Then there are others who just want to talk and dont want to do nothing. Okay . So we have to have conversations, walk in one anothers shoes and take the responsibility of doing something. [ applause ] i recognize that that table has Shaw High School students. And welcome. Were glad youre here. And im a big fan of Morgan Freeman but i cant completely agree with him. Maybe he meant you cant just talk about it. But i think thats where we start. And i said i was hopeful. But we do need to take more action. And folks, the system thats leading them to prison. This mass incarceration and get out of prison and cant get jobs and cant vote in some states. They cant participate in our society. Going back to school, they are under funded. We need to be devoting resources to that. We can talk about it but we also have to make those policy decisions and choices. Money will speak. And were concerned about police brutality. The police department. I mean we could be spending millions on investigations. We need to be spending money on resources on training or good hiring practices. On proper investigations with accountability. All that takes resources and a rededication of our effort. So we do need to talk about but we as i said before need to take action too. Right. And some of those actions can include things like body cameras. The president spoke about that. Things like that that cost money. But they can make a difference. Im excited by the fact that we have these videos out there. People cant deny today that these incidents happen. We have them on video. They still get free. That didnt help eric garner unfortunately. Well, you know, there are still. Civil actions may bring some remedy to that situation. I dont think its over. But we dont know what is going to happen here in cleveland. And its terrible watching those videos over and over again. We know what happened now. It cant be denied. We cant pretend this doesnt happen anymore. Thats true. So bringing together the community i think we can make a difference now and make the necessary changes going forward. I have hope about that. Next question . As a young person in my experience, from people of different ethnic backgrounds and socioeconomic statuses i hear a lot of i dont sea color. Can you explain why to people who may want to understand that is something that moves us back in this fight to understand and combat racism . Ill keep it simple. I think thats a lie. I mean if you can see, you see color. And seeing color doesnt mean that you are proactively racist. It means that you are acknowledging. We can acknowledge differences. What we shouldnt do and cannot do is deny human dignity. Thats plain and simple right there. Next question. I know someone mentioned that cleveland is the fourth most segregated city in this country. And i know that with the rebranding of cleveland with uptown which is 10 minutes away from some of the worst parts of our city. And im just asking how can we as youth combat the segregation in this city in the future . Clearly having a black mayor has not helped. Clearly having a democratic mayoral cabinet has not helped. So what can we do in the future to combat the segregation that contributes to the racism in cleveland . First we have to combat the segregation even amongst ourselves. You know you have young people who what school do you go to little sister. [inaudible]. You go to Hathaway Brown. So you have a young lady from hatway Hathaway Brown who may not spend time with a young lady from laurel. Or let me go deep right no i if you dont mind. Watch it now. Even within the African American community there is a segregation. So a young lady from Hathaway Brown. She must think she this that and the third. And im from east tech. I think like this. And this that. So there is a we help create a program at laurel i believe it was called guiding star. I forget the name. But they go and they make a connection between that school and a school within the quote unquote inner city. So there have to be more dialogue with Martin Luther King High School and Shaw High School and solon and so on. There has to be that. But i want to go even deeper and say when we talk about racism the worst passionatert about racism is it creates self hatred. Where you look in the mirror and you dont like what you see. Youve been told too long you are too this or too that and it has begun to effect you. And some people play into the perceptions that people have about us. Like like yall generation are some chumps man, like scared man. I mean you not afraid to fight from what streets you come from. But you afraid to fight to better your school. You afraid to fight and stand up for your community when they shot down tamir rice. Where were you . Well i didnt want to march . You could have wrote a letter. What are you not you im talking about your cousins and them. See some of yall getting angry. Some of yall like trippin. Some your cousins. Like what are crow doing . What are you doing . You can talk about who hates you all day but what are you doing ipg. Some of you are afraid to be different. You go back to your schools and you just following the crowd. You just going through our school dressing how everybody dress, talking how everybody talk. Not some of you but too many of us. And what happens to the school . Think about whats happening in our community. There are some people who need to go to jail. I understand what youre saying but some people need to go to jail. We got some cousins and stuff who they need to be locked up for sure. If not when they get out they are going to cause a problem. For sure. So what im saying to you and i is and i my mr. Gordon said this. Or someone said this. But what are you doing . What can you do better in your life . Do your little brother know more wok kah flock kah lyrics than ab abcs. Do your little cousin know ushers dont mind you know what im talking about. Do they know those lyrics better than their multiplication tables. There are things you can change within your house and your community that just because the teacher think im stupid does not mean that is the way i have to act. The question is how are you going to change yourself. And when i was young i wanted to change the world but when i got older i wanted to change the galaxy within myself. When you change you, the world around you with change, without a doubt. [ applause ] we have time for one more question. Hi everyone. My name is daniele. I have a comment but you can just respond back to it. The question you asked before was how was like, how do we lose our race or how do we embrace our race now. But i think the question more should be how was it lost . It was lost more when we came over on the Middle Passage with all the males laying next to us. The dead people the vomit are laying right next it. We could do for it. The thats when it was lost. You know, like in class, history for instance they teach us were stuck on industrialization. That is all they teach us in class. Slavery is the last topic in the book. They dont want to get that far you know, because they have to deal with discipline. We dont get that far in the back of the book. The only thing we know about slavery is there were sharecrop sharecroppers sharecroppers, emancipation proclamation. You know, just the basic. Last year i gave a speech on the willie lynch letter. Most people dont have a clue what that is. He was a slave master and he tried to trade he wanted to turn the black race against each other with age, race, gender. He turned them against each other and he wrote a letter about it. And other slave owners started to use that method, the willie lynch letter. I spoke on that and many people dont know about that because were stuck on the industrialization and the Progressive Movement and all of that. And one comment about what you said, sir, you said that some bad apples. Honestly i think that there arent any bad apples. The whole system is bad. This whole system a bad apple. There are systemic problems. Yeah we reflect the system that oppresses us. Thank you. [ applause ] you got to take that niche ti like you just did and take it outside of school. Initiative. I want to give you reality. When we were marching in ferguson i was withmarching with a 90yearold jewish women. And all kind of people. So the march was diverse. I dont want you to think that this mission to up lyft humanity is not a mission to taken up by everyone. There are all people who understand whats going on and standing up and fighting for you. And there are people in your community who look just like who are helping with the destruction of it. So we have to keep our minds open and work with those who want to work withous. And day say way from those who want to work with with us. I want to astart with there is a systemic problem. But we also need to study history. And we also need to recognize all the progress that has happened since slavery. We have a long way to go to recognize well let me ask you all, do you know what happened on january 15 1929 . Martin luther kings birthday. And we should acknowledge that. And his actual birthday is tomorrow. And im honored to be here celebrating his birthday as well. But i hope you are studying the civil rights movement. That was 50 years ago and my students think that was ancient history like slavery the civil war. But that wasnt. That was my lifetime. I grew up in that period. I remember april 4, 1968 too when he was killed. But its been 50 years over 50 years now since. We have come a long way. We still have a long way to go. Do people see color or claim they dont see color anymore. That is ridiculous. We all see differences but we need to embrace our differences. Whether we are ablebodied. Whether were lgbtq members of the community, different religions, ethnicities. Go back to what i said before about black lives matter. People are offended by that movement. Does that mean other lives dont matter . Of course not. All lives matter and all lives should matter. But historically black lives cant didnt matter as much. They were considerable disposable, ungrievable for the loss o of our black americans. Who recently and we cant tolerate that any longer. So think we should leave think aggregate dr. King and his vision and dream that we can all be treated with the dignity and justice. Were all part of humanity but we do have a lot of work to do to achieve that vision too still. And ill leave it to aumt lil autumnlily to close the forum. Today we have been having an intense discussion. Thank you to ms. Diaz chief gonzalez Jonathan Gordon and basheer jones. And thank you ladies and gentlemen for coming to this forum. And i hope that you guys learned a lot about your roles in this community and this forum is now adjourned. [ applause ] in the old days people went to work in factories. They were paid for their labor and worked nine to five and went home and kid what they want with that money. Today were all in these factoriesfactory s like google and facebook twitter. Were unpaid labor. Were working like crazy. And its not even acknowledged that were creating the value for them. And worse, we are the ones packaged up as the product. What these companies are doing is learning more and more