be on the ballot ever. Okay. So how are you going to get those people who don't care to number one, understand and number two, vote? That's a challenge. And that's a challenge that's before every member of our state party, county party, local parties,
SPEAKER_02:  but local politicians, all our challenges. And of course, the norm of a midterm is that whoever holds the White House party wise loses seats in the House and the Senate. So we're already having to buck a trend that isn't in our favor. And so yeah, as you say, giving people to understand it so that they then know why they really need to care. And they need to not only just get off their duffs in midterms, but primaries. Certainly. Yeah, absolutely. Yeah, right, Adam, we lined up with a lot of these and the people will say in November, Oh, I don't want to hold my nose and vote for where were you the last year and a half when you could have been working to get a better candidate to win the primary. So you wouldn't have to hold your nose in November. But you were too lazy, caught up watching TV all the time to actually attend any meetings, go to a rally. Do any real homework on what was going on, right, Matt? Yeah, that's correct. I mean, that's it.
SPEAKER_01:  I'm not sure rallies help bring your neighbors out helps a lot. There was an effort called 10x voting, you know, get on the phone, make sure telling your friends get out. And I think Republicans have to do that again. I think the benefit, the other side of that coin is that this is a unique scenario. I think most people, most political observers would agree that prior to COVID, Donald Trump was on a path to win reelection. And then COVID took him out. And if the economy does roar, and if the world does stay relatively at peace and the border stays relatively secure,
SPEAKER_02:  that's a lot of wins. That's a lot of me prior to a double edged sword there. People, oh, yeah, things are going great. And they may get complacent in that show up. Or indeed, we hope they get excited and say, Oh, we've got to keep this going. Yes, that's absolutely the part we want. Well, I usually do 30 minute shows, we're going to get a little over here for sure. But I forgot what I was going to say next. I forgot where I was going to go. One earlier, that's why they call them primaries. Yeah, yeah. So Adam, as anything else you want to add about the RCV stuff for anything else.
SPEAKER_00:  Well, I mean, in general, bell proposals went in doubt vote now. And you know, many person of them are tax increases. And the rest of them are, you know, these highly funded projects for special interests, which is, in fact, I just saw there was another one being talked about. In fact, my former client slash boss Gary Glenn came up in this discussion, which is that there's a group that's out there calling to regulate speech and politics and to limit the ability of the utility monopolies to engage in electioneering, which I have to say, on one hand, sounds appealing to me because the utility monopolies didn't indeed spend millions of dollars stolen from tax. Well, you know, forcibly taken from taxpayers to lie about Gary Glenn and to interfere in his election. But that being said, there is no decent motive behind this. And what they're really trying to do with this bell proposal really will do again. Here's again, I see how the media will lead people to think this is about one thing when it's actually about another, is they mandate in this proposal that nonprofit organizations, private organizations be forced to disclose their donors and report everything they do as political spending, which is completely unconstitutional, but they're going to still try to do it. They're going to still try to put the mission constitution. So if it were to pass, you would probably have at least a federal lawsuit challenging on First Amendment grounds. But that's what this proposal is all about, is eliminating the ability of citizens to organize and engage in politics, which includes discussions about candidates and campaigns and issues. And one thing that a lot of people forget about these issues is that the origin of donor privacy comes from the civil rights movement. It came from the fact that people were nervous to donate to civil rights causes because they're afraid of being lynched. And that's why the courts recognized that participating in politics includes donating because spending money is participating in politics. And it's a right to do so, also to do so anonymously.
