Talk about these now because they are public, although we decide them in confidence. There was an allegation, despite the fact he was in jail, about Jesse Jackson and his use of Campaign Funds for his personal use and for purchasing mink coats for his spouse. There are issues kirk Jesse Jackson, jr. Ann junior. We have a number of personal use kinds of issues. There are complaints about illegaly coordination because the Supreme Court has said it is improper to coordinate with independent groups and the candidates because that is a protection of the law so that there can be independent, truly independent expenditures. Kirk lets get it on the table. You have been quoted frequently, lately saying the commission does not have much hope of doing its work during the 2016 election cycle because of a threethree split between democrats and republicans. Republicans on the commission have been quoted as saying the role of the commission is not to enforce the laws, which you implied, but to protect free speech in elections. Who is right . Ann of course, i think i am right. [laughter] no question about that. There is a lot of case law that says that the rule of the regulatory and administrative to determine law. Itutionality of the my view is there are certain laws there is a federal Election Campaign act that we are sworn to uphold. And so, that includes deciding that certain campaigns, committees are required to disclose who their donors are l. My view is there are certain sos that there is no dark money in our elections. Those are things that i think are required to do. My view with this is that that freestatement speech needs to be upheld. We certainly agree that the First Amendment needs to be respected in so far as the Supreme Court, which is the arbiter of those issues, or other courts have so mandated in cases that are similar. Kirk we will get to you, ben. We did put you on the right end from this. But, left for them. Ace, lets you are a Democratic Campaign manager. Can you help us so understand what dark money a Campaign Managers job is and what you see as your role . Ace one of the biggest jobs is actually spending the money. Let me just say one thing which is that ann is one of my heroes. The reason why is as a public official have the guts in 2012 it is something so lacking to actually enforce the laws in the 2012 election and go all the way to the california Supreme Court and take on the dark money and actually put it on the front pages of newspapers of california so voters can fairly judge how money was influenced in the election. I have to say you are a great example of the power of work. [applause] ann thank you. What do you do as a Campaign Manager . Understand what was that a diversion . Ace yeah. The trick to running campaigns i actually think money is a little overestimated in the sense that there is not a direct correlation of spending money and winning campaigns. Campaigns that win need to have a certain amount of money. What is tricky about california is that it is such a big state that you have to have a huge amount of money just to basically get known. It is always a huge hurdle. I think one of the real questions to ask in this context is what are the real purposes of these regulations and what are the real effects on campaigns . I was kind of curious earlier, i pulled out the actual book from 1974 when secretary of dtate jerry brown passe proposition nine. Was that awhat is fascinating iu read through it, you read through the findings and declarations. All the public ills this is supposed to cure, everyone of them to much money, too much influence, not enough recording, too many not enough people running for office. They are all true years later. The real question is what has been the effect of those laws . Are there other ways to actually do that . Kirk ok. We will come back to talk more about that. Ben, can you tell us you have been at the center of much of president ial politics for the last 16 years. Can you tell us what a counsel to a campaign really does and what your role was . Ben thank you very much for having me. It is great to be back amongst the republican base. [laughter] who hire me because they want to run legal and ethical campaigns. That is what an election lawyer essentially does. Campaigns, especially president ial campaigns, are really like startup businesses. Albeit, in a heavily regulated environment. There are the election laws, the laws involving how you get people out to vote. Employmentess laws, laws, contract disputes. Reallyly is a broad, diverse sort campaigns, especiay of practice at the heart of getting people who you believe in elected into office. Kirk so, is there a sense a mongst candidates that you deal with that all of these recording andor of practice at the heart of getting ann the group of potentially disaffected voters. I personally believe the disaffection of the voters does not relate to the campaignfinance laws, although we might agree that some of the laws do not enhance any trust. Certainly is a lot in jerry browns prop nine that makes no sense as far as i am concerned in that regard, at the time secretary of state. Nonetheless, the idea of having disclosure, having people be s behind thet who campaigns and the concern about the great deal of money that is being spent in super pacs when it is only a small slice of the population that is giving that money. There were election, 11 fewer individuals who contributed to campaigns. Many and there was a lot more money spent. It was the front page of the New York Times which said it was a small group of extremely wealthy people who are now participating in campaigns. Does not seem to be in an incentive for or a view. If you are going to be an executive or