before he ran for president. john mccain had a book. many presidential candidates now write books before they run for office. so when i'm thinking it's when you talk about your father's campaign and your campaign, one issue in a personal basis would be your religious faith, your mormonism. do you think that is a problem? he don't talk about this in the book even though you are very open your informant. >> guest: this is a book about america and my concerns about our economy, the foundation of our economic strength and unity that we are weakening the foundation that we are entirely or future. ..

someone belongs to. they are pleased to select somebody based upon their skills and experience and views on the most important issues that may exist. >> host: you don't think you might be being pollyannas? i know in the last campaign one of your opponents was mocking of mormonism and the devil is jesus' brother and that kind of thing to read a certain percentage of americans in the polls especially evangelicals seem to view mormonism as not a christian thing. >> guest: i think there will be some people for whom that is an issue and i am not going to be able to do very much about that. that is just the reality of political life. there are other people for whom it is an advantage. i take the bitter with the

sweet. i am who i am and people can accept or reject. that's the way i felt when i ran my last campaign and i gave the speech i did that related to religious diversity in america. that is, after all, in the nature of the founding of this country. people were seeking opportunity, also seeking religious freedom, and we welcome and prize religious freedom that exists and would be a hollow concept if we only allow certain people to serve in public office or other positions of responsibility based upon some religious tests. that was particularly and specifically prohibited by the founders. i don't think that's an issue for the country. i hope it's not going to be for anybody who runs. what right do, time will tell the that wasn't at the heart of my campaign and i found other things to do wrong. [laughter] and i think senator mccain did an effective job touching the

american people as the primary process was proceeding. >> host: where do you stand on abortion? >> guest: i am pro-life. >> host: is it clear, do you think, to the base of the party that you are strongly pro-life? >> guest: i believe so. i think since the time i was serving as governor when i used an issue that related to life, i came down on the side of life. i wrote an op-ed at that point about my position. it hasn't changed since that time and i think people understand where i stand. >> host: you know, on the economy so many people see you as a very capable businessman, and i might add this is your second book. you're first was about your experience running the salt lake olympic committee in your success. and the question then becomes how do you view the fact so many americans at this point in history are anxious about the economy and see the economy as a big problem with? the question would be did

president bush, house president obama pursued policies you feel would help revive the american economy? because you see that as one of the pillars of america's strength. >> guest: we are facing short-term economic distress. and longer-term economic weakness. and the combination of those is particularly troubling. the short term crisis that we face was the result of many people and many feel years. it's popular to say it was only wall street. wall street is certainly to a large degree to blame for what happened. but so is main street, so are the mortgage bankers that gave mortgages to people who have no capacity to actually pay them. so are the individuals who signed up for the loans in excess what they get paid the speculator is if you will. so were the regulators who didn't see what was happening and blow the whistle, so were the rating agencies who said that these instruments washington was selling or excuse me, that wall street was selling

was somehow highly secure. and even the president, i'm sure he would say the buck stops here. he shares responsibility as well, president bush, that is, for the economic distress which has occurred. i think this president, president obama has not been as effective as he could have been helping us get out of the distress. he frankly scared the heck out of the private-sector. when you say you're going to raise taxes next year that scarce new investors. when you say we are going to have cap-and-trade through an energy intensive industry that is going to cause you to pull back. when you say we are going to have card check and take away from the american worker the right to vote by secret ballot for a union that scarcely workers and employers, and a trillion dollar deficit obviously frightens the financial sector and anyone who needs money to grow and thrive. so it's been a policy which notte has been as effective as it could have been but longer term, the foundations of our economic vitality relate to the

entrepreneurialism, the educational base of our country, the family formation, the investment the parents make and the children, energy independence, all of these come together to form the basis of our economic vitality, and those foundations are very much in distress right now so not only do we have a near-term problems and we will come out of the near term slump. it's worse than a slump, severe recession, but long term we are not going to be as strong unless we address the more fundamental problems. >> host: you think the recession -- we are on the way out of the recession or you think the possibility of a double digit? >> guest: i think we are on the way out. it may double dip it's hard to predict whether there will be another downturn. but we will come out. there's nothing permanent about recessions. we've come out of ought of thursday have endured. i think the president could have helped us get out faster and could have helped prevent us from having 10% unemployment. that number will hang like a cross around his neck.

he spent $787 billion saying he could hold on and play a 8% and if we didn't spend that money it would go to 10%. what went to 10% after we spend that money so it wasn't as effective as it needed to be. but we will come out of the recession. will america continues to lead the world in productivity per person and gdp per capita or income per capita? only if we have the foundation and fundamental strength of a leading highly productive economy and that is something which our energy, education, health care, tax entitlement problems called into question. >> host: it's interesting just to go into the specifics. in the book you praise secretary paulson and the bush administration for helping to bail out the banks, the t.a.r.p. money and the like but then you are highly critical secretary to mike -- tim geithner for continuing the same policies.

explain. >> guest: there's no question in my mind that the time secretary paulson and president bush said we are in real distress and we could have a financial calamity, that it was essential to do something to provide confidence to the people around the world that america was not open to have all of its banks go under, and i think there was a real risk that we would have a cascade of bank failures first with the big one throughout the country and we could ultimately have virtually every bank in the nation about of business and people savings gone, the dollar worth less. we could have had a true financial system calamity and t.a.r.p. kept that from happening. but it wasn't implemented terribly well and i don't mean to say that secretary paulson did it perfectly and secretary geithner did it terribly. i'm sure they both made mistakes and did some things well but undersecretary geithner who has been the champion or if you will

the master of this for a long period of time, well over a year, the process has been relatively opaque as to which banks got money who got it and what the provisions would be providing those funds. i think for instance if you're going to put money in a bank that saves that the shareholders should have been virtually wiped out. the government stepped in to bail them out by did shareholders get to keep majority ownership in the bank's? they should have paid very dearly for the government having to come and rescue and enterprise and when the government came the taxpayers should have gotten a pretty healthy stake if not a majority stake in the enterprise say it. but so i have a number of criticisms on how the plan was implemented. but was it needed to keep our financial system from collapsing? yeah. and those people, who today go back and say it's terrible, you will about wall street, you know i didn't hear a lot of those voices at the time we thought we were going over the cliff. you know, benefit of hindsight,

now that we've come back from the cliff we are saying we didn't need it, but at that point there were a lot of people had their white knuckles and were very concerned about where we were hit and did what was politically unattractive to make sure that we did not have the kind of a calamity that would have devastated not just wall street, but every street in america. >> host: and as the son of a car guy teasing was smart to bail out the big car companies? >> guest: i think when wall street -- excuse me, when the detroit ceo showed up in washington saying give us money, that the right answer was to say no. you need to pursue a managed bankruptcy process shedding yourself of exceptional costs and debt so that you can re-emerge as a stronger entity. that is the right course. ultimately that was the course there was taken and detroit is now in a much stronger footing than it was prior year to those managed bankruptcy is being carried out. but washington's been a lot of money, gave tens of billions of

dollars that was unnecessary and wasted and instead of the company's management teams and the board's guiding the bankruptcy process ultimately the government got in the bankruptcy process. so we got to the right solution, managed bankruptcy but only after we wasted a lot of money. >> host: i'm wondering if somehow you think the key party movement and people on the right in this country who look at the bailout of not only the car companies but the banks and say washington is too big, too intrusive, the notion of too big to fail is just one in the pockets of the executives who take the huge bonuses at the end of the year without any concern for the little man for the main street in america. >> guest: there is no question but this idea of too big to fail, that should not be part of our lexicon. if a major institution has -- is on the brink of disaster, either let them go bankrupt as we'll

completed with the gm, having them go through bankruptcy process. that's the we should have been. bankruptcy doesn't mean close the doors, everybody gets like it. bankruptcy means the shareholders get nearly wiped out. that's what ought to happen if under the shareholders the enterprise has failed to shareholders shouldn't be bailed out. and the executives shouldn't be bailed out. ford has done it right -- >> host: with the exception of ford i think the other companies might have gone to close up. >> guest: i don't think they would have gone tows up, but the winter manager linker tecum shed their excess of cost and now the doherty merging out. that's the right course. >> with a tremendous help from the u.s. government. >> guest: huffpost bankruptcy the enterprise can keep going and thrive. the money that went in, tens of billions that went into the bankruptcy could have been better spent. >> host: so what then about the reaction that is at the base of so much of the tea party movement, which is the government should be helping our car companies, shouldn't be

helping failing financial institutions on wall street. >> guest: well, there is no question but the perspective of those in the country that thinks the government is too intrusive and too big that is absolutely right. there is no question that the government has grown to be a massive player, much larger than the founders would have imagined and i think people like myself think it makes sense. right now the portion of the gdp made up by the government is roughly 33%. that's federal state and local government. that's excessive and it should be less than that but then we can go through item by item and say there are certain things the government needs to come and defend the country, for degrees, needs to manage the judicial system. we agree with that, certain safety net features that the government can provide that we can agree on and then we can go piece by piece and say was the government right in doing what action or another and we are not going to agree on all those actions, but i can tell you with regard to the car companies they

were wrong to bail them out. the right course was moved to manage bankruptcy of front. the ultimately got there, and with respect to t.a.r.p. that is something that should be ended. there is no reason for the government to continue using that money. we backed away from the cliff, the financial institutions didn't collapse but at that time was put in place, it was essential to keep our entire system from collapsing. >> host: let's talk about unemployment numbers, which at the moment seem to be rather stable but at a very high percentage, near 10%. you are antiprotectionism. you believe in free trade and open trade, but isn't that something again that people would say we need to protect the american family, we need to look softer those in the unemployment might find objection? >> guest: the may find it objectionable, but if you think about what has happened around the global and in history, they will realize that protectionism has always been associated with

economic peril. the nation's the try to put barriers around themselves find themselves falling into deeper and deeper financial well. there are a number of people who feel for instance the protectionism put in place of the advent of the great depression was one of the reasons we went into a depression. one of the reasons for that is america sells a lot of stuff to the people and if we put walls around us and not only keeps the foreign goods out, it keeps american goods from going other pieces and there are a lot of jobs in this country and a lot of good paying jobs and a lot of growth in this country in the jobs of things going elsewhere so you've got to realize -- what is for the goose is for the gander. >> host: but is the worst generation and you talk about the idea that we don't manage debt, that in fact the chinese told so much of our debt and other countries that do have protectionist practices our competitors. so how does that, you know, how

do you put those ideas together? >> guest: mauney view of america's if you will, worst generation, and i put question after that because i want to if you will alarm the reader when the get to the chapter say what is he saying here? i want to point out that if we don't change course we will very seriously imperiled the future of this nation and its ability to defend freedom and to protect our prosperity and the overspending we are carrying out and over borrowing from china and people like that is very much one of those elements that could imperil our future. our inability and unwillingness to deal with entitlements to make them sustainable leaves us with tens of trillions of dollars of obligations for the next generation. our failure to do with failing schools, our energy dependence, these likewise are elements that are frightening and disconcerting to those who want to make sure hour future is bright. now why don't think for a minute the way to deal with these

challenges is somehow to point and say that it's someone else's fault, china's falls, brazil, immigrants fall, trade's fault. let's be honest about a run problems and deal with them directly. it's not easy to get it's hard work, but scapegoating has never created a great nation were strong economy and there are nations, by the way, that try to protect themselves and cheat and there's no question if it were somehow magically to keep other people's goods in the of our goods to go out, everybody before that in some nations try to pull that off when they do we've got to make sure they can't get away from it. one thing is for sure how river people watch america too closely to think we can keep foreign goods out and at the same time sell goods to the world. >> host: do you think it is fair when you hear from the tea party for the simple but president obama is a socialist, do you think that is a fair description? >> guest: i don't choose at this point to use that term to apply to the president or people

i disagree with. it's obviously an incendiary terms in a lot of respect. i do think that there are those in his party -- and i can't speak for the president himself -- who would like to see a health care system like the socialized medicine systems that exist in europe. the president may as well, for all i know. that, in my view, would be detrimental way for the health care system to move. so, you know, i'm not going to step away from the fact devotee there's a great effort to try to socialize the medical system in this country and i think with a very serious implication for our economic future and for our well-being from a health standpoint. >> host: at the end of the book you brought up with a new commitment to citizenship among americans and you suggest that we find common cause and do less of the special-interest politics. you talk about an optimism you believe is part of the american character, hard work, deep religious faith and the like but

you must be aware that when people are asked by political posters do you think the country is on the right track or the wrong track it is up 60, 7180 present of americans who say we are headed in the wrong direction. >> guest: i think they're absolutely right. we ought to get to 100%. that is what the book as saying. guess what? washington politicians have put us on a road to decline. they are taking america in the wrong direction. the massive growth of government, this inability to deal with energy, the failure of course schools and our immigration system that welcome the best and brightest to the country and instead open borders to those who are in not all cases helping america's strength, all these elements together are in peril in our future. my optimism flows from the fact the american people, when confronted with the truth they do the right thing and i think you are seeing that happen. the reason the tea parties are gathering and expressing their views is because they say we

have been the silent majority too long. it's time to speak out and that is a movement that gives me encouragement. people are paying attention and recognizing the consequences of continuing down this washington driven past. those consequences aren't good for the country. >> host: do you fear the tea party movement, the passion in fact might lead them away from someone who is the son of a businessman who's had the kind of massachusetts background, governor of the liberals of that, that you are and push more in the direction of sarah palin or other populist? >> guest: you know, i can't tell you where it's going to lead. i can tell you i welcome the energy and passion that seems to be part of the american political scene right now. i think that's a good thing. whether i am a part of the scene or not, time can only tell. but we have great leaders in the republican party who i think will be able to capture the imagination of the majority of the american people, and i think the president's course unless it

is dramatically changed in the next few years here his course will be ended short with only one term and will be elected president will bring us back to a center-right coalition of republicans and democrats who are willing to take the action that's necessary to preserve america's greatness. >> host: mitt romney's new book, second book is called quote code no apology the case for american greatness." governor mitt romney, thank you for joining us on "after words." >> guest: thanks. good to be with you.

