All In With Chris Hayes, Friday, June 14th

ALL IN with CHRIS HAYES
June 14, 2013
Guest: Chad Campbell, Chris Murphy, Chris Kromm


CHRIS HAYES, HOST: Good evening from New York. I`m Chris Hayes, and thank
you for joining us.

Tonight on ALL IN:

When John McCain rushed to the Senate floor last night to pound the drum
for military intervention in Syria, one U.S. senator tweeted his surprise
using the #strangeworld. That senator joins me tonight.

Also tonight if you combined Karl Rove with the Koch brothers and then let
them run your state, it would look a lot like it does in North Carolina
right now. Tonight, I`m going to introduce you to Art Pope.

Plus, did you see the movie "Black Swan"? It was very really kind of
strange. But tonight I`ll tell you how a court ruling about the making of
that film could revolutionize the film industry and many, many others.

But we begin tonight with a trip to the circus. It is Friday after all.
When it comes to the Republican Party, there`s a lot of incentive for being
in the circus, and there`s not much incentive for doing the hard work of
governing responsibly.

Everything about the institutional structure and economic benefits of the
conservative movement is slanted toward ridiculous clownish antics. It`s
what we see on right wing talk radio, it`s what gets you a contract with
FOX News, in some cases a second contract with FOX News. It`s how you land
book deal after book deal and how you get to run for president to support
those book deals.

The people who want to be players in this world have to put on the red nose
and floppy shoes and then they have to go to clown auditions.

This week, the clown cattle call took the form of the Faith and Freedoms
Coalition road to the majority conference. And to the surprise of no one,
the invited guests rolled out the clown show`s greatest hits.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIPS)

SEN. RON JOHNSON (R), WISCONSIN: Now, with Obamacare, you have a federal
government that can tell you what doctor you`re going to be able to see.

REP. MICHELE BACHMANN (R), MINNESOTA: We`re looking at the legalization of
over 30 million illegal aliens.

FMR. REP. ALLEN WEST (R), FLORIDA: See the dissemination of the progressive
socialist policies that have broken down the family unit.

(END VIDEO CLIPS)

HAYES: It`s all pretty predictable. But that`s kind of the point, clowns
are predictable. They`re going to squirt you with water when you smell the
flower every single time.

It`s why Michele Bachmann sees more value in the clown circuit than
Congress which she is leaving at the end of her term. And it`s why former
Congressman Allen West was rewarded with a paycheck from FOX News.

Another person you probably think of when it comes to the Republican clown
show is this person -- Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, the one who wagged her
finger at Barack Obama, the one who gave the Tea Party flag equal status
with the American flag, the one who signed one of the harshest immigration
bills in the country. Jan Brewer could use some serious clowning.

But as of today, Jan Brewer hasn`t just stepped lightly off the circus
train. She did a full-fledged barrel roll off of it. Jan Brewer waged a war
with her own party for months over implementing Obamacare in her state. Jan
Brewer wanted the Medicaid expansion that goes along with Medicare and the
federal dollars it brings.

And Jan Brewer took absolutely no prisoners to get it. In the wee hours of
the morning, Jan Brewer won.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REPORTER: It was just Tuesday Governor Brewer called a special session
telling lawmakers, hey, make a deal. Finally, after six months of wrangling
back and forth, a budget has been passed expanding Medicaid to hundreds of
thousands of people in the state.

HAYES: Brewer got her way by enforcing the incredibly right wing
legislature of Arizona into a box, winning over moderate Republicans and
creating a bipartisan coalition to push through the Obamacare Medicaid
expansion.

The Republican House Speaker Andy Tobin and the Republican Senate President
Andy Biggs were at risk of losing their jobs if they tried to obstruct the
process -- a threat that Brewer actually confirmed. She told an Arizona
paper, "The action was never taken because the two Republican leaders did
the smart thing and they did not try to stop the bipartisan coalition from
bringing the budget for a vote."

One Arizona Republican told "Politico", "She`s probably cost at least a
half dozen, maybe more, senators and representatives their political
futures to get this done."

And with Republicans still complaining about Brewer`s heavy hand, Governor
Brewer addressed the media around 1:00 a.m. this morning to say it was all
over.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REPORTER: Governor, the Republicans are on the floor calling you a traitor,
they`re calling you all kinds of names, saying that this is
unconstitutional. This is not the way government is done in Arizona. What
do you say to them?

REPORTER: The puppet master, I think you were called that twice.

GOV. JAN BREWER (R), ARIZONA: Yes, I heard it a few times. You know,
tomorrow they`ll probably say, you know, we`re sorry, or we just forget it.
You know, I mean, in the heat of the moment, people say a lot of things.
Certainly I can understand that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: That`s, you know, in case you didn`t notice, that was Jan Brewer
being a bawler, and she should be because it was a huge victory for her but
it`s a bigger victory for the nearly 300,000 Arizonans who will have access
to Medicaid. And it happened because a Republican politician put down the
clown horn for a minute and actually did the hard work of governing.