legislator, wouldnt you want to include the majority of the American People and what their interests are because this is a Representative Democracy . Campaign at least for now, we having the most success. Theod campaign knows candidate, knows what he or she stands for, articulates the message to do that. Goes out and looks for people that waill support those principal beliefs. If anything, campaigns do not rely on targets. What a Good Campaign will do is talk about the broad issues and the broad philosophies of the client and use microtargeting as a tool underneath that. The most successful microtargeting that is drilling down into peoples characteristics. The most successful microtargeting our people who a re campaigns that find voters that basically agree with the candidate but have not participated. Expanding the electorate is the most prized gift a campaign ever give avecan candidate. That is by philosophy and message that excites people that dont normally get excited. Kirk we have to face the money question headon and what its effect is on these developments lately. Lets take super pacs fiorrst. Does the fact that super pacs are so much part of the equation today even in the standpoint of reporting how much money candidates have raised, the press has been tallying the campaign raised and what the super pacs are raising. That has been the problem more often of these very large givers. Is that giving in the way of the more broader participation . I think the system is dysfunctional and upside down. The core of todays finance system is to limit what candidates and Political Parties can raise. The truth of the matter is super pacs, according to the Supreme Court, have a right to say what they want to say. When you limit the amount of money the candidates can raise, in effect, youre enhancing the value of what is super pac brings. If you really want candidates to control the messages of your campaign, it seems to me this sort of institutional design we would all want. The campaigns control the message in the debate and not super pacs, then you dont limit candidates and that makes super pacs sort of less essential to the process. They have less space to operate. Kirk does that imply your policy prescription at this point is to take the caps off the individual campaigns and the super pacs . Ben you cannot put limits on super pacs. We have already established that. What i would do is increase tremendously what candidates can raise themselves. What Political Parties can raise and spend on behalf of the candidates so it is the candidates that control the message and the way a campaign is taking place now. I would not limit super pacs. I dont think that is an acceptable First Amendment doctrine. Kirk comments from either of you on super pacs and its effects on the system . There have been complaints regarding coordination that the federal Election Commission has not been able to undertake examination of. Is that the issue we ought to be focusing on . Ann i think ultimately not. I have to disagree to some extent because i do think the main concern is that because people are relying, candidates are relying on super pacs and wealthy individuals to fund their campaigns, not even related to polling or anything else, or having a message, a lot of them seem to be, appear to be getting their messages from super pacs. Because the people that are the big donors to the super pacs, there have been a number of newspaper reports where they want to take a more active role in determining what the policy is of the campaign. We certainly know that many of them are like shadow campaigns. That by taking off the cap for the candidates is going to ameliorate. That problem i totally agree it is a problem, but it is a problem that is of the Supreme Courts making and it is a fact of life. Cap is just going to mean the same thing is true for the candidates and the parties. Everyone will be beholden to the policy interests of a small group of people who have a lot of money such as the ones whose houses were displayed on the front page of the New York Times yesterday. I dont have any problem with people having a lot of money and contribute intoing to campaigns, but it needs to be more equal in the sense that candidates have the incentive to try to reach out to more people. Kirk ace, is there any way out of this dilemma of the Supreme Court regarding super pacs and now the money flowing so freely . Is it is something that running campaigns, you have to deal with and live with. It is the vast amount of money that gets wasted by super pacs. There is not kennedy control. Candidate control. There needs to be a return to the equilibrium. The other thing that is troubling about the whole move towards super pacs is they get used as vehicles for all kinds of other things. But, ultimately, part of the problem is to some degree i actually think all the caps be lifted, but i think they are too restrictive now. We willof said, ok, wine legal but be surprised when somebody makes liquor. Kirk it was interesting, Justice John Paul stevens in his book last book, one of his proposed six amendments would decision,e super pac citizens united. What about socalled dark money . Welfareo organizations that have spent money on organizations and dont have to report their donors. Is that a problem in terms of the credibility of elections and the ethics of elections, from each of your standpoint . Ace i think it is a huge problem. I think it is a shame. What is odd about living in california is that in california we have all three species of campaign systems. System whichederal is restricting of contributions and types of contributions. You have some ultra, orthodox municipal elections where there is a ceiling on the amount of money