some very good things happening amidst that. i would say, look, the enterprise called dhs, admiral allen went down to certain event called katrina. went out to the oil spill in the gulf. we saw very dynamic leadership where he pulled groups together where he didn't have authority. dhs was very struggling. all of sudden some good things happened. i'm not blindly waving my hand, wow, dhs was the only option. have you been on the committees we were looking for better ideas. that was kind of the lesser of two -- one last point. it's a young organization. it's a young agency. it took us 25 years to key west figured out on the drug transit zone issue in a joint military inneragency multinational variety. dhs will take a long time to become functional. >> let me use this to piggyback's off of chuck's question. maybe more scaled down version of dhs might have been a better

idea. either keeping fema out of it or keeping fema in dhs but more robust would be a better idea. secret service could have been used opportunity to split secret service into two different agencies. right now they have a dual mission. that dual mission is very confusing for people in secret service monetary investigations and protecting the president and other officials. those are two you know, unrelated missions. so i think other things could have been done maybe not quite as extreme as what we got. >> i'm sorry. we're out of time. we had a good discussion. there is no doubt that this issue of homeland security is an important issue for our country. the organization of government changed. the way that we looked at government changed as a result of it and you heard a challenge here today. if you don't like what you see, get involved with it. thank you all. thanks to the panelists for being here. we appreciate everything. thank you. [applause]

>> hillary clinton makes first trip to south carolina assist sift presidential candidate. she will speak at south carolina democratic women's caucus and south carolina democrat achic women's council. that starts at 1:45 p.m. eastern. here on c-span2 we'll be live at 4:00 eastern as the white house policy drug control representative talks to faith and freedom coalition and vera institute of justice. they will discuss the criminal justice system.

we'll have live coverage starting 4:00 p.m. eastern. more road to the white house coverage later today. former pennsylvania senator rick santorum plans to announce later today that he is running again for the republican presidential nomination. he ran first in 2012 around won iowa and 10 other states during that time. he is kicking off the 2016 campaign near his hometown of butler pennsylvania, which is just north of pittsburgh. c-span will have live coverage of that. it gets underway at 5:00 p.m. eastern. david mccullough on the wright brothers and wilbur's being accident that changed course of history. >> it was mystery who it was that hit wilbur in the teeth with hockey stick. knocked out all his upper teeth when he was 18. sent him into a spell of depression and self-imposed seclusion in his house for three years. he was not able to go to college

which he planned to do. he wanted to go to yale. instead he stayed at home, very seldom ever went out at all reading. and providing himself with a liberal arts education of a kind most people would dream of having, all on his own. with the help of his father and the local public library. but it was his path, the path of his life in a way that no one had any way of anticipating. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern and pacific on c-span's q&a. now a discussion on religious liberty with two attorneys representing both sides of religious freedom cases before the supreme court. they're joined by "washington post" columnist michael gerson and meryl chertoff from the aspen

institute. it is from the philadelphia. it is 50 minutes. >> good afternoon. the first amendment to the united states constitution states that congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. these words don't signal the end but rather the beginning of the spirited debate about the proper relationship between religion and the american state. in the early years of the united states some interpreted the first amendment to mean that congress couldn't establish an official religion but cities and states could. by contrast thomas jefferson described the first amendment as a erecting a wall of separation between church and state. in anderson versus the board of education the supreme court quoted jefferson's words urging this wall must be high and impregnable.

lemmon against kirkman however the court recognized that some relationship between government and religious organizations is inevitable adding that the line of separation far from being a wall is a blurred indistinct and variable barrier depending on all the circumstances of a particular relationship. the first president george washington articulated an additional approach in his famed letter to the toreau synagogue which is often cited as basis for the concept of religious pluralism a definition more inclusive and perhaps more appropriate in today's united states than the venerable term tolerance. washington said "it is now no more that toleration is spoken of as if it were the indulgence of one class of people that enjoyed the exercise of their inherited natural rights per happily. the government of the united

states which gives, which gives to bigotry no sanction to persecution, no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens in giving it on all occasions their inefectual support. our speakers dedicated their careers considering issues of appropriate interaction between religious liberty and our u.s. laws. greg lipper and christina airy august gaugh coins -- arriaga. on key cases before the supreme court. michael gerson, writing about the intersection of religious believe and politics. greg lipper with americans united for separation of church and state. before that worked at the covington and burlington law firm. christina arriaga worked for

beckett fund and counsel r counsel for hobby lobby and other cases. she has quite an eclectic collection of pets at home. we learned that in the green room. michael gerson is columnist for "the washington post" and works with the one foundation a alleviation of disease and poverty globally. there are two categories of cases we're going to talk about today. the first are more traditional types of cases in the religion field, the a accommodation cases and they often involve minority religion and place of a accommodation of minority religion in a majority society. there is another category of cases very much in the news which is what i would call religious accommodation 2.0. those include cases like the hobby lobby against burrwell case and cases going out of the state rfras.

since that is in the news, that is very much on everybody's mind and since we have counsel on both sides of the case with us today, we'll ask them to start off by telling us what has happied in this area since hobby lobby against burr well. i will start off with christina arriaga. >> you wonder why my hair is little messy. greg and i got out of the green room and i specifically asked to talk about areas of agreement. i'm working hard on it. i'm sure you hear my accent. no, i have not been drinking. i'm cuban-american. so i feel very passionate about these issues. as meryl. director of the beckett fund for religious liberty. one area of disagreement we have is the hobby lobby case. so as you may have heard, americans united mischaracterized it as crazy

evangelicals denying health care to women. that wasn't actually the case. i'm kidding greg. you know. you never said crazy. [laughter] so the green family of hobby lobby are evangelical family from oklahoma city. they started their business in a garage with a $600 loan. they started to make frames. they paid their kids 7 cents each for making frames. as devout christians when they opened their stores and eventually opened stores in 46 states. they employ 26,000 employees they closed on sundays. their trucks only take merchandise into the stores. they don't allow the trucks to bring alcohol. they have no lewd cards in their stores. they provide very generous health care benefit to their employees. they pay for every medication every drug, everything that the affordable care act requires but

when the health and human services mandate was enacted, they had absolutely no objections to is 6 out of the 20 drugs that the government mandated. they only objected to four. these four drugs were drugs that the government itself conceded may prevent science behind this was never argued in the case. the government said it prevented implantation. for the green family that was a form of early abortion. they can not cover these four drugs. they cover 16. they covered everything else. they had great health benefits. and because of their values they also paid more than twice the minimal wage to each of their employees. and they found themselves painted into a corner by the government. the government, while forcing owners of hobby lobby to provide these 20 drugs exempted millions of americans from having to comply with this mandate they considered so vital. the case became incredibly politicized. you may have heard about it. and indeed when the government

went before the supreme court the supreme court decided their case was very weak because they lacked the their arguments were not strong enough and we won that case. and in that case the government said that closely-held corporations have a right to religious liberty. since there was a big his tear then that rights would end, health care would end women would die. none of that has happened. all very politicized again. since then any court decision that has come down largely benefited very individuals in prison or individuals who want to exercise their right to religious liberty. does that answer your question? >> well, i think that greg probably has a slightly different version of the facts here. >> the facts and legal principles, before i start, meryl mentioned thomas jefferson. it is his birthday today. it is appropriate day for us having this discussion. i'm sure he is proud wherever he

is. so i want to -- >> [inaudible]. >> michael -- >> we're not going to ask you to resolve that here today. >> so let me take a step back actually before we get into this particular weeds of the hobby lobby case. hobby lobby often portrayed in the case as a case brought under the first amendment, it was actually brought under statute the religious freedom restoration act. that was enacted in 1993. one of the great political kumbayah moments where people on the left, people on the right, all came together to support legislation cosponsored by ted kennedy and orrin hatch, you know. at the signing statement president clinton talked about proverbial divine intervention to bring all these people together. the premise of the religious restoration freedom act there are some cases in which combinations -- accomodations should be made for people's religious beliefs or people's

religious practice. even if the law on its face did not discriminate on the basis of religion, there are some cases where greater exemption should be provided especially to religious minorities muslims or sikhss who need to wear a beard notwithstanding dress code or facial hair policy to the extent there are requirements of autopsies when that violates someone's religious beliefs. what happened in cases like hobby lobby and places like indiana and arkansas is kind of the religious freedom restoration act has been weaponized as a tool for some people to impose religious beliefs on others and deprive third parties of their rights. that is something not been allowed to happen before. there are many situations in which accomodations are appropriate. but they have never been until this hobby lobby case allowed when it would deprive someone else of their rights. now what happened here in hobby lobby and other contraception places for-profit commercial employers are