up next on c-span2, american university president cornelius kerwin on how the rule making-s2 process opens opportunities fo lobbyists to affect legislation. this is one hour and 20 minutesh t> advocacy institute american a university. our nextiv speaker is corneliusf kerwin. he's going to be talking aboutya

lobbying and the regulatorye process which is directlylar relevant to our case study as you well know.you he has been at american of rica university since 1975 and he wa ds pjd and, provost for eightvos years.tor he's been president of americano inner-city interim and then iversity president of american university since 2005.since and it is i believe he is the first -- the 14th president but the first president that is at t graduate of american university and we are pleased we are very pleased about that. he is the author of the book called rulemaking, how government agencies right law and make policy. how many of you have read it? it's on -- all of it or part of it. part of it. okay. [laughter] >> thinking about making it into a movie. i understand.

he also founded the center for the study of rulemaking. and you all know that we have four or 5000 bills introduced every two years in the congress, and maybe 300 past your but each year there are probably 25,000 very narrow rules of some very important roles. import rules made eight, 900 import roles of the regulatory agencies and department. and they put specificity on the page bills. bills are outlined, and they are framework, and certainly a lot of regulations promulgated as a result of health care reform, financial reform, the other bills that have passed. neil is going to talk about very specific thing. he is going to talk about the regulatory process and advocacy within it which is directly applicable.

neil, thanks for coming again. [applause] >> i think you should applaud liz for buying and reading part of my book. the choice between buying and reading, i go with -- that's all right. i'm going to defer for the rest of you the opportunity to read the book because i'm not going to get into a lot of technical details this morning about the mechanics of the rulemaking process. those of you -- those of you have taken any kind of administration course or specifically let's say an administrative law course, then you will have learned at least something about rulemaking. one of the point i want to leave you with today is i don't know of any activity in our public life that has greater impact and less attention that what we are going to talk about this

morning. i want to thank jim. is kind of a charity move on jim's case to bring me in to talk about a topic that nobody appears to care about, based on my book sales. although i will say this, interestingly enough, the last time i checked, the book was used more often in business schools than it was in schools of public affairs. this is after me being the dean of ours. the president of the university. now, you would think people in the math department would have the sense to a scientist, but they don't. let me start with kind of a startling point -- well, i can say without real fear of contradiction because the year is now in its fourth edition. i have a co-author no who is a doctoral student of mine here at au, teaching in the school of public affairs. so this statement appears in the

book, and read by a number of people in the field. the fact is rulemaking produces the most important law in america. i know the case that jim has given you to work with, what is potentially an enormous important piece of legislation. and i'm not here to tell you that what congress does is by any means irrelevant. i'm here today what congress does is simply not enough. and if you are in the business of public advocacy. i'm surprised jim hughes the term lobbying. -- jim use of the term lobbying. for reasons of good taste, if not accuracy. but if you're in the business of public advocacy in this town and you are ill-equipped to deal with rulemaking, you're not as professional as you need to be. in fact, ultimately you will not be very successful. the point being is that congress begins a process, i'll get to

that in a minute about how important that process is, but the fact is a law that i live with day in and day out here as chief executive officer of american university, the law that affects the way we handle animals in our psychology lab, the law that affects the way the men and women who work in our boiler plant are protected from hazardous substance, hazardous practices, the carpet that your feet are on, the air you breathe, those requirements are not written by congress. they are enabled by congress. they are authorized by congress. they are written by agencies of government. when we did, when i did the original research for the book back in the early '90s, because there was really no clue -- political science of

rulemaking, of the sort that i was undertaken, i did a survey of organized political interest groups here in washington without having any clue where they would ranked rulemaking as an activity. they ranked 20 years ago as important or more important the lobby as the economy. they ranked it also ahead of making political contributions and doing grassroots route. we have updated that survey. that is not eight or nine years old. the findings are more intense on the rulemaking site. what it means is the professionals who make a living influencing public policy have found rulemaking, they fell rulemaking a long time ago, the american people and american academic hasn't. so you are joining this morning a very select group of people who will at least leave after the hour having been warned that if you don't do this, the people

you represent will suffer. i don't care what your political issue is, everybody in this country has a right to representation. if you are representing interests on the right or interest on the left or interest in the center, and you walk off capitol hill with a piece of legislation, the rockefeller bill or something else, and you to a cocktail party to congratulate yourself, you go back to work on something else, you going to get exactly what you deserve. what you deserve in a situation like that is to have the people that are aware of how continuous this process is, eat your lunch, and the launch of the interest that you represent. statutes are necessary, they are insufficient. the rulemaking is criticized and you'll hear these criticisms a lot. and many of them are correct,

but many of them, like congress, are insufficient to understand how the process works. what does the constitution say about writing law, who writes the law in the united states? article one, section one. listen, you're going to have to learn this because from now on you will be reading it -- did you read the post this morning? all right. [inaudible] you doby books, you don't read papers. what do you read? article one, section one says legislative process will be vested in a congress of the united states. it doesn't say and the pension benefit guarantee corporation. and the faa, and the environmental protection. it just as congress. and assess congress because the founders were terrified of authoritarian rule. they want to put a law making,

which they took as the preeminent power in our constitutional system in the hands of an institution that was closest to you and me. we have direct electoral control over the people who write the law. and if we need in reminded of that, think about what happened to much ago. think about who's coming to town as we speak. think about how different this congress is going to look than the last one. the problem is that we can't function in a 300000000% political and economic system with only the law of contracts. we need more useful law than that. we need the kind of law that tells me what size the cage needs to be to house the rats in the psychology department. the real rats, the animal type rats, right? okay. i need to know exactly what those guys and women in the boiler room can and can't be exposed to, or else this universe suffers.

those standards aren't written by congress. or if they are, they are written very rarely by congress. they are written -- the proper proper is either written by people who were not elected by anybody. and as a consequence we've got to find a way, and we have over the years, to develop a rationalization for allowing unelected people to write the most important law you and i consume on a daily basis. and al qaeda and how that works in a second. they worry that rulemaking is poorly informed, that the people in the agencies don't know what people and the private sector know. or people in the nonprofit committee know. as a consequence, they write rules that are terrible, or the right rules that on monday delayed by powerful people like you and me who do have information. that the agencies don't have. so we have developed a process over time to deal with that, and i might say the regulatory process by and large is the best

informed of our public policy. it is a wash and information in most cases. one of its most difficult tasks, i think, for contemporary america is sorting which information is accurate, which is complete, which is subjective. very slow and obsolete by the time it's enforced. and i've got to take in some cases you've got to plead guilty on this one. when we first did some research on the relationship between passage of time and rulemaking, again back in, the late '90s, we found the average time it took for epa to write a major regulation was, how long? what would your gasb? you've read a portion of my book. wrong section. right. two years, good guess. double it. back then it took four years and four months to issue a major

regulation out of environmental protection agency. i'll also tell you this. when the faa discovers there's a flaw in an airline, in a piece of an engine in an airline, they can issue a rule in 24 hours. but the passage of time in the rule depends almost entirely on how political salient, how politically salient it is that how people like yourselves get involved in the process. and then finally it's inequitable. rule-making favors the rich. it favors the well organized, a sophisticated, and impact when it's done falls disproportionately on smaller entities. you could say this about any element of our political system, and rulemaking process is no better organize for a ranged today to handle that than any other part of our political system. if you are poorly informed, if

you are poorly organized. if you do not have the capacity to present this system what it needs, you are going to either failed or you will simply be irrelevant. fair or not fair, that's simply the way it works. now, why does rulemaking survives? why doesn't congress write specific language in legislation? why doesn't it tell the american people exactly how much nitrous oxide to be emitted from a rubber plant in northern connecticut? >> they are not experts. like parts per million. >> whatever, right. exactly. they lack the necessary expertise. what is the expertise reside in the american public, usually? in agencies like the environment protection agency. that's one good reason.

congress at that level is incompetent. i don't mean that negatively. it's hard to say that they are incompetent. i mean that in the sense that they don't have the full array of talent on the hill, for a whole lot of different reasons. to answer these questions. there's another reason. [inaudible] >> that's right. it's called political will. as a matter of fact, there's a fascinating theory that jim and i have been exposed over the years by both, who argues that if this process didn't exist, congress would have to create it because it enables them to avoid and shift responsibility to another part of our political system, for the most controversial, the most politically dangerous decisions that reside in public, in the public arena. now, there's a third reason and this one is probably the simplest and easiest to understand.

it's the lack of time. jim said, how many, 6000 pieces of legislation. how many get serious attention? obviously less that because only three or 400 get past. >> at this time we will have more. >> this next congress. this last caucus will have more because it's been an extraordinary productive lame-duck session among other things. but average year, since they've been keeping statistics, 6500, 8500 new and proposed rules each time out. jim says some are major, some are minor. he is right about that. but the fact is every rule that is written the fact in a profound way, somebody in the united states. somebody cares a great deal about it. how many people in your who have read the federal registry but i don't mean cover to cover. i meant occasionally seen it. good. everybody exist exposed to that.

every day in the federal reading the product of what we're talking about. and it goes over most of our kids. is not the kind of thing that you recommend to someone for light reading. but in every one of the rules proposal filed by the federal registry contains, somebody's life is going to change. a mechanic working for american airlines is doing something different this morning that he was doing yesterday morning. and that then radiates throughout the system. congress can't possibly spend the amount of time it takes to fashion rules that have three characteristics. one, absolutely specific. in other words, liz had no option once she reads this document, this piece of legislation, what's she supposed to do? no lack of clarity. rules give you the most specific statement of your rights and obligations you're going to get

short of having an enforcement officers show up to tell you what you did wrong. and we all want to avoid that. i mean, this is an aside. every week i meet with our general counsel. and mary's role here primarily, keep this institution in compliance with the law. when i want to know what this institutions options are with regard to, you name it, how we manage the pension program, mary can give you two things to read. she can give me the united states code, which is a compilation of all legislation written on that topic, or she can give me the code of the federal regulations. and i'm telling you, 100 times out of 100 she's going to give me the code of federal regulations. that gives me the specificity i need, and the extent the specificity exist. so rulemaking is truly been the natural continuation of the

legislative process that begins with our electoral, our elected representatives, and ends at the point that they are no longer able to do more with the work. either because of political reasons, tactical reasons, or time reasons. that means the vast amount of detail that we live with is written by the unelected folks. now, the obama administration, you've all lit up through the last several years -- you've all lived through the last several years and, you know, what's occurred already. it really is from a regulatory point of view a remarkable story. job notice from time to time that people will use the term regulation and rulemaking interchangeable. you can use the term regulation and rule interchangeably. you can't use regulation and

rulemaking interchangeable. regulation is a broader process. it includes more things than just rulemaking. but rulemaking is in effect a triggering mechanism for all operating regulatory programs. obama has always done health care, food safety. that's just through congress. and then through his own initiatives, through the management direction he gives his agencies, and you heard jeff talking about this, the fact is the president has a tremendous amount of power today take domestic policy agenda through his ability to direct agencies to do what he thinks is important, under a law that is already existing. remember what the rockefeller bill really, think about its origin. i'm sure jim and you have been through this already. the fact is epa under existing

