What are the things that president obama says that is disappointing, he say, number one, im not after people who are just getting marry. Decent care what people read in the library. I only want to go after terrorists. Nobody can prove there has been abuses of the power. I say, all this is being done in secret. How too you know if there were abuses. Number two, i think history shows us that when you have this much power, there will be abuse, and we have already had some of the snowden documents show that the fisa court has heard a lot of complaints about the nsa going beyond what was allowed to do even though they id like to think if i were president i would remember that the president s oath is to support and defend the constitution. I understand that its a difficult position. Next call for susan herman. Margaret. Florida. Good ahead with your question or comment. Im so glad to hear you and, i will get you book. Im such a supporter. Ever since 50 years ago, and the last 50 years, ive watched an erosion even before that, even before 9 11, but since 9 11 and the patriot act i see our country changing and making individuals less secure in every single way, because who can possibly go against the powers of the government, and we saw this in germany. We saw this happen. We saw this happen. Its recent enough so its documented and when you have secret courts and secret this and that, if they were doing this again in any other country, we would be horrified. So bless you. Host thank you for your call. Susan herman. Guest thank you, i appreciate the comment. Let me tie what youre saying the aclu is trying hard for this country to keep our rights and keep our democracy, but what youre saying about germany and other countries, it seems to me one reason why im somewhat opt is in sting that congress with resolve the freedom act, were beginning to get a lot of publishback from other countries, particularly germany. They know the history of this, and one of the things that people are realizing is that the americans have had dominance in the whole Telecommunications Field and over the internet. So one reason its easy for the nsa to gather in the information is the fiberoptic cables commiphora the nut and American Companies have been cooperating with the government in turning over information voluntarily or allowing the government to just have a lot of access to things like the internet, a potential surveillance tool. I was just at a meeting at the white house over the summer where there were a lot of people from the Telecommunications Industry and internet industry, who told the pratt that if we dont the president if we dont have better Data Protection against the government were going to lose money because people are going to stop trusting American Companies and europeans will create their own Internet Companies and own Telecommunications Companies and wont come through the United States companies unless the United StatesCompanies Start pushing back and renewing to turn over the private data of customers, and it could cost american businesses 21 billion a year. So i think when you ad that to the desdesmake of our rights and democracy. It isnt only about giving up a little liberty to be secure. If with allow these things to go unchecked there will be a next chapter and next chapter, and we could turn into chile. Host susan herman, you talk about other countries, but its been coming out in the last couple of months that x country provided that this information to the nsa, and, oh, no, the nsa didnt spy on us, we spied on ourselves. Guest i think there is some of that and certainly were not the only ones guilty of spying. A lot of other countries do and it people have been saying, when the german officials complain about being spied on, they may be doing the same thing. Think the reaction were beginning to hear is not so much power in government but people all around the world, as well as people in the United States, saying, wait a minute. What have we unleashed here . I think part of it is something of an antiamerican reaction because its the American Companies that have really been cooperating with the government and allowing this to happen. Now for the first time google is actually bringing a lawsuit, challenging the governments restrictions on them. They want to be able to tell their customers what material theyre turning over to the government; i think its the market place speaking. No so much power in government. People around the world. Host what about from the other side . Do you think that private companies such as google should have restrictions on what they can take as far as information and mat they can do with it. Guest i think private companies should have more restrictions. The United States hat weaker data Privacy Protection laws than europe, canada, most of the countries we consider to be peers, and its been a big problem for multinational corporations because here theyre required to give over all this private information to the government, and if in europe theyre not allowed to. Its ave loves dog situation, and we have been resisting for a long time having data Privacy Protection laws that would be more consistent with what lots of countries that we consider peers would do. Even if the private companies have this information, its still different for the government to have the information from just google or amazon. Last call for susan herman. In georgia. Go ahead. Caller i am also a huge supporter and contributor to your organization. I think youre on the front lines of the battle to preserve our liberties. I just want to bring up a point that seems to be lost, that occurs to me and that is when people quietly proclaim that they dont mind the nsa spying because they have nothing to hide, and they have nothing to fear, i think they forget a very important fact about this spying and that is that 70 of it is being done by private corporations that, for example, hamilton is owned by cargill, which is really