needs to do all i can to support manufacturing particularly like in the back country to drive public sector jobs growth. >> i think my honorable friend is absolutely right. what we need to have as i said a rebalancing of the economy where we see more technology, more aerospace, more manufacturing and a greater emphasis on those things and what we're seeing is actually recent figures showing good strong growth, up to 5% a year in manufacturing output and even stronger figures in terms of manufacturing export. what the government can do to encourage that is make sure we're delivering what manufacturing businesses want, which is less regulation, lower taxes and a real boost in apprenticeship which is government is putting in an extra 75,000 apprenticeships that this government is putting in over and above what labour planned. >> does the prime minister agree that the bankers do a bad job in lending to small businesses and the real economy and the police do a good job in helping to cut crime? can he explain, therefore, why he is cutting police pay whilst

letting the bankers walk away with nothing. >> we have a 2.5 billion pound levy on the banks each and every year which is going to raise more in every year than labour's bonus tax raised in one year. so we are getting money out of the banks into the treasury. we're seeing the bonus pools come down and we're seeing the bank lending go up. none of these things happened under the last government. >> john baron. >> mr. speaker, the lower courts have agreed with basil and council that the traveller site should be cleared because because the previous government stopped the council taking action the site has mushroomed in size. would the prime minister meet with me to discuss this to ensure that justice is done? >> well, the honorable member has persistently raised this issue and i know he speaks to many people about his sense of unfairness that there is one law that applies to everybody else and on too many occasions and another law that applies to travelers. what i will do is arrange a meeting between him and the

secretary of state for local government so they can look at what more can be done to make sure we have real fairness, genuine fairness for all communities in our community. >> order. point of order, mr. angus mcneal. >> thank you very much, mr. speaker. there was a debate scheduled on the coast guards one of two debates they planned to speak in -- >> just before the honorable gentleman raises his point of order can i appeal to -- >> so we can proceed with subsequent business including the point of order for the honorable gentleman. >> here on c-span2, we'll leave the british house of commons now as they move on to other legislative business. you've been watching prime minister question time aired live wednesdays at 7:00 am eastern while parliament is in session. you can see this week's question time again 7:00 and 9:00 pacific on c-span. and for more information, go to

c-span.org and click on c-span series for prime minister's questions plus, links to international news media and legislatures around the world. you can also watch recent videos including videos dealing with other international issues.

>> state department official robert hor mat yesterday that the united states needs to invest in education, infrastructure and innovation to become globally competitive. he argued in favor of a national energy policy. he was at the national association of business economics conference. this is an hour. >> well, thank you, rich. and, you know, it truly is indeed an honor and a pleasure for me to introduce our keynote speaker this afternoon who is currently the undersecretary of state for economic energy in agricultural affairs. bob wasn't born too far from here. it was just up 95 in baltimore although i think 95 probably did not exist. [laughter] >> but he spent the early years of his -- [laughter] >> spent the early years of his

life in baltimore and graduated from high school from baltimore city college which happens to be the third oldest public high school in the united states. after that it was up 95, maybe it did or did not exist at that point to boston. where he matriculated at tufts university and gained a concentration in economics and political science from tufts in 1965. he stayed at boston for the next five years earning a master's degree in 1966 and a ph.d. in international economics in 1970 from the fletcher school of law and diplomacy at tufts. as you can see, i think his chosen fields, the kind of intersect economics and foreign policy will actually come to define his career over the subsequent 40 years. then it was back down 95. past through his hometown of baltimore and landing in washington d.c. where he served as senior economic advisor on the national security council for directors, kissinger,

scowcroft and brzezinski and he served as deputy secretary of state for economic and business affairs serving there from 1977 to 1979. then to str where he served as ambassador and deputy u.s. trade representative from 1979 to 1981. back to the state department in '81 and '82 where he got his old job back this time as a promotion as assistant secretary of state for economic and business affairs. now, if you follow his career up to this point, what you notice up to this point he's been in the public sector the whole time but he's served both in democratic and republican administrations. and nixon, ford and carter administration as well as the regular administration and clearly he works for a democratic administration today. and, you know, yesterday we heard that, you know -- because of the political problems in

washington today, there's a spirit of compromise has somewhat broken down and obviously bob's public service shows that it doesn't necessarily have to be that way. well, after being in the government for 12 years it's time to make money. now it's up to 95 to manhattan where he goes to work as an investment banking for goldman sachs. took a number of positions bole in developing companies ending up with the emerging market companies and rising all the way way to vice chairman to goldman sachs. bob came full circle then in 2009 when secretary of state clinton asked him to take on his current role, which he was sworn in on september 23rd, 2009. he continues to serve his alma mater as member of the board of overseers of tufts university. he's also a member of the trilateral commission and he's on the board of directors on the council of foreign relations. i'm sure some of you have read

"the president of creation" which is "da vinci code" atchison's memory who was secretary of state for president truman from 1949 to 1953. and the name of the book draws its title from the fact that atchison, among others, was present, you know, when the whole world as we know today was created. and not only, obviously, it was atchison was present there but gentlemen like george marshall, clark clifford, john mccoy and george kennan, all these people had a hand in building the creation of the post-world war ii era. and the remarkable thing about these gentlemen was the fact they could go in and out of the public sector and the private sector and they clearly had a deep understanding of economics and foreign policy. so why do i mention these gentlemen from a past generation? well, when i look at bob's resume, i think that he resembles them in many respects. like them, bob has moved back and forth between the private and public sectors serving in

positions at the highest level of banking and finance and into u.s. government. he clearly has a firm understanding of both economics and foreign policy. and when i think of atchison and some of these other gentlemen who are present at the creation, words like public servant, internationalist, bipartisan, all spring to mind and i think many of these words are fitting when one looks at the career of our speaker today. so, therefore, i'm very pleased and honored to introduce today's keynote speaker undersecretary of state. [applause] >> well, thank you very much, jay, for that very kind introduction. i can see we share a number of things in common. both of us -- we worked and i used to work for a financial institution but we also share a common interest and love of history and you obviously do

having gone back and taking a look at the period that you've described. and it's very appropriate, i think, as a lead into what i'm going to say today about the relationship between where we are today and where atchison and marshall and truman and others were at the end of world war ii. first, let me apologize for being late but i was actually at a celebration that secretary clinton and michelle obama held for the 100th anniversary of world women's day. and i mention this if part because it was very impressive to see women leaders from all over the world there and it took a little longer because all had very interesting things to say. but prior to this, i was talking to secretary clinton and mrs. obama about this and i was explaining that i was going to give a speech at lunch. and we were sort of reflecting on the role of women in

