The Wolves of K Street: How Corporate Lobbyists Infiltrated Washington

>>> WE RETURN HERE TO THE U.S. WHERE THERE'S GOING TO BE ONE BIG WINNER THIS NOVEMBER, AND OUR NEXT GUEST ARGUES IT'S NOT GOING TO BE REPUBLICANS OR DEMOCRATS, BUT LOBBY GROUPS.

PULITZER PRIZE WINNING INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER BRODY MULLINS JOINING HARI SREENIVASAN TO DISCUSS HIS NEW BOOK WHICH CHRONICLES HOW LAWMAKERS HAVE BROUGHT IN A NEW ERA OF PUBLIC POLICY TO THE BENEFIT OF CORPORATE AMERICA.

>> BRODY MULLINS, THANKS SO MUCH FOR JOINING US.

YOU ARE A CO-AUTHOR WITH YOUR BROTHER ON A NEW BOOK CALLED "THE WOLVES OF K STREET: THE SECRET HISTORY OF HOW BIG MONEY TOOK OVER BIG GOVERNMENT."

THANKS FOR BEING WITH US, AND I WONDER WHY THIS BOOK, WHY NOW?

>> YEAH, THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION.

YOU KNOW, WHEN WE TRAVEL OUTSIDE OF WASHINGTON, OUR REPORTING IF YOU TALK TO REPUBLICANS AND SAY WHAT'S WRONG WITH WASHINGTON, THEY BLAME DEMOCRATS.

AND IF YOU TALK TO DEMOCRATS, THEY BLAME REPUBLICANS, AND WHAT WE'RE REALLY IDENTIFYING IS THAT, YOU KNOW, CORPORATE AMERICA IS A LOT OF THE PROBLEM IN WASHINGTON.

CORPORATE AMERICA WIN WHETHER REPUBLICANS ARE IN CHARGE OR DEMOCRATS ARE IN CHARGE, AND WE EXPOSE SORT OF HOW THEY USE THEIR POWER, INFLUENCE, AND MONEY TO CHANGE PUBLIC POLICY TO HELP BIG COMPANIES AND EXECUTIVES AND NOT THE REST OF US.

>> GIVE ME AN IDEA, WHAT KINDS OF LAWS OR LEGISLATION HAVE LOBBYISTS BEEN VERY SUCCESSFUL IN EITHER CREATING OR TWEAKING OR STOPPING?

>> WELL, ONE, HOW MUCH TAME DO WE HAVE HERE?

WE COULD GO ON FOREVER.

BUT TO TAKE A RECENT EXAMPLE.

THINK ABOUT THE LAST PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION WHERE JOE BIDEN, ELIZABETH WARREN, EVERY SINGLE DEMOCRAT RUNNING FOR CONGRESS OR FOR THE PRESIDENCY WAS SAYING THEY WERE GOING TO ROLL BACK THE TRUMP CORPORATE TAX CUTS, THE $1.3 TRILLION TAX CUT TRUMP ENACTED.

DEMOCRATS WERE ELECTED TO GET RID OF THAT TAX CUT, AND CORPORATE AMERICA AND THEIR LOBBIES HAD SO MUCH INFLUENCE, THERE WAS NEVER A VOTE ON THAT.

IT'S NOT LIKE THEY BROUGHT THAT UP AND DEMOCRATS WERE NOT ABLE TO GET THE VOTES.

THEY COULDN'T EVEN BRIDNG A VOT TO IT.

THAT'S HOW MUCH POWER THE CORPORATE LOBBY HAS.

>> WHAT YOU POINT OUT AND YOU GO KIND OF FASCINATINGLY INTO THE HISTORY OF THIS IS THAT LOBBYING IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER HAS BEEN AROUND.

IN FACT, THE FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION EVEN KNEW THAT THAT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN, YOU KNOW, HUNDREDS OF YEARS BEFORE THE STATE WE'RE RIN TODAY.

>> ONE OF THE FASCINATING THINGS WE LEARNED IN OUR REPORTING WE DID NOT KNOW ABOUT IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU SAID, IN THE FEDERALIST PAPERS, THE FRAMERS OF THE GOVERNMENT SAID, FIRST OF ALL, THERE WOULD BELOBBYING.

THEY DIDN'T CALL IT LOBBYING.

