the wrong way to do it. this is not with the republican party is about. we are not about violence, we are not about meddling with slavery in the south. we are stopping its expansion. he positions himself as a safely moderate choice in the republican field while his main competitors are regarded as more militant on slavery and therefore sort of chartered by this episode in what is perceived to be their connections with brown.

>> and we need explicit guarantees to protect slavery. and this splits the democratic party, and there's also another party that forms. so in the end lincoln is run anything a very broken field -- running in a very broken field and is elected with less than 40% of the vote. so i would argue that lincoln might well have not been elected had it not been for john brown's raid. what else is so fascinating is this man who is initially condemned john brown and even once the war starts ask he's being urged to emancipate slaves, he says, no, this would be like a john brown raid on a massive scale, and he means that in a negative way. it would alarm the border states that he needed, it was the wrong way to go. but then, you know, unlike brown he's a man who is positioned depending on circumstance and, ultimately, fulfills brown's

mission with the emancipation proclamation. and one of his most famous speeches shortly before he's assassinated by john wilkes booth who was at brown's hanging, so it's all these connections, you know, lincoln gives this famous second inaugural address in which he talks about every drop of blood drawn by the lash will have to be repaid, um, you know, by blood drawn by the sword. and this is an eerie echo of brown who says before when he goes to the gallows, of course, the sins of this guilty land will never be purged away, but with blood. so these two figures who start off really in very different positions kind of come together in the end. [applause] is that it? we're all done. thank you. [applause] i don't know why i'm clapping. thank you. >> for more information visit the author's web site, tony

horwitz.com. >> up next, peter. >> wiser contends that members of congress profit from insider trading and use their political influence for their own financial gain. this is just over an hour. >> thank you all for joining us here at heritage this afternoon in our louis lehrman auditorium. we, of course, welcome those who join us on our web site on all of these occasions and would ask everyone here in house if you'll be so kind as to turn off cell phones as we begin, especially for those recording our events today. we will post the program within 24 hours on our web site for everyone's future reference as well. our guest today is peter schweizer, a research fellow at the hoover institution at stanford university. from 2008to 2009 he served as a

consultant at the white house. he is also a former consultant to nbc news. have you lived that down? [laughter] the bushes,: portrait of a dine knit -- dynasty.e and "do as i say, not as i do:as profiles in i liberal hypocrisyh that book, by the way, was on "the new york times" bestsellers list for eight weeks, in fact, and i love this quote, thepr economist magazineon pronounceds "do as i say" the ninth biggest-selling political book on the entire planet in november 2005.oduc additionally, he was executiveea producer of in the face of evil, an epic documentary based on hit book, "reagan's war," which won the 2004 liberty film festival.

and if you will ask the writer,d on, who is here with us today, the greatest film evee written. [laughter]w th today we focus on his newest book here, "throw them all out," in which he examines the way the system works on capitol hill. or perhaps more aptly, the way capitol hill works the system. please join me in welcoming my friend, peter. peter? [applause]use] >> thank you, old friend, for that introduction. it's great to be back at the heritage foundation and talking about this book. and it's nice to be back in washington d.c. i live in florida, and i don't know how many people here that live in d.c. realize it, but you are now the wealthiest community in the united states.ed you passed silicon valley in terms of net income. so washington, d.c. has the highest net income, and seven of the ten wealthiest counties int the united states are counties that border washington d.c.

and i think that those two statistics are indicative of the problem that we face today and the subject that i'm here to. talk about today which is, i think, crony capitalism. differm >> free market capitalism i would give as an example of that steve jobs, the late founder of apple computer. y giving some examples. one example is steve jobs. he joined with the occupy wall street crowd would be called the 1% decorating products and services that people want to buy. he became very wealthy as they bought the apple products. that is free market capitalism steve jobs did not have any lobbyists. he was not active politically it was the voluntary purchase people made of his product that made him a very wealthy man. but the crony capitalist this less interested in a voluntary exchange but making money out of the political system.

