No Lie with Brian Tyler Cohen - Top Republican donor issues brutal news to GOP

Episode Date: April 16, 2023

One of DeSantis' biggest donors pulled his financial support from the Florida governor’s presidential bid because of his extreme policies. Brian interviews Democratic superlawyer Marc Elias about his firm’s election litigation across the country, whether he’ll be suing for fair maps in Wisconsin now that liberals control the state Supreme Court, and what case keeps him up at night. And the US Senator from Wisconsin, Tammy Baldwin, joins to discuss her newly announced re-election campaign, the specific reason that Republicans are fielding billionaire candidates, and her response to some recent moves by both Trump and DeSantis.Donate to the "Don't Be A Mitch" fund: https://secure.actblue.com/donate/dontbeamitchShop merch: https://briantylercohen.com/shopYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/user/briantylercohenTwitter: https://twitter.com/briantylercohenFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/briantylercohenInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/briantylercohenPatreon: https://www.patreon.com/briantylercohenNewsletter: https://www.briantylercohen.com/sign-upWritten by Brian Tyler CohenProduced by Sam GraberRecorded in Los Angeles, CASee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Today we're going to talk about a dissentist owner pulling his financial support from the Florida Republican's presidential bid because of his extreme policies and what it'll mean for the GOP moving forward. I interviewed Democratic super lawyer Mark Elias about his firm's election litigation across the country, whether he'll be suing for fair maps in Wisconsin now that liberals won the state Supreme Court race and what case keeps him up at night. And I'm joined by the U.S. Senator from Wisconsin, Tammy Baldwin, to discuss her newly announced re-election campaign, the specific reason that Republicans are fielding billionaire

candidates and her response to some recent moves by both Trump and DeSantis. I'm Brian Tyler Cohen, and you're listening to No Lie. So there's a new story in the Financial Times that a Republican donor, Thomas Petterfee, has put himself on hold in terms of financing Ron DeSantis's presidential bid, quote, because of his stance on abortion and book banning, myself and a bunch of friends are holding our powder dry. And this, of course, comes in the aftermath of DeSantis, having banned books and schools, having banned the acknowledgement of the existence of LGBT Americans in schools.

And of course, just this past week, he quietly signed a six-week abortion ban into law that would jail doctors and require a woman to provide proof, like documentation that the pregnancy was the result of rape, incestor, human trafficking, for an exception that would just allow abortion up to 15 weeks. Like, this guy watched The Handmaid's Tale and didn't see a fiction, he saw a blueprint. And so very clearly, DeSantis is courting Trump's base voters

who want Trump without the baggage of Trump, which means that he has to outflank him on the right because these people aren't exactly known for their moderate positions. And DeSantis also knows that this is who votes in Republican primaries, meaning that his play here is to strictly take out Trump. The only, like, mild indication that he's even aware of the general election is that he signed that six-week abortion ban with zero fanfare, knowing full well how toxic of an issue it is for everyone who isn't a Republican primary voter.

And yet still, that obviously wasn't an honest. to stop him from signing it in the first place, just enough to preclude any big self-congratulatory ceremony. And I think this is a pretty perfect encapsulation of the problem plaguing Republicans right now. And it's a problem very much of their own making. And that is that they have to keep lunging to the far right to even have a shot at the Republican nomination. But every time they do, they make themselves less viable in the general election. And by the way, they know that, which is why, coupled with this lunge to the far right, they're also dismantling the core tenants of our democracy so that those general election contests are easier to win.

It's not a surprise that their extremism is coupled with the removal of dropboxes, which are overwhelmingly used by Democrats, with the reduction of polling places in minority majority precincts, which are overwhelmingly used by Democrats, with the elimination of on-campus voting, which is overwhelmingly used by Democrats, the reduction of early voting, which is overwhelmingly used by Democrats. Right now, at this very moment, Idaho Republicans are banning student IDs to vote while Texas Republicans proposed banning voting centers on campuses. all happening in tandem because it has to happen in tandem.

Because while the GOP gets more extreme, the only way that party is viable is if it gets to rig the system to compensate for its lack of support from people. The reason Republicans are pushing so hard for these anti-democratic changes is because it is existential for them. Their survival as a party depends on making sure that they can't lose regardless of how people vote. But going back to this Republican donor for a moment, I also want to say there's a caveat out here as far as right-wing money is concerned.

And that is that the second it becomes clear that Ron DeSantis or Trump or anyone will be the nominee, regardless of how extreme these people are, the money will come flooding back in. Right now, these Republican donors have the advantage of being able to save face for themselves by saying, yeah, maybe this is too extreme for me. But if DeSantis is the guy, all of those people who are saying today that abortion bans and book bans are too much will immediately drop all pretense and fund those campaigns. And it's not because I think the issues change, it's just the timing changes. And let's be honest, it's not too much for them.

