Transcripts For CSPAN2 Key Capitol Hill Hearings 20140707

Awareness and inspire the most people to support classroom prompts on our site. And the Media Outlets are not the usual suspects which drive the most giving, and goop would be a great example of that. But theyre doing important work. Whats the message to those organizations who are the 99. 9 . Ill tell you how oprah came to learn about our site. After 9 11 a lot of the teachers at the schools beside ground for recruiting projects recover from the attacks on world trade center. It was a first grade teacher to student had been said by a group of firemen. They wanted to thank the firemen who would save them by doing a musical performance in front of the Fire Ladder Company for which they need musical instance. There are hundreds of these projects. I thought mutiny would jump on the story, call 100 reporters. They all hung out. By 100 call was to johnson at newsweek at the time, called in during my lunch hour, and he was the first reporter not to hang up on me. He wrote a piece arguing this little experiment great out of the classroom might want to change philanthropy. And oprahs producers read that story. I think for example, i would like to think one of kind of hustle and humility that years later pays off. Charles, when i met you over a decade ago you were naive in many ways, but what i saw was a determination and a commitment to justice and righteousness in this country. You are doing that and making us all very proud. Congratulations. [applause] today a federal judge will hear wisconsin senator ron johnsons lawsuit against president obama. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports senator johnson is challenging rules that are forcing congressional members and other staff to participate in the health exchange. Senator johnson said theyre using the Small Business exchanges and members of congress do not qualify as a Small Business. The Wisconsin Republican is also against subsidies for staff to participate in the insurance exchanges. Congress returns to capitol hill this week or the senate gavel stand at 2 p. M. Eastern today. Lawmakers will vote on a judicial nomination and whether to move forward on a bill to open more federal land for hunting and fishing. The house is back tomorrow. We will have Live Senate Debate here on cspan2. A look at the israelipalestinian conflict. The Woodrow Wilson center hosts a discussion with middle east experts at 4 p. M. Eastern and you can see that live on cspan. The internet content i think would all agree should remain free from regulation, especially by if not told from the fcc regulation. But as Susan Roberts is like confusing the conversation for the sidewalk. Of course, we want the conversation to be for an unrated and the sec is no place regular and content online. They have always made communication pathways stay open so today whether regulated coal system or lease the messages of a regular phone system. They dont regular what a safety what i what i call you but they do make sure that the pathway is open, four, available, nondiscriminatory and there for everybody to use. Its crucial to think about whether those platforms remain open the way they have historically. The internet has grown up as a network where anyone can communicate, anyone can get online. Account they can get access to the company, in some cases like google or facebook, huge business. Its vital that that not change as the internet evolves. Opinions on the fcc open internet policy and the flow and speed of web traffic tonight at eight issued on the communicators on cspan2. Buzzfeed founder Jonah Peretti sat down to talk about its content. He also cofounded the huffington post. He compared todays media startups to more traditional media, internet week in new york city hosted this half hour long event. Its going great. So how many of you have read a buzzfeed article today . Wow spent how but in the past week . So i guess heres a question, but seed has been evolving over time and what would you say what is buzzfeeds gain . So, one of the reason i started thinking about the history of media a little bit was one of look for a cause for buzzfeed, what are other Companies Selected buzzfeed are much bigger like we cant aspire to be like and when we grow up . It wasnt hard to find any. When you look at facebook or twitter or text tech startup, hiring people to make content, hiring journalist. We are journals in the ukraine. With people doing stuff that none of the Tech Companies are doing. When you look at time warner or disney are viacom, they are these giant companies with multibilliondollar, billions in profit that are using cable and broadcast, are very different than like what buzzfeed is doing. So when i look at what is buzzfeed, the companies that i find that are the most similar protect are Media Companies in their first 10, 20 years. When you look back at newspapers and magazines and hollywood studios. They are similar to buzzfeed and also Companies Like some of these new Media Companies that are emerging today. So a lot of people see buzzfeed as the place to look at funny lists or acute photos of kittens and puppies. When do you start hiring journalist . What inspired that . We actually started as the site those who like allow. We were experiment with things and what people cared about when they first started on the social web was cute kittens, what difference had for lunch, things like that, entertainment content. And the social, to the point where people sharing longform journalism and news and entertainment. And so we hired dan smith about three years ago as he stood building out a new steam, and here today we have Investigative Team led by a good friend. Hes been hiring a lot of really impressive reporters who are just getting into their groove doing long form, or doing laundry current investigation. We have two reporters and the ukraine. We have been expanding a lot in the last year or two years, the News Coverage that we are doing. And what do you think, what percentage of buzzfeed readers are engaged with the journalism as opposed to the kind of cute lists and more frivolous content . It really depends on the time. So in the boston bombings happened there was the most popular content on buzzfeed was all hard news content, and we have reporters covering the boston bombings. We also had people in new york who were using their knowledge of twitter and instagram to actually figure out what was going on in the web. We were the first site to authenticate suspect number two twitter account because we notice that the avatar praided the pictures that were in the news. We looked at who was following this, the count, they all went to the same high school. So we were able to use our knowledge as a social web to figure out what was happening and then follow up with reporters, making phone calls. So during those momentscome the most part the content is news content but during slow news, the most popular content is things like 23 animals were extremely disappointed in you, or what city should you actually live in, or things like that. Right. So how are people discovering the journalism content . People discover it in the flow. So when you look at facebook, you see hard news, long form next to cute kittens next entertainment content. When you look at twitter you see the next and when you look at buzzfeed, we decided why not do that . Because people like to move between different types of content. What percentage would you say is journalism as opposed to animals that are disappointing you and problems that people in the 80s would understand . Its hard to put things in terms of percentage because back to looking at the history of media, one of the things i found so interesting looking at the early history of newspapers, for example, is there was limited space. You had to make these decisions because of limited space about how much news you going to go, how much advertising, how much serious and how much frivolous stuff. During world war ii the New York Times and the Herald Tribune were in the battle to be the number one paper in new york, and to be the number one paper in the country. And there was newspaper rationing, paper rationing. So there was a limited space. There was less pages to print stuff on, and so the Herald Tribune cap all other advertising and shrunk the size of the news so they could keep advertisers happy and made huge profits during the war. The New York Times kept their advertising can had to go to advertise and say were not taking your ads so they could have more of the limited space to cover news. And so they lost money during the war, but when the war was over their circulation was hired. All the advertisers impacted the New York Times. It was more paper and they were able to win this war. So the decision of how much do you usually with the resources for ads or how much to use it for news really meant something. Whats different about the internet is we dont have to make that choice. At buzzfeed we can say were going to do all of the nearest we can possibly do because the internet never runs out of space, we will do all of the cute animals and quizzes and lists because were not going to run out of space for those. And were going to do all the branded content and content and all those things can exist on their own parallel track without resources, either a television station or bandwidth like radio or print like a newspaper. And so that has created a really interesting opportunity to build a Media Company that doesnt have the normal kinds of constraints that companies historically have had. Were there times when just different types of folks is coming to conflict with one another . I mean, we have a tremendous food and food section and diy section. We have a test kitchen where we are making incredible recipes, and its really, its awesome stuff. A lot of people dont know we even have it because it comes up if theyre not particularly nseers they dont click on. Many people are discovering it on pinterest. You are likely finding buzzfeed food and diy content. So theres not this conflict. Its not so much media is becoming less about adjacency, like what did two things next to each other and more about having each piece of content reach its full potential by spreading a platform where it belongs to the people are most interested in it, and thats why theres not to conflict. There still is some lingering legacy of some print where people think that if you do one thing it means you cant do something else. But its not true. So people are used to like the newspaper dropped on your doorstep and you can kind of count the pages that are in sports and the pages in foreign news and how many ads are there, if you take that calculus can buzzfeed is a weird site, you know . But if you think that there is no constraint at what you can do and adjacent doesnt matter because everything is spread on different platforms, then you should understand what more what we are actually doing. There are instances where someone is the man with the buzzfeed as being a place for cute animals comes across an article that is series of journalism and doubts the credibility because of the buzzfeed brand . I think increasingly people are used to one brand of doing multiple things. In fact, even if you look at sort of Network Television, the classic Network Television were on cbs should edward r. Murrow in the evening news also so progress in the morning, also a combination of and variety shows in the evening. You had out for hitchcock on the same network that had the evening news, and people are used to having that mix. In fact, i think the bundle is something that has always been so important to me. A