tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN March 12, 2016 9:00pm-12:01am EST
♪ ♪ >> i saw her today at the reception a glass of wine in her hand i knew she would meet her connection at her feet was a footloose man you can't always get what you want you can't always get what you want you can't always get what you want but if you try some time you find you get what you need i went down to the demonstration to get a fair share of abuse saying, we are going to vent our frustration
if we don't, we are going to blow a fuse you can't always get what you want you can't always get what you want you can't always get what you want but if you try some time, you just might find you get what you need oh, baby ♪ hillary clinton addressed the violence at donald trump's rallies. ms. clinton: let me say a few words about what happened last night in chicago. you know, we will always have our differences. that is what happens in a democracy, and it is healthy for us to debate, to dialogue, to
disagree. but the ugly, divisive rhetoric we are hearing from donald trump and the encouragement he has given to violence and aggression is not only wrong, it is dangerous, my friends. [applause] if you play with matches, you can start a fire you cannot control. that is not leadership, it is political arson. the test of leadership and citizenship is absolutely the opposite. if you see bigotry, you should oppose it. if you see violence, you should condemn it. if you see a bully, you should stand up to him.
[applause] ms. clinton: now look, i know that it is no secret that many people are angry on both the left and the right, and for some very good reasons. many people haven't recovered from the great recession. many people have gotten a raw deal for a long time. our economy and our politics have failed to deliver results the way we should expect. but i believe with all of my heart that we can only fix what is broken if we stand together against the forces of division and discrimination that are trying to divide america between us and them. announcer: tomorrow, wrote to the white house continues with a cruz for texas senator ted
. that is light at 2:00 eastern. 3:00 withllow that at republican presidential candidate marco rubio at a rally in florida. you can see both events here on c-span. republican candidate marco rubio ahead of theida states primary on march 15. he commented on the current political discourse and accused trumpet of encouraging violence at his own campaign event. this is just under one hour.
[applause] ♪ mr. rubio: thank you, guys. thank you very much. thank you. thank you for coming out so early on a saturday morning for us. you should be voting. you should be voting. good. you already voted. well, first of all, thank you for coming out so early for me. i think the weather is going to hold up. that cloud is perfect. i see a lot of familiar faces and friends and people who have been helpful to us and i'm really grateful to you. i thank you. i thank you for your help. and i ask you to continue the hard work over the next 72 hours.
if you have already voted, make sure you go out and encourage others to vote as well. i appreciate you coming out for us, i know it is a saturday and it is early and you have other things to do, what i appreciate you coming out today. i want to about america. i want to talk about our campaign. it is an important campaign and what i want to talk about is a big part of it. for over 200 years, a republic has been given the opportunity to be an exceptional nation. you look around the world today, and many countries still solve their problems through war and violence. those countries in the world, if you lose an election, if you are out on the outside of a political connection, you are exiled or you go to jail. we used to tell people, what is the worst that could happen if you lose an election? you go back to your family, you go back to the private sector. the worst thing that happens in america in the political process is they run a nasty ad about you. we are blessed. the people who showed up at that rally last night in chicago are
professional and they are not blameless. there are things about that speaker that i don't agree with. that is the reason i am running for president against him. but there is a developing trend among the american left where if they don't like it, we are going to go disrupt your event, we are going to blow up your event, and they have done this all across america. so i'm not saying that they are blameless in all of this. they were acting like dogs last night. too many of them. but i would also say that -- acting like thugs last night. too many of them. but i would also like to say that there were many police officers doing a great job last night. [applause] mr. rubio: but we should examine discourse in our own party because there is no doubt that people are angry and frustrated.
you know what? people have a right to be angry and frustrated. i understand it. that is the reason why iran in 2010. i don't come from wealth or privilege or power -- why i ran in 2010. i don't come from wealth or privilege or power. higher education has failed us. college costs more than ever and they are raising prices for degrees that often don't lead to jobs. our media has failed us. all of these things you see happening on tv, i think the media needs to stop and examine their role in all of this. [applause] mr. rubio: because i will tell you something, and i said this the other day, i am not proud about some of the things i said about donald trump as a person, and that will never happen again. i don't have a problem attacking people on policy, but i want to tell you something, i spent 10 months not doing that. i spent 10 months and 28 days on talking about the issues and
nobody covered that. and the mid-ice or talking about somebody, a started listening to my speeches. so the media has failed us in this -- and the minute i started talking about somebody personally, they started listening to my speeches. so the media has failed us in this. [applause] they want to perpetuate themselves in power instead of being agents of change. our political leaders have failed us. far too many are in office to win election. they want to win the next election. not to make a difference. organized religion, you name it. we have serious problems and people are frustrated. they are frustrated because they go to college, they get a degree, and they are told their whole life that if they go to college and get a degree, there is good to be a job waiting for them is that is the american dream. but then they can't get a job
and then they can't pay for their degree and then they feel worthless. in america, if you work hard and you are willing to sacrifice, you may not be rich, but you can at least achieve a certain standard of living. they are willing to work hard. they can't find a job that pays enough. meanwhile, they know someone who is cheating the system. they know someone who isn't paying their mortgage because they know they can go for a year and a half before being foreclosed on. they know that there are people getting paid in cash under the table. i understand the frustration. i understand that. especially when they go into work and are told that a machine is replacing their job or that someone is coming in from another country and that they are taking your job and that you have to train them. that is frustrating. but here is what i want you to understand. the job of a true leader is not
to stoke people's anger. the job of a true leader is to say, i know that you are in pain. but they should not make you more painful and more angry instead, because when you do that, there are consequences. [applause] mr. rubio: there are consequences. there are consequences to that and they are playing out before our very eyes. they are playing out before our very eyes. what i saw last night and just the days before it, put aside last night. we have a major presidential candidate that encourages people in the crowd to beat up on people who heckle and protest against him. we don't have to boo him, i am just telling you that that is what is happening. that is what is happening. the other day, a guy sucker punched a guy at his event.
i have had protesters. they are obnoxious. some are paid to be there. some are speaking their minds and a right to do it. but never in my wildest dreams, i never thought it would be a good idea to punch a guy or gal in the face. punched him in the face, and i will pay for your legal fees. after a guy was punched in the face, the gentleman was arrested, i shouldn't say gentleman, he was arrested and he commented, next time i should have killed him. people find it appealing. presidents cannot say whatever is on their mind. they can't. we don't allow our children to say what is ever on their minds. at least, i hope we don't. there are a lot of things on
your mind. there are a lot of things on my mind. but there are some things you don't say as they are not politically correct. you don't say it because it is wrong to do it. every society must be governed by rules of discourse because once it you lose the rules of discourse, you lose the discourse. and that is what we are careening towards and the saddest part is that the republican party is hosting that debate and that activity. i tell you that if donald trump is our nominee, if he is our nominee, this is what our party is going to be defined by. this is what it is going to mean to people to be a conservative. let me tell you, ronald reagan was a real conservative. [applause] mr. rubio: is there anything about donald trump that remind you of ronald reagan?