They just derive some momentary benefit right now by being able to, quote, hold their powder dry when it doesn't really matter. It's April of a non-election year. Holding their powder dry doesn't make that much of a difference right now, but they do get to tell their friends that they're not as extreme as it'll become clear that they are when they inevitably line up behind any Republican who will support these bans. But at least in the meantime, there is some momentary value in getting

these Republicans owners on record recoiling at their own party's agenda because at a bare minimum it is proof that they know what they're passing, what they're signing, what their funding is wrong. And that's not to say, again, that they won't immediately dive right back in the moment they have to because they absolutely will. But even this momentary pause is all the proof you need that they're aware of how unpopular their agenda is. So before the Overton window shifts yet again and six-week abortion bans and two-week abortion bans and outright abortion bans become as palatable to these ruling class Republicans as, you know, quoting the Bible is, at least you've got a snapshot in time where we can see the line for these Republican donors,

a line that will, again, undoubtedly disappear in five minutes or five days or five months for sure, but one that for the time being does currently exist. Next up is my interview with Democratic lawyer, Mark Elias. Now we've got Democratic super lawyer, Mark Elias. Mark, thanks so much for taking the time. Thanks for having me. So I want to jump into a bunch of the election-related news that you are working on right now. But first, some more recent news.

In Tennessee, those Tennessee Republicans expelled two Democratic lawmakers from the Tennessee State House, obviously, for the crime of standing alongside students who were protesting the inaction of those Republicans in the face of a barrage of gun violence in this country. Was there a violation of the law there? And what should happen here, legally speaking? Yeah, I think there was. I mean, the day that this happened, I tweeted out that DOJ needed to look at this immediately because, you know, the Constitution provides certain rights. One of them is that it guarantees for citizens of every state what is referred to in the Constitution as a Republican form of government, which is another way of saying, you know, that states have to have real legislatures that exercise real power and the like.

And I think that the way in which this unfolded in Tennessee and some of the other actions we saw at the same time, for example, trampling on the rights of Nashville by trying to cut the size of their city council in half, really raise the question of whether or not Tennessee is really operating a Democratic or in the terms of the constitutional provision, a Republican form of government. I was thrilled to see within the last little bit that Senator Schumer and Senator Warnock and other senators actually sent a letter to DOJ and cited that provision. So I hope the Attorney General looks at this carefully. Moving over to Idaho, that state became the first one to restrict travel for abortion. Is that legal? No, it's not legal. You know, one of the one of the things the Constitution guarantees is the right of interstate travel, right? And states are not free to burden that right by criminalizing the interstate travel, right? I mean, think about it. You know, you wouldn't say that a state that prohibits, you know, that mandates seatbelts, for example, said, well, it would be a crime for you to drive in another state or to leave the state and then take your seatbelt off, even though you're not in our state, right? So what they're trying to do is they're trying to prevent people from engaging in interstate travel, in this case, to seek health care, and it's clearly unconstitutional.

Now, staying on that same reproductive justice bend here, there's a judge in Texas who's banned Mitha Pristone, that's the abortion pill. The Justice Department appealed that decision saying that the challengers to this case, which are a group of anti-abortion doctors and advocates, basically, had no right to file the lawsuit because they weren't personally harmed by the abortion pill. How do they have standing to even bring about this case? They don't. There is almost no aspect of that opinion that is correct. It's really, it's rare. I mean, I don't always agree with every court decision that comes down, but usually you can identify here as the one or two places where the judges went wrong or

the justices sort of went wrong. This opinion is wrong in so many respects. It starts with your question of how the heck do these folks have standing? They don't. I mean, their standing is that they fear that something could happen that might happen that would cause them mental anguish. and, you know, that just isn't a base in a standing. And by the way, the Fifth Circuit, which is where this Texas court is found, has become increasingly cramped in the standing analysis. It applies to people trying to seek voting rights. So it would be really telling if the Fifth Circuit, as conservative as it is, overlooks the sweeping theory of standing here while it's been cramping voting rights standing. But even beyond standing, this decision shouldn't

