with presidential candidate rand paul he will be officially announcing his bid. what federal guidelines fall into place one to officially announce? once they have declared their candidacy, they must begin fundraising in limited amounts. they must be ready to report that in periodic reports. that's what is a given, but what is little understood is even before they officially declare their candidacy, they make in fact be candidates in the eyes of the federal election commission. this is a very uncertain period

in which people are not clear on the rules, but there are very clear roles. the candidates are being squishy about falling them now. host: what's the advantage of -- senator cruz last week, senator rand paul today -- others are saying, i will wait. what are the advantages and disadvantages? guest: they are trying to time it so that they can raise money and build support, collect endorsements, outside of the screw scrutiny that will come with their campaign, and wait until the first quarter is over so that they have a full quarter to really hone in on fundraising and come out with the biggest number that they can with their first report. host: before they the clare, what are the rules for how much they can raise?

and what they have to declare, versus after they officially announce? guest: the period right before they declare is often referred to as the testing the waters. this is where it would be candidate or hopeful in determining the feasibility of a candidacy. this is not just -- this is an actual term with the federal election commission. they are looking for signs that the candidate is conducting activities that would indicate that they are indeed testing the waters like pulling, making calls to potential supporters, doing some travel. these are things that don't necessarily trigger the threshold of the becoming an official candidate, but they do require that this person testing the waters is raising funds in limited amounts, which in the cycle are $2700 per candidate

for election. 2700 for the primary and 2700 for the general. if someone is testing the waters and not so serious about it, and they don't end up running, it doesn't really matter how much money they have accepted from people because they are not candidate. i could go out and accept one million dollars, but if i never register as a candidate, then there is nothing to report. nothing wrong. at the point at which i am testing the waters, all of those contributions must be in limited amounts and ultimately disclosed to the election commission. host: here is an editorial from "the washington post" from last week -- mocking the law. the federal commission has established rules for the testing the water phase but people are skirting the rules saying that they are not testing

the waters. those named in the complaint are jeb bush, martin o'malley, rick santorum, and scott walker. they are saying, "the washington post" is saying that they are mocking the law. the candidates say they are not doing anything wrong. guest: i think they are citing the nonpartisan legal center pause complaint that these people are indeed flouting the law. they are dodging the rules. they are saying that -- they are going through verbal gymnastics to avoid saying that they are candidates, and sometimes having to walk statements back for fear that the sec may enforce this rule. what they are doing is trying to raise these unlimited funds from unlimited sources for their

super pac's, which in some cases they have themselves establish. this would be impossible, not permitted where the in the testing the waters or officially a candidate. they are trying to, again, as like candidates in terms of fundraising, outreach to the public, getting people excited building momentum for the campaign, but they are making jokes that the sec is watching so i can't really be a candidate. this allows them to go after mega-donors during this critical period. host: and bring in as much as they can from these donors? there is no limit? guest: absolutely no limit. this is precisely what the concern is. the citizens united ruling, the basis for it, depends on these outside groups, which can be fully independent of the

candidate, and to disclose these donations. in fact, these are candidates for all intensive purposes. they are very closely associated with super pac's, which ultimately will have to be independent of them, but meanwhile, they will have raise tens of thousands of dollars. host: we are speaking with sheila krumholz of the center for responsible politics. 2016 potential presidential candidates, what are they obligated and not obligated to do under these rules? call in with your questions and comments. republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 745-8002. you can also send us an e-mail, journal@c-span.org.

hillary clinton's brooklyn headquarters. she has signed a lease for this building. what does that mean in the eyes of the sec? guest: she is testing the waters. they consider all the candidates and activities that they are taking and they just for actions to be in this testing the water phase. she doesn't have to declare yet but she will presumably in the next few weeks to begin fundraising ahead of the second quarter report to bolster their numbers. this is the time of getting the excitement building ahead of the launch announcement which is a critical first impression. this is all very carefully forgot -- choreographed in order to set the stage for this person and whether candidacy will stand for. host: the federal election commission has a rule that a

candidate has only 15 days between conducting activities and finally the official 2016 paperwork. is this an official act by hillary clinton? guest: yes. but clock -- the clock is ticking. host: that is why you are hearing all these reports, any day now, she will make an announcement. guest: again, for most of the candidates, they will use this period in the next few weeks to make their announcement. this was why widely anticipated, but these are the kinds of actions that will get the fec to judge them as a candidate whether or not they judge themselves. host: a lot of scrutiny lately about the clinton foundation and the money that they receive and what it means for a white house bid for the former secretary of state.

foreign money going to the family foundation. what does the sec's say -- fec saying about foundations that raise money and what that means for a campaign for office? guest: these are nonprofits. the clintons associated with them, they are very politically associated nonprofits. they have been able to collect unlimited sums from unlimited sources, just like all nonprofits. in the case of the clinton foundation, they have attracted huge sums of money from foreign donors, even foreign governments. they have stopped accepting foreign funds at this time, but that does not change the fact that they have a wide and broad network, and this has been money that has helped -- if not help directly a future clinton campaign helped bolster her

name recognition, which is quite broad. other candidates who have similar wide and deep networks to tap -- the jeb bush campaign once launched will also be able to tap into his brother and father's political networks. politically active nonprofits. this is really ground zero of the concern here in 2016. this is where dark money -- secret contributions, unknown sounds, unknown sources, it is seeping into the system and will go directly or on directly to support the candidates. the concern from citizen united is that this is where corruption can be found. host: can in brooklyn, new york. go ahead. caller: i have a question.

i know all these campaign-finance laws are in fear of corruption. if i want to donate to a candidate without might neighbor knowing who i support, what are my choices to donate to a campaign without getting the repercussions of everyone knowing my political support? thank you. guest: you can get small amounts of money. if it is under $50, that will not go on to the roster. once you to the $50 trigger, the information about the donor has to be reported to the federal election commission. the name, the address, the employer. this was deemed necessary in order to protect the integrity of the campaign system, following the watergate scandal in the 70's. this is seen as a reasonable bargain, and people -- if people

want to pay for candidates to run and support them, they need to as justice scalia says, have the backbone to do so publicly so that everyone can know that this system has not been rigged or bought by well-heeled donors. all donors must be willing to provide that information is they want to contribute directly to a candidate. of course, now they can give unlimited sums from a corporation or union or trade association 28 super pac that supports that candidate. they can also give to the candidate. host: john from virginia. democratic caller. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call. i just want to say to the guests that i think we are sick and tired of bush and clinton. the way that the country is

going, it is wrong that the supreme court allow that myself and walmart camp can pay the same amount of money. i cannot challenge walmart or corporate america. we are selecting people. the corporate's america decide who will become the president of the united aids. it is a win in this country that i love that we can call it a election, but it is not an election anymore. it is whoever has more money will win the election. that is not an election. guest: i think what the caller is describing -- his discontent is broadly reflected in the populous across the political spectrum. people are concerned about the citizens united decision that this is ingesting huge amounts of money not just from

corporations, unions, and trade associations, but from unknown sources, potentially foreign services. we have no idea where this money is coming from when it goes to these dark money political nonprofits. on the other hand, we have not yet seen evidence that megacorporations are wielding their vast resources to inject that money directly into the campaign. again, they could. the cycle may be the cycle in which corporations get involved more dramatically in supporting super pac's. again, they may be supporting political nonprofits outside of our view. the work that we at the center for responsive politics are undertaking is to try and expose where that money is coming from and going to in terms of politically active nonprofits.

