>> the lot of the treaty. -- i understand a few people snuck in from massachusetts. your e-mail's and phone calls treated good to see you as well. it was a gorgeous day. next, president obama announces it was windy. a new policy on immigration. then mitt romney is campaigning but it was the best. over the past year, it has been in new hampshire. clear that good things begin after that, mitch mcconnell talks about threats to political here. we are backed today with a few free-speech. good friends and closer to our goal. president obama announced a new every day the campaign grows immigration policy and stopping stronger. america has realized we do not the deportation of some illegal have to settle for years of immigrants who came to the u.s. as children. disappointment and decline. undocumented immigrants brought i think america knows we can do before the age of 16 may qualify better. with your help, we will do for what the department is better in this country. calling deferred action on together we will take our campaign to the white house. deportation. speaking from the rose garden, president obama says congress [cheers and applause] has failed to pass the dream act. his statement was interrupted since last june, we have been to twice by a reporter from "the

daily caller. towns big and small. " this is about 10 minutes. some businesses were generations old. others were quite new. every one of them are trying to do their best in a difficult economy. across the country people have welcomed us into their homes. >> good afternoon, everyone. we have had conversations this morning secretary of everywhere. pollock, announced new actions administration will everywhere i go i meet people who represent the best of america. they are hopeful, hard-working, determined, and proud. do to make it more fair and more just, specifically for people but they are also anxious and worried. they are tired of being tired. called dreamers. these are young people whose they are tired of a detached have steadied in our schools and president who does that seem to played in our neighborhoods, who hear their voices. i hear you. i will make sure i will continue are friends with our kids and to hear the american people when i am president of the united pledged allegiance to our flag. states. there are americans in their [cheers and applause] hearts, minds, and in every when americans rose up and single way but one -- on paper.

demanded, stop borrowing money and stick in our kids with the they were brought to this bill, the president was not listening. country by their parents. he was busy getting another loan sometimes even as infants. from china. the often have no idea that when we said at town halls, we there are undocumented until do not want obamacare, he they apply for a job or a ignored us. he spent the next month jamming driver's license or a college the bill down congress's throw. scholarship. but yourself and other issues -- throat. imagine you have done everything right for your entire life. he continued to say that the economy is doing fine. hard, but, up work joworked [laughter] the federal establishment has never seen such a hostile and only to face deportation to a remote, disconnected from country you know nothing about. economic reality. that is what gave rise to the commissions and czars direct our dream act. it says that if your parents brought you here as a child, you have been here for five years daily lives. and you are willing to go to college or serve in our that lack of faith in our military, you can one day earn

your citizenship. teacher is a bridge we cannot i have said time and time again dreampresngress, send me the cross. our campaign will carry a simple message -- america's greatest days are yet ahead. [applause] act. put it on my desk and i will sign it right away. a year and a half ago, the democrats passed the track in the house, but republicans walked away from it. washington's big government it got 55 votes in the senate. agenda should not smother small town of dreams. in the america we love, every not changed. town accounts. every job counts. every american accounts. the need has not changed. we are here to launch a campaign it is the right thing to do. the only thing that has changed tour. was the politics. -- every american counts. as i have said in my speech on the economy yesterday, it makes no sense to expel a talented we will visit michigan. young people who for all intents and purposes are americans and have been raised as americans. in the days ahead, we will be traveling in the back roads of the understand themselves to be

as part of this country. america. to expel these young people who our tour will take us along the want to start businesses or defend our country simply backbone of america. because of the actions of their parents or because of the [applause] actions of politicians, in the this is the america known for absence of any immigration action from congress to fix our prosperous towns and cities and broken immigration system, but we have tried to do is focus our great colleges and universities. we have solid communities and resources in the right place. we have prioritize border churches. all of them born out of american security and put more boots on optimism and nourished by hard the border more than at any time work. america has opportunity. in our history. it is an american birthright. we will travel through the we focused and use discretion, industrial heartland of america. focusing on criminals who many of the greatest commercial endanger our kennedy's rather than students earning their education. -- who in danger our enterprises in the history of the world were born here in those cities. they gave birth to an extraordinary middle class which communities rather than students never questioned their ability to build a better life for their earning their education.

children. in the past few years, too many today we are improving it again. effective immediately, the americans have been struggling and are in distress. department of homeland security is taking steps to lift the jobs are too few. shadow of deportation from these young people. the spirit of enterprise, the over the next few months, spirit that powered america's eligible individuals who do not economic engines for growth and present a risk to national prosperity, that spirit still lives strong. security or public safety will it is a goal of this campaign be able to request a temporary and will be the mission of my relief from deportation presidency to nurture that proceedings and apply for work spirit and see it flourish again in this great land. authorization. [cheers and applause] let's be clear. this is not an amnesty. this is not immunity. this is not a pass to the world knows the great names of those cities. citizenship. it is not a permanent fix. places like the tory, chicago, this is a temporary measure that cleveland. -- detroit, chicago, cleveland. lets us focus our resources wisely will giving a degree of a relief and hope to talented, the melting pot of america. driven, patriotic young people. the resilience is a cornerstone of our future. it is the right thing to do. we should never forget that some of america's biggest dreams were excuse me, sir.

this is not the time for also born in our smallest questions. communities, small towns have not while i am speaking. given us great writers, this is a temporary. thinkers, and leaders. before they were literary because of that, congress needs giants like mark twain were kids to act. there is the time for them to pass the dream act. playing in open spaces. these kids deserve to plan their dreaming of the stories they lives in more than two year would someday tell us. before they were pioneers, increments. we have information -- thomas edison but out into the dark nights and into the skies immigration reform that addresses our economic needs. it gives our farmers and and imagine great inventions that would change the world. ranchers certainty about the no, mr. president, there are not workers they will have. dreaming of government loans. the young people who come here [laughter] [applause] to earn their degrees will not be forced to leave to other small towns did as lincoln and countries. truman, eisenhower and reagan. and many sons and daughters to we want to be a nation of sacrifice to defend our freedom

on battlefields far away. natives and in a grants. the vision, the values, the ted kennedy and president bush characters, and the can-do spirit that is in our small came together to champion and i was proud to vote for this. towns have made america great. in these places, you'll find a special sense of community and a there is no reason we cannot come together to get this done. deep commitment to our country. as long as i am president, i these americans are quiet will not give up on this issue. heroes. they raised strong families and it is the right thing to do for run our countries and grow our food. our economy. ceo's agree with me. the coach little league and soccer. they serve on the pta. it is the right thing to do for our security. they dream big dreams. it is the right thing to do period. i believe republicans in congress will come around to every town accounts. that as well. it is the right thing to do the families who have lost their because i have been with young jobs, these for closure, -- or groups of people who have worked so hard and speak with so much heart about what is best for face foreclosure, they are not america. i knew some of them must have lived under the fear of

deportation. a some have come forward at statistics. they are fellow americans. it is time we recognize them as great risk to themselves and their future. such. i hope it will spur the rest of in recent years, they have shown us to live up to our cherished great determination and real bravery. now used. -- values. these men and women do the hard things that others say are not i have seen communities across worth trying. the country who have stood up they keep pressing on, even when for them and rallied behind government bureaucrats and them. regulations keep getting in the they have pushed us to give them way. a better path and freedom from the have talent and creativity. fear. they are not about to let our we are a better nation than one country down by letting their that expels innocent young kids. dreams go. they are the backbone of in answer to your question, america. is today, president obama gave a sir, next time i request that speech, a very long speech. you let me finish speaking [laughter] you might have thought it would before asking questions. be a moment when he would i am not asking for an argument. acknowledge his policy mistakes and suggest a recourse. it is the right thing to do for but no, he promised four more the american people. here is why -- as some people years of the same. four more very long years. will make extraordinary contributions and are already

making contributions to our society. i have a young person who is [boos] serving in our military and the president thinks we are on protected us and our freedom. the right track and that his it is a notion that we in some policies are working. ways treat them as expendable and i, i believe with all my heart that we can and must do better. we will do better. makes no sense. [cheers and applause] there is a young person who has grown up here and wants to contribute to society. let me ask you where you stand. maybe start a business that will do you think america can do create jobs for other folks who better? do you believe we can take up are looking for work. that is the right thing to do. the white house and reclaim the giving certainty to our farmers and ranchers. great is in america? yes! making sure that in addition to border security, we are building >> i agree with you. a comprehensive framework. these are the right things to do. we have always drawn strength summer in his speech yesterday, from being a nation of the president spoke about giving immigrants. people -- somewhere in his that will continue. i hope is that congress speech yesterday, the president

spoke about giving people a fair recognizes that and gets behind shot. this effort. thank you. students graduate and only half of them are able to get a job. >> what about american workers that is not giving them a fair who are are unemployed volume shot. foreigners?gne while you employ wages are going down and prices are going up. more americans are living in poverty than under any other president in history. >> mitt romney says president he did not give the children of obama's to stop deporting young washington, d.c. a fair shot immigrants will make it harder to solve the nation's's when the end of their scholarships. immigration problems. reverse he diwould not he is not giving a fair shot two kids all across america. he is not giving a fair shot to a decision, but it would make it entrepreneurs when he picks more difficult. winners or losers like solyndra. he kicked off his tour in six [laughter] battleground states. his purse stop is in new barack obama is not giving a hampshire are at a farm where he fair shot to our children and announced his presidential grandchildren when he candidacy in one year ago. saddles, trillions of dollars of debt.

