So i should actually correct myself. In the reference to child pornography and staca is so similar to the effort you are launching to change the term from child prostitute to a child victim, there is an effort to change the reference to child pornography. Because it is not pornography, it is child sexual abuse content. It is the documentation of violent abuse of a child. So it is very different. And that is why our child sexual abuse Deterrence Program has been under way for three years and our john deterrence is just getting started. Because it is more black and white with child sexual abuse content. And when you are online, you need when you work online you have to indicators, right . You need to know key words or behaviors. And with child sexual abuse content it is very clear. There are certain words that mean certain things and that allows you to target and reach people and intercept them more clearly. When it comes to child trafficking and child victims, it is massed in this perceived Legal Framework and the escort industry. And so trying to find and communicate with people who are seeking children or even participating in that and you want to communicate with them and educate with them the realities of the sex trade and how children are involved, you need it is more complex. And you have to have a deeper understanding of the language that is used and how what online behaviors are. And so that is it has taken a bit more care and more time to understand that. But i would also say, it is i think with john reducing demand and deterrence, there is a cultural shift that has to happen. I think most people will say buying sex from a child is wrong. I dont think everyone will say buying sex is wrong. And so we have to, as a country, kind of have an open dialogue and discussion about the fact that children are caught up in this. And this person who presents as 19 is probably 15. And that is where it is about kind of a cultural shift of a dialogue in our country about what the realities are. And some of the people are adults. We are talking about children here. And so i think kind of john deterrence, you have to have more of an open dialogue in our society about the realities of what is happening and who these children are and how it presents not on face value of what it actually is. And that gets into what the messaging is online. So your message to someone who you encounter through a demand effort is very different than the message you have youre giving to someone looking for child pornography because that is a direct you need to get help now before you harm someone. And so those are the differences. To your second question about foster care and vulnerable youth. So we have started to explore this topic as an organization. We all know that children in the foster care system or who have been part of the foster care system are at much higher risk for trafficking than the general population. And so we are convening a group early this year of leaders in the Technology Community with leaders in including malika in foster care and Vulnerable Children to talk about what could the role be in creating a stronger safety net for kids. You know, again, there are ways where you can either educate people who are supporting these children and create a Stronger Network of people nationally that allows a stronger safety net. There are ways where you can provide Technology Tools to the kids themselves so that they have a way to reach out for help, similar to be free. What is that way when the kids are ready to reach out for help, they can reach out and it can be quick and direct. I also think just when you hear the statistics, there are some countries that have done studies and 90 of the kids coming in from trafficking are coming out of the foster care system. This is just shocking. And so there has to be a role there to create kind of greater transparency, greater connections. I think also if you have data around these children, like their phone numbers or other digital information, and you marry that with what is happening on escort pages, it speaks to my original point of being much more being much more strategic and finding the children when they run and get into a vulnerable and bad situation. So it is an area of exploration for us. Many people have been doing a lot of work on this front outside of technology for a while and what were trying to do is bring these two worlds together and have a discussion to see where the Tech Community can be a part of that as well. A needed conversation. And know that the Child Welfare community is really excited that there is a conversation around technology and too many of our Child Welfare children who have become our lost children. I want to thank each of you for the tremendous work you all are doing and for being part of this panel. I think it is a great way to end the day, to be able to have hope about the work that is being done in technology to harness the technology for good. And i would also like to ask mrs. Mccain and susan, if you could come up and close us all out. Im going to let cindy make the final statement here. I just want to thank everybody who has been here, who puts in the time and the trouble. And there has been some great moments and moments to take away. I had somebody from google who was sitting in here who caught me outside and said, oh, my gosh, ive never been in something that has impacted me as much as listening to this panel. So thank you so much for really forcing us to stop in the course of a day, to wrap our hearts and our minds around those young children. And so these are my two heroes. But i have one other hero, and i want to thank lee dunn from google helping to put this together. So lee, thank you very much. And to the rest of my googlers. And here, cindy. That is all i want to say. No, thank you. Oh, my gosh. Thank you very much, susan. This was a remarkable morning. And know for those of that you are in the trenches every day, i want to thank you. This is a difficult job and it is a difficult task that we face. But we can do this. And with great minds and as you see the country is beginning to get together on this and there is a swing now. People are hearing it, they are seeing it and understanding it. That is the job we have been able to do now. But we have a lot more to do on the horizon. Malika, you are amazing. Oh, my gosh, talk about a trench worker. Youre my hero too. Thank you so much for being here and being a part of this. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captioning made possible by wptztv] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2015] nick nuck nick captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption contents and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2015] my name is andrew cohen. Im a fellow at the Brennan Center and a journalist with cbs news and the marshal project. And im delighted to be here in sunny, warm washington to be part of this interesting presentation. In a moment, im going to introduce this distinguished panel, each of whom knows a great deal more about this Important Supreme Court case than i do. A couple of points. This is a case about money and judges and the First Amendment. And in my 18 years as a legal analyst, it strikes me thats a combination that always draws quite a bit of interest, not just here in washington, but around the country. So when the Supreme Court takes up the case in a few weeks itll be interesting for a lot of different reasons. The case also strikes me as significant because of the perceptions people have of it. If you are a fan of Citizens United and mchutchen, you look at this case and you say, these clouds are parting and the sun is about to shine on this new area of campaigns, Judicial Campaigns, and thats a great thing. If you are not a fan of Citizens United and mchutchen, those decisions, you look at this case and say, uhoh, the clouds are forming, its getting darker and theres going to be a storm. And i think thats a good way to sort of perceive the way that people on both sides of this debate on both sides of the divide feel about this case. Is it going to extend those priorities and precedents . Is it going to restrict them . And what are the justices going to say . How different are they going to perceive the judicial election from the regular election . The final, just note i want to make before we begin is, you know, it struck me as i was reading this, you know, were taught, weve been taught, our parents, grandparents were taught, beggars cant be choosers. To me, this is a case where the choosers are the beggars. And the people who choose who lives and dies, who chooses who goes to prison, who doesnt, who wins a case, doesnt win a case are begging for money. And i think thats also a useful way to look at this. And to figure out how serious this Supreme Court is about money of speech and the First Amendment in a different context. Those are my brief opening remarks about this fascinating case. And im going to begin to introduce our speakers. The idea is theyre all going to speak. Matts going to give some specifics of the case. Then folks are going to speak. Then theyre going to attack each other with a great deal of vitriol. And you guys will be able to ask questions of them. To my far left, we have scott gratac, a policy council and research analyst, one of the cohosts of this along with the Brennan Center. Scott is relatively new to justice at stake, but brings with him credentials that are pretty impressive. And over and over again, he has shown hes involved in these sorts of organizations and this notion of the intersection of civil rights and law. So hes going to offer his perspective. To my left, and ive wanted for decades to say this, to my left is ed whelan. Just sounds weird. Many of you know ed. Ed is a fantastic columnist. He was part of the Justice Department a decade ago. He has served on capitol hill as general counsel to the judiciary. He was a clerk to a ninth circuit judge, harvard, harvard law school, most of you in this room, i suspect are familiar with eds writings and with his views. Hes also the president of the ethics and Public Policy center. And im very much looking forward to hearing his perspective on this. To my right is Tracey George who is a professor of law and Political Science. Shes probably also delighted at the weather here in washington, although it probably cant be much warmer there, right . Right. Right. So she is a professor who brings a broad range of expertise to this topic. Federal courts, illegal education. Shes written numerous articles about the federal judiciary and the courts. And teaches a course that i would probably want to take if i were at school there, life of the law. Which is, seems pretty interesting and probably isnt as boring as most law courses could be. And then to my far right is matt menendez, who is counsel at the Brennan Center, one of my colleagues. Hes part of the Democracy Program there. He basically works on the concept of fair and impartial courts. He was formally a partner at gibson, dunn, and crutcher. Do they still call it that . Okay. The names of these big firms change often. And ive been out of it for a while. He worked in washington as an aide to senator john d. Rockefeller. And obviously knows a great deal about this topic. And in fact, he is going to be the person who is going to initially take us through some of the details of this florida case, give us a little bit of context and perspective before we begin with our remarks. In the interest of