WBD448 Audio Transcription

The Broken Political System with Morgan Harper

Interview date: Tuesday 11th January

Note: the following is a transcription of my interview with Morgan Harper. I have reviewed the transcription but if you find any mistakes, please feel free to email me. You can listen to the original recording here.

In this interview, I talk to former senior advisor at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and prospective Democratic candidate for the 2022 US Senate election in Ohio, Morgan Harper. We discuss her political motivations, removing corporate money from politics, how Bitcoin can help level the playing field, and taking politics out of policy.

“This decentralized power concept is very important… the reason why we have the democracy issues, the reason why we haven’t seen broader economic opportunity is because we do have this concentration of economic power.”

— Morgan Harper

Interview Transcription

Peter McCormack: Morning, Morgan, how are you?

Morgan Harper: Good morning.  How are you, Peter?  Good to be here.

Peter McCormack: Good to have you.  Okay, lots I want to talk to you about.  You're running for Senate?

Morgan Harper: I am, yeah.

Peter McCormack: Crazy!  So, I don't usually have to do this, because a lot of my listeners will know my guests, because I tend to just have Bitcoin people on every week and they get to know them.  I know some bitcoiners are aware of you, because you're not against Bitcoin, which is great; but not everyone's going to know you.  So I think it's best, give everyone an intro, let everyone know who Morgan is.

Morgan Harper: So, my name's Morgan Harper, I'm running for the open US Senate seat in Ohio and a big reason why I'm in politics at all is because of just some of my early life experiences growing up there.  I was born at Ohio State Hospital, given up for adoption.  I was in a foster home as a baby, then I was adopted and raised by my mum.  And we went through a lot.  We had that experience of one life of financial shock that just wakes you up to realise how much things can go away overnight potentially, for reasons out of your control.

So, that just really put me on this path to figure out what is this, how do we make sure people are more protected.  I pursued clear and public policy and then ultimately, in my time in Washington, realised the limits of public policy and the need for better politicians.  We don't, in many ways, have an ideas problem, we have a politician problem, and that's only going to change if people that are better start to get elected.

Peter McCormack: And you're a Buckeye?

Morgan Harper: So, that's a tricky question, because I was born at the Ohio State University Hospital, but I did not go to the Ohio State University.

Peter McCormack: You didn't go to Michigan?

Morgan Harper: I didn't go to Michigan, though.  I went to Tulsa University for college, kind of neutral territory for that rivalry's purposes, but I'm a Buckeye at heart being from Ohio, but I want to be clear that I did not go to the Ohio State University.

Peter McCormack: I was actually in Ohio recently.

Morgan Harper: Oh, where were you?

Peter McCormack: I went to Cincinnati and had to cross over to Kentucky, and then I went up to Mansfield, of all places.  I went to the prison there, interesting place.

Morgan Harper: Yeah, what were you doing there?

Peter McCormack: I was at the heavy metal festival.

Morgan Harper: Oh, cool, okay.  Yeah, so you got the full Ohio experience, which is great.

Peter McCormack: I've been a few times, and I also know Warren Davidson, who you will know.

Morgan Harper: Yeah.

Peter McCormack: He's an Ohio representative and for some reason, I keep meeting people from Ohio, I dated a girl from Ohio.

Morgan Harper: Everyone's dated a girl from Ohio, that's a very common thing!  Probably the best experience of your life!

Peter McCormack: She's amazing, we're still friends, but she said to me I'm an honorary Buckeye and I have to stay one for life.  So, I am.

Morgan Harper: Yeah, it's a really solid place.  I think that we get lumped in with middle America and then there's some not so great things happening in our state legislature that don't put the best presentation of what our home is, but I think it's a place that's full of a lot of good people that have very modest expectations for what their life should look like, and have a real strong sense of right or wrong, and call BS when they see it.  So, that's had a big impact on me.

Peter McCormack: Yeah, they definitely call BS when they see it, that's my experience.  So, okay, who are you running against?

Morgan Harper: So, it's an open seat, in that Rob Portman, who is the current Senator in this seat, has announced he is retiring, but in advance.  So, that makes it so that others know, he is not going to be running for re-election; always more complicated when an incumbent is running.  And we have people on the Republican side, like JD Vance, Josh Mandel, Jane Timken, they're all in and they're Republican primary.  And then in the Democratic primary, it's me and Tim Ryan, who's a current House of Representatives number.

Peter McCormack: Josh Mandel's a bitcoiner as well, actually.

Morgan Harper: Josh Mandel, yeah, he is a bit into this.

Peter McCormack: Okay.  And the person you're up against on the Democrat side, Tim Ryan, did you say?

Morgan Harper: Tim Ryan, yeah.

Peter McCormack: Is he the guy who won't debate you?

Morgan Harper: He is the guy who won't debate me.  So, not sure what's up with that.  When asked about it this week, he said he's waiting to see who's really in this race and he debates all the time in Congress.  Not sure how that's relevant for the purposes of this campaign or election, but yeah.  I mean, when you're known, I mean a little bit facetious, but when you're a more known entity, you have no benefit to further exposure of your opponent.  So usually, the strategy for a typical politician is hide as long as you can, and then hope that nobody hears about anybody else, and then just coast in.

But my whole style of politics is trying to hold people accountable, because we have a lot of disillusionment in our political sector for good reason, because we have people that aren't about doing the right thing, aren't about discussing ideas; are mainly about themselves.

Peter McCormack: Okay.  So, what are your chances of beating him?

Morgan Harper: Well, I only get into things I think I can win.

Peter McCormack: Okay, good, like this.

Morgan Harper: Yeah, and the biggest barrier we have is just making people hear what I'm about; because another thing that I love about people in Ohio is that mostly they hate politicians, and I dislike a lot of politicians too, and they just want somebody who's going to be real and stand up for them.  So, we need to make sure that folks know that they have that option in this race and then will vote for me, and that's the biggest barrier.