But is there anything to stop them from doing that, to stop the hypocrisy, basically, to stop them from saying, like, okay, we're going to have a certain ruling when it comes to standing in cases that comport with our political agenda, but then completely ignore it in other cases that don't comport with our political agenda. Like, is there anything to stop these judges from just being hypocritical anyway? Look, you hope that the courts have, want to have some measure of consistency, because it is that consistency in their integrity that is the thing that causes people to follow their decisions. I tweeted out right after the decision by this judge in Texas, a provision from what was then

the majority opinion in the Planned Parenthood versus Casey decision, which was a decision in the early 90s that upheld the right to abortion, which was a surprise at the time because it involved both Anthony Kennedy and Sandra O'Connor, who people thought would vote. against the right to abortion. And in their reasoning, they talk about the fact that the Supreme Court and the courts only have the persuasion, the power of their persuasion, to have people follow their orders. They don't have, they don't have the ability to independently make people follow the law. So we would hope that that will be enough in this case. But, you know, time will, time will tell. You know, we've sought Supreme Court review about in one of those voter standing

cases. And, you know, I'll be curious to what happens there. And, and, you know, the Supreme Court, Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs was terrible. It was wrong in almost every respect. But it, this opinion is worse. And it tests the rationale of the Supreme Court. Supreme Court can't have been right in Dobbs that this is a decision left to the states. And also, right in its other cases that the FDA gets to regulate the medical field and also uphold this. Right. Okay, so moving over to Wisconsin, just bouncing off across the entire. Here we go. Yeah. So Janet Prosewitz has won and the court will have a liberal majority for the first time in 15 years. Are you going to sue for fair maps to get this case in front of the

court? Yeah, I think that I think, first of all, it was an important victory for the voters of Wisconsin is important victory for democracy. I have been clear that the people of Wisconsin have been ill-served by their legislature in passing a series of unconstitutional laws. Some of those are unconstitutional under the federal constitution, but many are also unconstitutional under the state constitution. Among those laws are the districting maps that they put in place. I believe they violate the Wisconsin state constitution. I also believe a number of the other voting laws, violent state constitution. And I have, I want to be clear and look straight into the camera. You know, we are going to vindicate the rights of, of the citizens of Wisconsin to have

fair constitutional maps and fair constitutional voting laws. So I would, I would, I would be on the lookout when the court is fully constituted in, in August with a new justice. I would be on the lookout for new litigation related to redistricting, but also related to the voting rights laws that have been passed. That's great to hear. And also just a moment of validation for all those people, not just in Wisconsin, but certainly all those people in Wisconsin, but just everybody who was involved in this race and making sure that we all knew the stakes of that election right there. So, okay, so moving over to New York, Attorney General Tish James and Governor Hockel have both filed an amicus brief in support of a lawsuit that's trying to

force New York to redraw its congressional maps rather than leaving those lines in place that were put forward by a court appointed special master. Will that case come in front of the New York State Supreme Court once Hockel's new nominee is confirmed? Yeah. So in full disclosure, I am involved in that case as well, my firm brought that lawsuit. And that lawsuit, to put in a nutshell, basically says that look, the map that was drawn by a special master chosen by a Republican judge in a rural red county. And that's not a majority. That's just a fact. It was a judge, Republican, who is in Stubin County, New York, which is a very rural, very Republican area, one of the most Republican counties of New York. The plaintiffs brought their claim there

presumably for a reason. That map may have needed to be in place for 2022, but that at this point, the Independent Redistricting Commission, which operates in New York and the legislature of New York, should have another opportunity to put forth and pass a map that meets the Constitution of New York, and that this court-appointed map, the court-drawn map, should not bind the state for 10 years. So that case is now before the intermediate court, which in New York is referred to as the appellate division, and that argument before the intermediate court is on June 8th. And then I would anticipate the court, the case will go to the High Court of New York, which is called the Court of Appeals, where as you point out, a new chief justice of the Court of Appeals has been appointed as well as a new justice. And that new justice essentially would become the swing vote in likely litigation. And do you expect that both of those changes, the new chief justice and the new associate justice, will be in place by the time that that case is appealed up to the highest court?

New York. Yeah, I would assume so because, you know, the appointments have been made to the New York State Senate, and I assume that there will be prompt confirmations based on what I've read. And you don't think that there will be any issues basically looking to change a map mid-decade? No, you know, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on this in the 1990s when Tom DeLay sought to redraw the Texas map mid-decade. And the Supreme Court has said that there's a minimum of once-a-decade redistricting, but that that's not a limitation. And just to be clear, it's not, I wouldn't call this mid-cycle redistricting per se, because it's not that the legislature passed a map and is now passing a new map. Legislature passed a map that was struck down a court

