mr. hamburger, you are up first. mr. hamburger: thank you for being with us. i have a question we are hanging -- hearing from the washington post and some of our readers. what is going on with evangelicals this election cycle? i know you have seen comments not only from pundits, but in our paper, russell moore has wondered our evangelical voters -- in just, "are they drunk" this cycle? that is my opener to you. what is going on? mr. perkins: all right, how much time do we have? [laughter] that is a question evangelicals themselves are asking.

people have said what has happened to these evangelicals -- have they backslid on their way to the polls to vote? first, i think the term evangelical is like the elastic in an old pair of socks. it is being stretched. it is being used to encompass a lot of people that are not technically evangelicals. when you talk about evangelicals -- those who go to church on a weekly basis -- their faith is important to them, it guides the decisions they make beyond the walls of the church -- that begins too narrow. we see from polling, exit surveys, that those who attend church on a weekly basis are not breaking for donald trump. in the southern states, 64% of evangelicals did not vote for donald trump. i think the term is being used more broadly than is appropriate, but given the are a number of what i would say are

true evangelicals supporting donald trump, i think there are -- there is a lot of fear in the election cycle. fear of a nation that has lost its way, is changing, is unrecognizable, and then frustration, the dominant emotion being expressed. the frustration with the political class, particularly the republican party, that is over-promised and under-performed routinely. i think they see this guy coming along who, quite frankly, his past holdings on issues, and his conduct is antithetical to evangelical teaching, yet he has struck a chord with them. he is going to throw the political class out on its head. mr. sherfinski: mr. perkins, you are supporting ted cruz. to what extent what a donald trump nomination be

a disappointment to you personally, and those who may have not been enamored with john mccain in 2008 or mitt romney in 2012, who seemingly found their guy this time around in ted cruz? mr. perkins: first of all, the support i have made it is a personal endorsement. it is not any of the nonprofit organizations that i laid. look, -- lead. look, i share some of the

frustrations that many evangelicals and many americans have with the political class in this country. i like some of the things donald trump is saying. i agree with the things -- some of the things he says. i do not agree with his policy prescriptions. i think he is identified the problem. i do not think he has the public -- the solution. as i have sat down with all the candidates -- with the exception of john kasich and governor christie -- all the other candidates i've stalked to, and most of them i know pretty well. it was a difficult decision to come to. i saw ted cruz, and his track record. he has been doing this as a that -- senator, standing up to the political class and his own party and washington, d.c., and the importance of the supreme court, which is more in focus since the death of justice and antonin scalia. the next president will appoint at least one, possibly two or three supreme court judges. ted cruz has argued nine cases before the supreme court, authored 70 briefs, and we want someone that will understand judicial temperament, mindset, and make sure we have

constitutionalists appointed to the court. that really was the deciding factor for me. susan: mr. perkins, marco rubio as suggested that a trumpet nomination would fracture the gop. do you see that as a possible scenario if he wins the nomination? mr. perkins: i think the gop is already fractured. there has been a fault line in the party for quite some time. i go back to the earlier question about evangelicals. i do not know if it is over or intentional, -- overt or intentional, but there might be some siding against the establishment or people are fed up and they want to see a free-for-all within the party and that might be why they are supporting donald trump. i do not endorse that. i think it is a bad idea. the party is very fragile as it is. i am not sure what the outcome would be of a donald trump presidency or administration. will he follow through on his

commitments to uproot the city and the political class in washington, d.c.? i have my doubts. i certainly have my doubts about what he would replace it with if he did. i do think there will be a lot of consternation on full-size of the republican party. mr. hamburger: you imagine -- tell us what you would do if donald trump have the votes, the delegates to get the republican nomination. will you back his campaign for the presidency? mr. perkins: i do not know. we have not come to that point. consider where we are today compared to where we were four years ago. mitt romney had basically -- he did not have a total delegate count, but he had pretty much sewn up the nomination, and there was only one contender against him, rick santorum, left in the race, and he did not have

