that's just basically not fair. the wealthiest americans must be asked to pay their fair share in the best in the future success of all american, not just the wealthy few. finally, let me just point out once again we've exempted, or you've exempted republican majority tax cut for the super rich for all the budget constrains under pay-as-you-go, get under pedro, when you attack

the nutrition benefits like snape and wake anyone is more american families face hardship and hunger, pedro and the deficit seems to be the only concern of the republican majority bought the same time cutting funds for education for the poor, housing for the poor and also facing programs that keep american families from falling into levels of poverty that we have not seen before. so i hope that she recognized that by giving away nearly trillion dollars to the superrich, they're getting a free pass and more people are going to fall into poverty. i hope this committee really takes that into consideration. >> thank you very much, ms. lee. as i said earlier, i encourage the substitute on this measure. are there any questions from his late wife's mr. mcgovern. >> i just want to thank the as

for not being afraid to fail against the wind, especially given the climate in this congress. speaking up for those who don't have the cloudy here, but nonetheless, are important, i think are important. i mentioned at the beginning we had $16.5 billion of food and attrition programs because we have a deficit problem. 3 million people will do studios a result of that with the deficit problem. we've got to make choices and here we are talking about the deficit and there is no tech choices. you know, so when people comment when they tell pollsters they hold congress to such low esteem they think our priorities are all screwed up, that we can't come to an agreement on a universal tax cut under $250,000

of income for everybody, even donald trump and it's being held hostage to make sure the special tax breaks for the very wealthy or protect it. i think people are really fed up, but i appreciate you being here and hope you continue to speak out. >> thank you very much for being here. i will conclude the hearing. the chair will be in receipt of emotion. >> mr. commission can migrate h.r. 616 and a pathway to job creation for a simpler, fairer tax code for structural data provides one built up a deeply divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member on the rules. the two hours to beat on the of reform in internal revenue code of 1986 equally divided by the chair make a minority member on ways and means. all points for consideration and provides a shall be considered as several ways. all perturbations of the rule.

the amendment to the nature of substitute h.r. 6169 in part a of the rules committee report offered by representative slaughter of new york or for desert me. the amendment shall be considered as bad coming to beta for 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the opponent shall not be subject to amendment commission of a century to advance the position of questioning. romance all points in part a of the report provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions. provides for consideration of h.r. eight, job protection in recession of 2012 under restructured role. equally divided and controlled by the chair. the ranking minority member of the committee he ways and means all points of order can second iteration though and shall be considered an points against the rules considerations of the bill. the rule makes in order of the amendment in the nature of substitute h.r. eight and the

rules if offered by representative levin of michigan and oregon doesn't need. the amendment shall be a bad for 20 minutes, april 2 controlled by the opponent. they shall not be subject to amendment, shall not be the question rule-based and all points of order against the amendment put in part b of the report at the rule provides one motion to commit with or without instruction. section three provides that any legislative from august 3rd 2012 through september 72012 and a comment the journal of the proceedings of the previous day shall be approved. the chair may adjourn the house and meet at a date and time within the limits of article i of constitution time. the bills and resolutions introduced shall be numbered in the congressional record and when printed shall bear the date of introduction, but may be referred at a later time. section four authorizes the chair for deletion addressed by

section three, section five, provided each day during the period addressed by section three shall not constitute a calendar date of the purpose of section seven of the war powers resolution. section six provides the state during the period addressed by section three shall not constitute for the purpose of clause seven of rule 13. section seven provides for each day during the period pressed by section three shall not constitute a calendar or legislative day for clause seven c. one or rule 22. section eight authorizes the speaker to entertain motions in federal some legislative day of august i can't come a. finally, section nine based the requirements of clause 68 with respect to any resolution afforded to fit the legislative day of august 2nd, 2012. >> evert the motion of the john lennon. anything we understand over to the tax bills, we have the procedure measure last week and

we obviously, so that we can have time to comply with at april 30 deadline next year have a one-year extension of the tax law and we do, as i said in this rule for the first time since 1999 on a tax bill, provide waivers necessary so the democratic substitute committee made in order. we also have a subsuming order by the distinguished ranking member of this committee are for expedited procedures though and then we had a housekeeper and provisions to allow for offer same-day consideration and allow us for suspension of authority as we all know the norm as we are headed into a five plus week period of time when the house will not be in session. any amendments to the rule? >> any of the committee make in order get the necessary waivers for the amendment to h.r. eight by representative blumenauer which would restore the estate tax relief for 2013.

>> those in favor will say i ago. the chair of the motion. the clerk will call the roll. [roll call] >> three days, eight days. >> the motion of the german from dallas. the ayes have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will call the roll. [roll call]

>> we just reported for the first time since 1990 provides waivers to the democrats to allow their substitute to be considered and for the majority, mr. scott will be managing this measure and mix fodder for the minority. they should be -- we don't anticipate any marines asleep. i hope this is our last meeting and everyone has a great august. without objection, the committee stands adjourned. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> health and human services secretary kathleen sebelius joined a number of senate democrats to promote new women's health provisions from the health care lot to go into effect tomorrow. the new coverage provisions require insurance companies to offer certain event to care services without additional co-pays, including annual exams, prenatal care and contraception. this is an hour.

>> good morning, everybody. i first of all want to start by thanking senator mikulski for organizing this announcement today and for inviting me to join these wonderful senate leaders and consumer from ohio to talk about women's health. the leaders i would today have been such strong advocates for women and their health for decades and i'm really pleased to join them. today is we are here to mark a new day for women's health in america. starting tomorrow, thanks to the new health care law, insurance policies will be required to cover new vital care that we may need to stay healthy and they'll have to cover their care without charging wittmann anything out of pocket.

now, as women we are likely to be the health care decision-makers in our families, keeping our children up to date on checkups, urging spouses to take care of themselves, helping an elderly parent stay on medication or find the extra money and the family budget to pay for health insurance. but too often, we put our own health last and that is especially true when it comes to preventive care. the regular checkups and screenings that are so important to staying healthy that can be too easy to put off. what makes it worse is before the health care lot, many insurers didn't cover basic health care. other health care plans charge such high copayments that they discourage many women from getting basic preventive services. so as a result, surveys show half of the women in this country delay or avoid because of its cost.

that is simply not right and it's not good for our country, but angst of the health care lot, it's about to change. thanks to the new law, new private plans in medicare havarti began covering essentially lifesaving tests and care for men and women such as cholesterol screenings and flu shots with no co-pay and beginning tomorrow, all new insurance plans will be required to cover additional services and tests for women with no out-of-pocket costs, including domestic violence screenings, fda approved cancer shops and, breast-feeding counseling supply and a visit where she can sit down and talk with their health care provider. according to a report released today by our department, approximately 47 women in america will soon be eligible to receive this vital care with no co-pay. now, no woman should have to choose between seeing her doctor

in putting food on the table for her family and now many women won't have to make that difficult choice any longer. it is important to note that say women will see even more protection thanks to the new health care lot. starting in 2014, it will be illegal for companies to deny someone coverage because they are a breast cancer survivor were pregnant or if it meant domestic violence. and it will also be a people finally in america to charge women more than men just because they are women. in other words, being abominable no longer be a preexisting condition in this country. now, for too long insurance companies have stacked the deck against women, forcing us to pay more for coverage that didn't meet our needs and thanks to the affordable care act, a new day for women's health has finally arrived and now i would like to turn over the podium to senator mikulski who not only has been an incredible chance he and for

women's health, but is the dean of women congress. senator mikulski. >> thankthank you very much. >> good morning, everybody. what a happy day. tomorrow, august 1st will be an opportunity for women and eight at preventive health care services will be able to take a giant step forward to have access to the care they need without the tires of cost or discrimination. tomorrow, august 4, put this down in your calendar. women will be able to have access to essential, preventive services that will provide early detection and screening for those situations where they are most at risk and also provide opportunities to care and

services they need as wives and mothers. this is called the women's preventive health care amendment. during the health care debate, we wanted to do two things. we want to go to save lives and save money. we knew that preventive health care was an essential cornerstone to that. early detection -- early detection and screening provides the kind of information where we know the problem before it spread to a deeper nature. one of the most important tools we women have is mammograms did in the midst of the health care debate they wanted to take our mammograms away from us. well, not while i'm here. and what did we do? we organized with senator harkin and senator dodd leading our

committee, working with the good women in and who supported us. i brought to the floor to preventive wittmann health care amendment. we suited out. we put on our lipstick and we were able to pass this legislation. and what does it mean? it means that we will be old to have access to those early detection and screening for breast cancer, colon cancer, lung cancer, all of those dreaded the words that we are terrified of, where we know that women may get the disease that not only affects her, but the entire family. we in congress did not want to wipe the benefit. we wanted to turn to a society like the institute of medicine to say what were the essential services? and that is why they came up with the annual checkup, the

breast-feeding support government administered islands screening as well as access to contraception. what we now will be able to do is at the top killers of women will no longer go undetected. the kind of support services that we need to be healthy, to be good mothers and to be able to have our family will be able to do it. we'll than many to cost because afghan women did not seek that because of the co-pays and to deduct the bull. the very attitude of insurance company come they charge women more and we got last. three of the lemonade of those barriers. we've eliminated those benefits and august 1st, women all over america will be able to access care that they've had to fight for for so long.

i am so grateful we could pass the affordable care act that we had the support of the leadership, that this wasn't only a women's issue. it was a family issue. yes, we had the support of fantastic man and one of the great champions here has been senator tom harkin. but he was one of the prime movers in the health care -- the affordable health care act. he's one of the prime movers in the whole con to the prevention and wellness to both save lives and save money and he has been a great chance we infer we women. proven the fact that men of quality never are shy about supporting women who seek quality. that may bring up our good friend and our champion, senator tom harkin. >> boy is it tough to follow barbara mikulski.

thank you, secretary sebelius again for your dynamic leadership at the department of health and human services. and again, i cannot thank you again, barbara mikulski, senator mikulski. we'll teamed up together. senator kennedy asked each of us to have certain parts of the health care reform bill. we were together very closely to put this all together. and while we work very hard to put together a strong preventative package that includes everyone because we want to change the sick care system to a health care system, one where people could get early checkups and prevent an illness from progressing. a lot of that went into effect a couple years ago under the preventive services -- preventive services health task force recommendation. but that covered everyone. what we talk about what goes into effect tomorrow are the recommendations of the institute

of medicine that pertain particularly to women. and i was so barbara mikulski championed so hard and brought to the senate was this focus -- this focus that because women -- journey to state the obvious, are different than men and certain health requirements are different than men. and so, we asked the institute of medicine to, with the list at preventive services that ought to be included in this package. they did. best of starts tomorrow. so tomorrow, 47 million american women will now be able to get preventative services that they could not get before at no cost, no co-pays, no deduct, no co-pays, no deduct. the bill to go in. the bill to go in and get a bob menendez it annually as a checkup. i know we focused on breast cancer and others cancer screenings, but there's a lot of

other things too. protecting things like as not diabetes for a whole host of other things that women need to have a visit every year. so that will start tomorrow. 47 million american women, 518,000 in my state of iowa when they get their plants renewed will have these preventative services available to them. so we thought very hard to include these. senator mikulski has given me a lot of the plot, but would never be what i do it without your leadership. she focused like a laser on this issue of making sure that women had all these preventative services available. i guess if i had one regret, it would only be that it took two years to get here, but better late than never, senator mikulski. so tomorrow is a new day. on a more personal note, i lost both my sisters to breast

cancer, my only two sisters. at a fairly young age, when my older sister, and married and died and we went to her funeral, her younger sister, sylvia was there and had no idea that she also had breast cancer. within two years, she was dead all so. they lived in rural areas, small towns. they didn't have any money. they didn't have health care coverage. for them to go to get a checkup would've cost money, money that they could ill afford at that time. they had a number of caves. and as i said, they didn't have a lot of money, help care benefits. but would've been different if they would've had this events, early checkups, early screenings. for both of them it was way too

late by the time they discovered it, so this is a very personal, poignant meaning to me. and i just hope that women in this country now will take advantage of this and will now go and get those annual screenings and get those checkups. early detection. early detection works and millions of lives can be saved. and a senator mikulski said, families will not have to lose a parent or a sister because of breast cancer or cervical cancer, all the others. so when i hear republicans say, and they still say they want to repeal this, and they want to take this away from women? i stand with senator mikulski. not as long as we are here. senator landrieu.

