Chuck Todd

Campaign finance corruption fuels bad fiscal policy. Big money shapes big bills. And neither party is serious about fixing either problem. So why doesn't this resonate with voters? Well, there's a reason. It's invisible until it isn't. The debt doesn't hurt until interest rates spike and you can't afford a home.

Campaign finance corruption fuels bad fiscal policy. Big money shapes big bills. And neither party is serious about fixing either problem. So why doesn't this resonate with voters? Well, there's a reason. It's invisible until it isn't. The debt doesn't hurt until interest rates spike and you can't afford a home.

Campaign finance corruption fuels bad fiscal policy. Big money shapes big bills. And neither party is serious about fixing either problem. So why doesn't this resonate with voters? Well, there's a reason. It's invisible until it isn't. The debt doesn't hurt until interest rates spike and you can't afford a home.

Corruption doesn't sting until you see how a bill got written, and even then the outrage becomes fleeting. So let's be honest. The people who do care about these issues, the messengers, they're often written off, treated like cranks, purists, or out-of-touch do-gooders. But what if we brought these two groups together?

Corruption doesn't sting until you see how a bill got written, and even then the outrage becomes fleeting. So let's be honest. The people who do care about these issues, the messengers, they're often written off, treated like cranks, purists, or out-of-touch do-gooders. But what if we brought these two groups together?

Corruption doesn't sting until you see how a bill got written, and even then the outrage becomes fleeting. So let's be honest. The people who do care about these issues, the messengers, they're often written off, treated like cranks, purists, or out-of-touch do-gooders. But what if we brought these two groups together?

What if the campaign finance reformers and the deficit hawks stopped working in silos and started working in tandem? because the connection is clear as day to me. If you want smaller deficits, you've got to get money out of politics. You can't have one without the other.

What if the campaign finance reformers and the deficit hawks stopped working in silos and started working in tandem? because the connection is clear as day to me. If you want smaller deficits, you've got to get money out of politics. You can't have one without the other.

What if the campaign finance reformers and the deficit hawks stopped working in silos and started working in tandem? because the connection is clear as day to me. If you want smaller deficits, you've got to get money out of politics. You can't have one without the other.

As long as billionaires and corporations are shaping legislation behind the scenes, there's always going to be more spending because influence costs money and that money only gets more spending. So that's the challenge I want to pose to you, the listeners, the readers, the political obsessives, even my fellow cynics out there.

As long as billionaires and corporations are shaping legislation behind the scenes, there's always going to be more spending because influence costs money and that money only gets more spending. So that's the challenge I want to pose to you, the listeners, the readers, the political obsessives, even my fellow cynics out there.

As long as billionaires and corporations are shaping legislation behind the scenes, there's always going to be more spending because influence costs money and that money only gets more spending. So that's the challenge I want to pose to you, the listeners, the readers, the political obsessives, even my fellow cynics out there.

What would it look like to combine these two issues into one political movement? A third way, perhaps? How do you get voters to care about things that they can't immediately feel or touch right away? Who could be the messenger for something like this, a voice that doesn't get dismissed as a scold or an ideologue? Ross Perot came close back in 92, and he got both parties to rethink a few issues.

What would it look like to combine these two issues into one political movement? A third way, perhaps? How do you get voters to care about things that they can't immediately feel or touch right away? Who could be the messenger for something like this, a voice that doesn't get dismissed as a scold or an ideologue? Ross Perot came close back in 92, and he got both parties to rethink a few issues.

What would it look like to combine these two issues into one political movement? A third way, perhaps? How do you get voters to care about things that they can't immediately feel or touch right away? Who could be the messenger for something like this, a voice that doesn't get dismissed as a scold or an ideologue? Ross Perot came close back in 92, and he got both parties to rethink a few issues.

But here's what I do know. Our campaign finance system is broken. It's legalized bribery. I've said that before. It is worse than ever. And the fiscal trajectory is unsustainable. Even now, the bond markets, the markets had a lot more, were a lot more openness to our debt to GDP ratio. But they're getting a little nervous now that not only are we growing things, but we are not even...

But here's what I do know. Our campaign finance system is broken. It's legalized bribery. I've said that before. It is worse than ever. And the fiscal trajectory is unsustainable. Even now, the bond markets, the markets had a lot more, were a lot more openness to our debt to GDP ratio. But they're getting a little nervous now that not only are we growing things, but we are not even...

But here's what I do know. Our campaign finance system is broken. It's legalized bribery. I've said that before. It is worse than ever. And the fiscal trajectory is unsustainable. Even now, the bond markets, the markets had a lot more, were a lot more openness to our debt to GDP ratio. But they're getting a little nervous now that not only are we growing things, but we are not even...

When the party that claims to be the fiscally responsible party is even worse, fiscally more fiscally irresponsible than the other party that has the supposed reputation for being big spenders. This is why the bond market traders are panicking. Both problems, though, are being driven quietly and predictably by the same small group of players.

When the party that claims to be the fiscally responsible party is even worse, fiscally more fiscally irresponsible than the other party that has the supposed reputation for being big spenders. This is why the bond market traders are panicking. Both problems, though, are being driven quietly and predictably by the same small group of players.