and my question is as president of the united states what would you do to help alleviate some of the tensions that are building. >> money out of politics. >> on cspan. >> the race gender age and education of the electorate a look beyond the numbers who is supporting donald trump or hillary clinton and why? the polling and analyst and also the director of the university of san francisco washington d.c. program and a professor in the department of politics at usf.

thank you for being with us. we appreciate it. >> let me begin. in terms of who is supporting donald trump who are among the base of his electorate. >> so let me start with clinton first. he is getting overwhelming support from ask an american and solid support from hispanics and if you add the population together hillary clinton has a margin of almost 50% over donald trump. she is winning folks with a college degree and also winning women. for trump, his margins among the groups supporting him tend to be less but he is winning among men. he is winning among older voters. 65 plus. he is winning among white voters and he is especially strong on

average, averaging all the polls we had by close to 30 point with white non-college degree people. >> trump is doing well with the noncollege educated so there's the spot of white college and then the other age groups -- they'll get the broad range but youngest voters for clinton and oldest voters for trump but the 35 to 49-year-old for clinton and the 50 to 64-year-old slightly for trump. >> you're calling this the bloomberg politics code decoder. what is the methodology and with so many different polls for example the la times has donald trump ahead. the latest from nbc news shows hillary clinton is ahead. how do you make sense of all of

that. >> i think what you hear for a lot of folks is don't pay attention to any one poll. and there's lots of great sites out there that are all the polls. it's the demographics of what people sometimes call the internals but winning elections if you're a campaign manager is about maximizing shared performance and getting polls right is about getting sharing performance right so i found myself when a number of polls came out and i say never pay attention to a single poll. of course i do. you look at the internals and i wanted to know how many dems did they have or whites did they they have or nonwhites did they have. often it was impossible to find so i wanted to build a tool that

would bring it out in the open so that people cannot only see what the assumptions were of individual polls but in the same way we averaged the top horse race number. we should average assumptions about the demographics of the survey as well. >> older americans have a much higher rate than americans and it should be supporting hillary clinton but will they go to the polls. >> they're pretty sophisticated multiquestion models and do it in tirget ways and not who young

people will vote for and who younger people will vote for but how many there will be. what proportion of the electorate they will comprise and it's a function of how many there are and exactly as you said, whether or not they turn out. and we also provide an average assumption about what the shape of the electorate would look like and what we found when we average all the measures of partisanship. and a 5% advantage in party i.d. which is a little less than what democrats enjoy in 2012 and they have a party iflt d. >> these three numbers available online at bloomberg politics dol particularly interesting. 222 million.

the number of eligible voters in 2012. and only 130 million actually voted four years ago. >> and 55 and 60% of the eligible electorate. and 55 or 60%. and it's huge. >> so let me conclude what you compose in your essay what is the shape of the american electorate. >> listen, that's the big

question. as i said before we have a pretty good idea of what particular groups are going to do. the key question is, are african americans going to come out at the same level that they did for barrack obama. >> a professor of the university of san francisco. his work available online at bloomberg politics.com. thank you for being with us. >> pleasure to be with you. thank you. >> local law enforcement officials will be on capitol hill to talk about their counter terrorism efforts. they'll also talk about the attacks in new york, new jersey and minnesota. live coverage from the house

homeland security committee at 10:00 a.m. >> supreme court justice elaina kay gan talked to students at the university of arizona law school about the inner workings of the court and talked about hunting and the impact the staff has had on the court. from tucson arizona this is just over an hour. >> cell phones off. welcome, welcome, welcome to the 2016 mccormick lecture. i'm here on behalf of the society that honors j. byron mccormick and supports this annual lecture on public policy. he served our university and this state in many capacities

but particularly three that matter to us tonight. he was the president of u of a. he was dean at the college of law and he was special advisor to the arizona board of regents. the society was born almost four years ago and as a tribute. to the community. the oldest continuing distinguished lecture series here at the u of a. >> and that means we take very seriously our concern for many communities. >> and in the world.

and the law. members are are making this possib possible. it's a special conversation for court justice elena kagan. here to introduce you tonight is mark miller. >> thank you dean. welcome and thank you again. you're with us today. thank you to all the friends of the college, our awesome students and the members of the

community who are here for what i know will be a memorable conversation. i understand you have questions, you should write them down on cards and pass them to the center. please do that and we'll have time for those questions or some of those questions at the end of the conversation. as i was contemplating the visit and my opportunity to introduce her to you it occurred to me that i should kech sketch her very substantial accomplish ms before she joined the court and the contributions she has already made to the work of the court. i kept in mind the conventional wisdom that the more important and familiar a person is the harder it is to do it justice in their introduction and therefore the shorter the introduction should be. after all, who introduces barrack obama by saying after his time as an illinois state

senator he -- justice kagan's biography reflects a passion for public service and unwaivering commitment to public justice. the daughter of a schoolteacher born and raised in new york she studied at princeton and oxford and enrolled at harvard law school not as a grand career plan but because she wanted to keep her options open. how wise. even then. law schools are to expand lives options. after her graduation she worked in the u. s. court of appeals for the d.c. circuit and then for justice marshall of the u.s. supreme court during the 1987 term. after clerking she practiced at williams and connolly in d. krflt and began her teaching career at the university of chicago law school and later at

the harvard law school. she served for four years in the clinton administration as associate council to the president and deputy assistant to the president for domestic policy between 2003 and 2009 she served as the dean of harvard law school. and and nicely captured it. when you haven't changed your curriculum in 150 years at some point you look around.

in 2009 president obama nominated her as the solicitor general of the united states and as the first woman occupant of that office she served for a year until her nomination for the supreme court. she took receipt of the bench in 2010 as the 112th supreme court justice. she has emerged as a powerful and reasoned force on the court. and also renowned for her sense of humor. during her confirmation hearings when asked about allowing cameras into the supreme court she replied she would have to get her hair done more often. as a member of the court she is widely recognized as one of its best riters and this is in a field of considerable talent. her readable opinions she earns the respect of contemporary law students by describing her approach as trying to create vivid ways of explaining that they'll stick with people. for example, an opinion that dealt with whether a fish was a

tangible object, the court majority concluded that it was not. justice kagan's descent included this line, a fish is of course a discreet thing that possesses physical form. see generally dr. seuss one fish, two fish, red fish, blue fish. even as her opinions are accessible to the public an opinion element of maintaining public trust in the courts she prings a scholar's perspective. she follows her dr. seuss reference with an exhaustive exploration of decisions that have the phrase tangible object along with a detailed description and quote as icing on the cake already frosted she uses the legendary history of the statute. there's something for everyone in her opinions. in oral argument and the case involving video games she

achieved cultural icon status by demonstrating her knowledge of the video game mortal combat which i spelt with a k and was celebrated as being the hippest justice. so we laugh at this. we smile at this but it demonstrates her careful preparation for each case and an awareness of the need to understand context and contemporary culture. >> help me welcome her. >> some people might say it's a

low bar to be the supreme court's hippest justice. i don't know, maybe i'm not one of those people but some people might say that. it's really a pleasure to be here. it took awhile to arrange this. >> thank you for putting up with me. >> come again next week. >> speaking of the visit was postponed the second time because of the death of your colleague and good friend justice scalia. that was just a few days before she was scheduled to come here. first our condolences even though he was a close friend or the fabric of the court.

