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 staffers being informed about

issues because they don't have enough time to read the documents? >> there've been some studies that have argued -- i'm blanking on the author now looking at the state legislatures -- where there is a claim if there is more campaign spending more time is spent on raising money versus other things. one issue with this study is that with a simple cross-section at one point in time and you're not able to control for other factors, so that is a frequent claim and its plausible, but i want to caution that it also comes out of that rainbows and puppies do you that if only they were not spending time raising money than they would be, you know, like mr. smith goes to washington.

it's the same people and they want to direct the efforts of winning. it's not changing their hearts so people are allocating efforts to maximize their utilities. and if that is going to be achieved by raising money to run ads to win the reelection, that's what they will do and if you make it harder for them to run ads, one fundamental result in economics is that you don't get less effort, you're going to get more effort redirected and maybe it will be good. maybe they will fight the perfect bill or maybe they are going to engage in more candor going to send favors to special interest groups in order to get those organizations behind them, so it's not obvious that you could get something better. >> to think about going back i was going to say politicians do nothing good with their time.

[laughter] if they they spending a lot of spend a lot of time raising money then we are all safer. [laughter] going back to the bigger picture. [laughter] if you have, one of the effects of having this outside money come in coming in is that is makes members of congress and legislatures more nervous and maybe that's a good thing. maybe it's bad because it makes them raise more money. but how does the system affect the campaign finance system and we have different classes of people that individuals and candidates are treated one way and individual interest groups are treated another way where they are unconstrained. it makes the candidates and the party nervous, so in order to deal with the prospect of may not even be in this particular election but the possibility

there might be outside money that comes in, then they worry about it and maybe it makes them more beholden to contributors or maybe it makes them more beholden to voters and we have to make sure they can get the voters on their side it does make them spend more time worrying about their situation and what they can do to make the election more likely. >> we will conclude the panel area i want to remind the people in the room and people viewing on c-span that you can get more information from the organization at the of the center for competitive politics at campaign freedom.org and for the cato institute, it's cato.org. we will take a break and reconvene for the last panel, what is living and what is dead with john and john and david savage of the times. thank you. [applause]

>> this discussion from the cato institute on campaign finance law is taking a break for a few minutes. when it resumes we will be live at the institute. while we wait, the conversation on the businesses and nonprofit organizations can respond to the crisis from the world economic forum. we will watch as much as we can be for the live coverage from cato continues.

ladies and gentlemen, last year over 1 million refugees. first there stood 4.5 million refugees in the region during turkey and lebanon. they are displaced inside of syria and one thing is clear modern emergencies are different from the past. one example every time it's around 17 years at a the blur the line between emergency responses and of course

long-term development opportunities. and if that means the global community has more innovative, creative, we need more responses to the refugee crisis and therefore indian tiger meeting many sessions around and so we invite you to take part in the program and in order to operate the sessions over the coming weeks we have now this high-level pattern. allah me to introduce you also always necessary. by the way number five in the country in europe the deputy prime minister of turkey, peter

for the international committee of the red cross and the business voice and from the company chobani. so welcome to all of you. [applause] >> what can the global community and the private sector due to support the countries like yours? >> when trying to understand the refugee situation we need to keep three things in mind to be a turnout of the world of their 60 million refugees that's probably the highest number since world war ii and 85% of the refugees are hosted by developing nations. the third thing is that most of those refugees are in a refugee status. sometimes lasting for decades. as you mentioned the average is 17 years. so the crisis doesn't end when a

victim crosses the border. it actually morphs into a stage of acceptance for the refugees and expands to the overwhelmed societies. most of the responses that are dealing with refugees are very short term and almost entirely dependent on humanitarian aid. the longer the problem persists with the less a priority it becomes. 60% of the refugees are in situations in the international spotlight which means at the end of the day it is left for the host communities and agencies to shoulder the burden of trying to cater to the forgotten populations in the host communities. so, what ends up happening is when the solutions are designed for the short term, they end up closing long-term distress and this is a situation we are facing in jordan where as you may know we have 1.3 million this year he and the refugees is

20% of the population and 90% of those refugees live in our refugee camps. you will see the schools have become overcrowded and the health-care centers etc.. it outweighs the supports of for example last year before an account -- four n. account we had to borrow to cover the rest so we are not talking anymore about an emergency. but it spreads all over jordan so we need to come up with a new narrative that transcends the humanitarian development that

talks about growth and investment and not just relief aid. we need to have intervention and the importance like private sector. i think at the end of the day what they want more than anything else is a sense of dependence and reliance and can only get that from a job. but for a country like jordan trying to solve the crisis which is already in short supply isn't physical. we cancel one crisis by creating another. we do that first by having significant investments and also by guaranteeing the firm to set up shop and also it gives access to the new markets so for

example the concessions from the donor countries are creating refugee products. speaking for jordan if we get the critical investment and support in the international community we are willing to set up economic zones that would employ these refugees. now when you do that not only are you getting the refugee the sense of economic solve sufficiency that will lower the cost but also give the skills and training that he will put to good use so you are incubating in jordan that will pick up the recovery process once the conflict ends and that is really

critical and the alternative is actually quite frightening cities are to become vulnerable to the recruitment so what we are talking about is a paradigm shift from short-term crisis thinking to more holistic sustainable approaches as a blueprint for dealing with refugee issues. >> [inaudible] let me say first and foremost i'm often asked whether it is the worst crisis we have seen and i'm cautious to compare the crisis and 152 years we have seen more genocide and things

unfolding so i am not in the comparative business but human jen at the beginning this is a different crisis. if they shift from short-term to long-term and a systemic crisis it's affected first and foremost social systems fall apart and educational systems fall apart for the additional humanitarian response. it's also an urban crisis more today and the victims are urban victims and they are more fragile and vulnerable so my first point is i would endorse the fact that it is qualitatively different crisis.

there are the traditional approaches that we don't know if i don't want to in a short time repeats them that we have a continuous and ashamed to be faster and more effective and we have that ambition the last 150 years but there is a point in developing new tools and relationships with the private sector that won't solve all the problems but it will represent an important change. what we have done by the way is to design a new product in the form of a humanitarian impact where we hope to find social investors and outcome funders to

deliver clear outcomes in a certain period of five years that we have defined in creating the visibility centers worldwide. it's an example of bringing the private sector and outcome together with a new financial tool. we are working because they set the stage -- >> the last few minutes of the discussions on c-span.org. we returned live now to the discussion on the supreme court ruling from 1976 on buckley versus valeo. >> the key book for the fiscal policy of campaign finance reform is a much cited term. prior to joining cato he sure did have joined georgetown university press and scholar may articles. he received his phd from rutgers

university and to the left and immediately to my right job has been named one of the top campaigns lawyers and one of the 50 lawyers in dc and i can speak from experience the firm he isn't paying me to say this by the way. he argued many cases before the supreme court and he's virtually a walking encyclopedia on everything on campaign-finance law. our interviewer today we are pleased to have david savage from the "los angeles times." he's covered times. he's covered the support and legal issues very well for the la times.

since 1986 for all justices which i'm sure was a fascinating thing to write on and observe. and in addition to writing about the workings written on many prominent legal battles in washington and he's also the author of turning right, the making of the rehnquist supreme court. with that i will turn it over to david. >> based covered the supreme court for a long time. the court is a very confident group of people. i think particularly so in the 1970s. there were justices who basically thought they had the smarts and the wisdom to remake the law whether the country would go along or not. in june of 1972 they struck down capital punishment law on a vote and i think some of the justices of capital punishment was dead and would never come back but that was wrong. later they struck down the wall

law on road v. wade in january of 73 and quite a few of the justices thought that decision would be accepted and there was a movement in the women's rights and they would no longer be a fight over abortion that seems to me to have been wrong. in january of 76, congress had just passed a big federal election law in the wake of watergate, at the time there was the highest support in the country for the idea to regulate money and politics and the court sort of as we've been talking about today came up with a compromise. they said if i had $10 million i could give this year $2,700 only

to elect the senator would oppose him that i could spend 10 million of my own money to encourage his election or defeat him and that distinction between contributions and spending has been with us ever since and as you know the last ten years they put more on the free speech freespending site on citizens united. a lot of the country doesn't much agree that we are here to talk about what's the legacy, what's living, but spared to veto what's bad and how it's affecting things today. he went to the argument in 1976 and i'm interested in your view of what it was like then oldies years later?

>> i have been around that long. i once was characterized by a government official having been in town long enough protected by the federal antiquities act. [laughter] so it was unusual and it was at the time the court was still providing plenary review to 200 cases a year. >> in this case and buckley just as they did many years later in the mcconnell case be received for -- four hours of argument.

the argument was glad by an assortment of private attorneys the department of justice with such ill repute of that tenure at the department of justice and the department concludes they couldn't participate as a party representing the government or the executive branch which of course would have been genital for that time because president nixon had re-signed and instead of the department filed an amicus brief, and on the amicus brief, the title page appeared and the attorney general of one with the solicitor general's office which would have been robert bork all recognizable

names and that was october of 1975 which was an interesting time not only because of the post-watergate environment that was associated with campaign-finance and there's a lot of disagreement as to whether that was the source of the scandal but that's the way that was characterized and they overtook this under all which was extensive and the 1976 presidential campaign was started january of 1976 for the first disbursement of federal money for the presidential campaigns which we will start for the first time so when the court decision came down in january, there was a lot of

surprise not only because of the environment and the excessive language but congress passed along with the court of appeals which heard the court and upheld every provision except for one which would have required for groups like the common cause that were involved in the public advocacy though it wasn't related and then the decision comes down and there were an awful lot of provisions that were struck down and the provision when it was struck down and above limit on how much they could spend on his or her own campaign. and $90,000 to congress concluded that was all that had to be spent for the primary

election if you want to run for the house and senate was a comparable formula for the senate campaigns and the court struck down the way that it was composed because the war at the that time provided the president got the nominee to the commissioners and the majority leader and speaker speaker of the house cup nominating and then all six of them had to be confirmed by the majority vote of both the senate and the house of representatives and amazingly the court of appeals found about that to be just perfectly normal we read the appointment clause and it says here only the president can nominate or confirm them so the result of that was it an unconstitutional

agency administering public financing in the beginning of a presidential campaign and they said we will give the congress 45 or 60 days to fix all this and then continue in a more constitutional way so there was a very extraordinary environment and the role of these unusual exigencies and about court came down with a somewhat surprising decision which made all of these fundamental distinctions between contributions and expenditures and rejected the justification of using the campaign-finance law to create arguable the quality and said you can't preserve by saying that you are going to mandate the government equality. you have to basically fall on the side of liberty and upheld the public financing but also on

the condition that the candidates are agreeing to all of the conditions so you have to do the kings bidding and if they provide the money to finance your campaign, you have to agree you will not spend over a certain amount of money, you are only going to gain money in certain ways otherwise i wouldn't be permissible for the congress and the candidates in general and then of course it also upheld disclosure that they would have to register with this agency and final reports all of which by the way is what was the first reform that was passed in 1971 was a disclosure status

that went into effect on april 7 which was the watershed date in the watergate saga because prior to april 7, the mixing campaign was trying extend campaign was trying to raise as much money as it could even end the illegal amounts from an legal sources because they wouldn't have to disclose that money until the effective date of the first disclosure law and i always wonder what would in fact have happened to the campaign-finance reform and whether they would even need to be a decision of such provisions have been an effective several years earlier and we became accustomed to a meaningful disclosure system but that's not what happened and the result was all of these other major changes and i think that is its remarkable from that time to this day is how much of the

decision frankly with all of the major decisions and the ingredients in the decision have remained intact for 40 years. there's been a version from here and there we can discuss but i don't think there is anything that's been rejected by the court since that decision. >> i wouldn't say that i was there but i studied the history of little bit and they reveal something about the politics of buckley versus valeo. both interested in their own right. the first one was a man named john garner. he was at the time sort of a person who came out of the 60s and that sort of thing.