host: reminded viewers what is a political action committee? guest: a political action committee is a committee that can raise contributions for candidates. the contributions they raise are limited. i can give it a pack $5,000 per year, and the money they give candidates are limited. they can give them $10,000 per year. $500 for the general. the problem is making collect unlimited sums from unlimited services. -- sources. they can't take those large sums of money and transfer it, or gives it to a candidate directly. what we are seeing is that many of these super pac's are single

candidate super pac's. they exist solely and inclusively to benefit for -- or attack -- one single candidate. that is why there is such grave concern that a wealthy person, corporation, or union can back a super pac and have a massive impact. host: david, an independent. caller: good morning. i have a solution, hopefully, to this problem. since congress has an approval rating under 10%, this would be a great issue to mobilize our persuasions within this argument. i would suggest a constitutional amendment to restrict $1000 per candidate per election cycle. and then term limits and restrictions on politicians leading office, going into

lobbying positions immediately. i feel that if we, as a people can come together and form a constitutional amendment and take this how are -- this power, and give the power back to the people, i don't think it would matter if you are republican or democrat, it is obvious that congressional ratings, the approval of their job performance, is hovering a little under 10%. this course of action would definitely real in some of the bogus money that is running our political system. guest: we at opensecrets.org believe in that those hashing

outperforms do not have information that they need to make lasting reforms. there are performs like a constitutional amendment, public financing on the table that americans are rallying around but until there is enough support from the public and pressure on our legislators to make change, we are stuck with the citizens united ruling, which i favors free speech and disfavors action which would curtail these large sums of money from unknown sources. the judgment in that decision was if there is no quid pro quo, there is no corruption. i think the kind of techniques or antics that we are seeing

now, the games that some hopeful presidential candidates are playing gives light of the notion that all is working according to that schema presented in citizens united. host: sam, another independent. caller: good morning. i would just like to say that we have been following some dark money. this money is so dark, you need night vision glasses to see in it. it is from hollywood, epa, other countries, sierra club, and other places. a professor at harvard lawrence -- something like that -- said that it is the darkest money he has ever seen. you can't trace it. it goes from foundation to foundation and distributed through the democratic party. even money like the money

disappeared from all those farmers. it got thrown in there. they said it went overseas to england. nothing was ever done about him. he said, money illegally from the farmers. host: all right, sam. sheila ckrumholz. guest: the caller makes a good point that the money raised from known and unknown sources is up bipartisan phenomenon. it is a tool that both parties and candidates, to some degree, are taking advantage of. we have seen that the shift from first primarily conservative organizations to liberal

organizations take advantage of super pac's and outside groups. i think we will see particularly for the presidential campaign, lots, if not most of the money, focused on winning the white house for their party. this is by no means just relegated to one party or the other. this is a phenomenon across the political spectrum. host: "usa today" reporting that a billionaire will target gop hopefuls so that trying to brothers. what do you make of billionaires getting in on a single-topic issue like this, climate change, trying to impact the results? what are your concerns with what they might expect in return? guest: our concern with regard to billionaires funding massive ad blitzes to influence

electoral outcomes is first to make sure that people understand where the messages they are being bombarded with our coming from. i think the gentleman who just called, if he were on the receiving end of an ad list from tom stiers' campaign, as long as it is going through a super pac and is fully just closed -- fully disclosed will be able to judge for himself and gauge the credibility of the message and messenger. that is a critical element. if we cannot know who the messenger is we cannot effectively gauge the credibility that message merits. if i have, if i am viewing an ad from an abortion-related group or a pro-gun rights group and i'm familiar with that group, i can decide whether or not i agree with the message and i understand who is sending the

message. if it is coming from some group i've never heard of, unfortunately what i and other americans will do is listen more closely and potentially gives that group more credibility than they deserve. what we are concerned about is making sure americans have the information before them, including who is behind the group, what campaigns are connected to them and where the money is coming from. host: a democrat in minneapolis tom go ahead. good morning. caller: hey there. host: you are on the air. caller: i wanted to say, a quick comment on the previous session. you should have a weekly call in on the jobs problem in america. believe me, things are really bad. you independently do not know. a -- you in the beltway do not

know. a weekly thing, your calls would be also hurt. -- off the hook. i don't think we have any help in this country. we have a corporate talkere-ocracy. kearney capitalism. --crony capitalism. supreme court made it worse. i was amazed the other day. about a week ago i heard that he british isles, starting their election campaign. they started late march and there are going to have the election may 6. six weeks. we're not civilized anymore. guest: that does sound refreshing. our campaigns have evolved into

expensive affairs. that may or may. not be a big deal in another itself. the implication is that fewer and fewer people can afford to run. they might have great ideas but if they do not have the money they are not going to be viable. i think that is a valid concern. what is the solution? if there were a scandal akin to the scandals of the 1990's or a watergate scandal that could propel the public to move and to call for our demand action from their legislators. we may see people rallying around a particular reform, leveraging technology to gather people to their campaign and building a mass movement. first of has to be a recognition of the problem.

there has to be more debate about what is going on and what we can do about it. people need to take responsibility for their democracy. if it is not working, nobody is going to fix it but us. host: arizona independent caller. caller: thank you. i think we need to get the money as much as possible out of the system. so that our leaders in congress and the presidency do not have all these strings tied to them. commitments from big-money. the other thing i would like to say, excuse me, two people running for president of the united states is ridiculous. the most powerful office and person in the world and we have two representatives. it is too easy to control this office. thank you. guest: first that comment is an

excellent point. the problem with the money is not just who can afford to run but what happens once they are in office. they are bringing to office all of the ious from their wealthy donors who bankrolled their campaign and put them there. the question is whether people once in office, public officials, are giving us the best policy they can craft based on the merits or whether we are getting policy based on the money. based on who is spending to support candidates and hit is lobbying once they are in office to shape their vote. our system has been privately financed. if we are to retain the system of privately financed elections with it comes responsibility to

be vigilant about who is spending the money, what they want in return, what they are getting a return and hold elected officials accountable. right now we have an accountability does a visit -- deficit. in campaign finance and in politics. it is up to the constituents, we're all busy enough trying to hold down multiple jobs in many cases, as your earlier guest was speaking about. and yet if we cede our place at the table, lobbyists corporations and organizations they represent will take our place. they will have the ultimate say in shaping what policies are passed will stop host: we told you about tom stiers' plans to go after republicans. the houston chronicle front page the koch brothers also strategizing, expanding in texas and around the country and i drive to mobilize latino voters

heading into the 2016 election. here is a tweet from one of our viewers. "does current law allow anonymous political donations from foreign entities?" guest: foreign donors are not allowed to make contributions directly to federal candidates. however, now that citizens united is the law of the land, outside groups, including politically active nonprofits, which do not disclose the sources of their funds are campaigning on behalf of or against federal candidates. this is a concern -- that we cannot know that that activity is not being run on behalf of a foreign corporation, a foreign individual, a foreign government. we simply cannot know. host: david is on twitter wanting to know this, "why

aren't political donors proud rather than afraid to reveal who they support?" guest: that is interesting. political donations are a valid way to participate in democracy. if you support the ideas and ideals of a person running for office to be able to contribute to and support their campaign, i think it is a terrific thing. i would prefer, i think most people would prefer that more americans were giving amounts that are perhaps not as large as we are having now. the money is coming now from a very elite few americans. our research shows that less than .5% of americans fund most of the political campaigns in this country. but there are lots of small donor programs that are trying to encourage more money coming

from more people that would not have the iou's attached and be so rife with conflicts of interest. many are voucher programs. they have credits in place. there are different ways to get there but i think that kind of a reform, coupled with technology that makes it easier and easier for americans to participate by giving contributions or in other ways, it might be one helpful solution. host: also, oklahoma, a democrat. hi. caller: terry. host: welcome to the conversation. caller: thank you. i think, i've then wanting to get this message out forever. i think as american people that we should elect only politicians with public -- republican, democrat, independent and green

that their main reason is to take money out of politics. it is amazing green that how many problems that would immediately solve if when we voted for a person, if they did not -- that was the focus of their campaign and their time in government was to end a campaign financing as it stands now. host: mississippi independent. year? comment -- your question or comment for sheila krumholz. caller: let people donate all they want. as long as they make politicians wear blazers not say who their lobbyists or contributors are like they do in nascar, then we would know what we have got. .there would be no question host: bruce, chicago. caller: hi, how are you?