And the policy question, if you could get d of all the money and the TV
contracts and the book deals and all the other incentives that make
politicians act like clowns, how many Jan Brewers are there underneath the
clown makeup?

Joining me now is Arizona State Representative Chad Campbell. He`s a
Democrat and the House minority leader.

And Representative Campbell, how did this happen? I am fascinated by this
story. How and why did Medicaid expansion happen in Arizona?

STATE REP. CHAD CAMPBELL (D-AZ), HOUSE MINORITY LEADER: Well, I think it`s
really just a simple matter of economics. I think Jan Brewer looked at what
was being offered by the federal government and saw that you couldn`t turn
down that money. It was just too much money to turn down. It did too much
good for too many people.

And at the end of the day, she had a working coalition that we formed with
some moderate Republicans and we all stepped up to the plate and just kind
of drew the line in the sand and said we`re going to get this done.

HAYES: Well, it`s easy to say that because the math is clear, but that did
not persuade a huge chunk of your Republican colleagues in both houses, and
she had to essentially go to war with them. I mean, were you surprised at
all with the vehemence with which she pursued this goal?

CAMPBELL: No. I think anybody who has been following Arizona politics for
the past four or five years knows Jan Brewer and myself have not been the
best of political friends and if there`s anybody in the state that`s
probably fought harder against her, I don`t know who it would be other than
me.

But on this one we agreed, and I`ll tell you, when Jan Brewer makes up her
mind, she makes up her mind. To her credit on Medicaid and the expansion of
Medicaid in Arizona, she was doing the right thing and said from day one
we`re going to get this done. I told her I would work with her from day one
and we held the line and got it done this week after about five months. It
was a lot of work.

HAYES: How much of a factor is it the fact there are term limits for
governors in Arizona? Jan Brewer`s pursuing some avenues to see if maybe
that can be revised. But it stands now, she is not up for re-election. How
much do you think that factors in how she comported herself here?

CAMPBELL: I think it probably played a pretty big role. She` her last term
and she`s been talking about trying to get her own term limits. I don`t
think she`s serious.

I think she knows this is her last term and I think this was a legacy move
for her. No doubt about it.

Again, I don`t think it`s made up for all of the policies she`s put in
place over the past few years that I`ve disagreed with. But I give her
credit for this one. Be it for legacy, whatever reason she did it, it was
the best thing for Arizona and I wish more Republican governors, as you
said, take off the clown makeup across this country and do the right thing
for their states and citizens.

HAYES: Arizona State Representative Chad Campbell, thank you so much for
joining us tonight.

CAMPBELL: Thank you.

HAYES: Joining me at the table, Josh Barro, no clown, political politics
editor for "Business Insider." How are you doing?

JOSH BARRO, BUSINESS INSIDER: Doing well.

HAYES: All right. So, Josh, you are the man on the mission to reform the
Republican Party. You`re getting profiled in magazines, fancy new jobs. I
think you have really set yourself this mission of essentially doing this,
saying, look, let`s pursue a serious conservative market-based skeptical of
government actual policy governing agenda and you wrote a profile of Jan
Brewer today. You called her the most interesting politician in America.

Why do you call her that?

BARRO: Well, because I think she`s way smarter than she looks in the
national media. I think when people think about Jan Brewer they think about
the immigration bill and think about the finger wag with the president. And
really she`s been a very shrewd politician, not just in getting this
through over the vehement objections of the Republican majority in her
legislature, but really over the last five years. She`s fought a number of
very difficult fights. She came in right at the start of the recession and
had a very nasty budget fight where she pushed through a tax increase over
the objection of many Republicans. And then got renominated and got
reelected.

HAYES: She got -- here`s where the story gets interesting.

BARRO: Yes.

HAYES: She pushed through this tax increase. She got absolutely hammered by
Republicans in state and out of state. Grover Norquist went after her. This
is where the incentive structure that I`m talking about kicked in, which is
the way she got back in their good graces was the immigration bill, SB-
1070, part of which was struck down by the Supreme Court in which she
became so associated with, because associating herself with that made her
very popular with the right.

BARRO: It made her very popular with the right. SB-1070 was also popular
with a majority of voters in Arizona. It`s different from a lot of the
clown show stuff you`re talking about.

HAYES: Interesting.

BARRO: Where Republicans are forced in supporting policies that are popular
are the conservative base and unpopular overall. I think Brewer actually
reached an interesting synthesis, where I think there`s an unfortunate
majority opinion in Arizona that supports very harsh measures toward
illegal immigrants, but it also is amenable to things like fiscal
pragmatism, the Medicaid expansion.

