leg like that. when an amputation is done today, it's -- they're able to do these flaps of skin that are sewn together carefully, and during the civil war the surgeons didn't have a lot of time for reconstructive surgery. things would be ragged. the skin tucked-under and sewn and bones fairly close to the surface and made it very hard for them to utilize artificial limbs. the phantom pain, the name of the book, has to do with the pain of a missing leg or missing arm. it's universal. almost all amputees report sensing pain in an area that has been amputated. it just -- the people at the amputee support group described it. it's -- you wake up in the middle of the night and your leg hurts and it's not there but it's excruciating and makes

they're recovery difficult, and the state sort of had -- it was trying to fix these people and at the time people thought that if you could get these injured veterans back to work, that it would ease this pain. so the book's genesis was this list of every person who contacted the state, related to having lost a limb or they of a limb during the civil war. the names of the veterans, company regiment, what county they were from, and everywhere you can find a document related to their correspondence with the state. the front of the book is a brief history of am pew takes the state of medicine at the time. what type of surgery they might have encountered, a history of the state's program, little overview of what the other confederate states were doing. people would understand what their ancestor experienced.

>> for more information on booktv's recent visit to raleigh, north carolina, and the many other cities visited by our local content vehicles go to c-span.org/local content. >> next on booktv, beth leech profiles various lobbyists working in washington, dc, to highlight the role play they play in our political system. this is an hour. >> a professor of political science at rutgers university. she teaches, researches, and publishes on interest groups, lob using and policymaking. she received her bsj from the midell school in northwestern university and her phn political science from texas a&m university. he primary research interest involved the roles of interest

groups-social movements and math -- mass media in the public policy process. she is the author of several books, including the award-winning "lob using and policy change: who wins and who loses and why," "meet agent grand central, understanding the roots of congresses." and the other book is "basic interest, the importance of groups and politics in political science." so, professor leech is a widely consulted expert on interviewing methods as well, and she is a former newspaper editor. so, before i have her come up, i'd like to show you a copy of the book. it's available for purchase today at a highly discounted rate. and we hope that you will buy them. but i want to introduce some of the people who are here. howard marlowe, who was interviewed for the book. raise your hand. robert walker, former

congressman, of walker wechsler. julie stewart, mandatory minimums. lyle dennis. dale flory o, leslie harris, from the center for democracy and technology, i don't know whether daniel horseses sneer and craig holeman from public citizen. if hey forgotten anybody? i'm just impressed that out of 15 people interviewed, so many of you showed up and were honored by your presence and we hope you'll ask questions as well. so, without further adieu, give you beth leech. >> you can clap. [applause] >> thank you, laura, and thank you too -- everyone here for eaving me here today. so, in the audience, how many of

you are lobbyists? how many of you are policy advocates? okay. i have to admit it's also strange for me to be here talking to a roomful of lobbyists about lobbying because usually it's the other way around and i'm the one asking the questions and listening to what you have to say. but we'll turn the table for just a minute, and talk a little bit about what motivated know write this book. i was motivated to write the book in part because of what laura said. the idea that the general public has a very inaccurate view of who lobbyists are and what they do. when i talked to people, when meet someone outside of washington, till them i study lob using. the reaction is usually something akin to i just said i study corruption and con artists. but from what actually know from my previous research, i could

tell them that lobbyists spend more time with public officials who already agree with their point of view than with those who oppose them. lobbyists bring an enormous amount of expertise and specialized information to the policymaking process, and i think importantly know from my surveys only a third of the interest organizes that are active in washington even have an affiliated pac and those who do, most of them give a relatively modest amounts. so lonnists at work is my effort to try to address these things and to share that with the general public. >> now, the first thing you would learn from this become is that there is an extraordinarily wide range of lobbyists for virtually any type of policy or interest. in the become, of course, there is a lobbyist who works own healthcare reform.