the centerpiece in the power elite that runs the country. Seems the bushes were part of it and so on. The point is that you dont just have to trust the government. You have to be able to trust the corporations. The massive corporations that are implicated often times in polluting your water and your air and your and your seed crop if youre a farmer. So, host issue i think we got the opinion. Thank you for calling in. Guest thank you for your support, and i think youre right we have to be concern about the private corporations as well. But the way to do that is, number one, government can rein the that through law by better data privacy protect, so the companies that have your private information dont just hand it over at will. The other thing were talking about here is the role of the individual. So, to me, the role of the individual in our democracy is to defensive to talk back to the government and say this is too far, and were discovering if you talk to corporations, if enough of their customers talk to them, the corporations listen. Google is taking a very different approach now than ten years ago. The book, taking liberties the war on terror and the erosion of american democracy. The author, susan herman, president of the aclu, and she has been our guest on booktv. Guest thank you very much. This program was part of the 30th annual Miami Book Fair international. For more information, visit Miami Book Fair. Com. Peter sweitzer argues that contrary to popular belief, big money interests do not control politicians. He says its the politicians who extort money from corporations and other wealthy groups. Noting that members of congress often introduce legislation for no other reason than to get donations from groups that will be impacted by it. This is about 50 minutes. [applause] thank you for that warm introduction. I got involved in the Young Americans organization. With an interest in National Security affairs and i ran across an Important Information today, the cia developed a new covert operation to undermine al qaeda. I dont know if you have read this. Its a plan thats going basically destroy the recruiting, thats going to disrupt the racings and its going bankrupt the organization. Its actually a very simple plan. You see the cia is going to hire the Obama White House to design the al qaeda web site. [laughter] i dont need to tell this audience that washington, dc and the entire country has changed over the last four years. But we dont have to simply cite our belief and our philosophy as to what is going on in our country. The world knows. The world is the terrorist, and let me give you two very authoritative sources that confirm the fact that things are increasingly not right. The first one is the worlds bank. Which does a study every year on international competitiveness. The second one is a Organization Called the World Economic forum which meets in switzerland, which puts out an annual survey. Both of these august organizations put together these studies and track corruption in developing countries around the world, and since 2009, both of these organizations have found that while in 2009 the United States was in the middle of the pack as far as advanced industrialized countries were concerned, in dealing with cronyism corruption, we are, as of this year, dead last among developing countries. That is the fate and the state to which our country has moved. If you have been to washington, dc recently, as compared to even ten years ago you come to the realization this is a very different city than it once was, certain lay different city than the one i have experienced as an undergraduate in the 19le 0s. Now the highest per capita income in the United States. They passed Silicon Valley. In fact they have the trappings of luxury. Theres actually a ferrari dealer in washington, dc. You can go on the web site a its ferrari rarery wbc and they have a car in front over the National Capitol building. We did a special in fox news on n january, boom town. And we actually intent interviews a sales man at ferrari of washington, dc, and complained to us that car sales were great, but they were in trouble with ferrari of north america as compared to the ferrari dealership in south beach, miami, and the other in hollywood. We asked, why, if sales are so great, why are you having such a problem with fer ferrari of north america. And he said the problem is in california and miami, the ferrari dealership, people come in and finance their cars and thats good for business in d. C. They pay cash. Think about that. Thats an absolutely true story. Whats troubling is that this is the seat of government and the welfare is developed in washington, dces not the same wealth developed elsewhere in the country inch Silicon Valley you have people like steve jobs and they made their money by doing what . By selling goods and services, products, that people voluntarily chose to buy. Nobody forces you to buy an ipod or ipad. Nobody forces you to buy a laptop commuter. You voluntarily choose to do so, and that is the beauty of the free market system. But in washington, dc, the cash that is sloshing around there does not come from a voluntary exchange. I dont know about you guys but i dont volunteer to pay my taxes to the irs. I dont volunteer to send my money there. I have to. Its an distractive process extractive process, and id like to talk about what i see as the most compelling challenge we face in what is happening in our nations capitol and increasingly in our country, and that is that we are increasingly moving from a free market economy and we are approaching an extortion economy, of which washington, dc is our nations capitol. Now, what is the image we have of people that go into politics . Theyre very, very noble people that go into politics and continue to go into politics today. I by no means adopt the pin theyre all corrupt and all bad. In fact youre going to hear from some today. What you have increasingly is a