IE 11 is not supported. For an optimal experience visit our site on another browser.

All In With Chris Hayes, Wednesday, July 30th, 2014

Read the transcript from the Wednesday show

July 30, 2014

Guest: Carlos Campo, Keith Ellison, Prof. Stephen Morse, Nicholas
Confessore, Eric Boehlert


CHRIS HAYES, MSNBC HOST (voice-over): Tonight, we are ALL IN.

for taking executive actions.

HAYES: A historic day on Capitol Hill. The House of Representatives
authorizes a lawsuit against the president.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The resolution is adopted and without objection the
motion is laid upon the table.

HAYES: We`ll look at what happens next.

OBAMA: Stop just hating all the time. Come on.

HAYES: Then, Ted Cruz recruiting House Republicans to vote against a
border bill.

The truth about Ebola and the reason there`s no vaccine. The company
caught fund-raising for nonexistent Republican candidates.

And the meaning of this.

SARAH PALIN (R), FORMER ALASKA GOVERNOR: Hello, and welcome to a new

HAYES: ALL IN starts right now.

PALIN: We`re going to make this easy too.


HAYES: Good evening, from Knoxville. I`m Chris Hayes.

And for the first time in this republic`s history, the House of
Representatives has voted to sue the president of the United States. Just
90 minutes ago, in a party line, 225 to 201, the House approved a
resolution authorizing Speaker John Boehner to file a lawsuit against the
president in the name of the House of Representatives for what Republicans
claim is an abuse of executive power, specifically the administration`s
one-year delay for provision of the Affordable Care Act known as the
employer mandate. The legal theory of the case is dubious, as recognized
by legal experts as well as some conservatives.

And that`s just one feature of the argument in today`s debate.


REP. BOB GOODLATTE (R), VIRGINIA: Imagine the future in this new
unconstitutional power of the president, if the president is left to stand.
Presidents today and in the future would be able to treat the entire United
States Code as mere guidelines and pick and chose among its provisions
which to enforce and which to ignore.

REP. STENY HOYER (D), MARYLAND: None other than Justice Antonin
Scalia has made the point that the judiciary traditionally does not hear
cases of political disagreement between the other two branches. This
lawsuit is nothing more than a partisan bill to rally the Republican base
and for some -- for some, it doesn`t go far enough.


HAYES: The proposed lawsuit also prompted the former speaker of the
House to issue a challenge to the current speaker earlier today.


REP. NANCY PELOSI (D), CALIFORNIA: If we just want to talk about the
lawsuit, it behooves the speaker of the House to say impeachment is off the
table. I hope we can hear that soon. If you don`t want to hear people use
the word impeachment, as your people have done, then tell them impeachment
is off the table. That`s what I had to do. That`s what the speaker should


HAYES: Hours later and moments before the votes, Speaker Boehner
stuck to the script, it`s about the rule of law.


let any president choose what laws to execute and what laws to change? Are
you willing to let anyone tear apart what our Founders have built?


HAYES: President Obama meanwhile fresh from the news, the economy
grew at a healthy 4 percent in the first quarter. In cognizant for
remaining time for congressional action on a host of pressing issues before
the August recess, responded this morning in anticipation of that vote.


OBAMA: So, there`s a bunch of stuff that needs to get done.
Unfortunately, I think the main vote, correct me if I`m wrong here,
Congressman, the main vote they scheduled for today is whether or not they
decide to sue me for doing my job. I mean, everybody recognizes this is a
political stunt, but it`s worse than that, because every vote they`re
taking like that means a vote they`re not taking to actually help you.


HAYES: The vote does indeed come from a Congress that is on track to
be the least productive ever.

Five Republicans voted against today`s opposition. The principle
reason for their opposition, according to NBC News, was that the lawsuit
did not go far enough. Those Republican nay votes were Congressman Paul
Broun of Georgia, Congressman Scott Garrett of New Jersey, Congressman
Walter Jones of North Carolina, Congressman Thomas Massie of Kentucky and
Congressman Steve Stockman of Texas.

Joining me now is former Congressman Barney Frank, Democrat from
Massachusetts. He is now an MSNBC contributor.

And, you, Mr. Frank have spent a lot of time in that chamber, have you
ever seen something like this?

of fact, I`ve been sitting here sort of humming in my head or singing in my
head, the line from "Guys and Dolls", sue me, sue me, what can you do me?
This has been reduced to the level of bad musical comedy. Unlike "Guys and
Dolls" which is a good musical.

The inconsistencies and hypocrisies here are replete. In the first
place, it`s been the conservatives traditionally in America, who said
restrain the unelected judges, let the elected branches do their job. And
in particular they`ve upheld the concept of standing.

