major piece, we have to ask about this and push people at every level. i have seen now the career path. there's a who would used to work for me, we were doing our super pac work in 2007 in california who wanted to move to ohio doing the state-wide field campaign, jen brown. that put her in a position to be the executive director in texas. you move up from level to level. it matters to actually be asking at whatever level, county, region, state, asking the question, who are you actually promoting, who are you investing in? i think it's largely incumbent upon those of us who want to see this happen to both be a squeaky wheel as well as trying to be nurturing and elevating the next generation of people who want to do this kind of work. >> your statistics seem to be based on the last two presidential elections where a

very charismatic african-american was up. what would have happened and how would those statistics have been skewed if we have -- which we might have -- in the next presidential election a white candidate? >> that's the $64,000 question in a lot of ways. it's really going to be -- you will see how that will play itself out. i was thinking about doing a gathering about after the black president and starting to have that conversation, what is that going to look like. that was very helpful and should not be minimized. yet lost under the understanding of what the obama campaign -- expiring african-american candidate. you had a lot of technology and cutting edge tools. at the end of the day, they had thousands of paid staff people doing the really methodical drudge work of going door to

door, identifying people, turning them out. there's that. the other is that there's a challenge around what is the policy agenda. are we articulating a policy agenda which will speak to people who don't vote. many of the people of minimum wage have run on a theme of vote yourself a raise. then it becomes a more tangible point of why you are voting beyond just this particular person. i would submit that for 2016, we saw -- i feel in many ways the '08 was the culmination of the civil rights movement. there's a reason oprah and jesse jackson were crying. there was a history around what that meant. the next wave of what is pent up within this country in terms of leadership is women's leadership, women's empowerment, women's role in running the country. as much as there is a strong sentiment that propelled people around electing the first

african-american, there's going to be the firsame with a woman president. that will be a big factor in 2016. >> thank you. if you look -- think about history, back in the 1800s there were signs irish need not apply. my ancestors from italy, italians were not allowed in shaker heights early on. to what degree do you see what's happening with people of color as kind of an extension or not an extension of what's happened where it used to be irish and italians were considered outside of the fold where now everybody would think of them as white and wouldn't think anything about it? >> i think it's -- i do think that that's taking place. the writer james baldwin wrote a collection of his work is called the price of the ticket. in the intro he says the price for the european immigrants was to become white.

so that has taken place. you do see it in different regard, particularly in terms of different elements of the latino and hispanic community and some segments of the asian community, a desire to be treated in just that kind of mainstream fashion. the challenge is that color is such -- so ingrained in terms of the perceptions, a lot of the biases and prejudices. dr. king talked about the number of synonyms for the word -- around the color line, the color issues. so it's more difficult when you look that different to just be assimilated in. that's going to be part of the challenge. the hope would be that we would actually move to a point of not wanting to sub limate.

it's all in there but it's mixed together but you maintain the different characteristics and flavor of the various communities. >> mr. phillips, as a conservative and someone who believes in liberty, i come out at a different solution than you at some things. i accept at many do the challenge that those of us who believe differently have an obligation to communicate with the brown community. my question is, with respect to your statistics, there was a reason at the university of akron there was a seminar and it talked about one of the best e prepredick tors was religious belief rather than race or anything else for that matter. there's a lot of folks who are of color, african-american churches, hispanics who are very active in their churches, who i think the polls suggest come to a very different point than the progressive point of view on a

number of issues, whether it's the social issues, whether it's limited government, fiscal conservatism, a lot of other things. isn't there the liekslyhood that what we need to do is come together somewhere more in the middle rather than the extremes of either end and have a conversation more about a range of ideas and a range of solutions? >> i think i agree with that. we used to talk it's not about left wing or right wing but the moral center. one of the critiques i have of ro aggressive faith communities that we don't make enough -- we don't associate the progressive agenda enough with the strong religious and biblical underpinnings of things like dealing with poverty and addressing healthcare. i think that that is a potential area to be able to come together. i want to be clear. my fundamental point is also a

challenge to progressives and democrats that they cannot take people of color for granted. that george bush was very effective within texas around understanding and validating the cultural reality, the cultural sentiment of the latino community. his faith-based initiative won over a number of different folks. in those communities towards being allied with him. people used to say back in the day, it's no permanent friends, no permanent enemies without permanent interest. they were talking about improving the conditions of people in the society, extending the benefits of the american dream broadly. i think there are things that can be done in that regard. my wife and i were talking about how there's a lot more common ground now among conservatives and liberals around criminal justice issues. there's a lot of -- it's very expensive proposition to go about criminal justice work the way that we do within this country. some of the republican leaders in the south, mississippi, were

talking about the incarceration alternative ways to rehabilitation people. that's a type of a solution. we were supportive of cory booker who we went to college with as well. he is looking at reaching across the aisle to republicans around some of these sentencing reform issues. i'm all for it, particularly since nothing can get passed in current situation, is that where we can find agreement i'm all for that. i'm not arguing that it should be a proposition that just moves in that regard. i think there are a lot of things that the democrats in particular have been slow on in terms of validating a lot of the pieces around the important of faith in people's lives and ed by -- and building an agenda that speaks to that. there's work that needs to be done. >> i just wanted to say, steve, as a hawken alumni, i'm sure i

speak for the community, how proud we are of you and what you have become in your life. i was reminiscing to think 35 years ago i used to sit in your tv room and watch you dip french fries into your frosty. we used to think you were weird. i want to say how impressed and how happy we are with what you are trying to achieve. my question is, i know your talk is the browning of america and the new states that will be the states to look at as far as texas and things of that nature. ohio always seems to hold itself around election time as being a very important state. before we were to move on from that, what do you think or what would be your recommendation for ohio specifically because it always comes down to the last night. we never know which way we are going to swing. i would love to have maybe a blueprint or something plan or some advise from your point as to what ohio could specifically

do for 2016 and even now with our government. maybe you could help with that. >> back in high school you didn't think i would amount to much, did you? ohio remains one of the bell weather states within the country. in a lot of ways -- because ohio is almost split down the middle in terms of its electoral trends, efforts in ohio make a bigger difference. the margin is so small. if you can increase the participation that has an impact. it's worth studying and understanding better what obama did to be able to win here. the increased significantly the african-american turnout that shocked romney people.

their models were wrong as to how many people -- how many african-american people they thought would turn out. this is the -- this is part of the challenge is that this work is not -- it should not be episo episodeic. what is the civic engagement infrastructure and involvement in leadership development that's going on around the clock? it's almost back to the civic club type of days is that people who were a presikt leader on turning out for obama, can they be supported to be civic leaders and getting people to the city council meeting or to be part of a block club? you start to know who all of your neighbors are. you continue to have that relationship. election time, you know who the folks are. you are not just turning out to them. i think what i was meaning with turner today talking about how

much has preserved of the obama infrastructure. that is one of the biggest challenges that we can think about doing is how to actually sustain the activist, the organizers who get inspired and do this work between election cycles. able to preserve the infrastructure will enable i think us to continue to have the outcomes we want to see. >> in spite of ohio's division between republicans and democrats in presidential elections, we have a portionment of congressional districts done in a way there's believed to be one competitive district in the state of ohio. so i would like you to address the issue on a broader basis of the -- malapportionment of congressional districts and its impact on the progressive movement. >> i really believe that

redistricting is going to be the most important political fight of the next 20 years. so it's under appreciated how much with the republican wave of 2010 taking over all these different state houses and then drawing the lines in 2011 as locked in an undemocratic configuration of congressional districts. democrats won more -- more people voted for democrats for congress than voted for republicans. republicans still have an 18-seat majority in the house. that's just a configuration of redistricting. but i feel like that progressives were asleep. very little effort, very little organizing around the engaging in the actual drawing of the lines. so we need to be vigilant and

pro active around that. it's seven years from now. mark it on our calendar that we have to be engaged in that process. the other thing is are there ways to also democratize. it took it out of the hands of the state legislature. the lines were drawn by a neutral commission. looking at the data and numbers and not factoring in -- ironically, it's actually helped democrats in california. you start to see how much the previous lines had been drawn to protect particular individuals. they didn't -- they weren't concerned about the overall configuration. don't mess with my individual district. if you take that personal consideration out, cut the lines according to what the data actually shows around the demographics, you get better results. it's something to think about. i know there was an effort to try to get a commission here

