integrated north america, particularly if we figure out ways of combining canada, mexico, with the united states as we enter into potentially new trade grandmas, one across the atlantic, one across the pacific. if we figure out new ways of wiring together our infrastructure, improve the immigration system and so forth. i actually think the potential of north america to be the world residents economic engine is real...

>> in many ways it is politically and economically performative. again, the potential for north america, it is tightly woven together. and i think it will be as we go on. there is potential to be doing good for the 300 and plus million americans. it can be one of the great stories. it really is deserving of high level of attention. why am i not a mystic to . >> well, one has to do with technology. three or four years ago, none of us would've seen how remarkable

this was. so it shows you the capacity of innovation. we still have the worlds best university. we have land and water, we have a stable political system. we have the most open country in the world for immigration. a surprising number of successful businesses have their roots in people who have come to this country. with some fairly modest changes.

i really want to know that this country has enormous defense and the question is whether politics will get out of the way. >> that is really what we are talking about. when it comes down to the foreign minister, america's is one budget deal away from being a great power. again, something to that effect. and it is all -- you know, there is really something to that. it is the budget bill, we are getting economic rates above 3%. you know, i do think some of what ims testing here is more ingrained. and i think that there is something of a positive reaction on the foreign policy front. i think there has been something that is quite healthy.

the greater emphasis on asia, i think, it is healthy. including the possibilities of north america. so i see corrections going on in the area of policy. and i see great restraint. given all that, it would not be hard to stay optimistic. but we need to get it right. like i try to in this book, it can influence and contribute to the debate in this country that's where we are going and how we get there. and you know, including what we

should and should not be doing in the world and here at home. there is no reason that optimism would become any other way. >> richard, thank you so much. i'm really happy that you wrote this book. there a lot of books that are interesting. by the way, this is interesting and he will be signing the book after the session. but there are also books that are interesting for other reasons. i think this book pushes us toward the debate that we need as a country. whenever i have agreed with richard over the years, it seems like we always get into some kind of trouble. [laughter] i hope it only means that a lot of people read this book and talk about it. it is about restoring the internal forces of american power and includes what the united states aimed to aim to do in the world and how it does it. thank you, richard. [applause]

[applause] [inaudible conversations] >> is there a nonfiction author or book that you would like to see featured on booktv? send us an e-mail at booktv at c-span.org or tweet us at twitter.com/booktv. next on booktv, beth leech profiles various lobbyists working in washington dc to highlight the role that they played a political system. this is about an hour. >> beth leech is a professor of political science at rutgers university. she teaches and publishes on interest groups, lobbying, and policymaking. she received her bs che from the school of journalism at northwestern university and her phd from texas a&m university.

her roles involve interest groups, social movements and mass media and the public policy process. she is the author of several books, including the award-winning lobbying and policy change, who wins, who loses and why. meeting at grand central, understanding the social and evolutionary groups of cooperation and the other book is the importance of groups and politics and political scientists science. she is a expert as well and she is a former newspaper editor. before i have her come up, i would like to share a copy of the book, it is available to purchase it in a highly discounted rate. we hope that you will buy them. i wanted to introduce some of the people who are here.

howard marlowe, please raise your hand. robert walker, form is congressman and julie stewart, families against mandatory minimums. lyle dennis, deal flores, leslie harris from the center for democracy and technology and i don't know whether general is here. and craig holman from public innocence. i'm impressed that a 15 people interviewed, so many of you showed up and we are honored by your presence. we hope that you will ask questions as well. without further ado, i give you back leetch area not.

