done? do you accept that this has damaged the country? this is severe criticism that i haven't seen before from the head of our security services. >> a senior administration official of the obama administered and told us last week, asked the same question, damage can he said, i have been impressed by the judgment and care that you would expect from a great news organization. and finally a senior whitehall official at the heart of these stories, september 9, i have not seen anything you have published to date which is rest lies. >> you and i both were born outside this country. i love this country. do you love this country? [laughter] >> how do you answer that kind of question? >> we live in a democracy. most of the people working on this story are british people for families in this country who love this country, and i'm

surprised the asked the question but yes, we are patriots. and one of the things we're patriotic about is the nature of the democracy and the nature of the free press and the fact that one can in this country discuss and report these things. there is nothing "the guardian" published that is endangering people in the way that you -- >> it isn't only about what you have published. it's about what you have communicated. that is what amount or cannot do a criminal offense. you have caused the committee geisha of secret documents -- would classify things as secret and top secret in this country for a reason, not to hide them from "the guardian" by to hide them from those who are out to harm us. you have communicated those documents. >> do you have a question? >> if you knew about the enigma code in world war ii would you provide that information to the nazis? >> that is a red herring. i think most journalists can make a distinction between the

kind of thing to talk about, the enigma code or travel log, this is very well-worn return this been dealt with by the supreme court and that you learned when you do in ncpj courts. >> never liked months as well and the spying sackett. saying the phone of the german chancellor, angela merkel, had been monitored by 10 years by u.s. intelligence. >> on intelligence did he discuss with chancellor merkel the targeting by the american account to services offer phone? can he tell the house when his phone has been targeted? and if not, why not? [laughter] >> there was a very good moment at the dinner when one eu premise is that how disappointed he was declared no one was interested in his conversations. i won't reveal who it was, but the point is this, we do not comment on these issues. >> the british are nothing if not a nation of animal lovers. when the government embarked on

a mass shooting of badgers into parts of the country, they knew they would be in for a backlash from badger loving and england. the call of the black and white creatures was called. the furry creatures had friends in high places. the badgers proved hard to find your numbers shot by the marksmen fell well behind expected levels and then came the television moment that would haunt the environment secretary. >> you are moving the goalposts on all fronts. >> no, that's not right at all. the badgers renewed the goalposts. >> a remark picked up in the comments. >> last year the second state canceled the call because there were too many badgers. yesterday he admitted he couldn't find enough of them. can he explain why they have applied for an extension even though they haven't even finished? is that because the badgers have

moved the goalpost there as will? >> her government tried to sort the bomb by only addressing the disease in cattle. that was a terrible mistake. >> it is actually morally reprehensible what is being done in the west country the badgers. ineffective, inefficient, just ignoring scientific opinions. why doesn't he resign? [laughter] >> well, mr. speaker, he supported a government that did nothing on this disease. thanks to the policies of the government he supported, 305,000 otherwise healthy cattle were hauled off to slaughter. >> the call was called off with only 40% of the badger population eliminate it. well below the target figure. it was enough to start in piece in july the argument. >> it doesn't matter what the evidence says. he will just simply argued that

this has been a success when given by the governments own terms, it's been a catastrophic failure. shots have been fired. over heads. shots being fired in the united kingdom over people going about their lawful business monitoring the activities of a call set up by this government. and there have been shots fired over that which is appalling, this graceful and certainly should be condemned. we haven't heard any condemnation from the governme government. >> this has proved to be a success on two counts, in terms of jimenez and effectiveness. and if the honorable member had proposed the debate, laughing now, if he had a series accusation that shots were fired about people said, he should report that to the police. they will investigate and the people have done that they would have committed a criminal act and they should be prosecuted for it. let him produce the evidence before he makes these statements. >> and the like the the shambles around the current policy, there's a real danger now they

will go down the route of gassing. gassing is included in human as the. the real answer is by thaksin badgers. >> please listen to the views of the members can listen to the views of the public. it is not all about cuddly creatures. it's about whether the animal should be treated this way are treated in another way which may deliver the same result we all want, protecting farmers but sure that we are dealing with the problem in the most humane way possible spent we have to find a solution and recognize that if there is an animal during a pernicious disease, it needs to be put down. not only for its own welfare but for the welfare of the cattle. >> if there was an easy after tackling this disease we would have done it. but there are no easy answers when it comes to reversing the spread of bovine tb. there are no examples in the world of a country that has successfully dealt with the

disease. >> and just as badgers were proving to be rather thin on the ground in the weeks of the autumn, by contrast extra and plentiful. 30 new ones were admitted taking the total membership of the house of lords upwards towards 800. >> there were several notable new peers avoided such as lady lords. laura paddock, a former metropolitan police deputy assistant commissioner. lady jones, a green party politician in london. lowered finkelstein, a former associate editor of the times. to put all the new peers in october, a former first sea lord had a noble suggestion to make. >> and i wonder if the role of baby could maybe come to the nation's assistance again. i've been asking people --

[inaudible] i wonder if the house authorities would like to buy it to work alongside th those of te westminster to accommodate the new numbers appears being created? >> the war should cannot come up to somehow people and has a bank, laundry and shop. >> the death of nelson mandela was a moment that parliament couldn't ignore. the first black president of south africa and father figure for his nation came to parliament back in 1996, and spoke in westminster hall. he was fully aware of the anti-apartheid campaign that ran in britain throughout his long time in captivity. when his death was announced the tributes were many and moving. >> when nelson mandela took his first steps to freedom, he made no call for vengeance, only forgiveness. he understood that dismantling apartheid's legacy was about more than just removing the most explicit sides of discrimination, segregation.

>> the man most responsible for the structuring of what people thought was indestructible, the apartheid system, the man who taught us that no injustice can last forever. >> my mother was often alone in the wide early section of the public gallery of nelson mandela's 1962 trial, and when he entered and he would always acknowledge her with a clenched fist, which she would return. >> a former foreign secretary gave a slightly different emphasis. >> there was not just nelson mandela who a deadly deserves the bulk of the credit, but there was also the south african president, fw declared. and without both of them it would not have been a peaceful resolution. and in some ways it was a more difficult for de klerk van for mandela because let me say with any. this is a straight port. mandela was receiving power, mandela was receiving power which at that stage most of the struggle had all ready been one.

he was the receiving power. the clerk was having to persuade his own people to give it up. >> i am truly grateful for the role model that was nelson mandela. because to me and so many like me, he provided a tremendous dignity and courage. that perhaps was the reason why, during the very difficult 1980s, we did not pick up molotov cocktails and cause chaos on our own streets. we chose another path. ♪ >> and three days later, a less somber day. a celebration of nelson mandela's life and work in words, dance and song in the

setting of historic westminster hall, which ended the term in parliament on a colorful and poignant note. ♪ mandela ♪ nelson ♪ people love you ♪ because you make them ♪ as strong ♪ raise our voices ♪ raise our voices ♪ let's sing ♪ to the messenger. ♪ >> tonight on booktv prime time at eight eastern, author scott burke on his book wilson.

c-span continues its first ladies series tonight with a look at rosalynn carter. she attended cabinet meetings and working lunches with the president and travel to latin america as his official envoy. we talk with her about her life and impact on the carter presidency tonight at nine eastern on c-span. >> my name is kevin nelson and we are in bellingham, washington. we have been in business for nine years now. we started in 2004. primarily we use the windmill which is a letterpress that's found in most commercial print shops. they use it for diecutting and foil stamping, scoring cards, but we use it for printing. not that many people in modern times used heidelberg for

printing. because they are slower. there's a lot of print shops use at least 40-foot long prices which can send out tens of thousands of print an hour. this is more for meticulous handwork doing artistic sort of printing, but it's the heart of our business. i think is when you're buying something that's made with so much attention, it just has more presence like if you're sending a card to someone that hasn't been massed produced let's been handled by an individual. i would hope that he would have more meaning for the person on the receiving end, that it's made with love. >> there is more this weekend as booktv and american history tv look at the history and literary life of bellingham, washington, saturday at noon on c-span2, and sunday at 5 p.m. on c-span3.

