 Hi folks, I'm here with Jason Kahl running in the second congressional district in Washington State and he is back to talk about his campaign. He's running once again for Congress. Jason, welcome to the program. Thanks so much for having me on the show, Mike. It's really great to be back. Always glad to talk to you. I've got to ask, so I've been asking this question to everyone who chose to run for Congress twice. What made you want to do it? Because I would never want to run once, let alone twice. So this is a lot of work. It's probably exhausting. What made you do it? Well, first of all, it is exhausting. I have almost no free time and I get almost no sleep. I've got teenagers. I work full time and then I'm trying to do and I'm also involved in a number of activist issues still because that's just my history over the last 30 years and now running a campaign again. But you know, there's a few reasons. I would say first we did really well the first time around. We got almost 35,000 votes for what was essentially a no name campaign. We raised about $53,000 total and we got, you know, I want to say, you know, without having actually crunched the numbers, we got more bang for our buck in terms of votes than almost any other progressive in the primary running in 2020. You know, Washington is a top two primary state. I think California, Washington and maybe Louisiana, the only states that do this top two primary, which means, you know, I can be on the ballot next to the incumbent. So in all of the states that have a separate Democrat and Republican primary, you're going to end up with the top Democrat against the top Republican. And Democrats will typically say in those situations, well, we want to keep the incumbent because the incumbent has already proven that they can beat the Republican. But in Washington or in California, we can actually push the Republican off the ballot. You know, I wouldn't, you know, I haven't enough humility and reality about the situation to say I'm not going to beat Rick Larson in the primary. But if I get that second spot, then the voters of this district get to have a policy conversation that for 20 years they have not been allowed to have. And that's really what this is about. We're at the confluence of multiple crises in this country, economic, certainly environmental, healthcare. And, you know, we've got these corporate Democrats who are, you know, just they're performative on so many issues. They're in the tank for their corporate donors. I mean, Rick Larson is one of 53 Democrats whose majority corporate PAC funded. He's deep in the pockets of the military industrial complex and the fossil fuel industry. And I think the voters of this district have voted for him as have I. I mean, I voted for him in the past because he's been the Democrat on the ballot and I'm not going to vote for a Republican. You know, but it's more like a Democrat by default vote rather than really feeling like I'm voting for somebody who represents my interest. So we can have that policy conversation, you know, and force him into a debate on issues. I really think we can win this race because I think this is progressive district. Yeah. And you have the experience now you've been in activist circles you've kind of tried to build up your credibility with local party officials and whatnot. It feels like this time is different like I feel like you have a better chance this time around and I know that you feel the same way to explain what makes this race different and kind of what you learned after running the first time. Well, you know, I we have to we have to make some better inroads into the local Democratic Party organization. I mean, I was you know, Washington's second district is and I know that saying something like that is kind of anathema to a lot of the leftist out there. But I want to talk about the reality of politics and what the electorate is like, because you know, the left on social media is not the same as the electorate in your district. And I think a lot of times that gets confused. So while I hold those values, those progressive values, I'm not going to take any corporate PAC money, you know, I'm going to stand up to Democratic Party leadership. The reality is that we do need support from Democratic Party organizations. So there are 14 local, I mean, we'll know what happens with redistricting here in another week, I think. But there are 14 local party Democratic Party organizations that are intersectional with the second congressional district. We got five counties, we got nine legislative districts, all of those organizations endorse. And so when those endorsements come through and we got seven out of 14 last time around, I think people were very surprised that one, we got as many endorsements as we did. But two, we ended up getting as many votes as we did. My name was at the bottom of the ballot of eight. Rick Larson has 20 years of name recognition, and we still got within 1% of the primary vote for being on the ballot. So I think that these local Democratic Party organizations, even though they know I am challenging the establishment of the Democratic Party, there are enough people within those organizations that recognize that we have to do better than the status quo. And I think that's really what gives us a good boost now is we've had Biden in office for 10 months. And what have we seen? We've seen Democrats fighting with Democrats and not getting the policies passed that we need to get passed. And I got to tell you, the incumbent that I'm running against, although he mouths the words, I'm a progressive, I'm