Inside Golden State Politics

Pre-holiday Maneuvers

• Nancy Boyarsky

Share episode

Use Left/Right to seek, Home/End to jump to start or end. Hold shift to jump forward or backward.

0:00 | 33:32

Democrats and Republicans fumed over  two different SCOTUS bombshell decisions: birthright citizenship and campaign finance.   Meanwhile, Democratic divisions over Israel grew more intense.

host-4ha0_2_07-01-2026_150947

Welcome to another episode of Inside Golden State Politics. I'm Bill Boyarsky, former city editor and columnist for the Los Angeles Times, and with me is our producer director, Nancy Boyarsky

squadcaster-578i_2_07-01-2026_150946

And I'm Shari Bebitch Jeffe, political analyst and self-styled media maven, coming to you from searching for a reason to get excited about the upcoming to be special July the 4th. Haven't found one yet. am in a sour mood. I won't be celebrating. This is the weirdest run-up to Independence Day I've ever witnessed. just not like the patriotic hootin' and hollerin' that swept over the United States in 1976 when we celebrated our nation's 20th, two-- I'm sorry, 200th Today, Americans are more committed to, even dedicated to Cup action, and rightly too, I think, than to those cage fights on the White House lawn. Turns out I'm not alone my sourness. I'm hearing from others that, like me, they're boycotting Independence Day celebrations. Can't find much to celebrate. We're at war. The economy is rocky for many of us. Inflation is still a bother. Gas prices are still way high. necessities too. and the hapless Trump administration are way beyond dysfunctional. And most importantly perhaps, there's a dearth of leaders who can, or may even want to, serve the public good or at least try to unify a splintered, shattered populace to govern. worried about what this malaise might mean to the future of our nation's politics and government. Over to you, Bill

host-4ha0_2_07-01-2026_150947

The biggest symbol of 4th of July Trump version would be his boarding for the first time of the new version of Air Force One, which,

squadcaster-578i_2_07-01-2026_150946

Oh,

host-4ha0_2_07-01-2026_150947

which was,

squadcaster-578i_2_07-01-2026_150946

pretty

host-4ha0_2_07-01-2026_150947

gifted to him by the government of Qatar. He received that as a gift, but of course, that doesn't include the huge amount of money that the government will have to spend to bring this 747 up to acceptable standards to ferry the leader of the free world around from one meeting to another. Such

squadcaster-578i_2_07-01-2026_150946

Already spent, it's in the air

host-4ha0_2_07-01-2026_150947

you're right. Basic security communications and a huge anti-bugging sweep. All these things have been done since he's now flying on it. So that's the big news. The biggest

squadcaster-578i_2_07-01-2026_150946

Oh, really?

host-4ha0_2_07-01-2026_150947

news however, I think is how much money-- he had to disclose. My God, the guy has... What, how much are we talking? 1.5

squadcaster-578i_2_07-01-2026_150946

Apparently,

host-4ha0_2_07-01-2026_150947

$2 billion?

squadcaster-578i_2_07-01-2026_150946

in the year before he took oath for the second time, it was something like a bit over 620-some million dollars was his worth. And now this mandated disclosure statement says in his first year in office, his worth climbed to $2.2 A coincidence? I think not. Really

host-4ha0_2_07-01-2026_150947

It's not a coincidence at all., You might call it a theft. He and his sons have invested in the Bitcoin market and made a lot of money. They made money, and then they pulled out and the s- the investors lost. But they

squadcaster-578i_2_07-01-2026_150946

Not

host-4ha0_2_07-01-2026_150947

were--

squadcaster-578i_2_07-01-2026_150946

necessarily

host-4ha0_2_07-01-2026_150947

a con. It was a grift.