he would eventually be the founder of that organization called the common cause. to me he's one of the he is one of the most remarkable politicians or policy entrepreneurs. as you know the federal campaign law was a lot about watergate. it's no secret that there were parts before watergate that are very interesting interesting that the major part of it that went before the court was passed in 74 and it followed the watergate crisis. watergate when you look at it is about abuses of power and keeping the enemies list and about presidents are legit allege involvement in the criminal conspiracies and so on come and it was about a breaking campaign-finance law as mentioned hiring people who are getting money from the list of sources, a legal sources,

corporations. so there was lawbreaking. but that was breaking of existing law. it wasn't -- you might have had better ways of enforcing them and so on. so you've got a systematic control over, campaign overspending, disclosure and everything. quite remarkable. john garner i think is the reason. around 1973 and 74, he started saying watergate is the guest campaign-finance scandal in history and he was correct but there have been campaign-finance and illegalities, but but there was all this other stuff that didn't have anything to do with campaign-finance. it was quite scary. he turned up problems of the watergate crisis and the realities of that into a campaign -- you know, this political scientists who say to

you one of the things that happened in public policy is people have the solutions all the time, then they look for problems that come down the pike and you attach them to the problem. garner had a solution, campaign-finance reform. here came watergate and he managed to attack it and here is buckley versus valeo. subsequent to that, what comes out of the work is the campaign cause for finance reform with a political effective entity. the other side is the plaintiffs to buckley versus valeo that you probably haven't heard about. there is a man, my old boss named ed crane who at that time worked for the libertarian party and brought suit against buckley and always complained they had the sense that he somehow shoved his way in front to get to be the plaintiff and if there was any justice in the world was beat buckley versus valeo.

he felt strong about the campaign-finance and free speech. what's interesting is he carried that out. one of the things about washington's seen is if you are against campaign finance regulations, it is difficult to raise money to fight them per se. there's money for lawyers and it's an ongoing day-to-day basis and it's hard to do that. because of his particular develop and send commitments, he did that first outside fat first outside but ultimately at the cato institute. he dedicated some of the money he was able to raise and then again by a round of the 19 '90s he met at work came into contact with brad smith who we saw earlier and for the first time really have a day-to-day

effective kind of answer to the reform of the community. but both of those sort of things go back to buckley versus valeo. >> is the essence has survived the distinction between the spending what is your view of it today? did we get a system that was a good system that survived or has it been sort of a strange situation today where you can spend $10 million to support the candidate and that's free speech what is your view about where we are today? >> i think the distinction is to kill your because if we were starting with a blank slate in

1974 knowing what the constitutional principles are, you could ask the question what would congress passed knowing what was going to be unconstitutional. it is the residue of what the congress did pass and after it had gone through the constitutional cleansing of the supreme court, i think that would have been true even back in buckley. congress had passed the law that would impose limits and still allow for independent spending. buckley made that decision. i don't think when congress revives the law in 1976 after the decision that they quite accepted the significance going

forward perhaps in large part because they had to reconstitute everything so quickly because it was a presidential thing going on and also perhaps because they may not have appreciated the significance of the constitutional distinction. one of the elements of this dynamic when we have the decisions coming down from the supreme court is that there tends to be a reaction that tries to undercut the significance of the decision and order try to devise other proposals that would discourage the exercise of constitutional rights. after buckley in the 76 election, we had nothing that resembled independent

expenditures even though they were now constitutionally protected. any wealthy individual who would engage in the spending debt and hypothetical $10 million that you refer to with jerry ford or jimmy carter. nobody realized they could do that necessarily or wanted to do that or were certain in the post-watergate environment that it was the right thing to do. but when we got to the 1980 election, we started having political groups organized a national conservative political action committee created and it's only purpose was to engage in the independent expenditures and it was a reaction of that because they started filing complaints and saying we are all sure that what not sure that what you're doing is constitutional because buckley

said an individual may make the expenditure but we are not sure that in the committee they can do this and so that needs to be. so the other advice including the one i was involved in the republican party is that it established parties have a constitutional right to engage in the spending. that was 1996, 20 years after buckley. it was both legally and constitutionally which created some uncertainty to both the constitutionality, the locality and the political effect of engaging in this activity. >> it keeps them engaged.

>> it does as long as your client is willing to pay. [laughter] let me just tell you sometimes it is very difficult especially in this area. politicians are not known to spend their money that way. but it's a distinction that has a constitutional significance in the greatest outcome of the citizens united case that underscored the distinction made that view, congress and the legislature if you want to pass laws no matter how much you as a candidate can accept from the contributor -- you could do that as long as it was s. to low. but you can do that if that's what you want to do. but it doesn't give you the

license under the first amendment to pass a law that the law that we stripped how any individual or group of individuals in the corporations can spend their money to advance their advocacy towards the american public and so now congress and others look at this and say how are we going to change the system because we wouldn't have devised this type of system from the beginning and they are struggling with it. there are proposals to amend the constitution. the second solution is put straight to the point people in a supreme court seat the reverse citizens united for what we see going on all over town let's try and change the law in ways that

aren't constitutional let's devise a new disclosure scheme into the tried and congress and were not successful passing amendments to the disclosure so the backup strategy is if congress can't do it what's good for that what's good for the independent agencies and to get them to change the law. let's go to the commission and have new rulemaking for the securities exchange commission or federal communications commission or as we all learned its if the irs wants to do something in an administratively but that didn't turn out so well. this is all part of the campaign-finance dynamic of struggling with our limitations on how we can regulate campaigns and every time the supreme court comes down with something we have to find a new strategy to

regulate the way that underscores our approach to regulation which is we want to equalize and limit money as much as we can. how we do that depends on what is constitutional, and our strategy is always going to be legal regulate in indirect ways if we can't do it directly. there's a lot of legal challenge in the room and i have a lot about the buckley i would like to hear. i think it's right but if it's mistaken, people will point it out and that is one of the parts that stay this contribution limits. not in the sense that contribution limits still exist but if you think the purpose of contribution limits is to limit how much a person can get to a campaign or there's a bunch of language here i know but it's supportive of the campaign, then they are dead after citizens united because if you want to give more than a contribution limits at this point and

institutional development and so on the would have a little bit of trouble but if you give that much to do candidate you would be able to find an outside group or give your money. there is an interesting part about that which is this. in effect between buckley and the citizens united you introduced a bias and mostly you expect the campaign-finance regulation to serve the interest of people who write it. however the end of controversial limits introduces a vice towards outsiders that is to say if you

want to continue about the contribution limits in the law, you can't so your only choice beyond that is to go outside one of the super pack groups. it is a bias to an outside group so this is what introduces timmy a different way of looking at the law so if it shouldn't favor insiders or outsiders or should it should be unbiased in that sense, then what has happened is we've actually got a bad system because of the results and you could end the bias by the contribution limit which already in practice are not in existence. >> said that would be your reform that they should have

gone further and basically stripped down and set set what said look if this is a matter of free speech, and the money of the speech and you are limiting speech by limiting contributions , do you think it would have been better if they had stopped on the contribution limits as well? spinnaker given given the fact if you spend the money to contribute to something other than politics or political advocacy or getting people onto boat duty to -- on to vote i don't see that it can hold up in the spending and contributions pending.

if you were in charge of the world would you strike down the contribution? >> in a purist theoretical world, yes. if i were a justice or a politician and recognizing the widespread suspicion the public has towards politicians and their interaction with money, i am not sure how it would come out. i no justice, and i wondthomas

if the lido and scalia -- there's not a separate contribution for expenditures, but i don't know if that would be supported judicially and certainly would not be supported popularly which kind of brings me always to what is going on in the state's, i find the states to be interesting because they grapple with these issues all the time and we have a wide assortment of campaign finance regulations. we heard from the political side in missouri, which has no limits to contributions to candidates. i am from the commonwealth of virginia. we don't have limits and their

estates like oregon and a couple others have -- they decided we are not going to have that but we will have disclosure. if you are going to make a sizable contribution to a candidate for governor or state legislature it has to be pretty immediately disclosed, that is accepted in these jurisdictions at least for the time being. it has been in virginia forever. i remember candidates for governor who go back 20 or 30 years ago, the time of pat robertson, va. constituent and president used to give $100,000 to some candidates, would the republican but democratic candidate for governor running ads.

pat robertson gave my opponent $50,000 for $100,000. >> going to be democrat too. >> i don't know for the life of me why the democrats thought that would be helpful to his campaign because a lot of people particularly in tidewater, pat robertson is a pretty good guy. >> i always thought it was a 50/50 proposition. >> that is the dynamic that was accepted in virginia. as a result, states like virginia don't have these bizarre esoteric contrivances, super pacs, independent expenditures, what is all that? if you are supporting a candidate for governor of virginia, you can't make the money and they go ahead and do it and sometimes there might be a group that has something to say and they go ahead and say it and run and at that that is the way the campaign is. all of these states have to

accommodate both the legal, constitutional and political dynamics for the constituency and other states like virginia or missouri, thinking of tennessee for example, they change their lot after citizeaw united in an unusual way, it prohibited corporations from making any contribution to a candidate liz after citizens united, as they were so restrictive they would not allow corporations to have la pack. their looks around and said now we are goinga pack. their looks around and said now we are going to have super pacs, what we going to do? change the law and corporations

for the first time may contribute to candidates in tennessee. under a minute. >> there is a limit how much they can contribute? >> that is correct. 29 states in the district of columbia permit corp.s from contributing some amount to campaigns. 43 states by the way allow unions to contribute to their state and local campaigns. this notion that corporate and union contributions are prohibited is fairly uniquely federal for house, senate and presidential campaigns. back in the states they have greater allowances. some are like federal law but there is a great discrepancy as to how they are going to regulate campaign finances. a lot of it is based on

practical considerations. florida, you have a limit of $500 or now it is $1,000 to a campaign. you can give an unlimited amount to political parties. all of these jurisdictions are trying to compensate for the need for resources to undertake meaningful campaigns, sometimes very large jurisdictions. if you want to run for governor of florida that is a costly proposition so where are you going to get the money? for your own campaign tour through your political party and there will be other things. i want to make a brief point. the ad with robertson contribution is an example of a proper use of disclosure, the justification of disclosure given in buckley versus vallejo, the contributions that would give the voter guidance on who