>> thank you, laura, thank you for everyone at the aclu for having me here today. in the audience, how many of you are lobbyists? how many of you are policy advocates? okay come i have to admit that it is a little bit strange for me to be here talking to lobbyists about lobbying. because usually it is the other way around and i'm the one asked questions and listening to what you have it. we will turn the tables for just a few moments. let's talk about what motivated me to write this book. i was motivated to write the book in part because of what laura said. the general public content public has a very inaccurate view of what lobbyists are and what they do. when i talk to people and i meet someone outside of washington, i tell them that i study lobbying and the reaction is usually something akin to i said that i studied corruption and con artistry.

from what i actually know from my previous research, i can tell you that lobbyist spend more time with public officials who already agree with their point of view. this includes an enormous amount of expertise and specialized information to the policy process. importantly i know from my surveys only about one third of interest organizations that are active in washington have been affiliated past. those who have a past -- most of them have a relatively modest amount. so tran-threes my effort to address some of these things and share with the general public. the first thing that you would learn from this book is that there is an extraordinarily wide range of lobbyists. virtually any type of policy or interest. in the book there is a lobbyist

who works on health care reform. there is also one who works on education reform and rights for deference. there is a lobbyist for university for police officers. for native american casinos. for internet freedom, lobbyists to work on prison sentences, civil liberties. there are lobbyist for other lobbyists and lobbyists to lobby reform. what did i learn about this? well, one of the things i learned is that no one grows up thinking that they want to be a lobbyist. i also learned that there are two people in the book who now are well-known lobbyist on policy who got bad grades until grades in science when they were in school. i learned that you can walk into a closet during a job interview

and still get the job. you have to read the book to find out who those people are. on a more serious note, i found that the most commonly mentioned skill that advocates told me a lobbyist needs is not schmoozing that the general public thinks of that the ability to write well. second on the list was a mind for political strategy. that is not surprising. and the idea that you need to be articulated. not a smooth talking. in the interview, the idea comes through loud and clear. if lobbyists are influential, it is a large part because of the expertise and specialized information that they bring to bear on policies and how the policies may turn out if

enacted. they know more about their policies and just about anyone in the world. it is also striking how many lobbyists apologize to me because they had not met with any members of congress or any staff. a lot of work goes into preparing for those meetings. but they don't always realize that it's a small part of what the lobbyist does, with the average lobbyist is doing. so i think the problem? well, we have an inaccurate view of what it means to be a lobbyist. i certainly know that we have things we can blame on lobbyists. it is rhetorically useful, especially for underdog groups to blame things on lobbyists, the big-money lobbyists and their interns. i do understand politically why

this would potentially be helpful, even those who know very well the lobbyists are not evil monsters. perhaps those reformers would even say that this would help level the playing field. i disagree with that point of view in part because i am a professor and it bugs me when inaccuracies are repeated. it just bothers me. even from a more practical point of view, it matters because the view of the lobbyists as the arm-twisting, vote buying trickster leads to a inappropriate ways of regulating lobbyist. for example, there are to laws and rules that omit their ability to serve on advisory committees or work or a campaign and for agencies.

it leads to making a distinction between advocates who work 19% of the time on lobbying and lobbyists who work 20% of the time on lobbying. and that encourages individuals who are policy advocates and consultants to try to avoid registering as lobbyists. that leads to a lack of transparency and an inability to regulate the unregulated lobbyists. that is why i think it is important that more people outside of washington understand what it means to be a lobbyist and that is why wrote this book. the book is not an argument. the book itself is people talking about their jobs and what they do. but there are policy implications as to what they have to say. one of the messages that i hope

comes through is that lobbying is representation of interests. right to have those represented in the right to bring grievances before government. i hope this book makes that little bit better known. [applause] >> is a microphone on? yes? okay, she said be really nice otherwise she is not coming over. [laughter] okay. if you have questions for professor leech, now is the time. but first, giving an opportunity to people who have been profiled in the book, you can think of

anything you would like to ask or add. >> stand up and say what you like. >> hello, i am craig holman. much of what you just described about lobbying sounds as if howard wrote it for you. [laughter] we have had to go through a lot of work trying to deal with capitol hill following the jack abramoff scandal. setting up for the first time ever -- tell people what it is about? okay. it is part of the government act in 2007. we establish for the first time ever ethics rules. so there is no downside at all registering as a lobbyist. some of these ethics rules, some lobbyist did not want to go that far. however, we have seen a slight

