Jackie DeFusco: Why Did House Dems Remove Their Leader?
Jackie DeFusco, a reporter for WRIC, is on the show to discuss the House Democrats removing leader Eileen Filler Corn after Del. Don Scott launched a surprised coup. However, the splintered factions were unable to reach consensus on someone to replace her.
We also discuss some of Gov. Youngkin's amendments and vetoes, including new penalties for marijuana possession, cracking down on Delta 8 loopholes, slumlords, limits on insurance companies levying a surcharge on tobacco users, religious expression, and the insane politics of Loudoun County.
See more at https://linktr.ee/JacklegMedia.
Learn about our sponsor at www.saara.org.
Michael Pope
I'm Michael Pope.
Thomas Bowman
I'm Tom Bowman.
Michael Pope
And this is Pod Virginia, the podcast that is so awesome, the Governor offered no amendments.
Thomas Bowman
Bipartisan agreement on this one. Lawmakers were back at it this week voting on all the amendments and vetoes. But if that weren't enough, Democrats also ousted there, now former, Minority Leader Eileen Filler Corn, who is no longer leader.
Michael Pope
And we have the best guest here to talk about it. She's the Capitol Connection reporter for WRIC and the Vice President of the Virginia Capitol Correspondents Association. Jackie DeFusco, thanks for joining us.
Jackie DeFusco
Thanks for having me.
Thomas Bowman
It's great to have you back. All right, so let's start with the leadership coup. Former Speaker of the House, Eileen Filler Corn is out as the House Democratic Leader. Why did the Democratic Caucus dump Eileen Filler Corn, Jackie?
Jackie DeFusco
Well, rumor has it, there was some sort of inciting event. I do not know what that inciting event was. But I would hope that it had to be fairly significant, because I don't think it's any secret, this was objectively bad optics for the party. That day, during the veto session, when all the reporters were, kind of, gathered outside of the Caucus room. I mean, Republicans were just rejoicing, right? They were walking by and into their Caucus room, across the hall. And I think one of them said something along the lines of, "We already won, right?" So as for why the party splintered, as I said, the Democrats were really hush hush about their reasoning afterwards, very few of them commented. I asked Delegate Scott, and he said, "It's family business," basically, and then walked away. Delegate Helmer, who was one of the three opting for those top spots, basically said, "I think everybody in the Caucus is dedicated to making sure we get the majority again." And that was, essentially, it. So more questions than answers for sure.
Michael Pope
You know, Jackie, on the issue of the inciting event, I think there's a couple things going on there. I think one, is there are many inciting events that happened over a long period of time, where people were not necessarily happy with Eileen Filler Corns style of leadership, and, you know, people that maybe saw themselves as not in the in crowd, or progressive people that wanted to challenge the establishment. So that's sort of the context here, like the inciting events piling up over a long period of time. And then, of course, there was the election loss. But I think the sort of more immediate inciting event might have been this gas tax proposal, which was kind of convoluted, and the Democrats had this like counter proposal to the Republicans proposal and the gas tax. My sense is that some people in the caucus, didn't particularly like it, but they were presented with it as being like, "This is our thing," even though some members might not have felt like they were consulted, hadn't been workshopped. So I mean, the gas tax proposal, discussion itself, probably would not have been enough to dump the Leader. But that was like the straw that broke the camel's back, in terms of, you know, long standing resentments. And then Thomas, isn't it true that in this House Democratic Caucus, there are all these, kind of, factions that are warring with each other?
Thomas Bowman
Yeah, we did not get a chance to discuss this on the previous episode because the news broke after we had recorded it. My understanding is that this was a coalition of the unhappy, so you have the Sam Rasoul crowd, you have the Michael Bills crowd, together that makes up the progressive wing. You have some of the newer people who are distracted by the next shiny object, or they don't really understand the gravity of the situation, or the significance of that vote. But this actually went exactly as I predicted it would. There are enough people that were unhappy with Eileen Filler Corn to remove her, but there was not enough votes to get Don Scott appointed as the Leader. And the reason for that is there's a lot of people waiting in line, or who think that they could be the Leader themselves, or maybe they heard the call as soon as there was an opening. And so they're not going to let somebody elected in 2019 completely leapfrog them.