to vote for so if you know this person contributes to roberts or whenever that tells you something important and guide your vote. the disclosure works in the sense that campaigns don't usually use it and mostly there's a lot information about the disclosure except for maybe george soros and a couple brothers in wichita and even then i question whether most people know who contributors are and whether it can help them. it is supposed to be a way to give people information they can use. there is some disagreement about that. how do you see this going forward? as we said it has been 40 years this particular dichotomy has survived. do you think it has many years ahead? i thought there has been -- the last ten years there has been no decision at least from what i

can tell by polling, where the public is less infused about it than citizens united case. maybe it is because it has been misreported or misunderstood. even like the gay marriage case there is that strong disagreement but it is a pretty even disagreement. there is a large percentage of the public says they don't like the citizens united decision. they remember the part of it that says on limited corporate spending. corp.s are not spending a lot but people don't like the idea that wall street or big corporations have undue influence and i always thought there was at least the possibility that if hillary or bernie sanders gets elected, one of the main planks, democrats going forward, will be to put

some limits on political spending. i am curious how you see this playing out over the next few years. >> if there were such legislation it still has to pass the supreme court review. i would note that two years after the citizens united case there was a decision in the supreme court of montana that said we are going to uphold lemon's independent spending by corporations because we, montana, are special, we are different, we have justification for doing it here because 100 years ago the copper and mining industry interests bought our political system and we don't want that to come back. the supreme court of montana says we are different and that is the distinction we are making. that case was appealed to the u.s. supreme court and it was

summarily reversed. basically the supreme court said we meant what we said. in citizens united. there is nothing special about montana as an exception to the first amendment. if there is going to be legislative efforts of that sort which i think is unlikely under the current atmosphere but it is always possible, i think the legislative effort is more in direct and reflected in the disclose backed proposed in the last couple congresses where the proponents based on the upholding of disclosure requirements in the citizens united case which was 8-1 the decision. >> part of my question, i was assuming it hillary clinton is elected one thing she will state most clearly is the next justices i choose for the supreme court will be committed

to what ever, overturning. >> i don't think the way things have sorted out over time i don't think anyone she would appoint to the supreme court, she knows the answer. there could be a question how important that is to you. people you are going to get will overturn that decision and if you have that majority all you need to overturn that decision is the state of vermont to pass campaign finance law that violates citizens' united. the whole idea under it. the question becomes how far does that new majority go? in this context what i would like to throw out there is what we all fought until now, was dead as a doornail was the justification for kind a new finance regulation. it died in buckley.

that majority, 100 years of president overturned by citizens united, you guys started this game, we are going to end that. we were going to resuscitate the quality rationale. and manageable way of legislation. and that will be a bad turn in american politics. that kind of rationale, and open ended rationale. it would be difficult problem. the campaign finance legislation after buckley vs. mccain feingold which had such results in members of congress, but hard to get something through congress but not hard to get through the legislature.

>> in congress they pass legislation, the legislative process is complex and a lot of horse trading so they get something through congress like mccain feingold or as they are trying to do to disclose the act, there has to be an acceptance by the majority of legislature that what is being passed is not only directed towards solving the perceived problem but will be at the very least neutral to their own reelections and on top of that will survive constitutional review and i think that is one of the things that has been learned here from the buckwheat experience and the mcconnell legislation experience and the the the supreme court decisions, even if you pass something what

is the supreme court going to do? which parts is it going to strike out? since there are things that are struck out, what does that look like? are you going to have an even worse system we did intend to set a date? >> it is the law of unintended consequences. >> when it came to mccain feingold that was the law intended consequences because there was an awful lot of criticism and speculation from critics that there would be provisions in fat law that would be struck down and congress passed it anyhow. that was a very attractive piece of legislation to encompass because first of all we are going to defund political parties have billion dollars, much of which was used to finance advertising criticizing candidates of the other party. we are then going to make it

illegal, make it a crime to mention your name just before the collection if yelection if sources of funding and if you are faced with an opponent we have a solution, contribution limits for you and so on and so forth. before we knew it there were 15 republicans in the senate who said that sounds great. dick lugar, all those guys, that makes a lot of sense. >> one thing should be mentioned. we can be pretty sure what won't be passed in congress will be a public financing bill. the least serious public financing at the federal level in the post watergate era,

another branch of government, there have been, you have had one thing passed that didn't have a financing element, public financing bill without money and less extent about four five years coming up with pure public financing that would have given real money to challengers if those bills came nowhere near passing. >> i was asking about the view on the left of what would happen. how about on the political right? if president trump/ted cruz/marco rubio is in office next year do you think the republicans, suppose they control the house, senate and the white house a lot of things they would like to do. is there much sentiment do you think for knocking down or plowing back further on some of

the campaign finance limits in the direction of deregulating free-speech? do you see that as an issue on the right? >> certainly, for mitch mcconnell, what we have seen the last two continuing resolution bills at the end of session of congress, some adjustments that are inserted into major unrelated legislation, and all of which is viewed toward loosening up some of the limits, once they got rid of public financing for conventions they then added a provision that allowed parties to raise private money in large amounts from certain sources mainly individuals and political action committees or in the last go

around the senator was seeking political parties to collaborate with house and senate and president and spend money on behalf of those candidates, and not treated to independent spending. that was not exceptional to democratic majority of senators in the senate. the thrust of it is we are going to try to make some accommodations that will hopefully be acceptable on a bipartisan basis to recognize the new universe that has been created that we would not have invented ourselves, the supreme court adjusted for us which is we want to provide more resources for campaigns and political parties in order to be able to respond to the virtual

unlimited resources of independent groups because of the effect of the supreme court decisions, that it has shifted more availability of resources outside the campaigns and political parties, parties can only respond by increasing limits or eliminating the limits of certain types of sources of funding. >> knocking down the soft money for parties. >> that would be one thing to consider. the revisions that were passed a few years ago to form political parties under the continuing resolution bill, it allowed them to raise more money for a conventions, redistricting litigation, and building overhead activities but to

maintain the ban on soft money in the sense that there are limits, sources of such funding can only be individuals and other packs. the money could come in any amount from any individual, any political committee, any corporation with some minor exceptions so that regime has not been reinstated. i don't know of anyone who propose it legislatively but that might be something that would arise in the future. in terms of the supreme court legislation in the battle right now is full disclosure. that is the one thing the supreme court has upheld in principle that there can be disclosure and independent spending and so forth, so the issue legally in the courts is going to be how far can the government go in mandating

disclosure? how burdensome candid disclosure be? how pervasive can it be? how can it be enforced? that to me in terms of the short-term is likely to be the battleground in terms of federal disclosure statute and state laws do the same thing. >> that is the inside. i will do the d.c. walk story which is a couple things would come together, the tendencies of these candidates if elected. there is a critique right now among people traditionally skeptical of the federal government, the problem of crony capitalism, the idea that business is using -- special interest, another version, that is out there and inevitably will be tied to backs and so one.

the other side of it is a movement called reform conservatism. reform conservatism is kind of a washington thing but the basic sense of it is the traditional kind -- the republicans's traditional concern about the entrepreneurial activity, business, liberalization, limited government, those are good ideas but they have gone too far and they are concerned particularly about redistribution, more effective welfare state, the leaning left in a sort of way, you see something like the work -- the writings about there is a certain skepticism about the mcconnell/smith in view of campaign finance and their

candidate is marco rubio. i think he might be opened to doing things that are non-traditional and distant from the mcconnell/smith you. with trump, trump can say let's get money out of politics. i have already done it. not everyone can run on the basis of free air time. >> juggling all the categories, doesn't he? anybody has a question, we have time for a question if anybody wants, anything they want to ask about? over here. >> i think i am developing a good understanding of the first

amendment arguments against both harris campaign finance regulations because i think it is a strong case to say someone who donates to bernie sanders is the same as someone who did and aides to jeb bush. what i don't hear a lot of times mentioned is when you have these groups of super pacs and someone who donates $1 million to an independent organization i think there is a case to be made that you can't necessarily prove would pro quo like this happened three thursdays ago but it is reasonable to think there is some sort of favoritism that can come from that because handshakes' happen all across town so that is something i don't hear mentioned and very often and that gets lost in the first amendment cases that are made against campaign finance

regulation. >> i think there might be a couple comments. in the previous panel we heard from political science professionals that there have been studies as to whether or not the spending of the money changes officeholders's position as opposed to reenforcing the support they get from particular source. the example i always like to refer to, i think people who have a position right to life will contribute to candidates or right to life, and proponents of that viewpoint not only in their contributions that their independent spending. the only time i think there would be a potential for

corruption is if there was a demonstration, that particular candidate used to be pro-choice and changed his or her position because of the money. now we are into the realm of the liquid pro quo because it is not because of the money but the candidate because they are corrupt in that sense. i think the difficulty in accommodating all of these considerations in first amendment jurisprudence is we do have this constitutional principle that it is not up to the government to regulate political activity, speech and association. it is the principal reason we have the first amendment, we made decision, i am an immigrant, you almeida decision 200 years ago that we burn not

going to to allow government power to regulate in that fashion. once you start giving the government and allowance you have to recognize that can be more harmful than the speech that is being protected. i just don't understand why we want the government in the business of deciding who ought to speak, how much that ought to speak, what they get their resources, the presence of money is the necessity of being able to engage in those types of freedoms. otherwise we could pass along so you can't spend anything, don't spend any money. and we could have the los angeles times doesn't mean more

than the one million dollars a day to publish its newspaper. >> away things have been going -- >> i know. just to follow on that, in the earlier example, more complicated version please say you own casinos and you are a billionaire and you have a strong view about israel, current prime minister of israel, and so on, you have strong views and naturally you want to contribute in one way or another. you want to contribute to candidates and you give a candidate $10 million. you could say that candidate is strongly affected by that $10 million particularly if it keeps you in the race and so on. the problem you come up against

is if you are the group of people who are running end seriously running for the presidential nomination in the republican party as things have developed over time primarily because of the changes in the primary electorates of the republican party, are going to be very strong supporters of the state of israel and the current prime minister so you have people that to one degree or another support that and so, did he change what that person would do, that person did not get the money or have enough money to run, they would be a person that is going to be strong supporter of the state of israel. the thing about the really big money, it is ideological money. many that is -- almost as the campaign finance reform view which is we have campaigns about ideas based on ideas rather than

their interest, this casino, the regulation of the mission not be the issue but foreign policy in the united states should be why they get the money and that is what most people do and it is manifest on political dynamics. i remember when jimmy carter ran, one of the platforms is i am going to create a department of education, the single largest profession represented at the democratic national convention where teachers, members of the neh which imports jimmy carter and turned out the vote out for jimmy carter. as did as i recall the united autoworkers who is president and became the first ambassador to china. i am sure that there was some

money expended in that campaign those supported groups. they were supporting jimmy carter because of his position which he in fact adopted. is that corrupt or is that the normal operation of democratic systems? it seems to me we have to distinguish the danger of a corrupt relationship from the normal dynamics of politics and with the presence of many the most effective treatment to try to preserve a healthy environment is disclosure which is why i think the supreme court has upheld the principle late:1, disclosure can be abused, it can be burdensome, it might be improper to some extent but as a general proposition that is going to be the constitutional and practical antidote to the fear of corruption.