i was wondering what you think about, you know with the disclosure of people who donate political money after the irs fiasco where they chased all the conservative people around. guest: the irs has not come out with their next rulemaking on how they are going to enforce t he rules on tax-exempt organizations. obviously they were ham-handed in their handling of how to identify which nonprofits are deserving of tax-exempt status. most of the attention failed to their -- fell to their focus on key party groups. the report declared that they were also looking at liberal

organizations but the bottom line revealed that the irs should not be the government entity that is making these decisions about political activity. ultimately, we will need to have a much clearer bright line about how much political activity is allowed. some organizations are spending more than 50% of their revenue on political activity and should be filing with the federal election commission as a political committee raising limited sons from limited sources. there are other indications that these groups are trying to fly under the radar but in their activities act as political groups. the irs and ultimately congress is going to have to get a handle on how to regulate these organizations. host: nashville tennessee. rich, an independent. caller: good morning. i have a comment and question.

the comment is this, if the government -- if the government isto create jobs, they do not want, the right does not want the government to create jobs. the right is not creating jobs. corporate taxation or whatever it might be. my comment is that anybody who creates a job in america for americans and then lays them off to take every seas for cheap labor is a traitor. the question i have is what does the center of politics what is it that you do? the corporate donations and all that, to me it does not seem fair. i would like for you to expand on that, please. guest: i'm happy to talk about the center for responsive politics. our website is opensecrets.org. an earlier caller suggested

politicians wear blazers with logos emblazoned on them. go to opensecrets.org, look of the candidates running for office in your district and for the white house and find out which organizations are the top donors to that campaign. since 2012, we have been unearthing information about dark money organizations that are increasingly important to the political process since citizens united. you can find donors to and information about super pac's come outside groups, canada parties -- candidate parties and more on our website. host: silver spring, maryland independent. caller: i would like to make a suggestion that if you want to overwhelm the influence of big

money on politics, it would go a long way towards that goal if you made small contributions to political candidates and causes tax-deductible. that way, you would have more middle income people contributing. to politics. and as our guest suggested, you would also have more, this would be beneficial to the political system itself. thank you. host: all right. guest: yes. i think whatever solution we arrive at it has to include more americans getting involved getting engaged and getting informed from critical sources about -- credible sources about where the money comes from and what kind of people they want to represent them.

and then how good a job they do ever present them. part of -- as representing them. part of the problem is the election but the other part is the money focused on elected officials once in office that is shaping the policies and other outcomes of their work. it does require people becoming engaged, more americans are needed and small donations may well be part of that package and the ultimate solution. host: sheila krumholz, one last phone call. in ohio, a democrat. hi. caller: i'm so glad to talk to everybody in the united states. the koch brothers are investing in the u.s. it's on national graphic tv. i'd like to know if they could be stopped. guest: well, the koch brothers are the kind of bogeyman of the left.

they're not alone but they are spear heading the largest dark money organizations setting their sights on shaping electronic outcomes at the federal dark money organizations setting their sights on shaping electronic outcomes at the federal level. in our research, they are among those we are investigating in our work. in the beginning of last year, we published information detailing their investment in the 2012 elections, for instance. we found that they had put in $400 million to influence the outcome of those elections. i would expect it would be -- it is projected they will double that in the 2016 cycle. host: sheila krumholz executive director for center for responsive politics. > coming up on the next washington journal, a look at

u.s. immigration policy. our guest is marc rosenblum >>. and then, a discussion on the costs and benefits of federal regulations. you can join the conversation with phone calls and comments on phase in the twitter -- on facebook and twitter. the latest on the iran nuclear negotiations on wednesday. discussion from the national council on u.s. arab relations. later, irs commissioner joins a discussion at the brookings institution on the impact of irs budget cuts. by that 2:00 p.m. eastern -- live at 2:00 p.m. eastern.

>> conversations with new members of congress. >> what were your mom and dad thinking when you took the oath of office? >> i knew my mom would be crying. my dad showed up to the capito l. he showed up without his cane. i said, do i need to send somebody to get your cane? he walked without his cane for the entire day. i know they were super proud. >> five members of congress talk about their lives and talk about how things work on capitol hill. join us for their conversations on c-span. >> next, remarks by independent

conference leader jacqueline sa lit. this is two hours. >> i have the pleasure of introducing our distinguished panel. let's welcome back to the stage paul johnson. [applause] next to paul is rob richie. he is the executive director of fair boat. it is a national nonprofit nonpartisan organization that advocates for nonpartisan redistricting reform and establishing a national popular vote for president. he is an inspiring and outspoken

advocate for important political reforms. it is great to have you. next to to rob is a dear friend and colleague, michael hardy. he is an attorney, a practicing attorney since 1988. a leader in the movement for social and criminal justice for many decades. he is a founder of the national action network and served as executive vice president and general counsel to the national action network. please welcome michael hardy. [applause] next to michael, chad peace who is here from california. he is the president of independent voter contact media.

he was one of the leaders and movers and shakers, a behind the scenes architect of the effort to pass open primaries in california. we thank him for that. he is the national legal strategist for and partisanship.org's efforts to bring a lawsuit in the state of new jersey. he is the magazine -- managing voter of ibn. chad peace. then the next gentleman they are home boys. so to speak. harry kresky's counsel?, he has

conducted landmark legislation. in 2002, he served on the new york city charter revision commission. which considered for the first time the issue of nonpartisan elections. in new york, he is a national legal advisor for the new jersey litigation. he won dismissal of a lawsuit that tried to dismantle south carolina's our system -- open primary system. [applause] last but not least, john updike is the president of open primaries which was founded in 2014 after being incubated for many years.

they advocate for open and nonpartisan systems and participates in the building of state, local, and national primaries. john was formerly the director of development and chief of staff for independent voting .org. john updike. [applause] ok, so, welcome. thank you for being here. joining in this conversation. here is where i want to start out. why should the american people care about political reform? put in a different way, what is going on? what is the state of late, the state of affairs, that makes it the case that the american people should focus on, concern themselves and become involved with issues of political reform? let me open it up.