clean air act authority had begun, has begun to regulate global warming. this morning in the post, if you can find the "washington post," you should read. you should call it up, don't call it up while i'm talking because that would be rude. but today's front-line headline in the "washington post," as a result republicans acknowledgment, the tea party movement, they are going to require every member of congress who introduces a new piece of legislation to read the constitutional authority that he has come or she has, to do it. snorts thurber gets up and says i'm introducing a bill to reduce global warming. and i'm doing it under the following clause of the united states government. now, that may sound like

enormous constraints on the ability of congress to introduce new legislation. the simple fact is, and as a matter that i read a blog about early this morning from a guy who teaches at yale law school. the constitution is a fairly elastic docket. you can find in a general authority do a lot. just like the constitution is for the congress, existing legislation is massive in reach, and scope. so a willful president wanting to do what congress will allow him to do otherwise, can very much uses direct management authority to accomplish much of his agenda until he is stopped by other means. the president made a lot of promises. obviously and he's working his way through those. either on the hill or in the agency. but remember there are also severe constraints on budget. it means that the rulemaking

process is going to be under tremendous stress over the foreseeable future. under these pieces of legislation, and those that will follow, rockefeller, if it passes come is a good example, will be operating under enormous pressure to produce new rules but under enormous scrutiny while we do it. that puts people like you, public advocates, who have resources to bring to bear to the rulemaking process in an exceptionally advantageous position. because as i will point out any minute the one finger community holds that agencies desperately need is a resource that is always in short supply here in d.c. i will come back to this. now, you know, i've done all a bit of writing over the years are just the management of rulemaking, how agencies are

organized and resource to write makes the the the the rulemaking is obscure, you ought to try that as a topic that even fewer people have read that. but in any event the fact that it is a system that is now poised to be enormously important, but also enormously difficult. here are the six players, two of which i will focus on specifically, that really determine how rulemaking operates. first and foremost is congress. think of a legislation, piece of legislation, as the boundaries within which agencies operate when they write rules. sometimes the boundaries can be very narrow and tight, depending on whether it's political and technical circumstances on the hill were such that congress could be very specific in guiding and agency, or they can be very broad. that best example of a very broad that a user is the clean water act of 1972.

1972 congress said that in two years, this sounds like a civil war to these guys i suppose, but there was a big piece of legislation in the '70s. they said, in two years the environment protection agency will produce regulations that will make every american waterway swim of all, fishable and drinkable. so that is 38 years ago. they did this after a year before -- how many here are from cleveland? the cuyahoga river. you're too young to remember this, but your mother or father do. 1971, the cuyahoga river ignited. in other words, it caught fire. all right? any chemists in your?

anybody had a chemistry course in here? what do they tell you about water? [laughter] in a chemistry course. i mean, among other things. >> water is highly reactive will. >> and what do you do with water -- for example, what are one of the uses of water. what are the uses? there are many uses. we drink it obviously. >> drinking, baking, swimming specular going where i want you to go with this. [laughter] >> one thing to do with what is you put out the fire. okay. so being a political scientist my first thought was when the cuyahoga river in ignited, that you might've had an underlying issue with pollution in the water. so they thought, congress, in its wisdom, reacting to what was then a series of environmental catastrophes like the oil spill,

that we are going to get on this and we're going to get others big time. ended two years the p.a. is not only going to write the law, they will implement. they will enforce the rules and it two years later people like me to go out to the potomac and drink it. that is an exercise, a couple things and come back to, the statement of two years was a political statement. a political statement about urgency. it had nothing to do with the technical aspects of writing rules and then making them a reality. but congress makes these promises a lot, and i tell you, when you take a look at health care reform and thin red, food safety, and you examined the statutes in detail along with certain characteristics that we will talk about in a second or two will find similarly ambitious, says. we are not to in this country

making grand statements about what we can accomplish as a society. by the responsibility of it falls disproportionately on agencies and the people who advise them when they write the regulations. that is congress as well. the interesting thing about congress, we'll come back to this, congress doesn't quit after it right legislation. it is involved in rulemaking. it stays involved in rulemaking. one of the routes you can use ads in bashing as an advocate try to influence an agency is back to the very congress that wrote the legislation in the first place. the second is the president. the president is an enormously important player in this because he establishes the regulatory program and the regulatory agenda for his administration. if he decides environmental quality is a big deal, it becomes a big deal. if he decides the rules are going to be written on a strict,

cost benefit standard, nothing gets written in less you can see net benefit, and nothing will come out of an agency with that characteristic. if on the other hand he decides we're going to produce an enormous body of rules that make up for a decade of laxative rules in protecting the about, protecting workers, protecting the financial security of the american people, then you're going to be seeing signals throughout the government that reignited the rulemaking process. by the way look at a table data. it hasn't happened into a mama administration quite yet. -- the obama administration quite yet. the third player is the court system but i'm not going to spend anytime with you on that today because once you're in court, again changes. junot the major player. you could be a participant, but you're not really calling the

shots. the attorneys are. the core players are agencies and interest groups. by interest groups i mean anybody you represent. any role you are assuming in this course, anybody you work for after you leave your and go to work, and many of you already are on public advocacy. that nexus of agencies and interest groups are what defines rules to a very great extent. they are not by any means the only players, but they are the core participants. much of what else happens in it is a reaction to their activity. and then finally the press and the media. i will say this. there is a tactical press out there, used to be a newsletter community, now a blog community that does some very good stuff. date invest time and the effort, learn how the process works, to

follow in great detail a given rule or regulation. the general media is pathetic. what you see are passing references of stories here and there that say something like, of course nothing is going to happen into the rules get there. and then they don't tell you how the rules get there. they don't even tell you necessary who is writing the rules. they don't tell you that everybody on the hill with any brains who are actively involved in health care reform walked down the street to the department of health and human services, the moment that piece of legislation passed, and begin working as hard there as they're working on -- in fact, working harder. and in many cases working smarter. because of the currency the rulemaking process is different in much of the current ec on the hill. but by and large, immediate attention in general sense, general newspapers, the general

electronic media is not good. now a little bit of nuts and bolts. let's say the rockefeller legislation passes. who's going to have responsible -- where does most of the attention then shipped after the rockefeller bill passes? based on what you have done so far. [inaudible] >> but what agency will be under -- will be doing most of the work at that point? >> epa? >> and then secondarily energy, maybe a few others. all right, what will happen at the point at which the legislation is signed, i will tell you this. it's already happening. is that someone in the environmental protection agency is doing an inventory of how many rules have to be written by

what time, by whom, and what's the consequence. they then have to sit down and decide okay, how do i get him pass legislation to issued rule. and that roadmap, believe it or not, is almost 70 years old. the roadmap was written in the administrative procedure back in 1946. i won't go into all -- i mean, i've got, when i'm still teaching here i taught a course in policy, depending on how much the class irritated me at that point, i could either do a 30 minute lecture on administrative procedure act, or a four session lecture on the administrative procedure act. trust me, that's painful. after the administrative procedure act was passed in 1946, it became gradually appear to congress that they were

giving up immense power every time they passed a piece of legislation. they were turning it from themselves to agencies like epa, or the energy department or the faa. so after running the perceived -- the administrative procedure act, they wrote a whole other slew of legislation designed to constrain agencies when they write rules but and everyone of these pieces of legislation and many that aren't listed here are opportunities for public advocates to insert influence. so you need to see everyone of these pieces of legislation, starting with the administrative procedure act, in effect as your roadmap also. where do you go to try to influence what a rule or regulation will say? this is a massive body of law today. not only to have legislation that affects the rulemaking process, we have hundreds and

hundreds of court decisions over the years that have been handed down when people challenge rules in court. we have executive orders written by the president of the united states that dictate a whole lot of other things about the management of the rulemaking process. we have specific authorizing legislation. let's take the rockefelrockefeller commitment that puts restraints on had epa can write rules in the case of global warming. every bit of it, this massive body of law boils down to three principles. if you can master these three principles than you will master the advocacy process. principle number one is information. agencies are required to inform the public in advance when they intend to write a rule or regulation. i won't go back through the history of all those. back in the '40s it was really lacks. today it is not. means informed you that they are

riding a rule or regulation, something called a notice our proposal of rulemaking. npr and for sure. and it appears in the federal registry. how many people have seen one of these? some of you may have written one. okay. apropos our friends on the hill that are going to have you read the constitution every time you introduce a new piece of legislation, in a notice of proposed rulemaking, the first thing you're going to read of substance is the statute that the agency is using to write the rule. in other words, the statutory authority congress has given to write the rules. sometimes it's a mandate. you will write the rules. sometimes it's made, you can write the rules. that's number one. so that is to the american people, for most of his death, the first thing we know about a roofing under development, if it's the first thing you know as a public advocate for a set of

interests, the first you have read about a rule under development is a notice of proposed rulemaking. the bus has left the station, and you and all the people you represent are under the bus. the fact is as a public advocate you should know before the legislation was never enacted where that rule is going to be written, who's writing it, why the timeframe is, and what they need to do it. but go back, but again, information is one of the key principles. one a is informing the public. one b. is what type of information is the agency required to assemble in order to write its rules. if you are doing rulemaking on global warming, if you're doing a piece of legislation on global warming, what would you tell, what would you advise as a member of congress, or as

congress, how would you direct the environment protection agency, what kind of information should epa collect when you try to rule on global warming? remember, you're the congress, your writing the law. [inaudible] >> co2 emissions with the -- would be a good place to start. costs and benefits. w they ..e changing. >> right. costs and benefits, i think abby just give us the broadest possible definition that should cover all those things. but the fact is everything congress tells an agency to use a particular kind of information, it's empowering a particular kind of interest. inadvertently or admirably. because information is not universally owned and it's not

universally shared. as you will see him in a becomes absolutely crucial. so principle number one is information. prciple >> principal number two is your invitation. principal number two is an outgrowth of the paradox that i mentioned at the outset of the lexture. you have people writing the most important law in america unelected. what are we going to do about that? for a lot of our history, congress, and the president, and the courts just pretending it didn't happen. they said that rulemaking wasn't law making. it was something else. you know? back in the '30s, they finally acknowledged rulemaking is law making, and by the way, it's unconstitutional. we had two supreme court cases that declared pieces of the new deal unconstitutional because they overly delegated vast power and authority to agencies to do

what? write regulars? what you are familiar with the court packing plant. it was a direct linear relationship to the two decisions the court made knocking down the new deal, having to do with rulemaking. since that time, the court has found a way to be like justified rulemaking as a constitutional adjustment. the way they have done it is bicepping the fact that no, the members -- the people writing the rules aren't elected, but the american people have through the administrative procedure act, the opportunity to participate directly in their writing. so every time an agency writing a rule, in it's noticed of proposed rulemaking, it contains information on how you can particular in the development. now i'm not going to say that invitation is an empty

invitation. because it's real. kind of like information, if you are first you are thinking about participating in rulemaking is when you read is in the federal register, you are way behind the curve. people like you as public advocating have been working with agency for months if not years on the content of the rule before it hits the street in the federal register. now there are -- i have to tell you that if there was an attorney here who specialized in administrative law, he or she would tell me instantly, you have to tell me about the ex parte contact. if i tell you, you are going to lapse into a comma. -- coma. youthat's how interesting it is. ex parte limits between the agency and outside interest while the rule is under development. but in point of fact, it happens all the time and just simply has to be properly documented.

the one thing that you have to assume as a public advocate is that everything that you supply to an agency writing the regulation is going to go public. it's going to be put in a public document and available for your friends and enemies to read; right? final concept after participation is accountability. after the agency has finished writing the rule, it can be held accountable in three ways. one you can sue them if you don't like the result. i'll talk a little bit about the lawsuit after the fact. agencies don't lose lawsuits all that often. not at least in the way we are talking about it. but it can happen. the second is through the white house.

we talked a little bit about the office of regulatory affairs, we'll come back, the office of the regulatory affairs if it is a rule they are paying attention to is an avenue of enormous potential for you and your interest. because it is the white house that ultimately gives the green light to a new rule both at the proposal and final stage. then finally the congress. you can always look back to the congress. i'll talk about exactly how you do that in a bit. but if you master these three principals, if you learn everything that you can about how these three principals are going to play out in a rule or regulation that you are going to pay attention to, then you'll be as effective as advocate that you can. it's a little like the hill. there's no guarantee you are going to be successful. but it's absolutely certain you are going to fail if you don't understand how the competitive

processes work. they are devoting a lot of time to understand it. >> quick question. >> yes. >> it's my understanding that ex parte contact lobbying can occur, ira, it's not on the record. is that correct? >> that's incorrect. >> that's on a docket. >> all the way back to the reagan administration, the director of oira has decided the contacts will be made public. they even publish the list of meetings they have. >> all right. good. >> let's talk about tactics and tools. we are looking at the rockefeller bill. we can go into this in some detail when -- i know i got to move along here. because it's -- okay. good. all right. i should have done that on the administrative procedure act.

