their limits. and that is by design, both on the end of congress and have been limited by the court. so, even what we have operational today is a little bit narrower than the original feca or the bicra, as it was originally passed in 2002. so, that is really the reach of our campaign finance laws. and as i mentioned a few minutes ago, it may not even reach some of the things that many voters, who are watching television, think it does reach. they might think that an issue ad that is talking about a particular issue before an election really is a campaign ad and it might not fall within the jurisdiction of the act and therefore the fec. and i think there's a lot of good ideas for additional reform in congress. i think there are additional changes that we could make at the fec to our regulations to clarify some things, to increase some transparency. your second question is whether i think they're likely and i think it's -- particularly in

the near term, it's going to be very difficult in the middle of a presidential election year, it is very unlikely that any major changes would happen, in time for this election cycle to have a real impact. there have been a number of folks who have studied this issue who think that the advent of the super pacs, the information, the lack of information that's flowing from 501s to super pacs, that this may be, and i think it was senator mccain who actually suggested that, of course, one of the authors of the bipartisan campaign reform act, suggested that he's concerned that there is so much money flowing in, again, to the system, that we may be headed towards another scandal and unfortunately, in this area, it does seem like it takes something big, something to get people's attention before changes can be made. i would certainly hope that's not the case. at the fec, we are doing our best, as we can, within our jurisdiction, to ensure that we

can detect anything that's going on. but it's -- it is a challenging area of the law and in regulation. >> we turn to another question, student from the university of virginia. libby? >> hi cynthia. thank you. do you believe that increased campaign finance disclosure will be beneficial or harmful to candidates in campaigns? >> it depends -- i guess i don't ever believe disclosure can be harmful. i think it's -- not only is it a good thing, as a matter of public policy, it is something that the supreme court has said that voters are entitled to. one of the aspects of citizens united that doesn't get quite as much attention than the part where they said corporations could make this kind of -- engage in kind of spending was, they did uphld on an 8-1 basis the disclosure that goes along with making some of these

expenditures. and they said that it -- disclosure serves an important governmental interest in making sure that those who are watching the messages can understand who is paying for them and assess them as they make their decisions about who they want to vote for in an election. so, even if some are reluctant or feel like they could -- this is some how a negative, the supreme court has told us this is something that voters are entitled to. and i agree with them on this point. part of my job as a commissioner is, the supreme court gets to decide what the law is, especially when it comes to deciding what is constitutional and my job is to follow it, regardless of whether i agree with them or not. i encourage how not disclosing could be harmful to have basic

information about what a campaign is spending its money on. >> timothy and julia, i'm going to show this piece of video, this is from charlie cook, who is the editor of the cook political report and i guess you could qualify this as the law of diminishing returns, at what point does money not make a difference, and the reference that he uses was the $120 million spent in 2010 in the california governor's race. let's watch this and timothy, we'll come back to get your reaction. >> money is hugely important but it's not totally determine that. and, in fact, there are times when there is a law diminishing returns, or, where the public just says, sort of no mas. and, you know, with meg whitman spending, for example, in california, you know, it seemed to be working, working, working and then suddenly people just said, ah, no. and they kind of rebelled against it a little bit.

and there may have been a little bit of that with connecticut, with linda mcmahon. and obviously didn't happen everywhere, can rick scott winning very very narrowly, the governorship of florida. but you know, money is hugely important but there does seem to be some limits to what it does. >> so, timothy, let's begin with you and julia, your reaction. agree or disagree with the premise behind charlie cook's comments? >> well, i do think the amount of money that is spent is important and i don't think that it's entirely inconsequent shl. it's not really the amount that is spent, i believe it is who spends it and thus who has influence in the government. >> and julia, what about you? >> i agree with his point, because if you look at rick santorum in the primary, he doesn't have as much money as romney did or gingrich but he did quite well in the primary.

i don't think it's as important as people make it out to be. >> cynthia bauerly? >> well, i think -- i understood his context. he was talking about candidates that self-fund. and i think that is something that has yet to be seen in this new regime. that was in a world where we didn't have these things called candidate specific super pacs. and one of the aspects about this primary campaign that we've recently been observing in the republican party is that while the candidate's committee may not have had as much money on hand, cash on hand, as some of the others, a super -- a candidate -- a super pac in support of a candidate could come in and really help buoy a campaign. so, setting aside saul of tall , i think that's something interesting to analyze out of this last race and really

understand how the shift has happened from candidate committees and some of whom, as was mentioned, you know, a self-funding candidate, whether -- if i can put $120 million of my own money into a race, if there's a super pac supporting my opponent who can put $120 million into the race, it might change the way that self-funders, both are perceived by the public in terms of having an impact on the race with their money and also in terms of how effective they are, because of the total amount of money being spent on the endeavor, whether it is from the candidate's own committee or from a super pac that is supporting it, that might even out what's going on with a candidate itself. >> go back to bob, professor at george mason university. bob? >> thanks. i have a student who has a question about amount of money but before getting to him, correct me if i'm wrong, i