>> i don't mind starting. can everybody in the back here me? -- hear me? they are concerned about would reform and are you have to do is look at voter registration. a lot of people are reregistering as independents through no organization w hatsoever. they have been becoming disgusted with what is happening. as those voices leave the party we are leaving a more distilled ideological base inside both of them which is now increasingly insisting on not compromising with the other side. that is having an effect on us congressionally, legislatively and our ability to get people

with different points of view to to work together for the common good. the concept of e paris us own them -- plurbis unum -- >> this underscores the point. can people hear me ok? the way that elected officials are behaving is not just personal quirk's and characteristics. it is incentives that flow from the current rules permit some people rise above that, but the general pattern of behavior is grounded in structures and rules. they are responding to the incentives within those rules. acting ways, if we don't change we will see more of the same behavior.

we are in a time of necessary change. we have had certain regimes and facts about the american people that have been evolving and changing but we have old rules and structures. they do not mesh together. the we don't change and update, we are going to get into a cycle of problems that are bad for the country. jacqueline: thank you. >> one of the interesting experiences in the wake of the oregon campaign last november, open primaries did a set of focus groups. we got shellacked. we got just under 33% of the vote. and yet, in these focus groups, six out of 10 democrats and republicans, and seven out of 10 independents said, we want the

top to open primary system. my first reaction was perplexing. we just had an election on who we are revealing the depths of support for these reforms. reflecting on this part of what occurred to me was that people cared deeply about these reforms. what they want to make sure is in some ways the "we." they want to see a fighting, real diverse coalition of people committed to making it happen. i think our challenge is not promoting political reform. i think our challenge is promoting ourselves, promoting the movement. showing the american people that they can trust they can trust that we can move forward on that. because they want it. [applause]

>> if i can explain where i'm coming from, a successful effort in california, we changed with a fundamentally different approach. what people did not understand in california we started more than a year before the elect doing nothing other than -- election doing nothing other than voter education. it is not about us. it's about the way we elect our representatives. if you put it in a historical context, we had direct primaries to get the selection process out of the back room. where we have gotten today we got to a process where we had 10% political participation across the country. 50% of people don't feel represented by either party. but the first stage of our process is one conducted not for the purpose of electing representatives for all of us. the stated purpose in the law is to elect somebody who best represents those political parties. you don't have to run able.

you don't have to talk to people. just walk into a restaurant. everybody recognizes it. the parties are not serving us. the fundamental thing we have to do is not a promotion of ourselves. i respectfully disagree. it is to educate the people around us. this is not about independent voters. it is about all of us, and having a system that represents every individual voter. that's, not members of the democrat party not members of the republican party not independence. it's everybody. the right to vote derives from citizenship, not from joining a political party. it is that principle that we should be promoting. [applause] >> i would say that the american people have to care about political reform. we are being locked out, left out, killed, denied, and given nothing. we have a generation of people potentially going to be worse off than the generation before them in so many ways. if you look at that -- in new

york city, for instance, there was a report recently that showed new york has one of the most segregated public education systems in the country. many urban areas are more segregated today than they might have been right after brown versus board of education. you look at jobs the unemployment rate. people were talking about earlier today, the wealth gap. all of that on some level becomes a function of government. when government is defined as two parties then you have to begin to look at the structural issues there and say what is happening, and how come people are not allowed to participate? i think we have to figure out there is a way for you to participate, and we are going to show you how. [applause]

>> i found the panel discussion this morning both very helpful and very painful because there is not just a need for cultural exchange but since the 1960's, there has been a huge cultural change in this country. but the political system is. still operating as if none of that happened. we elect the first black president with a new coalition and low and behold for the next eight years it is politics as usual. americans are unhappy. americans want things. our political system simply doesn't allow changes that are actually happening on the ground among the american people to manifest themselves in government and in politics. something has got to give. [applause]

>> let me see if i can tie together some of what was said here in this first go around, and see if we can push in a little harder on this. paul says, one of these things driving the country towards political reform is the mass exodus of americans from the two parties, creating this huge new group of independents. that is leaving the parties in a situation where they are more controlled by narrow interest, by organized interests. given the power the parties have that is setting up a dangerous situation. chad you are talking about the importance of an overarching political principle, tied to the history of this country. including all of the difficulties we have had in fully realizing it but namely that every american should have the right to participate in a political process without being

required to join a political organization and that is the premise we operate from. michael you talked about what is actually happening to people in this country as a result of the decaying and corrupt political system that we need to reform the system because of those things that are going on. so i hear these things. and i embrace all of them. this raises the question for me, are we tying these things together enough? do we have to tie them together, from a organizing point of view, from a political point of view, from a coalition-building point of view? how do we connect these things? connecting does connecting them make the movement more powerful? i would be interested in hearing your thoughts. >> i think it does jackie.

if i may i think two maybe three, no, i guess four years ago, you and dr. newman did one of your talk sessions at this conference. the point dr. newman made during that discussion, you know, out of all the things we could organize around, democracy and in a way politics and reform is one of the most difficult. there are so many sexy issues out there to organize around. but politics is a difficult one. therefore, it takes a certain amount of courage, if you will, to do that to go into that. because it's not easy. it's not sexy. so i think when you think about that then connected to the tradition -- at least of progress in this country -- i

come out of a movement that is deeply engaged in social justice. we believe in the traditions of dr. king so we just came out of the celebration of 50 years of selma. of course, selma -- i think the gentleman, i forget which state -- he quoted johnson 's speech when he decided they would move in the congress. congress, by the way, did not want to pass a voting rights act, to vote to pass it by saying that our cause is just the time is now, we shall overcome. when people saw selma and saw the organizing that went into bringing that issue to the forefront of the stage of america, then people felt yes, this is a reform we need. and they felt they could be a part of it. and we got the reforms.

as difficult as it may be, we have to have the courage to do the things that may be necessary to make this kind of reform sexy to the american people. [applause] >> that story was a perfect segue into why we cannot disconnect all this. it was only a year before the civil rights act that the supreme court said you cannot preclude someone from voting in the democratic party on the basis of race. it was one year before the civil rights act. what the court recognized there the only meaningful avenue of participation was to the democratic party at that time. so the effect on governance, what it does and is doing in california right now is the top two is forcing accountability across a broader spectrum of people. we have just as many democrats and republicans in the california legislature today because the change was not about party. it was about who they are accountable to. when you start the first phase

of the project now they are accountable to african-americans, and now in 2014 they are accountable to everyone. you get legislators that are acting in the best interest. i don't think you can disconnect the legal apparatus from the legislative apparatus to the real-world facts on the ground. today, i think we have a serious situation. frankly, it's not that the representatives don't want to listen to us. it's because they cannot. the moment they acted everybody's best -- act in everybody's best interest, they get primaried. >> one of the interesting things helping to tie all this together the actions of the parties themselves. for the past 20 years, the parties have engaged in an assault on states that have open primaries, to convince the court that they are private associations and should have the

right to prevent people who have not signed on the dotted line and joined them to participate in primary elections. if they are private associations, why isn't the state funding -- why is the state funding and paying for their primaries? second a fascinating case argued in the supreme court out of arizona. all good things and bad things come out of arizona. [laughter] arizona's state legislator sued a redistricting commission established by a referendum to remedy the horrendous gerrymandering that takes place in arizona and elsewhere. state legislator sued the commission. the supreme court agreed, to hear the case and the state legislature took the position that because the constitution said only the legislature can decide matters pertaining to congressional elections not

people. what type this together -- ties this together, hopefully, people will begin to see that this is a matter of sovereignty. if people do not govern, if that is not the source of power, if the legislature can say issues that go directly to the people can be nullified by the courts or the legislature then the very fundamental's of democracy are called into question and that is what can tie all this together. [applause] >> if i can add onto that, the importance of that discussion is at the core. if you look at the case law how it developed in democratic party v. jones, the state of california tried to open up a partisan-based system, and the court said that the state cannot infringe on the right of a private political party and for some to accept independent voters into their primary.