>> thank you, senator harkin for your extraordinary leadership and willingness to share such a personal and moving story to underscore the importance of today. i think senator mikulski for her tireless leadership and enthusiastic leadership in continuing to fight hard for this amendment, which was adopted. secretary sebelius for leading the nation at a really transformational moment for all of. the goal of the affordable health care act is to help our nation to become healthy, more healthy and in being more help tv comedian more prosperous, economically vital nation. it is a blessing when citizens are help dan is truly a blessing when the women of the nation are healthy and the mothers of the nation are help me because i senator mikulski is pointed out in secretary sebelius, women are the primary caregivers of the

nation is so the healthier the color covers are, the better the nation is going to be. they make so much sense, it's a shame this is all illegal until today. so with this legislation, with this government requirement, which is important, a partnership with insurance companies, women will be able to get the care they need to stay healthy. tom, your sisters, to raise their children themselves, the cost of having others help me to be able to raise children as opposed to transferring some of that burdens to the society or town or community are enormous. for louisiana, and the state i represent, over 600,000 women, senator mikulski tomorrow come with private insurance, no women on medicare, not women on medicaid which will benefit as well, the 600,000 women with

private insurance will be able to access the services to keep themselves healthy and well. women working minimum-wage jobs are going to show up at the highest levels of some of the largest companies in louisiana at the corporate level. so this is truly an amazing day. it would not have happened without senator mikulski's leadership were senator harkin. were all grateful so let's keep our women and mothers healthy. thank you. senator lautenberg. >> thank you, senator landrieu. i am pleased to be here with colleagues who had the guts to stand up and fight the battle that women deserve. that is reasonably good health care, let thy arbor mikulski who always surprises us with her leadership, dynamism, her tenacity and all of the things that resulted in where we stand

in this health care bill right now. can you imagine what would've happened in february when one of our colleagues in the senate decided to bring up an amendment that would strike the women's health care section of the reform bill? now what would've happened if at the same time a women came in there and said, you know what, i think we had to stop screening for men. what do you think would've happened in this place? we might get a response to that. the fact of the matter is that there is an oligarchy to decide the women not to be doing for themselves and their family. now, there's a chief poncho as you know, at the malic arche group and his name is romney and his resolve to appeal first aid to start repealing the first day

he has office. well, we say too bad. you don't know barbara mikulski and her father ran. all of us so that when she comes in the room because she deserves our respect, our affection and thanks. i have five daughters and six granddaughters on a lot of them -- i want them to keep their mitts off my kids and grandchildren. simple as that. we will fight the fight led by barbara mikulski, led by secretary sebelius and my other colleagues here. be ready. tell those guys on the other side, tomorrow is a new dawn coming and were going to keep on shining the light on that. thank you very much. >> first, let me tell you on behalf of the people of maryland denied the honor of representing two over 1 million women who

benefit from today's announcement and my state. we are proud we have sent the united states senate one of the great leaders on gender equity issues in america and senator barbara mikulski. she has been a leader throughout her career on gender equity issues, whether it is fairness but the little event air act or the preventive health care in the affordable care act. senator mikulski, we thank you on behalf of a grateful nation, the progress we've made to close the gap on fairness and equality in health care to and i want to thank secretary sebelius and president obama for taking on the health care crisis in america and the passage of the affordable care act. our whole nation benefits from the fact that the rate on a privilege, but it's particularly important for women because more women are uninsured and the more women have been as committed

against our health care system in the provisions of the affordable care act hope to close the gap and fairness in america on health care. secretary sebelius mentioned some of the provisions that take effect. we are at it no limits on lifetime caps, which affect women more than men by 2014 the annual b. gone on the insurance policies. we talked about the preexisting conditions where children are in effect by 2014. women who have been discriminated against are really the poster children for why we needed to eliminate testing conditions. that will end in 2014. higher premiums charged women just because they're women. that will end. but on august 1st tomorrow, there are new provisions to take effect. i want to highlight one very quickly. the premium rebate so insurance companies have to give value for the premium dollar that takes effect on august 1st.

once again women are going to benefit from that provision. i'm particularly proud of the preventive health services you heard about. senator mikulski was responsible for the magnet that we put into law. the fact the institute of medicine would do a study asked about preventive services are needed for women. it's their report and recommendation we are not implementing tomorrow that would give women the preventive health care services they need without copayment. this is an important day as they continue to make progress in america to provide quality affordable health care to all the people in the nation i'm proud to be a senator mikulski's team. but that, let me introduce senator shaheen. >> thank you. tomorrow, august 1 is a great day for women and families in this country because tomorrow,

the provisions of the affordable care act that are so important to women go into effect and i want to thank senator mikulski, senator harkin and all my colleagues here for the work that they put into making the affordable care act and these provisions the law. the data is very clear. these provisions as senator harkin said so eloquently will save lives. now opponents may not want to pay for those, but the reality is that because these provisions are going to go into effect tomorrow, that women will be better off, their families will be better off in as they look at the underlying cost of health care and assist them, we will be more cost effective with these provisions. so it is a great day for women and families. >> i am really proud to follow senator shaheen and to stand

today with some of the giants in the senate and i agree with everything that has been set except it ain't frank lautenberg use the word surprised by senator mikulski's tenacity and tireless mass and as someone who i've really come to admire i am not surprised, but admiring. there are two giants who are not with us today who stood strong and tall. senator kennedy and senator dodd and i am very honored to follow senator dodd and the senator from connecticut whose citizens 270,000 of them will benefit tomorrow. they will see this new day a new dawn and it would be a great day for america because it combines the quality and equality. it saves lives, but it also saves dollars for anyone who may be impervious to the life-saving

effect of this measure. let's talk about dollars, prevention and detection save resources and asked fans and they will drive down costs as we must do and our health care delivery system. so we are talking here about diabetes screening, cancer screening, that means attacking and stopping disease before his costs spiral astronomically out of control and that is a great day for all americans. it's a great day for families because when a mom or gets sick, the entire family suffers. it is a great day for health care delivery system and i think it's an historic day for america because we are seeing here today we will not retreat. we will not repeal, we will not

reject a step in the right direction, showing washington get this done. we can break this gridlock. we can move forward and i want to thank my colleagues for their great leadership and introduce someone who is any chance the end of health care. senator brown. >> i thank you, senator blumenthal. there have been a member of heroes in this country, some well known, some not so well known fighting for gender equity. barbara mikulski, no one has done it longer or better than she has. i was in columbus two days ago with lilly ledbetter, someone who stepped up and because of her site, women around this country come especially lower income women are making more money than they would have otherwise and earning but they have to learn because of her affairs and i will be introducing any moment in other hero in the fight for equity for gender equity in health care for

women. at about a year and a half ago i was in the hometown in toledo and renounced his people across the country announced the beginning that began the efforts through medicare on preventive care starting in early 2011, some 600,000 women in ohio, senior women in ohio began to have preventive services, mammograms, various kinds of physicals, a no co-pay, no deductible. this is the beginning. tomorrow in my state, when 8 billion women will have access to these services. notable among them and the story you will hear from and creationists is not a typical story. someone with a courage that she's stoned perhaps, but it's all too common. she is the mother of order -- he

says for kids in the grandmother of 12 cable as though she says to me. she is from holland. she is a story to tell with numbers we had, hundreds of thousands in other states, but she is really the reason that we all make these fights. i remember in the health committee with senator mikulski and tom harkin as they rose some of the preventive elements in this bill and how important they were paying me to do the right thing and it's really because the people like anne creech that we know are out there, living the life and caring about the community and she is willing with all of her illnesses over the past willing to step up and fight in an ongoing way. she's an activist in toledo and here and were proud to have anne creech with us. >> thank you, senator brown and senator mikulski. it's a pleasure to be here and

it is an honor that seem to scene to everybody speak. three minutes is kind of a testing to stay stay with when you're playing with human life, but that's exactly what i'm doing. excuse me? i am a three-time survivor of cancer. you live with cancer every day of her life. it doesn't just go away. i've been very fortunate and very blessed. my first bout was when i was diagnosed with breast cancer and i did have insurance thankfully. i also had checked my cell for 18 years because when i was 18 or so they found a lump in lucky i had a talk or said to self-examination and watch out and pay attention to your body. i did find my lump when i was 36 years old. i did have insurance then, so i was lucky i did double mistake demeans and i had eight other surgeries for repair work that was done because of the mastectomies. it all worked out great and i was in 1882.

in the year 2000 was diagnosed with colorectal cancer. i will tell you with no signs at all until i found blood one day. i thought because i paid attention to my body that they shouldn't be. so i called the her right away and made it a sigmoidoscopy on me and found a large tumor that they felt. they all felt it was a ten-year growth of that tumor. i was 55 years old at that time. that was 11 years ago. had i had a colonoscopy at 50, cancer might have been avoided. at 45 and we never had to go through anything. thankfully, and i say that very much, thankfully a good insurance at that time because i ended up washington d.c. down here at a hospital for a very special procedure that a dark area had caught and it all over the world and i was fortunate to get into him to have a tumor removed. when i came back than that -- i

had to have much more extensive surgery and it was back to columbus ohio because nobody's really wanted to work on me in toledo. the expertise wasn't quite there at that time. now we come forward and i was diagnosed with breast cancer. i called my insurance company right away because the insurance that i finally got i was denied insurance after my employer had asked me right after my colorectal is that please go off the insurance because i was costing everybody to mention the company. the figure he gave me and i later found out is costing the company, not the individuals. there were several individuals and there's no way of one of them to pay extra money because of me. i said of course i would check out further insurance. i had no idea what i was walking into. i was refused by several insurance companies. i finally ended up with open enrollment.

the cheapest until i ended up with what i did with 650 a month. i family ended up at about 385, but i was on total life exclusion for cancer and respiratory respiratory came up because apparently to the anesthetic i got a little bit of copd from the colorectal surgery. i don't take any medicines or anything but i'm denied. in 2010 when i got we diagnosed it called the insurance company right-of-way et cetera you going to cover me? they said probably not because of it comes back indicative you don't reach your doctor will. i got what i call the park, but i'm not a sick person. i do get cancer but i don't know why. it came back positive because i cancer it was a preexisting condition they were not going to cover me. i canceled my insurance rate than in there because i was paying money and not getting anything back. luckily it was approved for the program through ohio, which is a

and cervical cancer. my one day surgery was almost $4000. i am single and that would've really put me back. so it's very fortunate fortunate to have that and i'm very glad they took over. i still had about 8000 to $10,000 on land, but that was a sure difference from $40,000. [inaudible] pardon me? [inaudible] >> i'm just a voice he represented as an somoza people,, women and men. that being a woman, i can't even tell you how much we appreciate what you are doing and how much the impact is going to be young women. most of the people i know around here women fighting cancer. i have a friend fighting for cancer. a recurrent spending years ago. she can't move. she can hardly get in and out of her car. she can't go out in her backyard in the sun because this is too hard for to get down and out.

