It talked initially about two reactors, the possibility of moving up to eight. We know from our own experience here in the United States, we know from the japanese experience and the European Experience its a lot easier to announce reactors than to build reactors, although it would be interesting to see if a not in my Backyard Movement crops up in iran. That would be an interesting story. It creates a rational of sorts under which the iranians could justify going up to the supreme fugse as 0,000 sentry a rational for fueling these when they get built. It takes so long to build them, they would have plenty of time to do this. To that degree it helps. The other side is the iranians are inefficient producers of uranium. If they wanted to do this at a cheaper price they would buy the nuclear fuel on the open market. There is a glut oist, particularly after the japanese closed down so many of their reactors. But there was a glut before that time. And so it doesnt make a lot of sense for the iranians to be producing this inefficiently, shipping it to russia, having it fabricated into this specialty fuel to fuel these reactors. But if, in fact, it is a way of maintaining control and people can see what they are producing, if its regularly leaving the country, we have a high confidence level the russians are doing this correctly, then its a potential solution. And there is no reason that the iranians shouldnt be allowed to produce this assuming there is an understanding about what happens to the spent fuel so it doesnt turn into plutonium fuel. About i add my sympathies michael. He was a member of our Iran Task Force and very helpful in that regard. To david, how important is it hat this declarified are you surprised that obviously nothing would happen until november 24, is it necessary for the findings to be publicized at some point . Could they be kept quietly . Could this be a long process that does not lose face for the iranians who insist they never intended to build Nuclear Weapons . Very good question. This is i think in many ways the toughest issue for the iranians, because if you believe the intelligence, and there is a big if there, prior to 2004 there was something that resembled the manhattan project, if you believe the intelligence and we wont know that until you get that amount of data. There are three levels to answer your question. One is should they have to respond to this because its an i. A. E. A. Investigation and theyve said they would answer the questions. Secondly, and i think for my own personal view and as a reporter not that it makes a difference, if you are going to enforce those norms in the future against other states, i think giving somebody a pass is problematic because then you have to justify it the next time and the time after that. The second question is do you make it public . That adds to the embarrassment uestion. In a post wick ki leaks, post snowden world operating with an organization that has 180 some odd members whose own control over information has been bless them, a little bit he has than full. Its been the mark and david employment act over the years and you too when you were a full time reporter. It is a very important source of information whether they intend to be at times or not, i cant imagine that information would stay secret forever. It boggles the mind to imagine that. And the third question is even if you dont reveal the history, do you want to make sure that e iaea is constantly interviewing the scientists who worked on those programs to make sure they are gainfully employed on something other than a Nuclear Weapons pronlts. And so far they have not been able to interview any of them and the iranians have made the point when their Scientists Show up in public some place the sticky bomb ends up on the side of their car. They have some good reasons to not want to reveal who their scientists are. We have an overflow room. Let me take a question from there. We talked about the muddle through scenarios. Lets talk about the politics of that both here and in iran f. There is an interim deal that pockets whatever progress has been made and opens the door to future negotiations on outstanding issues, how will that play here and potentially there . It would be a delicate balancing act because on one hand youd want to maintain the sanction structure to maintain the pressure on iran but there would have to be something in it for iran to go along with it. And the politics here particularly with the changing congress are complicated on the iranian side. Its the politically loaded question weve discussed it to be. How do you see an interim option sort of playing out if thats the outcome on november 24 . I think this would be tough with congress because a partial deal by necessity will not have a lot of specificity about time lines and sharp measures so you are in the position of lifting some sanctions without complete clarity unless some complete clarity is announced about what the iranians do in return. For them it would be difficult as well because presumably the p 5 plus 1on and the position would be we cant discuss permanent lifting of sanctions until you have a permanent deal. Im not sure they want to live with a temporary lifting of sanctions that could be easily reversed. I dont know how the rest of the renalen would feel but i think they would be nervous. I think they would be very nervous. Any attempt by iran to read the u. S. Political situation would be quite difficult, like what it means for them, the republican takeover of the senate skwlust as it is for our own political analyst to read the political situation. I think whether iran sees benefit or risk of the new congress, i think that they i think once again it goes to robs point of its important for them to realize the opportunity when they have it. I think well