the american political system. i'll only say this, i don't know that there are. you know, i'm in a minority on this, but as someone who's not from this country, i'm always impressed at how good our political system is. i think, look around the world. is there one that you would trade for american system? i mean, none of them are perfect. ours isn't perfect. it's pretty good. we're all pretty happy with it. we all pay our taxes. we don't leave. and people want to come here. so it's like i don't think there's anything i could teach the system. the system, as far as i can tell, doing a pretty good job. >> host: are you a citizen now? >> guest: no. i remain a canadian. can't give up my canadian history. >> host: when does david and goliath hit the stands? >> guest: october 12th of this year, 2013. >> host: and this is c-span2 previewing "david and goliath." october 2013 is when it hits the

bookstores. thanks for watching booktv. >> next on booktv, beth leech profiles various lobbyists working in washington, d.c. to highlight the role they play in our political m. this is -- political system. this is about an hour. >> beth is a professor of political science at rutgers university. she teaches, researches and publishes on interest groups, lobbying and policy making. she received her bsj from the ma dill school of journalism at knot western university -- northwestern university and her ph.d. in political science from texas a and h university. her primary research interest involved the role of interest groups, social movements and mass media in the public policy process. she is the author of several books including the award of of

of -- award-winning "role of policy change," "meeting at grand central: understanding the social and evolutionary roots of cooperation," and the other book is "basic interests." so professor leech is a widely consulted expert on interviewing methods as well, and she's 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 wanted to introduce some of the people who are here. howard marlo, who was interviewed for this book, raise your hand. robert walker, former congressman of walker-wexler. julie stewart, families against mandatory minimums.

lyle dennis. dale florio. leslie harris from the center for democracy and technology. i don't know whether daniel is here? no? and craig homan from public citizen. have i forgotten any of our dear lobbyists? i'm just impressed that out of 15 people interviewed, so many of you showed up. and we're honored by your presence. and we hope you'll ask questions as well. so without further ado, i give you beth leech. you can clap. [applause] [laughter] >> thank you, laura, and thank you to everyone here at the aclu for having me here today. so in the audience how many of you are lobbyists? how many of you are policy advocates? [laughter] okay. i have to admit, it's a little bit strange for me to be here

talking to a room full of lobbiests about lobbying, because usually it's the other way around, and ask i'm the one canning the questions and listening to what you have to say. but we'll turn the tables for just a minute and talk a little bit about what motivated me to 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 lobbystists are and what they do. when i talk to people, when i meet someone outside of washington, i tell them that i study lobbying, the reaction is usually something akin to i've just said i study corruption and con artists. but from what i actually know from my previous research, i can tell you, 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 policy making process. and i think importantly, i know from my surveys that only about one-third of the interest organizations that are active in washington even have an affiliated pac. and those who do have a pac give relative -- most of them give a relatively modest amount. be so lobbyists at work is my effort to try and address some of these things and to share that with the general public. now, the first thing that you would learn from this book is that there is an extraordinarily wide range of lobbyists for virtually any type of policy or interest. in the book, of course, there is a lobbyist who worked on health care reform, but there also 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, for civil liberties. there's even a lobbyist for other lobbyists. [laughter] and a hobbyist for lobby reform. a lobbyist for lobby reform. so what did i learn from this, what would you learn if you read the book? no one grows up thinking they want to be a lobbyist. i also learned, okay, some secrets. there's two people in the book who now are well known lobbyists on science policy who got bad grades in science when they were in school. [laughter] i learned that you can walk into a closet during a job interview and still get the job. you'll have to read the book to find out who those people are. but on a more serious note, i found that the most commonly mentioned skill that advocates

told me a lobbyist needs is not the schmoozing that the general public would think 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 that you need to be 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 career. 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 those 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 their 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, it's a small fraction of what the average lobbyist is doing. so why do i 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 blame things on lobbyists. it's rhetorically useful, especially for underdog groups, to blame things on the lobbyists and their moneyed, you know, 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 with that point of view in part because i'm a professor, and it bugs me when inaccuracies are repeated. it just bothers me. but even 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 lobbying. it leads, for example, to laws and rules that limit the ability of lobbyists or former lobbyists to serve on advisory committees or to work for campaigns or for agencies. it leads to making a distinction between advocates who work 19% of their time on lobbying and lobbyists who work 20% of their time on lobbying.