getting out of her bed is a project in the morning. she could be around for another six to 10 to 20 years because until bone cancer hyster vital organs come you can live with on cancer for a long time. i will tally was painful. so to live in a world of pain and agony and fear you when you hear the words you've got cancer, i would say was a paralyzing moment. once you get past the moment you decide what to do because that decision in itself is gigantic. until you make that decision, you're in a very black hole and then you move forward into which you do and make up your mind to get better. but the screening and the testing and learning about your body and being educated is so very important because these can be avoided. i know i would not have had colorectal cancer if i would've had a colonoscopy before the time i did. it could've been avoided. my breast cancer could've been worse had i not notice at an early stage.

i have been very lucky. there are thousands, millions not as fortunate. i'm just going to throw one thing out. i'm talking about just cancer patients now abound, but if you take 9/11 and you take a 9/11 every other day of the year, then you have the same amount of people that are dying from cancer in our country. it was terrific. it was every expletive you could think of. but these are people dying day by day and living with pain and fear and devastation, financial devastation. some losing their families. i do have four kids and 12 k. lists. i look at them and i don't want to go to the same thing i went through or of seeing my friends go through that i left another two months ago my sister was diagnosed or meant to do it and this is tough. it's very tough. and this is tough. it's very tough.

and all of you that have supported the senate putting this and all of you that have supported the senate putting this into a fact and i am poor upon you to go in the strong voices to the people that are not putting human life is a top priority. i don't understand how they can't. these take those voices and strong. i would like to introduce marcia greenberg and she is a founder and copresident of the national women's center. [applause] >> before marcia and judy, up, i just want to thank anne and all the advocates. anne's testimony pitches were up at the cancer society current cancer action network, national women's law center, judy glickman and the national partnership for women and families. we couldn't have done it without each other. we are all in it together. i want to thank the advocates.

of course it is their voice that really brought this to the floor. many nice things were said about me today, but really you have to talk about the people in the trenches every day, the people who are affected, the people who give voice to the law, the statistics and so on. i want to publicly thank them because they could never have done this without they are credible, incredible before appeared are credible personal narrative shows why we would never repeal or even try to repeal this bill. and so we will fight it. now one of the great leaders, marcia. >> thank you all of the champions for women who are here in this extraordinarily exciting day. your story is such an amazing

remainder that we are not talking about specifics. we are talking about people. we are talking about the most heart wrenching health circumstances that can be avoided and certainly ameliorated with access to the health care system, with decent health insurance for every american in this country. that is what the affordable character promises. and with this preventive health care coming a fact tomorrow for each new plan as it comes online, the promise for women and their families is just incalculable. i like to just add a few things to what is our deep inside so movie by others who have spoken earlier. first of all, it's actually the 40th anniversary this year the

national women's law center. step-by-step by step effort i have heard has taken this long and longer to reach today when women's health is not an afterthought. when it isn't an add-on, when we are trying one service at a time to get included. when the model can include an health care can include women as well as man. and that is really what is so fundamentally thrilling about what we are on the brink of experiencing. because of this affordable care act and the health care amendment that senator mikulski led to its passage, women are

not only not a preexisting condition, but we have had experts identifying from the get go, what is it that makes with unhealthy? what are the services women need? they need to be included. they need to be a part of what is available in this country. not through charity, not through happenstance, but because the law incorporates women's health as its fundamental purposes. the national women's law center and number of years ago today report of the individual market and and told pretty movingly how difficult it was to be on your round and have to buy health insurance. and what we found was that women who had had to buy insurance

were not only charged routinely more than man, as much as 85% more than man, but also that was excluding maternity coverage, excluding contraception. now, we will face and meet today when women are not charged more than man and their health care needs are covered, whether it is counseling services as domestic violence survivors. whether it is the kind of testing to try to detect gestational diabetes. whether it is the availability of all forms of fda approved contraception to women no longer have to avoid because of the

cost the safest and most affect a means of contraception for them. whether it means a well woman visits so maternity coverage and follow-up is available for women. these kinds of services are life-saving. they are recognition of the fact that as has been said, women do have to take care of their health and often are, because of the cost, the first ones to put their health care last as they take care of others. it is each new plan turned sober, and women across this country and their families can really let out a sigh of are they that they would get access to this coverage once and for all, we have a lot to be

thankful for, but we know that it didn't come out with effort, fight, leadership, determination and we have to continue all of those efforts to keep this progress in place. one of the things on the banner is a hash tag or health. i know there's going to be a lot twee teen and following through today and tomorrow of all of the important aspects of what this new day will bring and what it promises over time. so it is important to stay involved and stay engaged in stay in the fight we continue this progress and make sure it turns into reality for every man, everywoman, every child in this country. thank you.

>> i forgot to introduce a dear colleague and a dear friend, judith lichtman from the national college for women and families. >> thank you senator mikulski and of course secretary sebelius and all the wonderful champion on behalf of the affordable care act and of course finance health. this law is the greatest advance for women's health in a generation and tomorrow, august august 1st, 1 of those promises becomes a reality as you've heard from millions of women who will be healthy as a result. beginning august 1st committee affordable care act will ensure that new insurance plans cover preventive health care without cost-sharing and no co-pay. for too long has put critical services out of reach for so

many women like ann. this is one of the most tangible benefits from the reform. thanks to the affordable care act, no longer will women put up with earth control because they can't afford the co-pay. no longer what women go out with hiv and transmitted disease testing they urgently need. no longer will cost prevent women from being tested for gestational diabetes. no longer will will cost prevent the supplies they need to breast-feed and fen/phen gave them a healthier start in life. no longer will team some of those risk domestic violence to go without way of screening counseling. it is about time. the affordable care act covers

annual breast exams, mammograms at no cost. tomorrow, cost is to turn it should be reread to care that millions of women need and send gender discrimination in pricing will ask long last. as more benefits rollover should all focus on implementing the law and ensuring that all women and americans can access these critical services. to those who try to argue that repealing reform is right for this country and for her family's, i say this, you can't talk fast enough. you can't throw enough confusion or in any way to see the women of america and the man who care about them. no longer. better care for pregnant and nursing mothers screening for

the comers sexually at transmitted infections and access to birth control and other preventive services will make women and their families and our country healthier. starting tomorrow, we have the affordable care act and its champions to thank for that and we thank you. >> thank you for a match. senator mikulski had to go to the floor. they have some timer service running on the floor to speak about this and she is our leader, so she asked me to try to field any questions if you have any. >> with the help issue in the capital today to ban abortions. what are your reactions i'm not mbk peak event and the two chambers in the two parties on

women's health issues, that something will have to be resolved after the election? >> a long time ago -- i guess not that long ago i shared the district of columbia? i said then, i believed then and i have believed ever sense that the congress that the united states should not interfere in the government of the district of columbia. regardless of banning abortions after 20 weeks or whatever that is, this is no business of the u.s. congress. >> senator, the bishop has unanimously declared this regulation to be an illegal and unjust mandate. there is an injunction issued with attacks on the small business owners. >> preliminary.

right. .. sensible. i think we also have to keep in mind the lot of times we talk about birth control or contraception.

many times for many young women of child-bearing age, it's not just to prevent birth or pregnancy. there are many women who take birth control pills, for example, because they have terrible menstrual cramps once a month, some of them almost can't work. i know of young women myself to because of this are able to work and be productive. and it's prescribed by their doctor. are we now being told that a woman has to take that prescription from the doctor and tecum and show it to her employer or show it to her insurance company about the diagnosis is? we wouldn't ask anyone to do that. i wouldn't ask any woman to do that, either. so i think that we have to move ahead on this. i don't know what the outcome of the case is going to be.

i know it is a preliminary injunction while the case is decided. i don't know all the facts in the case. i just don't. but i do believe that we have carved out that the obama administration carved out a reliable exception for religious organizations and churches. anybody have anything to gap? some of my legal experts here. >> i would say briefly that it is very much in the beginning preliminary injunction in stage and i think if you look at any of the legal precedents of this particular provision is well within the legal bounds as well as being sensible as senator harkin said, and of course in this particular case a company that as i believe installs heating and air-conditioning and the like, that is what the company is.

ironically enough for those that happen to work with this company who never thought they were working for a religious company as they are and it's not a religious organization at all, they are paying whatever their share of insurance is, and so women need to be able to get access just like men can and of course one of the things we have to make sure of is this does respect women's health needs and own religious principles and beliefs, too. so in the balancing, legal and constitutional precedents take all of this into account, and that's why we are quite confident as this case and others move forward that the provisions will be upheld.

>> record of breast cancer screening mammograms become excessive and become emotional concerns for people because they were initiative positive and then . the tests are absolutely crucial and necessary. the problem is a lot of studies are coming out of increasing insurance rates. the debate on the single-payer and public option has to be retaken under this consideration explosively because what you see is deregulating the financial industries like we saw with the wall street situation. we need fundamental regulation

like we need glass-stegall so maybe you can take up -- >> let's take another question -- >> exhibit if intelligence review the question i'm asking is what are we going to do about the private insurance companies? what's going to regulate them to mandate and to keep prices low if we have real health care for people how do you provide affordable health insurance? competition doesn't simply do the job. >> on the exchanges it will starting in 2014 with the exchanges before transparency to see what is offered on the exchanges and with different companies are offering. we have different plans we can pick and choose from. i know i've changed my plan from when i was here just my wife and

i and when we had kids we change it and when our kids get older they changed it and most people don't have the option and we hope that will keep prices down but i also believe as strongly as anything that what we are talking about here in terms of moving to more preventive care, early detection is going to do more to i hate to use this phrase been the cost curve than anything we've done and this is part of the women's health care is a big part of it.

[inaudible conversations] at the foot of the bridge i was

beaten. i thought i was going to die. i thought i saw death. >> we came within hearing distance of the troops and a man identified himself as a major john cloud but all of them were state troopers. this was an unlawful march and it wouldn't be allowed to continue. one of the people walking beside me said give us a moment and the major said troopers advance. >> the bipartisan policy center hosted a discussion today on campaign finance and the era of supertax. panelists described the system of groups that do not have to

comply with disclosure laws or outstanding those that do. a recent study by the advertising consulting firm says campaign spending will reach $9.8 billion this year with about ten of that coming from supertax. this is one hour and 20 minutes. >> fellow with the bipartisan policy center, and i have more than a passing interest in this issue as a running ten campaigns for congress, nine successfully, one on successfully. we won't talk about that last one. but i was kind of there when the history changed and when campaigns began to become very effective, and so this is a matter of personal interest to me as a matter of great interest to the country but we are delighted to welcome you to the sixth event in the democracy project 2012 election series. john will introduce a moment introduce the democracy project here chaired by myself, dirk

kempthorne former senator and governor from ohio and steve case. and so, the topic today is the capitol behind capitol hill the developments in campaign finance at the 2012 election cycle. i suspect the panelists will not be limited to only what is happening on capitol hill. we will talk on the presidential race as well because that's material. sometimes in this whole debate i think the capitol hill gets neglected in the discussion and we talk about the money going into the presidential race when in fact the impact of money on congressional senatorial races is probably greater than it is in presidential races. as mentioned having the increase in pac money it has had on the elections at every level of government, over the last three decades as well as the growth of the super packs and related entities in the last few years, i believe it's important to break down the numbers and discuss to what degree money will affect the upcoming

elections and the panelists are very, very talented and able to do that. i do want to raise this point however. these are not abstract questions about money and politics, the amount of tax money, the amount of non-tax money, the amount of super pak money and invest money, hard money because the fact of the matter, these issues go to the basic essence of our democracy. and that is our our let the officials able to make decisions based on what's in the public interest? or does money prevent them from making decisions that affect people in their daily lives? does the amount and volume and intensity of money affect public policy decisions? simply put, and perhaps rather crossly, does it by votes? does it by outcomes? and if it doesn't, why is it given then have all? why are people putting this huge amount of money into our political system other than trying to influence the course

of our history and the direction of our government? and the other thing is how does it affect the issues of civility? i notice in today's "washington post" a full-page ad by the knights of columbus. the house divided against itself cannot stand. helpless mant the tone of american politics. a lot of folks, including wheat at the bbc, are not talking about tone, civility, respect for institutions, how the public views government. the question is how does money, the intensity, the volume of money and the relationship between money and lots and lots of negative advertising impact of the public views our political system, and is it any different than it ever was before? and i think that our panelists perhaps can give us a perspective on these things as well so i think this is an important topic and i want to turn things over to my moderator for today, john fortier.