grassroots, the fact is his voting history is extremely conservative. We actually went through the American Conservative Union, which is the premier Republican slash conservative organization in the country. They are the people that host CPAC every year. And they have rankings of their Democrats in terms of, you know, have they voted in alignment with the way we would have wanted people to vote. Well, over his 20 year career history, Rick Larson comes out about the 36th most conservative Democrat out of what we got 230 in Congress. He's the 36th most conservative. He's like, what is that 84th percentile? I think it worked out to in terms of his voting history alignment with the American Conservative Union. I don't think that the voters in this district, one, they're not aware of that, but two, that's not their values. So when we're talking about voters in this district voting their values, I am far more aligned with the actual Democratic Party stated platform than the incumbent is. Yeah, I like that you express the importance of really building up relationships with local organizations, even the Democratic Party locally, because that is how you kind of win them over. That doesn't necessarily mean that you are sacrificing your principles. And for people who followed you over the years, there's no way anyone could say that you're like some establishment sellout. You are a true fighter. And one thing that I like about you is that if you were to be elected, I know that you would actually be a real fighter. I wanted to ask you about that in terms of the squad and progressives. Can you share your thoughts on the build back better slash so called bipartisan infrastructure negotiations and what you would have done differently because there's a lot of people who have different thoughts about this but I think that just like based on what I've seen collectively leftists are disappointed with most of the congressional progressive caucus. So what are your thoughts on that? Well, I would say first of all, I would have been one of those people, the squad and you notice that it's all the members of the squad who voted no on that I would have been with them. I really want to, you know, this is another thing about about left wing social media and sort of the reality of politics and there's been a lot of sniping at the squad and I get it. I mean, AOC has said some things that I do not like things that I would not say. And I would challenge her on those things but in sort of a big picture way, she's one of the people who stood up and voted no on this because one, we know that conservative Democrats are not negotiating in good faith. I mean, that's really what it comes down to. So when we look about talk about Pramila Jayapal as leader of the progressive caucus, I want to be careful because, you know, I don't want to act like I'm trying to take her down a peg or not but I'm disappointed in her leadership, you know, and I'm disappointed with the progressive caucus as a whole. There are something like 95 members of the progressive caucus. And if you look through that list, you know, there's a lot of crossover with the new Democrats. Well, the new Democrats are a free trade coalition, you know, and that's what I'm running against. I mean, Rick Larson is a member of the new Democrats. He's chair of the Aviation Committee and Transportation. He's been a career member of the House Armed Services Committee. Majority funded by corporate PACs takes a ton of military industrial complex and fossil fuel industry. Now he's claiming in his emails that he's grassroots progressive. He's not part of the progressive PAC, but take somebody like Adam Smith who is chair of armed services and who was a member of the new Democrats coalition. Why are they letting these people into the progressive caucus? It muddies the waters on what progressive means. So I'm glad that the sixth stood up to the build back better. The build back better is wholly insufficient to the needs of the time. The climate provisions in there alone are 7% of the military budget taken annually. And I don't understand how how Pramila Jayapal can get out there and talk about the build back better act being transformative. You know, it wasn't even transformative at 3.5 trillion. It was transformative at the 10 trillion it started and maybe the 6 trillion that it got cut down to. But once you start knocking it down to 3.5 trillion and then take it down, it's not transformative after that. And journalist Ryan Cooper actually wrote a really good article about the insufficiency of the climate provisions and saying, you know, putting an insufficient amount with not a great plan towards climate is actually worse than just tanking the whole thing right now going back to the drawing board and saying this is what we need and this is what we're going to stand firm on. So that's my problem. I mean, we get this build back better. I've said this for for months now we get this insufficient bill passed. And the next time that we go to try and get better climate provisions, we're going to have the majority conservative. You know, we're going to have the Republicans and the conservative Democrats coming at us and saying, we already did climate. What are you talking about? Why are you coming back at us for more climate money? We already did climate. We already did health care. We already did infrastructure. And and and that is the real danger of passing something that's insufficient is like where do we go from here, because they're not going to want to they're going to want not going to want to do anymore. Yeah. On that note, I wanted