squadcaster-578i_2_07-01-2026_150946

It was a group

host-4ha0_2_07-01-2026_150947

it was a grift. It wasn't a coincidence. It was a plan to get as much money as they could from their investments in in the markets

squadcaster-578i_2_07-01-2026_150946

Yeah, and indeed the largest portion of money d- disclosed did have to do with his investments in cryptocurrency, including the sale of about, of nine, of 49% of the Trump family's operation, to the United Arab Emirates, brought in a whole bunch of money. And you know what? History has shown that presidents prior to this one lost money. They didn't bring it in. They put their holdings in a really independent hands, or they sold them off. George W. Bush sold off his piece in the Texas Rangers baseball team. Jimmy Carter put the peanut farm in the hands of an independent executor. There... I don't know another president, least what, in the time I've been looking at presidents, have ever gained and gained so dramatically from taking office or when taking office.

host-4ha0_2_07-01-2026_150947

You know that crypto is one of the hottest issues before the executive branch right now. Regulation of this pretty much unregulated- industry is really in the hands of the executive branch, also known as in the hands of the president.

squadcaster-578i_2_07-01-2026_150946

Sure. And his sons.

host-4ha0_2_07-01-2026_150947

And his sons. So I just think it's it's outrageous and and I don't think it's a coincidence. I think it was well thought out by his advisors and himself. And it was designed to make the maximum amount of money as quickly as possible while he is president

squadcaster-578i_2_07-01-2026_150946

I don't even... forget quickly that he's doing it at all, to me is grotesque and appalling. This is not what a president is supposed to do. Think about it. You mentioned that he's a, he's deeply involved as participant the cryptocurrency market. At the same time, he is the chief policymaker as it pertains to Isn't that a conflict of interest? It seems pretty bald to me. But what do we do? I mean-

host-4ha0_2_07-01-2026_150947

The question is, who's going to do anything about it?

squadcaster-578i_2_07-01-2026_150946

Exactly

host-4ha0_2_07-01-2026_150947

We've watched a parade of Democrats, no Republicans, but of Democrats going on television decrying this saying how awful it is. I don't wanna hear their opinion on how awful it is. I know it's awful. What I wanna know is what are they gonna do about it? What is the Democratic soon, not a majority, but hopeful majority going to do about it? Are they gonna investigate Trump? Are they gonna investigate his sons? Are they gonna investigate the investments,

squadcaster-578i_2_07-01-2026_150946

they say they will if they take over at least one house of Congress. But does that mean? It is just to me that, one, and no one, certainly it wouldn't matter if the Democrats Get him out," but none of the Republicans are. And I don't see it happening unless his hold on government lessens dramatically. Now, there's some chance it might in the midterms

host-4ha0_2_07-01-2026_150947

in the recent Colorado primaries the rebellious Democratic socialists won. They were

squadcaster-578i_2_07-01-2026_150946

Do we know that she is rebellious?

host-4ha0_2_07-01-2026_150947

The winner was certainly not on the team anyway. The Democratic Socialists

squadcaster-578i_2_07-01-2026_150946

Was an incumbent, and that was critical. She was also, she is also a progressive. It goes beyond rebellious, believe me, it does. It... There's a lot more meaning what happened in Colorado's Congressional District Number 1. Mila Curros, a Democratic socialist defeated a 15-term Democratic incumbent, Diana DeGette, representing the Denver area, which is interesting, I think. A- and the message is, I think, not only that the voters want change, but that Democratic socialists of are hitting a nerve that is positive to them and negative to long-term incumbents, to incumbents who express too much support for Israel or not enough for the Palestinians, and for incumbents or candidates for a seat that take too much money, if any at all, special interest groups, particularly those PACs and particularly the super PACs with connections to the Israel lobby. It's not so much a matter of raucous ideology as it is a reaction to where we are today as an electorate, as a country in terms of its politics

host-4ha0_2_07-01-2026_150947

We talked about this last time and it's even more evident after the Colorado elections, but the the political tide is turning against Israel in Democratic politics, I think

squadcaster-578i_2_07-01-2026_150946

Say that the Democratic socialist crowd, the many of the progressive Democrats, at least those who are not incumbents this point of time, and even some of the incumbents, are not steadfast in their support for Israel, and I can see a pattern developing where support of Israel is a risk, is a negative, particularly for incumbents. Now, we have to ask ourself, what does it mean? Why? And why is it working?