rulemaking advocacy really starts on the hill. if you are sophisticated enough to understand that rulemaking is important, you should be reading every piece of legislation you are interested in from the lens of what rulemaking is going to occur after the legislation has passed. as a matter of fact, what you ought to do is look at the piece of legislation if you really want to be effective as the precursor to rulemaking, as the enabler of rulemaking, as the limiting agent of rulemaking. i know that -- that doesn't sound right, it doesn't feel right. because we have all grown up thinking about congress and the legislative process as preeminent, that's the way we should feel about it. in effect, what congress is doing is setting the stage for dozens if not hundreds, months if not years, if not decades of rulemaking that's going to follow. now the other thing that i

probably didn't spend enough time on, remember, congress, in addition to not being technically knowledgeable, they are not pressure shan't. they are not better than we are anticipating how the world is going to change after a couple of statutes enacted. rulemaking gives the public the ability to react to the changes, the unanticipated changes in the ways you couldn't do if you have to rewrite every time an external condition changes. all right. what are your opportunities when you are sitting in front of a statute that you think you have the opportunity to alter in a way that positions you well and your interest well for rulemaking. one is vagueness and incomplete language can be your friend. every time a critical statutory

term is not well defined, or every time the element of a public program is not described in detail, that's an opportunity for you to do it in the next stage of the process. vagueness is a common characteristic of legislation for all of the reasons that we talked about in a moment. as you read that language, you should be thinking how can the agency define this in a way that's beneficial to the people that i remember. how do i position themselves to provide them what they need to define it in those terms. now you might come to the point where you say to yourself, man, there's no way in the world vague language in this can going to help me. that's when you go to plan b. that's when you see if you can't

insert in the statute language that limits the ability of the agency to define it any differently than the way you want it. let me say one other thing about preemptive language. you can also preempt parts of the process. you can also suggest that the agency that's being given responsibility to write the rule using a certain kind of procedure to do it. i can't go into all of the detail. if it's not the classic notice or rulemaking, there are other things you can require the agency to do. you can require the agency in statute to conduct public hearings. and people do that all the time. you can require the agency to engage in something we call policy dialogue. which is a higher level of public hearing that requires the

agency to sit down with interested groups and discuss what's possible and what might work. perhaps the most extreme thing you can do, although it's it's d oddly enough, it happens at the department of education of all places more often than it does anyone else is require the agency to partake in negotiated rulemaking. which is an effective process in which the agency sits down in almost a collective bargaining mode with the effected interest. one of them being you. and to write a regulation the way you'd negotiate a labor agreement with the union. so process and substance can be subject to preemptive language. the third is information requirement. let's say you are an environmental group and you have the best available data on co2

emissions as they effect wildlife habitat in north dakota. you should be astonished to read how precise the congress can be when it comes to telling an agency what kind of information it needs to collect in order to write rules. in fact, the kind of information that the agency will have to consider definitive when it writes rules. so if you are in possession of high quality information you believe it's in the public interest to ensure the agency employs that information, you can employ statutory language to require the agency to draw you on and your expertise. it's often very important, as a matter of fact, sometimes

crucial, which agency gets responsibility for implementing the law. sometimes it's obvious. you are not going to give global warming legislation to the pension benefit guarantee corporation. but congress has been known to dip deep into agency structure and not just say, hey, it's epa, but epa the office of air, or epa and let's see, you know, the office of oceans. the congress has the capacity to identify any bureaucratic agent. in the old days, back in the 1790s -- and by the way, congress has been delegating authorities to agencies to write rules since the first congress. it happened in the first congress, it's going to happen until there's no longer a congress. all right? congress used to say the president will. then it moved to the president and secretary will.

now it's the president and assistant secretary will. if you feel you've got a friendly home within an agency, realizing of course these homes change -- [laughter] >> -- a lot. that's an opportunity as well. a very common and this is one that fin reg and health care reform, impose deadlines on the agency and writing the rule. you will -- just like they did back in the clean water act, you'll say, for example, okay, the first wave of co2 limiting emissions regulations will leave the environmental protection agency 90 days after enactment of the statute. or 180 days, or a year, or two years. now deadlines are very much political statements. they position certain interests to exercise extraordinary authority. if you are imposing a deadline

on an agency and that deadline is severe and you know the agency doesn't have the information that it needs to produce a responsible regulation in 90 days and you have that information, guess what? you become immensely influential. and you might be an advocate, then, for deadlines. but remember this also, that almost always unrealistic deadlines lead to lousy rules or rules that are improperly dominated by the holders in one case of information. now there's all kinds of procedural games you can play in deadlines. deadlines can go both ways. if you have the information and

the capacity to develop and you know were opponents do and you know the agency is in deficit with regard to what it currently is able to manage by way of decision making, then you are going to advocate for deadline. you are going to let this thing run it's course. it is really fascinating. it fin regular in particular, theing a grace is -- the allegation is the agency is moving too fast. you ask gensler or somebody like gensler why are you putting it out quickly, hey, it's statute. if i don't put it out in 90 days, i'm in contempt. what happens if you miss a deadline? what are all of the terrible things that can happen to you if you miss a deadline? well, you get called up to the hill for ritual beating. you are probably going to be called up to the hill for that anyway. a deadline is enforcement in court. you can be sued and you are going to lose a lawsuit based on

a deadline instantly if you missed it. and often what happens in those lawsuits is the court then requires the agency to engage in substantial discussions with the interest that sued them. so once again, and indirectly, the deadline is a vehicle for influence. as a matter of fact, all of this -- none of this stuff is neutral, either by design or by effect. and then finally a hammer provision. you don't see this referred to as much as you did in the '09s. a hammer provision is the congress saying look it, if you don't meet the deadline, ryan, this is what you are going to do instead. the hammer is usually so draconian as far as the agency is concerned, they believe the hammer is strong enough disincentive for the agency to meet the deadline. on the hill, if you are aware of

the fact that rulemaking will happen, that rulemaking is an arena in which you have to play if you are going to be successful, the statute itself is the first place to start. then the attention shifts to the agency. this is why why -- this is where rulemaking process and legislative process diverge in terms the way that they are conducted. in my view, the key to a successful participation in a rulemaking is the highest quality information you can put together at a critical point in the process. and what is the critical point in the process? first and foremost, look -- the empirical work on rulemaking is still very, very primitive. this is not a field where the social scientists, particularly the policy scientists have spent

the kind of time and effort that's needed to give us confidence in a scholarly sense about who influences rules and how. but there's one thing that's very clear from what literature is out there. the earlier you are in, the earlier you are able to influence the process, the more successful that you are going to be. you can't get any earlier than a statute. okay? but if -- but within the agency itself, it is at the moment of transfer of the statute to the agency. you need to have the capacity to track this stuff the way fedex tracks a box. you need to know what has it and tracks them. number one, you got to be impeccable on science and technology. because that's -- i mean that really is the currency of

something like global warming, all right. you have to be strong on impact. it's what abby mentioned about cost-benefit analysis. how much is this going to cost? what are the benefits going to be? run down to the bottom here. who are the winners and who are the losers? because high quality cost benefit analysis identified those with great precision. yes? >> in rulemaking, how does an agency deal with competing science? you know, especially in global warming? >> listen, this is the crucial issue. it deals with it the same way that any high quality decision making process would. it's going to be the weight of the evidence. and it's going to lead, i'm going to tell you, to rules that are incomplete themselves. because they know it's a developing science. and they have to be able to build into a regulation, the

capacity, to amend that regulation when the science dictates. the end of the day, just like a court of law, the agency is going to have to make a decision based on the weight of the available evidence. >> can i expand, you are something line representative barton, smoky joe barton that doesn't believe that we have global warming going on. something like that is natural and not caused by human beings. he comes and forces the committee have an oversight -- an oversight hearing that really questions the scientific evidence. >> sure. >> then we get into the politics of who do you trust? >> that's right. sure. i'm going to come back to this. >> sorry. >> no, we are going to loop back to congress. fundamentally, global warming is -- take a look at what the guys and women in financial -- fin reg are doing. about trying to determine the risk of exotic derivatives.

what got us into trouble is they were so far behind they didn't know it was going on. now they are in a situation having to run as fast as the industry does in developing a product. so your point is well taken. that's where timeliness becoming key. as the science is developing, how does the science get translated into a rulemaking process in real time. now the key to that, and i don't mean this facetiously, is the quality of programs like what goes on is the school of public affairs. our school of public affairs and the top in the united states pop late these agencies. if you are coming out of an mpa or mpp program with an insufficient education with regard to the fundamentals, statistics, which underlie a lot of the science of epidemiology, as far as the climate science is

concern, we don't turn off physicist, we don't turn off chemists. but the policy and heads of the office have to have at least a literacy in the scientific fields in order to weigh the credibility of the evidence that comes in. the implementation and compliance is often over looked. crucially important. how is the agency going to translate what it just wrote as a rule into an operating program in the field? and you should be become as expert in that as you are in technical content of the rule because you representing the people that you remember are either going to have to advise them on how to comply with the reg or if they are beneficiaries, to monitor the people you are trying to control to ensure they are complying with the law. so compliance and implementation are parts of the rulemaking process that really are just as important as the technical

content. now in the agency it's all about relationships, just like it is on the hill also. there's a set of political appointees who represent the president and his program. you should understand their rule in the rulemaking process. then there are key officials in a wide variety of offices within the agency who can be crucially involved. obviously, the program office, let's say the air office at epa for the rockefeller would be crucial. the senior personnel, most rules and regulations of the size we're talking about here are written in a team that consistents of offices of that sort in an agency. led by the program office, representation from the policy office which is really the agencies equivalent of the cost-benefit shop. at the white house. the general council has a seat

always. because it is the general council who ultimately determines the appropriate interpretation of key statutory terms for the agency leadership. just like our general council at au advises me, the general council advised the administrator. how do i obey the law? the budget office, interestingly enough, can be very important. because the budget office, you know, rulemaking cost money. everybody sort of assumes it's free. it's an expensive proposition to pull together the resources to write a rule. regional offices are the enforcement arm of most agencies. they are the ones that tell the fies i -- guys in washington wht you are writing is idiotic. i know how it's organized. i deal it every day. you don't. listen to me. then finally the communication

staff. how do you think the average dry cleaner learns what the new waive of global warming rules mean for him or her? how many people have been to the dry cleaners in the last month? well, the rest of you should be probably, all right? but in any event. you walk into a dry cleaners. how many times have you walked in and saw the federal register sitting on the counter? i mean the dry cleaning establishment of the united states are a major, major source of potential air pollution. they have to learn what their requirements are. they are going to learn it through a variety of means. but the most effective means often is the very organization that you are currently involved in. so how you are going to communicate requirements is crucial. the white house. all right. now you want to up the ante. you are not getting exactly what you need from the agency, or you want some insurance.

