CNN "Newsroom" - Transcript
Interview
CNN "Newsroom" - Transcript
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: We welcome you back.
You heard the president tell us what he wants health care reform to look like. But let me ask you a question. Does it really matter what the president wants it to look like? Or is it really more important what the health industry and lobbyists and even those who back the president, by the way, want it to look like? I'm serious.
I'm actually asking this question, whether the president's power is actually trumped by something that may be even more powerful than the president. And here's why I'm raising this question, numbers, numbers we did a story on yesterday here at CNN.com. You may have read this story. Or maybe it was below the radar because there was so much other more important stuff to talk about, this figure, this number, $375 million.
That's how much has been spent, mostly by the health and insurance industry, to influence this debate, to influence this important debate. It's on track to be the most money ever poured into any one issue in the history of our country at any given time.
Let me break this down for you even a little bit more. This is money mostly spent to stop reform in the last eight months, lobbying efforts, $280 million. Those are the closed-door meetings, the cocktail parties, the perks, large and small, $280 million.
Ads, we have all seen them, $75 million, and, by the way, those are ads on both sides, pro-reform, anti-reform, pro the president, Democrat, GOP. You have got it all there. Campaign donations, $23 million. You think they expect a return on that? You bet they do. And that's today's breakthrough.
Senator Bernie Sanders is an independent from Vermont who is convinced that politics has become way too corporatized, if not controlled.
Good afternoon, Senator.
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I), VERMONT: Good to be with you, Rick.
SANCHEZ: When someone gives you hundreds of thousands of dollars, they certainly wouldn't want anything in return, right? They have just got some extra money laying around... (CROSSTALK)
SANDERS: Absolutely, absolutely not. They're just interested in democracy and just want to help the democratic process. The idea that maybe they would get something for their money, I'm sure you will agree with me is the furthest possible things from their minds.
(LAUGHTER)
SANCHEZ: Now, it's interesting. You and I can be tongue in cheek about this and have a lot of fun with it, but I hear Americans screaming over death panels, screaming over immigrant labor. But shouldn't they be also be just as angry, if not more so, about politicians that are getting all this money, which would make me think, why should you love me, if they're giving you all that money?
SANDERS: Well, Rick, you're absolutely right. And thank you for speaking about an issue that far few people do talk about.
Look, we pay the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs, far higher than any other country. You know why? Do you know why? Because the drug companies pour hundreds of millions of dollars into the political process. We're the only country in the industrialized world that does not provide health care for all of its people. You know why?
You're seeing it right now. Because the health industry, the drug companies, the hospitals, all of these organizations are making billions right now. They don't want us to touch their profits. And they're going to influence legislation.
SANCHEZ: And they do. Well, let's name names. Let me go through here. I went to a Web site I invite all of you at home to go to. It's called opensecrets.org.
Do you think that is a good Web site, Senator?
SANDERS: Yes, I do.
SANCHEZ: All right, we have got -- I pulled up three names. I pulled yours up, of course, as well. But let's go with three people who have been very much involved in this health care debate.
I have got Mitch McConnell, Republican, Max Baucus, Democrat, and Chuck Grassley. Let's look at how -- these are the people who are talking about this health care debate, right? Let's see how much money they have gotten from health care.
Let's start with Mr. Grassley over here, all right? Top five industries, health professionals have given him $222,000, insurance $184,000, pharmaceuticals $145 000, lobbyists $137,000, hospitals, nursing homes $137,000. Those are the top five people who have given him money.
Let's go over here to Mr. McConnell. Look at Mr. McConnell. Let's go to the page. OK. Again, this is the top five industries, industries that have given him money, securities and investment $1.16 million, lawyers $918,000.
But let's go down here to health professionals, $713,000. Those are two Republicans.
Here's the big brouhaha Democrat on this, not too far off, by the way, securities and investment, top five industries, $842,000, insurance $552,000, health professionals $497,000, pharmaceuticals $507,000.
Now, $507,000, that's a big nut for someone who is making decisions about how our health care is going to be run to be getting from someone who's very interested in how it's going to be run, isn't it?
SANDERS: Sure it is. And you're not adding into that equation the amount of the money that goes directly to both political parties.
SANCHEZ: Now, yours is -- let's just look at yours real quick here. I want to start doing this all the time. I think Americans need to know who's getting what and what are they then deciding on.