host-4ha0_2_07-01-2026_150947

There's a a great deal of re- revulsion among American Jews for Israel's attacks on Gaza, and it's having- real repercussions throughout the community. We're gonna be dealing with this all year in the race for mayor of Los Angeles, where where the Democratic socialist candidate, she's not been endorsed by the by the party, but she will be.

squadcaster-578i_2_07-01-2026_150946

Not yet

host-4ha0_2_07-01-2026_150947

Rahman is running against Karen Bass, the mayor, and sh- Bass's opponent is taking a very strong critical look at Israel, and will people follow her? And will that be enough to tilt the election toward her and away from Bass, who is a very conventional Democrat, very traditional and

squadcaster-578i_2_07-01-2026_150946

But she's always been looked at as a progressive. But

host-4ha0_2_07-01-2026_150947

She's been a good person

squadcaster-578i_2_07-01-2026_150946

progressive enough for the Democratic socialists

host-4ha0_2_07-01-2026_150947

But this issue has changed w- what's a progressive and what's not. And and I think that it's gonna be a real puzzle f- for Bass to deal with as, as she fights

squadcaster-578i_2_07-01-2026_150946

Maybe. I'm not sure it's gonna be the driving issue because there is so much else that one can point to, in terms of where Los Angeles is as a city. The magic affordability debate is gonna be a part of it, and it's tough when you live in LA to say life is affordable. It really is tough. But and don't forget, I'm seeing in most of the polling not directly LA, but certainly nationally, is that younger voters are more antagonistic toward America's support of Israel than older voters. I think the same holds, holds true for the city of LA. The question is, here we go again, every election decided by who turns out And if

host-4ha0_2_07-01-2026_150947

Yeah.

squadcaster-578i_2_07-01-2026_150946

Fewer voters turn out good for you

host-4ha0_2_07-01-2026_150947

It depends on who's turning out.

squadcaster-578i_2_07-01-2026_150946

That's what I said

host-4ha0_2_07-01-2026_150947

The Bass campaign is having a lot of trouble in the mechanics of an election turnout, which is, part of the mechanics is getting your voters out and knocking on doors and doing all

squadcaster-578i_2_07-01-2026_150946

All of it.

host-4ha0_2_07-01-2026_150947

these things. That's how you that's how you get a turnout. People just don't wake up in the morning and say, "Oh, I'm gonna vote today." You have to remind them that you're gonna vote today. You better finish your coffee and get down to the polling place, or put your ballot in the mail.. It will take a lot of effort on both sides to get the turnout, especially the turnout of the voters they want. Rahman wants voters who are critical of Israel she doesn't want voters who are not

squadcaster-578i_2_07-01-2026_150946

I don't know that. I literally do not know that because, and I will say it again, a candidate's position on Israel and/or on the Palestinians will have an impact, but it won't be the major, I don't think, except maybe on the far left, the major deciding factor in a city election. Because the cities don't have... have, I was gonna say don't have a foreign policy, but I remember that Sam Yorty, when he was mayor and running for re-election, basically set up his own international public policy. But no, we're talking what has happened so far regard to Democratic socialists unseating incumbents is partially to the fact that Congress does have a say in policy with regard to Israel, with regard to Gaza, that Congress does have a say, quite a large say, w- how much resour- resources are given Israel and what kind of resources are given to Israel. I don't see it as powerful as it is with regard to government on the local level. I may be wrong, but I don't see it

host-4ha0_2_07-01-2026_150947

You know, the Supreme Court stepped in with a really a momentous possibly decision on birthright citizenship. It's long been constitutional law that if you're born in this country, you're a citizen, right? It's pretty, pretty... it's pretty simple. And the Supreme Court by a five to four vote affirmed that. And that's now remains the law of the land until it's overturned by a new Supreme Court that a Republican might appoint

squadcaster-578i_2_07-01-2026_150946

What do you mean that by till it's overturned by a new Supreme Court?