you can spend and matching funds. And then we have the Initiative System which is literally the wild west. You can raise any amount of money you want for anything. All you have to do is report it. I think as long as there is truthful reporting and people can figure out where the money is coming from and how much is being spent, i think voters are very smart. In california, we have a history of, as a state going back decades, of not electing self funders because voters are very aware of money in politics and will base their decisions upon that. Ofk ben, the whole issue Welfare Organization spending a lot of money. I dont know if you have client in this space. To what extent of your analysis of elections and the fairness of elections, is that a problem or not . Is it a red herring . Ben if you are talking about providing information to voters, then social Welfare Organizations provide a service and function in term of getting out more information then there would be without them. Again, i think it goes back to the system of limiting candidates. If you allow candidates to have sufficient funds to air their messages, there simply becomes less of a need for social Welfare Organizations to do what they are doing or super pacs to do what they are doing. It is this kind of system we have had in place since the early 1970s which has created the problem of both dark money, softmoney, social Welfare Organizations, whatever terms you want to use, and super pacs. Point,et me just at this for the benefit of the radio audience, say youre listening to the commonwealth of california program. We are discussing the intersection of political campaigns, money and ethics. Ultimately, the future of politics in the United States. Our analyst are ann ravel, chairman of the federal Election Commission. Ace smith, a Campaign Strategists whose clients have included Hillary Clinton and jerry brown. Veteranginsberg, a Republican Campaign strategist who was National Counsel to mitt romneys campaign in 2008 and the bush cheney campaigns of 2000 and 2004. Im professor kirk hanson at Santa Clara University and the program moderator. You will also find video of the Commonwealth Club programs online at our youtube channel. Go in a moment to the question lots of good questions you have already submitted. Two are are are at least other areas that people have raised. Not just the money issues that you all have raised here, but they are the issues of redistricting and gerrymandering and the manipulation that has occasionally gone on there, for one party or the other. And, the politics of voter access. The number of hours a poll is california, you are automatically registered the moment you apply for a drivers license, as of yesterday when Governor Brown signed that provision. Are those important dimensions in your estimations to fair Election Campaigns . Ann . Purview, atot in my least with regard to redistricting so i think i will pass on that one. The issue of voter access, i think, is important. Somethingllowup on that ace said which i think is issue in real california anyway this is not true nationwide because we know there are states that are trying to prohibit people from being able to vote and that is seriously problematic. I think in california, for the most part, the issue that is more important to try to get the message out to those people who are not now voting in a seriously low numbers in california, but all of the country. I think it is the lowest number of people voting since world war ii. Somehow, we need to, and the candidates need to, talk to the public about things that are important to them and figure out get to reach individuals to them to understand how important it is to participate in our political system. Not sure i have the answer to how you change it. It is kind of fascinating. If you look at elections, what has happened is it will be very high during the president ial general and even primary. And then you have these deep dips in turnouts in the elections in between. My own personal theory which i attribute to is the consumption news has changed fundamentally. The consumption news which used to be based on reading newspapers, which were largely locallybased news, made up the bottom of your news pyramid. The top of your news pyramid was national, international news. I think we have flipped. Seen asal issues are rather miniscule. I dont know how we change it. My personal belief in what we need to do is consolidate elections much more. We need to move these municipal and state wide elections to president ial elections where we know there will be high turnout ,nd really go with what we know a pattern that is historic and we know will be there. I think that is probably the best solution. Areas either voter access or the others . Ben on redistricting, i was council of the Republican National committee in the 1990s dog andought a family named her gerrymander. [laughter] that is how i feel about it. Redistricting has been described as a source of polarization in the country and ridding districts. It is hard to make the argument that the senate of the United States is a less polarized place than the u. S. House. There is no redistricting in the u. S. Senate. President obama won 36 of the 39 largest metropolitan areas. The rest of the country, mitt romney won. That is a polarized country in which redistricting and gerrymandering has nothing to do with that. So, i think the evil of gerrymandering and redistricting is somewhat overblown. On ballot access, i have the honor of cochairing the president ial commission on Election Administration with bob bauer who represented president obamas campaign. We looked carefully at the issues of access to polling places. Every legally qualified