permitted to withhold what is otherwise required health care compensation. you know some of the employers refused to cover any contraception. some refused to cover much of it. in the case of hobby lobby though, take christina at her word nobody died as a result of it but tens of thousands of hobby lobby employees are deprived of certain forms of contraception including the iud which most medical professionals agree is far and away the most effective form of birth control and is also the most expensive. and which virtually all modern scientists agree does not act in abortion fashion at all. there have been cases previously where people raised religious exemptions to social security taxes or paying women same as men or paying minimum wage. those claims had always been rejected because, via individuals or companies have never been allowed to use the religious beliefs of their owners to harm third parties

including their employees. that consensus has now broken down and deeply fractured hobby lobby decision and it is going to have i think profound consequences for the way we understand religious liberty and for the balance in our country between the rights of religious worship on the one hand and system of secular laws that protect everyone on the other. >> i want to get back to this notion of weaponized, there is argument that could be made on both sides about weaponnization. but i do want to ask you christina the case that said rfra did not apply to the states was the 1997, werner against flores. it has been 17, 18 years since the decision of that case. we're only now starting to see a big focus on state level rfras or mini-rfras. there is a disturbing

correlation between that and the passage, for example, in indiana of gay marriage. so does that suggest that perhaps the focus on rfra has something to do with factors other than those that are being articulated by the plaintiffses? >> well -- >> being articulated by the proponents of rfras? >> no. i mean as soon as the '97 decision came down, several states started to adopt rfras. we have 21 states with religious freedom restoration act state versions of it. and over 30 states now have religious protections that were rfra-like. many states felt they did not need to have a rfra protection in their state. also there was a sister legislation called rlupa. we're so nerdy talking with all these religious land use

protects act. it also protected. but to your point, greg, who benefits from these religious freedom restoration acts one of our clients pastor robert soto a native-american in texas. in 2006 the department of interior sent covert agents, department of interior had covert agents went into his family powwow because they had heard that he had eagles, i'm sorry that he had eagle feathers. there is eagle feather act that prohibits native americans not in federally recognized tribe to have these feathers. they sent covert agents confiscated feathers. essential to the his. federal religious freedom act the government had to return these getters this recently. it is true that the original rfra was meant to protect minority religions. most of our clients are minority

religions. what rfra never ever said or never alluded to anything having to do with what we're going to discuss later which was sexual orientation or gender identity. so i think that the states moved as quickly as they could given the '97 decision. >> mike, i want to bring you into the conversation. so these rfras in the states how do you see these controversies over florists, cake baking? how does this play out? what kinds of accommodations should be made, not just for minority religions but for people who have lives that may not be ones that are as easily accomdated by evangelicals or people from certain religious beliefs? >> well, it's a little strange. i am a non-combatant in this legal battle and, given where i'm sitting i'm just likely to be a casualty in this legal battle. [laughing] you know the history of rfra is seems to be relevant here.

this was, you know, a two-part test about compelling, you know governmental goals and the least intrusive means, that was cause championed by justice brennan and the aclu for many years and was in effect for decades. and it was, it was really justice scalia who the bad guy in this scenario. >> he was. >> who wrote the smith decision that overturned this. and caused the congress to react and reinstate this test. you know, and it was in the house, with chuck schumer that took leadership on this. it passed the senate 97-3. and it was, it really was a point of agreement. it a shame a terrible shame when issues this important get

sucked into the vortex of the culture war. because what we're talking about is not just one issue among many. we're talking about one of the great achievements of the american tradition which is protection of religious lurism which is good for the country. -- pluralism. it motivated people to do good, religion has, when it comes to hospitals and homeless shelters and catholic charities and variety of religious groups and motivate ad search for justice over the years in the abolition p, prison reform movement and other things. religion, religious freedom is not some problem to be solved, some controversy to be engaged in. when you hear george washington's statement from earlier, that is a thrilling moment in the history

of the world. in which a power like america came to the defense of a genuine pluralism which people could pursue their own visions of the good with respect for one another. and, so, i hate to see when rfra laws are used in ways that are suspect because it actually, i think, brings discredit to that cause. but i would also say that that rfra standard which we've had for decades has really never come up against this public accommodation laws. that hasn't been a problem for decades. and, all of this, that standard does is say that there should be a balancing test. not guaranteeing any outcome. but a accommodating deeply held religious beliefs.

i think that you can question people's motives in bringing up rfra laws in the states but this balancing test is actually been a well-tested, pretty good method to accommodate the normal rules of the majority and a handful of exceptions of people that feel like their beliefs are being burdened. and it is the courts that make this decision and they have generally been wise in its application. >> so let's talk about the little sisters of the poor and notre dame case versus hobby lobby, right? so little sisters of the poor and notre dame seem more traditional in the sense that these are religiously, religiously-owned and religiously affiliated organizations that refuse to provide particular categories of benefits. mike, do you see that distinction between people like the green and hahn family? >> i think that a lot of people engaged in this issue there are

some divide even on the part of advocates of religious liberty between those who put great emphasis on the autonomy and identity of religious institutions, and those who would extend it to for profit institutions. i think that divides some of the coalition on these issues. it's a indiana law, as i understand it, actually made sure that it applied to for-profit corporations. i think people are maybe more mixed on that. but, it's so, but i guess i would defer to the experts -- >> i'm going to ask testimony. greg? >> so the cases like little sisters of the poor and notre dame and others, sort of second wave of challenges to the contraception regulations i think they present actually two important distinctions. the first is the one that you

mentioned meryl these at least look closer to religious institutions than does a national retail craft chain on the one hand. on the other hand these entities have already received a significant accommodation and refused to take yes for an answer because for two years now the administration has said, fine. you do not have to include contraception, any form of contraception in your health plan. all you have to do is fill out a form, saying, i object. send it to your insurance provider around the insurance provider will provide the contraception coverage to your employees at no cost to you and no cost to them. that was still not good enough. all of these entities are challenging it. i refuse to signing this piece of paperwork makes me complicit in evil. the administration granted even further accommodation said, okay you don't even have to fill out the form to end it to your insurance company. fill out a form to the government saying i object. send it to the government.

and again these entities have refused to take yes for an answer. the basis of what the supreme court ultimately said in hobby lobby is, there is a less-restrictive alternative because the government created accommodation for these non-profits, these non-profits many which kristina's organization represents even filling out the form so somebody else will provide coverage to their employees is objectionable. basically, saying we will not rest until our employees are unable to get contraception from anyone. and i think that is, you know, it is, it's i think another example of sort of extreme weaponnization of religious liberty but also i think contributes to the things michael talked about. that when religious liberty gets associated with, you know he, denying women vital health care, denying women control over their bodies and refusing to sign

paperwork, you know, that is deeply troubling to, that is deeply troubling to the cause of religious liberty as a whole. you saw the same thing in indiana and arkansas. when religious liberty is associated with discrimination, with denying people service at public accomodations, that is deeply troubling. religious freedom restoration acts have become toxic and they have become toxic because they have been abused in these ways. when governor pence says this is not about discrimination, when his fall back, no, no, about actually depriving people of contraception. when that is deeply troubling it has eroded what had been a great consensus in favor of religious liberty. i think it will do long-term damage to the broader cause. >> christina do your clients not take yes for an answer? >> those little sisters of the poor so unreasonable. they devote their lives to serving the elderly poor. they take of 13,000 elderly poor

people. they hold their hands while they're ill. they help them die. and, they're committed to life at the beginning, in the middle, and at end. they just said, hell no we won't go. they didn't say the word hell, mother lorraine. mother lorraine would be very upset if they heard me say that the government has exempted millions of americans from having to comply for this mandate for commercial reasons secular reasons becauser this the government's friends of the because they felt like it but they refuse to exempt an order of nuns and then they created this paper game. sign a paper. sign here. sign there. it's a money game. you guys are, owing a lot of you money things. i'm mathematically impaired. it doesn't take a lawyer and doesn't take a mathematician someone has to pay for it. when the sisters signed piece of paper, it triggers, a trigger contract someone else has to pay for it. they consider that to be analyst

