tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN January 27, 2016 12:00am-12:30am EST
excellent. thank you. i. [indiscernible conversation] >> if i could get a picture -- hillary clinton: sure. >> it was such a pleasure to meet you. hillary clinton: well, i hope you'll come caucus. >> i finally got to meet you after following you. hillary clinton: well, that means a lot to me. >> did you get yours done? ok. hillary -- >> sorry.
moving out of the way, guys. hillary clinton: granddaughter's great. here you go. >> i have a gift here from my mother. hillary clinton clp thank you. >> good luck to you. -- hillary clinton: thank you. >> good luck to you. hillary clinton: thank you. >> here are some of the campaign adds released by democratic presidential candidates hillary clinton and bernie sappeders within the last 24 hour -- sanders within the last 24 hours. >> one of the areas that i've been particularly interested in is the area of children. >> all of us have a
responsibility to ourselves, to our children, to each other. >> we intend to be sure that everybody in this room and every child in this state is somebody. no matter where they're born, no matter to whom they are born, our children's few is shaped both by the values of their parents and the policies of their nation. it's time to protect the next generation. fill the lives of our children with possibility and hope. open up the doors so that every child has a chance to live up to his or her god-given potential. i've spent my life fighting for children, families and our country and i'm not stopping now. [cheers and applause] i'm hillary clinton and i've always approved this message. >> there are those who say we cannot defeat a corrupt political system and fix a
>> you can see it lye starring -- live starting at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span 2. republican presidential candidate senator ted cruz is joined by former governor and presidential candidate rick perry wednesday in west des moines, iowa. live coverage at 7:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. >> c-span's campaign 2016 is taking you on the road to the white house for the yea yeah caw -- iowa caucus. our live coverage begins at 7:00 p.m. eastern on c-span and c-span 2. we'll take your phone calls, tweets and texts. and then at 8:00 p.m. eastern we'll take you to a republican caucus on c-span and to a democratic caucus on c-span 2. see the entire event. join in on the conversation on -span radio and on c-span.org.
>> disruptive technology is something that displaces an accomplished technology creating a new market. next, a discussion on how it relates to government and politics. from the commonwealth club in san francisco. this is an hour and 10 minutes. >> now is an important time have this conversation between government and technology especially with the rise of technology platforms that are literally changing how we live our lives every single day. it's pretty clear that technology is outpacing -- is fast outpacing federal and state regulations but if there is one additional tor, critical factor is the constituents themselves. gone are the days when
constituents used to say that's just government. we're in a different time now. constituents deserve and expect an engaged responsive government powered by the elected officials that they sent to congress or to their government to serve them. and this is all made possible by the use of technology. technology is magic and by bringing constituents and government together it's proved its worth. and with that i'm pleased to ave a conversation with matt mayhem. haron, co-founder of coast for america. we're going to start with dan. he is the vice president of communications for go fund me. he was the senior advisor for communications and strategy. thank you for being here. so let's get started. again, my first question is for you. ladies first. o i'd like to talk about the
modernization of government under president obama. there is definitely an uptick in talent going from washington to silicon valley. the administration is recruiting top notch that len with the intent of delivering a better online talent. and you were one of those recruits. so you went from silicon valley to washington. what we'd like to hear from you about your role as deputy u.s. c.t.o. in the white house and specifically the advent of the united states digital service under your tenure and how that's modernizing government. >> great, well, thank you. and thank you so much for opening with a question about the government side of it because i think very often we think of it just politics and politics and government are they are two ut -- knit but they are two different things. when obama was elected and
everybody said he was the first president to be elected by the internet. there were these years where there was an enormous disruption of politics by the internet. so it was starting in 2008. and then starting in i would say started to see this take root in government. i think it was led by the folks in the government digital service in the united kingdom where they took it very seriously bringing in digital talent and not having it be innovation at the edges but really saying we can provide digital services to citizens that meet a far higher quality bar that really create an experience for citizens that meet this is expectations that you have now when you're on your mobile phone or online all the time. everything is so convenient and so different than it is -- that was it was 10 years ago.