HAYES: Yes, there`s a lot of folks in senior homes in Arizona. Let us note.

BARRO: Right. Exactly. So I think -- I think she`s a lot like Chris
Christie in a way. She understands her state and doing things that are
popular there. She`s a conservative when it`s really popular to be a
conservative in Arizona and when it makes sense to be a moderate.

HAYES: This pragmatism, the Christie/Brewer model, right? The question is,
what prospects are there for something like that in the House of
Representatives or in national Republican politics right now?

BARRO: Not very good right now. I think that`s partly because the
incentives that Republicans face in the House of Representatives are very
different from the incentives that Republican governors face. First of all
-- I mean, there are certain things the governors should have to do, pass a
balanced budget every year. So, they have to reach certain agreements with
the other party whether they like it or not.

You also have this electoral map for the House of Representatives where
Republicans can win a majority even if they don`t win a majority of the
national vote. And so, this strategy of just catering to a minority of the
country works in some sense for the individual members, even if it won`t
build a majority party.

HAYES: Josh Barro from "Business Insider" -- thank you very much.

BARRO: Thanks, Chris.

HAYES: As the drum beat for U.S. intervention in Syria civil war grows
louder, one U.S. senator is saying, chill. And I`ll talk to him, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HAYES: Senator John McCain continues to beat the war drum on Syria. Really,
really hard. More on that next.

But, first, a clarification. Wednesday night on this program while
interviewing Senator Barbara Boxer about the defeat of Senator Kirsten
Gillibrand`s proposal to remove sexual assault cases from the military
chain of command, I played a clip of Senator Tim Kaine. I played the clip
of him listing all the serious offenses that would have also been removed
from being prosecuted by the military chain of command with Senator
Gillibrand`s bill.

I, however, misinterpreted Senator Kaine`s point and thought he was arguing
if you were going to take the prosecution of sexual assault out of the
chain of command, why not take the prosecution of all these other crimes
out of the chain of command, too?

But his point was actually the opposite. The bill was too broad for him to
support, and he thought should just focus on sexual assault which is why he
opposed it. That was my mistake. We posted a more detailed explanation on
our Web site, allinwithchris.com.

We`ll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HAYES: There was this amazing moment yesterday, just as the White House was
set to announce that Syria had crossed a red line by using chemical weapons
in the fight against its own people, and that the decision had been made to
supply arms support to the rebels. Arizona`s Republican Senator John McCain
took to the floor, not only to step all over the White House`s message, but
to ratchet up the rhetoric.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R), ARIZONA: The president also will announce that we
will be assisting the Syrian rebels in Syria by providing them with weapons
and other assistance. The president of the United States had better
understand that just supplying weapons is not going to change the equation
on the ground of the balance of power. Just to provide additional weapons
to the Syrian national army is not enough.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: McCain came out with this before the official White House
announcement. It was his own little preemptive strike in the next phase of
the Syria debate.

Moments later, the escalating debate got even more amazing when McCain`s
Democratic colleague, Senator Chris Murphy from Connecticut, sent out this
tweet. "Was on the Senate floor to hear Obama`s spokesman John McCain
announce military aid for Syrian rebels. #strangeworld."

A few hours later, Senator Murphy then released what I thought was a very
thoughtful and measured response to this drumbeat for intervention saying,
"Last week, I expressed deep reservations about committing U.S. military
resources to support these opposition forces which remain dangerously
splintered and hold demonstrable ties to terrorist organizations. I urged
the president to exercise restraint and consult closely with Congress
before undertaking any course of action to commit American military
resources to Syrian opposition forces."

Joining me now is Senator Chris Murphy, Democrat from Connecticut and
member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He`s been critical of the
president`s decision to commit U.S. military resources to support the
opposition forces in Syria.

Senator, thank you for joining me. I guess my first question for you was:
what was your reaction to yesterday`s announcement from the White House?

SEN. CHRIS MURPHY (D), CONNECTICUT: Well, I thought I had missed something
when I heard Senator McCain announce it on the Senate floor. But when I
scurried back to my office, I found that it was true.

Listen, I understand that the president is in a very difficult position
here. There`s, frankly, no good solution. To allow this murder to continue
is unacceptable. But I would argue that we could potentially make the
situation worse, not better, by committing American arms.

First of all, this is not a simple proposition. The Syrian opposition is
badly splintered, and if you give them relatively low-level arms, there is
not going to be enough to overcome the momentum that Bashar al Assad has.
If you give them high level, more potent arms, then the risk that they get
into the hands of Jabhat al-Nursa and the Islamists is great and has
security consequences to us down the road.

The bigger question is, what if we do win, and what if this new government
is formed that has U.S. backing? How long do we have to stay? Do we have to
get involved in nation-building? And essentially, are we just going to then
be funding one side of a civil war?