that was not successful in ohio. but something to not give up on is that you can have it be more objective, then you can draw lines that reflect what is the actual composition. in a state this divided, this close every election, you shouldn't have a two-thirds majority in the state legislature. that's not reflective of who is in the state. it's worth engaging in the fight to be able to draw lines that are fair and reflective of who is within the state. >> you mentioned some of the issues that the republican party seems to be having. you mentioned in-fighting and potentially the cresting of the tea party. you -- you called them sophisticated republican forces that are emerging. i was hoping to ask you to educate us a little bit about some of these forces that you see and what we might want to know about them and watch them and watch what they're doing. >> i think before recent

troubles -- we will see how it plays itself out. chris christie has been masterful at his political route that he has taken within new jersey. he is quite the contrary of all the hostility we see about the president. he is literally embracing the president and working together across party lines on problems addressing the state of new jersey. that creates a certain profile and a certain image. then he's been very meticulous around reaching out to leaders within the different communities of color. he actually had -- it's not an accident that the house refuses to take up immigration reform. but they passed a state-based dream act for immigration reform in new jersey. he whittled it down a little bit but he signed that deal. i know one of the more left

pro-immigration latino groups has on their facebook page, chris christie, great job you are doing. then you see that. yesterday, marco rubio is starting to look at -- speak up about poverty issues and inequality. this growing inequality. we have to deal with this. pushes around minimum wage. rubio is talking about there are other ways to go about dealing with this. historically people have not addressed those issues. we have been able to say we stand for this -- we stand for ending poverty. we stand for multi-cultural inclusion. that's been the defining -- that's been sufficient to define the distinction between the party. when you have both parties saying we're for ending poverty, we're for dealing with cultural diversity as well, then stroyoue to dig deeper. democrats are not used to do that and are going to have to be more intentional and assertive

around putting forward what they think should be the agenda to meet people's needs. >> looking at our current senate, they are a little bit notorious for not being able to pass any bills at all. this is an issue that it seems like both political parties are going to have to address. do you see an area where we could start to compromise around this issue of colored voters? where both parties come together to create a mutually beneficial way to benefit the people who are voting. >> give me a minute. i think -- frankly, i think that is no accident that there are so many efforts to suppress the vote right now is that there's a very clear understanding that the more diverse the voting population becomes, the

expectation is the worse it's going to be for the republicans. so that is why you see these efforts to throw up all manner of legal -- one would think that this is a democracy and that in a democracy you want everybody to vote. we should do everything we can to encourage people to vote. particularly, maddening watching in florida people standing in line for hours and hours trying to be able to vote with the governor, his own constituents not seeming to care that his people are going through that kind of difficulty. because it was serving a political -- his political end. it's going to be a challenge. i think the one thing that i could think about -- some of the folks who are trying to get ahead of this curve, marco rubio, he tried to stake out this around immigration reform, this piece around the poverty part. can you look at some of those folks to be able to partner?

it would be in their interest to be seen within these communities as being concerned about the needs and about the interests. the other idea, the potential is out there. woip d i wonder how much we can achieve common ground around the application of technology. when you go to the department store and you can -- you don't have to wait. you pull ougt your krecredit ca and vote. why is it difficult to vote? why condition an't we ver if vt to vote? can we partner with google to have the validation to cross partisan boundaries. >> welcome home. we now understand your thesis that brown is the new white and that that's going to

fundamentally change the political dynamic in our xhunt. could you tell us more about what your organization is doing to leverage that opportunity, what they're doing specifically in ohio, around the country, what they're planning on doing and how people can get involved if they want to? >> what we're trying to do is to create an infrastructure and a vehicle to respond to this changing demographic moment. so we want to connect and coordinate progressive people across the country, use techno logical tools to pool resources and move resources and coordination to strategic races in the states going through demographic changes. we pulled money from as kro the country, moved money to support wendy davis when she was running for re-election in texas before she became famous this past year. looking at -- we put money behind cory booker.

the next democratic senator -- african-american senator within the u.s. senate. we're looking for people like that across the country. we're trying to diversify the population of elected officials and elected leadership within the country in a way that we can have people both inspiring and committed to addressing the needs of the country's new majority. people refer to us as -- emily's list for candidates of color type of a model. that's the work we're trying to do. also trying to put good information and data out there so people can understand what's happening. we can make public policy and political plans based upon an appreciation of good arithmetic. that's the basic thrust and the work. people can learn more and can sign up at pacplus.org. it's been enjoyable creating this vehicle that has enabled us to get connected with a lot of like-minded and idealistic people across the country.

>> mr. phillips, you said earlier that a lot of communities of color want to be treated as part of the mainstream. as a result, they may shy away from grouping together to have these hard discussions about politics and race. so how can communities of color overcome this barrier and start having these discussions? >> i'm a strong believer in the power of leadership, in that we have to be able to identify, support and then connect leaders within all of these different communities. so if you look back historically -- we saw the movie on mandela over the holidays. you have to understand how the south african freedom struggle came together. you have leaders and -- leaders create organizations. those organizations relate to the communities. without that leader who are connecting people, educating people, informing people, encouraging others to

participate, it's going to be very difficult. so i think that that is something i'm very focused on is trying to identify energetic, xhi committed, talented younger people to take on a leadership role and to be able to encourage and work with and educate and move their communities. that i think is really one of the core critical components. then if we can get people within the communities doing work with the communities to then the leaders have relationship with one another, that's how you start to build a very broad multi-racial inclusive movement that can move the country forward. >> i would like to ask, since you said about 80% of all brown america is democratic leaning, how would you see it if the republicans were smart enough to run a candidate like condolisa

rice? why has the affordable care act created such a riff in america? it's not just created a riff among corporate america but a riff among americans. it's like a top uk yic you don't to bring up. >> on the rice thing, my first flip thought is don't give them any ideas. interestingly, there was talk about her running for senate or governor in california, which i would be concerned about because of these reasons. she's not ideological, she's a woman, she's african-american. she would be an appealing candidate. but she did not fit the conservative orthodox of elements of the democratic -- california party. so she couldn't get the support. s similarly when powell was thinking about running for

president, he would have been formidable. so it's -- these things -- we do have a -- a contentious history within this country. we don't like to talk about it. but we have come together through taking the land from the native americans, taking the southwest from the mechl cans, enslaving africans. way the country has been built with all of that history is still very challenging and still -- i feel the core of a lot of the politics of the country. people like colin powell are sensitive and want to speak to that, want to address the inequities within our society. there's another very -- what i would say far right political grouping, which wants to preserve the status quo as unequal as it is because they have benefit. that's a big part of the

tension. then it ties into the healthcare piece is that -- when we had the war on poverty, 50th anniversary now, when bobby kennedy went to west virginia and talked about we have poverty and lifted up four children, that that touched something in everybody about these children, this is not right. we should do something about it. it touched the morality, the conscience of the nation. part of the challenge of the history of the country is that we feel a sense of otherness. so if a child looks differently or doesn't speak our language, there's not the same empathetic response that we have had. this notion around everybody should have healthcare because we are a great nation that has the capacity and that's what our values are is not the way the conversation is playing out. which is one of my frustrations with the white house. instead it's like those people are taking -- are getting helm care and taking money from me. it's the vision.

that's partly what is tied to the division within the country. i think that's why we have had this. my hope is that we can he have v elevate that to who are we as a nation that is inclusive, speaks to our values and embraces us regardless of what we look like or what we sound like. thank you. [ applause ] >> today at the city club we have been listening to a friday forum featuring steve phillips. thank you, ladies and gentlemen. this forum is now adjourned. [ applause ]

fbi director james comey will speak at the brookings institution about technology, privacy and public safety. right after that the director of the centers for sdredisease con and prevention testifies about the u.s. response to ebola. he will be joined by the director of the national institute of allergy and infectious diseases. it starts live at noon eastern also on c-span.