In the American Constitution, it says that the courts only deal with
disputes. And that has been for all of our history, tightly interpreted to
mean you can`t just sue because you disagree with the policy. You can`t
just sue because you think somebody`s misinterpreting the Constitution.
You have to show that a particular action negatively affected you in a way
that is different than anybody else. That is absolutely totally absent
from this.

The courts also said they used to be on a lawsuit or some lawsuits
where members of Congress tried to sue president for sending the troops
into battle. And a strong series of opinions, including from Judge Robert
Bork, the conservative who is equal to Antonin Scalia in his angry, right
wing posture, said, no, look, Congress, you`re big boys, if you don`t like
what the president`s doing, you straighten it out.

So, the notion that standing doesn`t count for anything, you don`t
have to be particularly injured. The notion that the unelected judiciary
will be the umpire between the two elected branches, those go contrary to
the Republicans.

And one other thing, during the Bush years in particular, the George
W. Bush years, the Republicans said, we have the unified executive, and you
could just go back and look it up as Casey Stengel used to say. They
talked about the need for totally strong executives.

So, this is just an act of frustration. And here`s a part of the
problem. Let`s fair to the Republican leadership. You and others have
talked about how the president is not doing anything. That`s true. The
reason is that they can`t do anything because they are so fundamentally
split between the group of responsible conservatives and the Tea Party wing
so that they can`t get a majority to do anything.

HAYES: You know, there`s been a lot of commentary on this lawsuit
along the lines of what you said, from people that studied these issues and
law professors that say, all these things that we need for an actual
lawsuit to go forward, you know, are absent here. This is going to get
laughed out of court.

But I was thinking today, what road we`re starting to embark down. I
remember this headline from back in May 1997, from "The Washington Post",
the Supreme Court`s ruling that Paula Corbin Jones can pursue her sexual
harassment lawsuit against Clinton while he`s still in office keeps
questions about the president`s character percolating in the public arena.

Now, that was a case that was supposed to get laughed out of court as
well. And that was the beginning of the trajectory that ended up with
impeachment. My question is, what Pandora`s Box has been opened today?

FRANK: Well, it really depends on the integrity of the conservative
justices. I wish I could be more certain of that than I have been. I do
think Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kennedy have shown some. Clearly,
if Justices Scalia and Alito and Thomas are in anyway true to doctrines
they professed in a long time. This goes nowhere and it wouldn`t reach the
Supreme Court.

But I -- I have to say, there`s been such a politicization in some
parts, I`m not sure about it, Paula Jones you mentioned, she wasn`t an
aggrieved plaintiff. She had standing. This one falls from the very

I mean, John Boehner has not been injured by the president`s failure
to impose a mandate. And by the way, who goes to court on this? The
president is being sued for doing things that the Republicans in policy
terms like. Nobody can go to court.

HAYES: They were pushing for the --

FRANK: Yes, nobody went to court and said, Mr. President, I insist
that you oppose this mandate on me. Is that the lawsuit?


Former Congressman Barney Frank, thanks so much.

All right. At this hour, Senator Ted Cruz is meeting with the select
group of House Republicans in an attempt to make sure they don`t pass a
bill favored by the House Republican leadership. That`s the other big item
on the agenda right now in Capitol Hill. And that bill is the border
supplemental bill, the House version of how to address the humanitarian
crisis at the border.

The vote is expected tomorrow. At $659, the bill is a fraction of the
amount of president requested. And devoted almost entirely to border
security despite the fact that insufficient border security is not at all
what`s animating this current crisis.

And even with that, Senator Cruz in a meeting that began about an hour
ago, is whipping against the bill to get it killed. Cruz has said he would
like House Republicans to defund Obama`s Deferred Action for Child
Arrivals, DACA program, a suggestion Boehner has so far resisted. The idea
is to defund DACA or don`t vote for the bill.

Now, DACA is President Obama`s preferred action announced in 2012, the
remove the threat of deportations for millions of young people who have
been brought to this country as children, as long as they meet certain
requirements. Presumably, Cruz wants the House to defund future

Here`s the thing -- the agency that processes those DACA applications
turns out to be almost entirely funded by application fees. There`s a big
$465 fee for each new application or renewal. That`s the revenue that
funds the processing. And yet, this particular exercise in futility was
joined Senator Marco Rubio today, who said in a statement he would oppose a
Senate version of the border bill, unless it too ends DACA.