not services but to have connections that allows them to big government contracts contracts, set aside from the tax code and guaranteed government loans, guaranteed government grants come and access to inside information. these are the two arch types that exist today and my fear and concern is weird increasingly move in the direction of the crony capitalist away from the free-market capitalist as steve jobs is the example. money talk about the phenomenon in a couple of different areas the politicians in how they extract their wealth, in then i want to talk about the people on the outside that are politically connected and how they can milk the system to use their connections to enrich themselves at our expense. then finally does this

really matter? you is how politicians that take money under the table and have gotten rich and we always have the railroad barons who cuts be hard deals should we care about this? i think you can guess that might answer is absolutely aspects of this is a profound issue we face in the 21st century. talk about politicians first. america should be governed by self governance. the notion resend individuals to washington to represent ourselves and to be a citizen legislature. we now have a situation where elected officials can not only performer public service but do it middle-class but the very,

very wealthy one recent example from people this is a bipartisan issue a problem of human nature not one political party or the other. the first is nancy pelosi. when she first came into congress her net worth was around $3 million. in the 20 years she has served after that her net worth has gone up 870 6% which means on a compounded basis averaging 24% return on investment every year. i think george soros or worn by federal me would kill for that type of return. so a dramatic increase in wealth. have at least a large part of that is connected to her political position. what about a republican? the speaker of the house immediately before her dennis faster from illinois when he became speaker in the late nineties had a net

worth around $300,000. when he laughed less than one decade later it was in the millions and could be close to the 11 million. he did not in your money or win the lottery it is a function of him leveraging his position in order to enrich himself. those are two individuals but there are multiple other side talk about in the but. i name people from both parties this comes from their public financial disclosures and comparing their activities with what they work on with legislation and to sensitive information how is officials could leverage their position to make money? the first example is the ipo which i would consider simply a form of legalized bribery. one example is the john is in the united states senate i need a favor and i say i

need a favor here is a shoebox with $10,000 cash. i appreciate your help. what will happen? if we get caught we will go to jail. i am giving him cash in exchange for the good that does not happen so much anymore you hear about the occasional gentlemen who put $90,000 in his freezer but that is the exception to the rule in that form of the legal draft is small potatoes. you could make more money if you play it right to engage in the go kraft. let's assume i go to senator john office but instead i say i need a favor i am concerned about a piece of legislation by the way i am involved with the company and i will give you access to initial public offering shares of stock. we could buy these $20 a share then the next day when they go public they will go

at least $50 per share than you can sell them the next day and make $100,000. that is perfectly legal and that scenario goes on quite frequently. hears the challenging part when senators to engage in the ipo they do not have to disclose it they just listed as another stock transactions when you go through financial disclosure forms the only way you can find out if they received the secret ipo shares is to look at the date of purchase if it was before was publicly available for the rest of us. this is what happened with the nancy pelosi ipo that i talk about that you may recall was the subject of a "60 minutes" episode. literally nancy pelosi and her husband were given access to 5,000 shares of the credit-card company the supper club they could buy those at $44 a share and the

next day they immediately sold at $66 per share then in a matter of weeks it is $90 a share. a net gain of $100,000 in the visa ipo stock. pelosi receive access to the shares which is enormously difficult for anybody to get at the same time, visa had two pieces of legislation they were profoundly concerned about on capitol hill park out remember, visa is not a credit card issuer but a credit card company. they make the money from the 3% that the restaurants or the grocery store has the merchant swipe fee which is about 3%. they don't make their money on interest rates but this still specifically with the

issue of the swipe if the. one of those that came out of committee was strong bipartisan support nancy pelosi never allowed it and the same thing happened and the following year so for two years she took the position and she would not support or get behind the swipe at the reform. is that related to the visa ipo? i don't know what if somebody from visa brought her $50,000 cash? would there be any doubt there was the quid pro quo? i don't think so but because it is done to the legal mechanism, this practice happens quite frequently do no end congressman pelosi case there is between eight and 10 that they have participated and oftentimes getting access to stock seeing the value double then selling at the next day.