put in place what I would refer to as an interim map. And then the legislature is free to come back and pass a map. Obviously, eventually subject to court review, but the legislature should be allowed to take another shot. Got it. Along those same lines, can you give an update on where Moore v. Harper stands? Yeah, so for folks who don't know, Moore v. Harper is the so-called independent state legislature theory case. This is, comes out of the North Carolina case. Again, my firm litigated this case, struck down the North Carolina congressional map as a partisan gerrymander. The, the, that case went to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Republicans' error have advanced a novel legal theory never adopted by any court before that says that essentially the state courts are not

free to rule on state legislative decisions regarding congressional redistricting. We are awaiting a decision. That case was argued earlier this year, and we are awaiting a decision by the Supreme Court. There is a chance that the Supreme Court may wind up not deciding the case for procedural reasons. Essentially, the state Supreme Court in North Carolina has since flipped control, and that state Supreme Court may vacate or may undo the lower court decision that the Supreme Court is reviewing. And the U.S. Supreme Court saw a briefing on that. So we'll wait and see, but we will know by the end of June what's happening there. Just to game this out for a moment, if the independent state legislature theory is adopted and it's up to these state legislatures to

draw the maps, they have unilateral control of drawing the maps. And the judicial or the governors can't interfere in that process, is there a way that that could backfire in Republicans by virtue of the size of some of these deep blue state legislatures like the ones that we have in California or New York? Yeah, I think it could. And again, I'm not here making any prediction or speaking for any legislature. But just on the math, the two states that if you allowed the legislatures to do whatever they wanted to do that would make the greatest numerical difference would be the two states you mentioned,

New York and California, right? California is the map is drawn by a citizen, nonpartisan citizen commission. In New York, obviously the map was subject to a nonpartisan gerrymandering provision, which is what struck it down. And if you look in most Republican states, they've already pretty well gerrymanded their maps. I mean, there's not a lot more places for Republicans to go in most of the states, the big states they control, a state like Texas. There's not a lot more they can do. A state like Florida, there's not much more that Iranians could do there. But New York and California sit out there as, you know, the California map is sort of a fair

map by definition. And the New York map, I would argue, is actually a slight Republican gerrymander. Yeah. And so, you know, those two states could yield the most seats. Okay. So I want to move over to voting litigation here that your team is involved. with your team's litigating 45 pro-democracy cases in 18 states right now. Can you give a rundown of what those cases are, what you're litigating right now? All right. So it's going to be hard to do

all 45. 60 seconds on the clock. Here we go. Yeah. So let me let me say this. I think about these in categories. Number one, we are challenging all new laws. So if a so if a Republican state passes a voter suppression law, they get sued. Idaho passed a law targeting students. The Idaho state of Idaho, sorry, 66% increase in a young voter participation in 2022. And so Republicans came in past a law targeting college students. We immediately sued. Ohio came in and passed a massive omnibus voter suppression law. We sued.

Florida, in an effort to copycat some other states and disenfranchising young student, young voters, we sued. We've sued Arizona. So that's kind of like one range. Then, of course, we have the cases that are still going on from the last round of voter suppression, Georgia, SB 202, Florida, SB1, which we won, is on appeal in the 11th Circuit. Texas, that big case, that big law that the legislator walk, legislators walked out on, then came back in and passed. We're still litigating that case. A couple of cases in Idaho.

We won a case in Arkansas. It's up on the Court of Appeals. We are litigating Kansas. So those are kind of like the omnibus laws. Then there are a series of cases that we're litigating that are really aimed, they're more rifle shot. They're aimed at preventing sort of friction points that Republican legislatures put in place in order to make it harder for particular communities to vote, you know, black, brown, and young voters. And, you know, those states range from Wisconsin to Arizona and the like.

We are fighting Republican lawsuits. Republicans file a lot of litigation now to literally try to make voting harder. we're in Pennsylvania fighting Republicans, we're in Arkansas, I'm sorry, in Arizona fighting Republicans, in Wisconsin fighting Republicans, and then finally, you know, I can't miss an opportunity to say, unfortunately in some places we're fighting our friends. You know, New York has a ban on food and water to people waiting in line. God knows why I have to sue the state of New York, why New York doesn't just repeal that, but I'm suing New York on behalf of the Brooklyn branch of the NAACP trying to repeal that

antiquated old voter suppression law. And how have the cases that you've litigated that go in front of these like right-wing ideologs, you know, who are deciding those cases? How have those been playing out? Yeah. So just to give you sort of global stepback picture in 2022, there were 175 lawsuits filed in 31 states. I didn't file all of these. I wasn't involved in all of them, but I was involved in a lot of them. Of those 93 of them were filed by the bad guys, 82 by the good guys. So one thing for your audience, to know is when I say Republicans and conservatives are filing lawsuits to make voting harder, they're actually filing more lawsuits to make voting harder than we are able to file lawsuits to make voting easier. When you look at the totality of that picture, what you see is we had