wanted to fill in a little about the atmosphere in the atmosphere in the 1970s that led to this cry for reform. as i recall, an official of the committee to re-elect the president, which went by the appropriate act crow anymore of creep. maurice stance, found with a briefcase holding $100,000, people thought it was shocking, you have a briefcase filled with so much. and one of the well remembered momentstapes is when john dean was quizzing the president about what it would take to buy the silence of the watergate conspirators and suggested $1 million, which today would be several million today and nixon said, well, that wouldn't be a problem. i think it was generally understood that that's because all the money they were raising

was considered a kind of slush fund, it just provided a lot of money in safes that could be dragged out and given to any purpose. and i think that's the sort of thing that really put a sour taste to the campaign financing of the day. >> i agree with you. i think people weren't aware of how much money was going in and that's one of the reasons that the contribution limits were part of the federal election campaign act. it's also probably behind the idea that corporations couldn't be spending money, the prohibition on corporations had been around for a much longer time period, of course, but some stricter limits came in. i also suspect that's a lot of why some of the expenditure ideas were floating around at that time, because people

thought that maybe you shouldn't be able to just hand someone a suitcase full of cash. that the campaign may have to have a purpose for that that wouldn't be illegal. so, that was probably -- like i said, there -- it seems like, if you go back and peel a lot of what was going on with watergate, there was sort of a problem in search of -- a problem for every kind of solution you could want in a perfect campaign finance system. now, not all of them were implemented vigorously, of course, but it certainly provided a lot of fodder for people who were interested in regulation in this area. >> let me go to christopher c conw conway, and bob, we'll be back with you in a moment. christopher, from philadelphia. go ahead. >> hi, miss bauerly. thank you for joining us today. you mentioned how the fec has a three and three nature, you can't have more than three members of any political party on the commission at one time. and obviously you need four votes for the fec to take any

action. because of this, a lot of people have criticized the fec as toothless or slow-moving. as a commissioner, how would you -- what is your perspective on these characterizations? >> i would agree with some of them, actually. yes, it is the nature of the -- the statute set up a system where no more than three could be from one political party. that has not always meant that there are three democrats and three republicans. at this point in time, we have three republicans, two democrats and an independent. but we do need four votes to take action and so that does require bipartisan, if you will, compromise on most of the things that we would like to do. sometimes i've personally found that compromise is more illusive than i would expect it to on certain issues. i think for many of the years of the commission's existence, this issue really wasn't as

problematic as many on the outside said. this isn't really a political divide. this is more of an ideological deslide. the tension between the first amendment and regulation to ensure there's no corruption in our system has existed throughout the system, including at the fec. given some of the changes in the law and frankly, the makeup of the commission, there have been an increase in the number of 3-3 divisions where we haven't been able to reach a consensus on how to move forward on a particular matter. it is unfortunate, in my view, something that we work on every day to see if there's some areas for come ppromise. i hear the criticism and think some of it is real founded. the real problem is, figuring what kind of system, what kind of regulatory agency could you create that would solve that problem, of potential deadlocks or disagreements, without being susceptible to this idea of a party capture?

it would, of course, be easier if we had five commissioners and there were an appointed chair who had two people aligned with him or her, but that would be very susceptible to criticism on the if it took votes on party lines. and i think the credibility of the agency would, in that situation, would also be a challenge. so, i think it's an ongoing challenge and i think the for particular students who are thinking about these issues, there are some ideas that have been floated in the past in legislation, to change the structure of the agency and i think those are all good things to think about in terms of trying to create a more effective agency. on the other hand, this is an area where we do have to balance free speech rights with important issues of government make -- making sure that government is not viewed as corrupt. these are issues that people

have thought about for a long time, specifically for 40 years, before then, when there were efforts to get a regular late or the in this area. >> bob? >> thanks. i know, in regard to the discussion of whether any amount of money at some point becomes less useful, that people start to resent the use of money and so forth. i have a question from chris clark, kind of a different take on a question of whether an infinite amount of money eventually loses it potency. chris? >> do you think that there will come a point in a campaign when having so much money seelss to be a value, that is to say, will there be enough places for the campaign to spend all that money? >> and it goes back to the point from charlie cook. you know, the other thing, too, most of the money is spent on television advertising and you've been in communities, where you see another ad for another candidate, does it turn you off rather than make you