These things play out one way. There`s a revolution and then normally
there`s a civil war. And we`ve seen it before. I want us to learn from
history before we jump into this.

HAYES: Senator, let me ask you this. How is this shaking out in the U.S.
Senate and in the U.S. congress? Here`s what I`ve heard. I`ve heard John
McCain, Lindsey Graham, some of your Democratic colleagues calling for an
increased U.S. role. I`ve heard some members of the Republican Party, folks
like Rand Paul, who have been very skeptical.

I have not heard a huge amount of Democratic voices in the Senate and the
House trying to throw up the yellow light on this whole thing. Where is
that voice in Congress right now?

MURPHY: Well, you know, all we`ve had so far is a vote of the Senate
Foreign Relations committee. And it was a surprisingly large margin.

HAYES: Yes.

MURPHY: It was 15-3 majority in favor of giving the president the power to
arm the rebels. There were two Democrats and one Republican, Tom Udall,
myself and Rand Paul who voted against it.

I was surprised by the margin of that vote because there`s another
alternative here. We can continue providing humanitarian aid. We can place
a priority on trying to make sure that this conflict doesn`t spiral outside
of Syria rather than putting arms on the ground. And so, I think you are
now going to hopefully see some members of both sides of the aisle step up
and say, whoa, listen, we need to be a little bit more careful about this
because Syria is more complicated in a lot of ways than Iraq or Afghanistan
were.

And this is a proxy war times 10. It`s a proxy war with Russia, Iran, with
the Kurds, with the Sunnis, with the Shias. This is not something you come
in and out of in six months or a year. This is, perhaps, a decade and we
could lose a lot in terms of both treasure and reputation if we get this
wrong.

HAYES: Let me ask you this question. There is talk out a no-fly zone. John
McCain, Senator John McCain has called for a no-fly zone. "The Wall Street
Journal" reporting on Thursday the U.S. officials also told "The Wall
Street Journal" the U.S. military proposal for arming the rebels, calls for
a limited no-fly zone inside Syria.

Today, Ben Rhodes, national security spokesperson for the White House
downplayed that idea.

Do you think, are we worried that we`re headed towards an inevitable
escalation toward a no-fly zone if we take this first incremental step of
arming the rebels and it, quote, "doesn`t work", because it doesn`t change
the balance of power?

MURPHY: Well there`s the problem. I mean, given the fact we have waited
this long, you can`t just hand the rebels a bunch of automatic weapons and
expect you`re going to change the balance. McCain is right that you have to
do much more than that.

But a no-fly zone in Syria is fundamentally different than providing air
support in Libya. You were talking about sophisticated Russian-built air
defense systems that are going to take a lot of American firepower to take
down in order to allow for our planes to fly overhead in the first place.

This is a very complicated, very expensive endeavor. And I am worried, "A"
at the cost to Americans I terms of money and lives to a no-fly zone and
then to put powerful arms on the ground to change the power. And Jabhat al-
Nusra and Al Qaeda are intricately involved in the opposition. How do we
make sure that the wrong people don`t get hands on those very powerful
weapons?

HAYES: Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut, who`s also the catcher in last
night`s Democrat/Republican drubbing of the Republicans, 22-nothing.

MURPHY: Twenty-two-nothing.

HAYES: I saw a great action shot of you behind the plate. Congratulations
on that. Thank you for joining us.

MURPHY: Thanks a lot, Chris.

HAYES: What do you get if you combine Karl Rove and one of the Koch
brothers? North Carolina`s Art Pope. We`ll introduce you to him, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HAYES: All right. You might not know the guy you see over my shoulder right
now, but you should. This is Art Pope. And if you have not heard of Art
Pope, allow me to introduce you.

Art Pope is, might just be, the most reactionary political player working
today in what is, perhaps, the most reactionary state in the union.
Starting this year, Republicans control the entire state government in
North Carolina. Both houses of the legislature and the governor`s office
for the first time in more than a century, an outcome Art Pope had no small
part in. The Republicans are taking the opportunity of one-party rule to
propose and pass some of the most regressive policies this country has seen
in quite some time: slashing unemployment benefits, to proposing drug tests
for welfare recipients, to working to repeal the estate tax while
simultaneously ending a tax credit for low-income families, to efforts to
restrict access to abortion.

And Art Pope`s role here is twofold. On the one hand, he`s the ringmaker of
North Carolina`s Republican Party, the money man, the sugar daddy. He`s
president of his family`s foundation which was set up using the Pope family
fortune, and Art Pope has gradually begun steering that money to groups
that promote his agenda.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REPORTER: Steer it where? To groups that deal in both policy and politics.
Conservative groups including the John Locke foundation, Civitas, Real Jobs
NC, Americans for Prosperity.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: According to the institute for Southern studies, in the 2010
elections, quote, "In all, Art Pope, his family and the three main outside
groups backed by his family`s company, and others, spent $2.2 million
targeting 27 legislative races. Republicans won 21 of those contests or 78
percent."