♪ if there has ever been a president who has built to give the american people -- failed to give the american people a fair ["i was born free" playing] shot, it is obama. [applause] i have a very different vision of america. >> wow. i know what we will have to do to give our americans a better what a wonderful greeting. shot and a better chance at their future. what a beautiful day to be back here. i see an america where free enterprise is nurtured and just over a year ago, we started celebrated and not attack. read am and free enterprise is this and what a journey it has been. an extraordinary experience for jobs -- freedom and free us to be able to go across the country and see everyone across this nation. enterprise creates jobs and not government. you come away from that i see an america with a growing middle class with raising experience thinking that america standards of living. is a great country. [cheers and applause] i see children more successful than their parents. some successful more than their wildest dreams. the heart of the american people is good. others congratulating them for

their achievements and not the thing that we have learned attacking them. as well is there is a sense that [cheers and applause] we must not allow the something has gone wrong. desperation of a failing that shining city on the hill presidency to divide our great that we all learned and heard about from ronald reagan, that country. i will not let that happen. [applause] light is dimming. people feel as if the american dream is sifting through their i see an america that is fundamentally fair and cares for fingers. something is wrong. those who cannot care for themselves and never wavers from i have heard a lot that our commitment to seniors and americans believe that our gives veterans the respect and children it will be better off than weus. care they richly deserve. [applause] they do not think that anymore. the america i see, character and they think something is wrong. what is amazing to me is how choices matter. wonderful it has been to have education and hard work and living within our means are had this experience to have seen valued and respected. the heart of the american poverty will be defeated with people, but at the same time to respect an achievement that is have seen the fear and concern

and the worry. practiced in the workplace and it is unbelievable how many in school. people out there are so >> we need you, mitt! frustrated with the economic outlook of their lives. >> this is the america that was the job losses they are dreamed up by the nation's founders. suffering through. they are feeling pinched in it is the america that has every single way. produced the most innovative, i am hearing it from everyone. productive, and most powerful economy in the history of the this is what i hear women earth. talking about. i look around at the millions of they are talking about jobs. americans without work, the graduates who cannot get a job, they are talking about the economy and deficit spending. the soldiers who returned home to unemployment, it breaks my for me, it is an amazing thing to know that many women are out heart. it is the result of failed there that are looking and leadership and his vision. watching and hoping that hope is i am running for president on the way. i will tell you that hope is on because i have that experience the way. and the vision to get us out of [cheers and applause] this mess. i am offering a new choice and a new beginning for the american people. we will see what mitt will do to [cheers and applause] >> mitt, mitt, mitt! let the fire and bring that

shining city back on to the hilt and give us hope for the next generation i know that we will have a better future for our >> we simply cannot afford as children again. thank you so much. the more years of policy like we have seen over the last three [cheers and applause] and a half years and weak >> thank you, sweetheart. leadership. we need to have real change and she is the best. get this country back on the it is a good thing she is not right track again. [cheers and applause] running for president. starting on day one, i will do thank you to senator kelly. what it takes to get america back to work. what a champion she is. obamacare will end. doug and stella, thank you for [applause] we will open new markets around opening your farm one more time. here on comean come back the world and make sure that countries like china finally play by their rules. [applause] i will make sure we get that november 7. this is so exciting. i understand a few people's not keystone pipeline built. [applause] in from massachusetts. we will send a message to the good to see you as well. world that a new era of energy independence has begun right here on our continent. we will have sweeping tax reform to jump-start a job creation.

[applause] by the way, the government regulators who strangles small- business are finally going to learn that their job is to help job creators and recognize them as our friends and not our enemies. [applause] once again, the era of big government will really be over. [applause] no wonder bill clinton and many other mainstream democrats are revolting against a backwards direction president obama is taking his party and our country. let's make today the beginning of the end of the obama years. [cheers and applause] let's make today the start of a new and better chapter that we will write together and for every single mom who feels heartbroken that she has to explain to her kid that he has

to take a second job. to every grandparent who cannot afford the gas to visit their grandkids. for the mom and dad who thought they would never be on food stamps. for the small-business owner desperately cutting back to keep the doors open for one more month. for the thousands and hundreds of thousands of decent, good americans i have met with nothing more in their hearts that a chance to have a fighting chance. to all of you, i have a simple message -- hold on a little longer. a better america begins right here today. [cheers and applause] >> we need you, mitt! >> mitt, mitt, mitt! >> today the hill before us is deep, but we have been a nation

of big steppers. many americans have given up on this president, but they have not given up on themselves or on each other and definitely not on america. in the days ahead, i need you in november.t tapsteps in the promise of america has been kept. the dreamers can dream bigger. we can start again. this time, we will get it right. we will stop the days of apologizing for success at home and never again apologize for america abroad. [cheers and applause] there was a time not so long ago when each of us could walk a little taller and stand a little straighter because we had a gift that no one else in the world

shared -- we are americans. that meant something different to each of us, but it meant something special to all of us. we know without question that those days are coming back. that is our destiny. joined me. let's walk together every day until november 6 because we believe in america. we believe in our future. we believe the greatest days of america are ahead. we are after all americans. god bless this great country. god bless you. thank you very much. thank you. [cheers and applause] ♪ [>> mitt romney's bus will continue touring through tuesday. he will be in pennsylvania on

saturday. on sunday, he will be in ohio. on monday and tuesday, he'll make stops in iowa, wisconsin, and michigan. "road to the white house" to c-span. next is senator mitch mcconnell talking about threats to free speech. after that, the consumer financial protection bureau. >> one of the quotes i thought was inspiring was that once you recognize the magnitude you can make in public life, everything else will pale in comparison. >> someone from the white house and said the ones who are crazy enough to change the world are the ones who are crazy enough to do. >> choose carefully and execute relentlessly.

that meant a lot to me. we find that we are taking on too many things and not focusing on the one thing that is a top priority. >> every year, they bring youth to washington. brian kamoie is a white house senior director. >> now that i am in this role, what can i share with them that either i wish i had known all along the way or that they will be remember when they leave washington week? it is a rapid fire experience. y messages,few keep mayo it is a good thing to encourage our young people to pursue public service. kamoie on c- brian m

span. >> next is senator mitch mcconnell speaking about threats to freedom of speech. he talks about harassment and intimidation tactics by up, administration and others. following his remarks, he answers questions from audience members. this is a little over an hour. [applause] >> good morning. peter wallison, a fellow here at aei. this'll be a powerful presentation by senator mitch mcconnell. most cases they go to the supreme court for statutory interpretation. but this administration costs rather cavalier attitude toward the constitution has produced an unusual number of constitutional

chlenges amace three court andhe supreme have captured the attention of the american people. the american people have now seen the importance of the constitution and how seriously it is taken. but there are troubling part about it. the administration does not seem to be giving a lot of weight to constitutional issues. three recent cases regarded freedom, scivil liberties, and property rights. other cases are also on their way to the court and look like sure losses for the administration. the recess appointments of richard cordray as director of the consumer financial protection bureau and three

members of the national labor board are almost certain to be struck down. the appointments made simply cannot be squared with the language of the constitution on recess appointments. the dodd-frank act, another obama administration initiative, gives the secretary of treasury the power to seize any financial firm, bank, hedge fund, insurance companies if he thinks it will fail and turn it over to the fdic for liquidation. if the company disagrees, the secretary can go to court. but the court has one day to make that decision. one day. if it does not decide in that time, the company is turned over for liquidation to the fdic by operation of the law. and the options are not allowed under the law. and it is a felony for anyone to

disclose that the secretary asked for the court's order. all of these elements seem to violate the fifth amendment of taking property without due process and free-speech guarantee. senator mitch mcconnell, republican of kentucky, and senate minority leader. for most of his time in the senate, mcconnell has been notably chiefly for maintaining staunch opposition to campaign finance reform. he has and why not -- the constitution said that congress should make no law abridging

freedom of speech. of course they were thinking about politics, specifically elections were the freedom to speak and communicate is a very underpinning of democracy in. it is especially ironic that the gravest threat to freedom of speech have come in election in the guise of campaign reform. throughout his career in public life and before the position he holds today, mitch mcconnell has been true to the founders' intentions. this is not earned him the gratitude. in fact, it has earned him a great deal of opposition. so much so that a fellow senator was moved to the senate floor in 2002 on a historic vote. "it is difficult to defend ideas that are unpopular. to be attacked every day in the media because of the position you take.