but thereles is a lobbyist who worked on education reform and rights for veterans. there is a lobbyist for a university. for police officers. for native american casinos, for internet freedom. for fairer prison sentences. civil liberties. there's even a loppist for lobbyists. and a lobbyist for lobby reform. so what did i learn from this? what would you learn if you read the book? well, one of the things i learn is that no one grows up thinking they want to be a lobbyist. i also learned some keeping credits. two people in the book who are now well-known lobbyists on science policy who got bad 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 at the book to find out who those people are. on a more serious note, i found that most commonly mentioned skill that advocates told me a lobbyist needs is not the schmoozing that the general public things of but the ability to write well. second down the list was a mind for political strategy. not surprising. and it was a distant third, the idea you need to be are articulate or, as the public might think, smooth-talking. in the interviews the idea of the lobbyist as a policy specialist comes through loud and clear. if lobbyists are influential it's in very large part because of the expertise and the specialized information they bring to bear on policies and how policies might turn out if enacted. they know more about their policies than just about anyone

in the world. it was also striking to me how many lobbyists apologized to me because that particular week they had not been on the hill. they had not met with any members of congress. they had not met even with any staff. and so a lot of the work goes into preparing for those meetings, but what the public doesn't understand is that's a relatively small part of what a lobbyist does. a small fraction of what the average lobbyist is doing. so, why die think it's a problem? if the public has an inaccurate view of what it is to be a lobbyist? i certainly know that it can be very useful politically to plame thing -- blame things on lobbyist, it's rhetorically useful especially for underdog groups to blame things on the lobbists and the big money lobbyists and their interests. so, i do understand politically why scapegoating lobbyists would potentially be helpful for some

people, even people who know very well that lobbyists are not evil monsters. perhaps those reformers would even say that the inaccuracies help level the playing field. i disagree with that point of view. i disagree in part because i'm a professor, and it bugs me when inaccuracies are repeated. but from a more practical point of view, beyond my own principles, it matters because the view of the lobbyist as the arm-twisting, vote-buying, sweet-talking trickster, leads to inappropriate and ineffective ways of regulating lob using. it -- lob using. it leads, for example, to laws and rules that limit the ability of lobbyisties to serve on advisory committees or work for campaigns or agencies. it leads to making a distinction

between advocates who work 19% of their time on lob using, and lobbyists who work 20% of their time on lobby ying, and that stops consultants from trying to register as lobbyists and that leads to a lack of transparency and an inability to regulate the unregistered lobbyists. so that's why it's important that people out of washington what it means to be a lobbyist. the book is not an argument. there are policy implications i hope that one of the messages that comes through is that

lobbying is representation of interests. the right to have those interests represented by a lobbyist drives directly from the right to bring grievances before government. the right to assemble. i hope this book makes that a little better known. [applause] >> is the mic on? yes. is the mic lady, and -- she said be really niece to her otherwise she's not coming over so if you have questions for beth, now would be the time. but i'd like to give preferred question opportunities to the people who have been profiled in the book, and in case they have anything they want to ask or add. >> well, certainly.

>> stand up and say -- >> i knew you would be first. >> craig holeman with public citizen. much of what you described about lobbying sounds as if howard wrote it for you. we have had to go through a lot of work of trying to deal with lobbyist corruption on capitol hill following the jack abramoff scandal, and what that involved was setting up for the first time -- >> tell people when the -- the honest leadership act of 2007 and established a series of ethics rules for lobbyists. prior to that it was on disclosure so there was no downside as all registering as a lobishing suddenly with these ethic rules, some lobbyists didn't want to go that far. however, it hasn't been a significant drop. we have seen a slight decline in registration of lobbyists but

not overwhelming. if the choice is, do we stick with ethics rules and lose a little bit of the lobbyists disclosure, or do we give up the ethics rules all together? i'm going to stick with the former. how do you feel about that? >> i certainly would not say -- i certainly would agree with you that the ethics rules are important. i think that the issue becomes when people are outright banned from being involved. i would rather have transparency. i would rather know what is going on, and the dropoff that we see in the registrations does concern me and the conversations i have with people do concern me when i hear from people who are not registering, when i hear about people who are not registering who very much are