If this seems like a quixotic battle for Senator Cruz to be waging in
a House of Commerce in which he does not sit, let`s recall the last time he
did this -- government shutdown circa -- well, just nine months ago,
featuring a check in session during a shut down at Washington`s tortilla
coast in which Cruz met with 15 to 20 House Republicans.

Joining me now is Carlos Campo, from the National Hispanic Christian
Leadership Conference.

And, Mr. Campo, you`re someone who identifies as a conservative and is
now looking out at how Capitol Hill`s going to deal with this. And how
will the optics read if House Republicans kill their own bill to take some
meager step to kind of but not really address the humanitarian crisis
they`ve been talking about now for a month.

Well, I think it`s clear, Chris, that we now have almost the perfect storm
that is going to highlight the gridlock you`ve been talking about. I think
it will play out very negatively. Here I am the odd man out and my Cuban
brothers here, but I`m really surprised that two men who understand what it
is to be a refugee, these are people who should certainly be at the
forefront of looking for solutions instead of gridlock.

HAYES: Let`s be clear about the pivot that`s happening here. We`re
not talking about a policy. There`s a humanitarian crisis on the border.
So, we`re not talking about how those children will be dealt with, whether
they`ll given due process, have their day in court. It is now become the
case that the evolving line on the right line of the coalition of the
Republican Party, is that current people here who have found the refuge of
deferred action, meaning, they don`t -- they`re not threatened to be
deported for having their parents bring them over when they`re kids, would
be deported or would not have that refuge. I mean, what do you think about

CAMPO: Sorry, Chris, I didn`t get some of that audio. Can you give
me that one more time? Sorry.

HAYES: Yes, what is your reaction to the emerging position that DACA
should be rescinded? These people who had refuge, no longer have the
threat of deportation hanging over them, have the misfortune of having been
brought here when they were kids, for that to be taken away as an official
GOP position?

CAMPO: Well, I think it`s clear that DACA was one of the few things
that Democrats and Republicans, many of us, really joined hands and said,
this is a step in the right direction.

Obviously, just another finger in the awful dike of immigration policy
and practice, but a step forward. Now to defund DACA doesn`t make sense.
I mean, as you pointed out, you know, the stream of people who began
coming, started in 2011 -- you know, DACA is 2012. So, it`s a wrong headed
solution to a problem that is far bigger than DACA.

So, I think it`s not the right place to start, and I think we all
realize, it`s simply another way to politicize an issue that has been
politicized already.

HAYES: When I`ve talked to Republicans who are working for
comprehensive immigration reform. They talk about this coalition that
involves business, Chamber of Commerce, which is pushing for it, but also
evangelicals. We`ve seen tremendous compassion and grace by a lot of
churches in Texas, opening their arms to these kids that are coming. These
are people that might identify, political conservatives and they`re doing
remarkable work, actually taking these people in.

But it doesn`t seem like evangelical community has had the voice on
immigration, within the Republican Party that I might have expected. What
do you think of that?

CAMPO: Well, I actually think there`s a building, a coalition is
building and the voice has been strong, but it`s been muted somewhat.
Again, there`s been such rancor that that level of noise is so high, I
think you missed that voice. I think the Catholic Church has really taken
the lead in this regard. But evangelicals really have come alongside to
say, while we argue about the issue, let`s deal with the problem.

And we think about people like that 15-year-old Honduran boy, I mean,
Guatemalan boy, who was found with a rosary around his decomposed body and
a number of his uncle in Chicago tucked in to his belt. To me, Chris, it`s
that image that I can`t wipe from my memory.

Those kids can`t get caught in this political debate, and this open
wound that is our border has to be resolved. And this spotlight, it`s not
a crisis. I mean, it`s 57,000 kids or so. It`s not a crisis. It`s being
called that. To me, it`s a spotlight that further exemplifies what the
problems are and why the system is so broken and needs to be fixed now.

HAYES: Carlos Campo from the National Hispanic Christian Leadership
Conference -- pleasure. Thank you very much.

CAMPO: Thanks, Chris.

HAYES: Congress may be deadlocked on immigration. But there is one
thing they pretty much all agree on, all of them. I`ll tell you what that
one thing is, ahead.


HAYES: Sarah Palin has done something very smart. So has Glenn Beck
for that matter. Surprised to hear me say that? I`ll explain, ahead.



SEN. HARRY REID (D-NV), MAJORITY LEADER: Hamas perpetrated this
conflict, Mr. President. They wantonly fire rockets into Israel, and they
don`t care where the rockets go.

should not be trying to pressure Israel to make a bad deal that leaves
Hamas in a position to continue these attacks against Israeli civilians.