>> former guardian journalist glenn greenwald recently told a european committee that the nsa is working to eliminate privacy worldwide. the european parliament's committee on civil liberties justice and home affairs has been focused on national security and privacy issues. on the allegations of spying and surveillance of european citizens private data. this is about one hour. >> hello? we don't seem to have a connection. can you every? >> hi, how are you? we can hear each other now. good. >> mr. greenwald, welcome to the session of the committee of inquiry of the european parliament. we have about an hour for this

session, and i'm first going to invite you to do your presentation and then afterwards we will take questions and answers. so very pleased to have you with us here today. i'll give you the floor, or the video link rather. the floor is yours. >> good afternoon, and thank you to the committee for convening this inquiry and for inviting me to speak to you as well. there has been a virtual avalanche of stories and reports over the last six months regarding espionage and electronic surveillance by the nsa and its partners, and each of these stories has been extremely important, but i think that the quantity of them have sometimes endangered the ultimate point from being obscured. i just want to spend a little bit of time discussing what i

think is the primary revelation, the crop of all these stories that ties them together and i think is the most important thing for us to realize. and that is what the ultimate goal of the nsa is, along with its most loyal, one might say subservient junior partner, the british agency gchq, when it comes to the reason why the system of suspicion or surveillance is being built. the objective of this system is nothing less than the elimination of individual privacy worldwide. and at first glance that might seem like a bit hyperbolic, like it's a little bit melodramatic, but it isn't. it's a literal description of what the nsa and its survey on its partners are attempting to achieve. and the reason that i know

that's what they're attending to achieve is because this is what they say over and over and over again. on occasion they say it publicly, repeatedly they say it in their private documents which were written when they thought nobody was able to hear what it was they were saying. there are instances where keith alexander, the general who is the chief of the nsa, has made comments along the lines of the objective of the nsa is to collect all signal intelligence, all forms of electronic communication by and between human beings. and when this was first reported in "the guardian" and elsewhere, the nsa tried to dismiss it as sort of a literary allusion or even a joke. it's no joke. throughout the nsa documents, there appears continuously all sorts of references to the fact that the goal of the nsa is captured by the phrase collect it all. whenever the u.s. and its

surveillance partners meet featured at the same development conference, uk, canada, new zealand, there are constant conclusions by collected all or know it all or exploit it all. throughout all of these documents. this is actually the mission of the nsa. and one of the ways that you see this mission manifest is that there are numerous programs that the nsa developed and pursues that have no real purpose, other than to identify with a few pockets of communication that still exists on the planet that the nsa hasn't yet quite successfully invaded. and the nsa is obsessed institutionally with the idea that there are still places and methods that exist that are impervious to their invasion,

and they work every day to try to rectify what they see as this problem, the problem being that are still places on the planet that human medication can take place without their collecting, storing, monitoring and analyzing data communication. so there are documents delivered for example, to try to understand how better to invade the wi-fi systems on airplanes, based on the concern that human beings can still go on airplanes and use the internet or mobile phones for a few hours in their lives and not be susceptible to their surveillance net. there are documents that discuss ways to circumvent advanced encryption tools out of fear that individual develop the means to be able to communicate with one another privately without the nsa being able to invade those communications. and so what we're really faced with is not just the creation of the most pervasive system of

suspicionless surveillance ever built in human history, although we certainly are faced with that, but it is beyond that. it is an institution that has embedded into its mandate and mission to ensure that human beings can no longer communicate with one another electronically with any degree of privacy. simply through institutional inertia, there is an effort to collect everything. over the past six months i've done a lot of reporting in many different countries about espionage targeted at many different populations, and everywhere i do this reporting i do interviews with newspapers or television programs in those countries. and i'm always asked why -- in sweden, why are they so interested in what people who are swedes are discussing? or why is the nsa access was collecting all of the mutations of resilience? or any number of other countries. and the answer back a struggle

from the nsa's document which is that the nsa and its partners don't need any specific reason to collect anybody's communications. just the fact that human beings are communicating with one another is reason enough for the nsa to decide that it should be collected and stored and monitored. they don't need specific rationale. they're only rationale is that nobody should be able to communicate without the nsa being able to invade their communication to everyone of the stories we've done, specific stories can is driven by this overarching theme. that's why i think it's fair to say that the significance of supporting -- reporting about mr. snowden revealed to the world really can't be overstated. if governments are devoted to the elimination of privacy worldwide, the u.s., uk and its three partners are clergy voted to do it, that has profound consequences for everybody who

communicates electronically, which is most people on the planet. at the very least it's something we ought to be discussing and debating openly, if not figure out how to stop. the second point i wanted to make is, i wanted to discuss a little bit what some of the reaction has been to our reporting, especially in europe, but also around the world because i think it reveals a very important point. it was back in late june, so five months ago or so, that the nsa was targeting ordinary germans by the hundreds of millions for collection of metadata of the telephone records. and the reaction to the german government was very muted. they're worse some objection but by and large it was very restrained, the reaction to it was a very much of an effort to really do anything about it. and it really wasn't until their speaker was able to rebuild that

not only ordinary germans but even the german chancellor angela merkel was the target of the surveillance system that the german government filing rack with general indignation and decided it needed to do something about it. and i think that's a pattern that has repeated itself in other places as well, a sort of apathy and indifference when it is revealed that the population is being targeted with mass surveillance, but through and when the governments find out they themselves are targeted. i think part of what explains that interesting dichotomy is the fact that political officials often tend to be concerned about their own interests and not the interests of the citizens whom they are representing. i think the broader point has been the idea that as long as the nsa's quote unquote only collecting data, then we can live with that level of intrusion but listening to cell phone calls or reading e-mails,

that's when genuine outrage is wanted. i just want to spend a moment addressing this point, because i think it's probably the single greatest misconception in the report that we've been doing. if you talk to defense experts, what you will hear i think almost by consensus at this point around the world is that metadata is not simply almost as invasive as content interception, or even as invasive. in most cases, in most meaningful senses, collection of metadata is now more invasive than other content. it isn't just surveillance experts who think that way. it's the nsa itself. throughout these documents, there is the recognition that collecting metadata is the supreme priority of the agency, not because it protects people's privacy but precisely because it enables the nsa to invade people's privacy more effectively than the interception of content.

and i think sometimes it's difficult to understand that in the abstract, but it's easy to understand when concrete examples are used. and so if you can imagine, for example, a woman who decides that she wants to get an abortion, if you're listening in on her phone call, what you will hear is her calling the clinic on the clinical and with a generic sounding name, like the site clinic or something like that, you will hear the woman who you decided to target for surveillance ask for an appointment tuesday at 2:00, get the appointment and think of the phone and you have no idea why she called or even what kind of clinic she called or what the purpose was. but if you're collecting her metadata you will see the phone number that she called. he would then be able to identify it as an abortion clinic. you will know how many times she called the clinic, agile have exactly the information that you wouldn't get interested listening to her phone call.

the same for somebody who has hiv and calls a doctor specializing in hiv once every three months, as hiv patients often do but if you're listening to the phone calls you doing to what kind of doctor they're calling it if you're collecting metadata you will know everything about their medical condition to sing somebody who a suicide hotline or a drug addiction clinic, or somebody who is speaking with someone who is not espouse late at night, or any number of other types of intimate activity that human beings engage in that you probably wouldn't be able to apprehend if you're reading the e-mails are listening to telephone calls but that you'll instantly be able to understand by collecting their metadata. beyond that there are very sophisticated, increasing the sophisticated tools for analyzing metadata when it's collected en masse, to be able to understand not only who your

targets are speaking to but to those people are speaking to and then who those people are speaking to. and to develop a very comprehensive picture of the network of associations and friends of various individuals, but also of a society generally, to have a very invasive understanding of the private behavior, that private associations, the private thoughts of the people under whom, whom you have placed under surveillance by a collection of metadata. it really is the case that if you're somebody who values privacy but almost would be preferable at this point of the nsa listening to your phone calls and reading your e-mails than it is for them to collect all of your metadata over the course of many years and be able to link it to her but it also is metadata and then analyze it in secret with virtually no restraint, as the nsa, the gchq and its service partners are doing. the third point i want to make and talk about briefly is --