voter should not have any obstacles in his or her way when they go to vote. That is pretty plain and simple. So, the details of that and the problems that occur tend to be very locally oriented. California has some Great Solutions to allowing people every opportunity to vote. I think if you look at the country and the different election states have, administrators on the local state level do everything they can to allow people to vote without barriers. The problem really goes back to the question we were discussing earlier about why are so many individuals disaffected and not turning out to vote. I dont think it is barriers that get put into their way. Kirk let me go to the questions now. There is some pushback around the question of independent activities in the super pacs. Possibleether it is to have the kind of money we have in super pacs and not have it coordinated in some way, implicitly if not explicitly, with the campaign . Ben it is an interesting question the way it is phrased. As opposed to be shut down the free press and commentators and they were not required to be made public, there would not be implicit coordination between outside groups and campaigns. So much today in the environment in which we are where there is so much Public Information and so much is written that if a campaign puts on its website, we think it is important to talk about taxes this week, a super pac will read it. Is that illegal . Do you want to shut down the federal Communications Commission requirement that all television be Available Online for people to read where a campaign is advertising or where he super pac is advertising . That was something that got put in as additional, necessary disclosure. A campaign can read what a super pac is doing. We celebrate that in the name of disclosure and free press. Ann however [laughter] smallally agree with the portion of what is going on with super pacs that ben talk about. What we are now seeing in the 2016 election cycle are super pacs that are called buddy pacs. They are pacs that are associated or contributing to a particular candidate. In some cases, they are using and every campaign function, almost the entire job of the campaign. Otherre making communications with reporters relating to the campaign. They are doing a lot of things that go beyond whatcommunicatios talking about. Im not saying that is necessarily coordination under the law, but you have to remember that the reason there are laws related to coordination with candidates is that the Supreme Court said there is no danger of quid pro quo corruption with a super pac interacting with a candidate if they are truly independent. If there is any coordination between them, then certainly, there is an appearance that there might be. The federal Election Commission has not updated the coordination for 20 years. Ann before super pacs. Ben so, you cannot take the position that somebody is violating the law when the law does not cover the position, even if you believe the law should cover it. It does not now. I know this was a considered decision by you, but if you are going to say the federal Election Commission is dysfunctional, then the affect pacsat is to tell super all across the spectrum that nothing is going to happen if you push the envelope on laws that are 20 years old. Ofs is kind of a situation your own creation in a lot of ways. Ann can i respond to that . Ok, so, youre a washington, d. C. Lawyer and every washington lawyer that i have ever opened to about this issue new fool ull well many years prior to be on the fec that it is dysfunctional. Generally on matters of significance, it deadlocks. People have told me that clients, candidates have been advised at times by election lawyers, there is no risk in pushing the envelope because the fec will always deadlock 33. That did not come from me, although i said it on the front page of the New York Times, but it has certainly been known for a long time. It is not new. Ben yet, somebody got sent to jail for illegal coordination this year. Ann from the department of justice. Ben nonetheless, there is a law that covers some situations but not ones you have described. [laughter] a couple of people have raised the Counter Point of what we have been talking about witches obama success in raising so many small donors. Is that a counter that disproves the concern you have expressed, that the New York Times has expressed about 158 large donors . Ace no, because that is a phenomena that happens. Only president ial candidates and only with extraordinary candidates. You would probably put howard dean, obama, sanders now. That never happens in any other type of campaign anywhere in america except maybe isolated examples of incredibly hot issues. It is a once in a decade thing. Kirk that raises the question about president ial politics, but as ace has pointed out, it is one of many types of races that we will be voting on each year. Is the federal Election Commission concerned as much with the senatorial races and the house races and so one . Should we be more worried about the potential dominance by a small number of donors . Have oversight over all federal offices. That includes congress. Concernthink there is a about small donors. At all. In fact, from my own arspective, im not obviously campaigning consultant so it is interesting to hear the views about how difficult it is even in those campaigns to be able to entice small donors. I know a lot of cities and states, too, have done some sort that theng funding court of connecticut did it, ever zone a use arizona used to. Janet napolitano said that is how she won the position of because theyrizona allowed for small donors. That is a positive. The federal Election Commission president