climate, and we want to give people tools to proactively address issues and bring people together rather than divide people. if you all are looking for things to do that are positive and proactive, we encourage you to be part of the welcoming communities campaign and all of our federal agencies are involved in the campaign. the u.s. department of homeland security, department of labor, department of education, so many others that are trying to provide assistance and tools to people at the local level as they are grappling with whatever issue they are grappling with, including what none of us can predict. ..

we are a big federal government. like you all we can do come we all have to do as local governments, you have to do 20 things at a time every day. the same applies for us. we want to make sure we give you the tools to help give your folks back home information about the process. i will turn it over to simon. >> before we do that, any questions before we go to the refugee resettlement?

thank you so much. let me go ahead and introduce the next three panelists. simon henshaw is a career officer at the u.s. foreign service. currently serving as principal deputy assistant secretary of the beer of population, refugees, and migration. -- the bureau of population. barbara strack to my left is a joint u.s. citizen and citizenship and immigration services as chief of the refugee affairs division. she manages the refugee core and headquarters staff to support u.s. refugee admissions and admissions program. she worked in both the public and private sectors directing a project on immigration at the national immigration forum serving in the policy office at the former immigration and naturalization service and

practicing law in washington, d.c. firm. rob carey also to my left directs the office of refugee resettlement, the administration for children and families in the department of health and human services. he came to local are from international rescue committee where he excelled -- held position figures i present of resettlement and migration policy come responsibly and agencies advocacy immigration and the trafficking and community development policy issues. before that he served for 10 years as vice president of resettlement overseeing irc assistance to refugees. why don't we start with simon to my right. welcome. >> thank you very much. a pleasure to be here. thank you for the warm introduction. thanks to all of you for braving the weather. if any of your from the north as i am and you are planning to stay the weekend, you're in for a treat. [laughter]

there are nearly 20 million refugees in the world. the vast majority of these refugees will receive support in the countries to which they fled and so they can voluntarily and safely return home. in fact, i want to make this point, though it's not the main point of today's meeting, the vast amount of the effort of the united states government, my bureau and other elements in the u.s. government, the vast after we make when it comes refugees is supporting them overseas. a small number of refugees may be allowed to become citizens in the country to which they fled, but an even smaller number, primarily those with the most probable will be resettled in a third country. however fewer than 1% of all refugees are eventually resettled in the country. of the 1%, the u.s. takes over half. the crisis in syria is a dramatic illustration of the

humankind situation refugees face. syrians are now the largest refugee population in the world, numbering over 2 million. another 7.6 million have fled their homes but are trying to survive inside transit. the government of turkey estimates it hosts almost 2 million syrians. many more are spread over jordan, egypt, lebanon, and iraq. in fact, 25% of lebanon's population is syrian refugees. the united states has provided over 4.5 putting dollars in humanitarian assistance for the region since the beginning of the crisis. this includes food, shelter, health care and education. while our main effort is aimed at supporting syrian refugees in the region we will resettle a small percentage in the u.s. and as i said before, our program will be aimed at resettle in the most vulnerable members as well as demonstrating our support for the countries in

the region over burdened by high number of refugees. while maintaining the united states leadership role in humanitarian protection, an integral part of our mission is to assure refugee resettlement opportunities go only to those who are eligible for such protection and who are not known to rescind a risk to the safety and security of our country. our number one concern is security. accordingly, the program is committed to deterring and detecting fraud among those seeking to resettle in the united states, applicants to the program are subject to more intensive screening and any other type of traveler to the u.s. in order to protect against threats to our national security. the department of state collaborates with the department of homeland security on this and closely with the centers for disease control and protection to protect the health of u.s. bound refugees and the u.s. public. our refugee resettlement program

was premised on the idea that refugees should become economically self-sufficient as quickly as possible. the department of state works domestically with agencies participating in the program to ensure that refugees receive services in the first 30-90 days after arrival in accordance to the standards. during and after this initial resettlement period, the office of refugee resettlement at the department of health and human services provide leadership, technical assistance and funds for states, the district of columbia and nonprofit organizations to help refugees become self-sufficient and integrated into the u.s. society. upon arrival, refugees are immediately eligible for unemployment and after one year are required to apply for adjustment of status of lawful permanent residents. five years after admission to refugees been granted lawful permanent resident status is

eligible to apply for citizenship. the vast majority of refugees go on to lead productive lives, receive an education, and work hard. some serve in the us military and undertake other forms of service for their communities and our country. while as we were all aware that program has become controversial in some circles, in fact he continues to enjoy substantial support from state and local governments as well as community members in the vast majority of the locations where we work which is in 48 states, 173 cities and towns, and 304 sites. as a public-private partnership requires the support of american nongovernmental organizations, charities, faith-based groups and thousands of volunteers in support of the program in hundreds of communities across the country. we simply could not do this without their support. in closing let me thank you for your support.

while starting like many in the united states may be daunting, it offers help and unparalleled opportunities. it is a chance that we can escape from violence and persecution, not to start again. the assistance of your communities provide helps newcomers find their footing and become a part of the community. refugees are not the only ones who benefit of the. to add to america's vitality and diversity, and make substantial contributions to economic and cultural life. thank you very much. >> thank you, simon. why don't we have, before we take individual questions why don't we go through the others. barbara. >> thank you much and thank you for the invitation to be a today and meet with this conference and your guests. as the mere mention in the introduction i work for u.s. citizenship and immigration services. we are an agency within the department of homeland security. and particularly with respect to

refugee resettlement we are the operational partner with the state department for the overseas portion of refugee resettlement. one of the things i have learned to emphasize in talking about refugee resettlement in the last few months is the fact that as simon describes, the vast number of refugees in the world and a very small number of refugees are able for resettlement, remember the united states decides which refugees we choose to offer resettlement to. it's really not a situation where the refugees have the opportunity in most instances to say they would like to come to the united states. so in the first instance we are working with the united nations refugee agency in terms of applying the criteria of who are the most wonderful and/or the candidate for resettlement to the united states. what people i in my office do, most are based in washington but we work closely with the state

department staff, and we fan out around the world to the locations were refugees live. and we conduct in person interviews in those locations. we are typically in any court of the fiscal year will be in 12-15 different locations around the world, in asia, africa, the middle east, europe. so we tried to go whether wheree refugees are and where the need for resettlement is the greatest. we put a tremendous emphasis on the training that those officers receive. they receive basic training and protection law but they'l they l also receive detailed information about a particular population there going to be working with. am i to close to the microphone? thank you. so what we are doing in those interviews is high level, two things, determine is the person a refugee under u.s. law? would ask questions about whether they have suffered