now let's talk about inside information. we can recognize over the last 40 years the size of government has gotten much bigger and much more intrusive whether the bailout for the growth of government of the health care sector, clearly government has been much more involved in the markets and the economy that means you have a situation where the government moves markets and if you have access in the position of how are you can trade on that affirmation to do very, very well. let me give you a couple of examples very briefly. one republican and when democrats. first. the financial crisis the beginnings of it september 2008. there was a series of meetings held in washington d.c. one doesn't ever 16th and another on september 18th in which ben bernanke, and paul send

and-- hank paulson and sat down to discuss the true gravity of the situation. keep in mind this is mid september that tranfive is still at 11,400. people are nervous but the panic has not said in. we know from his memoir, paul singh asked those who had to leave the blackberry's and cellphones at the door. be no based on his account that they inform the members of congress that this is the potential cataclysmic crisis that the tranfive would go down at least 20% and we were looking at potential catastrophe in terms of the economy. accordingly they were ashen face and stunned what they were hearing. after that meeting 10

people, the members of congress went out and sold a bunch of stock the next day. when congressman sold stock in 90 different companies to have other members who dumped shares in to the financial sector in those that did very well. there's also a gentlemen named senator baucus he left the meeting and the next meeting -- morning brought coulter short in? q what on earth is that? i am not a financial person but that is the options trade that is a leverage by that use short the market you are betting the market that it will go down he literally made the trade the next morning and made $10,000 while putting a couple thousand dollars at risk. during the financial crisis as he had a series of meetings writing t.a.r.p

legislation ranking republican committee literally engaged and 40 options trades that seem to be well timed and he made a lot of money. his insistence is he does not trade on inside information but this was a corporate executive rather than member of congress the sec would take a huge interest in this. there is the republican example of me give an example of the democrats. that would be senator john kerry. him in his wife are very wealthy and investment funds worth hundreds of millions of dollars but what is interesting is there is an amazing correspondence between his legislative activity and the investments that his portfolio makes. during 2009 with the obamacare debate he was on the health subcommittee which is where the legislation initiated

initiated, involved in crafting legislation to put it together and literally buying and selling millions of dollars of health care stock at the same time. and those investment funds literally picked the right-wingers pharmaceutical companies, and dumped the right losers. and bought medical device manufacturers. this is an amazing confluence of his activity and trading activity going on in. the same thing happened in 2003 when he was involved in the prescription drug benefit for medicare. his investment funds made 111 purchases during 2003 and capital gains as they were involved in the upper scripts gin benefit plan this activity goes on quite

frequently and bitterly the equivalent of allowing a basketball player on the washington wizards to bet on a game in which they are playing. would we ever tolerate that allows a starting guard to place bets on a game in which he is playing? of course, not he is involved in controlling the outcome. that is really what is going on in washington d.c. all the time. they are treating defense stock but officials are not so this is an example of the access to this information. let's talk about the third component of how they enrich themselves and that is what i call the land deal. here everybody is probably familiar with earmarks were members of congress introduce something specific to say i $1,552,000 into this nonprofit or to build this road. it is a car and -- , in part

of washington and have been criticized because people who are campaign contributors seem to be beneficiaries. but to my mind that is not the most egregious misuse the most is that members of congress often use earmarks to enhance the property of their own real estate or the value of their real-estate. how does that work and how is that ethical or illegal? it is pretty widespread. that would be done as pastor how he had this amazing increase of his net worth one way to do it was the land deal and 2004 bought 2333 acres in rural illinois four months after he put in an earmarked for $207 million to build something called the prairie parkway. what that did was make the

land that he purchased not out in the middle of nowhere any more because the road would run right by the property that he purchased in less than one year he could sell the land at more than twice of what he paid for it to the net gain was about $2 million off of the one real estate transaction. how can this be? it cannot be ethical or legal but by the standards of washington is there is nothing illegal about it the ethics committees have the amazingly lobar when it comes to earmarks. as long as congressmen hassert introduces anything the benefits themselves to show least one other person at least one may be the neighbor or your cousin benefits other than yourself, it is difficult and you can do it.

i count in the book where this have been a senator has a stake in a real-estate development earmarking $66 million and run by his brother who was part owner and the ethics committee approved it to said it is okay because there's other beneficiaries. this is the method and the techniques the insiders use and i believe part of the reason that we don't see a huge amount of difference in the growth of government and the size of government in part because all of the profit centers are in seeing government grown not get smaller. talking about the insiders let me talk about crony capitalist and the people on the outside. what has happened in america is a lot of financiers and corporations have come to the conclusion is a much

better business investment to hire a lobbyist and make contributions than two engage in research and development and there is such a bigger upside me give you a couple of examples of people that i discuss in the book to demonstrate exactly how this technique works look at the hedge fund investment community us study was done that looks at 50 different and hedge funds they found those that were most politically active to make the most campaign contributions consistently outperformed the a political hedge funds by a good 10%. that is a huge. 10% per year and the conclusion of the study is they benefit from that access to have their friends in power because they learn the things government will do and they could make