HAYES: Over the last 48 hours, Congress did something we`re not used
to seeing them do very often these days. Both chambers passed something,
resolutions supporting Israel and condemning Hamas. The House resolution
passed earlier today, denouncing Hamas` human shields in violation of
international humanitarian law. The Senate`s resolution passed last night
also condemns Hamas`s terrorist actions and use of civilians as human
shields and, quote, "supports Israel`s right to defend itself against
Hamas` rocket assault."

Congress has now passed four resolutions, supporting Israel and
condemning Hamas in the one month since the current conflict in Gaza began.
A war that has now cost the lives of over 1,300 Palestinians, a majority of
them civilians, and killed 56 Israeli soldiers and three Israeli civilians.

While Congress is united in their view of Israeli actions, the
American people are not. The latest polling found that 42 percent of
Americans believe that Israel`s actions against Hamas are justified, while
39 percent of Americans say Israel`s actions against Hamas are unjustified.
Part of what accounts for the almost 40 percent of Americans who do not
think Israel`s actions are justified, the images coming out of Gaza that
are truly, truly hard to look at.


REPORTER: All day, Israel bombarded Gaza, often without warning.
Nowhere here is safe. Another U.N. school was hit, at least 15 of the
3,300 people sheltering inside were killed. Many were sleeping when the
shells started falling. It was the sixth deadly strike on a U.N. school.
Israel has denied responsibility in the past, saying Hamas uses the schools
to hide weapons.

Do you believe it was Israeli fire?

ROBERT TURNER: Yes. Our security staff went up this morning, we were
able to gather fragments from the explosive devices. We were able to take
photos, look at the trajectory.


HAYES: An IDF spokesperson told NBC News it`s troops were responding
to fire from the area around the school. The White House has officially
condemned the shelling and still calling for an immediate humanitarian
cease-fire. It`s a position that hasn`t earned the White House many allies
in Congress, Democratic or Republican.

They do have one, Congressman Keith Ellison, Democrat from Minnesota,
who in an op-ed published yesterday in "The Washington Post", called for a

And Congressman Keith Ellison joins me now.

Congressman, you wrote that we need to end the blockade in Gaza.
Explain what your argument here is.

REP. KEITH ELLISON (D), MINNESOTA: Well, you know, the blockade is
what gives rise to these tunnels. Because there is not freedom of movement
or people inside and outside of Gaza, the tunnels are how much of the goods
and movement takes place, but if there was -- if the checkpoints were open,
at the crossing or in Rafah and other crossings, then you could have goods
come and go, people come and go. And you would be able to have some level
of control and security.

But anything and everything could come through the tunnels. So, I
think the blockade is a real problem.

And then, also, you know, Gazans cannot use their port because they`re
movement into the Mediterranean is tightly restricted. It`s important for
people to know that when people are in Gaza, you cannot go anywhere, you
cannot leave Gaza under only a certain restrictive circumstances, people
cannot flee, that`s why you don`t see a bunch of refugees pouring out of
Gaza, because they cannot go. And so, that`s what I think is the right
thing to do.

People live in dreadful isolation. I`ve been there three times since
2009. And I can assure you that there are many, many, many people who have
no connection to Hamas who don`t believe -- who believe that we cannot just
go back to the status quo where Gaza was isolated, restricted and freedom
of movement, and people and goods was highly limited.

HAYES: What do you say to people that say, if you lift the blockade
after this episode in which Hamas had tunnel infiltration attacks and was
firing rockets, you give them a win, you give them a victory. Hamas needs
to be a taught a lesson.

ELLISON: I think if you lift the blockade, you give the children of
Gaza a win. If you lift the blockade, you make it so that there can be
real commerce in and out of Gaza. I mean, if you talk to Gazans and if you
talk to Israelis who live around it, the older ones will tell you they
remember a time when people used to trade with each other. They used to
know each other, and now, those days are long since past.

This isolation I`m hoping should end, I think it would undermine the
people who profit from the smuggling economy through these tunnels, because
these goods that come through these tunnels. They charge Gazans exorbitant
prices and restrict all kinds of access for people in Gaza.

When I was there when one of the three times, I was there trying to
help a 4-year-old boy get out of Gaza, because he needed health care, and
he needed it quickly. But his ability to even leave the strip was highly
restricted and he eventually did get a chance to go to Amman, Jordan, to
get the operation he needed but for a while it was very touch and go,
because they can`t even get out for medical needs.

And the number of medical machines is very limited. The last time I
was there last August, I went through the hospital, they had like one x-ray
machine, and it`s really a serious problem.

HAYES: So, Congressman, why are you -- why is no one calling for --
the White House wants a cease-fire. John Kerry is getting raked over the
coals for pushing for a cease-fire.