persecution or have a well-founded fear of persecution. the other thing is checking on whether they are admissible to the united states under u.s. immigration law. that deals with things like if someone has a criminal history, if they would be a threat to national security, if they might have a communicable disease, and large number of grounds of inadmissibility so we explore those end up one-to-one interview with the applicant. the other thing that we do in the background while we're anything applicants is uscis and the state department share responsibility ministry the security checks that simon alluded to. the security checks have been in place for refugee applicants since the immediate wake of september 11. there was a pause and refugee admissions act in 2001 while the white house and national security council took a look at the security checks. checks. they chose at that point the best set of, the best suite of

checks that could be accomplished at that point but what we have done collectively by represented here on this panel and many government agencies that are not here, those checks of an enhanced over time. so we added department of defense fingerprint checks in 2007 when we started large-scale processing of iraq applicants. that's been expand the applicants of all nationalities. we started working with the national counterterrorism center and we are able to add checks to let check against a broader range of information held by the government. that's been an iterative process of enhancing the checks as time goes on. that is continuing today. we are committed to that. the other thing i wanted to mention as well is there has been increased attention to refugee resettlement in many communities in players who traditionally didn't have a high level of awareness of the program, and we realized that

our public communication material needed some attention. we've worked hard on our website now. we have nothing better information to help people understand who our refugees, what is refugee resettlement and what the screening processes are that we take seriously before people travel. i did want to let you know that's a resource that is there in general for education and some of it is suitable if you were having a community meeting, a stakeholder meeting. there's information that could be downloaded, printed, and head out to stakeholders who have an interest of what's happening. there's also a short video narrated by secretary johnson from dhs. we try to enhance those public information tools and we would be interested in hearing back if there are additional needs that you feel in your community that would be useful. if we can help communicate

better we are very interested in being partners with you on the public communication. >> very good. thank you, barbara. robert. >> thank you. i want to start out by just thinking this group here, both my partners but also the mayors and your representatives. the u.s. refugee resettlement program is very much a public-private partnership but the most important work happens at the municipal level, the committee level and would not be possible without the support of countless volunteers and specific organizations that participate in the process. service to the most vulnerable is central to the mission of the resettlement program and our success as a nation of immigrants is rooted in american values, quality and opportunity which secure our commitment to fully welcome the, integrate newcomers into the fabric of our nation's. these efforts benefit not only the refugees and their families

but also the receiving community. i think it's important remember the refugees come bringing talent, drive. these are businesses at very high rates. they go to work quite quickly. they pay taxes. they become involved as members of society. they are an asset. i think that's an important thing. they've always been an asset. it's a central tenet of our country. they bring a vitality and renewed ideas, and that's demonstrated throughout communities and economies. it's also very much a public-private partnership. the u.s. strategy program both that state department and the hhs components align closely and we'll close with nonprofit organizations and volunteer organizations across the united states who bring to the process not only a large engagement of volunteers and religious institutions and civic organizations, but also

community commitment to this long and important tradition. the services that oor provides are closely coordinated in a very coherent fashion. i think that's important remember. these things did not happen. in addition to the consultation process that are led by the processes, that are led by the white house before the is a presidential determination as to the number of refugees to be admitted in a given year, in the coming year, that number is established in the current year at 85,000. the are also municipal and community based organizations that counsel at the local level. oor has partners in each state. it is in each state to state refugee coordinator whose charge is to coordinate revision of services within that state and to ensure that that coordination process takes place. there's also a state refugee health coordinator who ensures

that health services within the state are coordinated to ensure that refugees receive both public health screenings as they are arrive. the are screened before admission but once again upon arrival to the united states and any ongoing medical issues and services are provided in a court amid and efficient fashion. refugee services include short-term cash and medical assistance. the thrust of the program is, the primary directive, is to ensure the refugees become self-sufficient as quickly as possible. cell all of the self supportive services which are provided, whether they be english-language instruction, direct employment, psychosocial services, school adjustment programs, or a host of other programs are all really focus on ensuring that refugees become self-sufficient as quickly as possible. because the financial support

provided through the office of refugee resettlement to the states is quite time-limited. financial assistance through the refugee cash assistance program has a maximum of eight months provision. refugees are categorically eligible as other individuals who are legally present in the united states would be for other services, but there is a time limit on the cash assistance and expectation and the retail is about refugees become employed quite quickly adequately contributing to their local communities and providing that talent and economic benefit. we believe, and this is echoed in the white house initiative, which is an essential tenet of the program, that refugees should be able to fully participate in all aspects of civic life. whether it be involved in schools, parent teacher associations, that they should be able and given the tools to

speak, read and write english, to transport, to navigate the transportation systems, to become fully engaged in civil society. and historically that is absolutely what has been done. we also, there partnership is a central part of the program. not only the national voluntary agencies which have affiliates in 49 of the 50 states, that represents virtually every major mainstream religious denominations as well as, as well as non-religiously affiliated entities as well, a lot of volunteers whether they be retirees, engagements with university of volunteers, a really very, very broad range of civil society and the program and choice as many of you are well aware of great deal of support from within those communities, which is the only way they can function. it's wholly depend on both the

public funds but also on leveraging that to create private support for the program. receiving communities are critical. it is also critical that we come as barbara referenced and felicia, communicate it effectively about the program, what it does, who we are bringing. we are always striving to do it better, more effectively because this is a critical mission and it is a life-saving mission. people as simon and others have referenced that the u.s. program bring here are not come here for economic betterment. they are coming up to save the lives and those of their children. they are coming to rebuild their lives and their deeply appreciative of the opportunities afforded them to start a new life in a secure and safe setting. that's reflected in the contributions they make to the communities. i would like to underscore that there is an active consultation process. many of you are probably aware

of it but there is consultation on both an annual and quarterly basis at both the state and the committee level. in every community in which there is a refugee resettlement program. there is usually almost always, that's requirement that there be regular convenience to brief civil society actors, schools, law enforcement, all of those parties who are involved or come into contact with refugees about the program, about the plans for future resettlement, about the needs of the populations in advance of their arrival, whether it's torture,, cross-cultural issues. so it's very much a private partnership. we encourage you or your designees to engage in that process if you are not already doing so, it is a very much a welcome part of what we do, and a critical part to ensure the success of the programs that we

support across the u.s. so thank you for that support indication and we look forward to the continued partnership. >> thank you, robert. i will open it up to questions from the audience. mayor? go ahead and use the microphone. >> i'll try to be brief. i'm very inspired, robert, by what you just articulated. i think that our communities similar to mine that have been working with the immigration community for a long time. our community is a western suburb, northwest county, half and cook, have been two-page. i'm on the border of three community colleges, four townships, seven school

districts, a diverse community with 40% or more first generation families, whether they're latino, southeast asia, whether they're from bosnia, wherever. we set up a process with our community colleges that took us four years, element is very much a stovepipe organization. i don't care what district, which are talking about. the breakdown of very within the community colleges so we share across their borders. a year and a half ago in august we opened education work netcenter. at community colleges discovered that we were not being serve. we are a small community. we are a mile wide and seven miles long. kind of crazy how we ever got that way. however, we put in place opportunities for first generation families and young people to get in english as