myth about what happens, and that is the Jimmy Stewart smith. Anybody seen the movie, mr. Smith goes to washington. Jimmy stewart is the innocent guy who is earness and comes to washington, dc and just wants to do good. And the problem is theres all these bad guys out there these special interests and lobbyists that are corrupting him, and we have kind of approached politics in our country that way, at least for the past 40 years. The assumption has been that we have these publicly spirited minded people and we have just got to keep everybody away from them, and if we can do that, things will be just fine. Well, im going to contend to you that increasingly washington, dc is less Jimmy Stewart and is more like the sopranos. People hear watch sopranos . A lot of Great Stories and lines in that. But one of the things you hear is in the shakedown operation, they would say, youre only as good as your last envelope. Youre only as good as your last envelope. And what im going to contend to you tonight is, yes, we do have some Jimmy Stewart still in washington, dc, but increasingly we have people that operate like the sopranos, and ive been criticized by some who say when you say they function like the mafia, arent you taking things to far . I ask them to simply good back and look at the history, particularly of the Italian Mafia, and you realize the Italian Mafia literally was organized by italian politicians. So maybe that tells you something. But let me talk to you about what do i mean about functioning in this manner . What do i mean about extortion . By extortion i dont mean the things you usually see in mafia films. Not talking about people being violent physically or holding guns or threatening. The example i would give of the sort of extortion im talking about is image that comes from urban america, about 20 years ago, and probably older individuals here, like myself, will remember this, perhaps the younger students wont, but there used to be a plague called the squeegee men. These were guys in new york and other cities would wait at stoplights and youd pull up with your car and theyd stand in front of your car and have a siegeie and have a one in one hand and a brick in the other. Shay said, can i wash your window . They never said if you didnt bay the guy, he was going to smash a brick through your windshield. So it pretty soon became clear that people would pay these guys and it became very lucrative. Well, Rudy Giuliani in new york and other mayors saw how destructive this was, it was extortion, and they got rid of it. Nipped until the bud. That is essentially the sort of extortion that im talking about here, and when you talk to people in the business community, corporate executives, particularly those that have left, or if you look at surveys of business leader, many of them will tell you that the main reason that they give to certain candidates or they give to certain individuals in terms of political campaigns is not always because they support that candidate or like that candidate. Sometimes they give it because they feel like if they dont, bad things are going to happen to them and their business. And in my book i actually cite some examples of this. One of them came from a former president of shell oil, who was telling me about an experience he had in 2009, and you may find this on youtube if you want to look it up. He went and appeared before the congressional committee, and a number of members of congress, in this case from both political parties, but led by maxine waters, began lambasting him and telling him the reason that gasoline prices were four dollars a gallon or higher was the fault of shell oil. And there were even threats in front of the public cameras, that we need to start thinking about nationalizing oil companies, and it was a very, very heated exchange. What the president of shell oil told me after that really bothered me. She said, after those hearings were done, those same congressman had been making these threats came up to him and said, you know, if you made a donation or held a fundraiser for me i might understand your issue better. Now how would you take that as a member of as a Business Executive . Coming from somebody who is already publicly lambasted you and is threatening action that could potentially harm your company. It takes place and it goes on, and its troubling, and it is in my mind, function of the fact that government has become so large, and so intrusive in our lives that it gives those that are weeing to use these tools and are willing to engage in this kind of extortive behavior the opportunity and tools they need to get it done. A great line that Ronald Reagan used, similar to a line that Thomas Jefferson used, and i think it really encapsulates the mindset we need to embrace, and that is to the extent that government can do something to you sorry can do something for you, it can do something to you. Think about nat about that to the extend government can do something for you it can do something to you and that is increasingly the experience of people in d. C. How does it work . Lit me give you some examples of extortive behaviors. And were not talking about everybody doing this, but we are talking about, i think, an increasing number of people do thats because, frankly, its lucrative. The first one is what you might call a milker bill. Now, milker bill, first of all, has absolutely nothing to do with the dairy industry. A milker bill is a bill that is introduced by a member of congress, a senator, and the bill is not really designed to pass. The idea of writing the law is not the hope this is going to be good policy or going to change things. Its primarily introduced to milk Campaign Donations or lobbying contracts for family members and friends of the congressman. So for example, you might introduce a bill that says, we need to raise federal excise taxes on large oil companies. You introduce that bill. Whats going to happen when you introduce that