to ask you basically about something that you would have crucial insight into this might be an online left thing but one thing that has concerned me is kind of this disillusionment with electoralism among the left for good reason. I mean, we had India Walton lose Nina Turner lose and then I see a lot of dissatisfaction with the way that the squad not necessarily the squad but the progressive caucus more broadly speaking handled build back better. And one thing that has concerned me is that this is going to suppress, you know, support for new leftists running for Congress such as yourself. Now I think that probably that's mostly online and people in your district don't follow this as closely and you can kind of come in on that. But at the same time, I haven't really seen that on my channel every week I'll talk to a new progressive running for Congress. And there's been a lot of enthusiasm, and I didn't think that that would be the case maybe more enthusiasm than in 2020. So what are you seeing like our people feeling dissatisfied or is this kind of just in our own online, you know, echo chamber talk. I think, you know, yeah, again, what happens online and what happens in the reality of elect electorate are not always the same thing. I think that there is more lack of enthusiasm for electoralism online than there is in the general public but I mean, let's face it. The voter turnout was in the midterms was abysmal. I actually went out to Cleveland for 10 days to help with Nina Turner's campaign the last 10 days of her race I was on the ground they're knocking doors in Cleveland for her. And in the end they had something like 1617% turnout in this special election. That's abysmal. I mean, if you think about it, Nina Turner got about the same number of votes as I did in my first run. Well, I had 13% of the electorate. She was almost 45% of the electorate with her votes. I mean, just as a comparison of turnout in the Cleveland area, compared to here in Washington. But in this last election just the midterms now the the what is it the off the off season right between the congressional and the presidential right you've got your offer. We had, you know, like 25% turnout. That's just generally bad. I think it would be better in 2022. But but I do I do worry that a lot of the people who I need for my for my success, that is young people, you know, people who are who are in the 18 to 29 range where my policies are going to be the ones that are working best for their future. I need to convince them that I'm worth paying attention to and I'm worth showing up for if I can get that segment, which only voted from what I can tell in terms of eligible voters, versus who actually voted. I mean, it was under 10% of that age group actually voted in the most recent November elections. And so I've got to increase that turnout. Now, the 65 and over, they vote better than 50% every time. And so it's, it's a conundrum where you say, you know, we could win this thing if we have the turnout, you know, from the younger populations. And then trying to try to sort of play that off with, well, we keep showing up for these people, and then they don't turn around and show up for us. And so I think that's what we're going back to like, if the progressives aren't fighting as hard for us as we have elected them to do, what is the point of showing up. And so where I think we are right now is I think the people who are running in 2022 as a and ran last year in 2020, as opposed to the vote to the ones who got elected in 2018 the current squad. I think we're coming in with sort of a different recognition of how hard we need to fight when we actually get to Congress. So people asked me about the whole force the vote issue one, I didn't think force the vote was great strategy. I think it was kind of cobbled together very quickly and then blew up into this online thing of you've got to do this. I was like, I don't see any of the squad voting against Nancy Pelosi right now. But if you want to know where I would be on that issue, I wouldn't vote for Nancy Pelosi just on principle, you know, and I think that's what people are looking for. Yeah, yeah, absolutely. There's there's a lot that needs to be fixed right now. I mean, we know the policies I think that all of my viewers, they're familiar with you enough to know that you have a great platform. But what I want to talk about is the barriers that are stopping us from actually getting what we need accomplished. And this, this is really big picture. It's it's difficult but I mean out of all the things. I think we need institutional reform, you know, I would stack the Supreme Court abolish the Senate or turn it into some ceremonial institution. We need electoral reform. I think that first pass the post, you know, winner take all this this two party system is absolutely not helping us get adequate representation. I think we need campaign finance reform because basically what it comes down to is if you have more money, most times you're going to win. What would be the main thing that you focus on if you had to prioritize one of these really broad institutional changes because I think that all of them are needed but I just don't know which one to focus on first. I kind of campaign finance but it is and I've said this a long time when people say what are my top three issues. Okay, so Medicare for all and the Green New Deal. Those are top issues but when my third issue and it's really the all encompassing issue is campaign finance reform. We have got to get corporate money out of politics. My the incumbent I'm running against raises a million