about us from our behavior, from what we publish from our photographs and from our ideas and what we buy and say and dont say. They are learning about us. They create this bantem like pen onty con. And they are transforming us. They are repackaging us as the product. Were the ones being sold. Not only are we working for free but then were being sold. So it is the ultimate scam. The perfect hitchcock movie. Secretary of state kerry is in switzerland today. Here is a bit of what he said. I never imaged the number of simultaneous crises that we might possibly be able to face. Which we are by the way i believe managing far more effectively, ukraine other things, than people are prone to automatically see. But we cant shy away from this reality that Terror Networks are operating in some places with near impunity and imminent danger in others and a potential threat everywhere. And a few of these networks are attempting to govern land. That is a first time event in this transition to these terror groups. And they are looking to expand. And greatly adding to the risk of the so called are the so called lone wolves and copy cats. And i seems that terrorists are now competing with each other for recruits and perpetrating every more macabre crimes. Need i remind you the 20th century was defined by the civilized worlds struggle to develop the rule of law as an alternative to chaos disorder and dictatorship. And today we are witnessing nothing more than a form of criminal andy. A nihilism which illegitimately games an ideological and religious foundation. Against this enemy we are organizing and fighting back. But in doing so we have to also keep our heads. Obviously the biggest error we could make is to blame muslims collectively for crimes not committed by muslims alone. Crimes that the overwhelming majority of muslims oppose. Crimes that their faith utterly rejects. And that Muslim Leaders themselves have the greatest ability to address. Religions dont require adherence to raze villages and blow up people. It is individuals with a distorted and even ignorant interpretation of religion who do that. Abetted by networks of individuals who have a different agenda and who incite and finance those actions. We will certainly not defeat our foes by vil fieing potential partners or by suppressing the very freedoms terrorists try to destroy. Unless we direct our energies in the right direction we may very well fuel the fire wes want tos we want to put out. You can see all the coverage from the World Economic forum including speeches from Francois Hollande and the angular merkel. At cspan. Org. Sorry for the delay. Sorry i didnt know any jokes to fill the low. Im very thrilled to welcome everyone to this important event five years after Citizens United, what are the costs or democracy. This is a important event again kicking off a week of activities. Were going to be here in d. C. And throughout the country this week recognizing the Citizens United anniversary, the terrible consequences this decision had for our country. Todays event an unprecedented number of organizations came together to release or share original research. As more and more americans have concluded that the issues they care about just wont be dealt with in a political system that values the money of the view over the voices of the many. More and more organization of different stripes have prioritized changing way our elections are financed. From environment and Climate Change to Worker Rights and Civil Liberties and reigning in the wall street excesses and risky behaviors, americans and Public Interest organizations that represent them understand that special interests are truly hijacking elections. And 12 the outrage is really fuelling a the movement and creating change and more collaborative efforts like today. This cooperative event can also be seen and this cooperative action in the release of a statement of unity that were putting out today. Over 120 organizations have signed on to this statement of unity which supports reforming our democratic processes and moving policy changes around disclosure, Public Financing and overturning the effects of Citizens United. You can find the statement of unity up front when owe came in. Also up front when you came in im sure you saw hard copies of new research we are putting out today. It can also be found electronically on a new shared web portal get money out action. Org action. Org. Without a doubt the biggest win ores of the 2014 midterm were the corporate entities, special interests and small number of billionaires who funded them. While the losers are the 300 million americans whos voiced are silenced by money and whos priority are different from the few who have if influence. Today event is about that. The highlights of this problem. And were going to be discussing Much Needed Solutions as well. And the well dig in on the numbers in the fist panel. And the second focuses on real world implications of our current moneyed system. And well close with a panel that looks at solutions discussing experiences with Public Financing in connecticut. P with that well turn it over to our first panel. With e videoa greatwe have a great lineup. Karen shanten enshanton. And than. Brend fisher if for center for media and democracy. And close with burt brandonwork president at justice at stake. Karen, over to you. Good morning. Im karen shanton. A policy analyst at dmos. We all van equal say in our democracy and equal chance in economy. Im here to talk to you about the first of those goals. To wrap ups of the congressional spending often focus on total amount of money raised and spend by candidates in these race. There is a good reason for that. And the reason is those numbers are really big. The median win ore avenue house race in 2014 reported contradictions of 1. 3 Million Dollars. On the senate side the median winner reported over 7 Million Dollars in contradictions. That works out to approximately 1800 dollars a day. And that is every single day of a two year house selection cycle and 3300 a day every day for six year on the senate side. So it is a lot of money. Even more important than the total funds raised in these races, in these competition, is where that money is coming from. Of the close to 1. 5 billion in total contributions that candidates reported receiving in 2014, more than two third came from individual contributors. And the vast majority of these individual contributions came from wealthy donors. Suppose you are a candidate faced with a prospect of having to raise thousands of dollars a day. If you focused exclusively on raising from small donors, giving 200 a piece or less, then you would have to secure at least nine unique donors each day if you were running for the house. Running for the senate you would need at least 17 unique donors a day. If you focused on donors giving at the current per election limit of 2600 by contrast you could get what you need from a donor or two aday. If you could convince that donor or donors to give at the current per cycle limit of 5200 you might even get to take a day off. Not surprising most candidates end up collecting the vast amount of that you are money from large checks of. Money race moving from big donor dominance in the 2014 midterm elections to small donor democracy, which is available at dmos. Org. We looked at the large and small donor breakdowns in a targeted sample. Where the partisan makeup for the district doesnt sort of already incline the race in favor of one partys nominee over the other. And what we found was that the candidates who were doing well in these races are overwhelmingly drawing funds from large donors. In some the top two candidates in these 25 races got more 86 of their individual contributions from large donors. And fully seven of these 50 candidates got more than 9 and a half of every ten dollars. All by 50 cents of every ten dollars they received in contributions from donors giving 200 or more. The limited role for average voters in funding campaigns has implications for the types of candidate who is make it through the process. As well as the policies that get enacted when they get there. My colleague will be joining us later in the program to describe these effects. And one of our partners is also here today to tell us a little about the specific candidates who have been effected by the current role of money in our politics. And to explain how even given current limitation tofrs Campaign Finance work we can start the find ways to address this problem. Thank you very much. [ applause ] thanks. So they say give yourself a minute a slide. And i have about nine slides to do in five minutes. So if everybody can promise not to blink for the next five minutes i think well be fine. We lookouted at election spending in senate races. The reason is its been possibly up for grabs in all three elections since Citizens United and that tend to increase outside spending. We found outside spending has ip increased and candidate spending has stayed the same. By outside spend i mean spend big people other than candidates. This largely comes from a tiny number of wealthy donors who can afford to give in excess of the constitution limits that karen was talking about. And dark money is playing a bigger role, which means which creates risk for corruption and influence buying thats hid b by the public. So money spently organizations that hide some or all of their donors. This shows outside spending has increased over the last three cycles. This chart shows ten of the most Competitive Senate elections in 2014. The bars are percent candidate spending. The heavy middle line there is 50 . So eight out of ten the candidates were outspend by the outside spenders and the top four which includes income t most expensive legislation in candidates history. So candidates are out spent and losing control or accountability over elections. And why does this matter . Most of it comes from super packs. And they depend enormously on large donors the numbers in terms of the candidates are for more extreme in the world. The highest spending get less than 1 10 of one percent of their money from small donors of two. The average contributions are in the five and six figure range. And in fact in one billion superpack spending since 2010 about 200 people out of the entire country were responsible for 60 of that. So one of the things we see in outside groups is the single candidate groups. These groups can take unlimited contributions because they are outside and they spend all of that money on a single candidate. If its run well, it effectively is an arm of campaign as the not subject to contribution limits. Taylor is going talk about these later in the panel. But i just want to say where do they get their money from. Across competitive elections they get almost twothirds from doubledipping donors. These are doeshs who give up to the maximum directly to the candidate and turn around and give however much they want to the outside group knowing inging money is going to be spent on that candidate. Dark money has increased, money we dont know where its coming from. What does that look like . On the left here you see how much dark money makes up outside spending that doesnt