and he was just as conservative as anyone who has ever run for office in this country. well, that is a whole different story. my point is, this is the consequence of this election. look, i'm asking for your vote. i want you to vote for me. i am asking for your support. [applause] mr. rubio: but our politics have become the comment section of a blog. you go to any of these blogs, you read the top stuff, it is amazing what people are willing to say when they are anonymous and hiding behind the screen -- our politics have become twitter trolls. the outrageous comments that people make it out each other, a t has bled into our politics. it is like an episode of
"survivor." we've got to take a deep breath, guys. we were at a debate a few weeks ago and then we had a debate on cnn the other day and it was all about issues, and the first question from the media was, why didn't you attack them? they promote these debates like a cage match. you would think it was a fight. but what is at stake here is the most important country in the world. the most important country in the world. civil society. and here is why when we are frustrated and angry, we should not lose hopefulness. here is why we must remain optimistic for our future. for over 200 years, this nation has proven that americans can do anything. there is no challenge we cannot confront, there is no problem we
cannot solve, and we have proven this time and again. i think it is time to remind people who we are. who we are as americans. do you know who we are? we are descendents of go-getters. i don't care where you come from, we are all the descendents of go-getters. we are the descendents of pilgrims who refused to accept the rules of the old world. we are the descendents of slaves who overcame the most up noxious, the most dangerous, the most evil institution that mankind has ever had. we are the descendents of individuals who knew that there had to be more. that is literally in our dna. that is the blood that runs in our veins. that is who we are as a nation. [applause] mr. rubio: and that is why for over two centuries, americans have been capable of solving
every problem and every challenge we have ever confronted and for anyone who pretends that america has had 200 years of uninterrupted prosperity and eight years of problems, you are ignoring history and you are lying to people when you say it. when this nation was founded, it was founded by declaring independence from the most powerful empire in the world. that was an extraordinary challenge and it wasn't clear that it was going to work. less than 100 years later, we had a civil war that almost ended the country. literally, families took arms against each other and americans who studied together in our military academies were going to war against each other and it wasn't clear if our nation was going to survive that. then our nation was called to the first world war. not long after that, this country had a great depression that wiped out communities and
families and our entire economy. almost as soon as the great depression ended, this nation was tossed into a second world war, which it wasn't clear we were going to win. we had to upgrade our military forces. we had to face pearl harbor and we were not sure how to respond. it wasn't clear that we were going to win world war ii. our lives would look very different. as soon as it ended, we began a dangerous cold war. people going to war in korea. that is not a war that we won. it ended in arms if that is still in place today with the divided korea. this long cold war lasted into
the 1980's. think of the 1960's. we had multiple political leaders assassinated, i got -- a young president gunned down in the streets of dallas. a deep debate over civil rights that felt like it was going to rip apart at the seams. in the 1970's, we had a president lie, and was going to be impeached from office if he did not resign and scandal. we had hostages in iran, and were helpless to do anything about it. the soviet union was encroaching on us. they were not just in cuba and nicaragua, but el salvador. when has it ever been easy? when has there ever been a generation of americans that
face no struggles, no danger, and no problem. the answer is there has never been such a time. it has always been hard. you know why? it is hard to be special. it is hard to be exceptional. that is what this country is. it is exceptional and special. [applause] it is exceptional and special because we have a political process governed by constitution that allows us to work through all the problems that i just described. without another civil war, without violence in the street, but being able to go to the ballot box and address it, by being able to debate. we are exceptional because we
have an economy that has allowed people to fulfill their dreams and hopes without dependence on government. an economy that says it doesn't matter if your parents were poor. if you are really good at something, and willing to work long and hard enough, can be the best at it, and most successful in the world. if you want to quit your job and open a small business out of the spare bedroom of your home, you will have the chance to do that. we have been exceptional because we've been willing to send our sons and daughters off to fight, and die, so that other people could be free. we understand that tierney, tierney -- tyranny, unchallenged, will one day reach us too. we did not fight in vietnam because we wanted a 51st state. we did not going to the gulfport
because we wanted iraq to be part of the united states. we have been exceptional for over two centuries because we haven't governed by powerful principles that all men are created equal, and doubt by god, our creator, and with the right to liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. [applause] i entered this campaign for president understanding i would not be a front runner, told by many that was not my turn, that i needed to wait in line, that i was too impatient, and in a hurry. yes, i'm in a hurry because i think america needs to be in a hurry. [applause] i think america needs to be in a hurry because we are running out of time to get this right. see, the time has come for this generation to do its part. for over two centuries, each generation did what they needed
to do to leave their children off that it than themselves. now, the time has come for this generation to do its part. if we do not get a right and 2016, i'm not sure what happens next. i'm not trying to be a popular that -- to be negative or apocalyptic, i'm just saying, i don't know what happens next. it is very easy to go to people who are hurting and say, i know you are hurting, you should be angry, i want you to be angry, i am angry too, let's be angry together because it is their fault, someone else's fault, so, give me power so we can go after the people who have made you angry. so we can go after the people who have major life bad. it is very easy to say that. every movement in human history that has been found on the argument has been a dangerous
and disastrous one. [applause] here is what i say instead. i say, you are angry and frustrated, and you have the right to be angry and frustrated, by what you to know, we are going to take your anger and frustration, and use it not to make you angry at and more frustrated, but we will fix it. we will confront the things that are holding you back. going to confront the things holding you back. number one, we will go back to a limited federal government. we will go back to a limited federal government, not because we don't care bar problems, but because we care about our problems. the reason why i want less federal government is not because i want to solve these
problems, it is because i know the federal government can't. in fact, it often gets in the way of the state governments that can. i want to go back to the constitution. it is the legal and right thing to do. [applause] number two if you lose the cost, you lose your republic. the constitution means whatever you want it to mean. once the constitution means whatever the people in charge think that means, we become a nation of men, not a nation of laws. [applause] i want to go back to free enterprise. not because we are trying to help out rich people. which people are going to be fine. rich people are rich. billionaires and multimillionaires, they are going to deal with whatever law you pass. they can afford to deal with it.
they will deal with it. they will move their money to another country. they will close the business, and retire early. they will hire less people, cut costs, going to another line of work. the people who are hurt are the people trying to make it. why do people here have jobs? is it because we have the right president, the right governor, or the right legislator? no. it is because someone, this great family, decided to risk money. that is how free enterprise works. you know why i know that? not because i studied it, but because i lived in my life. you know the story. my dad was a bartender. my mom was a stock clerk at kmart, a cashier at a coffee shop. they did not own stocks and bonds.
my parents had jobs because free because someone opened up the businesses they worked in, and they had jobs to raise a family. and own a home, and leave us better off. we embrace free enterprise because it is the only economy in the world where you can make poor people richer, and you don't have to make rich people poorer. [applause] we embrace a strong national defense, not because we want were -- war. i don't want war, i want to prevent one. [applause] because history teaches us a very clear lesson -- that that is an enemy of peace also the enemies of
peace must be defeated, or the continue to spread violence, hatred, and they continue to warad more itself -- itself. i know the world is a safer place went america is the strongest country in the world. because for reasons we do not fully understand this is what we , have been called upon to do. we are the only nation in the world that can play this role. let me tell you what happens when america does not lead, a -- when america does not lead, what happens is a vacuum is left, and the result is chaos. chaos leads to war and violence. -- in asia and asia that is leading to china taking over the south china sea. it is the instability and nato that has encouraged vladimir putin to test europe. it is the chaos in the middle east that has allowed isis to
grow and prosper. and i ran to road and influence. -- i want a strong america because the weaker america is, the more dangerous the world becomes. [applause] we have real challenges. of them.x everyone we can fix them without being angry at each other. we can fix it without calling people names. we can fix it without the sort of fiction that is now happening in our society. this debate has reached a boiling point. i cannot tell you how sad i was to see the images last night. again, i was sad -- i know chicago is a city that hosts multiple groups that are professional agitators and protesters, but it is not just chicago. this has been building up for a long time. the result last night, as the
world turned on their televisions, they saw images of something that looks like the third world. this cannot continue. too much is at stake. opportunities are too real. i want to leave you with another message. one that will inspire you to believe that this campaign is not just about our problems, but the chances we have. despite all of the things going wrong in this country, and all of the challenges we face, i think the 21st century is the chance to be the greatest air in era in our history. there are more people around the world than ever before that can afford to buy things from us. after the fall of the soviet union and the end of communism and socialism free enterprise , broke out around the world, and today, there are literally hundreds of millions of people on this planet who just 15 years starving, anding,
now they drive cars and own businesses. [applause] now they buy products. now they take vacations. do you know where they want to vacation? the united states. yeah, florida. you know or they want to buy second home? florida. you know whose products they want to buy? ours. you know whose culture they have bought into? ours. we literally have hundreds of millions of people to sell things to. hundreds of millions of people to trade with. hundreds of millions of people to attract here as tourists, clients, collaborators. we live in a world where
technology has flattened the pyramid. 30 years ago, you needed an office, your business in the phone book, a sign on the door, all kinds of things. today, if you want to start a business, depending on what you are doing, you need access to wi-fi. [laughter] opportunities. there is no nation and no people on this planet in a better position to benefit from it than we are. it is why the theme of my campaign is the new american century. [applause] , i know, do not think that we have a chance to make the 21st century the best time in our history. [applause] not a perfect time. we are still going to have problems. but the best time, i believe with all my heart, if we are willing to do what needs to be done, our children have the
chance to be the freest and most prosperous americans that have ever lived. [applause] that requires the right policies. that requires the right ideas. that requires the right leadership. i will just say this in closing, no matter what our political differences may be, who wants to live in a country where everyone hates each other? who wants to live in a country where everyone is at each other's throats over everything? it is ok to be at each other's throats over college football. i see an fsu shirt here, i'm not asking for him to be removed -- i just ask that you turn the shirt inside out know. no. [laughter] so -- everybody's vote [applause]
[cheering] and the bulls. yeah, somebody said this to me -- [laughter] kind of a hybrid -- i can't do it, it hurts. i, who wants to live in a country where everybody is at each other's throats? you know how tired i am fighting against my fellow americans about everything? you know how tired we are about that? we have real policy differences, we do, let's debate them. let's have a vibrant debate over what our tax rate should be. let's have a vibrant debate over whether obamacare is a good idea or a bad idea -- i think that is settled. let's have a vibrant debate over how to save social security and balance the budget. [applause] let's have a heated debate about all of these things we should, , then, we will have an election.
do we really want to live in a country where people are at each other's face. we want to live in a country if you do not agree with me on a policy or candidate, that makes you a bad person. that makes you an evil person. we don't. the only way we will have that is if we have a leader that does not want that too. [applause] if you want to be a professional twitter troll, stay on twitter. if you want to be one of these people who say crazy things, get a talkshow. if you want to be president of the united states, you have to love all the american people. even the ones that don't love you back. [applause] if you want to be president of united states, you have to wake up every morning, and say, today, i am going to work on behalf of the best interest of every single american, even the
ones that don't vote for me. [applause] even the ones that don't like me . even the ones that come to my event to heckle me. even the ones that hold up signs that say that things about me. i have to be there president too. that is the presidency at its best. we have an important decision to make in florida. it always comes down to florida. a,ant you to know, that form it was always going to come down to florida anyway. no matter what happened up to this point, it would come up to the state. florida aware -- awards 99 delegates to the winner. if i win florida by one vote i get all my design delegates. -- all 99 delegates. [applause] none.on't, i get that is how high the stakes are. that is why i need your help in this election. i can tell you this.
it is impossible for you to ever find a candidate that you agree with on every single issue. that is not going to happen. did you take that facebook test i keep hearing about? you got 90? my wife got 89. that is not bad. that is not true, that is a joke. i don't know what she got. [laughter] there is no way you are going to agree with someone on everything -- every single issue. since when has that been the criteria? the president of the united states is not just head of the government, head of our people, it is the head of the state, the symbol of america around the world. only the president can call us to great causes. it took a president to inspire us to put a man on the moon. it took a president to give us -- get us to believe that communism would fall in the cold war would one day end. it took the president to get us
back together after it was divided by a civil war, a real war. it took the president to get us through the great depression and allowed us to come together to defeat not the germany, and imperial japan. nazi imperial japan. the president is the most powerful bully pulpit in the world. it sets an example for our children and our nation. we always want to live in a country where, whether or not you agree with him or her or not, we can tell our children -- president should be a not the april model, not somebody we need to make excuses for. [applause] and, not someone we have to explain to our children. i hope i can get your support, and encourage you to go out and find more people to support me. as republicans, i want you to
know the future of our party is at stake. if donald trump is our nominee -- i know he is my opponent, and i am supposed to be here bashing him and tearing his head off, what i tell you is true, if he is our nominee, it will fracture the republican party. let me tell you why that is important -- the republican party is an organization. the republican party is the home of the limited government free enterprise, conservative movement. if you shatter the republican party, that movement will have no home. at least for the foreseeable future. that means that the people who hold those principles will struggle to get elected. that has real life consequences. i really don't know anymore. i can just tell you it has real life consequences. i set a phrase the other day about the children of the reagan revolution. i don't think it is a coincidence. i think nikki haley is here tonight. [applause]
nikki haley, scott walker, bobby jindal, myself, suzanne martinez, paul ryan -- the list goes on and on. why do we have so many people in their 40's, early 50's, early 40's, who are conservative -- conservative leaders in this country? where are the liberals in their mid-40's? where are the 45-year-old up-and-coming liberal leaders in america? bernie sanders. [laughter] why? what do all of us in that age group have in common question mark we grew up in the era of ronald reagan. -- age group have in common? we grew up in the era of ronald reagan. it defined conservatism for a generation. [applause] it defined conservatism as a set of principles backed up by a set of specific ideas, and wrapped around a sense of optimism for america and our future.