Michael Pope
You know, that's the part of the story that I find so fascinating is that I it's rare that you hear about a leadership coup, where you oust the current leader, but you don't install a new leader? I mean, what does that say about the state of the Democratic Caucus, that it's so divided, and so unhappy, that it's willing to dump the Leader, but so fractious and unstable, that they can't even name a new leader? Jackie DeFusco, what is the state of the Democratic Caucus right now?
Jackie DeFusco
Well, I mean, clearly, as I mentioned, before, there is some splintering going on. I do want to point out something that I heard before. Now whether this is just, sort of, a procedural justification for a broader problem, or an actual disagreement, I'm not really sure. But I was told, going into that Caucus meeting, that there was disagreement about whether their, you know, bylaws allowed them to immediately appoint a new leader, or if they could, there was agreement that they could remove somebody, but perhaps not that they could appoint somebody that day. The point of clarification, do you guys know if they actually held an election for a new leader, or if they just totally kind of left that off the table for a later date, because that was my understanding?
Thomas Bowman
My understanding is they suspended the rules to be able to just remove Eileen Filler Corn, and then some of the caucus members, at least, were insistent upon that in order to have the vote. And what that did is it protected the other members of the House Caucus leadership. And that also eliminated any leverage that they had. So this is, I call this the Tuscano Rule. Because Tuscano was able to use this to survive an attempted coup. He said, "Hey, when this is a vote being taken outside of the normal order of things, every two years, when we elect the leadership team, you have to vote to remove everybody as a block." And while there might be enough dissatisfaction with the Leader themselves, it's another thing to also remove the caucus chair, and the campaign chair, and the policy, like everybody in leadership, you know, that's a harder threshold to meet. And so by suspending the rules, that enabled them to just remove Eileen, but it also made their coup impossible to complete in the way they wanted it, regardless of whether or not they had the votes for this coalition. So all of a sudden, it seemed like the Black Caucus, and the Progressive Caucus, were working together in order to do this. And then there is nothing for the Progressive Caucus anymore.
Michael Pope
I wouldn't focus too much on the rules, because my sense is, that's a whole lot of spin, you know, the rules are what they determine the rules are, and they can change the rules whenever they want, basically. And so if they really had somebody who had the votes, they would have organized the rules around electing that person. They didn't have that person, because the people who plotted the coup, didn't get all of what they wanted. In fact, they got a fraction of what they wanted, which was Filler Corn is out, so check on that box. But they had a whole lot of other boxes that didn't have checkmarks next to them.
Jackie DeFusco
Right. Well, back to your question about what this says about the Democratic Party. I mean, let's be clear here. I don't remember exactly what the vote count was. But it was very thin. So it's not as if she was overthrown by this broad majority, right? Which I think definitely speaks to this split that almost appears to be down the middle. And I think, you know, this very much reflects, I think what we're seeing in national politics with the Democratic Party, you've got sort of young blood, new members, progressives, who want to do things a certain way, and then perhaps more Establishment Democrats, that perhaps want to do things a different way. And I think, obviously, this is going to be something they're going to have to resolve in messaging, they're going to have to consolidate if they're going to be able to take back the majority, and make some gains, in what's already predicted to be a difficult political environment, and electoral environment, for Democrats in, you know, at least 2022.
Michael Pope
Okay, let's talk about pot. Republican Senator Emmett Hanger had a bill that would create new rules for products with THC, which are, currently, unregulated, and potentially even dangerous. During this session, the regular General Assembly session, lawmakers heard stories from people accidentally taking too much gummies, or edibles, and thinking they're having a heart attack, or even thinking they're dying. Governor-
Thomas Bowman
Been there.
Jackie DeFusco
Did you say, "Been there?"
Michael Pope
Governor Youngkin threw a monkey wrench into this debate by adding an amendment that would create new criminal misdemeanor penalties for possession of marijuana, which was kind of related, but unrelated. So the Senate had a lot of drama On this one, and they ended up killing it in a way that will prevent the Governor from considering Hangers original version. So basically all of that is dead, right? We, we've got legalization in Virginia, but there's no way to legally buy it. And we've got THC products on the shelves that might harm people. And so that's where we are left with. Jackie DeFusco, what did you make of all this discussion, all this drama, over marijuana?