it thing. they consider that to be a sin. the government is not in the business of telling people what they can and can not belief or what they believe is reasonable unless they have a really important reason to tell them. i have three teenagers. who has three teenagers? i think it is completely reasonable to advocate for churches that sacrifice teenagers? you would agree with, right? government has saying compelling reason for state not to allow human sacrifice. for those reasons government can intervene. as for for-profit doesn't take a lawyer to understand a gay musician or gay photographer should not be forced by the government or anyone else to go and photograph an event at westboro baptist church. and, this last week, both aclu and americans united both said that indeed the gay photographer should be forced to participate in an event at westboro baptist church. no one in america has ever

supported those claims. you know freida levy, who we all know who advocates for legalization of marijuana. my children are watching. i never inhaled. [laughter] so, why should she be forced if she were an artist to participate in a no-drugs rally? it doesn't, people disagree about religion and sex. all the time in america. and the answer is not to bring in government regulation and the answer is not to exaggerate claims. has it been weaponized? absolutely. there has been intent on both sides that has not been good but that does not mean you wipe an entire body law that calls for a day in court simply because someone's view you consider to be repulsive. >> what about the notion that you're simply, the government is going to take over, providing the contraception if the green and hahn family don't provide it? isn't how is that different

than the case, conscientious objector? the conscientious objector, if they don't give their service, somebody else will have to give their service? certainly you would say conscientious objecttor statutes are fine? >> it is very different. when the little sisters of the poor say we can not pay for it, that is very different from someone taking it. they just can not pay for it. government already provides millions and millions of dollars in funding through title 10 to planned parenthood clinics that provide these drugs to women that want them simply by showing up for free at no cost to the woman. this is all taxpayer money. the government figured out a way to put a 50-cent stamp on a piece of paper and carry it from florida to -- it is 50 cents? maybe 51 now, to get a letter from california to florida. why can't they figure out a way to get these contraceptives to women that does not involve nuns? they put a man on the moon but

forcing the little sisters of the poor to violate their conscience and have to pay for these drugs and devices they object to. that is unprecedented. >> i think christina is losing site of the idea of balance. it isn't for us to question necessarily the reasonableness of a nun's unwillingness or anyone's unwillingness to fill out a form saying someone else go do it, we don't live in theocracy. we balance interests. there rather other people at stake. employees will go without coverage if the nuns won't fill out the form or anyone, or if university of notre dame wouldn't fill out the form to say well the government could pay for it the government could pay forking but we wouldn't say for instance, that i have a sincerely held religious objection paying women the same as men. we would never say the government has money they can make up the salary difference no big deal, right? no. we would say we will enforce equal pay laws. we wouldn't say i have a religious objection to paying

minimum wage. no big deal. the government can make up the salary difference. we would reject that form of claim. let alone saying, i refuse to fill out a form. i think meryl's question about the conscientious objection is absolutely right. notre dame's lawyer was asked at oral argument does that mean it would be substantial burden on religious exercise for conscientious objecttor to say i would object? he said yes even that would be have to be considered a substantial burden. that is all well and good, for people to believe that is fine. but when someone else is losing an important benefit as a result that's where i think there has to be balance brought. and i think the idea that i am entighted to every possible idiosyncratic pardon me in my beliefs is fine but as a result of those i had yo sin

democracies, people lose their benefits that crosses line and in a society based on secular law. >> we're going to leave it there. clearly not something we're able to resolve. let's try to find areas both sides are may agreeable and that may get us back to some more traditional areas of protection of minority religions in a majority society. and the most recent example that i think that i have looked at, out of the court is the holden-hobbs case. i think that is area where more or less you both agree? >> yes. we do agree. we actually kristina's organization represent ad muslim prisoner who wanted to wear a beard in prison. the case was brought under that rehim just land use and institutionalized persons act. christina disagree to the acronym.

that was the ways that situation brought the coalition together right? a modest religious accommodation important to someone ace religious beliefs and granting accommodation doesn't harm anyone. there is arguments made about threat to security but they didn't really hold up. i think that is the case where we do agree religious accommodation laws are serving their intended purpose. i think it would have been very different if i have a religious right to not associate with women prison guards. i think that would then cross over into imposing religious beliefs on someone else. there we might disagree. in sort of quintessential accommodation, doesn't hurt anyone. no reason not to grant it. yes, i think there is plenty of room for agreement about those cases. >> so the reason that one of the reasons that the supreme court ruled that this prisoner had the right to grow the beard, it was

because the state of arkansas had no real reason right? there are no security reasons. the state of arkansas had said, you can not grow the beard. you have to shave just because we said so. just because we said so. that was the weakness of the argument. in the case of many of the religious freedom cases we're seeing the ones where we're defending our clients because often times the government says, hey, you have to do this just because we said so, like little sisters of the poor, like hobby lobby. like many of the cases where the government had no real reason to not make an accommodation and not make an exemption but, yes in the end we do agree that this was an important case. now the, barry lin, did he start americans united? >> no. started in 1947. >> he would be very upset. >> i will tell him. >> you look very good, barry barry lynne, for instance belongs to the university of,

universal church of christ and 14 pastors in the state of north carolina from the same denomination supported by americans united suing the state of north carolina because in the state of north carolina because same-sex marriage is not legal. what these pastors want along with barry lynne is their day in court. that is what the religious freedom restoration act does. they give a day in court when there is disagreement. >> like to get off of rfra? >> i thought we want to talk -- >> we want to talk about other things. i will turn it over to mike at this point. are these cases, religious accommodation cases, are they becoming more difficult? are we becoming more, as we become increasingly pluralistic, is that creating a pluralism anxiety as professor kennedy said in his article? are we getting to a situation now where these religious accommodation cases may become

really difficulties for the courts to deal with? >> i do think there is more at stake than disagreement on details. there is conflict behind many of these cases. there is a form of modern liberalism that essentially says only the individual and the state are real in any meaningful sense. one of the main roles of the state is to protect individuals against oppression by other social institutions. and then there is an approach that i would call principled pluralism that says, a community of communities that allow people to a vision of the good, consistent with the common good is actually a positive thing. it is, it has a positive value. so i do think it really matters what perspective what political fill solve i can perspective you

bring to a lot of these issues. i come from a more conservative burkian side. the most important institutions are not the state and more than the individual. they're the institutions in which, the individual is shaped where morality is passed where culture is, the standards of a culture are created. and that they have the government has a positive role to nuture that pluralism that kind of principled pluralism. so i do think that there are some deep political philosophic problems behind it that will not be solved by appealing to details of the cases. >> how do we deal with pluralism in increasingly diverse society? >> very carefully. i think at end of the day, i think there needs to be humility

and that needs to be empathy and those are you know, the word empathy is sort of derided in some circles when lawyers say it. i think it is important and i think it is important on both sides. you know he there are we are a diverse society. we have people with diverse views. and we can't always get everything we want. and sometimes we should get what we want and sometimes we shouldn't. and i think what has disturbed me and many of my colleagues about the, you know, the weaponnization of religious freedom restoration act -- >> he said rfra. >> i did say rfra, that is true. that we pronounce the same way. the idea like for instance, my rights are different when my ability to act 100% in accordance with my religious beliefs is different when i'm at church then when i'm at a boys. when i'm at church, if i pray

with people with same race, religion sexual orientation i can do that but if i open a lunch counter or i'm a kate earlier, even if i devoutly believe interracial marriage is wrong i still can't turn away that couple. so i think it is really, i think at the end of the day i think to recognize there are other people out there too. that religious beliefs are extremely important and extremely deeply held and extremely devout but in a country based on secular law they can't be a trump card. that can be a painful thing but i think it is a important limiting principle that is necessary to balance everyone's rights. >> can i add one point? i agree strongly, that a democracy is designed for disagreement but it is undermined by mutual contempt. that actually, emphasis on civility, empathy is an

important part of this discussion. so i was just in, salt lake city, utah, talking with some church officials. and they really did attempt a process by which church officials met with gay rights activists and legislators, in a difficult negotiation to come up with an approach. the utah law, which is an exchange of sorts. it specifically protects gay people in, for public accomodations, which you know, i think was regarded by that side as real progress. and specifically protects the ability of religious institutions to maintain their identity in positive ways. jonathan rausch who i know was involved in that effort and hopes that it may be model for some other states. it could be, but it is a it is

at least a shows the possibility of civil disagreement and at least minimal agreement on some very basic ground rules of pluralism. >> when we're talking about civility, let's also talk about what was at one time considered to be the repository of civility. that is the college campus. there is a lot going on right now in terms of religious liberty and free exercise on college campuses. is the approach being taken on the campuses of providing access to everybody to religiously affiliated organizations the right approach? is there enough respect for civil discourse on the campuses now? or could the campuses do better? >> well, greg luken is the expert on this issue but i think

it is closely associated to points you have made having to do with civility and having to do with empathy and having to do with accommodation. when my parents first came to the united states we lived in a tiny, teeny house in which in puerto rico where my mother had been in concentration camp in germany. my father was cuban. let's say they had bad experiences leaving fidel castro's cuba. whenever we sat down for dinner, my father would close one window in the kitchen. this is puerto rico 1960s. i was very young. and it was very, very hot in the house. and he would say just in case. he was so afraid that our discussions would be overheard by our neighbor. and as he understood this is not the way we live in the united states and we opened that window we drank from the fountain of freedom of expression you know. we could not disagree enough. yell it loudly enough. we can not drink enough from that. and the reality is this.