come from parties. It is a magentajority of that spending comet from unknown sources. But even looking at all spending the pie chart on the right is candidate, party and outside spending together. Dark money is still a significant chunk. Well over a quarter at 28 of of election spending in competitive races. That is a big chunk of money. Still a minority baugh big chunk and it leads to numbers like that. Looking just as the eleven most competitive elections in 2014, the winners, just the winners. Eleven people who took office this month in the senate had 131 million in dark money behind them. So 23 million in dark money behind tom tillis. The public doesnt know who spent that money. Does tom tillis know . I dont know. Is he going to give legislative favors to the people who spent that money . We dont know and we cant know and the voters wont be able to hold him accountable at the ballot box six years from now if he does. The post Citizens United world as severely weakened contribution limits and transparence. And those regulations guard against corruption and they help to ensure that elect eelected officials are accountable to their constituents and not just their biggest donors or spenders. So were now living in a world where rich donors and secretive donors have a great influence than ever before. And ill stop there. Thank you. [ applause ] good morning. Im Taylor Lincoln with Public Citizen. Today im going to discuss one of the most obvious and uncontroversial things anybody in washington d. C. Will say today or probably any day. In yet in terms of how our elections are financed it may also be among the most important. Im going say that many, if not most, outside groups are not truly independents of the candidates and the parties they seek to assist. This has been shown by many people in many ways. A Public Citizen we have sought to show this since 2012 in two different ways. The first by tracking spending by groups that devote all resources to benefitting a single candidate. This trait does not definitively prove that a group has ties to the candidate. But it is highly suggestive if a Group Chooses to spend all of its money to help one candidate out of hundreds of potential congressional candidates. The backgrounds and leaders of many of the single candidate groups have confirmed our suspicions. The second method is tracking the spending of groups that weve deemed to be party aligned. Weve only categorized groups as party aligned if they have not only spent all their money in support of candidates from one party, but if other evidence suggests that they are solely committing to furthering a partys advantage. For instance, if a group was led by former employees of the Democratic Senate majority lead and indicated a mission of protecting the democratic majority in the senate, that is the sort of group we could categorize as party aligned. Today my colleague andrew perez and i are releasing a report with final data on this 2014 cycle. We found 45 of all super packs work for one candidate. And eight groups we categorized a party aligned spent 31 of all the outside spending of outside groups in the 2014 elections. Combined the single candidate party aligned groups spent 45 of the money by outside groups in the 2014 elections. So by these measures alone we can show that nearly half the spending by groups by outside groups wouldnt meet most peoples definition of independent. What this means is that the Citizens United decision has failed by the very logic that it laid out. It may be contrary to most casual observers observations or impressions but the did not important to be eviscerating the entire Campaign Finance system. On the contrary it endorsed had thrust of tcorruption. What we now know is that many of the independent expenditures that resulted from the decision are not independent. They are made by groups a acting as unregulated extension of candidates and parties they support. This means official contributions remain limited while unofficial contributions are unrestricted. This is an intellectually bankrupt situation. Again, nothing ive said today about the connections between outside groups and candidates and parties is particularly controversial or in dispute. This is accepted reality. Some supporters of Citizens United have sought to salvage the honor of the decision by blaming poor coordination laws for failing to ensure independence between candidate in outside groups. Ill close by simply saying given the extraordinary challenge of crafting a consistency or inconsistency law that coordination law thank you. [ applause ] im brendan fisher. General council with the center for intermediatian democracy. There are a lot of groups pushing the envelope. Others have asserted the coordination rules really dont apply at all. Most glaring example is in wisconsin where republican and democratic prosecutors have been investigating possible coordination between governor Walkers Campaign and independent groups like Wisconsin Club for growth which spend millions in the recall elections and funneled millions more to other groups. And the Walker Campaign and Wisconsin Club for growth have fought back not by denying coordination but by arcing the coordination rules dont apply as long as the coordinated ads omit words like vote for or vote against. And if this were the case there would be nothing stopping a candidate from forming a the 501 c 4 that takes secret unlimited funds and having it operate outside of campaign offers. So donors who max out on Campaign Contributions would have another conduit for even more money. And favors and not public scrutiny could curry favor without discretion from the media. And this is what happened in wisconsin. We later found an out of state Mining Company that wanted to build ab Open Pit Mine in the state made a 700,000 secret donation to Wisconsin Club for growth which this public never knew about as the mining bill was being debated. I raise this not because it involves a high profile politician but the intentional and concerted pushback against this could be used national to args against any Campaign Finance regulation whatsoever and to intimidate regulators from ifrtd laws that remain on the books. If you read conservative media this genuinely bipartisan investigation has been contorted into a politically motivated witch hunt by democrats against republicans. How did this bipartisan investigation get reframed . Such a way . A key to the spin surrounding this has been a group called the Franklin Center for government and public integrity. They run their website watch dog. Org and funded news outlets to cover state house politics with a conservative bend. And it is wisconsin reporter website has produced an astound astounding 160 stories over the year attacking the investigation as wisconsins secret war. Here is the thing. In course of running these 160 stories they failed to disclose. And frankly center also has not disclosed its director of special projects john connors is the president of citizens for a strong america, another group implicated in the probe and which was entirely funded by Wisconsin Club for growth. What makes this even more astounding is the federal judge who halted the probe briefly cited to wisconsin reporter as evidence that the probe was politically motivated. Probably never should have been involved in the case at all. Because he regularly attended junkets tide to the groups under investigation. Like the cope Family Foundation and the braidly foundation. Miranda was unanimously reversed in the seventh circuit many in a unanimous opinion. What that means is that the future of this investigation now rests with the Wisconsin Supreme Court. But some of the Wisconsin Supreme Court gistis justices also face a significant conflict of interest. Two of the primary groups facing criminal liability have been the dominate spenders in wisconsin reporter elections in recent years. That means the future of this investigation and with it wisconsins Campaign Finance laws and potentially finance coordination laws around the country could be decided by justices who were elected to the bench by precisely the same groups facing criminal liability and arguing against these laws overall. And that makes a good transition to burts presentation. [ applause ] good morning. My name is burt brandonburg. Im executive director of the Group Justice at stake. And im glad brendan finished where he did. Because if you came here and you heard what you are hearing and you figured this was a problem affecting money in Public Policy and government races and senate and president ial races, but that at least our courts are safe, im hear with bad news. An explosion in money in judicial elections is pressuring state courts to bend to political pressure instead of upholding the law. Justice at stake is a non partisan organization working to keep courts fair and impartial. And its become a grave and growing threat to justice in america. Because our state courts are the engines of justice in america. Handle 8 of all cases. 98 . Because 87 of those judges have to stand for election during their career. And because these elections are now being transformed into a full blown political circus that pressures judges to be accountable to money instead of the constitution. Last year an elected Supreme Court Justice Cherie beasley told an affiliate she frequently write her opinions in the Early Morning and night. Why . Because her worked is filled with fundraising calls to attorneys around the state. Many who then turn around and appear before her in court. Until recently our elected judges havent had to wage hunl war chest os make promise or respond to hardball ae attacks but in recent years judicial elections have become a playground for big money and hardball politics. As this report and a whole series of them produced by justice at stake in conjunction with the Brendan Center for justice and the National Institute for money state politics document. From 20009 the amount of money going in more than doubled. Weve now seen a couple dozen states have records smashed. Citizens united poured gasoline on this fire and in turn record amounts of spending by outside groups. Knew new world cash is king. An arms race with business groups on one side fighting out against attorneys and unions on the other. Judges a trapped in a the crucible they did not sign up. Raising millions of and millions powder in by parties and outside groups. Much undisclosed. Much f out goes for ads that we are going to try to show you here. Lets see if we have a play button. And if not do we see a play button . Am i missing it . All right. As entertaining as it would be for me to reenact these ads im going to tell you whats been going on with we got it here . All right. We appreciate the patience of the web audience here. [ video ] and joyces reelection is bankrolled from the same lawyers who prosecute the cases she oversees as judge. We want judges to protect us. When child molesters sued to stop electric monitoring of those location. A law that let us track child molesters near school plapgds justice centers. She sided with the molesters. Justice robin hudson. Not tough on child molesters. Not fair to victims. So that