economics. and the point that i try to make in various speeches, when i was at goldman sachs we published a report that said, women hold up half of the world. it's a chinese saying. it's certainly true in many parts of the world, at least half the world, because of the role of women in economies. and if you -- if you think back on the american economy over the last 100 years and you look at what really have been the major changes, one of the most significant changes that has enhanced opportunity and productivity and many other things is the fact that 100 years ago the role of women was very confined to a very few areas. and now we've seen over the last 100 years not perfectly yet and there's still a way to go but the growing and more significant role that women are playing in the american economy. and i look around the world and you look at developing countries, particularly, the

arab world but many other parts of the world as well. one of the several reasons they're not living up to their full potential and this was described today by a number of the women honorees is that they do not give women the chance to participate fully or in some cases virtually all in their economies so they're depriving themselves of half of their human capital. of half of their economic potential. and i think it's increasingly clear when you look at economies around the world and you determine how they're likely to achieve progress over the next five, ten, fifteen, years if they do not allow women the opportunity to participate fully in their economies and give them the education they need and the opportunity they need and the rights they need and a variety of other things, those economies are going to dramatically underperform. and, therefore, i think given the fact that i'm talking to a group of knowledgeable economists who do follow

economic growth and productivity and were also celebrated in national women's day i thought it would be a useful thing to mention that because it's too frequently ignored. and if there's one of many lessons from what's going on in north africa and other parts of the arab world is that liberation has to include liberation of women. it has to include women's rights and women's opportunities. if there really are going to be democracies and there's really going to be economies in which participation is meaningful, that participation has to include men and women equally and fully. and i think this is something well worth today. [applause] >> and i think you'll -- some of you may be able to see on c-span the conference that took place, the festivities and there really

were festivities honoring these women but i think it's something that i believe in. i've seen over a period of time. and this is going to be very important -- it is a very important theme for the state accident. it's very important for secretary clinton and it's very important for me and i think it will be increasingly important for these economies that want to grow in the future in the arab world in particular. so perhaps that will be one of the lessons when you see people in liberation square in egypt, they're not men, they're men and women and the women are just as active, just as participatory and just as expectant that their rights will be provided to them and this is something we'll keep a very close eye because it will to a large degree will determine the future of these countries. the second point that i wanted to touch on and that jay also touched on is the historic point about where we stand today in

the global economy. and you -- when you look at the way the world was after world war ii, there were no institutions. essentially. one of the reasons for world war i and world war ii and particularly for world war ii was that there was no equivalent of the international monetary fund. there was total monetary chaos. there was competitive evaluation and no country took responsibility for the global economic system. there was no world bank to help developing countries. many developing countries were colonies at that point. and there was certainly no world trade organization -- there was no trading rules. you wanted to be protectionist, there was no international set of rules to constrain you from doing that. if you wanted to do irresponsible things you did them. and the united states did them in very destructive ways but

other countries as well. but after the war, there was an understanding by president truman, by secretary marshall, secretary atchison and many others and people on the other side and others on the european side that you needed to create institutions. there were strong men during the war who did a number of things on our side to help win the war on the european side in some cases did very destructive things but they were not bound by any institutions. they were -- they did things and many of them were done in a very irresponsible way but countries themselves quite apart from their leaders could behave irresponsibly. after the war there was an understanding if you're going to pull the world back together you're going to have to have institutions and, therefore, they built up the institutions of international economic cooperation and financial cooperation that we see today. and that served the world very well for the decades well after

the war up until the present time. but what we face now is really a very different kind of world compared to the world we faced in the 1940s and 1950s. and the big difference, i think, is that we have today countries participating in the global economy that were not participants in the global economy 30, 40, 50 years ago. and we have a huge number of individuals in those countries who were not part of the global massive of international consumers. they were behind the iron curtain or the bamboo curtain in very rigid economies. state-owned -- state-controlled economies with very little real economic opportunity. and now we face a very different world. we face a world with a number of

rapidly emerging economies that are major players on global finance, on global trade, on global technology and on many other areas as well. so we need to find ways of ensuring that in this system that was developed and nurtured after the war we find a place for these emerging economies to play a role. they benefited enormously from the system. now i think it's just as important that they assume greater responsibilities for that system. and this is a rules-based system so gradually one of our goals, one of our challenges is to bring these countries into the global system in a constructive participatory way where they guideline benefits which they have been achieving but also assumed responsibilities for making the system work. these countries, though -- if you look at them, the changes that have occurred are not just in the economic power but in the way the system works. that is to say, if you were to

look at the world 30 or 40 years ago, how did capital flows go? gave capital flows flow from industrialized to developing countries for the most part. now we see developing countries as major in some cases in china and some other countries in east asia in major capital and the united states a major importer of capital so that the nature of the financial system has changed. we also see that in terms of leverage, the average leverage of -- of large emerging economy today as a portion of gdp is roughly half that the large industrialized countries. so these countries have not levered themselves up to the same degree that the united states and many countries in europe and japan have. so the way the financial system is operating is very different from what we imagined that.

a third is that we have had a very interesting set of experiences with state enterprises, state-supported enterprises. for a while after world war ii states played a major role in economic systems in most parts of the world. then we went through this massive period of privatization where the role of the state diminished. now we see the role of the state rising again. another -- again, another 21st century kind of problem. you have state-owned enterprises not just china although obviously they're major in china. you see many of them in the oil industry. you see many of them in various areas of high techology and the difference is not just that that the state play as greater role in those countries and you see them in egypt where you had state enterprises that were either owned by the state or the people who owned the companies were very friendly with the mubarak family or were supported

by the military. this is true in many parts of the world as well. so increasingly, private sector enterprises are competing with state enterprises but you not state enterprises but state enterprises where the government has an enormous amount of resources to support those enterprises using various funds that have been accumulated as a result of the accumulation reserves or providing special benefits with respect to regulatory latitude or providing special export subsidies for these companies. so again another 21st century kind of problem. how do we protect or how do we create a level playing field where state-owned enterprises do not distort trade and distort international competition vis-a-vis private enterprises that don't enjoy the kind of preferences or the kind of

financial support or the kind of special legal support or the kind of advocacy that some of these state enterprises or state-supported enterprises enjoy? again, a major challenge because this notion of state-directed capitalism or state capitalism has become quite appealing to certain in part 'cause it seems to work very well in china. there are a number of negatives, however -- it's not as attractive as it seems and i think one of the things we need to do is to explain to governments and individuals that this model that looks so attractive for the moment may not be. first of all, if you're an emerging economy that decides this is a good model, you're really competing for resources and for the ability to subsidize with countries that have much deeper pockets like china. and i think that's an unenviable prospect for some countries, developing countries, with fewer resources.