for as much civility as we want, for as much agreement as we want, for as much empathy as we want sexual minorities and religious minorities have mutually reinforceable claims against larger society. there are some issues associated with human identity that are so important and so vital no government should touch it. no regulations should touch it. and so much for civility when it comes to matters of human identity, the government should protect them, not invite, not invade them. religious liberty is the ability to live according to our deeply held convictions live according to our conscience. whether that takes you to organized religion or no religion at all there is no room for government intrusion into that life. the same thing should apply at colleges and universities. . .

and been ordered to take a pinch of that you have to have basically nondiscrimination policy. there's been an objection by certain religious groups, involving exclusion of people of other religions or gays and lesbians, case when up to the supreme court which held even a public university can't enforce its nondiscrimination policy of

student groups, even in those cases a student groups can use university facilities. they just get benefits. i think what kristina says is if it's a religious student religious group they should go to exclude people. i think my desk where she and i disagree vote on this issue than the broader point is that we don't live in 100% libertarian society, that we balance individual liberty with other interests are things like equality and nondiscrimination, especially in the unique apartment of an educational institution, it is reasonable for university to say look, if you want to the university recognized student group we are going to argue not to discriminate. it doesn't mean you can't worship however you want in your dorm room or wherever else it's reasonable to say you have a nondiscrimination policy. i think this touches on her broader point which you is we have never had this religious

beliefs says you can do whatever no matter what. the civil rights act it reduces individual liberty. you cannot turn away african-americans from your barbecue place. it is the case that went to the supreme court which in addition to being delightful to say involved involved a restaurant owner who said i have sincerely held religious belief that prevents me from serving african-americans and want an exemption from the civil rights act and the supreme court laughter metaphor. i think at the end of the day yes, we need to create a space. even at a department got if it wants to worship at a segregated church can do so. but if languages are recognized for dealing with diversity balancing interest. what is appropriate for certain settings eyed your own home for your church is not assert appropriate for other settings

eyed the commercial sphere. i think what to do our best to reconcile a lot of different interests and not about any one of them to the a total trump card. >> i would add that can be human cost to this controversy. a few years ago the human trafficking programs that were located at the catholic bishops were denied funding by the obama administration because of other policies. they held religiously-based policies. i think that was a real cost. if you look at a case like gordon college in massachusetts that has worked for years with a local lower income school district devoted 14,000 man hours of volunteer work every year. where the school district has made a decision because wardens religious views on other topics that they're discontinuing that contact. it's the children who suffer in a circumstance like this.

i think it can be, particularly when it comes to provision of social services, many of which come through private and religious institutions in america in that partnership. a to rigorous application of some of these points can have a serious human cost. >> i think the vegetarian group should be able to say that the leader has to be vegetarian. i think the women's feminist group should demand that its leadership the women's feminist and i think that a christian group of muslim group or hindu group should take a leaders come anyone can come. by the way none of our clients have said that discriminate against anyone. anyone can join. they want their leadership to abide by the nation of their club. what are we supposed to make everything but no luck? as a latina i particularly love when race comes into this issue. the racial card does not need to get played on any of -- yes

either despicable people that have religious freedom to a certain abuse? yes, but they have not won. in the last 22 years i've said repeatedly there has been one single exemption to discrimination clause based on religious thing. that case was settled in the supreme court with the bob jones decision. so will people say crazy things? yes. that's why they go to court about to use that extreme example to justify government intrusion into all these groups. it doesn't make sense. >> what's happening is the precise argument that was made to justify racial segregation and racial exclusion in the '60s and '70s is now being made when it comes to gays and lesbians. i think that's why the parallel not saying christian is a racist or any of that. what i'm saying is look, why can't i run my business

according to my religion believes him to do what you put us in certain types of ceremonies. those are precisely the arguments that were made with respect to race and interracial marriage in the '60s and '70s. so they were rejected as they were and as they should have been, they should be rejected now when it comes to gays and lesbian couples who are now facing the same types of obstacles that racial minorities were in the '60s and '70s. >> name one case in the last 22 years with a gay person was -- >> but decades as in the early stages but your cases in court are arguing they should win. if you want to look at indiana there was a case in new mexico which a photographer refused to photograph a same-sex wedding ceremony. she brought a claim under the state religious freedom restoration act. the court rejected the claim and said, and kristina's organization filed a friend of the court brief saying that the

photographer under the state should be able to deny service to the gay and lesbian couple. the new mexico supreme court said no the statute can't be invoked by private wedding vinegar in indiana the language was changed to allow the protection i think it's fine can't get the organization wants to support those people great. but institute of medicine is not about discrimination while you're arguing in court, it's really, you want to be able to hold your cake and eat it too. which is a? >> let's talk about those people and -- >> we are running out of time. >> i just need to say, you this gay client of hers provided clients for many, many months consists of the osha kennedy was purchased in a wedding ceremony. and in the state where same-sex marriage wasn't even legal at the time, the court ruled it was the price of citizenship for her. who lost more? elaine gloster business and

livelihood, or a gay couple who could've gone to any other floors in the state? >> all i would say is that you are entitled to your view but you can't then turn around and say these laws are not going to let discrimination because you were in court saying -- >> it's very different to serve than to have to purchase for any ceremony. >> i'm going to give eugene the almost last were. he wrote about whether the our mutual duties of accommodation and so we've are very strong articulations two different positions. just because you have a right, should you exercise it on their mutual duties of accommodation that we need to be thinking about in order to guarantee the cloth of society as we go forward? >> i think it's quite possible that religious belief and ethical conscience would dictate

baking the cake. in a society where you would allow some very small exceptions for people not to bake a cake. that is the nature of pluralism. and it does not implicate the broad accommodation for housing and businesses and other things. but be that as it may, i guess what we are talking about is where those decisions are made and whether there's a decision to be made at all. the traditional view has been that there is a balance in test. they are to rights involved. the courts have been the place where those decisions were made. and so it's important that

people win graciously in a democracy and lose graciously in a democracy. and people are going to lose in these cases. and how people lose will make a large difference. difference. >> and with that i want to thank our speakers and thank the national constitution center for hosting us today. [applause] >> we will have more live coverage this afternoon on c-span2 as white house national drug control policy director michael botticelli talks with representatives of the faith and freedom coalition about the criminal justice system. live coverage at 4 p.m. eastern. we have more road to the white house coverage coming up with former pennsylvania senator rick

santorum. this saturday plans to announce he is running again for the republican presidential nomination. he won iowa and 10 other states during that time. cheesecake and office 2016 campaign in his hometown of baltimore pennsylvania which is just north of pittsburgh. c-span what live coverage at 5 p.m. eastern. back on c-span2 at eight eastern while congress is a break this week we're showing you booktv programs which are not missing only on weekends.