SPEAKER_01:  Right. And that right goes back all the way to the founding of our country. And the writings, the anonymous writings around the American Revolution, we have a long and
SPEAKER_02:  story history. Franklin, Franklin wrote under silence, do good. I'd like to joke, I'm going to write under loud mouth, ne'er do well. But my audience knows I can't pass the lane puns. But a couple of things, what Adam said, Matt, one is that sometimes they can word something as a negative and a no was a yes, they can trick you that way. Right. There's a meme I like to share often and I'll try to remember to edit it into the behind the scenes video for those doing there. A sign that says vote no, we don't need it, we can't afford it. To Adam's point, yeah, we didn't doubt generally better to vote no, but it could be a trick question where the no is actually eliminating something good. So, so there's, so there's that and I have another thing and now I've forgotten that too. So at any rate, Matt, yeah, any other additional thoughts on this or
SPEAKER_01:  anything else? Yeah, well, to Adam's point, there's always the thing behind the thing, right? You don't need a constitutional amendment to stop DT and consumers energy from donating to political campaigns. You just need a law, you would say you can't charge, we're gonna dial back any rate increases you want, equal to the amount of money you get to political campaign and they would stop it immediately. You know, because you don't need a law, why don't they just pass it into a law? And the reason is because all the other stuff that's in there that Adam referenced doesn't, it can't be done for the passage of law, I can't be done period. It's a big issue. People need to also need to keep in mind that law fair in Michigan is a real thing, okay? And as well as Trump has beaten that back nationwide and it's gotten quieter, it's still there. And the Democrats would like nothing more than a series of laws that they can enforce when they control every part of the government which they've done before and they can go after Republicans to squelch them. I mean, Dana Nesafal the lawsuit against the two largest, some of the two of the largest donor people on the right for doing something that the left does a thousand times a day. There's a group called Cura-Bellet-Eyes-Gian. Yeah, there's a group called Irabelle Advisors. They, what they do is they're a wealthy fund and they get rich liberals to give them money and then they parse it out to one of a million different organizations. In the 2020 election, they spent $1.6 billion, right? And what do you want to do? Well, we got to shut off with the Republicans too. So yeah, to Amst Point, when in doubt, vote no and in this one, it's enough.
SPEAKER_02:  Yeah, all buying the scenes, legalized backroom campaign finance money laundering, and it just doesn't even touch hacks and things of that nature. And indeed, as you alluded to, I've got a graphic, if I can remember to add that too, that shows most of the bigger corporations are not their thought of as, oh, they're corporations. The GOP is the party of corporations or something like that, right? So they all give to, no, the biggest companies are left-wing donors and I'll try to remember to put that graph in. And indeed, you kind of alluded the old average. The issue is never the issue. That's only the deception to get you to vote for under this underlying garbage, like the Left-Uck, the Inflation Reduction Act. Now it was the Inflation Production Act. The infrastructure bill, it was friends, family, and donors money laundering. It was not a real infrastructure bill after they blocked a real infrastructure bill in Trump's first term. And we've got decaying airports and everything. We need a real infrastructure bill. So I wrote at thelibertybeacon.com the issue is never the issue. I'll try to throw that graphic into the behind the scenes. So Adam, wrapping up thoughts.
SPEAKER_00:  Oh, well, as I said, vote no, when in doubt vote no. In fact, I'm almost always voting now.
SPEAKER_01:  Matt? Yeah, look, if you can't explain it and someone can't explain it to you. Don't do it. Don't do it. Simply just don't do it. Your vote is more valuable than your money. If someone did this to you with respect to your money, you'd never give it away. You're about to give your vote away. Don't do it.
SPEAKER_02:  I'm going to go back to the OCRP letter. Claim it's a common sense reform, right? They want to attach the common sense label to all of their convoluted distortion plans.
SPEAKER_01:  That's correct. No doubt about it. Absolutely no doubt about it.
SPEAKER_02:  Okay, well, thank you both gentlemen. I really appreciate it. I'm sure there's something witnessed and we in order to really fully explain it all, it would take us three hours. We don't have three hours. Excellent. Excellent. Thank you both. Take care. God bless. Thank you, sir. Good to have you. The Constitutional's Politics Podcast, normally in conjunction and corresponding with articles, can normally for the Saturday monologue shows be found at theforbsunes.com, sub-stack, and find extended show notes, including related links in the Buzzsprout episode edition of the transcript. Thank you for having tuned in for the Constitutionalist Politics Show. If you haven't already, please check out my primary international available book Terror Stripes, coming soon to a City near you, available anywhere books or sold. If you have locally run bookstores still near you, they can order it for you. And let me remind, over time, the fancy high-production items will come, but for now, for starters, it's just you, as a very appreciated listener by me, all substance, no flow, just straight to key discussion points, a show that looks at a variety of topics, mostly politics, through a Christian US Constitutionalist lens. So again, thank you from the bottom of my heart. Take care. God bless. Like and subscribe to the Constitutionalist Politics Podcast and share episodes. We need your help.