second, to the extent that governments provide special flows of capital to certain privileged entities or entities that they own or that the friends of the leaders own, that makes it harder for younger entrepreneurial startup countries to get the resources and the regulatory benefits or the land or the other kinds of support that they need to thrive. i think this is yet another reason that this state-supported model which again looks attractive for a moment may not be. as you will recall, people who worked on this, the french had this very model. the japanese had a model where the state played a greater role but many of them have come to realize that that caused in some cases continues to cause major distortions. so we're going to have a long process of trying to work out a set of common rules that produce what is known as competitive

neutrality so that state-supported enterprises do not distort competition vis-a-vis companies that are not supported by the state. another area that is a 21st century kind of problem is the people who started the gaap and the world bank never envisioned the internet. and the speech secretary clinton gave a speech and i'm going to give a speech on very much tonight on the role thing. the role of the internet is really quite dramatic and if there's one thing we know, we've learned if we didn't know it already, the internet is something that governments,, however, they try, can't control. and if they try to control it, to limit access to one kind of information they cause major distortions in other areas. so if you try to limit the

internet's ability to transmit political ideas, you also, because it's one internet, it's one entity, it's one infrastructure, limit the ability to get access to market information, to get information about developments in the global economy. to exchange ideas on research and development across borders. and, therefore, the notion of internet freedom and the liberty of people to communicate with one another to exchange ideas within their own countries and across borders is one of the very interesting new challenges. franklin roosevelt during world war ii talked about the four freedoms which is a well-known historic speech but we're now looking at yet one more freedom and that is the freedom to connect. by connect i mean, to be able to exchange ideas, to be able to exchange information, the ability to exchange views.

and this presents opportunities for people not just to get new ideas about -- and learn about more what's going on in the world but for many people it's absolutely critical. and you could see this in developing countries where more and more people resourcefully use telephones and pda's and other devices to get information on crops, to get information on weather forecasting. and a variety of other things. so this is yet another challenge. how do we keep the internet open and accessible for the flow of ideas? the flow of financial information, the flow of economic information. and enormously challenging prospect for most countries to figure out. for the united states it's not a major issue because we've had the notion of freedom of press, freedom of communication, freedom of exchange of ideas for a long time. for many countries, it is not in their dna and, therefore, moving

in that direction has posed a major challenge. it seems to me that we -- we also need to look at one more great challenge that relates to this, of this 21st century and that is the desire of more and more young people, who are connected to the rest of the world, to achieve economic and political opportunity, to be enfranchised both economically and politically we're seeing this in the middle east and we're going to see it in other countries as well. this is -- this is a movement that has begun to grow and expand to a lot of countries. how do we do this? how -- does this not challenge many of our traditional ideas about foreign assistance? and i would say that it does. our goal now in many countries is to provide ways of supporting

entrepreneurs, supporting innovators, supporting small businesses, supporting businesses that create opportunities for people to get jobs around the world because it's quite clear that people who do not see an opportunity for mobility, for upward mobility first of all, we lead very difficult lives but second they become a problem for stability or cause of instability in many parts of the world. so rethinking our approach in terms of foreign assistance in terms of engagement -- one of the things we do in the state department we support entrepreneurs around the world, in the middle east and many other parts of the united states and we try to connect those with others with theirs and they create very interesting viral networks of communication. and the interesting point about this is if you look at one of the key areas that has been so important to the united states, which is innovation,

increasingly, if you look at all the statistics that have been done, oecd and many others, more and more, what we're seeing is that innovation is not done by any one company or increasingly not done in any one nation. it's done by a researcher at johns hopkins or harvard or caltech or stanford working with his or her counterparts in england or in moscow or in beijing or in tel-aviv or in bangalore. increasingly, scholarly works, research on new drugs and new technologies is done by collaborative efforts across borders that engage not just people in developed countries but people in developed -- and developing countries vis-a-vis one another and much more active ways so the whole innovative cycle in the world has shifted

from thomas edison working in his cellar to create an light bulb to henry ford creating a car in his garage to the internet with more and more. it's changing and accelerating the innovative process and utilize got best talent from around the world. and let me conclude on one issue that really relates to american policy and how american policy needs to evolve in this very difficult and challenging environment. and that is this. we now see a lot of people who look at globalization and regard it as a threat. and regard it as something that has been disadvantageous to americans either a threat to their jobs or a threat to stability. all kinds of things. there are people who are concerned about new trade agreements and who resist them because of the additional

competition that expanded trade produces. there are people who are concerned about more immigration when, in fact, one of the reasons the american economy has done so well is that we brought the best and the brightest to go to school here. and to establish companies or work in very entrepreneurial companies in silicon is real really -- silicon valley and many other parts of the world. we can see globalization is an opportunity or as a threat. .. >> the opportunity for future

growth in jobs and in incomes and in be opportunity lies in tapping these rapidly growing domestic markets, particularly in an environment where consumer demand in this country for the time being is going to be relatively modest, although it's picking up somewhat, but the growth in consumer demand or demand for infrastructure around the world far exceeds that at least in most parts of the emerging world than we see in the united states. so i see a real historic challenge that the united states faces today. we can either decide that we want to, in effect, retreat from the world economy or at least take only very tentatively internationalist positions in the world to impose protectionist measures or refrain from participating in international trade agreements or try to helder ourselves --

shelter ourselves from the challenges of the global economy, shelter ourselfves from various people who want to come to the united states and create job or create companies or go to school here, or we can look at it another way. and we can look at it as internationalization or globalization as an enormous opportunity, an opportunity for identifying and taking advantage of new markets. an opportunity for attracting investment from countries around the world that have accumulated a lot of capital and are looking to diversify their investments just as all of us do, and we want to develop our own portfolios. diversification is sort of a natural phenomenon for countries that develop large amounts of reserves. do we want to try to maintain our openness to the best and the brightest from around the world who want to go to school here, who want to come here to start