trades according way. one of them involves george soros who was often discussed for his political activism in his charitable work and the other is warren buffett that people are surprised to hear because he has the impression of being the of grandfather from nebraska who is squeaky clean owning dairy queen and he has that good american in spirit. both are politically active but both men use that activism not just to expand ideas but to help their investment decision. beginning with george soros we know he was a close friend and supporter of barack obama but we also know he had an important role to play in what the stimulus would look like and how it would be structured. what people saw realize is that the same time when it

george soros said by some administration how to structure the stimulation and he was buying large stakes in companies that would be the exact beneficiary of that stimulus and did very well. i will not go to the list here but we are talking about millions upon millions of shares of stock and just give you a couple of examples of the timing and the first quarter 2009 he bought 1.5 million shares in american electric power and just a few months later in june american electric power about $1 billion of taxpayer money for an energy project in illinois. with he bought shares of the midwest utility company then they got $540 million from the department of energy. he bought shares of nrg energy than a couple months later at 154 million. list goes on and on but one

could say this coincidence b.c. the curious pattern to invest in companies that are the beneficiaries of government loans and contracts now talk about warren buffett. this surprises a lot of people be is very much engaged in this. also a strong backer barack obama and in the 2008 campaign he had the luxury of having both barack obama and john mccain saying they would like him as treasury secretary. he did not prefer that the light the role of being the savior of the american economy. when the crisis begins immediately becomes involved with the treasury department to structure what would eventually become the public-private partnership by the treasury department and the diocese hank paulson

them and timothy geithner becomes the treasury secretary he works as geithner and literally that public/private partnership resembles a five page letter that warren buffett had written saying how it should be structured. here is an individual that is interested in helping the american public but the problem is he is literally buying millions of shares of stock in the very banks that will benefit from that public private partnership buying shares then american express, m and t bank i could literally buy them cheap because nobody knows what will happen nobody knows what the bailout will look like a but warren buffett does because he is helping to design its himself and buy them for pennies on the dollar then

the shares surged and he does very well. you have a circumstance where warren buffett may or may not have helped to design the effective bailout but it cannot be avoided the fact when he was doing so he was actively and aggressively buying millions of shares of stock in the companies that would benefit from the bail-out he was helping to design. it doesn't matter if you are an investor how good your analysts are or your number crunchers if you don't know how the bailout will be structured, you will not be a beneficiary. now i will talk briefly about the third part of the crony capitalist system that i call the green energy economy that barack obama has created and this is another example of crony capitalism. people are familiar with solyndra given a

$535 million government guaranteed loan the chief investor was an individual who is a bumbler for the obama campaign to have the sound of political favoritism i had been researching this program more than a year and if you look at the entire program can be fined solyndra is the of aof the iceberg. .. is there are least 10 members of barack obama finance committee that got so winter type loans or even in larger to three times sometimes. many of these are in worse economic shape. let me give you one example. a solar company added california largest in

venture headed by robert kennedy, jr. of the famous family and active environmentalist owning 25% stake in the tire company. this is a company that last year by its own accounting had total revenues of $13 million and lost $78 million by the sec filing it spent about six times more on marketing than it does on research and development and a confess even if the big massive project works, they may still may not be profitable that is everything they have disclosed. that is their disclosure to the sec. what happens? of course, they get 1.4 billion dollar loan guarantee from the taxpayer will that change the circumstances? no. not know they do have robert kennedy, jr. as a partner one of the individuals who was a principal of the firm

was an obama fund-raiser in after the 2012 election went to work as an adviser to the department of energy green energy grants program. see how the cycle works? you have a circumstance now individuals who have worked in the department of energy to have given many are now moving back into the private sector and working for the very people they had given as a authored sums to in the past. it is an enormous cycle of cronyism and it would not be tolerated in many other sectors expect a six of we should feel positive because it is alternative energy. pure cronyism and nothing else. i don't know if i have depressed you for board you i am not sure of the term but hasn't is always been the way? i would say no.