Jackie DeFusco
I don't even know where to begin with this bill. This bill started as a way to crack down on like shapes and colors of edible gummies that were appealing to children, and became like this very complicated, and controversial issue, that really upset the hemp industry. And also after Youngkins amendments really upset a lot of advocates who felt like, you know, these new penalties are just a return to the War on Drugs. Now, notably, in the broader marijuana omnibus bill that Senator Ebbin carried that was ultimately rejected, there were, kind of, more graduated penalties that were included in that bill, which I think was lost on some people, but they weren't quite as high as what Youngkin said. And that was a recommendation from JLARK. It didn't just come out of thin air. But my understanding is, based on talking to Senator Hanger, after the vote, that was really what hung up this bill. He told me that they would have had the votes to get this through with the Governor's amendment, if it had not been for that marijuana penalty thing. So I think that there's going to be a lot more work on that. I think the other thing that was really an issue here was how far to go on cracking down on Delta 8 cannabis products, and also how that would impact CBD and the broader hemp industry. When they first put this bill through and sent it to the Governor's Desk, this sent shockwaves, I mean, I got so many calls and emails from people in the hemp industry that were like, "We're gonna have to discontinue all our CBD products because of these new per serving, per package, limits that they're putting on THC." Others would contend, you know, this is a way to kind of ensure that there's consumer safety, they would say, "this is a, you know, rapidly unregulated space, and that some in the hemp industry, some bad actors, are taking advantage of loopholes and selling products that are getting people way more high than they intended." Right? I think another thing that's really interesting about this is, I don't know about you guys, but when I left the General Assembly on Wednesday, I thought this bill was done for the year. That was the impression that I left with after hearing the debate. But after speaking to Governor Youngkin yesterday, he very much was of the mind that the work on this bill is not done. I guess, the administration, and a small group in the House and Senate, is going to continue to work on this. And we might very well see it revived in a committee meeting, according to Senator Barbara Favola, who, you know, Chairs Senate Rehabilitation and Social Services, as early as next month. But for that to happen, she says the Governor would need to send down a new bill. And so it's very much possible that conversation on this is not over for the year and the hemp industry shouldn't take a sigh of relief so much just yet.
Thomas Bowman
Let's clarify, what's the posture of this bill? So my understanding is that the Senate rejected the amendments, and now it's up to the Governor to sign or veto a Republican bill.
Michael Pope
No, that's not it.
Thomas Bowman
That's not it? Okay.
Michael Pope
In fact, this this is- it was extremely convoluted. Because what you're saying, Thomas, was true for about half an hour. Because they voted...there was a bunch of procedural, you know, mumbo jumbo. And so they, they took a vote, that would end up rejecting the Governor's amendment, creating the new criminal penalties, and then sending it to the Governor. So the Governor could take action on Hangers original bill. So that was true for a little while. But then what happened is right after that vote, the Republicans called Hanger over to their corner, and they like caucused in the corner of the Chamber, which is actually quite rare. And then they came back and had a second vote where they undid the original vote, and they sent it to a committee, which is a procedural move that kills the bill, without having the Governor considering, you know, signing it or veto it. So the current posture of the bill is the Governor is not considering it all. It's it's, you know, sent back to the committee, essentially, it's dead. But Jackie is right. When they come back for the special session, the Governor certainly has the power to send down anything he wants to, and he could send down a version of Hangers bill, and they could, you know, debate this, and potentially even pass something, during the special session.
Thomas Bowman
Alright, so I've got a little experience in this department. And so I find the debate kind of silly because Delta 8 consumption is an artifact of having inaccessible legal marijuana. As soon as you have accessible legal marijuana, nobody is going to take Delta 8 anymore, they're going to be going for their local retail outlet to purchase what they really want. The other line of argument that the industry, which represents mostly where the money is, which is medical marijuana, at the present time in Virginia, they're trying to box out competitors, who are able to sell this Delta 8 THC, which is a derivative of CBD and hemp. And they're able to take advantage of the fact that that's not regulated in order to sell it outside of these medical pharmacies, and and the licensed retail outlets. And so the incentive for the state, in this case, should be to create a testing regime, or an quality control regime for these products. And you can look to California, or Colorado, or any other state that's already passed this, and just copy and paste what they've got for that testing regime. And the industry, my guess would be, would prefer that because you streamline everything for their operations. And then the final line of argument that the industry lobbyists are using, is that the products are being manufactured in China, with unsafe supply lines, and quality control. And look, that might very well be true. But it's disingenuous to say that's a problem unique to Delta 8 THC. Where is the impetus on cracking down on tainted supplies of e cigarette juice, of cigarettes manufactured in China themselves? Like, what are we doing? Just to try to make things a little bit harder on mom and pop shops that sell these things, on the users who are just looking to have a marijuana experience that they can't get another way?
