rolls right away, a million new public sector living wage jobs to communities that provide service through state and local governments to be signed into law and then begin with the taxes on those jobs, strengthening those local economies. that's one way. the other way we're hearing is government should stay out of it. what they've saying is, we want to roll back things in a direction in which we allow the market to work it out. we saw what happened when the market worked out our wall street problem, didn't we? we saw what happened when the market worked out our financial foreclosure problem, too, didn't we? allowing the market to work without the engagement and partnership of government makes no sense. the question is, who is going to bring about the changes we need in our community as we talk about something as strategically important as the economy. >> as we close, the words of reverend jesse jackson senior come to mind, when asked, reverend jackson, what is this

about the tea party? he said, they're -- there are more grains of coffee in the pot than there are bags of tea in the cup. and so, dr. walters' statistics bear that out we vote by one percentage more per capita than other people in the country. .

>> c-span's lai connection- election night coverage begins at 7:00 p.m. eastern with results around the country. we will have your calls, e- mails and tweets. that is the 7:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. >> next weekend, joan of goldberg, best-selling author and editor at large of national at large online. join our 3 our conversation with your calls, e-mail's and tweets at noon eastern on c-span2's booktv. >> in addition to all of this

season's campaign coverage and archive debate, there is more to the c-span video library, including nonfiction authors, booktv, and everything we have aired since 1987, all free and index online at the c-span video library. >> next, a forum looking at issues in the 2010 midterm elections. speakers at the of and include former agricultural secretary dan glickman and stan greenberg. the event took place at the museum. it is 1.5 hours. >> good morning. good morning. thank you so much for joining us this morning. i am victoria leon monroe, the

senior vice president and i am happy to welcome you to the final poll in what has been a 15 week effort between the society of human resource management, national journal and the research center. a little housekeeping, i would ask you to silence yourself phones so we can't continue discussion without interruption. we will have a couple of panels this morning discussing the poll results and the potential impact and implications for the elections next week and the impact it should and could have on the next congress. we will be taking questions today of our panelists. we welcome your participation. you will see staff in the room with microphones. please raise your hand and identify yourself by name and your organization and we look forward to hearing your

questions. today's event would not be possible without the general support -- the generous support of the association. they are often referred to as high sherm. it is my pleasure to introduce the president and ceo of shrm. [applause] >> thank you, victoria. good morning. i want to welcome you to the third and final briefing on the shr nationalm journal connection poll. the society for human resource management for as victoria and indicated, shrm as we are called, is happy to conduct this poll at the research center. we are the largest professional organization dedicated to the practice of human resource management and believe me when i say that out of two hundred thousand members, what happens

in washington affects the lives of thousands of workers across the country every day. h.r. professionals are also aware that to be successful, i believe that we have to take responsibility to build a trust between the public policy and its citizens and the business c. that is the essence of what i think this next election is about, and i hope it's part of the result. i thank the ngressional poll for giving us a bett understanding of the issues and the voters. by encouraging a national dialogue, i hope the poll has helped better connect us to our government because these surveys are not just a reflection of our government, but they are really a mirror of ousts -- ourselves. at sherm we like to saye know what's next from the next workplace trend to the next

public policy issue to the next management innovation, and these polls have certainly added to that knowledge. and what better legacy can we leave as leaders than to help bolster a new trust and understanding between the working citizens and washington? all of us have a part in the restoring and maintaining the trust in our government. and with the election just five days away, i know that everyone is eager to hear what we can expect next tuesday. i want to, as i was reading some of the data, i was struck by one question. it said, who would you prefer to be in control, the democrats or the republicans? is and what surprised me is that it was a three-way tie between the democrats, republicans and who cares. [laughter] but i know we're eager to get to the panel, so let's get started. so i want to thank you for all being here, but i especially want to thank and congratulate

the national journal for taking on this task. and in particular, ron brownstein who's been the visionary behind the congressional connection poll. and to colonel doherty for being the architect of the poll that doesn't just measure the past as i see it, but may, in fact, influence our future. so on behalf of sherm, i want to thank all of you for being here. thank you. [applause] >> thank you, hank. as he mentioned, today's moderator is our editorial directer, ron brownstein. he is a two-time filist for the pulitzer prize for his political coverage. he writ regularly for the national journal magazine, for r recently-relaunched national journal daily, and you can catch some of his bylines on national journal.com. and thank you, ron, for taking us through the poll today. >> great. thank you, vick victoria. good morning, everything, and

thanks -- everybody, and thanks for joining us to talabout what we have learned not only in our most recent poll, but really what we have tried to explor i loved hank's phrase, a mirror to ourselves. in this poll over the course of this year through 15 weeks, virtually every week congress has been in session since the spring, we have polled americans looking at what they think about what's happening in washington, what they want to see happening out of washington and the extt to which they feel the political process is meeting their needs. and it will not be a big shock to you to know th the bottom line is that on many fronts americans do not feel the political system has been meeting their needs. in fact, if republicans gain at least 20 seats in this election which seems, you know, certainly more than likely, this would mark the first time since 1946, 1948 and 1950 where at least 20 seats have changed hands in three consecutive elections which is pretty much the standard the people use to

define wave elections. if democrats los control of the house after four years, it will be the shortest period of time that ther party has been able to hold the house since 1953 to 1955, '53 and '54 for the republicans. only two other times in the 20th century did control switch back that fast. it really has been a decade of sustained, of swings in our political alignment. after 2004 when president bush won re-election, many republican strategists talked about a, quote, stable majority. that was the phrase that was used. it was narrow, but it wasn't that stable. by 2006 democrats were in control of the house and, of course, after 2008 when president obama won on many fronts the most decisive victory for aemocrat sinceyndon johnson in 1964, it appeared the democrats had a lasting upper happened, and now here we are

two years later when they are facing the possibility of severe reversals. what explains the disconnect? why are the elected officials, whichever party has the upper hand, having such a difficult time maintaining the allegiance of a working majority of the public? that's what we've been trying to explore to some extent this year, and that's where we want to kind of plunge in this morning on the eve of this election. to do so, we're going to have two panelings. i'm going -- panels. i'm going to start with jason dick and michael dimmic, the associate directer of the pew research center who has been one of our principle partners in this journey every week. so, michael, let me start with you with something that hank mentioned and i think is kind of a striking result from this very later poll. all polling about the, devote, genec ballot asking whether you're going to vote republican or democratic, shows a consistent lead for republins

that might even be widening as the election approaches. but when we asked a different question: which party do you want to see in control of congress, we got a very different result. 30% democratic, 29% republican, no different, 34%. what is the contrast between that result and the generic ballot say to you? what explains i well, two things. one, all of us andma people in the country are really engaged in this election. there are a lot who aren't, and there are a lot who are only loosely catching up, and we call them and ask them a question, and they don't see a big difference between the parties. i think it also speaks to a second issue which is both parties' credibility right now is extremely low. theratings for the party leaders, the ratings for the parties themselves in terms of brand, so to speak, is very low on both sides. and i think it's -- one of the misinterpretations here would be that a big republican victory presents a mandate for a

republican platform that, a, most people are unaware of and, b, they're very skeptical of either party at this point, and i think that's a lot of what that no difference reflects. >> jason, we've seen that in different questions, different angles, but it really comes out very little faith that government is going to make problems -- progress on problems facing the country, and pretty low ratings for both parties. >> very low. one of the most striking, like, measures of this is our political confidence index which we measured three times in the course of the poll. 's a series of four questions measuring how much confidence people have in the democratic leaders, republican leaders and the president and whether people think political leaders are going to be able to tackle the toughest question. i think we topped out at -36? that was the high water mark, and it was as low as -32.

we looked at those in july, and your phrase was the cement is hardening. it's almost as if political success is a lagging indicator in itself much like unemployment. even sort of the small victories that a political party can manage are not really -- you're not going to get any credit for them for a few months out. >> you know, you mentiod r political confidence index, but one specific question we've asked along those lines, as i meioned, how much faith do you have that washington is going to make progress on the problems we've had over the next year, and we've had slow results. certainly that kind of tailwind is one of the forces. let me spin this forward and ask you, as a party that is skeptical of government, a small government party, do republicans -- if they achieve power -- do they benefit from that doubt about washington, or do they become the target of it once they, if they do take the

house or theenate or both? >> i think it's risky. i think right now the public in the abstract feels that government is the problem, not the solution. but they are demanding solutions. they want to see somebody fix the problems around here. if republicans can succeed in fixing the problems by shrinking the government, they'll get the benefit of that. but at the same time that the public's expressing more support for smaller government, they're still looking for the government to deliver benefits to their district, they're not supportive of major budget cuts in the things that matter to their day-to-day lives, so i think there is a mixed picture in terms of how they're going to feel if cuts come along. >> so you said before this election, from the data, is more a kind of rejection of the results democrats have produced and perhaps their agenda than it is in an embrace of a specific alternative agenda?

>> i think to a large part. the thing that's the clearest is that the public is extremely frustrated. they see huge problems out there, and they feel that congress in the particular has had the wrong priorities all along. they were focusing on health care, and they were focusing on financial regulation, focusing en on energy for a big part of the summer, and the public's out there going jobs, jobs, hello. but at the same time we asked people a series of questions about what could fix the job situation. doou think that government stimulus, tax cuts -- no, not much. no. they also, at the same time, recognize that maybe there wasn't much that could be done, that nothing seemed to help a lot, but that's still the frustration that congress wasn't focused on issue number one, i think, was a big part of it. >> you know, jason, you know, national journal daily and the team there covers congress very closely. to what extent do you think that this discontent tat really kind

of screams from this poll all year, you know, there's been nothing in the poll that would have led you away from the conclusion that we're going to have an electionike the kind that we may. but that discontent, do you think it is rooted more in results and what people are feeling in eir data day life -- day-to-day life, or is it also their assessment of the process that they're watching on capitol hill which is now more visible than it has been at any time in our history? >> i don't know if it's so much an issue of the image that they see on television. i don't think with all apologies to c-span that there are that many people tune anything the to see the bickering on, you know, the rules commtee and so forth. [laughter] so i think that it is more, it is a real results-oriented problem. a friend of mine that i used to work with said, younow, nobody really cares about the economy until he loses hisjob, and then all of a sudden it's a problem. and as we've seen this, i think that this overall national economy, when they s congress

arguing or they see that they don't, you know, they go to the senate floor and there's nothing seems to be happening, that just compounds an already sour mood. one of the things i was thinking about this morning as i was reading the paper is the news that new jersey is not going to ntinue, like, their part of the construction of the new jersey tunnel leaving new york and new jersey connected by 100-year-old railroad tunnel with two tracks. and i wonder, that may sound really great as a political thing, i'm not going to spend one dime more than we were supposed to, the republican governor chris christie says, but what happens a year or two out as more and more commuters are trying to get into work, and they're sitting in delay after delay? i wonder if that sort of long-term result is going to weigh and people, whether they'll make the connection or not to the political decision made yesterday. >> so in this most recent poll, the e published this week, we did ask what people's priorities would be for a republican majority if they take one or

both chaers, and the answers were kind of, were really striking in some ways because they both offered encouragement on some front to the gop, potential gop majority, but also pretty substantial red flags. we have 50% plus saying they would support repeal of health care which is what i'm going to come back to because that was a big increase from earlier in the fall. also allow more drilling to pursue domestic energy resources, and a narrow majority supported private accounts under social security. now, on the no side, a plulity no was substantial investigation into the obama administration, freezing spending, restricting abortion and then the weakest thing that we tested was probably the high e priority of the majority -- highest priority of the majority that m be emerging which was extending the bush tax cuts only 36% to 54,

very similar to our results earlier in the fall. how do you kind of assess that kind of agnment in the public priorities? >> right. again, i think neither party's platform as a wle, as a package is clearly superior from the public's perspective. i mean, they see elements of the republican p argument that make sense to them right now, particularly in light of what seems like a period of inability to tackle the big problems facing the country. but at the same time when you start to particularize some of the elements of that, there's at least indifference, if not some opposition to elements of it. i think you're right, the issues of repealing health care and privatizing at least partially social security are, they get some support, sort of slim majorities, but we all know that those are more fraud issues. as they start to get unpacked and the particulars get pulled out, i think those debates have a lot -- >> although, but, jason, we polled earlier this fall before the campaign was fully in swing.

we only had about one-third supporting repeal of health care. now, this is a likely voter pool, it's somewhat tilted to the right, but we've also seen in "the new york times"/cbs poll the share of americs willing to appeal has been rising. i'm wondering what you think t impact the campaign has had on attitudes towards health care? it certainly seems republicans have been more aggressive i criticizing it than democrats have been in defending it. >> it's interesting because when you poll according to each provision, it comes out fairly popular. nobody thinks we should be able to discriminate against people with prist thing conditions -- pre-existing conditions, especially if your 23-year-old graduate son is out of work. but as a whole, it gets very low marks. and there actually might be a corelation to some of the social security questions which is even in 2005 there was sort of after plurality or a narrow majority of people that said, yeah, this is a good idea to allow people

to invest in private accounts. when the president made it an issue and started drafting legislation, all of a sudden, you know, support for it cratered, and this was before the financial collapse, this was before everything that we've been dealing with now. so it seems that, you're right, these issues are more fraught, and when people drill in on them and get more specific, they view them differently. >> michael, i don't know if you looked at this but so much of our politics now is base-driven in which each party is responding to the demands of its base, and when it doesn't, you know, we saw almost as many successful primary challenges in the senate this year as we had seen in the previous 26 years. so i'm wondering when you look at this question we asked about priorities for next year, how different were republicans, you know, partisan republican voters in their priorities from the overall networks that i was reciting? >> oh, very different. i mean, the republica were very much onboard with this agenda, and you're pointing to a key point, and it goes back to

your opening comments about this period of narrow majorities that we've had. i think one of the things that that's led to is a reinforcement of the partisan feelings on the right and the left. and i think it contributes to the lack of cooperation across party lines. when every election is being won by a hair, the level of competitiveness increases, the willingnessover the desire -- or the desire to compromise decreases because holding the other guys down gives you a leg up in the next election. we went through a long period, as you described, of one dominant majority where working together was different. i think the competitiveness of it is reinforcing, it's creating folks out there who are really locking into each side's message in a much more discreet way. >> jason, one consistent finding all year has been an enormous racial chasm not only in the attitudes towards obama and attitudes towards the democrats, but i think much more fundamentally in confidence in the ability of government to

make a positive difference in the lives of average families. on everying we've asked, just enormous skepticism that government, a, can do anything effectively, and, b, even if it does, that it will benefit my family whereas in the minority community, much more confidence abouthat. and i'm just wondering your thoughts about the implication of that going forward. i mean, we could have an election here where republicans win a larger share of the white vote than they did in 1994. in fact, to win the house mathematically, they will have to because of the growth of the nonwhite vote in the last 16 years. so what do you make, what are the implications for the way congress operates of this racial chasm in the vte for each party and the underlying perception of what government's proper role is? >> >> i mean, it's huge. it's going to be interesting especially because in two more years we're going to be redistricting the country, and a lot of districts that are geared