second language. i think they've got like five different levels of english as second language. ged. many people have an education someplace else, get their ged so they can get on a pathway to community colleges, to jobs, internships a we are bringing the altogether. it's in place. my biggest concern after a year and have been doing it, i'll tell you, between the community colleges, my state rep, myself, we figured 250 people aspired to the program in the first year we would consider it a success. we were well over 900 in the first year. well over 900 there's still a waiting list. we are really trying to continue the movement. a state of illinois that is so upside down, i can tell you, we have fears about trying to keep these initiatives open. we have the kind of environment

that's receptive, that's open, and doing what you shared, how can we be a part of the american dream for some of these people that are looking to get settled? if i put up a newspaper i would probably have everybody, where's that guy coming from? we need to find a way to help people integrate into our communities and to move to the next level and ensure them, and our crime rate has gone down because people have hope for the future, their families and the commitment. they want to be a part of pta, a part of our community. we have these opportunities that are flourishing, but trying to come in an environment where everybody is looking, peeling back the onion on everything, where's the dollar going to come from? you got to pay the rent. he got to pay the folks to encourage others and have the right people in place that are welcoming, that are open and can

help others with a pathway. so that's the kind of environment that i'm trying to establish and have established in our community. the mayor for nine years i don't take no for an anti. but we have to find ways. what you're sharing, you're trying to find out and i'm trying to say i think we've got an environment that's welcoming that can flourish in that. so we are here to help. we just need to know what those needs are so we can sign-up i guess. who knows? i just want a, on the. i don't know if as much of the question. i just wanted to comment what we are at. i believe there's hope and opportunity because our first generation comes are the hardest working, want to go to work, make sure clean his house in town. it's just a beautiful thing to say. see. i'm we'll optimistic. i've got to cement my driveway. everybody comes in, what's that all about? the kind of things we do. i just make that comment. >> great comment.

maybe to follow up on that, is there federal funding opportunities for cities? concern about where the fun is going to come from. [inaudible] >> -- where the funding is going to come from. [inaudible] >> any thoughts on that, panel? >> through the office of refugee resettled we provide funding which then is directed to priorities within the states deserve refugee populations as well as through nonprofits directly but the majority of the funding is going through the states and then directed out according to priorities which are both identified at the national level and then modify it according to what are determined to be the authority

needs. we focus primarily on issues related to employment or in support of employment. school in fact is part of how for children as well as english-language instruction which is funded often to community colleges with funding at the state level, provided through oor as well as related transportation costs. the funding is not what some of us would like to see it but it has the budget, the president budget requested call for increased this year and we are hopeful about that. as fallujah has talked about, a strong commitment from this administration, and others in the past as well -- felicia. as being important. but i think we have a state coordinator in illinois in the is a state refugee coordinator in illinois in so that may be a good vehicle for determining whether resources are and advising about how those

resources can be accessed. [inaudible] >> give you the mic spent i don't want to give you a history lesson on the state government but there's so much conflict going on. this state has deliberately frozen our funds coming back because we were at $800,000 in my community in arrears. you're talking account of 48,000 people. i was marching all over the place saying, listen, you support us, we will support you. i've talked to the legislation to are from our area and they said we've got to did this come we've got to do that. i'm tired of it. we finally got into a bill, at least past the money that should be monthly income. i was a madman. i ended up writing 34 letters to legislators who i personally contacted come had conversations

with, thank you. but detailed we've got to get passes because we've got to work together. i would rather be down here in harmony rather than, you know, whatever. you know, in negativity. but there's 900 bills in illinois. the police is not functional right now. you don't have to go far to see the conflict between chicago and the state. it's a complete disaster if i have to go through the state on anything, i'm reluctant. we need some direct funds. the city of chicago isn't 800-pound gorilla in the room because they will suck up everything that the surrounding counties of the rest of the state has needs for. if you have also money out there, you know where hanover park is going to become it's going to be pretty down in the pecking order. that's kind of sad. coming out here and be a part of the u.s. conference of mayors we have to find ways, i'm not going to say bypass the state, but my goodness, they are not working

very well for us today. >> i would just add as a part of the task force on you americans we are working with department of education, department of labor, in particular on implementation 70 workforce what implication i know we are thinking a lot about how we can promote best practices and help people understand. also how funding can be used. sometimes people don't necessarily know how funding can be used. i know a lot of folks have been finding creative ways at the local level to support and defense in some of these integration efforts using that kind as well. the department of education also launched something a few years ago called the networks are integrating new americans project which was a pilot project in five communities to figure out how they could do more immigrant and refugee immigration and building more networks because all those folks, we then were doing a

great job in helping with dsl but they need to connect all the dots with all the other networks in the committee because maybe some people were eligible for citizenship and vigilant about that while they are learning english. maybe they need more skills to get in the workforce. we should make sure businesses are working with those community college and the spaces. we've had some great comments on a technical assistance grants, so it wasn't a lot of money but what we found is by connecting those folks with our federal agency borders and national partners they learn about how these other resources and have gotten out of grants from the department of labor, from uscis and the immigration and citizenship work and others. those are a couple of other nuggets out there that we and our task force new america progress report country highlighted a number of these efforts. over the next year in particular

is, as implementation happens we talk a lot about how we can give cities and states that technical assistance for how to connect the dots because of the workforce law has a lot of tools that people can use that didn't exist before for using that money in creative ways to immigrants and refugees. >> i think what mayor craig's, there's a way to bypass the state and go straight to the cities, whatever. so much for feedback from others. it is a way to do that. mayor slay from st. louis. >> thank you, mayor tait for taking the leadership on this very important topic for our country. thank all of you for joining the conference of mayors to educate mayors on the importance of being proactive when do with immigration and refugees. we've done in st. louis. we've had nothing, historically we've had nothing but positive

experience with our immigration community, people are coming to our city because they are looking for a place to raise their family, to get a job, to be part of the community. and then addressing the refugees that coming to our city, nothing but positive experience. it's because as a community we decide in st. louis that it is not only the right thing to do for families come into our city and to our nation, but it is the right thing to do for our future as a city and has a region. we have established the project which is a regional project where we have philanthropic and corporate and civic and political communities coming together to make a statement that we want to be a welcoming committee. and we do a lot in educating the public and talk to the press, the press helps us get our messages out enough auditor that ways. so the work you are doing in

getting out throughout the united states talking is very, very important because knowledge really is important for this effort. there's a lot to know, and as i said, there is nothing but good to come out of a regional and a city effort to be a very welcoming community. we have a national institute that is there to help, to help refugees and immigrants into our city. new americans find jobs, to learn english, to get connected with health care, to learn a lot about what you need to know in the united states in the city to be a part of the community come to be a positive part of the community. i am personally engaged in a lot of those efforts. we have a health care center for the new americans that come to our city. it's not just for documented citizens. we know it's important that you