Jackie DeFusco
Well, let me- I think you bring up a good point. I think there's two parts of this. I think on one hand, there are a number of lawmakers who genuinely feel like I mean, let's be honest about this. I've never used Delta 8, but I know people that have, and you can get pretty high, apparently, off of Delta 8. You know, I think that some of the argument is it's a milder high than marijuana. But I think that's, you know, I think it depends where you buy it. And I think that's part of the problem. Apparently, the labeling is often inaccurate, and people aren't able to tell, you know, what's the appropriate dose for me? And so I think that there is a genuine incentive, on the part of some legislators, at least, you know, to want to rein that in, and let's be honest, I mean, the fact that you can buy that over the counter, basically anywhere, in an environment where we haven't even decided as a state to move forward with recreational marijuana sales, I think you are sort of putting the cart before the horse because of these loopholes and law. So I feel like that's one issue. But I think you bring up another point, which is that I think, throughout debate on marijuana legalization overall, there's been this sort of trend line that permeates all of it. And I feel like the hemp industry really feels like they're kind of getting the short end of the stick, you know, and that Virginia is trying to change the rules, and you know, crack down on them halfway through the game, you know? These loopholes exist across the country, because of, you know, what the federal government did with the Farm Bill. And so they feel like, you know, why are you disadvantaging me, you know, and hurting Virginia businesses, when you know, people can still access these products elsewhere? And you sort of saw that, too, when you were debating broader marijuana legalization, when there was a time when, you know, the legislature was very much considering approving transitional sales just for, you know, certain medical providers, and then the hemp industry is like, "Hey, what the heck? That gives them an unfair leg up." So I think, overall, there's a lot of angst in that industry that was very much highlighted by this bill, as well.
Thomas Bowman
Yeah, I hear the concern about putting the cart before the horse. And certainly that makes sense. But that's the incentive for the state to come up with an adequate testing regime, a truth in labeling bill, perhaps they want to do a made locally requirement, or at least made an America requirement, for the products themselves. That way the consumer actually has accurate information on what they're consuming. The other thing I'd say is, derivatives and edibles, generally, are always more intense than just the inhaled product. And that requires some consumer education too, and labeling adjustments, but also there needs to be some education done for the legislators themselves who don't understand what they're regulating. All right, well, we could clearly go on for a long time. So let's take a break. When we come back we're gonna talk about slumlords, religious expression, health insurance, and the insane politics of Loudoun County. We'll be right back.
Michael Pope
And we're back on Pod Virginia. Okay, Jackie, let's talk about slumlords. One of the Governor's vetoes rejected a bill that would have given local governments increased authority to crack down on slumlords. The way that it works now, local governments have the power to charge a small fine, but under the proposal the Governor was considering, local governments would have much more authority to force landlords to fix the problem. So that's- if you're a renter, that's a whole lot better than the small fine. So the Governor says local governments already have the power to take action, which is why he vetoed the bill. That's when he said in his veto message. Advocates say they want local governments to have more power to have these slumlords fix the mold, and the rats, and the problems. Jackie, what did you make of this debate over slumlords?
Jackie DeFusco
Yeah, this was a really interesting debate. I think Delegate Marcia Price spoke really passionately about it on the House floor. I think she even went as far as to say, "If you veto this bill, you're voting on the side of slumlords. And, you know, you're not standing up for tenants who have, you know, all these various problems." And, you know, this is happening all across the state in some capacity. What was interesting about this bill is that, not only did it pass with bipartisan support, but it also passed with the support of the Virginia Apartment Management Association, which represents, you know, a variety of landlords across the state. And it passed with the Supportive Housing Advocates like the Virginia Poverty Law Center. And often those two groups are on the opposite sides of housing bills, no doubt about that. We saw that over and over again, when we talked about the eviction moratorium during the pandemic, for example. And so as you mentioned, you know, the Governor basically argued that this was an unnecessary, duplicative provision. But, you know, as you pointed out, the really main thing that Delegate Price said this would provide, that's not available, is that it would force the landlord to actually pay for the cost of repairs, as opposed to just a fine that often-
Michael Pope
Wait. It wouldn't actually force them to fix it, it would give the power to local governments to have Alexandria force them, or to have-
Jackie DeFusco
Right, okay.