I got you here at top five industries, you got $435,000 from retired, $331,000 from Democratic liberal. I'm not sure what that means. You've got $138,000 from lawyers, $78,000 from transportation, and $75,000 from education.
You don't do as well as those other guys do, by the way.
SANDERS: No, I don't take corporate PACs. Most of that money came from organizations representing working people, representing consumer interests, representing senior citizens. I happen not to take corporate PAC money.
SANCHEZ: So, inform -- corporate PAC is something where corporations are allowed to give money to politicians as if they were persons. And the Supreme Court has said they can do so, right?
SANDERS: Yes.
Well, what we're looking at right now is a major case which if it -- my view, if it goes badly, it's going to open the floodgates for corporate money. This is not PAC money. This is money directly from the largest corporations in the world coming right in to the -- your television screen advertising and telling you who you should vote for. It would be a disaster.
SANCHEZ: But that's interesting, because the First Amendment says I have inalienable rights as a human being, as a citizen of the United States of America. And so do you.
What corporations are trying to argue is, well, they should have inalienable rights, too. They should be no different than John Doe, who's going to send his $10 or $20 or $100 to a politician. So, yesterday, Ted Olson, the former solicitor general under the Bush administration, argued before the Supreme Court. Here's a conversation. Here's a snippet. He's talking to Ruth Ginsburg, trying to convince her that corporations should be treated just like people. She's wondering if that's a good idea. Let's listen to this exchange. And then you and I will talk about it on the backside.
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)
RUTH BADER GINSBURG, SUPREME COURT JUSTICE: Mr. Olson, are you taking the position that there is no difference in the First Amendment rights of an individual? A corporation after all is not endowed by its creator with inalienable rights.
So, is there any distinction that Congress could draw between corporations and natural human beings for purposes of campaign finance?
THEODORE OLSON, FORMER U.S. SOLICITOR GENERAL: What the court has said in the First Amendment context, "New York Times" vs. Sullivan, and Rose Jean (ph) vs. Associated Press, and over and over again is that corporations are persons entitled to protection under the First Amendment.
(CROSSTALK)
GINSBURG: Would that include today's mega-corporations, where many of the investors may be foreign individuals or entities?
OLSON: The court in the past has made no distinction based upon the nature of the entity that might own a share of a corporation.
GINSBURG: Own many shares?
OLSON: Pardon?
GINSBURG: Own -- nowadays, there are foreign interests, even foreign governments, that own not one share, but a goodly number of shares.
(END AUDIO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: It just seems to me that what Olson is arguing is that a corporation, even if it's 95 percent owned by the Chinese communist government...
SANDERS: You got it.
SANCHEZ: ... has a right to the same things that I as a citizen of the United States have a right to? That doesn't seem right.
(CROSSTALK)
SANDERS: Yes, far more of a right, because unless CNN is paying you more than I think they are, these guys have hundreds of billions of dollars, and you have a lot less money. We are saying -- what Olson is really saying is, let's let the biggest, wealthiest, most powerful people in this country control the political process. That exists now. You described it now.
If this ruling, if this decision is overturned, and we do what Olson wants, you're just giving over our democracy to the most wealthy and powerful institutions in the world.
And this point about foreign interests, imagine that. All of these big corporations have significant holdings from Saudi Arabia, from China or other countries. Can you imagine these foreign influences over the political process in this country and what it will mean?
SANCHEZ: And it's interesting, because everything I read today seemed to indicate that because this is such a conservative court, they will probably rule for Ted Olson and for corporations in this case.
SANDERS: Rick, let me just add, people are shaking their heads at home. The answer -- and I know many people are not comfortable with this -- the answer, in my view, has got to be public funding of elections.
SANCHEZ: I think you make a great point. You know what, I want to pick up that part of the conversation. I'm going to stay on this thing. This show, this show, this little Sanchez show that we got here every from 3:00 to 4:00, this is a very important topic and we are dedicated to staying on this.
I want to get you back, maybe like a guy like Robert Wright or something. We're going to have a discussion about the possibility of public financing, and if that may end up being cheaper for you and me and other Americans.
Thank you, sir, for being --
SANDERS: A lot cheaper.
SANCHEZ: Thanks, thanks for coming on.
SANDERS: Thank you.
Bye, bye.
SANCHEZ: All right.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source