toward electing an hispanic candidate or a black candidate or gerrymandered toward a particular part are going to be thrown out and redrawn, and we're going to see a real reconfiguring there. but to get back to your question, it seems like it's going to be a lot more tense. one of the questions, also, that gets to this that we polled on was whether or not birthright citizenship should be -- >> yep. >> -- we should still continue to be a constitutional right. pass an amendment to the constitution to appeal birthrightitizenship. the electorate was kind of split which was staggering and likely related to, you know, problem ps with immigration -- >> and i assume among republicans? >> yeah. but the, as you see you're talking about bases, the white electorate is shrinking, and the electorate that'somprised primarily of his hispanics is growing. if democrats are able to, you know, curry favor there and address those issues important

to hispanics and blacks, they're likely, you know, even in maybe 5-10 years going to start coming out on the better end of it. >> well, you know, in this polling, other polling that you've done and other polling that we've done have both found this very striking result that when you ask people,ill their children be able to live better than they did, there isore pessimism in the white electorate than in the nonwhite. hispanics and rican-americans are more confident about the prospects for their kids today than white voters, white americans are. and not only the blue collar non-college whites who have been facing years of kind of stagnant wages, but even college-educated white collar whites also, there is this anxiety about the future. is that rooted in the their perceptions of government, or are their perceptns of government largely a function of that pessimism? which way does the circle turn? [laughter] >> wow, that's a tough one. the simple answer's a little bit of both. i think there is a sense of frustration with the way

government is headed, and it is particularly intense among folks who feel like they're being left behind in the dialogue, and i think it goes beyond race. i think the wall street/main street discussion is a part of this. i mean, one of the polls that, i think, spoke to that was when we asked people how the government's policy was effecting elements of the country, people overwhelmingly thought it was benefiting wall street, benefiting corporations. was it benefiting small business? no, it was hurting small business. was it benefiting the middle class? no. there was a sense of disparity there, and i think that that frustration that you're talking about among this working class white voter is a come by nation -- combination of things, that policies seem to be directed at all sorts of groups out there other than me. and that's where that frustration is coming from. >> you know, all the way true, jason, all year every question -- doesn't really matter the angle, whether you're talking about individual or institution, the sense of alienation and lack of faith among white working class voters just, you know, screams through

whether it's obama approval rating which is under 35% among these voters, faith in government to make progress on problems which is probably in the low 20s and teens, if, in fact, that -- and we'll talk more about that with the next panel -- if that does play out on election day and you see a kind of hollowing out in areas that are heavily white and working class, you'd be left with a democratic caucus that would have a lot of minority members and a lot of members from upper middle class kind of white collar suburbs that have been able to hold on because the current hasn't run as strongly there. how would that function? if you had that upstairs, downstairs democratic coalition 2349 next congress -- in the next congress, how would that operate? would that be easier for harder for them to reach consensus if their blue clar middle is holled out? >> well, i mean, there is a model for making that work, and

it's obama's election in 2008. he was able to link those two communities very well together. i think that must be a source of frustration in the white house and in thedemocratic, you know, caucus in the house and th senate that they haven't been able to replicate that on a legislative field. so i think that will be their challenge in the next year, in the next two years as we see more, you know, more republicans in districts that might, you know, traditionally be democratic just out of a sense of frustration from the electorate. i think you'll see a lot of friction and opportunities for democrats to sort of sweep many this and take advantage of maybe a disconnect between a representative who wouldn't have been elected in this, say, 2008 in these districts. >> let me ask a final question, and then we'll bring in the audience for some of their questions. as i mentioned, we have been asking the public all year. we've done 15 of these polls. what is the biggest takeaway you have on the relationship between the congress and the public? what's the biggest takeaway you

have from the entire panoply of questions we asked all year? >> i think the thing that sticks in my mind as we get closer to election day is from the public's perspective right now the problems in the washington are a personnel issue, not a structural issue. that they don't see this as, they don't think the system is inherently broken, they just think we have a lot of bums in office, and that's not an unusual reaction. we've thrown the bums out plenty of times, and this is looking to be potentially another time like that. but my question, the question that sits in my mind after looking through the series we did is, what comes next? if they throw the bums out this fall and the jobs situation doesn't turn on a dime and everythinghat they're worried about doesn't fix, do they start to think about issues differently, and we come into a redistricting cycle, we come into a period where structural change is on the agenda in some ways. is the public going to think in those terms? >> jason? >> >> the thing that struck me the most, and it was hammered home

again with the seriesf priorities that we asked about, is that there isn't -- people are not, say, taking up a pledge to america or the contract with america and saying, yes, yes, yes, yes,es. they're, they're able to hold different ideas in their mind that don't necessarily jibe with either political party. so they, i mean, you would think that right now with people out of work, with people, like, sort of hurting, i mean, nobody likes to think about, like, tax time, that it would be a gat time for the republicans to talk about tax cuts. and yet this was, this was the least popular, you know, topic. you would think that with, you know, the biggest oil spill in american history still, like, sort of lingering in our minds that offshore drilling would not necessarily be popular, and yet it also is very popular. so the ability to have the public to, you know, kind of pick and choose topics that aren't necessarily aligning consistently with the political party was kind of fascinating to me. this is -- i would not want to

be a strategist in either political party right now trying to hit all the numbers because i don't think that you can sort of say, okay, this is our document. which might account for why a lot of campaigns and even things like the pledge to america e rather vague. >> i would say quickly for me the biggest takeaway was this enormous racial gap not only in the attitudes toward the parties, but in fundamental attitude toward government and the belief about whether governmentould be a positive force in the life of the country. and really the collapse in white america of that belief and its being frayed but still largely sustained in minority america. and when you add kind of the demographic change as anoverlay on that in which the under 18 population is increasingly nonwhite, and the senior population remains predominantly white because we went through 40 years without much immigration in the country and the baby boom is largely white, you have this ingredients for sustained tension between a growing nonwhite population that sees

public servicers as key to bringing their kids up the income ladder. and i think an older white population that is increasingly dubious of the every efficacy of those programs and paying for them. that, i think, is going to be part of our poll politics that's going to be with us, and we could see in 201 the possibility of barack obama coming in the around 40% of the white electorate and still winning re-election which would be quite a striking statement. so with our final thoughts before we bring in the panel to talk about where we're going in the next couple years and the election, maybe we'll take a couple questions right now from this group. right here, do we have one? ..

>> it is a paradox. not only in government models so in business, the obama admistration thought that would ovide a backdrop for a burst of government activism but it didn't happen. confidence in government fell more steeply than confidence in business even wh the bailout. there was a targeted anger with executive salaries and things like that but overall the public has not soured on big business in the way you might think and in fact right now government's credibility is lower. this is -- the damic didn't

move as far as you say towards regulation and the fact that the public was not interested and not necessarily supportive of financial regulation year-and-a-half after the biggest bank crisis was really telling. it did have majority support but t intensity. >> my name is sammy ellis from whiting international. can you address the impact of e tea party in fostering all of this racial animus which is felt by the minority community including viciousttacks on peop who felt they were expressing their first amendment rights and how that plays out in embracing all americans coming

together? >> leaving aside the specifics before you get to the specific views expressed by individual leaders this structural reality is you are probably going to see a bigger share of the wte electorate vote republican in this election than even in 1994. it may as seed 60% in a few minutes whereas the vote in the minority community will probably go down from 2008, around 70% in e other direction and the questions about the basic role of government you're seeing a very profound -- this is going to be a challenge for politics. a country that is 35% non-white, 26% of the electorate i2008 was minority. ninety% of john mccain's vote came from white. the republican party will elect a number of minority officials, possibly the governor of new

mexico for example, and african-american congressman in south carolina. but the basis of thearty, the core of the vote is overwhelmingly white and overwhelmingly conservative, about 80% by republicans and conservatives. i think you have, leaving aside motivations of individuals, a structural conflict that is built in bween the minority communy that is younger that clearly sees public service as part of the ladder of advancement for their kids through health-care etc. and a white a electore that is aging and by and large seems to be getting more skeptical of those programs. we are in for a period in which our politics has a strong racial overlay whether or not

individual candidates make provocative comments. >> we wrote about this yesterday in national journal daily. this racial divide is also going to be on display if republicans take the majority in the house. the house democrat leadership led by woman, nancy pelosi. the democratic caucus -- conference vice-chairman is mexican-american, they will be replaced primarily by white men and it will be a very striking difference just optically, the optics are going to demonstrate that racial divide. >> in 1994 we talked about angry white men driving the republican game and in this election, there will be a substantially improved showing among white women especially the blue collar waitress moms voting as republicans at least in the

generic ballot, almost as republican as the the men. college women are holding back. >> it is a steeper shift among white women than white men. >> time for one more question. for the next panel. >> the three if you identified unemployment and the jobless rate and of 9% of the big issue in this election year historically you go back to the great depression the unemployment rate in 1934 was about 16% and it stayed high until e united states went to world war ii and came down. why did the electorate stick with roosevelt, the democrats through 34, 36, 38 and 40 with big majorities and after two years appear to be deserting obama and the democrats? >> i agree with you. inhis poll and others what has changed since earlier this year

has not been people's assessment of where the economy is now. what changed is the degree of optimism that it will get better over the next year. that is what has really declined and dragged the democrats down with it and led to the perception that the program hasn't worked. i do not think it is the immediate level of unemployment personally. we can ask our experts in a minute that is the biggest threat to democrats. it is the lack of optimism that we are on a trajectory from things to get better. >> the only thought that crosses my mind is this pervasive sense in the public that the government's priories have been out of alignment. they passed a stimulus and the public is extremely skeptical of its effectiveness. and help corporate america and the banks but it didn't help regular americans. the sense that congress continued to pursue policies that were not focused on the main issues than they were concerned about and that -- every time they would see news

conference -- coverage of congress there were not talng about the issues. >> we will bring up the second panel and be ready to go in one moment. same back time, same bat channel. [inaudible conversations] >> i will start at the far end.

he is such a fixture i barely see him on stage. sherwood boehlert is a 12 to representative from new york and principal in the accord group in washington. dan glickman as a representative from kansas, former agriculture secretary and now a senior fellow of the bipartisan policy center. and a partner of public opinion strategies who is having more fun in this election season than the last one, stan greenberg, undemocratic pollster as well as a pollster for candidates around the world including tony blair and neln mandela. let me start with you. is thereny set of rcumstances that you can see that would allow democrats to

hold out? >> anything is possible. if we were on this election ten times, seven to eight times republicans will take the house. the concrete is heartening. it is hard to see how republicans don't go over the top. the bigger question is how big is it going to be, how big is this hurricane going to be and is the senate still possible? that is more of a long shot. if you run that ten times it is more like three times republicans might take it but it is still in play. and don't think we are going to know on election night who will hold the senate. it will be very tight. we won't know in california o washington or nevada but we will know very quickly in terms of the house what is going to happen. >> how big do you think it can be? >> if you look all the polls out there, and you look at all the different likely voter models

that are out there, if you look at all of them and project the pollster we are looking at something in the low 50s. >> comparable to 94. does this feel le -- sorry to bring that up. does this feel to use the way that did? >> yes. >> the important difference in terms of scale, it does. that is of a feel of an election in which anything you think might go badly does go bay. what i do think -- it won't be in california and then washington state but enough states that the senate is at the best. >> you list from 1994, perhaps even --

[talking over each other] >> you are some of the collateral damage. how does this situation compare? how does it feel to you? >> i certainly wasn't prepared to be defeated in 94. many democrats were not prepared becaus we were not forewarned. we should have been but we weren't. the race is now every person who is not expecting a serious race is not understanding the moo of the country. the other thing is in addition to the many equity, candidates are much more competitive today on that, socl issues were very big in '94. abortion, gun control, and naphtha. the democratic base was being attacked by a lot of these policies. it hurt rear and a lot of other people. thosare not in play this year. there is a difference. that is why the odds are the

democrats lose the house but i don't think it will be in the numbers as great as you talk about. >> how does this look to you? does it feel like the tail wind republicans had in '94? >> there is an inevitability about it all. i agree with all the pollsters. 94 i was a beneficiary of the change in '94. >> you were a very good guy. >> as i looked ahead to the next congress, i have a different sense of optimism also much smaller in number is, the moderates on both sides of the political aisle will become more relevant because the public is demanding from washington and change. not quite sure what kind of change but they are demanding change and they want washington to do something because with unemployment at 9-1/2% it is no

surprise people are just demanding change and worried about their mortgage payments or tuition payments and thr jobs. that small gs and their jobs. that small group declining in size of moderates are going to make a big difference in the next congress. maybe it is because i am an eternal optimist. >> certainly there are going to be narrow majorities than there are today. let me ask the pollsters a question. we talk about this in the first panel. barack obama won in 2008 the most decisive democratic victory, 53% of the vote, 257 house members. nce then to now, have they lost ground across the board? where in the electorate hw,e thav lost the most ground?

who has soured the most on the democratic candidates and why? >> person take across-the-board decline. even base voters, i am sure you will confirm that. is also true that white working-class voters hw,e lost more. this is actually the one time in my entire life that we disagree. [talking over each other] >> has to do with the focus on race. just isn't complicated. you hw,e 9% unemployment concentrated iwhite working-class folks. they are angry. at the same time you hw,e african-american let the voters who hw,e more confidence in the president and are much younger and are more optimistic general. [talking over each other] >> they are linked.

voters are angrory the most angry. you don't need race to -- [talking over each other] >> i am not suggesting that the disaffection, decline in white wo o wing class is predominately were substantially linked to a racial attitude towa-b the president. i was saying i is linked toes of faith in the community that government can do anything that will benefit them. the same problems with which you started that career, the difference is this startede 9ndr steorge bush. the danger that the government and wall street or a anger at -- not necessarily small. they also did wall street. thav were angry republicans.