>> we have basically run out of time. i want to thank you both, good conversation, thank you all for attending. >> we have come to an end of our conference. >> thank you for the panelists. your excellent questions, thank you to the audience for being here today. one last point of information on the states, there are six states that do not limit campaign contributions, the amount of unions and individuals give unlimited amount. there are another six where individuals can give unlimited amounts to candidates and parties and approximately half. the exact number is 26 but i

might be getting it wrong where individuals give unlimited amounts to political parties so in fact unlimited contributionss is the norm at the state level rather than contribution being norm. the final thing i would like to mention which is people want more information, our organization, the centers for competitive politics with a campaignfreedom.org and the cato institute which has information far beyond campaign finance, everything you could imagine asked kato.org. thank you, everyone, for attending today. [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible devastations] [inaudible conversations] >> coming up later on c-span hillary clinton campaigning for president in iowa, she will be speaking at the armilla middle school in marshalltown, iowa live on c-span and 9:30 p.m. eastern. >> the countdown is on. as we approach the iowa caucuses, we are the replace

where you can watch these events unfold as they happen. whether it is a campaign rally, house party, town hall meeting, the policy speech, no one else will give you that unfiltered look at the candidates as they were crowd and talk to voters and make their best sales pitch. we are going to be crisscrossing iowa for the next couple days for the caucuses, covering all of the candidates, democratic and republican candidates and keep an eye on what happens, we will be dealing network that will take you to the republican and democratic caucus. if you ever wondered how all happened, watch c-span. >> congressman steve king and radio talk-show host glenn beck endorsed ted cruz for president, a spokane campaign rally on saturday in waterloo, iowa. this is 2-1/2 hours.

>> thank you. thank you. thank you all very much. what a great welcome to have here, what we have in front of us. we have 320 million americans, something like that. about 135,000, hopefully more coming to the caucus a week from monday night in your voices will be heard more loudly, more clearly than anybody else in the united states of america on that night. we get to make the first and i think a powerful recommendation for the rest of the country because we will see more of these candidates evaluated and have an opportunity to get to know them in front of the curtain and behind the curtain, get to know their families and who they are. i had the privilege of getting to know and coming into this

campaign, i know all 17 republicans in this race, personally or professionally or both and i can tell you no party in the history of the republicans fielded so many high-quality candidates for the presidency of the united states and we did this year as republicans. i honor them all and respect them all and we should thank them for presenting themselves but we have a decision coming monday night and the decision comes down to is this, either/or, people sitting in the top of the pool, any vote that doesn't go over one or two of those is probably not going to be one that scored well across the rest of the country. that is something to think about. i would remind you there was a statement made last tuesday that were sharp in criticism of ted cruz. i didn't like that very much and i think it is real important

that we support him on caucus night and all other things equal, every reason i can come up with is a good reason to support ted cruz and all other things are equal, if you know about eyewall being the first caucus 12 years from now, if ted cruz goes out of iowa on the supreme court, a resounding victory, that will put to rest the criticism that will come and most of you know what i'm talking about. so -- when i first got to know who ted cruz was, i went to hear the argument on the ten commandments before the united states supreme court. and solicitor general for the state of texas. and pay attention to who he was. >> elected to the united states senate, and i am fighting the game of eight amnesty bill. if you remember there is a

certain senator from florida who is a lead voice in the gang of eight amnesty bill or a certain senator from texas doing battle with him face to face in the judiciary committee amendment after amendment that were designed to kill the amnesty act and that was ted cruz putting up those amendments. [applause] >> chuck grassley voted with him every time and jeff sessions voted with him every time and steve king stands with him on every component of the immigration issue every time. and about that time they pass the gang of a bill and there was the middle of that and they were pushing it over to the house. john boehner wanted to put that in fast-track and bring it to the floor where every democrat would vote for it and handle of republicans, and we would have

amnesty act and professional amnesty for anyone that could jump across the american border in perpetuity if they had gone their way. i did the one thing i could do. i could not force a vote on the floor of the house but rented a stage and microphone outside the capital and we had the longest press conference in the history of the united states, eight hours where we debated immigration on stage and who came? a good number of house members came. we invited a good number of senators, one came. was that? ted cruz! that is right! the one senator that had the courage and forethought and instinct to come out and jump on that stage and take the microphone and spend 45 minutes delivering chapter and verse of what we need to do to secure our borders, restore the will of law, in a sanctuary cities, and force immigration law with local law enforcement as well and get america back on track again, all

of that was delivered june 19th, 2013. if you want to know what that is, go to his website, tedcruz.org, there's an 11 page document that will tell you it is the same position he took an that is now written on his web site and he will tell you jeff sessions and steve king contributed to that. i will take a little bit of that, ted cruz's position, you can count on where he stands in opposition to amnesty, you can't count on that with the rest of the people at or near the top of the polls today so that was an important thing for me, to see that he is a man of his word, true to his convictions. next is repealing obamacare. it has got to go. [applause] i don't hear another candidate out there that makes sure you know that in every single stop but ted cruz. repeal every word is what he said. every word of obamacare and i say at this. is a malignant tumors that is

metastasizing and feeding not god-given american liberty. it has got to be ripped out by the reds a there's not a vestige of it left behind, ted cruz will do that. [applause] >> then the supreme court, which i have mentioned how important is this? that we get this right. if we had a choice between donald trump who wants to appoint his pro-choice partial birth abortion supporting system to the supreme court or handed over to ted cruz who has argued successfully before the supreme court who was raised with the bible and the constitution at the kitchen table, spoonfed our constitution, i wanted to be ted cruz. [applause] >> the next president will make

it looks like two or two four appointments to the supreme court. ted cruz will tell you we are only one justice away from losing our constitution to the activists that have been appointed so far by barack obama. kissel of america is at stake, the constitution of america is at stake, strong national defense, we need a tax policy that abolishes the irs. [applause] >> and releases americans, give us a chance to compete, and jimmy carter said to people who work should live better than those who don't come he didn't believe it or act on it but said it. what we have now is the president and i will tell you is worse and jimmy carter. i have this nostalgia, it hit me one day a couple months ago. i am lonely for george w. bush. i would love to have him back. that is after i got through george w. bush, compared to

barack obama i am lonely for bill clinton even. i am getting over that with hillary out there all the time but that makes me lonely for bush 41. if i am lonely for 41 you know that are just loi just long desr ronald reagan. jimmy carter prepared america to promote christian conservatives like ronald reagan. he prepared as with the malaise he forced upon us. now we know barack obama has preparedus with the malaise he forced upon us. now we know barack obama has prepared america for our next president and we got ronald reagan after jimmy carter think how great president ted cruz will be.

i will say this. i will ask you to do what i have been doing the better part of the year. all of the year. that is this. might consistent prayer especially when i start my day is that god will raise up a leader who he will use to restore the soul of america. i believe that man is ted cruz and i am going to ask you each day to offer the prayer that god raises up a leader he will use to restore the soul of america and he energizes un energizes all of us so we follow his guidance and go a week from monday to bring your friends, your relations, your neighbors and let them know the man you will see at this podium and a little while is, i believe, that man. so please do as i ask and as i will do, consistently stay on this every day all the way through and i ella can have a loud voice, we can send ted cruz to new hampshire, south carolina

and beyond, spring board that is i would can be the springboard that launches ted cruz, that restores america. thank you, god bless you all. [applause ] >> thank you for giving us congressman king. we appreciate that. let me introduce our next speaker, there are several words and phrases. one of those is leader. he is a leader but not because he tries to be. like any good leader is because people want to follow him, did the same things and doing things and people line up and say i believe that and want to be part of it so a leader in the old-fashioned sense, he actually leads because people want to

follow, also a visionary. he can look into the future and thomas what is coming but gives a solution studying history. patrick henry said i have no way of knowing the future but by the past and this is a man who studies the past and because he does he says clearly where we are headed and what it should be. also a lover of truth, he doesn't put up with lies. i watched him in public and in private, he doesn't put up with politicians or staff who lie to him. either one and because he loves the truth he speaks the truth and sometimes it is not easy. sometimes it is a hard message but he loves the truth enough to tell the truth and on top of that he is also a friend baton rouge if you are going to be a friend have to show yourself friendly. he is a very friendly person, very genuine person, he is a friend and a lot of ways. is a friend of god. he is a friend to people of faith, he is a friend to those

who love the constitution, a friend of those who have a set core of fixed principles. a friend to america. he is glenn beck. please welcome glenn beck. [cheers and applause] >> hello, iowa. iron am so happy to be here. my grandmother and my mother were born in at lincoln. if it wasn't 400 below zero i would have stopped by and looked for the house. i am glad you guys are here. thank you for coming.

this is at historic time in our country. this is going to be read about in history books and you are going to be read about in history books. what you do nine days from today could mean the difference between 8 republic being saved and our republic being lost and i will explain that. let me ask you why are you here tonight? why are you here? ted cruz, i have had enough. save the country. save the country. we have a simple belief that things can actually be better than they are, they don't have to be this complex. it really isn't this hard. many of us have lost hope that

our children's lives better than all areas they'ves combined. hope for a better tomorrow. america has lost belief in herself, in many ways. there are people all around the country and the world that are wondering if we are done blue jeff there are many who are praying that we are done. quite honestly i think many of us in our worst times say maybe this is as good as it is ever going to get. maybe this is it. i will take you to the bible scripture. where there is no vision, the people perish. and that is what has happened to us. there isn't any one articulating a vision anymore or anything that anyone recognizes and so the people are perishing. we are losing hope, we are losing the understanding of who we are, where we have been and

what our future is. this has happened over and over again. it has happened time and time again. first time i can find it happened was before the country was founded. we signed the declaration of independence july 2nd, 1776, and by christmas eve the same year we were done. we had 20,000 troops when we signed the declaration of independence and we were down to london 2,000. george washington had lost every single battle his men were ready to desert, people were starting to say george washington is not a leader we thought he was, we are losing and they are going to come and kill all of us. george washington was sitting on the banks of the delaware thinking we got to go the other direction. we have not yet begun. we have to go the other direction. nobody believed in that. in the civil war. we lost every single battle for

have the war. the north lost time and time and time again. we had brother fighting against brother. and lincoln wept. in world war ii, we were outgunned, we were outmaneuvered, we were shocked, we were surprised, we didn't have the planes, we didn't have the boats and the japanese sunk what we did have. we were already tired and worn out from 12 years of the depression. evil was beginning to crawl over the globe and cover it with darkness. i have thought of this after listening to my grandparents who lived through the depression here in iowa talk about the great depression and what that was like and talk about what they saw happening overseas in germany and with the mussolini in italy and i can't imagine how

they didn't feel this is it, this is the end of the world, this is the time that jesus has to return because look at the profound evil and how are we ever going to win? how will we ever defeat it? after that we were beaten down by the violence, the craziness of the 1960s and the corruption of the 70s with the burning helicopters on the sands of iran and the gas lines around the block and interest rates that were 19%, time and time again americans have fought we are done. we are not going to make it. there is no way out. let me give you the good news. this is when america is at its best. when everybody else has given up and we are down on the match and