brevity, im going to turn it over now to matt and let him dazzle you with his detail. Thanks, andrew. And to be fair, i was an associate at the firm. They never gave me shares. So i will try and keep this relatively brief, and then we can use the question time to get into areas which may interest people more. As a general background, there are 39 states that use elections to fill at least some of their judgeships. And as we know, elections cost money, and judges like any other candidates need to raise money. Of the 39 states that elect judges, 30 of them have some sort of prohibition on personal solicitation that limit the ways in which judges can themselves ask people to contribute to their campaigns. Of those 30, 22 states have relatively broad prohibition such as the one at issue in williamsyulee in florida, which prohibits all forms of personal solicitation, such as the solicitation that the petitioner in this case sent out. It was a mass mailer saying, im running for judge, please contribute to my campaign. In this case, it did not actually result in any contributions. So, from the perspective of coming at this issue, this is maybe not the ideal case to test the core of the issue of whether a judge walking up to a lawyer or litigant who has business before them right before their case starts outside of the courtroom and says, hey, i noticed you havent contributed money to my campaign yet raises concerns. So i think we believe this is a little more towards the outer edge of where the this comes from a judicial code of conduct, which we call the cannons, the primary means by which the judiciary regulates itself. One of the questions that i get asked a lot is why did the Supreme Court take this case . And i think the main reason is that there has been a pretty stark circuit split of federal courts that have considered this this, four courts of appeal have struck down some sort of some version of this cannon is unconstitutional, two federal courts of appeal have upheld it as constitutional. And all four states Supreme Courts that have considered it have found it constitutional. And i do think it is interesting to note that the state courts which are more familiar with judicial elections as opposed to the federal courts, which are the lifetime appointment under article 3 seem to be more sympathetic to efforts to minimize the appearance of impropriety that can arise from judges directly asking for money. Its an interesting case, as well. The first time the court has considered regulations of Judicial Campaign conduct since 2002 when they decided the Republican Party of minnesota versus white. And that 54 decision by Justice Scalia, struck down a code of conduct that prohibited judges from discussing disputed or controversial issues that were likely to come before them once they sat on the bench. A wide range of topics they were not permitted to talk about. In the majority opinion, Justice Scalia emphasized it. If you are going to have elections for judges, his view was you could not deprive the voters of the most salient information they would want to know in order to select the best candidate. And my question here is the limit on speech is very narrow. The only thing that a judge cant say is please, give me money. They can talk about their credentials, they can talk about their judicial philosophy. The only regulation on speech is that the ask has to come through a candidate committee. So one of the main things that we will be looking to see is how the court conceives of asking for money as being close to the core or near the outer fringes of what the First Amendment values that we look to protect are. A couple developments since white that are notable that we have seen a massive increase in the spending and judicial elections and scott will talk more about the money spent and how the public views that. The other development of note was the Supreme Court decided a few years ago, and in that case it was established that spending in judicial elections can raise serious due process concerns to the point where it is constitutionally impermissible for a judge to hear a case involving somebody who has contributed to their campaign. One other thing i would like to note is that restrictions on the speech of judges and lawyers, its not really a rare thing. There are all kinds of things that judges and lawyers arent permitted to discuss. You cant have ex Parte Communications between judges and lawyers. You cant reveal the contents of sealed hearings. There are a lot of limits on judicial conduct in terms of the boards they can sit on and fund raising for nonprofits and other things like that. And thats just to say that this is not some aberration in regulating what judges and lawyers can talk about. That is a basic overview of the case, and we can get into more at question time. Thanks. Tracey, youre up. Im happy to be here today. Turns out it is very cold in nashville. But in nashville, we just close. All the public schools, private schools, everything is closed today in nashville, the temperatures that are slightly warmer than the temperatures in d. C. Today. My role today is principally as an empirical legal scholar. I ask questions about the decisions, courts and judges make and why they make those decisions and i answer the questions by using statistical empirical methods, right . So thats what i do. Im one of the members of one of the amici in a brief filed by empirical scholars and law Political Science and economics. And Political Science. Two of those are my field of law, and Political Science. But i also teach law. As andrew mentioned. All law School Classrooms are fantastic. At least the ones i teach in our fantastic. And one of the messages i give students the first day theyre in law school is about the