the money or organization to go the distance. he fought a valiant fight. this is a different situation. right now, as of this weekend, you only have 100 delegates -- actually, little bit less, 99, i think, separating donald trump and ted cruz. ted cruz has the funds. he has infrastructure across the country to go the distance. i think we could very well be on our way to a broker convention where the outcome might not be decided until july, in cleveland, ohio. mr. hamburger: i appreciate that, and if i could just follow up with this question -- assuming we get past the brokered convention and donald trump is the nominee, i believe you said you had not quite decided yet whether you would back him? mr. perkins: i have not pondered that because i do not think that is our only option. i still am working very hard, campaigning across the country for ted cruz, helping his candidacy. i do not give blanket endorsements or words of

support. i mean, if we came to that point, it would require sitting down with donald trump to see what his pathway forward was in terms of the supreme court, who would be vetting his judicial nominees, who would be his running mates, who would be involved in his cabinet, what type of policies with the advocate? i am not a lackey for the republican party. just because it is a republican candidate, i'm not going to fall in line. it has to be someone committed to the core values we represent at the family research council. i do not advocate evangelicals and christians not participating in the process, but i am not going to back someone who would be added to the moral or cultural decline of our country,

regardless of what party they are in. mr. sherfinski: you mentioned the supreme court. based on what we know -- the candidate' public statements, would you trust donald trump to appoint the next one justice, two justices, three justices, more than you would hillary clinton or bernie sanders? mr. perkins: that is an interesting question here the question. -- quesiton. the president makes the nomination, but the senate confirms. depending on what would be the way forward -- who would be vetting the candidates, what he, for instance, have the federalist society do the bedding for judicial candidates -- that is a huge factor in my decision making. if you have hillary clinton making nominations, but you have a republican controlled congress, it is very unlikely she is going to get liberal nominees through the process and seated. now, the concern i would have is if donald trump would not agree to the proper vetting, if the republican senate continues to

control the senate, which i think is highly probable, that they would be more inclined to confirm his nominees regardless of their judicial temperament or qualifications, and that would be very concerning to me. mr. hamburger: can i jump back again, mr. perkins, to something we were talking about a moment ago -- this question of endorsement. i understand you said you are not a lackey for the republican party and it is not a given that you would endorse the republican nominee. control the senate, which i i wanted to follow it up by asking two questions -- is it possible you would endorse hillary clinton or bernie sanders if they were the nominee, or is it possible you would not even endorse or sit out the 2016 general election? mr. perkins: i think it is very unlikely that i would be on the stage with bernie or hillary, but, you know, i could be on a hunting trip in november of 2016. look, i am going to be

advocating for values, the concerns that affect american families, and that includes the rights of parents to control the future of their children by what -- parents to determine the future of their children by the values that they pass on to them, and i'm not going to be in favor of advocating for a candidate who stands in contrast of that, regardless of what party they are in. here in lies the problem republicans are facing. mitt romney -- you mentioned mitt romney earlier. i personally supported mitt romney in the general election and actually campaigned for him. i like mitt romney as an individual. he was not my first choice. i think he was a very decent man, or is a very decent man, and i believed him on policy positions. i know there was a different in positions he had when he was a candidate for the senate in massachusetts, but he explained his evolution on those issues, and where he stood today. he was so adamant in repeating

his new positions that there was no way for him to go back on those, so i trusted him. i was comfortable in supporting him. however, despite my support and supportive other evangelical christian leaders, there was a lot of evangelicals that stayed home on election day because of inconsistency with his past positions and is presently stated positions. i think that becomes a real problem for donald trump if he is a nominee in a general election because i have no doubt that if he were to get the nomination we would hear several months worth of explaining of his past positions, his casinos, strip clubs, all of these other things that would be used to really suppress evangelical turnout in the general elections. i think it is a huge problem for the republicans. susan: senator sanders name came

up. let me ask one quick question. some christian columnists say they see an appeal to millennial evangelicals to senator sander'' words about the poor in america. have you seen any evidence of this appeal with younger voters who are evangelical? mr. perkins: you know, not widespread, but anecdotally, i would say there is some. there is clearly a connection with millennials, and this is where i think the republican party has missed it to some degree in their economic policy. by no means do i advocate that we need a socialist government, as bernie sanders would, but i do think we need to have a more encompassing, broader conversation about how we, as individuals, as citizens in this country can be a part of it alleviating the burdens, the struggles that our fellow americans have.