what's interesting about the case aaron and i are working on in new jersey is that the state of new jersey, instead of saying taking the side of the voters, has literally, put itself in the position of the parties and set, we are going to reject -- said we are going to reject this party based on the argument that the political parties have exclusive rights to the election process. it is a very interesting development, and we are going to get decisions on each side of the aisle across the country. that is an important point. they really replace themselves from the will of the voters. >> there is a history of people being mobilized around these issues. often tied to new developments with candidates and politics. in 1912, teddy roosevelt who had been a republican president, ran as a third-party candidate almost party -- buullm ll moose

party. brought a letter issues associated with the progressive era in and it was not an accident that we changed the constitution a few years ahead. direct election of senators. we had not been able to elect senators before. women's suffrage. the 1860's was a tumultuous time but also the rise of a new party, with abraham lincoln. out of that, we have process issues including the 14th, 13th, 15th amendment, african-american suffrage. many of the constitutional amendments have been about suffrage. processes can rise to that level. it also is often associated with candidates and people, independents their parties. our founding cochair was john anderson, who ran for president in 1980 and was a representative

of a republican party that left him and change direction with ronald reagan. he ran had an important place in the discussion, and i think we need people like them on the ballot. a conversation we need to have, when we get to what the reform needs to be to achieve the ideals we want, is that we have to make the general election in november representative and matter and we need to make our representative assemblies representative and matter. that means rescuing the general election, along with the primary election. [applause] >> one thing i think about about your question about connections and connecting. i think about -- and we have talked about this many times -- george washington as he's leaving office, warning the country, don't let there the official connectors. stay connected yourself. don't let there be parties, and

about four and a half hours after they were parties, and we had a partisan election in 1800. part of what i think about is the importance of recognizing how our very understanding of connecting has been so shaped by the parties. it has been so overdetermined by have the democrats connect people and how the republicans connect people. and they do it in this very sophisticated, slick way that plays off mutual benefits but also antagonism. it is very pernicious. so part of what i'm personally very excited about this movement, this conference, is the opportunity to connect in ways that do not mean we have to fit together perfectly or smooth over things or end any disagreement.

connect in ways that do not result are disagreements, but use them creatively. it is so important and that is what this movement is doing. [applause] >> moving on a slight disagreement -- i would say that i think they are both right. here's why i think they are both right. chad is talking about, really, all politics is local. people make a decision because of how politics affects them personally. knowing that you are empowered were not empowered under a grant system has a big effect on how people vote. but make no mistake, people involved from the outside can have an effect as well. in our case in arizona the koch brothers spent $2 million at the end of our election. we were up about 70% and that money had a detrimental impact on our ability to be successful, because they raised down, and

the -- doubt, adn the doubt was just enough. afterwards, we found the public still supported the measure by and large, but the doubt caused them to vote against it. what john was talking about the national party the national group, the parties really came about because of national politics national political leaders trying to create grassroots organizations. a modern technique, a modern device at the time to try to expand their influence. if we are going to be successful as a group if we are going to be successful moving this effort forward, we definitely have to have a national base that talks about why it's important from a national standpoint to get other players engaged in a national level, to take part and help finance the. and oftentimes, to also described to the public why that's happening. why is it that people like us

are engaged in a campaign in oregon or a campaign in illinois? the only answer is because what unifies us is what is happening in our congress today, was happening in our national political level. oftentimes, the efforts to move these open primary systems forward our focus on the legislative process. we need to focus them on the dysfunction happening nationally and why they should matter to them from an economic standpoint, a job standpoint as well as from a national defense standpoint. >> i would just add again circling back to the mayor's point. at the end of the day you ask can we make reform popular with the american people? i think people in general become excited about things they can

really, truly participate in. i think part of the connecting that has to go on is the connecting that has always gone, in some respects. i mean, you have groups and organizations that are doing the legislative work around voting, or doing the creative work around building new coalitions. and i think we have to also bring in sort of the social movement aspect to it, that people are gathering for a reason. to confront the institution that is stopping them from being able to progress and prosper. and i think that if you can imagine what it would mean somehow, if you really thought about voting, voting really has to be a social justice right. it has to be something that you are so passionate about, and the

people are so passionate about that the idea that they cannot participate in a meaningful way is something that they are going to go hit the barricades on, metaphorically. practically, how do you bring organizations forever to make that kind of social justice movement happen which would make everything happening in the courts in the, in the discovery rooms, in the concept rooms all come together to bring the kind of opportunity for change that the american people need. [applause] >> let me ask the question, to build off of what you are saying and also to refer to a conversation -- comment at the beginning, when we talked about the importance of modernizing the electoral system. i want to ask all of you a question about, this is maybe a

question about modernizing not just political machinery or the design of elections, but maybe this has to do with modernizing or, post modernizing for some people concepts. and thinking about the issue of choice. you talk about voting being a social justice concern. it seems to me that part of what you are raising and that is not just having the right to vote and being able to exercise that vote but having meaningful choices along the way. now, the question of choice in my opinion gets reduced to a set of low-level -- we need to have more candidates on the taoist, or whatever. not to make an argument against having a bunch of candidates

that is actually one of the strength of the top two primary system. it lets the voters choose the two finalists. maybe this is a philosophical question, more than anything else. what is choice? what is choice? how do we think about that? how do we think about that politically? how do we think about that legally? how do we think about that inspirational he? -- inspirationally? what is it now? >> we had a national election in the midst of times when we have a lot of problems on the table. about 36% of eligible voters felt their vote was worth casting and went out and did it. 64% did not. of course, a lot of people were not registered in the first place. that's another problem. but that was the lowest turnout in a midterm election since

1942. in the primary elections berries, there is -- open primaries and close primaries alike, we have the lowest turnout ever in more than half of our states. the sense of choice feeling -- choice being that people feel there is a meaningful reason to bridges and eight -- participate, that the choice they make matters to their lives. it's not just a matter of having a mix of candidates though that is essential to what we need as part of the mechanism of our reform. it also means they have to believe that it matters. the choice has to have meaning for impact, and quite literally it has to be more than one. i have been kind of alluding to mechanisms without saying things, but i will use as an example of what i think is a meaningful choice. the state of maine i knows and

people from maine here, next year we will vote on whether to have ranked first voting in the november election. they had a series of elections for governor where they have choices, more than two people running. the last 11 races for governor only two were won with more than half the votes. there has been an up with a strong third-party movement there that with different rules they would have had more winners, but of course angus king won as governor and later as senator. that puts stress on a system with they can only vote for one, so a movement has come up for ranked choice voting. if my first choice finishes last , my ballot goes to my second choice. so i have more choices and candidates have more choices -- more incentive to talk to more people. they not only need your first choice but they need your second choice. with that statutory change, we

have expanded the opportunities for voters to consider different choices, and for the candidates it create a whole new incentive where they have to treat everyone as a swing voter, because everyone can have a first and second choice. this shows how mechanisms can connect to meeting and choice. [applause] >> i will try to address what i see as a philosophical kind of choice question. in my mind at least, the problem with a choice -- and americans have lots of choices. you go to these requirements -- the supermarkets, you have 37 kinds of serial, 14 kinds of yogurt. choice as we have been led to understand it, it relates to the american people as consumers. the political process does that. with the consultants the ads the primaries. but americans rarely have the opportunity, and have been

disorganized from the choice or the creative activity of what kind of a political process we want, what kind of a society do we want, what does our democracy need to be in 2015 what happened to the promise of the obama election? so maybe we have to revisit the issue of choice, and transformed choice or change choice into the activity of people working to create something new together. [applause] >> in light of mr. johnson's observation, maybe i stepped over a crack that was not quite there. what i meant was that we have to resist the danger of becoming another choice another partisan affiliation.