And that helped Republicans win control of the state legislature that year
for the first time in more than 100 years which, of course, was followed
this year by the inauguration of a Republican governor for the first time
in nearly three decades. All of which has culminated in this year`s
unprecedented agenda of wildly regressive social and economic policies and
the amazing weekly Moral Mondays protest designed to fight what`s been seen
as a well-orchestrated attempt by the Republican government to eliminate
the architecture of a fair society.

So, Art Pope is a conservative money man who`s been able to use his fortune
to help engineer this historic Republican takeover of North Carolina. But
here is the thing. Art Pope is not some shadowy cash man operating behind
the scenes. No. Art Pope is also in the state government.

Just before taking office in January, the state`s new Republican governor
named Art Pope his budget director, which is amazing given the hyper-
partisan cash-laden influenced guy, an actual job inside the government.
It`s like creating a super-powerful political monster. It`s like if you
took the Koch brothers with all their big spending and mashed them up with
Bush era Karl Rove, Art Pope is what happens. When you take a major outside
spender and give him inside institutional power.

This week, Art Pope appears to have gotten his way on an issue with major
long-term implications for his state, eliminating public financing for
judicial races.

This very popular state raw freed judges from relying on special interest
groups to get elected and it so offended the sensibilities of Art Pope that
this week he`s said to have made this his move. Pope was reportedly seen
right outside the statehouse chambers lobbying a representative working to
preserve that public financing rule, a Republican by the name of Jonathan
Jordan who later drew his proposal to save public financing and it is now
dead. Art Pope is victorious.

Now, we were not privy to the conversation between Art Pope and Jordan but
we know this: according to the folks at the Institute for Southern Studies,
Pope, his family and Pope-backed groups spent more than $107,000 on
Jordan`s behalf in the 2010 election cycle that launched his career. Who
knows if that came out?

Joining me is Chris Kromm, executive director of the Institute for Southern
Studies, a non-profit media research and policy center that focuses on the
Southern region of the U.S.

Chris, my first question for you is what is the significance of this public
election bill for judges? Why did it exist? Why was it so popular? Why did
Art Pope want to kill it?

CHRIS KROMM, THE INSTITUTE FOR SOUTHERN STUDIES: Well, people all over the
country ask me, what is happening in North Carolina? Wasn`t this a moderate
Southern state? Didn`t it vote for Obama once?

And I tell them, one of the biggest things that happened was Art Pope. And
if you haven`t heard of that name, it`s not your fault. It`s because he
quietly over the last 10 years has erected the most powerful and
influential state level political machines anywhere in the country.

The $40 million he spent over the last ten years and has included, like you
said, money that helped win, capture the state legislature for the first
time in 100 years for Republicans and last year included over half a
million dollars his machine spent on behalf of Governor Pat McCorey.

And shortly thereafter, he installed Pope into one of the most powerful
positions in his cabinet. Pope since day one, for over a decade, since this
pioneering election reform has passed has been gunning for it. He doesn`t
like publicly funded elections. He likes Pope funded elections. And he`s
been going after this for over a decade.

He`s had his attack machine of his organizations that have been bashing the
program, which he`s poured tens of millions of dollars into. He personally,
in march, when he released his budget as the budget director for the
governor, in some ways it was a moderate budget for some programs, not as
bad as some people thought. It zeroed out, he singled out this pioneering
election reform, which was implemented over ten years ago to try to curb
the influence of big money donors just like himself in judicial elections.

HAYES: What you get in state judicial elections, and I`ve covered this a
little bit as a reporter, and let`s remember Karl Rove got his start
getting conservatives elected to the bench in Alabama where there were
elections. This happens in Texas, too. What you get is, you get the people
who are going to argue before the judges funding the judges` campaign.

Here`s a statistic from actually North Carolina, "without public financing
of the political committee, 73 percent of the nonfamily contributions came
from attorneys, interest groups or political committees with public
financing, only 14 percent of nonfamily contributions."

What I thought was so interesting is this actually had broad bipartisan
support so much so that 14 of 15 North Carolina Court of Appeals judges
wrote a letter in support of public financing saying, "despite our
individual differences with respect for race, gender, political party and
judicial philosophy, we all agree that our current system of nonpartisan
judicial elections supplemented by public financing is an effective and
valuable tool for protecting confidence and impartiality and independence
of the judiciary." That has now been killed by Art Pope.

KROMM: It was all about the independence of the courts, the idea that
people who do business before the court shouldn`t be paying judges for the
election campaigns. Like you said, had widespread bipartisan support. We
even had two conservative lawmakers from West Virginia come down to North
Carolina pleading with lawmakers, don`t kill this program. We know what big
money can do to courts.

HAYES: Wow.