videos need to include c-span programming, show varying points of view and must be submitted by january 20, 2015. grab a camera and get started today. it's the third and final meeting between the candidates. recent polling listed it as a to tossup. it's live at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. our look at political campaigns continues now with a debate on campaign finance laws. the event looks at the supreme court's 2010 citizens united ruling and the notion of money as speech. the event is co-hosted by the miami dade ethics and public

trust commission and c. thomas university. it's close to an hour. [ applause ] >> thank you, nelson. it really was a privilege to serve with you and to serve as your executive director for 13 years. i'm here simply today as a moderator. my role is pretty limited. i'd like to have the two debaters come up, mr. bopp and mr. bonifaz. this is different than the previous sessions. this is going to be a modified debate, if you will. we're going to be debating the topic of campaign finance and citizens united decision. the backdrop for all this is as you know in 2010 the supreme court issued the landmark citizens united decision and more recently in april of this year -- talk about timeliness. when we were planning this conference we had no idea that

we were going to get hit with another supreme court decision on issues involving money in politics. so we're really entering a brave new world concerning the financing of political campaigns. i really have the distinct privilege of moderating the debate between john bonifaz and james bopp. they are two of the nation's leading authorities on the subject of campaign finance laws and the effects of the supreme court decisions on our political process. i could speak for a long time about each of them. rather than to bore with you that, please read your program. please google them and you will be very impressed with their qualifications. mr. bopp is coming from indiana for this event. and mr. bonifaz is from washington, d.c. we appreciate them. >> massachusetts. >> massachusetts, even better. we appreciate them coming down for this event. let me just explain the format to you. we will have time for questions.

initially, each individual is going to be given an opportunity to milwaukake a ten-minute open presentation. mr. bonifaz will speak first and then mr. bopp. after the ten-minute presentation, their opening statements, each will have a three. >> marv: hi-- a three-minute rebutt rebuttal. after that, we will take questions. then at the end of the session, we will give them each a minute to sum up. with that, i will turn it over to mr. bonifaz. you -- i think it's better to stand here. c-span is recording this. i think they wanted to focus on this lectern. thank you. >> thank you. thank you to the miami dade commission on ethics and public trust and saint thomas university center for ethics for holding this debate on this critical question of our time. american democracy is in crisis.

big money interests dominate our elections and our government, drowning out the voices of ordinary citizens. five justices of the united states stream court have hijacked the first amendment for the wealthy few distorting the first amendment's guarantee and under mining the promise of republican self-government and political equality for all. in four years since the citizens united rule, millions of citizens across the country have propelled a growing grass-roots movement for a constitutional amendment to overturn the supreme court and to defend our democracy. 16 states have already gone on record calling for such an amendment, including the states of montana and colorado where 75% of the voters in the 2012 election supported ballot initiatives demanding such an

amendment. 500-plus cities and towns and more than 160 members of congress are also already on record. the united states senate will soon hold an historic vote on the bill which would end big money dominance of politics and restore the basic vision of our republic. government of, for and by the people. i will address four central points as to why the supreme court's rulings in citizens united are work and why we must fight to overturn them in the name of the first amendment and our democracy. point number one, money does not equal speech. in its 1976 ruling, the supreme court equated money with speech and struck down campaign spending limits passed in the wake of the watergate scandal. the ruling set us on our current

course today of unlimited campaign spending where our elections are sold to the highest bidders. but as former supreme court justice john paul stephens said, money is property. it is not speech. money, in fact, amplifies speech. for the very wealthy in our society, money enables them to be heard at the loudest decibels, at the expense of the rest of us. the spending limits at issue were reasonable regulations on the manner of speech, not on speech itself. by equating money with speech, the buckley court sanctioned a system which allows the very wealthy and now corporations to distort our political process and the very meaning of the first amendment. point number two, no one has a first amendment right to drawn out other people's speech. the supreme court stated in

clearly in 1949 case. a union in the city of trenton was blaring its message with a sound truck going down every street. in response, the city passed an ordinance requiring that sound trucks could only go down every third street. the supreme court upheld the ordinance as a reasonable regulation on the manner of speech. it found that public streets served other public purposes that needed to be protected and as justice jackson wrote in his concurrence, freedom of speech for kovac does not include freedom to use sound amplifiers to drown out the natural speech of others. the d.c. circuit court of appeals in the buckley case recognized this very point in finding the campaign spending limits to be constitutional. it would be strange indeed, the

appellate court said, if by extrapolation outward from the base iks rights of individuals the wealthy few could claim a constitutional guarantee to a stronger political voice than the unwealthy many because they are able to give and spend more money and because the amounts they give and spend cannot be limited. campaign spending limits ensure that big money interests may not drawn out the voices of everyone else in our political process. point number three, today's campaign finance system violates the equal protection rights of non-wealthy candidates and voters. stream court has long held that wealth cannot be a factor in our elections. in 1966, in harper versus virginia board of elections, they struck down the pole tax as unconstitutional on equal protection grounds. in 1972, it struck down high

candidate filing fees on the same basis. the supreme court made clear in the exclusion ari white primary cases that a process which has been a critical part of the machinery for getting elected must be open to all. today's campaign finance system operates as an exsclus ari wealth primary in violation of the equal protection clause. voters and candidates lacking access to wealth are effectively barred from the wealth primary. the wealth primary has become a critical part in the machinery for getting elected. almost invariably, those candidates who win the wealth primary who out raise and out spend their opponents go on to win election. a system that preselects candidates based on their access to wealth is contrary to equal protection in the political process and owe finance receive to the basis principal of one

person one vote. writing for the court and striking down high candidate filing fees in the state of texas, chief justice burger said, we would ignore reality were we not to recognize that this system falls with unequal weight on voters as well as candidates according to their economic status. we would ignore reality today were we not to find that this campaign finance system falls with unequal weight on voters as well as candidates according to their economic status. point number four, corporations are not people. in citizens united the court equated corporations with people and swept away a century of precedent barring corporate money in our elections. corporations are not as some have argued merely associations of people. such an argument would not pass

a basic corporate law exam in law school. corporations are artificial creatures of the state. unlike a voluntary, unink rated association of people, corporations have state-based advantages that you and i as real live human beings do not have. limited liability, perpetual life, the ability toing agate wealth and distribute wealth. and for those very reasons, the framers understood that they were not to be treated as people under our constitution. james madison said corporations are a necessary evil subject to proper limitations and guards. thomas jefferson hoped to crush our moneyed corporations. as a result of citizens united, five justices of the court have unleashed unlimited corporate and union dollars into our

elections making a dangerously corrupting system exponentially worse and extending further the fabrication of corporate claims of constitutional rights. >> you have two minutes. >> under our constitution and under our republic, we the people shall govern over corporations not the other way around. in the face of this crisis, we must now use our power under article 5 of the constitution to enact a constitutional amendment to overturn the supreme court and to defend our democracy and our republic. we have done this before in our nation's history. 27 times before. seven times to overturn agreenlous supreme court rulings. we can and we must do it again. and we will. for as dangerous as this moment

is for our democracy, it also presents a unique and historic opportunity to unite around our common vision of america. a country may be divided on many public policy questions of the day. but we are united behind that basic and powerful idea. government of, by and for the people. that common vision fuels the current movement for a constitutional amendment to reclaim our democracy. as james madison wrote, who are to be the electors of the federal representatives? not the rich more than the poor, nor the learned more than the ignorant, not distinguished names more than the humble sons of obscure. they are to be the people of the united states. in the name of james madison, it is time for a 28th amendment to

the constitution that lifts up that fundamental promise of our democracy and makes clear that we the people not the corporations nor the big money interests rule in america. [ applause ] >> thank you, bonifaz. mr. bopp, you have ten minutes to make an opening statement. >> thank you very much. i must admit, i'm one of those agents of the corporate and big money interests since wisconsin right to life, citizens united and the most recent case were all my cases. of course, in those cases i was representing an advocacy group in wisconsin whose sources of funds are people of average means who all they wanted to do

was lobby their incumbent members of the united states senate to urge them in 2004 not to filibuster president bush's judicial nominees. of course, they ran square into mccain feingold's black outperioublackout period which made it a criminal offense for a labor union to run any ad that mentioned the name of a candidate for federal office. what they wanted to do was to urge the public to contact them about an upcoming vote in congress. now you might wonder, why is it that congress would pass such a blackout period, that people who come together into groups, people of average means, that's the only way they can participate is by coming together as a group. why is it that congress thinks it's outrageous and a criminal