the club for at america and we started with how we were going to bring the principles and values of the web not with just getting folks elected but to the business of actually governing because it matters. it matters in the political process what we think of actual government. if we have a good experience with government we're likely to be much more involved -- much more engaged as political citizens. todd park who was the c.t.o., the second ever chief technology officer of the united states which is a big deal. this is something that our president brought to his administration, c.it. o. and c.t.o. of the country. asked me to come and work on a program that he had started that was modeled after code for america, the presidential innovation fellows program and know the least two people in the audience who were presidential
innovations fellows and the others ones, i don't know where they are. but this is an amazing program. this brought the best of silicon valley to government. and i sort of reversed pitched todd on the notion that we really need to bring not just folks into agencies to help with open data and, you know, create value for the american public and the wide variety of the benefits that people have been seing from this but also really and ore digital competency change fundamentally how we create the technology that mediates our interaction between government and citizens. and so much incredible has happened. i think we probably would not have been terribly successful if it hadn't failed. i'm sorry if that was a
controversial statement. that worked. e if >> hey, it worked. one of the people is in the room. ryan, hello. but in tepped we enrolled more people than we even had thought we would before it failed. that's a pretty remarkable accomplishment. it's pretty amazing. partly because of that, the plans to create an internal group that we ended up calling the digital service were underway the crisis that created such an opportunity really gave us the air cover to say, nope, we have to take a fundamentally different approach to how we create technology that works ifer the american people. it has to be agile, user-centered, data-driven, it has to work a lot more but not entirely a lot more like how silicon valley works. and you know, i'm just
incredibly proud the people who came to this task, came to it with such an amazing desire to serve the public and have brought so much incredible change. so we have seen things like agile procurement now happening. we have seen wholesale reinvention of services that the government provides citizens. we've seen that working at the local and state level through code for america. i think it's an amading thing. as people start to have experiences with government that more match the experiences they have in their personal lives. my sincere hope and my wish for the world is that really makes people have a confidence in government, the changes they experience with the political realm. >> i mean, that was amazing. thank you. fantastic answer and think you're absolutely right that this administration is taking a page out of silicon valley's innovation book, right? so they're bringing innovation to the government and bringing
those practices back to the citizens. matt i want to talk with you about that. i'm fascinated with what you're doing with the brigade. any successful government, participation is important at any level from the elite to the grassroots but not everyone feels they can be heard or they can make an impact. with social media we know it's changed how constituents and electives act with each other. if democracy is your start-up and we know it's a hard job to mobilize constituents to play an active role in their own governments, if democracy is your start-up how will the group help to scale democracy? matt: great question. let me start by saying that the imus the for brigade is a -- impetus for the brigade is the fear and citizens attitude towards government that we're
really worried about where the country is going because we think that citizens are losing efficasy.heir people who make money participate at a very high rate. and they're interest and their needs are often pretty well represented in government despite various gaps in technology and other dysfunctions that we try to resolve. so if you think the last california midterm, for example, anyone want to guess, panelists included what turnout was for younger voters for the 18 to 25-year-old crowd? any guesses? ere in california? [indiscernible] matt: about half that. 8% turnout for millenials. latinos as a whole only 6%. low income voters i don't know the state but it was in that
ballpark. and yet for educated, white, middle aged to older voters, turnout was closer to 50%, 60%. so i think that ends up being an issue of kind of justice and responsiveness of our government and our of elected representatives. now when we look at the particularly looks at the next generation of voter, we've identified two components that we try to tackle. one is complexity. democracy is not scaled well off line. there are over 500,000 elected officials in the u.s. we are each represented by over 40 elected officials. 30 or more of this are at a local level. you probably couldn't name more than a few. i know i can't only name a handful. you probably don't know what decisions they're making. interesting the federal government is about 2 point something trillion dollars. all of those elected
representatives spend just as much money. they make a lot of decisions like public safety, transportation, education, in many cases health care, a lot of local decisions about spending and regulations that actually have a bigger impact on your quality of life than the decisions that the president could make, not that he or she ould make that money anyway. complexity is one matter. how do you make people make sense of this massive o make system? how many decisions can you get made? and how does power get exercised? even if you can overcome that problem and we think technology offers obvious solutions there. i was giving this example earlier today. if you want to travel to dubai, and then london and then singapore and you're going to need hotels and cars and you want to book all that, you put in a few parameters and kayak gives you a bunch of options.
