>> good evening from los angeles. tonight was the most expensive midterm election in the his e history of this country. nearly $4 billion and counting with president of public sit zep about the long overdue need for campaign finance reform who actually led the charge for a constitutional amendment to get unrestricted money out of politics, an amendment just last month was backed by the majority of senators, however, that was still two-thirds short of needing to pass. the latest movie, kill the messenger,but e put the spotlight on the media. the details by gary web back in 1995 which laid out a connection between the cia contra in nicaragua and the explosion of crack cocaine in our inner

cities. we invite you to join us right now. >> and! by contributions to you pbs station by viewers like you. thank you.

>> consider what someone could do with $4 billion, which is what was forked over to make sure that derek's candidates win in next week's election. $4 billion has made this the most expensive election in the history of this nation. president of public citizens, working to get money out of the electoral fund. it's undermining our very democracy. first off, thanks for your work. >> great to be with you. >> how is this problem continuing to get worse and worse and worse as numbers continue to bear out andotup exponentially grow. >> we had a bad situation before 2010. that was the case where the court said corporations and the super-rich could spend whatever they wanted. after that decision, it's gotten dramatically worse. and it's going to keep getting worse until we do something about it.

>> for those on the floor right now who shall remain nameless, now who u$e comment as you ss, were walking in, money is in our pockets. it ain't going anywhere. i will call his name, brian, there are a lot of people like brian who feel the same way. that the cesspool of money and politics have become so bad, we real hi can't get the money out of our pockets. . >> i think that's actually the trigger for reform. it's getting so bad and everybody knows it, we have to do something about it. all the things we care about doing politically, at the federal level, sometimes even the local level, the school board level, are not going to be able to deal with all of this money. provide health care for all, invest in our country, in our schools. none of those things are really going to happen until we deal with this problem. >> so how does the money, then, get in the way? >> if you've got billionaires and corporations buying politicians, effectively, that's who those people owe their allegiance to and they're going to carry out the corporate class. >> most american people will never have the kind of cash that

the corporations or the elite have. how, then, do the american people who don't have that kind of capital exercise their agency? >> we're going to have to replace the system. overturn other supreme court cases that have made it possible for the rich and corporations to spend so much money. and then we're going to replace the current system with the system of public financing so that we, the people, pay for elections through small donors and politicians owe their wt allegiance to us, not to the big-money donors. >> so you know, as well as i do, any boot leg constitutional scholar knows that a constitutional amend. e is the most difficult thing, by design. an amendment to the constitution is the most difficult thing that we're left with. that's basically all we're left with.

we'll come to congress in just a second. why do you think there's even a chance, a hope, a prayer, that a constitutional amendment can be passed on this issue? >> the first thing is that we need it. let's just acknowledge that we need it. what the court has said is that we can't limit the spending of corporations and the super-rich. that the only reason we can legitimate impose restrictions on campaign spending is to avoid quid pro quo corruption. effectively, legalized bribery. we're really stuck. so we desperately need the constitutional amend. happen is we continue to build citizen's united in 2010. more than 550 cities and towns. and the u.s. senate actually brought the amend. to the floor of the united states senate this past september and 55 democrats all

said they were ready to support a constitutional amendment to overturn citizens united.ca but the thing that's going to happen is we continue to build the grassroots movement. >> it won't happen if the republicans continue to control the senate in the next couple days. >> no. we're going to have to do more organizing and build a stronger movement. so we've really got momentum on our side. it's not that far off. >> what are the american people coming to understand in the value? >> i think people overwhelmingly think that the system is rigged. they think that because it is rigged. that's directly connected to all of the big money that goes in. 70% of the public wants to increase minimum wage. can't get it. people want to deal with catastrophic climate change. we can't.

they want to have investment in our schools, roads, infrastructures and create jobs. but we can't get those things through. we can't get the things that regular people want because the system is rigged on behalf of corporations and the super-rich. they're mobilizing around the idea that we've got to deal with this problem of politics before we're going to get the country to move on. >> to those who believe what i do, what washington has bought and bought by big money and big banks, how do you get those systems to divest their interest in the way the system works, r: which always seems to work in their favor? >> well, i think we're not going to get an agreement on the amendment on any reform from the corporations and the super-wealthy. it's going to have to be the movement that demands the politicians. that's what happens so far. so harry reid made a courageous decision to bring the

constitutional amendment forward to the senate. it wasn't just that he thought it was the right thing to do. he saw what the demands were across the country. >> this is a point you made. about the courageousness of harry reid. but there's more than being courageous on what he does. but i wonder whether or not that in the coming months and years, we are going to see more people, more elected officials, those who run our body politics, see them coming around to understanding the value of the time? >> yeah, i think that's starting to happen. prior may lir, because of grass roots. prior may lir, because of grass roots. but, also, they ha one of the strange things about our current campaign finance system is that the candidates hate it. they've got to spend all of their time begging for money. when they try to run their race as they're finding that they don't get to define their elections. it's defined by outside groups