KROMM: One of the guys was a representative who was a rising star who spoke
at CPAC in the conservative movement. This had bipartisan support. It
wasn`t about Democrats and Republicans. It`s about big money versus
democracy. And Pope made sure, first by zeroing out the program in his
budget, then having his groups like Americans for prosperity walk the halls
of the legislature to try to lobby legislators.

Then the final drama, which you just talked about, which came down this
very week, like something out of "Game of Thrones" or maybe "The Sopranos"
where he shows up and actually talks to this Republican who wanted to
introduce to compromise and all we know as soon as he left that meeting the
Republican dropped the amendment. And it just happened to be a lawmaker
that received, like you said, over $100,000 from the Pope machine to launch
his political career.

HAYES: Chris Kromm of the great Institute of Southern Studies. They put out
amazing stuff. Definitely check them out. Thank you so much.

KROMM: Thank you, Chris.

HAYES: We will be right back with Click 3.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HAYES: A landmark court ruling coming out of the workplace environment of
the movie "Black Swan" could change everything, more on that in a moment.

But first, I want to share the three awesomest things on internet today.
First, the inspiring story of 11-year-old singer Sebastian Dela Cruz, the
young man from San Antonio who performed the national anthem before game
three of the NBA finals between the Spurs and the Miami Heat.

The performance brought the house down, but apparently trolls on Twitter
couldn`t handle the sight of a Mexican-American in a mariachi outfit
singing the "Star Spangled Banner" and they went racist attacking Dela Cruz
as an illegal alien and a little Mexican. As local news picked up on the
attacks and interviewed Dela Cruz the community gathered around him.

San Antonio Julian Castro called him the best of our nation`s future. Spurs
Coach Gregg Popovich slammed the critics as idiots and even President Obama
who tweeted the news, Sebastian will be back to sing the anthem again for
game four.

To no one`s surprise, the racists were back again, but the best tweet came
from Sebastian, himself. Please do not pay attention to the negative
people. I`m an American living the American dream. This is part of the
American life.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEBASTIAN DELA CRUZ: I`ve learned that you don`t really care what people
say about you. It`s what you think about yourself. I don`t really care
about what you all say, and I`m doing this right now. It`s off my
shoulders.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: The second awesomest thing on the internet today is this video of a
ted talk with Rafael of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology. He has
combined global positioning technology with some crazy complex computer
algorithms to bring us Quadrocopters that don`t crash and perform
complicated athletic feats.

I don`t know if you`ve tried to fly a remote controlled helicopter, but it
can be hard and a waste of money, but his copters are flown by computer,
they can do amazing things like balance a glass of water and fly around
without spill it or whack a ball back to you while hovering in space or
join together as a team and do something like this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: These three quads are cooperatively carrying a sky net.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: OK. That is serious. It`s a great video. Right up until the end when
the Quadrocopters become self-aware and kill everyone in the room. And the
third awesomest thing submitted by our Twitter friend Blue Gal Fran who
says Father`s day weekend great grandpa or greatest grandpa?

OK, that is pretty awesome, but I`m not sure I have enough information to
decide whether he`s the greatest grandpa ever especially since this guy is
also in the running.

Happy Father`s Day, everyone. I`ll be dancing like a goof ball all weekend
just to get my daughter to laugh. You can find all the links for tonight`s
Click3 on our web site, allinwithchris.com. We`ll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HAYES: Let`s say you`re 22 years old. You`ve just graduated and you`re
looking to start your career. If you`re interested in anything from media,
film, publishing, or the fashion industry, it`s hard, while not impossible
to find an entry level position that pays you because entry level positions
are internships. An estimated 1.5 million people work as interns. About
half those internships are unpaid.

Full disclosure here, MSNBC recently began paying its interns so we not
have unpaid interns bringing this show to you. Unpaid internships have
become so much a part of the landscape of many of these industries that
people don`t even think about it anymore as strange that there`s an entire
class of people who are asked to work for no pay. And this has really wide
ranging and pernicious effects beyond the workplaces at issue because the
category of people who can afford to work for no pay is a pretty small one.

It has the effect of funnelling only people with other kinds of wealth,
resources or means into these professions. It is affirmative action for the
affluent, in its rankest form. Well, this week something amazing happened.
I mean, really amazing. A federal judge declared the practice illegal.

Two interns including one of our next guests from the production of the
movie "Black Swan" sued in 2011 claiming the company violated federal and
New York State minimum wage laws by giving them tasks of typical employees,
but not paying them for the work. The case was met with derision from some
corners.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN: I don`t want to get into a big debate about labor
rules. Wouldn`t it be great if all unpaid internships paid really well?
Sure. It would be great if my dog made breakfast for me every morning, but
I`m not going to file a lawsuit over it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: Next thing you know we`re going it have to pay dogs but it`s no
joke. In fact, the test of whether someone is legally an unpaid intern is a
test of who the internship is benefiting. An unpaid internship is by law
supposed to benefit the intern, not the company.