>> koch industry senior vice president and general counsel mark holden takes partner in a discussion on free speech hosted by the national constitution center in philadelphia. topics include political campaign spending and free speech on college campuses. the moderator is jeffrey rosen.

it's about 50 minutes. specs for our final panel is about a superb topic, and it is when the left and the right agree and disagree about free speech. please join me in welcoming our panelists, ladies and gentlemen. [applause] >> we have another dream team panel, and let me introduce them briefly. mark holden a senior vice president and general counsel of koch industries. greg lukianoff is the president ceo of the foundation for individual rights in education. bill marshall is a professor of law at university with carolina comment bradley smith holds this is a great title for academics, the 2013-2015 judge

john t. copenhaver visiting endowed chair of law at the west virginia university college of law. what happens in 2016? >> have to order bigger business card. >> is also on the board of the center for comparative politics. i'm thrilled to announce that this panel is cosponsored by the federalist society and the american constitution society. out of all the wonderful things i could opportunity to do since coming to the national constitution center, bringing these two great organizations together is among the most satisfying. they have joined together because of their love of constitutional debate and dialogue and also because you extremely generous support of the templeton foundation which has great is called advisory called the coalition of freedom co-chaired by the federalist society and karen fredericks. we are cohosting a series of debates like this podcast and

symposia and we will create the best interactive constitution on the weather i'm so excited about this. we will reach out to the top liberal and conservative and libertarian scholars in america to describe for each clause in the bill of rights both what they agree about and what they disagree about in terms of contemporary issues. we want to shape it is for you every school kid in america, the college board is going to work with us to make sure everyone who takes the ap history indiscriminate exam has access to this incredible document. for me it's the living in substantiation exact with the and it is about which is the real vital imports bring both sides together not to agree but to debate any of the constitution. it's going to be an incredible project. mark holden kung fu is an interesting theme on the last panel. >> i did not i would be first. >> it's okay. it was a wonderful area of

agreement where anthony romero from the aclu and the folks from cato peter, were all talking about the important work you and koch have done to support studies of overincarceration of what you tell us about the work and also isn't a connection between your concern of overincarceration and you're concerned about free speech? >> absolutely. thank you for inviting me. people were shot you invited me but thank you anyway. their deadly as a connection. i think neera tanden also from the center for american progress talk about our work on criminal justice reform. really at the end of the day we are involved in criminal justice reform work and have been for many many years. first of its core charles koch's belief in a free and prosperous society. and going back to some of the less privilege of the was excellent as well, talking about removing obstacles to

opportunity for the disadvantaged, the poor. if you want to help the poor as we do i think probably everybody in this room does everybody on this panel does, there's no better way than to reform our criminal justice system because they are the most adversely impacted by the system that is so broke. that's one part of the. the other part is where some negative expenses ourselves with the criminal justice system back in the mid '90s that we learned from. we wanted to do whatever we learn and how the process would for us. if it's happening to a big company with a lot of resources what's happening to the small business owners, to the average citizen, to the average joe in the street, so that got us involved working with the national association of criminal defense lawyers and others. personally, i am from worst to massachusetts and i worked in a jail when i was in college for a work of the joker i was an ngo. i in a joke that's be clear. but when i worked there it was best job i have into what is law school by the way. tells you that some of the jobs

i had. i so many kids i went to school with who were not the best students, who were poor, who make mistakes and then ended up in the cycle in criminal justice because they were drug addicts, some are mentally ill. that left an impression on me. it's all these things both let's get back to why we are here come the bill of rights the constitution, the first 10 amendments, all of them. at least four of them do with criminal justice issues. they deal with the fourth amendment, fifth amendment, sixth amendment and the eighth amendment. you also, the first amendment because if you don't have the the first amendment the other nine don't matter the it's all about free speech and about our natural rights and it's all these rights. our founding fathers may not have got a perfect venue the greatest encroachment to individual liberty and freedom would come from the criminal justice system and they were right. as well we are happy and proud to work with intergroup murder and pc of you that's an, freedom works, you need them.

we work with anyone anybody on these issues. >> you draw the connection between first and fourth commitments in a way i hadn't thought about in fact you some us back to history. you can't have the criminal justice system without the first amendment and the framers are simply concerned about the connection between unreasonable search and seizure and free speech. mike lee wendie king an incredible speech, check it on youtube, talked about the main case that inflame the framers was the case of john wilkes who criticize the king the king wrote a general ward come identifies wilkes as the author of this anonymous pamphlet charges him with seditious libel. truth is not the defense. the greater the truth the worst the offense according to british law. lord came to write secrets opinion in colonial history same paper searches of private diaries are offenses both of

rights of searches and seizures also freedom of thought. i had not made that connection. you have now laid the table for what i'm going to ask you quickly come have you focus more speech on campus and we've had a great debate here. one of my favorites last year, tremendous debate about the european and american conceptions of free speech. i want to step those up it take to beat on what mark said about the connection between the criminal justice system at the first amendment and to what degree that might inform fires work to stand for free speech on campus. >> i'm the president of fire we defend free speech on campus but we also defend due process. i had someone who i think should know better, a professor gimmick sang why are these things connected? why do you do these unrelated things? it was a bizarre idea to me. to the fundamental liberal idea, kind of what jonathan rauch talks not in talks but liberal

slides, it's all about knowing that you have limitations that you have biases that you are not omniscient infinite structures that help us deal with these failings. due process recognizes this restricting people from censoring him recognize this. a great sense of by one thing to do malik great sense of epistemic unit that makes all the difference. i'm afraid universities are failing to teach a generation that wonderful and important habit. >> so marcia from you teach at university as i do as brett does. greg is just charged some of our colleagues within to take do processing to account. >> i teach, to. >> you are not forced to go to faculty meetings however. talk about overincarceration. [laughter] bill, they hate speech debate is hot right now and liberals on both sides of the. as we begin to tease out in the

last panel. some traditional civil libertarians think that our due process violations in banning unpopular commencement speakers. others are more sympathetic to the dignitary rights, a phrase arthur brooks talked about of open-ended minorities and vulnerable speakers. which side you come down on? >> come down more on the freedom of expression side but i don't do so easily. if you walk into the classroom as a student and you are being subject to all kinds of ridicule because of who you are or being made fun of for you are it's hard to participate in that academic climate the same way you would if you part of the privileged class that comes with all the power on your site. i think a lot of these efforts are really too sorted equalize the learning environment protect people from hostile environments which is a very legitimate goal, one that should be followed because we need to think about the fact that the classroom doesn't affect everybody this thing.

the workplace doesn't affect everybody the same. when we see a tax on people's dignity that go on to use that language from the former panel, it weakens the educational structure, weakens the work structure and its wide our protections against it. >> brad this word dignity has come up and there is a great clash between european and american notions of free speech on the one in and dignity on the other. the debate is surfacing around an incredible sight of what the europeans call the right to be forgotten. this comes from the french the right of oblivion which is very french. sort of right out of -- the french just want to be forgotten. americans want to be recovered. the bottom line is if you're in europe if i am in europe and one of you is tweeting right not on the panel that i'm doing a boring job moderating this panel, i can object that this violated my dignitary rights and

google and yahoo! would have to decide if i'm a public figure or not. if they decide i'm not they have to remove it. if they cancel they are liable for up to 2% of annual income what you think was $50 billion in google's case. serious money. describe think want to ask you this. who was right the americans or the europeans? [laughter] >> well i wouldn't want to betray my country on national television. i think our differing approaches to privacy and some of these issues, you know, i think one thing that americans are sometimes forgetting actually of late is that hard-fought right to privacy. i don't know who is better but i think there's a balance that needs to be struck and they think we may be going in a direction that's further than we would like. i see it in the area i work most often which is campaign finance. it's interesting in i believe in

france, i don't want to be quoted but i think some other european countries where he was so we need to know who is financing all these ads. there they say no you can't disclose who is financing all these ads. exact opposite approach to protect privacy of those engaged in political speech, to preserve certain social interactions as well. if we're going to demand to judge everybody on the politics i think society becomes a very unpleasant place to live. there's much to be said for sort of keeping a crater wall of privacy about what people do and say at any one time. i'm not quite sure that answers your question but that would be my thinking is whichever what is the best or maybe europeans have gone too far, i think we may be adequate now where we've gone overboard any sort of everybody's got to know everything about everyone. i'm not sure that is healthy spin they raise the question of anonymous speech. first may be a response.