But your colleagues in Congress, you can hardly count on one hand the
members of Congress calling for a cease-fire. What gives?

ELLISON: Well, you know, I can only say that I`m going to continue to
try to convince my colleagues that a cease-fire is the right thing for both
Palestinians and Israelis. That this continued conflict is not going to
resolve this crisis. You don`t -- there is no military resolution to this,
only political, only negotiation.

And the best way to get the people who live in Gaza to -- the best way
to get them to embrace the peace process is to give them some modicum of
relief from the dreadful conditions they live under.

HAYES: Congressman Keith Ellison, thank you very much.

ELLISON: Thank you.

HAYES: All right. What happens to public health when giant
pharmaceutical companies make decisions about vital vaccines that benefit
them and not the public? Ahead.



OBAMA: See, I`m glad that GDP has grown, and I`m glad that corporate
profits are high, and I`m glad that the stock market is booming. But what
really I want to see is a guy working 9:00 to 5:00 and then working some
overtime, I want that guy making more than the minimum wage.



HAYES: The president had some good news to share today, as he gave a
speech in Kansas City, commenting on the fact that real GDP increased an
estimated 4 percent last quarter.

That is a very, very big number considering if that number holds after
revisions, there have only been two quarters with greater growth in the
last seven years. You zoom out from the day to day obstruction in
congress, the story of the Obama administration remains one of having
inherited the worst financial crisis in seven years and carrying an economy
that finally blessedly hopefully is headed toward full employment.

And, the big part of that turnaround is the first controversial thing
the president did. The thing that lit the fire under the Tea Party, the
stimulus. Well, there is a new survey from the University of Chicago,
which routinely polls leading economists on major questions and then they
asked whether the stimulus boosted the economy.

And, the answer is pretty resounding. When asked if they believe the
stimulus bill reduce unemployment, one economist said "No," 36 said, "Yes."
To paraphrase economic professor, Justin Wolfers. It is not a debate.
But, of course, do not expect any my bad, dude from Republicans on Capitol



UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE REPORTER: The patient came to the E.R. late last
night. That patient had just come from a country that has a high risk of
infectious diseases. Because of that, as a precaution, hospital officials
shut down that part of the E.R. as they tested the patient for any
diseases. The hospital told us it appears the risk of any disease that can
be transmitted is low.


HAYES: Augusta panicked this morning and Charlotte, North Carolina
after according to the Charlotte observer, quote, "A feverish patient who
recently traveled from Africa showed up at Carolina`s Medical Center`s
Emergency Department."

It did not take long before we started seeing headlines like this one
from the Drudge Report. Ebola man nearly reached U.S.A., fear in
Charlotte. But, an infectious disease specialist determined the patient
did not have Ebola and has been discharged home.

Part of the reason why people in this country fear Ebola is because,
well, the world is dealing with the worst Ebola outbreak in human history.
In 1976, when Ebola first appeared, there were just over 600 reported
cases. We had not seen an outbreak that bad since then until this year, in
which we have already seen double the amount of cases with almost 700

Including the first confirmed American death from the current
outbreak, Patrick Sawyer, who died Friday in Nigeria after contracting the
virus earlier in Liberia. Today, we learned the Peace Corps is temporarily
taking its volunteers out of Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea due to the
increasing spread of the virus.

But, the world as connected as it is ever been. It really is the case
that Ebola is just a plane ride away. But, that is because every disease
in the modern world is just a plane ride away. From AIDS -- viruses and
microbes do not respect national borders, which is why our health is so
inextricably linked to places like Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea where
this outbreak is happening.

But, the difference between us and those places that we are
origination. And, because we are origination, the most devastating
diseases like Ebola and malaria hard ever occur here at all. This is from
the center for global development. Communicable diseases make up 56
percent of the diseases burden in developing countries, but account for
just 6 percent of diseases in developed countries.

And, that is because there is a market here for vaccines and there is
money to be made developing, testing and deploying vaccines. On the other
parts of the world, there is no market incentive to do anything about these
diseases or in other words, it is not economically worthwhile to provide

Again, the Center for Global Development, quote, "The market for
vaccines for diseases of developing countries is neither sufficiently big
nor sufficiently predictable." They offer returns on investment, expensive
research and product development.

Commercial biotech and pharmaceutical companies, which are accountable
to their investors and shareholders, have to target the research
development on innovations that can yield the commercial return. And,
typically that means medicines for the larger markets for the rich
industrialized world.