and, young people growing up in that era embraced it, and where it defined by it, and inspired to join public service because of it. that is what we are about to do now. we have to decide, what will this young generation of americans take away from this election? i can tell you if donald trump is our nominee, he will define what it means to be a -- andcan in conservative for an entire generation of americans. i don't think that is something, as a republican, we want. as is usually the case, florida, it comes down to you. i hope i can earn your support so we can continue this campaign into other states, other parts of the country. [applause] i know what the media says, he is an underdog, behind, trailing. whatever. i heard that before. i heard that in 2009.
first of all, i have heard that my whole life. there's nothing wrong with inheriting money, but i did not inherit any. the only loan i started off with was over $100,000 of student loans. my parents did not make enough money to send me to school. i remember -- the most my parents could send me -- i felt bad for them because i knew they wish they could do more. every few weeks, i would get in the mail a $20 bill, a $40 bill. i appreciated. -- i appreciated it. that is all they could send. they wanted me to have the chance to do everything they could never do. when i graduated from school, my parents could not help me why my first home. buy my first home. we had to figure that out. that is ok. if it had not been for them, i would not have gone to school to begin with or to have the chance to buy my first home. [applause] when i first decided to get into public service, my dad did not hand me a religious and say,
here are my friends, call them, they will give you money. even as a sitting senator, i did not have that. we have always had to scratch and crawl, but i like that, it has been a blessing. it is who we are as a nation and the people. [applause] that is why, in 2009, when there was an early vacancy in the u.s. senate, and the republican establishment in washington said they had found their republican candidate in charlie crist, i said, i know him, he's not really a republican. they said, yes he is we have his , voter registration, i said, trust me, he is not. we learned that the hard way. i did not know how i would win that race to be honest i had no , idea. everything i knew about politics told me i was going to lose. i had no idea i was going to raise the money. the polls that i was down 50-60 points. everything i knew about politics told me i was going to lose.
i will be frank, as a human being, i was discouraged by all of that. but we persevered. of course, we won because you believed in me. you believed in me. [applause] because i told you that if you voted for me, i would go to washington, and i would stand up to the obama agenda, and offer a clear alternative. that is exactly what i have done. i have stood up to the agenda and had success. i led the effort to repeal the a lout fund.- the bai [applause] i have also offered alternatives. we have had successes. in a bipartisan way, we passed additional sanctions on hezbollah. we passed the v.a. accountability bill. in a bipartisan way, we passed an act to deal with human trafficking. [applause]
in a bipartisan way, we got sanctions imposed on human rights violators in venezuela. [applause] we got -- hopefully -- funding for the central everglades project. it is not enough. well member of congress can help shape the agenda, only a president can set the agenda. only a president can rebuild our military, re-embraced the constitution, but people on the supreme court. [applause]
wasn't in journal, live, every day with news and policy issues that impact the -- you. coming up the political science professor from tampa joins us to his -- to discuss tuesday primary election. also, the author of defeating isis, who they are, how they fight, and what they believe. he will talk about his book, which outlines how isis evolved the cactus -- tactics are used to wage terror. andrew b paul -- and also the politics reporter will join us to talk about tuesday's primary, voter enthusiasm, and what the outcome could mean for the candidates. be sure to watch c-span's
washington journal beginning on sunday morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern. join the discussion. >> president obama says politicians who want to lead should try to bring americans together, not divide them. the president spoke at a democratic party fundraiser in dallas am a one day after protesters forced republican candidate donald trump to cancel a campaign event in chicago. the president's remarks are just under 30 minutes. [applause] president obama: hey! [applause] president obama: hello, dallas, texas. it is good to see all of you. please have a seat. it is good to see you on a
saturday morning. it is a good-looking crowd. you know, i think ron kirk wants to run for something again. [laughter] he came appear he was getting , into it. i am telling you. [laughter] -- he came up here. he was getting into it. i am telling you. [laughter] [applause] president obama: listen, i love ron. i really do. it is true. ron and matrice could not be better friends. he was not only a great mayor of the city, but he was a great ambassador on our behalf across the country so please give him a , round of applause. [applause]
president obama: your current mayor, mike rawlings is here. [applause] president obama: he reminds me that he had to clean up all kinds of things after ron was mayor, but it turned out ok. one of our most wonderful representatives, somebody who has been an incredible friend and partner to me over the years, during my presidency -- betty johnson. she has always had my back. [applause] president obama: and hall of famer, and a dear friend and really a pretty good dancer, emmitt smith is in the house. looking sharp. [applause] president obama: so, i came to texas because i wanted to visit
sxsw yesterday, and i had a great time. yeah! it is a fun event. it is an interesting event for those who have not been there. there are a lot of tech folks and new ideas. i was slotted among a panel -- there were a bunch of different panels. keep mars weird, that was one panel. there was robot armageddon. that was another one. and i decided to keep quiet and not remind people that there actually is a robot rover on mars. [laughter] anyway.t obama: it was wonderful to be in austin. it is wonderful to be in dallas. we are here today because we know how deeply this year's election matters. if anyone says they do not matter, think about 2008.
some of you were along for that ride. you know how much that election mattered and the one after that. , because when i took office, we were losing 800,000 jobs a month and unemployment was on its way , to 10%. today businesses have created jobs for six straight years. 14.3 million new jobs. unemployment below 5%. that has changed. that is what we fought for. that is why elections matter. [applause] president obama: when i took office, american manufacturing was in a decade of decline and the auto industry was flat on its back. today, they had the best year ever and we have created over 900,000 new manufacturing jobs. that is why elections matter and that is what change is all about. [applause] president obama: when i took office, tens of millions of americans went without the security of health insurance. today, thanks to the affordable care act, also known as --
>> obamacare! president obama: obamacare, 20 million more americans are covered and more than 90% of americans have health insurance, that is change. they said it would kill jobs, but ever since i signed that bill to law, businesses have created jobs every single month in the united states of america. [applause] president obama: when i took office, we were hopelessly addicted to foreign oil. today we have cut our imports by more than half. oil, natural gas production in the united states is at an all-time high, but we have also doubled the power we get from wind. we generate 30 times more solar power than we did when i came to office. leading the world to combat climate change. creating good clean energy jobs, that is change to believe in. that is why elections matter. [applause]
president obama: when i took office, 180 thousand troops were serving in harms way in iraq and afghanistan. today, about 90% of those people are home, and we could not be more grateful for their service and sacrifice. we are also glad they are reunited with families. [applause] and we still have a job to do going after iso--- isil, but we are pursuing a broader vision that uses every element of our national power. including diplomacy, to keep america safe and strong. [applause] president obama: when i took office, the right to marry who you love was limited to two states, now it is in all 50 states, from coast to coast. that is change you can believe in. [applause] president obama: we have been busy. [laughter] president obama: we have been busy. we have been as busy as a one eyed dog in a smokehouse. [laughter]
president obama: i heard that while i was down here. [laughter] president obama: and we are still busy. still hustling. we have more work to do. when cynics told us we could not change this country that we love so much they were wrong. , if somebody had told us we -- told you seven years ago that we would have 20 million more jobs, marriage equality and bin laden out of the picture, you would not have bought what they were selling, you would have said they were hollering down a well. the truth of the matter is, america is pretty darn great right now. [applause] president obama: america is making strides right now. it is better off right now. the american people should be
proud of what we have achieved together over the last eight years since the recession hit. we are great right now. [applause] president obama: and what the folks who are running for office should be focused on is how to make it better, not insults. or schoolyard talks. and manufacturing hats. [laughter] notident obama: divisiveness along the lines of race or faith. certainly not violence against other americans or excluding them. very better country than that. and what has been happening in policy lately is not an accident. for years, we have been told, we should be angry about america. and that the economy is a disaster, and that we are weak,
compromise is weakness. and you can ignore science and say whatever you want about the president. and feed suspicion about immigrants. and muslims, and poor people, and people who are not like us, and say that that is the reason america is in decline, because of those people. that did not just happen last week. that narrative has been promoted now for years. it did not just spring out of nowhere. and of course, none of it has been true. it just ignores reality, the
reality that america is the most powerful nation on earth. the reality that our economy is not only stronger than it was eight years ago, that it is right now the real bright spot in the world. that our diversity is a great gift that makes us the envy of every other nation. [applause] president obama: so the narrative that has been pushed is false. demonstrably false. and we should not be surprised when in the heat of political season it gets carried away. we have to say no to that. se can have political debate without turning on one another. we can have political debate without thinking that those who disagree with us are motivated by malice. we can support candidates without treating opponents as unpatriotic or treasonous. or somehow deliberately trying
to weaken america, that is not just one candidate, some of those so called responsible candidates, including a gentleman from this state -- [laughter] [applause] president obama: you read what he says, it is no more rooted in reality than some of these other statements. we can point out bad policies without describing them as a government takeover, assault on freedom. by the way, when i say this, this is not about political correctness. it is about not having to explain to our kids why our politics sounds like a schoolyard fight. we should not be afraid to take them to rallies or watch debates.