THEY CALLED IT INFACTIONS.

THEY FORESAW THERE WOULD BE AN INDUSTRY FACTION, BUSINESS OWNERS WOULD HAVE AN INTEREST GROUP ESSENTIALLY, AND THAT WORKERS WOULD HAVE AN INTEREST GROUP OR WHAT THEY CALLED A FACTION, WHICH BASICALLY BECAME LABOR UNIONS.

WHAT THEY THOUGHT IS THAT THOSE TWO FACTIONS WOULD BE SORT OF EQUAL SIZE AND STRENGTHS AND THEY WOULD BATTLE EACH OTHER TO MAKE -- COMPROMISE LEGISLATION.

AND THAT BASICALLY WORKED FOR MOST OF THE NEXT 200 YEARS.

THE PROBLEM NOW IS THAT CORPORATIONS HAVE SO MUCH MONEY AND SO MUCH INFLUENCE THEY BASICALLY DESTROY THE OTHER FACTIONS OR INTEREST GROUPS.

AS WE KNOW, LABOR UNIONS DON'T HAVE THE INFLUENCE THEY USED TO HAVE.

THE RALPH NADERS AND CONSUMERS GROUPS DON'T HAVE THE INFLUENCE THEY USED TO HAVE.

REALLY IT'S THE BIG COMPANIES PUTTING THEIR WHOLE HAND ON THE SCALE FOR A POLICY TO HELP COMPANIES AND NOT EVERYONE ELSE.

>> SO WHAT HAPPENED?

IF THIS IDEA THAT THE FOUNDING FATHERS HAD -- OKAY, THERE'S GOING TO BE THIS MARKETPLACE OF IDEAS.

THERE'S GOING TO BE THESE COMPETING FACTIONS, THIS TENSION WILL BALANCE ITSELF OUT.

IF THAT LASTED WELLISH FOR 200 YEARS, WHAT HAPPENED WHEN WE GET TO THE 1970s?

>> YEAH, A WHOLE BUNCH OF THINGS HAPPENED IN THE 1970s.

THAT'S SORT OF THE KEY MOMENTUM.

BEFORE THE '70s, COMPANIES HAD RELATIVELY LITTLE INFLUENCE IN WASHINGTON.

RALPH NADER WAS THE MOST INFLUENTIAL PERSON ON PUBLIC POLICY MATTERS.

FROM THE NEW DEAL TO THE GREAT SOCIETY, THE GOVERNMENT REALLY GREW VERY QUICKLY, LOTS OF NEW RULES AND REGULATIONS AND ADMINISTRATION AGENCIES, AND COMPANIES FOR THE MOST PART DID NOT OPPOSE THOSE, THE GROWTH OF THE GOVERNMENT BECAUSE THEY WERE MAKING MONEY AND THINGS WERE FINE.

THEY WERE SPONSORING THE LITTLE LEAGUE TEAMS AND SUPPORTED THEIR EMPLOYEES.

WHAT CHANGES IN THE 1970s, THE ECONOMY TANKED.

COMPANY PROFITS EVAPORATED AND COMPANIES LOOKED AROUND FOR WHO TO BLAME FOR HOW TO GET BACK MAKING MONEY, AND THEY REALIZED THAT ALL THESE NEW RULES AND REGULATIONS WERE REALLY HINDERING THEIR ABILITY TO COMPETE IN THE MARKETPLACE AND TO MAKE MONEY AND COST THEM SO MUCH MONEY TO COMPLY WITH.

SO LIKE ANY GOOD BUSINESS PEOPLE, THEY INVESTED IN THEIR PROBLEM AND THEIR PROBLEM WAS THE GOVERNMENT, SO AS A RESULT OF THAT, THEY STARTED POURING MONEY INTO LOBBYING, INTO CAMPAIGN DONATIONS AND TO REALLY FOR THE FIRST TIME TAKING ACTION IN WASHINGTON AND GAINING THE POWERS THEY HAVE NOW.

>> YOU'VE GOT A STATISTIC IN THERE THAT I JUST WANT TO CITE HERE.

IT SAYS BY 2012 FOR EVERY DOLLAR SPENT BY CONSUMER GROUPS OR ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIVISTS TO INFLUENCE FEDERAL POLICY, CORPORATIONS AND THEIR ALLIES WERE SPENDING $86.