116 victories in 2022 and we had 35 losses. So we're winning more than we're losing. We're not winning everywhere. Yeah. But we're winning more than we're losing. We're running more than people think the states with the most victories, by the way, Arizona, 26, Pennsylvania, 17, Nevada, 12, and Georgia nine. So, you know, in consequential states. Is there any worry? Do you have any worry? Every day. Well, that that's so much of the, yeah, but that so much of the judiciary, inclusive of the Supreme Court is stacked with these far-rate ideologues, that even if you do have the law on your side, that it won't matter in certain instances. I do. I worry about this every day. And here is what I can say is, number one, the courts are getting better right now,

as a president Biden, right? So the courts were actually worse, at their worst, at the end of 2020. Since 2020, they have gotten, they've gotten increasingly better. Now, you're right, not at the state Supreme Court level. And the state courts have been a mix. Some have gotten better like Wisconsin, some like North Carolina have gotten worse. But net net, I'd say the courts have gotten better. But what's also happened is the volume of Republican energy before the courts has quintupled, like it's gone up dramatically. So when I look at a number like there were 93 lawsuits filed by Republicans and conservatives in 2020, I mean, there were only 150 lawsuits filed in all of 2020, and that included

65 post-election lawsuits. So you look at the volume of energy, it feels like even though we are still winning, each of those losses is cutting deep. So what I'm worried about is like, it's great. I can say to you, we won 116 victories. We lost 35. But that 35, when you then couple on the ability of Republican legislatures to pass more bad laws, you know, it's like you're just constantly spinning on a treadmill in which

democracy is losing a half a step every, every mile or so. It doesn't feel like you're losing ground, but you really are kind of losing ground. So, you know, we're doing everything we can to sort of put our thumb in the dike to keep democracy from flooding over. But fundamentally, we need electoral change. We need democracy reform. We need to break the fever within the Republican Party. Right. Is there a case that worries you the most? Like, is there a blinking red light out there in the courts? Yeah, I think the case that I worry most about is actually not the ISL case. You know, the ISL case, the independent state legislature case would be wrong, could be wrongly

decided. But as you were saying, like, about redistricting, it will have kind of like complicated effects. It'll also, by the way, be very difficult for state courts to administer when they're allowed to rule and when they're not. I think it'll be a slow and messy thing. The thing I worry most about is there's a real movement now by conservatives to bring lawsuits and conservative AGs to challenge lawsuits saying that private litigants don't have the right to sue at all under federal laws, that the Voting Rights Act can only be enforced by the Department of Justice. Well, just to put another number on the table, the Department of Justice in 2022 filed two lawsuits. And if you took off the table all of the other lawsuits, the other 82 pro-democracy lawsuits,

and so the only DOJ could be the ones to enforce the federal election laws, that would be, to me, the cataclysmic thing. And we are seeing that being tested in the lower courts. Okay, so I want to switch gears here to a lighter topic. Like, what is the best inadvertent compliment that you've ever gotten from a Republican? The fact that they keep wanting to hire me. You know, I mean, Steve Bannon just again, yesterday, went on his whatever show it is and was telling a Republican lawyer, which I always find, like, even I find it mildly embarrassing. He's literally telling a Republican lawyer, we need to hire Mark Elias. What's your number, Mark?

You know, you're the second verse to ask me this today when my number is. All I can tell you is that Lou Dobbs told Stephen Miller to pay me a half. half a billion dollars yeah yeah so it's a really big number um i'm you know i i would never i would never work for yeah what what do you say to those republicans who who go out there and say we got to get our own mark elias that it's impossible that that that that the problem they have is that they are fighting against history and they're fighting against democracy right like like i'm i'm a good lawyer. I'm a good enough lawyer, but I am fighting for the, I'm fighting with the tide of history to have an inclusive, expansive democracy. And sure, the courts on any given case in any given

time can feel like a setback. But I know that I'm on the side that went from, you know, no right to vote to white men having the right to vote, to property owners only having the right to vote, to black men having the right to vote, to all 18-year-olds have. having the right to vote, the implementation of the most important legislation of our history, the civil rights laws in the 1960s expanding voting rights. And I know that I'm on that side. So what I tell a Republican is when they think, well, they could just hire me or find someone like me. It doesn't kind of work that way. Yeah, I think that's perfectly put. And we'll leave it there. That seems like a great place to end. Mark, I speak on behalf of everyone who watches and