yes cronyism has always been there in politicians have enriched themselves but the opportunities have become so much greater and there is so much more money and power and so many more opportunities to make money and leverage our position. i was surprised to find a national journal reports that 30 u.s. senators have a family member who was a registered lobbyist nothing in the u.s. senate rules against nepotism. we have to take their word for it to when, jr. is registered as a lobbyist i am i giving him special favor we have to take their word for it and they hate to tell you this but they have been known not to tell the truth. yes, this is part of human nature but the magnitude is bigger and i have a fear we're reaching a tipping point* where it could become more and more about political connections and contacts and less about product innovation and

development of new technology. and the problem is that the capitalist like steve jobs was the entire economy to do well because when the entire economy does well he can sell more of his product but crony capitalist does not care. the rising tide is not lift his boat but his boat is connected to actions and our so the financial elite is less interested of though broader health of the economy but more concerned about access to power proposed a number of reforms that will go to them quickly never when we need to have mandatory blind trust for elected officials know where else would we accept that conflict of interest and confluence of stock trading and making huge financial decisions that we do with politicians. it stuns me and i am sure does a lot of you that they don't have that already. number two, in addition to that we need to have almost

immediate disclosure of financial transactions but right now they disclose one time per year and not electronically but on paper. there is a hearing yesterday the head of the second enforcement said we cannot use these disclosures because they are not electronic we cannot even search them. there should be disclosure within two or three business days of a stock transaction then we can know if somebody is sponsoring health care legislation and buying and trading health care stock at the same time and i think the american people deserve to know that. we have to get out of the business i don't care how favorable of giving out government loans guaranteed buy us and government grants. it is simply a politicized way to pass out favors to friends. it is not done like the national institute of health or they have academic review of grants and proposals these are decisions made by

the commerce department or department of energy made by political appointees and oftentimes not experts we have to get us out of that area. the final reform i would propose is to prevent the political class in washington from extorting money from businesses. some are lobbying here because they want privileges but there are some because they are frightened congress will impose a new tax or burdensome there looking for their survival. you have a situation where things develop better loosely called unbuilt third bill. it is not designed to pass been introduced to milk people of contributions harry reid was not serious about the bill he introduced

a suddenly a lot of his friends and former aides started to get hired by the lobbyist by the hedge fund industry and suddenly the hedge fund industry at that point* had been a political started to make massive contributions and both sides do this it is extortion for private individual did this they would go to jail but the four-- politicians to call the time. we need to have a rule that applies in this state that i live in a bunch of other states that while congress is in session they cannot celeste -- solicit receive, in -- campaign contributions. period. the extortion one and and perhaps we may have a 12 hour session of congress. that would be it because they would want to be off raising money. but to enrich yourselves and your friends who i have not

rambled on for too long thank you. [applause] >> he will recognize his son questionnaires just please wait for the microphone broke one-year last point* i know tennessee is one state that does that. could you have any evidence your proposals have been done in any other state or is it a state problem? >> yes. there are 27 states that have the restriction on soliciting and receiving campaign contributions. the other reform, no. it is a problem on this day tumble in terms of the land deals also on stock trading but probably less so because the influence of the california legislature on the vibration of companies

will tend to be less than it is for the u.s. congress. something ifs that could happen you could have to three lines of the bell there were 23 lines that said something very simple. biopharmaceutical company's word given in the bill, a 12 year exclusive pattern rather than five years. that is a huge gain can you imagine what that did to the biotech sector? there is one member who bought biotech sector funds at the same time been it popped 25% in everybody realize after it passed so it is a problem at the state level but more so here because there is power here. >> i am with the heritage foundation.

i am frustrated listening to you why have i not heard of this before? is this original research? or did you go to the press to pull the stories together? so where is the press on this? why are there not daily scandals exposing this? >> a great question and i do have some theories. maybe you could bring andrew bright part we discuss this. i will give you my thoughts then maybe he could give you his. this is original research and honestly, to me, how do i say this, it is pathetic a guy who lives in tallahassee florida who is a fellow at the hoover institution in california is the guy who had to break this story. it is crawling with newspaper reporters and it is the combination of things not to say there are good reporters out there who have

covered these subjects. but here is what happens. if you're a reporter and you come out with the story that says they are getting rich guess what happens? you will lose your access. a friend of mine says if you are a reporter for the town baseball team you say our pitching stinks the fielding the socks and management is corrupt you will not be invited into the rot -- locker room even if it is true. so the press corps years access it is also laziness they have other things they are doing more preferred to do and it takes a lot of work to go through the disclosure forms and what