bill . Youre going to scare the daylights out of people in the oil business, which is precisely what that bill is designed to do. And theyre going to come running to that office saying, you know, were concerned about this bill. Whats going on . And in the process of that exchange theyre going to end up making donations and may end up hiring family members of that legislator or former aides to serve as lobbyists. The milker bill can be reintroduced again next year and the year after and become a form of extortion that take place and corporations Pay Protection money. The second technique is what you might call the toll booth technique. I if youre a powerful chairman of a committee or you are in leadership and this has happen under both parties you can essentially charge companies and individuals in order for bills to actually go from committee to being voted on in the full house floor. It can be a very lucrative technique used to distract wealth from corporations. But its not just these sorts of techniques that take place. There are other ones that i think speak the problems that were having in our country today. Let me give you another one. Ever noticed that bills and laws written are increasingly large and convoluted and complex and imfor to understand . Glass stiegel was bill written in the 1930s. It basically reengineered or reconfigured the entire Financial Sector during the great depression. That bill was 35 pages long. The latest reform change that we had was doddfrank. That was more than 2,000 pages long, and by the way, that doesnt include all the rules. Theyre still writing the rules. So its going to be more than 10,000 pages long when its done. Well, why does it happen . Whys these bills to large and convoluted and difficult to understand . One explanation, our world is more complex. That might bev part of the explanation but think about the thing that happen in washington, dc, at least with some individuals, not in terms of policy but think of it in terms of a business. If youre in business, what you want to try to do is create demand for your services. So, left me tell you what happened with doddfrank. Doddfrank, as you can imagine, was written by, in large part, under the gyppeddance and directions of individuals that worked for senator dodd and congressman barney frank. When the bill became law this highly complex bill nat nobody seemingly can understand, those Staff Members quit their jobs and they went into private business, charging large wall street firms and charging large banks, charging them enormous fees to interpret the bill they had written. Think about that for a second. A little bit like saying im going write a bill in an ancient lange, were going to make it law, and then im going to serve as a translator. In other words you have to pay me so you can figure out how to conform with this law. Thats really what is taking place and thats a form of extortion. Lots of companies and individuals want to comply with the law. A lot of times they cant figure out how to comply with the law, without paying a consultant, and guess what, its designed to operate that way. Perhaps the most troubling part of extortion, though, that ive come across is what has happened in the executive branch, particularly over the last four years. Something unprecedented has happened in the u. S. Department of justice. When president obama was eleaked in 2008 and organized the department of justice in 2009, he created the most politicized department of justice we have haded a least since the nixon administration, if not before hand, and this is not just opinion. Its basic fact. Think about this for a second. The department of justice is an belt that is designed to interpret and enforce all claws when president obama appointed the attorney general, he appointed eric holder, his Campaign Chairman and a campaign bundler, a fundraiser for his election, and four other senior slots at the department of justice were also occupied by campaign bundlers. Thats unprecedented in american history. And during the last four years, what you have seen the department of justice do is essentially enforce laws in such a way as to where they go after the political opponents of the president s and they lay off the political friends and supporters of the president. Its essentially using the department of justice like the brick for the squeegee man. And theres actually stackal evidence that shows if you are a Campaign Contributor to this president and youre in trouble with the security and Exchange Commissioner or the department of justice, you actually are going to suffer far fewer penalties and you have a lot smaller chance of being prosecuted if you are a Campaign Donor than if you are not. Thats where we have come to the point of justice in the United States today. I think the final point to make at is relates to extortion is that the money flowing into washington, dc is not just about winning election and winning reelection, but certainly that is a part of it. What is happening is increasingly Campaign Funds, at least for some who are rung for office, are being used for lifestyle subsidies and enrichment of members of congress, and they use creative techniques and methods for doing this. As was mentioned the the introduction there was a special we had on 0 minute as couple of weeks ago. I dont know if people had chance to see that. If you want to look at the creativity that take place that would be place to begin me. Give you couple of examples of things that have been done. We highlighted a congresswoman from california, congresswoman napolitano, who is from los angeles, very creative technique that she developed for selfenrich she ran for office in 1998. And in the midst of that campaign she leaned her own campaign 150,000 cash. But she thought it would probably be a good idea to charge her own campaign 18 interest for that loan. And she decided, you know, im going to wait a while. Maybe wait 20 years before i actually pay that