Peter McCormack: So, I recently met Aarika Rhodes, who is running in California, can't remember the area.  She's up against an incumbent who bitcoiners don't like, Brad Sherman.

Morgan Harper: I'm sorry, for which seat?

Peter McCormack: I've got no idea.

Morgan Harper: Is it like federal, state?

Peter McCormack: This is where I'm totally out of my depth on US politics.

Morgan Harper: I've already asked you a lot of questions!

Peter McCormack: All I know is that she's up against Brad Sherman, and he's National, isn't he? 

Morgan Harper: Yeah, House, okay.

Peter McCormack: Yeah, I think so.  But the question I asked her, because she was great, said similar things to you, fed up of politicians.  Everyone's fed up of politicians, they're bullshit.

Morgan Harper: Yeah, a lot of people are.

Peter McCormack: But I think almost anyone going into politics would say this.  How do you not get dragged down and corrupted by the system?  I don't mean you become corrupt, I mean the system corrupts your ability to be who you want to be.

Morgan Harper: Well, a couple of things.  The way that I'm running gives me more freedom.  So, I'm not a party darling, I'm not running because I kissed a ring and they touched me and they said, "You get to be the person".  We are doing this in an independent way, although I'm running as a Democrat.  So, it's a lot more work to run in this way, but what I do is just connect with real people, get that support, and then you have the freedom to say what you believe, not because you've been fed dogma by certain folks that require you to always adhere to the same principles, right.  So, one, that provides some freedom.

But then the other thing that I would say distinguishes me from a lot of people running is, I've already worked in Washington, so I've had experience in that place.  I worked at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau during the Obama Administration, I've worked at different thinktanks, I know what it is and I know what it takes to get things moving in there, and you have to come in with that independence and a real vision for trying to maximise your time there.

The other way that I try to assure people I will be different is self-imposed term limits.  I do not want to be a career politician, I am only going to serve two terms.  I get asked that a lot in Ohio, and that's a way that I can tell people I'm going to be different; I'm not going to get complacent.  If, in 12 years, I haven't been able to move the needle in any way, or even if I have, pass the baton, next person, let's get some new blood in there, new ideas.

Peter McCormack: It seems to me as somebody just an outside observer, I'm British, not American, so I don't know a lot about --

Morgan Harper: You're British?

Peter McCormack: I'm British.

Morgan Harper: I'm kidding!

Peter McCormack: I don't know a lot about the US politics.  I know a bit, because I come here a lot, and I've watched House of Cards.

Morgan Harper: I'm sure everyone's watched House of Cards!

Peter McCormack: But it seems to me, US politics, a lot of it is about horse trading, and it feels like that's one of the things that holds things up, or stops effective policy creation.  How do you avoid that, or is it unavoidable; is this the nature of politics?

Morgan Harper: I mean, there's always going to be some negotiation involved in any legislative process and in policy-making process, but I guess the distinction I would make is, so you know I worked at CFPB.  That's a federal regulator of consumer financial products.  The approach of being a regulator is, you meet with everybody, you meet with people in industry, business, whatever, you know you're going to be regulated, you meet with the advocacy groups, you meet with elected officials, and then you just come up with what you think is the best policy.  That's what I believe we need more of in elected office.

What's happened in elected office is that, for some reason, we let people take money from the folks that they're supposed to be regulating.

Peter McCormack: It doesn't make any sense.

Morgan Harper: Very weird.  And we don't tell them what the expectations are for their job.  There's no accountability.  So, if you're a federal regulator and you just never release rules, that's pretty weird.  If you don't bring any enforcement actions, that's weird.  There's going to be some consequences to that, because there's oversight from Congress.  But if you're in Congress and, like my opponent, you don't really have any strong track record of doing anything, you continue to get elected, because no one's running against you, because we have these gerrymandered districts. 

So, there's a lack of accountability there and the only way, to me, we can get that on track in a different direction is by having people that don't care about it being a career.  If you need to be there for 20 years, then you've got to make a lot of deals with a lot of people to be able to sustain that amount of time.  But if you're only looking to get there and just serve for some period of time, which really was the original intent of a lot of these positions, then you have a different risk calculus about how many deals you're wiling to make, or need to make, in order to get what you're looking to accomplish done.

Peter McCormack: Okay.  Another thing you can help me understand as an outsider, if you become a senator, what is the split of your work between representing the needs of the people from Ohio and working on policy at a national level, at a federal level?

Morgan Harper: It's interesting.  I do think, and this is a pitch I make to a lot of people as I'm trying to get them to support our campaign, is even if you're not in Ohio, each of these Senate seats is a national seat, or at least national in its implications.  There aren't that many senators, there are only two from each state.  Everyone has a tremendous amount of power for that reason.  I think Joe Manchin, Kyrsten Sinema are really showing us that, as we have a lot of these legislative battles right now over the President's Build Back Better agenda and all of that.

So, it's a balance in a way, but I think my perspective on it is, we've had a generation of national policy that hasn't resulted in getting as much value for places like Ohio.  We've had a lot of growth on the coast.  I've lived in some of these places where that growth has happened, where we've had the concentration of resources, so I'm coming with an attitude of, "Look, as long as we're a country where that's the dynamic, where we only have some places within certain regions that are doing well and other places, like Ohio, that are not, then we are not all okay". 

I think that's one of the interesting things that's happened over the last couple of years, especially with the pandemic, this understanding of our collective faiths, so to speak.  So, to me, they're not inconsistent, is the way to put it succinctly.  Yeah, I'm going to be for Ohio, but actually the fate of our nation is very much tied to how places like Ohio fare.

Peter McCormack: That's fair.  All right, I want to go back a bit.  Your previous term working at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Morgan Harper: That roles off the tongue!  Washington's really good at labels and marketing.