decline in registration, but not overwhelming. you know, if the choice is that we stick with ethics rules and lose a little bit of the lobbyists disclosure order we give them the tools altogether. i'm going to stick with the former. how do you feel about that? >> i certainly you would not say -- i would certainly agree with you that ethics rules are important. i do think that the issue becomes when people are outright banned from being involved. i would rather have transparency and know what is going on. drop off that we have seen in this does concern me. this does concern me when i hear from people who are not registering, when i hear about people who are not registering,

those who very much a lobbyist. the ethics rules will not be effective if the people that they are supposed to effect simply have declined to register as a lobbyist. >> go ahead. introduce yourself. >> okay. i am delighted and i think you both very much. my office manager talked about what i had to read. and particularly, i am humbled because of the legalities here today. other people who are here, i am just a lobbyist. of course, it was said that

well, you know, he said i was a piano player in a brothel. you know, we begin with that today in terms of saying what her opinions are. i am especially concerned about the unintended negative impact. it is recognized that i'm going to get it more in the campaign finance area, the campaign event fundraiser. i'm going to be able to see and register and be able to talk about policy. so i think anybody who shows up

here, it doesn't make any difference. that is a concern of mine and very briefly, craig has been quite right when he mentioned the importance. in the past two years, i worked with craig and other folks to try to create more transparency. i do think we need to have more that we can improve on. i'm happy that we are working together area that we have to understand that there are some unintended things of consequence. >> any of the other interviewees? congressman? i have seen fidgeting, do you have a microphone? lycée who you are. >> yes, i am bob walker. i am with wexler and walker. i am one of those people who

speaks with the professors and have a great repertoire with them. you know, is a great and interesting point. because i got to this .20 years on the science and technology committee on capitol hill. i got an education and science policy as opposed to bench science. it is that intersection between policy and practice that lobbyists want. it is the ability to take what is being practiced in the rest of the economy and translated into things that are important in policy in washington. in this century that will be an even more important part in

ensuring that we have volumes of information that we are now dealing with, and they are horrendous. people who have a practice approach that being able to take those volumes of information and translate them into something meaningful is going to be more important, not less important in the future. that is the reason why what that has done is so important. it helps people to understand in an academic sense what it is supposed to the character of lobbyists that so often dominates the public discussion. what you have to do is preserve an astounding ability of the people who are the policy advocates to be able to persist with rational point of view. the agenda that was outlined earlier, something that i don't necessarily agree with on the political front. it is backlash of ideas that

allows us to really legislate. it is such an important function for those of us who have served in the congress. you don't have time to study and that all of these issues as a member of congress. you really depend upon the people who can bring those issues to you and give you a rational perspective of what what you are about. the most important question asked was okay, that was a great presentation. what would others say? to give them an honest evaluation of what the other side would say on that. you know that they will give their point of view anyway. it is that translation, the people that are the practitioners, those who have to formulate policy, those are the lobbyists can really fulfill. we have this great way for

people to have a better understanding of just what it is that we do. >> hello, i am with the public affairs group of new jersey. i'm going to pick a fight with my girl counterpart and i'm going ask you a question. i recognize that the fishbowl here in washington and the scrutiny is much greater than it might be in a place like new jersey. that is not to say that the ethics rule with a requirement of lobbyists are stringent here as they are anywhere in the country, both for states and that the at the federal level. the question is why do we have what we have here and the conversations about transparency among lobbyists. there is a slight disagreement about how much transparency there should be. the fact that in new jersey, there is more people that are registering as lobbyist despite the restrictions.