companies, who want to come to work in american companies as we have done in the past? do we take advantage of these networks of international research that are, that are increasing in terms of intensity and in terms of the quality of cross-border research, or do we try to avoid this for fear that we're losing too many opportunities by sharing our knowledge with other parts of the world? these are the kinds of challenges that i think is united states faces today. and the last challenge is international in the sense that it effects our ability to compete in the world, but it's largely domestic in terms of the kinds of policies that we need to pursue. and i think austan goosbee probably spoke about this, but let me reemphasize the point. and that is we tend to look a

lot and be focused a lot on what other countries are doing, and many countries are not playing by the global rules. there is piracy of intellectual property, there are countries like china that have policies that force the transfer or technology or innovation from american companies to chinese companies as a precondition for doing business there. there are a number of countries that engage in dumping or countervailing duties, there are a number of countries that give special presences to their -- preferences to their companies when it comes to government procurement. all those things are issues, and they're all issues where the united states has to take a tough position in behalf of it companies. particularly protection of intellectual property because intellectual property is so critical to the future of american companies. we're, most of our companies don't thrive because they're low-wage companies, they thrive because they have innovative

ideas and creative talent and come up with new ideas. all these things are important for us to take very strong positions on in international negotiations, and to be sure that the rules are fair and that intellectual property is protected and a wide range of other things to defend our economic interests. and we're doing that in the state department and all other agencies as well. but no the matter how well -- no matter how well we do in that area, in protecting american interests, the key point from an american competitiveness point of view is what we do at home. what we do at home in terms of education, what we do at home in terms of developing new sources of clean energy so that we don't need to be as vulnerable to can disruptions in other parts of the world as we're perceiving now. dealing with infrastructure, in many cases antiquated infrastructure, while china,

india, brazil and many other countries are building modern infrastructure. american infrastructure has, in many cases, deteriorated or at a minimum simply not kept up. how do we maintain an r&d environment which enables us to develop new ideas and keep this culture of innovation going which depends largely, of course, on the private sector but also depends, as we've seen in the past through institutions like darpa and we have an energy version of darpa now on the government playing a very active, proactive role in supporting particularly very early-stage research and innovation. so in the end my worry is not so much that china and india and others are becoming more pet i. that was -- competitive. that was inevitable. these countries for years had not undertaken major reforms. china started doing it in 1979, india in the early 1990s. those reforms were bound given

the talent these countries have, south korea and many others, these countries were bound to increase their competitive capabilities, to increase their technical skills, to become more important financially and commercially. this was part of the change in the world economy that you could have predicted. and although probably not predicted how dramatically it would occur, but nonetheless, the direction, the sign was fairly evident. the key point now is not to wring our hands over the fact that other countries are more competitive or in many some cases are not playing by the rules that we think they should play by. we should focus on that and care about it and take tough action. but the key is no matter how we conduct our international economic policy in terms of protecting trade rights and other things, we're just not going to be as able to provide the benefits for our children and our grandchildren and maintain a strong national

economy unless we deal with these fundamental issues that the president talked about in the state of the union speech that i'm sure austan mentioned yesterday, and that is to make sure what we are doing at home strengthens the environment, particularly the environment for entrepreneurial, for creative business, for business to grow, for business to come up with new ideas, for business to hire new people. that depends on education infrastructure, energy availability, a sound fiscal outlook. and we have to focus a lot more today -- the president mentioned that we're in a sputnik moment. and he was right, but i would even go beyond that. sputnik was sent up by the soviet union. now we're seeing sputniks from all over the world. there's sputniks from china, from malaysia. they're all doing very innovate i things and new technologies.

and we're seeing sputniks go up every day, every week, every month with new competitive challenges. and the key for the united states today is to identify the kinds of things we immediate to do with -- we need to do with a sense of vision about our own future to make ourselves a competitive economy. but most importantly, to insure that the companies that work here, the workers who have jobs here, the students who are going to school here are expecting a better life when they go out, when they get out of school to give all these people the opportunities to thrive in this much more competitive world. and that, to me s the big -- is the big challenge. the chinese have fife-year plans, a number of other countries are thinking long term. we have to begin to think today what we need to do now to make ourselves and make our companies and make our students and make our workers and make our research labs more competitive in the global economy not just today, but over the next 5, 10,

15 years. it's an enormous challenge. it requires vision, it requires leadership, it requires bipartisanship, and it requires a critical mass of national understanding that we're in the challenge that we have not faced before in our history, and we're going to have to live up to it. thank you very much. [applause] so i'm happy to take any questions if there are any questions. pardon me? oh, you go to the mic if you have a question. here we go. hi. >> i have a question. the u.s. economy came into this year with considerable momentum, and europe at the start of the year was also working on trying to resolve the sovereign debt crisis. and then suddenly in february we

had these sweeping geopolitical events. disruptions that probably are on a scale that we haven't seen since the fall of the soviet soviet union. and although this may be hyperbole, there is a sense that the entire -- [inaudible] of u.s. foreign policy, something went up in smoke. so the question i have for you, i wonder if you could just give us your perspective on what impact, how long the uncertainty may continue about these events and what impact it's going to have on the u.s. and global economy for the foreseeable future. >> well, it's a good question. first of all, let me say it's a pleasure to see a lot of people in the audience that i've had a chance to participate on cnbc and shows where we've talked

about these issues when i was at goldman, so thanks for that very interesting question. i think by nature -- given the nature of the uncertainty, predicting when it would end would be virtually impossible because we're now in a process where political change has accelerated at a very rapid rate. there has been, there has not been -- and many of these countries regime change, there's been regime displacement, but what the new regime is going to look like remains to be seen. so identifying and giving some clear answer as to when the uncertainties in this region will be, will be ironed out is, i think, virtually impossible at this point. the question on u.s. policy is interesting. i mean, there are, there are a number of sort of preliminary

conclusions that one can come to, one of which is a point that i mentioned, that is we have gone through several energy events, in some cases they were crises, in other cases they were simply disruptions in either the supply of energy or the price of energy. over, since 1973-'74 is when we had the initial oil embargo. against the u.s. and the netherlands. and we have really not taken as seriously as we need to the need for a robust national energy policy that reduces our dependence on imported oil. and it would seem to me that this should be yet one more reminder. the past reminders don't seem to have done it. this is one more reminder that we are, we do, we are vulnerable