there are not many people who are tough enough to do that. there are maybe three, four, or five people in the senate. that is being generous. i have watched and read editorials a vilifying the senator from kentucky. i will never forget the fight he has made on this bill. i thank him. the constitution does not work by itself. it requires a few good men. the senator from kentucky is one of those good man. -- good men." it is my great honor to introduce this good man, senator mitch mcconnell. [applause] >> thank you. i understand president spoke for 55 minutes yesterday. i will try to do better than that. i have a lot to say this morning. it will be hard to say that briefly.

one of the things that has always distinguished americans as a people is the eagerness with which they have organized around issues and causes they believe in. more than a century and a half ago, in no country in the world as a principal of association been more successfully used or applied to a greater multitude of objects than in america. yet today, the principal faces a grave external threat. the danger comes from a political movement that is uncomfortable with the idea of groups it does not like speaking freely. from an administration that they showed an alarming willingness itself to use the powers of government to silence these groups. this dangerous alliance that is

the character of america. that is why it is critically important for all conservatives and indeed all americans to stand up and unite in defense of the freedom to organize around the causes we believe in. against any effort that would constrain our ability to do so, the ball work of this freedom is of course the first amendment. defending it is what i would like to talk about today. it is hard to imagine a more broadly accepted proposition than the fact that americans are free above all else to speak their minds openly and freely without fear of punishment or reprisal from government authorities. , nature being what it is, i think we all have to admit that there will be a temptation, particularly those in power, to muzzle 1's critics -- one's

critics. it must be resistant. the preamble to the constitution makes clear, for the framers, the highest form of speech and most needed of absolute protection is a political speech. predictably at moments of national moments we call the elections. -- particularly at moments of national moment we called the elections. the government simply does not have the authority. this point was obvious to the founders that the primary author

of the federalist papers suggested the bill of rights was not only unnecessary, but a dangerous. the identified the things that government cannot do. it might lead some to believe that whatever was not listed was fair game. of course, hamilton was dead on to fear that future governments would attempt to assume powers that were never intended to have and it is precisely for this reason he lost this particular debate and that the bill of rights survived. without it, we would have far less to point to in the defending the principles of our founding. over the past few years, americans have needed all the help they can get. for many of us in this room, the constitutional debates we have been engaged in the past few years have been deeply encouraging. they have revealed a broader appreciation for our founding principles and our capacity for

single engagement that some have feared was actually a decline. for me personally, they have also provided strong delegation for those who it and government and micromanage political speech. at times this fight has compelled me to take positions that were not exactly popular. for example, opposing a constitutional amendment to ban flag burning was not particularly a popular position in kentucky. i suspect it would not have been anywhere else either. -- with exceptions, the media has been merciless. as the years have gone by, many of the early critics have common ground.

it is my firm conviction that in the years ahead we will prevail. i have filed court battles, with a seventh in the works now. what i need to win is the 45 words of the first amendment and the determination to see the true meaning the indicated. it is the same approach that millions of citizens have taken in battling this administration's attempt to assume power it does not have under the constitution. i am confident that they will be vindicated as well. every one of these fights are winnable as long as we keep at it. precisely because we have been fighting on many fronts, it is easy to overlook the growing severity of certain individual threats, including the threat to speech. we see instances here and there,

but engage as we are in other battles, we risk losing sight of the size and scope of this one. if you will allow me, i will spend a few moments running through some of what we have seen. then i will lay out the stakes as i see them. the attacks on speech are legion. perhaps the most prominent is the so-called disclose act. this is the democrats' legislative response to citizens united and which the supreme court correctly ruled that congress may not ban political speech based on the identity of the speaker. the disclosure act aims to get around this by ruling and compelling certain groups to disclose the names of their donors while excluding others, such as unions, from doing the same. the idea of disclosure sounds perfectly reasonable. throughout my career, i have

been is a summit called for disclosure of all contributions to candidates and two parties -- to parties. what we are talking about is entirely different here. what this bill calls for is government compelled disclosure of contributions and to all grass-roots groups, which is far more dangerous than its proponents are willing to admit. because of disclosure, it is forced upon some and not all. it is a political weapon. that is precisely what those who are pushing this legislation have in mind. this is nothing less than an effort by the government itself to expose its critics to harassment and intimidation. either by government authorities or through third party allies. that should concern every one of us. those pushing the disclosed after have a simple view -- if

the supreme court is not willing to limit free speech, they will find other ways to do it. shortly after being publicly singled out by the president's campaign, people were digging through his divorce records, cable-tv hosts are going after him on the air, and bloggers were going after his kids. the koch brothers wrere recognized for their defense of capitalism. in return for the work, one of

the president's top aides incinerated that they had done something shady on their taxes. earlier this year, the president paused own campaigns and mass e- mails to campaign supporters and notified them of a koch-backed event to have a mob show up. the koch employees have had their lives threatened at have been sent eight messages and have been harassed by left-wing groups. one message read, "choose the youration date -- choose expiration date." president obama has buckley accused them of being part of a corporate takeover of our democracy, whatever that means. not only did his campaign

publish a list of eight citizens they regard as enemies, an old school enemies list, it recently doubled down on the efforts when some began to call these tactics into question. none of the should be surprising to a former community organizer who told a radio audience that latino voters should vote with the idea of punishing their enemies and rewarding their friends. that is the president of the united states. it should be surprising to a former teammate organizer -- kennedy organizer. - community organizer. extend deep into the administration itself. this report suggest that top white house officials have long participated in a weekly call with a left wing organization in

washington. their purpose is to attract conservative media voices, see is on a potentially offensive content, and use it to mount campaigns to drive these voices out of the public square. earlier this year, dozens of tea party affiliate groups learned what it was like to draw the attention of the speech police when they received a lengthy questionnaire from the irs demanding attendance list, immediate chance graptranscriptd other info. groups like ours either drown in unnecessary paperwork or survive and give them everything they want, only to be hung. the head of one advocacy group sure that his group's confidential irs info found

itself in the hands of a staunch critic on the left who happens to be a co-chairman of the president's re-election campaign. the only way in this info could have been made public is if it was leaked from inside the irs. last week, we learned of the irs revoking the tax-exempt on groups on the right administration regards as a threat to its campaign. those who have the resources and the will to fight these things should be commended. those who do not should be able to count on our support. let's be very clear. no individual or group should have to face harassment or intimidation or incur crippling defenses defending themselves against their own government simply because that government does not like the message that they are advocating. one person who grasps this

issue better is justice thomas. his opinion reminds us that the quartet from the chilling affect bank a free-speech can run afoul of the first amendment. this is biting the fcc has exempted the socialist workers party from any public disclosure since 1979. they have been exempt. as long as they are able to show that disclosure has lead to harassment, the fcc has been happy to exempt them on the first amendment grounds. as the court put it in buckley, the evidence offered these to show only a reasonable probability that the disclosure of the party's contribution is will subjected to threats, harassment, or reprisals from

either government officials or private parties. the court used similar reasoning went told the state of alabama back in 1958 that it could not compel them to reveal the names and addresses of its members. in this case, the court found that compelling affiliation of groups that are engaged in advocacy and thrift upon the freedom of people to a session with whatever group daylight had violated their first amendment rights. all this explains why does is thomas thought tthey did not go far enough. citing reason accounts of people will have been blackmailed for speaking out on various political issues are the past couple of years, he said the court failed to acknowledge their constitutional significance. among other examples, justice

thomas cites the case a los angeles woman who is held for 26 years managing a family- owned restaurant because protesters kept showing up at the restaurant and kept yelling, "shame on you" at customers. it was a mob. the woman's crime was writing a check for california's prop 8. justice thomas goes on to note that the internet has made these tactics easier to pull off and increases the likelihood that the public will be discouraged from participating in the political process. it is a point that is underscored. it is called swatting. it is something that he raised the alarm about in his final interviews. here is how it works. someone who knows how to hack

into phones caused 9/11. from your phone and tells the police they killed someone. within minutes, the swat team can show up at your house with helicopters flying overhead. this tactic is criminal and should be prosecuted aggressively, the goal is equally reprehensible, namely to scare people who dare to speak right or otherwise support a cause that they do not like. he's on this up in the closing paragraph of his opinion of citizens united. here is what justice thomas had to say, "i cannot endorse this. it said? -- this subjects citizens in this nation to death threats, ruined careers, are preemptively threat letters as a price for engaging in core political

speech. this is a primary object of first amendment protection." what justice thomas is describing here, perhaps in a private citizens could choose to participate in the political process is of course deplorable. i think we all have to admit that based on a different order of magnitude from the government itself, the government itself facilitating or encouraging these things or the government using its own powers to harass or intimidate those who participate in the political process, and that is precisely what we have seen. fortunately, republicans have been alert to these dangers. one of the most important things we have done is block passage of disclose. but the assaults keep coming. democrats in the house and senate recently proposed the so-called people's rights amendments.