the thing about millennials -- i spent a lot of time studying them, working with them, writing about them. i wrote a recent book, "no fear" about young people standing up for their faith. they want to be hands-on. they do not want to just talk about problems. they do not want to go to a voting booth and send someone to washington who will promise but rarely deliver. they want to see things happening. i think bernie sanders is so different than what we have heard before, there is something attractive. it is the same thing about donald trump. he is so far out there on the margins, it is new, different, attracting attention. susan: we have 10 minutes left. mr. sherfinski: mr. perkins, we had the final republican debate last night before the election contests on tuesday. issues like same-sex marriage, abortion, were not really mentioned. have those issues and issues important to social

conservatives been given enough attention in the cycle in your opinion? mr. perkins: i think they have been prominently featured. in fact, i think that was the only debate they were not mentioned in. it was very interesting and very telling, especially on the life issue, that all of the republican candidates have been very aggressive from the very start in promoting pro-life credentials, about the defunding of planned parenthood. that has been very clear. while donald trump has sent some mixed signals, saying he thinks they do great work, most of the republicans have been very clear in wanting to defund or get taxpayers out of the business with this partnership with planned parenthood. on the marriage issue -- it has been discussed repeatedly in the

context of the loss of religious freedom in the country, another issue that has been prominently discussed. look, we have so many problems facing this country after the policies of his last administration have been imposed upon us. i do not think we can cover it if we continue to have debates every week until the election. we have a lot of problems facing us, and that, in part, is what has made this election so complex. mr. hamburger: there was some discussion in the debate about u.s. policy toward israel. i wonder, as you look at the candidates, how you viewed their response, and if you would comment briefly on that. mr. perkins: again, we see not a whole lot of difference between the candidates in terms of what they say on the issue of israel. i mean, donald trump was talking

about his credentials. he was the grand marshall of a parade down 5th avenue, a pro-israel parade, which is interesting for your set of credentials. marco rubio has been very clear on his support of israel. i actually think ted cruz is the only one -- i could be mistaken on this -- but he has made very clear that under his administration the capital, or the embassy of the united states would be in the israeli capital of jerusalem. it all has been up there. i think john kasich, even, has been clear in his support of israel. i do not think we are going to see a republican who is going to back away from this key ally in the middle east. mr. sherfinski: also, you mentioned the four candidates standing up there on the stage. looking back to 2006-2007, how would you say -- where does the conservative movement stand? has president obama's time in

office been a setback for the conservative movement, or has it reenergized it? mr. perkins: well, i would say look at the numbers in terms of the increased voter turnout. i know donald trump wants to take credit for that, and i think some credit does go to him, but i think the largest credit goes to barack obama for energizing the conservative movement. in fact, anecdotally, on my daily radio program this week, a few days running, i put out the question, if you did not vote four years ago, but you voted this time, call me. i want to know why. it was very interesting. i thought few people would -- actually call because they did not want to admit they did not vote quarter years ago, but i -- four years ago, but i

couldn't take all the phone calls. everyone of them said they had not been involved, they did not think it was that important, they did not like politics, but they began to personalize it. they began to see the policies affecting families and personal freedoms and said i have to vote. i think barack obama has inspired a lot of people who have been sitting on the sidelines to get on the field to defend these fundamental freedoms. mr. hamburger: could i ask you about something i know you have worked on for a few election cycles, which is the notion of bringing evangelical conservatives together early in the nomination cycle? i think in 2012 you were backing rick santorum and hoped that an early endorsement of rick santorum might give momentum to his cause. this year a group that i think you helped pull together endorsed ted cruz early, and as you have been discussing, we might end up with a brokered convention before we know who the nominee is. how, in retrospect, do you view this effort to bring together

evangelical conservatives as a united front early in the campaign? is it just the individual vagaries of an election year, or something you have second thoughts about? is it too difficult to do? mr. perkins: you know, that is a question you could probably write a book about, because i have been involved in several election cycles, and, quite frankly, went into this election cycle with doubt that something like that could ever happen, because it has not happened -- not in a timely manner. there was a coalescing around rick santorum, but it was basically -- i think it was right after south carolina that that occurred, and there was just a few people left in the race. it happened early in this cycle. in fact, it happened before the first contest, and i do think it had an impact on ted cruz winning iowa, launching forward, and continuing to be a serious

