>> He's one of the most important people in politics, and there are a billion reasons why.

Democratic mega-donor Tom Steyer, this week on "Firing Line."

>> "Firing Line with Margaret Hoover" is made possible by... Corporate funding is provided by... >> A former hedge-fund manager from California, Tom Steyer believes impeaching President Trump is a moral imperative, one of the defining issues of our time.

He has put his money where his mouth is, pouring more than $120 million into races across the country during the last election cycle.

Whatever happens with the president, however, one thing is certain -- Tom Steyer will remain a force to be reckoned with in Democratic politics in 2020 and beyond.

Tom Steyer, welcome to "Firing Line."

>> Margaret, thank you very much for having me.

>> Thanks for being here.

So, you spent $120 million in races across the country, and in the political cycles of 2014 and 2016, just as much.

All of that together makes you one of the highest-spending individuals in American politics.

So, first, I wonder if you can reflect with me on what impact does money have in our politics?

>> Well, in our case, what I've done is tried to start grassroots organizations, under the belief that the most important and best source of power in the United States is the American people.

So if you look at actually what we've done, we have tried to organize people to go into communities and talk to each other so that people can get engaged in the political process and participate, that we believe that the thing that will save America, the best force in America is the American people, and to get them engaged again in our democracy is job one.

>> So, to get them engaged costs money.

>> In 2018, we did the largest youth-voter mobilization in American history.

And what you do under those circumstances is -- you have to -- It's like starting a company.

You have to hire people.

You have to train them.

You have to deploy them.

You have to measure how it's going and adjust as you go along.

So, yeah, people who work full time like to pay the rent and eat food and, you know, all the rest -- >> Right.

So, to mobilize people in politics in this country, it costs money.

>> You want to hire people, you got to pay them.

And so if you want to -- And that's what we do.

So we had an organization, in NextGen Rising in 2018, that had 750 paid staffers.

A lot of them were college students working 20 hours a week for us.

>> Mm-hmm.

>> But we also had 15,000 volunteers.

So it was an organization to try and get people out and talking to each other and understanding -- really trying to organize people from 18 to 35, the largest age cohort in America, the most diverse age cohort in American history, and people who had voted in the past at half the rate of other Americans.

We said, "That's not a representative democracy.

We need to get these people engaged and involved so that we can get the kind of representative democracy that America's all about."

>> So, do you think we have to pay for representative democracy?

>> I don't think you're paying directly.

I think you have to pay for political organization.

Yeah, I don't think it's free to get people organized, to set up organizations, to encourage people to vote.

That's what we believe will save us.

That's what we, you know, think about in all our efforts.

>> Because you've been involved in three election cycles, at least, where you've spent significantly, where does money, in your view, have the greatest impact and the smallest impact?

>> I think that money is a shorthand that people use to try and measure impact, and I think that that is, you know, very inaccurate.

I think the way -- What we believe works, the thing that we think has, by far, the most impact is what we would think of as engagement, is literally people talking to each other, whether it is face-to-face, on the phone, or through social media.

What I don't think is effective, in electoral context, is big TV ads.

>> Okay, I'm glad you mentioned TV ads, because you ran a bunch of them, and I'd like to play one of them so our audience is familiar with them.

>> In case they missed one.

>> In case they missed one.

Let's take a look.

>> Thank you.

[ Laughs ] >> So you don't think money makes a difference with television ads.

>> What I said was "in electoral politics."

What we were trying to do with those ads was to reach out really broadly and introduce an idea, to say, "Hold on.

You know, there's something going on that we should all reflect on together."

>> And, so, issue advocacy, it works.

>> Well, I think if you're trying to reach the broadest-possible group of people, it works, but it's also -- Let me say one other thing which is true.

It works differentially in America, based on age.

>> Right.

>> You know, if you were to ask my four kids, you know, "What do you think about TV ads?

", they would say, "Dad, we don't watch TV."

They may watch the shows, but they don't watch them real time and they try to avoid the ads.