listens to any of my content and saying, thank you so much for the work you're doing. It's much appreciated and thanks for taking the time today. And thank you, you know, I've had an opportunity now to do a number of things with you and you're a real champion for democracy and we need more of them out there. So thank you. Now we've got the U.S. Senator from Wisconsin, Tammy Baldwin, thanks so much for taking the time. Oh, I'm delighted to join you. Now, the fact that you're running for re-election in Wisconsin is a huge boon for Democrats. Can you talk about how you fared in the last election and what your margins were relative to other Democrats that were running statewide? Well, I certainly can. Back in 2018, a set of midterm elections, I was humbled to win with

nearly 11 percent or by 11 percent of point margin. A lot of Wisconsin races are decided by razor-thin margins. And I want to just jettison ahead and say last week in Wisconsin, we saw another race that was won by an 11-point margin, and that was for our state Supreme Court. You know, I think that there's probably some parallels to be drawn, but I do want to say that Wisconsin is a tough battleground state, especially in presidential years. It is not hyperbole to say that Wisconsin sometimes decides the outcome of presidential elections. And next year, it could decide the presidential election, as well as the balance of who controls the Senate. And just to build on exactly that point, you know, we saw Governor Tony Evers won by a three-point margin. And we saw Republican

Senator Ron Johnson win by a one-point margin. So just to underscore the fact that Wisconsin is a true battleground state. And even though we did see wins like yours by 11 points and Judge Janet Prisiewicz by 11 points, which are huge margins and really do kind of buttches this idea that when we have good candidates who can win, that's a major boon for Democrats. It is still a purple state through and through. But with that said, do you know who you may be running against yet? Are there any grumblings from well-known Republicans? I have probably a list of about a dozen people that I've been reading about in the last few weeks, either people speculating that they might run or they're offering their own names up and saying, we're seriously looking at the race.

And they run the gamut between sitting members of Congress in this state to former party leaders, to business leaders. You know, there's a thing out there about how the Republican party in the swing states, the battleground states that are up next year are trying to recruit multi-millionaires, even billionaires, so that they can self-finance. And the Republican Party can put their money elsewhere to make more and more races competitive. This is, gosh, you know, it's a sad state of affairs where you're just looking at billionaires and multimillionaires as your prospective candidates. That's why I'm so proud to be a fighter for the people and the working people of the state of Wisconsin. That's my focus.

Frankly, the wealthy and the big corporations, they wield enough power already in Washington, D.C. We don't need to grow the ranks of their fans in the Senate or the House. Now, what is your focus in the Senate? Oh, my goodness. Well, really, I want to carry on the progress that I've been making on the kitchen table issues that I hear about no matter where I'm traveling in the state of Wisconsin. You know, a good paying job that supports the family that lets you get ahead. And my Buy America made in America policies are bringing good paying union jobs back. I hear about the affordability of health care, and I want to continue my work on making sure that people on the Affordable Care Act marketplace plans can rely on assistance paying their premiums, work that I've been so proud of, and we want to extend well into the future.

I want to keep on lowering the price of prescription drugs like we just did with insulin for seniors and make that the way things are. in America instead of paying two, three, four times more than any other industrialized country. And let me say, resoundingly, Wisconsinites have told me, and they said at the polls last week, we want our rights and freedoms back, and that's a fight I've championed and continue to in Washington. I lead the measure, the Women's Health Protection Act, that would restore Roe as the law of the land, But take the extra step that's so important in a state like Wisconsin of making sure that states can't pass so many restrictions and limitations that that right isn't, you know, doesn't have any meaning anymore. And I want to remind folks that Wisconsin is a state right now after the Supreme Court

Acted last summer that has a criminal abortion ban that was passed into law in 1849. And you heard me right, 1849, before the Civil War. That is what people in Wisconsin are living under right now, and we have to continue this fight until we've won, because it shouldn't matter what your zip code is or what state you reside in to know what sort of rights and freedoms you have. Yeah, and I think, you know, the fact that we have an 1849 ban in place, and that's what Republicans are fighting to keep in place really does put on full display the draconian nature of their agenda right now. And they're not just doing it in the legislative bodies where we see bills in Congress to restrict abortion to 15 weeks nationwide and ban it. But you see judges now, Republican appointed judges

who are additionally trying to undercut, you know, ignoring science, but just basically, being a part of that extreme Republican bandwagon to try to take our rights away. Wisconsinites want their rights and freedoms back, not only on the abortion issue, but also with regard to access to the ballot box and having fair maps and getting our democracy back in order. Yeah, and that's hopefully an issue that could be, that should be bipartisan, regardless of, you know, where you are on the political spectrum, just having a functioning democracy so that all of those other issues can, you know, be litigated properly, can be, can be decided properly. You know, there will be Wisconsinites who are on the fence here. There are those Ivers, Ron Johnson

voters out there. What do you say to them to get their support ahead of 2024? You know, I've been working hard for Wisconsin, and I talked about the kitchen table issues that people, no matter where I am in Wisconsin, talk about. And I have a record of progress, but the job isn't done. And so, you know, in terms of Wisconsin being a place that makes things, we make bicycles, motorcycles, vehicles, we make ships, we make beer, brats, and sausage, and cheese. You know us for it because we do it really, really well. And yet we lost so many of those jobs.