offense for someone to have the audacity to lobby them about an upcoming vote in congress? this is as old as time. incumbent politicians object to being criticized. they hate it when people talk about what they're doing to us and for us in office. and the people who founded our country were surely one of the most sophisticated group of politicians and political thinkers that have ever come together in the history of the world. they knew that if -- that the experiment in self-government where it is the people that are going to govern themselves would certainly fail if the government could decide whether the people could exercise the four indispensable democratic freedoms that allows that system of self-government to operate. and that is speech, press,

association and petitioning the government. so they wrote the first amendment. john didn't mention it, but let me. which said that congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, press, association and petition. well, you know, it wasn't a few years before the federalist party passed the alien is a decision act in 1790 to suppress the speech of the emerging republican party of thomas jefferson. and people were prosecuted and went to jail for doing things that were considered said decision. that is to disparage the government or any public official. criticize them about what they're doing to us and for us in office. well, it didn't work, as often

these attempts by incumbent politicians to protect themselves against the people and using campaign finance to suppress their speech often doesn't work either. thomas jefferson won. the acts were repealed. he pardoned those convicted under it. it's perfectly obvious from that experience that it's going to be very difficult to get incumbent politicians to get off the train. the train is to use government power against who they perceive to be their enemies. john, his speech was talking about who he perceives to be his enemies. corporate and big money interests are his enemies. our enemies of his liberal agenda or enemies of what he thinks is the authentic will of the people. so what he wants to do is suppress those voices. so that he can get his agenda

adopted through congress. incumbent politicians will do that as well. it's bipartisan. it happens on both -- with people on both sides of the issue. that's why our first amendment was adopted. is that -- is to prevent incumbent politicians from using the power of government to suppress who they view to be their enemies. so now, is there any doubt that they have had a difficult time understanding what the word no means? well, i had three daughters. they thought when they were teenagers that no meant, well, it's okay this time, isn't it, dad? so we have had periodic passage of laws including the most recent mccain feingold law. and, of course, here the irony of john's lamb bafting of his

perceived enemies, the corporations and big money interests, the irony that mccain feinld that he championed targets the very groups that people of average means must have in order to participate. mccain feingold targets advocacy groups in imposing this blackout period in terms of mentioning names of candidates in broadcast ads. they attack political parties for raising money regulated under state laws in order to impose more restrictions on what political parties could say about candidates for federal office. they attack unions with the same blackout periods. they did nothing about any rich person. there's not a sentence in mccain feingold that adversely affects the ability of a rich person to spend their own money in -- for politics. what about people of average means? they don't have the money. what they have to do is

associate. they come together in a group. they pool their resources. now they have the money to participate. rich get off. the people of average means are shut out. he calls this attacking the big money interests. i call it enabling the rich people to be the only ones that can participate in our political system. he praised the expenditure limits that were passed as part of the 1974 post-watergate amendments, which limited what a preside presidential candidate can spend to $20 million in a two-year election cycle. he calls this not suppressing speech. i do agree with the fact that money is not speech. that's always been the big lie.

they say we say that. we don't say that. that's ridiculous. what the problem is is that if you limit the money that can be spent on speech, you are limiting speech. does anyone doubt the limiting obama in 2008 to spending only $20 million to run for president of the united states doesn't limit his speech? come on. john? of course it does. somebody has to buy the soapbox. somebody has to buy the megaphone. how many people can you communicate with that you can't spend any money to go see to speak to them personally? >> you have two minutes. >> thank you. that is why campaign finance limits on spending money violate the freedom of speech is because they limit what somebody -- the amount of speech that somebody

can do because the reality is is that it costs money to communicate. you know, the final thing i might say about john's presentation is how offensive it is that he thinks everybody that's involved in politics are crooks. i mean, they have a veritable industry that's funded by the largest private foundations, the richest private foundations in our country that are just continually generating this concept that every public official and many of you who may not be but work in government are simply just a bunch of crooks. that are available for purchase at really quite low prices, because john has advocated and defended contribution limits as low as $100 to run for state representative. now, you know, i went to law school here in florida. but honestly, even in 1970, i didn't know a single state rep that you could buy for $100 in

the state of florida. but he thinks they're that cheap. so it's not surprising that people are cynical about politics and government and think people are crooks when you have an industry that spends an enormous amount of time and money and effort painting all politicians and public officials with this brush. that takes us really to the final affirmative point that i want to make. that is, the real problem in our public finance system right now is low contribution limits. everything that -- all of the things that are disturbing people, the lack of transparency, the total lack of accountability in many instances of actors within our political system all are occurring because of the low contribution limits.

said another way, somebody who is interested in, for instance, things that are happening in congress and they want to support a candidate that shares their views and they are prepared to spend $50,000 to do that, a trial lawyer -- >> your time is up. wrap it up. >> thank you very much. 30 seconds. one, two -- no. they're not going to be satisfied with just spending $2,600 in contributing it a candidate. they will find some other mechanism participate so they get to the trial lawyers pack. they give to the, some c4, some super pac, who will spepd the money less efish eefficiently, be less transparent or in some cases no transparent at all, and they are not on the ballot. so the contribution limits should be increased in order to allow for a much more

transparent, much more accountable system, which will lack many of the portions we suffer undercurrently in our system. thank you. currently in our system. thank you. >> thank you. okay. we will give each side up to three minutes to rebut. so you don't have to take the full three minutes, but if you want, you can. mr. bona fide? >> thank you. we at free speech for people are interested in lifting up voices, not depressing voices. and our view of the current campaign finance system is that it depresses voices. because when you allow the very wealthy, and now very well endowed corporations and unions to drown out other people's voice, you are effectively suppressing those voices. now jim agrees that money does not equal speech. i think that's fabulous we

reached agreement on that. i want to make clear, however, that when we limit the amount of money of money in our elections, we are limiting speech. scholars all over the country understands that. justice stevens understands that, when he says money is property, not speech. we limit the volume of speech. this very debate today has time restrictions for jim and for me. i can't stand up here and filibuster because it wouldn't be an open and honest debate. we have time restrictions. we do this all the time under first amendment juris prudence. regulation on speech. and campaign spending limits operate as a reasonable regulation on the manner of speech. those who speak very loudly

unlimited are able to drown out the voices of others who do not have the money to make expenditures at those decibels. now another point of clarification. jim said i think everyone involved in politics are crooks. well i happen to run for office, i don't think i'm a crook. i don't think everyone in politics are crooks. that's not what we are saying at free speech for people. we do believe that a system in which candidates running for office must cater to wealthy interest and big money interest and corporate interest and union, big union interest, in toward win that wealth primary, in order to be successful. but that process is corrupting of the fupdmental principle and government of, by and for the people. there are a lost well-meaning and descent people in politics. and they actually, many of them, are on the side of saying we need a constitutional amendment to overturn things and to reclaim our democracy.

[ inaudible ] >> thank you. so the last point of clarification is the idea that somehow this is about a liberal agenda. or that i somehow wand campaign spenders to promote a liberal agenda. i have to be very, very clear on here. i'm a small v democrat. small r republican. i believe in republican self government and i believe in the promise of democracy. this is not an issue solely for one side of the political spectrum. 55% of voters in montana voted for mitt romney in 2012 and 75% of those voters voted for r ballot initiative with common cause calling for constitutional amendment to overturn the supreme court ruling. across the political spectrum and across the country people believe that this system, undermines the fundamental promise of democracy, regardless of their ideology. this is about a small v democracy agenda. thank you.