Joining me now is Stephen Morse. He is a professor of epidemiology at
Columbia University. Professor Morse, if there was a case that a disease
like this were threatening Europe and the U.S., and there was a lot of
money into it, would we have seen a lot more medical innovation in
vaccination and treatment?

it could be a lot more incentive and there is no question that incentive is
what a company needs in order to begin getting an interest in producing a
vaccine. For a long time there were not good technical approaches for
doing it; but, in the last few years, there have been a few good candidate
vaccines developed that do have the potential to protect people against
Ebola and could be produced. But, as you say, the target group is very
small and not very rich.

HAYES: So, that is just going to sit on the sidelines, because it
looks like we are dealing with a massive market failure here. I mean the
market does not reward producing the vaccine, but, of course, the nature of
a communicable disease is it could have massively devastating consequences
for a wide swap of human life if it is not dealt with.

PROF. MORSE: Certainly. And, also, vaccine is only useful if we can
give it to the people who really need it. So, there was an outbreak of
yellow fever a couple of years ago, and all across Africa and many
different parts as far as Ethiopia. And, people in the United States and
Europe who were traveling could certainly get the yellow fever vaccine
easily and be protected. The local people, there are simply was not enough
vaccine to go around. So, the people who really needed it could not get

HAYES: Have we gotten any better over the last decade particularly in
the era of the Clinton Global Initiatives and the gates foundation and a
bunch of NGOs working to try to alleviate some of the health suffering in
the global south? Have we gotten better at getting vaccines to the people
that do need it?

PROF. MORSE: I think we have gotten much better at it. And, I think
in general, when we think about the heroic efforts of the smallpox
eradication project, that program in the late 70s -- 60s and 70s, which was
successful. Smallpox was eradicated as a naturally occurring disease.
Through a lot of efforts and a very good vaccine that was taken to a lot of
very remote places with the gates foundation and other efforts, we are
seeing this with a lot of other vaccines as well.

So, I think the possibility exists, but even in developed countries
where there is a demand for vaccine and enough money presumably to justify
it, we do not have a disease for -- a vaccine for Lyme disease for example,
even though it is common. And, I am sure many people would like to have

So, the bar to entry is pretty high because vaccines do take a lot of
effort to make and test and market. They are rather delicate and each
vaccine may be different, has to be tested individually. So, companies
obviously are very careful to invest in the ones that they think will give
them the reasonable return at least.

HAYES: Why are we seeing such a bad outbreak of Ebola this time
around, the worst we have seen in 30 years? Are there natural cycles to
these kinds of disease outbreaks?

PROF. MORSE: I think Ebola occurs sporadically in particular, and one
of the reasons that it is so bad I think, is that this part of Africa has
not experienced an Ebola outbreak before. Central Africa, Zaire for
example, the Democratic Republic of the Congo as it is now called and more
recently Uganda have had outbreaks of Ebola.

But, in this part of Africa, although the virus has probably been
their in nature for quite some time, something -- some change in
environmental conditions or some accidental contact with one of the animals
that might be carrying Ebola, probably a bat or perhaps some other wildlife
that came in contact with a bat and got Ebola. And, somebody got infected
and basically people are unused to knowing how to handle it here. They are
learning. They are on the learning curve right now.

HAYES: Steven Mores from Columbia University, thank you.

PROF. MORSE: Thank you.

HAYES: It is being called subprime fund-raising, how one conservative
group is scamming people, and it is all legal. That story is ahead.



much clearer can I say it, there is always money in the banana stand.


HAYES: There is always money in the banana stand and there is always
money in conservative media especially when you cut out the middle man.
That is ahead.


HAYES: In 2012 all across the country devoted red blooded
conservatives. The kind of people who signed up for Tea Party mailing
lists and give money to upstart anti-establishment candidates. They got a
fund-raising letter asking them to donate to Sharron Angle. Angle you will
recall unsuccessfully challenged Harry Reid for his Nevada senate seat in
2010 becoming a more known for her out there position than for running a
serious campaign.


keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those second
amendment remedies and saying, "My goodness, what can we do to turn this
country around?"


HAYES: And, when a Nevada congressional seat opened up in 2012, Angel
decided to make another run for it. So, she hired Washington, D.C. based
direct mail firm called Based Connect to solicit donations from the party
faithful. It worked. They dug into their pockets and ultimately forked
over about a million dollars to Base Connect according to one report.

The problem was, Angle ultimately dropped out of the race when
Election Day rolled around. Her name was not on the ballot. So, here is a
question. What happened to all that money? If history is any guide, it
may have gone right back to Base Connect.