you want to defend obit of american free speech imperialism? >> absolutely. i also want to say something about the academy because there is this idea that all this censorship takes place on campus at least it's done done with good intentions but there are few times in human beings act with a single intention ever and they are very rarely completely true. i get the argument campuses of targeted places more welcoming, more inclusive. we are just about to file our 10th loss in of free speech litigation campaign and were not a litigation organization we've dealt with case after case where administrators have told students they can't for example, have copies of the constitution in order to honor constitution day with a getting two weeks advance notice from a state employee, from ad administered with the case for animal rights activist in california, school controlled by the first amendment was told not only did have to restrict his

protest to a tiny free speech zone that he had to apply in advance to use, that he had to wear a little tiny free speech badge in order to use. i understand the argument that there are good intentions but sometimes you just can't blindly trust in the good intentions of power. >> i have to agree we can't always trust the good intentions of power. on my campus we have one of our faculty members has written a number of critical editorials against the government of our state and they're trying to take away his center in trying to do whatever they can't against him. that's another example. >> that's another example. i don't think we can say that one side or another has a monopoly on this. the problem about freedom of speech is an awfully in strong intel it breaks down and it's free speech for me and not for the. when we need to be able to apply it across the board. where i have to disagree is i do not think college campuses or anything close sebastian this

censorship or people are not breachesfree to do what they want to see. certainly in the classes i have at the university of north carolina and my colleagues have elsewhere, they are open forums that people do all kinds of things. the diversity of opinions are extraordinarily welcomed. there may be a few of these instances i don't think they get any sense of the climate on american educational campuses. >> mark come visit your experience american campuses are incredible hospitable to diversity of opinion? >> well, no. [laughter] that would be an understatement. working at coke obviously there is a campaign going on that is run by student groups so to speak. i'm a bit cynical on i must admit but it's called an koch my campus. and because charles koch is to come charles koch foundation are working with some education institutions across the country

as they have for many, many years, funding free market courses and things a prosperous free and prosperous society classical liberal type that is, classic liberalism and it's led to a lot of foia request and targeting of professors who are teaching courses on free market economics. they want their private e-mails. they want to know this and that. look, talk about free speech. i'm pretty much a free speech absolutist a lot of ways because i think they are natural rights and with the government can't restraint and because they didn't get into it. certain unalienable rights we been hearing about. i'm fine with the state good for my large financed by many organizations that oppose koch politically and that's the right to do it. they become unsupported, first amendment but it's hypocritical when some of the student could say we are doing it. is such as because of corporate want to point out other big business interests on campus.

there's a lot of groups on the left a lot of wealthy people on the left that have businesses that are funding university projects and programs to i do want them to at all but it doesn't seem it's anything but as the tapping i think it's wrong to attack either side and a don't think there is a lot of tolerance that i seen the last few years. >> chime in briefly. i would be i guess more skeptical than bill. i think there are things that students know that they're not allowed to san campus and that they do not say. as a conservative libertarian in a law school setting where in some cases i'm almost the only faculty member who would hold those views i have become used over the years to a certain ritual. is usually occurs about midway through the first semester and will be a group of students that will appear in my office they will come in and it's not quite clear what they want. they can to talk about class a little bit and a they kind of did

this but it of any seeming objective. finally, someone will say something like what did you think about x y or z or whatever? i think that's a load of hogwash. they say we thought there was somebody we could talk you. we thought it was somebody on our site. it starts pouring out the way they feel stifled in class that certain opinions are not allowed to be offered but they will be ridiculed by the professors, targeted by the professor. it goes into more broadly most people and most professors on campus is a very good anti-welcome diversity of opinion. a few people can spoil the atmosphere and i think it to be cases we have given a heckler's veto to people in cases where commencement speakers are bought off campus until. my guess is most of the student would've been perfectly happy to have him. rather a small group is allowed to exercise a heckler's veto any think we need to sometimes braver administrators and faculty are going to stand up and say no this is a university

and you can be exposed to ideas that you don't agree with even ones from the kochs. >> the american association of college and universities past 9000 campus professionals including professors if come and asked this question is a safety old unpopular points of view on campus? that is an incredible soft question. is it merely safe to hold unpopular points of view? only 16.7% of university professors strongly agreed. jonathan hiatt and philip just came out with a paper whether talk about how social psychology is being hurt by the lack of intellectual diversity. they give an example being at a conference of social psychologists, asking him to raise their hands but how many of them are conservative. only three of them raised their hand. what you realize was

statistically speaking to are certainly more than just three in this room but the fact that they are afraid to raise their hand speaks volumes. >> we teach the law schools at a think the stats seem to be right in terms of the fact that conservatives seem to be a minority on faculties. why is that? >> i could make an easy cut and not going to. of why people -- i think part of the answer is people who come into academics do so with a certain sense of idealism. that often leads to left of center qaeda positions but just because people might be left of center on particular issues doesn't mean they are intolerant and onto your other ideas. i think most teachers, the ones i work with, are aware that the best way to have real conversations in the classroom are to have conversations of the type we're having here, in which somebody might be outnumbered three to one but that's okay.

you want to stand up for your position? you stand up for your position and that's a good thing. you actually learn. i went to a very conservative law school at a very conservative time. i certainly got a lot of grief from certain faculty members on the positions i took. i think it made me stronger in my ability to be able to articulate my views. >> nicely said. speaking of three to one the question of anonymous speech has been flagged and we have to talk about campaign finance issues, which cut in unexpected ways. anonymous speech brad smith, the framers were concerned about the main thing they wanted john wilkes to be able to have was the ability to write an anonymous pamphlet. the number was 45. as mike lee said that number 45 so galvanizing to the framers that they held parties where people would eat 45 and some dissent rate 45 steins of your invite 45 on the side of the cavern. this was a great experience for

them. market anonymous and being speech. why is it important to be able to give anonymously to political campaigns speak with it's important because it's consistent with the bill of rights and constitution which we were just talking about. my point of view is that you should be able to give money to anonymously or on the record because you be up to them to decide and not for the government to decide. the government can remember the bill of rights, i'm going to characterize the late great justice william brennan to which entry to be very flattered by. basically the bill of rights the framers didn't lay out what our rights were. they made sure that government the government couldn't infringe upon those rights because they were presumed to be existing. and my point is to the extent they want to disclose there were a lot of disclosure laws come and trust me, bill and i were talking before we got on here. if charles koch and david koch

pretty much credit or or blame to whatever point it is for every single penny that spent on a conservative or libertarian cause or issue or candidate. so the is no dark money in regards to the coax in my opinion. the reality is there's a cost to disclosure. -- kochs. from a cost-benefit analysis in my opinion i don't quite see who really pays attention to this other activists on each side of want to harass intimidate, create lists. we've seen over time and i've seen both sides do. it. i noted on our side against us with the kochs and have been a number of death threats. i'm not asking for somebody or entity giunta sang it comes at a cost, even the benefits from the disclosure? there's going to be absentee to talk about more taxes and more regulation. it's probably not something any of our groups are sponsoring from koch the episode about less government that type of thing, maybe it is. i don't quite see the need for all the disclosure laws other

than people to put together lists and try to intimidate the i don't think it really brings about a lot of full and fair discussion full discussion on issues in our country anymore. >> might to be a difference for disclosure like individuals like the kochs or even advocacy or positions like the naacp which the supreme court said should be one of anonymous never shiftless? -- anonymous membership lists. >> i think there's a lot of disclosure were campaigns that's compelling. it's a super pac or an independent expenditure. the naacp v. alabama case. there's another one involving the socialist party several years ago. i'm not saying for exxon is going to be retaliate against so the don't have to disclose things. i don't know where the right line is what the divide is.

what i'm saying is to initially benefiting from disclosure and why are we doing it at this point in time? i admit i am inside a bubble working at koch and sing it less i get the i don't see to try to love productive either. >> brad you raised the question of anonymous speech there aren't any conditions in which disclosure is appropriate? >> i think this is an important point is it's not a question of all disclosure notice. i can do it the government should not force people to disclose facts about themselves without some really powerful reason to do so. generally my preferred idealistic position, the disclosure, people have a right to be private and others can evaluate that anonymity when they think about speech. i'm also willing to make compromises because in the real world of the people disagree. unless will be at each other's throats all the time we need to find some kind of accommodation. we talk now, basic dark money like nobody knows where it comes

from. actually there's no political ads and the united states that are dark money. they all require it to say somebody paid for it. what people are saying when they say we don't know who paid for this, what they mean is we don't know as much about who paid for it as we want it just as it's paid for by the naacp or by the use chamber of commerce. we want to know who in particular that is. there's example groups, names that don't stand up for anything, i can americans for better things. [laughter] but you can usually find out enough about the group the want of the things that cracks you up to give one example is on remember after 2010 when i first started talking about money. i can can't say how many stores i read that said crossroads of gps, a shadowy dark money group founded by former rnc chairman ed gillespie and bush adviser karl rove to elect conservative candidates to congress. if this is a shadowy dark group

they're not doing a very good job of it you just told us what's going on. if i can do with just a bit more, there's more options like one proposal i i am seeing more and more it's not taking off and get it enacted by people are pushing it. somebody from the organization has to appear on screen. i impressed the that i put this message. is not always a good thing? that's a different type of disclosure. that person may be particularly home late. people don't like only people in politics. that's the really. to react better to good looking people. maybe the person is arabic and parts of the country people might find they don't like that. i think that a lot of things like that when you distort to be careful of and thinking about. we got into this argument are you full disclosure are anti-disclosure rather than think about this lots of different types of disclosure. even a person like me i guess