EXPLAIN THAT TO US.

>> YEAH, AND THAT WAS MORE THAN A DECADE AGO, AND ALSO, THAT'S ONLY THE MONEY THAT WE KNOW THAT'S BEING SPENT.

SO MUCH OF LOBBYING IS NOW BEING SPENT OUTSIDE OF WASHINGTON TO GET CONSTITUENTS AND BUSINESS GROUPS AND OTHER ORGANIZATIONS TO SUPPORT PRO-BUSINESS POLICIES, AND THAT MONEY IS NOT INCLUDED IN THAT TOTAL.

THE IDEA HERE IS THAT, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE HUNDREDS AND THOUSANDS OF BIG U.S. COMPANIES, AND THEY'RE ALL SPENDING MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO IMPACT LEGISLATION, AND THEY'RE OVERWHELMING THE OPPOSITION, THE OPPOSITION BEING LABOR UNIONS OR CONSUMER GROUPS.

>> CAN YOU GIVE ME THE IDEA OF THE SCALE OF WHAT KIND OF MONEY WE'RE TALKING ABOUT?

WHO ARE THE BIGGEST PLAYERS?

HOW MUCH ARE THEY SPENDING?

>> RIGHT NOW THE BIG TECH COMPANIES DOMINATE THE LOBBYING GAME, BUT SO DOES THE U.S. CHAM PER OF COMMERCE, WHICH SPENDS $100 MILLION LOBBYING AND PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES.

BUT MORE TO THE POINT HERE, ONE COMPANY, GENENTECH AND ONE OF THEIR LOBBYISTS, THEIR INTERNAL LOBBYING FIGURES THAT I GOT SHOW THAT ABOUT FIVE YEARS AGO THEY WERE SPENDING ABOUT $50 MILLION LOBBYING WASHINGTON, BUT ONLY 5 MILLION OF THAT WAS IN THE DISCLOSE CATEGORY.

SO IF YOU TAKE THAT ACROSS EVERYONE ELSE, 1 OUT OF EVERY $10 IS BEING DISCLOSED AND 9 OUT OF 10 IS NOT DISCLOSED AND THAT'S THE ISSUE.

>> SOME OF LOBBYING AS YOU POINT OUT, YOU AND I CAN GO TO OPENSECRETS.GOV, AND YOU CAN START TO SEE WHO GOT A CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION FROM A COMPANY FOR HOW MUCH MONEY, RIGHT?

YOU CAN -- WE CAN EVEN GO INTO DIFFERENT DATABASES AND SEARCH FOR WHICH LOBBYIST MIGHT HAVE REGISTERED A VISIT TO A MEMBER OF CONGRESS OR THE WHITE HOUSE, BUT YOU'RE SAYING THAT THAT, EVEN THOUGH THOSE ARE STAGGERING SUMS OF MONEY, THAT'S ACTUALLY NOT THE WHOLE PICTURE.

>> EXACTLY.

ONE THING WE WRITE ABOUT IN OUR BOOK IS HOW LOBBYING HAS MOVED FROM SORT OF A SMOKE FILLED ROOM WHERE LOBBYISTS GET SPECIAL FAVOR FAVORS AND GET ACCESS TO MEMBERS OF CONGRESS, USING OLD SCHOOL TACTICS LIKE STATE DINNERS AND ROUNDS OF GOLF.

SO MUCH OF LOBBYING NOW TAKES PLACE OUTSIDE OF WASHINGTON.

AND LOBBYING OUTSIDE OF WASHINGTON IS NOT DISCLOSED.

WHEN I SAY LOBBYING, WHAT WE REALIZED IS THAT MEMBERS OF CONGRESS WILL DO WHATEVER IT TAKES TO GET REELECTED AND TO GET REELECTED YOU NEED 51% OF YOUR CONSTITUENTS TO SUPPORT YOU.

LOBBYISTS KNOW THAT.

LOBBYISTS NOW GO TO CONSTITUENTS AND COMPANIES AND EMPLOYEES AND TO THE INDUSTRY GROUPS AND OTHER CIVIC ORGANIZATIONS AND TRY TO GET THEIR SUPPORT FOR A TRADE POLICY OR AN R&D TAX CREDIT OR SOME IMMIGRATION REGULATION, AND IF YOU CAN GET THE SUPPORT OF CONSTITUENTS, THE MEMBERS OF CONGRESS WILL FOLLOW BECAUSE THE MEMBER OF CONGRESS WANTS TO GET REELECTED.