>> thank you. let me introduce the panel, turn to them and have discussion and also turn to your for questions. michael malbin is the dr. campaign finance institute and director of political science at the state university of new york at albany and has written extensively both in books and academic articles as well as popular articles on campaign finance as well as other topics on conagra's and other institutions. bob biersack, going to skipper down here to my right, is the senior fellow of the center for politics. formerly he was special assistant staff director and the federal election commission, where he spent 30 years really knowing the numbers from the inside, and now we are hoping he can tell us from the outside world really is going on. rob kelner to my right is a partner at covington berlin where he heads up the election and political law practice group. he has clients across the different parts of the political

world. parties as lescol candidates and work more on the republican side it think it is fair to say as well as testified before numerous committees of congress and has written extensively on issues related to campaign finance. and eliza is the writer of the ceq roll call where she covers lobbying, campaign finance, of their election administration related issues and also spends a significant amount of time writing on the same issues for national journal for ten years covering the conference, political money and lobbying. we are going to turn out to the panel again. what we are going to do is go back and forth and ask some questions, very broad questions to start off to let the panelists tell us what the big landscape is of campaign finance this cycle. what's new, what's different, what significant? we are going to have back-and-forth faugh so let me begin with michael and ask you very broadly, first, let me pluggable reports that have come

out for the campaign finance institute. one literally off the press is on the national party coming and the other one just the end of last week on the presidential donation from the second quarter, which the numbers have come out and michael as he always does has put them in context, historical context as well as looking at the big picture of what they really mean. so, not asking you to summarize the reports, but want to put you on what's new this cycle what's big and different in 2012 that was not the case in 2010, 2008. where are we going and what is the significance? >> thanks chris asking me to be part of this. i am going to give a really big fraiman overview of what are the reports, and doing it because to help frame the conversation this morning. for those of you that are in the room i will do the national party report it looks like this.

for those of you that our catching this on video coming you can get it at www.campaignfinanceinstitute.or. the political party report was released yesterday. and as i said i'm not going to go through the details. but some of the big conclusions are worth pointing out. we will get the numbers two, four and five. all of these compared to the political party reseats over time. and we will look at in the amount of money and the sources. to set the frame, what are the main thrusts of the bipartisan committee reform of 2002 or mccain-feingold as it is more properly known must put contribution limits on money that parties take in known as soft money to read because table four and five goes back to 2007 that lets you see that after

mccain-feingold, the parties managed very quickly to replace all of the money they had lost. that is easily mccain-feingold did no harm to the political parties. and they did this in three devices. one, they got a lot more support from small donors. the committee collected a lot more from the members in congress and number three, the dnc and or ansi already got more help from the presidential candidates. as a result because of this, the parties became clearly the most important players in congressional elections. and dan asked about compression particularly. in the closing months the parties are spending more in the competitive districts and the candidates than other groups through most of the decade. this year the situation looks different. the parties are still raising a lot of money you can see that on

table to. but almost all of the increase comes from the national committee and most of that can be attributed to the presidential fund-raising committee. if you look at the dnc you can see the amount of money from the donors is out the same, but the percentages drawn from about 50% to 25%. and the amount coming from 30,000 plus is up to 42% of the total and that is mostly through the presidential joint fund-raising. the congressional party tells a different story. here the sources of funding haven't changed and the level hasn't changed. the senate has added a little that. if you ask the customer does this mean in any election and i will say more on that in the policy but others will want to talk about government.

the party receipts are level with the rest of the world is changing a lot and bob biersack is going to talk about independent spending from the nonpartisan groups, the big point is this. the political parties raise the same amount and the rest of the world changes and that means less power relatively for the party and we should think and talk about what that means. but rather than meeting that, i'm going to say what does that say about policy questions? should anything be done about that? what should the future agenda be? i can start by saying as a matter of advertisement that a lot of people in this room and putting us are going to be doing a lot of thinking about the future agenda ought to be. there's a lot of thought that has to occur. but if you think what we are hearing the noise most loudly dirty different kind of answers. on the one hand to hear those

that say the contribution limits. let's have unlimited contributions and hay than all the money will go to the parties and the candidates. well, i think that that would probably do away with the specific supertax but i don't see that is going to agree with the major driving engine of some of the others but we can talk about that. the other side says everything flows from the supreme court citizens united decision or buckley will amend the constitution. i lay out where i am and i don't fall on either of the camps. i support contribution limits and amending the constitution as problematic. but i also think that by stressing the point so much in the current conversation we miss how much of what is going on relates to the policy that is not constitutional level. it's statutory, its regulatory, it a couple of samples quickly to set the table and then let

others move on. can the specifics of the pac's as has written in the excellent columns they grow not directly of the constitution, they were out of the rather loose definitions of what counts as coordinator independent spending this is -- there is nothing in the constitution that would prevent a policy maker from redefining that. the constitution would clearly not only allow with the supreme court is encouraged extended to disclosure. internal revenue service within the constitution is looking at the nonprofit associations and many other ideas under the active consideration including ones related to the political parties we might want to get back to in the last 1i would mention is the court has upheld the constitutionality of public

financing and as i have co-authored articles that point out the strength of matching funds through reinforcing the role of the donors and in fact the a experience in new york city and the programs work increase the role of small donors to the point a counterbalance the large ones and they not only bring in more people they change the mix of people to the poor neighborhoods and so forth. governor cuomo of new york has introduced an idea that i think is a pretty good chance of passage that would extend the new york city style program to the states. most of the federal bills that on the agenda include something that looks like the new york city makes as a part of its program. not much chance of something happening on the federal level and the short-term but a pretty good chance of new york passes the reaction and a lot of states or other states so i think the

will help set at least the policy conversation agenda for the future. and having set an agenda or try to set an agenda that is a good place for me to let this conversation move forward. >> i think that you're the one we segue to. i'm from a wichita kansas. to of my former constituents for charles and david cokes or at least charles, so everyone thinks i am particularly close with this family although they actively worked against me during some of my political campaigns. but i wonder if you can talk -- i don't mean to use them just as if leal -- but i wondered if you could talk about independent expenditures, super pacs, 501 seafloors, other soft money entering the system. what are the developments? what are the trends showing in that area? >> welcome in a way this is a disadvantage because the subject probably most of us know less about and hear about every day i

will give you a broad outline and then talk about some of the subtext that you mentioned. we are seeing in this election cycle and explosion of technically were called independent expenditures. these are advertising, messages, communications with voters and others and specifically supporting or opposing identified candidates. now more than $200 million has been submitted on independent expenditures in this cycle and that comes out to everybody combined. that is up substantially from 2008, 2010 and the congressional context. but i want to stop there for a minute and because i'm old and i have seem many cycles of campaign finance activities over the years i wanted to pull back and look at how that compares to certain activities and in some cases really similar activities that we saw in the past.

during the 1990's all of these same kinds of huge contributions from individuals and corporations and unions were accessible to the parties in the context. they couldn't use it specifically for independent expenditures to say vote for this candidate or the other, but they could write an issue advocacy kind of advertising which really got to the same end result when the point was the same. the message was clear in similar ways and so we've been there with that context after the team feingold when that was prohibited for the party started growth in other kind of organizations in those days it was typically 527 organizations. even in 2008. and in a similar kind of way. messages that encourage voters to call their congressman and tell them to stop being stupid or whatever the context would be so i spent some time this spring looking back to compare the

levels of activity for those kind of things, parties in the 90's and the soft money context and the other groups in their early 2000's to get a sense for what or not this phenomenon in 2012 was really so much change or was it really just the kind of a definitional thing where the activity now as independent expenditures before it was something more complex on a little more esoteric. during the spring that seemed to be the case but there was a huge growth in the activity writ large. if you compared it with the parties in the 1990's or the early 2000's but that has changed really in the last couple of months pretty dramatically. if you remember back in those days the parties are increasingly successful raising this money over the years since you could find that kind of a trend line for the soft money activity and if you took that line as it stopped in 2002 which was the most successful year for

the parties and extend for ten years in a straight line back you would come very close to where we are today. so in some respects, you might say that whoever is changed a lot, but it's where we might have been otherwise. that's true as long as you expand another definition where we talk about so far. one of the problems with understanding these activities and the other context, too as we define the data so we pursue that and look up and follow those specific values even though it may be that the activities go beyond that it's changed through innovation and other changes and migrated in another way. in this year the example of that are the 501c4 organizations who are doing these same kind of messages. these call your congressman, the

issue advocacy campaigns including elaborate media campaigns in states and throughout the country and targeted state sen presidential race there's no reporting not just of the donors with the problems and lack of reporting that the spending itself. it's been signed away and mccain-feingold on the basis of what the timing for what is called an election and communication monday. you have to report these things within 30 days of a primary election were 60 days of the general but beyond that there is issue advocacy and they are not disclosed. there are estimates based on tracking media are not the country but that is now upwards of more than $70 million has been spent just in the last couple of months just in the presidential context and that kind of activity. there are philosophical reasons the definitions existed important in the constitutional context and we can talk about that perhaps that's an important

consideration. but it's the case the same activity focused on the campaign in a pretty direct way has increased the level of activity by the factor of effort over and above what we see routinely for the commissioner to let organizations so when we have these conversations about how much money and how it is used and where it happens it isn't really in the details and the context of how we define the activity and what things are reported and how we understand what's actually happening on the ground can be different things that has policy consequences, too much and it is an example of the problem with the regulatory system being perhaps just as important as the constitutional questions and how we end up what is happening or defining what goes on and we should talk about that. >> one quick follow-up to make the case that there was a lot of money that might be called an dependent in the past and was going through parties and soft money but almost by definition,

the money couldn't have gone to primaries and when they went through the parties. a lot more money being spent now >> it's interesting phenomena in the presidential context was a key part of the republican campaign. they would otherwise which has an important role that adds to the discussion and to give people choices they wouldn't have had on the primary ballot. we are going to see today in the runoff in the texas senate race where a candidate that really was not considered to be viable just a few months ago partly because of the coming of the changing and partly because of the support from outside groups coming in very aggressively in recent but it looks like he's going to be certainly very viable and may be successful today.

that has happened in a lot of specific contexts to the sometimes it is idiosyncratic from the candidate's family members who wouldn't people to give unlimited contributions so they create another organization and sometimes it's groups that are philosophically devoted to having competition in primaries. there is a committee to the committee for primary accountability which spent money on both sides. democrats and republicans on the basis that there are a lot of -- we all know they are safe for one party around the country and so if you want competition, if you want change, if you want candidates to respond to their constituencies it's not in the general election but in the primary so they look for safe candidates who were not paying attention to folks back home and support of the thought was an alternative across party lines.