and that encourages individuals who are policy advocates or consultants to try to avoid registering as lobbyists. and that the in turn leads to a hack of trans-- a lack of transparency and an inability to regulate the unregistered shadow lobbyists. so that's why i think it's important that more people outside of washington understand what it means to be a lobbyist, and that's why i write -- wrote this book. now, the book, as laura mentioned, itself is not an argument. the book itself is people talking about their jobs and what they do. but there are policy implications to what they have to say. and i hope one of the messages that comes through in the book is that lobbying at its essence is representation of interests. the right to have those interests represented by a lobbyist derives directly from the right to bring grievances before government, the right to

assemble. i hope this book headaches that a little -- makes that a little bit better known. mrs. -- [applause] >> is the mic on? yes? [inaudible] is our mic lady -- >> really nice to me, otherwise -- [laughter] >> she said be really nice 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. in case they have anything they want to ask or add. >> well, certainly. >> stand up -- [laughter] and say, craig, who -- >> how did i know you would be first? >> with craig homan with public citizen. now, much of what you just described about lobbying sounds as if howard wrote it for you.

[laughter] we've 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 involveed was setting up for the first time -- >> tell people what loga is either. >> the honest leadership and open government act of 2007. that established for the first time ever a series of ethics rules for lobbyists. prior to that, it was only disclosure. so there was no downside at all for registering as a lobbyist. suddenly, with some of these new ethics rules, some lobbyists didn't want to go that far. however, it hasn't been a significant drop. we've seen a slight decline in registration on lobbyists, but not overwhelming. you know, if the choice is do we stick with ethics rules and lose a little bit of lobbyist

disclosure, or do we give up the ethics rules altogether, 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 the issue becomes when people are outright banned from being involved. i would rather have transparency, i would rather have transparency. i would rather know what's going on. and the dropoff that we see, the dropoff that we see in the registrations does concern me x. 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 effective if the people who they're supposed to affect simply have declined to register as a lobbyist.

>> i know you have your hand in the air, howard. go ahead. introduce yourself. >> i'm howard mar low, and i'm delighted to be in the book, and i thank you very much for that, and to be in the first 14 pages which is what my office manager told me when the book arrived, that's all i had to read. [laughter] i am particularly humbled, because when you're in the book with nick allard -- he's not here today -- and bob walker and craig and the other people who are here, you know, i'm just a lobbyist. and i recall the apock rah fill tale of the person who said, you know, that he was a lobbyist, but he was afraid to tell his mother that, and so he said, no, i told her that i was a piano player in a whorehouse. [laughter] and, you know, basically, we deal with that today in terms of

saying, you know, what our opinions are. i am especially concerned about the unintended negative impact of -- [inaudible] 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 a campaign finance environment and campaign event, a fundraiser than i am in the office. not only that, in his office, rather. not only that, but i'm going to be able to see his or her legislative director, and we'll still be talking about policy. in -- and there's nothing transparent about a campaign finance event. i could be anybody and show up there. it doesn't make any difference. you'll never know it. so that's a concern of mine in money and politics. and very briefly, craig is quite accurate in saying that transparency is important. beth also. when i was president of the

american league of lobbyists and i'm now, fortunately, able to say i'm immediate past president, but in the past two years i worked with craig, and i worked with other folks to try and create more transparency. i do think we need to have more, i think the raws can be improved -- laws can be improved: we're working with what we have, and we have to understand that there are some unintended negative consequences from it. >> any of the other interview interviewees? congressman walker, i see you personal injury psychiatrying. >> sure. >> so, do you have the mic? please say who you are. >> i'm bob walker, i'm with we wexler and walker, i'm the executive chairman. and i am one of those people who lobbies on science people who my, i have a professor who would be rolling over in their graves thinking i had -- [inaudible conversations] you're the other one, y k.w, in

interesting point because 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 that we have good governance in this country. because the volumes of information that we're now 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 is going to