loan off. The end result is that she ended up with several hundred thousand dollars in her pocket in interest payments, that her campaign put in her pocket. If you saw her on 60 minutes, she was actually confronted by steve kroft about this fact. She informed steve kroft that she had to make the loan to her own campaign because, as a hispanic and a woman she couldnt get a bank to make that loan to her. Ignoring the fact that banks cant make loans to politicians running for office. Thats illegal, according to federal law. She then went on to explain that, well, you know, i live in the same house and still drive the same car so whats the big deal . I guess the question becomes, you know, to her constituents, is it a big deal . Are they going to continue to reelect an individual who is selfenriched themselves in this american, and i think that will be something that an early election will tell. The other thing that is happening is you see these vehicles like leadership pacs, which perform legitimate functions, but can also be used as a form of lifestyle enrichment. If you have a Campaign Committee, like friends of peter sweeter, youre running for congress, peter sweitzer, there are tight restrictions what you can do the money for. I cooperates take my kids to disney world and have my Campaign Committee pay for it. That would be against the law, and in fact, jesse jackson, jr. Is in jail today in part because he was using Campaign Funds for personal household items. But leadership pacts are different. They dont have, according to the sec, those kinds of restrictions, and so you find instances where a congressman decides to take his family to scotland, and have his leader ship pac pay for the entire trip of other individuals enjoy golfing and use pac fund to go to golfing resorts. When you think of money and politics and think of people raising money for politics, its not only justice about election and reelection. Sometimes with some candidates its also about a lifestyle subsidy. Now, the criticism that i always get from people when they read my books is they get terribly depressed and angry, and i guess i just have that affect on people. I apologize for that. But you may find this hard to believe but im actually by nature an optimist and im an optimist because corruption in american politics is not new. We have been through this before. And there are good people in washington that are trying to make a difference, that are doing the right thing. But i would con con tends to you we need to start thinking about what goes on in washington and we need to start coming up with ideas and reforms that tackle these problems in a little bit different way. Let me just give you a couple of suggestions, things that i propose in the book that i think would be really good ideas. The first one is i know this is a very radical concept to some nancy pelosi and others said this is a ridiculous idea. Why not simply ask our lawmakers to read the laws that theyre voting on before they vote on them. In other words, if you have a 2500 page bill that nobody can understand, you ought to at least make them read it and. I think its a totally reasonable and totally legitimate reform, and i know there have been bills introduced to that, senator rand paul and others. I think thats an excellent idea. It would bring some clarity to suggest that the bills out to be red outloud on the house floor. The second suggestion i have this is perhaps a radical one but i think one we ought to consider. For the last 40 years as we looked at the issue of money and politics, the focus has always been on largely restricting the behavior of american citizens. Of donors and people outside of washington, dc, and thats very unusual. What youre really talking about when people are making Campaign Donations, especially if theyre just making them voluntarily, they like this candidate, like this idea, its really a First Amendment issue as far as im concerned. I mean, people have a right to express a notion of who they support. There are very few restrictions on the conduct of politicians when it comes to raising money, and thats not to say that all of them do so badly or do bad things, but there are abuses that occur, and so my thought is that the reform we ought to consider is this. Why not do in washington, dc what we do in the state of florida, where i live. What they do in the great state of texas. In Washington State, and elsewhere, and its a very simple and radical idea, and that is, when the legislature is in session, politicians cannot solicit or receive campaign contributions, period. If you did that, i think one of two things would happen. Probably both. First of all, youd see a rot more efficiency when congress is in session. In other words if they are there to make laws, knowing they could not raise money at the same time, it would put them in a position to focus on lawmaking. And that i think would be a good thing. The second thing that would happen it would probably dramatically shorten congressional sessions, which i think would also be a good thing as well. They would be eager to go and do more fundraising and that would also have an effect of reducing the length or the connection in terms of what i describe as the extortion process. Right now you have a situation where, lets say theres an important bill before an energy committee, and the night before that vote, some members of congress will literally go out and hold fundraisers on the eve of that vote, and if people dont make the right contributions or not enough or dont generate enough enthusiasm that, may may not show up for the vote or anyway number of things so puts industries in the position where they feel like they have to make donations. Why not try to separate lawmaking from moneymaking and say lawmaker takes place and then they can raise the money accordingly. Finally issue think the ultimate solution to all of this is what i alluded to earlier. Why is it that washington, dc has become