sam? >> well, my name's sam, i'm from minnesota, and i'm a little too young to be in any position of authority or knowing when jack abram off, you know, sort of ran the town -- >> he didn't run the town, by the way. he had some influence, yeah. >> but i'd be willing to met that members go to fewer basketball games, or if they do, they pay for the tickets. and a lot of sort of the perks that came along have probably been cut down pretty dramatically. >> there's been change there, right? >> in thatceps, you know, at the end of this lecture, i'll buy it, there's been some change. >> right. so there's been change in the form of gifts, gifts in the form of going to concerts, but also games. and also the trips are way, way down, and they're scrutinized by the ethics committees very carefully, and you're given permission or not to go on a flight. but, you know, the big loophole is they campaign. you can still go on a jet to go out to a campaign event paid by the campaign or political action committee. you cannot have -- even then federal registered lobbyists cannot be on the flight, but you can do this. so lots of people in the leadership or associated with getting money for the party, campaign organizations are still using this mechanism for travel. and so there's some loopholes. but it's change in terms of everyone leaving on thursday afternoon on all these private jets out of dulles and national. yes. >> joe from new york. and while i do believe that obamas has maybe changed it a little bit, i think that this point becomes moot when considering the supreme court's ruling in citizens united. because in theory a representative or a senator could be in debt to one organization or company who can now essentially funnel millions of dollars into that campaign, and even before he's recollected to office -- elected to office is already in debt to that company. >> so they can funnel money into organizations that can advocate for or against a federal candidate. they may not coordinate, i want to -- that's illegal. you cannot coordinate that activity with the candidate, nor with the party. that's, that's in the law. people have gotten in trouble for it, but they can still do it. and the joke is among campaign consultants, coordinate? all you have to do is watch television to see what's going on in terms of what the opposition is doing on the ads. and some of the most negative ads are coming from these organizations that are funded by anonymous sources, you know, like americans for freedom or something. i'm making up the name, i hope there's not an organization named that. and you don't know where the money's coming from. so we had the disclose act that was attempting to disclose where the money's coming from post-supreme court decision, and it failed. in the, in the senate. passed the house, failed in the senate which would have required people to disclose where the money's coming from and list the ceos of the corporations that gave the money. and all of a sudden the ceos are saying, well, wait a minute. i don't want to be associated with my name on this particular ad. it would have been powerful. it would also limit and indicate, well, limit foreign contributions. there's a way to have foreign contributions now which is illegal, but if you run it through a u.s. subsidiary, they can run money into these ads at this point as interpreted so far. so, yeah, that particular citizens united versus fec decision really undermined 75 years of law with respect to campaign finance and makes it easier for certain interests to have an influence. and that's your thesis, right? >> it is. just like obama said maybe messing with the pluralistic views which is kind of interesting because then be you look at the supreme court, in this theory, they're also blocking out maybe messages of the minority because, again in theory, a huge organization with lots of money can technically buy up all the commercial space. and those smaller maybe grassroots projects will not be heard. >> so the, you've heard this before, the criticism of our pluralism is the pluralist choir sings with an upper class accent. that people have more resources or more money. resources mean people, but more money have more influence than people who don't. is that right? do you agree with that, joe? >> that seems more true now, yeah. >> seems reasonable. >> >> yeah. >> right. and sometimes there's no equal competition on either side of an issue, it's all dominated by one particular interest, and we know a lot of those cases. and other times it is pretty e call, and we have deadlock. so the conclusion is, yeah, fewer gifts, changed a little bit. i would say we have more transparency, but we still don't have the enforcement. if we had, if we had really rigorous enforcement, we'd really have a lot more transparency about what's going on. i think transparency's essential in a democracy, and i think that that was the intent of this reform. i covered some of that. but, you know, some of the unintended consequences are -- and i'm asserting this right now on deregistration -- we've had some deregistration. it's in the data i showed you, it's popped around 12,000, 14,000, back down to 12,000 federal registered lobbyists, but i think a lot of people who should register aren't. it restricts expertise as some of you have said, that's one of the consequences of this. expertise in the executive branch in terms of the revolving door in. it, it has brought more transparency, in my opinion, but that's related to enforcement. we need more enforcement. we've talked about a bunch of loopholes. one big loophole is that when a member of congress leaves the senate, he has two years restriction from lobbying or one year. in the house frequently the day after they leave, they leave and become the head of an association. they're not a federal registered lobbyist, they have 12 federal registered lobbyists in the association and a staff of 100. they set strategy and tactics for those people. they are allowed to go to the hill, go to the floor. it is exceedingly rare when a former member goes to the floor and tries to lobby somebody. it just doesn't happen. that's enormous. they can go to the gym. you can't go to the gym or the floor if