i don't think we have established that. the economy and jobs are coloring everything that is going on in the public side and in this election. the election and dynamics around it would not be possible if the economy was not like that. the economy collapsed in the 20 cycle. obama won big. people said the government has been asleep at the switch. we want to change. we want president obama. president obama comes and and a lot more government intervention. he has spent a lot of money. people woke up and said that is not what we want. this is not what we need and

they have also seen through that stimulus package, $7 billion have been spent and we have not seen the benefit of th. the average person does not feel the stimulus package have affected that person. they see big banks bailed out and big business bailout but th working hard every day, focus groups around the country all the time, i am sure you have done many swing voter groups recently. i have too. all lake care about is making their budget work and trying to get their food on the table, gas in the car and kids through college. that is what they care about that has not been delivered. they see all this spending, lot of government intervention and do not think that is the answer. with the economy still not fixed we are swinging back toward that was chged but not the change we wanted. time for a different change. >> you talked about franklin roosevelt. my dad thought franklin

roosevelt was the savior of his life. they lived during the depression. he said the one thing roosevelt did was gave people confidence. confiden is the big factor in whether people trust the government or not. that confidence lasted through his entire presidency even though unemployment didn't go up. the belief that things were going to get better. what we have now is neither party has given confidence to the american people that they have a plan for the future and things will get better. that accounts for a lot of the volatility that swings back and forth. they are not getting a story about whether versus going to work or not. >> it is not getting results. >> one thing that very significant that we keep seeing headlines about our 4 closures. this idea that government is not at work foreople. we structured a bank bailout program. in most cases it worke the financial system stabilized.

what people are not thinking about as much as they are thinking about the same banks we bailed out are now rushing through paperwork, sometimes rubber-stamp them and for closing on my neighbor's hou or my house. whether it is fair to make that connection, that lets connection is being made. people said this was the stimulus, this was t.a.r.p. and the bailout, rushing through foreclosures and systematically failure in confidence in helng are performing. >> stan said before that the same discontent which has failed the democrats after four years, will continue to roll on and threaten republicans. if they do not see tangible improvement in their condition. do you agree? if we do see a republican majority in the house does it

stt tonight? >> there's a parallel and the warning sign. if republicans in the new majority which everyone expects in the house just provide more of the same, but if there isn't a significant change they will share part of the blame. 9-1/2%. no one expects the republicans to waive a magic wand and have that come down dramatically. the expectation level is different from the roosevelt era. the expectation is in america if you are willing to work hard, you are available for job you should be able to get a jobnd get a home and a car and be able to pay tuition. the confidence level is way down. they're still willing to work hard and do everything peoe

demand but they don't see the report at the end. >> what is historic about this election is the attitude toward the republican party. which is astonishingly -- if you look at your pole and the new york times polls, in terms of who is the most -- [talking over each other] >> i have seen a wave election where the most unpopular party is the one predicted to wind on the wave. i was in in 94. what was different is when we were opposed by the republicans we had the standing of the newt gingrich and bob dole world. the way they confronted us. the republican party was higher than the democrats. we're still at the point where republicans are less popular

than the demrats. if you take the leaders like newt gingrich or sarah palin care the most unpopular in the country, the moment this election is over republican standing is further less they figure out a way to reach out to the president. to try to move in a bipartisan way. your polls is a wake-up call. a likely electorate for this very republican electorate. you barely get a majority for appeal. you do not get support for extending the bush tax cuts. this is their main agenda item which is unpopular with this electorate's. immediately the presidential electorate, the presidential, what matters. these positions are unpopular. the party is unpopular. they will be at an impasse with the president who is going to be --

>> i want to turn to governance but ask one last question about the election. if all this is true in the polling, the party image has not been good, that would suggest the public is discontent with whathey received from democrats if they are willing to move toward republicans without embracing their agenda. if you look at the difficulty democrats are in, look at the difficulty democrats are in no is it primarily a result of the objective conditions, high unemployment a slow economic growth or is it a few, a rejection of the agenda they have advanced in the last two years or are the two intertwined? does the president come out of this election with most americans believe in his agenda has failed? >> i think yes. it is a combination of both factors. the economy is creating these conditions but there has been a

rejection of their agenda. democrats have controlled the white house, the senate and house for the last two years. they have had control of the house and senate longer than that and the american people are not happy. president obama said in his state of the union address jobs, job is my focus a what did he do? he focused on health care for three months. longer. people don't have confidence. they don't he some -- see him or the democrats focusing on jobs. health care whether it gets repealed or not, a lot of that is in the polling language and you and i both know every time you le you can get a different outcome but based on how they do that, all the communication that has gone on around this health care legislation, for it not to have come across that people like it at this point, how do they sell it? they can't.

people think the quality of care will go down and the choice of doctors will go down and on the other side costs will go up. and the federal deficit will go up. that is a great deal. that is what the public actually thinks. what democrats and president obama are trying to tell you is their health care plan is the exact opposite. the public is not buying that. they a not buying this liberal agenda that has been put forth. >> to what extent is the problem the conditions and to what extent do democrats have to deal with the idea thathe public has not bought this agenda? >> my judent, leadership requires targeting and focus. you can do with thousands things. you have to do two very well and i think the democratic agenda was too complicated and it is hard for republic that is

hurting to understand more than two or three things. i'm not sure most americans have the foggiest idea what is in the health-care bill. they go understand it. is that the fault of the bill itself? there has not necessarily been a rejection ofhe bill. it was fairly moderate buno one understands what is an. alonwith the slippery economy is losing. and talking about the back and forth, i never thought i would see this but if neither party gets it in terms of what is in the mind of the american people, you could see an independent or third-party movement for the rst time developed in 2012 and both partieseed to be prepared for that. >> sherwood boehlert, however if this turns of the majority in the house and senate will certainly be narrower than they are today. we are looking with more closel

divided bodies than we have now. does that likelihood in your mind foretell more conflict or more cooperation? what will narrow where majorities mean? >> i say this with hands folded looking up. it offers the opportunity for more centrists to be the pivotal difference in all the debates. the american public is tired of all the talk. they are results oriented. look at what is happening. identification with either party is on the decline. identification as an independent is up. they are going to demand results. if the next congress does nothing but stand on the opposite side of the political divide scoring political debating points that won't be good enough.

they will throw them out too. they want results. >> more piece? >> it is counterintuitive to think there will be more peace. but one of thing the small gleaming light of hope pointed out by major garrett in the national journal, the new national journal, john baynor becomes speaker he will be the first speaker since tom foley to be comnity chairman. that is pretty important. he is an institutional list. for some of us who have been familiar with john baynor, to see the last few years degenerate under thistreet flight is the departure from the way we have known him. he does not come out as

slippery. this idea of him as a partisan figure is not familiar to anyone who has known him forny length ofime so there is a possibility that a scaled-down marity, set of expectations and somebody who viewed as an institutional list could reinvigorate the debate among members of congress especially in the house. >> the fund-raisers start at -- and the money chase is continued frenet. the scenario becomes more of a game than substance. if in the words of a leader in the senate, mitch mcconnell the priority is to beat obama [talking over each other] >> the worst comes toplay. people find this system is not on the level. it doesn't serve me at all.

>> let me ask alex and you can join in. a different problem, wheneve john boehner's inclinations to become speaker, part of the issue is what does the electorate that elected these new republicans want? we mentioned before priorities of the republicans when we ask what they want, were different from the priorities of the public overall, what do you think if there is a new republican majority, what is the minimum thing they have to do to satisfy the electorate that they are fulfilling what they essentially promised to those voters? what do they have to get done and how do they bring democrats along? >> i sound like a broken record but they have to demonstrate that they're focused on the economy and jobs. it is clear the democrats have not. i think it will be all about

framing everything around the economy and jobs and helping working class people get through their day and putting food on the table and get back to work and -- >> what are the tangible measures of that? extend the bush tax cuts? repeal health care? what is the tangible way to show they're doing that? >> i am a pollster, not legislator. i can come up with those things. they have to go after the bush tax cuts. it was only for people earning 250,000 people. that is where the rubber meets the road. their support for extending the tax cuts. it is complicated. that is why obama made this a big issue before the midterm and then it disappeared because it is more complicated than just cutting them. people want them. they have to go after that. there s to be something done with health care in terms of cost. the american people care about the cost of health care.

that was their priority all along in that issue so republicans can focus on we want to get the cost of health care down, they need to do things like that as well. >> in 1994 after you came in with morelarity on agenda, within 100 days they were in trouble. they were stumped in the senate. when they have the house they stopped in the senate. they are not going to be able to move anythg. whatever the numbers in the senate nothing will move. this is all positioning in the house. it really worked well for the democrats. and not passing them in senate. [talking over each other] >> people get it. the president's standing is high. the president's ratings are mid 40s.

with 9-1/2% unemployment is actually a pretty remarkable number. quite good compared to reagan or bill clinton. if this was japan and we have 1% unemployment, unemployment doesn't go down a third party candidate will do well in the election but if we have anything close to normal modest economic growth and unemployment coming down the president will be stronger. it will be frustrating. he is going to offer a bipartisan agenda on energy, on deficits, on jobs, a broad range of issues. said down at the table and fight the moderates on all sides. it will be republicans cannot respond to it. go ahead. >> i disagree. i don't think the president's stand is strong. he has been below 50% approval rating for quite some time. we know these are --

[talking over each other] >> reagan had rapid economic growth. [talking over each other] >> one thing i wonder having been on the campaign trail this year goes to the question of whether we can see actual agreement between congress with more republicans in it and control and president obama. big portions of this electorate that are propelling these gains for the republic this year are really skeptical toward obama, really react viscerally to his agenda and i wonder if many of these republicans who are goin to be elected with that energy are going to feel that they can put their signature on agreements with obama regardless of what it is without a big portion of their voters basically considering them sellouts. are republicans going to be leery of associating themselves

with a deal with the white house or will they view sharon angle as -- beside if the only way they can convince their voters they are bei pure is by holding out and say no? >> i agree with stan. the senate is going to be the key stumbling block to any progress. i can anticipate what will happen if republicans take the house which everyone expectso happen. there will be a conscious effort to demonize speaker john boehner. he is not a radical right winger. he is an adult. he knows -- he is an institutional list. problem is going to be in the senate. not so much the house. if they fail to accomplish anything because of the senate, the american public is going to be dissatisfied and there will

be a move in the next election to have dramatic change part ii. >> the question is what can incentivize our political system as a whole to try to get a law? try to reach solutions on issues. right now the incentives are against that. the media is not a good incentive. i don't mean you but the generic media plays conflict. the primary thing we do. what can we do? maybe there is nothing. what can we do to and conflict with the system works and where the public perceives the system in order to get some things done? without that we gback and forth, more conflict and more division that is what really troubles me and why i think unless these outside ctors work a little

better, we can face the possibility of a third-party movement that could take hold. >> you lived through 1994 and described the president's posion as a strong. but he could be presiding over the biggest -- the biggest election loss in the house since world war ii. the highest level in any single election. is there not some message in that and if so what is it? >> keep in mind the election is not over. there is a range. it could reach levels not seen in decades. >> i do think for the president and what he set out to do, he wanted to transcend politics in washington. he will feel that he was unable to govern in that way. we will hear the president apologetic aut tt.

not arrogant about his position. as someone who has been through this historically. look at his numbers and in terms of assuming you get an economy that moves up, he will view this election for sure as a blow and a blow to the way he would like to govern. it is authentic. not just a tactic to get republican trust over these issues. he will want to move on the jobs issues and growth issues and deficit issues. i think problem has not really been having a narrative. his main problem is a roosevelt problem. roosevelt had a narrative. we have a majority to pass things quickly. a constitutional system in which you pass health care and the public watches this ugly process. combat pass health care and three months before christmas, a

different feeling about i you didn't have a roosevelt type narrative about how many yrs it would take to get out of this historic recession. instead his message was an era where. we are succeeding and we will come out of this in two years. you will see the progress and convince people we are making progress. it helps reinforce this as an election on his record. [talking over each other] >> a more natural narrative for him. >> what is the message for the president? >> we have been focusing a lot on what are republicans going to do? let's think about what democrats have to do after this election. a republican controlled house and senate is really tight and obama in the white house and you have to have a narrative. that is a huge part of a problem. no one thinks it will happen right now but it couldn that obama could be primary in 2012. he will have two choices

following this election. he could say the american people are stupid and i will keep going or he can say i hear you, you send a message. we will start doing things that he has to come out and start cutting spending. he is going to have to address the deficit. these are things that are not popular with his base. he has not done things that are unpopular. he sent the troops to afghanistan. his base was not happy about that. he did it with a don't ask don't tell. his base is not happy with that. this election will force him to at least say he will do it. whether he will or not is another issue but if he ds these things it will upset his base and he could be in a precarious situation in 2012. it is tough for the republicans but it will be tough for the democrats especially president obama. >> it is a problem he will happily accept.

that keep coming down -- you have seen other presides on their heels and different ways they respond. what do you think the message will be? how do you expect him to respond? >> i lived through the clinton 94-95 era where i was defeated and then worked for him for six years and i saw how clever with stan's help he was able to help maneuver newt gingrich, government shutdown. [talking over each other] >> took him a while but he was a survivor. he had a very good instinct for what the american people wanted. he intuitively knew because he lived it a his life. >> i think obama is missing that. >> obama wants to be a survivor. he doesn't want to be defeated in 2012. he is smart. he has got to know what is going on. he will take some lessons from the clinton era.

they are not the same people so i don't know how successful he is going to be but he does have to hone in on the economy. the problem is these monumental mounting deficits which restrict the ability of the government to do anything, to solve a lot of these problems. that will be a problem for the entire government but my prediction is he will go to the left of president clinton and you will see a lot more management of the relationship with congress. >> what is the message andow should he respond? >> the message is you can't -- where is the change? the hope is only diminished. if there's anything that surprised me in this whole cycle it has been the failure of the administration on messageing. they are all over the lot and the americ people are saying what is going on? >> there has not been a coherent defense of the democratic program of the past year and

when i am on the campaign trail i am struck that the democrats abandoned the effort to do it. they're focusing all their energy on disqualifying republican opponents rather than making the case for what they have done and i wonder what position that will leave the administration in on the day after the election in terms of where they go from here if even their own side hasn't felt they could defend their choices. ..

