reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Senator Biden acknowledges the corrupting influence of money in politics, stating that running for office requires significant funds from wealthy donors who expect something in return. He highlights the challenge of raising money without compromising his values. Despite being a young candidate, he was able to attract attention and funding, but was told to come back when older. This reflects the systemic issue of money influencing politics.

I believe in raising money from patriotic Americans, not from lobbyists and special interests who have weakened our government and burdened future generations. I prefer funding my political operation through small contributions from hardworking Americans, rather than attending fundraisers with lobbyists.

It's ironic that there's suddenly an issue with successful businessmen in politics when the other side supports numerous wealthy individuals like George Soros and Taylor Swift. This feels disingenuous. The Republican Party, under Trump, has a clear mandate from voters who have rejected the opposing party's policies, including open borders, a struggling economy, and controversial social issues. Voters have turned away from these ideas and embraced our party instead.

I have never received any money from any foreign source in my entire life. It has come to our attention that the current president has paid significantly more taxes in China, possesses a hidden bank account in China, conducts business in China, and has made claims about me accepting money. However, I want to clarify that I have never accepted any money from any country at any time.

Speaker 0 suggests Trump's history of targeting businesses and leaders who he perceives as political enemies should make him "radioactive" to the business world. Speaker 1 notes that, with the exception of Elon Musk, few CEOs of large companies publicly support Trump, fearing retribution. Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 to elaborate on a statement that some business leaders support Trump because they believe they can manipulate him. Speaker 1 explains that these leaders see the relationship as transactional, believing they can influence policy with the right amount of money, citing crypto as an example.

The speaker stated that they think it's ridiculous to suggest President Trump is acting for his own benefit. They claim he left a life of luxury and a successful real estate empire for public service, not just once, but twice, and the American public reelected him because they trust he acts in the country's best interest. The speaker asserted that Trump has lost money being president. They don't recall similar questions being asked of the previous president, a career politician who was allegedly profiting off the office. The speaker maintains that President Trump does not do this, and the White House holds itself to the highest ethical standards.

The speaker claims they were offered $20,000,000 to withdraw from the senatorial race and run against Rashida Tlaib. They assert the pro Israel lobby will go to any length to remove anyone from U.S. Congress who opposes their agenda and their total unequivocal support for Israel, good, bad, or indifferent. The speaker emphasizes that money should not be the main catalyst for getting people elected, arguing that the pro Israel lobby uses money as its primary tool to threaten politicians. They state that the lobby will spend money against or for politicians to influence outcomes. The speaker urges Americans to elect people who truly represent their values and not those with special interests. They conclude by addressing APEC, saying, "APEC, keep your money in."

Speaker 1 was approached with an offer to pause their political activity, but Speaker 1 is offended, viewing it as an attempt to buy them out of running and a reflection of others' lack of concern for the country. Speaker 1 believes this is about preventing them from winning and defeating Trump, which they see as bad for the country. Speaker 0 suggests it may not be about Trump, but about Speaker 1. Speaker 1 refuses to be bought at any price, stating they are not going to let people who hate the country tell them not to run. Speaker 1 intends to be a "pain" to those trying to stop them and is willing to fight, even if it means risking their life. Speaker 1 urges Speaker 0 to tell them to get behind their campaign. Speaker 1 believes the "swamp" doesn't pre-approve of them because they would root out corruption.

Speaker 0 emphasizes the importance of contributing to organizations that can turn good intentions into positive changes. Speaker 1 discusses a troubling story involving Ericsson, a Swedish telecom company. In 2009 and 2010, Ericsson faced trouble with Hillary Clinton's state department for selling telecom equipment to oppressive governments like Iran and Belarus. There were efforts to impose sanctions on such technologies. However, Ericsson hired Bill Clinton to give a speech for $750,000. Shortly after, Hillary's state department decided not to broaden sanctions, benefiting Ericsson greatly. They avoided regulatory battles, lucrative contracts were preserved, and diplomatic problems were averted. When asked if he will continue giving speeches, Bill Clinton affirms that he needs to pay his bills.

He wants to appear tough, but it's easy to take advantage of vulnerable people, like an elderly woman. Many in the audience are donors and special interests, which affects their support. The RNC has confirmed that the audience is filled with donors, and the lack of enthusiasm for me stems from my refusal to accept their money. I prioritize doing what's right for the American public over financial contributions. I'm the only one here committed to saving the country without relying on donations.

Senator Biden acknowledges that corruption exists in the system, as running for office requires significant funding from wealthy donors who may expect favors in return. Despite facing pressure to compromise his principles for money, he was fortunate to have few large contributors. He admits that the system can lead politicians to question their integrity in pursuit of financial support.

You don't want RK Jr suing big pharma, right? Check my website; I don’t accept contributions from big pharma executives or corporate PAC money. You and your allies are already aware of this.

The speaker talks about being tough and how it doesn't always work. They mention property theft from an elderly woman and the influence of donors and special interests. The speaker claims that they don't want or need the money from these groups and that they will do what's right for the American public.

I believe in asking patriotic Americans to contribute to this fight, rather than relying on lobbyists and special interests who have hollowed out this town and burdened future generations. I prefer funding my political operation through hardworking Americans, with donations of $10, $20, or $30 at a time. Those who attend lobbyists' fundraisers should see how that works out for them.