close it there. Ill turn to my colleague, the director of the middle east program for closing remarks. And i should add it was the middle east program that sponsored todays event and we thank holly for that. Thank you. Thank you to our speakers. You couldnt have done a better job. I wish michael had been with us to have shared his views. Know he would have loved the discussions. In the last piece he authored for breaking defense on may 19 of this year, he thought the two sides faced intractable differences and had run into a brick wall. When i read this the next day, i started arguing with him and i told him i think its a mud wall and not a brick wall. And neither i was able to convince him nor he was able to convince me. He was not 100 pessimistic but he was not hopeful about the possibilities of a deal by november 24. He was still a skeptic when rob and i and our colleague saw him shortly before he passed away. He was not interested at all to talk about his health. He was interested in talking about the Nuclear Negotiations happening. Michael was intimately familiar with the details of the negotiations. He was present at almost all the meetings of the negotiators in europe. He knew and had talked to most. F the principles and i remember when he went there to talk to the foreign minister, i argued with him and i said you dont have to go just because he wants to talk to you. He said no, this is an opportunity i dont want to miss. Every time there was a negotiators meeting, he wanted to be there and was there and in the last six, seven months, i tried to talk him out of attending the meeting, pecially the one in geneva which i think was his last meeting in july of this year but he went. Im certain if he were still with us he would be finding stories over the weekend. Michael was working on a book on the history of the iran Nuclear Negotiations at the time of his death. He showed me the first 60 pages because icons standly nagged him and i said i want you to show me something. So one day he walked in and gave me 60 pages. And he opened the book with his one and only visit to iran charting the difficult road that lay ahead. And he was hoping to complete. E book by december we at the wilson center, his colleagues will get hold of the man knew script, we will make sure to finish it for him. But book or no book, we at the center, his colleagues, friends and editors will always remember michaels measured insightful observations as the negotiations with iran go forward. So we are very thankful that you are all here. We are very thankful to the family who joined us this afternoon and please join us for a reception which is in the dining room. Thank you. [applause] coming up on cspan a discussion about Campaign Finances laws. An interview with washington correspondent and the u. N. Ecurity council on the ukraine conflict. On the next washington journal congressman tim ryan on what House Democrats hope to accomplish in the next congress. Then the republicans congressional agenda and a look at the president s call for new Internet Provider regulations to preserve net newtty. Washington journal begins live t 7 00 a. M. Eastern on cspan. The cspan city store takes book tv and American History tv on the road traveling to u. S. Cities to learn about their history. This weekend we partnered with Charter Communications for a visit to madison, wisconsin. It is a glorious service, this service for the country. The call comes to every citizen. It is an unending strug toll make and keep government representative. Bob is probably the most important political figure in Wisconsin History and one of the most important in the history of the 20th century in the United States. He was a reforming governor. He defined what progressivism is. He was one of the first to use the term progress toif selfidentify. He was a United States senator who was recognized by his peers in the 1950s as one of the five greatest senators in American History. He was on opponent of world war i. Stood his ground advocating for free speech. Above all, he was about the people. After the civil war, america changed radically from a nation of Small Farmers and small producers and small manufacturers and by the 1870s, 1880s, 1890s, we had concentrations of wealth. We had growing inquality and we had concern about the influence of money in government. So he spent the later t part of the 1890s giving speeches all over wisconsin. If you wanted a speaker for your club or group, bob would give a speech. He went to county fairs. He went to every kind of event that you could imagine and built a reputation for himself. By 1900 he was ready to run for governor advocating on behalf of the people. And he had two issues. One, the direct primary. No more selecting candidates in convention. Two, stop the interests. Specifically the railroads. Watch owl of our events from madison saturday at noon eastern on book tv and sunday afternoon at 2 00 on American History tv on cspan 3. A forum on elections discussing the complexities of finances regulations. Since the Supreme Courts ruling in the Citizens United case. This is just under an hour. In case you need interpretation english is on channel 7. Spanish on channel 11. If you need head set and dont have one yet, please indtchate to our colleagues who are providing them. Time advisor. Next week i will celebrate having been here for 10 years working he pleasure of in many parts around the world. More importantly, we have two prominent speakers with us today. On my far left is Trevor Potter, former commissioner and chairman. Hes republican and he was council for john mccains president ial campaign in 2008. He is also member of the washington, d. C. Law firm and is president of the Campaign Legal enter specializing in issues regarding money and politics. On my direct left is ellen who was