and first on a personal level and what you're missing and what you gained from justice scalia and second i think you've said it has -- it has effected the court as an institution and finally, i know you talked about this already, in other venues, what is his legacy going to be in your opinion? >> well, it was a big shock to all of us. and it was a very sad year for the court because of his death. he had been incredibly generous to me. in his 5.5 years on the court at the point he died and we had become i think really good friends. we had known each other a little bit because he had gone to

harvard and dean of harvard i hosted him on various occasions and we sort of had the beginnings i think of a friendship but on the court we became pretty close. i admired him enormously. i add mierd the work he did. and can i tell a story. and we have to know each other on a personal level. and comes the weekend did not say let's go hunting. and i had visits with that.

and if i ask people what do you think they really want to know about. and people guess various things and hands nou down they have rights. and about your position and people find ways of asking and how are you going and have you ever hunted? and well i don't want to say no.

and you know, in the the middle and whether you understand the things and you're going to have some sense of why they matter. and all of these questions with them. and one of the senators from idaho and hunting and gun culture in his community and he was talking to me in particular about his own hunting. he has a ranch out in idaho and was telling me, he said, you know, i just don't understand how i can go back to my constituents and explain to them that i'm confident that you're going to see what they think is important here and it's like my 60th interview and i said you know senator i really understand that. on the other hand i grew up in

new york city. this is not something that i have any knowledge of or experience with but i'll make you this promise -- no i said to them, i said but here's what i'd say. i'd say, you know, if you ever want to invite me hunting on your ranch i'd love to come. this look of abject horror came over him. the white house staffer had fallen off the sofa so i realized i might had gone too far. i brought it back a little bit. i didn't mean to invite myself hunting with you but i said here's the thing i promise you that if i'm lucky enough to be confirmed to the court i will ask justice scalia who i knew and he knew to be a great hunter, to take me hunting and

he thought it was so funny. he was on the floor. he had a great, great sense of humor and he said okay we're on and he took me to his gun club and he taught me how to shoot and taught me about gun safety and he said okay you're ready and he was so generous. he has this group of hunting buddies and we went bird shooting near virginia and i quite liked it. i enjoyed it and then, you know, he would take me a futiles bird sho -- few times bird shooting in virginia. we came out a few days here, in this here. in one of those big square

states. we tried to shoot antelope. we went duck hunting -- where? georgia. no, no, it was mississippi. we went duck hunting in mississippi. i really don't confuse all of these states all the time. you know, we have these great trips together and gave me a great opportunity to get to know him. not just on the court but as a person and he is, was as generous and warm and funny as a person could be and i so hugely appreciated all the time that guilty or innocent to spend with him and very grateful for that. so i miss him a lot. what was the second question? >> how it's effected the court. >> you know, i think, we are a small institution.

and what we understand and no matter how much we disagree with each other or argue with each other there's a kind of -- we are all very important to each other and i they the institution is very close because there's so few oppenheim us and we are bound together by important work. and i think anybody's departure really changes the court but i will say, you know, that's true but justice scalia more so. he was such a powerful personality. a powerful presence on the court that was true at oral argument. all the world could see that.

when he died there was a period in the court where we all had to figure out what we were going to do in oral arguments because there was a gaping hole he left and we all had to kind of adjust and try to figure out how to fill that hole and -- excuse me -- also very much in conference. he was a big voice. he was, you know, he is so smart, so persuasive. so vocal. so i'm going to say what i think. so the loss of that voice -- i mean, has meant that the institution operates differently. and adjusts their roles.

and our role to the 8 person court which i sympathy the third part of your question but we also had to adjust because justice scalia was gone and that means that other people have had to take over like what he does and have to respond differently. because he is not there. >> justice o'connor wrote about the absence of marshall and how everything shifted and she found herself speaking up where he wouldn't before because of the void. >> the third part was the legacy part. >> yeah, the legacy. different people will point to different things about justice scalia's legacy. some people will surely point to his very original -- he was the first originalist on the court as being reported. that's not a methodology that a share. and to be quite frank it's not a methodology that will prove to

have more length and maybe other people would disagree with me on that but i don't think that's where his truly long lasting legacy is. his truly long lasting legacy is an area of statutory interpretation where he changed the way everybody does statutory interpretation. it's not just that he had his own distinctive method of interpretation. he really just moved the whole field and i would say justice scalia sometimes kept on arguing with people about how to interpret statutes. he should have declared a victory and gone home because the way that the court does statutory interpretation if you look at cases from the 70s and the 80s before you got on the court and you look at the way we do interpretation now, it's like night and day in terms of the

emphasis we give to the text in term of the way we treat legislative history. in terms of the questions we ask as well as the answers we give and justice stevens and justice briar were the last hold outs but they now are sort of and everybody else has moved in his direction even if not all the way. i think that that will not change. his critique of the way he used statutory interpretation and his powerful rational for looking at the text and his grounds for

being suspicious i think that's here -- if not for good, everything is a pend yulum and swings back and forth but i think for a long time. >> speaking of, you've been in professional positions and there's a scholar writing about presidential power and other issue with the court playing a heavy hand or working in washington and the executive branch and i'm interested in the changes you have seen over this period from '87 in terms of the way the court operates. and these little devices.

it's amusing and that's the rest of the world. and they're like under some false name and we don't use them. >> in general the way we communicate with each other is astonishingly old fashioned. so i clerk on the court 1987. what happened between 1987 and now? well the rest of the world has had a communications revolution. the rest of the world had a technology revolution. not so much the court the way we

circulate memos is we print them on a heavy ivory paper and we hand them to someone in our chambers and they walk the copies around the building so we don't use e-mail. we don't text. we don't -- the second circuit for some reason continues to use fax machines. we never used fax machines. we still don't. so we're pretty old fashioned when it comes to the way we communicate with each other and we're pretty old fashioned i think when it comes to how we b absorb information. >> but it's the same way we absorbed information for decades and we read briefs.

if you want our attention put it in your brief and otherwise most of us won't see it. >> i think the institution generally -- i was pretty amazed when i came back in 1987 and it had been over 20 years when i came back as a justice. i was pretty amazed at how the processes that the court uses, the procedures, the way the court works and nobody changed the rules and i they the theory is this worked pretty well so it's by nature a conservative institution in the way it operates and i think properly so. it works pretty well.