first ad i threw in for fun. The last ad is a lot of what you will see if you are in a state where judges are elected. Spending records are being broken. This money and ads are pressuring judges to act like politicians in black robes or lose their jobs. And in 2014 we saw more of the same. More records smashed in a variety of states. National groups seeking to make over state Supreme Courts. Last year we saw the Law Enforcement alliance of the america. The Republican State Leadership Committee in illinois. Billionaire groups like the coke brother, americans for prosperity are beginning to spend in Supreme Court races. Judicial elections are broken. If they are not fixed, were going to move to a system where justice is for sale. Almost 9 in 10 americans believe this money is effecting decisions in the courtroom. Surveys weve done with the National Center for state court show nearly half of judges agree with that statement. Campaign cash is effecting corporate decisions. We see Scholarly Research now commission birthdayed by the American Constitution Society and showing as cash rises judges point more towards prosecutors because of ads like you just saw. There is good news. Even when they disagree about other issues but make no mistake the challenge to our democracy is a three branch challenge. Next week the Supreme Court of the United States will hear a case that will decide whether states with insulate judge from big money pressure by requiring them to seek donations from the Campaign Committees or instead of making a the personal plea for donations to someone who may appear before them in court. When money effects Public Policy, that stinks. When money effects a decision of the courtroom the constitution of the United States has just been violated. The most important democracy issue currently flying under the radar of american politics is whether our courts of law can remain fair and impartial or whether theyre accountable to a growing tide of the partisan and special interest and pressure. Money and justice do not belong in the same sentence. Thank you. [ applause ] thanks so much to our great panel. We have a couple minutes for questions now. There will be a mic going around. So if folks could just raise their hand and say who you are with when your ask your question. Im the first out of this group . Okay. Im with get money out in maryland. And the Maryland Committee to amend. We have a rally on the 27th to do just that. In particular supporting senator jamie ras kins, one of this movements great heros. Constitutional law professor american university. And state senator. Hes introduced two bills to amend the constitution using article 5. And through calling a convention of the states. And also a shareholders disclosure or shareholders united bill. So im homing you could address those, especially the campaigns around the country to amend the constitution to reverse Citizens United, reclaim Voting Rights our democracy all that. And were hoping maryland will be the fourth state after vermont, illinois and california to pass this resolution out of the 34 that will be needed. Anyone want to take that . I think it might be a question for you. Okay. Well just to frame up what you said i think, you know, weve highlighted a lot of problems here and a little later in the discussion were going todig in on the solutions. But youre highlighting key one. Jamie the constitutional Amendment Movement is a key part of what were trying to do. And its something that were excited about the progress we made. Ballot initiatives in support of amending the u. S. Constitution so thats a huge amount of progress and speaks to the momentum i was talking about off the top. How more and more organizations and citizens get this and are doing whatever they can to support real change. I think a real important solution, and jamie rascan is a pie noeroneer on that, as well. Disclosure, the decision said right there that shareholders would have recourse. They could leave companies if they didnt like how their corporations were spending money in politics. But obviously we dont know. So we need disclosure to shareholders so they can make that decision. Thanks. As a Student Activist from the university of maryland, one of the challenges is as you guys presented, as well, theres a lot of how do we frame this without being esoteric and difficult to understand. The grandeur is huge. I mean millions and millions of dollars is hard to wrap your mind around when you have 20 million in your pocket. As we begin to create for our students to latch on to. If theres one focus, if theres one anecdote or you know whether its Senate Elections or congressional and general whether its speaking about judges. What should be our target as the most daunting and troubling part of this entire problem . Does anyone want to take a crack . And i would say right there on the same row as you scott swenson, one of our message gurus, might be able to take a piece of that question, as well. I can start. Others can add in here. Ill address mostly the judicial aspect of it. Theres occasionally differences with the overall theme. I think you have to be compelling in the way were trying to be here today and nail home the ironclad case. And for some audiences, thatll be important. But youre getting to something even more important, which is this has to be connected to peoples everyday lives. You have to have real world examples of why this made a difference for someones lives. And those will often be tailored to the community youre in or the state youre in, et cetera. I think in the case of the courts, you know, i can talk about money affecting justice and that will turn off a lot of people. People have good instincts that courts are supposed to be free. But you have to talk about an asthmatic child and have clean air. You have to find the individual examples where policy, be it from the courts or elsewhere, affected someones real life. Maybe i dont know if scott wants to say something. The Biggest Issue we have to overcome as you pointed out giving people hope letting people know something could be done. There are solutions which were referred to earlier in the unity statement of principles letting americans know that rooms are filling up in every city, town and every state looking for answers to this problem. There are Solutions Working around the country and we have to point to those to overcome the cynicism that nothing can be done. Thats the key to winning this race. Hello. Im representing global integrity. Just on my way here. That you think, all, for your presentation. Really enjoyed it. To focus on the state level issues that were raised at the end there both the wisconsin focus as well as the judicial elections. Im curious in terms of independent expenditures and coordinated campaigns and how state regulators are defining coordination. Im not going to say its anything best practice out there. Are there any better practices . You painted a pretty bad picture about whats going on in wisconsin right now. Is that the last place where were holding the line, so to speak, on that . Or theres some better practices out there that we could point to in terms of judicial elections, are there some states that are regulating this in a different way that are more effectively keeping money out . Or is this across the board a 50state phenomenon . Sure. So on the state level, in some ways, i might defer to the Brennan Center. They did a great report a few months ago on coordination and some of the proactive measures that are being taken in states to define coordination and to keep the to create effective walls between campaigns and outside groups. And wisconsin a lot has been crumbling over the past two years. And i thought that we had pretty solid pretty solid definition of coordination in this state. It would seem pretty clear that groups regardless of whether theyre running issue ads or express advocacy could not coordinate with campaigns. And i think there seems to be an assertion that the that these laws that were widely accepted can be flaunted. But i think there is there is positive, positive movement in some states besides wisconsin. And i think i would probably refer you to the Brennan Center report for more information about that. Yeah. So ill just plug. Brennancenter. Org, all of our reports are there. The report that brennan mentioned was, i believe called after Citizens United. The story and the states. It surveys state laws on coordination. What are good, what are bad . And whats the difference . So, yeah, check it out. The efforts to deal with coordination i dont think have been particularly different in addressing judicial campaigns. It would apply to all campaigns. I would say there have been some other efforts that deal with the broader issue and disclosures obviously very important. That has moved forward in a few states. Notably in wisconsin, there was a backwards move. The attempt to make the efforts stronger actually led to the provisions largely written by some Interest Groups that instead said that no judge can recuse if any amount of legal money came in. And finally merit selection of judges where you have a nonpartisan Screening Commission that helps select a slate of candidates based on very thorough vetting. And the idea is to avoid the election trap altogether. Some states are looking to move towards it. Excellent. All right, on that note, were going to move on to our next panel. Thanks so much to this group. This manual will be focusing on the real world implications. How it impacts people and issues. And ill turn it over. Thanks, lisa and thanks everyone for coming today. So you got a lot of information about how money affected the 2014 election. But our view at common cause and Many Organizations in this room and many of the people in this room is that while money in elections may determine winners and losers although theres arguments to be made, so much money on both sides now that its hard to determine if moneys actually effective. But its real effect after the election is over when people take office and favors are starting to be given. When doors are open to donors that not Everyday Americans can get our research and new report called whose government whose voice looks at the needs and issues that the American People are calling for. Issues that have high popularity that have been stalled in congress and stalled in a lot of state legislatures simply because of the special interest money behind these issues. Our government is not addressing the problems and the needs of the American People. And when it tries to the special interest money speaks louder than the people leading to ask if our democracy is still around and whose voice our elected officials are listening to. The rates that increasing is quite starting. Specifically from special Interest Groups. In 2014, groups such as the u. S. Chamber of commerce, the nra, which i believe are two of the largest spenders. And Energy Special interests, they spent more money on the 2014 election than they did on the 2012 president ial and congressional election. If you put that in context you know, theyre spending more money to elect the house of representatives and the u. S. Senate than