contender for the presidency. this election cycle, as i think you all would agree, does not fit any normal patterns we have seen anytime. the trump factor has clearly had an impact on this cycle. i think the conservatives -- not all -- obviously i do not want to speak for all conservatives -- but those that have like minds on many issues, not just social issues, but foreign-policy issues and fiscal issues as well, i do think there was some success. we will see at the end of the process how successful it was, but i'm actually pleased with what we have seen so far. mr. sherfinski: you mentioned earlier that the definition of evangelicals has been stretched this cycle. can you go into more detail about evangelical voters that are supporting donald trump versus evangelical voters

supporting ted cruz? any more of the characteristics you started to get into earlier, and whether those two can be reconciled come the fall? mr. perkins: the latter part of that question -- i am not sure they can be reconciled. as i said earlier, i'm very concerned about what can happen in a general election, especially once a lot of focus is based on donald trump, his -- is placed on donald trump, his past positions, his personal affairs, conduct, various things -- i think i will have an impact on how evangelicals respond to the general election. in terms of the difference was in the evangelical title, george -- the barna group has a very narrow definition of evangelical, and essentially it is seven points. the key part of it is understanding the authoritative word of god. it is infallible. it is the word of god, authoritative over our lives. salvation is by faith, through faith in jesus christ.

one must make a personal commitment to jesus christ, receiving that forgiveness, and then live one's life according to the teachings of scripture. that is in a nutshell what it is. that is not a term or a definition that would embraced by all of those who would be labeled evangelical. i had, i go to a less technical definition that writers and -- that reuters and others used in exit polling, those that went to church on a weekly basis, meaning their faith, their relationship with god was important to them. they read their bibles. exit polls show they broke for ted cruz, ben carson, and to a lesser degree, marco rubio, in that order. that category did not vote.

significantly at all for donald trump. susan: have just one minute left. let me turn to your endorsed candidate, ted cruz. donald trump, regularly, on the campaign trail, points to his lack of likability, and i am wondering what you think about his appeal if we get to a brokered convention. can he emerge as a favorite candidate given the concerns about his likability. in washington, d.c., and among the political class? mr. perkins: it is kind of funny coming from donald trump, because he is about as huggable as a porcupine himself. the reality is if you are not liked in washington, d.c., there must be something good about you. that is the message ted cruz has had. i think people want to know that he cares and he does. i know him very well. it is difficult to shift all those emotions, and display all of those various agile beats people want to see, but i -- attributes people want to see, but i believe in a general election when people get a

chance to see him, clearly focus on him, they will know he has a vision for the future of the country and he is unafraid to stand up to the political class in washington, d.c., including his own party, and the most elite club in the world, the united states senate. he has done that. he has proven himself. that is one of the reasons i'm standing with him. i have no doubt what he would do as president of the united states. susan: tony perkins, president of the family research council, joining us from baton rouge, louisiana, this week. thank you. mr. perkins: thank you to you all. susan: what did we hear in his responses? is there a frustration on the part of evangelical leaders with among what is happening in the electorate this time around? mr. hamburger: we could hear it in his responses to questions about endorsing trump if he is the nominee. this gets to the marco rubio concern about the split within the party.

evangelical voters are a huge, important part of the republican party base, and have explained victories in key battleground states in the past, including two that are voting this next week, next tuesday, ohio and florida. the idea that a leader of the evangelical movement, mike, as -- might, as he suggested, go hunting in november, would be a terrifying thing for republican strategists, i think. this is a vital group of the republican base, and if there is continued doubt about supporting the nominee by some of their leaders, it is a huge drag on the ticket. susan: david sherfinski, it is somewhat ironic that we are talking on friday afternoon as nancy reagan is being laid to rest, because this ultimately is a coalition formed by ronald reagan in the 1980's. what has happened to the coalition over the decades that they are still frustrated today?