>> perhaps making the primaries more interesting but also perhaps more polarized. >> we want to come back to the question of polarization of let me talk to rob. i don't know if that is one of your compliance triet maybe you could lay out changes in the legal landscape and what has been significant. people focus on citizens united as a game changer but there are many cases as well as any significant regulatory decisions. what's different this now and why is it having an effect? >> i want to go back to 2003 because the reality although there has been some change in the legal landscape in the last few years, by far the most dramatic change in the campaign finance system was mccain-feingold, the campaign act enacted in 2002 upheld by

this can court in 2003 and a fundamentally changed the way campaign finance system works. i was surprised by some of the ways in which michael characterized the data. i think if you look at the chart on the first page of the report, what you will see is that only today, only now in the 2012 presidential cycle are the political parties just buy a little bit exceeding where they were in 2002, the 2002 cycle which was an off-year election you don't normally raise as much money in an off year election so the parties are pulling themselves off of the map barely from the impact of the mccain-feingold law that deprived them of soft money. what became feingold did is it shifted the weight of the campaign finance system away from the national political

party and towards the site groups so this is widely predicted from the time by the critics of the mccain-feingold law. thus we see today is we are reaping handle oral when the that was set in motion by mccain feingold. the parties are doing somewhat better job of raising money and there has been a significant uptick since the last presidential election cycle in absolute terms. in relative terms the, the parties are being left in the dust by the outside groups and that has had a genetic effect on the political system. and in good ways and bad ways. it's a vibrant speech oriented election that we've had in this country since before the federal election campaign act of the 1970's and arguably since the early years in the 20th century

or even the 19th century tremendous increase in the competitiveness of this election both in the primaries and now the general election in much greater pluralism of speech and activism in this election. on the other hand there's a very unhealthy trend which is they are moderating influences in the system, the media and among all the various constituencies. when you move the money away from the political parties to the outside groups, you tend to radicalize as a system and balkanize the system and we have certainly seen that trend become a long-term secular trend in our political system and campaign finance system not just affecting money but they are affecting the politics in a profound way so there's a reason

we see more extreme groups, much more prominently involved in the political practice this year than was true in the past so there are competing trends, one of which i think is unhealthy. the other of which i think is healthy and is a judgment where you come down as to the relative benefits but while citizens united was somewhat important, while there have been other recent court and with the tory decisions that were somewhat important, none of them had anywhere near the impact today of the became feingold decision. >> i want to ask eliza this is the cover of the hill magazine today. anxious obama plans all fund-raising spree. i'm not necessarily sure that he would agree that he's anxious that you could actually take obama out and put any elected official in the country in that

place from romney all the way down through congress and challengers to them. that is it all seems to be planning a fall fund-raising spree. you've covered these for a long time. how uzi the development affecting campaigns and how they spend their money and how they act as public servants as well? >> i think the anxiety the president probably does genuinely feel and his allies and a number of candidates somewhat due lies the notion that the biggest change dated back to 2003 or 2002 when the law was enacted certainly that was important, but i don't think the candidates and party activists felt it was nearly as dramatic as the citizens united and other court rulings that have affected the landscape today if you talk to people directly out in the campaigns,

they are really boiled over. they do not see it as being comparable to anything that came before. it's the first presidential race since citizens united was enacted, and it has dramatically changed things. not only do we have a growth and supertax which bob talked about, but also to be significantly, the empowerment of the groups that are active. one of the things that is overlooked in the rhetoric about the citizens united, it's not just that it be regulated corporate spending but also any incorporated groups including a nonprofit says the 501c4 organizations to spend a politically and why not here to make value judgments or recommendations for solutions. there are important shifts here. the center for responsive

politics and integrity analyze the numbers from 2010 and concluded outside groups that don't disclose, the source of their contributions outspend those that do buy three tarincot two in 2010 and we are seeing that again in 2012. this is not a scientific analysis but if you look at actual independent expenditures so far it's about my 135 million on the campaign related expenditures and if you look at the undisclosed campaign to spend the it expenditures yesterday the huffingtonpost.com did an analysis because you cannot analyze these expenditures in the same way because the nonprofit groups and they don't disclose on the same level with the look of reports from groups that follow and broadcast and they look at tax records and all sorts of things and they came up the dollar figure of 172 million so far. so that tells you recognizing these are not definitive numbers that even an off-the-cuff or

back of the envelope estimate suggests that an undisclosed expenditures are now vastly outpacing. so to go to the implications, i think again without imposing a value judgment there are dangers to the spot for a political ploy years and for voters and candidates and for our government. i think the danger is absent of transparency and accountability and they are already feeling this, groups that have attributed to even the u.s. chamber of commerce to read some of them are feeling public relations blow back and there are corporate leaders that are concerned about the public relations fallout from the political expenditures there might even be some kind of correction down the road that has nothing to do with new laws or regulations or constitutional amendments where some corporate spenders might simply say there's too much risk in this.

the risk as journalists and citizens and voters is we might not be able to follow the money which isn't something the supreme court intended and citizens united. we all know the court came down eight rutka one in favor of full disclosure so that is the key issue going forward, and i think all roads for better or worse seem to be leading to the internal revenue service which is a tricky place for the road to leave because as we all know, nobody wants the internal revenue service to be emphasized and the laughter outside players and republicans on capitol hill are very worried that the irs has already shown signs of asking questions of conservative groups and they've written a lot of letters saying don't you go after groups in a political way but by the same token you have groups like the aclu that say we don't like that disclose act rejected in the senate because we think that what shall legitimate constitutionally protected activism by outside

groups so these are tricky questions and what i would recommend going forward as people really set aside ideological answers and start to really grappled with these tough questions to what degree can we regulate activity by nonprofit groups that used to be put a call to many of the people but which might in some cases the advocacy and a more legitimate context. >> i would just point out that there are many corporations beginning to face the proposals by the shareholders a some of that relates to how they spend their money for political purposes that may be the free market working so to speak and trying to deal with this issue in this limited way. i don't know how effective it is going to be but a ghost point out what you were talking about. >> can i follow on the disclosure and throw it into the group here? one, i think it is fair to say that the republican position on disclosure used to be pretty

universal that disclosure was a good thing it might be against the limits and other regulation that disclosure was a good thing. now there's a philosophical argument dividing on the aclu and maybe some contributions shouldn't be. in addition the intimidation and groups that don't speak as freely because they feel they will be castigated for a campaign will be made against them because of their spending. second, what about the interest of the companies and groups and those that don't want their money to be disclosed, their funds to be disclosed? there's a principle, there's interest and then finally i guess we can take up on rob's point. would the political parties and candidates have more freedom to give to them what some of that money that is undisclosed money flow or is it just sitting out there because individuals and interest groups want some money

to be spent, they don't want accountability. what is actually accountable hard money to the candidates if it were disclosed. so why you cannot to anyone that wants to weigh in. >> i thought was interesting that eliza made the point that the data shows more money being spent by the outside groups that do not have to disclose their activities principally 501c4, 501c6. which i think highlights the religion significance of the citizens united decision because that activity all took place before citizens united in the same kind of way and it takes place after citizens united. the irony that the citizens united allowed were disclosed groups come so-called super packs that have to report every penny and yet we still see the bulk of the money flowing away from those disclosure records to the undisclosed groups and that is the trend that id to back

because that isn't new in the cycle. we've seen that trend on an upward trajectory and it isn't going to stop. if you change the rules so for example candidates can raise this kind of money, political parties can raise this money, political parties could coordinate the candidates that will be disclosed money because the candidates and the political parties are within the federal election commission disclosure regime and that is where we want the money to be but mccain-feingold very ironically in paradoxically has forced the money outside of the disclosed regime where it was disclosed in detail prior to mccain-feingold and to the outside groups and a lot is absolutely right that is where the bulk of the money is going not to the super packs. >> why the restrictions were put in place.

>> it depends what you think the process is fundamentally bribery or extortion. >> i would sometimes give presentations to groups like the national association of business pacs and other organizations and after the sessions you would be out at a hotel and there were constantly people coming up to me saying can't you just put a stop to this because i am getting strong armed by all these men in the congress or people in the administration and the party lines that made no difference. and there wasn't so much that there was all of this pent-up corporate or institutional interest in participating financially in the process. it was that we had party leaders who were acting as concierge at the white house in order to provide sleepovers so that for a certain amount of money or we have leaders in the congress who were if i could get just another million dollars for the

congressional campaign committee then maybe something can happen. that was an environment the congress decided was unattainable. >> why is the money still about? >> it's not the same money. one of the conclusions many people left on in the cycle is that there hasn't been a flood of corporate. it's disclosed but even at the levels we are seeing it's not a flood necessarily that you described. it's equivalent to roughly to where we would have been. >> but we don't know where it's coming from. >> that is a problem. estimate it could be coming from corporations. >> in some cases, surely it is. >> that's a great point. just to go back to the notion of mccain-feingold and citizens united it's true that outside spending was happening in 2003 and in 2008 and 2010.

but in 2003 when the money was before us and mccann feingold and was flowing through the party it was disclosed then when we saw in 2000 for the 527 group was opposed to the irs so i see it as the dramatic change for the citizens united i did this to interesting questions raised the price simply relax the parties. one is this statement that you make the supreme court said that we are permitted to regulate the nation's on the basis they might invite corruption or the appearance of corruption. i'm not sure that this conservative supreme court would go so far as to say we should end the contribution limit. they might. but maybe not. the second is that disclosure leads to intimidation and harassment, then why aren't parties and candidates being

intimidated? if you buy that argument and to get to its logical conclusion then you wouldn't have disclosure candidates and parties either and i think what some people are saying and these out beside groups are extensions of the campaign and why they are pressing for disclosure and again to go back to the supreme court i think the supreme court said that it's okay if constitutionally protected to have a boycott that is considered to be okay and there are the laws that intimidation and harassment so for some of the attempt to the disclosure law for example when from the initiatives have not withstood the court so i'm not including a value judgment but i raise the question whether the court would agree the disclosure equals intimidation harassment. estimate this comes from the fact i'm looking around the only person in the room that is actually received campaign contributions. but how does all of this affect the behavior of these people who

are getting the money? i mean, is there any data to show how it affects their behavior? after all is in the essence of our discussion to determine whether our system of campaign contributions is proper and legal and constitutional and effective and whether the public will is being done but the impact of that is what these people who are getting the money are serving the public or not serving the public and one of the things i do not see in the data is how it affects the behavior politicians in the office. >> there are two ways in which people have studied this actually a lot of study and people on one side of the argument like to point out that there is no demonstrable effect on public and very visible activities like a roll call votes and they dispute about how

much you can see in the roll call votes. roll call votes are the most visible and the plays we least expect to see. you have both in the courts and political science studies is demonstrable agenda setting effects, people who think we shouldn't get into this problem because a will hurt us. there are so many things i could spend my time on. do i really want to go there? there's a new book out by linda powell looking at state legislatures and an older book out by richard hall. the people that bother showing up at the committee hearings you can pretty clearly tied this to contributions. i think i just want to probably weigh in on this. but i also want to respond to the last point made and i wonder should i do something else?

okay. first just a quick factual thing where he said it's a lot of the same old if you keep going up in this case. well, the one thing that is new and unprecedented we've never seen things like it before is the independent spending committee has an extension of the candidate. that's new. that's basically let's blow away contribution limits. we need to talk about that because that is really about do you see any value and contribution limits. and if you don't, then let's look at the independent spending kennedy's shall we say made out of chanel or some sort of material. but i do see contribution. i think there was plenty of

documented elements of cause i extortion in the period and before watergate and i do think that's a problem. the contribution limits are targeted at that problem. it became feingold drive all this money to the system? i don't see it. there was nondisclosure you can't draw trend lines with the money if you can't take the argument but it was there before mccain-feingold. what you do see when you look at the party is the historic high point in the party and then 2002 the people raised a lot because they were anticipating that can feingold but the parties came right back in 2004 to the level

right back to 2006. i agree with bob kelner that it's important to be concerned about parties. i agree that we ought to think about ways of letting the parties do more and coordinated spending. but i would argue that should be done with limited contributions with the demonstrated fact that did exist in the system. >> it's not just quid pro quo but a risk adverse attitude where nobody wants to do anything for the fear of a super pak competition down the road. >> i'm sure i'm not the only one on the panel that read this book that's a great reading. there are a lot of testimonials from a former members of congress, politicians who basically said the system

stinks. we really think it stinks. maybe it didn't need an obvious definition of corruption he would read about on a political science paper but the new in their gut that it wasn't right that they were walking into the fund raising eve ensler the donors would hint then checks with a blessing of the party to go in to the conference of the dnc. they didn't like that and those donors didn't like it either so it's worth coming back into reading the ruling and it's kind of interesting. the other thing is the amount of time being spent raising money if you talk to candidates and activists one of the things that shocks them about 2012 is how early the money is being spent and you elude it to that in your opening comments. people are spending a lot more money as a lot earlier stage than they did in the last presidential race and that is putting a lot of pressure on people and why you see headlines like the ones you held up that suggest the president is very

scared. >> clearly i don't think anyone would dispute but raise the level of anxiety on the party of candidates and other political factors. you just don't know when a million, 2 million, a significant amount of money is coming to appear in your race at a moment's notice without a lot of advance information, and so it has -- it causes to things to happen. it extended the period of the campaign. i spent the weekend in ohio, not for political reasons, but for the politics in ohio. and one of the phenomenon i noticed there was importantly sherrod brown who was the incumbent senator after the election in the race was very aggressively advertising on television now and mid to late july which is pretty unusual. and he was reacting in some respects to an aggressive ad campaign that was coming from the commerce drive not from his opponent with the rnc or the nrcc, but from an outside group.