lot of the journalism wars were between, you know, papers fighting over the comics. The washington post, when it was initially bought by the family that come up until very recently owned the washington post, he said, truly medical accidents. If you lose these comics you going to lose half our readers begin to go and fight to get the comics in the paper, and it was a big protracted bidding war because few people would read the journal if the comics worked there. So the comics drove more readership of journalism, as i think of something that our news content, our long form content reaches a much larger audience than it would if we didnt also have you know, almost 200 million video views a month, almost, you know, massive amounts of leadership on quizzes and lists and other content. Theres been a lot of new media startups that have been botched launched recently. What you think that is . Why do you think there is a mini media startups happening . Why is that in trend right now . So media startups are more of a thing now than they been in a long time. Theres been a lot of tech startups, and i think which are generally see looking at the history of need is you will see new technology emerged that often is a distribution technology. Then that this Division Technology starts to get dealt out the people start grading content covers the ticket finish of the distribution that didnt exist before. So, for example, a lot of people dont know that early source at cnn which was wtf was a local station in atlanta that was owned by ted turner and cable is this new thing where satellites could been a signal to a region at the region would have cable though go through all the homes. And so ted turner realized wait, i can be my local station and a letter to sal and that i could have it be carried on cable on all these different places around tharound the country . Of the sun is only a few in homestead cable like this exciting new thing. So people initially thought why would anybody want to watch this local Atlanta Television station . In phoenix or in new york or somewhere else . But he started licensing television taliban shows and movies and lots of the kind of entertainment. And then started to be a distribute of this kind of entertainment. Then when he saw the possibly of that, i bet there will be somebody dominant news on cable and he started cnn. Said to me it was interesting that he started with entertainment like buzzfeed and moved into news. But at the time that networks were spending 150, 209 a year to do half an hour of news on the evening news, and cnns plan was to spend 20 to 39 to do news 24 hours a day. Ever thought it was impossible. It wasnt going to work. 20 to 30 million. Go live, cover things in ways you could if you had a half hour. You had to wait. He had a builtin advantage by making content that really fit with this new kind of distribution, and today cnn spends more on this than any other network and has grown into a really giant company. So when you look at or with time inc. , newspapers are exploding and those only newspapers people could read them all. So time inc. Said lets aggregate the newspapers and print them on magazines which have to be glossy and look nice, or then life magazine it was possible to print photos for the first time. People would listen to on the radar, theres a before tv, listen on the radio and it would be able to hear someones voice. They didnt even know what people look like theyre all of a sudden life magazine let people see for the first time what people looked like. So i think when you look across the even radio, another example. When he left his family said are coming to going to radar people thought he would go back to cigars because the cars are like a much Better Business than radio. And no one would ever stand for ads that interrupt the flow of the audio and radar and radio would never be a big business. It was the start of cbs. So i think the key is the reason theres so many new media startups that is because theres an explosion of this Division Technology. Whenever theres an explosion of distribution technology, whether its radio on the kind of Printing Presses or cable television, there follows close behind an explosion of new kinds of Media Companies. And today with smart phones and social media, you are seeing the ability to distribute media internationally more quickly than ever before in history. For lots of companies have started to take offense at that massive toshiba didnt exist even five years ago. When buzzfeed started the iphone didnt exist. And now we have more than about 60 or more of our traffic on mobile devices. And so that is really enabled distribution that people didnt even think was possible just a few years ago. Do you think theres a point of saturation at some point where theres only so much that media startups can grow and room for only so many, even in the context of the internet and distribution, kind of unlimited distribution accessibility . I think there used to be what people called natural monopolies because if youre the biggest newspaper in philadelphia you would have a natural monopoly because you had to be printing press, the truck to drive the papers around. You can attract the best talent and the best reporters, and who else can start a company in philadelphia to compete with you . The argument was on the web we will never see that happen because, any blogger can start a site and it doesnt cost a lot to publish and will be tons more content, no limitations on space. Likewise, with radio. This limitation spectrum but if you get a slot on the path you have an advantage or television or cable if you get carriage, you have an advantage but i think what youre seeing with the web is the competitive advantage is having to come from technology. Its not come from spectrum, not coming from region. Its coming from having a better cms, ability for editors to build him a condit more quickly and have more flexible tools. Page is loading faster, better Machine Learning and better data sense to optimize their site. Its still possible to build a great Media Business at the we build competitive advantage is through technology. Thats really why buzzfeed has such a focus on building technology, you know, new senate came and thats what a lot of other companies are focused on that are so. What is the future role of technology in the . I think the technology, you really cant build a good immediate comp english also great technology. You know but is that limited the platform or is it beyond the platform and moving forward like in terms of hiring data scientists . Well, i think we took an integrated approach everything that allows us to make a better product because all the pieces fit together. Some sites make the mistake of having the kind of approach would everything is bought by some of the started and theyre kind of stapling them altogether. I think thats a better approach, but i think there also will be some startups that end up come off on one of the layers, modifying one of the layers like you might see Google Analytics be used by people because nobody wants to build their own analytic platform for scratch or Something Like that. So its still up for grabs which layers are going to end up being outsourced to other Tech Companies and which ones should publish, or publishers will have to prove themselves. What is your prediction . What do you think will happen . I think that there will be several, i think when you look at cable or when you look at newspapers and you see that theres often this Virtuous Cycle in Media Businesses where people who build a better platform and of attracting better talent and then that talent ends up improving the platform and its a Virtuous Cycle. So think there would be companies in this current crop of new companies building Media Businesses that get that purchase cycle going and then becoming big players and Building Companies that last for a long time. I think that if you work at buzzfeed as a reporter or someone with great intent just go to reach a large audience, have better tools, better understanding of how people are interacting with immediate that youre creating and that should be a draw, make you want to work at buzzfeed. And then add more and more good people at buzzfeed, people want to work with them and so we are focused on building that purchase cycle and i think other people also have similar focus, and that lead to some really interesting new companies that will keep growing for the longterm. Given that there is this upstart and rise of the new media startups, and given that you dont think that there is a saturation point, what advice would you have for someone who is launching immediate startup kit they . I think that it is good to look for new imaging platforms that people laugh at and think arent that important. People laughed at radio. People laughed at cable and ted turner went into cable. I think looking at areas where people think this is silly and this will never actually amount to much is often a good place to go because of the people are there and you can figure out how to build something that is unique for a new distribution platform. Before that, before it matured. At buzzfeed we thought would be an each site focus on social. And then we saw social become the dominant way people consume news and entertainment. Social and mobile converged and mobley became bigger than pcs and that was not something that we predicted or expected but we are really interested in social, almost for intellectual reasons almost for anything else. I think an interest in something when its small helps you have a deeper understanding and already a unique approach before something that everyone is chasing. So what are some of the lessons or things that people want launching new we just startups can lessen different from old media . If you remember that every big Media Company was once a startup, if you look at cbs today theres not that much you can learn because they are a giant and you are small into starting out. But if you look at cbs when it was three stations when nobody was listening to radio and they were losing money, then its like that come looks like a lot of startups, you know . When you look at Time Magazine when there were 10 people subscribe to newspapers and writing summaries of them, and putting that out, that looked a lot like a lot of new media startups that are starting today. Hollywood studios are expended. People dont realize. I was surprised reading about the early days of hollywood that you go to a Movie Theater and you would see a bunch of short film, and then you would see a news reel like updating you about the war or something, then you seem to be a 60 minutes western. Thats what you paid to go see at the theater, and so people look at startups today in a media space and they say theyre doing the small, little silly things. They are not like paramount are big, these big Movie Theaters to take a look at what paramount was doing what they were doing, a new company, they will make a little short films that were more similar to what we are doing on youtube that they are to the future films that theyre doing today. And so i think it is a case where there is something to learn from history, and theres lots of differences. But the closest talk for this new generation of media startups are old Media Companies 60 to 100 years ago, and theres lots of interesting lessons to learn. Definitely. So do you have like a list or what would it look like if you were to give advice or wrap up the history of old immediate in a list . So, i dont know im not actually as good at of this as like the pro at buzzfeed, but i think that for me to things that ive been to think