dollars, you know, and he doesn't he doesn't even have to call these these, you know, he doesn't even have to call Boeing up Boeing, Amazon, you know, Lockheed Martin. They're going to be dropping money in his coffers because they know they're going to get something forward in return. I'm not seeking out corporate PAC money, you know, and they wouldn't donate to me anyway because they know that I'm highly oppositional to corporate control of our government. But that really is the issue. We have these these, you know, we've got Citizens United. That is a tough nut to crack. But expanding the Supreme Court stack in the Supreme Court would immediately we'd be able to one secure, you know, any assaults on Roe versus Wade, but we also be able to overturn Citizens United. So the dark money is an issue. And it's interesting because the Democrats, even the my opponent talks about how terrible Citizens United is, but he benefits hugely from it. You know, I mean, that's that's just the reality. So again, it's mouthing the words without actually really being invested in changing that policy. But campaign finance reform. We have not seen a campaign finance reform bill since since McCain fine gold back in 1992, I think it was 30 years without anybody bringing anything about campaign finance reform to the table. And I think that that's something that progressive caucus should be doing. And even if it won't pass, and this is the same for anything, this is the same for Medicare for all, even if it won't pass, you keep bringing it to the table and you keep focusing attention on it. You know, because I think this country, Republican Democrat alike, the rank and file voters know we've got a ton of corruption in Washington DC. The easiest way to get rid of it is just to ban those corporate PAC contributions outright. Yeah, yeah, absolutely. I think that's important. And I feel like unless we get campaign finance reform and get money out of politics, you're not really going to have an easy time passing anything. I mean, we're seeing it in action right now trying to push through that with build back better. And it's just being gutted. At the time that I'm filming this, there's a Newsweek article about how mansion is considering not voting for build back better shocker, because of inflation when we know that that's not the case. He is taking money from the fossil fuel industry. Kyrsten Sinema saying things. She was against, you know, the pharmaceutical negotiation provision and build back better. And it's because she's being bankrolled by big farmers. So I feel like unless you really change the system itself, you're not going to get meaningful legislation. You'll kind of see nibbling around the edges from time to time, but these things can be easily undone with the new administration via executive order. And it's just, it's really frustrating. It's nice. Go ahead. I'll just say mansion and mansion and Sinema are kind of like the poster children for this corporate corruption. But what I think what a lot of rank and file Democrats don't understand is they are providing cover for your shitty rep. Exactly. I think my Washington state senators, Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell are both deep in the pot. I mean Patty Murray's taken a million dollars from Pharma over her career. They both voted in 2017 along with Cory Booker and, you know, a dozen other Senate Democrats to ban the re-imputation of drugs from Canada. This was where Bernie was saying I can take my people up to Canada and we can go get cheap drugs right across the border. Why is it that we can't have it come in the other way? We've got Democrats. It's not just mansion and Sinema. You know, we've got an identified cadre of really conservative Democrats like, you know, Tom Carper and Chris Coons and Delaware, Maggie Hussain in New Hampshire. But where is that? Is that Maggie Hussain, Jeannie Sheehan? Anyway, they're all the same. They're identified as being conservative. But if you look at the Senate, how many actual progressive champions do we have in the Senate at all? We've got Bernie Sanders. We occasionally have Elizabeth Warren, depending upon what the issue is. And we've got nobody else, right? So we've got 48 Democrats who I don't think we can count on at all, but mansion and Sinema are providing cover for a lot of them. And I think that's what Democrat, you know, the Democratic rank and file need to wake up for, up to. And it's the same thing. They're providing cover for Democrats in the House. So the Democrats in the House can vote for Bill back better. And they can say, yeah, we're pushing Biden's agenda knowing that mansion and Sinema are going to tank it in the Senate. So, you know, you know, I mean, that's why it's important, like even the sixth that we have in the squad and we need to expand that, they've got to be voting against these bills and then go into the public and explaining exactly why they voted against them. And I think that's a problem with progressives. They don't talk to the public enough about why they're making the votes that they're making. Yeah. And you're kind of touching on a really important thing that I've been thinking about a lot lately and that is marketing. I think that as right as we are on the policies because we have facts and data on our side, we're not good at convincing people of that. And maybe it's because, you know, the left doesn't have big money to get that message out more effectively. We've been successful at Medicare for all. I've convinced many people in my personal life to support Medicare for all. But overall, I think that if