which basically repeals the first amendment. the president's top political advisers, david axelrod, told an audience in manhattan, "when we win, we will use whatever tools are out there, including a constitutional amendment to turn it back." this is all you need to know about this administration's view of this free-speech. the president will seek to go around congress by attempting to change the first amendment. amending the first amendment for the first time in history is an act of radicalism.

it is an act of a radicalism. yet these are not the only ways the administration is aiming to do. they are attempting to achieve this through regulation. over at the fcc, the democratics want third-party groups to reveal their donors. the are deadlocked at the moment with all three republican commissioners standing strong, but this effort is not limited to the fcc. the sec just finalized a rule requiring broadcasters who want to post ads online. the association of broadcasters are fighting back right now in

court. last year, the sec required shareholder approval or disclosure of political activities. under pressure from left wing groups, many companies have started including the question on the property statements. during the health care debate, i remember this one very well, the department of health and human services issued a gag order on a health insurance company in my hometown and other private health insurers. it said they could not informed seniors about the impact of obamacare on their health care. the order them not to inform their own customers of the impact of impending piece of legislation. however, work recently ahc is spending $20 million of our tax money to promote obamacare.

they are stifling speech that is critical of the bill even as they say we need to promote it. it is not just the agencies. over at the white house, the president's lawyers recently circulated a draft of executive order that would require anyone bidding for a government contract to disclose political donations, including those of the affiliate's and subsidiaries. and their officers and directors. the message of the order was clear. you do not have to be a rocket scientist to figure this out. if you have a government contract, you better support our cause or at least keep your

mouth shut when it comes to causes we oppose. it is the same message the administration's official said last week. here is what they said of him, "he is dead to us." my own view has always been that if you cannot convince people of the wisdom of your policies, then you better come up with better arguments. you cannot convince people the wisdom of your policies, you better come up with better arguments. but for all of the tolerance, the political left has demonstrated a militant in

tolerance for dissent. sadly, a growing number of people on the left appear to have concluded that they cannot win on the merits. so they have resorted to bullying and intimidation instead. the potential consequences are grave. that brings me to another point. it should go without saying that the political left has always faced a political uphill climb. america is not western europe. in order to succeed in this environment, liberals have resorted to one of three types. obscuring, pursuing in the courts what they cannot through legislation, or muzzling their

critics. but there is another element to these efforts that is less understood. it involves the greatest behind their campaign efforts. the collision of private interest with politics is somehow inherently corrupting. that is the core of their view. this is the great untested premise behind all of these efforts to regulate political speech. a few people think of how radical that is. what all of these efforts have in common is a deep, deep suspicion of the private sphere.

all of these efforts are for the purpose of limiting the ability of those engaged in private enterprises, are certain disfavored the associations. the goal is to seal off congress from anyone engaged in the private economy. the assumption behind these are the same assumption to underline this president's economic and regulatory policies. anyone who makes a profit is cheating our customers or mistreating their employees. or they could be doing both. their motives are impure. those to interact with them are somehow duped, and there for

the are not entitled to the protections of the first amendment. for those who hold this view, it has always been a tax payer funded campaign. if the advocates of this approach have their way, government would control how much is spent on elections, courtesy of the taxpayers. but the question is, who would check on the politicians that? the only voice is expected to respond to would be the public interest. private interest would end up

with minimal influence on the direction of public policy. of the people running for the public-sectosolutions would decrease dramatically. if you write the rules of the games, it is a lot easier to win. especially for incumbent politicians. that is what the so-called reform, has always had in mind. it is important to remember that one of the things that makes affected the harassment and intimidation tactics i have described is the various selectivity. there are many folks running to the ramparts to defend all company executives and hedge fund managers. the minute we allow ourselves to be convinced that some people stand outside the perfections of politics, we are

in trouble. these rights to not exist to protect is popular, but to protect what is not. that is why it is a mistake to view this as merely a catholic issue. it is a mistake to view the taxes of millionaires and billionaires outside of our concern. it always starts somewhere. it always starts somewhere. the moment we stop caring about who is being targeted is a moment we are all at risk. if we do not protect unpopular speech, then no speech is safe. if we do not protect popular beliefs, the no belief is safe. let people support whomever they want as much as they want to and let the best man or woman win. the government can get out of the business of divvying up speech rights. it has no authority to confer. that is what the founders

obviously intended. in my view, no one who values our freedoms should expect anything less than that. as a court put it in buckley, the concept that government may restrict a speech of some elements of our society in order to enhance the relative voice of others is a wholly foreign to the first amendment, which was designed to secure the widest possible dissemination of info from diverse and antagonistic sources and to ensure unfettered interchange of ideas for the bring about a political and social changes desired by the people. it has never been stated better. campaign contributions are

speech. in case anyone thinks unlimited contributions are a bad idea or somehow far fetched, but does look at virginia. they impose no limits on contributions whatsoever. right across the river. last i checked, elected officials in virginia are no more prone to scandal that officials in the state. corporations are no more taking over politics than they are anywhere else. for all of this talk after citizens united talk about corporate takeover of politics, not a single fortune 100 company contributed a penny to the 8 super pacs the supported the republican candidate. not a single fortune 100 company

and she did a penny to any of the super pacs supporting the republican presidential candidate. that includes oil, wall street banks, health insurers, the three big corporate bogeyman the president always warns us about in the wake of a decision. here is my point. we do not always agree on everything. but my message to you today is that there are certain principles that should always unite us. one of them it is the ability of the first amendment.

that is why we have to unite against these tactics wherever we see them. if you see these things, speak up. call out the offenders. get ready for the criticism. fight back. for me, that has been a long battle against efforts to constrain political speech. it may not be the most glamorous issue out there, and it did not make me any friends on any editorial boards. but a great freedom is at stake. having been in this fight for a long time, i can tell you this -- when you have an administration that is willing to throw court amendments right out the window for the sake of an election, we are in dangerous territory indeed. this may not be the fight that

brought you to washington, but it may very well be the one that keeps you from achieving your goals, especially if you are a conservative. your ability to speak out on behalf of that clause is very much at stake right now. as i said at the outset, this affects all of us. everyone in this room, liberal or conservative, is engaged in what they call the very important battle of ideas. the first amendment makes all of that possible. if we lose the rights of speech, we have lost these battles before they start. as november draws near, some of

those running for office will fill the need to choose their battles. there'll be a strong temptation among conservatives to take this issue off the table and to make concessions. my advice is to resist the temptation. everything we are fighting for is contingent on our ability to actually speak our minds. nothing is more important than that. my plea to you is this -- send a message to the next generation of leaders that the first amendment is something about which there could be no compromise, none whatsoever. we may not win every fight, but we can at least to guarantee we will have a place in a debate. in the end, i am confident the best ideas will always win out. after all, that is how free markets work. whether it is a market of goods

or a market of ideas, the best product will win in the end. no american should ever be afraid of that. as holmes put it nearly a century ago, "the best test of truth is the power of the thought itself. the power of the thought itself to get accepted in the competition of the market. the best defense we have is still found in the sweeping command, congress should make no law of bridging the freedom of speech." thank you very much. [applause]

i will take a few questions. i will indicate in advance that we have some people in the press here. the questions relating to the speech that i made, i will not respond to any other types of questions. i will be happy to take your questions. >> thank you. senator, organizations use the liberal judicial system to harass and intimidate americans speaking up.