ial Public Financing which is only used by thirdparty candidates since obama. Ace i think there is good news and bad news for small donors. The good news is the new technologies and the internet and being able to talk to people online, to be of dissent email. Able to send email. A less expensive way to find dollars. Candidates have struck a positive chord and have gotten small donations. The bad news is the messaging required to get those small donations tends to be polarizing. You will get more people involved with small dollar donations, but the rhetoric needed to bring in those small dollar donors has tended to be more heated. Ace it is also usually expensive once you get to the president ial level to create a broad ben there may be some economies of scale. I think it is still cheaper than sending mail, isnt it . Ace it is but it is a tremendous expense. Kirk we do have questions about technology. Ann that is what i wanted to raise because i think technology the moneyolution to in politics issue just entirely because there is a number of democracynies now, technology companies. They are trying new mechanisms of bringing in support for candidates, whether it be president ial or local, that does not involve contributions. That actually involved kind of anditments to candidates, hopefully, getting sufficient commitments so we totally upends the campaignfinance requirement at all, which is possibly the future. Kirk are you optimistic about that feature . Ann yes, i am. I think it is really good to try to get i think you are right that small donors now tend to be more polarized because of the ways the mechanisms that are being used to go after the small donors. I still go back to believing that a lot of attempt is not made to go after the disaffected, the ones who have not made up their minds and perhaps the ones who need to be encouraged to vote. Kirk it is often said we are guilty in the bay area that we will be saved by technology by absolutely everything. So now it is politics. In the interim while we are waiting to be saved by technology, there are several questions about what structural undert ought to be aken in the short run. Ann, do you have particular reforms for the fec that you would support . Believe thatally the problem at the fec, and a lot of people have said it is because there are six members, not more than three of them may be of one Political Party and it requires four votes to do anything. As a result, it often deadlocks. I dont have a problem with that structure at all. I can understand it very well why congress decided it should be that way. So that one party cannot be used to go after another candidate of another party for reasons that are improper. I think the problem is with the way the commissioners are selected. While theyre all residential appointees, theyre essentially selected by the majority or minority leader of the senate. It would be so much better, i believe, if they were selected by some group, Advisory Group that would make recommendations to the president. It would be difficult for the senate not to confirm. Two of you with the support that kind of reform or du have your own favorite reforms for the fec . Ace i dont have reforms for the fec, but i would say if you change the structure of certain aspects of election, you profoundly impact the spending and all those aspects. Two examples i would give if you move all the municipal and state wide elections the president ial election years, i think you would have built in a broader audience that you will not have to get out to vote because they will anyway. That saves you from spending huge amounts of resources to get people out to vote. That is historically the way it is going. The other thing i found intriguing and i know this is a little utopian, but having done the race in oakland where they have ranked choice voting, i have become a big fan of that. I will tell you why. In that race, everyone had a limit of 400,000. That was it. Everybody have the same table stakes. The more profound impact is in that vote, that situation, you are actually disadvantaged tremendously if you try to do targeting because to win, you actually have to brought the reach as many people as profitable broadly reach as many people as possible. A broader, kind of more on his campaign. Stopso completely negative campaigning because if you go negative on someone else, you will hurt your own standing tremendously. I actually think there is extra Campaign Finance reforms that could have a huge impact on the Campaign Finance aspect. The structure of the campaigns themselves. Kirk what impact the structure enforcementng and because you would change the way they are done. Thehanges structurally to fec i come at this from a fundamentally different direction which this is court protected amendment speech, political speech to be protected by the First Amendment. I think a lot of the problems we are talking about have been attempts to over regulate that court First Amendment speech, so that many of the rules and regulations lead to these sort of odd results. Back and havef go a good time going through the regulation book and making this much more about candidates being able to control the messaging that they do, strengthen Political Parties to enable them to support the candidates, reduce the necessity of outside voices in the campaigns because the campaigns are well enough funded, and not try and over regulate this area where we should be dealing in a marketplace of ideas and competing ideas. There is such a difference in perspective between the three republicans and democrats on the and on the perspectives we have heard here. There are several questions saying is it possible to have a bipartisan solution to the