lobbyists, and i fear that the ethics rules will not be eeffective if the people they're supposed to effect simply decline to register as a lobbyist. >> i know you have your hand in the air, howard. go ahead and introduce yourself. >> i'm howard my milo and i'm delighted to be in the book, the first 14 pages. my office monger told me when the book arrived that's all i had to read. i am particularly humbled because when you're in a book with income, who is not here today, and bob walker and other people and craig and the other people who are here, i'm just a lobbyist, and i recall the tale of the -- said, well, he was a lobbyist but he was afraid to

tell his mother that, and so he said, no, i told her i was piano player in a whore house, we deal with that in terms of saying what your opinions are. i am especially concerned that the unintended negative impact because as much as i would not turn back the clock, what i think i would do is recognize that if i want a member's time now, i am going to get it more in the campaign finance environment, campaign event, fundraiser, than i am in the office. not only that, -- in his office, rather, not only that i'm going to be able to see his or her legislative director and we'll be talking about policy, and there's nothing transparent about a campaign finance. i could be anybody and show up there. doesn't make any difference. you'll never know it.

so that's a concern of mine. very briefly, craig has quite accurately said that transparency is important. that's awesome. when i was president of the american league of lobbyists and am now fortunately able to say i'm the middle past president, but in the past two years, i worked with craig and i worked with other folks to create more transparency. i do think weed the to have more. i think the law -- i do think we need to have more, and i'm happy with what we have. we are working with what we have but we have to understand that there are some unintended negative consequences from it. >> any of the other interviewees? congressman walker? i see you fidgeting. do you have the mic? >> i'm bob walker, with the wechsler and walker, the executive chairman of wechsler walker. i am one of those people who lobbies on science policy, who

my -- i have professors who are way over the grades thinking i have anything to do with science policy. [laughter] >> now, it raises an interesting point. i got to this by spending 20 years on the science and technology committee on capitol hill, where i got an education in science policy as opposed to bench science, and it is that intersection between policy and practice that lobbyists walk. it is the ability to take what is being practiced in the rest of the economy and translate it into things that are important in policy in washington. and in this century, that's going to be an even more important part of assuring we have good governance in this country, because the volumes of

information we're dealing with are horrendous, and people who have a practiced approach at being able to take those volumes of information and translate them into something meaningful in policy will be more important, not less important in the future. so that's the reason why what beth has done here is so important. it helps people understand in an academic sense what it is we do as opposed to the caricature of lobbyists that often dominates the possible discussion, and we have to preserve the in this town the ability of the people who are the policy advocates to be able to present rational points of view, own though they come from different sigh. the agenda of the aclu would not be things i would necessarily agree with on the political front. but it is that clash, then, of ideas that allows to us really

legislate. and it's such an important function for those of white house served in the congress. you don't have time as a member of congress to study in depth all of these issues. you really depend upon the people who can bring those issues to you and give you a rational perspective, and one of the most important questions, okay, that's a great presentation. what would the opponents of this say, and to give them an honest evaluation of what the other side would say on that, because you know the other side will be in giving their point of view anyway, and it is that translation that -- between the people who are the practitioners, and the people who have to formulate policy, that lobbyists can really fulfill, and, beth, i think you've given us a great way for poem to get a better understanding what we do in that

regard. >> yes. >> my name is dale floria from new jersey. i guess, professor, i'm going to pick a fight with my federal counterparts and i'm going to ask you a question. i recognize that the fish bowl here in washington and the scrutiny is certainly much greater than it might be in trenton, new jersey. but i still have to say that the ethics rules and the requirements of electrickists in trenton are as stringent as anywhere in the country, by states or the federal level. so the question is why do we have the log jams we have here and the conversations about transparency among lobbyists. there was a slight disagreement in the back row how much transparency there should be and the fact in new jersey more and more people are registering as lob gists, despite the restriction and the amount of information we have to disclose, yet i'm not sure that anybody goes to jail more in new jersey

than anywhere else, but it's a real issue. so, i don't understand why at the federal level there's such difficulties in talking about the issue of transparency when at least at the state level, we have some very, very, very strict rules. so the number of lobbyists keeps growing and we don't seem to fight over those issues. >> despite the strict rules. >> despite the strict rules. >> i'm not sure i have a response for that. it's an interesting observation. a good research project. >> i'd ask you whether or not those rules are easy or difficult to comply with. what is most burdensome part of those rules and what are the most common sense part of those rules? >> a big -- >> hold on. make sure you have the mic. >> we have to disclose every dollar we earn from a client on an annual basis.