to disruptions in supply or price-induced disruptions that come from the concern about supply even if supply is really not disrupted very much in the current environment. but there are sort of market concerns or concerns that people have that have tended to push the market up that are not directly and immediately supply-related. the second point that in the way we provide, i think i touched on this earlier also, the way we provide our assistance to countries really needs to involve what one can call support for inclusive growth. that is, to insure that when we provide assistance or when we provide advice or when the world bank does it or other institutions, that we find ways of insuring more and more people

are included in the benefits of that growth. and that's particularly true when it comes to younger people in most, in many of these countries. many of them, if you look in egypt, egypt has the second largest number of college-educated young people among, as a portion of its unemployed. the first -- the philippines, the philippines export a lot of their people, and they work around the world and provide remittances. egypt does to the same degree as we've seen in libya. egyptians went to libya to work. but the fact is there are a lot of disenfranchised youth in these countries. and i think one of the things we need to do is to focus our foreign assistance programs on ways of helping these countries to give these people, to enfranchise these people, to give these people opportunities both in the political area as well as in the, as well as in

the economic area. this is sort of another, i think, fairly reasonable assumption to make about, about the kind of things we need to do. the broader point is that we, we also have to recognize that when you get into these periods of very major change, it's very hard to know when they end or what the final conclusion looks like or if you can expect a final conclusion anytime within the next 5, 10, 15 years. not to say that the kind of disruption we've seen now will last that long, but what this sets in motion a lot of forces that are very difficult to predict. there's a famous statement by joe -- [inaudible] who was asked what the implications of the french revolution were, and this was 30 years ago, and he said, well, t too soon to tell.

[laughter] and i think that's the answer i would give here, it's too soon to tell. it tends to be the case that when you have these revolutions or these major outflowings of public disencannes chantment with the current -- disenchantment with the current regimes, they can lead in a variety of directions. i'll give you an example. just from fairly -- last 25 years i had an opportunity to meet with the foreign minister under gorbachev when the soviet union became russia, and you had this outflowing of support throughout eastern and central europe. and i asked them, and their view was if you allow a little bit more freedom, what are you going to see? and he said, well, he didn't, he didn't anticipate that there would be this maas i -- massive democratic movement. they assumed what you'd have

would be a lot of little gorbachevs, and there were a lot of people who could still keep the power of the state in the hands of relatively few people, but what happened was that you had almost all the leaders of eastern europe swept away, swept aside very quickly. so that it proves here was a guy who was, he was georgian, he wasn't russian, he was georgian, he was pretty close to what's going on. it's impossible to predict. i asked once, could you predict what was going to happen in poland when you started solidarity? no way could you have predicted this. and this was a guy who was very close to it. so i just would find it very difficult to make a prediction what's going to happen. but i do think from an american point of view staying engaged, working with the forces of positive change is where we have to be. not so much that we'll have enormous influence over all of them, but that we can have a constructive influence, and i

think that's what we're going to have to do. yes. >> my question is -- [inaudible] and that is i'm wondering why the state department and our intelligence services were so caught off guard without any contingency plans whatsoever over these events and what's being done now to maybe not be that surprised when the next hot spot erupts? >> well, i think it's because -- and, you know, i'm not in the intelligence part of the state department, but i think it's because there were people who understood that there had to be change in many of these countries, but i don't think very many people that i'm aware of who were experts in this area anticipated that it would come so quickly or become the way it did. and i don't think it was just the state department intelligence people. a lot of academicians who were following it understood that there was discontent in some of

these countries and understood that there were pressures building up. but very few people -- not no one, because there were some who made these predictions -- but very few people really anticipated this. so what do we do now? it's really the same answer, is stay in touch with the forces who are advocating constructive change, make sure that we have very active engagement. our ambassadors who were in the region are meeting with various groups both governmental and nongovernmental groups, ngos in these countries to stay in touch with them. but i don't think there are any miracle answers. i just think it's, it's an ongoing set of engagements with these, with people who are involved in these movements and involved in the desire for greater change and want greater participation in the system and how do we help them to get this in a constructive fashion? yes.

>> thank you very much for your prepared remarks. we, we have the goals that the administration has set for increasing american exports, and in your remarks you focused on i noticed both bringing some of the emerging markets into the rules-based global trading systems as well as the need for the u.s. to focus on what it will do at home. i'm wondering, in thinking about the doha trade talks, it seems to me if i understood things that one of the main reasons those did not go further was that some of the emerging markets wanted countries, both the e. u. and u.s., to give up some of its agricultural subsidies. i'm wondering if you could

envision the countries in general and especially the u.s. giving up on some of the explicit and implicit farm subsidies in order to achieve growth in exports? >> well, i mean, we're in the middle of the negotiations, or shall i say probably not the middle, but we're in the negotiations now. they've been going on for quite some time. what, what we're prepared to give in that area, i think, depends in part on what we're likely to get in a variety of other areas. so i don't think we're really at the point where we're putting new offers on the table. but let me make a few observations because i think you've asked a very important question, and that is what happens to the doha round of course we're -- everyone knows if you're going to get something, you have to make offers, and we have have been hg a whole series of negotiations on what our offers are and what

we hope to get out of it. i think the bigger issue really, although there is an issue people have raised about agricultural support -- in some cases subsidies, in other cases different kinds of support -- the bigger issue, i think, for the ability to conclude the negotiations really relates to, at least tangentially, to a point that i made earlier on. and that is, when these negotiations started, china, india and brazil were not major commercial powers. they were trading countries, but they didn't have the kind of commercial power that they have today. what's happened is that many of these countries still, to a degree, still see themselves or at least project with themselves in their conversations with us as emerging, as developing economies. and they do in many cases have large numbers of low-income

people throughout their countries, and many of them do understand that economic development is one of their top priorities. and they've been very cautious and, in some cases, unwilling to move toward a greater degree of openness. and, therefore, in the united states being able to make progress on the trade negotiations and particularly -- and i know the congressman will underscore this point -- to get these things through the american congress it's virtually impossible to do without having much more substantial offers of openness by the big three merging economies. russia's not in the wto, so i don't count them. although our hope is that they will be because we want them in a system of rules and be obligations, but they're not in yet. with the three big countries and some others that are in, we want to make sure that they open their markets to a far greater degree than they have been