so it's not impossible to complex data and personal preferences and make it accessable and understandable for people and let them do something for them. so there's complexity problem and there's a direction we could take there. but even if i could make sense of the system, it isn't going to matter. it's not apathy. i think we think these people don't care and they can't be bothered. it's i think it's a crisis of faith that if i participate is it going to matter? and our hope there and we think the promise there is in the long tale of elections. we just did a local election test in manchester, new hampshire, and in a city of 75,000 people the mayor got re-elected by 100-vote margin if a handful of people could have gone out, knocked on door, organized their neighbors and say this is what we care about
and we're going to vote for this and determine the outcome of that election. helping to connect that to the political process in a very direct way is how we scale the participation. because that's what it's all about how do we make it more representative and more responsive to the needs of emp. shelley: thank you for that. i'm going to definitely become a user after this. and then, i want to come to you next and jennifer and speak about things that you can certainly give us a lot of insight on. specifically i wanted to go to jennifer's point about when she was in the white house and your experience when you were there. before i get to your actual question, if you can give us a tidbit with the steist the union when you brought it to life. dan: sure. it's the biggest audience you're going to have. but over the course of time, the
state of the union audience viewership has dropped dramatically and that's because president obama has been in office for seven years now. you seen it before. but it's been going presim us toly before because people have more choices now. for decades it was to have more channels. now they have what's on their phone, what's on their tablet. people don't believe appointment television anymore where if you don't show up at 9:00 to watch a speech. you watch it when you want to watch it. you know, we thought in 2015 we would spend a lot of time thinking about how can we engage people more with the state of the union. we divided the viewers that we ve and try to design con tepttent -- content. the first people you make sure they know what's on tv. you write a good speech and have
the president deliver it well. do that. second group of people will be people who will watch it on tv but not in the traditional way but with their phone or ipad or the commuter. it's what we call the two-screen experience. what we did for that was to have a setup content that would highlight moments of the speech would be infographics, the highlight parts of the speech, additional information, photos and short videos that would provide depth and nuances and share that on social media so you could see that. the third group were the people who were watching it entirely online. so we tried working with google. we tried to drive people to the white house website, do a live stream and then you would get that what we call the river of content where you see those graphics and that information as you were watching it. then the last group were people who were never going to watch it on television either on demand or on their phone.
so how can we engage those people? we did a couple of things there, which is the most notable one was for the first time ever we put out the text on the state of the yuneyn on medium and advanced. people who i haved that platform their their connection. twitter and facebook would see the speech. they may not ever watch it but they would see how people engaged with it. and we would take -- we didn't view the state of the union that has this one-hour moment with the first tuesday in february. it was instead, a period of time leading up to it. so we were announcing the policies, you knowings on facebook or in actual real events leading up toifment and then afterwards we would take part of the speech on climate change, for instance and then motivate and engage influencers climatessphere and we saw
from our own metrics and data more engagement that wathan if we would have had 30-something million people watched it compared to 1 it's 2 s00 million it's a fraction. we saw more engagement through this fraction than if we have five million people to watch the speech. shelly: now i want to come to your question about what about the president himself? someone who has been with the president since his first campaign and you've had the privilege of working for a great start-up. you have been able to do good in your job. you've been able to serve the american people and bring technology to government. so speaking about the president, how would you say that he has -- what key objective would you say that he's achieved in the administration that are solely or exclusively driven by the use of technology? dan: well, i think a big part of
it is communication. that is a fundamental role of the president communicating with the american people. that serves a strictly fundamental purpose to tell people how they can get health care, a tax refund or prepare for a hurricane coming. and the traditional tools would allow you to do that, network television, cable television, newspapers reach a dramatically diminishing part of the audience. so a huge part of what we had to do in the course of that time was learn how to leverage those tools to do that. that's incredibly important on the governmental side. then you have to communicate in two fashions. one is to try to get your agenda passed. and that motivates public opinion. d the president had had good suck and other times ran into a wall into partisan and broken the sort of -- the split government we have in
washington. but the other way which i think -- one way where we think of this long presidency and his willing to communicate with new technologies, viewing the resident si as a platform of enengagement is helping him move the ball forward on public opinions when we courted him. when we started running for president, think about this, the idea that marriage equality was something that was opposed by a majority of the country, it was something that almost every political figure would be afraid to touch -- >> that's right. of he conservative view smaller taxes and smaller government was the predominant way. the idea in immigration in the democratic primary, if the question got a question on immigration in most states, it was from the right about loose
boreds and people taking jobs. these are democratic primary voters that you now here eight years later at a donald trump event. and on climate change was a sort picayune topic and over the course of a very aggressive and concert everett every time the president has moved the ball -- and guns on the news right now, it moves to a place -- moving public opinion for there. action hasn't happened on all of those things. but he views part of it as helping shape the public opinion environment so that after his presidency additional progress on these areas is possible. and he could -- if he communicated like a traditional president which every time we did something unconventional whether the president would hold a selfie stick with buzz feed or
between two ferns or do a youtube interview which now seems completely norle ma. in 2009, the washington conventional wisdom flipped out. you're demeaning the president. you're putting him on the internet? but doing all those things -- shelly: it was back -- dan: even takes questions was diminishing. zach galifianakis is up for fair debate. doing all that was crucial and would change the way all presidents coming forward. shelley: totally agree. it's fair to say 2008 back in 2008, like what you did in 2008, it almost seems archaic to what we're doing now. he brought those issues to life. he was eable able to engage and mobilize. how would