we have to disclose conversations we have at agencies. not the specificity of the topic but who we met with and when. we have to disclose every bill we lobby on, for, against, or monitor. we -- on an annual basis we have to disclose every dollar we earn. only so much we can spend, quite frankly, actually down zero now if we were to take out a legislator for plunk staff person and if they don't want to be reported they either pay for themes or don't go out to lunch or there's no benefit passing. so, -- then the annual report becomes a very highly disclosed piece of information. and some of the other things i mentioned are disclosed on a quarterly basis. so, -- >> i don't see a great difference between what you do and what we do at the federal level.

we have -- other than the agency reporting, yeah. we report on agencies. but not each meeting. not each meeting. >> i guess for my colleagues here, there's a discussion that it's impacting the ability for communication and to exchange ideas and we talked about doing a campaign finance forum. we don't seem to have those problems orthos discussions -- we don't -- these are their rules and we plow ahead. >> my impression is most people are registering, and it may be a half empty/half full thing. don't want to encourage less reporting which i'm afraid some of the rules have encouraged. i'm hundred% with craig in terms of gifts and those sorts of things. i'd like to go further down the road on campaign finance reform. i think where we differ is that

i'm much more concerned about who is represented and whether -- the biggest concern i have in washington is not the special -- is not the close relationships that exist here, but the ones that don't exist. that is, i'm concerned about interests that don't have a lobbyist. most interests do. there's certainly ones underrepresented that aren't as able to represent their interests before government, and the solution to that is not to do away with the lobbyists are here but to encourage people and teach them how to better represent their own interests in washington. >> i know both howard and i -- >> take the microphone. >> before you do that, i want to make sure julie stewart, in case you have anything you want to add to this discussion. i'm given -- you gentlemen the first shot. now, we will have to open this up for questions and comments.

so get your little debate going, and tie it up quickly. >> i want to explain. the ethics rules we oppose and the on leadership and open government act and later with obama's ethics executive order goetz far beyond transparency and reporting buying lunch. we're not allowed to buy lunch anymore. we're not allowed to do wining and dining anymore. we're not allowed to -- or even our employers and the companies, the organizations that employ us, are not allowed to take a member of congress or a staffer on anything longer than a one are -- one-day trip. just long enough to give a speech at a conference and fly them back. so the ethics rules are sweeping and go beyond transparency. it's had a little bit of impact in trying to discourage some lobbyists from staying registered as lobbyists, but not

that significant. given the extent of the ethics rules, i would have expected a bigger impact. but we really haven't seen that great of an impact. however, there are institutional ways we can solve even the smaller problems and that is something howard and i do agree on. >> okay. so that was craig holeman, chapter 15 in the book. he closes it out. now you're going to hear from chapter one in the book. [laughter] >> the book ends. i put them opposite each other on purpose. >> i have no problem transparency. just the way it is. i think zero tolerance is vary good thing to have. we do our job just fine, not having to take a member or a staff member to lunch, dinner, the like. my concern was that it was driving things into the campaign finance arena, where there is no transparency. so that's my concern there.