so fabulously wealthy . Why theres so much money flowing into that city . Why is that theres so much money to be made . Fundamentally its about one thing. Its about the size and scope of government. Because it is indeed true that if you give politicians the opportunity to do something for you, they can also do something to you. And when you give the Political Class in would washington the opportunity to pick winners and losers, to make businesses enormously successful or destroy those businesses, based on the regulations and the policies they approach, you give them the power to distract, and as long as we give them the power to distract, things in washington, dc are only going to get worse. And with that ill say thank you. Id love to take any questions you might have. [applause] thank you, thank you, very kind. Thank you. [applause] thank you. Yes, questions. My question to you is the left is always talking about citizen united and the decision mat was made. Stephen coal bare dedicates a show to the Citizens United case. So can you comment on the case and what should be done and how well, let me preface this by saying im not a lawyer, so i dont pretend to be a legal scholar. Its been established for quite some time that being able to commit your funds to political causes is a First Amendment issue. And the reasoning was twofold. Number one, we live in an era where its about communications, its about television, and necessarily in that kind of society, if you have a First Amendment right and to talk about issues you care about, whether its National Security or Second Amendment rights or the environment or whatever, that necessarily involves spending money, and i think thats true, and the second point that i would make is that money and politics is as important as being able to protest because not everybody has the time or ability to show up and picket but they can certainly write a check. So i actually am not a critic of citizen united. I believe that people have a First Amendment right, and whether its somebody on the left or right, they have earned that money or they possess that money and they should be able to spend it accordingly. My question would be to people who, for example, like a Public Financing of elections, do they really trust incumbents, those who hold seats in congress to design a system that is not going to favor inculp bens. Sounds kin kell but cynical but people operate out of selfinterest. Sos there is no easy solution and people who say i want to get the money out of politics or just want Public Financing of elections, those are throwaway lines that dont offer a solution. Sure. Youve began by talking about the Jimmy Stewart movie, mr. Smith goes to washington. And we have internalized this notion of washington corruption as a matter of individuals and if only people would act better can everything would be great, rather than the way you present it as a public choice. Why too you think we have this un High Expectations rather than thickening of i institutionally and i would more public choice view is not more intuitive. Thats a good question. I think, again, as government has gotten larger, and there have been more opportunities you look at, for example, lobbying. Lobbying has a long history in the United States. But in terms of being a major industry, its really been over the last probably 30 to 40 years, and im not in antilobyist per se. People have a right to petition governments and explain their positions. I think that the problem is its become incredibly lucrative and that changed. So its taken on a business logic all of its own. What i tell people is whenow discuss politics you need to discuss it the way you talk about sports. Any sports fans out there . If youre talking about professional sports, you can talk about quarterbacks and runningbacks and who are they going to draft. Eventually you have to look at the question of money. A discussion about this persons contract or that. I think we have to approach this the same way and we have to it may sound cynical but is instead the public choice approach to this, which is where is the money flowing and why is it flowing in that way . A lot of what is happening in d. C. Are individuals who are marketfocused in terms of the political market and trying too create demand for their services. And you do that not by solving problems in d. C. You do that by not solving problems. So i think we need to follow the market incentives and youre quite right. The public Choice Theory makes the most shanes the most in the 19th century some of these things were in play as well but went our didnt have they food and Drug Administration and health and Human Services and large government institutions handing out so much money or making vitally important decisions for huge sectors of the economy, there just wasnt as much to be gained as there is now. Im sorry. Wasnt looking there. Hi, peter, im from ucla. And i thought it was funny you brought up the great congresswoman janet napolitano, since she is now president of our school. My question was, you mentioned how she used this tricky scheme to make money this is a different napolitano. Not related to janet. Okay. Go ahead. I heard you in the past talk about the investments that Congress People make based on their policy choices. I was wondering if theres any attempt in regards to that and whether theres been in the legislation to prevent that. My last book i looked at the fact that politicians were in a position where, in effect they could engage in Insider Trading and you had members of the Senate Armed Services committee who are just siding with the procurement of the military budget, which weapon systems are being bought and they are free often do trade stocks in those same defense companies. A study in the journal of quantitative economics a few years ago where theologate the stock portfolios of u. S. Senators and they found in this study was that the average american under performs the stock