you find is a collaboration between the two. people universally outraged one that poo-poo'd the nancy pelosi story was that the "huffington post" a few-- later it was sponsoring a tea with nancy pelosi if they said it was the real story she would not have shown up. those who own the media outlets want to socialize and won the access and the position and for that reason they may go after the individual congressmen but i am talking about is the compromise of the system. they don't touch that because that will undermine their source tracks lessor information. >> i will say credit where credit is due on think we would be in this position or

find ourselves in this discussion on this subject matter but for the fact of the mainstream media "60 minutes" and tina brown who works with the conservative peter schweizer who tried to approach from a bipartisan level sell it often acts as the insurgency with the carrot and stick back and forth there is the carrot part of this and the media has done up pretty good job up to this point* but when you use the analogy of major league baseball and the reporter telling the truth about what is going on, it is happening to you right now. you are the boy scout everybody knows peter

schweizer is a good guy. you have created a firestorm on the hill that has caused them to react to pieces of legislation that is being published in the emergency batch and hearings going on right now in one elephant in the room is the fact that peter schweizer has not been asked to testify end of the reason why is your the reporter who has named names the reason why this is not working well is because of our picture is in juiced up. [laughter] and this is an incestuous down. they don't like that in los angeles are tallahassee we are not part of this tiny incestuous place. robert f. kennedy said his company spent all the money on marketing. it also comes to the kennedy

brand. being in charity events for bob woodward spend his time as an environmental charity run by robert f. kennedy, jr.. they are married to each other. they do their investments together and it is as corrupt and those that benefit as well. >> theory well said. >> i think what he said is true by the way by yes, "60 minutes" was completely and totally fair in above board a new route was coming from politically and retraced my steps and they were terrific and what under a lot of political pressure on this story. they did a fabulous -- fabulous job. you are right there are a good guys out there and in my testimony i should have mentioned that. >> but the scale of this is

incomprehensible that is why the book is a must read for every day but there were hearings this week were you reach out to and why we are not allowed to testify? we have to get very specific. you on earth what people are talking theoretically about the u.s. now to lay out a factual case where we not called to testify to put this in the public record? >> i was contacted by the staff who ask for input and ideas but i was told early on i was politically toxic because i named names so on the senate side there are three members of that committee who are mentioned in my book involving the stock trades and on the house side spencer baucus as i lay out in the book has

done massive amounts of options trading when he was on the transportation committee shorting united airlines stock he has oversight. he is the chairman of the committee it is doubtful he would want me to show up. to my mind so much in this town is partisan. there is bipartisan encircling this is something they can agree on that this really is illegal but then we say with the sec have they ever gone after a member of congress for this insider-trading? no. the sec budget is set by congress and look what happened when the fbi got a federal judge to get this church warrant to search william jefferson end of this. the fbi had on all wiretap he was taking bribes and when they showed up for a

search warrant both sides of the aisle were outraged to say this is a breach of congressional authority and threats to cut the fbi budget. honestly will the sec do something about this? come on. >> since i have been up since four in this man have not been this excited. [laughter] short of being elected to congress how can i get in on this before it becomes a legal? [laughter] thank you arleta did you have to marry into a congressional family to mention how members of both parties will get into a position of power and their son will be the manager of a pizza restaurant and then when they take a senior leadership role that it comes to washington d.c. and becomes the most popular

lobbyists and the entire country i am sure it is because of their expertise and the government. if you know, when to run for office and mary entombment and the two wives at one time? i don't know about that. [laughter] >> i am wondering what will the staff of the congressional office play in this that oftentimes congressional leaders don't seem to be the brightest bolts and the staff rights legislation and plays a string too ultimately control things and write the rules that are passed on what reforms could be put in place to limit their transactions to cast light on their actions? >> a great question in. congressional staff as well are in the same position and can trade stock as aggressively as they want to.

