Sen. David Argall on Money in Politics, Outside Spending, and Why States Are Pushing Back

In this episode of For Our Freedom, Jeff Clements sits down with Pennsylvania State Senator David Argall to discuss how campaign finance has changed over decades of public service — from volunteer-driven local races to today’s high-cost, consultant-heavy political landscape.

They explore the growing influence of outside money in state elections, how national spending is reshaping local campaigns, and why lawmakers across the country are advancing a constitutional amendment to restore the authority of states and Congress to set the rules for money in politics.

As Pennsylvania considers its role in this national effort, Sen. Argall reflects on democracy, federalism, and what it would take to build a healthier political system ahead of America’s 250th anniversary.

Transcript

SPEAKER_00 0:05

Hello everyone, I'm Jeff Clements, and this is For Our Freedom, where we've been talking with Americans across the country about one fundamental question. Who should decide the rules for money in our elections? We've been talking to state senators from Oklahoma, Utah, Texas, states all around the country because the states are moving forward a constitutional amendment solution to the money in politics crisis. A recent headline had it: states in revolt against money in politics. And you don't have to take it from me. We're talking to the leaders of the effort out in the states, bringing the message to Congress and to the country that we can solve this problem. One of the most dogged and biggest leaders for us in Pennsylvania on this constitutional amendment solution is Senator Dave Argyll. He's with me today. He represents Pennsylvania's 29th district. He serves communities across Carbon and Schoolkill counties, part and part of Luzerne County. And he served in the Pennsylvania legislature for decades. Now chairs the Senate Majority Policy Committee. Senator Argyll brings the perspective of someone who has seen this issue from the inside over a long stretch of public life as a lawmaker, as a candidate, and as someone who has thought seriously about how public policy is supposed to work. He's taught college classes, including at Penn State, and is now helping, as I said, to lead the constitutional amendment effort in Pennsylvania and the nation to restore the authority of states in Congress to set the rules for money in elections. Senator, welcome. Thank you for joining us today. Thanks, Jeff. We were talking uh last fall. Uh you came to Washington with one of your counterparts from Texas, Senator Angela Paxton, to join us up on Capitol Hill for Hill Day conversations with members of Congress. And you drew on your long experience in Pennsylvania making the case that it's time to amend the U.S. Constitution to address the money in politics crisis. You said once that your goal uh was not to change the world, but serve your own corner of Pennsylvania. So uh unpack that a little bit, if you would. What pulled you into public service uh over time? What pulled you into this national effort about money and politics?

SPEAKER_01 2:31

The the the joke in uh in the Orgle House uh when I was in my 20s was that my mom and dad had obviously brought the wrong baby home from the hospital because they voted and and that was it. They had literally never been to a you know a political meeting in their life. And uh I was fascinated by this. I did a couple of summer internships in college, and uh one thing led to another. And you know, the next thing I knew, I was uh 24, 25, knocking on doors, uh asking for people to give me a chance to serve in the state house. And somewhat to my surprise, they said yes. And and so uh uh I've worked on a lot of different issues as uh strange as you know, downtown revitalization and demolition of old coal mining uh houses that had been you know long abandoned to tire recycling. And right now I'm working on a uh a project we're bringing Pennsylvania's first rural dental uh school here to my community. And so it's one of the things I like about the job, it's one of the things that keeps me going every day, is a new challenge.

SPEAKER_00 3:42

Yeah, and uh and and their challenge is where the rubber meets the road for a lot of people. And uh so I'm sure uh people are grateful for your service, uh sir. So let's dig in. I heard you say once your first race was $8,000. Uh yeah. Um from your vantage point, what's fundamentally changed about how campaigns are run and legislators governed nowadays?

SPEAKER_01 4:09

I mean, and and I I feel like a dinosaur, but you know, that in that first race, it was all volunteer. Uh I quit my job. I was on uh legislative staff and uh, you know, did nothing in that six-way primary uh for four months but but knock on doors. And I mean, we did our own public opinion polls. Uh, we didn't have to worry about, you know, raising money to uh I'm not even sure if I could have found a political uh pollster willing to do a legislative race back back then. And uh, you know, we designed our own mailings. Uh we of course had to pay for the postage stamps. Uh radio was a big thing. I think I uh I drained uh my savings account. That was how I I paid for the radio, and everybody said, don't do that, but no one else could tell me where the money was going to come from. And and so yeah, I've seen I've seen a lot of changes since since those days. Uh we rely, I think, unfortunately, much less on volunteers and and much more on um, you know, some pretty expensive professionals.

SPEAKER_00 5:15

Yeah, and and you've uh you've as we said at the outset, you've you've been in it a long time, you've seen it from the inside, uh, including chairing the Senate Republican Campaign Committee. Um, and I understand now that candidates have to come in and uh they want to, like you did, knock on doors, go to town halls, meet constituents, and the consultants are telling them, forget it, go raise money. Um what is happening to the incentives in the system now? How does it shape how people campaign, how how people govern?