ALL OF THAT LOBBYING THAT'S TAKING PLACE NOW IS NOT DISCLOSED AT ALL.

TO GIVE YOU A STATISTIC, IN 2007 THE LAST TIME THERE WAS A MAJOR LOBBYING REFORM BILL IN D.C., THERE WERE ROUGHLY 12,000 REGISTERED LOBBYISTS IN D.C. TODAY 15 YEARS LATER, WITH CORPORATIONS HAVING SO MUCH INFLUENCE IN WASHINGTON SPENDING BILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO INFLUENCE WASHINGTON, THERE ARE STILL ONLY 12,000 REGISTERED LOBBYISTS IN WASHINGTON.

YOU KNOW, AND THAT MEANS THAT STATISTIC IS NOT ACCURATE.

I MEAN, THERE'S WAY MORE LOBBYISTS THAN THE 12,000 PEOPLE WHO ARE REQUIRED TO DISCLOSE UNDER THE LAW.

>> MICROSOFT IS ONE OF THE BIGGEST TECH COMPANIES AND ONE OF THE BIG TECH LOBBYISTS NOW, BUT THAT WASN'T ALWAYS THE CASE.

YOU POINT OUT THAT BILL GATES DIDN'T CARE MUCH FOR LOBBYING IN THE BEGINNING.

>> WHEN MICROSOFT GOT STARTED, BILL GATES SMARTLY, YOU KNOW, FOCUSED JUST ON HIS COMPANY AND MAKING THE BEST -- BEING THE BEST SOFTWARE COMPANY IN THE WORLD, WHICH HE SUCCEEDED AT, BUT THE PROBLEM THAT HE IGNORED WASHINGTON.

HE DIDN'T HIRE LOBBYISTS.

HE DIDN'T HAVE LAWYERS IN D.C.

HE DIDN'T HAVE -- WASN'T MAKING BIG PAC CONTRIBUTIONS AND HIS IDEA WAS THAT HE WAS SORT OF THE SMARTEST PERSON IN THE ROOM.

HE KNEW THE BEST WAY TO RUN HIS COMPANY, HE DIDN'T WANT PENNS WASHINGTON MEDDLING IN HIS BUSINESS.

THE MISTAKE CAME WHEN THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT OVER TIME DECIDED TO SUE MICROSOFT FOR BEING AN ANTITRUST MONOPOLY BECAUSE BILL GATES DIDN'T HAVE LOBBYISTS, HE DIDN'T HAVE EYES AND EARS, HE DIDN'T HAVE FRIENDSHIPS AND RELATIONSHIPS IN D.C., THEY WERE SORT OF CAUGHT BY SURPRISE, AND WEREN'T ABLE TO DO ANYTHING TO HEAD THAT OFF OR NIP IT IN THE BUD EARLY ON.

AS A RESULT, MICROSOFT AND BILL GATES SPENT TEN YEARS FIGHTING THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT'S ANTITRUST LAWSUIT.

THAT'S TEN YEARS WHERE THEY WEREN'T FOCUSED ON INNOVATION, WEREN'T FOCUSED ON DEVELOPMENT, WEREN'T FOCUSED ON THEIR COMPANY.

THEY WERE DISTRACTED BY WASHINGTON.

SO WHEN GOOGLE CAME TO D.C. NTS EARLY 2000s, THEY REALIZED IN ORDER TO BE THE BIGGEST, MOST DOMINANT COMPANY IN THE COUNTRY, YOU REALLY NEED TO INVEST IN WASHINGTON, AND THEY HAVE, AND BY CONTRAST, YOU KNOW, IN THE 15 YEARS THAT GOOGLE HAS BEEN AN ENORMOUS -- AN ENORMOUS U.S. COMPANY AND ENORMOUS FORCE IN WASHINGTON, NOTHING BAD HAS HAPPENED.

THEY'VE DEFEATED EVERY SINGLE ATTEMPT AT ANTITRUST INVESTIGATION OR ANY LEGISLATION ON CAPITOL HILL THAT COULD HARM THEM.