>> they have no incentive whatsoever to work with the president. they will seen as sellouts, and we've already seen even with just two people, jim demint and tom coburn, they can halt all consideration of almost anything. they can make it difficult to just even i prove the minutes from -- approve the minutes from the day before. >> yeah. >> so i think we're going to see a lot of sore feeling, and it will lead to somebody like john boehner or even mitch mcconnell for as pointed as his remarks have been to soothe over these feelings just so they can get business done. >> we'll have a final quick question for the panel and myself, and i think we have one right over here. >> alex daniels. what sort of impact do mitt romney or mike huckabee or sarah palin, what sort of impact will

they have on the midterms, and have any of these folks built allegiances or a campaign infrastructure that will be meaningful in two years? >> a real quick thought, michael -- i don't know if he's still here, just one quick answer from our polling. endorsements from almost everybody were net negative from the president, the teaarty and sarah palin which, i think, goes to a larger kind of institutional barrier. but, alex, why d't you jump in. >> i mea sarah palin certainly has had impact in the primary races on the republican side, certainly she got behind many tea party candidates that were successful, so you do see the impacts of palin. in terms of romney and, i'm sorry, huckabee as well. if anything, the endorsements that have been in the spotlight have been sarah palin's. in terms of three of them being leaders in in the republican party, certainly they are, you know, top of mind people. they're certainly polling at the top when we sort of list ten

different republican potential spokespersons for the republican party. yes, they're top of mind, and they're out there, and i think, certainly, we're going to hear a lot more from them. on november 3rd, guess what? this election's done, we're all about 2012, so those are names you're going to hear from a lot. and all three of them have been out there, you know, moving around, going to different states. so you're going to hear a lot of them. >> can i ask you a twist on that question? if, in fact, we see this enormous blue collar shift into the party in this election, do those voters stick around for the 2012 primary, and if so, do they make palin a very viable contender if republican party is moving more toward a noncollege, down sail cultureally conservative? >> it's very possible. there's a lag to this. if you watch what happened in '94 which was very much driven

by white working class voters, you know, who had been ross perot voters and pulled away, you know, clinton got them back but slowly. there's a lag to this. you know, it took -- by '96 he finally had enough growth for them to come back toward democrat. but they're going to be very much on the republican side, you know, i think short term is long. [laughter] >> anybody else? any questions do whave? this yes, over there. two over there. way over there. >> john isaacs, council for global world. there's been little attention paid to national security issues, and i notice the polling department cover that as well. -- didn't coffer that as well -- cover that as well. >> i mentioned, you know, you do hear out with the ken buck or a sharron angle some of the tea party candidates do express a certain skepticism about the bush vision, kind of the

expansive bush vision of the u.s. assertively kind of, you know, making the world safe for democracy. do you think that we will see any kind of divisions among republicans about foreign policy, or is there, or is there an afghanistan, for example, how long to stay there, those kinds of issues? >> i think you're going to see a new definition of national security. everybody in the present climate tends to think of national security of what we do with the military and to a lesser extent the state department. we're beginning to see because everybody's new favorite four-letter word is jobs, national security redefined in a different way, looked at in a different way. for example, everybody's talking about cut, cut, cut. cut all nonnational security discretionary spending. that would mean that we'd cut spending at theational science foundation, at the national institutes of health, at the office of science, at the department of energy looking for new energy sources.

people are going to begin to appreciate that investment in science and things like science and math education which is in many desperate need is going to be redefined as a national security issue because it deals with our economic security, and our economic security translates into jobs and vibrance for our domestic economy. >> a five of letter word is china. on both sides. it's the biggest issue. it is the national security sue in the election. >> i'd just say there's a danger of, i think, this kind of tea party populism coupled with some folks on the left to want to, basically, pull america back from the rest of the world. that's really dangerous. the level of our foreign assistance is less than 1% of our national budget. most people think it's much greater, it's not. and be under this administration, quite honestly, they have moved much more into areas of development and diplomacy as well as defense, and that's been very

constructive. and if we're not careful, we'll unilerally withdraw from the world especially on the development side, and that's a mistake. and i hope that doesn't happen. the other thing i do believe that both parties will begin to become much more suspicious of afghanistan and will encourage the president to honor his commitment to begin withdrawals. >> i think we had one more question. do we have another question over here? ybe one last question. i want to ask the panel a final out the door question. >> good morning. i' dan ryan from mazda, but this is a me question. [laughter] the republicans if they win the house, i mean, they talk about smaller government and cutting the deficit, but, you know, there's ramifications to that that they know that if you cut the federal payroll, if yo cut entitlements, if you do a lot of these things, it's going to have a negative effect on the economy and jobs, so how do they do that? >> well, i think what helps, i mean, the mostimportant game in

town right now after next tuesday is the deficit commission. and that report's coming out. the bipartisan policy center is going to have a report later this month -- >> before the presidential -- >> before, yeah, before the president -- >> so they can quit. >> which comes out in early december. i mean, we're going to face the stark reality of having a distinguished commission of very thoughtful people telling us like we really need to hear it, and we've got to deal with that. so that will provide some cover for the congress to say, you know, we really wouldn't want to do this, but we have to because and so i think what that report -- >> let me follow up there, dan. all but one of the 21 most rious republican challengers have signed a pledge to pose any tax increase, and i believe all but one of the major house challengers have signed the pledge. over 200 democrats have signed

pledges to pose any reductions in social security benefits. is the campgn itself kind of preempting these deficit commissions even before they can release blueprints? >> well, i hope not. it's very depressing when you think about it because the deficit problem is going to strangle all of us, and we get ouelves locked into positions where nobody can reach common ground. it's a prescription for gridlock and a weaker america. our inability to solve this problem is going to make us a second and third-rate power. but on the other hand with leadership, leadership is the key. will the president and the leadership of the congress decide to step up to the plate? is. >> no amount of leadership will change the senate. nothing, nothing will pass the senate. therefore, all these debates including the reference to this question will take place in the context of crises over the debt limit, crises over passing an omnibus separation bill, crises over, you know, a bunch of extensions, spending extensions so that, you know, all of this

will be up to the, up to the moment of crisis closing the government, republicans sticking things in the bill, negotiating these things, all of this is going to be done in crisis, conflict mode. this is not an environment that incentivizes sitting down together and cooperating. it means you come in with strong demands and try to force the negotiators to accept some -- >> and that is a sunny prospect with which to frame the final question. [laughter] which i want to start with jason and come down this way because naively, i was going to ask each of you if you could identify one area that you thought was most likely that, in fact, a republican majority in the house or senate or both and president obama could actually reach an agreement, and we could see a serious policy advance. is there, what area do you think is most likely to result in this such an agreement over the next two years? is. >> energy. i think that there's enough common ground on energy whether

it's -- [inaudible] whether it's over renewable standards, increasing incentives for solar energy, wind energy. i think there's enough common ground there that everybody can sign on to some sort of package if they're so willing. >> i would agree with that because, well, i just would agree wi it. i could give you a lot of becauses. >> but you degree, energy. >> i'lle my old self, agriculture and education. >> do you think they can eve with the the infusion of tea party candidates who are going to be skeptical of anything like no child left behind? >> you know that movie waiting for superman? there is a bipartisan agreement on the need for education reform. >> alex? what do you think? >> i think energy. and i think this may sound naive, but i think they're going to have to come together to do something on deficit and spending. i think the president has got to say we have to cut, and republicans are certainly going to be for that. whether something will actually pass and get done, i'm not so

sure. but they do all have to get to that agreement point. i don't think there's anyone out there saying, gee, i think we should spend some more because we haven't spent enough. so there's got to be cuts. >> i agree on energy, and i also agree, i also believe not just that it's engy. there's got to be one area where it looks like they're operating in a bipartisanay because of all the things we've talked about. the country' going to demand -- republicans are going to need to show at least one area where they've said, yes, willing to do these things. and i also agree at least on the deficit in that there's going to be an overall budget. it's going to bring deficits down, and don't misread the democratic party. the democratic party is a deficit-cutting party. it's the one that did it. it's a suburban party. this is not an urban, liberal party. the core of the party believes in reducing deficits to get through financial crisis. but they prioritize deficits. it's bail out the party in order

to address that. >> and one last unsolicited plug. we did interview president obama last week, andfor what it's worth he picks energy, education and infrastructure/traportation, you'll be happy to know since you're looking at that, as the areas that he felt were most likely. but he seemed to be kind of signaling on rolling back health care and extending the bush tax cuts for all earners, that those were going to be much more lines in the sand. i want to thank you all for joining us. i also want to thank our partners at sherm and pew for what has been an insightful year of polling. we hope to see you down the road at a future national journal event, so thank you all for joining us this morning. and thanks to the panel. [applause]live

>> behalf of the ced's president charlie cobb and trusties from across the country, we welcome you today to this forum on money and politics in the post citizens united era. before we begin the program, and hear from the speakers, i want to say something somethingced and then something about how the program is going to transpire. ced is a washington-based public policy organization comprised of over 200 business leaders from across the country and some university presidents. we are the organization that

helped bring you the marshall plan. in fact, ced's routes can be tradfounded in e 1940's. how have an orderly transition moving the economy from a wartime to a peacetime economy. ced's one of the earlier policy studies became the blueprint for the marshall plan. paul first chairman hoffman was the first administrator of the marshall plan. for close to 70 years, ced has provided a business perspective on a wide array of economic and social issues. as many of you know, ced has a history of engagement around how many affects the political process. our landmark 1999 study investing in the people's business called for among other things a ban on soft money. of course, the 2002 release of

justice for hire raised concerns about how money going into judicial campaigns can affect a fair and impartial judiciary. the in light of the supreme court's ruling and citizens united, ced has reunited are campaign finance reform and judicial selections of committees and formed a committee called money and politics committee. we're pleased that it came as an landon rowland have agreed to co-chair this and we will hear from them shortly. earlier this week, ced's president charlie cobb was quoted in a column sank elections are a public good, not a private exchange or private commodity. for over a decade, ced has been the business voice speaking out against unregulated and unlimited funds going into litical campaigns. as our trustees have said, ced would rather compete in the marketplace and not in the

political arena. a little bit about the program today. first off will be ed kangas and landon rowland who will provide a business perspective and convey some of their concerns about this new political landscape. next we will hear from sam rodgers from zogby international and he will highlight a poll which is connected with the zogby. i think when you see some of the results, it validates some of the things that'sed and linda will talk about. finally, we will hear from our experts, fred wertheimer from democracy 21, jeanne cummings from politico, understand is on her way. and 20 carotid from columbia -- columbia, sorry, colby college. our format will be that ar

speakers can speak behind the microphones here at the head table except for sam. let me talk ed and landon. ed served from 1989 to 2000 that delayed. he served as the managing partr of deloitte touche u from 1989 to 1994. he was elected managing partner and chief executive officer in 1985, a position he held to 1989. he began his career as a staff accountant at touche ross in 1967 or become a partner in 1975. he also served as a director for several public companies and the of you involved in this issue can remember that he really has been the leading voice in business. we are pleased to have you with us. next to hear from landon

rowland. he is director and chairman emeritus of janice capital group and the ced trustee. previously, he was chairman and president and ceo of kansas city southern industries. landon rowland joined kansas city southern in 1980 became chief operating officer in 1983 and served as the chief executive officer from 1987- 2000. landon rowland has been concerned unspoken subsequently about the money going into the judicial races -- has spoken eloquently about the money going into the judicial races. i want to turn the microphone over to them. thank you. >> thank you, mike. our political system is so badly corrupted it is imploding from our eyes. our politicians are so obsessed with maintaining power and being

reelected the they engage in two corrosive practices. number one, they accept and support huge political contributions and related spending by the powerful and the rich from individuals, corporatns, unions and special interest groups, and in return, they grant access in favoritism. no. 2, they by voters for today's votes todaybuy votes at the expense of future voters, most of whom are not yet old enough to vote and many who have not yet been born. this has become so blatant and so obvious that the american people have finally figured it out.

a revolt is under way. next tuesday, the frustration, the wrath that will vaporize incumbents from both parties will be evidence of this revolt. many believe -- or it least some believe, that this will create chaos in a dysfunctional situation in washington. some say the voters do not know what they're going to do. these political elitists are dead wrong. the reality is that americans, business leaders, working men and women, mothers, fathers, grandparents have come to the conclusion that chaos in a dysfunctional washington is far, far better than what we have now. it will be in the aftermath of

next tuesday's elections that we will start a new. and there are two things that must be done. one, we must stop the corruption of money from the rich and powerful on our election process. we must return power to the average american with an effective government funded multiple match of smaller contributions. two, we must insist our litical leaders concern themselves as much, if not more, with voters of the future generation than they do with the voers of today. this first -- the first step in rebuilding his political sysm is reform campaign financing. what is going on is bad for business, bad for our economy, bad for job creation.

the committee for economic development is a group of ceo's and university presidents. we believe in transparency. we know transpancy requires light. and so starting again today, we're going to focus a bright light of laser intensity on the campaign finance issue so that finally, once and for all, it is fixed forever. my mother told me when people are nice enough to listen tentatively to say thank you. i thank you. [laughter] [applause] >> landon? >> it is hard to ed kangas follow when he has so much zeal and brings tremendous zeal to this challenge. he has been working at for a long time and his views are

entitled to respect. his prescription is one that everyone of us should walk out of here with and find some way to apply it. the citizens united case, which in some way, brings to a focus our concerns about the corrupting influence of a sea of money with no ace to go except to influence people in high office or those aspiring to high office. his approach is sensible, practical, and our task to get legislators and others to endorse them. the citizens united case it accelerates the long slide toward the kleptocracy that we criticize all over the world and that frustrates international commerce, investment, policy and investment opportunities,

bribery, bribery, bribery and all of these foreign lands has always been criticized by those of us in the u.s. who thought we had a higher standard. that standard has slipped away. you see it in the process of buying elections of every kind. we have local elections that all of you are participating in that are just as rrupted by the sea of money as a larger raises for house and senate and other places. it reflects the frustration ed is talking about, but the idea that one may buy government because we have the means to do so must be addressed but every citizen. it must be resisted, certainly. mike talked about the ced's work to ensure independence of the judiciary. very quietly, steadily, there have been efforts by those with more money than thought about

the damage to the independent judiciary in this country, have been eroding the world of the judiciary with elected judges, elected judges who respond to the same is that ed has described. there are all kinds of bailiwicks in which we can be active to resist the influence of money, certainly, we must guard at the local level. we must start in the lol communities to resist any kind of effort that we seek to buy elections with a lot of money. i am om missouri. we see the most trivial elections, perhaps, influenced by large amounts of money. elections that never cost more than $5,000 to run for some local office and all the sudden somebody comes up with $100,000 or two of a thousand dollars to

get some elected. this is crazy. -- $100,000 or two under thousand dollars to get someone elected. this is crazy. we must call back from some of the principles of the corporate personality. one of m colleagues here on the panel described the role of the corporation as a creature of the state. it was given life by the state. and that life can be limited. it is not the same as the rights that we have as individuals, as human beings. and it is probably a cliche and a platitude to suggest corporations cannot be restrained in the exercise of human rights. please, indorse ed kangas's three principals. you'll hear some animated debate. but we're not kleptocracy.

russia maye a kleptocracy. some of the saw the article in "the financi times close vote yesterday or the other day about the rampant spread of bribery of a the country that frustrates economic development. the lack of an independent judiciary frustrate economic development. plenty of studies show this. this is not a kleptocracy. he was going to talk on the panel fit, mike? >> well, thank you, landon rowland, to do for your leadership here. what we're going to do is hold questions until the end. we're going to hear sam rodgers from zogby who will summarize, if you will, some of the findings of this recent survey. sam serves as a communications director and spokesman for zogby international. he joined zogby as a research analyst in 2006.