So, to a very large extent, when you're running TV ads, you may be introducing a broad concept.

You're trying to reach the broadest-possible group.

But that's really what it's limited to.

>> So, but coming off the 2018 election cycle, you were involved in congressional races directly, Senate races directly, as well as issue advocacy.

>> Yes.

>> And my experience in -- I don't have the experience of spending my own money in politics, but I do have experience as a political operator in politics.

And the places where I see money having a real impact in politics is in congressional races, for sure.

Sometimes, they're localized television markets, where buying ads can be cheaper or more expensive, depending on the race.

And, so, for $500,000, somebody can come in, in an independent expenditure effort, and really change a race one way or the other.

Where I see it having less of an impact is -- or where it's harder to measure is on the broad issue advocacy.

>> That's funny, 'cause we do the exact opposite, Margaret.

>> So you disagree.

I know.

So I think we may disagree in terms of how money can really have an impact in politics, but, again, you've spent more than I have.

>> Well, no, I'd say this.

When we look at what we're doing, we were organized, in 2018, by congressional district.

>> Uh-huh.

>> But what we were trying to do -- If you think for one second about a normal midterm election, like 2018, traditionally, about 45% of Americans vote, which means 55% of American citizens don't vote.

What we were saying is -- rather than fighting over the 1% to 2% in that 45% of normal voters, who can't decide which way they feel this year, we said, "We need to encourage participation by the 55%."

So what we were doing was going out into the community and trying to have as many conversations through as many media as we could.

You know, and that was our goal.

And let me say this -- the 18-to-29-year-old age cohort in America voted at the highest rate ever since 18-year-olds were allowed to vote, in 1971.

The highest ever.

So we went from a really, really low participation -- >> For an off-year election cycle.

>> For midterm elections, yes.

>> For a midterm election cycle.

What about the repeal of Citizens United?

Because Progressive politicians and Progressives, generally, really denounce the use of vast sums of political wealth in politics.

What is your view about Citizens United?

>> Of course, I think they should get rid of Citizens United.

Of course, I think that money is a corrupting influence in politics.

>> So, how is it corrupted -- >> So, let me talk for one second, how we tried to deal with it so I can look you in the eye and say, "I think what we're doing is straightforwardly patriotic and good."

First of all, we try and be transparent.

We don't do things that we don't disclose.

>> Every dollar you spend in politics is disclosed.

>> We try to be as transparent as possible, in a lot of different ways.

Secondly, we're doing, overwhelmingly, grassroots politics.

There's trying to be engagement, participation.

And the third is -- I've made sure that not only does none of this hit my bottom line in a good way, but, in addition, you couldn't even argue it.

For a while, people were saying I was doing this so I could make money on clean-energy investments.

And I was like, "Okay.

That is the most ridiculous, stupidest argument I've ever heard in my whole life."

But I will make sure that, under every circumstance, if we have a clean-energy investment, that is held in a foundation so if it turns into a huge bonanza, I can't touch the money.

It can only be given away.

And we're overwhelmingly trying to push the power back to the American people, because we feel as if, through money, through mostly corporate money or indirectly corporate money, there's been a hostile corporate takeover of American politics.

>> Well, what's true, regardless of anybody's view about Citizens United, is that wealthy individuals are able to use their vast sums of wealth in order to focus the spotlight on issues that are important to them.

And so, certainly, in that way, you're able to disproportionately impact the political discourse in this country because of what you're willing to spend on it.

>> Again, I would say this.

Overwhelmingly what we're doing is not changing the discourse, is we're talking to people about their issues and trying to push the power down to the people.

If you look at our impeachment campaign, that is a petition drive.

We are not walking the halls of Congress.

I am not calling up Nancy Pelosi.

I am not lobbying people.

The only people we're talking to is the American people.

That is an attempt to put together the voice of the American people on an issue that I consider to be the most important political issue in the United States.

>> Okay, let's go there.