We have taken, we've made great strides with my Buy America and Made in America policies in the infrastructure bill and in the Chips and Science Act to begin the process of reshoring those jobs, bringing them back to Wisconsin, sort of good-paying union jobs that are going to help families get ahead. So, you know, just one example of the work I've been doing that needs to be followed on. And, you know, it's exciting to see progress, but we always know that we have more to do. And I think just building on what you said about, like, the made in America and by America. That's been like a Republican talking point for so long. And yet it's just been empty rhetoric. It took until there was a Democratic majority in the Senate to actually

put those things into any legislation. And now that we have a Democratic majority in the Senate, now we're actually seeing those things play out beyond just, you know, talking points and bumper sticker slogans. So I think, I think that's something that's really important to keep going with here. Yeah. And I see the difference it makes to Wisconsin companies. You know, we saw a period of time where all sorts of foundries closed because if you have either a country where they're producing products with state subsidies or a place that has no worker rights, worker safety laws, environmental laws, they can produce cheaper and they can dump their product in the U.S. I've been fighting against those sort of dumping actions, but the Buy America really brings those

jobs back and solidifies and secures those jobs for generations to come. I also want to say Wisconsin is a place that grows things and raises livestock. We are the dairy state. And so my advocacy on behalf of the dairy industry and farmers who have struggled mightily in recent years because of whether it's extreme weather events in Mother Nature or whether it's bad trade policies that that have resulted in tariffs and lost export markets. I've been fighting back. And, you know, you asked how I win back some of the folks that voted for Trump and voted for Ron Johnson.

It's because I listen and deliver. And we're going to keep on working until there's a level playing field for all of our workers, whether they're agricultural workers or factory workers. And I spoke with Judge Janet a few weeks back, and she also touted the dairy industry in Wisconsin, of which I'm an advocate in the stands as a spectator. I'm allergic to dairy, and like this whole, like, Wisconsin's, like, infatuation with dairy is like an actual death now for me. So what do you hope to see from the new liberal Wisconsin Supreme Court now that Judge Janet has won her race? Well, the new court will be seated in August. And I feel

fairly confident that there's a number of major issues that will come before the court. I already talked about the fact that we have in Wisconsin right now, the governing law about abortion is a criminal abortion statute that was passed in 1849. I expect that the next Wisconsin Supreme Court will hear a case on whether that's constitutionally valid under our state constitution, 175 years later, right? We know a lot of things now that we didn't know back in 1849, aside from the fact that there were no women giving their input and testimony into the passage of that law back in that day.

So I expect that they'll look at that case. We have horrid gerrymandering in the state of Wisconsin. We're one of the worst gerrymandered states in the nation. What that means is if you're in a particularly gerrymandered red state legislative district, and you're a Democrat, a progressive and independent, your likelihood of having your voice heard is so diminished. We have one third of our legislature that are Democrats, and yet regularly we see these 50-50 turnouts, you know, results in our statewide races. And your race alone was an 11-point margin. Right.

You would have thought that there would be some coattails if you didn't have such a gerrymandered state. And so people deserve to have their vote registered and their voices heard. And then lastly, there's been a whole spate of laws restricting access to the ballot box passed over the past decade or so prior to this sitting governor. And I would add one more. There's been a lot of pullback on the right to organize in the workplace. And so those are the rights and freedoms that I talk about that Wisconsinites are desperate to regain. Yeah.

And your neighbor right there in Michigan just repealed their right to work laws for the first time in 58 years that a right to work law has been repealed. And that's thanks to the fact that because they have fair maps and they were able to have their voices heard fairly, They had Democrats get full control of their government there. And so I think that's hopefully a harbinger of things to come in Wisconsin. Yes. Now, moving over to a different part of the country, we've watched as Tennessee Republicans pulled this crazy stunt to expel Democrats for protesting those Republicans in action on guns,

only for that to then backfire as those two Democratic legislators got reappointed and the whole country now has its eyes on Tennessee. Is there any sense among national Republicans that they're going too far, and that this stuff is kind of backfiring on them? Or are they just too deep in it that they can't even see outside their own bubbles? Yeah, you know what I look to is who has spoken out? Who has denounced the Tennessee legislature? Who stood up and denounced January 6th?