host-4ha0_2_07-01-2026_150947

The law of the land now is birthright citizenship remains the law of the land

squadcaster-578i_2_07-01-2026_150946

It's in the Constitution, yeah

host-4ha0_2_07-01-2026_150947

In the Constitution. And you think that out of respect for the Constitution, that the Trump people will leave it alone? You think they care?

squadcaster-578i_2_07-01-2026_150946

yeah, they're already

host-4ha0_2_07-01-2026_150947

You

squadcaster-578i_2_07-01-2026_150946

to figure

host-4ha0_2_07-01-2026_150947

think they care about the Constitution?

squadcaster-578i_2_07-01-2026_150946

They're already f- trying to figure out some way to get around it. But then the question becomes how do the opponents birthright citizenship switch the five-four to their side. That's gonna take A first of all, it may take an amendment to the Constitution, which will take forever anyway it's gonna take the appointment of another Trumpy-like justice So that even if Coney Barrett and or John Roberts leave the reservation and still vote to uphold citizenship, will be 5-4 in the other direction they could come up with something. I don't know. I'm not an attorney, and I'm certainly not being paid to look at the law with the goal to overturn it. But for now, birth not-- birthright citizenship stays. The Constitution is upheld, but barely, and I feel-- I think it's nervous-making. I do. think it's better than it might have been if the 14th Amendment had denied, but not all that much better, but better

host-4ha0_2_07-01-2026_150947

trump saw it as a defeat and

squadcaster-578i_2_07-01-2026_150946

Oh, it was.

host-4ha0_2_07-01-2026_150947

And of course, his loyal followers are starting to talk about a recall against his latest app- appointee, A- Amy,

squadcaster-578i_2_07-01-2026_150946

a recall, impeachment

host-4ha0_2_07-01-2026_150947

Impea-

squadcaster-578i_2_07-01-2026_150946

Amy Coney Barret- Barrett, You know, they wanna get her out and somebody who's even more close to Trump in, and to try to overturn it. The world today is just plain old crazy. Every day I wake up and s- there's another lunatic what if. I think it's interesting that although trump was given some more powers in two of the most important decisions, of the whole term, I think, tariffs and birthright citizenship. He didn't win, but he came out of the Supreme Court term, think, with the scales of power tilted further in his favor than they were before

host-4ha0_2_07-01-2026_150947

That's right. The, Birthright citizenship remains a guardrail against overstepping by the executive branch and and a restraint on Trump. It's a guardrail a little flimsy right now, but it is in the law and it's easier to not change than to change. It's easier for it to stand, I think. And in that sense it was a tremendous victory for... Think of the people who were really affected, of the children who were born.

squadcaster-578i_2_07-01-2026_150946

Oh yeah. Oh yeah

host-4ha0_2_07-01-2026_150947

you're talking about thousands and thousands of children who

squadcaster-578i_2_07-01-2026_150946

Hundreds of thousands

host-4ha0_2_07-01-2026_150947

going to school and living their lives and all of that. You're talking about history where some of our greatest inventions and greatest progress has been made by i- birthright children who became adults and invented the things that made our country great. It would be a, just a carrying the guts out of out of much of the United States and we forget these people. We forget the human side of it, but that's not to be forgotten

squadcaster-578i_2_07-01-2026_150946

A-a-and the real impact will-- would be on future babies that would have been birthright citizens. But nonetheless, I know of many people that I interact with who have relatives who are birthright citizens, who are birthright citizens themselves, who have been very worried about where this would come down. Sure, it's a victory, but, there's so much of what goes in Washington. It may be a victory for the people now, but you never know what's gonna happen tomorrow. That's no way to run a government, don't you think?