>> he almost single handedly changed oral argument. if you were at the court listening to an oral argument it would have been a very sedate affair. the lawyers would have gotten up and had a lot of time to present their case to talk about what they thought was important. every once in awhile somebody would throw out a question. the questions were more often that than not and justice scalia came to the court and he was having none of it. he thought i read your briefs i don't need to listen to you resite your briefs and i have some serious questions and he started being really aggressive and so must have so that the story goes is that in his first year he is is the junior justice and nobody is doing this and he is throwing out question after question after question and justice powell i think leaned

over to justice marshall and said do you think he knows that the rest of us are here? but what was interesting about that is that everybody else started doing it. if not the ones that had been there for a long time but certainly the new people. first off he was right. you have read the briefs. why do you need to listen to them resiting everything that you already know? most people have serious questions for the lawyers. that's their opportunity to ask it so, you know, if nothing else, he had to do it because he was doing it so couldn't just let one person do it right? >> so now you go to the court and oral arguments are fast and aggressive and the lawyers hard to get it in and speak at all. it's question after question and you better be fast on your feet and you better think that's what

your job is. it's not to recite your point but respond to the justices. it's a real change. it's just by different personalities being up there. >> and again justice scalia. >> he was absolutely critical in that. >> so for the people here interested in hearing about your docket, the court gets thousands of petitions every year and got it down to 75 or maybe 80 tops. tell them about how that process proceeds and to what extent within opinions you might pull your punches at times decide a little less the virtues within a case put let's go with the mechanics first. >> well, we get about 8 or 9,000 petitions a year and only take about 75.

it's 101 or more. no, a lot of them are not all that serious. very high percentage of them are criminal appeals. very high percentage of them are nonlawyered. and, you know, for the most part, you sometimes see a genuine issue in those petitions but not frequent. >> but we do take every petition seriously. all of our clerks are part of it and a clerk will get assigned to each petition and every petition gets a write up by a clerk. not necessarily by one of yours but by somebody and writes up a memo saying whether there's anything here and you hope that

even in the petitions that are hardest to understand that there's a clerk who is, you know, sort of seriously evaluating whether it's underneath something here. and he takes everything seriously. and every week you have to figure out whether any of them should get us. >> and what we call circuit splits and that's when just different courts of appeals in different parts of the country are deciding this differently. so some of those might be, you know, pretty important issues. some of them might not be particularly important on their own but we think they are important because we think it's just unacceptable that somebody gets a different kind of federal

law in one state than they do in another. so i would say over 75% of our cases are taken because they involve what we call a division of authority among the circuits. the other 25% some of them are cases that raise such important issues that we think we ought to be the court that decides hem. so for example, any time another court invalidates a federal statute we'll always take that case. for the theory that congress shouldn't be invalidated except by us. some think the same is true when a court invalidates a safe statute that that's also grounds for us to take the case and so sometimes there's an increasing set of cases. by now about five a year where

there's no circuit split because there can't be a circuit split because it goes to a specialized court which is the federal circuit so all of our patent litigation which we're taking more and more of is things that two to the federal circuit and they are a split within the court really does what a circuit split does outside that circuit. and then just there are some cases where people feel had is just an important issue that we haven't looked at in awhile or where people feel this is an important issue and we got it wrong before and we ought to correct ourselves and nobody else will do that because they're all too scared of us. properly so. they shouldn't be correcting us. only we should correct us. so that is sort of the cases. >> right here in arizona we have

several dozen indian tribes each with their own legal principles and systems. and i'm interested in the more general problem which is when there's an area that you didn't teach and work on its a complex area with that. how do you approach it with your clerk? how do you approach it yourself? >> well it's one of the great things about the job honestly is at least for me now even if my 6th year there's still areas where i don't really have all that much background and where the opinion will be my first opinion in a field that's incredibly complex. sometimes arcane and we're trying -- had month experience before i came to the court so you mentioned -- i did an indian law case a few years ago and i'm thinking i did a big water case

and that was certainly an area of law that hi no experience with. incredibly important. if you live on the east coast you don't think about it. exactly. exactly. this is in kansas, nebraska and colorado. >> and just this past year and electricity regulation and i don't know about you but i didn't know much before i started. and agencies to get the substance right. this is pretty meaty and

substantive. just going through and see this issue before. that would be pretty tedious. so i love that part of the job. the opportunity to learn new fields of law and some of which are -- i always liked when i'm a law student and law professor. i liked complicated things. i liked trying to figure out ib sanely complex statutes and that's what people gravitate to in haw school and that's what i did gravitate to. so i enjoy that but it's hardment and you're never quite sure that you're getting it right. you kind of think it's sort of insane. people that know this so much better than i do but what i really would like is to pick up

the phone and call a few of the people and say i want to check this with you, all right? and you can't do that and they'll tell you that you got it right. >> so building on the point and also building on your point about the anecdote about going from door to door and finding out or promising to go hunting, right? experiences may matter. not being from a square state and that one right into the ground here. so you have had all of these rich professional experiences and we look at the court as a hole and almost all of you appellate judges, if you are from a nonsquare state, from a hand full of schools there's three women now that quit.

>> there's not very much racial or ethnic diversity on the court. which of the american people think about that in terms of the possibility? >> well there are ways in which the court is not a diverse institution and i think, you know, more than gender or race or ethnictiy it has to do with the cultural perspective. if you look at the number of years spent on the line from the court it's really super high. from washington d.c. to new york

to boston and many members of the court spent a large part of their lives in that neighborhood and those that happen chances are it's lived in california. so, you know, we all have the same experiences like that. but there is -- i think a lack of geographic diversity. and if you were creating a court of nine people from scratch you would say well you should have a couple of east coast people and a couple of midwest people and a couple of werners and stuff like that. but nobody does that. and you're doing it one at a time. and so other considerations and there's a lot of conversations that they have in their head when they make these

appointments. so might come to the fore and low and behold you wake up with a court that is not diverse in particular respects. >> i guess there's two reasons you might be concerned about that. one reason is you think it effects decision making and the other reason is because you think it effects the way the citizens of the country interact with the court. >> now it's true that people are the person you are because of all the experiences that you had and that person is deciding cases but i mean, i tell you the truth of the matter is i think that most of the demographic, geographic educational characteristics don't play all

that much of a role in decision making. so i think, you know, people always ask me three women would be different if there were five women and, you know, maybe something. so i don't think that those traits, you know have all that much to do with the way we decide cases and we do have a lot to do with the way the court is perceived as an institution and the fact of the matter is that people see people like them and they imagine share their set of values and that's a natural thing and they feel more comfortable in that if that occurs so.