SPEAKER_01 5:46

Part of it is is simple human nature. Um unfortunately, uh I think the the average voter uh you know is going to be buried with with so much information from from candidates, from people that want to sell toothpaste, from you know, people that want you to to rent uh uh an apartment or or buy a new car. And so we're we're bombarded uh constantly. Uh, you know, it's not just radio anymore or uh an old fashioned newspaper, it's you know, a thousand channels on the on the television set, and you know, and God knows how many you know people using uh uh social media. And so, you know, because we we often tend to react again, unfortunately, to more negative messages. The consultants will say, you know, don't talk about your background, uh, don't talk about your plans, your dreams for the future, talk about how bad uh the other folks are. And uh when I was teaching at at Penn State, I brought in a newspaper editor, and and my students hit them pretty hard, but you know, why is everything so negative? Uh why don't you put more good news on uh page one? And he said, Oh, you want me to go out of business? Well, a lot of the newspapers are still having trouble uh staying in business even with that more negative philosophy. So maybe it was a good short-term plan for them, but I don't know that it worked in the long term. And the other, and again, this is probably simple human nature, uh, if you're a consultant getting paid by the mailpiece, are you going to suggest two pieces or 20 pieces? And so it it I think becomes kind of a self-fulfilling uh prophecy there.

SPEAKER_00 7:36

Yeah, it seems like you're in a state um like Pennsylvania, which is on the national battleground all the time. Um, a lot of uh your counterparts and other state legislators, even Idaho, which recently became the 25th state to back this constitutional amendment, they're talking about how elections, even at the statehouse level and and district attorneys' races now are being nationalized with outside money, national money coming in from outside, and sometimes they don't know where it's coming from. Have you seen that in in Pennsylvania? Have you seen that in the state races there? In a big way.

SPEAKER_01 8:14

Uh, especially, you know, people naturally are interested in, you know, whether the the legislature is going to have a Republican majority or a Democratic majority. And what's unique about Pennsylvania is our narrow margins. Uh the House, uh, for the better part of the last three years has been 102, 101. You can't get any closer than that. Uh the Senate right now is is 2723. And so, yes, that gets the attention of a lot of people uh from both inside uh the state and and outside. And and the rule in this business is you know, you maybe don't have to always outspend your opponent, but you need to be in the same ballpark. And so if the uh Senate Democratic Campaign Committee is about to launch uh you know $10 million in uh in TV ads, well, the Senate Republican Campaign Committee better be again in the in the 9, 10, 11 uh million dollar uh ballpark. Again, it's it's just it's unfortunate, but it it's common sense.

SPEAKER_00 9:22

Yeah, and and you know, uh the constitutional amendment uh idea is coming about because people are saying, um, you know, I didn't vote for super PACs, you know, and and it turns out nobody did. Like no legislator, no voter ever asked for sort of dark money, super PACs, unlimited money, all the characteristics of our system today uh were not because anybody wanted it except some judges and lawyers. And uh I am I understand um that you've been as again bringing your policy uh acumen to bear, thinking, like, well, why don't we tie it to our district at least and have some money that is required to come from the candidates' local district. So the constituents are at the table and being told you can't do that because of court rulings. Is that what legislators are hearing when they try to solve this problem?

SPEAKER_01 10:20

It's almost like anything we want to do, uh, we're being told by the lawyers that nope, you can't do that anymore. And um, you know, I I I've been involved in a lot of races, but the one that really sticks in my head was the first time I got whacked hard uh with a TV ad, paid for not by a political committee, but a private entity. And I went, you know, yelling to the lawyers saying they can't do that. And the answer was, oh yes, they can, uh, because the Supreme Court said so. And and I understand the the argument that you know the right to spend money is the equivalent of the you know free speech, but but really if you think about it, uh I can't imagine that the the founding fathers, as strong as they were proponents of free speech, could have ever imagined a system like what we're living with today. And uh again, uh if we were able to restrict the spending that's just coming from our constituency, or at least coming from our state, uh that would help to reduce costs. And I have never in in all my campaigns ever had anyone say to me, you know, I really appreciated those 25 mail pieces. Uh my my one race, um, and and most of my races have been pretty low budget, but I've had a couple. And uh the the one time I caught my wife watching uh New York television, a station we normally didn't watch, and when I asked why, she told me that she was very tired of seeing what my opponent had to say about me in the TV ads. She was also tired of seeing my TV ads. And and so it becomes this arms race, and and in the end, I uh it just feels like nobody wins. Uh the donors get tired of being asked for donations, the candidates get tired of of losing control over their own message, and uh and the voters uh certainly uh are are not fond of the current system.