>> thank you. [ applause ] >> setting the same ground rules. 3 minutes, if you need it. thank you. >> no self respecting lawyer would say something in a sentence that could be said in a paragraph. i'm glad that -- i've met john a number of times. i'm glad he finally heard me, which i said for decades, that money is not speech. but that spending money on spooem speech, if you limit that, then of course you are limiting speech. he says he wants to list up but not suppress. now, lifting up would be public funding. giving money to people that don't have money so they can speak. lifting up would be tax credits, which by the way i'm in favor

of, for people making modest contributions to candidates, pacs and part peeps that's lifting up. that's enhancing the ability of someone to speak. that's not what he's talking about. what he is talking about is shutting up other people that he thinks, he thinks, and he thinks he can get the government to think, spends too much. of course it isn't anybody that spends too much. he hasn't said a single word about the union that will spend 400 million in this election cycle. to support their agenda and his agenda. so this is, he talking about suppressing voices that he doesn't want to hear and he can get the government to shut up. court repeatedly rejected this idea that you enhance the voice of somebody by suppressing the voice of another. no, you don't. and it is not a question that

there is not enough like ad time where people can buy additional ads. it is not that the ads are all bought up so they aren't available. they are available. and we need to lock at ways to enhance the ability of people to participate and of course he attacks those which are corporations an labor unions. and watch the praises of decisions that would drive the political system and of course that's the only way people of average means goat participate. we're not talking about how high the volume son a particular ad,er with talking about how many ads to buy. he wants to limit the number of ads or prohibit people from buying ads, particularly people that he doesn't like. now cater to the wishes of the wealthy, or whatever phraseology he used, big interest, isn't that an interesting word.

cater to. what does that mean? what is he driving at? does he think that it's wrong that politicians have friends? does he think it's wrong that they give a hundred bucks in a campaign contribution? he supported such low limits. you know, we have contribution limits in order to prevent the undue influence of a particular contribution. the court upheld that in order to exclude large contributions that would tend to unduly influence. >> jim, excuse me, less than a minute. wrap it up, okay? thank you. >> thank you. they are talking about undue influence of not friendship, gratitude or appreciation. they are talking about quid pro quo corruption. the final thing, which he has absolutely no interest in reopposing the limits that both corporations and labor unions

share before citizens united, has no interest in opposing that on unions. demonstrates conclusively that this is a partisan effort. unions are the big ef spenders in our, as a group, in our political system. they are seconded by trial lawyers and of course they are rich individuals. he doesn't want to limit them either. so the two biggest groups, he has no interest as far as spenders and limiting and they are the two biggest groups supporting the democrats and the unions. so this is without a doubt a partisan political effort just to shut up voices that he personally doesn't like and this is exactly what our founders wanted to prevent. [ applause ] >> thank you. we will give you, i know it's

not much time, but a minute each at the end. we run a very tight ship here, so we have to stay on askon schedule. we have questions from the audience. some of them look like general questions. if you don't mind answering from there. looking at these for the first time, one question is, did zit zens united allow unlimited donations by unlimited corporations question mark. if not, what is the problem? >> first of all, i got to make it clear that i have not said nor have we said at free speech for people that we want to support the people of unlimited union money in elections. we've made clear in the constitutional amendment we support would equally apply to corporations and to unions. we believe the whole decision of citizens united, which allows unlimited corporate and union money in election says wrong. so jim has just gotten that completely inaccurate in terms of how he view wlaes the

amendment would say. as far as unlimited donations directly to candidates, it is correct that there are still direct limits on what you can give to candidates. but the problem here is that we have unlimited expenditures. we have the ability of unions, corporations, wealthy individuals to make unlimited expenditures. this resulted of course in the super pacs as well, post citizens united. and the problem does predate citizens united and the case of buckley and it is why we must engage in overturning the rulings, because unlimited expenditures, undermine any purpose of having direct contribution limits. the unlimited expenditures allow these big money forces and corporate forces and union forces to dominate our elections and our politics. and you know, just other point on this which is public funding elections, i totally support

public funding elections. i've been in court defending public funding elections. but in post zints united and most fec era, public funding elections will be very much vulnerable to this idea that wealthy individuals and big money interest and forces can make unlimited expenditures making such a system ineffective. i think we need all these reforms moving forward. >> just a couple of points. first, is many of the things, and john and i have known each other for years and we have debated many times. i know what he supports and he knows what i support. you heard in his opening speech and rebuttal is all about corporation. nice when i challenge him he wants to throw unions in, too. i wasn't talking about his amendment. i do agree his amendment would encompass unions but also

encompass the press. this is one of the big secrets out there that the reformers don't want c-span and others to figure out, and that is that these amendments will allow -- me and new york times versus sullivan was overruled. as many of you know, that protects people running for office -- i mean, protects citizens and their ability to criticize people running for office by imposing a higher standard for libel actions against citizens by politicians. and of course, one of the things that they had to, the courts had to decide, because this involved the states, was that the 14th amendment does confer rights on people and the question was, was the "new york times" a person. and the court has long decided that under the 14th amendment that, you know, the corporations

and many other entities and people are encompassed within those protections. what he doesn't say is that he would also overturn new york times versus sullivan. he would treat the media, of course which is currently owned in many instances by multibillion dollar international corporate c conglomerates that he rails against. if you look before 1974, the court cases, what you will find is that all of the big free speech court cases involve the press. the "miami herald" sued because it was a florida law that required that if they criticize a candidate that they had to give equal time and space for candidates rebuttal in the newspaper, and the supreme court struck that down. the montgomery, alabama paper

had to sue because an alabama law that said they couldn't endorse candidate on election day. so the press has been one of the real targets of people -- of incumbent politicians and reformers who want to control everybody's speech and decide who is worthy of speaking or not speaking and what voices are to be suppressed because he doesn't like the message. and the press has been one of those targets. and of course, targeted once again in his amendment. >> we're not going to be able to get to all of these questions. i have a few others. one, and this is for you, and i'm sure you can weigh in on this as well, the question is, mr. bafa, do you believe there should be a ceiling on any amount of money a union can contribute to a campaign and i guess a core larry to that, do you think that money that is contributed has no influence on how a ledgis lator or other official votes once they've been elected? >> all right, first, limits.

right now labor unions can be prohibited from contributing to candidates. contributions are also subject to a lower standard under the law as far as allowing contribution limits to be had. i do think that they are bismally low. i say to republican kbrups groups, and i'll chance it here, you capital even buy a republican group for $2600. and the an ek doital evidence is that it takes six figurees. congressman jefferson in new orleans had $99,000 in cold hard cash in his freezer and he went to jail. to to be bipartisan, republican from san diego, came in for earmark after weapons system, he

was chairman of the house on services committee. he would literally pull out a schedule and the lowest schedule based on the value of your earmark was $140,000 and y yacht. i don't know where he got the yacht thing. but in any event, to buy these people, it takes much more than $2600. and the effect on our system has been a tremendous distortion driving money aby from the most accountable and transparent sources. i think is fine, great that we have super pacs. i won the first case in the court of appeals saying the super pacs were legal. but i'm not in favor of driving money to them. and by having low contribution limits, that's what we see. you can't vote against the super pac. can you only vote against the candidate or maybe the party, political parties candidates and so they are accountable super

pacs aren't and of course, what john proposes and supports would do, you know, continue to create that distortion. the other question on influence, yes, i can see, and this is why i keep going back and forth on whether i really support contribution limits. yes, i can see that there are some politicians that if you give enough money to them, you will be able to unduly influence them. meaning you'll be able to get them to change their vote from what they would have otherwise voted to something else. but frankly, it takes a lot more money than $2600. so you know, if it is really a seriously large contribution, i can see some undue influence. i think we have to make a decision whether on balance we want to be able to know what

interests are influencing our politicians because they actually give them the money and we can vote for or against them. i mean, when interest gives money to super pac, how does anybody know that has anything do with candidate x or candidate y. how do they know it has anything do with even what the super pac does. and leave it to the voters, frankly, i go back and forth on that. >> so i'll just jump in here. i think that other dimension of this question needs to be about the promise of quality for all. $2600 is not something that the vast majority of the american people have at their disposal to contribute to political candidates. the kind of miepd come together system, coming in from .00001% of the population. those are the people who are participating in this campaign financing process. so jim talks about ordinary voices wanting to participate, but the vast majority of the

money coming in to this system is coming from the very top percent of our society and that is undermining the principle of one person, one vote, and promise of political equality for all. other thing i would add on the freedom of the press point, i would urge jim that there is a section that you can get access to it, section 3 of senator udall's amendment says something about the freedom of the press. the questions of the freedom of the press are different questions. editors, journalists, producers, they all have freedom of the press right as individuals and those are protected under this amendment. >> okay. thank you. i guess moderators privilege here, i'm going to go off the board and ask you, either one of you questions you want to respond. this is more of an issue i that occur in local elections.