went get access to quality health care. but i do think really it's important that we elected leaders stand up and talk about and wha why it's important, howt strengthens our community. what we've seen with the bosnian refugees, with vietnamese refugees, and with syrian refugees now is that these are individuals as was said that they really do want, they want something good and better for themselves and their families. it is good not just for them but for all of us that we make sure we help them with that effort. i'm going to ask one question, and it has to do with what, on the syrian refugees situation, what can we expect over the next year in terms of the amount of refugees that would be coming to the united states? i think that's kind of, i think

it's important. we are already on record, we are on board and for full disclosure, my grandparents came from syrian territory and immigrated to the united states back in the early part of the 1900. so we are a nation that was built on immigrants. vast majority of us, our ancestors were immigrants, and i think in order to be a strong nation we need to continue to support the new americans that come to our nation. >> thank you so much for your support. this program just would not work without support from mayors such as yourself. it's the strongest element of the program. that make you say as an aside, my stomach into the u.s. when i was five years old so i'm an immigrant as well. much appreciate what this country has to offer those that decide to move here. for your question, our goal is to bring in more than 10,000

syrian refugees this fiscal year. we have a plan to achieve that. we think we can make that numb number. and two significant increase in next year but we don't have a specific number for next fiscal year yet. >> i would just say also thanks to you, mayor. i know we've worked with a small business administration as a part of our task force on new americans. it launched, make it an american campaign that is focused on promoting immigrant and refugee stories of people accessed fda tools that can help grow or start their businesses. -- sba. i know you've been network. as a part of last year's world refugee day event at the white house we honored champions of change, people who were immigrants themselves are folks have been for many generations that are helping to welcome immigrants and refugees. we honored anna crossland who is

very much involved in the st. louis mosaic project and so we appreciate your partnership with sba and a great model you all have in st. louis. we always want to lift it up. >> very good. >> i'm the mayor of the city of new haven, and our immigration resettlement organization came to my cabinet meeting about a week and a half ago to indicate that they would be doubling the number of refugees in our city, as well as doubling outside in our region. and really came to thank all of the department heads for the work they've done over the years in helping them to resettle people. my question isn't so much about.com and hope this isn't, i'm just wondering if we can, as i talk to people who are in the

process of citizenship, sometimes it has taken as long as 17 years for them to actually get through the whole process. i was wondering if there's anything that's been done about the bottleneck and helping people get through the process once they've made a commitment to this country? they want to become citizens. it seems to take an inordinately long time. >> i will say a little bit about this and barbara may have some words as well. uscis is the co-chair of the task force on new americans and has been a real star in terms of the work they're doing at the federal and local level to make sure people know about the citizenship process. i want to make sure you get connected with the right field office at uscis. not sure the particulars about some of the folks that have

waited that long but there's a number of good efforts underway so have a new grants program we launched. so for the last seven years we've given up millions to ngos, sometimes cities, sometimes community colleges. they are working to help promote and give people information about citizenship. sometimes cost is an issue and in this administration we established a fee waiver process that allows a number of people who have the will, have been really come have a desire to become citizens the cost might get in the way, we have a new fee waiver process that has been used by number of ngos that are helping people with citizenship. we've kept a fee for naturalization constant throughout this entire administration in recognition of the important benefit that it is and how we want to promote citizenship. the also a number of different interests and tells uscis has

pulled together they have a classic civic examine online in spanish and english and is getting translated into other and -- languages. sometimes the test is a thing that worries people, i don't if i could get to the uscis civics test of time and i've been in the federal government for many years. that gives people comfort if that's what you're work about. as i said i would like to make sure you get in touch with the right people at uscis to address any individual cases but also to get ways you might be able to part with them at the local level. they are all about community engagement and citizenship and they're doing more on the refugee front as well. there's waivers for people who are older who may have trouble with english language requirement. we'd like to see those waivers, their statutory the people who come in as old refugees come it will be hard for them to master, get a little more availability

for those are folks, those waivers for folks. there's quite a bit we are doing and we want to make sure we are parting with your community in that space. >> i think my city of anaheim is a very proud of the people of anaheim of how welcoming the event to refugees, and continue to. but there are also some concern about security aspects that somehow maybe there might be, what assurances do we have isis might not have influence on some of the refugees and things like that? maybe if you could elaborate on the vetting process? >> i'm happy to do that. as i mentioned we do both

biographic and biometric checks on refugee applicants. so by biographic we use people's names, dates of birth and other types of information that we have. we collect a lot of detailed information from refugee applicants. would look at all other documents. many iraqis and syrian refugees in particular are heavily documented people in the film have passports. they have found the records. they have id cards. they have unique registration documents. so we work with we typically -- >> you can see the last few minutes of this on refugees at c-span.org. we return lives to a conversation on a supreme court ruling from 1976 on buckley v. valeo consider one of the most important decisions on campaign finance and the first amendment. spent on what you think the center for competitive politics staffer pulling this together with all the last minute changes and also the cato staff which did great work in that as well.

and also to the renaissance hotel which is where we are holding this today. they did this on extremely short notice because of the federal government closure and the cato building being closed today. so our next panel is the impact of buckley on campaigns and election. were fortunate to have jeffrey milo -- jeffrey milyo, professor of economics committee received his ph.d from stanford. his area of expertise include campaign finance and elections, health policy and the media. his research has been published in the american economic view, american journal of public health, election law journal. and i will not cite precedent because we'll be here for a good long while. interestingly, i think deeply interesting is that his research has been widely cited in the nation's leading newspapers because it's very topical.

jay goodliffe is associate professor of political science at brigham young university. is also a research scholar at the center for studies of elections and democracy at byu. his research interests include congressional campaigns and elections, not surprisingly, legislative discipline, interest groups, international human rights treaties, and much more. his research utilizes game theory models and ecometrics, and his work has been published in journals including the american journal of political science and the journal of politics and the political research quarterly, and many others. so with that i'm going to be serving as the interviewer. i'm unfortunate not a professional journalist so i probably will not do quite as well as the other interviewers. windy was going to be with us but couldn't attend today. let's start off, jeff and jay, with just the question we have for the panel. what you think has been the

impact of buckley on how campaigns are run in the campaigns leading up to the election? >> well, this was discussed on the previous panel, so the main thing that buckley did that i see how it effects elections is it restrained the contributions that could be made. there was constraints placed on contributions to candidates and parties, but it allowed expenditures to be unlimited. and so what we have is a system that we still have today where there's a lot of money that's interested in that wants to make its voice heard, that wants to express its view. it want to express their view and often need money to express that view. but then there are limits to the ways that money can be expressed to candidates. candidates, they are really, they are having money, it's like