and i would hope that members of congress will at some point really want to delve into that subject because, although it's a sticky one in campaign finance because aberdeen we have the mccain fine hold and now we have superpacs and i'm not sure that was all that great a result that says, okay, we want to control campaign funding, but on the other hand now we have superpacs where dewe don't have control. but i see myself as -- i can see members of congress -- congressman walker said-what your expertise is, your reputation. he wouldn't be practicing this long, none of the people here would be in this business more than a couple of years if we didn't have trustworthiness and honest and all the other things that members of congress rely on. so i think the more people we can bring under the umbrella. the more people we can get to register, the better off, and

whatever we have to dangle, whether it's a stick or a carrot, i'd like to see that done. >> i'm going to open it up to the full q & a and ask anybody else if they have questions. yes. please say your name and who you're with. >> hello. i am a third, year law student at howard university school of law, and my question relates to the conversation or the statement you made about underrepresentation of public interest groups, and when you were talking about earlier the public has a bad perception of lobbyists, i think that is because the public respects and supports public interest groups and those groups are not represented. i think in the way -- okay, let

me -- corporations are represented, and it seems that on the hill that they have a fair amount of positive legislation their way, the corporations, and groups like miss stewart's group, i greatly respect. i think that's a very important issue. however, i mostly just see her, bless her heart, i think it's an issue that needs to have more people support it...

my concern would be underrepresented is that they have fewer resources and so they have fewer lobbyists so i think that is what you are coming from. i will tell you that. and shersinger when i wrote lobbying and policy change with my co-authors and more technical book let's say on this and this particular 11 of the findings out of that book, so we took 100 randomly selected issues in washingtwashingt on and interviewed people on all sides of those issues and we followed them over 40 years and we asked people who were involved lobbyists and members of government who were the most

important interest groups on those 100 issues and the interesting thing is even though businesses and trade associations and anything related to the business world and a citizen organization. even though that's true we found one third of the interests that were mentioned by these people saying who was important on this bill were citizen groups so pound for pound the citizen groups and those that are representing public interest have a lot more influence despite their few numbers. so i do take some, i am consoled somewhat by that finding and it's hard because of something that you said and that is that they have more, they have more legitimacy before government and i think that's important that people recognize that legitimacy

and remember that they have fewer resources and they are going to be able to make their . -- though it's going to be more difficult for them to make their point but i think members of government by and large are listening when they do. they do take that seriously because they speak for their members. >> i think the most marginalized people in our country, the most unpopular groups may be prisoners and the poor often aren't registered to vote and more have narratives for voting. for example a lot of felons when they complete their sentences have great difficulty winning back the franchise. so i think elected officials rightfully pay attention to people who vote and 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. and so there are conversations about how much public assistance, how much social security, how much medicare and i think those debates are not just about good guys and bad guys but people who have a real theoretical policy disagreement about the role of government in people's lives. even though i am a public interest lobbyist i just disagree with the notion that all corporate lobbyists don't represent the people. they represent sometimes thousands of employees who are working for a particular company. they represent associations and businesses who are the biggest employers in certain communities so i think, and people should understand that nonprofit organizations are also corporations.

so i think this notion of this huge distinction between nonprofit and for-profit is dangerous when it gets to regulating the lobbying industry. so that is just my two cents. i believe everybody has a first amendment right to have representation in their government and its incumbent upon people of goodwill who can vote, to join organizations like the aclu and i will give a shout-out to the aclu even though bob walker a not understand how much we represent his free-speech rights. [laughter] so you think if you join organizations you will find out what they are doing in washington and then you can make a determination whether or not you want to go into the lobbying field but i hope you consider it because we need as many people to speak for the people here in washington than before.

and one other thing i would like to add is that since 9/11 i think it's more difficult to actually interact with your member of congress. there are so many more physical barriers to getting into a congressional office and that is really sad. i remember the time where i could chase the congressman all the way to the well of the house floor and now i have got to go through so many levels of clearance and detect theirs. i think this is have a real impact on people's access to their elected officials. we have become much more fear driven and i liked it much better when you could stop a member of congress on the street. you could walk anywhere you needed to walk in the capital. you could ride on the underground train with a lobbyist. you know, i just think the general public's access, forget the lobbyists but the general public's access to their elected officials has been greatly constrained. i don't know whether the interviewees agree with that or

not. yeah okay they say they agree. good. i will call on more people who agree. no. are there other questions? >> hi i am michelle richardson with the aclu. my questions about the role of the internet over the last two years and grassroots advocacy with lobbyist and what do you think this will revolutionize the way people contact members of congress and assert their rights? i mean grassrootgrassroot s have been around for a long time, phonecalls and internet with instantaneous real-time frictionless way to contact your members of congress and you think that will balance out the playing field over time? >> yes and no. so yes grassroots has been around a long time and back before e-mail there were letters and back before letters there were also telegrams and back