the office of information regulatory affairs, jeff weinberg spoke to you about this a little bit already. oria is the -- it is in effect the eyes and ears of the president of the united states for what the president has determined are the most important rules under development in a given year. they review rules formally at the proposed and final rule stage, informally, they are in constant communication with the agency that's writing the regs. you have access to oira just like any other american citizen does. but again what you do will be open for public scrutiny. they, like the agency, need information. they have a lot of interesting cost-benefit analysis since they are implementing executive orders that go back to the

reagan administration, requiring benefit-cost analysis on major regs. but oira is also a source of potential influence over the process. if you don't have any luck at oira, you could use domestic policy contacts that you have, the trade reps office, ir, or the national security agency if you have an international one. global warming regs, you wait and see as it developing how quickly international competitiveness becomes a critical factor in the discussions. so you think you got to know about carbon, you think you got to know about secondary chemicals, what you really have to know about is the balance of trade impact is often going to be on countries participating. and then finally, and i'll wrap it up with this. you go back to congress. jim just mentioned a remember decides global warming isn't

what everybody thinks it is. it's something else. i'm going to hold an congressional hearing. i'm going to bring all the agency personnel up here. you don't have to be -- you don't have to hold extreme views to stimulate a hearing of this sort. the easiest way to stimulate hearing is to tell the member of congress, they are moving slow, there's no good reason, you need to get them up here and get them focused. now that then can easily morph into a very serious set of conversations about the direction the agency is taking. now -- but step back a minute. now remember that's conventional oversight, what i didn't put up here is the rulemaking equivalent of case work. you've got a particular point of view. you want that point of view at least listened to in an agency. there's nothing quite as

compelling as the agency hearing from a remember of the appropriations committee or subcommittee that governs it's budget that i, congressman smith, from connecticut, have a real interest in the rule. here's my interest. you keep me informed about what's happening with this issue in the rulemaking. in effect, you as the interest group are employing a member of congress as your lobbyist. you know, just like a member would chase the social security benefit for a constituent, they will take this seriously as well. now conventional oversight is all of the stuff that you've already heard and read about. the hearings can be very compelling. you've got the congressional research service, you got the government accountability office up there assisting the congress. but we also now have some really fascinating research that

demonstrates how targeted appropriations language can be used to both stimulate and shutdown rules that powerful interests would prefer -- well, in the ladder case, not to see the light of day. very specific language in writers attacked to any one of a number of legislative vehicles that tells the environmental protection agency you don't spend another dime on rulemaking associated with co2 emissions from public utilities in the upper midwest. end of story. you know? you've lost the authority to spend public funds. if you can write it for free, i guess you are on your own. it's very unusual that that can happen. then there's the arcane piece of legislation that i hesitate to

spend a lot of time with. something called the congressional research act. excuse me. the congressional review act. that allows the congress to essentially veto a rule or regulation after it's written. if it's found to be in contraception of the statute. there's an elaborate process. it's only been invoked once, a rule that jim thurber's wife claudia worked on at osha. >> the agency. >> the agency worked on. it wasn't her fault. >> she voided it. she thought it would be overturned. >> that's light. the only time in history -- the act has been around for 17 years. i wouldn't put this high on your head parade of devices to go to work with. activating members of congress on rules currently under development, a real possibility. finally, courts.

this is your abandon all hope thing. it's really the last resort. you can sue an agency, but not until the agency's written and published the rule. that's number one. number two, you have to have standing to sue. you have to show that you can or have been damaged. third, you have to present the agency with the kind of legal issue that a court feels competent to rule on. which in this day and age, is almost anything. all right? finally, remember this. when you sue an agency, partial victories are not unheard of. but it's rare in an agency to lose in the nuclear -- agencies don't make those kind of errors. what aisle conclude with is the -- i'll conclude with is the following. informs is critical. in currency it's more important

in rulemaking than any other process. second, we're in an era where agencies are going to need the information from the outside more than they have ever needed it before. the own budgets for research are constrained and they are going to become more constrained. there's a massive retirement of senior personnel in way, and outflow of personnel takes some of the most experienced, most knowledgeable men and women out of the agency and guess where? they are not playing the banjo on a porch in west virginia in retirement. not most of them. what they are going is going to work for powerful interest, leaving the agency in deficit to the exterm competition if that's what you want to call it. information is power. the higher quality in the public

interest the most objective you can muster, the better off you are going to be. third, coalitions are king in rulemaking. just like they are on the hill. you don't know everything. nobody knows everything. but a network of well positioned interest that represent, yes, a broad political spectrum, but also a very broad reach of information can be enormously powerfully. just like the hill, they don't -- these coalitions come together and blow apart very quickly. don't ignore that. and then finally, just as a general admonition, i mean, i just think that the american people have no clue how powerful this process is. how perpetual it is, it never stops, and how much of our lives, the quality of our lives are determined by the quality of what is produced by it.

whatever you represent, whomever you represent, the public obligation, the ethical obligation that you have to present information in honest and forthright ways can never be overlooked. just like any other part of this public advocacy business, the ethics of information transfer in this world is critically important. so with that, i'll be happy -- [applause] [applause] >> going over a little bit. will you be willing to take questions? >> sure. go ahead. matt? >> the tactics of rule, the use of imposing a deadline, do you -- would lobbyist ever be afraid they are going to shorten the deadline because they had the information they think the agency needs they wouldn't do it out of fear the agency might accept the information or come across competing information? >> yeah, i think by and large

agencies are hostile will deadlines. >> is that a good tactic? >> i mean you see it an awful lot. i was surprised to the extent it was used in major legislation that enacted in the last congress. >> shortened deadlines. >> yeah. >> okay. >> yeah, i mean -- you know, the reason why -- you know, deadlines -- i just don't think -- i think what they -- it's an understandable reaction to a crisis. we have to do something. we have to do something fast. typically what an agency will do in a case like that that differs from what is normally the case is issue what's called a direct final rule. this is something that you have to be aware of. the direct final rule says this is the regulation, this is why we are putting it out as fast as we are. we are not allowing for public participation in advance. but we are allowing for public participation after it's written and published and if we need to change it based on public comment, we'll go back and do that. but i got to tell you, i haven't

seen a lick of research yet on how often that happens and they receive public comment and go back and make the change. you are going to see that device used a great deal. and you got to be prepared for it. which means, you got to be in even earlier if you are going to be effective. yeah, jose? >> do you have to negotiate rulemaking or is that a course that could happen potentially if that ? >> the agency, there's a general statute written in 1990 called the negotiated rulemaking act that allows agencies to use negotiated rulemaking if they choose to. so you don't have to have it identified specifically in a new authorizing statute. you can rely on that general statute. however, negotiated rulemaking is also not terribly popular with agencies. because it does -- it tends to require them to seed authority

to the group. now in order to conduct a negotiated rulemaking, you have to issue a notice in the federal register inviting people who think they should be at the table. it's sort of like the federal advisory committee act. once that happens, we study -- a colleague of mine here and i studied at a set of negotiated rules out of epa. you know, we found that it was -- by and large a protect effective process. it's very time consuming and very expensive, especially for smaller interests. you know? you got to devote a good part of your organization's life to it while it's going on. but there is general authority to it. stephen? >> places like the fed, is law making much different? >> well, you know, that's an interesting point. the fed issues rules that only a very narrow subset of the american people can either understand or participate

effectively in. the fed usually uses notice in comment process. but obviously they -- they sort of define emergency. so -- the one thing to remember about all of the procedural requirements in rulemaking, they can be suspended in the time of an emergency, or when the agency determines it's in the public interest. both of those can be scrutinized after the fact. when the agency determines, the classic is airline safety. if they discover -- i don't know the rule is what's the super jumbo jet that -- yeah, it's not the dream liner. the one that carries 5 or 600 people. when the engine blew out on that, it got people's attention. you know, so there were immediate what they called airworthiness directives that were sent out of the faa on maintenance of that rolls-royce

engine, i think. i fly a lot. i read a lot about airworthiness you shouldn't. don't read their worthiness directives. you don't need to. just every time i get on an airplane, it seems i just read an airworthiness directive about the model. >> we have time for one more question. >> yeah, one more. go ahead. >> what sort of transparency requirements exist in this rulemaking advocacy? because with lobbying, it's the lobbying disclosures and the federal registry. what's it look like on this side? >> it's a great question. you are subject to the same reporting requirements, if i understand the law correctly as you are when you lobbying the hill. jim and i have commented frequently about how astonish ingly few people seem to register relative to what they do. the more important transparency issue is on the information that

you are providing the agency. and that's contained either virtually or physically in something called a docket. every time a rule is started, a docket is opened. and with the rise of reg.gov which is a web site you should take a look at. reg.gov, you can access all public comment that has been received on a rule. anything that's been filed on a rule. and traditionally, agencies are very good about listing the meetings they've had. and they -- they summarize the purpose of the meeting. you are not going to see all of the give and take that occurred. but the value of that is that if you are a business interest and feel environmental interests have been -- have been too welcome in an agency or vice versa, you then would have a means of addressing that by getting involved yourself. but, you know, the rulemaking process is remarkably

transparent. the problem is it's very labor intensive. it just takes a lot of work, you know, to get the information and once you decide it's important. i mean it takes a lot of work to do research on rulemaking in order to get the kind of detailed information you need to make some judgments. but this is a very open system. and i'm telling you, i think we're in a -- we're in a period now where agencies are going to be more open than ever before for high quality participation by organizations like the ones you represent. so. >> thank you, neil. [applause] [applause] >> tomorrow a funeral service for former alaska senator ted stevens who was killed in a plane crash last august. vice president joe biden spoke. see it tomorrow on our companion network, c-span. >> this weekend on c-span3 american history tv, joy

beasley, manager at battlefield on the recent discovery and excavation of 200--year-old slave quarters. and as the congressional black caucus marks it's 40th year of history, yvonne burke and her effort on homemakers and women. then richard and steven ford share their members about the man to be vice president and president of the united states without being elected. see the complete weekend schedule online at c-span.org/history where you can press the alert button and have our schedules e-mailed to you. >> now mary jane volk, senior financial director for emily's lift talks. this is an hour and 15 minutes. >> my name is patrick griffin, i'm the academic director of the

institute. it is a professional institute that attempts to convey concepts, principals, and techniques, and tactics on becoming a professional advocate here in washington, d.c. our first speaker this afternoon is ms. mary jane volk. we are delighted to have her. she's the senior finance tracker at the political department of emily's list. ms. volk has had a very broad and long and successful experience -- career in fund raising -- political fund raising both at emily's list and in her own political consulting, working on the campaign committees on capitol hill or associated with the democratic party on capitol hill. she helps people right now build their own campaign capacity to raise money but has helped work in many different capacities and in different ways in helping people raise money -- raising money themselves and as i said now moving more into training

folks and helping them raise money. the reason why we've asked ms. volk to speak, there's a lot of talk about advocacy and lobbying and a lot of caricatures and references. while there are people who do violate the law and should be prosecuted, there's a lot that makes sense why money is in politics. why it's the mother's milk of politics. it is about the cost and jury charges of of -- cost and challe of running the political campaign. ms. volk will be talking about how you do raise money and raise it for people that you hope it would affect the system. emily's list does not lobby. they are not up on capitol hill building campaigning on any issue. they are concerned about

aggressive issues and concerns that are pro-choice, they work more upstream. they are trying to get the candidates that agree with them into political office and hoping the rest will take care of itselfs. issue advocacy like the ones we are doing campaigns and organizations that were examining over the next two weeks, that they take care of the business on the day-to-day struggles of capitol hill. with that, i want to thank ms. volk for coming to speak to us. and please? >> yeah. thank you very much. [applause] [applause] >> thank you. it's a thrill to be here to speak with you today. i have to apologize in advance, i've been fighting a cold off. and it finally today it decided to creek into my throat. i'm going to hope that you all can hear me. please feel free to interpret at any time to ask questions. as patrick said, sometimes money gets a bad rep in political

advocacy. but just like any other organization, fund raising is the engine that drives the train. in campaigns, we talk about the fact that if you don't have enough money, you can't run a good successful campaign. same thing with starting any kind of organization, you have to have the funding to get the message out to your audience and to your potential donors. other than, you can have the greatest organization, the greatest message, but you don't have the ability to send that message out and keep funding your organization. so fund raising basically is marketing. that's what you are doing. you are sell your organization to potential donors. in order to do that, you have to be able to speak about your organization, what it does, what it's mission is, and you have to

be able to convince people to open their wallets to help you in your mission. because again, if you don't have money for that mission, it's really difficult to get your message out. you know, we can do a lot on the internet nowadays, and that's very cost effective, because it doesn't cost a lot of money to, you know, solicit people over the internet and reach out to people over the internet. but in fund raising, you have to use that as one tool. there are many others that you have to use as well. so you have to have money to do that. you have to figure out what are your potential donors? you know, the whole world isn't going to give to your organization. you have to pair it down, and you have to target. i'm going to talk to you a little bit today about how to figure out where your money is going to come from. i want to start by talking about two distinct organizations in

the advocacy world. one being my organization, emily's list and as patrick said, we do not lobby. we try to recruit candidates and help them win campaigns so that they are already in congress voting the pro-choice way that we hope that they will. so that sort of, you know, we kind of do it on the front end, rather than have to go up to capitol hill on a regular basis and put forth our agenda. so with these two organizations, emily's list, our mission is pretty simple. we are dedicated to electing pro-choice democratic women to political office. in this side, the commission statement is the first, the second is plushing out the mission statement a little bit. i took this director off of the chamber of commerce's web site. the chamber of commerce for those of us on the progressive side has been quite an adversary, particularly in this

last election cycle in light of the citizens united supreme court decision that allowed corporate money back into politics. we think that's wrong. that corporations are basically treated like individuals. i wanted to give you a little comparison between that organization and my organization. and sort of how we raise our money and, you know, what our missions are. so to advance the chamber of commerce to advance human progress through an economic, political, and social system based on individual freedom, incentive, initiative, opportunity, and responsibility. does anybody understand what that means? because if you do, could you please explain it to me? [laughter] >> so my point is without the benefit of previous slide, do you remember what the mission of emily's list is? what is it?