be more important, not less important in the future. and so that's the reason why what beth has done here so important. it helps people to understand in an academic sense what it is we do as opposed to the caricature of lobbyists that so often dominates the public discussion. and what we've got to do is preserve in this town the ability of the people who are the policy advocates to be able to present rational points of view even though they often come from very different sides. the agenda that was outlined earlier of the aclu would not be things that i would necessarily agree with on the political front. but it is that clash then of ideas that allows us to really legislate. and it's such an important function for those of us who have 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 of what they're about. and the most important question that's ever asked by a member of congress of a lobbyist is, 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's going to be in giving their point of view anyway. and it is that translation 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 people to get a better understanding of just what it is we do in that regard. >> yes. mr. florio. >> my name is dale florio with the princeton public affairs group from new jersey, and i guess, professor, i'm going to

pick a fight with my federal counterparts -- >> okay. >> and i'm going to ask you a question. i recognize that the fish bowl here in washington and the scrutiny is certainly much great or than it might be in trenton, new jersey. but i still have to say that the ethics rules and the requirements of lobbyists in trenton are as stringent as they are anywhere in the country by for states or at the federal level. so the question is, why to we still have the log jams that we have here and the conversations about transparency among lobbyists? there was a slight disagreement in this back row about how much transparency there should be. and the pant that in new jersey -- fact that in new jersey at least there's more and more people registering as lobbyists despite the restrictions and the amount of information we have to disclose, yet i'm not sure anyone goes to jail more in new jersey than just about anywhere else, but it's a real issue. so i don't understand, you know, 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 s. 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. >> well, i'd 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? >> i mean, a big part -- >> hold on. let me make sure you have the mic. >> we have to disclose every dollar that we earn from a client on an annual basis. we have to disclose conversations that we have at agencies. not the specificity of the topic, but who we met with and when. we have to disclose every bill

on a quarterly basis that we lobby on -- for, against or monitor. we, and as i said, on an annual basis we have to disclose every dollar that we earn. there's only so much that we can spend, quite frankly, it's actually down to zero now. if we were to take out a legislator for lunch or a staff person, that has to be reported. if they choose -- if they don't want to be reported, they either pay for themselves, or they don't go out to lunch, or there's no benefit passing. so, and then, so 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 it's pretty extensive. >> i don't see a great difference between what you do and what we do at the federal level. >> yeah. other than the agency reporting, yeah. >> we report on agencies. >> actually -- >> but not each meeting. not each meeting. >> right. >> but i guess just listening to my colleagues here, there's kind

of this discussion that it's impacting the ability for communication and to exchange ideas, and we talked about you have to do it in a campaign finance forum. we don't seem to have those problems or those discussions. we don't, you know, ruminate over those problems. okay, these are the rules, we just plow ahead. >> yeah. but my impression is that most people are registering. so with craig and my disagreement, it may be a half-empty, half-full thing. i don't want to encourage less reporting which i am afraid that some of the rules have encouraged. i'm 100% 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 what we differ is that i'm much more concerned about who represented and whether -- the biggest concern i have in washington is not the special,

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 are 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 who are here, but to encourage and teach people how they can better represent their own interests in washington. >> i know both howard and i -- >> get the mic. speak in the mic. [laughter] wait. before you do that, i want to make sure julie stewart, in case you have anything you want to add to this discussion. now, i'm giving you gentlemen the first shot now, but we will have to open this up for the audience for questions. [laughter] so go ahead and get your little debate going and tie it up quickly. [laughter] >> just i want to explain, the ethics rules that we impose in the honest leadership and open

government act and later with obama's ethics executive order goes 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. the companies, the organizations that employ us are not allowed to take a member of congress or a taffeer on anything -- staffer on anything longer than a one-day trip. just long enough to fly 'em out to give a speech at your conference and fly 'em back. so these ethics rules really are quite sweeping, and they go beyond transparency. you know, it's had a little bit of impact in trying to discourage some lobbyists from staying registered as lobbyists. but really not, not that significant. you know, 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 institution