>> [ Laughs ] >> The day after Election Day -- Right after Election Day, on November 8th, you had an op-ed in The New York Times, an opinion editorial in The New York Times, saying, "The new Democratic House majority must initiate impeachment proceedings against President Trump as soon as it takes office, in January."

Now, there was real disagreement about running on impeachment as a strategy from the Democrats, but they took the House.

What is your argument for why they must move immediately towards impeachment?

>> Well, there are two points about impeachment.

One is -- has Mr. Trump met the criteria to be impeached?

And, two, is it urgent to get him out of office?

And let me say, before I go into those two points, if he's removed from office, the person who will replace him is Conservative Republican from Indiana.

So, let's talk a little bit about criteria to be impeached.

We asked 58 Constitutional experts, legal experts, to tell us that a year ago, in December, and then to update it in June.

>> Mm-hmm.

>> And they came up with nine different criteria.

And we put it on the web, at needtoimpeach.com.

So if you want to spend an hour of your time listening to people, you can.

But let me say this.

>> Yeah.

>> If you listen to that, it is a lay-down, and the two most obvious points are obstruction of justice and corruption.

I mean, corruption is the so-called Emoluments Clause.

I'm not a lawyer, but I know I can read, and it says, in the Constitution, the president cannot take payments from foreign countries.

This president takes payments from foreign countries every single day, has done it every single day since he's been president, and continues to do so -- So, that's corruption.

The second one is obstruction of justice.

We've seen this president try to obstruct justice since almost the day he got into office.

>> Well, so, the Constitution calls for -- allows for the impeachment of a president or another official if there is treason, bribery, or high crimes and misdemeanors.

>> Right.

>> Which is it for you?

>> High crimes and misdemeanors is an old-fashioned word.

What it really means is -- has he broken his oath to the Constitution and the American people?

And one of the traditional things, the overwhelming points there is obstruction of justice.

He has been trying to obstruct justice.

Successfully, he continues to obstruct justice on a weekly basis.

If you take a look and see the criteria for his new acting Attorney General, as far as I can tell, his overwhelming strong point to be appointed acting Attorney General is that he did a CNN op-ed where he said the Mueller investigation is a witch-hunt and should be curtailed or, you know, at least dramatically limited.

If you look at the justice, the recently confirmed Justice Kavanaugh, as far as I can tell, his overwhelming point is that he wrote a law-review article in something like 2006 where he said the president cannot be investigated, either civilly or criminally, while he's in office.

It seems as if this president is overwhelmingly focused on the obstruction of justice, in his case, and he continues to do it and he does it in broad daylight every single day.

>> I just have to correct you.

It was in 2009 that Justice Kavanaugh wrote that -- Judge Kavanaugh wrote that, 'cause in 2006, he was in The White House.

And what he said in that piece is that the president is not above the law and the president should be held accountable for civil and criminal crimes after he's president.

>> I understand.

>> But it's interesting that you're making this case about impeachment and high crimes and misdemeanors, because this is not the first time on "Firing Line" that someone has come here and argued for the impeachment of a president.

>> [ Laughs ] Are you about to show me an old clip?

>> Ultra-conservative Ann Coulter was on "Firing Line," making the case for high crimes and misdemeanors against Bill Clinton, and I'd like you to take a look.

And it's one thing you and Ann Coulter agree on.

>> Well, I think that there is a dramatic difference between what we're talking about.

I think she's referring to one specific lie that President Clinton told, in her opinion.

I think The Washington Post -- I've lost count, but I think it's more than 5,000 lies.

>> It's over 3,000.

>> I think it was 5,000 'cause I said 3,000 at a town hall, and everyone's like, "Tom, you're so out of date.

It's 5,000."

>> It's hard to keep up.

Here's the -- I think the question about impeachment -- there's a couple things.

First of all, what will you do now the Democrats have won?

What is the next step in -- >> Well, can I interrupt for one second, Margaret?

>> Sure.

>> I don't mean to be rude.

The other question is about urgency.

You know, I said there's the criteria to be impeached, and then there's the urgency to be impeached.