they watch the way that we conduct ourselves, they learn from us. we should be teaching them something about democracy as a vibrant and precious thing. it will be their's someday and we should be teaching them how to disagree with them, how to engage, analyze facts, and how to be honest and truthful. and admit if you make a mistake, teach them that politics at its best is about a battle of ideas and resolving differences without resorting to violence. and our leaders, those who aspire to be our leaders, should be trying to bring us together and not turning us against one another. and speak out against violence,
and efforts to raise fear. if they do not do that, they do not deserve our support. [applause] president obama the best leaders : are the leaders who are worthy of our vote. they remind us even in a country as big as ours, what we have in common is more important than what divides us. in 2008, we had rallies with 50,000, 80,000, 100,000 people. i am not bragging. i am just saying. [laughter] [applause] president obama: we had big rallies. sometimes you hear people say, that rally is big. i say, i don't know. we had pretty big rallies. i'm just saying. [laughter] [applause] president obama: we had one in austin, texas. ron remembers. he was there. more than 20,000 people in austin.
and, i was telling the folks in austin, remember i saw a guy who had a nice looking cowboy hat. i said, "that is a nice looking hat." he took it off, and he said, "you take it." and it fit really good. i looked really good in it. and somebody took a picture of it. i cannot find that hat. [laughter] president obama: so if you are still out there, sir -- [laughter] [applause] president obama: nah, that looks good on you brother. when i come down to shake hands, i might see how it fits. [laughter] president obama: that is why i love texas. right there. my going -- my point, going back -- i got waylaid -- americans were frustrated then too. upset about wars in iraq, upset about the housing crisis, the
financial crisis, that would send the markets plummeting. unemployment soaring, and people losing their homes and pensions. all that happened while we were campaigning, but some of you who went to those rallies, there was not a spirit of anger, meanness. people were hopeful. people were looking about how to bring folks together. we tried to offer something different. we try to offer something better. we believed that we were greater together, not as divided as politics is suggest. -- politics suggests. as democrats, that is what we need to offer, a politics that reflects the best, not the worst in us. we need to hold ourselves to a higher standard. we need to do better. we need to offer a better path for america. we know what we believe. by the way, when you know what
you believe, when you know what you are for, you do not need to spend time trying to find somebody to be against. we believe the economy grows faster when everybody gets a fair shot, not just a few. we are not going to let republicans roll back progress by letting big banks or hedge funds make their own rules at the expense of everyone else. we will build on our progress and rebuild and research, raise the minimum wage, and make college more affordable and meet , obligations for the poor and vulnerable, and work on family leave, and paid leave, and early education so that everybody can get a shot at life. that is what we believe and what we are about. we are for something, not just against something. [applause] [cheering] [indiscernible] president obama: i can't do that. we believe that in a country as wealthy as ours, everybody should have access to health care. and we made progress, but we
have more to do. right here in texas, your governor could cover over a million more texans under medicaid with the stroke of a pen. 40,000 women could get mammograms needed each year with the stroke of a pen. he will not do it because of politics. we should not be putting people's health ahead of politics -- not put politics ahead of health care. [applause] president obama: as democrats, we believe things like, science. it has resulted in great improvements in our lives. science. that is why we have things like penicillin, airplanes, huh -- you know? we appreciate science, we
appreciate scientists. and when scientists tell us that climate change is real, we should not be wasting time debating whether it is real, we should be working together to make sure that we create good, clean energy jobs. , to make the place better than average. right now, here in texas, wind power is cheaper than fossil fuels. we cannot let republicans roll back this progress and keep on letting special interest right there own rules, and keep subsidizing the past, instead of investing in the future. that is what we believe in. we are not against something, we are for something. [applause] president obama: does anybody have any idea what the other side as for right now? i do not know. [indiscernible] president obama: they don't? that is why they are selling wine. [laughter] [applause]
president obama: i -- i had to say this -- i told the people down in austin, i said, has anybody tried that wine? [laughter] president obama: i want to know what that wine tastes like. i mean come on, you know that it , is like $5.00 wine. they slap a label on it. they charge you $50, saying this , is the greatest wine ever. come on. [laughter] president obama: ha. oh, boy. selling wine. that is not what we are for. [laughter] president obama: could not make it up. as democrats -- as democrats, our top national security priority is protecting the
american people. going after terrorists networks. over one year and a half, we have led a coalition with other -- more than 60 countries. hunting down, destroying isil, going after their financial networks, leadership, going after their infrastructure. we do not do it with phony bluster. we do not go around hawking stuff, we do. more than 10,000 airstrikes. our men and women in uniform, our special forces right there, , taking care of business. progress is not made by over-the-top claims or suggestions that we will carpet bomb innocent people. that is not strengthen our leadership around the world. we do not strengthen our position, are standing, we do not make ourselves safer by insulting muslims around the world. pinning groups of americans against each other, we are going
to keep america safe and strong, and respected around the world by doing the right thing. and using all of the elements of our power, that is what democrats believe in. [applause] president obama: that is what we believe in and what we are for. not just against something. as democrats, by the way we , believe our right to vote should be easier to exercise, not harder. [applause] president obama: i love folks who say how much they love the constitution, love the american way. and then, do everything they can to make sure that americans can't vote. right here in texas. republicans have systematically made it harder to register and harder to vote. four years ago, texas ranked in the bottom five in voter turnout, two years ago, the bottom three.
60 million eligible voters, 7 million unregistered. and that is not an accident, that is on purpose. it has systematically been structured to prevent folks from voting, discouraging folks from voting. so, i tell you what, democrats believe -- we believe that despite those efforts, we are going to go ahead and make sure that we got a big turnout. we are going to prove everything is bigger in texas and get more folks registered, and get them to the polls. tell them don't mess with , texas's right to vote. that is what we believe in. everybody should participate, everybody should be involved, everybody has a point. voice,ybody has a everybody has a say. our country works better that way. black, white, asian, latino, and
gay, straight, immigrant, native one, you look around the state, it is home to everybody. people from all kinds of places. that is what makes the lone star state great. that is what makes america great. we believe that everybody -- that is what makes me proud to be a democrat because that is what the democratic party looks like. we believe that everybody deserves an equal shot. we fight for people who have not had the same chance as we have. fight for kids who may not have the same opportunities, no matter what they look like, where they come from. we believe they should be able to make it. we look out for somebody else's kids, not just our own, because we know when our kids grow up, then they will be living in a better world if somebody else's kids have a chance, too. that is what we stand for as democrats, as americans.
that is what is at stake. that is why i am proud to have all of you on our team. let's get to work, dallas. let's get to work, texas. let's move the country forward. remember what you are for. let's lift up hope. let's not just be against something. let's remind ourselves how much progress we have made and how much people who love our country, decide to come together, nothing can stop us. god bless you. god bless the united states of america. [applause] ♪ ♪
state parties have always been that the step child of american politics. voters never liked them. everyone tells you they like the book -- the person, not the party. they have been doing that for decades now, and people with a amiri -- amazingly regularity vote for the party. let me introduce them and then i'm going to hand the floor over to jonathan and ray who have
written the paper that if you have not gotten it, it is out there. then we will have a discussion and include the audience eventually as well. to my immediate left is jonathan rauch, a senior fellow in the government studies program here at bookings and a contributing editor of the national journal and the atlantic. he's written a lot of books and a lot of papers, but my favorite is an e-book which i encourage you to find called "political realism: how hacks, machines, big-money and backroom deals can strengthen american democracy." and if that doesn't get you interested, nothing will. to his immediate left is an associate professor of political science at the university of massachusetts at amherst. ray also has a new book out called "campaign finance and pluto polarization -- when purists avail." -- when purists prevail." to his left is jason perkey, the executive director of the south carolina democratic hardy.
after serving in the kansas democratic party and has the distinction of being the executive director and president of the association of state democratic executive directors. he speaks for all the professional people who run political parties or at least democratic local parties. to his left is jason perkey -- is john phillippe. this includes federal and state finance campaign compliance and very interesting, the 2016 republican presidential
nomination process. which keeps him really, really busy. at the end of the panel is eliza newlin carney, senior editor at "american prospect" where she manages their website and writes a weekly column called "rules of the game" and contributes to magazine features. she is most famously known for coining the term super pac, which we now have as an easy part of the political lexicon. this is a great panel. they have interesting things to say and i am going to turn it over first to jonathan and ray to talk about the work they did in preparation for this panel. jonathan: thank you all for coming on this beautiful day. it's great to see some old friends in the group here and
thanks of course to ray, my co-author, and i need to recognize sam stoddard who is research assistant and all purpose analyst and friend working on this paper. extremely helpful, we couldn't have done it without you. it is chaos out there. both in the campaign and on capitol hill. ray and i don't need to belabor that point. what we decided we would do is go out there in the country and look for a non-we could actually turn still connected with something that would reduce the amount of sheer chaos and frustration. ray and i don't need to belabor that point. what we decided we would do is go out there in the country and look for a non-we could actually turn still connected with something that would reduce the amount of sheer chaos and we think we have found such a knob and we think it is hidden in plain view. we think it is time to refocus and this is actually low hanging fruit. there's a lot that can be done with bipartisan support that
isn't very difficult and that would make significant event -- significant inroads. we did a bunch of things. we sent a survey to all 100 democratic and state democratic hardy's and got back 56 of those in time to use, which is quite a back 56 of those in time to use, which is quite a lot. second, we per -- we compared the results with earlier surveys. we also interviewed 15 state party executive directors and a few chairs who were part of that group in some detail about their responses and collected national data to look at funding and other such questions. then we tried to put that together and what i hope is the most coherent picture of what is going on in state parties at the moment and what we found are interesting. i will focus on the findings of our conditions and ray will focus on hardy and -- on policy and recommendations.