but i'm not sure that anyone goes for sale anywhere else. it is a real issue. i don't understand why there is such difficulties at the federal level. we have some very strict rules. the number of lobbyist keeps going and we don't seem to fight over those issues. >> despite the structural strict rules? >> despite the strict rules. >> i'm not sure that i have a response for that but it is an interesting observation. i would ask you whether or not those rules are easy or difficult to comply with. what is the most burdensome part of those rules and what are the most common sense part of those rules? >> hold on ,-com,-com ma let me make sure that we have the microphone going to. >> we have to disclose every

dollar that we earned from a client on an annual basis. we have to disclose conversations that we have agencies. who we met with and wine. we have to disclose this on a quarterly basis that we lobby on . we have to disclose every dollar that we earn. there is only so much that we can spend. some of it is actually down to zero now. if we would've taken out this effort. if they don't want to be reported, there is no and if it. so the annual report becomes a highly disclose piece of information. some of the other things i mentioned disclosed on a quarterly basis. >> i do not see a great

difference between what you do and what we do at the federal level. other than the agency reporting. we report on agencies. but not at each meeting. >> there's kind of this discussion and impact of the community and what we had talked about before. campaign-finance and we don't seem to have those problems and we don't ruminate over those policies. >> my impression is that most people are registering this. with my disagreement, it may be a half-empty house open. i don't want to encourage less reporting, which i'm afraid that some of we have encouraged. i am 100% with craig in terms of gifts and those sorts of things. i would like to go further down

the road. i think that where we differ is that i am much more concerned about who is represented in the biggest concern that i have is not -- it is not this close relationship that exists here. most interest do have a lobbyist. there are certainly those that are underrepresented. the solution to that is not to do away with the lobbyists who are here, but those that we can encourage and teach people how to represent their own interests in washington. >> before you do that, i want to make sure that we steward, in case you have anything you want to add to this discussion -- i'm giving the gentleman the first

shot. but we will have to open this up. so go ahead and get your debate going. tidied up quickly. >> i just want to explain the ethics rules that we have explained in later with obama's ethics executive order, it is far beyond transparency. we are not allowed to buy lunch or wine and dine anymore. even our employers have companies that are not allowed to take a number of college or a staffer on anything longer than a one-day trip. just long enough to fly them back. so these ethics rules really are quite sweet and they go beyond transparency. it has had a little bit of

impact in trying to discourage some lobbyists and really not that significant. i would've expected a bigger impact given the extent of the rules. do we really haven't seen a great of an impact. but there are institutional ways that we can solve even the smaller problems and that is something that we do know. >> okay, that was craig holman, chapter 15 in the book trade he closes it out. now you hear from chapter one in the book. [laughter] >> put them opposite of each other on purpose. they are the bookends. [laughter] >> i think tolerance is a very good thing to have. we do our jobs just fine. taking a member or staff member to launch or dinner.

there is no transparency and that is my concern. i would hope that members of congress will at some point, they will really want to delve into that subject. especially with campaign finance. now they have super pacs. we are not sure that all of that is that great in result. up we want to control the campaign funding and have super pacs. but i think from a lobbyist for interview, igc members of congress talking about what is your expertise, what is your reputation. and how would this work in this business, more than just a couple of years? all the other things that members of congress rely on. so i think that the more people

that we can bring under that law, the more that we can register. i would like to see that done. >> okay, i'm going to open it up to the full question-and-answer session and ask anyone else if they have questions. >> yes? please say your name in who you are wet. >> hello, my name is china dickerson and i am a third-year law student at howard university school of law. my question relates to the conversation or the statement you made about underrepresentation of public interest groups and what you were talking about earlier. but the public has a deception of lobbyists, i think that is because the public respects and supports public interest groups and those groups are not represented in a way -- let me

back up -- in a way that corporate is it a trick corporations are represented. it seems like on the help that they have a fair amount of positive legislation their way. the corporations. i greatly respect this and i think it is a very important issue. however, i mostly just see her and it is an issue and i understand that especially now in this economy that people need to support their families. i'm wondering if you could speak more to this underrepresentation. i have spoken to some people about it. i plan to do more and other public interest side.