[inaudible] individual privacy. there's often the intent that i think western governments -- [inaudible] inculcate people to accept that privacy doesn't really have much value, that it is essentially a luxury, but if you've done nothing wrong have nothing to hide. all the sorts of clichés that have been manufactured and disseminated to get populations accustomed to an invasion of their privacy. and i think that although there's a perception -- [inaudible] i think in reality it can't work and hasn't worked, because you seem to understand why privacy actually is vital. that's why they put passwords on their e-mail account under social media networks, why did the locks on the bedroom and bathroom doors but it's one you propose but the two cameras in their homes to monitor

everything they doing to protect them from invaders or criminals. they would react with repulsion because human beings instantly understand that privacy is a critical component of what it means to be a free human being. and i think though that it's worth spending a minute to underscore why that is. and i think we all have this understanding that when we know that we are being watched by other people, when we know that other people are casting a judgmental examination upon our choices and behaviors, our behavior is much different than when we act in a private room. when we think other people are watching us we make choices that conform to orthodoxies, that are designed to avoid behavior deemed to be shameful to essentially we make choices to fulfill the expectations that other people on the broader society have of us. we become conformist. we conform to mores and norms. if and when we have a realm where we can go into where we are confident that we're not

being watched, can we cast boundaries? can we engage in creativity and to set? to violate orthodoxy? that is essentially the realm in which human freedom excellence of resides, when we can decide for ourselves what kind of choices we want to make. and if a society in which the private realm is abolished, in which human beings know that they are susceptible to being watched at any time, and i think that's the key, not necessary that everyone of the enough is being read but that the e-mails and telephone calls can be monitored by an agency. just the knowledge that your behavior is subjected to the possibly of surveillance is a society that breeds conformity. ..

i began by saying that i'm glad that the committee has begun this inquiry and that we have the opportunity to discuss all these issues. and i want to remind everybody that there is only one reason why we are able to have the discussion that we are having today. and why we have the knowledge and information and enough reason he is the self

sacrificing station of my source for the story, edward snowden, to risk everything in life that he had, career stability and personal relationships and the ability to be a free citizen in order to bring it to all of our attention. and there are governments all over the world. in fact most governments all over the world who are extreme beneficiaries of mr. snowden's trace. even those around the world consider him a hero the governments have been able to realize how their privacy is being invaded to take steps to reform the abuses that we know now about to convene the investigation like the one that we are here to participate in today. all kinds of governments all over the world are exploring their own interest and their own benefits the great sacrifice that mr. snowden made and i know that he's very gratified the

government are taking seriously. but what has happened is also there are lots of government to taken advantage of the trees that he made and the sacrifice and bravery that he's shown, there are very few governments in fact a tiny handful who are extending a reciprocal courtesy to him protecting his rights the way that he decided to protect all of ours. and because of that he currently is in a situation that is very uncertain where his own government is attempting to subject this persecution that led him for decades about the rest of his life for having come forward and show the light on much of the dever that is illegal and certainly abusive. and most are around the world decided to turn their back not only on him but on their obligations ethically and legally to protect people such as mr. snowden from persecution by granting them asylum. and i think it's a very strange

and disappointing dynamic to watch governments in europe express indignation. while the same time turning their backs on him with life in prison i would hope that governments are now laureled decide to try to exploit the revelations for their own interest but also to express gratitude for what it is that he did by protecting his basic human rights which is the right to come forward and evidence of secret wrongdoing on the part of the world's most powerful documents to not be sent to prison the rest of your life for having done it. so i think he once again for inviting me. i have the to have a discussion with any of you that have a question. >> okay triet thank you very much for your introduction. now we are going to go to questions and answers. and i hope that the connection will remain stable enough to the

i understand that there is -- we can speak our own language and you will get translation into english. but that is that our colleagues here do not get any or do you? i'm going to ask both colleagues and guest to be as brief to allow a maximum number of questions so we will have one question, and answer and i will ask everybody to really be very, very concise. first of all, we listened to the group. >> thank you for taking the time to be here today. can i begin where you finished on the source on edward snowden

tvd yesterday we saw the congressional committee led by mike rogers and faf rejected the definition as a whistleblower and said that he was not a whistle-blower. what is your view of that because by rejecting that definition, of course we are seeing the simple question what is your view of that because then that leads to a whole set of consequences. secondly, on the federal court judgment, which you welcomed again congressional committee and dianne feinstein and others have been saying that it is met many judgments. this is an important judgment for us and our report because it depends to perhaps find for the first time this question of the data as you have been describing it as perhaps being significant, but something has happened. now, you welcome the judgment but we are now hearing voices

and this is not significant. the judgment is not significant. tell us what you think. and finally, the issue about the guardian reaper that you've been doing and how do you answer that? the reporting is putting people in danger or it's inappropriate. my understanding is that you adopted all sorts of information on those critics. and finally, we have a european parliament debate on the issue of david who feels it is appropriate. please comment on the issue of how they were reviewed in that instance. thank you. >> mr. greenwald? >> i will take those in order. it's a leap to deny mr. snowden is a whistle-blower given that the federal court decision that he referenced in the second part of the question, which is that

the core program that was the first one that we revealed and mr. snowden 1i first met with him cited what caused him to come forward mainly the collection of the matter of a the and the love the americans without regard to suspicion or evidence of wrongdoing that it violates the court guarantee in the united states constitution and they said it isn't even close to somebody that comes forward and reveals a program in the federal court in the united states says it violates the constitution, therefore it is illegal is a classic whistle-blower. on top of the fact the regulations have sparked a debate in the united is evidenced by the hearing we are participating in today about all sorts of things that i think everybody on all sides agree we are better off knowing about and that is a classic whistle-blower somebody that reveals evidence of wrongdoing and illegalities that sparks important debates no space society can be without and

that is what mr. snowden has done. if the other part you asked about what generally happens in the united states when it comes to surveillance is the only court that effort rule on the programs are the courts that no western democracy would even recognize to be the ar tribunal that meet in secret and that is wrong side namely the u.s. government to be present and heard. what happened is the first time the court proceeding has evaluated the legality of the service programs and the judge's opinion which is urged everybody around the world it's not about the u.s. law but it's the way in which the programs destroy the concept of individual privacy and how the rationale offered by the u.s. government is false, namely that it helps terrorism and just as you know evidence that it has fought terrorism. this opinion was issued by one of the most respected national security judges in the united

states. he isn't known as a liberal, he's a conservative judge appointed by president bush. and yet, but he says that the national-security rationale offered by the government is not only false, but woefully inadequate to justify the very serious privacy infringements that the collection of medved data imposes by yet ready and given the gravity of the opinion, how the and it was and the fact that was issued by the judge i think is quite vital. as far as the third question is really remarkable because although we have been sacrificed for disclosing documents which put people in danger have actually been pretty criticized from the other direction as well which is namely that we have published the documents, that we have gone too slow and i consider that criticism to be

grizzlies event veldt with the emblem that says we put people on danger. the terrorists have long known that the u.s. and the u.k. government and other governments are doing everything possible to monitor their communications. osama bin laden famously used human couriers to communicate with his associates precisely because all terrorists already know everything they are doing on the internet or the telephone is subject to be monitored by various government to be we didn't tell terrorists anything that they didn't already know we told people that they didn't already know that it's not the terrorists but they themselves, innocent people are the targets of the mass surveillance system and we have national security putting in imminent danger, the only thing is the perception of honesty and the a credibility of those that have built a massive surveillance system in the dark. and the final point about my case partner one thing i want to say about that is i hope that everyone understands how extreme

and radical the u.k. government is. they are literally equating of the reporting that we have done not only of with espionage but with terrorism. the department has for years condemned as tyrannical governments that equate journalists with terrorists or journalism and terrorism and that is exactly what the government is doing in this case. and they have lots of other instances where they threaten the corps' three dumped to the guardian and the journalists that have been able to report on this story in a way that i think many countries that overlooks the u.k. government is doing this is losing all credibility when it comes to the engagement in countries that are not quite as familiar or that are allies of the government's. >> okay. thank you. the next question is on behalf of [inaudible] >> i would like to talk in

german. >> translator: thank you very much, mr. greenwald for giving us your time and giving us an opportunity to put questions to you. i have got basically three small questions. first dhaka if there is a serious concern to raise attention to what is going on in private lives around the world and i wondered at the moment whether we know anything that there is to know that we ought to know or whether there might be more information that could capture by surprise. obviously that would be interesting to us as to what more might be lurking out there. then you mentioned all of the ways of centers of in communications and how that can be done and how it is being done the things that have been made

public. in the realm of national security in the national rahm so for example when you're talking about the opportunity of funding at an abortion clinic to be found out is that interest of the nsa to evaluate that sort of information the fact that it's possible to do i think that we all understand that. that's not an issue on the threats that we are facing, obviously there are threats in the atmosphere that is occupying as of the moment, but what about the threats to exist as it were around the globe and threatens the states and from states and fundamentalists, movements.