i think when you s the results, wanting a particular that will stand out is the last few questions -- one thing a particular that will stand out is the last few questions on corporate giving. it seemed overwhelmingly that corporate leaders were in favor of publicly disclosing their giving, not just the political giving or just political giving but trade associations. sam, it is your turn to join the podium. >> thank you. hello. thank you all. i want to thank ced, mike, the distinguished panel. it is great to be worki with ced and get on such an important issue. i believe this is one of the more interesting polls we have done during this election cycle. i want to go through the topline findings from the 30,000 the perspectiv we did this survey over the

course of the last week. it is not moving. as is ual the case, things never worked when they're supposedto. this is the business leaders were conducted over the telephone and over the internet. it was a list of over 300. the main focus was to look at the world post citizens united of campaign finance from the perspective of business leaders. still nothing. but i can talk about with the general findings are. you just missed a few pie charts. nothing. >> i am not sure, but i think we may have the slides in people's pockets. -- packets. that's where the second and see if we can get this resolved.

since this is being taped,e want to get this on there. >> ok. well, >> well, what we just start and if everyone can refer to your material and, hopefully, we will get this snags' solved. all right? >> sure thing. we try to look at this, a fairly short pole, no more than 20 questions in here, in a particular fashion. we wanted to divide thi up into basically four categories and start off with the big picture perspective of what the world of campaign finance looks like in

general, from the bitter- business leadership perspective. then a few questions specifically on the case of citizens united and other potential policies and solutions. we have someone look at corporations and the actual experience with campaign finance, and what the work currently engaged in, with their current activities were. then the tested a series of statements, support for statements that involve specific campaign finance measures, potential measures, potential policy options and potential strategies for dealing with the campgn finance issue from a corporate perspective. in general, the findings were, i believe, an honest assessment and fairly revealing. soy. >> i think we will have to do this manually. >> if it starts magically moving

-- first, over 300 business leaders were surveyed over the past few weeks. we asked what level of pressure people felts american corporate leaders -- was placed on american corporate leaders to give political contributions. 61% said there was a lot or some pressure placed on theas business leaders to make political contributions. 28% said not much pressure placed. almost two in three business leaders say there's some pressure placed on them to make these political contributions. then we asked, what comes closest to their opinion about why corporations are making his political contributions. by far, the number one reason he was to gain access to influence the legislative process. 55%, a majority. the next clause as response was to avoid adverse legislative

contou -- consequences. 17%. to promote, 16%. so we can see a fairly strong agreement there that gaining access to influence the legislative process, number one reason for these corporate donations. the next question, asked about killing lover of pressure being placed on american business leaders to make political contributions. -- ask about political pressure being placed on american business leaders to make political contributions. 49% said the see an increased amount of pressure being placed on business leaders in the past two years to give these kinds of donations. only 3% say that pressure has decreased. 39% about the same. not even close we have a clear majority or right at a majority saying the amount of pressure has increased and 39% said about

the same. then we asked business leaders, how would you describe the amount of money being solicited from business leaders? is excessive, too high but not excessive, modere or below? 29% said excessive. 22% said high, but not excessive. that is the majority of business leaders saying it is excessive or high. again,hat was clear majority. only 12% said they believed it was too low. then we asked about the level of concern. how concerned are you that these contributions are going to third party groups to be used for negative campaign advertising? 45% said they believed business leaders are concerned about that issue. 48% said they were not concerned.

here we see a case where fairly even divide, one of the few times a year in this survey, over the level of concern for these third-party contributions to negative political advertising. this is the section of the poll where we got into familiarity with citizens united. we asked people initially right off the start how familiar they were as a business leader with citizens united ruling from this most recent court. 58% had some familiarity. a 20% were very familiar. 39%, somewhat. 41% were not familiar including 21% who were not at all familiar. it is still not at the forefront, i guess, of the minds of some business leaders. then we proceeded to read a brief statement summarizing the rung for those who were not familiar.

then we ask the question about agreement with the founding idea behind the ruling, which is, i will read the statement -- do you agree or disagree that corporations, unions and associations should give unlimited an undisclosed contributions to other organizations to spent on caaign advertising? 43% agreed with the statement. less tn a majority, barely more than two in five business leaders agree with the general principle behind this citizens united ruling. 51% disagreed with that. 7% said they were not sure. as was alluded to earlier, we asked a little bit of a statement here, a potential policy option for what could be done to possibly mitigate some of what that ruling has done to our campaign finance sysm. this statement simply gave the option of a multiple dollar match for small contributions of

a 4-1 match of contributions up to $250, which is a policy proposal that has been offered as some say levels, i believe in that policy tested with 52% supportnd 42% opposition including 20% who strongly supported, 24% who said this sum was supported the position. -- 28% who strongly supported. 24% said some was supported. 6% were not sure. we then move into the third phase of the survey which covered experience with campaign finance to date. has your, in a political contributions of the 2010 election cycle? 19% said they had. 67% said they had not. 40% were not sure. of those who had -- 14% were not sure. of those who had, a 16% said

they gave to a pack or other organization to be spent specifically on campaign advertising. one in four, 24% said they had not. 14% said they were not sure. do you think that corporate donations to infants election outcomes overall, a good thing or a bad thing for the political process? 50% said they believed it was a bad thing. only 38% said it was a good thing. 13% said they were not sure. then we finally get into the last stage of the survey where we get into influence and specific policy options. how much influence do think corporations have a political process? 91% said either very great influence or some influence. so that is almost nine times the amount who said no influence at

all we came in with the last of the said which was, which of the following do think as the most influence over a candidate? gave them >> to potential options. contribution from a corporate pac or the beginning pack, 59%. they believed it had the greatest influence over a candidate when compared with a meeting with a lobbyist,5%. meeting with a citizens group, 10%, or receiving a small contribution for small contributions from average citizens, 9%. over five-one say a contribution from a corporate pac or labor union pac is in the most influence over a candidate -- gives them the most influence over a candidate. if finance reform or to restrict contributions from how you think it would impact the business

community? 43% said they lieved it would have a negative impact. 25% said their road be no change. 20% believed it would have a positive impact. finally, we get into support for a series of statements that we asked. i will do these in order of the increasing level of support for the statements, starting with a statement received the lowest level of support. i should ne all tests received thethe majority of support. the transparency encourages behavior, puts corporations of legal risk and endangers our reputations. 66% supported that statement. two in three. the next highest, company contributions to outside organizations should be restricted to nonpolitical purposes unless expressly

permitted by the board or shareholders. 74% supported that statement. corporations should disclose all of their direct and indirect political expenditures including money provided to other organizations to be spent on campaign advertisements. 77%. politically active organizations to which a company contributes should disclose their company -- to the company to direct and indirect political expenditures, at 88% supported that. finally, corporate boards should be informed of the beneficiaries purposes of the company's direct and indirect political spending , at 93%. so we see again all five receiving well over a majority support ranging from 2/3 with the first statement to must near unanimous support for the previous statement. all in all, we believe a very honest assessment, a very frank assessment of the state of

campaign funds from the perspective of these business leaders as a whole i think sums up the pole. thank you. sorry about the lack of pie charts and such. >> thank you for some very interesting results. i think we'll have time to and the question and answer to talk is over. sam, i want to confirm, i believe it was over 301 who were tested on the survey questionnaire >> that is correct. -- on t svey? >> that is correct. >> i will introduce the panel in order of their speaking assignment fred wertheimer is the founder and president of democracy 21, a non-profit, non-partisan organizaon that works to strengthen our democracy and for most government integrity, accountability, and transparency. he has been described in the new york times as the countr's

leading proponent of campaign finance reform and the dean of the campaign finance reformers. many of you will remember fred wertheimer for his many years of service as the president of common cause and we'll have to have you here. next would be jeanne cummings, who i think is here. >> sorry. >> no problem. politico assistant managing editor in charge of enterprise, covering politics at every level from state and local governments to five presidential campaigns. in recent years, her fus has been on tracking moneynd politics. she was recruited from wall street journal. i think that is where we met you several years ago. before that, jeanne cummings was with the atlanta journal constitution. it is great to have you. finally, anthony corrado is the charles a. dana professor of

government at call the college. he serves as chair of the board of the campaign finance institute, a nonpartisan public policy based in washington, d.c tony is the co-author of several books but his most notable for serving as a project director for ced's 3 -- subcommittees' now on the floor. welcome. i will turn it over to fred wertheimer and asking panelists for five or six minutes of comments and then we will go to the question and answer. >> thank you, mike. i want to thank ced and its president charlie cobb for holding this and also thank ed kangas landon rowland and for the leadership there providing on this issue. i was privileged to work with ced a decade ago when they played a powerful and pivotal role in the passing of the 2002

bipartisan campaign reform act to ban soft money. they're coming back into this issue is a very important development for the campaign finance reform battles that lie ahead. we are watching a sea chang unlding in american politics in this election. as a result, a disastrous supreme court decision, citizens united decision, one of the worst decisions this court has ever made, this is the first election in more than 60 years were corporations and labor unions are free to make expenditures in federal elections. it is also the first election in more than 40 years where hundreds of millions of dollars of secret contributions are being spent in federal elections. if anyone doubts what is going on today stems from the decisions -- two decisions by the roberts corp., i will give you one example. none of tse ads being run by

tax-exempt organizations with secret contributions during this period of the 60 days before the general election could have been run to the prior to the roberts court's decisions for it absent those decisions, the mcconnell decision, upheld law which would have banned corporations, labor unions, tax- exempt groups that are incorporated from running these ads about candidates in the last 60 days of an election. history tells us that secret money and political campaign breeds corruption and scandal. al hunt who has reported on these issues for 30 years wrote the following in a column recently -- the prediction. the u.s. is due for a huge scandal involving big money, of bribery and politicians.

not the small fry that dominates the ethics fights in washington, but really big stuff. think watergate. then he said, it is axiomatic in politics that without accountability there is abuse. this year, there is a massive infusion of special interest money into u.s. politics that is secret, not reported. now history also tells us that as secrecy the gets scandal, scandal begins reform. in the 1970's, the watergate scandals resulted in the creation of the landmark presential pubc financing system which serves the nation well for most of its existence until it became outdated and now has to be repaired. the watergate scandal also led to the central limits on contributions to cdidates and parties which the supreme court upheld as necessary to present corruption of our office holders and our government decisions.

money 1990's, the soft scandals resulted in a $500 million corrupt soft money system led to the enactment of the bi-partisan campaign finance reform act in 2002, which banned unlimited soft money contributions to the parties. i would just remind people that that legislation was enacted and signed into a law under republican presidents, a republican controlled house of representatives, and a senate that was barely controlled by the democrats, 51 of 49. similarly, the unfolding scandals were all the secret contributions are playing in this election and the great dangers that lie ahead will open the door to important new campaign finance reforms. and no one should make the mistake of thinking we can solve these problems by taking the limits of contributions to parties are greatly increasing

them -- or greatly increasing them. that would creek the stem of legalid bribery that congress correctly ended by banning soft money and that the supreme court reaffirmed as constitutional this year. former republican senator in redmond from new hampshire provided an affidavit in support of the soft minivan and said the following -- individuals on both sides of the table recognize that larger donations effectively purchased greater benefits for donors. he also said -- make no mistake about it, a large soft money contributions affect outcomes. so there is no going back to the old soft money system without creating a system, really, of ongoing bribery or legalized bribery of the public officials. those of us who support strong and effective campaign finance laws are in a rough patch right now.

it is in large part because we are facing also supreme court for the first time since the biden campaigninance right movement began in the 1970's. -- bodden. anyone who thinks campaign fund its supporters are going to fold their tent and go way does not understand the campaign finance reform community and does not understand the history of campaign finance reforms. there is going to be a public backlash after this election to at has happened here. and this is going to provide the opportunity to build a broader and more diverse coalition of the voices throughout the country for financing the way -- for reforming the way we finance our elections and ced c play a pivotal role in this as they have done before. major campaign finance reforms will be undertaken by concerned citizens and groups, committed to democracy with integrity and

to winning the battle against corrupting influence of big money on officeholders and government decisions. and washington political money is constantly discussed in terms of who benefits, the democrats or republicans. it is rarely discussed in terms of the american people, which is a larger an overriding interest in what is going on here. i believe the american people will n stand for sicker contributions being spent to influence their votes -- stand for secret contributions being spent to influence their votes. in this congress, we passed a disclosure bill in the house and came within one vote of winning it in the senate. if there is an extended post- election session, that battle will continue. otherwise, the battle to expose the secret contributions will begin immediately in january 2011. .

we have one these battles before, and we will win these battles again. thank you. >> jean cummings you have an out and about covering campaigns. what are you seeing? >> what i will talk about is the corporation's we know have gotten involved in. and basically there are two

other organizations that did go public. american crossroads in particular. -- basically there are a few organizations that did go public. and they purposely formed at one part of their operation so it would disose donors, and there is a second piece of that that is formed under different tax codes. they did that in part because they needed names of public to become a honey to attract others to their organization. it is interesting, when they first formed and were asked why are you doing it this way, they said we think disclosure could become an issue and we do not want to deal with it. and then when would they were not -- then when they were not getting as much money as they

thought, the exposure did not bother them as much, so they created a separate arm so that peopleould give privately to the organization. to those of us that live in this world are very familiar people. they are harold simmons, carl lindner, d bob kerreperry -- the are a group of wealthy investors who top thapped their personal check books and company checkbooks to support the campaigns. one of them financed ad campaign and 2008 that was aimed at tying obama to bill airs.

we have se these folks are around for a long time. and the other corporations that showed up and the files, and not just for american crossroads, but in other places -- what we find is they tend to be corporations that are dominated by one personality. that person in particular has already taken their slings and arrows and not afraid of public disclosure. we did see one public company get involved this year, and the results were pretty much a nightmare. probably all the things that the gallup report shows companies are worried about. that was target. target and best buy for got involved in a campaign in minnesota. they wanted corporate money to help one particular candidates

for governor. target was the first and the biggestdonors. target date $150,000 -- gave $150,000 to the corporation. predicted the campaign. and what target did not do is due diligence on the candidates. the kid didn't happen to be socially very conservative. target has this liberal brand, so it iss customers and employees went nuts when i found out target had given them money. the focus on wheree was on abortion and gay rights. it became a public-relations nightmare for target. they apologize several times.