taking someone who is thirsty and tell them you can have as much water as you want but you cannot have a teaspoon at a time. so we seek candidates spending a lot of time raising money because they want to have that money to run for the election. we have a lot of people who want to give the money but it's restraint in the ways they can get it because of the potential corruption influence on direct contributions. we have a system where there's a lot of money in the system, but it's hard, candidates end up spending a long time, we think about prominent campaign. we spent a lot of time raising money because of the contribution limits that are there. >> i agree with some of the things that were mentioned in the first panel about one way to add to this how has buckley affected things is a think about what would've happened if buckley had not happened. so i agree with what was said in response to that, that probably

with more candidates for office, probably f. buckley had not happened it would be more potential for opportunism and manipulating regulations to try to disadvantage the party not in power. because buckley put a constraint of the nature of regulations. we don't see that so much. that constitutional constraint on regulations you could blame for if you want to call it incoherence in the current system, but the current system is what was dictated by the corporate the current system is what congress and the president can change. political, those political actors would deserve more blunt if you think the current system is coherent. probably what we've seen over time is something willingness on the part of reform groups to live within the constitution, constraints of buckley and that's what's led to this sort of fits of reform.

the other thing i think buckley has changed or what would be different if there had not been buckley is that probably political parties would be much stronger and much more in control of their candidates, much more influential over their candidates. and so that would probably be a big difference as well. >> has gone ask you about what do you think the impact would've been on parties. could you give us a reason why do you think the parties would be stronger under that scenario? >> the parties are a source of resources, of brand names. and so if candidates are less free to raise their own resources, make their own brand, then have to rely on the parties more. and, therefore, you will see more party discipline. and you would see more powerful parties in the u.s. like you see in european countries. it wouldn't be a ted cruz. he couldn't exist, for good or ill, he couldn't exist.

and so that's probably a big difference is that charismatic candidates have the ability to raise their own resources and to build a brand for themselves outside of the party. >> jay, you mentioned it seems like a never ending campaign or endless campaign i think what your words. >> yes. >> have you done any research or has anyone done any research beyond, the center has published something on this but i wonder if others have look at what has been impact of the federal election campaign act and the contribution limits and a whole system that we are left with on the length of campaigns? has been any difference? >> this somewhat answered your first question is will get one of the things the federal election campaign act did, in the part that buckley maintained was a more robust disclosure regime.

and so there have not been a lot of study about what campaigns were like before the federal election campaign act because we didn't have a lot of information on what was being done. and so we don't really know, we do know that there already been stored candidates centered campaigns before buckley that come at a little bit away from parties, this was a major source of concern about how costs are already spiraling out of control. so that's one of the reasons that in the original federal election campaign act that they put in, not always the constitution limits the put in the expenditure limits so that it'll the cost down. they would have to spend as much time and, frankly, the democrats were a special board because republicans at that time were better at raising money than they were. so they want part of what was mentioned in the previous panel was probably a political advantage that they were looking for. it's hard to say what would be

different in terms of how our campaigns before buckley and our campaigns after? we do know that things have gotten more expensive with the media, and we see that as people, candidates spend more time raising money because their opponents spend more time raising money. so that's a roundabout way of saying we are not exactly what it is like but we can see there are people spending more time campaigning now than they did say 40 years ago. >> and it is hard to say one of the reasons both jay and i are kind of a little hesitant to make definitive proclamation is what kind of come at this from the social science perspective. i don't mean that as a criticism. but we are trying to speak to what do we know, what do we actually know what the studies tell us. when you're looking at say the

federal campaign finance about the or another buckley, lots of other things change. it's hard to identify what that also impact of buckley is. we are seeing give us any more time campaigning but we are also seeing more competition, more control of congress. we're seeing some very close presidential elections. maybe that's the cost of buckley. maybe that would've happened without buckley and maybe that's the cause of increasing campaigning. often we talk about money and politics we sort of come at it from this fantasy world that if only we could wave a magic wand to get money out of politics, everything would be rainbows and puppies to be different and better. but people spending a lot of time and effort raising money and campaigning because we want to win. you can take women in politics and people still want to win. they will spend a lot of time and effort doing whatever they

can, if that's courting unions or courting special interest groups in other ways. they're going to do that. so you're not going to change that desire to win, but as i took spent a lot of effort on winning. went as a potential to win, people work harder to try to win. we have seen more competition in federal elections, and without using an increase in the length of campaigns and amount of resources devoted to campaigns. that's probably was going to be true with or without buckley. >> your comments may be think of what you come here when you hear about new regulations for new limits either on contributions or expenditures. and some people have made the point or the claim that money or efforts will still flow to try to influence elections, even indirectly. probably most famously in i

guess around 2004 there were these 527 groups, the parties have issue ads that came up which been was before the mccain-feingold act obviously, but have there been studies showing after contribution limits were in effect, was there this hydraulic effect or money went to other avenues to try to influence the elections? >> well, certainly what you find on your hydraulic effect is that there is a lot of money, as i said before, that once the in the system. almost unlimited demand. when you constrain this apply in one place, which are generally find is that it will show up in another place. and so when you might have the issue adequacy, and so then we tried to shut down issue adequacy versus express advocacy, and we're not going to

allow certain organizations to make certain statements at certain times. that's part of the reform. and 527 was another widget that a big all right, now that this apply to other we'r were not ald to do the following thing, or 527s can before but at the same time the soft mud is coming out. when she tried to clamp down in one area you find the people that are interested, these operatives that were mentioned in a previous panel, that want to make their voices heard, they can't figure out another way to make their voices heard. so that might be a 527. that might be, it might be in issue advocacy organization. they want to make their voices heard, and so certainly what the general study is, they find that once you shut down an area in one place, another avenue opens

up, or people try to exploit another area in which that money can flow. so now the reformers, they are worried about money flowing through the 501(c)(4) organizations, 501(c)(4), five and six organizations. that's where they ar are now expressing to say we need to clamp down on these organizations so that money can't go through. sometimes they call this the dark money. certainly if you look across a time, every one of my colleagues does a book every year on financing the latest presidential election, and his finding is that the money keeps flowing through these different organizations. it might be the issue advocacy conversation, it might be the 501(c)(4) organizations but it keeps moving. >> so just to amplify that, if you think of the abolition of campaign finance law, good

government groups, reform groups have basically been playing waccamaw with money interest to get the federal election campaign act and those enemies and behavior changes. we have nominal contribution limits for many years and has those big and more and more binding we saw the rise of issue advocacy and soft money contributions to parties. you come back and you bought that and then moves into the 527s and ultimately super pacs and now we will back that. there's always a boundary to the regulated campaign speech. ..

