and he did it by knocking on doors. and i'm as inspired by his story as i am by the progressive legislators who have done the same thing. using grass roots support to change the system and really force all incumbents to prove they deserve to stay in office. now, the obvious question is this system was set up in 2005. it went into effect in 2008. but we're really talking about a system that was set up in the precitizens united world. so how have things changed over the last few years? well, there have certainly been tests. but we have seen a system that has evolved, that has been tested in part, but that has survived. and has really been a robust and i think very successful method on the whole.

so some of the things that we've done. well, we realize that the governors race was the marquee race the last few years. we actually wound up doubling the amount of funds that we give to gubernatorial candidates as a way of incentivizing participation in the program and acknowledging the fact that we're dealing with an environment in which there is inevitably more outside, outside spending. two, we have increased requirements for disclosure on outside groups. that has been very successful. i'll tell an anecdote. i was at a cocktail party before the election and somebody confided to me that he worked for a wealthy retail heiress who had been hoping to spend some

money on an independent dark money expenditure. and she was so frustrated that her name would be broadcast at the bottom of her ad if she took out an ad in connecticut that she didn't want to get involved in her election. and i was very saddened to hear that. but it's a sign that maybe disclosure requirements actually work. and we also have strengthened our presumption of coordination without said groups, it's incumbent on them. we also have some problems, as well because one of the decisions we made and that we're wrestling with is we have made it ease your for parties and for party groups, the governors association to raise and spend money, as well. that's an ongoing challenge. the question there is how do we channel funds into the least harmful, most disclosed route. and that's actually an area of concern. but that was really limited to the governor's race. for the most part on all state races and for statewide races other than the governor's race, what we saw was public financing and public financing alone dictating the outcome of these races. and as with all states, most incumbents got reelected and they got reelected for a reason. they have support, they've been elected before.

but their challengers were able to appear on an even playing field and make a case why they felt they were better for that position. i think for the most part, connecticut withstood the 2014 election quite well and i would hope a model for other states. my first race in 2008, i finished the 150 donations i needed to solicit by june. i think it was the end of june of 2008, which meant that all i had to do after that was knock on doors. talk to my constituents, listen to them, listen to the things that matter to real people living real lives every day of

the week. and sure, i had ideas, but my main take away was able to listen face to face to constituents. if i had spent that time running, i might have run without the program. talking to the people i'd be regulating and listening to their interests. i'm not saying we shouldn't listen to their voices, but i think i'm a better legislator and able to represent the people. somebody dealing with banking executives on a day-to-day basis. it's picking up that phone and asking somebody for $5. because that really reminds us who we work for, who we're supposed to represent and, you know, i think we've heard some of the great things we've done in connecticut over the last few years under governor maloy. we probably wouldn't have been able to do that if the system where the people not special interests carry the weight.

thank you very much, i look forward to questions. >> great. thanks so much to the panel. i'll open it up to questions. >> with people for the american way. and coordinate money and politics work. >> cute. -- wait for the mike. >> people for the american way. and this discussion has been sparking a lot of thoughts, but i'm going to try to formulate a coherent question. and that is, what is the disconnect between public opinion and political reality? why is there a disconnect? some studies have shown that as many as 9 in 10 people think there's too much money in politics. and support some form of campaign finance reform. what i'm wondering is why more politicians haven't capitalized on that statistic and made that

a primary part of their campaigns. and then along the same lines, why more members of the progressive funder community aren't pouring money into campaign finance reform campaigns since it is the underlying linchpin issue that affects environmental concerns, social justice issues, economic justice issues, why isn't there more coordinated push to fund these initiatives. since there's plenty of money on the progressive side of the political spectrum, why wasn't this the main issue in the 2014 election and what can be done differently moving forward to make sure it is the primary political issue moving forward? >> well, to his first question about why more candidates don't make this their signature issue. someone want to take it?

>> i can say that in connecticut, and i assume this is true nationally. i think there's a lot of cynicism. and i think it's hard to sell. you know, i tell my constituents that i actually work for them, that i'm not in the pocket of the special interests. and i think still even in connecticut. even though we've had this program for years, there's the perception out there that all politics is dirty. that their elected officials are serving folks other than themselves. and it's that face to face interaction. but i think we're running up against a culture where we just either on the federal level or on the state level that there's nothing that can be done. >> i guess i would add similar to what some folks have said before. being able to point to some of these concrete victories where it's working is one of the essential things that's really starting to happen and, you know, we saw in montgomery

county this fall. and i think even in this town, it is starting to happen. the government by the people act has 160 co-sponsors in the house, the fair elections now act in the senate has 20 cosponsors, so there are 180 members of the u.s. congress that are on the record in support of the policies and are starting now to go talk about this more because they've realized that people do care about how much big money there is in politics, but want to see, you know, as matt said, want some proof their elected leaders are actually prepared to do something about it. >> to your second question, i can't speak for the funder community, but just to say i think as we see more and more organizations who are outside the typical campaign finance organizations, caring about this issue and, you know, doing something about it, that explains to their funders that

it's important. and i think we have started to see more funders pay attention to this. and hopefully we'll see more in the future. >> all right. i'm making a documentary called "money talks." and my question is in connecticut with the broader based donor advancement, have you seen the correlation to turnout? turnout was about 58% in '12, it was about 37% last year. do broader donor support, does that translate into greater participation? >> i don't remember the exact numbers for 2014. my sense was we were one of the higher turnout states in the country and saw an increase over the equivalent 2010 race versus 2006, as well. we've seen a generally positive increase in turnout.