always that we can solve even the smaller problems. and that's something that howard and i do agree on. >> okay. so that was craig homan, chapter 15 in the book. he closes it out. now you're going to hear from chapter 1 in the book. [laughter] >> chapter 1. [laughter] craig and i -- >> the bookends. i put them opposite each other on purpose. >> yeah. i have no problem with transparency just the way it is. i think zero tolerance is a good thing to have. we do our job just fine not having to take a member or staff member to dinner or lunch. as i said, my concern was that it was driving things into the campaign finance arena where there is no transparency on that. 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 kind of a sticky one when you

get into campaign finance because every time we had mccain-feingold and now we have superpacs, and i'm not sure it was all that great to have something that says, okay, we want to control campaign funding but on the other hand now we have soup or pacs. -- super pacs. i do my job just fine. like congressman walker said, it's what your expertise is, what your reputation is. 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 be honesty and all the other things that members of congress rely on. so i think the more people that we can bring under that umbrella, the more people we can get to register the better off. and whenever we have to dangle -- whatever we have to dabbing l them, whether it's a stick or a carrot, i would like to see that done. >> okay. 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. be. >> hello, everyone, my name is china dickerson, and i am a rising 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 that 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 not specify, 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 ms. stewart's group i greatly respect, sentencing minimums, i think that's a very important be issue. however, i mostly just see her, bless her heart. i think it's, i think it's an issue that needs to have more people support it. and i understand that especially now in this economy that people need to make money to support their families, and lobbying pays a great amount. and so i'm wondering if you can speak more to this underrepresentation. i've considered lobbying, i've spoken to some people about it. they say i'm selling my soul. but i plan to do more of the public interest side. and so i'm wondering if you have spoken to lobbyists who represent corporations, but they also have an interest in serving the public interest. >> you know, that's a really loaded question so, beth, when you get through, i want a piece of of that answer. [laughter] >> well, i don't know, i think

there are 15 or 20 questions in there, so i will -- my concern with the underrepresented is that they have fewer resources, and so they have fewer lobbyists. so i think that's what you're coming from. i will tell you that, very interestingly, when i wrote "lobbying and policy change" which is with my co-authors a more technical book, let's say, on this than this particular one, one of the findings out of that book, so we took a hundred randomly-selected issues in washington, and we interviewed people on all sides of thoseish issues, and we followed them over four years. and we asked people who were involved, lobbyists and members of goth, who were the most -- government, who were the most important interest groups on those hundred issues. and the interesting thing is that even though businesses and trade associations and, you know, anything that's related to the business world in numbers

outnumber citizen organizations about 8 to 1. .. i think in part because is something you said, and that is that 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 will be able to make their point. it will be more difficult for them to make the point, but i think members of government by and large are listening when they do. they do take it seriously because they speak for their

member. >> i think the most marginalized people in our country, the most unpopular groups may be, the poor, often are not registered to vote or have the barriers to voting. for example, a lot of felons when they complete their sentences have great difficulty winning back the franchise. and so i think elected officials, rightfully, pay attention to people who vote. and as a society there's 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. and i just, even though i'm 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 are working for a particular company. they represent associations of 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's just my 2 cents. i believe everybody have a first

amendment right to have representation in the government come and it's incumbent upon people of goodwill who can vote to join organizations like the aclu, i'll give a shout out to the aclu even though bob waterman enjoyment, he may not understand how much we represented a speech rights. [laughter] so you know i think if you join organizations you'll find that what they're doing in washington, and then you can make a determination whether or not you want to go into lobbying field i hope you consider it because we need as many people to speak for the people here in washington than before. and then one of the 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's so many more physical barriers to getting into a congressional office. and actually said that i remember a time where i could chase the congressman all the

way to the well of the house floor, and now i've got to go through so many levels of clearance and detectors. and i think this has had a real impact on people's access to their elected officials. we become a 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 need to walk in the capital, you could write on the underground train with a lobbyist. you know, i just think the general public access, forget the lobbyists, but the general public access to their elected officials has been greatly constrained. i don't know whether the interviewees agree with that or not. okay, they say they agree. good. i'll call on more people who agree. no. are there other questions? >> i'm michelle richardson with