the rest of the world is saying 7, 8, 9, that is when we get up off the match and find ourselves again and >> the world's. that is what we do best. [applause] >> we are the nation, we are the nation that gave the world the light bulb, the radio, the automobile, the telephone, we landed on the moon before anybody else, we're still the only nation that went to the moon. and tomorrow. that is who we are. we are the nation that gave birth to the dreamers, that gave apple and ibm and google and microsoft and the million other things that just 15 years ago we would have said were miraculous. it came from here and right now all across the nation and in this very building there are

children, children who are having a new ideas and saying i can find a better way. i can change the world and because they were born here in america they will do exactly that. [applause] >> where does that come from? where does that come from? that is unique, that is what makes us who we are. let me tell you, no president can give that to you. no president can give that to any country. otherwise people would have been reprinting this in country after country. it doesn't come from a president. on the flip side of that no president no matter how hard this last one tribe can take that away from ed can take

that away from people. [cheers and applause] change is bred into us, it is the fire in our bones. we have to remember that. it is what people yearn for who are across the shore on the other side of the ocean. they dream of coming here because they feel it. they want it. it is what people who might be in a jail in iran or us slave shop in china, or currently on the auction block with isis to be sold as a sex slave, those are the things, this is -- these are things they can only dream of. this is a magical place and we have been told it is over. i testify to you today it is not

over. in nine days, you choose a new beginning for america. .. >> fundamentally transform the united states of america. and he has done it. but it's not too late. but i'm telling you right now, i am here because i may not have the chance to vote. my vote may not matter because

of the way you vote. if you make a choice and it allows, quite honestly, donald trump to steamroll through, it will be over by the time it gets to texas, and i believe my children's future will be lost. we have to understand the time that we live in and then ask ourselves, how do we get ourselves back? how do we get on the right track? how do we reconnect with those things that actually made us special, made us a unique and special country? i've never given my endorsement to anybody in 40 years. forty years of broadcast, i have never given an endorsement mainly because, you know, for most of my career it didn't matter. nobody was asking. [laughter] but the other part of my career, when i sobered up, i didn't give

it because i didn't trust him. i didn't trust any of them. i know several of them. i have zero friends in washington, d.c., and i wear that as a badge of honor. [laughter] [cheers and applause] those men who have asked me for my endorsement, quite frankly, i haven't trusted. even though i think they're good men, and sometimes i'll look at them and go, man, you sure talk a good game and sure say, yeah, probably, maybe, but i don't want to be held responsible for what you do once you get there and start to lose your soul. my credibility is on the line with these guys, and as a guy who lost his credibility through alcoholism, i do not lend my credibility out lightly. so i want to talk to you tonight

not about endorsements, i want to talk to you about american principles. how do we get ourselves back to where we belong? we talked about 'em when i was on fox, and we still talk about them on radio and on the blaze almost every day. all of the principles, all of the values that got us to be an exceptional nation boil down to three; faith, hope -- >> charity. >> charity. those are the three. faith, hope and charity. so let's go over these quickly. as you begin to examine who you might vote for, first, faith. faith is what brought us here. faith is what has made us into the country that we are. everyone else is losing their faith all around the world and, look, they spiral into despotism. faith is essential. faith in god.

but not a showman's faith, not the kind of faith that you might get from just reading second corinthians -- [laughter] [applause] but actually letting those words change your heart, letting those scriptures permeate you, ruminating on them, arguing with the lord, trying to figure out what that is, living your faith. and then letting that faith shape every step that you take every day. if somebody wants to understand why i make the decisions i do, all you have to know is my faith. i do things because i believe in the god of abraham, isaac and jacob and jesus christ is the savior of the world. [cheers and applause]

and our god has power! [cheers and applause] there is power in our god. and our scriptures tell us, "by their fruits, ye shall know them." so let's ask what the fruits are. as you're looking at a candidate, does your candidate have a record of standing up for your righting to worship god? does your candidate have the record of standing up in front of the supreme court and saying the ten commandments belong in the public square? [applause] and winning? [applause] does your candidate have the record of going before the supreme court in the heller case and saying the american people

have the second amendment, they have a right that shall not be infringed, they have a right to protect themselves in any way they deem? [applause] does your candidate, does your candidate go against his own party, go against his own president in george w. bush to make sure that a horrific illegal alien that brutally gang raped and murdered women in houston was not shipped off to the international court, but was left in texas to stand trial and receive the death penalty, which he got and deserved. [cheers and applause] that, that is a record of

service and standing up for what we believe in. that's deeds, not words. has your candidate served his entire life to make sure that people understand and hold onto those god-endowed rights that our framers enshrined? the george washington that we have all been praying for is not going to be found in the garish light of gold. the george washington that we have been looking for will be found in the quiet, yet bold service from a man who stands tirelessly for what he deeply believes; the constitution of the united states of america. [applause]

there is one candidate that finds his treasure there and in his god and the service of them both. where does your candidate find his treasure? faith also has another aspect that we should look at. i want to be very, very careful. mr. trump, i was just told when i got on stage, he's been saying how worthless and washed-up and everything i am all day today, but i was glad to hear -- this actually makes me very happy. i was told right before i went on stage that he has taken out, with his own money, facebook ads to smear me today. so she's spending money on -- so he's spending money on me, and that makes me so happy. [laughter] [applause] but anyway, i want to be sure that we are very, very clear that i am exact in my language.

and, quite honestly, i thought i heard him say, and then i thought, no, that's not what he said. and i went, and i looked it up, i watched the videotape, i rolled it back. i wanted to make sure that i heard this one right. mr. trump says, and i quote: i will make america great again. it's not question, it is i. it's not we, it is i. no man can make that true, because it is not true. no one person makes america great. it is each of us as individuals, living our own lives, worshiping our own god, charting our own course that makes america great! [cheers and applause] the president's job is to make sure government gets out of the way of the people that make the country great! [cheers and applause]

that is ego on display of biblical proportions. [laughter] that is, that is faith in yourself. that is faith in the human ego. that is faith in arrogance. we already have that. [laughter] we got that in spades. we've had that for the last eight years. we've had a president say almost the same thing. let me translate "i will make america great again." let me translate that. you didn't build that. [applause] it's the same thing. you didn't build that. it's the tell of a progressive politician. they always have a tell.

most people didn't even know what a -- i didn't even know what a progressive was eight years ago, nine years ago. but we learned together every single day if you watch me or listen. we learned what progressives are. and they were started by a republican. it's why i've never been invited back to cpac, because the first time i spoke there was the last time i spoke there. i brought my little chalkboard out, and i said the disease started in this house. [applause] the president doesn't create jobs, he helps create the conditions. we create jobs that change people's lives. and the next president cannot be a repeat of barack barack obamao thought he could make the seas recede by a wave of his pen or that he was worthy of the nobel peace prize just because he

showed up. [laughter] we have that. this president must be a servant. he must have less faith in himself, his pen and his phone and more faith in our god, our principles and our peep. [applause] our people. [cheers and applause] so that's the first principle. the first principle is faith. please, don't ever say, well, my god can't win. have more faith in the god of abraham, isaac and jacob! he will move mountains for a righteous cause! [cheers and applause] the next, the next principle is hope. where does hope come from? hope comes from the truth.

it is gospel, the good news. it's the truth. if you don't have the truth, there cannot be hope. it's why every cancer or patient will say exactly same thing. they'll talk to their doctor, and they'll say, please, just shoot straight with me. just tell me the truth. because if you tell me that i have a cold and i have cancer, i can't fight that. i'll lose. but i can handle it. i'm big enough. tell me the truth. truth. truth will create hope. so now let me take you there in a circuitous route. let me tell you the truth. our country has a deep and metastasized cancer. it is called political correctness. hopelessness, despair -- [applause] anger, racism, cronyism, lawlessness at the highest levels and progressivism. [applause] that is our cancer.

and it is stage iv. and this may be our last chance at a cure. this republic is on its last leg. what you do in nine days makes all the dumps in the world. all the difference in the world. we are lying to ourselves. our politicians are lying to us, and we accept them. and let me just give you an easy one. an easy, an easy proof that should be spoken, and everyone should go, yes, i understand, that's true. here it is: hillary clinton should be in prison. [cheers and applause]

for the simple reason, for the simple reason and truth that if you or i did what she has admitted to, we'd be in prison. we're a nation of laws, but we have become a nation of men. prison happens for everyone, no matter your title or your last name or position. for the rest of us, oops, my mistake doesn't excuse felonies. but there's more truths that need to be spoken. our monetary system is a house of cards, and it is a rigged game. corporate boardrooms all across this country care more about wall street than your street. capitalism, the greatest thing in human kind, it's changed and saved lives, capitalism has become a cruel joke for anybody

without connections or high-priced attorneys or those unwilling to pay to play. our politicians are now accepting legal bribes in the form of campaign donations or exorbitant speaking fees with a special favor and protections that they get in exchange, and our so-called conservative candidates brag about writing those checks to the politicians. and they say it's just the way business is done. well, not in the america that we are supposed to be. [applause] we must not accept things the way they are. we must not continue to lower the bar. we must not continue to accept lies because they're convenient or easy. we always must do the right thing, the hard thing, the

truthful thing even when it is at our own expense. because that's how we put ourself back on the right track. we have to tell each other the truth about the situation with jobs, the situation with the rigged game of cronyism, race, islam, terror on the streets of chicago, our failing families and the truth about ourselves, the hard truth. i'm in a unique position, and most of you know my history. i'm not going to bore you with it, but hello, my name is glenn, and i'm an alcoholic. do we have any alcoholics here? let's hear it for the alcoholics in the room. [laughter] look at you. i'm not an alcoholic, i don't know what you're talking about. [laughter] the reason why you know my story, that i lost my family, i lost everything, nobody wanted to work with me. i was a miserable human being. the reason why you know that

story is not because someone exposed me, it's because i told you that. because i thought it was important for you to know who i am and how i came to the decisions and to the place that i am in my life. so you can understand how i make decisions. it's important for us to tell each other the truth, and it really only counts when it is tough. when you think to yourself, they're going to hate me for this. that's when it matters to tell truth. the reason why i tell you this is because i want you to know i understand pivot points, i understand changing your mind, even changing positions. i understand those things. i believe in redemption. it is my life story. however, the hope of the world comes not from our mistakes, but the ability to admit them, to

correct them and to ask forgiveness. there are really a lot of great candidates in this race that you might be considering. there's a lot of really good men. there's a couple that i could never -- there's one that i could never -- [laughter] consider. [laughter] [applause] but there's a lot of really good people. but if you want to be truthful about it, why am i here? because it is a two-person race. right now it is a two-person race. if you have somebody else that's down a few tiers, they're not going to have a chance. they won't have a chance if iowa goes to trump. that's just the truth. the press and the establishment are ready to make that happen. they will steamroll him into the general, and then they will pick his bones apart and destroy him. i know. i've worked in the newsrooms.