Michael Pope
Well, actually, that's significant. Because I mean, maybe part of the thinking here is that a lot of people are, you know, very stingy with giving local governments more authority. And perhaps that was part of this issue here, is that, you know, like just a distaste for giving local governments more authority?
Jackie DeFusco
I don't know. I mean, I feel like that didn't really come up. But yeah, to your point, it gives localities the power to force landlords to, you know, force repairs, essentially, as opposed to right now, they can basically condemn the property, which, you know, some would argue just worsens the affordable housing shortage, and, or they can, you know, force a fine, basically, through a court process, which doesn't, you know, really help the situation, they would contend. So, I think, you know, it's sort of another example here of the Governor having not spoken to the patron of the bill before the veto. I think that's another interesting example. You know, we've heard from Democrats in the wake of all of these vetoes about their frustration, that they just didn't really feel like there was a good faith effort to, like, have a conversation about this. I asked the Governor about that, and, you know, he said that he feels a relationship is constructive, but I don't know, clearly, there's a lot of angst here and a lot of frustration. And a lot of tenants, you know, here in Richmond, too, I think we're really banking on this expanded authority for localities as a lifeline. And you know, now that they're not going to have that, at least not in the near future. So definitely a lot of frustration around this issue.
Thomas Bowman
All right, let's move on. Jackie, you reported about a bill from Delegate Patrick Hope. And I want to ask you about that. The bill would prevent insurance companies from charging tobacco users up to 50% more than non smokers. The Governor argued that this would force insurance companies to raise prices for non smokers, and it would take away an incentive for smokers to quit. Why did Delegate Hope say the Governor got that wrong?
Jackie DeFusco
Yeah, so this is a really interesting issue, right, because this power for states to enable a tobacco surcharge was enabled by the Affordable Care Act. And the initial intent of the tobacco surcharge, was basically exactly what Youngkin pointed out, right? They- people felt like it would be an incentive for people to stop smoking. And they felt like it would lower costs for non tobacco users, because tobacco users who would put more burden on the health care system, would have to pay more. The problem advocates and Delegate Hope would contend, is that actually, they say the exact opposite is happening. This was extensively studied by a General Assembly commission, you know, before this session, and also the American Lung Association, and various other advocacy groups have pointed this out. Essentially, they say that the surcharge is actually a barrier, they say particularly for younger, healthier folks, low income folks, to enter the insurance market at all. So many are just foregoing insurance. And as a result, they say it's skewing the risk pool towards you know, the higher risk smokers and actually raising costs for everybody. So they say, and the study found, that, essentially, somewhat counterintuitive, but eliminating this surcharge, it would bring more people into the market. And they also say that it would decrease premiums, they say, by up to 4.5%, across the board. And so yeah, again, Hope said, you know, the Governor didn't reach out to him for a conversation about this. And he was really disappointed in that. Again, this is another bill that passed with broad bipartisan support. I think it passed unanimously in the Senate. And so yeah, definitely a lot of frustration here about, you know, something that he said he was blindsided by, and, you know, he really wishes it would have moved forward. But again, veto was the stain. So maybe next year.
Thomas Bowman
Yeah, you know, I have mixed feelings on a bill like this, clearly the data or the data, and I do believe we should go with what the data show, but I'm not sure that I agree with the premise, or the angles, that either the Democrats or the Republicans are taking on this debate. Smoking is correlated with poverty, and disproportionately affects minority communities. There are many socio economic reasons associated with picking up a cigarette. One of those reasons is that a cigarette, to wake yourself up in the morning, is cheaper than coffee. Right? They're also victims of tobacco companies, and the advertisers who preyed on their ignorance over the years, selling these deadly products to them. So I know we don't often think of smokers as victims, we think of them as a burden on health insurance companies, but they are victims, right? And if anyone should be picking up the tab for the extra insurance costs associated with smoking, it's the perpetrators of the crime, tobacco companies and their advertising firms. We should not, necessarily, be pushing these costs on to victims.
Jackie DeFusco
Yeah, it's an interesting point. I mean, to be clear, I'm not taking a stance on the bill. It's clearly complicated. And I don't know who's right. But it is interesting, you know, that this was extensively studied, you know, and it was a recommendation that was adopted with unanimous support by, you know, a bipartisan commission before the session. And so it is interesting that Governor Youngkin would not accept that recommendation. But you know, we'll see. We'll see how it plays out in the future.