i'm wondering if you have spoken to lobbyist that have represented corporations and those who have an interest in the public interest. >> you know, that is a really loaded question. >> i think that there are 15 or 20 questions in there. so i will -- my concern with the underrepresented is that they have fewer resources and they have fewer lobbyists. i think that is what you are coming to in your comments. when i wrote the book on lobbying and policy change, which is a more technical book on this, one of the findings out of this book includes interviewing people on all sides of the issue and following them over four years. asking people who are involved, lobbyists and members of government who are the most

important interest groups on those issues. the interesting thing is that even though businesses and trade associations and anything that is related to the business world, even though that is true, we found that one third of the interest that are mentioned by these people, saying who was in wharton, they were citizen groups. so count for talent, those who are represented have a lot more influence despite their few numbers. so i do think that i am consoled somewhat by that finding. i think in part because it is something that you say. that is that they have more legitimacy before government. i think that is important that people recognize that and

remember that they have fewer resources and they will be able to make their point. it will be difficult for them to make their point. but i think members of government, by and large they are listening. they speak for their members. >> i think the most marginalized people in our country, the most unpopular groups may be prisoners and the poor. they often are not registered to vote or have some voting for a lot of felons when they complete their sentences. some have great difficulty winning not in the franchise. i think that elected officials pay attention to people who wrote. as a society there is a very spirited discussion going on that is policy rooted about what

the role of government is in those people's lives. social security, medicare, and i think that those debates are not just about good guys and bad guys, but people who have a really big theoretical -- those who have a policy disagreement about the role of government in people's lives. even though i am a public interest advocate, i just disagree that all corporate lobbyists don't represent the people. they represent sometimes thousands of employees that are working for a particular company. they represent the association of businesses were the biggest employers in certain communities. i think that people should understand that nonprofit

organizations are also corporations. i think the notion of the huge distinction between nonprofit, for-profit, it is dangerous when it gets to regulating the lobbying industry. that is just my 2 cents. i believe that everyone has a first amendment right to have representation in their government and it is incumbent upon people of goodwill, those who can join organizations like the aclu, i will give a shout out to them. even though bob walker may not join, he may not understand how much we recommend his free-speech rights. [laughter] you know, i think that if you join organizations, you'll find out what is going on in washington and then you can make a determination. there are many people to speak for the people here in

washington. there are so many more physical barriers getting into a congressional office. that is really sad. i can chase a congressman to the well of the house floor in the have to go through so many levels of clearance and this will have a real impact on people's access to elected officials you can ride on the train with them forget the lobbyists, but the general public access has been greatly constrained.

>> hello, i am michelle richardson with aclu. my question is about the role of the internet over the last few years. grassroots advocacy and lobbyists. phone calls, assets of internet that is instantaneous, real-time, do you think that that evens out the playing field over time? >> well, yes and no. yes, the grassroots have been around a long time. back before e-mail, there were

letters and also telegrams. it has been around for a long time. you know, it has always been a way for the public when they are in large numbers to be able to better express their feelings to put pressure on government, to encourage government, you see it in the age of women's suffrage and the prohibition movement. we see it today in all sorts of ways. i agree with you. the yes side of it is it is easier. one of the dangers there is that it becomes harder it for the public to rise up. the harder it becomes, the more seriously it is taken. if all it takes is an e-mail, you know, voting yes, voting no,

anyone can do that. so the members of congress may not take it that seriously as they would have, had there been an avalanche of handwritten letters. >> are there other questions? >> yes. >> please state your name and who you are when. >> hello, i am part of the broadcast journalism program. i would like to ask what the lobbyist rationales are. horsetrading, sometimes people push the topics a way and i'm wondering how that affects your work. >> i would like to open that up.