willing to do so far because their markets are so important to american companies. but even beyond american exports and, of course o, that's our major priority, american exports. that's what we're paid to do, to support american companies and american workers, and we can't have the kind of export growth that the president wants which is a doubling over five years to create or support two million jobs. we're not going to be able to get that until we have greater access to the markets of these large, emerging economies. it's just arithmetic. and so far it's proving very difficult to get them the agree to further opening. the other point, though, that's just as interesting, i think, from the point of view of other countries is that if you're a small developing country, it's even more important to you that the chinese and the brazilians and the indians further open their markets because for many of these countries -- we have a big market, and we need to

export, but for these countries with smaller domestic markets, it's even more important that they get access to these large emerging and fast-growing economies. so we've been making the argument in the g20 and the g-8 that these countries have to open up further if there's to be a negotiation that, a, it's credible, b, has any chance of getting through the american congress and, c, really provides benefits to some of these emerging economies. so that really, i think, is the major hang-up in the negotiation at this point. one, one last question. one with last question. sorry. >> as to the financial crisis advocates -- [inaudible] a lot of support, how do you see over the next decade the world moving, more towards a state capitalist model, more towards a market economy? what role will technology play, and what are the implications for democracy? >> well, that's one of the

things we're trying to better understand now, and that is is the world going to move toward a more state-oriented economic model, but state-oriented i mean either state enterprises or state-supported enterprises or enterprises that enjoy favorable benefits from the state, you know, preferential banking and things of that nature. or immunity from anti-monopoly laws. there are a whole range of things that the oecd actually has categorized as being state supported measures, state-supported measures. i think the prospect of the state continuing to play a fairly substantial role in some countries is, is going to be there for a period of time. and i'm not sure there's much we

can do to change that. i do think that what we can do and what we're trying to do now is to say, all right, if you want your companies, big companies to be owned by the state or partially owned by the state like some of the big chinese companies, then we can't go and tell you not to have state ownership of your companies. what we can encourage you to do is to make sure that the provisions of that state ownership and the benefits do not distort international competition or distort international trade. in other words, to have some sets of rules that limit the degree to which by virtue of you being owned or supported by the state, you have competitive benefits or advantages over companies that are not owned or supported by the state like many companies in the united states or western europe or other parts

of the world. and that's really what we're trying to do. the notion is called competitive neutrality, and it means you don't have exemption from anti-monopoly rules, you don't have preferential access, you don't have exemption from criminal activity, you don't have, for instance, if you're a bank or an insurance company, government indemnity that prevents you or that enables you to borrow money more cheaply than a privately-owned insurance company or banks. and many countries that that government support or at least government backup enables companies to get money more cheaply or financial institutions to get money more cheaply which gives them a competitive advantage. so what we're really trying to do is not have -- and we really, it's very hard to do this, tell countries whether they can have a state participation many their economy or not. of course, we prefer that they move toward a more private

sector model, but if they choose to do that, we want to make sure that there are rules and disciplines that avoid there being, their being given a major competitive advantage. now, why is this important? it's important because over a period of time if you have competitive advantages -- let's say competitive financing to be, to use one example, it gives you the ability to build up economies of scale in your own market which enables you to produce widgets or whatever you're producing at a low or cost because you've got these large economies of scale, but it also enables you by virtue of developing economies of scale behind -- within your own market to be able to be more competitive in the american market or be more competitive with american companies in third country markets. and this, to me, is one of the very complicated issues that we're going to address. you know, we look at trade rules. trade rules deal with bumping

subsidies, what we call special 301 which is intellectual, violations of intellectual property rule, but it's much harder when you, when you find a company that has been given free land by the government or antitrust immunity or the bank that is owned by the government indirectly has been told, well, you give company a money at 2% whereas the market is 6% or 7%. ..to a domestic company or you

agree to a certain portion much procurement from the domestic company which gives the domestic company an enormous competitive advantage. and can be in many cases detrimental to the company, the foreign investor in that country. this becomes a big problem. how do you measure it? how do you quantify it. in many cases it's opaque. in many cases there's no letter you have to do this. but it's subtly inferred in the negotiation that you have to do it. so we're trying to figure out how -- and these are these new 21st century rules. in the 20th in the last century. and now there's such a variety of creative means which we would have sort of called mercantilism

from the past and getting these and developing international rules and norms and disblintz -- disciplines because they are opaque and we just can't identify them. and in many cases many countries aren't go to the united states government. look what we're up against here because they want to do business in these countries and they are willing to shave off a little here and there to do it. so we've got some very complicated challenges before to us make sure there's this level playing field and that even if there is a growing role for the state in the economies, there will be rules and obligations and disciplines to prevent that from distorting global markets. and this is a very big challenge for american companies who don't have these advantages and we're going to be working on this and

our biological talks with these countries and the partnership that's being negotiated in the oecd and the world trade organization. thank you very much. [applause] >> once again, i wanted to thank wells fargo securities for sponsoring this session. and join us in dallas in september. thank you all and have a safe trip home. [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> the federal communications commission has proposed new rules on net neutrality. requiring that internet providers treat all data the

same. today, a congressional hearing examines those rules. we'll have live coverage of the house energy and commerce subcommittee on communications and technology beginning at 10:30 am eastern on c-span3 and c-span.org.

>> in washington, d.c. on monday washington state attorney rob mckenna led a decision about campaign finance disclosure laws and the supreme court's recent decision in citizens united allowing unlimited spending on political speech by corporations and outside groups. this is an hour. >> attorney general rob mckenna will introduce our panel. we're also will leave time for questions because, obviously, this is a broad area of law. we have different functions in our states regarding election law so you'll have the opportunity to ask some questions but i'll now turn it over to general mckenna.

>> general cooper, thank you very much. i'm very pleased that we have such a distinguished panelist to talk about the state of campaign finance disclosure. an electric law topic which is being litigated in many of our states as i speak. when i ran for office i would never imagine in my tenure which is -- now i'm in my seventh year as a.g. how much campaign finance disclosure law could change. in fact, one of the supreme court cases i've been privileged to argue centered on the issue of whether or not the signatures on ballot measure petitions are public records or not. and that matter continues to be litigated even though we prevailed in the supreme court. and, of course, more -- much more famous than doe v. reed is the supreme court's decision in citizens united, which found that certain restrictions on

corporate political expenditures violated first amendment. the supreme court also concluded however money and politics is a crucial part of our election process. the court stated, quote, the first amendment protects political speech and disclosure permits citizens and shareholders to react to the speech of corporate entities in a proper way. this transparency enabled the electorate to make informed decisions and to give proper weight to different speakers and messages. since the citizens united decision, a number of states have enacted statutes that permit corporate political expenditures while also providing for disclosure of that political spending. these laws, as well as other election-related disclosure rules are now the subject of their own ongoing cases. very few of our states have been immune from such litigation. currently the following states are involved in challenges at the federal courts including oregon, hawaii, arizona,