can somebody repeat is back to me right here in the front? >> pro-choice women [inaudible] >> right. how about the chamber of commerce? can anybody articulate what their mission is? just as i thought. so the point is that you have to have a mission statement that is concise and clear and that you can market to donors. if i'm the chamber of commerce, i think it's going to be really hard to, you know, repeat what their mission statement is. but the difference is, -- let's go to the next slide for a second. the difference is that emily's list is a -- we're organized as a political act committee under the federal election commission. it's called a separate segregated fund where an independent -- you know, we're

an independent organization. we're not tied to a mother organization, unlike the chamber of commerce. their political act committee is tied to their parent organization. and they can only raise money from their members. but if you look at the difference in our membership, we raise money from individuals, myself, a few rich people, barrr -- barbara streisand, if you look on the other side, they are generally fortune 500 companies. what does that tell you about each of our ability to raise money in this current political climate? the chamber is going to have a lot more of it; right? because all of those fortune 500 companies can give unlimited funds. and for our part, we raise both

federal and nonfederal money. i don't know if you -- have you kind of gotten into the difference between federal and nonfederal money? okay. let me just give you really quickly federal money is money that's raised under the federal election -- the guidelines of the federal elections commission. it's money that's used to support candidates for president, u.s. congress, and u.s. house. very district guidelines, very strict individuals limits. an individual can live i believe it's $2400. now per election. $2400 in a primary, $2400 in a general election. that's -- you know, it's not a lot of money really. in addition, we have a nonfederal side and an independent expenditure side to our organization. and we can raise unlimited funds for nonfederal activity so people who run for governor, people who run for state legislature, and we do support candidates at those levels.

so we can raise unlimited amounts. if you look at the difference. you know, we have a couple of rich donors like barbara streisand, i personally myself am not rich. i give about $1,000 a year to the organization. susie bule, she's a pretty big donor to us. nothing like the companies on the other side that gave millions and millions and millions of dollars in the last election cycle. emily's list are independent side. i work on the campaign side. i work directly with the the campaigns. we have independent. i don't talk to the people on the women vote side. they have to do their own polls

and research about the campaigns. we on the campaign side can't share with them anything that we know that's going on within the campaign organizations. so it's all completely independent and frankly you'd be surprised how well that works. if there are any skeptics in the audience. that's just crazy. how can you not talk to your colleagues in a fairly small organization. it really fascinates me when at the end primary or at the end of general election, we are talking about what happened. what emily's list did. they say we spent $3 million on barbara boxer, we did, this, this, this. i was like, wow. that's amazing. i didn't know all of that. i know some things. because i'm a member of emily's list and i get their e-mails. once information is mt. -- is in the public domain, everybody can know about it and know what's going on. i remember very, very vividly

when alison schwartz was elected to congress in 2004, i think it was. when we had a session talking about what the independent side of emily's list did in that campaign. i was just blown away. i had no idea we had knocked on so many doors, sent out so much mail. because my side of the organization isn't allowed to know that. so it actually does work. so emily's list in this election cycle spent about $6 million on independent expenditures. a lot of that went to help reelect barbara boxer and patty murray. because they are people that we worked with early on. they are strong advocates of choice in the united states senate. we felt very strongly we had to -- in the beginning of the cycle we didn't think they'd have tough campaigns. as it played out and the tea party movement became more

important and their opponents sort of became tied to that movement in some ways, we knew that we had to work really hard and fund those two campaigns very specifically. so we spent about $6 million altogether on our independent activities. does anybody remember how much the chamber spent on theirs? it was in excess of $30 million. we can't compete with that. we do the best we can. we go primarily after individual donors. u.s. chamber of commerce is funded by corporate special interest money. you can see very, very short list of some of the people that backed the activities of the u.s. chamber of commerce, this election cycle, and they were instrumental in defeating a lot of progressive mt. -- progressive democrats,

unfortunately. getting back to -- i think i went the wrong way. so in order to raise money, you have to have a plan. does anybody know the number one reason that people don't give to a campaign or advocacy organization? yeah, right here. >> maybe it's just a lost cause. >> they might think it's a lost cause. okay. over here. >> because they don't know how. >> they don't know how to give. that's part of it. >> no one asked. >> exactly. the number one reason is because no one asked them to give. it's pretty simple. i have to figure out who you are going to ask. and so you have to have a fund raising plans just like any campaign where we have to have a plan to raise the $3 million in the house or $20 million in some u.s. senate races. we have to figure out the plan,

determine who's going to give, and why they are going to give, and we have to figure out sort of what are the groups of donors that are going to be for us? who are the pro-choice donors out there that emily's list can go after for money to fund the activities that we undertake? : for campaigns, we have come up with this model at emily's list that we use. people use it, so people don't but we think it's a pretty good way of strategically thinking about where your donors are going to come from. so if you put in the middle of this bull's-eye the advocacy organization as opposed to the candidate, you can apply the personal ideological in the power circles to fund-raising for an organization. i'm going to explain that in a minute.

this is my favorite training little guy, the kick them in the knees monkey. what do i mean by that, take them in the knees? every donor has sort of a neat and you have to fulfill it. so if i'm approach with democratic woman with emily's list are 25 years ago when barbara mikulski first ran for the united states senate, it was a top of the founders at emily's list to go out and find other women and men who thought that was an important issue, and ask them for money. so where did they start? well, you know, if if you have heard the story about how emily's list was founded, our current chair of the board and founder, that interface it with the group of five, six, seven friends one day and they came up with this plan for this organization. and and/or do figure where the money was going to come from they all got out the rolodexes,

their personal rolodexes and each of the seven or 10 people in that room when, remember that personal circle. each of the people in that room went to the personal circle. so they went to their sisters and their college roommates, and people that had worked with that they thought were interested in the choice issue and preserving a woman's right to choose. and ask them for money. that's what the seed money came from to start our organization. the same thing with any organization. right after the columbine shootings, i -- gun control is one of my big issues and i decided to start this organization do, you know, to change the law, that gun laws that we have. and so i started out asking my mother for a contribution, and my mother was the first donor to our organization. the woman who cofounded it with me, asked a couple of her friends and they became part of

our organization. what we learned though is once we got into the ideological circle the people who are passionate about that issue who would either lost family or, you know, part of the columbine community or any other community, frankly, we've had so many of these instances, while they are strong advocates and they will go out there in march and they will go to capitol hill and talk, they don't understand how to advocate with their pocketbook. we had a really hard time getting these people to write a check. and so the organization existed for about two years and we folded because the only people we could raise money from were our personal circle, people who believe an issue or who believe in us, frankly. they gave my because this is something that i care deeply about and they believed in me. and so once we got into the ideological circle it was really, really hard to get those people to open their pocketbooks

and you know he would have to advocate with your pocketbook in order to get your organization off the ground. so you have to identify the donors needs, and then you have to determine the method you are going to use to get to those donors. remember, i talked about mission statement which is a very important piece of the message. and then you also have two, once you determine your message and you targeted some donors, you have to go and educate them. so why is it that if they have $10,000 to give, that they should give it to your organization? you have to educate them about how important this is and how a woman's right to choose its costly under assault in the congress and in that emily's list has done such good work over a number of years and elected a lot of women to office, we need your help now for us to continue that work. an ongoing organization as opposed to the campaign, is what

we like to call donor maintenance, which is once a donor gives, you want them to give again and again. so you have to maintain a relationship with them. you have to talk to them. you have to let them know what's going on inside your organization, you know. any oldies we sent out a newsletter. now have the internet so we send out newsletters the of the internet, we blog, we have all kinds of interesting things on a website that talks about what we're doing. but you also have to try people to your website and that's a whole other, we could spend a couple of hours on that alone. donor maintenance is important to the organization. so i want to now talk a little bit about developing the message, how you're going to pitch your donors. so as i said every donor has a motivation, and you have to figure out is. that people have the greatest motivation are going, want to give more money or give more

often. people who believe in your cause. you know, women, our founder is in her early '60s. women of that age, that was right before abortion became legal, and they can tell you story after story about friends of theirs who had very bad circumstances and had to seek an abortion. frankly, while none of us want to before abortion, we want women to be able to make that decision on their own. that's basically what choice is all about. so you have to be able to articulate that message to a set of donors that you believe i agree with that message. and you have to come you have to do research to find these donors. so again i said you start with your personal circle. these are some of my favorite depiction of personal circle. so you start with your family and friends and, you know, you're close -- you already know

who these people are, right? [laughter] these are some of, twilight, the modern family tv show and 30 rock, popular, popular tv shows no. it's my illustration to you about how you reach out to your personal circle. just like i went to my mother when i was starting an organization, you go to the people that you know best and that your seed money. so the message for the personal circle is, remember i said they believed in me, and what i was doing. so basically it's a message of love, fondas, friendship. people who care about you and want you, what you want to do. look at this young man that started facebook. he had let some capital, right? he had to go to his family and strength. i'm sure his dad helped him get that off the ground. so that's what you do. you go to the people who care about you and what you want to succeed him.

that's your startup money. then we go to the ideological circles, and these are people who are passionate about the issue for which you are going to advocate. these people are risk takers. so they will give you money. they may not be a $10,000 donor, but maybe they can give you $500, you know, a couple of times a year. and that accepted these other people that you want to talk about, how critical this important issue is. the chamber of commerce use this over and over give with their members. they talk about their an organization for small businesses. which i kind of find funny but a lot of the local chambers of commerce are members of the u.s. chamber of commerce. and a local chambers often do represent the communities small businesses. but they talk about the tax bill and how this president is going to keep raising taxes. you know, we can't afford more

business and that was the message to a business that helped them get this $30 million to defeat a lot of progressive democrats. and so the message is really kind of together we can change the world. if we believe in this and we funded this, we can change the world. and i put his slides on the president signing the don't ask, don't tell legislation because they had a big victory, and he did change the world. and you know they found people, this gentleman that you see in the slide over the president shoulder, i think he was an admiral in the navy, very high up in the u.s. navy. i think he became an advocate for getting rid of don't ask, don't tell. the same thing with a tea party. they started out as less taxes and they could extrapolate from there. but they have a message, and together we can change the world. that's sort of, that the ideological message that you want to use with the donors who

might be able to give you money. and then there's the power circle. this is, in campaigns this is generally the skeptics. these are people do you have to prove that you can win. so you have to have a poll that says you are well positioned, you have to have raised a lot of money. these people come on board late. so after you got your moms money and your dads money to start organization, your sisters, your college roommates, then you sort of, then you start to feel okay, this has taken off, then you can go to the circle of people who are kind of skeptical. you can find perhaps some investors there who might care about the cause that you're going to advocate. so i want to talk a little bit about a couple of these organizations. because the message here is that you have to demonstrate success a little bit. and so emily's list has been around for 25 years.

amnesty international come if you can see up there, they say it right in their logo. they have been around for 50 years advocating for human rights. that's pretty powerful. i am a 50 year-old organization, and then you want to talk about all the good things that you have done as a, in the 50 years. i put strengths up there. it's one of the biggest organizations to feed the hungry in the country. the guy who started it, a democrat who worked for senator bob kerrey, and i remember in the late '80s when he had started his organization i actually -- we had, we shared office space. he was struggling to keep his organization online. he had some chefs involved. he had a few small businesses involved. he was raising money from individuals, but he went up to new york a couple of times to

pitch american express for his organization. i think it was in 1989, he started the organization and 87. it was either 89 or 90, american express decided to come onboard and they're going to to advertise for him and put the logo, the american express logo, and it really made that organization take off. if you go and look at the website today, they are partnered with amazing businesses and corporations. so, you know, in the 25 or so years that they have been around, 30 years, they have really, they struggle in the beginning but if i got it off the ground. and there was the most successful organizations. susan g. komen, when you see a pink ribbon on everything, right? i have running shoes -- i don't run -- [laughter] i have athletic shoes that have a pink ribbon on them. we have water bottles that have

pink ribbon on them. you see that pink ribbon everywhere. they've done an amazing job of advocating for an organization that was a sisters wanting to help, to keep the legacy of her sister who died of breast cancer a life. and to help other women, does you know, in the congress women's health was sort of put on the back burner. it was never a focus. now that we have more women in congress, women's health is always talk about what health care bills come up. who are the people are talking about it? debbie stabenow, claire mccaskill, the women advocate for women's health. so that sort of the power circle. you get into that power circle, that's really going to help your organization take off. then the next thing i want to talk about is the tone of your message. so are you going to be aggressive and use red meat, or are you going to be matter-of-fact about your message and kind of, bonilla.