so it has expanded the campaign, perhaps adding to the level of discourse in the discussion and may be improving the voters but certainly it has caused people to spend money they wouldn't have otherwise been spending at this time which means they have to raise it more aggressively for more different sources than that and add to this kind of cycle. >> my fellow panelists seemed concerned about the anxiety and i am not the least bit concerned about the candidate anxiety. there was very little anxiety after the federal election campaign act was elected in the 1970's, which created a long period in our political system in which incumbents were protected by high walls established by the federal election campaign act and by the difficulty that competitors had in raising money in a system that requires them to raise money in small increments without the help of

constituencies and without the help of political angels. those walls are indeed coming down, and it is the outside groups that are bringing those walls down which creates tremendous turbulence in the system, competition and the system, pluralism and the system, and all of those things are terrifying to the incumbents and that's a good thing. that is the way the democracy is supposed to work to read what some of the panelists has referred to as distortion, you know, i have news for you there is a lot of fund raising going on today. after a team feingold, after citizens united there's still a tremendous amount of pressure on corporate and other entities to put money to the system. they may not be hearing directly from the candidates that they are hearing from proxy groups and outside groups and in many respects the view that as effectively the same thing as hearing from members.

i also agree that there is a notion that there's much separation between the candidates and the al-sayyid groups and that goes to the question of what do we mean when we see an expenditure is and independent expenditure and we can have a healthy debate about whether we need a much clearer definition of independence verses coordination. but that issue has been around for a long time and oddly enough the campaign finance reform committee doesn't really deeply engaged on that i think very valid question because the supreme court has assumed that these expenditures by the outside groups would be truly independent and there is an argument to be had. but nsl ayittey among officeholders like that is terrific. >> we have a healthy debate quickly does anyone want to take on the coordination? >> i talked to reform groups a lot and they are not happy about coordination groups.

i think they've written a lot of letters to read they tried to get the ftc to take action on this. they tried to pressure president obama to reform the fec or point of people to the fec. that is for this definition is bogged down. they tried to come up with an effective definition of independent risk coordination that hasn't succeeded. so why don't think that is an issue that is being ignored but it's stymied in the federal election commission's about might be another interesting point of discussion we have an effective regulatory agency in place to police political expenditures and fund-raising, and if not what would it take to come up with something both sides could agree would be effective and fair and accountable? ..

and finally, while a congressional races look like? congressional british is going to be bombarded by outside money or the parties associated interest be able to respond? what is your crystal ball for the fall as we look ahead? >> am still convinced that neither candidate will win or lose the presidency based on the lack of funding. i don't have the resources to run a viable campaign. that just doesn't make sense to me. between the groups and campaigns still have sufficient resources. you have to remember that a lot spending, particularly

advertising are fairly ephemeral in some ways. they're useful in defining candidates to people who are familiar with them and they're useful employment messages that very specific points in time. they shall play this pretty sure it there. these candidates are well defined. so i think it's going to be incredible amount of spending, but it won't determine the outcome. >> and not small for a 30 or 40 house races in six or eight senate races where the control of both of those chambers in question. yeah, then it can make a difference because they can do one of two things. >> i think if we want to know at the fall at the fall is going to look like, it's happening now. you have to read. they stay up. i think the impact of outside spending will increase the further down ballot you though. i agree wth either won't be

determined in the presidential race, but there is certainly some congressional and senate races for it could have been an act. it's important to keep in mind senate packs are spending on the state and local level. there is a races are a super pack or outside group could flip the race completely. i have my eye on six months after the election. i cannot wait until some good data come out and we can actually analyze that data and draw some strong conclusions about what the changes that meant because i feel as though were operating to some degree in the realm of the theoretical and we are to some degree arguing about whether or not citizens united ruling had a dramatic and pack. i'm looking forward to seeing how different the election is for those who preceded it. >> i wanted to record the state legislative races and the huge amount of honey. in my own state of kansas, again the home of the koch family and

the state legislative setting mismatches 1525 years ago. >> i also want to go with six months after the election. before you go to questions, to underline the fact that i think bob kelner tonight to common sense of questions as though we are both saying that there needs to be serious thought about what constitutes coronation and independence and that is very important in the changes as they share. we need to think seriously about political parties. i think that is going to be part of the agenda after january. >> okay, we want to hear from you and we have makes here if you could identify yourself. we will go right here in the front. here comes the mic behind year.

>> began duping from executive education. he talked about the volume of money, but using its money is actually a problem and i'll take that off the table for the front end of the question. is it the amount of money aureus gerrymandering and the number of districts in play creating a funnel of that, accentuating the problem if there is a problem? how does that play out? >> you know, i would just say that the redistricting process has been with us for a while. it is systematically abused by both political parties to draw political boundaries in their own partisan interests. i don't really fault them for

that. that's the way the system is currently structured. i think these two things go hand in hand. i think certainly the redistricting process reduces competitiveness of the system. i think the way that money functions at our political system has for some time reduce the competitiveness of the system. i think it would be very difficult to disentangle those two effects and sort of judge which them is the predominant effect. >> it's an interesting test this year in california. they are likely to be a number of competitive house races because of the district and process is different and counseling. there may be other states for that will be true, too. >> we have one coming out in redistricting. i guess i would say just the simple point is there's a view less competitive than they were in the last cycle, but it is a similar number. but i think what we are likely

to see us because there is a universe of competitive seats and whatever that is, some due to redistrict dan, some dude close races that there's a lot of money concentrate on 30, 40 senate races with all sets of people giving money to those races. i'm not sure it's exacerbated by this much as the days just created a universe of a small competitive districts. the other thing we noted in this report is there's a lot fewer people today holding districts that they shouldn't hold your democrats holding strongly republican districts, which is to be the case not so long ago, 10, 20 years ago. here you think about long changes in politics and transformation of our political system, but also primaries, where you have people if you try to hold a republican district in a conservative democrat affair that shoulder and behold a moderate democratic district come you look over your right

shoulder in a primary challenge. and here's the money is potentially much more in the primaries, both from the road racing as well as independent groups is significant and could contribute to polarization. >> there's a good question asked because it's worth pointing out that i think -- don't think anybody on this panel, a much smaller number -- nobody on this panel has said there's too much money being spent on political discourse. the conversation has all been about sources, effects on this group and that is a different conversation. and so by asking the question, you point out some team that was unsaid in this important. >> okay, other side of the room. gentleman back here. here is a microphone.

>> yeah, thank you. i am of howard university schooling. my question is, can a property man and a non-property man be equal through the vote? i think that is what our democracy is. that is what i thought it was about. when i listen to the conversation today, eliza, i'm glad you brought up the icc because it was a lot of discussing. mcconnell was one of the people who us were disclosed. and he said things and not, but when it came down to disclose, he voted it down this past time. and robert, as you said, you think anxiety is good for democracy. but if our political elected officials are anxiously campaigning and not governing for the people, then how is that

democracy? >> well, i think the founders intended for us to have a very vibrant campaign season. if you look back at american history, really before the federal election campaign act in the midnight to seven years, we have a long history of very competitive races, particularly house races. it's been the case for a long time that members of the house are essentially engaged in a continuous campaign because they only have a two-year term. that is actually a very healthy thing for us and it was disturbing when we reached a point not so long ago, were house members felt relatively assured that at least after they made it through their first term of office and were reelected once, that they basically were locked into the deeper life. because of redistricting, but also principally because of the way to campaign finance system discouraged challengers. so while i understand that

candidates and officeholders do not enjoy the process of seeking our support for various constituencies and seeking out funds for various constituencies come as a very fun to paddle part of our democratic process and an important turn of the process. >> i would addison officeholder and money raised to myself that today, political viability and that's an important word come equals ability to raise money in large part over any other quality, certainly over i.q. come experience, wisdom, judgment. i am not a fool to believe that a business you've got to go create a product and raise your dollars are capital in the public. but this is a business of ideas. again in the public interest. so if money is the primary criteria, it goes directly to your question versus property, versus non-property and his

money the primary criteria for american politics and participation. that's a very important question to ask. >> so the question is a really good one and it is correct that viability equals the ability to raise money, people running for office naturally will go where it's easiest to raise money and it's a lot easier to raise 10,000 from 1% at $100 each for a thousand people. one of the nice things about small donor matching funds is it that restrictive regulation, how much of the conversation we've been having about whether this affects distorting or not distorting our effects of regulations that tell people not to do things, the matching system gives candidates a positive and then tears to go

into neighborhoods and get $20. the empirical evidence is the stains in fact franchise people who are not playing. and i think that's an important goal to be thinking about and it is not one that has a distorting effect. >> yeah, it is interesting to hear the focus on competition now in the wake of citizens united. i've heard a number of people say all this extra money is great because it's enhancing competition. what i often think of when i hear that is the analyses that i've read of the public financing system and the impact that it's had a few on a system that has the competition for better or worse, look at how public financing system software. it's really remarkable. authors are people who never ran before our alert you.

much higher percentages of women holding public office, much higher percentages of minority and ethnic groups holding public office than you do in a conventional system. so again, empirical data if you want competition, i would say probably the public financing system would enhance competition much more dramatically than anything else. >> there's a reason to be hopeful about technology, too. ever tried to more distribute resources that the money buys, not the money itself, it's whatever you can get with that, communication with voters another interaction. and we still haven't seen, i don't think, even remotely the final result of this dramatic technological change that allowed the obama campaign to be successful financially 2008 that allows you to communicate with voters in ways that don't crowd out the other potential uses of those users as that continues over time, there's reason to be hopeful there as well.

in terms of distributing access to the people that are really important. >> we have a question right here. >> my name is george lail. does the amount of money being spent to affect the quality of information voters can get positively and negatively? >> we should have the achterberg center here. >> actually, studies show that, you know, we all know unfortunately their emotional and more informative than the names. so, there's not a negative effect between advertising and the level of information. if anything it's positive and that is perhaps surprising. >> okay, right here. one microphone coming from this direction.