they threaten people to sue them or even take them to court. even in indication, people can be financially destroyed. this could have a chilling effect on all others. what do you think our progress should do to remedy this situation? >> a good place to start would be the president himself and indicate this is unacceptable behavior to his own campaign and his own government. we are trying to shut up the people who do not agree with you. compete in the market ideas. that is the whole point of my speech. we do not need the government micromanaging who can speak and who cannot. we do not need the government

targeting people. this is not the first administration. many of us remember the nixon administration making any lists and going after people to shut them up. let, let's compete. the president is not an able to compete. he won the last election. many people think he will win this one. not in my view. he should not pick winners are losers in the political discourse of this country. >> senator, i am from examiner.com. what is wrong for $1 per voter and $1 for one corporation? >> what do you mean? >> what i mean is what is wrong with having an equal vote with a $1 per person? >> it is impermissible under the first amendment for the president to decide -- for the government to decide who can speak. the government cannot level the

playing field. it is impermissible under the first amendment. i think what you are suggesting is that someone decree that you have equal contributions? it would not survive the first federal district court in this country. >> peter with mpr news. a justice has said the marketplace of ideas should be open to people who are willing to have the courage to be identified with what they are saying. >> good to put the microphone closer to your mouth. there you go. >> she talks about people in the political square having civic courage to be identified

with their ideas. can you talk about that in the context please? >> that is an important point. i disagree with them. i did nothing regular citizens should have to expend any political courage at all in this national debate. candidates and parties, whose donors are used to the battles and criticisms -- i do not think it should be required for a regular citizen to be terribly courageous. i disagree with them. justice thomas concurred with the decision, but dissented on that very point that you read out as to whether or not one must open up its membership list let the state of alabama

was try to do in 1958 as a condition for being involved in the public discussion. i generally appluad his views, but i do not agree with that one. >> hi. kurt with committee for justice. you focused on abuses by the government. given the limited time, i am concerned about the threats come from partnerships between government and outside groups, particularly on the left. whether we are talking about executive agencies or reports.

there have been losses against conservative bloggers. there have been attempts by the left to revoke fcc licenses. the folks and a government agency can get rid of documents readily because they do not like what the documents are about. various things such as that. the sec challenges to what we would consider free-speech and saying it falls into the campaign finance laws. can you briefly address that sort of abuse that comes from that outside group of government partnership? >> i sort of did. at the risk of repeating myself, i mentioned four agencies are involved in those kinds of activities. i think the government ought to but out of of trying to punish people with whom it disagrees. it is going on inside the administration, but at independent agencies and within the obama campaign.

it is happening because the president is setting a bad example. setting a better example on important issue like this is something i expect out of the president. if we do not get it out of this one, we will get it out of the next one. >> two more questions. you said those of us who care about freedom should spend some time on the issue of the first amendment rights of everyone. what went wrong with the bush administration when they decided to sign the campaign laws rather than veto it? there was enough strength to sustain a veto, but that did not happen.

>> it was a great disappointment. i was a strong supporter of president bush. i think he made a mistake. i went to the court house the very next morning. the ink was hardly dry on his signature. regretfully, we lost that. the court has gotten more sensitive and better on political speech issues sent at that time. there has been a movement in the court into a better place in this whole array of issues. it was a low point for me because we try to defeat the bill in the senate. we were unsuccessful. it ended up being signed by the obama party. it was not a happy day. i think we are making progress. the court is allowing us to

begin to move in the direction of taking the shackles off. citizens united was extremely important. citizens united was about corporate speech only. basically what it said it was, corporations that own newspapers and tv stations no longer have a permit. they no longer have first amendment rights, but no other corporations does. it leveled the playing field. it led to the president saying that corporate america will own government. none of that has happened. corporations, all corporations should be free to express themselves. who is afraid here? let's have a big conversation about the future of the country. you make your best arguments

and i will make my best arguments. the voters will decide on who they favor. it was not exactly my favorite day the day after. we are still in the fight. we have won a lot of battles in the last 10 years. >> i was going to ask, in this room is probably the most well informed voters. what about voters who do not really know that corporations are people too? >> i would be the first to admit that this issue is on the minds of voters. it ought to be on the minds of

folks like all of you who are interested on the details. i thought it was healthy in america that not everyone is watching cable tv every night. for most americans, politics is a marginal thing in their lives. they're not spending as much time thinking about this. it is our obligation as those who are involved in the political process and write about the political process and lobby the government, it is our obligation to the rest of the americans to make sure that the conditions continue to exist so they can hear all points of view. for those of us who have spent a lot of time on this issue, it is our obligation to fight this fight. a regular citizen in this country, i am sure this is the last thing they are thinking about. that is a normal reaction where you have had 40 months of

unemployment above 8%. the government has a debt the size of its economy. boy, those are big issues on the minds of americans. it is our obligation, the people in this room who work on this type of stuff all the time, to make sure that even the most casual voter hears all the arguments. i assure you, having taught the subject as a part-time professor -- i taught and talked about and studied and was a political participant myself -- i am telling you, the government needs to get out of this area and stop trying to pick winners and losers. let the people exposed to all points of view. i would like to be able to make all of these arguments unfettered by government intervention in every election.

mostly outside groups i have had experience with, it has been a real bad experience. when i ran for re-election in 2008, we had demonstrators in my front yard. i was never tempted once to get rid of them. they had a right to come after me. it was particularly sweet when i picked their you know what. but we should not be afraid of competition. that is my view. the longer i am around this issue, the more i am convinced that minimal government a political speech, i am ok with

parties and candidates having contribution limits. i do not think everyone else should have to pay that price for causes they feel strongly about. i think we have made some real headway. it has been a real fight since watergate. it has taken a about 40 years to work our way through to try to minimize the government micromanagement. i will take one more and then i have to run. i will take brad here.

>> brad smith. at first, i just want to thank you for the effort and time you have devoted to this fight over many years. [applause] i think all of us would echo what senator gramm said one decade ago and it is very true. a simple question for you, senator mccain said there will be another scandal. i thought there will be because there is always a scandal after a federal election goes past. i am sure there will be another scandal. my question is, have you seen in in the two years since citizens united or decided any market shift in the way in which members of the upper chamber act as pertained to interest groups

and whether or not money is corrupting. >> the law with regard to what can be given to parties or candidates has not changed at all. there is no difference whatsoever. a corporation cannot contribute to a candidate for federal office or to a party, there are limits and disclosures. what our friends on the other side are trying to do is regulate all the outside speech. it has not changed the senate at all. sure we raise money because we want to run our campaigns and we try to help our political parties. everybody knows who is contributing and how much and all of that. what has changed i think as a practical matter from say 2008 until now is that you have a very concerned and alarmed group

of -- some of them quite wealthy and many of them not -- people right of center who do not like what this administration has done and they are getting organized and they are involved and i think there is more balance out there. my prediction is at the end of this year if you add up the total amount of money on both sides, president obama's campaign and the democratic national committee and outside groups, gov. mayor romney's campaign, the republican national campaign and other outside groups, it will be equal. it was not equal in 2008. i do not recall anybody on the left decrying the influence of outside groups in 2008. did i miss something? maybe i was not paying attention. i do not recall there being any sense of outrage. i do not recall of rates for the

millionaires and billionaires who were fuelling outside efforts on behalf of the president. i do not recall the product -- expressions of alarm. i think the only thing that has changed is not so much the law but the condition of the country. a lot of people right of center who are dispirited and discouraged it 2008 are no longer. there are fired up and trying to make a difference. trying to influence the course of public discussion. that is the only thing that has changed. i think people are reacting to four years of this administration and are alarmed about the future of this country. they are getting involved and try to make a difference. when you do not micromanage speech, i would also mention to you as some people are trying to help the do not do a good job of it. candidates to not get the control -- candidates do not get to control campaigns really. we cannot even say what our

friends might do to help us. i could remember one well- meaning group that came in and tried to help me and they advertise on a subject nobody knew what they were talking about. i could tell the were trying to be helpful. they were nice people. it made absolutely no difference. i did not know how much mightily spent but it made no difference at all. sometimes your friends will come in and actually do you harm. i can remember when campaign in the 2006 cycle where some well- meaning outside group came in and it darn near cost us the senate speech. free-speech is uncontrollable. people are going to do and say what they will. that is the price of having a free society. that is the best way to operate in this country. i appreciate you all -- i appreciate your indulgence. i had a lot on my mind. the key for the opportunity to

come here and i wish you well. thank you very much. [applause] . [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> next, a discussion about the new consumer financial protection bureau. after that, from the fate and freedom, prince, a forum on campaign 2012 and remarks from glenn beck. >> kenya, indonesia, hawaii, kansas, chicago, and washington. this week a number of tv, follow david maraniss on his journey, following in the president was the footsteps. barack obama, the story. live at 7:30, david take your calls and questions. also this weekend on afterwards, conservative commentator jonah goldberg blames liberals for an ongoing war of ideals. >> american politics has been distorted for the last century or so by the idea the further you move from the left the closer you get too bad things. one of the words we use is

fascist, racist, homophobic, sexist. >> that is on sunday night at 9:00 on but tv. this weekend on c-span 2. >> now, a discussion about the objectives of the new consumer financial protections bureau and the protections provided to older americans. this is about 35 minutes. here. various amounts of people visiting us. our final look today is the consumer financial protection bureau represented by hubert humphrey iii who joins us. he is the assistant director for the office of older americans. welcome. for those people who may not know, just going in, the consumer financial protection bureau, what is it?