that's what's going to happen. and if you want your other candidate to have a chance, you've got to seriously consider who you vote for in nine days from now. the other guy has said, as we talk about truth, that he says he has never felt that he has done anything in his life that warranted him asking for god's forgiveness. the hubris in that is astonishing. as if the narcissist that we have lived through in the last eight years means nothing. today mr. trump came out -- and i got this from cnn and from fox. i had to ask carl cameron, is that right? mr. trump said today, i could go out on fifth avenue and shoot

people, and i would not lose a single vote. the arrogance is beyond imagination. now, i cannot, i can't judge his soul. i don't want to judge his soul. we're told not to judge his soul. but i will tell you this: we are as citizens required to judge his record. and his record is very clear. he is a lifelong progressive. [applause] i want to ask you, because turning points are real, pivot points are real. people can change. i changed fundamentally, but what happened in your life? i can tell you what happened in my life, my life fell apart. rich people -- ask any missionary. they go out and try to convert somebody who's rich and successful, doesn't happen. why? because their life doesn't suck. [laughter] they're not looking for any

other answers. they're like, this is pretty sweet, dude. [laughter] when your life changes, when you have a real disruption in your life, when you have real pain, that's when you change fundamentally, to the core. what was mr. trump's pivot point? what was -- these were not minor adjustments. these are lifelong-held principles and values. things like i am a steadfast supporter of abortion, i am pro-life. where did that come from? why should we believe that without a pivot point story? it defies all logic to change as much as he has in 18 months unless he had a pivot point. now, i can't ask him, and i'm not suggesting that he has to confess or ask forgiveness of god, but i am saying this.

that man, for what he has done, should ask america's forgiveness for supporting trillions of dollars in bailouts, for calling for the nationalization of our banks. he should ask for forgiveness for giving money to prop up anthony weiner, of all people -- [laughter] nancy pelosi, rahm emanuel. and while you and i, many of us were marching in washington, d.c. in 2010, while we were looking at each other, our country's being ripped apart, and we literally looked at each other and said, brother, my life, my fortune and my sacred honor. i will go down with you. it doesn't matter if the irs calls me, i will go down with you. i'm going the ends. i'm going down swinging. when all of that stuff was happening, he does owe us an apology for writing a check to mitch mcconnell and harry reid and propping this system up. [applause] that's just the truth.

[applause] i want to know that i have a guy, a candidate who i may not agree with on everything. but his word is his bond. he says what he means and means what he says. and whether i like it or not, i know he's going to do that. honestly, on the other side it's why i have respect for bernie sanders. i mean, bernie sanders at least comes out and says -- [laughter] i'm, you know, lsd, flashback '60s socialist guy. [laughter] i'm the old hippie that's still kicking. [laughter] i have respect for him because he says i believe in socialism. i believe we should be less like america, and we should be more like sweden. i disagree with that, but at least i can sit down with that man and have a conversation. you want a real choice in america? you put bernie sanders, a

socialist, and a constitutionalist like ted cruz, let america decide our course! [cheers and applause] finally, charity. charity is a fundamental principle. it is a bedrock of america. we're the most charitable nation in the history of all humankind. [cheers and applause] and it seems as though too many people have forgotten that. but people on the other side will charge conservatives and say that we don't have charity in our heart. we're mean. but that's not true at all. we do need a safety net for those people who truly i mean it. and we need to keep the promises that we have made to people like, for instance, our veterans. [applause] they did their job, it is now

time for us to do our job for them. [cheers and applause] we tied their hands behind their back while they fought! [cheers and applause] there should not be any foolish rules of engagement at the hospital! [cheers and applause] so how do we do that? it's easy. you elect a president who takes the government obstacles out of the way, and you allow the medical professionals and the private institutions to do what they're supposed to do, and they're begging to do. but we also have to do more ourselves. we have to do more ourselves.

tough times are coming. the time for us to walk by a homeless person or an alcoholic or somebody who's out of work or an orphan or a mother who is struggling and out of work, walking by those who mourn or are afraid without actually seeing them, that has to stop in our own lives. it's why i started the 9/12 project so many years ago. remember, we would never have passed somebody who was crying in the streets. now we look the other way. but this, this you already know. this is an iowa principle. this is a heartland principle. [applause] we just are to remind -- we just have to remind the coastline of that american principle. [applause] we must talk less about our rights and more about our personal responsibilities.

the good samaritan didn't say, hey, let me get the blue pages, what government agency can i call to pick this guy up on the side of the street? the good samaritan picked him up himself, took him in, cared for him, helped him back on his feet. that's what we're supposed to do. you see, the government is not the solution. the government is the problem, and we people are the solution. [applause] but that means each and every one of us, each and every one of us charity must not be used as a tool to simply take bread from another man's mouth just because you don't want to work. we must end the misguided

compassion. fdr said when you take away a man's ability to work, you take away his self-worth. franklin -- benjamin franklin, the guy who was one of the most charitable men of all time. he started the first volunteer firehouse. he started the first public hospital. he gave away his pot belly stove. he had a patent on it. he said, take it, because others could find warmth. he didn't need the money that bad. take it. this man of charity said sometimes the best way to help people is to compassionately make them uncomfortable in their own poverty. the government dole has got to end and not just because we can't afford it anymore, but because it violates our principles. [applause] by strengthening people, by

strengthening people and encouraging them to do what they can and must do for themselves, we build a strong and engaged citizenry that believes in faith and hope of a brighter tomorrow. we have to realize that compassion comes in different packages than what is being sold. and let's not forget that charity begins at home. if we don't get ahold of our borders, if we let this continue to go on, we are the lifeboat of the world. bring me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses. we're the lifeboat of the world. but unless we get control of our borders, our boat will sink, and we won't be able to help anyone. [applause] we must know who is here. [applause] there are people who wish to do us harm.

there are people who wish to bleed us dry, and those people must be sent home. [applause] but at the same time, at the same time i was with an irishman this week. i just hired a guy from ireland. he lives in dublin. he loves our country so much, he wants to live here so badly. he, he's not popular in ireland, as you can imagine. [laughter] he knows our values, he knows our constitution. he said, you know, the 28 usurpations in the declaration of independence, i'm like, yeah, of course there's 28, sure. [laughter] this guy's amazing. i hired him for blaze raid radio to remind us what people think about us on the outside of our country. because we have forgotten. so when we look at immigration, let's remember that people -- if they want to come here, and they

want to be americans, they renew us, and you never know what somebody might do. there was a marxist, a marxist who didn't really realize how marxist he was that moved in to the united states, a guy who fought in a revolution for marxist principles. he was a little nuts, a little crazy at the time, almost lost his life in that struggle. came over here. he was an atheist, didn't belief in god. believe in god. now who wants that guy here? except that guy happens to be rafael cruz -- [applause] who found god, found our principles, fell in love with our country and raised the man who could be the next president of the united states! let's not forget the new immigrants! [applause]

but most of all, and this is hard for me, i'm speaking this one more to me than perhaps you. we need to be more charitable toward one another. we are at each other's throats right now. just because we disagree, we're called each other's enemies. we're sellouts. you're traitors! i read somebody who actually came out on a web site and called mark levin, just for standing up for ted cruz, called him, quote, a filthy jew. that is not who we are.

hatred is growing. we have to find charity toward one another. left, right, white, black, brown, it doesn't matter. we're all americans. and if we're all fighting for something that is rooted in deep, deeply-embedded american principle, we just disagree on how to get there. constitutionalism, progressivism. liberty, tyranny. but that doesn't make us enenemies. enemies. and i think we need to start remembering this. it's what made us great in the first place. we were all americans united. we've lost that. but we also used to be a nation of laws and not of men. who is going to lead us back

into the place that we need? who is going to take us? because last names mean nothing, whether you splash it on the side of a big plane or because you're a kennedy or a clinton or even a bush. last names don't mean anything. our laws, our principles, our values do. because that's what america is. it's not banks, high-tech or casinos. what's broken in our country is not the economy, but our faith in god, our faith in each other, our faith in ourselves, our faith in our principles. we're in this together, like it or not. all of us. what you do in nine days will affect my children and my children's children. make no mistake, it is that important. we're in this together. and justice must be blind in our nation. it's not right now.

our next president -- this is how your children and my children are going to be affected by what you do in nine days. our next president may choose up to four supreme court justices. four. right now what is decided in our country of a win, 5-4, if the wrong president gets in, it could be a loss of 8-1. you'll never turn that around. that's how serious this is. the time for reality show tactics and silliness and ridiculous debate is over. the time is now to be serious. history is going to write about you. history, it may honestly come down to iowa.

history may write that the americans had a chance, the americans had prayed for a god, for god to raise up a man, that had the principles and the fire in his bones that knew what justice was, that would fight for freedom and principles and the constitution and restore it. and iowans had an opportunity, and they didn't take it seriously. as iowa goes a week from monday, so goes the nation and freedom of all mankind. i am convinced of it. i told ted before he was senator, i had him on the air a couple of times. and i talked to the guys on the radio show with me off the air, and i said what do you think of

that guy? they're like, i don't know. i don't know, he kind of talks like a politician. i'm like, i know, and i can't put my finger on it, but he does. he kind of talks like a politician. i said this to ted on the air, and i called him into my office afterwards. and i said you talk a very good game. but let me tell you something, if you go to washington and you don't do everything you said, i'm to going to be your worst freaking nightmare. [laughter] i don't have friends in washington for a reason. [applause] and we watched him. and we watched him. and we watched him do exactly what he said he would do. we watched him stand alone. we watched him as the democrats turned on him, as his own party turned on him, as the media turned on him, as many

republicans in america turned on him, and he stood there against all odds, he stood against the stone -- or the storm, and he said i will not move. [applause] i told you, this is where i would stand, and i will not move! [cheers and applause] there are a lot of really good people that are running, and i don't know who you're really considering. i hope there's people that are not just diehard ted cruz fans here. i hope there are people who are still out deciding, and i have to tell you, they're good people. i like might be e owe. i strongly disagree on a few of his stances like the nsa and spying on people, but -- [laughter] i really like him as a person. he's a really nice guy. i like rand paul and his principles. he is a constitutionalist. he's got it. i don't think he can win at this

point. i really like ben carson, a good man, a great story, a man of profound faith and honor, he really is. [applause] but as we searched ourselves and we debated internally and i have been praying on this, i just don't believe that he is ready to be the president of the united states because a storm of biblical proportions is coming. and we need somebody who understands it in his gut, in his bones exactly what the framework of the constitution means. because this president, be it's the next president that comes in, the fundamental transformation will be set in stone, or we will repoint that cornerstone. so who do we go with? who do we stand with? do we stand with the bullies who buy and sell favors, who

destroy, who smear, who use every saul olin sky tactic and lie they can because it's just the way it's done, and the ends justify the means, or will we stand for the little guy who still actually believes in what we all want to believe, that if you just do the right thing, if you just have faith in god, if you play by the rules and you put your nose down and you keep out of trouble and you work hard, that you can actually change the world! [cheers and applause] it's the david and goliath story. it's the david and goliath story. it is the american story. the little guy that believes he can still make it even though all the odds are against him. and yet he's a guy who understands that it's not all about winning. it is about how you play the

game. let me tell you, if you elect ted cruz, you're going to get sick of playing the game exactly right every time. [laughter] [applause] because a country that deals with people with truth and compassion and faith and justice and honor and integrity and decency is a great nation. america will not last another four years with division and hatred and backroom deal making, an enemies list. it won't last, mark my words. people mocked me when i said the caliphate was coming. i knew then just like i know now, we will not last if we do not elect the right person. and we are better than this! [applause] we're better than compromising who we are. the next president of the united states, and i have said every

single person who has come into my office, all of them that are running, i have looked them in the eye, and i have said to each one of them do you realize that you may be the next lincoln with all that that entails? most of them respond this way: yes, i do. they know. they know what we are headed for. it's a storm. but more than that, we are headed for a reset. and when we reset, what are we going to reset as? as a country with a king? if you read the scriptures over and over again, the lord begs with his people, you don't have to go that way. don't go that way.

i've got the option right here. but they continue to cry out for a king. and so they get a king. this is the election, and you are the people that will make the choice for my children. no king, i beg you. i beg you, no king. [applause] the next president cannot be a man filled with vengeance and rage and enemies' lists. the next president must be a man who understands what lincoln said: with charity toward all and malice toward none, to bind the wounds of this nation. ted cruz knows the oath of office. he knows it is to protect and defend the constitution of the

united states of america. it's not to make sure that there is a chicken in every pot. to make sure that we don't any more warm weather. [laughter] to make sure that the rich pay their fair share. it is one thing; to protect and defend the constitution of the united states of america against all enemies, foreign and domestic! [cheers and applause] >> it truly is up to you, my

friends. it is truly up to you. i want you to know that it is an honor to be here with you tonight. i didn'ti didn't just come hereo endorse these principles, but for the first time in 40 years of broadcast i have found a man that i know i can look into his eyes and his word is his bond. that's why today i have officially endorsed ted cruz -- [cheers and applause] why i've officially endorsed ted cruz to become the first hispanic-american president! [cheers and applause] to become the first, first generation american president, the first true conservative president since ronald reagan. and ladies and gentlemen, the next president of the united states, ted cruz!