that the most interestiinteresti ng, early newspapers, girly magazines, early hollywood studios, and early cable television. And those are sort of huge industries that went on to be these multibillion dollar industries. And i think when you look at their early days, its shockingly similar to the way small media startups are operating today. So they would be on my list but it would need a better name created by a buzzfeed editor, not created by me. And looks awkward just about out of time, but we have signed with some time for questions from the audience. Does anybody have questions for john . We have a question over here and one back there. Hi. You guys published this week the 96 page report of the new media people in your times as to what they need to do different. Good advice for the times i guess. Did you see some lessons in their for new Media Companies to what they need to do different, based on the New York Times Staff Research of where media is headed . I think it depends a lot on what the new Media Company is, but certainly global is huge and it cant be ignored. So if theres a new Media Company that are not coming in it, thinking deeply about mobile, then they should be. And i think that report was, had a lot in it. Is also the question of how do you focus . So theres a lot of really good ideas, but you can only focus on a few things. And theres the question of what a you going to focus on if youre a particular company or if you are the new times . If your baby can focus on a few more things but you still have to stay focused. Other questions . So do you see yourself as you evolve as in the coming to you see yourself getting into other things, other mediums like conferences and events that you stage and then the record for your own purposes, for example, other area . We do some of that. We do something called Buzzfeed Bruce where we educate people like Jerry Seinfeld and Anthony Weiner and ceo of hbo, and it is an interesting way to generate media life events. I think theres kind of a trend, like events plus content associated with it. Thats pretty interesting, you are seeing that with the super bowl and also industry events like this one. Another question . Do one more right here. Just say it. Ill repeat it. [inaudible] first of all, i want to type, jonah, how much i respect your Business Model and how you went through the foundation of the real Media Companies. Im from atlanta, and youre exactly right, it would be nothing it wasnt by he was the one in the actually read his book and ive met within. Hes in his 80s and he lives in new york. In his book, read was the one that recruited all the people from new york to atlanta and all that in a hotel. You know, while they founded the swedish a great story. I havent read his book by read the book called cnn, the inside story, just lots of Amazing Stories of the early entrepreneurship, you know, the major player while ted turner is out on his yacht trying to win like americas cup, the guy who is president running the news. We need to wrap up. Thank you very much, jonah. Really appreciate it. [applause] president barack obama is traveling to colorado this week to give a speech about the economy and raise money for senator mark udalls reelection campaign. The president scheduled to arrive in denver tuesday evening and give a speech on wednesday. Obama live has a closeddoor fundraiser for senator udall who is seeking a second term in the senate. His race is republican congressman cory gardner is one of the most Competitive Senate races in the country. Congress returns to capitol hill this week. The senate gavels in at 2 p. M. Eastern today. He will vote on a judicial nomination and whether to move forward on a bill to open more federal land for hunting and fishing. The house returns tomorrow. You can see the house live on cspan and will have the Senate Debate live here on cspan2. And a look at the israelipalestinian conflict this afternoon on cspan. The Woodrow Wilson center hosts a discussion with middle east expert at 4 p. M. Eastern. Now you can keep in touch with Current Events from the Nations Capital using any phone any time with cspan radio on audio now. Call 202 6268888. Congressional coverage, Public Affairs forms in todays Washington Journal Program and we did they list a recap of the days events at 5 p. M. Eastern on washington today. You can alter audio of the five networks sunday Public Affairs programs beginning sundays at noon eastern. Cspan radio on audio now. Call 202 6268888. Long distance phone charges may apply. A panel of legal analysts looks at current election laws and have an impact voting rights. You with the about attempt in florida to purge voter rolls of suspected noncitizens. The federal Court Rulings on voter id laws, early voting and the prospects for a unified National Registration system. This hourlong event was part of a Political Campaign ethics Conference Held at st. Thomas University Law school in miami gardens, florida. Thank you, nelson. It really was a privilege to serve with you, to serve as your executive director for 13 years. Im your city today as a moderate. My roll is pretty limited. Id like to have the two debaters come up, mr. Bob and john bonifaz. This is different than the previous sessions. This is going to be a modified debate, if you will. And we are going to be debating the topic of can paint finance and the Citizens United decision also the backdrop for all this is as you know in 2010 the Supreme Court issued a landmark Citizens United decision, and more recently in april of this year, talk about timeliness, and were planning this conference with no idea that were going to get hit with another Supreme Court decision on issues involving money and politics, the decision is mccutchen versus the federal Election Commission can do. So we are really entering a brave new world concerning the financing of Political Campaigns. I really have the distinct privilege of moderating the debate between john bonifaz and james bopp. They are two of the nations leading authority on the subject of Campaign Finance laws and the effects of the seas Supreme Court decision on our political process. I could speak for a long time about each of them. Rather than to bore you with that, please read your program. Please google them and youll be very impressed with their qualifications. Trent mr. Baucus coming from indiana and mr. Bonifaz from washington, d. C. We appreciate massachusetts, okay, even better. We appreciate them coming down for this event. So let me just explain the format to you and well have time for questions, but initially each individual will be given an opportunity to make a 10 minute opening presentation. So john bonifaz will speak first and then mr. Bobrick after the 10 minute presentations their Opening Statements compete to the threeminute rebuttal, ma after the threeminute rebuttals will open it up to questions from the august. We do want to take etiquette question put them in writing and at the very end of the session we will give them each a minute to kind of sum up. So with that, ill turn it over to mr. Bonifaz. I think its better to stand here because cspan is recording this and i think they wanted to focus on this lectern. So thank you. Thank you to the miamidade commission on ethics and public trust and st. Thomas University Center for ethics for holding this debate on this critical question of our time. American democracy is in crisis. Big money interests dominate our elections and our government, drowning out the voices of ordinary citizens. Five justices of the United States Supreme Court have hijacked the First Amendment for the wealthy few, distorting the very essence of the First Amendments guarantee of an open and unfettered exchange of ideas and undermines the fundamental promise of republican selfgovernment and politically quality for all. The American People recognize this, and in just four years since the Citizens United ruling millions of citizens across the country have propelled a growing Grassroots Movement for a constitutional enemy to overturn the Supreme Court and to defend our democracy. 16 states have already gone on record calling for such an amendment, including the states of montana and colorado, where 75 of the voters in the 2012 election supported Ballot Initiatives demanding such an amendment. 500 plus cities and towns and more than 160 members of congress are also already on record. The United States senate will soon hold a historic vote on senator tom udalls constitutional Amendment Bill which would end the big money thomas kuhn our politics and restore that basic vision of our republic. Government of, by, and for the people. In these opening remarks i will address for central points as to why the Supreme Courts ruling in buckley versus blue, Citizens United, and mccutchen versus fec are wrong and why we must fight to overturn them in the name of the first commitment and our democracy. Point number one. Money does not equal speech. In its 1976 ruling in buckley v. Valeo, the Supreme Court equated money with speech and struck down campaign limits passed in the wake of the watergate scandal. The ruling set us on our current course today of Unlimited Campaign spending where our elections are sold to the highest bidders. But as former Supreme Court Justice John Paul stevens has said, money is property. It is not speech. Money in fact amplifies speech. And for the very wealthy in our society, money enables them to be heard at the loudest decibels at the expense of the rest of us. The Campaign Spending limits at issue in buckley were reasonable regulations on the manner of speech, not on speech itself. By the quaking money with speech, the Buckley Court sanctioned a system which allows the very wealthy, and now corporations, to distort our political process and the very meaning of the First Amendment. Point number two, no one has a First Amendment right to drown out other peoples speech. The Supreme Court stated this clearly in 1949 case in kovacs versus cooper. In kovacs, a union in the city of john bonifaz is blaring its message with a sound truck going down every street. In response the city passed an ordinance requiring that sound trucks can only go down every third street. The Supreme Court upheld the ordinance as a reasonable regulation on the manner of speech. It found that public streets serve other Public Purposes that need to be protected, and as Justice Jackson wrote in his concurrence, freedom of speech for kovacs does not include freedom to use of sound amplifiers to drown out the National Speech of others. The d. C. Circuit court of appeals in the buckley case recognizes this very point and funny the Campaign Spending limits to be constitutional. It would be strange indeed the Appellate Court said is by extrapolation outward from the basic rights of individuals, the wealthy few could claim a constitutional guarantee to a Stronger Political voice than the unwealthy many, because they are able to get and spend more money and because the amount they give and spend cannot be limited. Campaign spending limits cant assure that big money money interests may not drown out the voices of everyone else in our political process. Point number three, todays Campaign Finance system violates the equal protection rights of nonwealthy candidates and voters. The Supreme Court has long held that wealth cannot be a determinant factor in our elections but in 1966, and harper versus board virginia board of election the court struck down the poll tax is unconstitutional on equal protection grounds. In 1972, in order to instruct a high candidate filing fees on that same basis. The Supreme Court also made clear in the exclusionary white