that this is somehow independents versus democrats versus republicans. in terms of choice, why i say it is grounded in education is that we need to understand there is a difference between this republican, that republican. there is a difference between your party affiliation, and the choice should be whether the voter or the person representing the motor is looking at individuals for what they represent, not just a party affiliation. >> i find it so interesting. we don't represent just independents. we represent the majority of people having a choice. you have 435 districts in congress today. 400 of them arguably are not competitive, meeting the decision is made in 400 of 435 in the primary, where the majority of voters have no choice whatsoever when you get to the general election. this is about giving more voters a choice in the system. today, it has become effectively

a tyrannical system. it is a system where a small group of interests can go and control lever the majority party is. and by controlling the majority party, they alleviate the choice the rest of us have in a general election. [applause] >> i think in that respect that you want people to i guess learn that they have some choices. so it makes me think of harriet tubman. i mean harriet tubman said, "i could have freed 1000 more slaves, had they known that they were slaves." you could say the same thing about all these voters locked out in different ways, refusing to join any party because they feel like it is not a choice. we have to somehow convert that. to say, you know what, there's an underground railroad that can take you to the homeland. and we have got to build that, and make it happen.

>> all right. something else i wanted to ask you about. this comes off of a comment joan made on the panel this morning where she referenced very briefly, she was referencing some dialogs she and i have been having over the last year about what she which she termed panic in the progressive movement. a concern of hers is that progressive minded people are panicked and that causes people to act in defensive kinds of ways. and one of the issues that we have found over the years is that some of the strongest

opposition to democracy reform particularly with respect to the primary system itself, comes from progressives. it comes from people who are, at least historically, politically associated with being pro-democracy and on the forefront of social justice and opening up the political process. but at least in the most recent. , they have been -- in the most recent period, they have been against these initiatives that bring more voters in. i would be interested to know what each of you think about that. maybe some of what your experiences with that have been, how you might account for that. and also, i ask that in part, speaking as a progressive myself, i am concerned about

this position within the progressive movement. i would like us to find ways to impact on that and to bring them along in this democracy movement. but i was interested to hear how you see that and feel about that. >> if the goal of open primaries is to bring people together -- in arizona, one thing that we pulled off very well was that we had opposition from the democratic and republican parties. they found one area they could agree. in arizona, they are all republicans. the legislature is overwhelmingly republican. their ability to win is very small and it is a very tough race for the. but you will find the interest groups would prefer to have a magnified voice -- and i don't

see interest groups as necessarily evil, i think all of our interest groups including mine come into conflict with the common interest. but their concern is losing control of the power structure that they understand. it is a natural instinct. they have been in these parties for a long time, they have built up loyalties and friendships within those parties and they are so based in them that do get them to step outside is difficult. the only success i found was this. if you go and talk to an hispanic elected official who wins in an hispanic district because the district is gerrymandered, to convince that person to open the primary, it is tough. but if you go to the people that elect him, and asked how are you doing on education, how are you doing that health care, poverty reform? we have had bills that

are anti-hispanic, anti-black, anti-gay. what are you winning? the answer then becomes a very different answer. progressive people, when they start looking in our state what they are losing because of a closed system, it is an easy change. but not for the group that represents them. their power comes from them -- comes to them from the power that is in place today. [applause] >> one of the attitudes that i come across frequently when engaging with other progressives and democrats, is kind of a philosophy that has been expounded over the last couple years within democratic party progressive circles. which is mainly, the demographics are in our favor. that the country is becoming more people of color, it is

younger, there are more immigrants, more latinos. we simply have to wait here and they will come to us. and speaking of the progressives, i think that is such a problematic politic that plays right into the hands of the far right wing. and at least people paralyzed and in a position, progressives where they have to advocate against structural reforms and changing the system. the underlying message of that that we just need to wait here for the country to become 2% more latino and then we will win elections. it is keep the system the same keep it rigged because it will work in our favor. that is such a bad politic for progressives. to say we know it's rigged, we

need to keep it rigged because eventually it will help us and that is how we will eventually defeat the republicans. it is very prevalent and i think we have to challenge it. [applause] >> we don't realize that the right wing, left wing, all the wings, is part of the same movement that will never be successful. if we view this as a movement that is progressive or -- i have ties with a lot of libertarians. you should look at the candidate as an individual, that is a very libertarian message, that is a liberal message, a conservative message. what is the state doing funding a process with two private parties. we have a better way for us to come together and form a

government that resolves the natural differences among all of us. [applause] >> jackie, in terms of the panic issue, i think that, and i don't care what you say. a lot of people -- you can criticize barack obama, but there are millions of people, and in particular act -- in particular african-americans who felt like their world changed when barack obama was elected. he is not going to have another opportunity to run again. and this nation has been different as a result of barack's election. so now the question is, as we approach 2016, how do you avoid not being completely

marginalize?. because at the end of the day -- and you guys are much more expert on this part of it than i am -- at the end of the day, we would not have had barack obama but for the open primaries that existed. had it just been a closed primary system, he never would have won the election in 2008. if that was any progress, and i firmly believe that it was. i certainly think it created a new foundation for where we can go as a nation in terms of forming a more perfect union then i think we have to really think about how we make these things work, because we will have some sort of choice in 2016. americans will be electing a new president, and i think we have to make sure that all of the voices that are eligible that can participate, have the most

possibility of having a voice. and that means having a voice in the choices that end up as the choice for the american people. >> the choices of the choice being a key point. by that, i mean that i think some of the proposals have moved quickly without sort of bringing people together beforehand to ask if we are putting the reform on the ballot that can bring us all together. now is the time to bring them together, as ice -- as i'm sure you are. i think, very specifically on the top two primary, there are different ways of doing it. and before one sort of picks one approach look at a way that might bring as many people as possible.