host-4ha0_2_07-01-2026_150947

That was the decision and government will have to move on and not go after these children. Treat it as a victory and move on from there, I think. You just figure that was that was pretty good. That was interesting the way the chief justice wrote the decision on-

squadcaster-578i_2_07-01-2026_150946

You want to play. What's the sense? What do you mean?

host-4ha0_2_07-01-2026_150947

he wrote the decision on birthright citizenship, and it was long, but it was very strong and very clear especially from the historical point of view of laying out the development of birthright citizenship from from England to the new colonies, to the new country through the writing of the Constitution, through the Civil War, through slavery. And he laid it all out and made an incredibly strong argument for it. I felt that was the most important part of it was his view of it and his language, and I think it'll be hard to go against that

squadcaster-578i_2_07-01-2026_150946

I think he's panicked as hell that his legacy has already gone up in flames, this was one way of trying to rescue that. That's fine as long as he came out on the right side as far as I'm concerned. But let's not forget about he's in a rough place right now. In two Trump's major tariffs and birthright citizenship Trump was knocked down. He didn't win. It'll be interesting to see whether that holds, but in the Slaughter case, which said... for Slaughter, not for the fed commissioner said, "Yeah, you can fire head of individual independent agencies, and you don't have to have a for-cause reason." Man, that really increases the power of the executive. It's right in line the unified executive theory that everything in the world comes down to the president at the top of pyramid. That's

host-4ha0_2_07-01-2026_150947

It should be said, however, that these regulatory agencies are are subject to the power and the influence of the president no matter who the president is. And certainly the pre-Trump presidents have pushed around and manipulated these agencies. They have the power of appointing the chairman of an agency, which is considerable, and they have the power of appointing the chief counsel, I think of an agency. And so the president, no matter who the president is, still has a huge amount of power over these

squadcaster-578i_2_07-01-2026_150946

a good point.

host-4ha0_2_07-01-2026_150947

agencies

squadcaster-578i_2_07-01-2026_150946

that's a good point, and that hasn't been widely addressed prior to this ruling. Basically what this ruling does, I think, is to take executive control out of the shadows with regard to the relationship between the president and the independent agencies. It also means it's more legitimate when he or she does it, and that's a little disconcerting as far as I'm concerned

host-4ha0_2_07-01-2026_150947

The, Go ahead

squadcaster-578i_2_07-01-2026_150946

I was just gonna say I think we ought to take a look a little bit at the campaign financing decision that came out, which lifted the limits to what can be expended by parties in coordination with individual candidates. This is gonna strengthen political parties, and I don't know whether I'm in favor of that or not. I haven't seen strong parties. I know there were strong parties in the early 20th century, I would say through, I don't know, maybe through, in California the 1950s, when finally candidates could no longer, partisan offices, file for both the Democratic and Republican primary. Not sure I want any of the political parties, the committees in charge of defining who gets what and what

host-4ha0_2_07-01-2026_150947

The the whole area of campaign finance is, and contributions is so tangled now with contradictory views and opinions that it's very hard to say whether this last Supreme Court decision is going to hurt or help. One thing that's certain though is that no matter what happens the system will not change. You're still gonna have a lot of contributors contributing to the Democratic and the Republican- parties

squadcaster-578i_2_07-01-2026_150946

more to the Republican the big contributors tend to gravitate to the Republican. What the Democrats have done is to overcome that or attempt to overcome that by a widescale small contribution model. But without those limits, the argument is the Republicans are gonna just cream the Democrats in fundraising

host-4ha0_2_07-01-2026_150947

I think that the the Democrats as it m-moves ahead will work around it. And what you said was very true. The fundraising base of the Democratic Party in the various states and nationally is based on small, fairly small contributions, but not that small. There are a lot of rich Democrats who put a lot of money into these campaigns and it's not like the Democrats are gonna go in there completely handicapped. That shouldn't be their excuse. Much more crucial to the Democrats' hopes is their failure as we've been saying here, their failure to give America a vision of what the country would get with a Democratic president, a Democratic Senate, and a Democratic House. That's what people want. What do you guys, what do you think?