could said to be anti-disclosure, is willing to live with a lot of disclosure there are reasons why people want it that are not entirely frivolous but it can sometimes were not doing any cost balancing or not recognizing it. >> what did you think about disclosure? >> when you see this ad paid for mother's body apple pie, it doesn't really tell you much. you have to put this in a larger context and what everybody is interested in helping the poor. but the poor have very little political influence because they don't give money. it's very helpful to voters to know who it is they are supporting. one of its use on that is who contributes to a particular campaign. the fact is to present it doesn't make that much difference but large amounts of money can be put into low ballot races by groups nobody knows who they are and at the last minute they sway election because the

other side doesn't have enough money to be able to defend against the attack. attacks. so disclosure is a second best regulation to a least give you so the voters can have some idea why it is that somebody is attacking another candidate or not. >> would have been a put on the table the question of citizens united. we are having a great debate about whether citizens united was rightly or wrongly decided cohosted by the federalist society and the constitution society in boston on may 12. we had a great debate with intelligence square in philadelphia and its strange bedfellows. it was floyd abrams and making, to put a great civil libertarians argue in favor of the position that corporations have the same person on the rights of national -- natural persons. and arguing against it. this is an area where civil libertarians and libertine

conservatives sometimes converge on the pro-corporate speech position. brad you really are an expert on citizens united. you have seen how it's been extended in hobby lobby. just heard some of the debate today about how its corporate speech and religion rights are being extended further still. did citizens united go too far not far enough or just right? >> i don't think it went too far. let's take it on its own terms, and their decision on a particular set of facts. the position of u.s. government was a good many documentary movie about a major political candidate during an election year simply because like every movie you've ever seen in a theater, rented from amazon or anyplace else, it had corporate involvement in its production and its division that idea strikes me as just absurd to if you want to talk about the radicalism on the supreme court, the four member said that's okay the government can ban a

movement to a movie like that. if you take it on a broader sense, i also think it's right. corporations do not have the court to simply corporations are people and the natural sense but it's long recognized corporations have rights because the people who formed and have rights. .. if we don't take this money this company is going under.

i think that is a good thing for them to know, and they ought to hear that from the corporation, that the ceo of the company or some individual. on his particular facts and in the broader sense citizens united is probably correct. >> the argument on the other side. you are not a traditional libertarian but you do draw a distinction between the state and the federal government. tell us some of that. >> i do think one of the interesting things that has happened under the name of campaign-finance is that the states have not been allowed to experiment. montana had an interesting law in place that was there because of the fact that the romance took over the government back in the early 20th century late 19th century

and they has special laws trying to deal with that corruption that took place and the supreme court struck that down without giving the states any ability to experiment to see what might work and what might not work. part of the issue on corporate speech, and i think there are reasons why you might want to protect it because speech is speech. but you also but you also have to remember, it is subsidize beats because the only reason it exists is because the state has allowed the corporation to come together and get all kinds of protections which allow it to amass the kind of wealth that it can then use to try to influence the political process. the theory that i just gave you on corporate power comes from no other radical than justice william rehnquist who took exactly that position on why he did not want to protect corporate speech in the body case. >> mark, mark did citizens united make a difference in the way you were able to get the campaign? >> citizens united to me personally i don't think that the government should

be saying who can speak and you cannot even in the political season. there is a lot of disclosure that goes with that. i think that from our perspective the more voices that are out there the better. and this will notion that people are going to be persuaded by an adequate this or that i live in wichita kansas. not like dc or new york. [laughter] side. that is me winning friends. abcaseven i think that most people make decisions based on factors peculiar and personal to them. whether they are persuaded are not buy ads i don't know. in kansas we have the 1st competitive governor and sen. race in the 20

years i have lived there and i couldn't watch any of the ads by the end. i think the people aren't swayed by it. the whole idea that someone is going to change there mind about an issue they feel strong about is because someone runs an ad for that type of thing, i think that is overplayed. the citizens united case to me i am where brad is on it. i think both sides spend a lot of money on ads

>> sorry, can't go there. i do think one of the things that brings the left and right together is a celebration of the first amendment and the idea that we can be offended. turns out when we get offended we want to shut down the speech. at least in the abstract we all think this is it our first freedom, that this is the third. i do think that allows reprehensible speech as well as kind we like. >> brad, do you want to make it unanimous on this question? >> i'm sympathetic with justice

alito and occasional dissenters with other opinions. those cases don't interest me because they are rare and at the extreme. as mark and greg sort of hinted, the particular argument we need to protect than a pornography and hateful speech in order to preserve the core of the first amendment. what treich strikes me the core of first amendment is court giving heat protection that is people talking about politics. that seems to me downright backwards that you get more protection if wanthave foul demonstration at funeral serviceman than marxists want to run ads my opponent is jerk and will raise your taxes that discourages me. i will say as point of agreement that comes out actually there is a very strong agreement i think among us and as representatives of sort of different points of view on a robust first amendment. as you point out most of the decisions were lopsided majorities. there is a couple issues.

campaign finance and some extent hate speech that are divisive. for the most part i do get some comfort americans are still pretty good on the question of freedom speech. >> beautiful. there was a fine bit of agreement there. now it is time for closing statements. in the spirit of our think tank panel, will ask you identify aspect of freedom speech most affecting country and what will you and your organizations do to promote it in the next year. we'll go in reverse order. brad? >> the core issue is the issue of political speech which has been under attack a long time. it is under attack. both sides do, whoever is seems to be losing or winning however you look at it, tries to shut off their speech and keep them from speaking. teachers were being asked to report what books they read, right? things like that. now it seems like the challenges come from the left which want to attack political speech, force people to disclose themselves to

be subject to ridicule. i think that is a major problem. i think we have to get over the idea the first amendment is bizarre libertarian barrier to badly-needed campaign reform. i think it is what the founders thought was the way you assured government was clean. that government corruption was exposed. that elections were fair and open. and at the center for competitive politics we fight on that through litigation and through trying to educate people about the way money actually works in politics and get people thinking about what the alternative really would be if we gave government a blank check to regulate speech. >> great. bill? >> i got to agree with brad, it is political speech but i think it is a much more complex issue than he does because one of the questions about freedom of speech is it value in of itself or there because it is designed to promote democratic decision-making. how you view you might come out with different kind of reresults

on some of these campaign finance cases. something matter with the system when the first thing you ask about a candidate how much money she can raise. in a system somebody has to sit in a room 20 hours a day in order to dial for dollars in order to be competitive or system which poor people don't have any access to decisions being made, that is troublesome. it is troublesome also for government to do regulation. i have to agree with that. so you have a deep deep conflict going on there. but it is not an easy result on either side. the first thing i tell my first amendment students, if you think this is an easy decision on either side, rethink it. so i think one of the things the american constitution, society is supposed to do and is doing and what this organization is doing get us to do what greg said we should do, sit down to listen to each other and talk to each other figure it out what it is we're trying to accomplish so we become a little bit more sense cal on some of these issues. >> well-said.

greg? >> thank you. you asked for some american free speech imperialism, early, it wasn't quite time for that yet but for a closing statement i do want to say this and it is something i want to take very seriously. i think that, we feel very proud and confident on this panel that free speech and the first amendment will be well-protected but i think to a degree we're sort of kidding ourselves. free speech is in trouble in the rest of the world. we had an article by gary trudeau which amounts to sympathy for blasphemy laws. there is no argument you can have on international blasphemy law regime and still have freedom of speech. the threat from hate speech laws. most of the rest of the world has national security laws that we find, we would find terrifying to a degree. and i'm i do get a little bit, i think to a degree the first amendment won't mean nearly as much. i think the right to be forgotten is disasterous

potentially. i think unless we're actually making strong, moral philosophical and practical arguments about free speech that apply not just to under the american first amendment but understanding free speech as an international human right, it is not going to survive very long in the u.s. so in this way, i am arguing that we're nowhere near this. i'm arguing for a global first amendment. i think it should be protected to be an oddball anywhere in the world to believe what you want anywhere in the world. >> thank you for that. mark holden. >> i agree with that. i don't know about global first amendment but i agree with the sentiments for sure. here is where i am on it, picking up on what bill said, we heard the last panel talking about criminal justice reform area how that brought a lot of different groups together you wouldn't think could be in in the same room and it has. would like to find more of those issues. we like to think we have good ideas to add to the discussion. we would like to use our first

amendment rights as individuals and then as corporation to have a dialogue across the i'll with other groups about issues of common interest. there is a lot of them out there. criminal justice reform is one but if you look at that issue it is tail end of the problem. we're talking about economic opportunity. that is a big issue. we need to talk about education system. we have ideas. our friends on the other sides have ideas. we would like a discussion instead of everybody going to their corners, throwing names around and throwing ads and fund-raising off etch even other. that is how we look to our rights coming year until 2016 then everybody goes back to their corners. thank you. >> what an sill rating discussion. we have -- exhilarating discussion. we have disagreed about aspects of first amendment principles to situations about campaign finance to the regulation of political speech but agreed about hate speech and centrality of the american tradition and both mark and bill talked

movingly about something we've seen throughout this day. there is real value to simply bringing people who disagree fundamentally together as all of us in this audience and this stage are listening respectfully to each other. so that we can identify areas of agreement and disagreement. your job is to go have a drink which you earned after this great discussion. to take answer the question i just raised to each of the panelists. think about what each of you will do over the next year to celebrate freedom, to participate in debates about it and to encourage other americans to do the same. this is fundamentally about self-education. educate yourself. you have to learn enough about the arguments on all sides of these complicated debates so you can make informed decisions. that requires reads up on the constitution and the case that gave rise to it.