>> i think isn't it great that there's three women here and they're all very vocal at oral argument so all of these girls and all of these boys are watching this and they are getting messages and see the court in a way they can relate to and whether it's about gender or ethnicity or geography or what law school you came from or any number of other things and soy think for that reason it is important to take these things into account and for that reason i wish that the court were a little bit more diverse than it is. >> so we talked earlier about the interpretation. >> i keep on doing this kind of, you know? >> it's not the easiest chairs.

>> i'm not a big fan of legislative history and you talk about his impact in the court of shaping that. we talked not toward the on going discussions that framed so much of the first year of law school and much of the legal career which is over constitutional interpretation. >> i wonder if we could focus in on some of the terms. not technical discussions but we get so caught up thinking about due process for equal protection for these grand concepts. it causes a special heat to the debate. >> i'm not an originalist partly because of what you said.

i don't exactly know what it would mean or how it would work or why it should work to go back to people in 1789 or 1868, how exactly they would have applied it. >> they wrote these words in 1789 the first amendment. these are are very general broad phrases. they don't tell you all that much and when you really, i mean, one way to do it is to say, well, what an equal protection of laws or due process of laws or the very few sparse words of the first amendment mean to the people that wrote those? and we'll just do the exact same thing. >> when you create the list of dos and don'ts that would come

out of that method very few people are comfortable with doing that. it turns out that their dos and don'ts whether it's about the first amendment or due process clause are not ones that we could conceive of. they're just so foreign to our time and these are smart guys and at the they didn't sit down like here's what it means to have he equal protection of the laws. it means, you know, this kind of distinction is okay but that kind of distinction is not okay. feel free to send your children to segregated schools but don't feel free to do some other thing. what they thought those words meant. maybe not even they thought those commands should be in a constitution. they understood this world was going to grow and develop and that the world in 2016 was not the world in 1868 or 1789 and

they wrote a constitution that could -- i mean, it's a brilliant document in part because it can apply to different times and different situations. and sentiments among the american people. so that is to say it's all up for grabs. i mean i think what we do is we like the equal protection clause, which, you know, certainly had nothing to do with women, which certainly had, you know, which even with respect to race, did allow things like segregated schools in 1868. they framed those in ways that step by step by step in incremental ways responding to the changes that happened in a society, but also relying on the prior decisions of the court,

the interpretation of those words could shift and the document could be relevant and meaningful in a different time than the original founders. >> we're going to want to give time, it's building again on the dean's points, you said once the role of the court is "to be the guardian of law, interpret the law, not a political role or voice to public opinion" i know you know maybe the farther from the court there are the more true this is. they look at cases like hobby lobby, second amendment cases, et cetera and they pulled back and they seedy visions within the court and i think it's hard for them to accept that the court isn't a political institution, especially when you

divide five-four, four-four. to add the second point, the big elephant in the room is patiently waiting for action on his nomination and no -- no nominee has ever been stalled for this long and nobody thinks it's likely that anything is going to happen on it until after the election. so, what would you like the american people to know that might make them more confident about the claim that they're not subject to political pressures, undo political pressures. >> i think we're not subject to political pressures. once you get on, you're subject to political pressures, you know, presidents can -- presidents can nominate whoever they want and then the senate has a rule, an important role in confirming people. so the political process surely

is rushed to bear in nomination and appointment of supreme court justices. you know, if we're getting, you know, congress and the president can act more responsibly or less responsibly in carrying out that role, but they should have that role. it should be right that the political process, at some point, gets to weigh in on the people who become justices because after those people become justices there really aren't any political constraints or political pressures. and i think all of my colleagues would say this, i mean, i think none of us think about, you know, was the president like this or not like this, or was congress like this or not like this. it's utterly irrelevant to us when we decide cases. similarly, although courts in different times take broad public understandings into

account, i mean, nobody thinks about the polls, nobody thinks, you know, if i took a vote of the mesh people, here is how they would come out on this question. we shouldn't do that because, you know, our role is, essentially, to provide a check on the political institutions, on the political process, on majoric impulses and to say, you know, to police body of rules and to be able to say here the political process has gone too far, here the majorities don't get their way, that's the role of the court and there's nothing anybody can do about it when we exercise that role. there's no way to punish us. you can only impeach us for crimes not for doing what we're suppose to be doing. we're pretty independent operators. now, you suggested that the country might perceive as political because we're divided

with respect to certain questions, and that's fair enough, that's an important question. i guess i would say two things, the first is i think people don't give us credit for how often we're not divided. i mean, we take those 80 cases that we talk about and probably 65 of them are not divided in any of the ways that people think follow political views. you know, about half of our cases we decide unanimously, you know, notwithstanding that other courts have disagreed on the question, notwithstandings that these are often extremely difficult questions. we, you know, eight or nine people with really fully developed world views, still manage to find ways to come together and unanimously agree. you know, many of the other cases that we do, they're 6-the, they're -- it's hard enough to

count whether to count to eight or nine as i'm talking. but there are some set of cases. and to be, you know, frank about this, there are often cases which are of real asal -- people feel we divide and divide in relatively predictable ways. and that is true, so what causes that. i guess what i would say i don't think it has to do with any kind of partisanship, in a sense i'm giving a vote to this president, or i'm telling this president to stick it someplace. it doesn't have to do what we think of this party or that party or this political figure or that. it has something to do that we use different constitutional methodologies, the people who are originalists are going to

predictably have different views of certain issues, involving the due prosays clause or some other constitutional provisions than other people who are much more, you know, we don't love to this p one point in time. we loved to the history of the nation of the court and as presidents. we do understand that what's very bid in them and not what's for bidden by a particular constitution provision change over time, as circumstances change. we're doing to reach different results if we use those different kind of methods. even beyond that, i would say, there are different views of the important, i mean, related to that, but maybe even beyond, you know, people would describe the principles underlying particular constitution provisions

differently, and that goes going to lead to different results on, you know, you can name the kind of issues that we're talking about, whether it's religion or abortion or some race issues or what not. this is all to say that there are substances division in the court, you know, in a way. i don't think i would like the court if everybody talk about interpreting the constitution in the exact same way. i think it's the better institution because it has different views of constitutional interpretation on it. i think people should understand that those differences are not partisan differences, they're differences in view of how you interpret the constitution and what -- what principles you think it stands for. >> i think it would be good if we can take a few questions.