yes? oh, okay. right here, please. >> hello, i would like to take the air more question. i would argue that the constitution provides that congress appropriate money and that a constitutional position is that the congressmanmay have that many use. i would rather have a congressman from central pennsylvania influence how money is used in central pennsylvania than the gs 14 from vienna, virginia. they are our earmarks going on everyday. but the decisions are made by people who are not accountable to the public. it is effectively a democratic position.

and we may get some disagreement here, but i'd be a little surprised. there are a variety of unintended consequences, one that you may never see another and if i'm a flaming liberal and i don't have anything that makes me want to vote for it, i'm going to say, okay, that same bill that i voted, there is nothing in that build it makes me want to vote for it. this bill spends too much money. consequently we have the budget act on capitol hill. i think it is a major factor. >> i see craig ready to jump out of his chair. >> i don't actually disagree as much as you might think. you know, when congress passes

the ban on earmarks, they literally turned to allocating the budget over to the executive branch and they remove themselves from the entire process. that is not necessarily very constructive. the problem with earmarks is one earmarks are doled out to campaign contributors. then you have corruption. we can easily solve the problem of corrupt your marketing by prohibiting any congressman from giving up their marks again. getting involved in the earmarking process. >> is to give you a perspective, we do not have any more information as part of the process. that is far is the training, i just happen to believe, social

media has really contributed to the inertia in washington. just because the interaction with groups is so instantaneous and people can use this so quickly. it backs the members in the senate and the places that they publish. i'm circling back around to new jersey. it takes people time to foster a compromise in horsetrading. just in new jersey we have a governor who is known for his horsetrading and forceful personality. we also have a legislator that was controlled by the opposite party. one that is willing to sit down and horse trade. so it can happen if you have the right personalities working together. at the state level i am sure it is easier than at the federal level. we are just under such scrutiny. it is much more pressure.

but it can happen if we have the right personality involved, even if they are from different parties. >> jeff, would you like to say something? >> i would just like to say that i have been very interested to hear some of the side effects of earmarks from a very nerdy professor point of view. i would agree with craig in the sense that the thing you want to avoid in policymaking is any chance in which a single individual can give something to a single individual and they could give something back. something about the group process. the transparency, the knowledge of many people that helps things the on the up and up. in general i am opposed to earmarks for that very reason. i'm interested to hear both of your ideas. in large part, i fought against them for 20 years while i was in

the congress. so i understand your point of view. the problem that we have is the breakdown of the whole congressional process. the rules actually say that you have to pass authorization bills before other bills. that system is broke down. it is broken down in part because the appropriation bills are decaying vehicle for everyone to get done what they wanted to get done, including individual projects. i created a situation where the policymaking was done and the author of it was basically ignored. that means that policy does not develop with a long-term framework that is developed on an annual basis. it builds within the appropriations process and that has become a disaster because the horsetrading that you talked about it used to be a matter of compromise. it largely went on the committee

structure where both parties could decide on a bill that had bipartisan luster to her before they brought it to the congress. it was brought to the congress under open rules where any amendment that was in this same area as the bill. in other words, it is subject to the rules and you couldn't ring up a nongermane issue. but any germane amendment could be introduced on the floor. that allowed the congress to work their will. that was not happening in the appropriations process areas and many were told that if you oppose any of the appropriation bills coming through, the earmark would get dropped. and so it was -- it was a case where the appropriation process

and the policy process was being driven by the earmarks and resulted in a disaster on capitol hill. >> i want to give back to the question about loaded words. one is compromise and i think that we have a very challenging time in front of us. because compromise seems to be discouraged by both parties. i'm surprised at how many lobbying organizations are echo chambers for a particular party. i am talking about business and nonprofit. it is just shocking to me how many republican members of congress will meet with groups like the aclu and say this is the first time any of your organizations have asked for a meeting. there's a dynamic where people are talking about like-minded