>> SO IF YOU ARE KIND OF A FORBES 500 COMPANY, CORPORATE LOBBYING IS JUST PART OF THE COST OF DOING BUSINESS LIKE HUMAN RESOURCES IS OR MARKETING IS?

>> ABSOLUTELY.

YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT SURPRISED ME ABOUT WRITING THIS BOOK IS THAT I THOUGHT THAT SO MUCH OF LOBBYING WAS THE GOVERNMENT IS MAKING SOME NEW RULE OR REGULATION THAT AFFECTS AN INDUSTRY, SO AN INDUSTRY HIRES LOBBYISTS TO TRY TO BEND THAT REGULATION OR BLOCK THAT REGULATION OR CHANGE IT IN SOME SUBTLE WAY.

IN FACT, LOBBYING IS MUCH MORE ON THE OFFENSIVE WHERE COMPANIES HIRE LOBBIES TO COME TO D.C. TO CREATE RULES AND REGULATIONS TO BLOCK COMPETITORS OR TO CREATE BARRIERS TO ENTRY SO THEY ARE THE ONLY COMPANYS THAT CAN EXPAND IN THAT INDUSTRY.

>> GIVE US AN EXAMPLE OF THAT.

>> WELL, LOOK AT DODD-FRANK AFTER THE HOUSING CRISIS.

YOU KNOW, WE CREATED THE BIG BANKS CAME TO D.C., THE LARGE BANKS AND CREATED THESE NEW CAPITAL REQUIREMENT WHERE YOU HAVE TO HAVE BILLIONS AND BILLIONS AND BILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN RESERVE IN ORDER TO ENTER THESE MARKETPLACES.

GUESS WHAT, ONLY FIVE COMPANIES CAN AFFORD TO DO THAT, AND GUESS WHAT, THOSE ARE THE COMPANIES THAT LOBBIED TO CREATE THE LAW.

>> IS THERE A DIFFERENCE, A PARTISAN DIFFERENCE, I'M ASSUMING THAT LOBBYISTS WHO WORK FOR WHOEVER PAYS THE CHECK, BUT WHEN YOU LOOK BACK ACROSS YOUR RESEARCH, ACROSS DIFFERENT ADMINISTRATIONS OF WHO'S IN POWER OR WHICH CONGRESS IS KIND OF IN CONTROL, IS THERE A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS WHEN IT COMES TO LOBBYING?

>> YOU KNOW, IT'S FASCINATING.

THE ANSWER IS NO, AND THAT'S ONE OF THE FASCINATING THINGS.

LIKE WE SAID IN THE BEGINNING, COMPANIES AND CORPORATE LOBBYISTS WIN WHETHER DEMOCRATS ARE IN CONTROL OR WHETHER REPUBLICANS ARE IN CONTROL, AND YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE STATISTICS WE FOUND IS THAT YOU WOULD THINK THAT CORPORATE AMERICA WOULD WANT REPUBLICANS TO WIN AND WOULD SUPPORT REPUBLICANS, YOU KNOW, WITH THEIR CAMPAIGN DONATIONS.

IN FACT, CORPORATIONS JUST WANT TO BE WITH THE WINNER.

WE LOOKED AT CAMPAIGN FINANCE DATA AND THE CAMPAIGN FINANCE DATA SHOWS WHEN REPUBLICANS ARE IN CHARGE, WHEN THEY CONTROL THE WHITE HOUSE AND CONTROL CONGRESS, CORPORATIONS AND THEIR PACS DO GIVE ABOUT 60% OF THEIR MONEY TO REPUBLICANS.

BUT THEY STILL GIVE 40% OF THEIR MONEY TO DEMOCRATS, EVEN WHEN REPUBLICANS ARE IN CHARGE.

MORE FAS THCINATING WHEN DEMOCR ARE IN CHARGE, WHEN DEMOCRATS CONTROL THE HOUSE AND THE SENATE, CORPORATIONS GIVE 60% OF THEIR MONEY TO DEMOCRATS AND 40% TO REPUBLICANS.

SO THEY REALLY JUST WANT TO BE WITH THE WINNER.

THEY DON'T CARE WHO THE WINNER IS.

>> YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE POLITICS OF THE PREVIOUS COUPLE OF ADMINISTRATIONS, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT ANIMATED THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN EARLY ON THE FIRST TIME AROUND WAS TO DRAIN THE SWAMP, TO, YOU KNOW, GET THE INFLUENCE OF MONEY OUT OF WASHINGTON, AND WHAT YOU DESCRIBE IN THE BOOK IS THAT IT WASN'T AS SUCCESSFUL, AND IT MAYBE WOULD HAVE CHANGED -- IT CHANGED THE SCOPE AND WHERE THE POWER RESTED IN WASHINGTON FROM CONGRESS BACK INTO THE WHITE HOUSE.

EXPLAIN THAT.

>> YEAH, SO THE WAY OUR GOVERNMENT HAS CHANGED OVER THE LAST CENTURY IS THAT -- OR REALLY SINCE WATERGATE BACK IN THE 1970s, POWER HAS BECOME MORE DIFFUSE IN WASHINGTON.

BEFORE WATERGATE AND BEFORE NIXON OR THROUGH THE NIXON ADMINISTRATION, MOST GOVERNMENT POWERS HELD BY THE PRESIDENT IN THE WHITE HOUSE AND CONGRESS HAD, YOU KNOW, A ROLE IN CREATING RULES AND REGULATIONS AND LAWS, BUT REALLY THE WHITE HOUSE DOMINATED.

AFTER WATERGATE, WASHINGTON WAS REFORMED AND POWER WAS TAKEN FROM THE WHITE HOUSE, GIVEN TO CONGRESS, AND TAKEN FROM CONGRESSIONAL LEADERS AND GIVEN TO COMMITTEES AND SUBCOMMITTEE CHAIRS IS REGULAR MEMBERS.

SO POWER WAS DEMOCRATIZED.

TRUMP IS A REVERSAL FROM THAT.

TRUMP TOOK POWER BACK TO THE WHITE HOUSE.

HE REALIZED CORRECTLY THAT CONGRESS IS DYSFUNCTIONAL AND WOULD NOT PASS THE THINGS THAT HE WAS PROPOSING IN PART BECAUSE THE HOUSE AND SENATE ARE SO NARROWLY DIVIDED BETWEEN REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS.

BUT EITHER WAY, TRUMP REALIZED IN ORDER TO GET THINGS DONE BECAUSE HE'S AN IMPATIENT GUY, IN ORDER TO GET THINGS DONE QUICKLY, HE HAD TO DO THINGS HIMSELF.

SO HE STARTED BASICALLY GOVERNING THROUGH EXECUTIVE ORDER.

AN EXECUTIVE ORDER IS SOMETHING HE COULD SIGN THAT WOULD LAST THROUGH HIS ADMINISTRATION.

SO HE PASSED MORE EXECUTIVE ORDERS THAN ANYONE ELSE OR ANY MODERN PRESIDENT.

AND AS A RESULT OF THAT, IF COMPANIES WANTED SOMETHING, IT DIDN'T MATTER WHAT CONGRESS DID OR DIDN'T DO.

WHAT THEY NEEDED TO DO IS GET TO TRUMP, AND THE THING ABOUT TRUMP IS THAT BECAUSE HE WAS AN OUTSIDER WHEN HE WAS ELECTED, MOST OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY SUPPORTED OTHER CANDIDATES AND DID NOT WANT TRUMP TO WIN THE ELECTION.

NOT MANY PEOPLE KNEW HIM WHEN HE CAME TO D.C., BUT THE FEW PEOPLE WHO DID KNOW HIM BECAME LOBBYISTS AND BECAME FABULOUSLY WEALTHY BECAUSE OF THEIR ACCESS TO HIM.

>> ONE OF THE THINGS THAT YOU POINT OUT IS THAT IF FORMER PRESIDENT TRUMP BECOMES PRESIDENT AGAIN, PAUL MANAFORT STANDS TO BECOME ONE OF THE MOST INFLUENTIAL HUMANS ON THE PLANET.

WHY IS THAT?

>> YEAH, IT'S EXACTLY WHAT WE JUST SAID.

THERE'S ONLY A FEW PEOPLE WHO ARE CLOSE TO TRUMP.