mr. sherfinski: right. that is what i was trying to get at when i asked him if president obama's time in office has made conservatives more despondent, or energized them. you can see him, as tom was mentioning, trying to walk through the possibility of a donald trump nomination, and what we do not correlate with traditional christian values. you see ted cruz talking about reagan democrats, how he will bring them back into the fold, talking about the coalition, but it is a good question, and one that obviously leaders like mr. perkins thinks we are going

through right now. susan: what was his message intended to signal? does it mean no brokered convention? mr. hamburger: well, i think we are seeing a couple of things go on. pending the results of next tuesday night in particular, it is increasingly likely that donald trump is on the way to being the nominee. he is in the lead at this moment. rince previsus -- trying to hold the party together with that knowledge that donald trump is in the lead and well on the way to getting the nomination. i think the party wanted to tap down the notion of a brokered convention, but it was really the idea of bringing everyone in the room as part of the republican party. the message from tony perkins tonight -- though i know, he is, as he said, a ted cruz backer for the moment.

so much of this is strategic, but reticence about backing in november the person who is now in the lead for the nomination is a big deal, and terribly disconcerting to ranks previous -- terribly disconcerting to reince priebus and other leaders of the republican party. susan: let me ask about ted cruz not just likability, but a left ability, because you see a few and dormant -- electability, because you are starting to see a few endorsements. what do the polls say? mr. sherfinski: well, the polls say that no matter what donald trump says about his electability against hillary clinton, that ted cruz, marco rubio, and john kasich, for that matter, generally do better head-to-head against hillary clinton. i think ted cruz's argument about electability ties back to

something tony perkins said about conservatives staying home. ted cruz has made the case that if we nominate a true conservative this time around, the people that stayed home and made the difference in 2012 will come out to support me, not necessarily pivoting to the middle, as we see donald trump trying to do, but saying nominate me, i will energize the party, and get everyone to the polls. how important is this day? i think it is hugely important. it is the day were we will see whether donald trump on the republican side clearly dominates. it would be especially significant as has been pointed out that he is running against a

florida senator -- florida favorite son. if he trams over him by a significant amount, it would have a huge dampening effect on the argument -- on the effort that donald trump must be stopped. it would just be a sign of huge popularity. thank you for being guests. >> the house is in session tomorrow. on the agenda, i three-month extension for faa funding. later in the week, the house is expected to consider a resolution by speaker paul ryan opposing the administration's executive action on immigration. senate devils and tomorrow at 3:00 p.m. eastern and will

begin debate on the nomination of -- he has been serving as acting secretary for over a year. the confirmation vote is up for 5:30 p.m. call eastern. the house is on c-span. the senate is on c-span2. >> on tuesday, the brookings institution held an in-depth conversation on state party organizations and how they interact with national political campaigns. discussed how voter anger and frustration are showing at the polls. this is about 90 minutes. >> good afternoon everyone. i am a senior fellow here at the institution and the founding director of the center for

effective public management. we are pleased to welcome you are today. we welcome our c-span audience today to a panel called state parties -- and neglected past two healthier politics. have always been the ugly stepchild of american politics. voters never liked them. everyone tells you they vote for the person, not the party. they been doing that for decades withnd yet people absolutely amazing regularity vote for the party. today, we want to explore these parties as institutions. parties are completely essential to a functioning democracy. i think we have people appear who are going to talk about that and talk about the pros and the cons. let me introduce them.

i will him the floor over to jonathan andrzej who have written a paper. as wel have a discussion will also include the audience as well. is jonathanate left rauch. he is a senior fellow in the government studies program here at the institute. he is a contributing editor of the national journal and the atlantic. he has written a lot of books and papers. that irite is a paper encourage you to find called how hacks,ealism: machines, big-money and backroom deals and strength in american democracy. if that does not get you interested, nothing will. is ray laurent to. he is an associate professor of political science at the

university of massachusetts at amherst. he also has a new book out called campaigns and political polarization. jonathan and ray are the co-authors of the paper that we will be talking about today. is jason.t he is the executive director of the south carolina democratic already. serving as thers ed of the kansas democratic party. he also has the distinction of director ofecutive the president of the association of state democratic executive directors. he speaks for all the professional people who run political parties. is john philippines. he is the chief counsel for the