two things i would like to focus on -- state parties are actually very much alive. they are very much unique and important as political entities and have the aspect of something we call the public good. let me try to unpack that. there has been a trend in political science to view parties in general and state parties in particular as masses of people in networks, interest groups, politicians, and whatnot. other people said parties don't really do much anyway anymore. we found that is not true. state parties have a distinctive cultures and professional to take a long-term view of things. we found they do some important things. one, they are integrative. they look across races at every level simultaneously. they look across hierarchies and
integrate national parties with county parties and stand in middle of all of that. they also integrate across time. one of the things that is most important is that they are durable institutions. unlike a candidate who can slash and burn or an outside group, as one of them put it, we are the stewards of the brand. they need to be accountable for long-term results and reputation. we talked to one dvd of the democratic party in a deep red state who said they are spending time and money running out turnout in safe democratic districts. they say why are you doing that? isn't that a waste of money? they say we need to worry about turnout for state offices and this is where we are going to get it. i thought no candidate or interest group thinks like that. only a state party would. they also do something like gardening.
we were keen to find out how state parties will actively endorse a candidate and say we pick this one. you will find at the back of the paper that the survey results are are all -- are all there. these to be gatekeepers back in the day. someone like donald trump could have never even been on the ballot. what they still are our gardeners. they operate through jawboning and will go through a candidate and say you are a good candidate, why don't you run for this office instead of that office? they shape the landscape to make the races is more winnable and the candidates a little more reasonable. they also all recruit. that's a key function of state parties. they are building a bench for the future which is something candidates and interest groups don't worry about. they develop capital stock and
these are people you can pass on to the next candidate and that is very important. finally, they are due polarizing. ray and his colleague, brian, have a new book out that finds in states where parties are stronger, legislatures are less polarized. we talked to a state executive director who came from a conservative advocacy group and told us how much his perspective had changed once he got into the party. for all of those reasons and others, state parties perform a lot of functions that are important to society. they have a lot of positive spinoff. but as you all know, the sad fact about public goods is they tend to be underfunded because no one is capturing all of the value.
we decided to find out how they are doing. the answer is they are struggling. charts one and two and three show what is happening. in absolute terms since mccain-feingold passed in 2002, they are sort of flat. republicans took a nosedive and kind of built back. democrats are kind of flat. we also look at function, what they do and who they employ. not a great deal of change. size of staff and activities. what is different is the competition is running circles around them. you will find figure three in the table, we looked at independent spending versus party independent spending. you will see the parties become miniscule compared to the resources outside groups are throwing into campaigns. what they tell us are things like this -- we believe we are fighting for our lives in the
legal and judicial framework. the super pac's present a direct threat to state parties existence. the problem is not that day are falling behind in absolute terms, it is that they are falling behind in relative terms. outside money is much less transparent and accountable than party money. their interests are much more parochial and extreme. they tend to be polarized and they tend to be extreme. that is problematic if the public good is declining. now i will turn it over to ray who talks about policy factors and what to do about them. ray: first, i want to thank brookings for providing resources and to this project. our basic argument is the rules disadvantage state parties. the rules shackle parties from that is problematic if the public good is declining. now i will turn it over to ray doing more of what they do best and that is grassroots voter engagement across the party ticket.
second, the rules make it harder to sponsor tv and lack the resources and leave outside groups. starting with grassroots activity, by far, the biggest complaint we have heard is that mccain-feingold federalize this core grassroots activities at the state level. that is their bread and butter in the essence of the public good. federal law just makes it harder. federal laws must raise money in complex ways to do this and it minimalize is what they do and their byzantine rule that uses voters to register and get them to the polls.
they make a good living off of this but i know we want to encourage more volunteers and they do to and we can change some of these things. another problem is federal election activities. it is very broad and it captures basic grassroots work which is intended to help candidates and local state elections. because of this, parties have to spend regulated money on traditional grass roots work. we were told simply telling voters to vote on november 8 and precinct 12 counts as federal election activity. so you leave off the part about when and where to vote. we want parties to be doing this. we want to beginning voters to the polls. in our view, parties could do even more of this. why does it have to be him restricted to these mccain feingold rules? the
public good is providing candidates and a renegade candidate like trump at the state level hurts the party brand. we can talk about chairs and directors and if you are organizing together, you are going to push back against such renegades. the fact is the laws discourage party ticket campaigning, the kind of campaign that encourages this mutual campaign. you need to use these high cost federal dollars. in some states, party leaders focus on a few candidates in competitive races rather than the full slate. it makes the party act more
like a super pac and encourages political fragmentation. the party isn't careful to circumscribe its activities. they stay in their lanes. that is what we heard a lot of. this is our lane, grassroots activity -- that is their lane, the super pac. parties cope by specializing. as they focus on two big things -- voter data, voter mobilization, and that is the holy grail of american politics. parties seem to dominate year but they still face more and more competition. we heard concerns about the program supported by the koch brothers that work. they don't always share the data they collect. let me turn to the tv side of things. elaine strategy -- we show you those in our survey, have party said they advertise on tv and radio.
we ask directors -- your something that was really fascinating -- we ask them to assess the environment for independent spending. there are stark differences in independent spending that give parties more free access to money. if there is no limit on contributions -- here's the problem with state laws -- it is simple math. if you restrict the party, you get more independent expenditures. in states that have contribution limits, 65% of respondents said independent groups sponsor more than half of political ads. states without those contributions, only 23% said
that. states with contribution limits, 65% of our respondents said independent expenditures is often a key factor in governors elections. less than half said that in the other state. we don't like this division of labor. super pac's are rarely in the campaign for a long haul. they're like the tent circus. we also mentioned the way this division train -- drains talent. we think it is time to restore independent expenditures is often a key factor in governors elections. less than half said that in the other state. we don't like this division of labor. super pac's are rarely in the campaign for a long haul. they're like the tent circus. we also mentioned the way this division train -- drains talent. we think it is time to restore some balance. based on some premises we laid out here, the party provides the public good, which we think are being undersupplied. state parties, even if they are not disappearing, are falling behind. some people might not like this -- we think super pac's and dark money is here to stay. here is our recommendation. raise or eliminate contribution
efforts to the party. this could do what brian and i describe as building canals not dams. you want to divert -- money's to fall into politics, diverted toward the most accountable venues. we think that is the place. number two, led parties coordinate with candidates and aggregate their spending as much as possible. it's exactly what state parties should be doing. three, we recommend tax subsidies because parties divide underperforming public good. we have not thought through all the implications here, so we are just putting this out there for discussion. if state parties are treated like nonprofits, we talk about how the discount is good for them -- why not for tax purposes as well? if you can make tax reduction to places like gale, why not for parties performing this public
good? for basic regulatory changes -- we agree with the brennan center to roll back the federalization of state and local activity. by narrowing the amount of activity that must be paid for with federal bleed -- federally compliant funds. let state parties be state parties. let me conclude by saying there are no magic bullets. we are realists and we need to start somewhere. we need to start eliminating some of the disadvantages the parties face, especially at time when parties seem so fragmented. helping state parties is the low
hanging fruit. there's not even a great risk in making these efforts even if they don't achieve all the things they say they might achieve. it is certainly less risky than trying to amend the constitution or some of these very expensive public financing scheme. elaine: you can see we have quite a provocative paper here with even the recommendations. let me turn it over to our discussion. jason, do you want to go first? jason: yes. thank you. this is something republican parties and democratic parties like are dealing with. my counterpart in kansas and i spoke about all of this. my counterpart in south carolina talks about this as an issue. we are facing this every day. most of my colleagues believe they provide three core functions.
we are a large organization. a multimillion dollar organization. but it boils down to doing three things. we as an organization have to grow. we try to measure as many voters as we can and from there, we try to figure out a way to talk to we as an organization have to grow. we try to measure as many voters voters in a meaningful way and keep them engaged during the election cycle and especially during the off years so folks know and are up to date on the issues that are important to us as a party and important to the state and the nation. the last thing we do is try to turn out as many folks to vote as we possibly can. all three of those separate things are considered federal activities. everything that spawns off of them is considered a federal activity. as a result of the funds we have to use in order to pay for any activities that come about as a result, we need to use federal funds. nonfederal funds are also in a separate bank account. or some of the folks down ballot
or doing some non-federal activities in our states. the truth of the matter is, over time as a result of super pac's and a number of other things like the mccain-feingold act, state parties have been boiled down to having two pieces of article capital. we served as a male bank and ran a lot of mail through our state parties as a result of being able to pay for mail at a much reduced rate and we served as a place, as a data house. the democratic party has far and away the best data on voters and communities that any candidate
would ever want to go after. we served as those two things and over time, asked staff and shares and organizations, we try to come up with more added value to our organizations, to our states and candidates. we did that by working closely with our county parties in order to figure out different ways to communicate and ways we could grow and turn out voters. would ever want to go after. we served as those two things and over time, asked staff and shares and organizations, we try to come up with more added value at the national level, we are fortunate as the association of state democratic chairs to have a leader in rate buckley who serves as the chair for the new hampshire democratic candidate. not just democrats, not just republicans, but all of us. we put together a plan in order to address them. we directed the staff to put together a series of trainings
for the purpose of understanding exactly what the impact of mccain-feingold has on state hardee's because believe you made, the last thing you want is to get bob over the head freezing incorrect funds to pay for something. through the leadership of the executive director and the training director, they have set up a training program for state parties to learn the ways of the fec. while neil i think is going to put his kids through college as a result of the legal work, we don't pay him enough to make sure we stay out of trouble. when some states do, we feel really fortunate to have someone like neil who has relationships with the sec to work with us on any issue. what i want to stress is what i started with -- this idea that it's not just state parties dealing with this issue, it's not just democrats state parties, we both are. what i would hope would happen at the end of the day is our federal legislators, our members of congress would start to sit down with us more often in order
to have a conversation about the impact that their state party that may have recruited them to run way back when what may 1 entered congress continues to get them reelected and serve the democrat or republican parties and their state can hopefully hear the challenges we are facing on a day-to-day basis and do something about the laws ray just referred to. we agree and issue of the contribution limits is an issue for us. just referred to. we agree and issue of the contribution limits is an issue for us. we agree being able to coordinate more allows us to spend money more effectively and wisely during the course of a campaign.