constitution on both sides, neither assuming both is right in advance. ultimately realizing this one document is the thing that binds us. we disagree about so much in this room. all of us agree about the centrality, beauty and power of this greatest document of human freedom and history, the u.s. constitution. thank you to freida levy. want to bring her back up to the stage after incredible day making this remarkable conversation possible. give her and our panelists a round of applause. hooray for freedom! [applause] [inaudible conversations].

>> we'll have more live coverage this afternoon here on c-span it as white house -- c-span2 white house national drug control director michael botticelli talks to representatives of faith and freedom coalition and about the criminal justice system. live 4:00 p.m. eastern. more road to the white house coverage coming up with former pennsylvania senator rick santorum this afternoon plans to announce he running again for the republican presidential nomination. he ran first in 2012. he won iowa and 10 other states during that time. he is kicking off his 2016 campaign here hometown of butler, pennsylvania which is near pittsburgh. c-span will have live coverage as it gets underway at 5:00 p.m. eastern. on c-span2 while congress on break we're showing you booktv programs which are normally only seen on weekends. starting with david brooks on

the road to character. nine:to eastern dana perino author of, the good news is. and 10:20 eric larsen, author of dead wake, the last crossings of the lusitania. booktv starting 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2. david mccullough on the wright brothers their quest for flight and wilbur's hock accident that changed the course of history. >> it was mystery who it was that hit wilbur in the teeth with a hockey stick, knocked out all of his up teeth when he was 18. and sent him into a spell of depression, self-imposed seclusion in his -- seclusion in his house for three years. it was not able to go to college which he planned to do. he wanted to go to yale. instead he stayed at home, very seldom ever went out at all. reading. and providing himself with a

liberal arts education of a kind most people would dream of having, all on his own. with the help of his father and the local public library. but it was swerved the path of his life in a way that no one had ever had any way of anticipating. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern and pacific on c-span's q&a. "the hill" newspaper reports that the obama administration is moving forward on new regulations for financial advisors. the new rules would require financial advisors to disclose how they're paid from offering that advice. it is a result of complaints that consumers have been sold faulty financial products. opponents say such rules are unnecessary. this morning "washington journal" looked how much regulation is needed.

>> host: we're back. dennis kelleher is joining us. ceo of better markets ink. inc. tell our viewers what is better markets?er >> guest: better markets is independent non-profit organization based in washingtonis d.c. woe have 12 staff. two in brussels, one in london. we promote the financial interests of markets. we're a wall street watchdog government watchdog, promoting pushing public interest against primarily the lobby power of i wall street in washington. >> host: so, why did you get started and when? >> guest: well the financial crash as you mentioned happened about seven years ago in 2008 and in 2010 the president andin the congress signed historic legislation referred to as the dodd-frank financial reform law. and i was a senior senate staffer for about six or seven years at thatdd time, decided to leave and two of the biggest challengesrs facing this country was both income in equality and

unretrainedhi recklessness on wall street. there was not a singlees organization in washington, d.c. that promoted the public interest and only the public interest in the financial markets. most of the t organizations in this town as you and your viewers know all too well are pushing their agenda, usually a narrow again, usually a narrow economic agenda that enriches them often at expense of everybody else. we thought there should be somebody, a professional organization that does nothing but try to promote the public interest in the financial o markets and push back against the deregulation agenda of wall street and others in the financial sector to perfectly fine for them to promote their economic interests but there are two sides to every story. too often in the financial sector the public interest getst left out of the entiret, discussion. so better markets with created to solely promote the public interest in the financial markets whether in the securities markets derivatives markets, international markets so the public voice and the public interest gets to be heard

and all the corridors of power in washington, d.c. >> host: seven years after thein financial crisis here is neil irwin's headline in the "new york a times." wall street is back, almost as big as ever. the jobs are there and the salaries are increasing. >> guest: neil's write. neil's a great reporter and writer andbs if anybody's not reading him they should. not even on his payroll but i think he is a brilliant writer ands neil put his finger on what. is happening in a way that is very troubling which is, after the great depression, the great crash of 1929 and great depression of 1930, the united states enacted all sorts of laws and rules of different types to create layers of protection between the financial sector wall street people working hard on main street.ot those protections lasted 70 years. they were quite effective.

financial panics were real crashes and really bad caused unemployment all over the place b due to speculation and recklessness on wall street.ar the great crash of 29 was so bad the government came together under leadership of franklin delano roosevelt and said enough is enough. we havede to stop this every 10-year crash. sop they put in place massive regulation of the financial industry. the most regulation in the history of the world of the financial industry. and what did that get the unitedry states?ge not only did it get about 70 years of no financial crash. it also, the united states created largest middle class in the history of the world. it created broad based prosperity. itpr reduced income and wealth inequality ine unprecedented ways. greta, the most remarkable thingab of all, under most heavily regulation of financial sector the financial sector thrivedhe along with the country and alongco

with creation of a massive middle class. what happens? that stays in place for 7years. doesn't mean there weren't up and downs -- 70 years. that is different than a crash. in 2008, we had the worst financial crash since 1929. and it delivered us the worst economy since the great depression of the 1930s. and what the government did, they put this law into place called dodd-frank. and wall street and its alliesle have fought tooth and nail, day after day spending hundreds of millions of dollars to prevent that law from being enacted. better markets is on the other side ofin wall street across this town from congress to the executive branch to the cftc and thero sec, pushing back against wall street to get rules in place to protect main streets from recklessness on wall street. what neil's story highlights. not withstanding those efforts, wall street not only employment r

but profits are at all-time high yet again. that means finance is once again sucking too much out of the real economy. what finance is supposed to doal is support the real economy, by providing financing to createno jobs and growth and unfortunately what it has become is a parasite on real economy. that is really the story that underlies neil's analysis. >> well, take a look at the opinion page of "usa today." the opposing view is written by the associate director of financial regulation at cato. and this is is what she writes in the opposing view. as its core here is what wall street does. it does make sure that companies doing useful things to get money they need to keep doing those things. do you like your smartphone? does it make your life easier? the company thates made that phone got money to develop the project and get it into the store where you bought it with the help of wall street. when a company wants to expand or make new product or improve

its old products it needs money and often gets money from selling stocks or bonds. that helps the companies broader economy and consumers generally. >> well that is an interesting story and it is in part true but it is in part not true. most of what the biggest banks on wall street now do, called too big to fail banks the one that crashed financial system in 2008 and ones that almost caused second great depression, what they largely do is trading and speculation and what is called t ficc, which is fixed income currency and commodities. . . income, currency and commodities full stop that is gambling on wall street. it is true that banks are supposed to pool money from savers and put them to their best use by lending to good companies, creating good companies, and that is what i mean by finance as opposed to serve the real economy. if you think about this, there are only seven days in this country that are larger than $500 billion.

the only banks or institution not only this country, but in this world, that actually threaten the financial system and the economy of the country. take anything else. if airlines failed, that would be bad, but he wouldn't take down the country. think about any number of things that would not grasp the global economy only this handful of too big to fail banks. there are about 6500 banks united states and we have seven bigger than 500 billion. if you think about it we have 38 larger and asset size and 50 billion. we are talking about a small percentage of our overall banking and finance community and it's true a large part of that actually does provide funding and finance for the real economy but too much of what the two big to fail banks do on wall street and what the financial reform law is targeted to regulating and raining and is speculation gambling and