do you think that it is justified to carry out certain reconnaissance work for activities even if that may involve delving into information that perhaps should remain private? >> thanks for those questions. as far as we know, whether we know everything, we certainly know the gist of what these arguments are as they began by describing that the nsa and the allied governments are attempting to collect all forms of human electronic communication and there are still stories left that we are going to report that are significant. the documents are complicated dividend as irresponsible journalist takes us a little bit of time to process them and report them accurately so we are doing that as fast as we can with being responsible and accurate so there is a story that remains significant, but

certainly after six months, i think everybody gets the fundamental point that drove him to come forward which is opposed by the surveillance that come to the individual privacy. whether it has an interest in for example, collecting information about women getting an abortion or about people calling drug and alcohol i think to answer all that question all you have to do is look at the history not only in the united states, but in other countries as well. there is no instance where governments have developed the power to engage in secret massive surveillance where it was not abused. for decades in the united states, the united states government used in surveillance authorities to monitor and eavesdrop on political disadvantage and opponents of the government's, the fbi tried to get evidence that martin luther king was having an adulterous affairs and then threaten him or even trying to

encourage him to commit suicide. there were decades of abuses that come from the system and i think it is wisely invested that if a human being can exercise power in the dark with no accountability or transparency that it's not likely, but it is inevitable that there will be used. just three weeks ago we reported that one of the things the nsa is doing is monitoring people not who are engaged in terrorist activities or members of terrorist organizations, but who would express the u.s. government calls radical ideas, radical ideas to have been targeted by the nsa and it is collecting information about their business with pornographic site or sexual if chats with people they are not married to and its planned to use that information to publicly humiliate and discredit those people to prevent them from effectively communicating their ideas to the world. in the pure instance of abuse.

so, it may be true that the ordinary person who never challenges the government isn't going to be threatened with that kind of abuse because without challenging the government but i don't think we want to create a society that says you won't be targeted with abuse of surveillance as long as you just stay at home and mind your own business and never challenge the government to and i think that it is how it treats its dissidents and express ideas. finally, on the issue of whether there is justify all to become -- justifiable surveillance everybody agrees that when there is evidence that somebody is engaged in terrorist organizations or terrorist plots in their conversations that can be legitimately monitored i think it should happen in the framework of accountability and the involvement of courts to make sure that it's not being abused but that isn't what the document shows. the documents show whole populations being in mass

surveillance and if you look at some of the cases we have reported on such as the targeting by the u.s. and the oil giant for the organization of the american states or economic conferences where the economic accords are being negotiated in latin america or the energy companies such as we reported in norway and sweden, a lot of this has nothing to do with terrorism and the national security. that is the pretext. it's about diplomatic manipulation. and economic advantage. and essentially the accumulation of power. terrorism and national security or the better ways to obscure this is not the real purpose. >> thank you. i'm afraid i'm going to have to ask you to be a bit more concise and answering because otherwise we will not make it in the time slot. i am now changing hats and i am going to ask a question on behalf of the liberal democratic

group. my first question would be among all of the countless targets that have been revealed, there is one that is of interest to the party and that is the server of the company in the processing of banking and data and there are apparently indications in the papers that say about the u.s. authorities have authorized access order of leased create the devotee of having unauthorized access. do you have any more information on that? second, what makes a whistle-blower is that he has exhausted all internal procedures for reporting the wrongdoing. is that the case with mr. snowden? what happened with the internal procedures. my third question would be that you single out the u.k. as an ally of the u.s..

are there any of their particular companies that you would like to highlight a and am i following is have you actually seen any evidence or any indication that has been used against political adversaries or that it would be allowed to use it against the political left for serious? thank you. >> "the new york times" reported seven years ago that of a targeted this whole thinking system. the document that we published in brazil was listed as along its targets the sort of banking system as well as the reporting that we have done so far. so clearly it is a part of the

target. being a whistle-blower and exhausting all of the internal procedures i think that he has explained that in the past jobs that he had when he brought to the wrongdoing to light he must dismissed by his supervisors and told to go back to work and mind his own business. but i think the most important point and there is that there are centers on the intelligence committee of the united states who were aware of this wrongdoing and tried to warn the public about it but are constrained by the law from even telling the public what it is that they found out and essentially rendered into it and even the united states senators having gone to them were barred by the law from speaking out about that and realized the only recourse for getting action was to make it public. the that the internal system for the whistle-blowers is an illusion and designed not to

bring it to light. as far as other european allies beyond, the u.k. obviously is the closest ally. there's another level of cooperation beyond the program which the u.s. calls that t. erbe cooperation where the governments cooperate with the nsa on a case by case basis for the specific targeting purposes and germany and france norway, sweden and denmark are among the country's which participate most extensively with the nsa and these kind of directive opportunity missions and then we publish a document setting that fourth and finally the evidence of using the political and adversary described a couple of weeks ago and which they brought to use evidence in order to discredit and destroy the people that they consider to be of

ideas that they think are radical. there is a lot more reporting that we have to do on that but i can't talk about because they are not getting published and the reporting is not yet done. >> thank you very much. the next question will be on behalf of the conservative group. >> on behalf of the green group. >> thank you very much. first let me say that i thank you for your work because i think also without the independent worked of journalist groups scrutinizing and reporting about these documents, we wouldn't have this discussion either. let me ask also three questions. first, with regards to the

awareness, obviously quite a lot of politicians think that citizens do not care about this. what do you think about this and is there evidence in your view that this topic and this question, these fundamental questions could play a role in the space decision making process in the upcoming years into the second question with regard to spying activities and intelligence services, do you have some hints that there could be also economic interest involved in the activities of intelligence services for example towards other member states? so economics by teeing interest

and the third question is about the work of journalists as i said i very much admire the work of independent journalists trying to scrutinize what i heard from many sources not only from yours that the work of journalists and prepress in europe is endangered and that extends. my question would be how far you would see the possibilities for us politicians to safeguard the work of the free press in europe and worldwide and if you consider going to the human rights accord on these infringements to the freedom of the press in your worked. mr. greenwald? >> thank you for the kind words and as far as the question of whether or not to take care, there is anecdotal and also evidence that she demonstrates how much they do.

i think around the world millions of people have been engaged by this reporting and have concluded that mr. snowden is heroic for the work he did with here we are six months after the story began and the interest level around the world is as high as ever. there is a very severe shift in terms of the people now for the first time since 9/11 dealing threats to their freedom and privacy from the government is greater than the threat of terrorism and all kinds of significant shift in how people perceive these issues. and i think that continuing to make people aware of not only the severity is the reason why it affects them personally is instrumental to ensuring that people continue to take an interest in what the government are doing to their privacy. as far as the question on economic interest as i indicated in my last response to has been literally more than a dozen stories now about programs that

have as their only goal sunday on economic entities for economic reason. exactly what the u.s. and the west criticized very vocally for doing is what the allies are continuously doing as well. and again, i am not able to talk about reporting that we have not yet done. but europe is in no means object to putting it under a surveillance microscope in terms of other kinds of interest. on the question of the free press, i think it is harder to overstate just how successful the effort has been to intimidate journalists and other sources. i know i have received all kinds of and petitions over the last three or four months to attend and speak at events in europe and that organizations and public events before the

government bodies and advised by all kinds of lawyers traveling to europe it would be very dangerous for me because of the charges that the government is threatening to raise it to the journalism i've been doing and that's true for others as well. so, i do hope that to the extent that any of you believe that the information that has been revealed to spend at all helpful in fulfilling your duty as a legislator that you take steps to protect the journalists and especially the sources who have sacrificed their own interest. simic now is the turn of mr. kirk. it's been a good morning mr. greenwald. i assume it is morning where you are to apply what to deal more with the process than your general of starvation. i would like to know really whether in of the receipt of

information if you receive a complete copy of the finals are originally from mr. snowden norti got them from additional documents or copies from the guardian newspaper but if not originals do you get separately any other copies from any other source. the documents you talk about the about document and what they contain. i would like to press you slightly on this. what were the documents about? were there signs of reduction to the names of intelligence agents and also, you say on your tauter account that was the guardians decision to give the files to "the new york times." i want to know whether you got ahold of that information or those files later or did you ever have them? some people mr. greenwald regard