One of the questions is if the intern were doing the work, would a paid
employee do it? Here`s part of U.S. District Judge William Pauley`s ruling,
"In his first internship Glatt obtained documents for personnel files,
picked up paychecks for co-workers, tracked and reconciled purchase orders
and invoices, and traveled to the set to get managers` signatures."

His supervisor stated that, quote, "If Mr. Glatt had not performed his
work, another member of my staff would have worked longer hours to perform
it or need a paid production assistant or another intern to do it."

Judge Pauley granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs basically saying it
wasn`t even a close call. The judge went further certifying a class action
lawsuit for interns who worked for Box Entertainment Group from 2008 to
2010. This opened up a possibility of an absolute transformation at the
bottom rung of the professional wage hierarchy in America.

Joining me now is Eric Glatt, a former intern, who worked on the production
of "Black Swan," which released in 2010. He was a plaintiff in the case,
Rachel, a lead attorney on the case, an attorney at an employee side law
firm, and Warren, an associate professor at Columbia University and co-
director of the Columbia program on labor law and policy. It`s great to
have you all here.

I will begin with you and I will present you the skeptical take. I`m
watching this at home and saying, come on, you knew what you were getting
into. You`re an intern. Everyone understands where an intern is going to
go. You got hired and did the drudgery and then because everyone wants to
sue these days, no one wants to work hard, they don`t want to work their
way up. You went and did this stuff. You did the drudgery then turned
around and sued.

ERIC GLATT, FORMER "BLACK SWAN" INTERN: Like this is my lottery ticket --
Minimum wage.

HAYES: What`s wrong with that characterization?

GLATT: Well, the thing is, I did my unpaid internship because as you
stated, this is an entry level way into certain industries. I was switching
from financial services. I wanted to pursue a career in film. This seemed
to be a way you get your foot in the door.

By luck right when that production was wrapping up the Department of Labor
issued a fact sheet laying out what the criteria are for having an employee
work on your premises and not get paid if they`re trainees. "The New York
Times" picked it up. I read, this is cut and dry, violation of the law. I
know it in my gut. Everybody hates it. The law already was there.

HAYES: You were doing this, you were just doing intern stuff and read this
article that said that described what you were doing as actually legally
not a legal internship.

GLATT: Right, exactly. It was something that people do grudgingly. They may
hold their nose and say if that`s what you have to do, if that`s what
everybody else does it, just suck it up and do.

HAYES: Rachel, you guys have been working on this case. Are you going to
get rid of all internships? I mean, don`t we want 17-year-olds to be able
to go and apprentice and learn things? What makes something OK versus not
OK both in your eyes and the law`s eyes?

RACHEL BIEN, ATTORNEY FOR "BLACK SWAN" INTERN: Right. Well the case doesn`t
get rid of all internships. I mean, the judge was very clear that there
could be some internship that are lawful and still be unpaid. What has to
happen is the internship has to be structured as a training program that
solely benefits the intern. It can`t provide an advantage to the company.
So if a company wants to continue to have --

HAYES: So if you ever have the thought, you`re like, my God, thank God I
can make my unpaid intern do this thing, that`s an alarm bell.

BIEN: Right.

HAYES: Right? No, I`m serious, that this has not been structured were their
benefit.

BIEN: Exactly. When you start to have an inkling that you want to send them
to go get coffee that means, you know, the dollar sign should pop up in
your head and it means that you have to pay them the minimum wage. We`re
not talking about an abundance of money. We`re really talking about minimum
wage.

HAYES: How does this practice fit in with the broader way that labor and
low-wage work happens in America?

DORIAN WARREN, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY: It`s important to point out since we`re
talking about the minimum wage, in two weeks we will be celebrating the
75th anniversary of the fair labor standards act. So 75 years we`ve had
this law in place to protect against these kinds of abuses. There are two
other trends. It`s called misclassification where firms misclassify
employees as, say, independent contractors and not employees. Therefore,
they`re not subject to the same legal regulations.

The second trend is a trend of wage theft that practitioners and scholars
call and that is when firms simply don`t pay their workers for the hours
that they`ve worked. Whether you call it an internship and you don`t pay
workers for doing the same amount, the same kinds of work that they would
otherwise be doing if they were paid or classify someone as an independent
contractor or don`t pay them for overtime, for instance, that`s wage theft.

Misclassification is the other piece of this puzzle and so workers in the
economy broadly speaking have been suffering and it`s actually hurting our
recovery overall.