this is really particularly important in direct mail and on the internet, which are generally important tools of fund-raising. i'm going to give you two examples of members of condit, democratic them as a card both of them were defeated unfortunately, but suzanne in florida, 24, both were freshmen members. betsy markey, she defeated maryland musgrove in 2008, so she had an enemy to talk about in her appeal. she didn't have that enemy anymore. she had this very kind of nice young guy, what do you do with that? well, what she decided to do come her campaign did a great job of using karl rove and sarah palin as the enemy. i don't know if you remember, but early in the election cycle

when sarah palin was going to raise a lot of money for republican candidates, she said that she was putting some democrats in her crosshairs. remember across her of her rival? and many of us found that just appalling. but betsy markey used it to her advantage. and betsy markey and suzanne collins were two of those people that were in the crosshairs. she was timid about their she didn't want to use that message. her district might event at a more conservative than betsy markey's. betsy markey went and used it with a vengeance over and over again. sarah palin came to our district. they get a whole campaign on sarah palin come into her district and raising, we did know how much that sarah palin was going to race for a poet, but we made it up. said bill is coming and she will raise half a million dollars for my opponent. i need you to help me. so she was emotional. she used red meat, as i call it, and she was aggressive about it.

karl rove spent a lot, american crossroads spent a lot of money in that particular district. every time we heard of money being spent, or even if we didn't, betsy markey, we concocted messages both in the mail and on the internet about karl rove is raising millions of dollars against me. and there were instances where you could actually cite things that weren't they were saying about the district. so in the and betsy markey raised, this is a house campaign, raise about $900,000 on the internet. that's a lot of money for house candidate. an awful lot of money. suzanne on the other hand who was more timid, didn't want, even though american crossroads was in her district, sarah palin never came to her district, but sarah palin, when she was on sarah palin's list. they were afraid to put it out there. and use that as a message. their messages, they didn't send out as much e-mail. they can send out as much mail.

and their messages were just kind of in different it suzanne raise about $230,000 from the internet. so you can see that that emotion and that sort of being more aggressive really helps your fund-raising. and so, but you also have to find a happy medium. a lot of times they call his arm twisters. that's all we do is go and twist peoples arms. you don't have to twist peoples arms. did you have a really good message you don't have to twist peoples arms. that message will help the money coming. so another way to raise money is through specialized campaigns. we did two things this election cycle and emily's list. we created this thing called team emily. and basically what that was less what our members around the country could help to activities

for all the women that we were supporting because you know that you can do by computer. and i have to do is dial into a certain number and it just comes up on your phone or on your computer. so we created this whole sort of campaign, if you will, around team emily trying to get people involved in what we were doing for the candidate. to help save barbara boxer, to help save patty murray, to help some african-american members of congress. and it worked. so not only were we able to fund the activities but we were able to help keep emily's list a life. so kind of works both ways of specialized messaging. and i don't know if any of you heard about our sarah doesn't speak for me campaign that we launched on the internet where we had these women dressed in his funny grizzly bear outfits, some people thought they were funny, but that can't pay because we are going after sarah

palin basically, we're kind of picking a sarah palin, that really helped our innovation to raise a lot of money from people who might not otherwise have given us money. by launching that on the internet, making it exclusively an internet campaign, we raised money from new donors. yes, sir. [inaudible] possibly, but we were talking about, sarah, you how sarah palin was talking about the republican women and how they're going to go to congress and they were going to speak about these conservative values and so on. well, we disagree with are. we didn't think that all the women that she was supporting should speak for all women around the country. so we kind of tied it sort of to what we were doing. and you kind of have to do that a bit, but if you create a specialized campaigns, they really, you know, they just help

your fund-raising. and the other thing that i know you have seen over and over again is a matching gift campaign. i think i just got one from, today. talking about we have a wealthy donor who will national contribution if you make to your installation. and so, you know, the dirty little secret there is that there really isn't always a matching gift, right? as long as you have money feeding the pipeline, theoretically there's a matching gift. and oftentimes there is a matching gift. so it's basically a specialized campaign to encourage people to give money. so, you know, if your donation is going to be messed 10 to one you get $100 go a becomes $200 it helps us keep barbara boxer in the united states senate. does that make sense? so you're probably asking yourself, how do you message in this climate when we lost a lot,

democrats, emily's list, we will lost a lot in the 20th election. how do you recover from that? how do you message around that? are we all say what that has done on our desk at the emily's list headquarters and kind of licking our wounds and hoping that 2012 is going to be better? hell no, we're not. we are trying to put our best foot forward, and what we are saying to our donors is this, we are saying that we saved all the democratic women in the united states senate. blanche lincoln it should be noted was not an emily's list support a candidate this time and last time she ran because she doesn't, she had some bad points -- bad votes on choices. but barbara mikulski, barbara boxer, patty murray, and who was the fourth one?

kirsten gillibrand. all those women were reelected, and we think that's a pretty good story to tell our members, even with this horrible climate, we got for critical senators reelected. so that's the message that we've been talking to our donors about. yes, sir. [inaudible] >> we do. we have a political opportunist bagram that works with down ballot races. statewide constitutional offices and state legislative offices. there's a couple of mayors races going on now. we don't, because there are so many of them, we can't find them to the level that we found some of the other races. but we do make contributions and try to help them have a viable campaign. the other thing that we're talking about is that the

percentage of women in the 112th congress is actually going to be bigger than the percentage of women in the 111th congress. why is that? because so many people lost, more men loss and women. but it sort of the way to articulate your message. we have still a strong number of women in the democratic caucus, and the house of representatives, and we can only get better, even though frankly it's probably the smallest number of women that had been in congress in a really long time. we're trying to put our best foot forward and talk about yes, the percentage in the caucus actually went up. we are also talking about for women of color the emily's list helped elect the cycle, which is fantastic when you think about it because there are so few women of color that serve in the congress. we helped elect these four women

members but i don't even know if you really are, but kerry down here from alabama, some african-american woman from alabama. how fantastic is that? frederica wilson from florida. she's the lady with a hat. you'll see her wearing her hat on the house floor. she always wears hats. then to the far right, colleen from hawaii who beat the short term congressman who won a special election back in may i think it was up last year. and then finally karen, this big of a california house, and is now elected to congress to fill diane watson see. so that's a pretty horrible message to our members. he goes there are so few women of color in the congress, we like that message. we are out there helping to expand the number of women of color in the united states congress. people are responding to that message.

and so we now have a big new marketing campaign that we are going to be unveiling. i guess i am unveiling it now. but coming up in 2012. there are six women united states senators up for reelection in 2012. did you realize that? that's a lot. and those are all women who are strong advocates for choice and for women's health, and are probably all the things that a lot of us believe in. and so our mission this cycle is going to be to keep the seat of those women, protect those women, get them reelected. and i think it's going to be a very powerful message to our members who are kind of not happy about what happened in 2010, maybe not so happy with president. oh, my god, what are we going to do? well, we have a mission. we have to keep the six ladies in the united states senate

because they are very strong on the issue that we advocate for. and so that's what we're going to be talking about. that's what you with the emily's list talk about for at least the first six months. and because of redistricting and reapportionment, it's going to be harder to recruit and get women to run for the house of representatives early in the cycle because we don't really know what all the districts are going to look like. so this is what our focus is going to be for a while, and not only is it going to be good for these women, but it's going to be good for us in our fundraising because very powerful message we have to keep six women in congress. so i just want to sort of reiterate sort of the points that i covered, which is your mission statement is really important. so know your mission statement and hopefully let your mission statement be concise and one that you can repeat. the strategic. figure out who your donors are,

go to your personal circle and then people who believe in the cause. and that's where your startup money is going to come from. develop a strong message, target carefully, roll out a marketing campaign, or several, use a motion in your pitches, put your best foot forward. so even if you have not such a great message, you know, you all here in washington we use the term spend, but put your best foot forward. characterize your message and the most positive way you can. and the other point i make up your is we solicit your donors. if you're an advocacy organization and you have no limits, keep asking, keep asking, keep asking. in an organization where you may have a limit, you ask until they max out, intel but given the maximum amount. a lot of people think this is rude asking people over and over again, but i will tell you it is

the single most important way that you are going to raise money. because somebody that's already invested in your organization, wants to see you succeed. so they're going to keep on giving money in order to protect their own investment. so resolicit your donors. there's a couple more points i just want to make your. so other tools for raising money. when you put together your fundraising plan, you need to try to utilize all these tools. so personal solicitation is where you get on the phone, or go visit somebody and ask them for money face-to-face or over the phone. it is the best way to raise money, the personal solicitation because they can throw all that away, they can delete your e-mail, but if you're sitting in front of them or if you're on the phone with them, they are going to find it hard to say no. i also want to say about

texting, i think that you can probably do some solicitation to buy texting, but i don't think it's very effective because people want to hear your voice. they want to see her face. you want to go make the case in person if you can't. that's going to be your strongest weapon is a personal solicitation. events, those of us in fundraising business hate them, but people love them. people like to see nbc. they like to go to events. they like to participate. and like to see who's coming, who is speaking. so you're going to probably do some of events. they will cost you a little more money than a personal solicitation. a lot of advocacy organizations like one big annual event on hrc does their huge, they did dinners around the country regularly but they do a big event in washington, d.c., where they bring in lady gaga or whoever the person of the moment happens to be that supports

their advocacy at gay-rights. and so events are a big piece of this. direct mail, why you think that people don't read their mail anymore, i'm here to tell you that a deal. generations older than you are very, very, very mail responder does. think about the retirees that sit around the house with time on their hands. they love reading their mail. and i don't know if it of your parents or grandparents are like my mother, but she will give $5 to everything that comes in the mail. everything. and, finally, you know, you have to put your foot down and say, mom, you don't have to get $5 to every organization that comes in the middle. but if people are giving $5 every time they get a letter, that adds a. don't overlook the mail as a tool of fundraising. e-mail, you have to use it. in order for your organization to be viewed as 21st century,

if you're not using e-mail solicitations or have a nice website, forget about it. that some people get their information nowadays. so we have to keep up with that trend, at all advocacy organization should be using the web and e-mail to solicit money. social networking sites, we reach out on facebook and twitter and others. we do campaigns that are built around facebook now, and again it's very important because your generation, that's where you're going. that's where you live. you to read your e-mail necessarily but you get your information off of facebook. if i want you to become a donor to emily's list that's probably where i'm going to find you. so you have to kind of rapid altogether. and telemarketing, you know, again it's one of those sort of older i find it very annoying when somebody calls me during dinner and can you get to the democratic party of virginia comparable ever. when i was so two days before

christmas, i got for solicitations. three on the telephone and one came knocking at my door. i was like wow, what is this? i think they knew people would be home or and so on, and so, you know, the telemarketing dust to work. you have to be very careful about a project to pick the right firm. he just had to be very careful about telemarketing. so if you're ever working at an organization, seek proposals from multiple telemarketing firms. and then the final point i want to make is about the board of directors. most organizations have a board of directors. most people put, i would say, show horses on their board of directors as opposed to work courses. because you want your name, but really you're board of directors should play a key role in fundraising for your organization. and that needs to be spelled out

when you are recruiting people for your board, that we need you to countries for us. they need to be donors themselves and they need to be reaching out to the own personal circle to bring money into the organization. when you're starting an advocacy organization are working for one or having to build one, one of the things when as a consultant we would always talk to our potential clients about or develop it. so do an assessment of who is on the board, are they helping with fundraising? if not to have the potential to help the fundraising. if so, and they are not, can you train them, can you give them some training so that the asking becomes asia for them. but people do not like a fundraiser they would like to do anything else than fundraising. but remember the first five. fundraising is the engine that

drives the train but if you don't have the fundraising, the organization can fold. so, you know, you can get trained for your board members are they will always want to write a letter. that's the first thing they always say. but what you really want them to do is get on the phone or to have meetings with potential -- and you want to recruit people to your board who have the potential to raise money for you. you want to set term limits for those people because you want, if your board is like constant and never changed that's not going to serve your organization. you want new blood all time. so they can reach out to their personal circle and, therefore, bring in more money to the organization. and its, a lot of these advocacy organizations get very stagnant, and this is part of the reason why. at the same board members and so on. so you really need to kind of shaken up a bit and bring in new people to help raise money for your organization.