mr. snowden as a hero. i'm afraid i cannot join that club but the reference as i understanding the legal process of the united states set down clear guidance of how the whistle-blowers' behavior. there are protections in the american constitution and the system. we have no evidence that mr. snowden attempt at all to utilize what was available to him and frankly therefore left us with a situation that he could actually deal with telling the world about is that a responsible behavior of a man and security was so important, and finally, as a journalist, mr. greenwald, how do you determine yourself what is or what is not a master of national security? do you see yourself qualified or yclept? i know that you are no longer with the guardian. do you see yourself equipped and qualified to make such enormous

decisions? thank you. >> mr. greenwald? >> part of freedom of the press, an important part of freedom of the press that we have been talking about this morning is that fortunately journalists do not have to answer to government officials about what the sources gave them or how that is the got the material that they are allowed to protect their sources and to protect their journalistic materials on the invasion by questions from the government, like some of the ones that you just had. mr. snowden is the source for the reporting that we've done at the guardian. who specifically at the guardian received the material. and when they received it, i think that it is not that anyone's concerned. mr. snowden has been identified as the sort because he wanted to be identified as the source. but beyond that i am not going to answer questions about specifically when we got the document or who got the document or when we decided to share them

with one another. those are internal matters as journalists and a newspaper and it's not for the government to intervene in that process. as far as the documents are about, i think that i've been very clear about the documents are about. when mr. snowden came to us, he said he had a very large number of documents. and i think that this is crucial. if if you have traces in terms of what he could have done with the documents come he could have uploaded them all to the internet. he could have given them to ask that organization to disclose, he could've sold the documents to be if he didn't do any of that kid and he came to journalists that work with the largest news organizations in the world and asked us to be extremely judicious and careful going through the material while

not in danger and they could have adhered to those. as far as the whistle-blowers are concerned, i'm not sure where you got the idea that there are protections for the whistle-blowers and the constitution that seems untruth. and as far as whether there are protections for the whistleblowers into law, all you have to do is look at fact the administration has prosecuted under the espionage statute more whistle-blowers in the last five years and has been constituted an all-out american history prior to president obama becoming president. and as i discovered earlier, these mechanisms that exist within the u.s. government are designed to press this kind of information and not to enable the public to learn about it. and then only has the question of as a journalist making the decision, the answer, the simple answer in the same way that

journalists around the world think these kind of decisions every single day. i work with the largest newspapers around the world in london and france and spain and. the biggest trouble stick institutions in brazil and scandinavia, the garden, "the new york times," "the washington post" are going through the same process and we consult with that. we have a collaborative process. and we make certain that the information that we have published doesn't let any one arrived in the church and nobody knows the information published we've done so. but we do our job as journalists, which is to overcome the decider of politicians to suppress this information and to demonize those to make sure people know what their governments are doing because that is within a democracy requires to this gimmick that brings us first to mrs. galvez on the foreign affairs committee and that i have questions after that. mrs. gomez. >> mr. greenwald, do you have

any evidence at all that any european leader has been spied on by the nsa could be blackmailed or intimidated in any way? my second question is when we went to the united states recently, we found out the different elements of the administration and congress ad hoc. they had no strategy and they were quite faithful and at the same time they were not taking the responsibility because there were games while the president was not aware and in congress of the mood was also businesses. what does it mean? are we going to learn that the nsa has been spying on the u.s. president? finally, there was a reference

to the intelligence cooperation with the intelligence and a lack of principle and the rules law and that cooperation. fiber like to ask you you mentioned the nsa methods and if you cannot give me an answer now, give me some time. >> as i've indicated i'm hesitant to talk about the document that we haven't yet reported because they are responsible to start the planning on documents that haven't gone through the journalistic process. and so, what i will say is that there are still a lot of stories about how the nsa uses and abuses its surveillance powers. that are not yet reported but that we are working hard on. on the question of black male i would simply point to history as

opposed to what the documents might reveal that we haven't yet reported. in which the surveillance powers have been abused in exactly that way and in all sorts of cases and i think that it would be quite naive to assume suddenly for the first time in human history the massive surveillance states that operate in the dark isn't being used for those purposes. as far as portugal is concerned, there are still lots of countries where we intend to do very specific reporting and partnership with these organizations in those countries. and portugal is one of them. the only thing i can say on that is that there is reporting coming regarding portugal and i'm not able to be more specific. >> i have two final questions. the first one mr. lopez. >> thank you for the work that you have done which has allowed

us to understand the world that we are living in. i think it is very helpful. >> do you think that the data aside from the european experts who said that basically the data can give you a time and place to allow you to identify that is it sensitive data, do you think that would be protected in your country and in the united kingdom? the role of the united kingdom is very important in this. >> i talked earlier about why i think that the collection of the data is more invasive than even

the interception of content, the ability to read people's e-mails and listening to their telephone calls. and the court's decision that we talked about earlier that can out in the united states that found that the nsa program violated the privacy rights for americans was extremely compelling. about why that data is 76. and i really would encourage you to read it and what the judge eventually said is that the idea that the data is simply a list of relatively harmless and formation as integrated. it is from an area where the communications are radically different than they are now. a given technology and what we use our phones for and what the government have been able to do in terms of analyzing the medved data. it really is what the focal point of the surveillance agencies are because they learned more about that from the analysis than they do about the inception. and you brought up the u.k. because when it comes to the european data, the nsa plays a

very important role, but it is the u.k. for their intersection of underwater fiber-optic cables and their invasion into all sorts of systems including by a very controversial means of attacking. it is a primary threat to the privacy of european citizens when it comes to their telephone and e-mail communications. >> the last speaker on the list? >> thank you. last week swedish television showed the program where you were one of the reporters showing how the agency is first of all very intimately connected, and second they play an active politics and actually breaking into computers and i think that was a new revelation

and i'm happy to tell you that this has created quite a lot. remember the moment we have the government basically saying they hope that all of walls have been followed. so the impression that if there are more revelations that they are planning to assert themselves to be able to blame the security agencies and themselves. so yes, my question would be will there be more on the swedish and in general will there be more reporting on the involvement of european governments because that is an issue that is of a particular interest to trust here. and as a last question, you mentioned not jeopardize and deadlines. can i say confidently that you are thinking about your own security and the security of everybody else in the material

so it's not even a theoretical option for the securities to suppress the material. >> i'm glad you asked about this because there is at least some points i wanted to emphasize. when you spend a lot of time talking about the mehdi this morning, one of the revelations is that we are -- that we are reporting in sweden demonstrated was that the spying including the massacre discriminant spying goes way beyond that the data. one of the reports that we did was about the programs score which is a very important program for the nsa. but they also have now started to allow their partners such as sweden access to the program and

it has nothing to do our very little to do with the mehdi the. it's about the ability to store e-mails and read them attwell to collect people's histories, the trap logs and their searches. essentially the content of communication and what is being done on the internet as well. that is very much a part of how the privacy is being invaded. it is not just mehdi that. there are programs that are all about content and not just about the medved data. as far as european governments are concerned, it is true in part of all the government involved in germany and france did expressed indignation. when we did the first reports and they were targeting the country only to turn out that the country's subject their own corporate and with the nsa but at the same time nobody can become certainly not in europe when it comes to the level of increase of this and the amount of resources that go into it and the objective and the mission to go back to all forms of

electronic communication so it is true that a lot of the reporting has been about the european government and that will continue, but the u.s. and the u.k. really are on a different level when it comes to both their ability to destroy privacy and the desire to do so. and then finally, about my own security and the security that people are reporting on we definitely take a lot of steps to ensure that there are multiple copies of these documents. and in various places around the world, very safe and very secure. and that is e eliminating some of the of devotee to work on them, but not any way to impede the ability to do the reporting on these materials is inevitable. i have been particularly fortunate to be in a country in brazil whose government is very appreciative of this reporting and anyone who understands the means of support and protecting the free press from the assault by the u.s. and the u.k. on the devotee to do the reporting and budgeting. we all feel as confident as we can that this reporting is going to happen and that nobody can stop at pure at

>> thank you. with that, we have exhausted our list of speakers today on behalf of the committee i would like to thank you very much for your time and willingness to answer questions. and i think that everybody is waiting with great curiosity and interest for further publications in particular on the issue that you said you couldn't answer the questions on because it has not yet been published and as a final remark i think that one of the things that sets a democracy apart from an authoritarian regime is that yes we have secret services but we also have democratic oversight and clearly free press plays a role in that, but there's also the parliamentary oversight. and we feel that as a european party, we have very limited means to exercise the oversight.