primary case that a process which has become a critical part of the machinery for getting elected must be open to all. Todays Campaign Finance system operates as an exclusionary wealth primary in violation of the equal protection clause. Voters and candidates lacking access to wealth are effectively barred from the wealth primary. And the wealth primary has become a critical part of the machinery for getting elected. Almost invariably those candidates who win the wealth primary, who out raise and outspent their opponents, go on to win elections. A system that preselects candidates based on their access to wealth is contrary to equal protection in the political process, and an offensive to the basic principle of one person, one vote. Writing for the court in striking down high candidate in the state of texas, chief Justice Burger said quote we will ignore reality were we not to recognize that this system falls with unequal weight on voters as well as candidates according to their economic status. We would ignore reality today where we not to find that this s Campaign Finance system falls with unequal weight on voters as well as candidates, according to the economic status. Point number four, corporations are not people. In Citizens United, the cour coe quitted corporations were people and swept away a century of precedent barring corporate money in our elections. But corporations are not, as some have argued, merely associations of people. Such an argument would not pass a basic Corporate Law exam in law school. Corporations are artificial creatures of the state, unlike a voluntary Unincorporated Association of people, corporations have state based advantages that you and i as real live human beings do not have. Limited liability, perpetual life, the ability to aggregate wealth, and to just to be wealth. And for those very reasons the framers understood that they were not to be treated as people under our constitution. James madison said, corporations are quote a Necessary Evil subject to proper limitations and guards. Thomas jefferson hoped to quote crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations. Yet now as a result of Citizens United, five justices of the court have unleashed unlimited corporate and union dollars into our elections, making a dangerously corrupting system exponentially worse and extending further the fabrication of corporate claims of constitutional rights. Under our constitution and under our republic, we the people shall cover govern over corporations, not the other way around. In the face of this crisis, we must now use our power under article v of the constitution to enact a constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court and to defend our democracy and our republic. We have done this before in our nations history. 27 times before. Seven times to overturn egregious supreme Court Rulings. We can and we must do it again. And we will. For as dangerous as this moment is for our democracy, it also presents a unique and historic opportunity to unite around our common vision of america, a country may be divided on many Public Policy questions of the day, but we are united behind that basic and powerful idea. Government of, by, and for the people. Com invasion fuels the Current Movement for a constitutional amendment to reclaim our democracy. As James Madison wrote in federalist papers number 57, who are to be the electors of the federal representatives . Not the rich more than the poor. Not the learned more than ignorant. Not the heirs of distinction is more than the humble sons of obscure. The electors are to be the great body of the people of the United States. In the name of James Madison, it is time for a 28th a memo to the constitution that lifts up that fundamental promise of our democracy and makes clear that we the people, not the corporations nor the big money interests rule in america. [applause] thank you, mr. Bonifaz. Mr. Bopp, you have 10 minutes to make an opening statement. Thank you very much. I must admit, im one of those agents of the corporate and big money interests, and wisconsin right to life, Citizens United, and the most recent mccutcheon case were all my cases. And, of course, in those cases i was representing an Advocacy Group in wisconsin whose sources of funds are people of aborigines who all they wanted to do was lobby their incumbent members of the United States senate to urge them in 2004 not to filibuster president bushs judicial nominee and, of course, they ran square into mccainfeingold blackout period which made it a criminal offense for a corporation or a labor union to run any ad that simply mentions the name of a candidate for federal office. And what they wanted to do was to urge the public to contact them about an upcoming vote in congress. Now, you might wonder why is it that congress would pass such a blackout period, the people who come together into groups, people of average means, thats the only way they can participate is by coming together as a group. Why is it that congress thinks its outrageous and criminal offense for someone to have the audacity to lobby them about an upcoming vote in congress . Well, this is as old as time. Incumbent politicians object to being criticized. They hate it when people talk about what they are doing to us and for us in office. And the people who founded our country were surely one of the most Sophisticated Group of politicians and political thinkers have ever come together in the history of the world. And a new that the experiment in selfgovernment where it is the people that are going to govern themselves wanted would certainly fail if the government could decide whether the people could exercise the four indispensable democratic freedoms that allow the system of selfgovernment to operate. And that his speech, press, association, and petitioning the governmengovernmen t. So they wrote the First Amendment. John didnt mention it, but let me, which said that quote Congress Shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, press, association, and petition. Well, you know, it wasnt a few years before the Federalist Party passed the alien and sedition act in 1790 to suppress the speech of the emerging republican party. Of Thomas Jefferson. And people were prosecuted and went to jail for doing things that were considered sedition. And that is to quote disparage the government of any public official. Criticize them about what they are doing to us and for us in office. Well, it didnt work. As often these attempts by income of politicians to protect themselves against the people and using Campaign Finance to suppress their speech often doesnt work either. And Thomas Jefferson one. The alien sedition acts were repealed and the pardon of those who were convicted under it. So its perfectly obvious from that experience that its going to be difficult to get incumbent politicians to get off the train, and the train is to use government power against who they perceive to be their enemies. His speech was talking about who he perceives to be his enemies. Corporate and big money interests are his enemies. Our enemies of his liberal agenda or enemies of what he thinks is the authentic will of the people. And so what he wants to do is suppress those voices. So that he can get his agenda adopted. Through congress. Well, the incumbent politicians will do that as well and its bipartisan. It happens with people on both sides of the issue. So thats why our First Amendment was adopted. Is to prevent incumbent politicians from using the power of government to suppress who they view to be their enemies. So now, is there any doubt that they have had a difficult time understanding what the word no means . I have three daughters, you know. They thought when they were teenagers that no man, its okay this time, isnt it, dad . So it had periodic passage of laws, including the most recent mccainfeingold law, and, of course, here the irony of johns lambasting of his perceived enemies, the corporations and big money interests, the irony that mccainfeingold that he championed targets the very groups that people of average means must have in order to participate. Mccainfeingold targeted Advocacy Groups in imposing this blackout period in terms of mentioning names of candidates and broadcast ads. They attacked Political Parties for raising money, regulate under state law in order to impose more restrictions on what Political Parties could say about a candidate for federal office. They attacked the unions with the same blackout. It. They did nothing about any rich person. Theres not a sense in mccainfeingold that adversely affects the ability of a rich person to spend their own money for politics. But what about people of average means . They dont have the money. What they have to do is associate. They come together in a group, they pool their resources. Now they have the money to participate. So the rich get off, the people of average means are shut out. He calls this attacking the big money interests. I call it enabling the rich people to be the only ones that can participate in our political system. He praised the expenditure limits that were passed as part of the 1974 postwatergate amendment, which limited what a president ial candidate can spend the 20 million and a twoyear election cycle, for both the primary and the general electi election. And he calls this not suppressing speech. You know, i do agree with the fact that money is not speech. Thats always been the big lie. They say we say that. We dont say that. Its ridiculous. What the problem is, is that if you limit the money that can be spent on speech, you are limiting speech. Does anyone doubt limiting rock obama in 2008 to spending only 20 million to run for president of the United States doesnt limit his speech . Come on. John . [inaudible] of course it does. You know, somebody had to buy the soapbox. Somebody has to buy the megaphone. How many people can you communicate with that you cant spend any money to go see, to speak to them personally . [inaudible] thank you. So that is why Campaign Finance limits on spending money violate the freedom of speech is because they limit the amount of speech that somebody can do, and because the reality is that it costs money to communicate. You know, the final think i might say about johns presentation is how offensive it is that he thinks everybody thats involved in politics are crooks. I mean, they have a veritable industry that is funded by the largest private foundations, the richest by the foundations in our country that are just continually generating this concept that every public official, and many of you who may not be but worked in government, are so we just a bunch of crooks. That are available for purchase at really quite low prices. Because john has abdicated and defended contribution limits as low as 100 to run for state representative. You know, i went to law school year in florida, but honestly even in 1970 i did not a single state rep that you could buy for 100 in the state of florida. So that, he thinks they are that cheap. So its not surprising that people are cynical about politics and government and think people are crooks and you have a whole industry that spends an enormous amount of time and money and effort painting all politicians and Public Officials with this brush. And that takes is really to the kind of final a from the point that i would make. And that is the real problem in our Public Finance system right now is low contribution limits. Everything, all of the things that are disturbing people, the lack of transparency, the total lack of accountability in many instances of actors within our political system all are occurring because