structure of campaigns . Could be have it mccainfeingold initiative in the future or we inevitably going to be dead in the water because the organization . Perspectives in whether any kind of movement would be possible. Give us the degree of polarization for everybody. Isi think the answer to that yes, actually. I think our practitioners across the aisle who agreed that what mccainfeingold did in terms of restricting the ability of the Political Parties to help the candidates has had a negative effect overall. Most of mccainfeingold has been struck down with relief the exception of the restrictions on the Political Parties in federalizing what they can do. I do think you can now get some agreement across the aisle to the parties, which in turn strengthens the ability of candidates to get out their message. I do think there can be some movement in that area. On thisan optimist question and not because i believe we can kind of engineer or reengineer the laws. I dont think that will have much effect. I am an optimist because paul green thinks [indiscernible] and the truth of the matter is when you look at the california withorates moving, it is the independent voters. They tend to be younger, less polarized and very much more openminded. I think that is a generation comingofage in this country and not just in california, but it just happened happen here first. It is coming to age which does not feel the necessity of placing themselves on the tapestry of social networks through Political Parties. I think that will definitely be what transforms the polarized place we live in today. Ann i agree on the fact that all innovation occurs in california than that there is a lot of hope to Work Across Party Lines in california. Definitely. ,t is also true that nationwide more voters are independent and identify as independent perry that is certainly going to change the dynamic as to go forward. To the with respect federal Election Commission and the rules, i personally agree that parties should be siphoned. I do not have a problem looking at the rules related to mccainfeingold, but the question more for me is, is their willingness on the part of to alsocans also look at the importance of regulation this arena . Because no question, there are implications free speech implications, but the American Public also deserves integrity in their elections. They deserve that there is not just a freeforall of spending, whether be from both parties or candidates or super pacs, and there needs to be robust disclosure. I think that that is the crux of the problem because i am not sure, at least in my conversations in washington, it is true here in california that republicans and democrats have voted in legislature in california to increase disclosure, but that would not be the case for washington. We are going to be saved by technology and youth . Ann and by california. [laughter] there are two questions at the questions about two questions or the questions about campaign in general. Ace, youre in the last day of the campaign and a piece comes out from your component that says things that are false about you. Your temptation is to do something more than simply say you use somebut things you have been saving. Can the typical campaign resist temptation use the most to use the most damaging things you have about the opponent in the last days . Ace i think if there is something truly damaging about an opponent, it will come up in the press. You would have used it much earlier . Ace i would pick up my newspaper and read about it and maybe reiterate what had been set, but that is the truth of it all. We can watch too many games of thrones and house of cards and that is not how it works. Are there more false statements many campaigns today than when you begin your career as a Campaign Manager . Ace far fewer. Not to talk about the crazy stuff that and supply the internet, that is different, but because i actually think in the world we live in, there is more accountability for that stuff. There is always examples that you can point to that disproves that, but i think by and large and i can go into examples, but things ihe nastiest have seen is stuff i dug up when i looked around at things that happened in the 1940s, 1950s, 962s 1960s, much nastier than today. And john adams did pretty well as well. As a final question, let me just pause, 10 years ago, we have restored some of the bipartisan and trust. Can you explain how this youth plus internet scenario might have developed . Each of you, a brief comment about what will lead us to the Promised Land for leaders to greater confidence in our elections. Todayelieve incumbents are going to get really fed up with the Current System and the inability to control the own message. Across the aisle, and come bins sitting in congress and the legislatures will decide forge a more sensible system. Cooperation by the incumbents. There are two things interesting happening. Increasingeally pay ability for the candidates to get over poll tested and sensical floaters and not stuff of voters and nonvoters looking for something different, i think that will change. Is what i prefer to earlier about the independent voters changing the balance. At i think that if you look polling, there was a cbs and New York Times poll about one month ago, and they said 80 of the American Public are upset about the money and politics. They are upset that it appears that only the wealthiest are making all of the policy decisions by their associations kinds s, and those and this is republicans and democrats, it is the acrosstheboard tash and i connecting that that sense in the american populace is going to militate for change. Paneliststo thank our for the precipitation for their participation