I don't accept contributions from big pharma executives or corporate PAC money. You and your allies are aware of this.

I don't require money, campaign contributions, lobbyists, or special interests. All I need is to do what's right for the country.

Almost all panel members, including you, are accepting significant contributions from the pharmaceutical industry. I ran for president too and received substantial contributions, but they did not come from executives. Out of 200 million, I received 1.5 million. You still haven't answered my last question.

The speakers discuss a potential offer to buy Speaker 1 out of the governor's race. Speaker 1 is offended by the offer and expresses his commitment to running for the betterment of Arizona and the country. Speaker 0 suggests that the offer is a recognition of Speaker 1's power and offers a counter proposal. Speaker 1 refuses to be bought and emphasizes his dedication to the people and his refusal to let those who dislike the country dictate his actions. The conversation ends with Speaker 1 expressing hope for his case and his intention to fight against corruption.

Senator Biden acknowledges that the system can produce corruption, even though he personally may not be corrupt. He explains that running for public office requires a significant amount of money, and candidates often have to seek funding from wealthy individuals who expect something in return. This puts politicians in a position where they may compromise their ideals to secure the necessary funds. Senator Biden admits that he didn't have many large contributors and was willing to compromise himself, but the big donors told him to come back when he was older.

The conversation centers on whether political opponents or powerful interests would buy off or influence a candidate, and what that would mean for a political race and the country. Speaker 0 questions if a price exists to “be bought,” and both eventually reject money as the primary issue, insisting the matter is about the country itself. They discuss the idea that fresh faces are needed because no one in a federal race has ever lost and then won, though Speaker 0 contests that notion as a possibility. They reference powerful people in the East who want to keep the candidate out and are willing to spend heavily, making the conversation forbidden and not to be repeated. A fear is expressed that someone might be offered financial incentives, such as being placed on a payroll to be kept out of the race. They acknowledge the presence of entities willing to “put their money where their mouth is” and the risk that they would “murder” or eliminate opponents to stop certain candidates, describing a dangerous political landscape. The dialogue shifts to the cartel and corruption, with mentions that “the cartel is operating in 50 states,” though details about who knows what are avoided. They discuss the strategy of staying on “the team” of those who want to influence the race, suggesting creditors or backers aim to control the candidate’s actions and align them with a globalist agenda. There is insistence that the person should not “scratch their back” for others in Washington, viewing DC as a “back scratching club.” Speaker 1 argues that defeating Trump is a central aim, claiming that DeSantis is not America first and that removing Trump would be a dangerous outcome for the country. Speaker 0 expresses support for Trump but questions whether he can win again, suggesting the real issue is money and the ability to raise funds to win. They note that consultants benefit from a continuing cycle of money and that those consultants do not want their payday to end. A key sentiment is resistance to being controlled or owned, with Speaker 1 declaring he will not accept backroom deals and will be “the biggest pain” to those trying to control him. They discuss public support and the importance of defending their movement and the people of Arizona, stressing a commitment to carry their torch and voice. The dialogue ends with a defiant vow to continue, even if it risks dangerous retaliation, and a readiness to persevere rather than pause on the battlefield.

The speaker is asked about polling data that suggests a majority of Americans, including Democrats, believe they acted illegally or unethically regarding their family's business interests. The speaker denies these allegations, stating that they did not interact with their son and brother's foreign business associates. They dismiss the claims as lies.

Pharmaceutical companies spend three times more on lobbying than the next largest lobbyist. This issue was considered radioactive, but President Trump addressed it despite past contributions from pharmaceutical companies, which may have totaled $100,000,000. Unlike other politicians, Trump cannot be bought and is standing up for the American people. Despite claims from figures like Elizabeth Warren and Robert Reich that President Trump is on the side of the oligarchs, no president has been more willing to stand up to them than President Donald Trump. The speaker expressed pride in the President's courage and willingness to stand up for the American people.

Pharmaceutical companies spend three times more on lobbying than the next largest lobbyist. While many discussed the issue, nobody acted due to its controversial nature. President Trump, described as a man of his word, is willing to stand up to the oligarchs, unlike most politicians who can be bought. Despite allegedly receiving $100,000,000 from the pharmaceutical industry, Trump cannot be bought. The speaker praises President Trump for his courage and willingness to stand up for the American people.

I believe in asking patriotic Americans to contribute to this fight, rather than relying on lobbyists and special interests who have hollowed out this town and burdened future generations. I prefer funding my political operation through the support of hardworking Americans, even if it means receiving smaller donations of 10, 20, or 30 dollars. Those who attend lobbyist fundraisers can see how that works out for them.

I'm going to be the bad guy and I want to get away with as much as possible to enrich myself. You're all my co-conspirators helping me legally. My campaign is entirely funded by corporate PACs, like those from the fossil fuel, healthcare, and big pharma industries. I can even use dark money to pay off people to cover up skeletons. Once elected, I have the power to shape laws without limits. Being funded by oil and gas or big pharma means I can write laws benefiting them without restrictions. I want to get rich, so I can hold stocks in an oil company and then write laws to deregulate the industry, causing the stock value to soar. Does this sound familiar? Our system is broken, with these influences shaping the questions being asked right now.