they did to elect the president plus congress. You can see wall street and Financial Institutions spent more than double on the 2014 president ial 2014 Congressional Elections than they did ten years ago during a president ial and congressional year. So the amount of money is increasing. It has been increasing, and i think someone used the term that Citizens United just put more fuel on the fire. You know Citizens United is about paid speech not free speech. And i think these charts and the information shows that. Theres no lying here. And as spending by the special Interest Groups is increasing rapidly, and its continually going through dark money groups. Leaving voters to question who is really behind these ads theyre seeing on their tv. We looked at five major issues that have very High Percentage polling from the American People. And then we looked at the special interest spending behind the issues blocking progress on the issues, particularly on the federal level, but also in a lot of states. And so, you can see the polling numbers in the middle column and the special some of these numbers the u. S. Chamber i believe the nra, those count like state level spending, too. An untold story that a lot of money is being spent on the federal level to elect a congress. But the amount of money in governors races and state Legislature Races has exploded, as well. And is increasingly rapidly, too. So, you know, 70 of americans support raising the minimum wage, but the u. S. Chamber the National Restaurant association and National Federation of independent businesses and low wage employers are spending millions to silence the workers who are organizing for minimum wage. And so you know, its really wrong when the Walton Family and walmart can pour money into politics every year and pay their workers poverty wages with no benefits. It not only creates a crisis it creates an economic crisis that were still feeling. The latest poll shows that congress has a 16 Approval Rating, and that is and congress is literally the best Congress Money can buy. And it just goes to show that while the American People have such a low Approval Rating of congress, to block these issues. And also to get their favors like we saw in the bill with the wall street handout and the repeal of some very important Campaign Finance limits. Both a comedy and a democracy. In large corporations and the rich came out of the recession on top, better than anyone. While americans are still struggling, it should be no surprise that theyre able to pour millions into politics while the needs and wants of the American People are dead in committee. So in our report and we always think its important to show a path forward. There is a path forward. And youre going to hear from Solutions Later on. But here are a few solutions that we identify. And its important because the American People understand this issue. The polling shows that theyre with us. They understand corruption. They understand theyre tired of seeing tv attack ads. So here are a few steps to the path forward. We need a demand disclosure, both at the state and federal level through an act of congress, through the ftc, the sec and the irs. We need to pass Public Financing. The growing tide of big donors can be repealed back. We need a strengthened coordination laws the growing movement to do that. And most importantly, we need to increase Voting Rights and increase voting turnout. Our president once made a statement to me that if we fix Voting Rights and we get 80 90 100 turnout, this money thing will solve itself. Because congress and elected official will have to listen to voters instead of those who can write the Biggest Campaign check. Hi, my name is adam working for an america where we all have an equal say in our democracy and economy. And im here to tell you about a report we released recently called stack deck and its a great segue from jay because i do look at this as a Voting Rights issue, as well. Im going to talk a little bit about that. I want to talk about five racial dynamics in money and politics. First, the wealthy white donor class is fueling our campaigns. Next, candidates of whatever race need to appeal to this white wealthy donor class when they do run for office. Next, there are several barriers that are placed in front of candidates of color who want to get involved in the system. And we have communities of color as a result severely underrepresented. And then skewed policy outcomes as jay mentioned. So lets talk about the wealthy white donor class which will come as no surprise the top 1 is overwhelmingly white more than 90 . And by income and by net worth. And those folks are responsible for a significant percentage Campaign Contributions. Its difficult to get data on campaign contributors. This is from an a. P. Analysis from the 2012 president ial race. And about 90 came from majority white neighborhoods. In contrast there this is contributions in 2009 in new york city races by africanamericans. And you can see the small donor end of the spectrum theres more diversity, than their share of the population of new york city. As we go up the donation scale donor diversity drops sharply bottoming out at below 10 in contributions. Heres a similar graph of latino contributions in new york city. What this means is that candidates whatever their own race, when theyre running as we heard from karen earlier, they are chasing large dollar contributions when they run. And heres u. S. Senator chris murphy being admirably frank about this fact. Hes talking about how he doesnt call anyone who cant afford to give him at least the thousand dollars who he estimates makes at least 500,000 a year. And they have different priorities than do the average citizens hes seeking to represent. The views are much closer to the general public than they are are to the donor class. And this means that when candidates are pursuing the checks from the donor class, they are, in fact, turning away from the needs and priorities of communities of color. We also know that there are barriers for we know that twothirds of people of color in doe when candidates of color do run they tend to raise less money than their white counterparts. 64 in the south. And all else being equal. Raising less money hurts their chances of winning. This results in a democracy that is the not reflective of our population. Heres some Great Research from the womens Donors Network this is what we have. In spite of the fact that 37 of our population are people of color, 90 of our elected officials are white. The vast majority have little interest. Those are the exact folks that political scientists have no apparent influence on the behavior of their elected officials. This leads to skewed policies across a range of issues. Five case studies in a stacked report. Its the flip side of the same coin for the fight for Voting Rights. And thats why we are fighting for a democracy where the strength of your voice does not depend on the size of your wallet. Thanks very much. [ applause ] thanks so much to our panelists, very interesting stuff. Do folks have questions . We have about six minutes. I think so. Shouldve said stock portfolio. That works, as well. My names james im from the George Washington University Law school. Ive always found this problem to be really paradoxical because it seems to the to the degree to which money is more influential in politics to the degree to which you know peoples voices are heard less. And a small concentrated group of people are heard much more. People are less likely to participate because of that but at the same time, thats the very thing we need to have happen. In order to fix that problem. How is it we can address that situation when it the thing were trying to do to fix it is is im sorry. We get what youre saying, yeah. Its a great point. When we with spend a lot of time describing the severity of the problem, theres a general sense theres nothing you can do to fix this. We as you see from the next panel in this event, also in the reports were writing. Jay made sure to mention solutions. In a report were writing today. We actually spend more than half the report talking about how it could be different. The leading federal public matching fund bill were in place and showing how that the key thing we need to do is focus more and more on the fact that there are available, tangible solutions that can breakthrough the cynicism and get people involved. We need to build a movement here. That means as jay said, people going to the polls and participating. It means making this a voting issue. And it means ultimately knowing that we will win. We will win this fight. And people need to get on board this train. Because were going to win this fight. We have solutions available. Its only a matter of time. And the week leading up to the anniversary of Citizens United. Therell be a rally showing how much people care an event where the sponsors of the major Public Financing bills and constitutional amendment and solution bills are coming together to reintroduce that legislation to show there are people on the job working towards solutions. At the beginning, 120 organizations have signed on to it. The majority of them are not socalled reform organizations that focus just on Campaign Finance issues. Its groups that care about the environment that work on Worker Rights that work on cleaning up wall street. Everyones starting to realize they can win on other things until we win on this. Its making a difference and its tangible in that statement and everything adam just described. I see my colleagues greg moore and oneill price from the democracy initiative. With nearly 50 million members who primaryily work on other issues. We need to push through the road blocks in our democracy in order to have success on those core important issues. That influx has been a tremendous move forward in our field. Im ryan clayton, im the executive director of wolf pac. I really liked one thing you said which is that onehalf of your report focuses on solutions and what you can do to solve the problem. If you have prevention of harm goals, you demotivate people to happen, but you can stwal encourage people to take action and mobilize them. Im curious to know what your visionary outcome is. What does the world look like when we win . For me ill start. My world looks like a place where regardless of whether youre a teacher or plumber or wall street executive, you have an equal chance to run for office and your voice is equal in the political process. Theres a great book out there called white collar government that points out that in the last couple hundred years that is something is off right. We dont need all lawyers in congress. We need some of them but not all of them. We need folks from every walk of life representing us. We need folks of all races and genders, et cetera. We have a big problem with underrepresentation of women and people of color. And we have people all walks of life running, participating, and participating effectively winning Elective Office and washington is looking a lot more like wisconsin and the rest of the country. And all these places where people feel rightfully theyre not having their voices heard