before telegrams i don't know why there was that it has been around for a long time. and so, 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 and to encourage government to act. you see it back in the age of women's suffrage in the prohibition movement. you see it today in all sorts of ways. i agree with you that the yes side of it is yes, it is easier. one of the dangers there is easier means it becomes an easier to fix signal as it were. that is, the harder it is for the public to rise up to more seriously it is taken. if all it takes is a click on an e-mail, you know voting yes,

voting no via the internet, a member of congress may not take that as seriously as they would have had there have been an avalanche of handwritten letters. >> other questions? yes. please state your name and who you are with. >> i run a graduate broughtcrat -- broadcast journalist. [inaudible] compromise, horse trading, all those things seem to be pushed away at the current time because people think that's giving you principles and i wonder how that affects your work? >> i would like to open that up. yes.

the mic here please. >> i'm lyle with dennison associates and i will take the earmark question. i would argue that the constitution provides that congress appropriates money and that a constitutional position, the congress can designate how that money is used and i would argue strongly that i would rather have for a congressman from central pennsylvania influence how money is used in central pennsylvania then ags from virginia. there are still it earmarks going on and they go on everyday every day but the decisions are made by people who are not accountable to the public and it is effectively an anti-democratic position. democratic small d to impose earmarks. i may get disagreement here but

i would be a little bit surprised. so, there are a variety of what i think are unintended consequences of the earmark decision one of which is you may never see another appropriations bill passing congress. we have this discussion earlier today. if i am a flaming liberal and i don't have anything in a bill to make me want to vote for it, i'm going to say this bill doesn't spend enough money. that same bill i'm a flaming conservative and there's nothing enough built to make me want to vote for it this will spends too much money. consequently you have now but we see is that budget of poor patients gridlock on capitol hill. i think it's a major factor. does anybody disagree with that? >> 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 passed the ban on earmarks they

literally turned the entire process of allocating the budget over to the executive branch and removed themselves from the entire process. that isn't necessarily very constructive. the problem with earmarks is when earmarks are doled out to campaign contributors. then you have corruption. we could easily solve the problem of corrupt your marketing by prohibiting any congressman from giving out your marks to campaign contributcontribut ors. get them involved in the air marking process but just break that corrupting nexus when it comes to campaign money. >> i would like -- mr. flores? >> just to give you a stay perspective, we don't have earmarks in new jersey so it's not part of the process as far as a compromise in horse trading i just happen to believe and i feel like i want to write a

piece someday, someday, i think social media has really conjured the the inertia in washington just because the interaction with constituent groups is so instantaneous and people can marshal communications effort against a particular position so quickly that i think it lacks the members in the senate to places that they probably shouldn't be but i'm circling back around to new jersey. i still think it takes people to foster compromise in horse trading and just in new jersey right now we have a governor who is known for his horse trading in his personality but we also the legislature that is controlled by the opposite party that is willing to sit down and horse trade. so if you have the right personalities working together and at the state level i'm sure it is much easier than it is out the federal level because you under such high scrutiny and it's a much more pressurized environment.

yuki can have it if you have the right or sound these even if they're from the same parties. did you want to say something? >> i've been interested to hear some of the side effects of earmarks from a 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 a single individual could get something back. or something about the group process of the policymaking process, the transparency, the knowledge of many people about what's going on that helps to keep things on the up-and-up so in general i would be opposed to it earmarks for that very reason so i was interested to hear both of your ideas. >> yes, congressman. >> i have to weigh in on the earmark stu in large part because i fought against them for 20 years while i was in congress. the problem that we have at the