in our discussion today. [laughter] been theists have chair of the federal Election Commission, veteran Campaign Strategist ace smith and ben ginsberg, and we also want to thank our audiences here at the on radio,th club, television, and internet. I am professor kirk sampson from Santa Clara Universitys center for applied ethics, and now this meeting of the Commonwealth Club of california, the place where you are in the know, is adjourned. [laughter] [applause] [indiscernible] [chattering] coming up, the memorial president th french for the paris attack victims. That is followed by David Cameron explaining to parliament his plan for dealing with isis. Then, a look at some of the withs the u. S. Has immigration. Washington journal begins at 7 00 a. M. Eastern with the news and your calls. John hinckley shot president reagan and he was not wearing a vest that day. John hinckley was stocking jimmy carter before this. Ronald feynman, author of the book assassinations, threats, and the american presidency talks about the assassination attempts and physical threats made against president s and president ial candidates. The 16th president to face the assassination threat, week sinceone wreck ronald reagan, but 16 president s and three president ial candidates. Huey long, in 1975, was assassinated, and talk about Robert Kennedy in 1968, who was assassinated, and george wilde who was shot and paralyzed for life in 1972, so i cover candidates as well as president s. It is a long list. Sunday night at 8 00 eastern and pacific on cspans q and a. Four days of books and nonfiction authors is on cspan2s book to be. Book tv. Robert on the 14th take her clock at National Arlington cemetery known as section 60. Sunday night at 9 00 on afterwards, they argued the case of the United States versus windsor, the government gets a certain time to respond and i got a call from the trial level attorney saying we need 30 days. We are thinking about what to do in the case and we need time to decide. I do not believe her. In my eyes, she was stalling for time. Two, they were a lot of Serious Health issues in the case and i was worried and wanted to make sure that when the case was over, not only which he still be alive, but she was healthy enough to enjoy it. I said to the government, forget it, no extension. She is interviewed by legal times reporter zoe tillman. French president left a Memorial Service for victims of november 13 terrorist attacks in paris. An estimated 1000 people attended the event, which included the reading of the names of the 130 People Killed in the attacks. This portion is about 20 minutes. Nde on friday, november the 13th, france was struck by assassins who killed 130 of our fellow citizens and injured hundreds of them in the and of the crazy cause betrayed god. Today, the nation the whole of the nation is trying and all its forces are morning the victims mourning the victims. 130 names, 130 lives cut short. 130 [indiscernible] will 130hat we we will no longer hear cries of joy. Men, they embodied the happiness of living. They were life itself. That is why they were killed. Did this because they embodied in this painful moment where the nation comes together. I would like to express our compassion, our affection, and our condolences to the family and their loved ones who have come together and to our suffering from the unhappiness. Seents who will no longer their children, children who will go without their parents. Couples who have been separated by the loss of their loved ones. Brothers and sisters forever separated. Dead and so many injured who were there and their bodies traumatized very deeply. I would like to say a few simple words friends will be at your will be at your side. We will gather all our forces to , and after pain burying our dead, well have to repair those who survived. To all of you, i promise solemnly that france will do everything she can to destroy the army of fanatics who committed these crimes. France will act to protect its children. I also promise that france will remain itself as those who have disappeared loved her and as they would have liked her to remain. If necessary, if we needed a reason to stay standing today, a reason to fight for our defendles, a reason to this republic, which is our common good, our common asset, we will find it in the memory of these women, these men. They came from over 50 different nce,s and cities of fra from suburbs, villages, and they also came from beyond france. 17 countries are in mourning with us. These women, men. On friday, november 13, they were in paris. A cd which sheds light on ideas, vibrate during the day and shines during the night. Cafes, placeshe where we are open for meetings and ideas. They were sharing meals with different tastes from all over the world. On that evening, they were sinking in the bataclan cash s. Singing in the bataclan an American Group was performing in the theater that has embodied the city of paris. These men and women had many different ages. Most were under 35. They were children when the berlin wall fell. They have not had time to believe in the end of history. They have been caught up by this went on september 11, 2001, they understood that the world is facing you terrorists. The attacks at the beginning of the year and paris also work very, very upsetting, and i know that many demonstrated on the 11th of january, along with millions of other french people, they said that they refused to give in to the terrorist threat. They knew that france is the frenchf no other people, people go if they are called my duty to protect the weak and not to dominate. These women and men were a youth therance, the youth of people who cherish culture, their culture, that is to say all