republican national committee where he oversees all of the operations of the council office. this includes federal and state campaigns and compliance. the 2016 republican presidential nomination process. which keeps him really busy. is elizad of the panel dylan kearny. she is senior editor at american prospect where she manages their website. she also writes a weekly column on money called rules of the game. she contributes to magazine features. is also most famously known for coining the term super pac. we now all have it as an easy part of the political lexicon. this is a great panel. they have interesting things to

say nine going to turn it over first two jonathan and ray to talk about the work they did in preparation for this panel. >> thank you all for coming on this beautiful day. it is good to seasonal friends in the group. thinks of course to ray, my co-author. i also need to recognize our research assistance and all-purpose analyst and friend. extremely helpful. we could not have done it without you. it's chaos out there. both in the campaign and on capitol hill. ray and i do not need to belabor that point. ist we decided we would do go out there in the country and look for thing -- something that might perhaps reduce over the ang term the amount of shook

awesome american politics. we think we found such a knob. we think it is hidden in plain view and it is the state parties. this is low hanging fruit. there's a lot that can be done with bipartisan support. would make significant inroads against political disorganization and chaos. all 100 ofurvey to the republican and democratic state parties. we got back 56 of those in time to use. it's quite a lot. those, we compared results with earlier surveys from 1999 and 2000. we also interviewed 15 state party executive directors in a few chairs. data tocted national look at funding and other such questions. put all that to together and what i hope is the most coherence picture of what's going on in state parties.

what we found are interesting. i will focus on our findings about conditions and ray will focus on policy and recommendations. two findings i would like to focus on. the first is that state parties are actually very much alive. they are still very much unique and important as political entities. and they have the aspect of something we call a public good. let me try to unpack all that is little bit. there has been in recent years a trend in political science to general and in state parties in particular as masses of people and networks. interest groups and politicians and whatnot. then there other people who said parties don't do much anyway. we found that is not true at all. state parties have a distinctive culture. they have professionals who take a long-term view of things.

we found that they do things that are important. one is they are integrated. across races at every level simultaneously. they look across hierarchies and integrate the national parties with the county parties. they stay in the middle of all of that. one of the things that is most important is the institution. unlike a candidate who can slash group, isr an outside one of them put it, we are the stewards of the brand. we exist forever. they had to accountable for long-term results. they do things like we talked to ned of the democratic party in a deep red state who said they ere spending time and money we said why are you doing that? she said no. we need to worry about turnout for state offices.

this is where we will get it. no candidate or interest group things like that. only state party would. they also do something like gardening. undere keen to find out what circumstances state parties will actively endorse a candidate. but it's on the scale early on. they almost never do. we can talk about wine. you'll find in the survey results they almost never do that. the use to be gatekeepers back in the day. they are not anymore. but they are gardeners. do education and encouragement. they will go to a candidate and say you are a good candidate while to run for this? the kind of shape the landscape to try and make the race is more winnable and make the candidates a little more reasonable. they also virtually all recruit.

that is a key function of the state parties. they develop capital stock. knowledge data volunteers. these are all information and people that you can pass on to the next candidate. let it. ray and his colleague brian shaffer have a new book out. that was consistent with our finding. we talked to a state executive director who would come from a conservative advocacy group vigil this is perspective changed once he got in the party. for all of those reasons and others, state parties perform --

we think they are public good. econ 101, know from they tend to be underfunded as no one is capturing all of the value that they put out. we decided to find out how they are doing. the answer is they are struggling. you will find in the paper charts one and two and three show what is happening. terms, their flat. republicans took a nose dive but kind of fell back. democrats are kind of flat. size of staff for example and activities. what is different is the competition is running circles around them. you'll find figure three in the table, we looked at independent

spending versus party independent spending. you will see the parties become miniscule compared to the resources outside groups are throwing into campaigns. what they tell us are things like this -- we believe we are fighting for our lives in the legal and judicial framework. the super pac's present a direct threat to state parties existence. the problem is not that day are falling behind in absolute terms, it is that they are falling behind in relative terms. outside money is much less transparent and accountable than party money. their interests are much more parochial and extreme. they tend to be polarized and they tend to be extreme. that is problematic if the public good is declining. now i will turn it over to ray who talks about policy factors and what to do about them. ray: first, i want to thank