Who stands up and denounces the, you know, these types of actions that we see? It's a short list. Yeah, it is a short list. And, you know, who stood up and denounced the judge in Texas, who issued a totally non-science-based decision? That's what I'm looking towards. And I see it's few and far between. But, you know, I think every good progressive, every good Democrat, every good independent, and frankly, the righteous Republicans that remain should want a worthy adversary, if you will, in political discourse, I want to see those leaders reemerge. And frankly, you don't usually

root for the other side. But boy, it's hard to have a two-party system with when you can't even agree on a set of facts and a set of challenges and have a true discourse on how to solve the challenges that are agreed upon. Yeah, I think that's well said. Well, going to the top of that party, You know, we've watched as Trump has tried to incite violence against local prosecutors for the crime of trying to hold him accountable for his crimes. What's your response to those thinly veiled threats and those warning shots that have been lobbed at Manhattan DA, Alvin Bragg, for example, from Trump and Trump world more broadly? Right. Well, this is certainly nothing new for our former president, you know, to lob accusations, to bully, to demean. And, you know, it's frightening from the perspective of we see it in authoritarian leaders who try to silence opposition, who use these sort of tactics to try to scare off those, in this case, just doing their job. But the bottom line is that nobody is above the law, whether you're a former president or,

you know, the local grocery store clerk. Nobody is above the law, and he needs to be held accountable. And I believe in the rule of law and ability to get it done. Yeah. And the fact that, you know, you believing in the rule of law is a controversial statement these days. Kind of does show the space we're in our politics right now. Going to the other side of the Republican Party, you have someone like Ron DeSantis, who, you know, back in his home state, I believe Fort Lauderdale,

is underwater as of this recording. Meanwhile, Ron DeSantis himself isn't there because he's on a book tour preempting his presidential run. Do you have a response to that? Yeah, you know, you show up as part of the job. I understand that one person can't be everywhere at once, but it is really, really important to listen, to be present, to understand the challenges

that the people you seek to lead are experiencing. And so those are the things that I remembered, right? Who was there in the time of need? Who was there during the crisis? I know I think that's a really critical aspect of leadership that we're just not seeing there. Yeah, I think that was perfectly put. And I think kind of underscores the fact that beyond all of the hysterical rhetoric

about wokeness and critical race theory and all of these, you know, Republican buzzwords just to try to get a five-minute cable hit on Hannity, that there are people who are supposed to be represented there, and that's what's missing in all of this, in all of this, you know, desperation to raise his national profile and raise all of their national profiles while they're running for president. Senator Baldwin, how can we help your campaign? Well, I'm going to have a very tough race. You know, you invited me to start out by talking about how humbled I was to win by a sizable margin. in my last race.

Next year is a presidential cycle. You might have noticed that Wisconsin is a battleground state and it is not hyperbole to say that we could decide the outcome of the next presidential election in Wisconsin. We could decide the balance of power in the United States Senate. They are recruiting the strongest possible candidate that they can find to run against me,

maybe even somebody who can self-finance. And so people, who want to be in on the ground floor to be founding members of this campaign can go to my website at www.tammiebaldwin.com, not hard to remember. And give us a helping hand as we begin. This is something that, you know, we are not being funded by billionaires. We are being funded by small donors, by folks who want to do doors and want to make calls. That's how we win races, and that's how we're going to win this race. And I would just echo those same sentiments.

I think if anybody watches or listens to my show, they understand the importance of Wisconsin almost above every other state. And we also know that Republicans will try their hardest to basically define you before you can define yourself. And so that's why it's so important to get out ahead early, start raising money early, to start getting on the airwaves early, and reaching all those voters who may not have been paying attention for these last few years, but who are paying attention now as we head into this next major

election cycle. So with that said, Senator Baldwin, thank you so much for taking the time. Best of luck on the campaign trail, and I appreciate you being here. Thank you so much for having me. Thanks again to Senator Baldwin. One quick note for those listening. My YouTube channel is approaching 2 million subscribers. So if you're not yet subscribed, please consider subscribing and helping me get to that 2 million mark.

I would really appreciate it. Okay, that's it for this episode. Talk to you next week. You've been listening to No Lie with Brian Tyler Cohen, produced by Sam Graber, music by Wellesie, interviews captured and edited for YouTube and Facebook by Nicholas Nicotera, and recorded in Los Angeles, California. If you enjoyed this episode, please subscribe on your preferred podcast app. Feel free to leave a five-star rating and a review,

and check out Brian Tylercoin.com for links to all of my other channels.