>> great. >> from the audience and if we could bring up the light and then, dave? let's see if i cannot fall after i get to the edge of this stage. >> how do you use your law clerks and has this changed during your time on the court. >> i basically use them the same way now as i use them when i got on. my first year was a little bit of trial and error. i experimented with different ways. i think by the end of my first year i was comfortable in how i did it. i -- lauren, by talking to people, so principally i use them to talk to me about cases. one of them we'll have the primary responsibility for this.

that person will write me a bench memo, of just her saying, you know, his or her case on the case. then i'll have all of the people come in and talk to me about the case. i encourage give and take, i encourage them to disagree with each other i was -- i use to be se cattic teacher in law school and my clerks know that. you we do a lot of back and forth, we think about what kind of questions i should ask from the bench, what are the questions that are really hard and complicated and difficult in the case and, you know, what, you know, what is the case turn on, so we'll talk about that a lot. then after the argument, i'll come back and talk to them again. i'll find out whether any

thoughts about how the argument went, did they learn anything. sometimes in the course of the conversation i'll say what i think and sometimes not. it depends on the case. you know, when i think about courts and what they are most important to me before, it's that kind of constant give and take q and a to make sure that i've got the answer right. in terms of writing opinions, they also have an important role in that. they usually give me a first draft -- i'm the kind of ground mp -- i'm the kind of person that i don't understand until i write my way through it. i'll use the first draft, you know, on something i look at, i think about it. i think about what i think works in that draft and what i think doesn't work in that draft. i'll use some of the research that they've done for -- i'll

start from the first draft. it's the only way i can feel confident that i know i'm getting it all right. i'll give that draft back to my clerks and we have a couple of kbroun grounds of intensive editing with all of my clerks where they're encouraged to rip me apart and tell me what i saw substance, in terms of style and we'll do that and go back and forth on an opinion like that. so i think that they help me in e norm mou

normous amounts. you know, i've got great people and i think that that's one of the most fun parts of the job is to work with them. >> okay. the next question ask from an 8th grade zesks teacher. >> you get to ask all of them. >> might be that's what i'm going to do. this teacher teaches some supreme court cases to her students, or -- as a justice, which case would you recommend that this teacher teach to ill straight ifl rights ibliberties. you can start with "brown be board" the jus stiff warrant opinion that, you know, prohibited segregation aens answer and really opened the door to all range of other races

. >> um -- okay. i'm exercising. >> technical difficulty. >> yes. >> this one must be from one of my students. the founders when they divided, i'm paraphrasing. they lived in a different time when life expectancy was much shorter. >> yeah what would be lost if an amendment ratified that limited a supreme court justices term to 15 years. >> is it retroe active or not. the next question was which justice have the best sense of humo

humoracy. >> go past the constitutional amendment. i, you know, i'm not if the american people think that that's a wise idea, then so be it. i mean think, you know, obviously the reason for like tenure, and this goes back to the conversation i had with dean marsaro do feel independent in their owned decision making and they're not sitting there thinking, if i go this way, then, you know, after all i'm a young person i only have 15 years often this court, i would really like to do x, or y or z next. it's really lifetime you're suppose to insulate people as far as possible from any kind of political pressure. any kind of pressure that comes from standing what the protect is. it's not a crazy idea to go to

some lodge-term. i think some law professors are suggesting 18 years, that gives three more than your students does. that's not a crazy idea, whether it's because of life expectancy or other things, you know, i'll start it with my aunt. it could go through, the amendment process, which is a pretty tough process to go through. you have to think that, you know, that's perfectly appropriate, not my business to that wouldn't invade. >> in the midnight 1980, the court heard about 150 cases per year. what explains the decline and how do you feel about it? >> that's one of the great mysteries of the clerk. i clerked when it was doing about 140 cases. when one of my cleeks said we have to do this by monday.

>> 1234. >> i'm going when i was your age -- [ laughter ] >> and truth be told, they are kwiend kind of, you know, flabbergasted by how much work the court did. i mean, i don't think i could prepare for cases in the same way. i don't think i could write decisions in the safe way. if they were to do -- i think that we -- i don't think we should go back to 140 or 150. i think most of us have said on various occasions that we think -- that we could comfortably do 20 more cases, something like that, that we could increase the docket some. but the truth -- and we often talk about that are onlies

start. i'm happy. year after year, they're not the cases out there that are creating division among the surface. unless we turned ourself into a course, which i think is people are pretty low to do. i think we're deciding the cases that are there to be decided. by us. it real is a gra. it was kind of a cliff note -- so all of these, most of the various founder on the fact that they don't just expand why it is within the space of two or three years, the doctors decreased by so much. i don't think have, you know, any better answer than anybody else has given on that question, so i guess i will try.

>> where did you get your famous sense of humor and are you able to use humor or argument. >> it's fine, everybody thinks i'm funny in a rock in a roll. i don't make people do any of that. >> who wants. >> the baurks, laughter, all right. you know, he keeps statistic, who is the funniest supreme court justice. i mean, justice scolio by death, brian keep in fourth or fiftd. and this look, process for, once wrote something and i felt -- i

took it as a compliment. he said justice is under before me lg 00. i said thf guy really believes i'm funny. it's just that i'm not bringing it to the bench. and i don't know whether i'm funny or not. but i do have the sense of -- you know, maybe it's, you know, i'm the, jr. justice, you've got to know your place and role. i guess, you know, i'll say something to people laugh about it. but, typically, that's unintention when -- when one of those things come in at world earlier talk. they're up there, stwraing to be serious. they're doing a serious job. you know, i don't begrung it all to my college who make wright flood from there. being a comedy show it's not

what i'm use to giving up. >> when did you ask one more question and we'll take the chance to thanks young. >> one more question. making your first argument says it was in the citizens united case. i was attending your first congress as associate je. you didn't know exactly how people talked to each other. the result of that, i think you're way over prepared in your first conference. you're ready to go give 45 minute exlur. it turns out if you would have done that i'm college, you know, i was a little bit ansi during that. but no wurn near so as my first argument, my first supreme court argument, was also my dad to tell you that. it wasn't the citizen you know