we did see one of the most negative campaign cycles i think by some measures, it was rated as the nastiest election in the country. there is no guarantee that clean elections reduces negative campaigning, but we did see an increase in turnout. >> is there a consensus? is there a consensus with regards to what you would give to a super pac. fou max out on your individual contribution progressive as well as conservative? >> i have had that slem ma i don't like the money in politics. when i am maxed out from my candidate, i'm tempted to give

more to a super pac. as we talked about, one of the candidates that we profiled if there was small donor public financing, if we found a way for candidates to raise the money they need to by talking to average voters in their districts instead of talking to big donors out of state and out of district i think that calculus will certainly change. >> hi there, i'm the voting and democracy campaign program. it's my third day on the job. reppive i think you put it really well when you said the best test of the systems is whether or not candidates are opting in.

i'm from arizona, and about 25% of the candidates there opt in, 16% of them win. the limbs are really low there of what you get from the public funding system. what elements in your minds make up a successful public spending system. by way of example until 2010 in arizona, you would get matching funds, and that was ended by the courts in 2010 and it became pointless for folks. if they were outspent oh well. from your perspective, what could make this really attractive for candidates so we could attract more to come into the system and ryder cup clean? >> i'll mention a couple. you're right arizona as in main and connecticut, the court decision that took away the

extra protection if an infriction of spending comes later in the race. so in maine and arizona in particular, they're trying to figure out how to fix that. what could provide that extra funding and it could be prequalifying or knocking on doors. there might be other ways to do that. the other thing that is important that happened in arizona is the legislature radically lifts contribution limited. they went from like 400 per individual to like 4,000. so if you take away other elements like making it ease your for privately funded candidates to raise more money, you weaken the publicly financed candidate. >> one of the things critical for our program is the grants

are sufficient to defeat an incumbent. and so finding that level is important, and to meet that we were able to increase, as i mentioned earlier, double the grant amount of the governor's race. i also point out that there is a clinic diminishing value. they are, linda mcmahon spent her own money and it didn't work so well. this is a point at which you need to run a viable campaign but there is a rapidly diminishing value for dollars after a certain point. i think the real critical value that the financing system gives is finding enough money to run a credible campaign. what happens after that is less

significant and our voters have shown that some candidates are spending far more money. >> just i wanted adam to weight in if you would bring the mic down. >> the government by the peekd act has two provisions to address this exact issue. the first is that there are no spending limits for candidates. in dip kal fashiontypical fashion if you hit your cap you were out. the second piece is that if you are in a very competitive race, where it seems like you have an influx of outside fundsover the race is getting expen si, these systems all have a cap on public funds. we're not writing blank checks to candidates.

but in a very competitive race, even if you hit your cap, you can elect to go for another round of matching funds and there is a price to pay for that. so where as in a general system you can carry other a small amount to the next election if you don't spend it all to give yourself a start. if you decide you're in a heavy spending case and you want to go for an extra match you can't carry over any funds. it is communicational under the new restrictive juris prudence. >> do we see where safe racing are opting into public money because it is not dangerous to

them? >> that is a great question. we did not see that in the most reeptt analysis. in a place like kentucky it was so broadly used that it included safe and competitive races. >> and in new york city with a small donor matching system, all candidates, all but two participated in it. >> generally i was thinking anecdotally here connecticut's races see lower participation rates -- it's the higher participation races that have the lower rates. so that is the general trend that i have seen. >> i have a question about the messaging and how you overcome

the general sense of pessimism. i'm curious is. >> fred: there is a thought for what is going on in other countries. for example, through a presidential election in france, i think every candidate is capped at 23 million euro. there is no outside expenditure, radio and tv adds are not allowed. everyone getting two minutes after the evening news, and lots of other countries have similar laws. i'm curious if that would possibly be considered as a way to show this is not a fatalistic situation, and that the current system is another example of american exceptionalism, not necessarily in the good sense of the term? >> just to quickly say, i think you're right there are plenty examples around the world where democracy still functions.

i think our system has so many strange loopholes and curious things that have happen thad it's hard to do an apples to apples. and because we have so many here, we should do so. >> it is ken doyle again. i have a question about what, having so many legislatures elected, what does that do to the legislature? has it changed the dynamics of the legislature itself? and if so in what way? >> i can speak to that based on what i understand. i have only served under public financing, so it is hard to get a full appreciation for how things have changed. i have a couple of anecdotes.