montana, minnesota, florida, maine, wisconsin, washington and others. as well as some local jurisdictions like the city of san diego and the federal government itself through the fec. the subjects of these students include disclosure thresholds, contribution limits, how to regulate disclosure in the context of ballot measures, public financing of campaigns, grassroots lobbying, the level of disclosure required and judicial campaign restrictions. our panel today will discuss the current status of campaign disclosure law including the entities operating in the electoral rainy such as pac's and the different state and federal rules applicable to each. we'll also discuss recent judicial decisions including the supreme court's opinions and citizens united and also address disclosure laws in the electoral context and also first arguments

that are being raised in opposition to state disclosure laws. now, we're very lucky to have two experts in this field who share that i shall views today allison hayward is the at the center of policy of politics the details of her many professional accomplishments are listed in your materials but suffice it to say she's been a law professor teaching constitutional law and was counsel to federal election commissioner brad smith. she writes and speaks frequently on election law issues. mark ladove is council of the brennan center of justice. at the brennan center mark litigates in wednesday of campaign finance reform measures around the country. again the details of mark's many professional accomplishments are written up in your materials but before joining the rent-a-center he worked for the aclu and has been in private practice. our panel is going to begin with discussion how campaign disclosure laws apply. we'll then talk about the constitutional background for

the current state of the law and finally we'll discuss the current litigation pending in some of your states. i'll discuss washington's change in our disclosure statutes including, frankly, the stress it puts on our clients' budgets as we litigate seemingly endlessly on some of these issues. and i anticipate that our panelists will have a frank and candid exchange of views as they say at the state department. and we encourage any of you to ask questions following their presentation. so without further ado, let's begin. allison, have we decided you will start and we appreciate you coming up and we'll have this going for you as soon as i set it up. >> okay, okay. why don't you start? >> okay. i'll do it. i'm allison hayward with the center of competitive politics which as you will notice from my name tag is abbreviated ccm we recognized with one or c we

could beat the soviet union and we would buy former soviet union on ebay and mark out one of our ceilings but most of my colleagues at ccp don't find it nearly as funny as i do. disclosure in particular -- burdens protected liberties and so it's not a no-brainer when it comes to deciding thousand litigate. sometimes that burden is intentional. oftentimes it's not. but the spotlight of publicity as they say is valued not just for its light but for its heat. and as the government controls more and more information, it becomes more and more available to a state intentionally or not to sanction disfavored expressions simply by requiring activity be disclosed. now, you will be in the position of evaluating, i predict, post-citizens united and post-doe v reed and certiorari

in speech now. the constitutionality of disclosure requirement as it may be novel to your state's law. but let's say broadly speaking the constitutional law platform is something like this. a disclosure law has to be supported by a governmental interest. and sometimes that governmental interest is described as important. it's not compelling, but it's not nothing. and the interest that the court has recognized are sufficient, 'cause i really don't think the semantics is all that important. i think it's the concept. an anticorruption justification always works. it works in first amendment court speech, context to the extent that disclosure is somehow subjected to slightly less rigorous scrutiny than that. and it's good interest to evoke. information to the public and to

voters. is an interest for the government to pursue. you want voters to understand who's lining behind certain ballot propositions if you have them or candidates or other forms of issues and disclosure of supporters of candidates or supporters of ballot committees helps eliminate that. and then finally there's the aid of enforcement -- the disclosure laws can offer to enforcement. if you have disclosure and there's requirements the disclosure be accurate, the political system is more transparent. maybe you don't identify or your state agency that's responsible for the task doesn't identify that there's something wrong with the disclosure or something wrong with the relationships but the public is out there. the public knows these people better than you do and can say something. can file a complaint is usually through which that is exercised. and in addition to supporting a sufficient government interest, your disclosure has to be

tailored to serve that interest. you can't evoke anticorruption is an interest and advocate on behalf of the disclosure law that doesn't do anything about corruption. or doesn't give voters good information. so thirdly, political disclosure laws at least historically, although subject to a larger sort of disclosure transparency metric of constitutional law, seem to be somewhat easier to implement by states and by the federal government than other forms of disclosure laws and i think this gets to what the state interest is articulated as being an that interest in political transparency. is he here to argue in federal court or before the supreme court than say disclosure of religious preferences? because the judges will scratch their head going why, why? what's the interest in making people tell the world about a religious preference especially

since people might have religious preferences that they want to keep private? or prurient interests, the identity of investors in, you know, various sort of adult entertainment businesses have been protected. you might sort of in a large way think of that as a corruption interest but the courts don't see it in quite the same public corruption that political disclosures serves and also medical information and library lending information, other forms of information like that. i think those are examples of a place where the state interest is really kind of hard to be -- hard to present in a convincing way, therefore, whatever the disclosure law is, the tailoring aspect never comes out. let's look at example of cases that have not upheld disclosure. we have examples where various state actors were trying to get information about activities of civil rights activists.

so, for example, in naacp in alabama you have a case where the state has a foreign corporation registration requirement. in pursuit of that, the state says, we want to know what the naacp membership looks like 'cause we think they're a foreign corporation and they haven't complied with our corporate law. ordinarily, you would say, oh, well, the state has got an interest in controlling corporate activity within the state. the state has a lot of power over corporations but not this time. 'cause the court can see there's a pretext going on there. you know, the membership of the naacp in alabama is a very sensitive thing. more like the religion interest or the prurient or medical interest of disclosure than your ordinary practical day-to-day political interest. and they also think -- courts said, you know, we think your corporate law enforcement rationale you're giving us is really a pretext.

sorry. you don't have a lot of good will with us right now. brown v. socialist workers committee. we've got a new disclosure law. the disclosure law applies to political parties, socialist workers party says, wait a second. our members get monitored by the fbi. our members get trashed by their neighbors. nobody wants to be a socialist workers party member in a public way, which is kind of, you know, interesting that you could have a political party filled with people who don't want to be affiliated with it but that's another side issue. anyhow, the court went, hum, in your case you have shown us convincingly that disclosure is going to harm and the fact that the socialist worker party was largely ineffective in this country is not absent from that opinion. so where's the corruption maybe the escort saying? so where's the interest in voter information since there's, you know, a small fraction of these people and you're not probably going to be able to do anything anyway. no disclosure.