SPEAKER_00 12:33

Yeah. You know, you mentioned the founder, Senator, and uh um we've heard a lot about federalism lately. The idea that, you know, the original intent of the constitution and the current structure as it's supposed to be is you know, we don't have a one-size-fits-all for the country. We have state legislators like you who are elected by the people closer to where they live and and who have power to make the rules for the state. Um, and yet in this area, uh, you can't. And we were talking to some main lawmakers, and they tell us they tried two things, one of which was trying to say, how about this? No foreign government spending in our elections. And the courts intervened and blocked that even. That's how that's how crazy it's gotten. So um you've said before where you stand depends on where you sit. And how do how does this uh how do you think about sort of federalism in this this uh situation and what Pennsylvania might and you might prefer to have a system that what would that look like and and and and and how do we get back to a place where the states uh can actually decide what works for them?

SPEAKER_01 13:47

Yeah, and you you've correctly quoted Miles's law of uh governmental behavior, which I use in some of the classes that I teach. It it actually I think dates back to the 1940s or 50s, and and what what I think it's going to take is uh people to to sit down and and think, okay, not just you know, what's better for the Republican Party or the Democratic Party or what's better for incumbents or or challenges and say, you know, what's better for democracy? And uh as I said, I can't imagine that anybody is a big fan of the current system. And so in uh in the room behind me on some shelves are are some textbooks that I've used when I'm teaching, and they they frequently uh use a quote about the states being laboratories of democracy. And and again, from a Supreme Court uh decision in the 1930s, and I'm hopeful that if one or two states can figure this damn thing out, I think a lot of other states will follow. And one of the curious things about Pennsylvania is, you know, again, our narrow margins. Uh, we're a purple state, we're not a guaranteed vote for for Republicans or Democrats uh every every cycle. And and so I would hope that if if Pennsylvania could help to lead on this, I do think a lot of the other states would would pay attention. I'm not going to pretend it's going to be easy, but I do think that as the temperature rises and more and more people say, you know, they're unhappy with the status quo, uh, we're willing to consider other options.

SPEAKER_00 15:30

Yeah, well, you know, um the constitutional amendment approach is pretty simple. You uh our viewers can find it at americanpromise.net. It fits on a napkin. It's not a campaign finance law, a thousand pages long. It simply answers the question who decides uh this the answer and and and moves it from the the courts and the judges and the lawyers over back to the people, back to the states. And I think that's why we've seen 25 states backing it. Um uh you're leading the the effort in Pennsylvania to bring people together and get the Keystone state behind it. I think uh I'm here in in Boston, Massachusetts. We like to think the revolution started here, and I'll grant you Pennsylvania had a significant role to play too. But um I don't think uh much happens in America without the Keystone State being at the table. And so um the amendment is is moving in your legislature uh there in Pennsylvania. 25 other states have done it. And uh I want to ask you as we approach the 250th anniversary of independence, you know, you've mentioned the founders. Um this is uh an experiment in the American uh effort to govern ourselves as a free a free people. Um what would it mean to you to see Pennsylvania move this forward? There were birthplace of independence and the Liberty Bell and so much uh so much more in Independence Hall and the Constitution coming out of Philadelphia. Um do you reflect on that? That we're uh you were into this 250th year of this effort of democracy, and uh we're we're seeing the constitutional amendment muscle moving again in the country. Uh share a little, if you would, of your thoughts on that, and we'll close it out.

SPEAKER_01 17:22

I mean, the the the founding fathers who sat in those rooms in Philadelphia that you know I've been visiting since I was a Cub Scout, I think on one hand would be thrilled that you know the democracy has survived. Sure, they could not have imagined World War I or World War II or, you know, God help us, nuclear weapons. And so uh there have been a lot of changes, technological changes. Hell, imagine uh, you know, the fact that I could drive to to Philadelphia in a couple of hours when, you know, in 1776, that would have been one hell of a horse ride. Uh, and uh I can't even imagine how long it would have taken me to walk. But but on the other hand, I do think they'd be they'd be concerned. Uh they'd be concerned that uh uh it it has become so just focused on on power and money and you know never-ending uh campaigns. Again, I I don't feel like an old guy, but I'm old enough to remember that after an election, things calmed down for a little while. Remember the the honeymoon period? Uh, when was the last time a governor or a president or a legislature had a honeymoon? It just seems like the the campaign begins uh within minutes of the of the polls closing. And it's like, oh God, here we go again. And you know, if one side does it, you better believe the other side is going to do it. And so it's really going to take some, you know, some rational individuals uh to essentially sit down and say, okay, you know, this is not good for anyone. We need to make some changes.

SPEAKER_00 19:05

Yeah. Well, Senator Dave Argyll, thank you for your leadership there in Pennsylvania. Thank you for being with us today on For Our Freedom. And we'll check in with you and see how it's going down the road in a little bit. So thank you for being with us. Thank you.