M.L. ELRICK, FOX 2 DETROIT JOURNALIST: In Michigan, Base Connect
collected $1 million to support roger for races Rocky Raczkowski for races
he never ran. The first time Base Connect raise money for Raczkowski did
not run was in 2007.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE SPEAKER: In his priorities are clear, stop the
out of control spending.


ELRICK: Raczkowski says he did not run against Senator Carl Levin
because he was recalled to active military duty. Meanwhile, almost every
cent base connect raised was spent on, wait for it, raising money.


HAYES: The firm appears to engage in what one republican consultant
called subprime fund-raising. What you do is you identified a long-shot
republican candidates or ones who may not even get in the ballot. You take
over the campaign`s financial apparatus, raise a bunch of money off the
republican mailing list and then charge the campaign nearly the sum total
of what they raised for expenses related to fund-raising effort itself.

They have a history. Back in 2006, when Base Connect was known by
it`s previous name, BMW Direct was hired to raise money for a right-wing
house candidate in Massachusetts. The candidate got just 145 votes in the
primary, dropped out before the general election. But the firm went right
along, raising money, bringing in more than $700,000. A whopping 96
percent of which was used to pay BMW Direct and affiliated companies. And,
the best part of this whole story, all of this is legal.

Joining me now, Nick Confessore, Political Reporter, for "The New York
Times." Nick, I like to think of myself as the consumer watchdog for
Republican donors out there --


HAYES: -- small dog donors. I am on your side, and I am looking out
for you. Is this a thing? Are scam packs and scam political fund-raising
operations a thing?

CONFESSORE: It is a huge thing, Chris. As you know, direct mail is a
big part of the business of politics on both sides of the aisle. But, it
is especially huge in grassroots conservative fund-raising. Now, it has
deep and important roots in the rise of conservatism. This was one of the
ways through direct mail that conservatives took power from the old
centrist establishment in the `70s.

What is kind of ironic about this, it has now become kind of a vehicle
for moneymaking and hucksterism on the right, and they have developed these
incredibly efficient machines for separating mostly old conservative people
from their money. And, almost none of that money then gets spent to
actually advance conservative policies.

HAYES: So, how is this legal?


CONFESSORE: Well, the federal law on campaign finance is long and
deep, but it provides almost no protection for you, the buyer, in this
case, the donor. It is basically a case of buyer beware. But, it is even
worse than that. The Federal Election Commission, not so long ago, ruled
that basically, it is possible to go out and raise money not just for a
candidate you are not going to help but for my candidate you are opposed

So, now we see these websites that are designed to entice the
supporters of a candidate and they actually take in money and give it to
that candidate`s opponent. It is a brave new world of online and direct
mail fund-raising.

HAYES: Wait a second. Wait a second. That exists? There are people
that are saying, you, you know -- you like this candidate, you should come
support us. Just fill it in with your PayPal right here --

CONFESSORE: That is right.

HAYES: -- thank you very much. And, then goes and gives that money
to that person`s opponent?

CONFESSORE: That is right. We have seen a couple of examples of this
and it has been blessed by the FEC. They said, "Well, for the most part,
it is hard to regulate this." But, forget that scam, I mean what we have
here is direct mail run amok. You have consultancies that are working
closely with direct mail firms or are the direct mail firms in a lot of
cases, or are subsidiaries. And, what they do is they buy a list. They
say, we are going to impeach Obama. We are going to roll back Obama Care.
We are going to stand up for Allen West or Mike Lee or Rand Paul.

And, then all that money basically goes through the pockets of the
consultants who are running the whole thing. You know, consulting is
expensive. It exists. It is fine. But, what you can tell when you look
at the filings, look at how much of the money is actually going toward
advertising, toward grassroots organizing, and in the worst cases here,
almost none is going for the purposes again of actually advancing

HAYES: Yes. Base Connect says, basically, you got to spend money to
make money, and this is what we do. But, there is a big difference between
20 percent overhead, 40 percent overhead, and 96 percent overhead.

CONFESSORE: And, Chris, on top of that, you know? We cannot see
under federal law, there is no disclosure for whatever side deals might be
arrived at between these consultants --

HAYES: Right.

CONFESSORE: -- and the long-shot candidates they are recruiting. So,
they are saying, "Oh, I am running." Right? We have no idea if they are
getting a cut of the direct mail money on the side. We just have no idea.

HAYES: That is a great point. Nick Confessore from "The New York
Times." Thank you.


HAYES: Direct Mail is not the only way to make a fortune separating
conservatives from their money. I will tell what you else works, next.