none of doe v. reed, the facial challenge i think the court was looking in saying in general nas brown, in general, disclosure's permissible but not here. and the in the citizens united i think you get a similar flavor and i think in the denial certiorari of speech now i'm loathe to advise that we take constitutional doctrine to assert denials because you really shouldn't. disclosure generally good -- serves good public interest and so to the extent that there is interests out there that are more important than disclosure and, in fact, are deteriorated by having disclosure, we're going to take those sort of as they come. we're going to look at the brown v. socialist workers party kind of fact pattern or the doe v. reed fact pattern that is now roaming its way up through federal court again because you might have -- you might have experiences different than the public. so i think, it's not -- it's uninvoiceable it seems to me when you look at the legal

record that what you're looking at is a place the zeitgeist and popular opinion really do inform why some disclosure is upheld and some isn't. now, i think that's kind of dangerous because the zeitgeist can be wrong and to the extent you're looking at research and disclosure laws especially the constitutional interest, there's -- i think it's a terrific article not so much because it's -- in fact, it's quite long but it's almost like a mini treatise on political disclosure that was in the 1991 pennsylvania law review journal. the cite is 140 university of pennsylvania law review 1. and the title of it, which you won't need is sunlight secrets and sar let letters the constitutional law. and they offered their observation, too, you know, history provides precedence but

also history can provide, you know, sort of an object lesson on what ought to do. and the fact that -- at some time certain types of disclosure requirements will have the public support to be maintained for a while. it doesn't necessarily mean they're constitutional and doesn't necessarily mean that your office gets a pass to argue against unpopular characters in the modern times. i mean, your goal is to evaluating and defending state laws and you're going to have some new novel approaches to disclosure. to defend. and so i think -- looking in my crystal ball they're going to revolve around issues of attribution and issues of coordination. attribution meaning if you've got a group that collects money from other entities, if you are a trade association and you collect money from member companies and then you go out and do something political with your pot of money, when is it appropriate to attribute that money to particular donors?

if a donor gives you a check for $100,000 and says please go by an ad against so-and-so or for so-and-so it seems pretty clear. if you've got a money that gave money two and a half ago in form of annual dues which was set in no regard at all to the to what the publicity agenda might be, attribution might not be appropriate. it's the case that that member country might not have no idea or liked what that trade association did with that money. to associate that source with that communication is, in fact, provide disclosure that is inaccurate. that can't serve any particular state interest now, can it? in fact, that's like junk disclosure. you have junk science in the courtroom that is science that cannot inform the jury's fact-finding or analysis maybe we've got junk disclosure if some of these very, very aggressive proposals that, in fact, i think are more serving

the pretext of censorship rather than trying to offer voters useful information. well, i'm going to stop for now because i've gone on for a while longer than i thought i would. and i will -- shall i hand it over to mark? >> yes. >> okay. terrific. thank you. >> unless there's any questions at this point. why don't we take them at the end. >> take one or two. >> all right. no problem. >> could you give some example of what you consider to be junk disclosures? >> well, the sort of hypothetical that i brought, the example of no proposal anywhere would be the extreme one that i prepared in my mind to illustrate the point. i think there are some disclosure laws that have like two-year look-backs and i'm not quite sure where the justification is for that, you know, two years previous to an expenditure, who was even attuned to what might be the

trade association's particular political priorities? to your sense? in the disclaimer arena, the disclaimer similar to what was offered in the federal disclosed act but also i've seen some state laws about this where you not only put the identification of the source but then you have some executive from the source say, hi, my name is jack walsh, and i am blah blah. it's like, who? i thought the stand by your ad stuff in mccain-feingold was kind of marginal but this is really, who knows what that guy looks like? you know, and why would that be helpful? it takes a lot of time. anyway, those are my two. >> other questions?

for allison at the moment. we'll have time for more questions later. >> i will relinquish the podium? >> okay. mark, you're up. thank you for having us. i know the brennan center have certainly been working with your states. sometimes at amicus counsel and sometimes representing interveners who are trying to go into court and defend state court election laws and we're thrilled to be working with you and i'm thrilled to be here. i should say personally before i was representing homeowners in queens county, new york. which was sort of ground zero for the foreclosure crisis that's still ongoing on in new york city. also it's a real thrill for me because i know that community really benefited and appreciated all the leadership that the folks in this room have provided on that issue. so i have -- i guess everybody has a powerpoint by but i'm just going to -- rather than making a grind through that, just kind of cut to the chase a little bit.

i should say one thing that the brennan center has been doing a little more clv presentations and if you would like us to fly out for the whole dog and pony show for cle credit let me know. really, the story does in terms of the current disclosure laws -- it really does start with citizens united, which we all know about. and citizens united has to some degree certainly helped to increase the amount of money that's being spent in politics. there is a chart that public citizen put out that i put in this slide that shows how money has been going up. especially spending by outside groups which is what we're primarily focused on when we talk about disclosure concerns right now. according to public citizen the outside spending in 2010 was more than four times as much as the midterm election in 2006. almost as much was spent in the 2008 presidential election. and obviously the friend was going up before citizens united, you know, we don't want to be one of these folks that said

citizens united is to blame for everything under the sun but it has allowed more spending to come in to these races. citizens united really does favor, you know, and quite lofty rhetoric the value of disclosure. i think if you look at justice kennedy's majority opinion it sees free speech and disclosure coming hand-in-hand. i think justice kennedy felt the benefit of citizens united is an opinion it promoted free speech. it helped voters get more and more information from anybody who wanted to opine during an election and at the same time more robust disclosure who would make sure more speakers who was speaking and evaluate those messages. and in addition, you know, i think as allison said as well there's also other interests that the court have looked at over the years of disclosure in terms of fighting corruption and preserving the integrity of the electoral process.

now, the bad news for those of us who are sort of fighting for more robust disclosure of money and politics is that citizens united really sort of overestimated what existing disclosure laws looked like and didn't necessarily recognize that, you know, all of the changes that it was going to create would have a huge kind of unintended impact on what disclosure law looked like precitizens united. so before citizens united, the political spending during elections generally well, first of all a lot of it went through pac's, political action committees, and those are organizations that would to have register at the federal level would register with the sec and state laws have their own requirements that are often very similar. and pac's registration requirements that meant that people would know what money was going in and what money was going on during the course of the election season. and then in addition, the nonprofits that were running ads during election campa