>> Mm-hmm.

>> And, you know, what we've seen this president do is refuse to protect the American people, the safety of the American people, in several instances, in the most basic ways.

>> Like what?

>> I think the first one, which people were outraged about at the time but which I think they've now conveniently forgot about, was when he denied the overwhelming evidence that the Russians had hacked the 2016 presidential election.

Here, we had a hostile foreign power deliberately attacking the basis -- the most central basis of our democracy.

He not only refused to protect us, he sided with them.

If you were to say, "What is the job of a commander in chief?

", it's to protect the United States of America, our democracy, and our people.

That's number one.

Number two, second time that he absolutely refused to protect the health and safety of the American people.

We heard overwhelming evidence from scientists around the world about six weeks ago that we have to solve the climate crisis by 2030, definitely.

And what they said was, "We don't have to give it a try.

We have to complete the task or face unimaginable suffering" is their word.

Unimaginable suffering.

And, by the way, as a Californian, we're seeing some suffering.

44 people -- No, no, no, no.

Seriously.

The President of the United States has said, "I don't believe it, based on no information.

In fact, I'm gonna try and exacerbate it.

I'm gonna cut off money to California for firefighting if you don't do what I want."

We're seeing a president, a commander in chief, with evidence that Americans are gonna face unimaginable suffering and saying, "Not only am I not gonna alleviate that or deal with that, I'm gonna make it worse."

>> So, are you going to try to hold the Democrats accountable to impeach President Trump?

>> We are going to try and build the voice of the American people and let the American people hold them accountable.

That is -- Margaret, the only way that this will happen -- As I said, this has to be a non-partisan thing.

If this is a strictly -- >> So, how many Republicans are a part of the lists?

>> I would say there were somewhere between 10% to 15% of the people on the list are Republican.

Something similar are independents.

So they do exist.

When we go around the country, the overwhelming impulse of the people who show up is straight-up patriotism.

They're worried about the system.

>> I actually agree with you.

If you're gonna be effective in trying to impeach a president, it absolutely would have to be a bipartisan effort.

>> Yes.

>> But getting Democrats into the House of Representatives was the first step.

Holding them accountable seems to me to be a different step.

What are you going to do to hold them accountable or to build a bipartisan majority in order to force articles of impeachment?

>> We're going to try to continue to put out the information so Americans can figure out what's right.

But we also believe -- >> So, am I sensing a change in our strategy?

>> No.

This has always been education.

This has always been about getting Americans to see -- >> But you said, the day after the election, that you want them to pursue -- the Democratic Congress absolutely must pursue articles of impeachment, and now it seems to me that you're saying, "Hold on.

This could take time."

Maybe you're waiting for a Mueller investigation.

Maybe you're waiting for a process.

Have you changed tactics?

>> No.

>> Okay.

>> Look, we've always said the same thing.

When we started, Mr. Mueller hadn't even indicted anyone or made anything.

We believe now that what happens, what will drive this is two things -- events and the will of the American people.

I don't believe that this is a question of convincing elected officials that, all of a sudden, what we're saying is right.

They already know we're right.

If you went to Washington, D.C., and asked them, "Do you think this guy's unfit?

Do you think he's dangerous?

Do you think he breaks the law every day?

Do you think he's a danger to the public?"

They would say, "Yes," Republican and Democrats, including, specifically, Republicans.

The question has always been -- is it more important to do the right thing now, is it more important to stand up for the American people and America, or is it more important to do the political thing for the next election?

And what we've been saying all along is, this is an overwhelming need to protect the American people and the country.

>> Part of what was concerning to me about your strategy is that it employed impeachment as a partisan political tool.

>> No.

>> How not?

Because it seems to me like you've actually changed the direction.

>> We've always been doing two things.

Our organizing has -- That is an organization that's been in place for six years, that we do it -- You know, we are on those campuses.

We've been organizing in some of those states for five years, literally.

And that is an organization that exists.