nominated through the federal Election Commission in 2002 and since served twice as chairman of that commission and in true interest of bipartisan she is democrat. She was previously counsel to coil l. P. And a member of its Political Law Group where she counseled on election laws, political ethics, nonprofit law, and lobbying regulations. Before that she was counsel to the Ethics Committee and served as editor in chief of the houseman youll and contributed to the state ethics Senate Ethics manual. Two documents im sure are needed. Often had lead responsibility for the Public Education and complains initiatives. Weve discussed this session in advance and Trevor Potter will start by giving an overview of the case law in this area and ellen will then trult resulting spending patterns and the disclosure consequences in this election cycle. Following these presentations we will open the floor for your questions and interventions. There are many factors that influence and many of these are covered in the various sessions of the u. S. Election program. But one factor that is always important is the role of money in the electoral process. I have yet to visit any country where people tell me that money isnt important in our elections. Whether it is huge spending on advertising or vote buying or buse of state resources or corruption in nondemocratic systems. The importance of this factor is recognized around the world. In a recent study of 180 countries, they couldnt find a single one that didnt have at least some legislation in this field. This includes some late comers including my own native sweden which passed its first law in this field in april of this year. However, there is also growing understanding that creating laws is only the first step. The vast majority of Political Party and Campaign Finances laws around the world are not implemented. Supporting legal reform is an important part of our work but it is only the first step. The vast majority of our work focuses on supporting the implementation of such regulations. As part of this, we cooperate with many Public Institutions such as election management bodies that have mandate to enforce legislative provisions. I want to mention the recent published hand book which is in your packets and there are many caller s available outside. This caller s available outside. This is part of our training in enforcement curriculum. One of the people who helped to us field test this it was commissioner. We spend a lot of time assisting Civil Society groups that monitor Campaign Finances including in the elections last week. In their report which would be out in a month or so should be the first monitoring report ever in north africa. During the last 15 years, we have supported political finances nishive in over 40 countries and there is no sign at the need for this work is declining. One excellent example political finances work can never end is the United States. Even though the first rules came in this country over a century ago and several decades have passed, there is a lot of work still to be done. Indeed, many are arguing that the transparency in oversight of the role of money in u. S. Politics has gotten worse in the last few years. We will hear more about this issue from our two speakers and i will hand over to Trevor Potter. Thank you. And its a great pleasure to be with you today. I admire the work and have had an opportunity over the years to spend time with groups such as yours who are coming to these elections. I enjoy it greatly because it gives me a chance to step back and think through what you are about to see. But i have to say that i think what you are about to see and hear explained by the commissioner and myself is probably more confusing today than at any time that i have known in my professional career. So i dont necessarily envy you trying to figure it all out. We are trying to figure it out ourselves. Im glad you are here and thank you for your opening remarks sort of setting things in context. Because i think americans tend to forget there are other democracies in the world struggling with the same issues we are. They are not unique. From your perspective you will have an opportunity to see how the issues raised of how money is spent, how it is disclosed are indeed ones faced by most countries, any country having an election. Is a tem has constitutional system. So we have a constitution that created two branches of congress and an independent and judicial branch. Congress passes laws which means they have to pass both chambers, the house and senate. Then they have to be signed by the president. They now are a law but they are interpreted by the Supreme Court under two circumstances. Either if a case arises where a party says we think the law says x and another party or the government says no the law says y and in those circumstances, the dispute goes to the court to resolve what congress meant. The other circumstance in which a dispute reaches the court is where someones whose activity governed by the law says that the law is contrary to the constitution. That congress and the president have created a regulatory system which is not permitted by our constitution. And that actually is something that the court has said frequently in recent years. For much of our history the court had nothing at all to say about congressional regulation of money in politics, of limits on who could spend, on disclosure. In the middle of the 20th century we had a scandal called the water gate scandal which involved a great deal of money being spent by the Reelection Campaign of president nixen, some of it contrary to the laws that existed, some of it not disclosed, some of ate peering oser to a bribe and congress enacted a new set of laws that limited money and disclosed money. There our Supreme Court stepped in when thos