>> it was big. i remember that era still did sleep into kind of a bigger point which is better suited for an conventional arms about the role of money in politics inserted the general public, and many pundits and politicians have this notion that money plays as outsized role politics. that is the lens with which we view the world and interpret things. those of us who study it and come out of from a scientific approach, there's a different conventional wisdom within academia among people whose eddie money and politics ahead we disagree on a number of

point. what we tend to find this money doesn't play a bigger role as people think. that is an easy thing to say because people think it plays such a nonsense role. heading back to this point, that these the treatment of fact of campaign spending, how many mines does it change, tend to come up with small numbers, often statistically and part of the way to understand that is in the world in which there's a lot of communication about politics, the marginal effect of moore's pending isn't that day, isn't that impactful. so campaign spending isn't that big. the effect of celebrity endorsement or be in a celebrity is equivalent to big piles of money and we are sordid scene that and is effective.

this is maybe a corollary to the hydraulic theory trying to turn on the money make the other sources of influence on the more important. maybe if more people could participate by giving more money, maybe celebrities wouldn't play such an important role where we care what they think about politics here that is crazier than anything. >> one of the things clearly they came out of the buckley decision as the court endorsed the concept of contribution limits. i would like to know some attention to that for a minute. is there anything in the literature about the impact on contribution limit on the candidate who run? are we giving a different class of candidates? are we giving more self-funded candidates question or are beginning fewer candidates altogether? i heard an anecdote that george

will gave at our anniversary gala last month. he said i think it was -- maybe the senator from maryland and he was waiting for the buckley decision to come out and he was going to decide whether or not to run for president based on whether contribution limits are upheld or not. when he heard they work him he decided he wasn't going to run. i think he remembers gene mccarthy's run theater finance very late in the game and mccarthy wound up winning the equivalent of affiliate $82 about a new hampshire, which i think even today is probably a tremendous sob for a presidential campaign in a particular state. while gene mccarthy didn't win, he did force president johnson out of the race. so has there been any literature or studies on the impact of the type of candidates, number of candidates?

>> so the studies i have seen that compared -- the place you would look for this type of effect is when -- because we don't have any data before the campaign limit to place is when we had the mccain-feingold, which is when you raise the individual limit for contributions went from $1000 to $2000 but that is per election. it's been following for her election. the literature i've seen myself doesn't show any real difference in the number of candidates that are running for the types of candidates running. it changes the services and what you see in the house i looked at

at -- you can see the same thing. presidential elections don't emphasize political action committees as much. what was congressional elections and candidates moving from finding their campaigns from individual donations because now it is less costly to raise money through individual donations whereas especially house candidates before mccain-feingold a raise a lot of money for political action committees. that is one of the changes in exchange. or to raise money in one area or is here to raise money, if they did easier the money flows in that direction soon out easier for individuals than it was before. >> so this question of what is the limits accomplishes interest and because the typical way to answer it would be to start talking about competition for the number of candidates or how

much money is raised from this or that lowers and those are all legitimate things to talk about. i want to take it a little different direction if we go back to the point of buckley in the statement that regulation of campaign finance to prevent corruption. so that is one obvious place we should be looking to evaluate campaign finance regulations so they accomplish those goals. if you do try to look about on way to do it that i've done is used as states as laboratories to the states have different campaign finance regimes that changed over time. you get nice variation and rules. you can control of their fact yours and you can answer the question about what is the treatment of fact, the causal effect of nature types of campaign finance regulations contribution limits, public finance, it better on the incidence of corruption.

we have great measures admittedly. if we use the standard off the shelf measure of public corruption, we find the effect there. maybe that is because corruption is maybe looking for something we are not going to see very easily. the other thing you can do is look at this idea of the appearance of corruption. one way to interpret when the appearance of corruption means of how much trust people have in government. that is a kind of measure of political science. the integrity of institutions that make it what you find is the treatment of fact, the causal effect is state campaign finance regulations, public funding, no impact on trust and confidence in government. those kinds of evaluation studies i rarely done and partly that may be because people don't

like the campaign finance reform or other places. this void i want to save it off we are looking at intermediate rolls. when it comes to money and politics cannot people have this miasma theory of money in politics. we need to drain the swamp. we are not quite sure how or why it's making the system corrupt. we just had one of the leading or whatever analogy you want. immediate goal is good enough. rather than let in before and after reform and date has politics changed for the better? do we need better public policies or we could say to receive a special interest influence over particular kinds of policies and the tobacco tax alcohol tax.

do we seem her economic growth, whatever your bottom-line measure of good policy is, let's do a valuation studies. they are rarely done, but when you do look at those kinds of things, what you tend to see if the campaign-finance rules don't affect those kind of bottom-line measures very much. that is a pitcher evaluation studies. >> let me ask you a follow-up about the trust in government. so you correlated various contribution limit regimes in public financing regimes public trust in government. most people's impressions or if you look over time, public trust in government has gone down pretty heavily. is that correct so the trust in government has gone down and stays pretty much the same -- first of all, has it gone down russian or the second is i guess

the rate of decrease the same no matter what kind of campaign finance regime you have enough particulars date. >> trust in government is declining. it's also true campaign pending in general is increasing faster than the rate of inflation. so what the baseline correlation you see these things going together. what we do is better than correlation. we are doing science here. we are trying to get at causal effects. that is why it important to look across dates with variations and rules and try to isolate those causal effect. when you do that, the lesson from the simple correlation isn't borne out when you look more carefully. so you know, you need a phd. it is not as simplistic as booking a basic correlations, but looking at trying to identify the causal

relationships because that is what would be informative. that is what we want to know and what is informative if in the third it is the wild west of money in politics. >> you can do that to any candidate or party. >> whatever. the only thing they are tolerant about. it is a wild was in so you would like to know if you impose contribution limits how would things change? you want an answer to the causal question. that is why folks like jay and myself try to do those kinds of evaluations. >> let me ask, one of the things you often hear about when a lot of money is spent on a raise, especially if it is done by these independent groups that somehow this will drown out people's voices. it will turn people off from politics and things like that.