TRUMP VALUES LOYALTY ABOVE ANYTHING ELSE, AND YOU KNOW, THERE'S ONE PERSON IN AMERICA WHO HAS GONE TO JAIL FOR DONALD TRUMP, AND THAT IS PAUL MA MANAFORT, AND PAUL MANAFORT WORKED FOR DONALD TRUMP'S FIRST CAMPAIGN.

HIS PLAN BACK THEN WAS TO START A LOBBYING FIRM HAD TRUMP WON.

INSTEAD HE GOT WRAPPED UP IN THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION, WAS SENT TO JAIL AND LATER PARDONED BY TRUMP.

MOST PEOPLE CONSIDER PAUL MANAFORT A BIG LOSER RIGHT NOW WHO'S BEEN CHEWED UP AND SPIT OUT BY WASHINGTON POLITICS.

IF TRUMP WINS, PAUL MANAFORT WILL BE BACK AND I THINK HE WILL BE PAID FOR HIS LOYALTY WITH TONS OF LOBBYING CONTRACTS FROM U.S. COMPANIES AND FOREIGN COMPANIES.

I THINK HE'LL BE THE MOST SUCCESSFUL LOBBYIST WE'VE EVER SEEN.

>> THESE RELATIONSHIPS NOW SEEM TO MATTER KIND OF MORE THAN EVER, AND IT SEEMS LIKE A SAD REFLECTION THAT AT THE SAME TIME SO MANY PEOPLE FEEL DISCONNECTED FROM THE POLITICAL PROCESS.

THEY DON'T FEEL LIKE THEIR VOICE COUNTS.

THEY DON'T FEEL LIKE THEIR VOTE COUNTS.

THEY DON'T FEEL LIKE THEIR IMPACT WOULD EVER BE ANYTHING MEANINGFUL ABOUT LEGISLATION OR POLICY, AND YET, YOU WERE POINTING OUT THAT THERE ARE THESE INDIVIDUALS WHO STILL HAVE FIGURED OUT HOW TO PEDDLE POWER.

>> THAT'S KIND OF ONE OF THE MAIN POINTS OF OUR BOOK.

THERE'S ESTABLISHMENT IN WASHINGTON, CORPORATE ELITE ESTABLISHMENT THAT BENEFITS WHETHER DEMOCRATS OR REPUBLICANS WIN.

NO MATTER WHO WINS THE NEXT ELECTION, CORPORATIONS WILL BE THE WINNER.

THEY'VE GOT THEIR HOOKS INTO BOTH POLITICAL PARTIES, BOTH PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES, AND THESE LOBBIES AND COMPANIES THEY EMPLOY REPUBLICAN LOBBYISTS AND DEMOCRAT LOBBYISTS.

IF TRUMP WIN THEY'LL REPORT THEIR REPUBLICAN LOBBIES, AND THOSE RELATIONSHIPS AND IF BIDEN WINS OR WHOEVER ELSE BECOMES THE NOMINEE, THEY'LL PROMOTE THEIR TRACK LOBBIES.

EITHER WAY THE COMPANIES THAT EMPLOY THEM WILL BE THE BIG WINNERS.

I FEEL LIKE THAT IS DISCONNECTING MANY PEOPLE FROM WASHINGTON, AND I DO THINK WE SEE AN INCREASING NUMBER OF POPULIST REPUBLICANS THESE DAYS, SORT OF ANTIESTABLISHMENT REPUBLICANS LIKE JOSH HAWLEY IN MISSOURI AND J.D.

VANCE FROM OHIO WHO ARE SAYING, HEY, THIS SYSTEM IS RIGGED, AND THEY'RE FIGHTING OUT AGAINST SOME OF THESE BIG COMPANIES AND THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE ACTUALLY BECAUSE THEY'RE SAYING THE SYSTEM IS RIGGED.

THESE BIG COMPANIES CAN AFFORD TO HIRE THESE LOBBYISTS TO MAKE THESE CAMPAIGN DONATIONS AND TO COME TO WASHINGTON AND CHANGE THE RULES AND REGULATIONS TO HELP BIG COMPANIES AT THE EXPENSE OF EVERYONE ELSE.

>> THE BOOK IS CALLED "THE WOLVES OF K STREET: THE SECRET HISTORY OF HOW BIG MONEY TOOK OVER BIG GOVERNMENT," BRODY MULLINS, THANKS SO MUCH.

>> THANKS FOR HAVING ME.