of the low contribution limits. Who will spend the money less efficiently, who will be less transparent or in some cases no transparency at all and are certainly unaccountable because they are not on the ballot. So these low contribution limits should be radically increased in order to allow for a much more transparent, much more accountable system which will lack many of the distortions which we suffer under currently in our system. Thank you. [applause] thank you. Okay. Were going to give each side up to three minutes to rebut, so you dont have to take the full three minutes, but if you want, you can. Thank you, robert. Well, i do want to clarify something at the outset. We at free speech for people are interested in lifting up voices, not suppressing voices. And our view of the current Campaign Finance system is that it suppresses voices. Because when you allow the very wealthy and now very wellendowed corporations and unions to drown out other peoples voices, you are effectively suppressing those voices. Now, you know, jim agrees that money does not equal speech. I think thats fabulous, that weve reached agreement on that. [laughter] i want to make clear, however, that when we limit the amount of money in our elections, we are not limiting speech. We are limiting the volume of speech. The d. C. Circuit court of appeals in the buckley case understood that, scholars of the First Amendment all over the country have understood that, Justice Stevens understands that when he says money is property, it is not speech. We limit the volume of speech. This very debate today has time restrictions for jim and for me. I cant stand up here and filibuster, because it wouldnt be an open and honest debate. We have time restrictions. We do this all the time under First Amendment jurisprudence. Reasonable time, place and manner regulations on speech. And Campaign Spending limits operate as a reasonable regulation on the manner of speech. Those who speak very, very loudly, without any limit, unlimited, are able to drown out the voices of others who do not have the money to make expenditures at those december bls. December bls. Now decibels. Now, another point of clarification, jim says i think everybody involved in politics are crooks. I happened to run for office, i dont think im a crook, i dont think everybody in politics are crooks. Thats not what were seeing at free speech for people. We do believe that a system in which candidates running for office must cater to wealthy interests and big money interests and corporate interests and Union Interests in order to win that wealth primary, in order to be successful, that that process is corrupting of the fundamental principle of political equality for all and government of, by and for the people. There are a lot of well meaning and decent people in politics, and they actually, many of them, are on the side of saying we need a constitutional amendment to overturn these supreme Court Rulings and to reclaim our democracy. [inaudible] thank you. So last point of clarification is the idea that somehow this is about a liberal agenda or, you know, that i somehow want Campaign Spending to promote a liberal agenda. I have to be very, very clear on here. Im a small democrat, im a small r republican. I believe in republican selfgovernment, and i believe in the promise of democracy. This is not an issue solely for one side of the political spectrum. 55 of the voters in montana voted for mitt romney in 2012, and 75 of those voters voted for our Ballot Initiative with common cause calling for a constitutional amendment to overturn the supreme Court Rulings. Across the political spectrum and across the country, people believe that this system undermines the fundamental promise of democracy regardless of their ideology. This is about a small d democracy agenda. Thank you. [applause] thank you. Mr. Bopp, same ground rules. Three minutes if you these it. Thank you. You know, no selfrespecting lawyer would ever Say Something in a sentence that could be said in a paragraph. [laughter] so im really glad that, ive debated john a number of times, im really glad he finally heard me say, which identify said for decades, that money is not speech, but that spending money on speech, if you limit that, then, of course, youre limiting speech. He says he doesnt want he wants to lift up but not suppress. Now, you know, lifting up would be public funding, giving money to people who dont have money so that they can speak. Lifting up would be tax credits which, by the way, im in favor of for people making modest contributions to candidates, pacs and parties. Thats lifting up. Thats enhancing the ability of someone to speak. Thats not what hes talking about. What hes talking about is shutting up other people that he thinks, he thinks and he thinks he can get the government to think spends too much. And, of course, it isnt anybody that spends too much. He hasnt said a single word about the unions that are going to spend 400 million in this election cycle to support their agenda and his agenda. So this is, hes talking about suppressing voices that he doesnt want to hear. And that he thinks that he can get the government to shut up. The court has repeatedly rejected this idea that you enhance the voice of somebody by suppressing the voice of another. No, you dont. And its not a question that theres not enough, like, ad time where people can go buy additional ads. You know, its not that these ads are all bought up, so theyre not available. They are available. And we need to look at ways to enhance the ability of people to participate, and, of course, he attacks those which are corporations and labor unions and praises the decisions that it would drive them out of the political system. And, of course, thats the only way people of average means get to participate. Were not talking about how high the volume is on a particular ad. Were talking about how many ads you can buy. He wants to limit the number of ads or prohibit people from buying ads, particularly people that he doesnt like. Now, cater to the wishes of the wealthy or the corporate whatever things hes been saying, the phraseology he used. Big money interest withs. Interests. You know, isnt that an interesting word, cater to . What does that mean . What is he driving at . Does he think that its wrong that politicians have friends . Does he think its wrong that they give 100 in a Campaign Contribution . He supported such low limits. You know, we have contribution limits in order to prevent the undue influence of a particular contribution. The court upheld that in order to exclude large contributions that would tend to unduly influence jim, excuse me, you have less than a minute. Wrap it up, okay . Thank you. Thank you. Theyre talking about undue influence of not friendship, gratitude or appreciation. Theyre talking about quid pro quo corruption. The final thing, the fact that he has absolutely no interest in reopposing the limits that both corporations and labor unions shared before Citizens United, has no interest in imposing that on unions demonstrates conclusively that this is a partisan effort. They, unions, are the biggest spenders in our, as a group, in our political system. Theyre seconded by trial lawyers and, of course, theyre rich individuals. He doesnt want to limit them either. So the two biggest groups, he has no interest in spenders and limiting, and they are the two biggest groups supporting the democrats and the unions. So this is without a doubt a political, a partisan political effort just to shut up voices that he personally doesnt like, and this is exactly what our founders wanted to prevent. [applause] thank you. We will give you i know its not much time, but a minute each at the end. Joe runs a very tight ship here, so we have to stay on schedule. But we have questions from the audience. I have not seen these. I dont know if theyre directed some of them look like theyre just general questions. If you dont mind answering from there. And im just, like i say, looking at these for the first time. One question is did Citizens United allow unlimited donations to candidates, question mark, by unions and corporations, question mark . If not, what is the problem . Well, first of all, ive got to headache clear that i have not said, nor have we said at free speech for people that we want to support the idea of Unlimited Money in union elections. Weve made clear in the constitutional amendment we support would equally apply to corporations and to unions. We believe the whole decision of Citizens United, which allows unlimited corporate and union money in our elections, is wrong. So jim has just gotten that completely inaccurate in terms of how he views what the amendment would say. As far as unlimited donations directly to candidates, it is correct that there are still direct limits on what you can give to candidates. But the problem here is that we have unlimited expenditures. We have the ability of unions, corporations, wealthy individuals to make unlimited expenditures. This has resulted, of course, in super pacs as well postCitizens United. The problem does predate Citizens United and goes back to that earlier case i cited of buckley, and its why we must engage in overturning these rulings, because unlimited expenditures undermine any purpose of having direct contribution limits. The unlimited expenditures allow these big money forces and corporate forces and union forces to dominate our elections and our politics. And, you know, just one other point on this which is public funding elections, i fully support public funding elections. Ive within in court defending public funding of elections. This is not about one reform versus the other, but today in the postCitizens United and postmccutcheon v. Sec area, public funding of elections will be very much vulnerable to this idea that wealthy individuals and big money interests and Corporate Union forces can have unlimited expenditures. So we need all these reforms moving forward. Just a couple points. First is many of the things and john and i have known each other for years, and weve debated several times, and i know what he supports, and he knows what i support. And his criticism of Citizens United, as you heard in his opening speech and his rebuttal, was all about corporations. Nice when i challenge him that he wants to throw unions in too, and i wasnt talking about his amendment. And i do agree that his amendment would encompass unions, but it would also encompass the press. You know, this is one of the big secrets out there that the reformers dont want cspan and others to figure out, and that is that these amendments will allow, will mean the New York Times v. Sullivan is overassumed, that that was overruled. That was a decision, many of you know, that protects political people running for office. Im sorry, it protects citizens and their ability to criticize people running for office by imposing a higher standard for libel actions against citizens by politicians. And, of course, one of the things that they had to, the court had to decide because this involved the states was that the 14th amendment does confer rights on people, and the question was, was the New York Times a person . And the court has long decided that under the 14th amendment that, you know, the corporations and many other entities and people are encompassed within those protections. What he doesnt say is that he would also overturn New York Times versus sullivan. He would treat the media, of course, which is currently owned in many instances by multibillion Dollar International corporate conglomerates that he rails against, he would allow them to suppress the speech of the