they vowed to help other gay rights events. they wanted to send a warning to other companies, and indeed what reporting showed in minnesota after words is there were many corporations that were on the verge are writing a check who did not write the check, because they would be disclosed and exposed to that kind of balash. and it has been mixed outhere. we have that question of disclosure and will they play or will then not? that is one issue that is important. the other thing is where will they morriph? right now they are all republican. the talks and some republican

circles as where this could lead someday, that instead of having politics dominated by the democratic partynd republican party, that you could have subsets of corporate parties in effect. so if you have strong ethanol interests and to get at the nominee to the other, then they go out and support ethanol candidates and does not matter if they are a d or an r. the coal industry is goionly gog after democrats right now, but there is a way to the bank group that you would have meant a package that represent corporate interests and do not care about the party. they have the ability to raise millions of dollars and go out and take on the democrats and the republican party if they so choose. it will be interesting to see

what direction rico and if there is no curb on whats happening. -- it will be interesting to see what direction we go in if there is no curb on what is happening. there will be many more american crossroads that will emerge and everything will go underground. i do not know that anyone on the republican side will be interested in disclosure if there is not any kind of repercussions from this 1. >> thank you. >> threat mention the fact that we are witnessing a see change. -- fred mentioned the fact that we are witnessing a change. jeanette just noted a number of the organizations are active are deploying different types of strategy as they pursue their election activities. and maybe we can begin by putting this and a little bit broad context and highlighting

some of the implications of what we're seeing in the midterm elections so far. i guess we can begin by noting that undisclosed bending and unlimited spending, their role of corporate money in elections is not new. this is something we have seen in other recent elections as politically active non-profit organizations became more involved with political activity. it is something we have seen in recent elections because the disclosure laws that we do have, for the most part, when it came to non-party organizations applied to their activities and expressly advocated candidates or advertising they didn't close to the election, which left a large round of an undisclosed activity. fred is righ in that the changes we're witnessing in developments are really heralding in a new era and

campaign finance. i think that new era or vaults around the fact that we now have this regime where it is not simply the fact that with citizens united and we have struck wn the long-standing prohibition against corpore anby implication, labor union treasury funds, to be used to advocate campaign funds, but that decision also cleared the way for other court decisions, such as the speech now decision, where we have capaign -- created a campaign finance system with acorda said if you are committee that only engages in corporate spending and do not make contributions to candites, you are not subject to contribution limits. inhofwe have supertax better political committees that only make independent expenditures, and are not subject to any contribution limit.

this is particularly valued now since you can use treasury money in unlimited amounts to engage in the election activity they undertake. i would like to highlight a third development that i think is particularly in point in -- important, and that is at the same time we have had loosening up, we have h the management of the averment we had. one of the most aspects of this election is not simply the fact that more money is flowing from non-corporate region of non- profit corporations, but also that the fact that that sec has reined in decisions that have dramatically narrow the efficacy of disclosure law. even where we had disclosure in the past and still have disclosure, it is ineffective. that is because the federal

election commission has decided that while wall said if you're doing broadcast advertising you are expected to disclose any monies for the furthering of election communications so that you are expected to disclose donors and the amount you spent. sec has taken a very strict and narrow interpretation of this block, and said instead that you need to disclose the donors on your expenditures. it is the case they are giving the money for the express purpose of making a particular independent expenditure or collection of -- election communication. but if i am just giving you a general contribution, i am giving you $1 million, $7 million and letting you decide what to do with that money, it is not necessarily e case at theourthouse to disclose the source of the funding.

-- it is not necessarily the case that the group house to disclosas to disclose the source funding. and there is a real preference for independent activity that is independent of the parties and candidates, and the best way to conduct the activity is through non-profit corrations, which are not required to disclose the bulk of their funding unless they are dealing witads that expressly advocate a candidate that is specifically designed to call for the election or defeat a candidate. and as a consequence, more money is flowing into areas that are opaque. ihink it will be difficult to determine how much of that money is corporate money. it will be very difficult to determine the sources of all of that funding, but what we are

clearly seeing is that at lst in the funding that their report, particularly the advertising expenditures their reports, we are seeing a surprisingly large surge in the amount of money being spent by these groups. by any indication, the campaign finance institute found that non-party groups in their reportable spending was already up 73%. and as of tuesday, the amount that was reported as having been spent by this group for around $200.2 million. if we use past as preludin anything about what we saw and 2008 in 2006 and 2004, it is and generally the case that the amount of reported spending that these groups engage in represents about 30% of their total expenditures. so that the amount of money they are spending is probably at least 60% higher than the

amounts we are getting in terms of the report. part of that is because there is a focus on corporate money and large individual donors and much of the money that is flowing through progressiv groups, much of the money that is being spent by the labor unions is not spend on advertising, and therefore we're not seeing it so there is not a big focus on it. even moveon.org day is focusing on voter contacts so there is lots of money being spent on the democratic side that we're not curing much about. we tend to focus on what we can see, not what we cannot see. the second major trend that we see is more and more of this money is becoming opaque. in that regard, what struck me the most was that when the

supreme court made their decisions, they upheld the principle of disclosure and argued that one of the safeguards you would have for this independent spending is that the sources of funding and the amount would be available to the public to exercise certainty over. " we're seeing is the exact opposite take place. one survey i saw by the sunlight foundation that particularly struck me was that we now have 218 of the non-party groups that are active in this election cycle, and there may be as many as 100 of them who are not disclosing donors. they are disclosing the amount they spend, but not where the money came from for the advertising they're doing, so that in the past monies that would have been disclosed are not being disclosed as a matter of practice. i think the implication is that you ll see much less transparency and much more difficulty in exercising any kind of certainty over political

spending ithe future, because my expectation is that in the aftermath of the election, we're not going to see more stringent enfoement. what you will probably see is that federal election comission sanction the fact that these groups did not disclose their donors. therefore giving a green light to all of the groups in the next election cycle. and if solicits contributions without attaching a specific purpose to it and you can be free of having to disclose the sources of your funding, even if you're not a non-profit corporation. and the trd aspect of this election that is particularly interesting is the changes we're seeing in the relative role of different political actors. if you look at this election we will find in the general election, and most of the key races, particularly for congress, non-party groups are

the dominant voice. they outspent the candidates and in many instances the parties. if we look their recent election cycles, we have seen a change were the parties were spending more and more money in these key races. on independent and spenders alone the parties bonds and $160 milon into congressional races oput in 2006. as congress hs become more and more a bottle for majority control. i looked at the party spending recently, and the parties had already spent a at $128 million on independent expenditures alone. they still had $145 million in cash in the bank waiting to be spent. i susct we will see the parties anmore than a cent in the last midterm election region more than they spend in the last

midterm elections-- more than they spend in the last midterm elections. one thing we will see in the future is the development of groups that are gng to be particularly focused on their own narrow policy interests or instry area. essentially using the non-party groups as ways to retaliate against members of congress who do not side with them on key votes. you will see more of this key money being used for reprisals against members of congress, just as you're starting to see it in the low levels. you can go state-by-state, all one of the things we're seeing is where judges have made decisions that are contrary to the interests of business organizations, where they have made decisions that are

perceived as contrary to the interests of labor interests, where dozens -- word judges have made decisions that are contrary to the view of interest, we're seeing independent groups come in and run a substantial advertising campaigns against those judges to get them out office so that the illinois chief justice of the state supreme court is facing an advertising campaign that is being waged by business interests, because he refused to support a cap on malpractice damages. we're seeing in kansas and iowa, a major campaigns mountain ainst judges who either did not uphold same-sex marriage order not uphold our rowling where -- a ruling where conservative groups were seeking the definition of marriage between a man and woman. iowa supreme court ruled that by with d violated the constitutio.

now they are facing substantial campaigns against them by organized groups that feel they should have made a different choice. that is the type of activity that is very disconcerting, particularly given the fact that the other effects is to increase and exacerbate the problem that we already had in the system, which is our rising pressures being placed on candidates to raise money. if you look at congress for example, if we just look at the house of representatives, the amount of money raised by the house of representatives have doubled over the course of the last 10 years. we have1.4 billion raised by candidates in the house and senate in 2008, and we will dramatically exceed that in 2000 at 10. house candidates will raise more than $1 billion this year. one reason they are reason all of this money is because memrs

of congress face increasing pressures to raise money for the party into engage in collective fund-raising efforts to put more and more money into these marginal rates. in 2008, members of the house and senate raised more than $112 million that they then give away to the party or to other candidates and the form of contributions to other candidates, so that we are at a point now where a 10% of the money being raised by members of congress is being raised to meet other demands. those demands are going to increase in this new campaign environment. the parties will please increase pressure on members to fill the coffers because they know 2012 will be of very difficult election year. we have a presidential year. it is the first year after redistricting. we will have a number of first-

term members of congress and it is easiest to become a member of congress when they're running for reelection the first time. the general pressure for fund raising will increase and their risk is that on the topic we are discussing here today, there will be increased pressure placed on corporations, non- priv profit corporations and others to engage in a political arms race. the new campaign environment is with the prospect that we will see a spending race get launched where companies and corporations are encouraged to engage in competition against other business interests in a btle for political advantage. at least be encouraged to give more and spend more as a way to try to confront the competing interests they will face as they seek influence in the legislation.

that runs the risk with respect to soft money and higher risk that is once again upon us. and it is at a time when there is even less transparency than there used to be an old soft money system. and as a result, we are going to see, at least from the perspective of the business community and as the polling results note, business leaders become more concerned about transparency, which is going to be the forefront of the reform discussion now. a consensus that used to exist about transparency as having a deleterious effects in the campaign finance stem are at the minimum level is now at a point where that consensus is broken down. and so consequently i expect we will see a lot of discussion in the weeks and months at about

what you do to create a more open and transparent process. >> thank you. we do have time for a few qutions. there is a lot to digest. i will be the first one to ask the questions. i will ask it of someone an audience. if you could bring the microphone over to paris, and also if you would not mind stating your name and organization. and he runs a center for political accountability. one of the things i thought was fascinating was the high numbers of not just business leaders willing to disclose their political giving, but disclose their political giving two trade associations and other groups. you are in the business of reaching out to companies urging them to disclose their political

giving. do those numbers reflect what you are encountering as you discussed this with companies? >> it is extremely important. companies are particularly sensitive about risks to retain through trade associations. we did a survey in 2008 of corporate directors, and they are particularly sensitive today because they look at this is witsituation with target. it is something that the cpi -- the conferce board will come out what the first and both on corporate political spending, the yen but at the center has co-author. the programs that i have been on in the past week that include

general counsels, the top executives of companies, this is a major issue and an area of great concern. how do we deal with this? the importance of disclosure and accountability. also, the relationship between companies and trade associations. >> thank you. questions from audiences. >> my name is heidi wells. i am with single ball investment institute. -- i am with a sustainable investment institute. we just completed a study of the s&p 500 with business practices. you said there was relief last support among business leaders for disclosure, but what we fond was exactly opposite and actual practice. less than 25% of the s&p 500,

which is a very substantial proportion of corporate america, has any kind of disclosure of comprehensive disclosure of direct and indirect spending and less than 20% hasny kind of boar oversight in place, specifically related to corporate spending. i am wondering if any of the panelists would like to comment on what seems to be a reality gap between expressed the views on the subject and the actual practice. tac>> bruce? >>eidi is right on that. the center sent out a letter to the s&p 500 companies at the end july asking them to disclose policies and practices for

handling independent and expenditures. we heard from about 60 companies. there are a handful that said they would not engage in independent expenditures. we have had this in discussions with companies. i think the major effort after this election will be addressing with companies this whole issue of independent expenditures and the indirect nature of them. 76 companies have adopted political disclosure, including half of the s&p 100. the issue after the election will be making that more robust and reaching out to companies. >> half of the fortune 100 have adopted? >> yes. >> i think you will find a number of companies that will not be willing to do this on their own when competitors are not required to dit. one of the problems you have is you have to rely on voluntary

disclosure and you run into precisely the kind of problems you are talking about. and even where leaders are prepared to disclose, you may easily run into the same organizations not willing to do it just by themselves, because it potentially puts them in a disadvantaged position. >> this is a footnote, but this whole or reno will require corporate boards to avoid what gene described. there will be a need to manage this rescue. if it is disclosed that somehow your enterprise or persons connected with its have done something of the sort that prompted all of the outburst from it consumers and employees, this is a risk that has to be

candidly discussed and dealt with. are we there? i do not think we aren't there, and i think wlip service is easy. this is another area frrow for kangas to work on. >> my experience would be that most ceos it there or in to give major contributions of any type of mixture the lead director of the board knows about it. to gohmert @? -- >> meredith? >> hi, meredith with the campaign legal center. i have a question specifically for the cdu leadership. the other day there was a column basically asking the rhetorical question, is a worrisome that americans spend less on political advocacy saitn

they do on potato chips? from a business perspective, how do you react to that kind of analogy in which the spending of the money is equated to a robustolitical conversation, versus concerns out corrupti. >> i happen to agree with george will. i would like the same people to spend the money that by the dictatorships. -- that buy the potatoe chips. i do not think that is what he meant. [laughter] >> well said, ed. any other questions? >> ken cooper.

my question is more to ced. back in the 1973 to 1975. when the illegal corporate money finally came to light because of special prosecutors, i do not know if you will see the justice department did indeed on this, but does ced have a strong enough will to go beyond the ceo who date authorized the corporate money and go directly to the board members who may have been left in the dark on this? using the example of rupert murdoch and his sckholder eting recently with the issue of the $1 million contribution to 527 groups of the republican governor's position. it was discussed and talked about it, but he also knew, and it was later disclosed that they made a $250,000 contribution,

which he never mentioned during the stockholder meeting at all. when you have ceos, in many cases, aleasing -- approving these types of payments, maybe six losing the border from knowing about it, is there any effort to go directly to the board members of these corporations and asking them, do you know what you're ceo did with corporate political money? to>> role of the board of directors in the past 10 years has changed dramatically. their role of the board has been balanced in relationship to the ceo. the all powerful ceo is gone. the balance has been reset. i would say in most public companies that are not controlled by individual shareholders, most ceos would be very careful about going too

far in that arena today because they will lose their jobs if they do. >> that is a principle we can all subscribe to in one way or another, but the concern that comes out about the comments that threat made earlier and gene davis some inkling of with the subcultures of party interest, a corporate interests exposes the risk that the individual parties in private companies of great wealth and resources will have increasingly larger influence in the political process. ced can work like hell to bring greater awareness to the public about this. we can enjoy social networks that can achieve this social transparency that the most aggressive top-down approach cannot, but it is very

difficult for any of us to see a way to control the influence of the private individual who is indifferent to governance standard, indifferent to the public interest and to the public sector. i am one ofhose that subscribe to all of the principles we have talked aout as a way to get at this, but i think we have to be realistic that is, as a part of this sea change that takes place over a longer amount of time as the ocean deposits this layer of pearl, it takes ahelluva long time to make a pro. this is likely something that the ced will not be able to stop talking about. he will not stop talking about it. you have to work with the neighborhood and a individual political action committees to alert people and to alarm people about the influence of big

money and decisions in the public sector. and i endorse everything that' kangas told us to d, but i want to say we have more work to do and more initiatives that some of you can come forward with. >> on >> i do not believe we are going to be able to stop this or necessarily should we stop an individual that wants to make a major expenditure of his or her wealth. most congress people are honest, hard-workg people. it takes aunique individual to try to do that job. i applaud them. they would love to be in a position where they did not have to cater to the rich and powerful and the unions and corporations. they have no choice because they must have the money to run at

campaign -- cacampaign. so let's flood them with money so they do not have to listen to and take money from the other people. [applause] >> i want to thank everyone for coming. it has been a very interesting discussion. stay tuned. and we will have a lot more to say about these issues after the election. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

not exactly as conservative as the mississippi. that's why we're also fond of and proud of the great job done by the governor of minnesota tim paul entive. [cheers and applause] >> thanks a lot. i appreciate it. thank you. . thank you. thank you. i want to start out by just thanking and recognizing hailey not just for his terrific leadership on behalf of the republican governors association. but some of you are old enough to remember that in another

chapter of challenge in the mid 1990s, he led the republican party and the conservative movement out of the wilderness and brought it back as the governing party in the nation. he has dedicated a large chunk of his life to our cause and purpose. she not only a tremendous purpose but a great governor. and he owe him a round of applause and our appreciation. [cheers and applause] >> you want more jobs in ohio? are you paying enough taxes? you think government should live within its means? you going to vote for john casik and mary taylor? that's a better future for ohio right there. i want to share with you one other question.

have you had enough of bailouts? me, too. but it seems that everybody wants a bailout these days. i met with this female leader the other day. she was in charge of a very large enterprise, i mean, a global enterprise involving trade and commerce and lots of big issues, lots of big activities, and she came in and said we're in trouble. and we need help. and i said, what's the matter? tell me about it. she said, well, we're in debt up to our eye balls, our balance sheet is a mess, nobody is buying what we're selling. we've got overpaid and underperforming employees. and she said, there could even be layoffs. even she could lose her job. then she asked for a bailout. and i said, but speaker pelosi.