you're a registered lobbyist, you can if you're a former member. they call somebody, and they get invited in to help draft legislation or influence certain provisions of legislation immediately after they leave. so there's a big loophole that way with senior staff and also members in the house and the senate. why am i focusing on this? because i think in your plan you need to think about what the law is and what the norms and ethics are, and we're requiring you in your report to have a code of ethics. now, a good place to go is the american league of lobbyists. there's also a code of ethics for the american association of political consultants. it's referred to in an article that i wrote in the actual, in the appendix of the article the actual codes are there. you can make up your own code. you can look at what the president has said about ethics in his executive order and be incorporate some of that. but we want you to have that. a strong element of this class is to come out of here knowing what is legal, but also what is ethical and what the norms are. do you have any final questions or comments before we have lunch? like, where do you go to lunch or -- [laughter] okay, thank you very much. good. police departments. [applause] [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> continuing now with more from the american university public affairs and advocacy institute, in this session the legislative affairs director in the clinton white house discusses how the executive branch lobbies congress. this is an hour 15 minutes. >> well, welcome back to the public affairs advocacy institute. my name is patrick griffiths. i'm the academic direct of this institute of this is a professional institute that is design to explore and convey insights and skills that are necessary for professional advocacy in washington, and probably applicable to many capitals around the country. this afternoon we have two speakers. i will come our first is chuck berate. chuck is a cute friend and colleague for many, many years, is an old hand in washington. has worked in many institutions your m that shape public policy one way or another. he has worked on capitol hill, part of the ways and means committee, former chairman dan rostenkowski, real poower health -- powerhouse himself.b chuck has worked in the clintonn administration, the second tribute to tractor for the legislative affairs, a job that is extremely important inelle helping to be the president's chief lobbyist shaping his and selling them on capitol hill. he worked directly with the president, chief of staff, and the finest detail, find details of strategy development. and in slugging it out day today on capitol hill trying to make the case. he's also worked in a lobbying in part of a firm prior to two going into the white house and had his own very successful lobbying firm here in washington working principally with democrats, and beyond. a unique aspect of firms in washington but very successful, and knowing how to shape again, another cabinet into shaping policy from the outside. we are really delighted to have him back once again to talk about his experiences of lobbying and particularly the white house and the congress, but anyway you might want to share with us. >> thank you. [applause] >> that is most famous, or im or indented to pat for having described the job that he alluded to, we shared as i was about to take, i said is this a good job. and he said it's a great rearview mirror experience. in other words, the farther away from it that you are, the better it was. and it's now about eight or 10 years, and it was a great time. i had a wonderful time in the white house. and i really did. and my topic today is the executive congressional relations, but i want to sort of describe white house, all of that goes into devising and implementing legislative program and strategy on behalf of the white house, but also maybe suggest to you that you also need to appreciate those dynamics that goes on, that go on between the white house and the hill. as you build it into your own, you know, legislative strategy, plotting strategy on the outside, you can't operate in a vacuum. your lobbying effort, you know, just going into a black box. you have to appreciate who's getting along with you on the hill, who's cooperating with you, who's up, who's down, in order to build your strategy from the outside. so that's in addition to just being, you know, good observant of sort of, you know, current events and good citizens. i mean, the profession that you are sort of seeking to get into, as i understand it, you also need to know what's going on up on the hill. and i've come to the conclusion after sort of 20, 20 plus years, i don't want to say exactly how long, in washington, that the congressional white house relations is really the most interesting thing that goes on because it's the most dynamic set of relations, and, you know, most complicated and most fluid. you've all heard the analogy, playing three-dimensional chess. and the other, the other is, you know, description of something that's difficult like landing a plane on an aircraft carrier, and lobbying for the white house is trying to play three-dimensional chess while you are landing a plane the aircraft carrier during a snowstorm. it is just that difficult, but that also is what makes it a great rearview mirror experien experience. but it also makes it sort of very dynamic, and challenging. when you do, when you walk through the gates at the white house, you know you're in the big leagues. is no other way of saying it. everything else is just sort of, you know, on the way to the big leagues. i want to start, to give you an example of how the dynamic relationship, maybe sort of pull you into the discussion, i want to start you off with a couple of hypothetical questions. you have a job, let's say you have a job at pat and i had, head of legislative affairs for the white house. the president is going to make a couple of calls to the hill to advance his legislative agenda, legislative agenda that you have been working on. and as happened, they turn to you first, but okay, who do we call? and let's get your reaction. who would you call? [inaudible] >> the speaker? put