in our nations capital. I think it has to do with how our government functions. How much money a member of congress has to raise every week to be reelected. The dirty secret in this town is that members of congress and even the state legislature level that theyre spending masses amount of time donor calls walking across the street to the dnc or rnc buildings to do this. And it gets in the way of them doing their real work what they were elected to do. We can put in real limits and put in real reforms that allow small donors and allow less big money in our system that our Members Congress and our elected officials continually have to ask for every day. To take up their time to divert their time. We might have a more effective government and more inclusive democracy and country. To ken. Hi, im ken doyle. The list of solutions that you have in are pretty wide ranging from specific, fairly specific things like amending the disclosure and coordination rules to something thats very ambitious like amending the constitution. Do you have priorities or ones that you view is more achievable . Do you think about achieving things in stages . Or is there a road map to what youre trying to do . Yes. I mean, i think the momentum that weve spoken about and the huge number of organizations that are working in this space mandates that we have a road map and a plan. Certainly, you know, all of these solutions are necessary, and we think they need to happen in a row. We need disclosure to understand whats going on so we can advocate more effectively for Public Financing and for the amendment. Each of those distinct campaigns. So, you know we think we can win things on disclosure at the federal level. Whether its a new securities and Exchange Commission rule making or a strong irs rule making around political intervention. We think we can win things in states in Public Financing. In support of the amendment or Public Financing bills or protecting Public Financing statutes already in place. Im not going to go into the entire plan now. At the end of the day we want a system like adam and jay described. Theres growing momentum on the local level for small donor matching Public Financing systems. We had a victory in Montgomery County here in the d. C. Area, and thats really sparked interest across the country. Theres some advisory Ballot Initiatives. And Ballot Initiatives percolating. And thats a real hopeful bright spot. And then also, id add another solution. Because as you mentioned amending the constitution is a grand ambition, something we need to work towards and do. We at the Brennan Center and Campaign Legal center and lots of other groups here are also working on a complementary strategy. Gives us a better chance of success. Not a question but a potential item. We have a Comment Period open right now through thursday last chance. And one of the items thats on the agenda is whether the fcc should do more to approve disclosure of Campaign Finance money. There are things we can do. Not every commissioner is onboard. If you care about this issue wed love to hear from you. Weve got thousands of comments so far and most of the comments are pro disclosure. Thats good. Thank you. All right. On that note, well transition to the third panel. We heard a lot today about the problem weve heard about the unity statement, we think is emblematic of the goals. The statement, again, shows over 120 organizations agree that we need more disclosure. We need the federal administration to act. We need legislative action. As i mentioned, the white house could act pushing the sec rule making to increase corporate political spending disclosure. As the commissioner mentioned, the fcc can act, these organizations agree that disclosure is needed. These organizations also agree that we need financing to improve the congressional and president ial systems. And they also agree that we need to overturn the effects of cases like Citizens United and mchutchen. Reclaim our constitution. So today, our final panel is going to focus in on one of these solutions talking about Public Financing. Which, again, we all agree on. And the members of all three panels are still here and can take questions on any of the stlugss mentioned in the unity statement. Start off our panel and go to dan smith from u. S. Purg and finish with matt lesser of connecticut to speak about his experiences with Public Financing in that state. Hi, everyone im the Research Director at public campaign. The word means being a town. And it comes from the tradition of neighbors helping a family relocate by literally lifting their house and moving it. There are traditions like this all over the world including barn raising in america. I think that universal spirit is here in this room. And thats good because as weve heard, there are a lot of heavy houses to lift and move. Small Donor Solutions make a difference, even with all the big money. Our election analysis found that clean elections continue to work in states particularly in connecticut. And small donor base campaigns can work at the federal level, too. So the good news from the states is voters just elected nearly 300 clean publicly financed candidates in connecticut, maine and arizona. Where small donor policies have passed. These are candidates who raise small, local donations sometimes 5 at a time. To qualify for public grants. Connecticut led the way with 84 of winners running clean and the strongest Participation Rate theyve seen since the program started in 2008. Maine and arizonas Participation Rates were lower than last cycle. Part of that decline has to do with federal decisions such as Citizens United. So its good that local organizers are working to strengthen programs in all three states. Who are some of these clean winners . A real bright spot for me is the continued success of women using these programs in connecticut 89 of women winners ran clean including marilyn moore, a Community Activist and the first africanamerican woman to win the state senate. In maine, 69 of women, winners ran clean. Whose election slogan was clean elections, the way elections should be. She campaigned on issues such as access to health care and access security for all mainers. In addition to working for challengers like marilyn and kathy, publicly funded campaigns work for incumbents like matt lesser who you will hear from shortly. Matt won his fourth term using the Connecticut Program and he has risen to important positions throughout the state. Before leaving the states, lets take a look at impact in connecticut. We found that since 2010 candidates have begun relying on a more economically diverse set of donors. This is particularly clear in the gubernatorial case. You can see where median incomes of 100,000 or more went from 71 in 2010 to 44 in 2014. We saw similar patterns among statewide candidates. When we apply that funding model, we found that 77 of them wouldve raised as much or more than we spent in 2014. And thats without going to a single new donor, which we know theyll be incentivized to do. Also for winners who benefitted from outside spending, about half would have been able to support. Therefore, even in the challenging post Citizens United world we live in, small donor programs and the candidates who use them can thrive. By making democracy work may feel like a heavy lift. But when every voice is heard and we work together, its possible. Thank you. Hey, everyone, im dan smith im the Democracy Campaign director for the u. S. Public Interest Research group. Were a federation of 27 state based Public Interest advocacy organizations with citizen membership across the country. And were pleased to have partnered today to release our new study, the money chase moving from big money dominance in the 2014 elections to a small donor democracy. Too often a handful of deep pocketed donors gets to determine not just who gets to win on Election Night but who runs for office and what issues end up making it on the agenda. And as a result qualified candidates from both parties who dont have a network of large donors get filtered out before the americans head to the polls. In our report we interviewed and profiled some of the credible qualified candidates who relied more on small donors but were significantly outfund raised and ultimately defeated. We profiled four diverse candidates. We had one republican and three democrats. Two women and two men. One africanamerican. Two that competed in the primary and two that made it to the general election. What all four candidates shared was a lot of success persuading ordinary investors to invest in the campaign. But unfortunately, the way that our big money system works right now relying more on small donors resulted in these four candidates on average getting outspent 5 to 1. So im going to tell you a little bit about a few of these candidates and how things would have been different if we had a small donor public matching system as youve heard a little bit about thats laid out in representative sarbanes governor by the people act. 2014 was the first time that Kelly Westland pictured here, a candidate for wisconsins seventh district had run for congress. As she brought experience as a city council member, the head of a nonprofit a Small Business owner to the race. And when she first told the Democratic Party that shep wanted to run, can you raise 250,000 in three weeks. And kelly recalls laughing and saying and i quote no. Have you met northern wisconsin. My Network Includes is mainly based, made up of waitresses, police officers, firefighters. Running in a district that had a Median Household Income of 48,000. We also talked to david smith a republican candidate running in floridas seventh district primary. A decorated former marine colonel in one of a district that has one of the highest concentrations of veterans in the country. Smith felt that veterans were underrepresented in congress. He said that the money that incumbents bring is virtually limitless. Creating a system where small contributions are matched with limited public funds would allow grass roots candidates like westland and smith to compete with bigmoney candidates. The government by the people act would work to move us towards a small donor democracy in two principle ways. It would amplify the voices by matching small contributions that come in small chunks with public funds up to a ratio of 91. For candidates that decide to forgo big contributions. And secondly, it would empower more americans to participate in campaigns by providing a refundable tax credit for small contributions. This type of program as youve heard has already proven effective in states. Its also proven effective in new york city where in the 2013 small donors in the City Council Race accounted for over 60 of participating funds when you factor in the match the largest source came from small donors with this program. If a small donor matching system were in place for the candidates we profiled the four on average wouldve closed the gap by 40 . Even if the opponents also took advantage in the matching program which we hoped they would do. Theres a clear path toward small donor democracy that amplifies the voices of ordinary citizens and allows