that are spending more on the advertisements than they do. most of the donors are getting begged for moneyhfrju$e time. so the really strange thing is that the beneficiaries in the system -- the victims of the system, the rest of us, we hate it, foo. we have the constellation of forces to drive this thing forward. >> talking about what's called dark money with such an exponential growth of dark money. >> when we're talking about dark money, we're talking about contributions where the donor does not disclose. so they're going through what are called social wealth organizations or trade organizations. but we don't know what person gave the money. so it's become to be known as dark money. it dra matically increased from

very little, almost nothing, to exponential amounts now after citizen's united. it's probably going to be $300 million, or $400 million. ven more money that's not reported at all. the big dark money is coming from the coke brothers, running through carl rhodes corporation. up until a couple months ago, one out of every ten elections laid out on tv came from the coke brothers. >> is there dark money on the left? >> there is some dark money for the democrats. and there's an equal amount of dark money coming in from democrats and republicans, but the overwhelming amount has gone to the republicans. >> speaking of outside money, and i'm not going to be naive about this, but it's just mind boggling to me, that in any number of key senate races, as i've mentioned a moment ago, tell us that there's a chance that harry reid might not be the majority leader in a few days. but there are a number of key states that we all know that are in play. it's mind boggling to see that in some of these key senate

races, the majority of the money in most campaigns are coming from outside of the state. so the people in the state who are going to the post who think u.s. senator from their state only have so much say in the éh process, we always say every vote does count. but money really counts. so, again, i can't say another word other than mind boggling to look at these key senate races and all the money from the coke brothers and others that are driving, you will you will matly, outside. >> yes, it comes through these outside organizations. in alaska, outside groups spend $120 for each voter.

so the situation is completely out of control. i think we're actually starting to see republicans around the country complain about the outside money coming in for the democrats. so this is becoming a campaign issue. and i think it's really percolating up. and, again, the political class is unhappy with it. but i think the vast majority of american people have enough to get that the system is rigged and understand that the source of it being rigged is all of this money coming in. >> when you get to a certain point in the campaign, i don't even know what appreciable value money has. i know they make a big difference in the campaign. but, you know, you spent millions and millions and millions of dollars. i wonder whether or not you get to a point of diminishing returns. >> there may be some diminishing returns, but the tv ads -- people hate the negative ads. but the reason why negative ads are there, they work. they tarn i shall the candidates from working. and there's also the effort now for tons of money invested in internet advertising, mailers,

increasing numbers of paid staff out on the ground, the coke brothers have at least 35 full-time staff on the ground in iowa. and then there's the last-minute vote get up. >> we will see with all of the money that we are spending billions is the most expensive ever in the history of this nation. we'll, again, see just what we get for that in a few days. for now, we thank the public citizen for the work that he and his team are doing. nchtsds coming up, two-time oscar nominee jeremy winter. stay with us. ♪ >> in 1984, crack cocaine exploded on the streets of l.a. and other american series. join us for a series in 1996 linking that drug ban to the c.i.a. in nicaragua that says that our government turned a blind eye to the crack scene. jeremy winner is now in theaters. it's titled kill the messenger. first, a look at a scene from

the movie. >> he was a thousand pounds heavier than i'll ever be. i couldn't fill the guy's suit. >> you need demand. >> no, i need supply. i was buying a hundred kilos a week. that was three $3 million a day. it was raining coke. >> allegedly. >> allegedly? >> i gave him $6 million a week. allegedly. >> that's impossible. >> is it? >> how do you sell that much cocaine on the street? >> i read that you made the comment that this was a film that you wanted to do to a film that you had to do.)g

what made it a film that you had to do? >> well, first off, i think why i wanted to do it. i think, because, you know, in a selfish, sort of creative thing that i need to have wanted it to work. and that was a complex character, scenes like david and goliath and every man in extraordinary circumstances, and thicks like that. i finished the script and i said hold on a second. this is 70 miles from where i grew up. and i don't really know anything about it. and i did more digging, more digging. and then more started informing myself. and it became, by necessity, something i had to do. >> what was at the epicenter of the story that so impacted you, even though you didn't know it, made you say that the story had to be told. >> well, the tragedy is having controversial life and kind of what media can do. when you say one thing and mean something else.

all of this is very frustrating to me. that can be very frustrating when you say one thing and the entire world is saying something different. it just has you explaining here in the opening. oh, wait. there it is. it's interesting to look back on. >> fsh those who don't know the story, just as a precursor. so as i mentioned before we came on the air, i was in l.a. and was covering this stuff in the local media. i remember this story like it was yesterday. i remember i met gary one time.

i remember thinking how kra jousz this brother is telling this story. how ambitious was the push? >> well, initially, it was applauded. the story is, kind of, you know, you campaigned, like, an act of fiction. so it's great. when it ruffled enough feathers, it was really quickly to let gary be there instead of the story.jm all tlout the telling of this story, even when you sort of vindicated and the monica lewensky story came out and the c.i.a. saying yeah, we have some part of it and it's kind of tragic. >> the story wasn't just the c.i.a. trying to derail him and tear this story apart. there was something in the media business. and i remember thinking this before it even happened. if you're a major publication, how does this dude at the san jose mercury news get this maid jor story. how do you do this? people are steadfast in what happened.