Peter McCormack: I was in Washington last week, well, over the weekend, and I took a walk around DC and what blew me away was just wandering around and looking at the buildings, and every building was some kind of institution.  So, we had the World Bank and we had the IMF, but also lots of these things I've never heard of, like Ronald Reagan's Centre for this, Such Centre for that such association.  It feels like a big, wasteful, bureaucratic centre of bullshit.

I was just like, I wonder if you just wiped out most of this, the country would still operate, and maybe more efficiently?  I just couldn't believe it.

Morgan Harper: So, you know what's funny, I completely hear where you're coming from, and this was my orientation going into Washington.  So, a little bit more about my background.  I got this scholarship when I was young to go to this very fancy private school in the suburbs of Columbus, in what was a pretty conservative environment, a lot of very wealthy people who have a lot of views that wealthy people tend to have about the need or role of government and a belief in the strength of the private sector.  So, I was always a little bit out of the norm there thinking, "I don't know, something's not adding up here about just how fair this all is, based on my experience, but let's see".

But I went in, my first shot after college, I worked at the Federal Trade Commission, because I'm told that government's where it's at to try and serve the people and we have these federal agencies, let's see.  And I can't believe that all the people I grew up with were right, that this is all nonsense, right?  I mean, I'm going to go in there and really provide some value.  I get to the Federal Trade Commission, which has different leadership at the moment, so that's a whole other thing, and everyone was just obsessed with talking about the Water Club.  What's a Water Club?

Peter McCormack: I'm assuming it's something to do with a water cooler?

Morgan Harper: How much you're going to pay to be able to access the filtered water, so that you don't have to get the water from the tap.  I heard so many conversations about that, I thought I was going to kill myself.  So, I started to develop a system of, how do you cope, where you're having this disillusionment before your eyes of, "Maybe this is all nonsense, maybe all these people are right.  I don't know what I'm doing with my life".

Every day I would go save a dollar to get a Starbuck's tea, because that's all I could afford, down the street, to just try to level out about, "Oh my gosh, this is crazy, we're not doing anything and I thought this was supposed to be the seat of power where we actually are trying to serve people".  So, I was really sceptical of ever going back to the federal government.  I did that, they're kind of right, it's a waste of resources.  I don't know why all these people make so much money, and my views of people in Ohio were a little bit on point.

Then the Financial Crisis happened and at the time the Financial Crisis happened, I was working at a law firm here in New York actually, and so really seeing a lot of the companies and institutions that had been part of bringing that crisis on, and that they were still doing A-okay.  There was this new agency that was created, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and they said that they were doing government in a different way, that it was going to be data-driven, that they were all about serving the American people with urgency.  But I'd heard all of that before and I'm like, "I'm deeply sceptical, but let's see", because this sounds like it's different, it sounds like what I think government should be about, which is being really efficient, being very aggressive about delivering value and telling that story, making the case for why people should believe that government can do anything.

I did an interview and within five minutes I could tell, "These are my people.  These are people that are really serious about getting things done".  That was my experience at CFPB.  That's why I can authentically go to people and say, yeah, I don't know that I would say that about every agency at every level, but this was an agency that was legit and we did $12 billion back to 28 million consumers in just a few years, bringing in enforcement actions against companies that had been responsible for the crisis.

But my other learning though was, and I mentioned in the beginning, I saw the limits.  Okay, great, $12 billion back to 28 million consumers, that's a great number, a lot of people put a lot of hard work into getting it.  But every time I went back to Ohio, I was like, "This isn't really moving the needle.  A lot of the communities I've been focused on are not faring any better, so we haven't got into some structural issues that are keeping certain people from getting ahead.

Peter McCormack: Who was responsible for the 2008 Financial Crisis?

Morgan Harper: Well, it was a lot of big banks and the people that lead them that were willing to, at all costs, make money off these subprime mortgages, and it almost brought down the economy.  I mean, I think one of the reasons why people don't have as strong of an understanding of who was at fault is that there weren't a lot of people held personally liable.  We didn't bring criminal charges against people.

Peter McCormack: I think one person went to jail.

Morgan Harper: Yeah, and that is crazy, right, because if we break the law, as individuals walking around, we're going to go to jail, or depending on what the crime is.  So many people stayed wealthy, got wealthier on the other side of it.  I do believe it's one of the things that has made this deep, deep disillusionment of both government, our politics, power, concentrated power so prevalent among the general population, but especially places like Ohio.

Peter McCormack: But is there any part of the Financial Crisis that the federal government could be held responsible for?

Morgan Harper: In terms of…?

Peter McCormack: Repealing Glass-Steagall?

Morgan Harper: Yeah, I mean that is part of it.  I mean also, the whole reason why CFPB was created was a recognition that regulators had been asleep at the wheel.  So, even given the powers that they had, Glass-Steagall was a repeal of certain regulations that would have applied to the financial sector.  But even given the powers that remain of what laws government could be enforcing, there was this idea that you have so many different buildings in DC that are supposed to be looking after consumer financial products, including mortgages, and nobody was taking the threats that seriously, nobody was really looking at the risks and monitoring them that carefully.

So, the CFPB was, "Okay, this is a really important segment of the economy, it impacts individuals', families' bottom lines, we have to have one regulator that's going to be laser-focused on protecting people, and we have to have a new agency to do that.

Peter McCormack: Because it was Elizabeth Warren grilling Steve Mnuchin who said that parts of the White House had become an arm of Wall Street, or parts of Wall Street had become an arm of the White House, and that separation between the big banks and the regulators seemed to have been blurred.

Morgan Harper: Yes, there's a lot of blurring, and this is where also you have the revolving door of people who go into government and then go into banks after and are able to make a lot of money off of the policies that they either have stalled or implemented.  It's not right.  Or people trading while they're in these very powerful positions some of their own investments.  I mean, this is not what government should be, and the only way it's going to change is by having people that are getting in there that are trying to make it better.