I can make a constructive critique of the left, it's that we suck at marketing. We don't know how to sell our message. And that's something that extends to Democrats as well. What do you think we're like, what's a constructive criticism of the left overall that you would make that you think we should really be more introspective about and possibly change areas of opportunity if we want to be polite. Now, when you say the left, are we talking about the online activist left? Are we talking about the progressives in Congress left? I brought him that out. I'd say all of the left overall, like if there's this underlying issue that the progressive in Congress deal with and the online left grassroots activists. If there's one thing that kind of we're all weak at specifically, what do you think that is? Because I do think marketing is probably the answer that I'd go with. I would say the other thing in marketing is terrible and Democrats are terrible at messaging in general. They always have been. But I would say for the people who are left of the Democratic Party, I would say, you know, as anathema as this might be because a lot of people want to push for third parties. We are not in a third party system and we won't be until we get changes in our voting and get ranked towards voting. And people can vote sort of outside of this fear voting where like, oh, I want to make sure I'm voting for the Democrat who's going to beat the Republican rather than, you know, let's let's vote for the one that we all really want to support. I would say to get involved in your local Democratic Party. I ran a push and it's horrible for me. I feel badly saying that because I know what a shit show the Democratic Party is because I have engaged with the Democratic Party for the last 30 years. But the reason the left does not get any traction within the Democratic Party is because people are like, I'm just not going to engage with them. They're terrible. They're corrupt. So I can hold two thoughts in my head at once. Yes, the Democratic Party is terrible. It's corrupt. Yes, if enough of us get in there who are willing to fight the system, we could actually take it over and we can make a difference in terms of endorsing progressive candidates and making sure that we're raising money for those progressive candidates. We have in Washington a very progressive platform at the state level, and I know because I helped write it when I was a member of the Washington State Democrat Central Committee. Right. But we cannot get progressive candidates elected unless we're willing to have those people on the ground in their districts within the Democratic Party, you know, voting for those endorsements, making sure that people are getting elected to the to the state committee who are progressive, making sure that the state party itself is, you know, has a progressive chair and a progressive executive board. All of those things are within reach. If the people who are just like no, no, get away would say, okay, I'm going to give this a try, it's going to take sustained effort. Right. Are you willing to commit to this to two years, four years, six years and see how it plays out. That would be the thing that would be my message, you know, hate the Democratic Party. Get involved with the Democratic Party because that's what's on the table. That's the reality of what is on the table right now. Jill Stein pulled 0.7% in 2016. And I don't even remember what the numbers were for the Green Party in 2020. I don't think it was even that. So this idea that we can push third party right now with our voting constraints, I just don't think it's realistic. But I can go to every state and look at their sort of platform, their rules, regulations and bylaws. And I can say, here's how it can happen. I mean, Washington State would be hugely easy. It's just a matter of getting the bodies to do it. Yeah, I think it's really important that you say that because when we think about taking over the Democratic Party, people think about how difficult that is nationally with, you know, the National Democratic Party. But at the state level, at the local level, it is different. You can make a difference. I'm hearing an echo. I'm not sure if you can hear that too. I'll just push through. Basically, what I wanted to say is that I hate the Democratic Party and I don't like the two-party system. And that's why I've been pushing for years to have people try to support HR4000, which is a bill that would actually move us towards proportional representation. And for me, I was the supporter of Jill Stein in 2016. And it was because I thought that if we have this opportunity right now with Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump and I live in a safe blue state, there's nothing, you know, there's no risk in trying to get the Greens to 5% to see if they could get federal funding. But the reality is that people just are not going to go for that. So we can't just by sheer force of will get a third party to a viable state. We have to get electoral reform first. And that's what I really want progressives and leftists to acknowledge. I love that you said that because, you know, you can you can try to take over your own state's Democratic Party and enact electoral reform in your state to make third parties viable to change the system. But it's tough and it's a really complex and complicated endeavor. I studied electoral institutions in grad school and even if you change the system and you think it's going to yield multiple parties, sometimes it doesn't. There are examples of this in Japan, for example. But, you know, I