press. If you look before 1974, the court cases, what you will find is that all the big free speech court cases involved the press. The miami herald, right here, sued because the it was a florida law that required that if they criticize a candidate, that they had to give equal time and space for candidates rebuttal in the newspaper, and the Supreme Court struck that down. The montgomery, alabama, paper had to sue because of a law that said they couldnt endorse candidates on election day. So the press has been one of the real targets of incumbent politicians and reformers who want to control everybodys speech and decide whos worthy of speaking or not speaking and what voices are to be suppressed because he doesnt like the message. And the press has been one of those targets. And, of course, is targeted once again in his amendment. Were not going to be able to get to all of these questions, but i have a few others. One is, and this is for you, mr. Bopp. The question is, mr. Bopp, do you believe there should be any ceiling on the amount of money that a corporation or union can contribute to a Political Campaign, and then i guess kind of a corollary to that is do you think that money that is contributed has no influence on how the legislature or other official votes once theyve been elected . All right. First, limits. Right now corporations and labor unions can be prohibited from contributing to candidates. Citizens united involved independent speech, not contributions. Contributions are also subject to a lower standard under the law as far as allowing contribution limits to be had. I do think that theyre abysmally low. You know, im very involved in the republican party, and i say to republican groups and ill chance it here you cant even buy a democrat congressman for 2600. [laughter] so, and the anecdotal evidence is it takes six figures. You know, congressman williamjefferson of new orleans, he had 99,000 this cold, hard cash in his freezer. And he went to jail. To be bipartisan, duke cunningham, republican from sand yea owe san diego, he came this for an earmark of a weapons system, he was chairman of the House Armed Services committee. He would literally pull out a schedule, and the lowest schedule based on the value of your earmark was 140,000 ask a yacht. And a yacht. I dont know where he got the yacht thing, but in any event, you know, so to buy these people, you know, it takes much more than 2600. And the effect on our system has been a tremendous distortion driving money away from the most accountable and transparent sources. You know, i think its fine, you know, great that we have super pacs. I won the first case in a court of appeals saying that super pacs were legal. But im not in favor of driving money to them. And by having these low contribution limits, thats what we see. You cant vote against a super pac. You can only vote against a candidate or maybe the parties, the Political Parties candidates. And so theyre accountable, super pacs arent. And, of course, what john proposes and supports would do, you know, continue to create that distortion. The other question on influence, yes, i can see and this is why i keep going pack and forth on whether back and forth on whether i really support contribution limits. Yes, i can see that there are some politicians that if you give enough money to them, youll be able to unduly influence them meaning that youll be able to get them to change their vote from what they would have otherwise voted to something else, but it, frankly, it just takes a lot more money than 2600. So, you know, if its really a seriously large contribution, i can see some undue influence, and i think we have to make a decision whether on balance we want to be able to know what interests are influencing our politicians because they actually give them the money, and we can vote for or against them. I mean, when the interest gives money to a super pac, how does anybody know that has anything to do with candidate x or candidate y . How do they know it has anything to do even with what the super pac does . So, and leave it to the voters . Frankly, i go back and forth on that. So ill just jump in here. You know, i think that the other dimension of this question needs to be about the promise of political equality for all. 2600 is not something that the vast majority of the American People have at their disposal to contribute to political candidates. You know, the kind of money thats coming into the system is coming in from. 0001 of the population. Those are the people who are participating in this Campaign Financing process. So jim talks about, you know, ordinary voices wanting to participate, but the vast majority of the money coming in to the system is coming from the very top percent of our society. And that is undermining the principle of one person, one vote and the promise of political equality for all. The only other thing i would add on the freedom of the press point, id urge jim to read the amendment. There is an exception in the amendment, you can get access via freespeechforpeople. Org. Section three of senator udalls amendment says nothing in this amendment would abridge freedom of the press. The questions around freedom of the press are different questions. You know, editors, journalists, producers, they all have freedom of the press rights as individuals, and those are protected under this amendment. Okay. Thank you. I guess moderators privilege here. Im going to go off the board and ask either one of you a question if you want to respond, and this is more of an issue, i guess, that occurs in local elections, but the notion of the wealthy candidate who finances his own campaign where he doesnt need contributions from be anybody whether its mayor bloom pirg or recently in the city of miami beach we had a very wealthy person elected to office. Do either of you have any thoughts about wealthy people who doesnt take Campaign Donations yes. I think its destructive for democracy as well, again, for those same policy concerns. In buckley the court faced the question coming out of congress of Campaign Spending limits passed in the wake of the watergate scandal which would apply across the board to independent expenditures, to candidate expenditures including whether they raised it from their wealthy friends or whether they raised it from their own bank account. But it is not, it is not what democracys about when we allow only those who are very wealthy to play this game, to enter into politics or to have is access to wealthy friends. Now, i understand at the very local levels of government it may be different in terms of the kind of money that it takes to run for office. But the ultimate trajectory that were on here with this Campaign Fund raising process is even in the local elections were going to see Citizens United have a destructive impact. Because if you dare at a local level to go out against a big corporate interest or a big Union Interest and i did mention union in my opening remarks, but perhaps jim needs to read them outside of this event but if you dare to go against those kinds of interests, they now under Citizens United have the ability to come in and make unlimited, independent expenditures targeting you and make that race antidemocratic. And i think thats troubling as well. Okay. Mr. Bopp be, any thoughts to respond to my question . Yes, sure, i do. It is true that what johns approach to this is all about equality and nothing about freedom. And, of course, he thinks he can shoe horn that in under the first well, he used to think, good point. He used to think he could shoe horn that under the First Amendment, and now he realizes he has to change the constitution in order to get that concept in there. And he has his own peculiar view of equality. Hes not in favor of, so much of equality under the law here. What hes in favor of is equality of results; that is, not that everybody gets the opportunity to spend, but that everybody can spend what any other person can spend. Now, think about that consequentially. If equality is the driving consideration, well, then that means since there are a significant number of people that cant contribute anything to candidates, then really equality means no one can contribute to any candidate. That would only be the context of true equality. And, frankly, points to really where i think john wants to go, and that is governmentrun elections, not free elections run by the people and the government would decide how much you get and how much you spend and what you can spend it on, and there we would be. But he wants to target labor unions simply demonstrates his view that its not about the rich people. Its about people of average means pooling their resources. Thats what labor unions of all organizations, thats what labor unions do. Their members pooling their resources and participating. So he thinks that a bunch of people who are very modest in means because they pool they have the audacity to pool their resources and participate in a system are an evil force that needs to be suppressed. Now, as to the rich generally, you know, i think its fine if they participate in our political system. I just dont want them to be the only ones that get to participate. And thats why we need the participation of labor unions and associations and corporations and Advocacy Groups in our system. On the political effect of this which he seems to be somewhat interested in anyway, what i have found is that theres more liberal democrat rich people than there are conservatives and, frankly, i admit to being a republican and a conservative. And while some liberal interests seem the think that they stand in the way of seem to think that they stand in the way of getting their liberal agenda, you know, they find out differently when they go to hollywood and raise the enormous sums that they do from the richest people in our country. But, look, theres rich people on both sides. This is not about partisan politics or puppishing those people punishing those people you dont like or suppressing those youre fearful, you know, speak out in opposition to your favorite policy, but about the ability of all of us to participate have outlets of participation in our political system that are not foreclosed by partisan efforts by Government Agencies to suppress our speech. Okay. I dont know if either of you want a minute to sum up. Mr. Bopp, it sounded like that was a summation, but you can have another minute if you want it. [laughter] i can always Say Something else. [laughter] im sure you can. As is most lawyers prerogative, they do like to talk. Mr. Bonifaz, anything to say in summation . Yes. And as i make a summation, i would just say there are many, many unions that support this constitutional amendment because they recognize that they cannot compete with exxonmobil and chevron in the political process, and they need to have an equal and level playing field. As far as, you know, where were going with this overall movement, you know, dr. King, dr. Martin luther king jr. Said the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice. And, you know, when we look at what happened in the poll tax case going before the Supreme Court, we have to remember that was in 1956 case. I stated earlier before that there was a case wrought in 1937. A group of poor voters challenged the poll tax, a fee charged to voters in order to vote. They got to the Supreme Court. They lost. The Supreme Court said it was necessary to charge these fees in order to ferret out the frivolous votes. So if you were a serious voter, you could come up with that 1, 1. 