>> edward roederer from assumption of press. just to respond briefly to something dr. malbin earlier about the effect of accomplishing nothing. >> i didn't say that. >> lovers the effect does -- i'm sure the number of articles i read in correlating voting records in congress is then three-judge as and that's probably too for a lot of journalists in this town. the money either corruptly influences politicians are illegally influences elections or is being spent by fools. there is no other way to fireside. but i question its this. about 15 years ago, the pacific

economy, the tiger economy sort of collapsed in the major reason was that governments were bought off and they were illegitimate and the economic successes weren't a result of producing more and better where jets, but rather by enough the crowns for the presidency or whatever it is in a particular country. what do you think will be the effect if big money is evil to prevail in our elections. of a couple of decades? what will be the effect on america? is it conceivable that when capitalists get their wish is to destroy themselves as seems to happen to pacific realm of economies in 1877? >> well, this goes to the question of accountability and

transparency in risk to the business community and business leaders are quite sensitive to. i would say to that an ip worth looking at a gallup poll that cannot yesterday, which suggested that for voters to number two issue behind jobs and the economy as corruption in government. the number two issue that they want elected officials to fix. that really surprised me. the suggestion that the voters are concerned about what is happening and this is as much higher on the radar screen than in previous elections. >> what is so interesting about that gallup survey and others like it is over the years the percentage of the public that believes the government is corrupt and blacks tries to the government has pretty steadily increased, even as we have clamped down on the campaign finance system with each iteration of the reforms of the

campaign finance system and the increased regulation of the camp pain finance system, right through mccain-feingold. those have stayed on a relatively constant trajectory. the campaign finance reform really has not produced the level of cynicism in this country about government. there's lots of explanations for the level of cynicism that have little if anything to do at the campaign finance system. >> maybe you can pricy to take up the point that governments are talking about where one-party governments, and maybe an type of business. the question of competition and whether the money is really flowing to challenges in primary challengers of outside parties. that would be one response to this. >> candidly i don't think you can compare to the system that prevails in asia and southeast asia. those have much more significant problems than we do, thank god and they are political system are not anywhere as transparent

and filled with disclosure is our system is. you can also prepare to the united states let's say in the 19th century. big money if you want to use that phrase and i'm not sure exactly what it did mean has been present in our system from the founding and we have survived below these 200 plus years. >> i would also atco web bob biersack said and that is modern tech elegy models people. this year when it came to an issue involving motion picture injury, having to do film piracy without going into the merits of the issue, there was a public uprising regarding the issue of what the government should do to deal with film piracy and hundreds of hundreds of thousands of people petition their government kind of of of

what the government petitions for doing a prevailed on the members of congress to change their positions. and that is a factor we haven't really seen before. we've seen public pressure on the government, but not this instantaneous massive public pressure and that has both bad possibilities to it because of the facts are wrong it could be very distract dave, disruptive. but it's an empowering poison i don't think they have that for the other countries you're talking about. >> if you reinforce the transparency elements of this, i continue to be amazed. they went through this financial disaster in 2006, 2008 in large part because there was a good transparency in terms of very important financial transactions. huge amounts of money traded on people who didn't know whether counterparties where, did know the other part of the transaction, didn't know what incentives might be, didn't know whether they were being honest and straightforward about the nature of those transactions and

we virtually collapse the system. why we would want a political process that mimics that, where you don't have transparency, where you don't know who the parties to the transactions are at the end of the day escapes me. >> we might have time for one more question. >> we will take one -- we'll take your questions lost. >> is based on? what i have is not so much a question, the clarification on the whole question of television advertising. television advertising even in the year of this increased form of technology, you know, is still an increasing primary means of campaigns that expenditure money, indeed the expenditure and media

advertising is increasing at a greater rate than the overall campaign expenditures. the second thing and i think bob said this correctly. the advertising and presidential campaigns, you know, does not have as much impact because there's so many other sources of information and it has enormous impact on graces below presidency, where there is no other sources of information and that is a serious question for the health of american democracy. >> will take the second question and answer them together. >> thank you. larry bovary. i am the sole proprietor. david brooks this morning and at times said this election was boring and inconsequential and

particularly mention the fact that these incredible outpouring of advertising this early is primarily aimed at the uninformed and the uninvolved because the parties seem to be in the candidates seem to believe that there are so few undecided or what they really going after are the people who really don't pay any attention by negative advertising. could you comment on not only brooks comments, but the whole question of undecideds in hundreds of them. >> so open to the audience -- to the panel on questions of campaign advertising, significance and lower rates and secondly on the money and the effect on targeting undecided voters. >> gouges quickly note that it's not just advertising the causes election outcomes. it's also the ground game. one of the reasons why groups on the left are worried in

candidates on the left are worried if they don't have as much money. there's no question in terms of advertising is outpacing conservative outside many outpacing the liberal left that money by more than three to one. but if you look at labor unions and if you look at other types of grassroots groups and the candidates, they are really trying to knock on doors and go door-to-door and toil to get voters out that way. and of course groups on the right are doing the same thing. so i think is going to be interesting to see. some people might include at the end that it was a wash in a colossal waste of money. the people are going to try anything to win an election, especially one as close and high-stakes as this one. >> this is the most micro-targeted election in history. the technology he has evolved to a point that those presidential candidates are able to target voters with precision that we've never seen before.

and so, one of the effects of bad is they are not necessarily amy at the american public, but aiming at narrower and narrower demographics and constituencies. on the ground game point, again i heard some folks salivating about the q-quebec six months after the election is the data, but much of the relevant data won't be there because a lot of background games takes place in the undisclosed world. it is sponsored by 501 groups who don't have to report their activity. vicious one other example i think where much of the activity is going to be very relevant this fall, will take place below the radar line will be invisible even to academics who might after-the-fact, or journalists who might want to analyze what happened. >> and on that note, we'll thank our panelists.

>> good job. [applause] >> we did not begin as a city. there was only a vague native american region and later a county in another state. but we begin in 1778 as virginians. >> this weekend joined american history tv and c-span's local content vehicle from louisville

kentucky saturday at noon at stern, but for advice on c-span tv. biographer john david dyke and mitch mcconnell and author jason on the internet revolution and sunday at 5:00 p.m. eastern on american history tv. three weeks at arlington plantation in 1841 would be key in shaping abraham lincoln's views on slavery. its tour of the plantation today. also, heyday as a vote on the ohio river. look at the sale of louisville. the local content vehicle's export the literary life across america this weekend from louisville on c-span 2. >> as we begin the final three months of the presidential campaign, "washington journal" looked at the candidates advertising strategies and use of negative ads. we tie with media analyst ken goldstein for about 45 minutes.

>> analyst at 100 days election day, 2012 race has become dominated by negative ads for a discussion about how nasty it may become, we turn to ken goldstein of the campaign media analysis group. just how negative hasn't gotten out there on the airwaves would you say? >> is almost no positive ads being aired now. we went through a couple weeks when the only positive ads were a couple of spanish language ads. there's an obama spot running at low levels now, but generally a bomb is talking about romney and romney and his allies are talking about obama. >> the "washington post" monday declined to live through that very last weekend and yes, all three were in spanish. compare what is happening right now to previous races at this point. are we had a specifically particularly negative point in this race comparatively quiet

>> much of my career says it's not the most negative race ever. certainly so far this has been a very negative presidential race. as dan i'm sure we're going to discuss and i'm sure some callers might want to discuss negative necessarily a bad thing? sound like a very scary word, the campaigns are focusing ammunition on the others at this point. i would expect to see that a little as we go forward, mostly with either the obama campaign to remain pretty focused on mitt romney. but at some point we will see the mitt romney can't paint key positive track of that because the romney campaign researchers is up to the people. >> host: an article from the hill newspaper, despite just think who writes at the same time president obama in iran may suggest there is a limit to the metal from this campaign, both the town to avoid highly

personalized attacks. romney's mormon religion in obama's history with jeremiah white has so far been off-limits. yet an election expected to come down to a handful of swing states, something you will be harder and harder for the two sides to the ammunition on the table as they race intensifies in the fall. do you think they will go there on some of these issues? >> i don't know if they'll go there with television advertising. their allies may go there in other ways, but that's an important point that that article is making. just because one campaign is talking about the other campaign doesn't mean it's unfair, doesn't mean it's nasty and most of the debates, sure we've had asserts of exaggeration, political ads or even political speeches in building across the street from us, but i don't agree seem particularly below the belt so far. >> be joined in on the discussion with kenneth goldstein on the campaign media

analysis group, give us a call. democratic line is psalm one. republican line is 202-737-0002. independent line is 202-628-0205. while folks are calling in, give us a sense on what your group has been sort of tracking these ads. >> guest: we want to see political consultants out there who is nonpartisan. we basically three buckets of clients. one is the news media, we have a number of major news organizations in the country who work with us to track political advertising because political advertising tends to be the most visible form of campaigning and as for most of the money is spent. we are going to see a little over $3 billion spent on local television alone. when you add in the money spent on television to blend up being 3.5, 3.6, 3.7 early dollars. we track that through the news

media, campaigns so i can confidently say it will work for the next president of the united states because they work for both the obama campaign and the romney campaign that we work for party committees as well. in addition work for a number of trade associations in town. >> host: and as you track, how do you find a positive ads versus in a given ad? there are some that are probably pretty easy to tell, but what is your cut off point? >> guest: there's a number of different ways one could go about doing this. we have a very, very simple decision tool. if the ad is about the other person comments negative. it is about you, it's a positive ad. we don't code fair or unfair, accuracy, mudslinging. others do that and think that's terrific. we have a very, very simple determination of whether it's a negative that are positive that. >> let's look at one. this is a romney ad that is but not in my name that is clearly

been defined as a negative that. >> barack obama's attacks against mitt romney are not true. the "washington post" says just about every level designers misleading, unfair and untrue, but that is barack obama. he also attacked hillary clinton. >> he continues to spend millions of dollars, perpetuating falsehood. >> mitt romney has a plan to get america working. barack obama with worse record. >> she might you, barack obama. >> as we look at some of these ads will play a few for this segment, is there a downside for the candidates themselves and running negative ads? everybody says they hate negative ads, right? >> everyone hates negative ads, but there is a big debate, both among social scientists who study the effects of campaign advertising in the world than the real practitioners of

advertising. is there any backlash on the person who chairs the add? and there was some talk and coverage this past week that the obama campaign was concerned about little rebound again to ban that they were airing so many negative ads against mitt romney that he was having an impact on the president favorability numbers. i have not seen strong evidence of that either way. and i think there is a strategic demand in a campaign. listen, this is a presidential election that will not be determined completely by political advertising. obviously it's not completely determined by political advertising at this presidential election at all as a referendum on the incumbent and generally a referendum is determined by reality, whether it's america's place in the world. we have a president who is very much in a gray area.

things were going a bit better in iraq obama's approval rating or higher you would almost certainly be reelected. if barack obama's job approval was last, he'd almost certainly lose to matter who the opponent was. but he's in that gray area and is also in a position like most incumbent president select george w. bush was in 2004 are the obama campaign will not change attitudes about president obama by advertising very much. these people are like the president, despite the president, very, very few undecided voters, very few people have not made up their mind about president barack obama. but they going to end up voting is one question. the other thing is their attitudes will mostly be shaped by what is going on in terms of reality. but the obama campaign can try and control perceptions of mitt romney. even though the presidential action will be a referendum on

the incumbent, and that romney needs to reach the threshold level of credibility. they're robbing us to introduce himself to the american people appear to barack obama has fallen out -- completely well known. but romney not so much. that is why you see the obama campaign going strongly. they are trying to define mitt romney and introduce mitt romney. they are trying to stop a romney for reaching a threshold level of credibility. >> we will show you now want a president obama is clearly negative ads. >> i barack obama and i approve this message. >> tax havens, offshore accounts. mitt romney has used every trick in the book. romney admits over the last two years he is paid less than 15% in taxes on 43 million in income. makes you wonder if some years he paid any at all. we don't know because romney has released one and won't release anything before 2010. >> we put out as much as will put out.