why, i think you'll give me one more story and it really doze go back to the one question. so the citizens rehearing, earlier than done by a deputy in the solicitor general's office. but then when the court asked for rehearing, it was pretty clear that the court was putting the big issues on the table and saying should we overrule some significant decisions and campaign finance area. and so i did that, you know, it was a big case. and there were three other lawyers that were going to argue in that case. and the day before the case was argued, i went up to the court because it was the investiture of the justice. and the court of the court said it might be interesting to see what the justices have on the

bench when any case is argued. what the justices have is they have papers that just give them facts about who's arguing. it's pretty bane bare buns, it's not on my in to supreme court far. there are some pages stapled to the biographical iper data. all the others sub spit yours. and there were these three other lawyers the first one was ted olson and i'm flipping the pages and he had argued like 75 cases. the next one was braxton. i'm fiszing my cages about 75 arguments and the third one is a bit lawyer, but not so much in the supreme court he had only had about 25 opinions. and then it's like elaina with

no papers. and i said to the clerk, i said was this your way of psyching me out, i owe. it looks let so i guess i get up there and my heart is really pounding. and i'm not at all convinced that i'm going to be any good at this. you're the hearing first. i would say a sentence. i prepared, you know, five or six sentences and i fig injuried i would probably get most of those in before the first st was asked. i get out a bitle -- and this is important, no, no, no, no, no, no, then he told me i was wrong. why i ended the case -- but it

was actually great. it was great because if i had stayed up there and i was trying to remember -- all of stheez words, it showed up got me into it and he thought was wrong with my first sentence and i told him, wine my first sentence was right and a lunch of other things, too. and it just sort of got me into it and my nerves went away. you know, i think first question which was really confrontational and but such in a wau that helps me i was able to come back at him and i thought, i said a few sentences, they seem to make sense around then it went down from there. [ applause ]

so our way of saying, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, we know you're a sports fan. >> i am. >> we know harvard is a division 1 team, sort of. we're talking about whether to enjoy -- whether it has like minus 12 ourch. [ applause ] . wait. i was trying to show off my dribbling skills, you know. that's tremendous. i'll use it. >> and they be the excuse to get you back out here would be come to the game. >> thank you.

[ applause ] thanks a lot. yeah. yeah. [ applause ] gale mansion, wife of west virginia senator used her position as president of the national association of state boards of education in 2012 to push legislation that requires schools around the country to stock ep by pens, which are made by melan. to answer questions from your house oversight kbhee who are looking into a a. --

>> we have live coverage at 2:00 p.m. eastern. blam

we could have done what other embassies did either strengthen our security there or remove our personnel between the kidnap and the take over took place. and the 2008 presidential governor and inchem bant vice president al gore. >> i'll balance the budget every year. i will pay down the national debt. i will put medicare and social on my surplus. one quarter of the surplus for spornt projects. i understand back to one reaches the bills. >> watch past presidential

debates saturday night on espn radio ap. scal pers are allowed to compare ticket in price. they looked into this hearing from the sports theater and online ticket sales industries. this is about an hour and a

half. the hearing of the coffin s consumer product safety commission will come to order. we're pleased to have our witnesses here on a topic that i think is of value and has some opportunity for us to make a difference. whether it's garth brooks concert at wichita or ku basketball game in lawrence or most height and prestigious broadway of older tamle ton. >> easier. >> she's made acquiring tickets but ticket scalping has been made more prevalent by advances in technology. >> when you're trying to pick up tickets for the next big event you're competing against other fans when tickets are relouised. you're forced to compete against army of ticket bots that

overwhelm the ticketing web site. and then resell them on a secondary mar fi that is significant. >> what's a ticket box? here is my example, you know lots of people who want to be there and there's one ticket available, people who use "box" first overwhelm the primary ticket issuers web site by cutting along while in front of fans. >> they quickly use human credit card and circumstances other than security measures. software is easy to find and you don't have to be a technology genius to happen id. >> a good -- one where you could purchase the soft wear we're

talking about today. >> we're making it simple for you to download other customer products. from performers to fans, ticket issuers like -- ticket fly, have to ininvest early in server. the tras that doesn-- consumers frustrated with the ticket issuer or the venue. the secondary market is also impacted by this practice, therefore e bay, stub hub, they harm all parts of the ticket industry. of course, it's perhaps that are the biggest are on the fans. they suggest that at least 10,000 -- tens of thousands of

tickets per year are being required using ticket boss. i certainly believe that a ticket marketing place is nothing good for consumers, people can and sure be able to sell their tickets and if they're performs to play for it. stub hub estimates half of the tickets sold are below face value, so the value prospects cuts both ways for consumers. what i take issue with and other legislation seems of fear, the practice of cutting in line. when tickets are offered so that regular consumers don't have a chance to pay face value of the fans. i'm also brning autoside the shop. >> he's a tur fer and kol ved every consumer program i look forward to the many of these proposals. many groups, including stub pub

and measure prevail. they'll be ben fitchs to legislation han hey lors to cig nt 7 f can -- it is my expectation that this committee, they'll consider bot at its next mark up i believe that's next week and i would encourage all of my cosponsors to video and play this bill. >> i would like to detd out of the ranking -- put it together today's hearing, senator fisher, thank you for your support as well and i'm sorry that the big 12 has trumped the big 10, once again, i can tell du. >> yet, we for her as well.

i would recognize the ranking -- the subcommittee's ranking member. senator blooming fall for his opening statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman, for bringing us your leadership today and for other supporting 2016, a good step, if only a modest step toward stopping kill doctor and they've done no watt ef. one of my favorite shows of all time "hamilton." one of the show stopping -- it happened where -- i think that's fans want to do, be in the room

where this happens and where this build up is give them fair access to be in that room. it may be a sports stadium, show like "hamilton" or look -- that thee are victimless abuses is kiting themselves. this kind of abuse effects boys and girls who want to celebrate birthday and who denied that activity that they had died and it's an ununlawful way to work. that's why it effects the music fans who want to go to the concert that they cannot access. it defends you can't they're winning in terms of victory or dna. >> i spent many years as

attorney general for the same connected fighting to protect consumers making -- ticket scalping is not a victimless abuse. it is not a victim us crime. it effects ordinary americans in their pocketbooks. in their hopes and as spi rations and it has the room of law and all the way home. the great cultural richness of this nation, my former colleague, as attorney general, or one who followed as attorney general after i left, eric has done an investigation and produced a report back in january. i asked mr. chairman that his prepared statement be submitted for the for record. if there's no objection, so ordered. >> showing him that remain out of street for consumers than