just look at what happened in the main Senate race. I mean, how many millions of dollars did did the Democratic Party dump into Sarah Gideon's race? So even though Maine had ranked choice voting, we still could not overcome the sheer volume of corporate money that Democrats threw at Sarah Gideon. And, you know, what did Betsy sweet get? She got, I mean, it was less than 10%. So it's ranked choice voting in conjunction with getting rid of corporate money in conjunction with, you know, pulling the Democratic Party to be a more progressive party. But, you know, I would say that for somebody like myself, if I were to get elected or I should say when I get elected, you know, it will be a goal of mine to make it easier for third parties to establish themselves. You know, I grew up in England and I am used to, you know, I grew up being used to, you know, multi-party representation as they have through most of Europe, where people feel like they can vote for somebody that actually represents them. And then you have to do some coalition building to get any real legislation passed. But what we have here in the United States with two corporate-owned parties is anytime you get something that's bipartisan, the only reason it's bipartisan is because the corporations that are backing both parties are agreeing on it. So bipartisan in America is a dirty word in my opinion because it means the general public is getting screwed. And our system right now is so fundamentally broken that I feel like even if we somehow got a third or a fourth party, that would just be corrupted by capitalism as well. We saw what big money did to the Democratic Party, which was once, you know, a party of the working people. So I feel like what you're saying here, this message of getting involved is really important because even if you kind of feel hopeless, which I think a lot of people feel right now, getting involved locally, it really does make a meaningful difference in your life. So, you know, I feel like most of my viewers are already on board. So now I want you to tell us how do we help you get elected because we need you in Congress desperately. Do you need phone bankers? Do you need canvassers, donations? Tell us what you need because we need you. Right now, right now, I need money. I mean, aggressive fundraising is terrible. And most of the time that I spend on my campaign right now is calling phone lists of people who are, you know, maybe progressive and maybe have donated in the past. You know, we've got these, you know, phone lists that are all the candidates have and basically we're out there trying to sell our message for people who we think might give us some money. And sometimes it works, but most of the time I'm leaving voice messages and so fundraising is really a struggle. But, you know, I need staff. I need printed materials. I've got a guy, I mean, I'm hoping to raise $2,000 like in the next week or so so that I can hire a guy because one of the things with progressive campaigns is unless we are fundraising, we can't pay staff. And I don't want, as a labor guy and as a union guy, I don't want people working for me for free. You know, so we're running on it. We're running on a skeleton crew right now because we can't afford to pay more people. But everything, honestly, everything starts with money and I'm not talking about the million dollars that Rick Larson has taken in. You know, I'm talking like, can we get to a couple hundred thousand dollars? If we can get to a couple hundred, three hundred thousand dollars in fundraising, I'll be able to pay the people to do the work for me, to pay the materials, to keep our tech going. Like I said, I got $2,000 I want to raise in the next week or so so that I can hire a guy who's going to do some Facebook ads for me, some targeted Facebook ads for me. But I'm not going to ask him to do the work and then say, oh, I can't pay you on the back end or whatever. So, I mean, that's really what it comes down to. It's going to be fundraising, fundraising, fundraising, you know. And we're not, until we can do that, we can't really get out on the streets and hit the district. And I'm hoping we can do that by January. But, you know, I hate to say it, man, money, money, money. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I don't think it's a surprise to any of my viewers. You know, it's nine times out of ten. If you have money, you win. You know, if you raise more money than your opponent, you end up winning. So, absolutely. I don't think that's shocking at all. Well, Jason, thank you so much. Running in Washington's Second Congressional District. We are absolutely rooting for you. And of course, we'll be in touch. I'm sure. Callforcongress.com and all my socials are called for Congress. F-O-R, not the number four. Mike, it's been a pleasure talking with you again. And hopefully we end up with some good news when the primary rolls around in August. One of the things that I wanted to say just as a quick wrap up here is I personally am donating $5 a month to ten different candidates or all progressive candidates. And if every progressive could just take $50, spread it out between ten people, you know, we're all running on shoestring budgets right now. So, you know, that's one way to approach the fundraising game is pick your ten favorites, give them $5 a month. You know, honestly, if everybody who was following me on Twitter was willing to do that, progressive candidates would be funded. I like that. That's a really great idea, actually. All right. Well, thank you so much. Appreciate it, Jason. All right. Take care, Mike.