50 it took in order to vote. 1951 a second group of oar voters challenged the poll tax. They, too, got to the Supreme Court, and they, too, lost on the same grounds. And then on the way to harper v. Virginia board of elections, the 24th amendment to the constitution was enacted barring poll taxes in federal elections. But there remained four Southern States that held on to the poll tax for state elections, and virginia was one of them. And thats why in 1966 the Supreme Court finally got it right, and the court said what qualified as equal protection under the equal protection clause does change and does can evolve. And does evolve. Dr. King is correct, the right side of history is one that says that democracy will prevail, not big money interests, big Union Interests, big corporate interests drowning out our speech and undermining the fundamental promise of political equality for all. Thank you. You know, when we were designing the time limits here, i thought, you know, how could we give a lawyer one minute for anything . [laughter] but were trying. Mr. Bopp, youre closing thoughts on this topic . You know, the example that john just gave demonstrates the fallacy this his argument. In his argument. The government set the poll tax, and the government then imposed the obstacle or burden on people participating. Government doesnt determine the price of ads. The government hasnt decided that ads are going to cost something. Its the market place, its the private reality, one, and its private people doing that. You know, are you going to get the lumberjack to work for free to cut down the free in order to make the newsprint so that you can do this for free . You know . So its not about the government imposing a barrier, its about the government providing for freedom and preventing the government from imposing a barrier which is a [inaudible] of speech by criminal penalty that john has supported and continues to support. Secondly, as to exxon mobile and chevron, to hi knowledge they my knowledge they havent done a dog gone thing after Citizens United. Matter of fact, very few private companies, forprofit companies had. Labor unions do, but not private companies because of the market forces. They dont want to get into controversy. They dont want to lose customers, etc. What we have seen, though, is Advocacy Groups of all stripes participating and having new avenues of participation since Citizens United. The final thing is, you know, weve really reached the Tipping Point as far as contribution limits are concerned. Weve had 13 states including florida raise their contribution limits, and the reason is quite simple. Finally, the forces of reality is sinking in on incumbent politicians that by limiting contributions to them, theyre not preventing challengers from getting the resources, theyre actually hurting themselves visavis these independent spenders of super pacs and 527s and Advocacy Groups. Here are what some of you are saying. Again join the conversation at facebook. Com cspan. Congress returns to capitol hill this week to the senate will be gaveling in at 2 p. M. Eastern today. They will vote on a judicial nomination and whether to move forward on a bill that opens more federal land for hunting and fishing. The house returns tomorrow. You can watch the house live on cspan. We will have the senate live here on cspan2. The internet content i think we would all agree should remain free from regulation especially if not totally from the fcc regulation. Susan crawford said its like confusing the conversation for the sidewalk. Of course, we want the conversation to be for an unbreakable it and the fcc has no place regarding content online. They have always measure the condition pathway stays open so today whether regulate phone system or least the sec doesnt make of it what i think you when i call you but they make sure the pathway is open, affordable, available, and they are for everybody to use spent its crucial to think about whether those platforms remain open the way they have historically. The internet has grown up as a network where anyone can communicate to anyone can get online. A company can get access to the network and become in some cases like google or facebook, a huge business. And its vital that that not change as the internet evolves. Opinions on fcc internet policy and the flow and speed of web traffic tonight at eight eastern on the communicators on cspan2. The Second Amendment rights was the topic at grass roots North Carolinas 20th annual dinner in midjune. You hear from a young widow who helped tennessee and ohio change their concealed weapons laws after her husband was slain by a stalker in a national restaurant. Also stand your ground law expert, ben writes author john lott and gun owners of America Executive director larry pratt. This is an hour and a half. Our first speaker tonight is someone i had conversed with and to conversed with and he was instrument in helping us past restaurant care in North Carolina. Nickie gossard worked in a nightclub in tennessee when a stalker broke in and killed her husband. Nikki was prevented from protecting herself because at that point in time, unlike North Carolina into recently, she was prohibited from carrying her concealed handgun within any restaurant that served alcohol. I met nikki at the sick and in march a number of years ago, it determined that this was a person we need to have been North Carolina. Has become a national advocate for restaurant carry and conceal laws in june. I bring you nikki gossard. [applause] thank you so much. Paul and others i think is what you have in here to speak with you about the importance of our Second Amendment. Im a victim of a violent crime. My name is nikki goeser and im from nashville, tennessee. Back in 2009 my husband was shot six times right in front of myself. By a man who had been stalking me, right in the middle of a busy restaurant. This restaurant just so happened to survive all. It was a restaurant where my husband and i ran our mobile karaoke business out of. We had an agreement with the restaurant owner. We also ran these shows in downtown nashville, which is where i met a man who suddenly showed up on the scene out of nowhere, and at first he seemed halfway normal. Then he started coming in more often, for karaoke night, and eventually i realized there was something not right with him. He had never threatened me. There was no restraining order. We all know that restraining orders is simply a piece of paper. And i ended up having to block him from my social network, which is how we would advertise our business and retain our customer base, because he was sending me some inappropriate messages. I had to tell them, look, im happily married and what youre saying to me is inappropriate. He continued to come to my shows. Again, he never threatened to me. And then he came to one of my shows at a restaurant i had never seen him before. This particular restaurant was a good 35 minutes away from downtown nashville where he normally came. At that point i realized this is not just a dedicated karaoke customer. This is not someone with a simple crush on me. This man is stalking me. So the moment i saw him, i told ben, i dont feel comfortable with that man who. Im going to Ask Management to remove him. And ben said okay, do whatever you need to do. I went to go get management, and they confronted him and asked him to leave. And he proceeded to pull a 45 out from under his jacket, and shoot ben six times. He actually stood over ben and continued to fire into his body while he was on the floor. I was a handgun at carry permit and on at the time. Still and. But i had to leave my permit that are normally carry for selfdefense, locked in my vehicle. I follow the law. The man that was stalking he did not have a handgun carry permit. He was not following the law. Murder is already illegal. And you know, the law did nothing to stop him. People with evil intent could care less about the law. Its those of us that are lawabiding that kerry they care about the law. Obviously, my life has been changed forever. Losing ben to that type of violence, but its violence. I get tired of hearing people talk about gun violence. Lets talk about violence. I never blame the gun. I blame the murderer. And to tell you the truth, i blame legislators that printed me from being able to carry where i needed to be so i could protect my husband and i. And it is my firm belief that gun free zones are killing zones for criminal protection zones. People that want to be evil can harm or kill, knowing that no one there can stop them. Weve all heard the same when seconds count, the police are only minutes away. Well, i can tell you that its true. And you know, i dont blame the police. I have a huge amount of respect for Law Enforcement. But even Law Enforcement knows that they can be anywhere and everywhere at any time. The Police Officers came on the scene within three minutes of the 911 call, ive been told. And they were there in enough time to put up the crying scene tape crime scene tape and take pictures of my husband. You know, i think we all make decisions based on options that we have to. And ill never know if i couldve prevented that from happening. Because that option was not available to me. So the decisions that i made were based on the options that i had. And icy time after time on the news, we see these shootings occur. Arthe only thing the media will not tell you, the majority, if not all of these shootings occur in gun free zones. There are places were evil people now that no one can stop them. They know it. Thats why they go there. They want to get that higher body bag count. Very sick, demented, evil people. I dont think anyone actually ever delays this kind of violence can happen to them. You know, i had my handgun carry permit and i went through my training, you know, i tried to be prepared. I never looked at it as being careless to i look at it as being prepared. And it happened to us. And i dont want you to be paranoid. I simply want you and your family to be prepared, he could you never know when evil is going to choose to pay you a visit. Evil can strike anywhere, no matter where you are. The question is will he be prepared to stop that threat . Those valuable seconds when that event is happening is when it needs to be stopped, before the evil person can harm more innocent people. You know, i worked really hard after bens murder with senator doug jackson in tennessee. Hes actually a democrat. He was the sponsor of the restaurant carry bill. When i got on the phone with them, told them everything that had happened. And he invited me to the state capital and had me sit with them while i told my story. They ended up rest passing the restaurant carry bill. In the state of tennessee you can now carry in the restaurants that serve alcohol as long as youre permit holder, as long as you are not drinking any alcohol. And they are still allowed because of the provisions if they choose to. I personally choose not to go to those places. If you are not going to give me the ability to protect myself, and youre not going to protect me either, well, i have a problem with that. I dont want to give them my money. Actually have these little cars that carry around with me that tell them, youre a gun free so bad its a false sense of security. You have to stop and ask itself, who is most likely to follow this silly rules, you know . Someone that wants to harm people is not going to carry about that sign. Care about that site but its a false sensitivity. I also testified before the ohio legislature, the house and senate, and they now have the restaurant carry law, and i submitted my written testimony here, for your North Carolina legislators. And now you have restaurant carry. Despite what the