present time is the breakdown of the whole congressional process system. the rules of the congress actually say you have to pass authorization bills before you can pass appropriation bills. that system has broken down and it's broken down in part because the appropriation bills became the vehicle for everybody to get done what they wanted to get done including individual projects. and that created a situation where the policymaking and was done in appropriation bills in the authorizing committees were basically nowhere. that aims that policy does not develop with a long-term framework. it's developed on annual basis, a bill by bill in the appropriations process. that has become a disaster in congress because the horse trading that you talk about, it used to be a matter of compromise and it largely went on inside of the committee structure where both parties

could come together and decide on a bill that had bipartisan characteristics to it before they brought it to the floor of the congress. it was brought to the floor of congress under open rules where any bill or any amendments that was in the same area as the bill, in other words it was subject to the rules that you couldn't bring up a nongermane issue but any germane amendments could be introduced on the floor. that allowed the congress to work its will. that was not happening in the apart gration's process because what happened on the earmark was yes you are granted in earmark on the interior bill and that they were told that if you opposed any of the appropriation bills coming through your heir mark would get dropped in conference. so it was a case where the appropriation process and literally the policy process was

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

are not reaching across the aisle. i always ask -- do we have 17 lobbyists in the aclu legislative 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. so i am sorry compromise has come to mean a bad thing. i think you know to try to get 535 members of congress, 135 in the house and 100 in the senate to rubberstamp is impossible. that is why they got elected so they are going to want to put their spin on it and that requires compromise. and that is not a 30 word but it

has come to be at dirty word and it is really unfortunate the polarization that keeps washington in such gridlock. other questions? comments? yes, edina. >> hi. i am edina with the aclu. so craig mentioned the inability these days to schmooze or you are limited to schmoozing in the way that you use to that you talked about. the means which members of congress receive information from telegraph to whatever it's going to be and laurie you spoke about the lori you spoke about the days before 9/11 when you could literally approach members of congress without the obstacles and hurdles in front of you. my question is because we are talking about the profession when you look at the then and

now, just in terms of looking at the profession would do you see? what adjustments have yet to make? i do want people to let all of their secrets go but with these restrictions how a few had to adjust his lobbyists over the years and what adjustments do you like and which ones do you dislike? >> does anyone want to start? >> i can always start. >> go ahead. you are so shy craig. >> i like all the restrictions quite frankly. public citizen could never afford members -- flying members of congress to scotland to play golf. we didn't have restaurants where we could set aside a table for wining and dining. that just wasn't the type of things we could do. now with all these new restrictions in focus and force lobbyists actually going back on the hill instead of wining and

dining, go back on the hill and talk to members of congress. that is what lobbying is supposed to be about. and you know the logan restrictions really did help level the playing field quite a bit, so i like these are strict shins. >> yes. >> my name is earth and i'm a former counsel on capitol hill a former lobbyist and now a colleague. i can't believe i'm that old. i just wanted to talk about restrictions and schmoozing. i have a very different point of view. i may be the only person here who was old enough to work on capitol hill before sunshine and before we limited the opportunity to share and break bread together. as a lobbyist i can tell you when i've went out with members are staff and we had a lunch i was on the receiving end of an endless number of questions. that person had a chance to ask

without any time limit, without being constrained we have to get out of here because someone else has to get to meeting and we got to know each other and to a certain extent because to because to trust each other. i can tell you as a lobbyist part of that process was for me to feel a fiduciary responsibility to tell this person the truth the best way i knew it and that had an indication to look levine in the eye and say this guy speaks true or this guy is a bit of a false teller. i think some of these objections up on a little upon a little bit too far. we don't have enough faith in the integrity of the members of congress who ultimately make the decisions. how they will vote in what will influence them for the integrity and i think we pushed it too far and rely too much on the rules and not enough on the basic good in the issues that is my 2 cents. >> 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 and you know my experience over these several decades is that the vast majority of people we interact with both as lobbyist and as staffers are honest people. you know it's the rotten apple in the barrel that gets all of the media attention and makes it bad for the rest of us but i think people really do have a hunger to sit down and talk. and it's just not the way it used to be. they were much more accessible. they saw a lobbyist as an extension of their staff sometimes in the sense that they could determine which lobbyists did their homework and which ones didn't and they came to