but the wealthy candidate who finances his own campaign where he doesn't need contributions from anybody. whether it is mayor bloomberg or recently in miami beach, we had a very wealthy person elected office. do any of you have any point about the wealthy individual who runs for office, loans campaign money and doesn't take -- >> well, it is the same quality concern. in buckley, the court faces the question of coming out of congress. passing in the wake of the water gate scandal, which would apply across the board. to candidate expenditures, including whether they raised it from wealthy friends or from their own bank account. but it is not, it is not what democracy is about when we allow only those who are very wealthy to play this game, to enter into politics or have access to wealthy friends. now i understand at the very local level ofs government it may be different in terms of the

kind of mind it takes to run for office. but the ultimate trajectory that were on here with the campaign funding process, even in the local elections, we will see citizens unite vd has a destructive impact. because if you go at a local level to go against a corporate interest or big union interesting with and i did mention union in my opening remarks, that perhaps jim needs to read outside this event, but if you goes go against those interest, citizens united come in and independent expenditures targeting you and make that anti-democratic. i think that is troubling as well. >> okay. any thuoughts to respond to my question? >> yes, sure, i do. it is true that what john's approach to this is all about equality and nothing about freedom. and of course, he thinks he can

shoe horn that in under the first -- well, used to think -- good point, used to think you could shoe horn that under the first amendment and now he realizes he has to change the constitution in order to get that concept in there. and he has a his own peculiar view of equality. he is not so much in favor of equality under the law here. what he is in favor of is equality of result. that is, than everybody gets the opportunity to spend, but that everybody can spend what any other person can spend. now, think about that consequentially. if quality is the driving consideration, well then that means since there are a significant number of people that can't contribute anything to candidates, then really equality means no one can contribute to any candidate. that would only be to the context of true equality and frankly points to really where i

thi think john wants go and that is not free election run by the people, and the government would decide how much you get and how much you spend and what you can spend it on. and there we would be. he wants to target labor unions, simply demonstrate his view that it is not about the rich people. that it is about people of average means. pooling resources. that's what labor unions of all organizations. that's what labor unions do. their members. pooling their resources and participating. so he thinks that a bunch of people who are very modest in means because they pool -- they have the you a das it to pool resources and implemt plemt in the system are an evil source and need to be suppressed. as the rich generally, you know, i think it is fine if they

participate in the political system. i just don't want them to be the only ones that get to participate. and that's why we need the participation of labor unions and associations and corporations and advocacy groups in our system. on the political effectiveness, which he seems to be somewhat interested in anyway, what i have found is that there's more liberal democrat rich people than conservatives. frankly, i admit to being a republican and conservative. and while some liberal interests seem to think they stand in the way of getting their liberal agenda, you know, they find out differently when they go to hollywood and raise eet normous sums that they do from the richest people in our country. but look, there's rich people on both sides. this is not about partisan politics or punishing those people you don't like or suppressing those you're

fearful, you know, speak out in opposition to your favorite policy. but about the ability of all of us to have outlets of participation in our political system bipartisan efforts, by government agencies to suppress our speech. >> okay. i don't know if either of you want a minute to sum up. it soundsed like that was a summation. but you can have another minute if you want it. >> i can always say something else. >> i'm sure you can. as most lawyers prerogative, they do like to talk. anything to say in summation? >> yes. and as i make a summation, i would just say that there are many, many unions that support the constitutional amendment because they recognize they cannot kmecompete with exxon an mobile and receive ron in the political process and they need to have an equal and level playing field.creceive ron in t political process and they need to have an equal and level playing field.hreceive ron in t political process and they need to have an equal and level playing field.ereceive ron in te political process and they need

to have an equal and level playing field.vreceive ron in the political process and they need to have an equal and level playing field.receive ron in the political process and they need to have an equal and level playing field.onreceive ron in the political process and they need to have an equal and level playing field.eceive ron in the political process and they need to have an equal and level the political process and they need to have an equal and level playing field.eive ron in the political process and they need to have an equal and level playing field.ive ron in the political process and they need to have an equal and level playing field.ve ron in the political process and they need to have an equal and level playing field.e ron in the dr. martin luther king, jr. says the arc of the moral university is long but bends towards justice. when we look at what happened in the poll pac case going before the supreme court, we have to remember, that was in 1966 case i stated, earlier before that, there was a case brought in 1937, a group of poor voters challenge the poll tax. a fee charged to voters in order to vote. they got to the supreme court. they lost. the supreme court said within it is necessary to charge the fees in order to fair it out the p f frivolous voters. surely if you were a serious voter you could come up with the dollar, 1.50 to vote. a second group of poor voters challenged the tax. they too got to the supreme court. they too lost on the same grounds. then on the way to the virginia board of elections, the 24th amendment to the constitution, was enacted.

barring poll taxes in federal elections. but there remained four southern states that held on to the poll tax for state elections and virginia was one of them. and that's why in 1966 the supreme court finally got it right and the court said what qualifies as equal protection under the equal protection clause, does change. and does evolve. dr. king is correct. the right side of history is one that says that democracy will prevail. not big money interest. big union interest. big corporate interest drowning out our speech and undermining the fundamental promise of political equality for all. >> thank you. you know, when we were designing time limits here, i thought, how can we give a lawyer one min out for anything. but we're trying. mr. buff, your closing thoughts on this topic? >> you know, the example that john just gave demonstrates the

fallacy in his argument. the government set the poll tax and the government then impoesd the obstacle or burden on people tarpies pating. government doesn't determine the price of ads. the government hasn't decided that ads are going to cost something. it's the marketplace. the private -- reality, one. and private people doing that. you know, so you get the lumberjack to work for free to cut down the tree in order to make the news print so you can do this for free? so it's not about the government imposing a barrier. it is about the government providing for freedom and preventing the government from imposing a barrier. which is the suppression of speech by criminal penalties. that john has supported and continues to support. secondly, as to exxonmobil and

chevron, to my knowledge, they haven't done a dang gone thing after citizens united. matter of fact, very few private companies for-profit companies have, labor unions do, but not private companies, because of the market force. they don't want to get in a controversy, lose customers, et vaet. what we have seen, though, is advocacy groups of all stripes participating and having new avenues of participation since citizens united. the final thing is, you know, we really reached the tipping point as for as contribution limits are concerned. we've had 13 states including florida raise their contribution limits and the reason is quite simple. finally the forces of the reality is sinking in on incumbent politicians. that by limiting contributions to them, they're not preventing

a challenger from getting the resources. they are actually hurting themselves vees why vee the independent spenders. super pacs, 527s, and advocacy groups. that's a good thing. contribution limits should be radically increased. and if we had that, we would have a more transparent and more accountable system. thank you. this has been an illuminating debate. [ applause ] fbi director james comey will speak at the brookings institution about technology, privacy and public safety. right after that, the director of cdc talks about the ebola outbreak. he will be joined by anthony

fauci. it starts live at noon eastern, also on c-span. >> this weekend on the c-span networks. friday night at 10:00 p.m. eastern, on c-span, from the texas tribune festival, a conversation about dealing with undocumented youth coming into the u.s. saturday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern, a town mall meeting on the media's coverage of events in furgason, missouri in st. louis. aep sunday evening at 8:00 on q & a, historian richard norton smej on his recent biography of nelson rockefeller. and friday night at 8:00 on c-span 2, author richard whittle on drones, their impact on aviation and how they transform the american military. saturday night at 10:00 on book tv's afterwards, author and commentator jake halpen on the

collection industry. friday at 8:00 on american history tv on c-span 3, martin luther king, jr. poor people's campaign and 1968 election. and saturday at 8:00 on lectures and history life booker t washington. sunday night, exercise delaware, joint readiness operation between the u.s. and iran when the two countries were allies. find our television schedule at c-span.org and let us know about the programs you're watching. call us at 202-626-3400. e-mail us at comments@c-span.org. or send us a tweet. join the c spann conversation. like us on facebook. follow us on twitter. >> c-span's campaign 2014 coverage continues with an iowa senate debate between bruce

braly and joni ernst. it starts at 8:00 p.m. on c-span. now a panel discussion on voter id laws an early voting. our speakers all have ties to florida politics and they debated the impact of such laws at the local level. this is part after political campaign ethics conference held at st. thomas law school in miami gardens. it is close to an hour. >> so again as was stated, our intention is to open up our conversation for questions from the floor. we invite to you participate by asking questions. first we're going to try to work our way through a preset agenda