These institutions are entirely dependent on the people that occupy them and what they're trying to accomplish, the agenda that they set.

Peter McCormack: Because I think we're in the midst of another financial crisis right now.  We may have not had our Wall Street crash, but the CPI printed a 40-year high figure today of 6.8% inflation.

Morgan Harper: Saw that, yeah.

Peter McCormack: We're told it was transitory.  We know during COVID that the rich continue to get rich, the billionaires had something like -- I was reading an article about the super-rich are buying more super-yachts as they printed another $2.8 trillion in wealth for the super-billionaires; I don't know the exact numbers.  Lots of small businesses lost their business here in New York.  You wander around, there's a lot of places boarded up.

Morgan Harper: Yeah, it's sad.

Peter McCormack: All the Irish pubs, which annoys me, are all boarded up, and the inflation position we're in right now really is a result of policies from the Fed and the Treasury.  So, we're kind of moving into the Bitcoin bit now, it's when you hear about Joe Biden talk about Build Back Better.  What the bitcoiners are trying to do is Build Back Better, but they're trying to do it routing, in some ways, around politics.  You're somebody who's expressed an interest in Bitcoin, maybe crypto.  We're just a Bitcoin show, so we don't focus on that. 

How do you marry those two in that a lot of bitcoiners hold the government responsible for the position we're in now?  Because everybody out here is just going to work.  They're working hard, we can hear them out there, whatever they're building.  Jeremy drives in this morning two hours, I travel, we're all working hard, yet we're all affected by the policies of government spending.  And when the government spending gets out of control, the policies of the Fed and the Treasury -- and by the way, I'm saying all these things like, "The Fed and the Treasury", I don't fully understand it.  How do you marry those two?  Why have you taken an interest in Bitcoin, because it really is a reaction to government?

Morgan Harper: And I would just add one thing into the analysis of why I think we're seeing some of these inflationary dynamics, is we have also, through government policy over the past 40 years, laid the groundwork for large corporations to have tremendous amounts of power over both our economy and now our democracy by bribing politicians. 

Peter McCormack: Can you expand the bribing piece; is this lobbying?

Morgan Harper: I consider corporate PACs bribes.

Peter McCormack: Okay, explain that to people listening who might not be American.

Morgan Harper: So, corporate PACs are Corporate Political Action Committees.  There were changes and campaign finance laws about 40 years ago, so interesting that it tracks with some of the economic dynamics that we're talking about, that opened the floodgates for money to enter politics in the United States. 

So, with these PACs, you have corporations that are able to cut checks, literally, cut checks to elected officials, $5,000, $10,000, this was before Citizens United, that are then -- AT&T, for example, just giving a sitting member of Congress $5,000.  Are they giving that because they like the hat that they wore today?  No.  They're giving that because they know that it will impact their policy-making decisions.  So to me, those are bribes.  No corporation is giving money to an elected official without some expectation of return.  Just like us, right?

But the difference between an individual and a corporation, which is an important one, is we as individuals, just working and living our lives, don't have the ability to set prices for what goods might be, don't have the ability to set wages for thousands of people that we might be employing.  The difference there is power, and as long as we have this concentrated power within just a few companies in every market area, that are then also bribing politicians from changing anything about the policy-making that might disadvantage them, then we don't really have government that is for the people, we have government that is for a few.

Peter McCormack: How do you break that?

Morgan Harper: So, in an ideal world, you would have campaign finance reform and all the things that people will come and they say, "If you elect me, this is what I care about, this is what I'm going to try to accomplish", this is some of legislation that exists that is trying to change the campaign finance laws.  I'm a little bit more of a realist there.  I am not optimistic about our ability to pass comprehensive campaign finance reform. 

So in the meantime, our only hope is having elected officials, or aspiring ones like myself, who are making an individual commitment to not take this money.  I'm not taking corporate PAC money.  Those are bribes and if you are taking that, then you are bought and sold before you even sit down to talk about what policy should be.  We should no longer be electing people who take corporate PAC money.

Now you're starting to see, and it's a bit disingenuous in my view, but you do have a lot of people on even the right in my Senate race, for example, JD Vance, let's look at him.  He's saying he's not going to take corporate PAC money.  Okay, well cool, you don't need it, you're a multimillionaire and you have a Super PAC, which is this whole other layer of campaign finance that's been created, that has $10 million from Peter Thiel, Facebook billionaire, co-founder, on the board, and you're going to stand up to Big Tech.  That's what you want the people of Ohio to believe, that you're going to be somebody who's going to stand up to power in elected office; it's nonsense.  But why they're saying that is that they know exactly what you're observing, that people know the jig is up. 

We don't have representative democracy as long as we're electing people that are already bribed.  And so, that's a winning message.  But what I'm saying is, "Okay, yeah, it's a winning message, but let's elect people who are actually serious about it and sincere about getting to government to do something to help them", and that's not the same as what JD Vance is presenting.

Peter McCormack: So how broken is democracy then here?

Morgan Harper: I believe we're in a bit of a democratic crisis.  We are in a very bad place.  When you put campaign finance, that we just discussed; gerrymandering, that prevents people from actually having their voices heard through the elective process; Electoral College, that you have popular votes that are not actually determining who gets elected President; where are we at?

Peter McCormack: Where is that happening?

Morgan Harper: That's happening here.  So, for example, people that are able to win the popular vote, but then not actually win overall, because we have the Electoral College, so you have disproportionate representation coming from states that have lower population numbers than some of the other states, but it's through the Electoral College vote, not through the popular vote.

So, we are in a very, very dangerous place, I would say, and I don't say it to alarm people, but I am being honest, and it's not going to be an easy road to get out of it.  But to me, the beginning of the road, and why I've put my life on hold to do this, is electing even one person that's really about people, that's really about taking on this power, that's really going to be honest about the fact that we don't have people that are for us, that we have ultra-wealthy, large corporations that are doing whatever they can to maintain a system that screws most of the people living in this country, and especially in the place where I live in Ohio.