>> I want to move to 2020, but, first, you mentioned the immediacy and the urgency of climate change and that this president isn't taking it seriously and that, by 2030, we're gonna face really dire consequences as a country and as a world.

You have a carbon footprint yourself.

>> Yeah.

>> You've invested in companies that have invested in fossil-fuel infrastructure, specifically throughout Asia.

And while you have made a stand of moving away from them, those investments will continue and those mines will continue to operate into the future, perhaps decades into the future.

How do you square that with the urgency of the climate-change call?

>> I ran an investment business that invested in every part of the economy.

Every part of the economy, including the fossil-fuel part of the economy.

And I realized, about 10 years ago -- And if I were smarter and had figured it out 20 years ago, I'd be much happier with myself.

I would also like to be better-looking, if you could arrange that, as well.

I would like to be smarter.

When I figured that out, that's one of the reasons I left my investment firm completely and I divested myself completely, because I realized, "Oh, my gosh.

We're in a position where we have to change this."

And I per-- And it's something where I feel as if I need to be part of the army of people -- >> So you're completely out of any fossil-fuel investments.

>> I have been for a long -- for years.

Yes.

Because I -- And you're right.

We invested in every part of the economy, and I realized, "Oh, my gosh.

This is something that we can't continue doing."

>> Who were some of the candidates that are running in 2020 that you admire?

>> Well, I don't know who's actually running in 2020.

The answer is -- As far as I can tell, everyone in the United States of America is running in 2020.

>> Is it -- I mean, there's a thing that's happened with Donald Trump where people look in the mirror and think, "God, if that guy can do it, I can do it."

>> [ Laughs ] >> You know, is that something you ask yourself?

>> That isn't the question I ask myself.

I ask myself a different question, and that's this -- look, I view us as being in a crisis.

And I think that's one of the biggest differences between me and what I think of as the inside-the-Beltway Washington elite, is they view this as business as usual.

I view this as a crisis for America.

And so, in that context, my goal is to figure out, "What can I do to get America back on to a just and prosperous path?"

And my attitude is -- it isn't about me.

It's about getting back on to the just and prosperous path.

So I've been trying to figure out, "What can I do to bring, you know, whatever talent I have to that goal and that movement as hard as I can?"

Because I do believe it's urgent and I do believe it's a matter of right and wrong.

One of the things I've discovered, Margaret, in going around the country and doing 40 town halls in all this time is -- I am a really competitive American.

I do not like to see Americans suffer.

I do not like to see Americans fail.

I don't like to see America fail.

I don't like it when I go places and I realize we are not the leaders of the free world.

That makes me crazy.

I do not like it when I realize that Americans don't have the opportunities to succeed the way they should and we aren't gonna succeed as a country the way we should.

>> Sounds to me like you're running.

>> It may sound like that to you, but you want to know something?

That's how I feel.

That's not me running.

That is what -- I went around this country and thought, "This is so wrong.

We're on the wrong path.

We're so much better than this."

>> Will you announce that you're running for president?

>> If I figure it out, I certainly will.

>> Why don't you do it right now?

>> [ Laughs ] I'm worried it would help your ratings too much.

>> This is public television.

Don't you want to help the country?

>> [ Laughs ] But I'm telling you -- I look around and I say, we have every advantage and every capability to make the 21st century another American century, and we are blowing it.

Under this president, we are blowing it in a big-time way, and that makes me -- That means that there will be, for one thing, unimaginable suffering for Americans, but, also, it means that we won't be living up to our potential, and Americans won't be living up to their dreams.

And that stinks.

That completely stinks, and I don't care if you're a Republican or a Democrat.

You should have that feeling, too, and if you have that feeling, it doesn't mean you're running for president.

It just means you're an American.

>> Tom Steyer, candidate for president, thanks for being on "Firing Line."

I appreciate it.

>> Margaret, thank you for having me.

>> Thanks for being here.

>> "Firing Line with Margaret Hoover" is made possible by... Corporate funding is provided by... >> You're watching PBS.