guest: it is a new agency under the new laws that have been passed. it has basically a mission to see the financial markets are open. and that they are competitive. the they are open enough so that you and i. as consumers understand all of the products and services that are out there so we can make good decisions. that is really what the consumer financial protection bureau is all about. it comes at this from the perspective of the consumers. host: how is that different from other agencies? guest: they have other missions. the sec has a regulatory function that look set the entire securities marketplace. if you have a group looking at trade regulation and others. all of them have some part of effort. congress decided under dodd- frank that much of the

regulation of banks would be placed in this new agency. that is where it is house. the other part of not only regulation and enforcement of large banks and financial institution, there is also the consumer education engagement. that is where our offices of older americans is house. host: what is your purpose? guest: what we are trying to do is to enable seniors to be able, through counseling and financial education and training, to prevent the unfair faults in deceptive practices and abuse that is out there. stopping the scams going on. secondly, we want to make sure that the seniors have the ability, the training and counseling and a financial education, to make good sound decisions as they age. that is the important part of

this. to understand that all of us who are seniors are living a little bit longer. as we age, there are changes that take place both with us physically and mentally and we have an expanding financial marketplace that is more complex. there are great challenges. the other thing you need to know is, think about this for a moment -- this is the largest transfer of wealth from one generation to the next in the history of this country. what we want to make sure is that that transfer of wealth goes to the right places. first to help seniors as they would like to have it happen and to the extent that there is something left that goes to the ones that they are look loving. we do not needed to go to other people, other scammers. host: our guest is a representative of consumer financial protection bureau and we're talking about protecting older americans. if you want to ask him

questions, the numbers are on your screen. 202-737-0002 for republicans. 202-737-0001 for democrats. 202-628-0205 for independents. there is a term that is used when taking a look at the white house and other efforts within the federal government. guest: elder abuse is a very broad area. it can be physical, mental, financial. our role in the consumer financial protection bureau is to look at it through the lens of a financial decision making standpoint. it is a very serious problem. this is the crime of the 21st century. it is very under reported. there have been studies that show that only one out of 40 cases are actually reported to law enforcement to those who can help. we are talking about in 2010,

almost $3 billion was stolen. if you multiply that times 40, you figure out just how large this problem is. from a financial standpoint, the elder financial abuse is a huge problem. yesterday, we just celebrated and held a conference here at the white house about elder financial abuse. today is elder abuse awareness day. host: some facts from your agency saying older americans lost $2.9 billion in 2010 from financial exploitation. 5% of those were victims of financial mistreatment by family. one in 43 cases are addressed by agencies. guest: this is unfortunate. all too often the money is being stolen.

it is being taken in wrong directions by family members. what happens when you're older is you need some help. mom or dad need help to pay the bills, write the checks, things like that. who do they turn to? an informal caregiver. their sons or daughters or relatives. unfortunately, sometimes that individual will misappropriate it. sometimes it is because they do not understand what is the responsibility they are taking on. many times, it is very purposely misdirected. what we want to do is put a stop to that. one of the things we are developing is a guide so that when somebody does take on the responsibility to help mom or dad, they understand they are taking on some pretty important responsibilities. there are things they need to do and consequences if they do not follow rules. host: from twitter --

guest: internet scams, home scams, telemarketing scams, we have the responsibility to bring together the very best practices around the country. i can tell you that there are wonderful people working all throughout this country and they are doing a good job. all too often they are isolated. for the first time in the federal government's history, we have an office of older americans that is singularly focused on these issues of consumer protection for seniors. host: is this just investigative or can you convict? guest: part of this is education and training in financial literacy and all of that. the other part that i learned when i was attorney general in minnesota was that you have to have enforcement. you need both. our director was the former attorney general of ohio.

he understands that. we need strong enforcement. that enforcement can come both federally and it can come locally. what i ask people to do is to not be afraid to speak up and speak out. part of the problem here is that people get very embarrassed by the fact that they have been scanned. they want to keep it quiet. if it is a scam from somebody in their family, they are fearful of what happens. we need to be able to speak out because for every one that speaks out, there are so many more that happened to have that courage to do that. to reach out to police, adult protective services, to those who can help you stop this kind of fraud and deception. this crime. this is truly elder violence. host: california. you are on. caller: the worst thing that has happened was when the supreme court ruled that we cannot sue our lawyers any more for age discrimination when they

fire us and hire a 20-year-old. i just saw on tv that senior citizens are having to collect social security early because their unemployment ran out and they cannot find jobs because no one will hire you if you are in your 60's. you cannot even get a job that you are in your 50's anymore. guest: you raise some very interesting points. one of the challenges here and we have to think about this -- it is tragic when anyone gets scammed. seniors have worked hard all their lives. they have saved to the extent that they can. now, they are at an age which when they get ripped off, they cannot get it back. they do not have time to build it back.

you are talking about something very important. this is social security. it is the foundation of most financial money that most seniors have. we need to be able to make sure that all of that is properly available, not stolen. we need to make sure obviously that seniors are not discriminated against. i appreciate the comments you have but the biggest thing that bothers me is to understand that once this money is gone, it is gone. there is very little opportunity to recover out of it when you are an older person. host: new york. melinda. independent line. caller: i have a question for you. i am not in my 60's yet. i am on social security disability.

i have seizures. i have been on it for about 8 years. i have no choice. i cannot get a job because everything is computerized. computers make my seizures go bad. everyone is saying, oh, you should not be on social security. social security is bad. what am i supposed to do? my husband and i only make about $27,000 per year between the both of us. guest: i appreciate your point. social security is not bad. is very good. while social security is there for those who are able to reach the age of retirement, it is also there for those who are disabled. you are very right in being able to take advantage of that. that is what this is all about. frankly, i do not think he

should think twice or feel embarrassed at all about the fact that you are accessing a program that has been in place for many, many years and has helped people with a good life with their disabilities. host: off of twitter -- guest: we are in the process. obviously, the consumer financial protection bureau is very much engaged in looking at mortgages and working with financial institutions. frankly, non-banking institutions. pay lenders. credit agencies. indeed, we are looking at what has happened in those areas. your caller indicated, when it happens to a senior, when you lose your home, the home is the foundation of most people's

savings. in my case, i can tell you that our savings is pretty much in our home. i think that is where it is in most folks' homes. most people who have been able to save it have put it into their home. that is part of the american dream. when it is a senior that has lost their home because of the situation that occurred between 2008 and 2010, once again, we are in that real deep trouble area of how are we going to help people live and where are they going to live and under what circumstances? we are definitely looking into all of that. host: our guest is the assistant director for the office of older americans at consumer financial protection bureau. he goes by "skip." >> where did you get your name? >> hubert h. humphrey, jr. was the vice president of the u.s. i am the third.

my son is the fourth. we discovered there was actually a fifth person with the name of hubert h. humphrey, a civil war veteran. host: you served as attorney general of minnesota. guest: yes. host: a lot of these situations ended up in your office? guest: yes. for those of you listening and watching, if you have a problem and you need to have some help, first of all, give a call to the police. call the adult protection services. call the social workers. they will be of help to you. do not be embarrassed. part of the problem is we have some pretty good con artists out there. they lean on your trust. seniors are very trusting. unfortunately, these guys really know how to work it. before you know it, your money is gone. the other day, i was at a

meeting out in one of the state's that i have been to and a woman came up. she had told part of for stores. she said that she was so embarrassed. over three years, she lived alone. many times, older women are living alone. they are isolated. this gentleman became a very close friend, took two years to work into being her close friend. next thing you know, she is sending money to him. she lost more than $30,000. now, she is having a very hard time. you have got to ask the hard questions. another individual that i had a chance to visit with kind of put it right. we were talking about, who should do trust? she said, i have to tell you, i have seven children. i love them all. but i only trust three of them. that is kind of funny in a sense but when you think about it, who do you trust?