we do what we can, but of course we see the extremely grateful for any information if you would feel the urge to share that with somebody would be very interested. so thank you very much for your time. and that concludes this session. [applause]

about ten or 15 years ago we started looking at the census department data and something very strange pops up. when you look at where the profits are of the multinationals, if you look at the map of europe you see germany, france, ireland, italy. but if you look at the data on where the profits are, italy, france, germany, ireland it is just acutely disproportionate amount of profit within ireland. so that was one indication that something was going on.

the deadline is approaching for the studentcam video competition open to middle and high school students. answering the questions are the most important issues congress should address this year with a five to seven minute documentary that includes c-span programming. there's $100,000 in total prices with a grand prize of $5,000. get more information act studentcam.org. >> the university recently hosted its seventh state of the party's conference. in a moment, a discussion of national party nominations, rules changes for the 2016 he elections and a look at political scandals and comebacks. this is nearly two hours. >> i actually have my own power and privilege. my job really is to keep time. we have four papers to be presented which means we will be giving about 15 minutes to each of the papers. we hope that you will see

leading together on the topics. we hope you have great interest and with a present. but more than anything else, we hope that you will have great questions because this group of individuals have not only studied what has been, but they are giving us a little bit of a perspective of what is to come. and i think you'll find their perspective is very interesting to read the first of our presentations is a paper called the keen makers or cheerleaders party power and the causal effect of the endorsement and this is being presented by seth masket and eric mcghee. seth is at the university of denver and a policy of institute of california. and i will shut up and let them talk. >> thank you very much. yes, eric and i are here presenting this on behalf of our other co-authors. basically we are trying to come up with a measurement of the impact of the party endorsement and the primary which is traditionally a very tricky to

measure. we are using the kind of a fun case study to do this. this is the state of california which most of you know employed a new top to system of electing the candidates to office as of last year to get basically any candidate of any given party can participate starting in the june primary. all voters see the same ballot consisting of all of the candidates in the party to cast their vote in the top two big along to the november runoff. this was one of the latest innovations to make everything wonderful the parties of course noticed what was happening and these responded by a series of endorsements trying to sort of steer the voters in the direction of one of their candidates and we wanted to see what kind of an influence that might have. so, the main question here is what sort of impact to the endorsements have? to the actually help the candidates in the primaries?

this is a tricky area because there's a severe problem that is parties and others generally tech strong candidates. they take the type of people likely to do well anyway. so if you look at every california candidate for the assembly, state senate and congress who ran and compare the ones who got a party endorsement of those who didn't it looks like to get 54 percentage points more than those who didn't get the endorsement. that is of course an absurd number. we don't think that the endorsement is worth 54 points. but might be worth something. the problem is that it is really hard to figure out just what it is worth, since the candidates tend to be doing very well in the first place. so, now this is a pretty important question. if endorsements do actually conveys some benefit, well then parties can be influential primaries. they can actually do some of the picking for us to help us narrow the field of your candidates putative that would make them,

you know, a king or queen. they would have some important facts here in the nominations. on the other hand, if there is no real value in that endorsement, then the parties don't have much power to pick people for us. basically they are just cheerleaders. they are banned wagoners. they're pushing on and supporting whoever happens to look like a good candidate anyway. so, you know, the answer to the question tells you whether we are living in a candidate centered or the party centered political system. now, we try to get at this question using two different research designs within the same, with the same study. the first is a survey experiment. and in which we created three fictitious candidates and presented them to a thousand respondents in the survey. we had these three candidates with biographies, each of democrats, one republican, and we randomized the endorsement between the two democrats.

so, this basically isolates and controls for all other possible candidate factors. and we are just looking to see what impact the endorsement had on people's stated intentions. second, we looked at the actual results and did a regression discount model. we have a nice piece of data that have the endorsement votes done at the level of the county party. so, we can see essentially how much, how strong these candidates were to get how much they were supported with their counties. and what we can do is we can compare those candidates who can just short of the party's endorsement of those that just got barely above the party endorsement threshold. so theoretically the candidates are of a very similar strength that we can see how much the endorsement mattered in the primary vote. the primary process is that first of the endorsements should provide some benefit for candidates.

it should be of help the exact reason for that we are not totally sure would be a reliable queue for voters making tough decisions and some sort of an internal was asian of an elite norm among the voters to read the second hypothesis is to focus on the endorsement would better more and that it would matter among the republican voters. the third is that it might benefit some types of candidates more than others. if they are sort of the traditional democrat who comes out of education and labor union the right reasons for the den of knorr and we are wondering whether an endorsement might matter more from one type of candidate than the other.

first i want to provide some of the survey experiment here. so why won't go into the details. i will just say that these are the three main fictitious democratic candidates for the state assembly seats that we came up with to get the first is greg johnson who we would call a traditional democrat. he's an educator involved in the local school board, he favors increased funding for schools. okay? then we have the second candidate the new democrat, that is sam guthrie, an environmental entrepreneur who founded the company. he wants community-based policing. finally we have the republican david robertson who owns and operates a small business and wants to cut taxes. then of course we randomized the endorsement in the survey we contacted the thousand californians and this was right around the time of june 2012 primary and a third of them saw

greg johnson the traditional democrat getting endorsements and a third saw the new democratic getting an endorsement and the third one sawmill endorsement at all. the metal bar graph shows the condition in which no one saw an endorsement we saw johnson the traditional democrat gets about 30% of the vote and we got through the new democrat that gets around 20. johnson the traditional democrat gets the endorsement. we see the dark line goes up about seven points. so the traditional democrat getting the endorsement seems to be worth about seven points there. conversely if you go from the metal over to the right, that is where the new democrat gets the endorsement and that is only about two or three points so it

is the suggestion on the idea that the endorsement seems to be a greater help to the traditional democrats. i'm going to turn you over to the conclusion of the talk on the this continuity. >> state-owned. >> we have one more graphic about the experiment on the survey experiment. on the party had an indication, it becomes a week at the democrat you are affecting the treatment. the effect of whether or not your candidate is endorsed. as the responses to the democratic use. the second way that we looked at this question, because it might be that the survey expert at this sort of artificial and that it wouldn't actually apply in the real world as we took some data that is known as the

reelection data and we did this continuity. now, what is that? is all of the range of terms. now, that basically we have a measure here of how much part eletes specifically those who were showing up to the convention and the caucasus. how much of the support of a particular candidate. so there was a voting process for getting the endorsement. you would imagine that the performance in the primary would get better because these eletes or in part piquing the candidates who are good. where there red dotted line is that is the endorsement, and if there were no effective in endorsements and you gravity's against each other this is what you expect to see. as the party elite support grows, performance also grows.

.. there is a discontinuity there right at the point where the zero, zero is where you get the endorsement. there is, in fact, a discontinuity. it's about 15 points which is remarkably similar to the size of the effect wa we found in a survey experiment. we are not making any claims but kind of cool anyway.

was always an issue with this design is whether some of you know you're looking at just about or just build maybe imagine you got a really close endorsement vote. the candidate who is more skilled, who has more of some quality, some resource come is going to be able to manipulate the outcome. they did have contact with people making the vote, some kind of insider track. they would always just come out ahead. they would be able to enable it to result and, therefore, it wouldn't be truly like flipping a coin. so we tried a number of ways to look yet the most common is just to see whether the ones just above and below are different from each other. on other dimensions that don't have to do with the sort of underlying quality, this underlying support measure. so here's one. we tossed out all the incumben incumbents. it turns out in the original

graph, going back one slide, there are more incumbents just about inches below so there is some indication that maybe they are manipulating. it's like eight versus three, not a lot of data. but when we tossed incumbents out of turns out it's maybe even more cleaner. we also went through and coded all these candidates according to whether they had these democratic candidates come with a business expense or not. very crude but it's roughly kabul to what we had in the survey experiment. we see basically the same difference. now it's, you know, i'm sure many in this crowd will look at the key value and say aha, neither one of those equals 23 q., .99. neither one is significant. i say phooey on you. stop using that to evaluate

science. but the point is especially the same pattern we saw before. and then we also did was called randomization inference test. this is very similar. i can go into details in the q&a if you care but it's a very similar way of tackling these p-value, similar idea but it deals more correct has more directly for the notion of the internal validity. not worrying quite so much whether these particular candidates are represented of some broader samples, but instead saying he the actual treatment in this case the endorsement, really make a difference on this group of people we have in front of us. when you do that you see basically the same results. we also, going down that table in the rose you see what you might call placebo test where we just take something that ought not to differ above and is below the threshold of the competitors as well. we don't see any difference but we do see a big difference for

the actual vote you. that's exactly what you would want to see if you believe that the endorsement is having some independent affect. so in summary, the experiment shows that endorsement matters. matters more for strong democrats than weak democrats or republicans. that makes sense but it helps the traditional more than business democrat. that's more counterintuitive but in wrestling nonetheless. all of our versions of aggressive discontinuity show about the same, some around 10215. of fact. and so this is not as jeff was saying, this is not a 54-point fact that we notably that was to anyway. what it's showing is that parties can't just, you know, they don't rule the roost, but they can have an important influence on the outcome of these races so we are calling them constrained, kind of halfway between. >> thank you very much.