rely on trust. i am happy to say the aclu still has a great deal of influence, notwithstanding these lobbying restrictions but i will just give you an example and that will make your hair grow back congress and in. maxine waters who i have known for decades, it's easier for me to have a fund-raiser for her -- this is when i was not with the aclu. we don't have fund-raisers, i want to verify that but when i was in a private practice of lobbying it was easier to have a fund-raiser 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 we have overregulated human contact to some degree. c. okay so it's nights that both of you i've don't have to pacom burt because i can pick on you as well. my question is, with these

dinners and even if it's just a lunch my concern is that anything that is like that is certainly worth having a campaign event which is something of that is still about that is still about that with any of these events and raising the cost for the unrepresented. in order to be on a level playing field with you or with birds they need the money to be able to take people for lunch and take people to dinner rather than it being the pure information. to what extent if we did not have these ethics requirements regarding dinners and gifts and trips and i wish campaign finance, to what extent by allowing those do we make it that much more difficult for the disenfranchised to be able to have their voices heard if they can't afford to do that? >> inode julie stewart from families against mandatory minimums and i keep pointing you out because you are you know a

well-known advocate for people who are considered voiceless. i would love for you to weigh in on this question. >> it's interesting because i was thinking of that as you are both speaking and i tend to agree with you. i think we have overregulated a lot including this but we certainly cannot afford to take members of congress to dinner a lot if that were allowed because we just don't have those kinds of resources but i kind of feel like a member of congress wouldn't go to dinner with us anyway unless he was interested in our issue and the ones that i know are already and just did in our issue we in our issue we are to have access to in whatever ways we can. so i'm not sure that it would make a huge difference in our lobbying. and then a couple of other things while i've been sitting here listening. one of the things when i started in 1991 someone said to me congress legislate by antic go. i have always remembered that and of course the focus has been

to show the members of congress the kinds of people who are going to prison for decades for their nonviolent offenses -- offenses largely. when we have a lobby day and bring people from around the country for a long period time and they are voters and their families live in a congressional district, that is a very powerful way to lobby and i know a lot of lobbyists in this room probably are not lobbying on that grassroots of the level. i think it's a good way to get members of congress to understand how their policies affect real-life human beings and i think that's a really important part of my job. i would also say something you just mentioned about bipartisanship, i totally agree that nothing gets through congress must it's bipartisan and our last victory that we had with aclu was on crack-cocaine. who on earth would think jim

sensenbrenner would support changing campaign policies. he did. it was unanimous in the senate and almost unanimous in the house. one person opposed. that is the kind of bipartisanship that lobbying can bring together when it's done right. i think we did a very good job with the aclu and a number of other groups. that sort of bipartisanship is now sticking it's head up with rand paul and senator leahy and the senate on the safety valves bill on sentencing weather and also in the house with bobby scott and thomas massie so there is bipartisan work and bipartisanship network and a house in the senate on things you wouldn't necessarily think you could find on the ground on but i think it's absolutely critical in if we are trying to get both parties to the table to discuss these issues we will never win anything. >> thanks julie. julie stewart, chapter 4.

while it's almost 4:00 and we have provided refreshments for all of you. we want you to get out your wallets and buy books and give beth a chance to autograph them for you. the aclu is not taking any profit from the sale of these books. we just profit from people who tell the truth and i think we all profit from that. i want to say how honored i am to have worked with you on your first book in 2000 this latest book on how honored i am to be included in this book. what chapter and my? >> five. >> i'm chapter 5. that will be a running joke in my office for a wild. i just think your work and the work of the other political scientists who are with you, your colleagues, is a great

importance. we are in our group and we deserve to be studied and we also deserve to have our personal stories told so i and courage everybody to learn about the industry from a different vantage point and death i would like to give you the last word. if there is anything that has been said that you want to comment on or anything our anything that you forgot to say, have at it. >> is 126 thank you laura and the aclu for having me here today and all of those in the front row who made the book possible. if you find a book interesting their stories are the ones that are in there. it's not me talking about what i think should be done but talking about what they do every day in their lives so thanks everyone for coming. >> thank you. [applause]