of sourts. sorts on the voter panel vie. this is a distinguished panel this morning and i'm excited to be the moderator. the people on this panel, i think, have thought long and hardspr both in the trenching a in the academy about voter access to the ballot. ? roberto martinez we have someone who has served on the transition teams of two statewide elected official. charles zelden, we have a scholar who has written at least two books on hugely important

supreme court cases. one on bush v gore. another on sweat versus painter. as we thought and teachesi thes issues in the history department. in robert hernandez we have someone who has worked in the executive department of state government and who perhaps more than anyone on the panel has thought about these issues in service on with respect to ethics and elections here in the state of florida. and dan gelber who has been both a federal prosecutor, state elected official, has again sort of thought about these issues and on lots of levels most recently at least in my knowledge, as a member of the

voting rights commission, which held an important hearing here in south florida, earlier this year. and so i think we have a wonderful mix of viewpoint and perspectives both institutionally situated and to have, i think, a very fruitful conversation. so i will start with a sketch of what we would like to talk about with respect to issues around voting rights, fraud and access. the first is what comes to us reseptemberly out of the 11th circuit. that is the 11th circuit recent decision in garcia versus secretary of state with respect to the legality of the 2012 perthing of the voter roles for

purposes of purging noncitizens from the roles. and the decision was divided under the national voter registration act and it was decided that the that the actions violated the national voter registration act. and i would like to invite our panelists to speak about efforts to maintain the legit ma sift electoral roles with respect to citizen participation and issues of access particularly in light of recent supreme court decisions around the voting rights act. so i will start with mr. martinez on my left and invite other panelists to speak about the tension between again access and protection of the integrity of the voting process.

in the voter purge debate and controversy. mr. martinez? thank you, by wait. good morning, everyone. i'm not sure i'm the right person to begin the topic. but obviously we all have an interest in making sure that those that have the right to vote, vote. we also have the interest in making sure that vote is cast by people who are in fact entitled to vote. it protect the integrity of the process. in regard to purging of the roles, as i understand that's been stopped here if florida. and for good reason. the roles being used, there was question of their accuracy. so i don't know how much more i can tell you about this poent in time. i thought you were going to talk about the photo id requirement in wisconsin. >> we'll get there. >> and i guess i would like to

add, the secretary of state has simply delayed the institution of the voter purge until the homeland security data base is more accurate, i guess, as according to the secretary of state's memorandum. if anyone want to address that question, then again, tension that rise -- >> thank you. and bob was brought here to class the place up. >> i was brought here go the other way. i think the purge id, a lot indicates theish issue that is not unique to florida but pronounced in florida. florida is a state that's always in play. so when you have a -- when you have like nobody wonders who what is going to happen in new york on november 5th. but they wonder what happens in

florida. when you have the apparatus of elections tends to be much more important. fault lines are displayed more proudly to the world. when you have a close election and we saw that in 2000. it happens with all of the issues which i think is the issue you're getting at is the question is whether quote ef reports from mote integrity are simply being used as a stocking horse to try to change the outcome of an election. and i'm not worried about appearing too partisan because frankly, florida is a state where the apparatuses of elections are run by the legislature which is republican legislature. it may be different in states where democrats run the legislature but here in florida, really most of the efforts to deliver quote integrity to the process, whether a purge, whether voter id in other states that are close, most of those generally are intended more to suppress a vote than to assure integrity because things like

early voting constraint and purging and things like that, really rpt allot of people running to the polls with fake ids to vote. there aren't really a lot of felons really desperately trying to vote. there are people out of status, you know, horde of them running to vote. if that happens it happens infrequently and by accident. you don't hear about other cases really. so i would tell you that the purge was a very -- was an idea whose only purpose was to suppress the vote of the population that they believed that the governor believed might noting necessarily favorable and i think most of the election that had come out of legislature have an ulterior and mischievous purpose.

>> this is in vard to voter iid. there are clearly documented cases and even in the 2012 purge, there are documented cases of noncitizens on voting roles. at least 85 people were ultimately removed. whittled down from a rather large number of 180,000. i guess the question i have for the panel is, does it matter and if i take mr. gelber's comments to heart, he suggests it doesn't, but does it matter that secretary of state is putting a hold on moving forward for a better data base. to the extent that there were problems with the 2012 effort to protect the integrity of the vote. was it based upon the mechanism

used so that, you know, the use of dmv records simply was a bit noisy and allowed for the inclusion of too many legal voters. or does it go back to your point about what you take to be the intent behind the intent to clean up the voting world? >> if i could speak on that. i think it is somewhat equivalent to -- [ inaudible ] we've known for a long time that the state of our voter role has been filled with flaws. and to suddenly discover rb oh, my god, there's flaws here, we need to hold back, which is probably the right decision, is also coming a little late. we knew this in 2000, in 2004. in 2006. this is a problem not only in florida, but across the nation. of voters role data bases that simply we don't know -- we don't

have good data. we have problems in which there are errors and mistakes in the data bases we are using to check voters. and the end result is similar to here. there is big news and everybody hears about it. in the end you come down to 85 people. and in the end you come down to 8 5 people out of a hundred thousand, out of, what, 7 million potential voters in florida. the problem isn't new. and so while i think the decision to hold back was the right one, why were we in the decision in 2014? why weren't we fixing this or holding off earlier? >> let me just say something, i'm not an expert in this o area, but obviously the way in which this whole thing was implemented was clumsy. or certainly gave that appearance.

it didn't look well. but it is in our best interest to make sure we don't have people on the roles that are not entitled to vote. so if there is someone on the roles here and in two different states, we don't want that. if the person is not qualified in the first place, we don't want that puerson voting. we have a legitimate interest in making sure that people voting have the right to be voting. but it being clumsy throws the whole process into question. but i don't think we need to throw out the baby with the bath water kind of thing. it stopped. didn't look good for the republican party and the governor. the way in which it was implemented may have been clumsy but that doesn't mean we don't have a legitimate interest to make sure there is integrity in the voting roles. >> to go further, there's a question about whether or not

the state ought to have access to its own data base. to the extend that state is relying on a data base of homeland security in reading and preparing for this panel i thought, isn't it interesting, and this is not to cast dispersions on the add menstruation, but isn't it interesting that homeland security would say, hey, the data base isn't quite ready. so you -- to the extent that partisanship might be influenced -- might influence both homeland security effort to get a data base of the state's that can in fact be used doesn't make the argument that the states ought to have data base or be aebl to make recourse to a data base that is perhaps not vulnerable to perhaps the opposite parties. >> sound like a great idea except florida has been trying to put together its own data base in this area for about the

last 20 years. it has been flawed. dmv data base is flawed. various other data bases, as comparison for voter roles, has been flawed. sometimes by choice. in 2000, the decision was make connections with same first name, last name, middle name and they knew there would be false positives. they said okay we will go with false positives. then said sent the whole list out and said, purge that. this has been an ongoing problem. the data bases that we ourselves have in florida aren't very good. so one reason to turn to homeland security is to have a new data base. surprise surprise, it is hard for them to get a good data base. it undermines the process as a whole. and voter registration, until we have a national registration

process, we're going to republican into these problems and it will be difficult to purge the list. even as mentioned, it is legitimate to clean out the voting list on a regular bases. but if you doing it in a way that legitimate voters are purged when they shouldn't be, that questions the electoral process. >> very briefly, i agree with bob that you shouldn't have people who can't go -- who can't authorize to vote voting. but i think you confused who is dethe baby and who is the bath water. in the sense when you have, you know, when have you 80 people who shouldn't be on the list obviously and may or may not be voting but you're prepared to purge tens of thousands of others that aren't on the list and that are legal citizens and should be voting, that's what happened in 2000. we put out a list and realize, because i think they are smart

enough to realize, that whole lots of citizens of our state we're gok purged to get a couple people who probably shouldn't have been on the list. that's what happens. and i believe and i this i this is clear as day that those lists tend to implicate certain types of voters who vote a certain way. an problem doing it. and that the problem with the voter purge. is that it takes citizens who should be voting some -- a story of broward county veteran. the sort of of face that said, i've been voting here. i served in world war ii and i can't vote because somebody with my name is also on that list. i think that's the problem. you shouldn't do a purge unless can you really protect actual voters. >> let me just climb in here for a second. he is right there is serious issues in 2000. but we're in 2014.

although we are still talking about a purge list, in 2014, i mean, i challenge anybody in here to tell me that there is massive purging going on for people voting because of a bad list. yes, there are lists. yes, still problems with it and they have voluntarily decided we are not fwoing to go ahead and do this until we have confidence in the list that we have that in fact people who are not voting in fact won't be voting. we can talk all day we want about what happened in 2000. but in 2014 that's not happening. that's what we need to focus on is where we are in 2014 and going forward and how are we going to make sure that if there is a legitimate public interest in making sure that people who should not be voting do not vote. because it dilutes everybody else's vote that is entitled to vote. having said that, we want to make sure that nobody, like the veteran that dan is talking about, is put in that situation. i can tell you, that's not happening in 2014.