HAYES: It`s particularly acute right now in this moment because there is
such a slack labor market. Unemployment is so high, and people are
desperate for work and they`re desperate r a foot in the door. I want to
hear about how your fellow interns and co-workers reacted when they heard
you were doing this. I`m really curious to hear that story right after we
take this break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HAYES: I`m here with former intern Eric Glatt who worked on the film "Black
Swan," lead attorney on his case that was recently decided in his favor by
a federal district court judge, Rachel Bien, and Dorian Warren from
Columbia University.

Eric, let me ask you a personal question, which was when you decided, you
read the article that said, OK, the work I`m doing on this film s is the
work that a paid employee should be doing.

GLATT: Right.

HAYES: You read the article then you decided to sue or what did you to
next? What was the response of your workplace? You were violating a taboo.
Everyone was like, you`re the intern. What are you talking about?

GLATT: The film industry, there`s a lot of freelance work. You go from gig
to gig to gig to gig. I kept encountering this again and again and again.
People looking for trained professionals to do finish work for free. It was
illegal and yet so prevalent. First I tried to get people to, like, form
some kind of watchdog group or form from within and there was no interest.

Finally, about a year later, a book came out, "Intern Nation" and I
introduced myself to him and I started thinking, there`s a chapter in the
book, "Lawsuit Waiting To Happen." I kept thinking, my God, I can`t believe
I`m the one who`s going to file that lawsuit to finally, like, get this to
stop. And I realized I was the one in the perfect position to do it.

HAYES: And so you were not the first. There have been others. They have not
fared well. They`ve been thrown out and there`s now another lawsuit that I
think your law firm filed on Thursday. And these are two former interns
against a company that failed to pay them minimum wage at their summer jobs
at the "W" magazine and "New Yorker." What gives you hope that the result
you got with Eric is the result other judges are going to give you since
there have been other cases that have been brought and haven`t been
successful?

BIEN: Well, I mean, I think that the judge really set the stage with this
decision in a very well-reasoned and thoughtful decision. He clarified what
the standard should be. He adopted the Department of Labor six-factor test
and so we have every reason to believe that another court would apply that.

HAYES: The six-factor test is basically there`s a list of stuff that`s
like, do you, you know, are you doing work that a paid person would do if
you didn`t do it? Yes. OK. That puts you in this column, right, just a
checklist, basically.

BIEN: Right. It`s a checklist, but what it does, it creates a very, very
narrow exception for trainees who are actually engaged in a training
program. And if you don`t satisfy those factors, then you have to be paid.
Because it looks more and more like you`re actually an employee and
therefore, covered by the wage --

HAYES: I did not realize until I was reading about your case that the legal
standard is that there has to be some kind of benefit being conferred to
person. I mean, and this just goes to how invisible the practice has
become, right. That I just didn`t even actually realize that was the, of
course, right, there`s some legal distinction between working for free and
interning. And it has become so prevalent, and our expectations of what
management can and can`t do have become so lax I think that we don`t notice
stuff like this.

WARREN: That`s right. So now the norm, you know, what, 15 years ago when I
came out of college and I got an internship in Washington, I was paid. Not
a lot of money, but I was paid. Nobody that works on the Hill, by the way,
is an intern that`s paid.

HAYES: As an intern.

WARREN: But, yes, so this is the norm now.

HAYES: This is -- in the street of government --

WARREN: The folks that made that law all of their interns are unpaid, the
very folks that made that law. So this is the new normal, not only in
public service employment, but also in the private economy writ large. This
is the new normal at not expecting to be paid, frankly, at all, or not
getting, you know, overtime or minimum wage when you work normal hours as
an employee.

HAYES: OK, so "A" where does this go from here? And "B" convince me this is
a genuine social justice issue and not basically the complaint of a
relatively thin crust of American society that, like, wants to direct films
and is mad that they can`t.

GLATT: Right. Right now, we have student debt topped over $1 trillion.
We`ve never engaged in a social experiment like this before. People at the
beginning of their professional lives are saddled with six figures of debt
and then being asked to enter their working lives by working for free.

Those two things don`t match up unless you`re basically institutionalizing
a structure, a privileged class who will do that and everyone else gets
left out in the cold. And we have double-digit unemployment for people
beginning their careers. We have average pay for people just coming out of
school now is lower than it was in the year 2000 because this kind of
behavior puts negative pressure on wages.

HAYES: So what we have, we have a debtor class, we have an intern class,
basically as people come out. Then we have a large low wage service class
and then there`s a small professional class that you take a lot money out
of. The opening of the labor market right now, particularly in this
economy, is really something else.

Eric Glatt, a former intern who is a plaintiff in this case, Attorney
Rachel Bien and Dorian Warren from Columbia University, thank you so much
for joining us tonight.

That`s ALL IN for this evening. The RACHEL MADDOW SHOW starts right now.

Good evening, Rachel.

END



THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY
BE UPDATED.
END

Copyright 2013 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by
United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed,
transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written
permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark,
copyright or other notice from copies of the content.>