>> what is mitt romney hiding? >> "washington post".com has a special section specifically on negative ads, which are group provides information for. who is going negative is the question of the number one group running negative that would be president barack obama's campaign. that's fine that about 57% of all ads run by barack obama have been negative ads and that is a total of $39 million spending so far. where are the concentrations as we show folks this map either in the market sort of been targeted? >> guest: this is a very, very concentrated race. people talk about 13, 14, 15 battleground states. it's really a battleground states. we are talking about virginia, north carolina, florida, ohio, iowa, colorado, nevada, very, very focused on eight states

from zero to 60 come incredibly quickly in those days am very negative very quickly in the states. pay attention to how the status change or don't change. you can hear a lot of spin from the campaign. the route was he doing polling and strategy, but where they end up staying and where they end up going over the next 90 days is going to tell you a lot about how the campaign is going. if we see political advertising starting to be in places like wisconsin and pennsylvania, that's a good sign for republicans. if we see continued heavy advertising in a place that north carolina, that's good news for the democrats. obviously north carolina is a state that's a must have for republicans in the general election. wisconsin and republican must haves in a general election. when it begins to get played on the other side of the field for an opposing side, that's a very good tell that it is going well

for one side or the other. >> host: the latest numbers from the cbs new york time poll of july 18, obama at 46, romney at 47, looking like it's going to be tight all the way out. let's go to the phone lines. pamela on the independent line from salem, illinois. pamela, thanks for joining us. you are on with mr. goldstein. >> caller: yes, i wanted to make a comment about the every just come disgusting amounts of money spent on this election. an election. it just outrages me. a billion dollars? i am appalled that the amount of money being spent and there is not a hair's stress what the difference between tiny candidates. i frankly believe there is not bad at honest decent president since harry truman and i realize this sounds like an old person talking, the air on the take one way or another in this negative

stuff, does anyone actually believe that romney made and kept all his money by being an honest outbreak kind of human being? probably the same thing can be said of any candidate, but the amount of money just outrages me when there's people in this country who are hurting the homeless, the oppressed. it just outrages me and i wanted to make a comment. >> host: you probably won't be happy to learn that in the "washington post," $246 million has been spent on advertising so far in this campaign. positive ads, 20%, negative ads a full 72%. >> guest: this table is appalled by 1 billion, i don't know what she'll say for 8 billion in this election cycle. we're going to have over $1 billion spent on political advertising alone just in the

presidential race. that doesn't include advertising and other rates that doesn't include the other things that campaigns spend money on. what is always interesting to me is what people attack negative advertising and she obviously has strong feelings about the state of american politics in general the quality of our presidents over the last 60 some ideas. >> they would be spending all this money they didn't work. >> guest: that's a discussion. she had various strong feelings about politics, very strong feelings about elected leaders and about that romney there that she bullies. you know what that's called? that's called a negative that are that's called to someone using their first amendment rights in voicing their opinion about politics. so we can have a discussion about state of american politics. we can have a discussion about the quality of our political leaders and honorable people can agree or disagree about.

but the notion that political advertising is especially pianola different in terms of its content or tone or volume than species we have by members and the talking points that members of congress and the president press people for the campaign's press people say is part and parcel to clinical rhetoric in the united states. we can have a discussion whether it's good or bad, but i think to just focus on advertising is a little unfair. >> host: make it a faster mind that is not about the issues, but how bad you can make the other candidate look. >> guest: negative advertising is word that the issue than positive. but, this is at the risk of being repetitive a point that i've made on the show before. listen, should campaigns to positive as quite sure, if they want to, but often the source of

positive as we see really don't have any meat in them. there is something one could verify in them. i always give the example of someone walking on the beach in their khaki pants and blue shirt. who could be against any of that? how could you verify any of that? and why is that any more meaningful or normatively better than an ad talking about someone's record in a factual way that condemns the chart by people, common citizens and by the media. >> host: have those fact checkers out there had an impact on this race, the rise of groups like fact check.org and the "washington post" has one as well. >> guest: the campaign worry about that when they crafted ad. i don't think they sit around saying we're going to get a couple of pinocchio's that or not arafat, but at least it makes them have their backup evidence for the add is that they are running.

it also adds to the debate. i wanted lisa campaign should say whatever they want in the media should do whatever they want to be very difficult to say one side will win or lose in this race because they don't have the chance to get their message out. we difficult to see people don't have sources for information. >> host: skoda katherina clarksville, maryland. uri with ken that goldstein. >> caller: good morning. >> host: go ahead. >> caller: please if you will refresh my memory as to the three positive spanish-speaking commercials that aired last week. for the pro-obama over the probate romney? >> guest: one was probate romney were to have been one was obama. so the romney ad was his son speaking in spanish, spanish about his father and the obama ad usually a spanish-language ad

when they are tracing their particular experience of the family. >> caller: to conclude with the question, my opinion on negative advertising versus positive advertising, or with negative advertising shows a lack of maturity and a lack of creativity. so i endorse positive advertising. thank you. >> host: michael on the democratic line from huntsville, north carolina. michael, you were on with mr. goldstein. >> guest: thank you very much. my first comment is why our political candidates allowed to only use part of a comment that somebody says like when president obama said though with all the infrastructure, small

business would not build to create jobs and have the business they have. so i don't understand why there's no lives that would keep from only use encarta, they made to the second, and i have is when it comes to a superpower, i thought they were supposed to be some kind of a law that would not allow, for instance, karl rove, and head of a superpower to have direct contacted mitt romney, the unit -- >> guest: well, the last that allows candidates to take words out of context as the first amendment. and in fact by law, television stations cannot reject or cannot change the content of political advertisements that are committed to them by candidates. they actually can and have the responsibility to do so for non-candidates ads. and again, political

advertisements, negative advertisements in particular take words out of context, claims out of context. other forms of political rhetoric to the same? absolutely. the question about what the contact that groups are allowed to have with candidates i would defer to my friends who are political attorneys. candidates in the groups are not allowed to coordinate strategy. i know a lot of people in town are not even seen each other socially. one might have a super pack and one might be on the campaign. they certainly don't know the details of that. >> host: here are some more stats from the numbers compiled from the "washington post." he talked about the karl rove group come across rose group. 33 million, 33.5 million a negative ads. 100% of those -- 33 million in

negative ads and that's 100% of their total outs, correct? that romney spent 29 million on negative ads. a few other republican leaning super packs. also priority u.s.a., obama pack about $6.1 million spent in negative ads so far. 91% of their total spending. we will go now to a question on twitter for maverick talking about the attack decks of negative campaigning. mr. goldstein, isn't it a little late to introduce mitt romney to the american people, the gop primaries were supposed to do that? guesstimate romney was introduced to the american people into dust me. republican primaries was introduced in july 12 here in the primaries. but there's still a lot of people out there who don't want c-span in the morning and are political junkies and mitt romney is still unknown by a third the electors who are not willing to rate had when

pollsters asked a question. so there's still a lot of room for mitt romney to grow when it comes to the people know about him and that that is what this campaign is about. whether barack obama does a better job of introducing mitt romney to the one third of one people who don't know enough or whether the romney campaign does that. >> host: was going to al qaeda, washington. timothy on the independent line. thank you for joining us. timothy on with mr. goldstein. >> caller: good morning. i am up early every morning because i'm very concerned about this country of ours and what is going on in it. now, negative campaign ads, something that may not be realized by everyone is a lot of time truth comes out by this. it was not bad, but during the 2008 election process, i found out about the sanctuary cities from hillary clinton.

so a lot of things come out, but it's very disturbing that there need to be fact checking organizations because the media should be on that. there wouldn't be a need for them if the media were doing their job. now, let's review back to the business of not changing the context for the content of which are given by people given by campaign. essentially what the person that claimed to be a war hero, lives are under the first amendment, whereas the truth, if it embarrasses someone, humiliates them, it disturbs them in any way, you can go to jail for five years now. okay, but what is more disturbing than that is the fact that i have seen one good candidate come down the pike and i have watched the media suppress him three elections in a row. and i and a lot of americans not only believe, they know he would be the best choice for president

of this country. he would be free and come apart at it than we would have a country not back the way we work, but that what advances we should. i'm not mainstream is dr. ron paul. he's made his money honestly. i've heard any critiques against him but i've also heard them fall by the wayside. and yet, i scanned the television. i've watched several people including judge napolitano taken off of the network as he talks about ron paul. >> host: thanks for the call. you bring up checker. c-span writes on twitter i don't believe fact checkers as with the you didn't know that romney ads and speeches are mostly gross distortions. i wonder at some point, is there a saturation point in negative campaigning were $800 million on negative ads versus a billion dollars, is there a point where

there's diminishing returns here? >> guest: there's absolutely diminishing returns that would probably argue breach. but we still have several months ago. but the returns are not negative returns. again, like we discussed, this is an election being decided by the fundamental factors that decide elections. the distribution of party identification in the country and that is the state of the economy. that said evidence had been a close election and it certainly looks like a close election, advertising can mark the election. ask al gore. would you like to spend another 10,000, 100,000 common million dollars in 2000? and that is the way these campaign managers, that's the way these people running for office name. they are risk-averse since the

comic even know the other additional $200 million make a pretty small impact over the other billion dollars the party spent, they are thinking about the 540 votes that al gore lost the presidency on. they are thinking about ohio in 2004. george w. bush wins ohio, but by a very narrow margin. they are thinking about 2002 senate races in places like montana and virginia. -- 2002 races in places like missouri and minnesota in 2006 senate races in places like virginia and montana, all races decided by a razor thin margin and controlled by the u.s. senate in 2,002,004 decided the presidency. >> host: wabash, indiana come up on the republican line. you are on the mr. goldstein. >> caller: good morning, mr. goldstein. how are you? >> caller: i'm good.

sitting in my easy chair. i'm a senior citizen and i've a question. on the democratic attack about the republican candidate about his wealth and his so-called outsourcing of jobs, the only thing is, the obama administration do not bring forth the information that they are five billionaires sitting on his cabinet. but we don't hear about that. and there'll outsourcing jobs. so let's just balance it up and call a fact a fact, and a lie a lie. okay? postcode mr. goldstein, are there things emerged in the negative ads that have come up so far that she'd seen both sides use? >> guest: the obama attacks

have been, what the viewer -- with a collar shirt said they were trying to attack may romney and what is perceived as a string for mitt romney, his business experience and claimed that he spent lots of jobs overseas. the republican attacks on barack obama have been more carriers of those attacks. the numbers he read from the "washington post" show how obama has had to carry much of the water in terms of the campaign of political advertising. we have seen more players on the republican side. but they are basically trying to hold obama accountable for the situation in the country now and setting out a team that he's just not up to the job. again less than, that collar has very strong feelings. political advertising seems to start the comment and for many years i was a college professor and things that engage people

and get people to talk about it i think are a good ring in terms of politics. we are going to get calls and people have strong opinions whether it be on ron paul were strong opinions on the obama advertising or the romney advertising. should people's only source of information the political advertising? no peer but is that the only source of information out there? no, the other important point is that advertising sometimes reaches people who are not political junkies. we are in a town of political junkies on a nation of political junkies. people who read multiple newspapers everyday, checking multiple screens. i'm not even sure how many you have there where your checking politics. there is other people out there who need to be engaged a bit more. if they sit around watching jeopardy over lafortune and the political advertising comes on. and again, were taken out of context, high political writer

eric probably know that engages them to go read the news, go seek out more information and that's probably a good thing. >> host: again, ken goldstein of the campaign media analysis group. president of that group, co-author of more than 30 books and articles on political advertising, voter turnout in presidential elections. he was also a political science professor at university of wisconsin, madison. look at the café now on the democratic line. kathleen, thanks for calling in. call could good morning, how are you? >> host: good, go ahead. >> caller: and no, i think one of the points was just proven by the last caller from indiana. number one, where do you get the notion that the people on the president's cabinet are

billionaires? you know, he threw out all this stuff and the media plays a huge part, plus all of the elected officials like the republicans, you know, no one is saying hey, you know what? you're spewing all that stuff out and you show me for a fact what you're saying is actually true. no one does that. i personally know for a fact that romney -- i saw an interview of his yesterday and he is sitting there whining and complaining like a spoiled brat that you can't talk about him and all these ads are misleading. ..