Peter McCormack: Damn right.  Okay, what about the role of media right now?  So, one of the things that's very clear to me, coming from the UK, is the way or the role that the likes of CNN and Fox play to heighten discord amongst the constituents that you're representing.  I can have as much fun in New York as I can in Texas.  I can go and shoot a gun in Texas with my Republican friends, I can come out here to New York and go to dinner with my Democrat friends, I get on with them just the same.  I reckon if we all sat round a table and didn't talk about a couple of specific policy issues, we'd all get on fine.

Yet, it seems to me that the corporate media is financially incentivised to sow discord and create disharmony amongst your constituents you're representing.  How do you feel about media right now, because I know you will need to work for them?

Morgan Harper: No, I think that's right.  I do think there are a lot of financial incentives that they benefit off of creating division.  There are ways through policy to address that, by requiring certain more balanced coverage, fairness doctrine.

Peter McCormack: The fairness doctrine was something that existed back under Reagan, wasn't it?

Morgan Harper: More recently than that, it was repealed more recently than that, but you have to have balanced perspective.  So, once you get rid of that, well then, yeah, it's a bit of a free-for-all.  But I also put some of the blame on the media market and the polarisation and people feeling like we're in wildly different places ideologically on social media and Big Tech; I put a lot of it on that.  And that, again, is something that we have allowed.

I mean, when we say that democracy is in crisis, it's because we've had a generation, in many ways, of elected officials who haven't had an understanding at best, or desire at worst, to use government power to actually create a market that is better serving the societal outcomes.  And that's only going to change by having people that do understand what's happening and are willing to use their positions to check it.

Peter McCormack: So, talk to me about Big Tech, because it feels to me like Big Tech recently, over the last election cycle, maybe over the last two election cycles, has more favoured Democratic positions, the Democratic Party.  We saw Donald Trump, whatever you think of him, removed almost unilaterally from social media, the leader of the free world, which is a strange situation to be in.  And it feels also like there is naturally, because the CEOs of these companies we know are Democrats, but it seems to have a bias towards the Democrats.

Morgan Harper: Well, I don't know, I actually don't know that.

Peter McCormack: Well, it feels, I could be wrong.  What is your issue with Big Tech; where do you think Big Tech is going wrong?

Morgan Harper: So to me, Big Tech, and a lot of times when we're talking about this, to be clear, Facebook, Amazon, Google, Apple is also lumped in there, they are controlling critical infrastructure at this point to engage in communication and commerce in the 21st century.  So, Amazon Marketplace, for example, if you're a small business owner, if you're even a medium, mid-sized business owner at this point, you need to be on there to be able to get your product out.  Facebook, as a non-profit organisation, as a small business, as an elected official, this is where you're able to reach a broad audience.

So, when we have companies that are controlling that type of infrastructure, and then layering on top of that the massive data collection that they're getting through surveillance of people's activities on these platforms, and they're also a player, competing against the folks that need to use their platform, well that's a perfect storm of predatory, anti-competitive activity that makes it virtually impossible for anyone else to compete, and also to challenge some of the rhetoric that's being spewed on places like Facebook.  That has to do, in addition, to the ad monopoly that they also have, the duopoly really.

That, to me, is a failure of government, that we have allowed these companies to get so large, and it is not just punishing the largeness, it's the anti-competitive tactics and behaviour that result from a lack of accountability, knowing that you are too big to really be checked.  So, until we start to change those business models, then we aren't going to see a lot of the polarisation that's happening on Facebook be addressed, we're not going to see companies that are able to enter these spaces and really compete, and that's a major problem, and they're making a lot of money, as we all know, off of all these activities.

Peter McCormack: A lot of money.  Okay, let's get into Bitcoin, because that's what the show's about really.  Okay, no one has an expectation listening that you're going to be a Bitcoin expert --

Morgan Harper: That's good!

Peter McCormack: -- but the fact that you are a politician, somebody who is running for Senate, has an interest in Bitcoin, people will support you and get behind you and help you with your understanding, so don't worry about being an expert right now.  Some bitcoiners are very much, "Fuck the politicians.  We don't need them, we'll route around them", but at the same time we know there are congressional hearings, we know there's a regulatory lens over Bitcoin and the wider cryptocurrency industry, so if in some way we can navigate through that without onerous regulations, it's good for our industry and what we believe in.

So, just as a setup, give me your Bitcoin story.  How did you get introduced to it; what do you understand; why does it appeal to you?

Morgan Harper: So, the first time I started hearing about Bitcoin was actually when I was working at the CFPB, and this is one of the other good elements of that agency, was we had an innovation department, more or less, that was responsible for trying to connect with emerging products and companies.

Peter McCormack: When were you there from?

Morgan Harper: I was there from 2013 to 2017.

Peter McCormack: Okay, that was when I first got into Bitcoin.

Morgan Harper: Yeah, so it was early stage.  That was not the area that I focused on.  As we were discussing, we had much bigger issues, from many people's perspective, to deal with, but that was something that was just in the air; people were talking about that.  And I'll admit, I was like, "I don't even know what you are all talking about", and the people that were the ones talking about it, some of them were my close friends.  They were always coming up with these zany ideas or, "We were in California, we were talking to this person", and it's like, "Okay, yeah, while the rest of us are doing the work".

So, a little dismissive for sure, but then I didn't really think much about Bitcoin after that.  But that was my first exposure of, there's this new thing coming and we should be paying attention to it.  And then, I went on after that to do community development stuff and then ran for Congress last cycle of that, so I've been interested in other things. 