candidates to focus on average constituents to run their campaigns. Instead of waiting for federal action, most recently as adam mentioned, we saw in Montgomery County in the fall enacted a small donor Public Financing system. And across the country signed on 90 local elected officials in support of this policy. Its time for congress to show that it is serious about getting big money out of our elections and enacting small donor matching system is a fantastic way to do that. Im a state representative from connecticut. And i think my role here is to try to provide lesson from the states, a message from an actual candidate who has actually run for office and holds office. I now have leadership title in connecticut. Im the chairman of the banking committee. Connecticut is home, fortunately, to a large percentage of the Global Financial industry. Banks, hedge funds, whatnot. And to get where i am, i had to raise money not from calling wall street executives but by calling my own constituents and asking for 5, 20, 40 contributions. I want to explain how we got there, how that actually works. Particularly in the context of the post Citizens United world. So first i want to thank the Brennan Center for hosting this forum, done a lot of work as well as all the partners here today. Also want to give a couple of shoutouts to some nutmeg state natives who have been critical to this movement. A former constituent of mine and our former secretary of the state miles rappaport. I got started in 2008. I was a 25yearold ambitious candidate. I ran against a long time incumbent, a 68yearold state representative who actually served in the nixon white house. And the story is almost cliche. I knocked on a lot of doors. He knocked on a lot of doors, i knocked on more doors. And in november thanks to a National Wave i won narrowly and was elected to the house of representatives. That story is the way we imagine politics to work in this country. Thats the cliche about how people get into office. But, of course, as weve heard this morning thats very much not the case elsewhere in the country. Your ability to leverage special interests. And to illustrate that fact, i would point to the same district that i hold now. My predecessor was able to outraise his democratic opponent 5 to 1. And he won by about 2 to 1. Two years later, when i ran it was the first Public Financing program. We were on an equal footing and that changed the race, and i was able to win in that race. So ill tell you a little bit about how our program works. As a state representative to get Public Financing in connecticut, i have to get 150 of my constituents to write checks of anywhere between 5 and 100. Have to raise a grand total of 5,000 and the state comes in and matches that 51. Gives us 30,000, which in a small state like connecticut is enough to run a race for the state legislature. The threshold is a little higher, you have to raise 250,000. Again in contributions of less than 100, anywhere from 5 to 100. And the state matches you 24 to 1. And the proof is in the pudding. Because right now every statewide elected official in connecticut participated in Public Financing program. The overwhelming majority of candidates of both parties participate in the program in races for the legislature. And whenever youre looking at a Public Financing program the way to check to see if it works is whether or not candidates are opting in particularly in the most competitive of elections. How did we get it . Well, as with all good Ethics Reform legislation, we got it because we had a couple of scandals. Our governor went to prison. We had a few state senators get in trouble, as well. And in 2005, connecticut embark embarked on an experiment. We copied the main law adopted Public Financing. And we provided enough funding to really make a fair and level Playing Field for both incumbents and challengers. One, that equal Playing Field. The fact that both candidates are able to get their message out, and you have a fair contest of ideas. Two, this benefits both incumbents and challengers. I think that is absolutely critical. Weve heard, we saw the quote from my senator, or senator chris murphy talking about how he hates talking every single day, asking people for donations over 1,000. The folks who pop late the donor pool arent the folks that our members of Congress Want to be talking to on a daytoday basis. And the same is true on the state level. So it gives incumbents the ability to focus on issues they care about rather than the issues that special interests care about. And as the incoming chair of the banking committee, that freedom is really critical to me doing my job in a way that reflects the interests of the people of my state. It also benefits challengers. Because as a 25yearold, i probably wouldve had a lot of trouble raising enough money to challenge an entrenched incumbent. No Political Party those challengers were unable to win. Many of those challengers happen to be republicans. Im a progressive democrat. But in the city of new london, connecticut, an urban community we have a 20yearold africanamerican latino conservative republican take out a democratic challenger using Public Financing. And he did it by knocking on doors. And im as inspired by his story as i am by the progressive legislators who have done the same thing. Using grass roots support to change the system and really force all incumbents to prove they deserve to stay in office. Now, the obvious question is this system was set up in 2005. It went into effect in 2008. But were really talking about a system that was set up in the preCitizens United world. So how have things changed over the last few years . Well, there have certainly been tests. But we have seen a system that has evolved, that has been tested in part, but that has survived. And has really been a robust and i think very successful method on the whole. So some of the things that weve done. Well, we realize that the governors race was the marquee race the last few years. We actually wound up doubling the amount of funds that we give to gubernatorial candidates as a way of incentivizing participation in the program and acknowledging the fact that were dealing with an environment in which there is inevitably more outside outside spending. Two, we have increased requirements for disclosure on outside groups. That has been very successful. Ill tell an anecdote. I was at a Cocktail Party before the election and somebody confided to me that he worked for a wealthy retail heiress who had been hoping to spend some money on an independent dark money expenditure. And she was so frustrated that her name would be broadcast at the bottom of her ad if she took out an ad in connecticut that she didnt want to get involved in her election. And i was very saddened to hear that. But its a sign that maybe Disclosure Requirements actually work. And we also have strengthened our presumption of coordination without said groups, its incumbent on them. We also have some problems, as well because one of the decisions we made and that were wrestling with is we have made it ease your for parties and for party groups, the Governors Association to raise and spend money, as well. Thats an ongoing challenge. The question there is how do we channel funds into the least harmful most disclosed route. And thats actually an area of concern. But that was really limited to the governors race. For the most part on all state races and for statewide races other than the governors race, what we saw was Public Financing and Public Financing alone dictating the outcome of these races. And as with all states, most incumbents got reelected and they got reelected for a reason. They have support, theyve been elected before. But their challengers were able to appear on an even Playing Field and make a case why they felt they were better for that position. I think for the most part, connecticut withstood the 2014 election quite well and i would hope a model for other states. My first race in 2008, i finished the 150 donations i needed to solicit by june. I think it was the end of june of 2008, which meant that all i had to do after that was knock on doors. Talk to my constituents, listen to them listen to the things that matter to real People Living real lives every day of the week. And sure, i had ideas, but my main take away was able to listen face to face to constituents. If i had spent that time running, i might have run without the program. Talking to the people id be regulating and listening to their interests. Im not saying we shouldnt listen to their voices but i think im a better legislator and able to represent the people. Somebody dealing with banking executives on a daytoday basis. Its picking up that phone and asking somebody for 5. Because that really reminds us who we work for, who were supposed to represent and, you know, i think weve heard some of the great things weve done in connecticut over the last few years under governor maloy. We probably wouldnt have been able to do that if the system where the people not special interests carry the weight. Thank you very much, i look forward to questions. Great. Thanks so much to the panel. Ill open it up to questions. With people for the american way. And coordinate money and politics work. Cute. Wait for the mike. People for the american way. And this discussion has been sparking a lot of thoughts, but im going to try to formulate a coherent question. And that is, what is the disconnect between Public Opinion and political reality . Why is there a disconnect . Some studies have shown that as many as 9 in 10 people think theres too much money in politics. And support some form of Campaign Finance reform. What im wondering is why more politicians havent capitalized on that statistic and made that a primary part of their campaigns. And then along the same lines, why more members of the progressive Funder Community arent pouring money into Campaign Finance reform campaigns since it is the underlying linchpin issue that affects Environmental Concerns social justice issues Economic Justice issues why isnt there more coordinated push to fund these initiatives. Since theres plenty of money on the Progressive Side of the political spectrum, why wasnt this the main issue in the 2014 election and what can be done differently moving forward to make sure it is the primary political issue moving forward . Well, to his first question about why more candidates dont make this their signature issue. Someone want to take it . I can say that in connecticut connecticut and i assume this is true nationally. I think theres a lot of cynicism. And i think its hard to sell. You know, i tell my constituents that i actually work for them, that im not in the pocket of the special interests. And i think still even in connecticut. Even though weve had this program for years theres the perception out there that all politics is dirty. That their elected officials are serving folks other than themselves. And its that face to face interaction. But i think were running up against a culture where we just either on the federal level or on the state level that theres nothing that can be done. And so i think that makes it a hard sell. I think a lot