brookings for providing resources and to this project. our basic argument is the rules disadvantage state parties. the rules shackle parties from doing more of what they do best and that is grassroots voter engagement across the party ticket. second, the rules make it harder to sponsor tv and lack the resources and leave outside groups. starting with grassroots activity, by far, the biggest complaint we have heard is that mccain-feingold federalize this core grassroots activities at

the state level. that is their bread and butter in the essence of the public good. federal law just makes it harder. federal laws must raise money in complex ways to do this and it minimalize is what they do and their byzantine rule that uses voters to register and get them to the polls. they make a good living off of this but i know we want to encourage more volunteers and they do to and we can change some of these things. another problem is federal election activities. it is very broad and it captures basic grassroots work which is intended to help candidates and local state elections. because of this, parties have to spend regulated money on traditional grass roots work. we were told simply telling voters to vote on november 8 and precinct 12 counts as federal election activity. so you leave off the part about when and where to vote. we want parties to be doing this. we want to beginning voters to

the polls. in our view, parties could do even more of this. why does it have to be restricted to these mccain feingold rules? the public good is providing candidates and a renegade candidate like trump at the state level hurts the party brand. we can talk about chairs and directors and if you are organizing together, you are going to push back against such renegades. the fact is the laws discourage party ticket campaigning, the kind of campaign that encourages this mutual campaign. you need to use these high cost federal dollars. in some states, party leaders focus on a few candidates in competitive races rather than the full slate.

it makes the party act more like a super pac and encourages political fragmentation. the party isn't careful to circumscribe its activities. they stay in their lanes. that is what we heard a lot of. this is our lane, grassroots activity -- that is their lane, the super pac. parties cope by specializing. they focus on two big things -- voter data, voter mobilization, and that is the holy grail of american politics. parties seem to dominate year but they still face more and more competition. we heard concerns about the program supported by the koch brothers that work. they don't always share the data they collect. let me turn to the tv side of things.

elaine strategy -- we show you those in our survey, have party said they advertise on tv and radio. we ask directors -- your something that was really fascinating -- we ask them to assess the environment for independent spending. there are stark differences in independent spending that give parties more free access to money. if there is no limit on contributions -- here's the problem with state laws -- it is simple math. if you restrict the party, you get more independent expenditures. in states that have contribution limits, 65% of respondents said independent groups sponsor more than half of political ads. states without those contributions, only 23% said that. states with contribution limits, 65% of our respondents said independent expenditures is often a key factor in governors elections. less than half said that in the other state. we don't like this division of labor. super pac's are rarely in the

campaign for a long haul. they're like the tent circus. we also mentioned the way this division train -- drains talent. we think it is time to restore some balance. based on some premises we laid out here, the party provides the public good, which we think are being undersupplied. state parties, even if they are not disappearing, are falling behind. some people might not like this -- we think super pac's and dark money is here to stay. here is our recommendation. raise or eliminate contribution efforts to the party. this could do what brian and i describe as building canals not dams.

you want to divert -- money's to fall into politics, diverted toward the most accountable venues. we think that is the place. number two, led parties coordinate with candidates and aggregate their spending as much as possible. it's exactly what state parties should be doing. three, we recommend tax subsidies because parties divide underperforming public good. we have not thought through all the implications here, so we are just putting this out there for discussion. if state parties are treated

like nonprofits, we talk about how the discount is good for them -- why not for tax purposes as well? if you can make tax reduction to places like gale, why not for parties performing this public good? for basic regulatory changes -- we agree with the brennan center to roll back the federalization of state and local activity. by narrowing the amount of activity that must be paid for with federal bleed -- federally compliant funds. let state parties be state parties. let me conclude by saying there are no magic bullets. we are realists and we need to start somewhere. we need to start eliminating some of the disadvantages the parties face, especially at time when parties seem so fragmented. helping state parties is the low