media would have you believe, and i know you all saw on the news, they kept saying that it would be the o. K. Corral. It would be the wild west. They would be blood running in the streets. They said in tennessee. They said the same thing in ohio. They said the same thing here. And guess what . It never happened. But its funny, the media doesnt want to go back and talk about how very wrong they were. You know, less than 1 of hundreds of thousands of permit holders, less than 1 of permit holders ever do anything wrong with a gun. I cant think of any segment of society thats any more law abiding. These are not the people doing horrible things. These are the good people out there that want to be able to stop those bad guys from taking innocent life. And i do believe we all have the right to protect ourselves. Its our Second Amendment. Its pretty basic. We have the basic human right of selfdefense. Now let me tell you about our criminal Justice System. I tell people, its not a Justice System. Its just a system. [laughter] [applause] it took about three years for my husbands murder to finally stand trial. And ill tell you a few things about the case. When the police searched his vehicle, his truck that night, they found two more guns, shotgun and rifle, a baseball bat, innocuous, gloves, rope and a knife. Now, the more i thought about those items, i cannot help but think that somehow this man had probably planned on harming me. And what i didnt tell you about the story is i went and hid inside a brick wall when i went to get management and ask if they would remove him. Something told me, stay where you are. Dont let him see, dont even let him see where you went to that management handle this. That was my option to hide. And there is some survivors guilt in that. That im the one who lived and ben died. I got in a pretty scary situation, so it could happen to anyone. I just want you to know that that judge, it was number one insanity defense. That seems to be the go to defense these days, insanity. The judge dropped it from first degree the second degree. And that man is going to get out of prison. They gave him 23 years. Hes already served five. So one day im going to have to deal with this person that took the love of my life away from me. Hes a very, very dangerous person. Thats what the criminal Justice System has done. And i think its pathetic. So it is, yeah. Dont rely on 911. Im not saying you shouldnt call 911, but i think youd be prepared to protect yourself further. You know, and then call 911. Because it might take a while before they get there. And certainly you cant rely on our criminal Justice System. You cant rely on the criminal Justice System at all. And i would just tell you to protect yourself and your family, and really think about who you are voting for. The first thing i care about is how they feel about my basic human rights in selfdefense. That tells the Everything Else i need to know. Our second a minute, you know, thats the one right that protects all others. They are not good on that, i can assure you they are not good on anything else. Thank you so much. [applause] i dont make the case for selfdefense and the defense of the family gets any more compelling than that. Our next speaker i actually met at a Charlotte Law School forum, both of us were panelists. I heard his presentation and it was so compelling that i said, i have to bring this guy back to North Carolina for a presentation at our annual dinner. Andrew brockett is a former expert on u. S. Selfdefense law against across all 50 states. His expertise has been used by the wall street journal, chicago tribune, npr, numerous other media organizations by private, state and federal agencies but hes a massachusetts lawyer, a life member of the nra. We all have that problem occasionally. [laughter] and an adjunct professor on the law of selfdefense in new hampshire. He lectures and speaks throughout the country and how to protect itself against both an attack and the legal machine afterwards. Hes a master class idp a competitor, nra certified firearms instructor, he holds numerous concealed handgun permits from i can see here, and his book, the laws of selfdefense hoosiers were reviewed in the nras first freedom magazine. Its had to say and i quote sets of most gun owners are so lawabiding that have no personal expense with the criminal justice process, he gives an overview of the crimes that may be charged in selfdefense case. Including what you expect from an investigative and judicial process in which none of the people who will have been will understand what it was like at that desperate moment. Andrew is the author of the laws of selfdefense, and his topic tonight is stand your ground, the whole truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I bring you andrew branca. [applause] hey, folks. Before i start my, well, in formal comments, i just want to say its easy for all of us in this fight Second Amendment rights to come to think there were only fighting texas politicians which, of course, we are. But hearing try to talk its important what were actually are actually fighting is evil. All right . Evil walking the earth among us. Want to make us defenseless. Important never forget thats the true fight. These are the only series comments for the evening. Im not a very serious guy. I guess paul mentioned it but ill bet the bandaid right off. Im a lawyer. Its true but its worse than that. Im a massachusetts lawyer. At yankee. I yankee in your midst. Its very interesting for me to ask him from massachusetts and ive been a member of the Gun Community my entire life. I started competitive shooting as a young teenager and engaged in all my life. To come of a place like massachusetts where you basically, you dont mention guns, like its some kind of forbidden religious faith thats not allowed to edit to come to such a gun from a climate like this. Is also entering kind of a gun Abuse Recovery program. I feel like i should stand up and say, i name is andrew [laughter] im a gun abuse or. I love guns. Its true, i love them. Ive loved them all my life and i love them for the fun, pleasure they bring me in target shooting and competitive shooting at 11 they can do for me if come in terms of maybe up to protect myself and my family and, of course, with the meme in the more traditional perspective, of our ability to resist the threat of tyranny. The importance of having the guns in the first place in our possession britains tyranny from taking. In the first place. Right lacks we need not asked to bear arms against our government. Are government fears us their arms against the. Its a deterrent effect that we want and the only good, deterrent only good is to preserve and protect that right to keep and bear arms. Despite being a massachusetts attorney, i consider myself a Second Amendment at absolutist. By which i mean all prior restraint gun laws are on the feet unconstitutional. Any mandatory permitting requirements, any ff africana to any class two, three, four requirements, any excise tax on firearms, anything, any prior restraint on the ability to own the ownership of small arms is unconstitutional on its face and should be recognized as such. When the day comes, god willing, that the courts apply strict scrutiny to the thousands of gun laws we have to do with today. They will fall before us. I guess i get serious, did not . Sorry about that. I have to say if youd asked me 20 years ago, 20 years ago, 20 years ago i got my concealed carry permit. s started caring a pistol fulltime but if you told me that 20 years later i would be a proponent with folks like john lott and larry pratt, decide and we did a ridiculous notion. Its so fun to be here with guns. These giants of the gun rights movement. These are people who wrote the book. That motivated me even in massachusetts to become an activist in the gun rights community. This average generation stands on its shoulders of giants who came before them and these guys are its. We ought to applaud them. [applause] and i think both of them, including paul, help establish the amazing workstation, to be among the first to say that nothing happens without you guys. Thats all of us. Even Little People like me, massachusetts attorney. They can motivate and they motivate people who are willing to do the hard work that needs to be done to make the legislatures pass the laws they need to pass in order for gun rights to be protected. Can i ask is the children running for the health board . Could ask you to stand up . [laughter] i want to make a point that may not be clear to many of you but he works so hard to pass legislation is favorable to gun owners, but its important recognize legislative acts are really just desires of the legislature. Without where the rubber meets the road, where the effect is in the courts. Most importantly the court of appeals and the Supreme Court of the state and if we do not elect the people in those positions will rule on those laws when we need them to, you can pass all the legislation you want and they will have no effect. So this gentleman and his peers, make sure you support him in these elections. [applause] talk about stand your ground. Im already 45 minutes past my time. [laughter] so i keep it as succinct as possible. Theres a lot of misinformation about stand your ground. Kind of the phrase has become a bogeyman of the gun control activist. What were really seeing here by the way is the opening of a new front against our gun rights. They have effectively stalemated laws in the near term, the guncontrol movement. Of course, we never give a. We always had to fight. They are kind of like a cancer. The moment he take a i often they come back. They decide theyre not gain much ground so they turn away from turned their attention to ability to actually use these guns. In selfdefense. So now theyre becoming less gun control is in the nearterm and more selfdefense controlling. Theyre saying okay, all right, we try to take your guns away from you, didnt work. We try to keep you from carrying guns. That didnt work. We try to limit the places you could carry the guns, didnt work. Now what we will do is we will make sure if you carry it, you can carry it, no problem but if you ever use it, we are going to destroy you, destroy you economically, destroy your politically and if were lucky, well get you sent to jail for the rest of your life. So one of the things was stand your ground. Because stand your ground makes it far more difficult to accomplish what they would like to accomplish, which is to destroy us. Unfortunately, a lot of they use the phrase stand your ground to stand your ground to me a lunch of the things. If they only use it to mean what action is, they get no support. Lets face it, if these people didnt live them have nothing to say at all, right . So they pick a phrase stan stanr ground and they lied about it. Lets talk about what stand your ground is, what it isnt and why its important, whatever the formal title of my talk is. To understand stand graduate to understand what selfdefense is in the first place. A legal defense. Which you are saying, yes, i use force against another person perhaps even deadly force against another person. But i was legally justified in doing that under the doctrine of selfdefense. How do you qualify . You have to meet the five elements of celtic and. Does anybody here are you guys put your fingers in your ears. You purchase 5000 times already. The five elements of selfdefense are proportionately, avoidance and reasonableness. Innocence and you cant have been the aggressor in the fight. Makes sense, right . By the way, thats always been e minority position, and currently its by far the