making the contributions tax-deductible is an issue, especially for larger donors looking for a way to spend their money at the end of the year. and the regulatory rollbacks are something that hopefully we start working more closely with our members of congress that we can face and address. elaine: thank you. john, from the other side of the aisle. john: thank you, it is a pleasure to be here and i want to thank ray and jonathan for their work and brookings for hosting a very important program. i am delighted, as jason is, that there's more attention being focused on the plight of state parties in today's day and age and i think there's a lot of room for common ground, but not just bipartisan. it could be ideological as well and it could be among people who have different goals or see different problems in the system right now.
a lot of folks think there is too much money going to less transparent and grassroots oriented groups as the authors mention. if you have a problem with that, one way to counteract that is to create reforms that will strengthen the most transparent, most accountable to grassroots oriented groups in the system. one specific reform they talk about and we can get into those is raising more illuminating contribution limits. a lot of people say that's more money into the system, and to begin with, that isn't true.
keep in mind there's not a dollar that can not go into the system now that would be in the system if state parties could raise money for themselves. it's just a matter of where it's going to go. increasing contribution limits could have the ironic effect of increasing the strength and influence of low dollar donors because what you will see a state parties are much more driven by low dollar donors and super pac's are and the mix about and we can get into those is raising more illuminating contribution limits. a lot of people say that's more money into the system, and to begin with, that isn't true. would change as more high dollar money comes to state parties but it's going to be a mix, not 100% high dollar donors. the other thing you need to look at in that respect is the national committees have high limits compared to state party committees. that doesn't mean we don't raise low dollar money. the fact is it costs a lot of money to raise low dollar money and money that could come in the door from high dollar contractors could be used to build low dollar fundraising programs and the state funding -- state parties don't have the resources to do that just now. increasing or eliminating limits could have a positive effect on state parties. a couple of other points i will make and one thing you may be wondering is why is the guy from the national party committee here? two reasons i think are important for the discussion. the party committees are very well integrated. the system is not just a matter
of national parties, state parties and local party committees. we all need to be strengthened but the regulations in place have drawn fissures between the different levels of party committees. for instance, as mentioned in the paper, national party committee officers can not even raise money for state accounts and state candidates. the chairman of the republican national committee is banned by federal law from raising a single dollar for a state candidate for local candidate or state party committee to help state and local candidates. measures such as rolling back those kinds of restrictions could help the state parties. the other reason i think i'm
here from a national party perspective is we are set up a little differently on the republican side. i worked with state parties all day, every day. we don't have a separate state parties association so i get questions from state parties all the time and as i read this paper, one of the things that struck me is how much of what i was reading was reflect in the kind of questions i get an sentiments i hear from folks on the ground every day and the frustration and confusion. i teach election law at the state level on a regular basis and it's very complex. the most highly regulated entities in the political system and the least equipped to deal with it because they are so highly regulated because there are so many structural daises against them.
i try to walk them through the rules and how to allocate costs between state and federal accounts. hopefully not exclusively. partially the other two laws, all they want to do is grassroots activity and all they want to do is engage with voters and they find out they can't do that without employing lawyers and not spending time on actual voter context but instead on mere compliance. i think there's a lot of room will for reform and i think there is common ground and i think there's looking -- i think brookings and the authors of this paper for their work. eliza: thanks to brookings for this event and ray and john for taking this seriously.
civic engagement, accountability and transparency -- some of these ideas are excellent and i support them, but others i would say we need to be careful in crafting our solution so we don't bring about the opposite of what we intend and have the effect of weakening state parties by exciting voter anger at big money. it wasn't too long ago that we had deregulation of the parties in the form of soft money. before the mccain-feingold law took effect, we had a series of scandals involving the lincoln bedroom and buddhist monks. the donors were rewarded with ski vacations and getaways and exclusive access. some of them got what they wanted. anyone who needs reminding of the problems of that era can
look at the record that was the supreme court ruling that upheld that law. what that record showed was that no one was happy. donors were unhappy and felt shaken down. the voters were increasingly upset and that is why that law was enacted. we shouldn't forget that. that wasn't long ago and there were some dangers that occurred when parties were deregulated that would be a shame to replicate. one feature of that euro that speaks to this paper is at that time, there were elected officials who set up leadership packs, their own political action committees in the state, taking advantage of the fact that the states had no contribution limit. that is something i think is a little bit of a red flag in this paper because it is revoking the band on that -- the and on
national party officials raising money. i would be full to make sure those types of abuses did not take place once again. a couple of contradictions i'm going to quibble with a little bit. on the one hand, state parties are presented as pure and virtuous and outside groups are secretive and polarizing. state parties are forwarding the goals of establishing infrastructure and sitting with a lasting brand. they are described as less corruptible than candidates, but let's not forget it is elected officials running for office who are running the state parties and they are the ones tasked with raising this money. to say they are less corruptible than the candidates is a complicated article. given a clear role candidates play in running and raising money for these parties. the paper also does say these parties and outside groups are
competing to hire the same people, duplicating messages and tasks. if anything, that illustrates the fuzzy line between parties and outside groups and we see that in this election or the republican party, some established leaders are concerned about donald trump. the one group that came out first against trump was none other than the club for growth. an outside group of the type resized as meddling in primaries. but they were the first to do what establishment party leaders wanted to do. i don't know if we can really say state parties were parties in general are that separate from outside groups.
i think often they have similar goals and i don't think they are less corrupt. there's a strong question raised in my mind by the statement in this paper that corruption is less important than moderation. i think that is at odds with the anger voters feel right now. i think voters feel is a huge problem and it's turning up in poll after poll as being a huge concern to voters. if parties become perceived as a being driven by special interest donors or big money, voters might go against it rather than becoming part of the grassroots army. there's a perception we move money from one place to the other, will have trans parent see and accountability. there is some evidence here that in states with less regulation, that is happening.
there is a danger that will -- that there will be more money and if the problem is outside groups are not disclosing, maybe we should focus on disclosure. virtually unanimously, the supreme court upheld in the citizens united ruling. having said that, there are some great ideas here. that includes the idea that they should allow contributions to be tax-deductible. i think that is something that is of interest to republicans as well and i would use that as an example. a tea party reform group called take back our republic support tax credits. i think that's a strong possible area of common ground. i also agree it is way overdue to let parties coordinate with their candidates. i think that is something you can an act today. i know there are dangers to that
in there probably would be people who argue against it but i think a lot of lawmakers would rally around that. we could narrow the definition of federal activity by state parties, but with the caveat that it needs to be done with extreme caution so federal elected officials don't turn state parties into personal slush funds away they did before mccain-feingold. in closing, i would say nature we talked not just to one another, but voters in this process.
>> we're talking about state parties. on the lincoln venture thing, it are most -- almost quaint in some ways that was our biggest worry, you can only fit one couple in the lincoln bedroom, and we knew that -- they were. there was a guest list. that's not true anymore. trust is a funny thing. during the height of soft money, there was more trust in congress and the government and at any point in the 10 years before
that in the 10 years after that. i'm not sure people make the distinction between all this money that goes to super pac's -- our pouring -- our point is if they are not making the distinction, at least give it to the parties who are going to be more accountable. they are the people who have to govern eventually. put as much money as possible to the ones who are going to face the burden of actually having to govern and face the people. they are not really the same people. some of them are. but just as one example, why do you think senator mcconnell faced so much difficulty pushing in a writer from the tea party because he wanted to have more money to coordinate? they know it is giving the party more power.
so there are differences out there and one of the most telling stories we had was it depends on where you sit. we had one executive director who was working for a very conservative group. his perspective changed entirely. my job is to get republicans elected, not conservatives. when i was doing that, that was my job. this equation that they are all the same is problematic russ. let me stop there. jonathan: thank you for the comments there. if we had magic bullets with no downside, all of this would be easier.
it is possible if you lighten the contribution limit on parties, more money would flow in. i'm not sure we think there's anything wrong with that. money flowing to parties can strengthen their relative clout in the system and if you have looked at the presidential race right now, you might think strengthening relative clout might be a good ring. not looking just at the amounts, but look at where they are going. it's not enough just to look at the individuals and the names and say it's all the same people. the incentives are very different whether you are an insider or outsider, whether you have a long-term stake winning elections, in which case you are likely to look toward the median voter or if you are just and for the short-haul. i often worry our reform community has lost sight of that and boiled everything down to a simple follow the money rubric. the idea of matching low dollar contributions to state dollars is interesting. we didn't evaluate it for this paper but it could use evaluating.