i think the overall reflection, people can look like background with what they've done. it's obviously a travesty. there's been so much time spent on tearing a story apart versus furthering a story. out of big media, you know. >> how much of this story is about the con testation of people who got addicted to crack? >> there are two people here. >> it was a tough thing there's ten movies for what gary uncovered can't tell all of the story. so we have to be careful not to go too far into the downstream of what happened in life. this is really kind of brushing on it to show the expansiveness of what it really meant to us in america. and what americans were doing.nr so i feel like we had to rest on gary's shoulders and show the personal side of what happened to him, personally. >> i think he's been spoken about it in some communities. and actually put the speech in a movie about investigative reporting. it's a good thing. it's kind of what whistle blowing is now. he got his legs cut off, essentially, in the end and broke his back.

you skppt that to be a broken barrel of the stick, you're doing your job. so it eets when the paper didn't have the will or the way. >> those are two different things. pushback is one thing. having the rug pulled out from under you is another. then you have both. >> i wonder if there is a cautionary tale in this film for investigative journalists or whistle blowers today. because, when i see the film, i'm thinking of the obama administration and mr. holder, who i have great respected for, for most things. when they started digging into notebooks a year or two ago, u$e line for me. >> yeah, well, you know, i think it's cautionary for both sides. what to do, whatnot to do. i think someone can walk away from the movie scene and say oh, wait. that would be a huge victory for film makers. it became a cautionary tale. i don't know if it is, but we're in a very different time now. the internet was just kicking off back then. and i think it's hard to hide on both side. >> i mean, i could see the thing about what they did to gary wells with telling the truth about the cia and the crack of the country. i can't -- i couldn't set aside what they did to gary and what they did. if you're trying to tell some inconvenient, uncomfortable truth, meet us on the outside as a reporter or on the inside as snowden did, you're going to catch hell.

>> yeah. i think we need people that are dogged watchdogs. it's important. i'm not aent-government or anything. >> no, nobody is. >> you have to ask questions. being transparent is the best sort of program for that. there's a lot of people not being transparent. >> as a star for a little while now, what kind of response are you getting to it. >> yeah, ultimately, any movie i've done is something different or feeling something different before they bought that $11 or $12 ticket. and this movie in particular is one that can create dialogue. or someone who spoke this afternoon said they sturk with them.

that's a great thing i think, to have happen. when you think about it. some people are really 6+ emotionally affected. that's what i hope happens with when they'll started digging a year or two ago, i wonder what you think investigative journalists are still being stooped upon and being gone after today. >> yeah, well, i think it's cautionary for both sides. what to do and whatnot to do. i think if someone can walk away

from the movie scene now and say oh, wait. it became a cautionary tale. we're in a very different time now. the interwas just kicking off back then. and i think it's hard to hide on both side. >> i mean, i could see the thing about what they did to gary wells with telling the truth about the cia and the crack of the country. i can't -- i couldn't set aside what they did to gary and what they did. if you're trying to tell some inconvenient, uncomfortable truth, meet us on the outside as a reporter or on the inside as p snowden did, you're going to catch hell. >> yeah. i think we need people that are dogged watchdogs. it's important. i'm not aent-government or

anything. >> no, nobody is. >> you have to ask questions. being transparent is the best sort of program for that. there's a lot of people not being transparent. >> as a star for a little while now, what kind of response are you getting to it. >> yeah, ultimately, any movie i've done is something different or feeling something different before they bought that $11 or $12 ticket. and this movie in particular is one that can create dialogue. or someone who spoke this afternoon said they sturk with them. that's a great thing i think, to have happen. when you think about it. some people are really emotionally affected. that's what i hope happens with this project. >> what do you think about this project? >> people ask about vindication.

and even his family keeps vind kating. i disagree with his family thinking that he doesn't need to be vind kated. if you know that what you're telling is the truth.cl and you're right. why do you need to be vindicated. openly, i don't think he's flipping over in his grave right now thinking okay, finally, my voice is heard. the truth don't need no tales. that's the word. you can accept it, agree, disagree. the truth is the truth and it don't need no defense. >> i thank you. >> yeah, thank you. >> go to messenger. great story. they didn't want to hear the end quite frankly that they don't want to hear now. that's my story. that's our show tonight. thanks for watching. and, as always, keep safe. >> for more information on today's show, visit tavis smiley at pdf.org.

>> our new story, sk >> for more information on today's show, visit tavis smiley at pbs.org. hi, i'm tavis smiley. join me next time for "nightcrawler." that's next time. we'll see you then.

. next a special report on key election issues involving science. a look at hydraulic fracturing or fracking and why opponents want it banned. the drought and proposition 1 and how would the bond measure change california's bond measure and genetically engineered food. the technology behind it and debate on the labels on it. science at the ballot box. good evening and welcome to science at the ballot box an election special produced by kqed newsroom and science series quest. i'm treen