of people in the public just roll their eyes. I guess i would add similar to what some folks have said before. Being able to point to some of these concrete victories where its working is one of the essential things thats really starting to happen and you know, we saw in Montgomery County this fall. And i think even in this town, it is starting to happen. The government by the people act has 160 cosponsors in the house, the Fair Elections now act in the senate has 20 cosponsors so there are 180 members of the u. S. Congress that are on the record in support of the policies and are starting now to go talk about this more because theyve realized that people do care about how much big money there is in politics, but want to see you know, as matt said want some proof their elected leaders are actually prepared to do something about it. To your second question, i cant speak for the Funder Community, but just to say i think as we see more and more organizations who are outside the typical Campaign Finance organizations, caring about this issue and you know, doing something about it that explains to their funders that its important. And i think we have started to see more funders Pay Attention to this. And hopefully well see more in the future. All right. Im making a documentary called money talks. And my question is in connecticut with the broader based donor advancement, have you seen the correlation to turnout . Turnout was about 58 in 12, it was about 37 last year. Do broader donor support does that translate into greater participation . I dont remember the exact numbers for 2014. My sense was we were one of the higher turnout states in the country and saw an increase over the in the country and we saw an increase over the 2010 race versus 2006 as well. Weve seen a generally positive increase in turnout. I dont know that theres a direct correlation. But my hope is the voters are more interested in the policies were focusing on because were really listening to them. Thats the hope. We did see one of the more negative campaign cycles. The nastiest election in the country. There is no guarantee that clean elections reduces negative campaigning. But we did see an increase in turnout. Is there a consensus with regard to whether one should give to a super pac if youve maxed out on your individual contribution . Progressive as well as conservative. Ive had that dilemma. I dont like the money in politics. What ive maxed out from a candidate, im just attempting to give more to a superpac that supports that candidate. The solutions were talking about, its all about changing that incentive structure. If you can you know, as we talked about one of the candidates we profiled if there was small donor Public Financing, she would have actually outraised her opponent. If we can change the incentive structure and find a way for candidates to raise the money we need to by talking to average voters in their districts instead of spending all of their money talking to big donors who are often out of state out of zriblth, then i think that calculus will certainly change. Hi there. I am laura harmon. The voting and democracy manager for the center with democratic progress. As a side note its my third day on the job so i may be calling myself to introduce myself soon. Representative i think you put it very well when you said the best test the system is whether or not candidates are opting in and it sounds like connecticut is really a dream as far as this is concerned. Im from arizona. And as our first speaker mentioned, about 25 of the candidates there opt in. 16 of them win. I just looked it up on my phone really quickly. The limits are really low there of what you actually get from the public funding system. So im curious what elements in your minds make up a successful public funding or small dollarbased system . By way of example, until 2010 as a candidate in arizona you would get matching funds if you were outspent by someone running against you at which point it became a little pointless for folks to run because if he f. They were outspent oh well, Nothing Happened to their opponents and they were there with their 15,000 to run a race. So from your perspective what could make these really attractive for candidates so that we can start really attracting more of them to come into these systems and run clean . Ill mention a couple and then others can chime in. Youre right. In arizona as in maine and connecticut the federal Court Decision that took away trigger funds took away that extra protection that candidates can have if an influx of outside spending comes late in the race. So in maine and arizona in particular theyre trying to figure out how to fix that. What is a mechanism thats constitutional that could provide that extra funding and it could be requalifying or knock on doors and getting another small grant. There may be some other ways to do that. The other thing thats important that happened in arizona, is the legislature radically lift eded contribution limits. From like 400 to an individual to over 4,000. So if you take away other elements of the Campaign Finance system if you make it easier for privately funded candidates to raise a lot of money you weaken the publicly financed candidate. Those are two things you can address. I was going to say in connecticut i think one of the things thats critical about the success of our program is that the grants are sufficient to defeat an incumbent. If you make it too low, ambitious challengers are just going to opt out of the program. And so finding that level is important. And to meet that we were able to double the grant amount for the governors race. I also point out that theres a diminishing value for dollars after a certain point. We found out we had two Senate Elections where wrestling executive Linda Mcmahon spent 50 million of her own money in each race in a state of only 3 1 2 million people. It didnt work so well. And theres a point at which you need theres a certain level of funding you need to run a viable campaign. Theres a rapidly diminishing value for dollars after a certain point. And i think the real critical value that the Public Finance system gives providing enough money to run a campaign. What happens on the mairnlgz i think is less significant and our voters have shown that theyre willing to turn away some candidates that are spending far more money. Theres only so much money you can actually spend on a race and actually have a net benefit. Its a great question. The government by the people act has two specific provision thats are intended to address this exact issue. So the first is that there are no spending limits for candidates. In typical clean money systems in the past if you hit your limit that was it you were capped out. In the government by the people act the systems were moving toward the small donor matching systems you can keep raising money and you can keep spending that money if youre raising it from average citizens. The second piece is if you are in a very competitive race where it seems riek an influx of either outside funds or just the race is getting very expensive, these systems all have a cap on public funds. Were not writing blank checks to candidates. But in a very competitive race the government by the people act says even if you hit your cap of public funding you can elect to go for another round of matching funds but theres a price to pay for that. It means you cant carry over any of your funds into the next election. So whereas in the general system you can carry over a small amount into the next election if you dont spend it all to give yourself a start, if you decide that youre in one of these very heavy spending races, you want to go for that extra match, you cant carry over any funds. So theres a cost to the candidate. But its perfectly constitutional, even under the new restrictive jurisprudence. Those were the similar points i was going to make. Thanks. Theres a question at the top. Peter brewster from bloomberg government. I had a quick question about the Participation Rates as to how that compared to the most competitive races. Do we see where safe races are opting into public money because its not that dangerous to them or not opting into the system . That is a great question. We did not see that cut in this most recent analysis. In a place like connecticut it was so badly used that i think it includes safe and competitive races. I think thats worth looking at in maine and arizona. And in new york city with a small donor matching system almost all candidates also i think like 55 out of 57, all but two candidates participated in it. Generally, im speaking anecdotally here connecticuts less competitive races see lower Participation Rates. Its actually the more competitive races that see the higher Participation Rates. Just simply because candidates dont want to go through the work of qualifying if they dont need to, if they dont feel like theres a serious challenge. Thats the general trend that i see. Im dan dudis with Transparency International usa. I have a question sort of about the messaging and sort of how you overcome the general sense of pessimism. Im curious if theres been a thought of perhaps looking to whats done in other countries as sort of examples of success stories. For example, through a president ial election in france where i think every candidate is capped at 23 million euro, theres no outside expenditure, theres not even any party expenditure. Radio and tv ads arent allowed. Two weeks before the campaign everyone gets two minutes after the evening news. And lots of other countries have similar laws. Im curious if thats possible to be considered as a way to show that this is not sort of a fatalistic situation and that, you know this the Current System is another example of maybe american exceptionalism, maybe not necessarily in the good sense of the term. Just to quickly say i think youre right, there are plenty of examples around the world where democracy still functions and theres not the oamount of money we see here in this country and we should hold those out more often. Our system has so many strange loopholes and curious things that have happened through jurisprudence that its hard to do an apples to apples comparison with another country but i think its worth exploring. And since we have the collected Research Teams of Many Organizations here we should do so. Ken. Its ken doyle again. I have a representquestion for representative lesser about having so much legislators elected with Public Financing. What does that do to the legislature . Has it changed the dynamics of the legislature itself . And if so, in what way . I can speak to that based on what i understand. Ive only served under Public Financing. So its hard for me to get a full appreciation for how things have changed. But i can give i give a couple of anecdotes. One, connecticut like many states has a bottle deposit law where every time you go and purchase a beer bottle you have to put down a deposit which goes into a fund and if you return the bottle you get the nickel back. If you dont the question is what happens to that nickel . And for years due to a loophole in the way the law was constructed that nickel for the