connecticut like many states have a bottle deposit law. everyone time you purchase a bottle you return the bottle you get the nickel back, if you don't, what happens to that nickel? for years, due to a loophole in the way the law was constructed that nickel for the unredeemed bottles would stay in the beer distributor's pockets. it was supposed to go toward promoting recycling. they were very active in political campaigns and that loophole was not corrected. my first term in the legislature in 2009 was the first year the legislature was publicly financed. i can't point to a direct correlation, i believe it was two weeks after we were sworn in that we came in and corrected that loophole and now the funds

are returned to the public. and so that's a clear example of a special interest that had been able to -- no pun intended bottle up legislation there have been plenty of other things. we've really been a shining light for those of us in the progressive movement. as a place where we can see policies that are -- we've been able to pass -- i'd like to think a lot of that has to do with the strength and success of our public minders. >> my name is greg moore with the nacp voter fund. there were two governor's races in 2014 where there were candidates that took public financing, michigan and the state of maryland surprisingly with the republican candidate.

can you speak to whether there's any research done on the impact of those campaigns in 2014 and whether or not what happened in maryland bodes well for possible republican or bipartisan support? >> i should put this to nick, who would say a little bit about maryland. about whether we've done -- we've looked at michigan or maryland's governor races and used public financing. >> no. >> we have about. >> to the latter part of your question, the more we can show it doesn't favor one party over the other instead leads to a more equal and representative state house and congress better. >> i would also just point out, they're using financing at a high rate, our governor who had

run in 2010 as a nonparticipating candidate. in 2014 decided to participate in public financing. both parties are big users of this system, at least in connecticut. >> >> year after year in maryland we did our best to make maryland the fourth or fifth state to have a public campaign funding. it passed the house, every year that it went through and got blocked in the senate, because frankly the president the highest fund-raising most powerful politician in the state. i don't know if that's the case and the other 40 plus states who have also not passed it but

clearly it's a high bar to reach it. every campaign that goes by that's going to get harder and harder if we don't get control of the bigger issue, the paces. congress isn't going to pass an amendment to the constitution. the states have to do it or get close enough like we did with the direct election of senator ss we haven't addressed that yet. a lot of us believe that the situation is only going to get worse, and we'll keep losing what democracy we have, until we amend the constitution like it's been done 27 times before. >> that's a good segue our panelists are able to address change folks are pushing for. if there are any questions about that before we wrap up.

i was wondering if the panelists could respond to some of the things that various government agencies can do without the input of elected legislators to solve some of the problems we've been talk about. >> on a state level, there are things you know? >> the obvious one is coordination, our regulators in connecticut have taken an aggressive stance toward regulation, and presumptions of coordination would hope that other folks are doing the same. >> so there are a fair number of things that can be done without

changing the constitution or citizens united. the sec is considering a petition that would require publicly traded companies to disclose their political spending. that's a huge source of dark money right now. the president could today sign an executive order requiring government contractors to do the same. so both of those would improve disclosure. congress could pass the disclose act as it has done a couple times, it's not going to happen in the 114th congress, it's possible. the federal communications commission could change federal ad rules. coordination rules as was mentioned. there are lots of things that agencies and the congress and the president could do without a constitutional amendment or changing the court. and i think they need to hear from all of us that they should be doing those things.

>> hi it's sonya. i'm with people for the american way. i wanted to reemphasize that there's no single solution there's no silt ver bullet. part of the reason why a number of organizations were involved in putting together and framing these unity principles is precisely because as a movement we have to reinforce one another. it can't be us against them it's got to be all in this together. the principles are pretty simple. everyone participates, everyone's voice is heard, everyone knows, everyone plays by common sense rules. everyone's held accountable. this is the vision for our democracy, as we go forward, i can't tell you how much we appreciate this research. it's really helped frame the issue, let's make sure it's a movement. we do understand that the work that each of us does reinforces the work that everyone else does it's not competing solutions it's that wins one place

supports wins another place. talking about this is an overall problem. a big problem that needs comprehensive solutions will really help move us forward. in order to highlighting examples of, it can work. that's how we breakthrough the cynicism, we're all in this together. reinforcing one another's work. >> great. last question. >> less a question, more of a statement. every generation of americans has added to the constitution except one, do you know which one? >> ours this is what we're going to amend we're going to add an amendment to the constitution, it starts with the states calling for an amendment if you want to join us in doing that join us at wolfdashpac.com.

thanks. >> i want to take a minute to thank everyone who is with us today, our fantastic panelists, we talked about a lot of things the numbers, and solutions of which there are many, and we need to think of them as a unity of solutions, we need them all and we need to support each other and back each other up to find the research that everyone released today go to getmoneyoutaction/research and check it out, also join with us for the rest of the actions. this is the first event of the week of activities. around the country there will be actions happening, here in d.c. on the 21st there will be a legislative event. whereas adam mentioned, all the legislation will be reintroduced. and then also that afternoon we'll be in front of the chamber of commerce talking about why they are a dark conduit and all

the ramifications it has for our democracy and country. thank you so much for being here. back in january the supreme court heard oral argument in a case that pits a church against the town of gilbert in arizona. at issue is the extent that local governments can regulate where and how long signs are posted. good news community church and its pastor are challenging the town of gilbert arizona's different rules for political ideological and directional signs as a violation of the first amendment. >> we will hear arguments first this morning in case 13502, reid versus town of gilbert.