going a little bit further on the role of parties, caitlin jewitt of indiana university, purdue university indianapolis, i love the initials for all that come is going to talk about the role of rules and the 2012 presidential nomination, which means pretty much republicans, right? >> so in 1968, the democratic party embarked on what's often referred to as one of the greatest party reforms in american history with the creation of the mcgovern-fraser commission. the mcgovern-fraser commission was the beginning of an overall of all presidential nominees were selected. so prior to this the party elites were really the ones choosing the candidates. but following the mcgovern-fraser commission, the role of selecting was shifted to voters. so we see very rapidly primaries and caucuses start to matter, where individual voters can express their preferences for a

candidate, and that culminates in the delegate selection at the national convention. so starting with the mcgovern-fraser commission, the democratic party really made numerous reforms to the process, and they tinkered with it almost every election up until the late 1980s. so the democratic party had no fewer than eight reform commissions starting in 1968. meanwhile, while all this is happening the republican party was very hands-off in the process, and did not become actively involved in reforming the presidential nomination process. one of the most recent activities by the republican party, however, is the creation of a temporary delegate selection committee in 2008. that reform the most recent nomination process. so my broader research agenda really looks at the rules set in place by the national parties and the effect of those rules. i wanted to take a step back

from the project and really look at why the republicans he came involved after being so uninvolved for so long, and what the consequenconsequen ces of their involvement were in the most recent nomination. >> so there are four main reasons that the republican party has been less involved in the presidential nomination process than the democratic party. the first is that they have been more content with their success at the presidential level, particularly in the 1970s and 1980s. another reason is that in the democratic party there was a strong section calling for reform of the process and that faction did not exist to the same extent in the republican party. additionally, the republican party is known for their position on states' rights and limiting federal involvement, and so it didn't see the need to become involved by national mandates as the democratic party did. finally, traditionally it has been more complicated to change the rules on the republican side

than on the democratic side. on the republican side, changes have to be approved by four different bodies, the national committee rules committee, the national committee, the rules committee of the national convention, at the national convention itself. so that meant if the republicans wanted to make changes for the 1976 nomination season, they had to implement reforms at the 1972 national convention. so it was a much longer process, and one that they did not partake in like the democrats did. regardless though, the republican process to change along with the democratic process in large part because of changes that happened at the state level. so as a result, of the mcgovern-fraser commission, many states which dueling presidential primaries. that often was the result of changes in state laws. so when the states created these laws, creating the presidential primary for the democrats, they also did so for the republicans at the same time.

so even though there wasn't involvement from the national republican party to the same extent it was from the national democratic party, the republican party process also change. the republican party did not resist those changes, again for several reasons. the first, this move towards primaries and active voter involvement was seen as a popular reform, direct participatory democracy was seen as popular and republican party wasn't willing to go against that reform that the people had embraced. and by 1976, which was the first time the republican party was hosting a competitive nomination in the post reform era, because in 1972, president nixon was being renominated, the public have accepted these reforms because they have seen it play out in 1972 on the democratic side. in addition, 1976 that were too popular republican candidates, reagan and ford, running and

party elites were willing to accept input from the mass public on which candidate they preferred. and then finally the republican party had also seen in 1972 a national attention both from the media and voters, the democrats received and they were not willing to quietly nominate a candidate in 1976 while the democratic party got the spotlight. so these changes happened to the republican process as well but not because of their direct involvement. and so we see the first really major attempt at reform on the republican side with the creation of a task force on primaries and caucuses at the 1996 national convention. the republican party really wanted to combat front loading with these reforms. frontloading is the process of states moving their contests up earlier in the nomination season in order to gain influence on the process. the republican party at this

time believed their frontloading prevented voters from having meaningful participation and also harmed candidates the ability to fund raise over the compressed calendar. so to combat front loading the republican party offered bonus delegates to states. so they said if you hold a contest later on, in april or may or early june, we will give you more delegates. that was supposed to be an incentive to the state to hold a later contest, have more delegates and thus make a contest worth more to the candidates. but we see that the 2000 republican nomination was frontloaded. it started three weeks earlier than the 1996 calendar began. it was also very frontloaded compared to the democratic candidate the democratic party was more successful in 2000 at holding states back and saying you cannot hold your contest in february than the republican party was. and so by and large these reforms were seen as a failure.

so that brings us to the republican party second major attempt at reform with the creation of a temporary delegate selection committee that was formed in 2008 in order to make reforms for 2012. and this creation of this committee is significant not only because it's one of the rare instances the republican party has become involved over the past 40 years but also because they allo about the chas to go into effect for the previous nomination. so these changes did not need to be approved by the national convention, and just needed to be approved by the national committee in the summer of 2010, and would go into effect. and so the republicans once again tried to reduce frontloading, create a longer nomination season and allow more states and voters a say in selecting the nomination. they did this after reflecting on the 2008 nomination where mccain secured the nomination very quickly, and on the democratic side obama and

clinton battled it out for months and we saw voter interest and media attention at an all time high in the race. so the republican party goal was in part to create a more exciting, lengthy nomination that would pull voters in to the process. so they tried to achieve these goals through two major ways. the first was by regulating the calendar. the republicans said, the for early car that states, iowa, ninja, nevada and south carolina, and vote on or after february 1 and before the first tuesday in march, were as all other states have to vote after the first tuesday in march. they also said that states voting before april 1 had to use proportionality to allocate the delegates wear states going later on after april 1 could use winner-take-all. this again was supposed to be seen as making the states more influential. of the state held a contest where it could give all of its delegates to the winning

candidate. so rather than relying solely on incentives, as it did in 2000, the republican party this time said we're going to enforce a penalty if the states don't abide by our rule. so instead we will take 50% of their delegates the way if you break these rules. despite the penalty, the republicans were not able to prevent states from blatantly ignoring the rules and gladly accepting the penalty and scheduling early contests. as a likely should've expected given michigan and force actions in 2008. so again in 2012, we see movement by florida, michigan and arizona moving the contest earlier than allowed by the republican party, but then creating a ripple affect where i become enhancer, nevada and south carolina are they going to move the contest earlier to preserve their early status and influence in the process. answer as result of 2012 calendar looked completely --

completed different and republican party intended it for it to look. we see an rnc spokeswoman give this quote after all this movement happened. while the primaries will now start earlier than planned, the overarching goal of the cardinals was to allow more states and voters to have a role in choosing the next republican nominee for president. this goal will be met. >> and so these grass depict the location of the states on the calendar with the left most point on the x. axis indicating the iowa caucuses. and while the republicans intended for the race to start later in 2012, the iowa caucuses in both years were held on january 3. and so we actually see here that the 2008 calendar appears more frontloaded with more candidates holding, or more states excuse me, holding contests on super tuesday where we see that very high bar. super tuesday appears closer to the iowa caucuses in 2008 than

it did in 2012. in fact, the republican reforms were successful in lengthening the process, because mccain secured the nomination on march 4, 2008, and romney became the de facto nominee in 2012, on april 11. so the 2008 race was competitive for 61 days compared to 99 days in 2012. in other words, the q&a 12 nomination was competitive for 38 days more than the 2008 nomination. so did lincoln the process, but when we look closer at the goals of the number of states and voters that were allowed to participate in the process, we see a different story. in 2008, in the 61 days of the race was competitive, 37 states had the opportunity to hold their contests, compared to the 30 states that held of their contest in the 99 days that the