want to vote for that particular person? >> i think that that's a little bit up to the industry. i think, i read a report, it would have been in january, that when rick santorum decided -- couldn't find any air time left to buy in new hampshire, because it had all been taken by other campaigns and by pacs, i think as long as there's air time to buy on television or radio, that there probably isn't such a thing as too much money. but i guess we'll see. i mean, the estimates for this 2012 election have some ranges, because there's a lot of assumptions that are difficult to understand, giving the changing nail sure of whnature going on. they are all in the billion dollar range and i think that given the per pond rans of, you know, we're not just talking about three broadcast stations anymore, with cable and with targeting of who you want to target, different viewers,

different mailing lu ining list expect that candidates and committees and super pacs will continue to be creative enough to spend all of the money that they can possibly raise. >> fec.gov is the website, if you want to get more information and the mission state, some of you have been asking about. ariel, our next student question from the washington center. ariel? >> so, as in the 2008 election, certain campaigns were found using credit cards such as -- that didn't require security codes or prepaid credit cards. is there anything that the fec is trying to do to change the rule on these types of donations to stop them from being unlimited an untraceable? >> i had a little bit of trouble hearing the question, but i think it was about credit card donations and credit card donations are treated the same, largely the same, anyone who

makes a contribution to a candidate or party committee or pac has to provide basic information to that committee and the committee has to report any contribution over $200, whether that was given by a check or by a credit card. so that information campaigns do -- they have to make best efforts to verify that information, they have to gather such things including the name, address of the contributor, their employer and their occupation. and campaigns follow up, sometimes they send letters, sometimes they send e-mails, they have to follow up with c contributors to make sure they have that right information. they also, often, take special procedures, if they see someone, for example, who provides an address that is from outside of the united states, because foreign nationals aren't allowed to contribute to campaigns, they make sure that is actually a u.s. citizen living aboard, just has an outside address or returns the fund, if they can't verify that.

campaigns do engage in what we call best efforts and do have to follow up to make sure that all of the contributions they receive are permissible. >> let's go back to 2008, i want to share you with and the students what barack obama, the candidate, had to say as he announced he was foregoing federal matching funds. this is, again, from the summer of 2008. >> we've made the decision not to participate in the public financing system for the general election. this means we'll be foregoing more than $80 million during the final months of this election. it's not about easy decision. especially because i support a robust system of public financing of elections. but the public financing of presidential elections today, is broken. and we face opponents who have become masters of gaming this broken system. john mccain's campaign and the republican national committee are fueled by contributions from washington lobbyists and special interest pacs. we've seen that he's not going to stop the smears and attacks from his al lies running 527

groups who will spend millions of dollars in unlimited donations. from the very beginning of this campaign, i have asked my supporters to avoid that kind of unregulated activity and join us in building a new kind of politics. and you have. instead of forcing us to rely on millions from washington lobbyists and special interests, you fuel this campaign with donations of $5, $10, $20, whatever you can afford. and because you did, we've built a grass roots movement of over 1.5 million americans. we've won the democratic nomination by relying on ordinary people, coming together to achieve extraordinary things. you've changed the way campaigns are funded, because you know that's the only wake we can truly change how washington works. and that's the path we will continue in this general election. >> that was, of course, in 2008, and that became a defining moment when it came to candidates, either agrieving or not agreeing to federal matching funds in the general election.

>> well, in that same election, of course, senator mccain did take matching funding but it was the first time that a general election candidate of a major party had not taken it for the general election. there was a lot of public matching funds that were handed out in the public matching funds that were handed out in the primary of that election but not in the general for the democratic nominee. the republican nominee did take the grant which was about $87 million. and the issue about whether our campaign -- our public funding for the presidential election system is sufficient has been on the table for a long time. there have been efforts in congress to revise how it's working, to expand it to congressional campaigns, because of course in our system it only exists right now in the presidential system. and the concerns are a number of them, but whether you can keep pace with given the spending that is going on by others in the system is really i think a

legitimate question to ask. i think that a public funding system, from my perspective, is a very good thing. it does allow for candidates to spend more time doing things like campaigning rather than raising money. but it's -- i think it's a question that congress is going to have to grapple with. >> as you look at this, is there a model elsewhere in the world you think we could apply here in the u.s.? >> there are models all over the world. the challenge in the united states is the first amendment. it also -- the first amendment, which of course not only discusses the freedom of political speech but it protects the media. in some countries, for example i've had an opportunity to learn about what's going on in mexico. and in ecuador and a couple of other latin american countries. and they allocate air time. the agency that is the equivalent of my agency, the federal election commission, allocates air time to every candidate and every political

party. for free. i expect that in this country the media companies might have something to say about that and legitimately so. so there are challenges to our system that will take a creative solution to that. but i do think it's something that's worth continuing to work on because i think it's an issue that many americans, many voters, have concerns about in terms of how that money is being raised. >> so let's go back to this outside spending and congressional races. you said something that's very important, that is the issue of freedom of speech, which is the centerpiece as you know of the citizens united case. so that blue line is a representation of freedom of speech, correct? i mean, that's what the courts are saying. >> well, the situation in citizens united is if you are engaging in speech that is not coordinated in an -- independent of the candidate or committee, that the government doesn't have an interest in limiting you because it said that independent