are there studies that show corporations are causation site guesses what the phd's in the room with you. what is the impact? does more spending the two turned off voters are more turnout or more informed or less informed voters? what is the research show on that? be not well, what you find in general is that it's hard to isolate that of course because the places that the candidates are spending money along without i groups such as trina levens or interest groups, whatever the current avenues are, the places they spend money are also the places where it is a competitive election. a competitive election is one of the things that we are trying to isolate. suppose you had a competitive

election we put in a bunch of money from outside groups and compare that to a situation where you had a competitive election we didn't have outside money coming from other groups. that is hard to find those types of situations. passage would actually like to compare. when you have these competitive elections come at a different environment. the voters are generally more informed us what you find in a general election -- sorry, competitive election. there's more voices, more advertising, more things going on. slope is mentioned in the previous panel in ohio during the presidential primaries are during the presidential election they are overwhelmed with advertisements come as though much that they are turned off by it, they don't want to see anymore. that is what is hard to control for at the same time for outside groups. what you do find in general when

you ask people about money in politics is to have a very simple idea that they just don't like money in politics, and that the more money they see, the less enchanted they are with our election system. >> and to build off that, that is a movie right if you ask people straight no good >> you want to see more campaign advertising? does it make you feel bad? yes, and make me feel bad. if u.s. public opinion surveys, we know what answers you would get. what is interesting is rather than going off those kinds of knee-jerk socially acceptable responses, you ask people questions about whether its trust in government or knowledge of candidate in places that have it varies more or less spending so that is what being buried. when you do that, some studies

have been done from several years ago. they tend to find if i remember the words of the authors, campaigns pending is more democracy. you get greater knowledge, more participation is headed -- associated. you could quibble to the extent they are properly controlled or the underlying competitiveness and those studies need to be updated and let's look at trina levens spending separately. but that is the way you try to get out the effects of money in politics, not sort of ask people who know what the cool answer is to campaign spending. along those lines if you ask

people things like do you think special interests have too much influence, yes, i think too much influence. rarely do people get asked compared to what. so if you also asked people do think media has to influence? yeah. absolutely. do you think candidates take positions just to make the other party look bad? definitely. people have a very cynical attitude, but it's across the board. it's not just about money in politics. we are talking about trust in government. suppose that was the case that more campaign spending led to lower trust in government. this governmentally deserve to be trusted? a lot of bad things happen when people trust government. again, that is one of those intermediate goals that people focus on rather than the bottom line but do we get better

policies? >> what about the turnout question? is there any evidence that higher spending and campaigns leads to greater turnout or is that a correlation of not causation effect? or is it suppress turnout? some of the claims being made by the additional independent spending is too negative and turning people off and they are voting us a result. what is the evidence on these questions? >> arison mixed evidence on the tone of advertising and so i don't know that we have anything close to a consensus on that. when it comes to overall advertising, again it depends how you get asked this question. one way would be to look at places with more less advertising. you get higher or lower turnout.

because the advertising is associated with competition, and it is going to be hard to undo the basic correlation that more spending is associated with higher turnout. if instead you look at jurisdictions with different campaign finance regulation, and change the question not whether spending is creating turnout, but whether regulations have some impact on turnout, i would say some next evidence, public financing, you get some studies going each way, but she don't see huge effects of different campaign finance laws. >> the place that people try to work on the of the reason you get mixed evidence is because different campaign have been more effective at mobilizing than others. there have been a number of studies trying to figure out the

most effective ways to turnout people to vote in a campaign and it turns out the most effective are the most expensive where you send people from house to house and not to vote for someone they know where someone they might trust a little bit more. that is really expensive. so if you want to mobilize people to go, if you want to increase your turnout, that is more effect if they found been doing television advertising. >> one of the other provisions upheld in buckley is this new concept of disclosure of contributions to candidates and political parties. i guess one of the questions is what sort of effects if any has been seen from this disclosure and more particularly, what

effect is fair if any on the willingness to give contributions? search me when the disclosure regime was invented in the 1970s, you wanted to see the contributions you had to go to a filing cabinet either the state government capital or in the drawers of the federal election commission. today all you have to do is go on the internet and type in something or go to a website and you can find out anyone's donations to anything. isn't helping because people like to take credit for donations or might it be suppressing donations for our people charges they under the public threshold for disclosure, was heard of information is there? >> i would do the usual thing and say how difficult it is to study that because what you really want to do is compare the people donating below the limit to the people donating about the limit. but it's actually difficult to find the people donating below the limit because they are not

disclosed. it so happens that some colleagues and i were grateful to study some undisclosed donors and the presidential campaigns and we were able to compare them to the disclosed donors. white you find is we didn't get to ask them, we donating below $200 can you didn't want to be seen. we were able to find out things about them to ask them questions about what kind of people they were and say worth a more polarized, with a more extreme because that is one of the things people worry about small donors as maybe they are extreme donors. what we found is the people below the one that looked a lot like the people about the limit, that they are ideologically and demographically very similar. there has to be something else going on besides those two things to say that there is a difference between those who are

disclosed versus those who are undisclosed. >> dave primeau at university of rochester has done some interesting work on disclosure. more on the side of what are the benefits of disclosure so that the focus has been more what are the costs of disclosure, but often there is present large benefit of disclosure and the primeau and others had seen is the kind of information disclosed is not often made use of by ordinary citizens and often not made use of an. and so, if you are thinking of place is united looked to adjust to life a little bit, why do you need to know the employer of someone who gives money? or why do you need their home address and why should that be available forever on the internet? often i think disclosure laws

are motivated more by where we want to drain the swamp, do anything they can to try to impede money in politics. let's have disclosure and disclaimers and the point of it is to try to limit money, not because there's some actual public benefit coming from that information. and where you probably see more of negative effects of this would be below the federal level. you've got big interest groups, professional and centrist groups that all have lawyers that can handle whatever regulations you throw at them. at the state level, vocal level where it's more likely for ordinary citizens to band together and try to get involved in politics. it's easy for them if you didn't register as a political committee, there is a fine for that and he didn't other or deliver port and there is a fine for that in newton of the addendum and there is a fine for that. and pretty soon add that.

it is kind of edit total evidence, that you do see some cases where these kinds of registration and disclosure rules can be used to go after less savvy purchase of his and politics and that is something that is unfortunate. i tend to agree with floyd abrams sentiment that when it comes to disclosure you should put on your big white pants and stand up for what you believe in. that is all well and good. when the disclosure laws can be used to kind of go after well-meaning people who just aren't that savvy about the ways we regulate political participation, that is a bad thing. >> that raises another question in my mind. has there been studies of whether people are able to comply with these laws, any ties of their ability to decipher the manuals for the instruction

compared to the tax code? >> funny you should ask that. i did a study which was -- which took ordinary people in missouri and gave them really simple scenario. >> how ordinary were these ordinary people? >> it in missouri. >> to judas got them off the street? >> for my church, from posters and restaurant. we also had some grad student. >> this cannot be controlled. >> if you're going to throw softballs, you throw the fastball and walk away. so anyway, if you give people if i'll scenario, a citizen group wants to put up a yard sign.

they have that meeting, some coffee and doughnut. maybe they decide to buy a couple t-shirts and present people with here is the rule book. here's the instruction for u.s. to file, you have to register as a committee and take as much time as you want, but i'm going to pay you based on the writing there's two worker bay. i have seen many students in uncomfortable situations. nothing like this. people were so frustrated and so flummoxed. these things are written for ordinary people. also with them before hand just how someone that those kinds of activities were regulated if they were going to run a file of the law. they had no idea that a group of

people pulling together, whether it's $100 in a jurisdiction, $200 another that that could be something dangerous and states have regulations on grassroots lobby, which is talking not to legislators, but talking to other people. sometimes it qualifies as grassroots lobbying. in some places, just talking about local issues to other people if you spend enough money doing it or spend enough time doing that come you are not grassroots lobby is. you have to register. you have to file reports. there are restrictions on what you can do. these are some examples that i think these laws are off in britain with her fresh note campaign and advocacy groups in mind. we forget that they are also binding down at the lower level and that is probably one plays where people from all sides

could come up with allowing more of the grassroots participation. >> to get an idea -- did you create these tasks? how many people got all the answers right? >> they did very poorly. they had no idea what was going on. we did a little after the fact interview. people could write comments and there were some choice words. but common was this is worse than doing your taxes. you need a lawyer to do this. this is ridiculous. an ordinary people are confronted with those kinds of rules, they are quite apprised that these rules that we envision being imposed on the nra are some big organization of go has to be complied at the individual level.

