i was joined by former senator eugene mccarthy who had challenged lyndon johnson for reelection and a significant initial campaign to close lyndon johnson to drop out of the race. was also another coat plaintiff, new york civil liberties union, new york conservative party, stewart mosque had contributed $220,000 to the eugene mccarthy campaign. what was the common element of these groups? they were outside the normal. they were outside the norm of the political establishment. it was our concern that this lot was kept intact. it would squeeze out the ability of challengers to come in and confront the political establishment. we won on one side and other limitations on what could be spent in any campaign. we lost the individual contributions because the supreme court said that the appearance or fact of corruption supported this restraint but the effect has been to consolidate the power of the establishment, especially incumbents who have extraordinary advantages over challengers to elevates into important factors in the election and far more likely to corrupt individuals. and to discour

i was joined by former senator eugene mccarthy, who had challenged lyndon johnson for re-election and had sufficiently significant initial campaign to cause lyndon johnson to drop out of the race. he was also another co-plaintiff was the new york civil liberties union, the new york conservative party, stewart mott who contributed $220,000 to the eugene mccarty campaign. what was the common element in these groups? they were outside the norm. they were outside the norm of establishment. it was are concerned that if this law was kept intact, it would squeeze out the ability of challengers to come in and confront their political establishment. we won on the one side and that is the limitations on individuat in any campaign. we lost on the individual contributions, because the supreme court said that the appearance or facts of corruption supported this restraint, but the effect has been to consolidate the power of the establishment, especially incumbents who have extraordinary advantages over the challenges. to elevate packs into important factors in elections and likely to corrupt indivi

we have given you hubert humphrey, eugene mccarthy, walter mondale, and yes, al franken. we have given you a lot out of the state of minnesota, but we have also given you post-it notes and we have given you spam. we think it evens out a little bit there. it is a great time in our country to be thinking about some very important issues, and i know that the values that i learned in my life, i learned here in the great hall by state. i am so proud to have this as my heritage and my background. here in iowa, we laid the foundation, the seeds of great is. i put a lot of time into thinking about what i wanted to say this evening when i was extended this wonderful invitation to be able to come to you. i was thinking back about my own roots in my own family. my daughter and i pulled out of family history and started reading it to each other at night. we were lucky enough to have a relative that wrote some of our family history, and i am ashamed to say that i had not read the book get to know what it was. i had tears come to my eyes when i read about our family and what they went

it's given us lyndon la rouge but would prevent eugene mccarthy from being a successful candidate. that's what we don't hear. the system works against people like a ewe jeeb mccarthy who is a poor fundraiser but managed to have a number of people who supported him who gave him large contribution. yet he was able to change the course of history, bringing down a sitting president and allow for, he was called the pied piper of the youth vote. let's understand the complexity of the history of this law. the fact of the matter is, mr. chairman, this law has failed us. it has failed the american people. the american people have rendered their judgment. nearly 93% of the american people who pay taxes have voted no to this system. that ought to give us good guidance as to where we can find savings to bring down our national debt. as i understand it, we're going to have an amendment from the democratic side of the aisle which causes any money saved here to go to bringing down the debt. i hope it comes forward, i will support it and i hope we have the support of our colleagues for this bill. t

i saw eugene mccarthy make the decision or announce the decision to in fact challenge a president of a situation of leadership and the sense of, you know, how important is this issue and how much do we disagree? one the unfold stories, i think of the last ten years is that the congress did not disagree openly enough to prevent what is now seen as executive unilateralism. >> any comments? kathleen? >> sure. i agree completely with ken starr and john's earlier comment that it's a matter of political will, not constitutional constraint. what congress might do. and perhaps the events of the most recent election and the patterns of imdumb si and i would like to disagree with my friend john on the scope of that clause. i think, you know, in trying to route the argument in the original constitution, rather than the living constitution, we don't want to overread the commander in chief clause. it's often misstated the president shall have the power of commander and chief. all it says is the president shall be the commander and chief. he's commander and chief is an agent of the congress. he wa