[applause] i saider we're not doik those any more. it's a new day in america. i want to share with you something that i know is on your heart and that you see in your fellow citizens here in ohio, we see in new jersey and all over this country. we know that people want a good quality of life, they want to take care of their families, they want to be able to live their version of the american dream. but in order to do that, they need a job. so one of the most important things we can do is to ask and answer the question, what is it that we can do to make it more likely, not less likely, that jobs are going to crom in our county and states and our country? and we should look to the politicians in washington, d.c., most of whom never had a job in the private sector in their life. we should look to those people who are the inventors, innovators, the entrepreneurs, the risk takers, the designers,

and people who are going to start and grow businesses and give our fellow citizens access to good jobs and the hard-working people who fill those jobs. [applause] and when you ask those folks, what's most on your mind? what can we do to help? you know what they say? they say governor, or soon to be governor, please make the load lighter. don't make it heavier. please do things to encourage what we want to do, don't do things to discourage it. please make sure that you're giving us confidence, not taking away our confidence. and i had lunch the other day with a 35-year-old entrepreneur. he said, governor, i'm just sitting on the sidelines because i've got money i could invest but i don't want to invest in this environment because this president and congress don't understand much less respect entrepreneurs and

small businesses in this country. [applause] he said, what i see coming is threatening me with tax increases next year, with cap and tax, make my energy costs go up, higher health care costs, threatening to take away the right of employees to vote in private in their work place, and he said i just don't have the confidence that they see a better, brighter future, being inspired by entrepreneurs and our country. i thought, wow, what a sad statement for america to have our entrepreneurs and our small business leaders be that worried. that's why, ladies and gentlemen, that ohio can have a much brighter future and the rest of our country can have a much brighter future if we elect people like john and mary into office. [applause]

now, it's getting hot in here and time is short. there's a lot of great policy things and issue thing that is we could talk about and you could spend a lot of time studying these things and i hope you do. you can stay up and watch some great cable tv shows or go to some seminars and conferences, you can read some journals and continue to read books. and i encourage all of that. but if you're busy, here's all you need to know really about reforming government in the united states. go to a wedding. in fact, go to two weddings. go to one wed wrg there's an open bar and go to another wedding where there's a cash bar. people behave very differently at the open bar. it's time to tell the democrats we're closing down the open bar. [cheers and applause]

in a minute, you'll see the wonderful next first lady of ohio, karen. but my first lady in min, mary, when i was thinking about running, i was majority leader and i said honey, we've done what we can here. this is a tough state and jesse was thinking about running again in a three-way race. i said, it's time to turn the page and move on in life. and mary came across the floor and she grabbed me lie the lapels and said, you can't quit. everything we've worked for, everything we believe is going to get washed away. nobody else can do this. you've got to get in there and fight. and i thought, wow, i'm rocky balboa. and that's aid ran, and i said,

ok, i'll do it. and against uphill odds i won in 2002. and about three months into it and tough schedules and budgets, away from our family too much, and thatches the first three months and we had little kids, and mary was properly holding me to account and there was a little tension in our discussion. and i said, honey, don't you remember, though, you're the one who told me to do this? you gave me that inspiring speech. remember? and there was some silence in the room. and then she said, yeah, but i never thought you'd win. she said i just wanted you to get it out of your system. a couple years ago, there were people who were writing us off as republicans. they're saying they're banished to the wilderness. they weren't right then, and now the american people, the people of ohio have seen a leadership that has taken our country in the wrong direction and they're about to square

things up next tuesday. and if anybody tells you it's going to be easy, it's not going to be easy. but if you can do the things we have done in minnesota, the land of mon dale, ventura, and now the land of united states senator al franken. as frank senate ra could sing, if we can the it there, we could do it anywhere. but i'm delighting to be here to support john. i want to leave you one important thought. one of the great issues of our time is going to be who can best control and bring down government spending and reform government? you have in your next governor of ohio the person who actually did that for the nation and is probably the most qualified experienced government spending reducer in the united states of america. [applause]

and you all know the story. in mid 1990s, first time or one of the few times in the modern history of the country the budget got balanced. guess who did that? john. he is one of the politicians who doesn't just flap his jaw. he actually gets it done. he actually walks the walk. and that's a good seg with you for our next speaker. -- seg way to our next speaker. people say, you know, it's tough to do these things in new jersey he's doing it. and really, the solutions you and i know what needs to be done. these things have been talked about and debated enough. the white papers have been drafted. the seminars have been held. we know what needs to be done

for the country. so the question isn't what needs to be done. the question is, do we have leaders who are going to washington and their state cap tolls and have the fortitude to actually do it. chris christy is a star. he has walked into an incredibly difficult environment. he has said, it's your time to back down. chris has the fortitude to transform new jersey. he is going to help us transform the nation. the gove nor -- governor of new jersey, chris christy. [cheers and applause] thank you. thank you. thank you very much. thank you. seems i haven't been here for a while. i'm really glad to be back in

ohio. i don't know who said that, but i love you, too. >> it was haily. >> well, i wouldn't be governor so god knows i love him. listen, you can feel it. and i was saying to my daughter sarah, who is with me today -- [applause] , doesn't it feel just like a year ago when we got to the grounds here in ohio. it feels like it felt in new jersey a year ago. you know, four days away from the election, all the polls are tight. but when we traveled around new jersey, we saw people just like you who looked at me and mary and our kids and didn't just say they were going to vote for us. they grabbed our hands and put their hands on our shoulders and they said, you have to win.

you have to win. you have to do this. and mary and i would come back every night in these last four or five days and we would feel such an extraordinary sense of both responsibility to our state and a great sense of excitement to help to carry us through these last few hard days of a campaign, a campaign in a state that, as the governor said, is much different than ohio. in new jersey, we have several hundred thousand more democrats than republicans. in new jersey, we have not elected a republican statewide in 12 years. in new jersey, we haven't elected a republican united states senator since 1972. and i was running against an incumbent governor who was spending $30 million of his own money and millions more from the labor unions, and we were getting outspent 3-1. and in those last four days the pundits kept saying well, new

jersey is new jersey and john corzine is going to be reelected. and those same pundits may try to convince you, he is an incumbent governor. is the story starting to sound familiar? let me tell you this, i'm standing here today. and in january, john will be taking the oath of office in ohio. [cheers and applause] now they're telling you, well, casik can't fix this, he can't fix it. he's got this big budget deficit and he won't be able to fix it. well, they said the same thing. in new jersey we inherited an $11 billion budget deficit on a $29 billion budget. and the democrats in my legislature said the same thing democrats in ohio say all the time. we're just going to have to raise taxes on the people of

new jersey. in the last eight years, new jerseyens had their taxes increased 115 times in eight years. they've become the highest taxed state in america. so i said real clearly to the democrats, we're not raising taxes. they sent me a tax increase. in fact, they walked it right down the hall after they passed it to my office. so my mother taught me good manner. when guests are coming you come out to receive them. i walked out to my office and the senate president was there and he handed me the bill. i don't know he said it was like the new jersey fairness and justice act. they never call it a tax increase. right? so maybe they could fool you into signing it. and i said, steve, sit down for a moment. and i took that pen out of my pocket and i vetoed it and i said take that back to where it came from. that's the same thing john will do. [cheers and applause]

and then he'll get down to the hard work and balancing the budget. and it is going to be hard work. and in new jersey we balanced that with no new taxes and no increased taxes. we cut it every state department. everyone shared in the sacrifice. and there is now a new sense of community in new jersey because everybody knows that we've dug this hole for too long and it's time to start climbing out. and the only way is to help each other. so everybody needs to help each other, everybody needs to be part of the sacrifice. john's been through that before and so has mary. they both understand it and they both know that if you give them the chance, they're going to get it done for you. so here's the bottom line. there's four days left. there's four days left and i can sense that victory is within our grasp.

but it's not yet there. so it's up to you now. you know that. haily said it to you, tim said it to you. it's up to you now. i can't guarantee everything is going to happen over the next four years and i can't predict for you every twist or turn that ohio's history will take in the next four years and what john and mary will do to confront those problems and deal with them. i can't guarantee ni of that. but here's the one thing i know. the thing i know from knowing john casik and knowing mary taylor, that they, every day, that they are governor and lieutenant governor, they will make you proud. [applause] so here's the deal.

it's up to you. and i'm going to be watching. i'm going back to new jersey. sarah and i and the rest of our family will be sitting in the governor's residents and we'll be very interested in what's going on in ohio. and i know you're nodding your heads and saying you'll do it. but here's the bottom line. don't make me come back. so if you let him down, i'm coming back. and i'm coming back jersey style, people. it ain't going to be pretty. [cheers and applause] so get john and mary tover finish line because it's the right thing to do. but if that doesn't inspire you, get john and mary over the finish line because you're scared to death what i might

do. i don't care what motivates you. just make sure it's one of them. so now, it's my honor and pleasure to bring out, first, the next first lady and the first children of ohio, karen, emma and reese, and their father, the next governor of the state of ohio, john casik. [applause] ♪ ♪

>> i think you're ready to win. i think you're ready to win. mary taylor gave up a nice soft little spot to run for lieutenant governor 16 years as a cpa, all the years in politics. nobody pushed her around and nobody is going to push us around when we win on the november 2nd. mary taylor.

[applause] i was in minnesota when tim came down to that final leg. minnesota, home of hue better humphrey. ok? i mean, tim said we will not raise taxes, we will make government more efficient and more effective. he has been one of the most effective governors in the united states of america and he has got courage and principle. thank you. governor paul entive. -- pawlenty. there's so much you can say about haily. chairman of the republican national committee when we threw the liberals out after they were in charge for 40

years. ok? key architects of that. goes to his beloved mississippi, gets hit by katrina. mississippi is greater today than before that storm hit. he was the strongest captain in the middle of that storm than anybody in america. [applause] as tough as it could be, he gave them hope from one end of mississippi to the other he has built that state, he's made it better. he is a great leader. and then the cake boss' favorite. he had his inaugural cake made by the cake boss, which put my kids into deleerium.

they were so excited. we don't need to say much. do we? because we know, i think he is the most popular governor in america today. and you know why? [applause] it's not complicated, folks. see, people are dying to have it straight from the shoulder. they're dying to hear it straight. and you see, here's the thing about chris christy. he not only tells it straight, but he's smarter than a whip. and no matter what they do, they can't seem to wound him. and he told me countless times, he calls me almost every day, he says how you doing, john? you just don't forget that when you're in the middle of a political campaign. but he told me, john, i went to new jersey to fix the state. and they can throw whatever

they want at me. but i'm there to represent the people of the state of new jersey. isn't he a great american leader? he doing a fantastic job. [applause] so emma and reese kasich, they're in the head band business. let me tell you about this. they're ten years old, they're in the fifth grade. one night i'm having dinner with my family. and they said daddy, we've been selling these head bands. and they have a class mate that they make these with and their mom sells it in the store. and they said daddy, we both made $4 selling head bands. i said, girls, i've got an idea. tomorrow when you go back to school, why don't you give some of your money to the class mates who didn't make any head bands?

why would we do that, daddy? well, girls, your class mates, you know, they don't have the money you have to buy the crazy bands. they don't have the money you have to buy the ice cream. i think you ought to share some of that money that you earned with them. but daddy, if they didn't make head bands, they're not going to get any of our money. i said, girls, that's why you're republicans. [cheers and applause] so my wife said to me, ok, you want to run for governor, go ahead. but i'm going to be at home and i'm going to raise the kids. and you go do your jobs and i'll do my jobs. and then her friend, doug

price, sent her an e-mail and said, we'd like you to go to the northwest part of ohio. we'd like you to go on a tour. and she said, well, i don't know if i really want to. i don't know if i can do that. and so she called it the rainbow tour. so she went on the first leg of the rainbow tour and she got on the front page of the told blade with a big picture at the very top of the newspaper. i never got on the front page of the newspaper. and then she went to southern ohio and she had more press and more people. she gets a bigger crowd than i do. and i can understand that. can't you? [applause] she just finished the air force marathon, 26.2 miles. and you worry about children's

health? here's a woman that will not just fix children's health. she's going to fix all of our health. believe me. so ladies and gentlemen, one of my favorite stories from the bible is the story of a shepherd boy by the name of david. david was a guy that was one of the lost sons, one of the lost brothers. he is just out in the pasture tending to the sheep. i've never been a sheep herder but i've talked to people who have done it. it's not an easy job because you have to protect the sheep and you have to get the sheep in the fold, and sometimes they'll scatter. and at the same time being out there in the wilderness with the sheep, you get the bears that will come try to maul your sheep, you get the lions that will come and they will maul your sheep. and one day they decide that had no one, no one was capable of taking down the gol aye yatsdz.