>> in terms of running campaigns, where you often hear from certain groups like emily's list are closer wrote which specialize in early endorse meant, they claimed that early money is better if you want to exert influence over the campaign has versus money that comes in later. are these groups write about that very better off waiting until later is though you know who the real candidates who might actually emerge, has there been any study of this? ..

or they have popular positions the super instance barack obama in 2008 raised a lot of money early and she was such a good candidate. then we also find when you look across the presidential cycle when the candidates do better and become more popular by winning in the primary than the money starts to flow in so it's

hard to disentangle how much is driving the popularity and how much popularity is driving money >> i have one more question and then we will open up. if you could grab the microphone the other thing is we've seen a fair amount of deregulation by the supreme court in campaign finance rules. have there been any studies yet of the impact of this deregulation on campaigns at this point or is it still too early to say as we've often heard this afternoon and we don't have a control group with us. referring to the independent expenditures primarily in the

decision among others. >> so, you know, one of the things about research is that it's retrospective. we want answers now about things going on now. that's just context so when it comes to independent expenditures one thing you can do is look down at the state level in variations across the state and independent expenditure regimes and you don't find any symptomatic relationship team allowing independent expenditures and trusted governments or incidences of political corruption, that's one thing i can't answer looking at the states -- >> we haven't been able to do studies in terms of how it

affects competition. what you have are the stories newt gingrich is able to stay in longer because they gave millions of dollars back in april to stay in and they basically agree that it's possible and then you decide if that is a good or bad thing. what you find is that when you ask people what do they think about the super pack for this incarnation of the expenditures of outside money, they don't like it and that's true for the super pac. some people, when we ask the donors are you motivated to vote and they say i want to have a balance on the super pac and then there are people that are turned off by that money in the system and say i would rather

not even participate in the system. >> i will add to that. is that in general people have a negative attitude about money and politics and they also have this health site notion of the role so if you ask people in the last cycle about what spending came from the super pac, the answer is about 10% and if you are generous with how you're going you are going to define outside spending maybe that's what people are really thinking about and you can get it up to 20%. if you ask people about how much the political campaign cycle to date co- spending the immediate response is 67%. some people say super pac is everything and of course they don't like it.

they think it's, needing everything so when it comes to the public opinion about running politics, the thing to keep in mind if people are extremely cynical but they are also quite misinformed not just uninformed but misinformed and one of my favorite polls and i've reported this about the money and politics and the corporations. which party raised and spent more so if you put together those true and false questions and ask people to answer them you will find maybe 10% can get three or more right, something like that. think about that answer one for answer one right and write three or five other options. pushing at random corresponding to true and false would be

expected to get this right. they are actually misinformed about the nature of the money and and a so no wonder they think things are much more wide open than they are. >> we are going to turn over to the questions of if you have a question, raise your hand. >> we will get the microphone to you. >> i have a question of evidence in missouri that made the government present evidence as to whether corruption or the appearance of corruption but

said was the evidence of corruption through the ballot so when i went to the supreme court they talk about that in 2000 and said the government really doesn't need to present evidence in the form of academic studies or any other thing to show that the appearance of corruption or actual corruption is a legitimate function so it can't be disproven no matter what you offer at least the supreme court circuit in 2000 no matter what you offer raising the limits are not having limits or in pure cool studies from the state or any of this stuff can persuade the court that the contribution

limits called the affected it seems to be disproven and therefore would be contribution limit not as a legal matter it can't be disproven and therefore it it's what makes them unconstitutional. >> i'm not quite sure i follow it. what's was the point no evidence will affect the courts view of the legitimacy? >> they presented evidence. they presented the evidence to say through the academic studies and through -- we are academics doing these studies with the luxury of being interested in truth and the goalie stopped to overturn contribution limits but understand how the world works.

so there's a couple things going on. first some of the standards change. so if you look as i understand we should have been asked panel or previous panel discuss this more looking at corruption they are looking for a quick quid pro quo. then when you look at some of the later decisions like mcconnell v. fcc writes that they expanded the definition of what constitutes corruption like if i don't have access to the legislator, will i be able to be heard. this is one of the reasons they run against soft money and uphold their limits prohibiting soft money you think it's easy to find that so when it's the

political parties would put out money this is the kind of access you will get and the kind of picture you're going to get. they have a natural menu appears but you can get for 100,000 or 200,000. the court i think found that persuasive, but then after -- when we get back to citizens united, that idea is pulled back to the standard, the post-standard. and it's harder to find studies that demonstrate that. it's easier to find studies that if you donate more money you can get access to a legislator and find even in control treatment studies where it's difficult to find in the academic literature the quid pro quo when somebody

gets more money if changes their vote. so i think the court at one point said they are no longer at that point at least to the court in citizens united said we need a higher standard of evidence >> we heard a for >> we heard a lot today about political polarization. if there've been any studies of that, they have shown campaign finance regulations created at the of the polarization and made it worse. >> they have done some impressive work on this and

looked at the effective effect of contributions on polarization and legislation and find that especially contributions working through the party have more of a moderating influence. i'm going to steal the words you explained it to me earlier. they are not concerned about it being ideologically pure so they can reign in the ideologues that they see for less polarization because it's in the interested parties. >> any more questions? question in the back? >> you talked about earlier it means people are more informed. is there any difference about more informed or accurately report in four and?

people are aware that it's an issue but they are not actually accurately informed. is there a delineation between more informed or accurately informed in the studies? >> good, systematic studies, not so much. that's where the rabbit goes into had is going to be the empire. what is the good and accurate information. you could go down to the level of q. you know the name of the vice president, do vice president, do you know the name of the house of congress and you may find some correlation there but if you are asking more substantively about the quality of information and i don't know of a good systematic study on that. >> by studies that are done ten to be more on the reins of

political psychology under what circumstances do you get information that is correct and they generally find if you go and gather information that agrees with your point of view and discount the biases. >> we have time for one more question. >> i've heard it mentioned that the independent money in politics is that politicians have to spend more time seeking individual campaign contributions. has there been any research on their effectiveness as congress people, in other words do they have to rely more on the