But then, this decentralised power concept is very important, because after my last run for Congress, I started working on Big Tech issues, antitrust, competition policy, and really feeling like the reason why we have the democracy issues, the reason why we haven't seen broader economic opportunity, is because we do have this concentration of economic power.  And it's in the financial sector, but it's across a lot of other market sectors too.  If we can't address that, then we're not really getting at the root cause of what I think has led to a lot of poor economic outcomes in places like Ohio.

So, that's when I started coming back to it and paying more attention, and that is the place of my curiosity.  And something that you were referencing earlier, where how do we marry all of these different views, clearly I come from a background of believing in some level of regulation, and on the progressive side of things, if you want to put it that way; but I also recognise what's not working.  This is really important, because I think a lot of times, politicians, people in government, don't want to be honest about what's not working and listen to people.  What are people's real experiences here?

So, I've just had a lot of people in this Senate run, in the last few months and the few months leading up to it, that are saying, "I'm all about Bitcoin".  I know we're not getting into crypto, but crypto generally too, blockchain, "I'm interested in this thing, and this has been a real lifesaver for me".  So, when I have people that are living in the state that I want to represent, that are proactively reaching out to me saying this is interesting, then I want to learn more.  It doesn't mean that I've got it, like you said, all figured out by any means, but that should be the driver of what we consider and prioritise in government, is what people are focused on.

I would just add one more thing.  What I'm hearing from people as to why they're interested in it is because they haven't felt like they've been able to really benefit from the existing financial system.  I had a guy that DMd me the other day, saying this is how he was able to pay off his mortgage two months in a row, was because of money he's making out of Bitcoin.  So, that's realised stuff and we need to, at a minimum, be open-minded and learn more, from my perspective, as those who want to represent us in Washington.

Peter McCormack: So, it's a really interesting thing, Bitcoin, because part of me thinks of it as a very American idea.

Morgan Harper: How so?

Peter McCormack: Well in that with Bitcoin, you have property rights, you're self-sovereign.  You, as the individual, can take control of your private keys and take custody of your Bitcoin, and you can move where you want with it and no one can take that from you, no one can steal that from you.  That is your property.  That feels to me a very American idea of you, as the individual, having rights.

We don't have a Constitution in the UK.  I'm always referring to it on the show as I very much envy your First Amendment rights.  Second Amendment, I'm on the fence, but I'm not anti-gun, it's just we don't have a gun culture in the UK.  And as I've been exposed to other parts of the Constitution, I just envy the fact that you have this to refer back to.  Bitcoin feels like one of those things that feels just a very American idea.

But conversely, knowing what the federal government is like, and everything we learnt from Snowden with the NSA and the control of the financial system from central government, it also feels like something the government would be very against.  Yet, at the moment, we're starting to see a number of people, either within the Senate or the House, correct me if I get anything wrong, but within the Senate or the House, or people like yourself or Aarika Rhodes that are running, that are starting to become pro-Bitcoin.

Do you think this is a reaction to people like yourselves just responding to constituents?  Do you think this is a reaction to the problems within central government?  Why do you think this is happening, because I've been following these debates via Twitter, but just seeing some clashes over this industry?

Morgan Harper: And you think it's accelerated the interest over the last couple of years; where would you put that?

Peter McCormack: I would say even the last year, Jeremy, it feels a bit more?  Yeah, about that last year, it feels a bit more.  We're starting to see bigger names.  Who was it yesterday, Ted Budd?  Was it Ted Budd who was talking very pro-Bitcoin saying, "We wouldn't want this industry to go anywhere else"?  We have Senator Lummis in Wyoming, Congressman Warren Davidson is pro-Bitcoin.  I mean, there's loads, there's a growing number.

Morgan Harper: Well, I mean one theory, speculation I suppose, but the pandemic.  What's been one of the biggest life-shifting events for all of us over the last year and a half has been the pandemic, and I don't even think we fully understand all the ripple effects that come from that.  But what I've found is a lot of people realising, through the pandemic, that the existing system was not serving them, that everything about their lives, more or less, and especially financial lives and the work that they had to do to have any semblance of even faux financial stability, was kind of a crock, and people really looking for more control over their lives.

This is how I frame what am I shooting for in public policy, interlinked to all of this, economic freedom.  I think you're right.  I think we clearly have a strong culture of freedom, but we haven't had a lot of economic freedom over our lives.

Peter McCormack: What does economic freedom mean to you?

Morgan Harper: To me, it means that you have some say over the terms that you need to earn money to live, let's put it that way.  So, whether that means that it's easier for you, or a level playing field to start a business.  If you choose to be an employee for someone else, that you have some control over what the terms of that employment looks like, that you don't just have to show up and take it.  And we have had an economy, because of these concentrations of power, in my view, that have put all of the power of setting the terms on the side of the corporation, on the side of the very rich people, and the rest of us just have to take it.

The pandemic, that blew all of that up.  And it was happening in a smaller business context too, but that's where we see things like the Great Resignation, we see record numbers of people wanting to start their own businesses.  Now, the sad news to me is that, until we change some of these structural issues in the economy, I don't know how competitive you can be in starting businesses.  I don't want people to lose resources that way, but it's through things like Bitcoin that have given people the resources to potentially take more risk.

Right now, what we've had, and I think this is really important, and this is a little bit of a battle I get into with some of my friends in Washington, is we don't have a free market right now, we don't have a level playing field.  There are certain people that get to take all the risk and get all the return, and everybody else has to toil away for their whole lives with an expectation of what, living off social security?  And you're just supposed to keep playing that game?

Peter McCormack: And pensions are now getting decimated by inflation.

Morgan Harper: Yeah, if you have one, right?

Peter McCormack: Yeah.

Morgan Harper: A lot of us don't have, or aren't going to be facing one, as we get the younger generations.  So, there's a real awakening of just how unfair and imbalanced our economic system has been, I think, through the pandemic and probably would lead to more open-mindedness, and also a response to the enthusiasm that we're seeing on the ground of people that are considering alternative ways of making money.