[cheers and applause] ♪ ♪ [cheers and applause] ♪ ♪

>> wow? wow! [cheers and applause] i don't mean to wreck his mojo, but let's see if he is trustworthy. about four hours ago and about three different events ago, i gave him the actual compass of george washington. dear god, tell me you still have it in your pocket. [laughter] oh, okay. [laughter] see? [applause] >> wow.

god bless the great state of iowa. [cheers and applause] david barden, bob vannedder plaats, steve king, glenn beck, what an array of strong, principled patriots! [cheers and applause] men who love this country, men who love the constitution, men who love god and men who are willing to stand up and speak the truth whatever the cost. [applause] and i've got to say every time i listen to glenn beck speak, i learn something. it's like going to school all over again. such a firm grounding in the

founding principles of our nation, such an understanding of the dangers of progressivism, the dangers and threats that are assaulting this country, and such an incredible faith and belief in the people of the united states of america. i am so proud to be standing with glenn, standing with each of these champions for freedom and standing today with each and every one of you. [applause] you know, i do have to say it's pretty cold outside. [laughter] [inaudible conversations] but you know what? it's even colder in washington d.c. [laughter] they've got a blizzard, and the government is shut down. [cheers and applause]

of course, the mainstream media immediately blamed it on me. [laughter] but i was a little confused. i mean, al gore told us this wasn't going to happen. [laughter] but i'll tell ya, it was cold in washington. it was really cold. >> how cold? >> it was so cold, i saw a democrat with his hands in his own pockets! [laughter] [applause] actually, it was hillary. she was just hiding an e-mail flash drive. [laughter] you know, and i will point out that more than a few commentators have suggested that on both democrat and republican side of this presidential election there may be some

candidates with napoleonic tendencies. so i am thrilled to be here in waterloo. [laughter] [applause] you know, we're here tonight because our country's in crisis. because we're bankrupting our kids and grand kids. because our constitutional rights are under assault each and every day, and because america has receded from leadership in the world. and it's made the world a much more dangerous place. and yet i want to share with everyone here a word of hope and encouragement and exhortation, something incredible is sweeping the state of iowa, is sweeping this country. there is an awakening, and there is a spirit of revival that is sweeping the country. [applause]

as glenn so powerfully observed, the stakes have never been higher than they are right now. and we're nine days out, nine days out from the iowa caucuses. the times of the political attack ads, the times of the radio ads and tv ads and mailers and all the garbage and back and forth, all of that has passed. and this is now the time for the men and women in this room, for the men and women of iowa to make a choice. to make a choice, and i'll tell ya, each and every one of you, millions of americans are counting on. to vet the candidates, to make this choice right. because when you go and stand up and caucus, you're not just caucusing for yourself or your family, you are caucusing for people all across the country that do not have the opportunity to do what each and every one of you is privileged to do. you have the ability to change the direction of this nation.

now, let me ask, has anyone else here been burned by a politiciansome -- politician? [laughter] [applause] have you all noticed that there's some politicians over and over again that sound great on the campaign trail, they say all sorts of things that sound terrific, and then they go to washington, and they don't do what they said? you know, we were told if, in 2010 if only we had a republican house, things would be different. how did that work out? then we were told the problem is harry reid. in 2014, if only we had a republican senate. how did that work out? over and over again, we've seen politicians who say one thing and do another. so how do we make this choice in this election? because i'll tell ya, we cannot get burned again. the stakes are too high.

i'm going to suggest a way for each of you to assess all of the candidates. which is don't listen to anything we say. don't listen to what i say, don't listen to what any other candidate says. ignore our campaign speeches. scripture gives us a different test to measure a candidate, which is you shall know them by their fruit. rather than listening to the promises candidates make, ask of each and every candidate, show me. show me where you've stood and walked. show me where you've fought for our principles. i'm going to suggest to you seven major battles we've seen play out in recent years. each of which has been, as ronald reagan would put it, a time for choosing.

and i'm going to suggest that looking to those seven battles, to those seven core principles is how the men and women of iowa should make this decision. let's start with life. life is foundational. without the right to life, there is no liberty, there is no pursuit of happiness. every other right depends on the precious, precious right to life. [applause] now, every candidate in a republican primary will say they're pro-life. have you noticed that, by the way? it's one of the great victories. have you noticed how many millions of dollars

establishment candidates are spending trying to convince us that they're really one of us? you know, on that debate stage you don't see a single candidate standing up there saying i'm a sir shi establishment moderate, i stand for nothing. [laughter] nobody says that. so they all say they're pro-life. fine. here's the question we should ask: show me. when have you stood and fought to defend the right to life? [applause] before i was in the u.s. senate, i was the solicitor general of texas, the chief lawyer for the state in front of the u.s. supreme court. in that role we led a coalition of states before the u.s. supreme court defending the federal ban on partial birth abortions, and we won, 5-4. [applause]

we led another coalition of states defending new hampshire's parental notification law, and we won unanimously. [applause] and when the state of texas passed a law banning the taxpayer funding for planned parenthood, a local district court struck that law down. i had the oklahoma -- the honor of personally arguing the appeal in the court of appeals, and we won unanimously, defunding planned parenthood. [applause] you know, many of us remember the second republican debate in the reagan library where just about every candidate looked in the tv cameras and emotionally talked about the need to stop planned parenthood. well, just a few weeks later was

a knockdown, dragging-out battle on capitol hill over taxpayer funding for planned parenthood. millions of americans rose up and said enough is enough, stop this! i was proud to stand with millions of americans, pastors across this country saying stop the funding. and the question to ask of the other very fine individuals standing on that debate stage, where were they? when the battle was being fought, where were they? a second principle, a second core principle is marriage and religious liberty. [applause] you know, we were heart broken last june when five unelected judges on the u.s. supreme court arrogantly purported to tear down the marriage laws of all 50

states. that decision was fundamentally illegitimate, it was wrong, it was not the constitution of the united states. it was judicial activism. courts do not make law, and that was lawless. [applause] that decision, likewise, was a time for choosing. several of the leading candidates, republican candidates for president when the supreme court's gay marriage decision came out, several came out and said this is now the settled law of the land. we must accept it, surrender and move on. ..

i'll note the institution of marriage was not created by the congress of the united states. it was not created by the supreme court. it pry seeds the united states of america. it precedes the supreme court. for mill lynn yaw god ordained marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

[applause] hand in hand with marriage is religious liberty. in the wake of this lawless, illegitimate marriage decision en an assault on religious liberty. for seven years from washington a assault on religious liberty. for me religious liberty has been a passion for two decades fighting to defend our religious liberty. i was proud to defend the ten commandments monument on the state capitol grounds in texas. go to the u.s. supreme court and win 5-4. [applause] when a federal court of appeals

struck down the pledge of allegiance because it includes the words one nation undergod i was honored to bring all 50 states to the supreme court and defend the pledge and win unanimously. [applause] when the aclu sued in california seeking to tear down the mojave veterans memorial, a loan white cross to honor men and women who gave their lives in world war i, i was incredibly humbled and honored to represent over three million veterans defending that veterans memorial. we went to the u.s. supreme court and we won 5-4. [applause] we're a nation that was founded

by men and women fleeing religious oppression, coming to this land, seeking a land where we could seek out and worship the lord god almighty with all of our heart, minds and souls, without the government getting in the way. [applause] just a few months ago we hosted a religious liberty rally here in iowa. as you know the media regularly ridicules and suggests these threats don't exist. what we did we brought together nine heroes, people who came and stood and told their stories, ordinary people. a florist, a baker, a soldier, a fireman, who simply stood up for their faith and they were persecuted. they were fired. they lost their job. they paid thousands in fines. they faced death threats. and i'll tell you, you hear their stories, and it's

uplifting. it is powerful. religious liberty is under assault right now. now i'll tell you, i have pledged if i'm elected president, on the first day in office, i will direct every agency of the federal government, department of justice irs, and every other agency that the persecution of religious liberty ends today! [applause] and also on that first day in office, i will instruck the u.s. department of justice to open an investigation into planned parenthood and prosecute any and all criminal violations.