hanging fruit. there's not even a great risk in making these efforts even if they don't achieve all the things they say they might achieve. it is certainly less risky than trying to amend the constitution or some of these very expensive public financing scheme. elaine: you can see we have quite a provocative paper here with even the recommendations. let me turn it over to our discussion. jason, do you want to go first? jason: yes. thank you. this is something republican parties and democratic parties like are dealing with. my counterpart in kansas and i spoke about all of this. my counterpart in south carolina talks about this as an issue. we are facing this every day. most of my colleagues believe

they provide three core functions. we are a large organization. a multimillion dollar organization. but it boils down to doing three things. we as an organization have to grow. we try to measure as many voters as we can and from there, we try to figure out a way to talk to voters in a meaningful way and keep them engaged during the election cycle and especially during the off years so folks know and are up to date on the

issues that are important to us as a party and important to the state and the nation. the last thing we do is try to turn out as many folks to vote as we possibly can. all three of those separate things are considered federal activities. everything that spawns off of them is considered a federal activity. as a result of the funds we have to use in order to pay for any activities that come about as a result, we need to use federal funds. nonfederal funds are also in a separate bank account. or some of the folks down ballot or doing some non-federal activities in our states. the truth of the matter is, over time as a result of super pac's and a number of other things like the mccain-feingold act, state parties have been boiled down to having two pieces of article capital.

we served as a male bank and ran a lot of mail through our state parties as a result of being able to pay for mail at a much reduced rate and we served as a place, as a data house. the democratic party has far and away the best data on voters and communities that any candidate would ever want to go after. we served as those two things and over time, asked staff and shares and organizations, we try to come up with more added value to our organizations, to our states and candidates. we did that by working closely with our county parties in order to figure out different ways to communicate and ways we could grow and turn out voters. at the national level, we are fortunate as the association of state democratic chairs to have a leader in rate buckley who serves as the chair for the new hampshire democratic candidate. not just democrats, not just republicans, but all of us. we put together a plan in order to address them. we directed the staff to put together a series of trainings for the purpose of understanding exactly what the impact of mccain-feingold has on state hardee's because believe you made, the last thing you want is

to get bob over the head freezing incorrect funds to pay for something. through the leadership of the executive director and the training director, they have set up a training program for state parties to learn the ways of the fec. while neil i think is going to put his kids through college as

a result of the legal work, we don't pay him enough to make sure we stay out of trouble. when some states do, we feel really fortunate to have someone like neil who has relationships with the sec to work with us on any issue. what i want to stress is what i started with -- this idea that it's not just state parties dealing with this issue, it's not just democrats state parties, we both are. what i would hope would happen at the end of the day is our federal legislators, our members of congress would start to sit down with us more often in order to have a conversation about the impact that their state party

that may have recruited them to run way back when what may 1 entered congress continues to get them reelected and serve the democrat or republican parties and their state can hopefully hear the challenges we are facing on a day-to-day basis and do something about the laws ray just referred to. we agree and issue of the contribution limits is an issue for us. we agree being able to coordinate more allows us to spend money more effectively and wisely during the course of a campaign. making the contributions tax-deductible is an issue, especially for larger donors looking for a way to spend their money at the end of the year. and the regulatory rollbacks are something that hopefully we start working more closely with our members of congress that we can face and address. elaine: thank you. john, from the other side of the aisle. john: thank you, it is a pleasure to be here and i want to thank ray and jonathan for their work and brookings for hosting a very important program. i am delighted, as jason is, that there's more attention being focused on the plight of state parties in today's day and age and i think there's a lot of room for common ground, but not just bipartisan. it could be ideological as well and it could be among people who have different goals or see different problems in the system right now. a lot of folks think there is

too much money going to less transparent and grassroots oriented groups as the authors mention. if you have a problem with that, one way to counteract that is to create reforms that will strengthen the most transparent, most accountable to grassroots oriented groups in the system. one specific reform they talk about and we can get into those is raising more illuminating contribution limits. a lot of people say that's more money into the system, and to begin with, that isn't true. keep in mind there's not a dollar that can not go into the system now that would be in the system if state parties could raise money for themselves. it's just a matter of where it's going to go. increasing contribution limits could have the ironic effect of increasing the strength and influence of low dollar donors because what you will see a state parties are much more driven by low dollar donors and super pac's are and the mix would change as more high dollar money comes to state parties but it's going to be a mix, not 100% high dollar donors.