Peter McCormack: Do you believe people deserve the right to financial privacy?

Morgan Harper: I do, yeah, but I guess expound a little bit more on your definition of financial privacy.

Peter McCormack: Well, that the government doesn't have the right to ask me what I'm spending my money on, or track all my spending habits.  I'll give you an example in the UK.  This has been told on the podcast a bunch of times, but I got a phone call from the bank.  So, the UK Government has outsourced surveillance to the banks, so if you're making any large transactions, they want to know what it is.

So, I got a phone call and they asked me about my transactions.  I told them it was none of their business, they closed my account down.  And whenever you get to a certain point, for example you earn a certain amount of money, you have to answer lots of questions, and I think there are different levels.  But do you believe the government has the right to track all your spend, every time you spend your credit card or your debit card, do they have a right to track that and question that?

Morgan Harper: Well, I think everything has to have some limits to it, and I guess it's a question I would put back to you.  A lot of the need for surveillance, I imagine the argument for it is to make sure that we don't have money laundering, that we don't have people who are doing nefarious things with different transactions.  But of course, there should be some limits or bounds to it, but I don't know if that --

Peter McCormack: Well, I mean it used to be, there's one of those reports you have to fill in if there's a transaction over $10,000.  But my belief is that started decades ago, and $10,000 is worth a lot less these days.  And now there's suggestions, I think by Janet Yellen, who wanted to get this down to $600, like any transaction over $600, that you would have to file a potential report for.  So, it just feels like a lot of this is an invasion on the privacy and the freedom of an individual to have the right to…

I mean, I'm standing on the shoulders of giants when I say this, but I believe privacy is the bedrock of democracy, and I feel like we don't have privacy anymore.  We don't know who's reading our emails, reading our text, and what we spend.

Morgan Harper: Oh yeah, well, I mean that gets back to some of the threats that I see in Big Tech, that they're able to just collect all of this data about us for free access to services, when yeah, absolutely right, this is not free, we are paying for this with our information.  And a lot of big banks are also collecting a lot of that information too.  I mean, that was one of the things we were focused on at the CFPB, is trying to advocate for more control, consumer control, over our data, so that if you want to change the financial institution that you're contracted with, that you'd be able to move that. 

Because right now, we have a lot of these big institutions that benefit from the network effects of just being in there.  The more you're in it, you have multiple accounts, you're never going to leave, and then they're just getting more information about you to further market other products and consolidate that relationship.  So, I don't think that's ideal, because then the other side-effect from that is, if you have a smaller institution or a company that wants to play in whatever market area we're talking about, I'm using the example of a financial institution, it's very hard.  That's exactly what we see of Big Tech.

Okay, you have a new social media platform that emerges, but if it's so difficult to get your data to migrate it, what's the likelihood that anyone's actually going to do that?  Very small.  Only the most motivated, right.  So, that's not ideal.  I don't think that leads to competitive, free market.  I don't think that's protecting our privacy, of course.  And yeah, that is something that should be protected, but then also needs to be balanced with risks around folks who are looking to do bad things potentially with some of the money transfers.

Peter McCormack: So, are you really centre left?

Morgan Harper: What do these labels mean really?

Peter McCormack: You know what I mean.

Morgan Harper: I don't.  I actually think all these labels are very scrambled right now.

Peter McCormack: I think right is Republican, left is Democrat, and I consider -- the reason I ask if you're more centre left is because you talk about free market, you talk about competition.  But you do also talk about the regulatory environment.  It just feels like you're a little more to the centre.  It doesn't feel like you're super-woke left!

Morgan Harper: Well, what's interesting is I come to all of this just through organic experiences.  So, I had that wakeup call when I was young, like I said of, "Hey, something's off here", and this is something I talk about a lot, and I know it's a bit far afield for the Bitcoin conversation, but school systems.

So, I was in an urban school district, and my mum was in that and saw a lot of corruption that was in that district, and was like, "Hell to the no that I'm going to have my kids go through this, because this is not going in the right direction.  But what are we going to do?  We can't afford to move, we can't get to a suburb", which is usually what people in the US are doing when they're trying to save themselves into a good school district.

I got a scholarship to a private school and I get to this private school and I'm like, "Oh, all these people are good".  I thought everybody was susceptible to this type of vulnerability, but there's a small slice of the population that just gets to do whatever.  So to me, that isn't the dream that we're all fed, this isn't a level playing field. 

So, I've been on this mission to try to figure out, how do we get to that vision, what are the policies that are going to be necessary.  And, when we talk about some of these political labels, okay, here's the thing that gets labelled as far left, potentially: universal healthcare, far left in the US.  I'm pro-universal healthcare.

Peter McCormack: It's not far left in the UK.

Morgan Harper: It's not far left?  Exactly, okay.  That's far left in the US.  Why?  Because we've allowed the US insurance companies to bribe our politicians and make people think that somehow, this is how we have to be living, that it has to be tied to your employer that you're able to access medical care.  This is crazy.

So, that is just a logical position.  You can label me whatever you want, because I believe in that, but we need to recognise, and this is something that I told the head of the Business Roundtable in Columbus, that if we really care about getting at the 30% of the population that isn't captured in our growth as a region, then we need to recognise that at the foundation of that has to be mental healthcare access, healthcare access.  We can't have people scrambling around to see doctors.  That is not a way that you lead a stable life, and then can show up to be a good worker.

So, I sometimes get frustrated by these labels, because --

Peter McCormack: I think you batted that one out of the park!

Morgan Harper: Okay.  You know, because it's bullshit!  I'm just going to say it, it is total bullshit.  I can back-up everything that I say that I believe in, based on my observation, based on reading, based on experience, and then come to me with a different idea, let's talk; I'm not afraid of talking.  But I have no patience for people who are looking to dismiss ideas because of labels that are put on them entirely dependent on the context of who's talking about them.