who will you trust with those decisions? those important decisions that have to be made. when you are 85, 90, and people are living to 100. this is a whole other life. now, we have to find a new way of living through it successfully, independently. host: george. barbara. good morning. caller: good morning. my father is 97. my husband is 82. i am 74. guest: congratulations. caller: my poor father gets two bushels of mail a week. they use every gimmick. more letters from the same place. scare tactics. the worst is judicial watch. what can we do to get off the mailing?

guest: that is a great question. unfortunately situations like that are happening all over. i am going to be going back to minnesota this weekend to see my family. i can tell you that when i get back, i guarantee you there will be at least 5 to 10 invitations to go to a free lunch that someone will try to sell me something. they will be calling themselves experts. senior advisers. that why you to know that one of the things that our office is doing and we are charged by congress to do is to look into decertifications. these so-called experts that are trying to sell you something. we are doing a study on that. we will be able to look and see how standards are being set. many states have already established some standards. they're different in different places. we want to see what can be done. we will report back to congress

on that and to the securities exchange commission. first of all, make sure that you are on that do not call list. the number-one rule in this is if is too good to be true, it probably is. it does not matter how they sell it to you. if it is so good that you think you have to look at it, take a deep breath and stepped back and they will say you have to buy it now. by now. do it now. you do not have to. talk to someone who you trust. who can help you work through this. do not buy into this stuff. that is the key. you are the number 1 defense. the well-informed consumers can stop this. you have to be able to be willing to say, no more. if you keep getting all of these messages after you have

told the company you do not want anymore, send it to the attorney general's office. call them. call the local police. see whether or not they cannot help you. i can tell you when i was attorney general, we were able to shut down a lot of these. if they call on the telephone, say thank you, i will check with the attorney general's office. they will hang up. -- guest: think about this for a minute. step back. it sounds so good. these folks are professional salespeople. they know how to get into your address. do not let them. if it is really sounding good, take a breath. stop. by the way, call the police. call adult protective services. work with your financial institutions on this.

i was very impressed yesterday banks were there. they know it was a problem. they want to help their customers do the right thing with the resources they are entrusted with. host: twitter -- guest: that is another area that we are looking into. congress has asked us to look at the planning. the whole situation in that area. we will be getting to that. check out who you will see as your trusted riser. -- advisor. do not be a free to ask questions. if it is a securities person, ask them why they are selling it and what they get from the sale that they are offering. if they are a reputable person, they will be happy to tell you what their take on it is. frankly, you know, they are

providing a good service. if there quality people, you can measure that. do not be afraid to ask hard questions. host: good morning. deborah. democrat. caller: i have three problems that i feel are very important. i work for the government. when i went to see my doctor, he told me i was disabled. they said they do not even consider you disabled until social security figures out you are disabled. that does not help me at all. it does not take social security years to figure out whether or not you are disabled. what did you do not have a doctor? that is ridiculous. how much money are you making in the illegal prescription drugs that you are giving? especially those old people in the old homes. y'all are getting rich for

people getting sick. guest: you have raised some very good points. first of all, medicaid fraud is out there. i know that many attorney generals are working hard to put a stop to that kind of fraudulent activity. i would suggest that you check with your attorney general's office with regard to the laws about disability in your state and find out what those standards are. i would hope that social security will be able to give you an answer with regard to disability that might relate to your particular situation. let me just mention that we are working with the social security administration and we will be meeting more with them with regard to financial decisions that have to be made. as you know, social security is very soon going to be changing so that social security money

will be directly deposited into your bank or you'll be given a credit card. that will be coming next year, i believe. there will be a transition here. social security is going digital. for seniors, this can be very disconcerting sometimes. we have to learn about how we're going to take care of this. we need to make absolutely certain, do not give out your social security number, your medicare number. do not give them to anyone other than the very particular people that absolutely need them. your doctor. your bank. raise a question anytime anybody asks for your social security number. host: two tweets -- guest: that is a real concern.

we are working with states. the states regulate many of these areas. obviously, so does the department of health and human services. we will be working very closely with them. the financial part of that is crucial. all too often, we see situations where someone has been appointed a guardian and they end up taking the money rather than using it for mom or dad in nursing homes, if it used to buy a car or a fancy house or something else. we're looking to see how we can more closely work with our colleagues in the states and federal government. that is one of the things. we are trying to make sure we collaborate with our colleagues here in washington, d.c. and with some very fine programs that are in the state's. states. host: in terms of programs, do you have our reach two schools?

this would help avoid these problems in the future. guest: we are working with fdic. they have money programs. we have others that we are working with. we will be moving forward with that as we move ahead in this area. host: virginia. thank you for waiting. independent line. caller: hello. it seems to me that the biggest problem we face in this country are the money handlers. they've been around forever, if you read the bible. you talk about not having access to our money, but given the bankers, we can touch it for five years. the federal reserve can change the value of your money any time. the poker game should only be played amongst themselves. it should not affect rest of the country.

host: your question? caller: is there a regulation that is worth something that will be worth the same next week -- guest: let me just say this. i have been impressed with the people who are working at the consumer financial protection bureau. they have great experience in the financial markets. with financial institutions, they also understand the responsibility of regulating and looking at it from a perspective of the consumer. this is the most important thing you have. are they financial resources and assets that you are able to accumulate for your retirement and health of your family? i can assure you that is the highest priority of the people that i work with. i am very impressed with their ability to do that.

host: what is your staff like when it comes to older americans? guest: we have a wonderful, small group. five of us. we deal with 30 million -- 5 in our total office. that is fight here. when you take in all of the people who are working all across the country and in other agencies, we have thousands of very, very good people that are working. our effort is to help coordinate and bring that together. to be able to allow each of those who are doing good work in one part of the country to share those best practices with others. that is really the center of what we are trying to accomplish. we will be able to do that with our staff. host: this is chapel hill, n.c. our republican line for mr. humphrey. caller: i think we have a great country.

what i want to say about children and their older parents, sometimes our children cannot understand the the amount of sacrifice is the average american makes. it is not that our children don't care. they do not have the time. g familiesartinf later. their children are getting older. it is difficult for them to balance the job and finish raising their children and then have to deal with an older parent. if you can find an somthing that will bring that back together, understanding without underwhelming, you can solve a lot of that. guest: you have raised a very, very important reality that we all face.

our children really are the sandwich generation. we have four beautiful, wonderful grandchildren. we have fun with them. parents have to take care of those children. they also need to be looking after grandparents. and other elders and the family and friends. so, they are squeezed in between this. i will tell you, it is a great challenge to be able to balance that, to do it positively. that is a great challenge. what we have learned is that while we want to help those 62 and older, the thought is that we need to help those who are younger. you have framed it beautifully in your description of the question and concern. we need to help facilitated th e

changes that take place. this is an ongoing effort. hopefully, we will all live longer. hopefully, your grandchildren will live longer. there is a second life, a second generation of life. we have to look at how people are able to stay independent as they tend to make those decisions that need to be made in a free society, a free market place like ours. it is a great challenge. it is also a great opportunity. host: florida. democrat. caller: good morning. my question for you, mr. humphrey, you guys are supposed to go after medicare fraud. how come rick scott embezzled $14.2 billion from medicare and paid a $375 million fine and got put into office? he's a governor, waging war

against ex-felons. i have dui's. guest: from minnesota, we were trying to stay up on some of the fraud that was taking place. the reality is, we need to all work together at this. there is a lot of money that is going in the wrong direction. i know that the federal government and the state governments are working as hard as they can. this is an ongoing effort. i can assure you that we are doing everything we possibly can. some people are willing to take advantage of others' resources. it is a great tragedy. it is an outrageous kind of violence that takes place when it comes to medicare fraud and

elder fraud. host: what is the forefront? guest: key to us is we are going to get this certification study completed early next year. the consumer financial protection bureau will issue a reverse mortgage study, a key financial product that is advertised on tv. it may be appropriate in some places. there are big risks and costs with regard to reverse mortgages. there could be many other alternatives that are better suited for seniors. that is another area we are looking at. we're going to bring forth this guide that will help the caregiver to understand their responsibilities.