we also think it is less likely to happen. if you go to the american public and say should we match contributions to parties, we think they would give you a resounding no. a tax break might be more practical, but it is certainly worth a look. thank you all again for your wonderful and challenging comments. elaine: jason or john, any thoughts? john: i will respond to allies a just a little bit as far as mccain feingold and what they did and what was nearly -- what was merely speculation at the time. we can talk about the lincoln
bedroom, but those were national committees. the restrictions were driven by mere speculation that national parties and federal candidates would use parties to circumvent the national soft-money ban. without any evidence. we are in a different time and a different system with a lot more groups involved. they've been freed up to be more involved by citizen united and there's every reason to take a look back and say what has been the experience and mccain-feingold passed and is bedroom, but those were national committees. the restrictions were driven by the mere conjecture about circumvention that existed at the time enough to keep state parties so restricted in this new d -- new day and age. i wouldn't courage and examination of that. jason: the way in which i drilled down a little bit is on coordination. we have state candidates on the ballot almost two years no matter what state you're in. the idea we can coordinate with
them because there is a congressional candidate on the ballot and the inability to participate in a coordinated way, despite the fact that we are all democrats are all republicans seems absurd. it also seems absurd a state party cannot put out a mailer that we could use state funds that lists all of those candidates running for office on the democratic side without being forced to use one type of funds, one type of activity. it just doesn't seem logical and also seems very restrictive and something that is unnecessary. we are an added value to all the candidates running for office, whether it's at the munich to the level, and the state level all the way up to the presidential level. we can provide that added value but these laws restrict the added value we are able to provide. these recommendations may and john set forth at least start
the process for us to be more engaged and in order for us to get more people engaged in the process. if we are restricted and the ability to do voter registration, less people will get registered to vote. if we are restricted in a way we can communicate meaningfully with voters, less voters could be engaged. if we are restricted in the way we turn out voters, less people are going to turn out to vote and those are things everyone would agree we should be doing more of. more people should be registered and we should be having important conversations about the impact of laws and regulations and more people should turn out and vote in order to share their voice with the american people or with their communities. eliza: i thought i would take the prerogative to enter my two cents since this is a topic near
and dear to my heart. one of the things we will see when the general election begins is that there will be people in many states in the united they to do not get a presidential campaign. the candidates will simply not go there. they won't go to hawaii emily will go to alaska. but they also will not go to the safe states. they will simply stay away from all but about 10 states. there's a lot of speculation that over time, the polarization, which is a result of lots of things, people moving to where there are near people
like them gerrymandering -- there's some speculation that there so many states where your vote does not matter. if you live in the middle of nebraska, your vote probably doesn't matter and maybe you don't other to vote in the presidential race. because there are more and more people who feel like that, it's got to have an effect on participation and everybody in the country, no matter how they are concerned, everybody believes in maximizing participation. and yet the institutions which do that are consistently, as we have been hearing, hobbled in their ability to do that. i go back to when howard dean was chairman of the democratic national committee iran something called the 50 state strategy. the first thing he did was there were some states that were in such had state that -- such a bad state that they could not afford a lawyer or accountant.
so he did simple, building block infrastructure things like that. the second thing he did was he looked for blue voters in red states, which i thought was a big, big change. most people now think his holding of the party held the democrats get out of their slump to take over the congress in 2006 and the presidency in 2008. i think there is some evidence that parties really can increase participation and increase that connection to elections in a way that the super pac's cannot. i agree with ray -- now to think act on the scandals, the lincoln bedroom -- compared to dark money, compared to the koch brothers, many difference organizations and what they are doing, i think there are bad things that happen all the time and we might be looking at them
much lesser of two evils. other comments? eliza: just briefly, i want to go back to the idea of the risk of corruption and appearance of corruption. if voters see they are raising the kind of money that would go to super pac's, that is what i worry about. i love the parties as much as everyone else and a door engagement and i would hate to see voters turn away from the parties because they perceive them to be doing this. john: i would agree to that but there's a lobby for what is termed campaign-finance reform. it is frankly folks with a
position that they want less money in politics and they are hell-bent on convincing the public that money equals corruption. frankly, that's not the case. the appearance of corruption could be there. dce lobbyists to have a stake in that game are convincing people money equals corruption. elaine: any other comments? why don't we go to the floor. there somebody with a microphone. why don't we start in the back of the room? >> i saw the op-ed in the new york times several days ago, can the sanders campaign go local? i'm wondering what the role of the state parties would be in allowing and insurgents to play
a role in the campaign? >> we ask that and what they say is that it's not our job to prevent insurgents. we don't lock anyone from running. we give our data to anyone who asks who is a candidate. they tend to have an open door policy except in unusual circumstances when they feel they have no circumstance but to step in. we ask why they step off and virtually all of time. eliza: lyndon larouche is the actual one. jonathan: they said it is because if we are seen as stepping in and stopping people, there will be blowback against us and people will run against the party and it has been effective. what we can do is this kind of
gentle process of having a lot of conversation with a lot of people and encourage people to run for the spots and educate people and they say they will. if someone is hopeless, they can be less aggressive in supporting up person among the margins, but it is a soft power kind of approach. jason: i can give you some tangible things that we did. my deputy director is on leave my deputy director is on leave working for senator sanders'campaign. she's actually in michigan. they moved her from south carolina to michigan and we have cultivated staff that wound up working on the campaign. we provided an office space for both campaigns to do training of their volunteers, to hold press conferences, to have meetings with surrogates, to do any number of things.
we do it in a completely even keel way. before senator sanders even announced before secretary clinton or martin o'malley, they had access to all of that information equally and at the same time. they had access to all of those resources and access to information at the same time, so there was no -- there was not an ounce of favoritism at all given to any of those folks that would lend itself to any type of campaign, whether it was an established when -- establishment one or insurgent one. jonathan: i think one answer is
why should they be any less corruptible than the parties -- and i think you just heard the answer. where a party sets, it's harder to favor a particular gender because they are all your customer. elaine: how about right over there? >> i'm richard skinner with the sunlight foundation and this is for ray and jonathan. what did your respondents have to say about the role of national party organizations like the republican governors association and democratic governors association? ray: they do play a role but we did not ask them about that. what were you thinking?
right. that's probably a function of the fact that the money is not going to the state parties, so they have to rely on these outside organizations to spend that money, which is a deeply second-best solution. that you have to run state campaigns from washington. was there anything else you were alluding to? him just simply love this is pretty money as well and if you have donors that care about money all over the country, they will get to the rga and care about influencing the governor's race in michigan and california and so on. who -- youus as to are talking a lot about consumer vats. the national party organizations and super pac that are like house majority pack and senate majority pack that are very closely aligned with party leaders.
>> we do run across that a little bit in one very important sense. if you at all this money to the party, you will get corruption issues. there is now a court challenge underway. it will probably go up to the supreme court over the extent to which they can do that during but they are finding themselves saying, a-ok, if we cannot raise the money inside the state party, we will take a former state party chairman or the current state party chairman and set up a state super pac. we can't coordinate with that group but we know them and they know that and they can rake in the dark money and spend it. nobody we talked to think that is a good idea on any side of the equation. but it is headed towards -- the doors are open for the money headed in that direction. >> i don't think it is a great solution.
we do have these principles of federalism. but it want to point out one thing that often gets overlooked about how much money the parties are getting. when the amendments were made in 1974, the parties could raise $10,000 for their federal cash per year. so that is $20,000. today, it would be $100,000 inflation-adjusted. the parties are still a $10,000 per year. that is equivalent of $4000. so they are going backwards in terms of how much they can raise. since 1974. a simple solution, let's just set it at the value of 1974, $100,000. even that would have been a better solution. i still have an adjusted for
inflation. is that true? i don't know. >> [indiscernible] >> ok. they didn't even index. >> they did not index the limits and just want to make sure everybody here heard that. cheryl: they index the inflation for the candidates and i think that should have bipartisan support in >> let me say something about bipartisan support. in 2008, there was a push to make the nomination announcement at thanksgiving. we did have iowa caucuses two days after new year's. which is not ideal. the two parties got very worried about that and had some formal and some informal coordination in the year since. you will notice that this year, everybody started in a much more civilized fashion in february, that both parties agreed on the first four states before we got into the big states.
so in this time of massive polarization, where sometimes it seems that, if the democrats say black, the republicans will say white, just out of reflex, there has been a history of cooperation in order to preserve the prerogatives, in this instance, the nomination system. that i think it is very likely you will see a lot of cooperation among the parties as we move forward. every cycle, one of these super pac's does something that the candidates or the parties really don't like. mitt romney, the end of 2012, complained about the super pac's. he didn't like there as. he felt they went off message. he felt they were detrimental to the message. so the political establishment, if you will, are coming to say that themselves what really have
we wrought here in the super pac's? more questions. yes, right here in the end. >> john samples, cato institute. you just made my case for me in a sense. it has long been my conviction that the whole point of campaign finance regulations, for example, already is word to suppress voters. so one of the things that is actually being done here when you suppress outside institutions is to in fact make it easier for insiders cannot be challenged.
incumbents love that. incumbent party people love that. it seems to be the whole point for these kinds of regulations are the primary point of real meeting rather than a formal meeting. another statement made here that action gives credence to that is that you equate it, the political activities of large and effective or somewhat effective organizations, the koch brothers organization, with corruption itself. anyone under an ada rating is actually not a legitimate part of the political system. so is it the case, in fact, that we should all be wary of these kinds of rules and institutional changes because, in fact, they have decided insider things, insider ideas and interests? ray: i see your point about protecting incumbents. it's one reason for this contribution limits.
but of all the organizations that income is should feel the most is the party. parties want to take control of the legislature. they will use their funds to get the other side. that's why incumbents don't like strong parties. unless they are on the verge of capturing the legislature. then they need the parties. now they are relying on these outsiders to do it for them. so i'm for, you know, limits on the candidates. no limits or very high limits on the parties. to me, that would be the best way for having competition in the system. jonathan: i see those as kind of two versions of the same question, which is aren't we trying to savor the people we like? one of the nice things about
ray's idea of building channels, not dams, is that we are not on board with saying the outsiders can't spend the money. even if we were, i don't think it's enforceable. we just don't see why the insider should be so persistently and consistently disadvantaged. so we would like them to compete on a more level playing field and let the people out there who are making the everyday political decisions decide where that money should go on political rather than strictly legal grounds.
to me, that is not engineering the system. that is d engineering the system. it is something that a lot of libertarians, i would hope, would join us on. also on incumbent protections, there is a very interesting book that came out a couple of years ago by a political scientist -- by a pair political scientists. when the parties selected candidates, races were more competitive. it turned out the parties had more interest in recruiting strong challengers and were able to find a good fight. when the party stepped out, you had witchcraft advocate stepping in. in fact, you have a much less balanced, less competitive system in a way when you went to open primaries. so think hardware the incentives really lie here. elaine: back to the audience. right over here, the young man by the wall. >> i'm young. i appreciate that. elliott friedman. referring to jason's comments earlier, candidates are guaranteed the best rate for advertising time, then the
parties and the super pac's pay commercial rates. jason: i do not believe so. the single most attractive thing for donors to super pac's anonymity. when i asked for contributions for people, the question is will my name show up somewhere, especially when i am talking about large dollar donors. so our ability to raise the funds to go up on your, regardless of the price on it, is incredibly impacted by the fact that i have to report those contributions for people who want to give to me. these are folks who want to give so that we can grow our party.