Peter McCormack: That's a solid answer.  I think you're ready.  I think you're ready for the debates, come on Tim Ryan.  Listen, I'm going to give you one last question, but then I'm going to let you go, because I know you've got to get to your next meeting.  I could talk to you for hours, and I also wish you the best with everything you're going to do.  I think it's nice to see a Democrat who supports financial freedom, supports Bitcoin. 

I would say forget all the shitcoins, we call them shitcoins, but it's nice to hear because there definitely is a Republican bias to Bitcoin now, that is seems to have been more of the Republican candidates, or the Republican sitting people in the Senate, who are starting to understand Bitcoin, and maybe it's because it's a more Republican idea, whatever.  But I personally don't think it is and don't want Bitcoin to be a partisan issue, and it shouldn't be.  This is financial freedom.  But I do have one question left for you.

How do we help Elizabeth Warren understand inflation?

Morgan Harper: What are your strategies for how you -- have you met with Elizabeth Warren?

Peter McCormack: I'd love to meet with her, I'd absolutely love the chance to sit down with her and talk to her, because unfortunately she's disseminating misinformation about Bitcoin, which is really unfortunate, because at a time where we're seeing high inflation, I don't blame the Democratic party; you can go and see the charts.  The money printer's been through multiple administrations, Republican, Democrat, they're all to blame for the situation.  Anyone who blames one party is a liar.

But at the same time, the Democrats are the party that are leading the country at the moment, and Elizabeth Warren has been spreading disinformation, stuff that's factually untrue about Bitcoin, but also about inflation.  I mean, the price of turkey's going up and she's blaming greedy companies.  No, prices of everything's going up because of inflation.  So, I would love to talk to her.  If you could help me in any way, I would sit down with her.

Morgan Harper: I don't have a personal relationship, so I might not be a great help there, but do respect that she started the CFPB.

Peter McCormack: Maybe next year you will.

Morgan Harper: Maybe next year I will.

Peter McCormack: When's the vote?

Morgan Harper: So, we have the primary in May 2022, and then general election in November, knock on wood we make it through the primary.  So, just a final thought I'd say is, on all of this, we've got to get government back to being about just doing things.  One of the reasons why I'm optimistic is, folks are over the party stuff, to your point.  People blame everybody, right, and for good reason.  So, now we're moving into a generation where it's a lot less about your party affiliation and a lot more about, "What the hell are you talking about?  Do you understand what's going on, and can you have an ability to fix it?" or whatever, or at least try.

That is an opportunity, that's a big coalition-building opportunity.  That is what excites me about both the Senate race, but then also what we could become as a country, because we have lived through the outcome of having this nonsense political ceremonial leadership, party this, party that, and it is killing us.  So, what's the next move?  Let's determine that for ourselves.

Peter McCormack: Well, I'd love to see it.  I mean, for me, Build Back Better would be rebuilding the institution of the government, or the centralised forces and bureaucratic elements of government, but whatever.  Genuinely, we could have done this for a couple of hours.  I wish you the best.

Morgan Harper: Thank you so much.

Peter McCormack: If I get to Ohio, I will look you up and we will meet up and maybe do this again.  What part of Ohio are you?

Morgan Harper: Columbus.

Peter McCormack: Columbus?  Is it Columbus or Cleveland that's on the water?

Morgan Harper: Cleveland.

Peter McCormack: Oh, I've been to Cleveland, I haven't been to Columbus.  I've been to Cleveland, I've been to Cincinnati, I've been to Mansfield.

Morgan Harper: Mansfield's like an hour and a half from Columbus.

Peter McCormack: Well, so I had my choice, do I fly to Cincinnati or Columbus?  But it came down to where I could get a hire car from.  But if I'm ever up there, I will look you up.

Morgan Harper: Well, I live in Columbus, but we're running all over the state.  So, you've got to come door-knock with us in the winter.  Then I'll know you're legit if you're door-knocking in the winter!

Peter McCormack: I have to remain impartial, but I do wish you the best.

Morgan Harper: Okay, cool.  Journalism, whatever!

Peter McCormack: If we can help you with any of your understanding of Bitcoin, you reach out to me, but I do wish you the best and look, we need politicians who come with a message like this and actually stick to it and actually deliver, and too often it doesn't happen, or decent people come, like Tulsi Gabbard, whatever happened to her, because she was amazing?

Morgan Harper: Yeah, and if anyone wants to reach out and talk more, like I said, I'm trying to learn more.  I think it's good that we had a congressional hearing.  A lot of people don't know these hearings happen.  This is how we discuss ideas, we educate our elected officials and we come up what is our collective vision about, what's the opportunity here.  Yes, protect against the risks, but also recognise that there are a lot of limitations in what's come before, and so we need to be open-minded.

Peter McCormack: Okay.  How do people follow your campaign?

Morgan Harper: Morganharper.org is our website, but then on all social platforms, TikTok, Twitter, IG, @mh4oh.

Peter McCormack: Are you dancing on TikTok?

Morgan Harper: I haven't done a lot of dancing.  I had a guy who was hitting on me, and then I pivoted that to be, "I'm running for US Senate, that's what you need to pay attention to", and that went viral on TikTok! 

Peter McCormack: Nice!

Morgan Harper: But not so much dancing.  I do many things well, but I don't love dancing.

Peter McCormack: Not so much, or none at all?

Morgan Harper: In a very free-flowing way, but I don't know if I would put it voluntarily on TikTok; maybe at a wedding!

Peter McCormack: Well, all the best.  I'll put all the links in the show notes, I wish you the best.  Thanks for coming in and maybe we'll meet another day.  If you get in the Senate, I want another interview.

Morgan Harper: Okay, sounds good.

Peter McCormack: Deal?

Morgan Harper: Deal.

Peter McCormack: All right, good luck, bye.

Morgan Harper: All right, bye.