the aclu. my question is about the role of the internet. over the last few years and grassroots advocacy and citizen lobbyist, and what you think this will revolutionize the way people compact -- contact members of congress and the rights. i mean, through phone calls or faxes, the internet has created an instantaneous real-time frictionless way to contact your members of congress did he think that may 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 coming back before letters their also telegrams, and back before telegrams i don't know what there was. but it has been around a long time. and so it has always been away for the public when they are in large numbers be able to better express their feelings to

government to put pressure on government, to encourage government to act. you see it back in age of women's suffrage and the prohibition movement. you see it today in all sorts of ways. but i agree with you that, and the yes side is, yes, it is, it is easier. one of the dangers there is easier means that he becomes an easy to fake signal as it were. that is, the harder it is for the public to rise up, the more seriously it is taken. is all it takes is a click on an e-mail, you know, voting yes, voting no view the internet, anyone can do that. and so a member of congress may not take it as seriously as they would have had there been an avalanche in hand written letters. >> other questions?

yes. >> my name is lynn. i run a graduate broadcast journal program in washington. [inaudible] compromise, horsetrading, all those things seem to be pushed away because people think that that didn't have principles and one how that affects your work? >> i would like to open that up, yes. >> i'm lyle. i'll take the in market question and i'm going to get a lot of nods in the front. everybody wanted the earmarks question. i would argue that the

constitution provides congress appropriated money, and that a constitutional position is congress can designate how that money is used to and i would argue strongly that i would rather have a congressman from central pennsylvania influence how money issues in central pennsylvania than a gs-14 from vienna virginia. that are still earmarks going on. they go on everyday by the decisions are made by people are not accountable to the public. it is effectively an antidemocratic position, democratic -- to oppose in mark. i may get some disagreement here and i would be a little surprised. so there are a variety of what i think are unintended consequences of the earmarks decision. one of which is you may never see another appropriations bill passed through congress. we've had this discussion earlier today.

if i am a liberal and i don't anything in the bill to make them 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 in the bill that makes you want to vote for it, this bill spends too much money. consequently you of what we now see as a gridlock on capitol hill. i think it's a major factor. happy to let anybody disagree with that. >> i see craig ready to jump out of his chair. [laughter] spent 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. what, the problem with their marks is when earmarks are doled

out to campaign contributors, then you have corruption. we could easily solve the problem of corrupt earmarking by prohibiting any cgessman from giving out your marks to campaign contributors. get them involved in the in marking process that just break that corrupting nexus when it comes to campaign money. >> i would like to -- >> would have earmarks in new jersey. as far as the compromise of horsetrading, i just happen to believe, i feel like i want to write a piece someday, i think social media has really been treated to the inertia in washington just because the interaction of constituent groups is so instantaneous and people can marshal communications effort against a particular positions of poker. i think back then members of the

senate and the places they probably shouldn't be. i'm circling back around to new jersey. still i think takes people to have a compromise and horsetrading. just in new jersey right now we have a governor who is known for his horsetrading and for his force of personality, but we also have a legislature which is controlled by the opposite party which is willing to sit down and horsetrading. so it can happen if you have the right personalities working together. and that the state levels i'm sure it's much easier than the federal level because you are just under such scrutiny. it's much more pressurized -- pressurized environment. >> did you want to say something? >> i was just going to say that i have been very interested to hear some of the side effects of the earmarks from a very nerdy professor pointed you, 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 give something back. there's something about the group process of the policymaking process, the transparency, the knowledge of many people about what's going on that helps keep things on it up and a. so in general i would be opposed to their marks for that very reason. and so i was interested to hear both of your ideas. >> yes, congressman. >> i have to wait in on the earmarks i think, too, 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 he can pass appropriation bills. that system broke down. it broke down in part because the appropriation bills became