a name on that. nancy pelosi. okay, okay so pelosi. who did you say? >> the majority and minority leaders. >> of the senate? i'm giving you two, two calls. not for. >> i guess if you are looking at, you would call nancy pelosi and harry reid. >> okay. why would you call pelosi? >> depending on the issue, you want to see where they were on issue. >> what would you say if -- let's get another. >> the chair of whatever committee. >> potentially, but you would get, the president engages sort of at the leadership level. at that process. the chair has to be encouraged to do something, or scheduling something on the floor or something like that. usually it would be the president, not exclusively but usually deals with the leaders. who's got another? remember, you get two calls. would your answer to the question be affected by the most recent elections? you know, come january, maybe i should specify it. you know, boehner and read would be too obvious ones. you are raising the question of how does nancy pelosi, and how does the speaker of the house, the democratic leader field because presumably this past year you were calling her, or her office first. but what about, what if i said well, mitch mcconnell? mitch mcconnell and reid, harry reid. that sort of indicates a different dynamic, which is if you want to talk to the leaders of both houses, which is, you know, and you're willing to just say in his pass congress, you call reid and pelosi, okay, you check the boxes with the leaders of both bodies, which happens to be the leader of the party on the hill. that's a nice little symmetry. it gets complicated when your party is dominated by the leaders of the other party. so, and that's the potential switch from the one call to the house leadership, being from a republican to democrat, from pelosi to boehner. but to go at it, a there's no right or wrong answer here. it's probably just, there are a handful of right answers, but i've given you too. but to talk about mcconnell versus boehner. mcconnell, reid. you know, you're looking at in excess, the senate, the senate versus the house. and so much of what in the past, certainly the lame duck, but much of the past congress, it's sort of whatever you get through the senate. you know, the house has to take, you know, more or less if they're going to do anything. so if you can get it through mcconnell, being the minority leader in the house, in the senate, okay. but those are legitimate. but my point is that the answers change depending on what's going on, you know, with elections, what's going on politically, going on between the two sides. you can't look in the constitution for the right answer, or what is right, you know, december of last year it may not be right december of this year. you know, sort of another question is, or maybe a bonus question, it's a day after the election. who do you call? you've got a lame-duck session that is staring you in the face. who do you call? the heads of two bodies, pelosi and reid. yeah, that's fine. or should you call boehner again? you know, that's another possibility. again, borges called mitch mcconnell. mitch, what will you pass? what we do that through? and i suspect that some of these conversations actually were held out the white house, you know, who are we going to bring down? who are we going to have to, you know, the real meeting. not the one that's for the public. which may not always be the same, the same answer. anyway, this is an example of, if i work in academia -- if i were in academia, thank god i'm not, i would've written by this point in my career something called the role of twos in the american legislative process. you've got two bodies, two parties, and two branches. and whatever, you know, mathematics you can do with those things. and out of that you get almost a seemingly infinite variety, certainly a challenging set of changes where, okay, the bodies have different interests, you know, on the hill. .. and republican say about democrats. the opposition, is here in the house. is a problem. they are my adversaries. the real enemy here in thishis process is the other body, it's the senate.d republs and republican say that about a the republican senate. democrats, this past session, said it about a democratic senate. different reactions from, you know, the domick rats on the hill, what they think of the white house. in other words, the head of their party may or may not continue to be their leader, depending on what he perceives as his agenda. anyway, that is just a way that i am, of trying to underscore to the extent i can be effective here of the dynamic relationships going on on the hill, vis-À-vis, the white houst attuned to what is happening, you know, you might as well, i like to say that you are painting, you are painting a picture but rather than doing it from talent and from years and years of experience you are really painting it in numbers if you don't appreciate that, you know, that changing dynamic and are sensitive to that. any questions about the current situation or the possible dynamics or the possible changes? go ahead. >> my name is samand i'm from minnesota. i guess u.s. the hypothetical, the president got two phonecalls, who do you make? you have been in the clinton white house and seen the president really only makes two phonecalls to capitol hill when he is on a legislative. i/o is imagined it was a little more extensive than that. >> well depending on what else is going on. you know, there may just be two. it may just be, if it is something major, sure there could be a whole lot of effort to pull together to send it into the white house run by white house affairs and where you would bring in, have cabinet members make phonecalls, you know, involved the chief chief of staff, involve the vice president, things like that. but really, you would be surprised at really how little of the presidents time or attention you can get on a routine basis. you know, the president, it is hard for people who have spent their lives on the hill, have got other things to do. big security issues, thinking of international issues. you
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Open Library
American Libraries
TV News
Understanding 9/11