STEPHEN COLBERT, LATE NIGHT T.V. SHOW HOST: If $9.95 sounds too rich
for your blood, just sign up for my new premium web channel, Stephen
Colbert`s Angry Echo Chamber for just $9.94. It is a community for people
just like you if you have a valid credit card.


HAYES: Sarah Palin debut her new web channel on Sunday. The app
named Sarah Palin Channel. And, online platform for all things mama
grizzly from pictures of the Palin family to countdown clock, the days left
in the Obama Administration.

Palin is charging $9.95 a month or $99.95 a year for subscriptions to
the site, more than a membership to Amazon Prime or Netflix. What she is
doing makes total business sense. Palin is following a trail blazed by the
head of the Blaze, Glenn Beck, who took an incredible risk walking away
from Fox News in 2011 to cut out the middle man and start his new media
enterprise. It was a risk that paid off in a huge way.

But the blaze raking in between $35 and $45 million a year. And, Beck
landing on Forbes` list on the most powerful celebrities. And, now for his
next trick, Glenn Beck is doing something that would probably get any other
media personality laughed out of the peach meeting. He just debut a
feature film about common core.

You know, the set of national standards for school curricula. Not
what we think of as a huge box office draw, but it has become a galvanizing
issue within the right-wing echo chamber. The question is, why is this so
lucrative? Why does any of this work? Joining me now, Eric Boehlert,
Senior Fellow at Media Matters.

All right, Eric. The sort of top line on the Palin announcement was
like, "Ha, ha, that is ridiculous. $9.95 for the Palin Channel, like what
are you going to watch her do? Walk around?" But, this is smart. She is
smart. This is completely the right business play from her perspective.

I mean, you know, her reach is diminishing both nationally in terms of her
message, but if you have a following, you can cut out the middleman. Fox
News was less and less interested in her. So, she figures, you know, she
will do it on her own.

Will she have the success of Glenn Beck very unlikely? You know,
Glenn Beck realized when he was at Fox, he had this fanatical following.
Remember all the gold coins he was selling those poor people? So, he
realized, you know, he is much more of a preacher. He was able to build
his own entity, his own media community. I seriously doubt Sarah Palin
will be able to do that? But, will she make a very handsome living up in
Alaska? I am sure she will. And, we might see more and more of this.

HAYES: Yes. Glenn Beck, I should say is a hundred times more
compelling than Sarah Palin in my humble opinion.


HAYES: He is an incredibly gifted broadcaster. But, Beck has
pioneered this. And, what it gets to, and this was true of the
conservative publishing boom that we have seen over the last 20 years, is
that there is so much money in the market of selling conservative stuff to
conservatives. It just seems bottomless.

BOEHLERT: It is bottomless. And, for people who make a living on the
left writing, and who look at this with incredible envy, how do you write
the 49 cut and paste anti-Obama, anti-Hillary, anti-Bill Clinton book and
watch it go on "The New York Times" bestseller list. This goes back to why
talk radio is so -- right wing talk radio is so successful. It is in the
DNA. They -- you know, the conservatives -- there is this fear that is
whipped up. There is anti-Clinton back in the `90s or you know, anti-
democrats, during the war and things like that and, obviously, now with
Obama and Hillary Clinton.

And, it just drives this fear. And, they will listen to the same
radio show hour after hour, day after day, month after month. They will
watch Fox News 6, 7 hours a day. So, it is in the DNA. And, trust me,
everyone out there notices it, and they are paying. And, it produces huge
dividends, radio ratings, internet, books, speaking tours and all of that.
And, again, people on the left look at this, why them?

HAYES: Well -- So, here is part of the reason that conservatives will
give you when you have this conversation, they try to be triumphant about


HAYES: It is like this weird thing like they are bragging about the
scoreboard of their favorite team.


HAYES: Which is they will say, "Hey, look at the polling, and they
are twice as many self-identified conservatives and liberals in America."
So, there is just a much bigger market.

BOEHLERT: Well, I do not think that is true. I mean if you look at
the polling, you know, may be the hard conservative, hard liberal. But, if
you look at the polling, self-identified democrats, self-identified
republicans, they are pretty similar and probably there is more democrats.

This discussion about talk radio has gone on for years and years.
And, liberals just do not have that same interest in being in that echo
chamber that long, all day, all month. And, therefore, it becomes a less
lucrative business. It is an incredibly lucrative business to tell
conservatives what they want to hear nonstop.

HAYES: Well, Eric Boehlert from "Media Matters," I never tell
liberals what they want to hear. Good job. Thank you.

BOEHLERT: Thank you.

HAYES: That is "All In" for this evening. The Rachel Maddow show
starts right now. Good evening, Rachel.


Copyright 2014 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.>