squadcaster-578i_2_07-01-2026_150946

that also does take money to articulate that to

host-4ha0_2_07-01-2026_150947

You can,

squadcaster-578i_2_07-01-2026_150946

A large enough

host-4ha0_2_07-01-2026_150947

you can get money. There are a lot of fat cats with huge wallets who are Democrats who would finance this. It's a matter of organizing them and putting and getting them together. But I think

squadcaster-578i_2_07-01-2026_150946

will happen because of this, I think, is that the power of PACs and super PACs will lessen because those large contributors from both parties can now give directly to the national parties, and from the parties, it will go to the candidates, the individual candidates that these large contributors might like. don't have to go through, they don't have to establish their own PACs anymore. They don't have to go through PACs. Here's your check, party. It goes to X, Y, and Z. Let's move.

host-4ha0_2_07-01-2026_150947

That's the way it used to be. Yeah. Here's your check, give me your vote.

squadcaster-578i_2_07-01-2026_150946

Yeah, exactly. We have a c- probably a model in, in the administration. Give me the check and we'll get it for you. The way politics is these days in the United States. Every time we have one of these decisions, and there have been a few by this court to loosen campaign-- lessen campaign financing I remember what Dianne Feinstein's major fundraiser Dwayne Garrett said once on a panel that we were both involved in, and he was exactly right. He said that political money is like water running downhill. It will find its way around any obstacle in its search for the bottom

host-4ha0_2_07-01-2026_150947

You and I have seen how that is so true and you can keep changing the law and you can have your court decisions, but that basic fact of political life will continue. Political money will find its re-

squadcaster-578i_2_07-01-2026_150946

But in the short run, I do think it probably benefits Repub- this decision that lifts the ceilings on contributions by the party that can be coordinated with individual candidates will, because there's just so much more money that the Republicans have, will benefit Republicans more than it will benefit But, money isn't everything. Money may be the mother's milk of politics, but it's money, and as you pointed out,

host-4ha0_2_07-01-2026_150947

Message

squadcaster-578i_2_07-01-2026_150946

that makes it work

host-4ha0_2_07-01-2026_150947

and an attractive candidate. Sherry, good talking to you today

squadcaster-578i_2_07-01-2026_150946

It's been quite a week, hasn't it?

host-4ha0_2_07-01-2026_150947

Quite a week.

squadcaster-578i_2_07-01-2026_150946

Woo.

host-4ha0_2_07-01-2026_150947

Yeah.

squadcaster-578i_2_07-01-2026_150946

At least court is now, I believe, out of session.

host-4ha0_2_07-01-2026_150947

Yeah.

squadcaster-578i_2_07-01-2026_150946

we have a very small respite from all of this that keeps coming and coming. Say, by the way, before we leave, so what are you gonna do on July the 4th?

host-4ha0_2_07-01-2026_150947

Oh I'm not going to observe it. I'm not gonna observe it at all. And so Nancy said how will how will everybody know that you're not observing it?" And

squadcaster-578i_2_07-01-2026_150946

they

host-4ha0_2_07-01-2026_150947

I said, "I'll have a press conference on our front lawn announce it to the world."

squadcaster-578i_2_07-01-2026_150946

I think you've announced it to at least residents of the world. But welcome to the club. My dog and I will just hang out by the pool, which we do whether or not July the 4th.

host-4ha0_2_07-01-2026_150947

O-okay. Bye-bye.

squadcaster-578i_2_07-01-2026_150946

cheers.

host-4ha0_2_07-01-2026_150947

Cheers. Bye