they had the armer and speers and training. but nobody wanted to fight the glyyatsdz. and so word got out. in fact, david's father said, take some food over to your brothers. and david got there and he heard all this ruckyuss. and he is what is the ruck us about? there he is, the goli atsdz. he is mocking us. david thought to himself and said to saul, the leader of the army, i'll take on goliath. and they all laughed. put on the armor of saul. he said the armor will just get in my way. and the good book says david was ready. david had prepared. he had fought off the lions and he had fought off the bears and he had kept the sheep in the fold. and he went down to that river and he took five smooth stones, and he slade the goliath

because he was ready. i am ready to lead ohio back to the great days of our past. i am read yea to move ohio forward. because i have prepared. i am ready. and i am ready to build a team. because nothing gets done by one. oh, in the old days when maybe johnny kasich was a bit of a hot dog. right, haily? maybe i thought i could do it alone because, you know, when you grow up in pittsburgh the son of a man that carries mail on his back for 29 years, a man whose father was a coal miner, first generation. his father came from the old country. or my mom, croatian, ethnic,

mother and father never learned how to really speak english. my grand mother would give me a quarter and all she had say in broken english, have fun, johnny. see, my mother and father always told me it's hard work, it's big dreams. it's push as hard adds you ever can to get where you want to and that anything is possible in our country. but i've learned throughout the course of our lifetime, that to work with people who have similar values and similar hopes and similar dreams, it's amazing what you can get accomplished if you have a team and nothing gets in your way and you have the eye of the tiger and you have focus. so you know, in 1989, i found myself on the budget committee. and i went to my first meeting and i didn't like the proposals. and so i offered my own proposal in congress that year,

and the vote was 405 to 30 and i had the 30. but i thought, you know, to have 29 other people who thought i should run america, i'm rocking. i'm just getting started. and i told my colleagues this. when you hold public office, you've got to do it. you don't waste one day, you don't waste one minute, and you always remember what winston churchill said. you die once in war but you can die a hundred times in politics. and you owe it to the people who elect you to make a difference to improve the lives of people. so in 19 -- [applause] in 1989 and 1990 and 91 and 3r9 and 4r9 and 95, we kept trying

to climb that mountain. i thought we were there in 995. but bill clinton, who tries to claim credit for a balanced budget. that's the biggest joke in town. he tried to stop us. but the public was behind us. just like they were behind reagan in 1981 with his program to revioletize the country. see, the people do get their way when the people do have a clear viss. in 19 97, i was privileged to be the chief architect of a team of people to put a proposal on the table that resulted in the first balanced budget since man walked on the moon. we paid down a half a trillion dollars of the national debt. we cut taxes for people who create jobs and we cut taxes for families. and we restored prosperity to the united states of america and what was done there is going to be done right here in the state of ohio. [cheers and applause]

and you are part of this team. you look at me. nothing is going to stand in our way to making this government more effective and more efficient and smaller. and nothing is going to stand in our way in reducing the taxes for our small businesses so they can grow and for our people so that our families can have the power and we can run ohio from the bottom up. nothing is going to get in the way of teaching the bureaucrats to get out of the way of our small business people and stop showering them with a blizzard of paper work and regulation that is make no sense. nothing is going to get in our way. do you understand what i'm saying? it's the same message that this man had and this man had and this man had. you and i are going to march

together with mary taylor and we are going to get this done. [cheers and applause] you know, this election is about failure over the past four years or the potential of four years of success. it's about the ability to create jobs rather than to whine and blame somebody else and put people in despair. but you know what it's also really about? it's about hope overcoming the fear that they have tried to lay on ohioans. we can never let fear trump hope. we are going to make sure that hope trumps fear right here in the state of ohio and send a message across the country.

[applause] and you know what is really amazing? we are right at the crossroads. we are right at ground zero. oh, by the way, we are going to win on tuesday night. of that there is no doubt. [applause] have no doubt about it. we -- it's all, it's been going our way for a long time and the temperature is going up. now, let me just tell you, you know, 12 visits from barack obama, and he's going to be together with his twin on sunday. ted strickland and barack obama , more government, higher taxes. oh, and how about if we shove health care down your throat with obama care? you want any of that? no. they're all watching. aren't they?

oh, the "new york times," the "wall street journal." all the networks, all the magazines. they're even watching across the ocean right here just like they watched chris christy win in new jersey, just like they watched bob mcdonnell win in virginia, just like they watched scott brown win in massachusetts. you think that didn't make a difference? but here's something that's a little bit different you know why he's coming here 12 times? because he is running for reelection. i'm only trying to run for governor. you see, folks, this is amazing. you see, i'm running in this case to make sure our families are stronger, that our businesses come back, that we stop the drain of our kids getting educated and leaving ohio. stop our entrepreneurs from having to leave because they're being punished for their success. this is about laying the foundation again of this state that i discovered when i was eight or nine years old when my uncle harry used to say, when we cross the border into ohio

on vacation, johnny, it's the promised land. we can make it the promised land again. and as we rebuild this state, and i will promise you in that first year, we will have job creation in ohio again. and when we do that, we will not only have defeated all the fears that have been cast on us and send a message across the country, but we will also have a big voice. so that no one can take our values. and the key to america's success, the great legacy, the great handoff that anything is possible in our country. and that's what we're all fighting for in 10, and we will continue to fight in 12. and we will fix ohio. send a message to america. we will rebuild ohio and we will help rebuild in the united states of america in 2012 by making sure that we get on the right side of history. we will get it done.

thank you all very much. and god bless you. get out the vote. [cheers and applause] >> c-span's live election night coverage starts at 7:00 p.m. eastern with results from around the country. victory and concession speeches. and your calls, e-mails and tweets. watch our live coverage here on c-span. >> presidents don't manage crises. they use them.

they exploit them. to build this emotional bond, lincoln in the early months of his presidency, or think of churchill on the battle of britain. that's an acid tist of leader shch. i'm not sure we've seen that from recent presidents. >> this week on quay, on the obama presidency. the term elections and politics in america. tonight at 8:00 eastern. >> it's time to get your camera rolling for this year's student cam. open to middle and high school students. make a five-to eight-minute video. washington d.c. through my lens and you can win a grand prize of $5,000. for complete details, go to student cam.org. >> now, house minority leader john boehner campaigning in the northeastern town of han over

ton ohio at a rally for house candidate. he's challenging charlie wilson. the event took place at the historic spread eagle tavern that's been visited by abraham lincoln, dan quayle, dick cheney and john mccain. this is about an hour. i am overwhelmed with the support. david, thank you so much for those kind words.

folks, america is at a crossroads. the decisions we make next tuesday is going to determine the path that america goes down for the next several decades potentially. it's going to determine whether or not we reestablish hope and prosperity and a future for our children and our grand children. while i lead this rally this afternoon, i'm going to go to the airport and pick up my youngest grand daughter. barely over a month old, haven't seen her yet because we've been working this campaign. she can't talk, but i guarantee you if she could she would tell us she's pretty ticked off. you see, she came into this

world approximately $40,000 in debt. the office of management and budget says by the end of this year our national economy is going to be 62% national debt. now, i'm not a math major in college, but my computer works and i think that means that the federal government's borrowing 62 cents of every dollar that it's spending. and it's further putting us and future generations in debt. we've got a federal government that's incurring a debt that we can't fund, creating an economy that's not competitive on a global scale, we've seen the outh of control, over spending, overreaching federal government. we saw it in tarp, we saw it in the stimulus bill that promised jobs that didn't. and since that bill was signed, only three states have lost more jobs than ohio has.

charlie wilson attacks me because he can't defend his own record of tax and spending by saying that i send jobs overseas. i worked for a company that has a proven track record of competing favorably in a global market in a way that creates jobs right here in ohio. we don't send jobs overseas. we create jobs right here in ohio. you compare that with a stimulus bill that charlie wilson signed where 2.3 billion came in the form of manufacturing tax credits. that went to companies in china and korea and spain. where 80% of the green energy projects went to companies overseas. folks, that's the kind of irresponsible leadership that says one thing about being a

blue dog conservative down here in the district and then going to washington and voting with nancy pelosi 98.1% of the time. [applause] with your help next tuesday we're going to stop this. we're going to stop the madness. we're going to bring america back to the principles that made us great. ladies and gentlemen, we are so polarized in this country. we're polarized culturally, we're polar rised politically, we're polarized commeckically. we've got to have leadership that says what they mean and then do what they say. that's -- [applause]

that sticks to the principles of the constitution and the declaration of independence. and i give you my word, if you send me to washington, on your behalf next tuesday, i'm going to worry more about your businesses and your jobs and the future of your children and your grand children than i am my next reelection campaign. [cheers and applause] i will do my job to restore hope and faith in the the american dream for the people of the sixth district. many people that i have met all up and down the ohio river, they lost hope. to them, the american dream has become the obama-pelosi,-wilson

nightmare. we're going to change that. you send me there next tuesday, i'm going to do my part to change that for the sixth district. the very first thing i'm going to do after being sworn in, i'm going to cast a vote for the man that's going to make a difference for the entire nation and i'm going to vote for john boehner to be our next speaker of the house. [cheers and applause] we've been doing this for over a year and we've had a number of rallies. i've never had one like this.

so if you think that i think that you just came here to hear me talk, no way. ladies and gentlemen, the next speaker of the house, john boehner. >> ladies and gentlemen, sit down, take it easy. and let me say thanks for being here for bill johnson. i'm going to tell you straight up because i'm not nancy pelosi, i'm not barack obama, i say what i mean and i mean what i say. and i'm going to tell you that this race wasn't on anybody's shirts. now, i met bill back in august thought he was a really good guy and he kept telling me, you'd bet we're going to win this. and it still wasn't on anyone's charts. well, let me tell you what. the reason we're all here today is because bill johnson and his campaign have done one whale of

a job putting themselves on the map. [cheers and applause] and i want to say to you, bill, i'm proud of you. i'm proud of the team that you put together, the campaign that you put together. and i'm proud of all of you who are here today in support of bill johnson because he is going to be your next congressman. you know, back in february or early march, the president had us all down to the blare house to talk about health care. you remember the seven-hour obama info merble. oh, yeah, we were just supposed to be the potted plants for that event. my god, they actually showed up with some ideas. and during that event, the president says we have ideological differences or we have philosophical differences. he said, and i'll quote, that's what elections are for. well, he certainly is right.

he certainly is. [applause] because if you're tired of all the bailouts, if you're tired of all the stimulus spending, if you're tired of of the government taking over virtually everything in america, remember what the president say, that's what elections are for. [applause] now, the president was doing an interview the other day and he said this. he said, on election day we're going to punish our enemies. those people who disagree with our policies are our enemies. now, i can't hardly believe the president said this. you know, when president bush, president reagan, president clinton, george w. bush used the word enemies, he was referring to global terrorists, he was referring to dictators around the world who hate freedom and hate america.

and for the president to use that word about people who oppose bigger government, people who are freedom loving and love our constitution, i'll tell you, i've got to find that very appalling. so, mr. president, i've got a word for those people. those people who oppose your policies, those people who love ire constitution, who love freedom and love the principles that america was built on. you know what i call those people? not enemies. they're patriots. [cheers and applause] and so patriots i say to you, there are just three days left. three days left where we can make a real difference in our country. you know, i'm the last guy in the world who should be standing here. i've got 11 brothers and

sisters and my dad owned a bar. i grew up mopping floors, washing dishers. identify worked every night shift you can imagine. and i loved every job that i had. at least until i got the next one. but you know, i grew up in america where you can grow up and be anything you wanted to be and i was lucky enough to own a small business and turn it into a successful business. and along the way i got involved in my neighborhood home owners association and i ended up in the united states congress. oh, this too can happen to you. but i went to washington to get the government's hands off the goose that was laying the golden eggs. and when you look at the freedom we have to invest in ourselves, to invest in our families, to invest in our businesses, government continues to get in the way. and you all know that the bigger the government gets, the smaller the american people gret. you all know that the more the government takes from you, the

less you have to invest it yourself, your family, your business and your community. and in in washington, in time for them to get their hands off the goose that lays the golden egg. if you're tired of the nonsebs, you've got to -- nonsense. you've got to elect bill johns b to the united states congress. [cheers and applause] and if you want to send nancy pelosi packing her bags back to san francisco, elect bill johnson. [cheers and applause] ladies and gentlemen, remember one thing. we live in america. you really can't grow d -- you really can grow up and be anything you want to be. but all of you in this crowd know that if we don't turn this country around, the future for our kids and grand kids isn't

going to be as bright. we've got to bring hope back to america. and the way to do that is to have a smaller, less spending, accountable government in washington. you all know this. remember when ronald reagan was president? we had bob hope, we had johnny cash, think about where we are today. we've got a president obama but we have no hope. and we have no cash. god bless all of you. >> thank you very much, john boehner. the next speaker of the house of representatives.

>> today on washington journal, the final days leading up to the mid term elections. we'll talk with syndicated column nistmona charen. and connie schultz. then susan fer etch yo with the washington examiner. live at 7:00 eastern here on c-span. c-span's live election night coverage starts at 7:00 eastern with results from around the country, victory and concession speeches. and your calls, e-mails and tweets. >> presidents don't manage crises, they use them. they exploit them. to build this emotional bond, lincoln in the early months of his presidency or think of churchill on the battle of britain. that's a test of leadership and i'm not sure we've seen that

from recent presidents. >> this week, historian richard smith and dog lass brinkley on the obama presidency. tonight at 8:00 eastern and pacific on c-span. >> in addition to all the of the season's campaign coverage and archive debates, there's lots more at the c-span library . >> our political coverage continues with president obama campaigning a few days before tuesday's mid-term elections. he spoke at a rally hosted by the democratic national committee as part of their get out the vote effort. illinois governor pat quinn introduced the president. and the candidate who is

running for the president's former senate seat. >> we've got democrats in the house? i can't hear you. we got any democrats in the house? it is great to see so many friends, so many incredible supporters. how about common? look, we all know that this country has seen some tough times lately. people are hurting, in a very real way. they are losing their jobs, their homes, and their shot at the american dream. you would expect in a time of economic crisis, at a time when

we should be working together to give a helping hand to these families that the republicans might actually think about joining forces with our president and try to help get our nation back on the road to prosperity. unfortunately, tragically, all the republicans try to do is stop our president every time at every turn. when president obama tried to jump-start the economy with the largest middle class tax cuts in this country's history, the republicans said no. when president obama wanted to end tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas, the republicans said no. when president obama cracked down on wall street's reckless and risky behavior, the republicans said no.

not only do they not want president obama to succeed, they have shown a complete unwillingness to help move this great country forward. they just want to play politics. typical washington, d.c. partisan politics. this their own words, they want to make our president a, quote, one-termer. well, i've got news for them. they picked the wrong city, they picked the wrong state, and they've picked the wrong time. [cheers and applause] you see, we've heard this phrase lately. the folks on the other side say we need to take our country back. that's their phrase. u