the vehicle for everybody to get done what you wanted to get done, including individual projects. and that created a situation where the policymaking that was done in appropriation bills and the authorizing committees were basically ignored. and that means that policy does not develop with a long-term framework. it's develop on an annual basis. bill by bill in the appropriations process. that has become a disaster because the horsetrading that you talk about, it used to be a matter of compromise that larger went on inside the committee structure. where both parties to come together and decide on a bill that has some bipartisan characteristics to it before the blood to the floor of the congress. it was brought to the floor of the congress under the rules were any bill or any amendment 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 in the germane amendment could be introduced on the floor. that allows the congress to work its will. that is not happening in the appropriations process because what happened on the earmark was yes, you were granted on the injury bill and then you were told that if you oppose any of the appropriations bill was coming through, your earmark would get dropped in conference. and so it was a case where the appropriation process elderly the policy process was being driven by the earmarks and the think is resulted in a disaster on capitol hill. >> i want to get back to lynn's question about statement about loaded words. one, it's compromise, 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'm surprised at how many lobbying organizations are echoed chambers for a particular party. i'm talking about business and nonprofit. and it's just shocking to me how my 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 like-minded people only come and they are not reaching across the aisle it and i always ask, 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're such a politically divided country and that's reflected in our congress. so i'm sorry compromise has come to mean a bad thing. i think, you know, to try to get 535 members of congress, 435 an ounce and 100 in the senate, to rubberstamp something is impossible. they are in any and that's why they got elected. so they're going to want to put their spin on it and that requires compromise. that's not a dirty word, but it's come to be a dirty word and it's really, really unfortunate the polarization that keeps washington in such gridlocked. other questions, comments bikes

>> so, craig mentioned the inability these days to schmooze or you are limited in the way you used to. beth him to talk about the means in which members of congress receive information just over the years from telegraphs to e-mail or tweet or whatever it's going to be. and laura, you spoke about in the ways before 9/11 when you could literally approach members of congress without all of the opticals and hurdles in front of you. because we're talking about this profession, when you look at again and now, you know, just in terms of looking at the profession, what do you see, what adjustments have you had to make? i don't want people to let all other secrets go but with these restrictions how have you had to just as 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. >> to go ahead. you are so shy, craig. >> i like all the restrictions, quite frankly. you know, public citizens could never afford flying members of congress to scotland to play golf. we didn't have a restaurant where we could set aside cable for wining and dining. so that just wasn't the type of thing we could do. with all these new restrictions, it focuses and forces lobbyists to go back on the hill instead of wining and dining, we go back on the hill and talk to members of congress and staff. that's what lobbying is supposed to be about. you know, the restrictions really did help level the playing field quite a bit. so i like these restrictions.

>> yes? >> i'm a former counsel on capitol hill, former lobbyist and now colleague of beth. can't believe i am that old. i just want to put in a word because we've been taught about restrictions and schmoozing. either very different point of view. i may be the only person here who's old enough to work on capitol hill before sunshine and before we limited the opportunity to share bread together. and as a lobbyist i can take when i went out with members of staff and had lunch, i was on the receiving end of an endless number of question. that person had to choose to program aske asked without any l time with hi him without being concerned with the unfair because someone else is waiting for the media. we got to know each other. we got to trust each other but i can tell you as a lobbyist part of that process went for me to sort of feel a fiduciary responsibility to tell this

person, and the person of such as have had an indication for looking me in the eye and say, this guy speaks true, or the sky is a bit of a false color. so i think some of these restrictions have gone a little bit too far. we don't have enough faith and integrity of members of congress who ultimately make the decisions about how they will vote and what will influence them. i think we pushed it too far. we have realized not enough of the basic good that can be in the insurance. that's my 2 cents. >> i strongly agree with you. i started as a lobbyist in 1979, and the, well before child labor laws 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 the several decades is that a

passenger the people we interact with, both as lobbyists and staffers, are honest people. you know, is the rotten apple in the barrel against all of the media attention and makes about for the rest of us get 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 lobbyists as an extension of their staff, sometimes in the sense that they could determine which lobbyist do the homework and which ones didn't. and they came to rely and trust. i'm happy to say the aclu still has a great deal of influence. notwithstanding these lobbying restrictions, but i will just give an example, and that'll make your hair grow back, congressman, is maxine waters

who i've known for decades come is easier for me to have a fundraiser for her -- this is what i was not with the aclu. we don't have fund raisers, i want to clarify that. when i was in a private practice of lobbying it was easier for me to have a fundraiser for her at my home that was for me to have him and meeting with her at starbucks. and there's something wrong with that picture. i think we have overregulated human contacts to some degree. >> okay, so it's nice that both of you, i don't have to just to convert because i can pick on you as well. so my question then is, in with these dinners and with, even if it's just a lunch, my concern is that anything that's like that, and certainly within a campaign event for some of which still allowed, but with any of these events it ends up raising the cost for the unrepresented. so in order to be a level playing field with you or with