louisiana, their model of top two is to put everyone on the ballot in november. no one doesn't get to the vote -- doesn't get to november. and that if you don't have a majority, you have a runoff afterwards. those kinds of conversations. the right time to happen is when you are making the proposal. you will never get everyone but you might get more people. >> i think a challenge to the left in this country -- and this has been true for a long time -- is to be less concerned about outcomes and more concerned about democracy. i think a big problem for the left, and i think the american people on some level understand this, is that the left doesn't

trust the american people because they are afraid that if things happen democratically without the control of the democratic party for example then things that the left considers important, like safety nets despite the fact that the safety that doesn't really keep people very safe. i think the up session with outcomes keeps us on the defensive, keeps us locked down and doesn't really give the american people the opportunity to express their passion and to express their concern for fairness and for everybody. on the beaches at normandy, you didn't know whether the guy standing next year was a democrat or a republican. it didn't matter. we have to give up trying to control outcomes and invite the american people as a whole to

create the kind of country they want. >> one of the dangers in our experience with top two is that once you are successful with an initiative, when your work just started as you just created a whole legal situation with yourself -- situation for yourself. people spend a lot of money defending a top two system. one of the dangers of bringing their ideas to the room about how to construct something is that you construct something that can be challenged politically because somebody like the koch brothers will come out and challenge just a small part of it, and they will find the weakest part of it. and after it is passed, they will go in the courtroom and find the weakest link. part of it is knowing from the

front end is to be disciplined enough to not look for the best possible answer that you have, but the best possible answer that you can sell to the people, that you can resist an opposition, and then it is narrow enough that when you get in the courtroom you can defend it. luckily, we have defended top two against three separate lawsuits. one of them is still ongoing. but i think there will be a long process before we get efforts passed in other states that are really a live proof. >> i think that is stuck -- that is spot on. the first thing you have to look at is the legal issues. you have to pass u.s. and state constitution guidelines. you will be challenged legally. the second thing is, you need to poll. the simpler the better. what we know, last time we had

liver pay less -- the libertarians opposed to us, because they wanted ranked voting. we both believed that should be nonpartisan, but we got into the weeds on the exact detail of how that works. i am not certain about how to completely pull out of that, but i do know that when you start dividing up your majority, you are no longer a majority. [applause] >> let's open it up to the floor. if we could have house lights and we have our microphone in the front stop and i -- in the front. and i invite you to offer comments and questions to our panelists. >> hello.

my name is much reason jones and i am from florida. -- my name is latrisha jones and i'm from florida. i am running for the senate in 2016. i came because we need the support system behind us, i am running as an independent because some of us strategize. i believe in ordinary people because that is what this country was built on and that is the reality. people are hungry out here. they want layman's terms, they are open to ideas and the way we presented to them makes a difference. i have connected with the libertarian party also, because in florida, for charlie crist to come out of the republican side to the independent side and get

almost 28% of the vote as an independent, it is a swing state. i know i need your support law wise, across the board. i would like to know, where else can we go as candidates, as independence, democrats or republicans don't allow us to come in for any type of training. they blackball us in the media completely. any suggestions as to what we can do it anybody who want to help me, please give me your card. >> just a brief word on that, it is great that you are running in great that you are raising the issues that you are raising. here is a 15 second training. when you run for office, you have to make clear that you're running for office as an independent to change the way the system works.

you are not putting yourself forward as the alternative to the democrat and republican, but you are running to represent the people in the people's desire to change the system. >> yes, and it is the greatest fight. i was on the ballot in 2014. they come with a lot of money, they pay everybody off. 2016 is going to be nasty across the board. that is why i am saying that we need to prepare because my thing is, we have to get back to americans. if there is a candidate over here that is going to do what i think they are going to do, i will vote for them. i don't vote for parties, i vote for people. i don't hear anybody talking about the women, abuse, the children. i hear poverty, but all those our core issues.

those are issues we have to deal with if we will motivate the people. i am a fourth-generation black american. it is very important to me, when i talk to people in florida, around the country, i hear people are hurting out here. you have to strategize and feed us the information that we need to take to the people. >> my name is jim and i am proud to be from philly. i have a question from chad. you said that the top two won't necessarily change who gets elected but it will change the way they behave because they will be accountable to all the

people. i know it is early, but have you really noticed a significant change or they then go back and caucus with their parties and vote along party lines anyway. >> i would say it is not only significant but beyond our wildest expectations. you can spend a day in the capital and talk to any legislator and it has fundamentally changed. they actually go out and have a drink together now. they are talking to each other. i have met with several members and it is not a question in their minds. the whole atmosphere in the capital has changed, it has gone back to a real government structure. the facts on the ground in california are pretty self-evident that they are actually dealing with problems. i think it has changed. [applause] >> this has been a great discussion. i admire each of you so much stuff you all are doing a great job.

i could probably talk about this all night. i listen to so many great things being said and i am listening to you and you are all saying the same thing and yet you are somewhat trying to do something different. you are talking about how we to bring people together and how we need to be not about outcomes and how this needs to be a movement that starts from the people. because a lot of times reform comes about, but it is actually the establishment that is doing it. like the tea party, for example was actually a hijacked of the establishment just trying to have a new manipulation of people. we watch this happen throughout everywhere. i think that it is very important that as we try to create this nonpartisan primary type of reform, that we really do spend that time amongst the people and we really help them understand what the issues are

and help them create what type of partisan -- what type of nonpartisan reform we're going to have. i understand that it is a lot easier, it is simple, it is easier to explain. and i understand it, she is a basic purpose. but i don't think it will bring the people along because nobody trusts each other in this country. the only way they will feel like we are about them and are trying to just push our agenda, we have to make them feel that we truly want to give them a voice. we don't care about the outcome, we are for the people. i think things that robert richie is trying to do, even though it might be tricky, i think we really need to have a serious discussion about things such as ranked choice voting, because i think those things will really help people understand, hey, my vote matters

because of i go to the election i can really indicate what my first choices and what my second choice is, and all these different candidates that are usually just fringe candidates can suddenly make a difference in the election. these kind of things can really help the people. even if we ultimately end up doing talk to, -- doing top two i think it is really not the best system even if it is better than we have. [applause] >> i think we are in a fight with two major to radical parties. i think we welcome any state at any time, any reform that goes against the powerful parties whether it is top two top three, ranked choice voting,

defunding primaries. every piece that you can take out of them would move the american people forward. >> ice what to say thank you for those remarks. i just wanted to make sure that people in this room know, hall was talking the fact that we have congressional elections. when we have winner take all district elections, that is a statutory decision. there are proportional representation systems, but there are some that are candidate based. we could pass a statute to put everyone in a competitive election for congress.

we need to look at that. i think having those conversations about what we want to do is terrific and we're doing it right now. >> my name is dan i am the cofounder of the independent voter project in california. [applause] first, i would like to make a comment about what we have seen as a result of the open primary in california. i am around the legislature in sacramento every day, and i have been associated with the legislative process in california for 40 years. i began as a district are presented for assemblyman in 1974. the thing that has changed the most in california is the behavior of legislators. it doesn't make any difference

what party you were represent -- you were elected to represent. the first time a top to open primary was held in 2012, the result was a super majority for democrats in both houses. you would think that this would have been a more liberal anti-business type of legislature. in the first session, 27 of 28 jocular bills were defeated in the legislature in california. willie brown, a well-known african-american former speaker of the house, called the california legislature the most moderate legislature he has ever seen. i was asked the question last night, a couple of gentleman from florida asked me, why did you win in california? i gave a rather complicated

answer but i could have said that we were lucky. the fact of the matter is that we were lucky. when we started the process of developing an open primary initiative in california, we started in 2006 and we were not on the ballot until 2010. early on in the process we did a series of focus groups, and the first fortunate thing happen for us. we get these extension of focus groups and we weren't quite sure when to the results, what they meant. we took the transcripts and the tapes from the focus groups and gave one set to a republican pollster and asked for analysis. we took another set and gave them to a democratic pollster and asked him for an analysis. what we got back was to completely lyrically correct --

completely politically correct analysis from the pollsters. the democrat gave standard democratic answers, the republican gave standard republican answers. what that did for us is, we look to each other and said, we have to give up all of the political instincts that we have developed in the last 40 years as campaign political consultants. we no longer worked with political consultants on the campaign. as we move forward, we took a different perspective. we step fighting political parties and the concentrated solely on the rights of voters. and when you lose, i think one of the reasons that you lose is you get caught up in this process of being against the political parties. when you do that, you start

fighting the battle on their terms on their turf. if you do that you will lose. my advice, having gone through this in california, my advice is the focus has to be on the individual voter. elections are not about political parties. elections are not about candidates. elections are about the rights of individual voters to choose the people they want to represent them. we have allowed in this country the political parties to completely take the process away from voters. not only do they control who gets on the ballot, but take a look at the presidential election next year. >> can i just ask you to wrap it up? >> the political parties across the country determine what days the political primaries are held in each state. that ought to tell you everything you need to go about where we need to go. thanks.