ever before. much of the denial of access is due to legal force special software, known as chikt bot. that devours the best tickets the moment they go on and say or before or making sure your you can share at reasonable prices. the use of this technology, basically, comprised the consumer of its fair market. if you believe in the markts, you should be in the legislation. if you believe in fairness, you should support this legislation, whether it's a mega hit like hamilton dch. >> football games that occur regularly in this country over the weekend is coming this fall. or the comments that occur around the country regularly, the current epidemic of ticket

box software is dancing the floor event and it is maddening and frustrating, consumers, no matter where they live or what their background, age, class, race may be, it effects everyone. i believe the state of affairs is untenable and that's why i'm strongly in favor of this. first step and i've heard some of the community performing arts in connecticut, the harvard, i knew -- how does this practice and makes it their sort of scribing, more difficult and how they are hampered in building relationships with future patrons of the ripple. is beyond broadway. it is in every community theater, every community the country and i want to thank the witnesses for being here today and contributing to our

understanding of this issue. thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you very much. we're honors toe have full committee. senator tt to see say i didn't get island, so i dot you wanted something different if it was always with any. >> not the price. because the reason i did not go. i didn't want to payle hundred dollars a ticket. at the time i tried, indeed, all the tickets have been brought up, that's what we've been talking. wu you put it in every day, you folks liars, the retirees who want to go to mark nair anniversary at the theater or

are you talking about the folks who want to get a ticket for their child on their baseball. to go see their doctor and in love. i went about the fans that wans to and they are denied of what we saw going on. this is not capital nicism. this is a rigged people speculating. and it's not right. -- and i appreciate what you all are doing. ever mr. chairman, can i request

for the record, this time there are cig nars are in the credit when this happens. i hear objection. we're delighted to have our committee members, especially for of those who introduce them. we have sbroo today. who is the general council of stub hub. we have the legal, the associate frant kanss. mr. jeffrey, the producer of hamilton in the major way. it is the commissioner of the big 12 confidence. we will start with you and york our way on if you want to cancel. thank you, chairman joft. >> thank you i anotice the accident to be able to be here and thank all of the distinguished members for taking

the time to hear from the witnesses. this is a terrific opportunity to talk about a vexing situation that brings all of us with relati relatively this is -- i'll let the first photographs of my statement stand for themselves. i think it's self evidence that some produce revenue from period. when are you going to go in traffic. this rechb is vital to the operation of inner collegiate high level hotels. i'll operate from anywhere. there is a unique relationship between an. it is not uncommon for our praks to have season ticket holders

acro across multiple generations because of the special relationships, we try and keep the value and skost of tickets at a reasonable level. because of the reasonable level of this pricing, we make ourselves an obvious target on some cases. this is particularly true of big regular season contests and, as well as our post season games, kwh, for which there are already a very limited number of tickets. i'm convinced that for certain games we could charge an unlawful lot more than we do. our traditional relationships and our loyalty to our fends. the demand to see live events may overwhelm the supplier virtually every one of our

environments, a school could raise ticket prices for that one gig game or order from a group from that ticket tell. so that less advantageous, contact us or level head with very highly activated charcoal kay. >> they're willing to do a great deal. so i'm unscrupulous, actors will exploit that situation. while many of the ticket stores are athletic events or held by seasoned holders. >> the ticket holders to profit from the sell of the respect to at&t and many games, scal pers will use computer programs to move -- to pick up and buy more sixties than ijs but not hard.

whether it's an ij or unsif stating it. the bottom is line this. the hard americaned evening, i'm going to text her to the waiting and not oern -- it's not that one. they had just both that stouf yorks. does it use and create inflames. it's a zugs in order to bring something i'm aware this some of the nay sayers, whether there's anything this congress or should it do about this kren way. there are still going to find a reason to do whatever they can to gain the system. well, i disagree.

i think this is a logical step in the right direction. i also applaud, allowing the federal trard commission and i look at civil enforcement actions against individuals who deploy deceptive practices who the lack of integrity of online purchasers in volume. we support this legislation as a necessary measure to ensure that our university's fans are the mat about this nonsense. >> reporter: now is a commissioner of higher visibility. we should encourage nch other that's student athlete, coach is a respective ears. we should denounce, however, for technology, takes a site before harden fam who seek to profit

for those, thank you, again, for those and i look forward to your questions. >> commissioner, thank you very much. when it comes to questions i will admonish my colleagues from nebraska missouri to keep it. >> and we may get the question. >> i noticed that senator from missouri. >> mr. seller, congratulations, thank you for being here. congratulations for being producer figure of front row. thank you chairman. i have to tell you that being in your presence, blooming that is all senator, nelson sean p twiner. i am nonminored to be in this room where it knocked ton back door. yes, i'm the proud producer of

"hamilton." by way of introduce. my career has been divided by books i produced rent, in the nights, kes side story. and i'm the fortunate winner of four tony awards for best musical. i started attending broadway shows in 1978. i was 13 years old. my family was lower middle class. my father was a process server, want to see some service. >> though, we had little money available for tournament. my question for musicals motivated my parents to scrape together whatever funds they could so she could see the fisher theater is her. the seats are available and we couldn't afford to go loo this. we went to bottom cliche, it's a

course line. >> when he came to town in 1979. my father stood in hours at the official theater so that we could get tickets and have that gift for the holidays for the entire family. i whether not be sitting here today for it was for me to try harder. i was able to start the great american footballs in our childhood. my recent for being here today, my question is to ensure that young people and, in fact, all of agencies, is one of this, you have the opportunity to see live performances of whatever interests them, musicals, plays, are, in fact. being skefl for big services. >> i have received numerous letters from children and

parents appealing to me to help them get tickets to hamel son and they have unable to condition condition conditionenenenenenenenen. >> i don't know which prosect, the second they went on sale. electronically purchased almost all of the brandy fulton -- they're reposting oin their secondary on prices that were up there fate value. hamilton took his lizzy in extesz of $1,000. in essence these box cut the line and held all the available product before they had a chance to get there. i told her we're waking on toll. >> she's comfortable, they she

dunts want to. box are computers cheaters. the poim who fronch i'm not the wm and holds purchases and every single before i met deal has a chance. the they removed the notion of the ifl playing field. ist don sums for her to get tickets no matter where they live. >> the second day market was introduced to market and the around city around 6:00 a.m. it's the notion that those reselling tickets were, in fact, taking the cane off the back. i'm not here to make any recommendations regarding the function or existence and in many instances it's a yutful tool for buyer and seller, and

though i must con visit. the university is in michigan. i will also ento your knowledge. i took my football tickets and resold dhem at tf commission so i could buy a pizza back. i am here to argue for fairness, the hi had a fair shot -- sat by the torrey. i'm advocating for level going to happen it. it offers millions of ways to thousands of talented and skill artists, knowledge. pretty water. for i acknowledge that tickets are expensive. we at imly are put in place tour affordables and make it available to all.