race was competitive in 2012. we also see fewer voters participated in the republican 2012 race with about 16.15% participating, compared to a little over 17.5% participating in 2008. additionally, the participation rates in both years were substantially lower than the participation rates in the democratic 2008 contest. and so we see that the temporary delegate selection committee and its reforms are significant departure because it is the republican party becoming involved in the process, something it has not done very frequently over the past 40 years of reforms. but it has been fairly unsuccessful in achieving its goals and ensuring that the states of bide by its rules and regulations. unlike the democratic party that has been fairly successful in injuring the states abide by its

rules, particularly when we look at the very overhaul of the process in the 1970s. and so the rnc has said that it intends to take a harder stance in 2016, and as the chairman has been quoted as saying he will impose a death penalty on states that move early in the process by only allocating the state to break the rules nine delegates to the national convention. but currently few states have laws that would put their primaries earlier than we think will be allowed by the republicans in 2016, and so it is yet to be seen what will happen but the republican party will be reforming the rules and trying to maintain control of this process in the upcoming election. and so overall, i think this research highlights to tensions. the first is that we typically see frontloading as a negative, something that has negative consequences that we see in 2008

the frontloading process actually allowed more voters in more states to participate than in 2012 when the calendar was not as frontloaded on the republican side. finally, the republican party is really in a difficult place here. that if it wants to regulate its calendar, it wants to achieve its goals, it has demanded that the states follow its rules. something that goes against the corporate civil out the republican party of protecting state freedom. >> you are good. >> right on time? >> absolutely. the next speaker is wednesday get of depaul university, and his paper starts with a statement, the party decides among candidates. >> thank you. the title come and thank to the bliss institute for hosting this conference. an outstanding opportunity or all of us. this title really builds off of your work by marty cohen, john,

others, in which the argument was that the party decides and basically collude on who their nominee will be even before the caucuses and primaries begin their presidential nominations are really about building a winning coalition within a political party. among the there is constituencies, activist, insiders who participate and that changes over time, in part as caitlin mentioned, the transformation of the 1960s into the 1970s through a series of reform movements, really opens up and changes the nomination who participates. so in the 1970s we see the coalition formation really occurring in the caucuses and primaries. john aldrich, larry is arguing the campaign momentum during the caucuses and primaries really driving who becomes the nominee. by the 1980s we get counter

reforms, adaptation by candidates, greater signaling efforts by political party organizations during the invisible primary. that leads to coalition coalescence or unifying behind a candidate emerging even before the primary. and so we really are left with two patterns. some nominations we do see the nomination essentially being wrapped up before the primary and caucuses begin. a clear example of that would be the 2000 nomination on both sides. everybody knew that george w. bush was going to be the republican nominee, maybe not john mccain and his small band of supporters that year, but it was pretty much wrapped up. and al gore was a pretty convincing democratic nominee. we know that. if we look at other nominations, 2008, 2012 under, a republican

second 2008 on the democratic side. it doesn't look at all that those nominations were wrapped up. and, indeed, if we look at 2008 on the democratic side, hillary clinton was in essence the establishment candidate. she had more endorsements than any other candidate, and yet she lost. she had more money, she's getting a little bit more media coverage. normally the things that we think about winning, and so 2008 looks more like in some ways 2012, to some extent, like the campaign of the 1970s. where campaign momentum really becomes important if the idea of campaign momentum, candidates who beat expectations, making more media coverage. they wind up getting more fund-raising. they are able to build their support of national polls and go on and do better in subsequent caucuses and primaries. and there's a couple of different theoretical artifice, one would be bandwagoning, just jumping on the more popular candidate, or alternative

learning as more and more caucus and primary voters begin to learn more about the candidates across the primaries. the idea of the invisible primary explanation is that it's a law national discussion in which insiders, activist and privilege if other what candidates come and engage in signaling candidates that generate more endorsements, also tend to be the ones that raise more money, gain more media coverage, more support in national polls, and importantly, and i think they are right, that endorsements lead other indicators of candidate strength in a presidential nomination campaign. and it really leads us to having two perspectives. one is, if the critical parts coalesced before the caucuses and primaries, then what we should see as very few candidates are getting many votes in the primaries themselves and we will see very low levels of competition alternatively, if the parties

fail to coalesce efficiently as they did in 2008, then we should see more viable candidates in the primaries and the dissipation of votes will reflect higher levels of competition. what i've done in this piece and in others is i used concentration scores come in this case the hirschman index. i'm using two different measures. one basically calculates the number of serious candidates, we are doing this as market share, the number of big firms in a market. and then the second normalized measure controls for the number of candidates in a race. that measure is used by the justice department to essentially determined whether mergers should go forward on whether the government should engage in antitrust activity to stop collusion. and importantly, low levels of the competition indicator reflect more competition. all right, so we'll come to

that. there we go. so this is my measure, if we look at the primary votes across all the primaries from 1972-2012, what we have going back to 1972, the little, unfortunate my color scheme is reversed to. i've got red diamonds for democrats and blue squares for republicans. the red diamonds come with the democrats in this case, we had an average of five candidates per primary across all the primaries in 1972. in 1976 it was over for. and it continues to decline over time. conversely the republicans start out with less competition in the 1970s, and in part because of incumbents, and to become more and more competitive, more recently. and then in terms of the

competition indicator, which is the normalized measure, what we are looking at here really are the same races, and i've got incumbents tend to have the scores near one. a score of one in a competition indicator basically reflects a monopoly. a completely unchallenged incumbent. what you do see is that some incumbents have been challenged. i would point out to the lower left of 1976, the single most competitive nomination race was actually -- whether there was an incumbent president or not was between gerr jerry ford and rond reagan. jimmy carter was fairly competitive. in 1980 with ted kennedy. the horizontal line is really an indicator used by the justice department. below that it's really a competitive market. above that line is not competitive. what you see is in those years most presidential nominations are not particularly competitive, and those below the line occurring more frequently in the 1970s and 1980s are.

so kind of the patterns that we see. the first one i was on the point out is that presidents when they get renominated generally these are not competitive races. the two that we saw that were particularly competitive were 1976, 1980. a number of unique circumstances occurring with ford. he had not obviously not been nominated by his own party. he was appointed. both to the vice presidency and the presidency. he had the watergate scandal and plus you have a wide open nominating process with the new rules that were implemented, as caitlin to mention. carter is associate with minority wing of his party, and the democratic party in the 1980s, 1970s was very divided. the conditions, basically unable kennedy to have a more effective nomination challenge. but aside from that what we typically see our nominations that are much closer to a monopoly.

there's no competition when the incumbent president runs, and in open nominations, they are close to being what we would call competitive. and you can kind of see this in open nominations, i don't have my line in there, but you only have a few that are not competitive. versus incumbent renomination's that rarely are these things competitive. a second difference between these indicators, democrats versus republicans, because there is a distinct party difference for this timeframe. democratic campaigns on average have been a little more competitive than have republican campaigns, both overall as well as open nominations. republican campaigns typically are not as competitive. intraparty trends, this is perhaps the more fascinating thing as far as looking ahead towards 2016 and beyond. democratic nominating, nominations have become somewhat less competitive overtime. this is suggesting that

democratic is but a couple things. one, the democratic party is a little more unified. it also could mean that prospective candidates are a little more strategic about calculating their chances and not running, which is also a possibility. republican nominations in contrast, basically were competitive in the 1970s. reagan comes along. you get a great deal of unity within the republican party, and that may be fragmenting in the last -- in the post-george w. bush era. and we can see those two patterns. this is the same slide as earlier. what i argued in this paper, and in a forthcoming book, is that these two different patterns and the variation that we see emerges from two basic factors. one is variation and coalition unity. the democratic party and to a lesser extent the republican party, they were less unified in the 1970s. this reflects the growing

polarization. internally they become more unified, and that's that happened we are seeing less competition, less intraparty fighting over the nomination. and in terms of this coalition coalescence, what i argued is that a more unified party should be able to figure out and coalesce earlier before the caucuses and primaries ever began, a more divided party that's going to be a very, very tough challenge. so as the republican party, if they are unraveling in the wake of the george w. bush administration, they're going to see a much harder time coalescing behind candidates before the caucuses and primaries begin. and i think we see that in 2008. we see it in 2012 to a lesser extent. and i think we'll see it in 2016. ..