>> let me just follow up. i think part of the topic of the panel panel is common ground. can we all agree, we need a list that is accurate? it needs to be carefully reviewed. is that basically what we are saying? can the democrats and republicans agree that we need to have a list that is accurate? it seems to me that's a basic -- >> i this i that goes back to my question. if i take mr. gelber seriously, he seems to suggest that a list that's accurate is irrelevant in light of the intent behind the -- the attempt to clean up voter lists. so i think that's the crux of the problem. >> why would the governor purge the list when he knows there are tens of thousands of people that

shouldn't be on there? the governor is a smart guy. he has smart people working around him. he realizes what you and everybody else here realize that that list isn't capable of really purging people who shouldn't be voting. it is going to include loads of others. >> but does that still taint the attempt in integrity that every subsequent attempt becomes suspect? >> i suppose we have an enlightened democratic governor, governor gelber -- >> an endorsement -- >> suppose he wants to enlighten the republican chief of staff, sew hires me. so we go about and clean the list in the right way. i think we all agree we want a list that is accurate. that is honest. >> we all agree that people shoo shouldn't be voting, shouldn't be voting. the hard part is, if you don't have a list that works, what do you do? and just like in the court system, you say, we will attend

guilty go free instead of convicting one insent. are we prepared to kick out of voting polls a thousand citizens so we can find that one guy that isn't a citizen? and until have you a good list, it is an academic debate. and he didn't have a good list. i use 2000 because there is a history of it in this state. and i'm sure we will talk about it at some point in this discussion. but i think that's the point. >> i certainly want to pivot to that. in light of the supreme court's decision during the last term in shelby county, in which the supreme court invalidated the formula, the coverage formula,

that triggered free clearance under the voting rights act, the courts seem to suggest that history would not forever be a taint on certain political jurisdiction. and certain coverage jurisdictions immediately began to move to implement or move forward with the implementation of voter id laws. the supreme court in 2008 protects the legitimacy of the ballot by voter id law. so we stand here, after crawford, after shelby, with the doj in litigation in texas and north carolina and in other places, with respect to voter id laws, the conversation that we

just had on wednesday, a district court in wisconsin is thrown out. the wisconsin voter id law. and again, it goes back to the question of the evidence that justifies the state's interest in protecting the integrity of the ballot. of the ballot. and the effectiveness of voter ids in protecting against the harm identified by the state. and again, a project that was affirmed, a constitutional in crawford and in which now post shelby we've got some work to do in lots of places. and so, in light of the wisconsin decision, which seems to minimize crawford, that is to say, saying look, we will take seriously the impact that voter

id laws have on sub groups within the state to make the assessment of whether or not these laws violate the voting rights act. and again, there probably is lots of common ground on this panel with respect to what counts as evidence. what counts as sufficient evidence. so again, i will cover you this time again. >> okay. well again, i'm not an expert. this is veriesotery esoteric. so they invite congress to come back with a different formula. i don't know if the obama administration proposed one. putting shelby aside. the wisconsin decision, and that friend of mine brought to my attention, he is in the audience, a decision repderred recently, in case some of you

don't know, it held in wisconsin passed a law requiring photo identification. in toward vote, you have to obtain and present a photo id. if you don't have one, the state will give you one for free. and what court in a very long opinion held was that getting that tree photo id, if you didn't have one, impose an unjustified burden on the people who didn't have the photo id. therefore found it unconstituti unconstitutional. the court felt that the class of people impacted would be mostly poor people. included in those categories would african-americans and pla te latinos. it had an impact. i find the scope of that rather expansive. the court went out of its way on crawford that the state did not protect the integrity of the role sufficient to establish

that requirement. and to legislate its own standard. it surprised me to learn of that opinion, because we've had that in florida for quite a long time. i don't believe it to be an impediment to anyone's right to vote. nor i do believe to have been discriminatory on any particular sub group, including hispanics. which i'm in that category. so i think that effort in wisconsin, maybe it is unique to wisconsin. so if this is part after of a movement to stir up groups, perhaps that's the intent behind it. but as far as being a law that is unconstitutional, i think that's a reach by the district court judge. >> let's put it in context why people have different conclusions on the same topic. republicans have the general view of the election which is

certnty. the purpose of holding election is that we know who won. and that we are clear as twho won and confident as to who won and there's no question as to who won. so anything that cleanse up the electoral process, is a burden worth paying because that's the purpose of an election. democrats generally believe that legitimacy involves participation. that anything that limits par p participation that undermines the legit ma simac ma si /* /- legitimacy of the outcome. this is a perspective towards the purpose of the election of voting. but each perspective focuses on a different answer to the question of what is a legitimate burden for the state to impose upon voters in the voting process.

and of course, underneath this is that not so secret dirty little secret that of course each side takes a position that is very comfortable with outcomes that will help them. generally more better it is for democrats. that is not saying necessarily they are doing it for that reason. it is just always easy do the right thing if the end result is the one you want. and so, part of the reason why we have this difficulty is we have a, i suspect, a district judge in wisconsin whose perspective is on the legitimacy in election is access and have you a majority on the supreme court currently that believes the purpose of election is certainty. and i know we are trying to cut middle ground here. that is a difficult thing to break because of differing perspectives. while we can say yes, we agree that we should keep people who shouldn't be voting, what that

entails on a practical level are perspective on the purpose of voting, provides what is a legitimate answer and that often leads to a different direction. is there some possibility for common ground if we understand crawford and in both asking a question about the reasonableness of the fear that the process will lack certainty or reasonableness that the process will lack broad participation? and so in some sense with the court suggesting that there is simply no evidence that the voter id law is going to cause the burden that was complained of by the plaintiff. where in the wisconsin decision, the court suggestions there is no data to support the fear of the -- >> well in fact he argues, and

part of it is so long, it is a 90-page opinion. he goes into great detail explaining why there is this burden. the court said, you want e evidence, here is evidence. at least in milwaukee. this is in part how you perceive the election. >> i have a little bit after of a disagreement. the wisconsin case is a good example to look at. i will dispute also what my friend bob said, as i do this. the judge pointed out in eight years in wisconsin you can count on one finger how many instances of someone trying to use a fake id or showing up at the poll with somebody else it happened. and that 9% of the population, 200,000 people, didn't have an id. so those two point that tell

you, whether you, on the certainty side or the participation side, those aren't the sides in election. when the certainty side is using sort of phony justifications, to create obstructions to vote, you ask anyone in this audience who sat in the line for eight hours in 2012 or six hours in 2008, they won't say this is to make sure there is certainty in early voting. they will tell that you someone stopped the process of accepting voters, to obstruct that process be to cloud that process. because they did not want robust participation. that's what is going on. it is a wonderful thing to say one group likes certainty and the other likes participation. but if the one group that likes certainty is saying we like certainty and the way we do it is by stopping lot of people from voting, that is not a democracy. and that's what has been

happening in florida and anyone, down the street, they are in line for ten hours. ten hours because of artificial obstructions to voting that had nothing to do with certainty of an election. [ applause ] >> please-db. >> professor, i became a citizen in 1974 because i wanted to vote. i was paying taxes. i could work. but i wanted to vote. so i believe strongly. i'm a republican. i registered as republican in 1987 after i left the prosecutor's office. i believe very strongly as a republican. but as an american citizen first, that people should be entitled to vote. that's my primary priority. without uncertainty, that people entitled to vote, vote. in wisconsin, the judge there, the judge in wisconsin found that the burden was that you had to take time to go to the department of motor