the initiative supported by the rockefeller sfoun dags. i thought it was $21,021 who were nod able to see that perform i remember in addition we made over 40 tickets. with seats in the first, every single day. $10 the first $21. in order for this to work, we need fairness and ticketing. we need a level playing field. we need to prevent dox from tappering with the system. i was designed to have ek sixties. this is why i whole horted -- heartedly support the biopsy. thank you senator moran. thank you for taking leadership roles on this issue.

i thank you for your time and i'm happy to be with knew. >> mr. chairman. >> rakle billion sup the my name ask stolen cow one. stub hub owned by ebay it's marketplace for 508. it's for ticket marketplace, starbucks offers plans safe and convenient way to get tickets to the games, targets, and feeding her and performs are only that they're not, there some there are and fikts came out -- >> they always feet uncan believe. and when they attempt to buy or sell tickets. the rules are two off the

problem. nearly every other industry are many often and ticket would mean lower mices, it leems like they can have access as well as the 80 security for people like each of us who created lots to inselt. >> it's not particularly focus. the main focus is rank. you can take that. the soft wear program is ticketing purchasing or skip back. he believes misuse of the programs, that's why we have consistently supported antibox legislation at the u.s. state level and we come in, senators mor moran, shuper and efforts to enact the federal -- still, not all box, all malicious. >> i'll explain one day when i

have time. box are you used every morgs, including whether or not services. has the committee considers this bill. i encourage that they need one. i all the woops i found him being fair come pez tif and pretty projections. tikd bolls are one subpoena. they have three consumers and b i consider operating. did we stay for place of trade. let me explit -- for fans let lift. for both mans, understoodmental question are both market when they go on sale. ticket are part of the problem, but only safe. with the practice called two

hold backs, there are also large to people shows was earls attorney general dead mind on evidence, 46% of concert tickets are made available for purchase to the federal government. in some cases, hold back are for more. with points taking you to the exchergss for that at tickets or generally reserved or for strit and her sen yao. railroad r f 28 t. >> it will be helpful and i hope we can explore the issue going forward. even for the lucky few who are able to buy tickets at the initial an detroit. there are restrictions and imposed for a long dime. tens, venues and argues.

>> there is some something cads so they're transferring freely. the on minoring on the scene, inconvenient limitation oon fans owner vip right. giving away for ticket or use this technology and if it took an attend the event, the purpose is to block the easy resale. restrictions are utilized in ways that ticket resales could only occur on specific platforms approved by primary ticket providers. these also harm consumers. ultimately we encourage congress to assist in of the comprehensive dialogue around the ticket industry. it is worth noting there is no independent federal legislation regarding the ticket industry. regulation has always been at the state, local and municipal

levels. we hope that congress will engage in a broad indepth examination. and require all stakeholders to participate in the examination or study. stub hub believes that a fair, secure and competitive ticket marketplace unequivocally supports bans. i look forward to answering any questions that you may have. >> thank you very much. >> chairman moran and ranking member blumenthal and members of the subcommittee. i want to thank you for holding a hearing on the harmful effects that bots have on the live industry. your efforts are appreciated by people across the industries ecosystem my name is jeremy liegl. at pandora, our mission is to connect fans with the music they love, and connect artists with their audience.

this is why it was a natural fit when we acquired ticketfly last year. ticketfly has partnered with more than 1600 leading event venues including helping sell more tickets and bringing more fans out to see live shows. we power digital marketing, while it's consumer tools help fans discover and produce tickets. the company has processed more than 1 billion in transactions and in the second quarter of this year alone, we processed 6 pbt 7 million tickets to over 38,000 live events. the value of live events cannot be overstated. concerts, theater and sports bring people together.

local bars, restaurants, taxi drivers, hotels, gas stations and retail at the stores all see a direct benefit from live events. at ticket fly and pandora, we've seen the transformative nature of live music events firsthand. the month long celebration features the famous music festival ticketfly. the economic impacts of the festival's music, bbq and international celebration are astounding. this year, memphis in may supported more than 1,000 total local jobs, attracted more than 93,000 visitors and generated more than $72 million for the city of memphis. what's the problem? profit hungry bot operators on the web are exploiting the livelihood of working artists and robbing the fans and venues that support them. >> a growing body of research

shows how automated software is keeping the tickets out of the hands of fans. siphoning money from artists and venues. these computer programs pose as real fans. bombarding ticket sites. they can seize large chunks of the available tickets within seconds of when the sale goes live far faster than any human being could ever type and click. the end result? real fans are unable to get good tickets at face value. >> there are other costs to this practice. a common issue, the same ticket can be resold into the market more than once. this can lead to longer lines and added confusion at the box office and even denial of entry at the door. it unfairly tarnishes the reputation of artists and venues. thankfully there are steps that can be taken by lawmakers that

strike the right balance. consumers can access tickets in easy ways and it's a win win for all. boosting attendance at events. encouraging greater spending by consumers and concessions. and resulting in increased revenue for artists, venues and promoters and the unsung staff who work hard every night putting on shows. with that in mind we're encouraged by and strongly welcomed by the better sales act of 2016. . we want to thank senators moran, schumer, fisher and blumenthal for introducing this legislation to benefit fans, artists and live event venues alike. as i said at the beginning of my testimony. at pandora and ticket fly. our goal is to connect fans with the artists they love. whether live at a concert, the gym or driving to work.

>> we support a music economy that works for everyone. artists and fans, music venues and promoters. and why we urge the senate to stop the action of ticket bots. thank you, and i look forward to your questions. >>. >> let me begin my questioning by making sure i have an understanding of what's legal and illegal. in today's world, is it satisfactory to scalp a ticket, sell it for more than what you paid for it, more than what the price is on the ticket? and i assume there's an answer to that question. maybe is there something in the conference that prohibits that from happening? is it illegal to sell or buy that ticket? my guess is this has a lot to do with state law, municipal ordinance. >> it does.

it sometimes limits not whether they can be resold, but where they can be resold. you'll frequently see scalpers across the street from a stadium on private property rather than on state property or private property, it is governed in some cases, but not well enforced, and that kind of a robust secondary market is really not my concern in this, it's been there for a long time the market tends to -- there tends to be a levining effect in the marketplace, and i think the creation of an artificial marketplace by perfect of exhorbitant tickets is a matter that rises to the level of importance for us. we have a number