speech can't be viewed as corrupting or having the appearance of corruption. >> but when you hear those ads that for example say tell rick santorum he should abide by mitt romney's tax plan. clearly it's not a direct vote for mitt romney but it's to help mitt romney or barack obama or newt gingrich or any other candidate. >> uh-huh. sure, and that is all part of the debate in their country. again, this gets into areas where i think most voters would read that, would see that ad and assume it is about the election, and i personally think they'd be right. but the strictures of our law, the definitions of our law, don't always cover the same types of ads that we might think. clearly, if it says vote for someone that is clearly an election ad that falls within the vic of the fica. if there is an ad that is running about, for example, this happened in the 2008, there was all this discussion of financial reform and bailouts for banks and there were also issue ads

that were run in that time frame. and because both senator mccain and president obama were sitting in the senate at that point in time, they were also people who were voting on some of these issues. so they actually had legislative issues as well. the line between legislative issues, what we call issue ads, and political ads, campaign ads, can be a very difficult line to see. and of course, the first amendment does protect both. but when it comes to election ads, campaign ads, we have this added element where we have to balance ensuring that there is -- that we are trying to curb the corruption or the appearance of corruption in our system. because from my perspective, if everybody -- if people don't have confidence in the system that elects our government, then it's very difficult to see how the government is accountable to the people. obviously there will be another election coming up and you can exercise your accountability with a vote.

but if you don't know what's going on in those campaigns you're not a very informed voter, informed consumer, of that kind of information. so that's where the disclosure piece is so very important. is and i think there's something to the idea of, there's so much information out there. this is where there's the idea of diminishing returns is a little like trying to drink from a fire hydrant. there is so much information coming at us, so many ads are out there, there's so much activity on social media, it becomes very difficult sometimes to discern who's really behind some of these messages. i think it's very challenging for voters and it's getting more and more challenging to understand what candidates are really about, what their agendas are, what their priorities, are so that voters can make the kinds of decisions they think are best for the country. >> of course, the tactic with web ads that don't cost a nickel except to produce them, yet may generate a lot of news stories and news attention, but not the

kind of ads you would see on television. let's get a question from anna i don't haver, westfield state university. >> my question was on the reports. who are the donors who contribute to candidates, why is it important that you put out personal information such as addresses? >> so the reports that are filed with the fec are filed by the candidates, their committees, political parties or political committees themselves. they file those reports with us. that is -- those items are items that are identified in the statute and regulations as what is needed to satisfy the reporting requirements. so that's not something that i personally have control over. and we have -- recall that all these requirements went into place before the internet. and the internet has changed all of our lives. and i certainly -- there has been some criticism about the

idea of putting addresses on, because one of the things that happens with our data, not necessarily what we do with it. we put on -- when you look at reports on the website, but also other institutions, other organizations, have access to that data in a raw form. and so they may pull that data, and i know there's some organizations who republish that data, and there have been concerns raised about addresses. at this point in time it is one of the requirements. if anyone has a personal reason for a security issue, figure in law enforcement or a prosecutor or something like that, we will of course make sure that information is not made available if there's any sort of safety reason. but outside of that, that is one of the requirements for when campaigns file their reports with us. >> let me go to bob lichter at george mason university. >> i always thought that the adage money talks was a metaphor. as i listen it seems like money in politics is speech.

and the supreme court has almost said, that i think, that the expenditure of money to get your point of view out is effectively the use of free speech. but i was wondering, apart from the constitutional issues and what the court has said, brian glassactor has asked me to voice a question for him. if you personally think given as you say candidates will always find a way to spend as much money as they have, if we'd be better off if there were an absolute ceiling on campaign expenditures. >> well, that's certainly something that was tried in the '70s as part of fica and the court found those expenditure limits couldn't be squared with the first amendment. they are, of course -- they all do exist in the context of the presidential financing system, but the court found that was acceptable because that is a voluntary program where in exchange for getting the government money, you agree to

some expenditures. i think a lot of people do have that question. it has been settled by the courts, at least in the formulation as it was in fica. i think that there are a lot of ideas about what is acceptable and what's not and in the rigors of the law that govern everything in this country, the constitution is our foundational document, that sometimes people find sort of troubling in practice. i think this is one of those areas where it seems like it should be a solution, and yet is foreclosed by supreme court precedent. >> let me pick up on that point in the interests of kind of moving forward where things are going in terms of campaign finance law. mcgahee was a guest of ours a year ago, with the campaign legal center. she basically put on the table what's working, what's not working, what needs to change with regard toer