people only. they are not reaching across the aisle. i always ask we have 17 in the office and i always encourage them to reach out to both parties diligently because nothing major passes unless members of both parties vote for it. you can't get anything through because we are such a politically divided country and that is reflected in our congress. i'm sorry that compromise has come to mean mean a bad thing. i think that to try to get 535 members of congress, to rubberstamp something, it is a impossible. that is why they got elected. they will want to put their spin on it and that requires

compromise. that is not a dirty word. but it has come to be a dirty word. it is unfortunate the polarization that keeps washington in such gridlock. are there other questions? >> are their comments? >> craig mentioned the inability these days in the way that we used to. you talked about this the means in which members of congress receive information via telegraph that you know or otherwise. and the more you spoke about in the days before 9/11 when you could approach members of congress without all of the obstacles and hurdles in front of you. because we are talking about the

profession, when you look at the then and now, in terms of looking at the profession, what adjustments have you had to make? i don't you can love you can let all of the secrets go, but with these restrictions, how have you had to adjust over the years and what adjustments do you like and which ones do you dislike? >> would anyone like to start? >> go ahead. you are so shy. >> i like all of the restrictions. quite frankly, you know, some can never afford the ability to help in the way they did before. we set aside a table for wining and dining and it wasn't just the type of thing that we could do. with all these new restrictions is focus. lobbyists going back on the

hill. instead of wining and dining, we go back on the hill and talk to members of congress. that is what bothered me, but that is what we are supposed to do. it really did help level the playing field quite a bit. so i like this. >> just? >> i'm on a former counsel in capitol hill. we have been talking about restrictions. i have a very definite point of view. i may be the only person here that is old enough to work on capitol hill and as a lobbyist but i can tell you that when i went out and had a lunch, i was on the receiving end of an endless number of questions.

without being constrained, we got to know each other. i think part of that process which we need to have a fiduciary responsibility for, to say that this is the best way i remember it. that we have this way, and i think some of these restrictions have gone a little bit too far. and both of us are making the decision about how we will vote and do something that we have pushed with not enough on the basic good. that is my experience. >> i strongly agree with you. i started as a lobbyist in 1979. you know, well before child

labor laws were passed. i do remember being able to have lunch with staff people and have a cocktail with a member of congress. you know, my experience over these several decades is that the vast majority of people we interact with, both as lobbyists and staffers are honest people. it is the rotten apple to get all of the media attention and makes it bad for the rest of us. but i believe that people really do have a hunger to sit down and talk. it is just not the way it used to be. they were much more accessible. they saw lobbyists as an extension of their staff, sometimes in the sense that they could determine which ones

needed help and which ones didn't. they came to rely and trust on everything. i am happy to day that they still have a great deal of influence. notwithstanding these restrictions. i will give you an example and that will make your hair grow back. maxine waters, who i have known for decades. it is easier for me to have a fundraiser for her. this is when i was not with the aclu. we didn't have fundraisers. we are a nonpartisan organization. but it was easier for me to have a fundraiser for her in my home than it was for me to have a meeting with her at starbucks. there is something wrong with that picture. i think that we have overregulated human contact to some degree. >> okay. it is so nice. i can take on you as well. my question is even if is just a

lunch, my concern that anything that is like that, certainly having a campaign event for someone, with any of these events that ends up raising the costs for the underrepresented. in order to be on a level playing field with you, they need the money to be able to take people to lunch and take people to dinner rather than it team to pure information. what extent if we did not have the ethics of our regarding dinners and gifts and trips. i wish that with campaign finance -- to that extent, by allowing those we make it that much more difficult to be able to have their voices heard as they can afford to do that. >> i know julie stuart and i keep pointing it out. because you are -- you are a

well-known advocate for people who are considered worthless. i would love to for you to weigh in on this question. >> it is interesting. as we were both speaking i tend to agree with you. we have overregulated a lot. but we certainly cannot afford to take members of congress to dinner a lot. well, i kind of feel like a member of congress would not go to dinner with us anyway. unless they were interested in our issue. once a dirty know are interested in our issue, i'm not sure it would make a huge difference in our lobbying. ..