we are looking into this whole question of the planning and their retirement counseling with a focus on elder women. they outlive us. when they do, they're living alone. sometimes, they outlive many times the resources set aside for them. it is a challenge to manage. host: california. this is harry. independent line. caller: the one thing i remember is the cookie jar affect. i went to a seminar on reverse mortgages. when you get a lump sum from your lender, all of your children and your friends realize that you are sitting on a bundle of cash and before you

know it, it is gone. i just wondered what your reaction to that was. guest: thank you. that is why congress has asked the bureau to do a study on this very area. we work all of our lives to buy our homes. if you have a mortagegate, the g deal is when you finally pay it off. there it sits with whatever equity is in. a you need to find a way to see that over time as you retire. it is one of the key assets that seniors told. it you are right. you have to look at how your going to take that money. how you are going to use it. for what purposes? do you take it in lump-sum. do you take it over time? how do you properly invest it?

there is a question as to whether reverse mortgages are the best form or product to use. it can be appropriate in some situations. there may be others. if you are living in a home where you raise a lot of kids, maybe you do not need a big home. buy a smaller home for a lower price. realize the equity that way. there are any number of other options. we are going to be looking into that and i just appreciate your point because there are a whole lot of people out there that would like to take advantage of that lump-sum that shows up if that is the way you are taking your money out of a reverse mortgage. host: from twitter -- guest: absolutely. if you see something that does not seem right, do not be afraid to raise that question and reported to the proper authorities.

you do not have to be the one that is the expert to decide whether there is something wrong. you probably are the very first person that can literally save lives. people become so embarrassed and impoverished that it affects their lives to the point of death. host: this is the republican line. you have about 2.5 minutes before the end of the show. caller: if congress is able to cut social security and medicare, will those of us who are on social security and medicare and have been for several years be protected or grandfathered in some way? guest: i do not know. we will have to look at what needs to be done. i can tell you in my own experience and looking a social security, obviously there are some changes that need to take place so that social security is there for our children and our grandchildren.

we also have some time to make those fixes. whatever congress does, i think that they will find a way where the changes will be moderate and affordable. social security will be there for you. it has been a great program. a huge success. it is really something we have put in. now, in our older age, we are taking out. that is appropriate. we need to make sure that it is there not only for us but for our children and grandchildren. host: how do you gauge success for your division? guest: we have done very well. one of the things we have been reaching out to seniors all over this country --

i just appreciate all of the people who have come forward and visited directly with me and with our staff. secondly, we are working very closely with so many other organizations all throughout this country. it has been a great success. host: hubert humphrey iii, the assistant director for the office of older americans out of consumer financial protection bureau. thank you for your time. >> tomorrow, on washington andnal, the role of pac's in an election year. a conference being held in las vegas this weekend. and a conversation with the former chairman of the washington security task force. live at 7:00 a.m. eastern, on c- span. >> next, from the faith and

freedom conference, a forum on campaign 2012, and remarks by radio show host glenn beck. after that, the president announces a new policy on immigration. the fake and freedom coalition conference focuses on the challenges with polling for the presidential campaign, because people under 35 no longer use telephone land lines. they talk about the upcoming supreme court health-care case, and how it could affect the election. this is about 25 minutes. ♪ ♪ >> i will tell you it is a privilege to be here, but it is really your privilege to see an incredible group of gentlemen, who are going to give you a great indication of what is going to happen in the upcoming

election. we will begin with luke, executive director of research and republic, a position he has held since 2009, a conservative nonprofit public research organization, dedicated to shaping the debate over the proper role of government. in his role, he guides the quantitative and qualitative resource project, conduct briefings, and interacts with leaders. there is a long history of all of his successes. in purpose of time, they will then -- we will then look at a partner of the public opinion strategies, a public affairs of research firm. clients include fortune 500 companies and major associations. public opinion strategies has 19

u.s. senators, 71 members of congress. like luke, his resume is significant. we will go to scott rasmussen, of rasmussen reports. he is a political analyst, "new york times" best-selling author, and public opinion pollster. in 2012, he became a best- selling author. presumably, he's missing his book signing right now to be with all of us. as soon as we finish, i hope to merge everybody out there and grab hold of that opportunity. he is known worldwide for his predictions. he will be hosting a nationally syndicated television show, "what america thinks." we are excited to see that. i am going to open and end with the same question.

what we are going to do is we are going to begin with scott. the next person will take the next question. we will rotate down. we will be sure to keep everybody moving quickly. the first question relates to the capitol and the white house. the question is this. if you were to predict today, five months from the general election, who would be the winner, and what the actual scope is, or span, for the white house, who would that be, and why? >> for me, the answer is easy. we publish a daily presidential tracking poll. as of 9:30 this morning, we showed mitt romney at 47% and barack obama at 45%. [applause] you do realize that means it is very close. a lot can happen. we will talk about the future in a moment.

the one thing that is often, i think, abused in the process is this belief that the electoral college moves to a different rhythm than the national tracking polls. if mitt romney wins the popular vote by two points, that would mean he has a nine. improvement over where john mccain was, because president obama won by seven last time. if mitt romney has a nine. improvement, nationally, that would translate to something close to the same improvement in almost all of the states. that means romney would win north carolina, ohio, many of the close states. virginia would become a tossup. the question would be, could he win virginia? if not, could he pick something up elsewhere? i think it is important to recognize that a lot of the talk of the electoral college is premature. follow the national polls.

a big lead there will win the electoral college. >> i would say our firm is a close friend of the romney campaign. [applause] >> i am going to agree with that assessment. we are five months up from the election, and a lot can change. i think, as many of you know, when a candidate is running for reelection, it is often a referendum on the incumbent's record. 3/4 of americans believe the economy is still in a recession, think their family financial situation is not better today. you have a sense that 70%, according to the latest national survey, say the economy is either not getting better or getting worse. you combine those things, and it

is not a surprise that independent voters do not think president obama's economic plan is working. they do not necessarily blame him for the recession, but they do not think he has put together the solutions to make things better. >> thank you so much. [applause] this next one comes to you. i want you to talk about methodology. i am going to ask specific questions. you can pick up on whatever portion . is there a demographic group that is more amenable to being polled? what races are easy to poll for? this is specific to how you poll, and what works and does not work, in terms of the data. >> it might help to look at a particular reflection. when i started doing this 25 years ago, we would dial 8 people to get the complete interview. that number is now well over

100. the industry has become much more difficult. to get a real respondent on the line, someone who has an opinion, is an actual voter -- it is much more difficult. these challenges are not just ours. it is the industry. it is the biggest thing we are focusing on now. how often and how much can we interview the people who decide the race? america is more polarized than ever. we are spending a huge amount of time interviewing white independent voters, who are disaffected with both parties. these are the folks that are going to decide the race. even in a few states, but the fact is new york, or my home state of california, are not going to decide this election. so many national services have that built in. if you win california by one

point or 10 points, you get the same 12 points -- 12 votes. we spend a huge time looking at just the voters who will decide the race, in telephone interviews -- we are doing increasing cellphone components of that. we do a huge number of focus groups. you can actually hear what people are saying, and pick up on the anger out there. >> thank you. >> we have really tried to focus on a lot of policy testing, developing arguments in the "he said, she said" format. we have outlined messages coming from the white house or congressional democrats, and tests that against the conservative message, either something being said in congress right now or arguments we want to see where independent voters stand on. something we looked at closely are those niche voting groups.

for many in this room, the 2012 election started on january 1, 2009. many voters are not even tune in yet. but they follow politics from afar. we spend a lot of time looking at the voters who voted for obama in 2008 that are undecided today. looking ahead, young voters, you have heard a lot of talk of the disillusionment they feel based on the promises they heard in 2008. the expanding latino community, something in the news this morning, as far as what the administration is trying to do for the things people of that community feel, whether it is immigration reform or other issues. the specific cohorts and a lot of the swing voter groups that will decide the path, come november. >> how many of you remember saying are hearing someone say, "shhh.

it's a long distance call." do you remember your grandmother saying that? that was the world. people talk on the phone. that is why phone polling work. that is gone. 10 years ago, cell phones past landline phone. hardly anyone under 35 ever uses a landline phone. we will be in a world soon where you will have to go on line and into new technologies to reach people. this is going to be a real challenge for the industry. we are doing a lot of experimenting. they are not public, because you experiment first. this is something that is going to be a change. what it means, in practical terms, is there will probably be, in the next couple of election cycles, more mistakes than we are used to. you perfect these mistakes by doing a poll and comparing it to what really happened. that is a change that is coming.

it is something everybody in the industry is working on in different ways to try to deal with the shift. in terms of what we are looking at, it is mi