[applause] >> thank you to all the panel, thank you to jackie. i was just thinking about the importance of the question you asked about choice. i think it is a very profound question. from my point of view, one of the issues -- dr. newman used to say, those who make the rules rule. i think that involving the american people in the process of changing the rules, having the ability to determine how we vote, how we elect people, certainly it is beyond simply at -- beyond the simple act of voting. obviously it hasn't happened our movement is trying to get that under way in the think we are doing that. i just wanted to add that i agree with not putting things in terms of the two parties.

i think this issue of choice is also a cultural issue, a social issue, how we come together, how we have conversations and build together. one of the things that is important is that we not frame our discussions so much rent issues, but around people's lives and how they live and what is happening to our people in our country. we talk about the issue of gun controlcontrol and needing to talk about the young people and not dealing with how the party frames issues, because the way they frame issues have to do with how they try to win elections. there are a lot of innovative programs i have a great honor of working with and approaches in education, and i think it is important to get those approaches out. the parties will not allow for that.

we have to bring forth innovative ideas as well as including everybody in those conversations, which i think is important. [applause] >> my name is pam lewis. i was thinking about a lot of things in the panels. can a social crisis solved democracy? can we make political reform with the american people. i was thinking about how when you ask somebody where they are and they tell you they are lost, are they say they don't know where they are, or that they have lost their mind, and i think americans are lost. i think about the communities i grew up in as the young woman. i grew up in st. louis and kansas.

what those communities had in common is that we did believe in the myths that america was a great democracy. when i go back to those communities now, no one believes that. i think we are lost. we have lost our kilter. we don't know where we are. i was thinking about american centrism. if we can use the social crisis to try to deal with it and organize around america being great again and building democracy and organizing all americans around that, because middle-class people are lost to o.

i think we can make it sexy. i think we are. i'm excited about that possibility. i wanted to share those thoughts. i want to thank you. [applause] >> sir? >> my question is what do independents have in mind about education reform? many students feel oppressed. that's something i had in mind. >> thank you. >> i think the definition of independent is independent thought. we can't have ideas on reform

that is something that binds the movement. if they are going to have a movement about voting rights, it has to be about one thing. the right of the individual to vote and be treated equally in the process. that will lead to representatives to decide issues like education. >> the issue of education is really terrible. he does a large impact on what is the largest political football. the teachers union can play a dominant role. the city council is a vast majority democrat whom we defeated in the primary. we've got to do something about that.

>> i cannot speak for what is going on throughout the country but overwhelmingly the public in arizona thinks you should spend more on education and you should be reformed. we have one party that thinks you shouldn't spend any extra money. they want to spend less money on education and another party that doesn't want reform, so the public cannot get what they want. they cannot get a proposal that allows them to have both. >> i want to echo what chad said. i think part of what we are talking about is education is one of those things government and up controlling. -- ends up controlling. government becomes defined by those positions. how do we broaden that so you get people in those positions

who really care about the things that are happening in education and the achievement gaps and the fight over charter or public. you have to have people who and up caring about the students and want to do the things necessary. you have to get the institution out of your way. you need people who do that. >> my name is andy eastland. there are people considered disabled that are on disability. almost half those are on disability due to mental illnesses, but we don't have a voice in any party anywhere. we have no one who represents us. i'm not asking for representation. i'm asking when are we going to

be brought to the table to represent ourselves. where is our voice? i don't think people are capable of representing us. i heard a phrase called behavioral health. my behavior is not a problem. i think we need to start thinking about this as a global problem, a health problem. and we need to really talk about it and listen to people dealing with these illnesses, who are dealing with the realities of a stigma that leave us jobless that leave us out of the educational system, that leave us having our children taken away at much higher rates than other people. i will have my voice heard wherever it will be heard. thank you.

>> just to offer a comment on that i think what you are raising about a set of women's issues these aren't issues. these are what human life is about. we have a political system that last the capacity to respond to humanity in human ways. what we are trying to do in bringing about reform is that they can do that. that is what the movement stands for. that is what the fundamental principles are. i appreciate your statement. thank you. >> i don't want to add the

mechanism on top of it, but i will. when only one person represents you, you get winner take all where dangerous perspectives or minority opinions or those in the minority have a hard time getting representation and millions of people can lose out from that. if you crack that open so more people are representing you and allow 20% to represent each group of five, then you crack that wall. we have to have that conversation. thank you for those remarks. >> i am here from atlanta georgia today. i am active in the georgia independent voters. many of us will go back home where a few of us collaborate on reform. what is one action item you suggest we do at home in grassroots organizing? what is your call to action for those of us in the audience? [applause]

>> anyone want to speak to that? >> i will say quickly every state has their own rules and structures that can be examined. there is a toolkit to examine them. maybe that's something we should work on. we do have runoff elections so that an independent can run strong and no one will call them a spoiler. if they are put in the spoiler role there is a runoff. look at your primary system. we need to make it easier. >> i also think you don't need to know in the sense of go knock on 10 doors and ask that question to 10 people and go to

a local meeting and engage. i really think in some ways the environment the question is going to be answered is much bigger than rob and i and all of us. it has got to be to engage local dialogue, and you can lead that. >> you have to start by speaking up. you have to start by being engaged, by talking about the things you care about. you will find other like minded people. as you find other like minded people, you will start to find like-minded groups. at the end of the day it's going to have to be a compromise on a local basis. the journey of a thousand steps begins with one. the one great thing i believe exists in this country is our ability to create change. it's much more likely in a state

where you have the referendum process. i think 30 states do. you have the ability for the people's voice to rise above the legislative and political interest voice. it starts with organizing, getting involved talking with other people, or social media. >> maybe one other suggestion is let's start a chapter for the book club and have you be the organizer. [applause] >> thank you. good evening. i'm ashley bruno. i agree that clean air clean water, and clean food are basic fundamental important things. let's just say recently my last

two recent facebook posts say partnerships for independent power. it says to sign a unity letter to stop the keystone pipeline. i look at both of them. on the issue of how can we make independent power a hot topic it's what is our stance on independence from oil, gas nuclear, and how can we merge these issues? on the forefront of wanting to conserve our resources we are knocking on doors. we are getting signatures from people where let's get a thousand people in front of the governor's mansion to shout and

say we are angry. let's get 300,000 people in new york city to show them we have a voice and are angry, get we have to lobby with these people who don't care. we have to get to the root of the problem. if we can elect people who care, we don't have to spend so much time chasing them around, seven taunting them until we say they care. i think that is a step in the right direction. i am thinking independent power for independent power.

>> my name is freddie. i am from oregon. i walk with these independent voters. she said something i was thinking about. we talked about getting rid of the mess people can make a difference by voting. if people think they can make a difference simply by showing up twice the year and checking a box, it's not going to happen. all of the major reforms have passed because the people have gotten together and fought for it.