bert, they need the money to be able to take people to lunch and take people to dinner rather than it being for pure information. to what extent if we did not have the ethics requirements regarding dinners and gifts interests, and i wish campaign finance, to what extent by allowing those make it that much more difficult for the disenfranchised to be able to have their voices heard if they can't afford to do the? >> i know julie stewart from families against mandatory minimum, i keep pointing you out, because you are, you are, you know, a well-known advocate for people who are considered voice was there i would love for you to weigh in on this question. >> is interesting because i was thinking of that as you are both speaking at a tender agree with you. i think that we've overregulated

a lot, including this. but we certainly could not afford to take members of congress to dinner if that were allowed because they just don't have those kind of resources. but i kind of feel like a member of commerce wouldn't go to dinner with us anyway unless he was interested in our issue or and ones that i know already interested in the issue we have access to in whatever ways we can. so i'm not sure that would make a huge difference in our lobbying. and then just a couple other things while the been sitting here listening. one of the things when it started in 1981, some of 81, some of the to me, congress legislate by anecdote. and i've always remembered that you can of course our focus is bound to show the midst of congress the kinds of people are going to prison for decades for the nonviolent offenses largely. and i think that when we have a lobby day and would bring people in from around the country am i ever loved one in prison for very long period of time, and

their voters because family members still is free and lives in a congressional district, that's a very powerful way to lobby. and i know a lot of a lobbyist in this room probably are not lobbying on quite that's grassroots level but i think it's effective way to lobby members of congress to understand how the policies affect real lives, human beings but i think that's a really important part of my job. i would also say as is something you just mentioned about bipartisanship but i totally agree that nothing gets through congress and less as a bipartisan and our last big victory that we've had with aclu was on crack cocaine. who on earth would think jim sensenbrenner would support changing crack cocaine policy? welcome he did biggest it up on the floor and actually said something during the vote. it was unanimous in the senate an almost unanimous in the house. one person a poster at the kind of bipartisanship that the lobbying can bring together when

it's done right. and i think that we did a very good job with aclu and a number of other groups. so that sort of bipartisanship is now sort of sticking its head up with rand paul and senator leahy in the senate on a safety valve the bill on sensenbrenner. and also in the house with the bobby scott and thomas massie. so there is bipartisan work, bipartisanship at work and house and the senate on things that you wouldn't necessarily think that you could find common ground on. but it think is absolutely critical, and if we aren't trying to get both parties to the table to discuss these issues we will never win anything. >> thanks, julie. julie stewart, chapter four. [laughter] well, it's almost 4:00, and we've provided refreshments for all of you, and we want you to get out your wallets and buy books and get them -- the aclu

is not making 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. and i want to say how honored i am to have worked with you on your first book in 2000, and his latest book, and how honored i am to be included in this book -- which chapter and my? >> five. >> i'm chapter five. [laughter] that would be a running joke in my office for a while. and i just think your work and the work of the other political scientists who are with you, your colleagues, is of great importance. we are an odd group. we deserve to be studied come and we also deserve to have our personal stories told. so i encourage everybody to learn about the industry from a different vantage point and beth, i would like to give you the last word, if there's

anything that's been said that you want to comment on or anything you forgot to say, have added. >> i just want to thank you, laura, and the aclu for having me here today, and all of you folks here in the front couple of rows made the book possible. if you find that interesting, it's because they are interesting. their stories are the ones that are in there. it's not me talking about what i think should be done. it's been talked about what they do everyday in their lives. so thanks, everyone, for coming. >> thank you. [applause] >> you are watching the tv on c-span2. is our primetime lineup for tonight.

>> up next on booktv, robert edsel reports on the rescue and protection of historic pieces of art in italy during world war ii. and not the army who occupied italy in 1943 diluted in numerous historic artifacts and artwork that data from the renaissance and the roman empire. this is about an hour 20 minut minutes.