market with their stock investment. The average hedge fund beads the market by 8 , the average senator beats the market by 12 . The question was, are these guys just all incredibly brilliant investors or is Something Else going on and we have all come to the idea, we dont have too debate that long. The book came out, 60 minutes did an excellent story on it. There was something that gathered steam called the stock act. Its not a bill that i was really a big fan of because if youre on the Senate Banking commitee, you cant trade bank stocks. If youre on Armed Services you cant trade defense stocks. Thats the better approach to take. So they passed the stock act, which essentially created this new law. It also expanded the disclosure made or when they had to disclose theyre transactions and signed by president obama with great fanfare. Then something unusual happened nine months ago. They basically gulled the bill and for those who think that bipartisanship is dead in washington, dc, stock act proves its not. What basically happened was that in the house, it passed on a voice vote with no debate. Hari reid did the same thing in the senate, passed no cinderellas vote, and president obama quietly signed it and basically gutted the law. So the answer to your question is very little has changed. I think that they are aware knew that more people are watching what theyre doing, so perhaps some of the more egregious stuff we saw before is gone, but it remains a problem. You know you if you see a lot of debate about you know how much we can tweak this Program Programmer twigg this piece at and reduce it a teeny tiny bit and whether synergy or education and i think the real debate should we you know whether these programs or department should even exist at all and if you did that you would just take the contribution correction out of it. I think that is a great, i think thats a great point. We need to have a more fundamental debate and i do think that one of the problems i talk about in extortion is the fact that both democrats and republicans in the house at the system of socalled party dues and they make it sound like a country club thing. You have to pay your dues in the country club. Well this is like, this is like a country club that you may not be interested in joining but you are going to join is basically how it works. You come into congress and you are given essentially a price list and we print these in the appendix in the back of the book kerry for example if you want to sit on the house financial Services Committee in addition to your own Campaign Fundraising you have to raise in that election cycle half a Million Dollars to go to the party committee. Now if you sit on that committee and you dont raise that money and you are consistently dont make out mark, they will threaten you and take you off of that committee. I naively thought if you get elected to congress and you are an attorney or a banker and youll end up on the judiciary, exactly but its not. Theres a price tag associated with it and again i think thats an example where Political Consultants have really put members of congress in a bind. The problem is, several members of congress have told me to pay those party dues. You dont go back to your constituents in ohio and say hey i need to raise money for party dues and can you make a donation . You end up relying on lobbyists and corporate and Labor Union Pacs in washington d. C. So it reinforces that dependency cycle. So its a huge problem. Thank you. Yes. My question is pertaining to the third solution to this extortion issue shinki and which is basically no fundraising while congress is in session. I wanted to ask, even though thereve wouldnt be allowed to fund raise during the session, it would necessarily stop backroom deals doing fundraising so how do you really solve the extortion problem . They might just ask more exorbitant fees from the lobbies to make sure that they will keep their word when congress is in session. You bring up a good point. There is no Silver Bullet thats going to fix this problem and the experience in florida and texas and Washington State and others at the state level when you talk to people like with the chamber of commerce they will say that it helps because it gets rid of that immediate pressure. Right now literally they get phonecalls in washington right is the bill is being brought up to committee and its like you know you had better put out. They would literally walk from the floor of the house, go out to the steps of the house on a cell phone and do dialing for dollars as a vote was about to take place. It will certainly eliminate those kinds of situations but youre right, its not going to get rid of all of it. I dont think theyre going to have a system that probably ever will get rid of all of it but i think if we can at least try to mitigate it, at least try to separate it to some extent we can get rid of the more extreme forms of it. So a great question. I mark from mississippi college. I have a really simple question with probably a simple answer. Basically ive are really just an in research and i have written books with that research. Have you ever thought about doing any documentaries are making a movie possibly . Its a great question. Ive been involved in some documentadocumenta ries. There is a documentary here that is the foundation has available. I dont know if you have seen it. Its called the conservatives which talks about conservative philosophy. Theres also a documentary that i was involved in called in the face of evil which is about reagans successful is just execution of winning the cold war which i think the foundation may have copies or they may [inaudible] on campaign finance. I have not done that recently. I have done certainly some things with that but in terms of the documentary myself, know i have not. Its a very good idea. My name is jared eckert and im from hillsdale college. I just wanted to know, you mentioned all this stuff going