[applause] if life matters to you, if marriage matters to you, if religious liberty matters to you, then don't listen to the promises of politicians. look to their records. because if a politician has never stood and fought for the right to life, has never stood and fought for marriage, has never stood and fought for religious liberty, if a politician has lived 60 years of his life-supporting partial-birth abortion, then we should not be surprised if as president they would not defend life or marriage or religious

liberty either. [applause] as glen powerfully observed the next president will nominate, one, two, three, maybe four supreme court justices. anyone who has never stood for life, never stood for marriage, never stood for religious liberty, i ask you a very simple question, what kind of supreme court justices do you suppose they will appoint? i give you my solemn word that every justice i appoint to the supreme court will be a principled constitutionalist who will be faithful to the law and will not impose his or her preferences from the bench. [applause]

a third time for choosing the battle over guns. the springs of 2013 we were all horrified at the tragic shooting in newtown, connecticut. when a sick, deranged individual went into a school and murdered little children, heidi and i are the parents of two little girls, that anyone would harm kids is an unspeakable evil. you know, president obama had the opportunity then to really bring us together. president obama could have brought republicans and democrats together and said, let's go after violent criminals. let's come after, let's target violent criminals. let's come down on them like a ton of bricks. but instead sadly the president followed the path that he follows over and over again, what his former chief of staff used to say, you never want to

let a good crisis go to waste. so instead he proposed not going after the criminals but trying to undermined the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. now let me tell you, the second amendment, it is not about hunting. the second amendment? it's not about skeet shooting or target shooting. those are wonderful. they are a lot of fun to do but that is not why the second amendment is in the bill of rights. the second amendment is in the bill of rights because it is a fundamental natural right of each and every one of us if anyone comes into our home, seeks to harm our family, seeks to harm our children, that we can keep and bear arms and defend our families. [applause]

well, barack obama in the spring of 2013 did the same thing he did after the san bernie sanders. he immediately -- san bernardino he immediately came after the second amendment instead. millions of us rose up to stop it. i was proud to stand with millions of americans against the assault on the second amendment as we rose up, lit up the phone, every single proposal of barack obama's to undermine the second amendment was voted down on the floor of the senate. [applause]

in a republican primary, every candidate says i support the second amendment. we say, great, when it was unassault from barack obama, was it ready to be taken away by the federal government, where were you? did you stand and fight or were you know where to be found? [applause] the a fourth time for choosing. obama care. take obama care. please take obamacare. in the summer and fall of 2013, millions of americans rose up all across this country against the disaster, against the train wreck that is obamacare. millions of americans lit up the phone and said stop us from this disaster that is taking our jobs, that is forcing people into part-time work, that is taking our doctors and insurance and driving your premiums through the roof.

millions of us stood up. i was proud to stand alongside each and everyone of you, to say, enough is enough is enough. now, this republican primary, every republican candidate says they oppose obamacare. although i would note that at least one of the candidates, a candidate that glenn had a lot to say about, at least one of the candidates supports bernie sanders style, full socialized medicine. now let me be clear. listen, in the past couple weeks, mr. trump has decided to unleash a load of invective and insults at me. that is his prerogative. i have no intention of responding in kind. [applause]

people of iowa and need more than politicians bickering like schoolchildren and insulting each other with taunts. not only will i not insult donald trump, i will sing his praises personally, but i do think policy is fair game. if he is going to advocate that the government should pay for health care for all americans, full socialized healthcare just like bernie sanders, then i'm obliged to point out that is exactly the opposite of where i stand on the issue and if i am elected president, we will repeal every word of obamacare.

[applause] a fifth time for choosing. is the rampant cronyism of the washington cartel. last year i wrote a book called, "a time for truth." describes what i call the washington cartel, career politicians in both parties that get in bed with lobbyists and special interests and grow and grow government. i said for a long time the biggest divide this country is not politically between republicans and democrats. it is between career politicians in washington and the american people.

[applause] every republican candidate for president stands up and says, i will stand up to washington. well that's great. the natural follow-up, when have you ever stood up to washington? who has taken on not just democrats but leaders in their own party? [applause] i tell you this any republican candidate who has stood up and supported barack obama's tarp, big bank bailout of wall street, any republican candidate who has stood up and supported barack obama's stimulus plan, and said it needs to be bigger and bigger and bigger, you can rest for sure they will not be willing to stand up to washington and the corporate welfare and cronyism that is

bankrupting our kids and grandkids. [applause] one principle that is very, very clear, no one in history has ever grown a backbone after moving into 1600 pennsylvania avenue. [applause] a sixth time for choosing, was the battle over amnesty. in 2013 we had an epic drag-down battle over amnesty. barack obama and chuck schumer and harry reid push ad massive amnesty plan, aided and abetted by far too many establishment republicans in washington. and rubio-schumer bill almost

became law. it passed the senate of the united states with a substantial majority. all of the democrats and a whole bunch of republicans supported rubio he-schumer amnesty bill. then it headed over to the house. house leader john boehner said he intended to take it up and pass it with the votes of democrats. it would have been republican leadership and all the democrats teaming up against all the republicans in the house of representatives. now, there are a lot of candidates in this case who talk about immigration. who say they care deeply about stopping illegal immigration, about stopping amnesty. well, as i suggested, don't listen to what any of us say. look to what we do. that was a moment where we were

inches away from losing. if house leadership had taken it up and passed it with the democrats it would have gone to barack obama's desk and barack obama would have signed the rubio-schumer amnesty into law. 12 million people here illegally would have immediately been granted amnesty. we were on the verge of losing it. that was a time for choosing. some chose to stand with chuck schumer and harry reid and barack obama. i'll tell you, i was proud to stand alongside senator jeff sessions and i iowa's own steve king and fight to stop amnesty and secure the borders. [applause] that was a moment, a time for

choosing. let me make clear. jeff sessions didn't win that fight, steve king didn't win that fight, i didn't win that fight. you won that fight. [applause] we provided a voice that helped provide a catalyst to millions of americans rising up and saying no, we want instead to respect the rule of law. we want instead to secure our borders. we want instead to maintain american jobs. we want instead to keep this country safe. [applause] now any con -- candidate today who tells you they care about illegal immigration and amnesty, if they did not stand up and lead with the american people stopping rubio-schumer in 2013,

then their actions have conveyed more than 1000 speeches can ever convey. if i am elected president, we will secure the border, and we will end illegal immigration. [applause] we're going to build a wall. i've got somebody in mind to build it. [laughter] and the seventh and final time for choosing, the battle over iran and stopping radical islamic terrorism. [applause] let me say, any presidential

candidate who believes we should maintain the iranian nuclear deal, leave it in place, see what happens, or maybe go to try to renegotiate it, does not understand the nature of the ayatollah khamenei. if i'm elected president, on the first day in office, i will rip to shreds this catastrophic iranian nuclear deal. [applause] the most important determination everyone here has to make in this election is who is best

prepared to be commander-in-chief. who is best prepared to keep this country safe. who has the knowledge. who has the experience, who has the judgment. who has the clarity of vision, who has the strength of resolve to hunt down and kill our enemies and protect the safety and security of the women and men of this country? >> you do. [applause] and that determination is made not based on campaign speeches but who has been standing and leading and fighting to stop this iranian deal, to stop isis, to stop radical islamic terrorism, to call it out by its name, islam system -- islammism is ecivil. any jihadist that declares war against the united states and joins isis, we will utterly and completely destroy isis.

[applause] seven fundamental battles, seven times for choosing. how do we avoid being burned? we demand of the next candidate not that they say what we want to hear. it is too easy to tell us what we want to hear. but we demand instead that they have walked the walk, that they have a proven record. you know i have an old boss who used to say if i'm ever accused of being a christian, i'd like for there to be enough evidence to convict me. [applause] the same is very much true. if we want the next president to

be a principled constitutionalist, a conservative, someone who defends life, and marriage and religious liberty and the judeo-christian values that built this country, then we need to demand whoever that candidate is, that he or she have walked the walk and have demonstrated they will stand with the people over washington. [applause] you know, many of you have gotten to know my father, pastor rafael cruz. [applause] as a teenager he was imprisoned and tortured in cuba. and he said to me many, many times, i've seen my freedom

taken away once before. and i'll die before i let it happen again. [applause] if you agree with me, if you agree with david barden, and bob van der plat and steve king and glenn beck, that the stakes have never been higher, that now or never we're at edge of a precipice staring down and about we continue going another four or eight more years in this current direction we risk losing the greatest country in the history of the world. if you agree with me, then i want to ask each and everyone of you to do two things. number one, join us. join us right now. come together, and commit

nine-days from now, i will stand in caucus and speak out and we will speak and stand united. [applause] in these next nine days, the iowa caucus will be decided. as the iowa caucus go, the republican nomination could well go, and fate of the country could well go. and so i want to ask each of you not only a week from monday you show up and stand and speak out, but that you reach out and friends and family and neighbors and everyone else and say, come, join us as well. i want to ask everyone here, to

vote for me nine times. [laughter]. now look, we're not democrats. i'm not suggesting voter fraud. but if everyone of you finds eight other people to show up and caucus a week from monday, you will have voted nine times. [applause] that's how we win. listen, every four years the state of iowa is beset by a pestilence of politicians. [laughter] that descend upon you, your tv airwaves, have attack after attack after at that attack. radio airwaves, one after the

other, after the other. mailers pile up, the good news on the mailers, they make really good kindling in your fireplace. but the time for all of that has passed. this caucus will be won friend to friend, neighbor to neighbor, pastor to pastor, each of you has the ability to stand and fight. we have nine-days, between now and caucus. find one person each day to come and caucus, we will win the iowa caucus. [applause] the second thing i want to ask each of you to do is pray. lift this country up and pray, to commit today, each and every

day between now and election day, to lift this country up in prayer. to spend even just one minute a day, saying father god, please, continue this awakening. continue this spirit of revival, awaken the body of christ, to pull us back from the abyss. [applause] we are standing on the promises of second chronicles 7:14. if my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways, then i will hear their prayers and forgive their sins, and i will heal their land. [applause]

let me tell you a bit of history. that our friends in the mainstream media will never share with you. in january 1981, when ronald reagan took the oath of office, his left hand was resting on ii chronicles 7:14. a very real and concrete manifestation of the promise from the word of god. this nation has faced challenges like this before. we have been at the abyss before. and the american people, it is not about me, or anybody else. it is not about a politician. it is about all of us, we the people, together. we have stood before and pulled back from the abyss. we have done it before.

and we can do it again to save this nation that we love with all of our hearts. [applause] [laughter]. [applause] >> thank you. [applause] >> come to caucus, come to

caucus, for ted cruz, bring nine other people and work it every day between now and week from monday. thanks so much for being here. god bless everybody. send this iowa message to the rest of the country. thanks a lot. can i -- ♪ . .

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

thank you for the support. [inaudible conversations]

it is an issue that i am personal about. i haven't studied the particular piece of legislation but i very strongly support and stand behind it. and [inaudible conversations]

in particular we were focusing on alzheimer's and so on and looking for the testimony that's needed for the investment to cure those diseases and we have rehabilitation to reform the fda to accelerate their regulatory approval. >> bullet to get people to -- and [inaudible conversations] thank you very much.

>> [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] thank you. god bless you. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] i am not sure where we are and when. it [inaudible conversations] thank you very much. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] we know all about integration and -- immigration. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] we will be praying for you.

[inaudible conversations] how old are you? twelve. you can still have a voice even if you don't vote yourself. thank you for being here.

thank you for coming out. in [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations]

♪ [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] there is a little girl peeking out.

in [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> welcome aboard. >> i'm sorry i was wrong. >> that's the whole process.

you take this. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] thank you very much.

[inaudible conversations] it's the best shot i've ever seen. he had something you could barely see.

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] i've wondered if you given any thought to the prices right now. i know free market should regulate. >> the value of the dollar keeps fluctuating and that's why i'm calling for auditing the fed.

in the farming world if you know what it's going to be then you can decide in [inaudible conversations] inaudible questions to the complaint

[inaudible conversations] there will would be no mandate, no subsidies. my plan eliminates all the subsidies of lille, gas, levels the playing field and then i wrote an op-ed to talk about the level of gasoline. that regulation in the spanish market share. if you want more about the details of how that would work --

[inaudible conversations] so she's off and crying and looks up and with the help you get the voice saying luke i am your father and james earl jones saying this is cnn and then another another since another says to you line, this is my cloud and another says i'm sorry. >> so that's my favorite one. >> nice to meet you.

>> i ran into a group of iowa teenagers at a fast food restaurant and asked about the census and they had no idea what it was. >> thank you for being here. [inaudible conversations] if you get five people to vote you can vote now.

in [inaudible conversations] do you want me to sign her book for you? thank you for coming down today. >> it's an honor. can i get my picture taken with you.

>> [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]