the "wall street journal" has done a couple stories were again i found staffers from both parties are writing legislation for alternative energy bought stock in the company the value of that went up 100% and the staffers said will say i did my research. i am sorry. the problem that i have is that that sort of an excuse would never work for somebody else. could you imagine the other thing we hear i did not make the trade my broker did. that is fine but if you were a corporate executive and the sec sought of pattern of trade and said we noticed this curious pattern of trade's use at my broker did, will they just go way? we believe you? noverco they will investigate that is why we need a blind trust. it is not perfect but at

least they provide the added barrier and we need to have similar reforms that know that makes sense but perhaps tight restrictions on congressional staff because they are free to trade as well and they get access to the enormous amount of information that again could dramatically move markets the area from health care to finance to defense a couple lines of a piece of legislation could increase our decrease the value by 20% we need to watch to a government insiders are doing and there is a libertarian line of argument that says insider trading laws are stupid and it really reflects market efficiency i am not sure i would agree. but those who are opposed to insider trading laws on wall street he will say i still

want them because government officials don't add value to the market is all about extraction and so even libertarian positions seems to draw the line so the congressional staff as well. >> the title of your book is "throw them all out" could you speak to the pointer you saying that every single member of congress is involved and this is only affect the capital and the congress or throw washington? i assume it is symbolic. >> the title "throw them all out" does not mean every single member of congress that i firmly believe that all sides need to have an absolute zero tolerance policy. i am a conservative as a result by 102 vote republican but i cannot have the attitude anymore that he

is good and has a high a rating and i agree on issues if he is enriching himself i need too not support him. the notion he is our guys so it is okay i don't think that works anymore it is part of the incestuous system of the permanent political class and they play to that. the democrats and republicans and they are attacked on personal or ethical issues comment charlie rangel says it is a witch hunt. and my view is if they are enriching themselves we need to have zero tolerance policy of full-size that is the only way to clean it up it will not make any difference and it is a widespread problem involving the lobbying community and the legislature i guess the

only thing is the supreme court. >> this very low bar for contact is troubling not only do they do but it is sanctioned. what concerns me and my question is with such a low bar for unethical behavior the first time or the second time they do this, it really opens the door to any other kind of behavior. i am wondering, behind the curtain how much additional grasp goes on? the cut is the patriot class the new citizen says we need a higher standard for public officials whether it is term

limits or other kinds of things how much is behind the curtain? >> i think there is a huge problem. the way the government has been established and set up is that congress is basically supposed to govern itself. they have done a great job of that. turney wrangle is in congress and had we done and what he had been two failed to disclose we would have gone to jail and not be serving in congress although painful emotion old is not have a tangible effect. i am not convinced congress can police itself anymore and on his sleeve trying to think of the proper parallel but it is like the circumstance that penn state. with cherry sandusky.

you had potentially horrible things done by an individual and other people that might or might not but nobody did anything about it. there is a club at mentality that is codified in the law we have said dodd/frank reform bill that you may be familiar with. there was a whistle-blower clause that says if you work for the private sector as a nonprofit organization or the federal government and you know, somebody committing a financial crime who is your boss with insider trading, embezzlement, if you report them to the law enforcement agency, your job is protected. congress is exempt from that. there is no whistle-blower protection. if your boss is on capitol hill and report that i bet

you will lose your job. these are the exceptions they are allowed. i am a firm believer of transparency. i don't think you have to do things in terms to make things complex i don't think having them police themselves does not make sense but the greater the transparency the better. something that has to be done in a modified format is congress bid is exempt from the freedom of information act. literally your chance to get access to cia documents it is than private correspondence because you could apply to the cia they may deny you but you will eventually get access but congress did is exempt. i think it should not certainly we don't want people using and a political way to hurt congressional

offices but there needs to be greater transparency who they are talking to our who writes amendments. we don't know who discloses it and the florida legislature you have to sign and ride out the name of the person who wrote about the legislation. if it was a lobbyist, you know, that because it is written on the amendment prime a big believer of transparency because i believe the public is about self governance we can trust the people to make wise decisions. i think there is more than we know about. >> we talked previously you have not been asked to testify, you are the whistle-blower that they want to marginalize the way it has manifested itself is that to you are not part of the hearings you have been a

one-man creation. have any of the name to names done anything in a punitive sense to sort the promotion of your book or the publication to get the word out? >> yes. when the book was about to come out, "60 minutes" of kors was working on this story and word was getting around in there were efforts there was demand if retraction senator kennedy i'm sorry, senator kerry made a call to the chairman of my publishing company to demanded to see a copy before publication that was not granted. the talk to people and