so that's pretty much what it wanted to talk to you about today. and i want to see if you have questions. lots of them. let's start in the back your. in the blue. >> the chamber of commerce -- [inaudible] i know it's great to put them up there as the evil corporation, but in terms, i think you mentioned yourself how is a different type organizations, membership dues, does emily's list look at the chamber as a direct conflict on the other side or are there other organizations that you look at that are built more like your own? >> i would say we look at them as a direct competition because we're never going to be able to keep up with a kind of money that they have, but the reason i use them as an example is because they are, they probably spent, the chamber at the

american crossroads spent more money than anyone in this election. i just kind of want you to see the juxtaposition of those two things. our most opposite organization is probably a susan b. anthony list. they try to find pro-choice, they find antichoice republican women. there's also something that was started 15 years ago or so called the wish list. and they support pro-choice republicans. unfortunately, for them, either there aren't a lot of pro-choice republican women, or they don't talk about it. they don't advocate for choice republican women. that organization has struggled because they don't have, they don't have an audience. does that and you question? >> as far as training or message, talking about, do you

feel that, i don't know, at least sometimes emotions can be all bit of a negative of an ad offering of an ad? at least for me i think of like a spca immerses with the sad dogs and the music, i feel like i'm being used. do you think that's a hard thing to handle? >> this is why we pay consultant a lot of money because you can't have to to find that fine line. and it's also, it's also kind of about the environment that you're in. what worked in this election cycle didn't work the last election cycle and will probably not work in 2012 because it's a completely different climate. and so you kind of have to know the climate. i think those ads were effective after hurricane katrina. when so many dogs were misplaced and so on. now people have kind of gotten back to real life and it probably does feel like a little bit of overkill.

so, the other thing that you do with messaging like that, if you have money too, you focus group of those ads. you all know a focusing group is, tested and in front of a group of objective people and they say, or they say, i would totally give money for that. so you do some testing around it. you may not respond to it, but maybe lots of other people are responding to a. that's the thing about, that's why we are raising money you use all the different tools because you may not respond to that message but you may respond to something that they have posted on facebook or an e-mail that you get. so everybody has different giving habits that everybody respond differently. generation tends to respond to mail and marketing. the younger generation not so much. a really good solid fundraising campaign utilizes all those messages of fundraising. -- methods of fundraising.

>> i was wondering, looking at your bio, it looks like most of your career has been fundraising at different levels. i wonder if there any particular types of experiences that you think helps you get into that arena or helps you get into emily's list? >> some of it is luck. i have to say. and some of it is just, i actually got into fundraising accidentally. i was looking for a job in the early '80s and a friend of mine worked at the democratic at the democratic congressional campaign committee, and he said we are looking for a finance assistant. and i was like okay, whatever, it's a job. i actually fell in love with fundraising. the finance director there, i learned a lot there. i don't use the same tactics that he necessarily uses, but i've learned a lot about how to avoid fundraising is.

i think that you've -- here's the thing i say to people your age all the time. i've heard a lot of you talking earlier before we got started about it. i think you had -- those kinds of expenses are invaluable. i think everybody should work on a political campaign. i mean, you will meet friends for life or to have expenses you never dreamed up. you will meet people that you never dreamed of. fundraising -- i met barbra streisand. i mean, who ever thought a little kid from delaware would meet barbra streisand. do you know winning? so politics can open doors for you, but -- do you know what i mean? you have to be interested. i helped my best friend from home's nephew has a white house intern coming up. i say to her i'm thrilled to do this because none of my nieces and nephews are interested in politics really. so first of all you have to have

the interest. and then you know internships that either pay very little or pay nothing are just invaluable experiences for you building your networks. and for me personally every job that i went to i found, i networked with somebody, i found people that i could then go to when i was taking my next job. people come to mean out all the time because i do a lot of training. and we have wonderful interns at emily's list. in fact, i was telling someone earlier we have two fighters entered some american university for two semesters. we liked him so much we kept them on. so just, you know, find the opportunities and, you know, like i said i got into fundraising accidentally. is sort of found me. and i was one of those people who planned my life out like many people do. i was always kind of jealous of that, but i found a profession that i think i'm very good at. and i just found it by accident.

and it's paid the bills over the years actually. i don't know where we are on time. a couple more minutes? in the back here. [inaudible] >> so i apologize if this confusion. theren't. don't. i put that slide there because a wanted to give you examples up. we did partner with, i found out after the election, we did partner with some progressive

organizations. one of the expenditure side so that nobody could get a bigger bang for the buck if you were. i don't know if you are all for my with american those that start in 2006, i think election cycle. so that's the kind of thing where we will get involved with those kinds of groups, and because it's all the progressive organizations at the table. and what you do is, there are three organizations. we are not all duplicating efforts but we are focusing on, you're maybe going to focus on the west or maybe focus on my organization is going to focus on non-college-educated women. another will focus on another group of pro-choice donors. so we definitely, we definitely partner and do some activities with progressive organizations and did some things with labor. so you find people that were supporting barbara boxer. they were supporting barbara boxer and patty murray. we were all kind of having the

same, we all want the same outcome. so we kind of did some activities with them in order maximize what we all could do. because we had limited resources your we've done, work in some primary campaigns with seiu because they happened to be supporting the same candidate that we were supporting. so are independent side, work with seiu on the expenditures. so for those kind of activities year but for fundraising, it's sometimes hard to reach out to the other organizations, but you can, you know, if you craft your message right, you can't. the president of hrc used to be the chief of staff at emily's list we can't have a relationship there on a personal kind of relationship. that's a you do it. you basically build it around your personal relationships and/or ability to network with people. one more question.

a couple more, okay. >> you right there, josé. >> what's the average donation and how many other donors aren't repeat donors? >> a good question. i'm not positive i have the answer because i don't work in our development department, but our average contribution is generally about $99, so we do have some high dollar donors. but emily's list was built 25 years ago on the premise if you give $100 to the organization and then you support to candidates that we support with a $100 donation. so that when hundred dollars is kind of stuck and actually we will start going back to that even more to bring in more donors. what was the second part of the question? repeat donors, a lot. i would say, if i had to guess i would say 75%. because we have sustained

programs. we get into renew every year. and we have very aggressive fund-raising activities around renewals. so quite a lot, and that's sustained the organization over the years. [inaudible] [laughter] >> you would know. over here. >> my name is sam, from minnesota. one of the challenges which are cases where working on is we are not a campaign and unlike a lot of nonprofit that, you know, build homes or save puppies are what have you, lobbying is not quite something that -- >> not sexy. >> you can't take pictures of his some of the things we had these meetings. how does that change things? do you have any ideas, -- >> can you do a little more specific? i don't of the organization your

writing plans for. >> we are building lobbying plans, well, our side we don't necessarily have to do with fund-raising. organizations like human rights campaign needs a way to keep their organization running. but they don't quite have the focusing events like campaigns have, 2012 let's say, and they six set of women are what have you. and how does that change things? because it's not as stable of a situation. >> you have to be creative. you have to figure out what's going, what's going to sell, was going to sell this organization? remember i talked about sarah doesn't speak for me with the ladies in the costumes which i thought was kind of a silly, silly ad. but they were being creative. and so they did something kind of silly, and people responded to it in a very big way. so you have to, you just have to

be creative and think strategically about who your audience is and what your audience is going to be responsive to. remember, i skimmed over, but degree of benefit. so how much benefit to someone derived from helping your organization. you have to paint a picture for them. you have to educate them about that. so you just kind of have to, you know, there have been a lot of times when campaigns and organizations i've worked for have been like really down to the last penny. and what you going to do? one of the things that you do if you're not a start organization is he going to we solicit your donors. you go back and say oh oh, my g, the sky is falling, or the sky really is falling. you create a motion around something. to help bring funds and to keep your doors open. and then maybe you'll get to the power circle level where you can

go to an american express or a corporation and get -- look, american express, i think they gave him a million dollars off the bat, or didn't give them $100 million. they may have given them half a million dollars or a million dollars. but do you know what any? they wanted to see what they would do with it. i think you also have to keep your expectations realistic. does that help? yes, ma'am. in the pretty pink sweater. >> this may be cynical speak your too young to be cynical. >> more and more candidates are self financed and come from wealthy backgrounds. have you experienced may be candid not looking for because they don't have that kind of a war chest, those kind of candidates being pushed aside in favor of a meg whitman? >> i think there's a little bit of that, but why a no decision like mine exist, right?

because we help raise money for the candidates that we recruit and that we support. and so part of recruiting for us is, if you meet our criteria, we are going to be there for you. we'll ask our members. the way, we're considered a bundling organization but are evenly with the term? so basically if you have a fundraiser, fund-raising event you're bundling. but because we ask our members to contribute to the members, to the candidates that we support, we technically bundle checks for them. and so that's what we tell them, that we are going to reach out to our now, we have about 127,000 members around the country. we are going to reach out to them on your behalf. we will help you put together the funding your you know, there's also how much money is too much money kind of thing. i mean, you know, when jennifer granholm was running for reelection against billionaire

amway founder, we were scared to death. we thought he was going to spend $100 million. and there is no way that she could raise that kind of money. but you also use it as oh, my god, he's going to spend $100 million but i have had a lease 30. so will you help me? in the and i think he ended up spending 45-ish, which was way less than we thought. and she threw the party at her own campaign raised about 32 bit so that kept her competitive, and like how much tv can you buy? right? do you know what i mean? sometimes there's diminishing return around it a little bit. and and sometimes they just, like they just while you. so you have to take it and turn it on its heel and use it to help you raise money. and state and again.

>> step back from him and give your opinion. one of the consequences of lobbying, and this is kind of generally thrown out there, all this money in the system that is buying votes and that's what it really is all inherently corrupt. it's either explicit or implicit. in your experience in raising money for candidates, is the money following people that you agree with, or do you think the money is influencing their point of view in the way they act when they get to congress? >> i think there's some of both. i do. and i think that nowadays with the microscope that we are under, i think that candidates and members on both sides are very careful about the quid pro quo. but in order, i mean, if you're being responsive to your

supporters, i just think that there's a natural instinct to help. look, we have the example above, i hate to harp on republicans, but that's what i do for a living, you know, of the energy bill. the oil companies sitting in dick cheney's office writing the bill, or sitting in the minority here at the time, office, writing the bill. and i would say that i think that we do some of that on our side. unicom the clearest examples that come to my mind on the progressive side are the supreme court nominees and how all the progressive organizations really get going, advocate and lobby, frankly. but i don't think there's ever any guarantee, and if -- i just -- money can be a dirty business if you sell it that way, but i think as a fundraiser you have to make a decision that you are not selling it that way.

and i have run into instances where, you know, a potential donor will call up and say, i will max out, get my whole family to max out your candidate so-and-so if they will support whatever it is. and i think this happened in the florida senate race 2006 actually. and we have to say no. we don't want that money. that's not what we are about. >> do you think emily's list support makes pro-choice voters out of women without pro-choice otherwise? the? >> that's an interesting question. i think that, yes, there are people out our questionnaire is very simple. a lot of organizations, in order to give the organizations support, have a questionnaire. some of them, you've seen them, some of them are pages long. and really complicated.

ours is two pages long out and i think for questions or five questions. and basically all we want is a yes or no answers. there have been instances, and i say that blanche lincoln and mary landrieu were two of those that when you first saw our support they said that they would support partial-birth abortion to save the life and health of the mother. and when it came time to both vote, they didn't. and that's why we no longer support them. and so i think that, i think that perhaps they did state that so that they could get our support. and i know that when senator lincoln was running for reelection, you know, after we decided not to support her, she really wanted our support and kept getting overture from various places. but she had so demonstrated that she was not as pro-choice as we need her to be, that we just

never went back. we couldn't, we couldn't support a. so yes, i think there has been instances, particularly, you know, here's a vivid one. we worked through this one but when claire mccaskill did her debate on "meet the press," she basically said, she was only four coaches on pro-choice in some circumstances. like, the organization, the phones are ringing, what did she just say? and we had a conversation with her. clear, you said this. like what did you mean? that's not what i meant. it was in the heat of the moment, that kind of thing. so, you know, yes, i think that there are unfortunately, that does happen sometimes. you know, it's really incumbent upon us as the organization to figure out genuine they are about supporting the issue that we care abou country and. which is why we don't, but for the senate six that we know have a track granted, we don't

support every pro-choice woman that gets into given many that we have supported, and we kind of try to work with them and watch their campaigns a little bit, how the campaigns are unfolding, what they're saying on the website, what you're talking about -- >> sometimes it's hard to have -- it's not all black or white. it's not a great area. manipulating.

this event is one hour and 20 minutes. >> thank you very much. it's a pleasure to be here in my cities i've visited many times because of the years they spent so much time writing about microsoft and i used to come to this bookstore downtown. i love the new location. it's one of my favorite. it's great to be here. anyway, why did i write a book about facebook?