we can add more people to the electorate. we can talk to folks in a meaningful way. they want us to build that are models so we can turn out more voters. but the last thing they want to have is being shown up on an fec report or state report. that is the single issue, especially among large donors come apart from a tax incentive for being able to get a dig duction -- a deduction. eliza: i want to follow up on what jason said. i think that a lot of people are going to give to the anonymous groups simply because they want to be anonymous. even if you try to create channels, they will still not go to stay parties because they don't want their names disclosed. that is something to keep in mind as well. in fact, it is not the super pac's that don't disclose, because they have the full disclosure imposed upon them. but it is the politically active tax-exempt groups. >> right up over here by the
wall and then we will go to you, sir. elaine: right up over here by the wall and then we will go to you, sir. >> thank you for fascinating conversation. i am from germany were political campaigns are the most disciplined and best organized events possible. they are also by far the most boring events you could possibly imagine. the reason is because the political parties have total control over the nominating and recruiting process. covering the united states, you have not only donald trump, but on state levels, candidates that would raise many eyebrows in europe and germany. could you speak to the wasting parties recruit candidates and what they actually do? do they approach people or do you wait for some billionaire to
show up? [laughter] i don't know. jason: well, yes. we are waiting for neil, our resident billionaire. we are going through this in south carolina. we have a group of people who know a lot of folks, get in a room and identify what races are on the ballot this year and we try to go out into the communities and identify the strongest candidate who will carry a message that enough people in their communities will believe in and get behind in order to win.
some stay parties get into it a little later than others and some get into it very early. what i found is those stay parties that get into it earlier are able to cultivate a candidate better and be able to provide them with better resources. people who are getting and later finance their own campaigns because of the amount of money necessary in order to win and the amount of time it takes to raise $2700 a clip, if you are running on the federal level, or the $5,000 a clip on the legislative level. but it's just a group of people within our party or the community who would like to start winning races again or continue to win races at the party level, we just formed a committee. it is really that simple. ray: something that struck me when i was going through the survey, it looks like state parties do spend more on candidate recruitment now, particularly the biggest jump at the local office level.
yet their contribution to local candidates were down precipitously. or at least a lot fewer stay parties are giving to local candidates then used to. i wanted to highlight that fantasy if there was anything behind that that you guys picked up. but also, because i think sometimes in d.c. we lose what is going on at the state and local level, at the local level in particular, where local parties are having a lot of challenges themselves and have very strict limits that they have to abide by in order to stay outside of the complex federal regulatory system. it strikes me that it is problematic to be draining state party resources for among the reasons we talked about. but if it means less resources
for local candidates, in an age where not only is there inflation, by campaign costs are going up regardless, there may be cheaper ways to reach voters than there used to. but the media's a fractured now, there are so many different things you have to spend money on to reach the same number of voters and make the same kind of impression. then you factor in things like early voting and things that drag election day through the fall. it used to be you could do one mail piece by day before the election and recruit your friends to work a polling place. you can't do that anymore in a local polling place. because only people have already have alreadyntages voted. the state party, it appears to be, is less and less of a resource for those people who really need it. elaine: did you want to add anything to that, jason? ok. go ahead, jonathan. jonathan: to this specific question, we didn't ask why state parties are moving away
from direct contributions and toward recruitment and other indirect. my guess might be is because the latter is a lot less regulated and because it is the lame strategy. it is easier for them to compete on localization that it is on money because there is so much more money out there. sam, did you have anything to add on that? sam: one of the things we noticed overall are the types of activities that the stay parties are gravitating towards, to us feel like the activities have a little bit less influence in terms of creating messaging or reputation at building a brand for parties. and among those are the advertising, but also the sorts of things that they need to do in order to recruit candidates is really important. so what you have then is stay -- state parties find themselves serving the needs of candidates in these sort of impartial ways, that jason has been talking about, their ability to build a brand to the extent that that is not on television or done in other means is less able. they are also less involved in
the organizations that they are now being forced to compete with. here we have all these private organizations. we spoke to some many stay parties who deal with turnover and inconsistency in their own leadership or their own strategic focus. private organizations are much more able to craft, set the strategy in those means. that doesn't make state parties less valuable. it means that, in order for them to be able to support their own duty of healthy images of the brand, they need to at least have more available playing field. elaine: i think the gentleman right here. >> i just wanted to go back a couple of questions. there were comments made about the anonymity of big donors. i think that is what people are really against come anonymity. that speaks corruption.
it not -- it may not be corrupt, but the perception is the reality and i think that is where the voters get angry. i said here a couple of years ago brookings. there is a former prominent senator and i asked, do the people in capitol hill really understand how angry, how angry the electorate is? unfortunately, he gave me some mealymouthed political answer -- oh, of course they do -- but nothing changes. and that is with the electorate is really angry about. the anonymity is the perception of corruption and nothing changes. jason: the true irony for me is that they are engaging in the same exact activity as state parties and yet they don't have to have the same reporting
requirements that stay parties do. those groups are doing candidate recruitment. those groups are making sure that their candidates are getting over the finish line. those groups are building a volunteer apparatus. americans for prosperity is recruiting people to go door-to-door to make sure the bills that alec puts in front of state legislators are passed. they are doing the exact same thing, but they are not required to report the same things we are. eliza: this disclosure issue is very difficult and very complicated. when you ask politically active tax-exempt groups to subject themselves to law, the less you have [indiscernible] this is something people will have to start talking about in a serious way.
it's time to stop simplifying name-calling and get to the nitty-gritty of how you can craft requirements that do not trade on free speech. -- tread on free speech. elaine: next question, right back there by the wall. >> i'm interested in jonathan's and raymond's ideas of pragmatist versus purist. and thinking about perception. i can't help but think about superdelegates. there's one superdelegate sitting in the panel right now. i guess my question for you to wo is what does it mean when a superdelegate and the dnc endorses a candidate outside of the party, such as an independent, and what does it mean on the other side of the aisle when a lawmaker endorses a rouge candidate? i'm not saying doubled trump,
we canld trump, but think donald trump. eliza: the state party chairman are superdelegates. well, first of all, the dnc members who are superdelegates do get elected. so i could imagine, for instance, if i endorsed donald trump tomorrow, that come time to elect a new democratic national committee, i suspect that maybe i wouldn't be on the slate and maybe nobody would vote for me. so there is an accountability mechanism in there. i think for the elected officials and members of congress on the democratic side are superdelegates in on the republican side or not. the committee members are all superdelegates. but a congressman who did that would be big news. and it would be big news in his or her district. i suspect they would get a primary challenge. next time around. this is the power of parties. parties, for all of their weakness, are still incredibly powerful.
they organize democracies and we've never had a democracy that doesn't have political parties. as much as people dump on them, this is how people organizing cells in democracies. there are accountability mechanisms to the voters take party seriously. and punished superdelegates who go endorse somebody outside the party. as for the narrower question that comes up a lot, with the superdelegates ever controlled convention, there's been superdelegates in the democratic party since 1984. they have never voted differently than the publicly elected delegate.
again, for the same accountability reason. they get elected themselves and, unless there were some really compelling reason, the delegates well vote the way voters to vote and the publicly elected delegates vote. you can see a situation where maybe the voters didn't decide, ok, where you go into a convention and there is a third, eighth third, a third of the delegates and nobody has the first ballot. then they would have some power to make a decision. but it would be because the voters didn't actually decide, as opposed to turning over the will of the voters. i know there is a lot of talk about, but i really don't see it happening. one last question. one last question from some intrepid -- come on, there were more hands. there we go.
>> the entire panel seems to say that it's a good thing that we increase participation. but my understanding, perhaps misunderstanding, is that republicans particularly don't want increase in participation. how do i put those together -- if i do? jason: is that a question for me? i will say this, as a republican, as an employee of the national republican committee, we are all very excited about the huge advantage we have in voter turnout in the primary and caucus season this year over the democrats. so we are all for participation. jason: the elections of our state legislative elections are so important for the purposes of drawing maps. they are also very important for the purposes of laws that can be
passed that would create voter intimidation and voter suppression within our states. and right now, we have a slew of secretaries of state who are writing laws that are inhibiting people from getting to the ballot box. they are also not doing something very important, which is educating voters on those laws here in your is an example. if there are new laws on voting on the books, a majority of the americans that live in a community in which those laws were changed have not been educated sufficiently about those changes. but if there is a change in the speed limit, you better be sure there's a road sign out there that you can go 45 instead of 55. in america, we have done such a horrible job of educating people about those changes so that, when they show up at the polls, they don't go confused, they don't feel alienated, and they don't feel like their vote won't matter. i think that's the issue.
right now, as democrats in these states where these laws have been passed, we are accepting it for what it is. we are hoping to elect people that might change those laws. but more importantly, what we are doing right now is putting pressure on the secretaries of state and people running the elections to educate voters on the changes. otherwise, we are going to see less and less voter turnout because of the confusion and because of the lack of education that exists. it is very important that we do about this issue and educate more people about it so that more people will participate in more people will be engaged and we can debate these things at a much higher level than we are right now. >> with that, i would like to thank our panelists for a great discussion. i would like to thank our audience. and i would like to point out to everyone that they should, if they want to look at this in more depth, go to the brookings website and go to raymond lo roger and jonathan rauch.
you can get it for free on the brookings website. thank you very much for participating today. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] and himand him and him -- announcer: next, a
donald trump rally in ohio. and then talking about the republican presidential campaign at a democratic fundraiser in dallas. republican presidential candidate donald trump held a in ohio justy outside of dayton. he discussed foreign-policy issues and the cancellation of the event in chicago on friday night. ohio holds its primary event on tuesday. this is just over one hour. ♪