Michael Pope
All right. Well, let's move on to the craziness in Loudoun County. As we have talked about on this podcast, Loudoun County has become ground zero for the culture wars. So if you're a listener to this podcast, it's possible you don't watch a lot of Fox News. But if you did, you would be presented with a steady stream of news about how members of the Loudoun School Board are, like covering up for transgender rapists. So the Governor wanted to force a new election of the Loudoun County School Board this year, even though their terms are not up yet. Lawmakers ended up rejecting that proposal, but Jackie, I get the sense that the politics of Loudoun County are not about to get any less crazy.
Jackie DeFusco
Clearly not. I mean, it consistently amazes me like how much this one locality has stayed in the headlines. And, you know, I mean, this was a really interesting example of a, one of several of, as Democrats will contend, the Governor hijacking a bill to continue a political statement that really permeated much of his campaign. You know, one Democrat, Delegate Marcus Simon on the House floor, compared Youngkin, effectively, to Russian President Vladimir Putin, basically saying this is unconstitutional, undemocratic, and, you know, that basically said Putin can dissolve the city council and, you know, elect a new mayor, but we don't do that in democracies. And so it was definitely a, it became like a really convoluted, like, legal debate. But I think what it really comes down to is, Democrats aren't wanting to give any wins to, you know, the Governor in this whole Loudoun County debate. And, you know, what has become this conservative political flashpoint. And Republicans certainly, you know, wanted every reason, potentially, to carry that on and get a win on their end. So, the Amendment did fail, and so we won't see that happen, but it was certainly one of the hottest debates of the day.
Thomas Bowman
Yeah, it's clearly unconstitutional. The legislature can't make, can't do special legislation to affect one locality, and specifically the elections. And so the Speaker did not want to rule on the constitutionality, according to Marcus Simon, because he knew that he would have to rule against the constitutionality of this proposal from amateur Governor Glenn Youngkin, here, but the outcome happened the way it needed to happen, which was to reject this ridiculous amendment.
Jackie DeFusco
I don't know. I mean, I feel like there were some legitimate concerns around some of these, you know, student sexual assaults, and the conversation there, and how that was handled. And obviously, that's being investigated and involved in court. And, you know, that's, you know, beyond the legislature. So I think, you know, there's a legitimate angst this plays off of, you know, when it comes to parents, I feel like that was evident in the election. And you know, clearly it was a big reason why the Governor won. But yeah, I mean, to your point, I, this is not going anywhere. And I, I don't think it's the last time we'll see Loudoun County in the in the headlines. Certainly.
Thomas Bowman
That is the Evergreen statement of the episode. Another one of Youngkin's amendments, that the Senate blocked, has to do with religious expression. It was introduced by freshman Delegate Irene Shin of Herndon. And it was crafted to protect people from discrimination if they had some sort of outward expression of religious faith. So for example, a landlord would not be able to discriminate against a man who wears a yarmulke, or a loan officer couldn't discriminate against a woman who was wearing a hijab. The Governor turned this on its head and offered a substitute that did the exact opposite, protecting people who want to discriminate based off their religious beliefs. Michael, what happened to this one?
Michael Pope
So there was some discussion on this in the House. And I was really watching to see what happened in the Senate, because the Senate ended up killing it. And Thomas, this might surprise you. But they didn't even talk about this in the Senate. They just they made the motion to kill it, and they killed it. And so I was kind of waiting for some sort of discussion about this, and maybe even hear what Senator Peak might have had to say about it, but they didn't do that in the Senate. So now the Governor has a choice. Is he going to sign the Irene Shin bill, which clearly he doesn't particularly like, or else he wouldn't have had the substitute in the form of the amendment, or is he going to veto it? And I don't know the answer to that.
Thomas Bowman
Well, I'll just say as a political consultant, if the Governor is dumb enough to veto that policy, I hope that the Democrats sieze religious freedom as an issue for the campaign, and uses it to beat up on their opponents, because it would be a gift if he were to do something like that. All right, that's all the time we have for today. Jackie DeFusco of WRIC, thank you for joining us.
Jackie DeFusco
Thanks so much for having me.
Michael Pope
Pod Virginia is a production of Jackleg Media. Our Producer is Aaryan Balu, our Social Media Manager is Emily Cottrell, and our Advertising Sales Manager is David O'Connell.
Thomas Bowman
Find us on Facebook or Twitter, subscribe wherever you get your podcasts, and hey, write a review on Apple Podcasts. It really helps people find the show.
Michael Pope
We'll be back next week with another episode of Pod Virginia.
