tv Politics and Public Policy Today CSPAN February 1, 2016 4:41pm-6:42pm EST
constitutes corruption, which is, say, if i donate am i more likely to get access to a legislator? will i believe able to be heard? and they found -- this is one of the reasons that they won against soft money that they upheld the limits prohibiting soft money is that it's easy to find that. so, for instance, the political parties would put out almost a menu, you donate this much money, a corporate interest donates this much money this is the kind of access that you'll get, this is the kind of picture that you are going to get with whom. they had an actual menu, here is what you get for $100,000, here is what you get for $200,000 and the court found -- i think found that per sideways sieve at that time is corruption, but then after when we get back to citizens united that idea of what constitutes corruption is pulled back to the buckley standard, the quid pro quo standard. and it's harder to find studies that demonstrate that.
it is -- it's easier to find studies that if you donate more money you can get access to a legislator, you can find it actually even in controlled treatment studies where -- and so i -- so you can see that in the publications. it's very difficult to find in the academic literature the quid pro quo, that's when somebody gets more money it changes their vote. that's very difficult to find. and i think -- so i think the court at one point said that you don't need to see this very much, but i think they are no longer at that point. at least the supreme court in citizens united said we need a higher standard of evidence. >> we heard a lot today about political polarization, ideological partisan and so on. have there been any studies of that and have those studies
shown that campaign finance or buckley or campaign finance regulations might have created the polar sfwlags, have made it worse or anything like that? >> so ray laraja has done some impressive work on this and has looked at the effects of contributions on polarization in legislatures and tends to find that especially contributions working through the party have more of a moderating influence and i'm going to steal your words, you explained it to me earlier, is that parties want to win. so they are not too concerned about being idealogically pure so they can reign in the idealogues so you see less peculiar sfwlags because it's in the interest of parties.
>> next question. any more questions? question in the back.interest o. >> next question. any more questions? question in the back. so you talked about earlier that there is not -- or that more money means that people are more informed. is there any difference or distinction that's looked at in the studies more informed versus accurately reformed. i'm -- >> obviously that's where the rabbit goes in the hat. who is going to be the umpire to say what's the accurate information, what's the inaccurate information. now, you could go down to the level of do you know the name of the vice president? do you know the name of the -- you know, two houses of
congress? you know, you may find some correlation there, but you're asking more substantively about the quality of information and i don't -- i don't know of a good systematic study on that to be honest. >> i mean, the studies that are done are -- they tend to be more on the range of, say, political psychology about what -- under what circumstances do you get information that is correct, and those studies generally find that you find that you go and gather information that agrees with your point of view and you discount information that disagrees with your point of view. so you reinforce your existing bias ease. >> i think we have time for one more question.es. >> i think we have time for one more question. >> i've heard it mentioned that one of the affects of more independent money in politics is
that politicians then have to spend more time seeking individual campaign contributions. have there been -- has there been any research on the affect of that on -- their effectiveness as congress people? in other words, do they have to rely more on staffers for being informed about issues because they don't have enough time to read substantive documents? >> there have been some studies that have argued -- i'm blanking on the name of the author now -- looking at state legislatures where there's a claim that if there's more campaign spending that more time is spent on raising money versus other things. now, one issue with that study is it was a simple cross-section, one point in time and you're just not able to really control well for other factors. but that is a frequent claim
and, you know, it's plausible, but i just want to caution that it also comes out of that rain bows and puppies view that if only they weren't spending time raising money, then they would be, you know, like mr. smith goes to washington and be pure, and it's the same people and they still want to win and they're still going to direct effort at winning, it's not changing their hearts. so people are allocating effort to maximize their utilities. sounds very economicy, and if that is going to be achieved by raising money to run ads to win reelection that's what they will do, and if you make it harder for them to run ads, one fundamental result in economics is that you don't get less effort, you're going to get more effort redirected through other means. maybe it will be good ways, maybe they're going to write the perfect bill or maybe they're
going to engage in more pandering and more trying to spend favors to special interest groups in order to get those organizations behind them. so it's not obvious you'd get something better. you may get something different. >> and, too, think about going back to the big picture -- >> i was going to say politicians do nothing good with their time. if they spend a lot of time raising money then we are all safer. [ laughter ] >> going back to the bigger picture, what you have is -- i mean, one of the affects of having this outside money come in is that it makes members of congress and makes state legislators more nervous, right? it makes them nervous and maybe that's a good thing, maybe that's a bad thing because it makes them raise more money. how is the buckley system affecting our campaign finance system? and we have different classes of people that individuals and
parties -- sorry, candidates and parties are treated one way and individuals and interest groups are really treated another way where they are unconstrained, but what that makes, it makes the candidates and to some extent the parties really nervous, right? and so they have -- in order to deal with the prospect, might not even be in this particular election they will have outside money, the possibility there might be outside money that comes in, then they worry about it, maybe this makes them more beholden to the trinitiers, maybe it makes it more beholden to voters, maybe they have to make sure they can get the voters on their side, but it does make them spend more time worrying about their situation and what they can do to make election more likely. >> okay. with that we'll conclude this panel. i want to remind people in the room and people viewing on c-span that you can get more information from our organizations at the center for
competitive politics, it's campaignfreedom.org and for the cato institute it's cato.org. we will take a break for about ten minutes and reconvene for our last panel. what is living and what is dead in buckley versus in buckley versus valeo and interviewer david savage of "the l.a. times." thank you. next the final panel discussion hosted by cato institute and center for competitive politics on buckley versus valeo. panelists discuss sponsor and impact of the case and touched on what the future of cam .finance law might look like not lowing citizens united and rise valeo. . >> as david was saying i've covered the supreme court for a
long time. i think particularly 1970s. justices who thought they had the smarts and the wisdom to remake the law, whether country would go along or not. you know, june of 1972, they struck down all of 0 the capital punishment laws on 5-4 vote, i think some justices thought capital upunishment was dead, i would never come back. it was wrong. six months later struck down all of the abortion laws in roe vs. wade january of '73. quite a few of the justices thought, that decision would be accepted and no longer -- there was a movement in the drxd of women's rights and no longer be a fight over abortion. that seems amazing to have been wrong. and in january of 1976, you know, congress just passed the big federal election law in the wake of watergate. probably the time when there was the highest support in the
country, we need to regulate money and politics because of the watergate scandal. and in the buckley decision, the court sort of, as we've been talking about today, came up with a compromise, struck down half of the law, upheld half of law. they said, you know, to take a really wild hypothetical, if i had $10 million i could give this year $2700 to only elect senator smithers or oppose him. but i could spend $10 million of my own money to encourage his election or defeat him. and that distinction between contributions and spending has been with us ever since. and as you know, the last ten years the court's put more of the finger on the free speech, free spending side in citizens united. my impression is a lot of the country doesn't much agree with the court on some of these. but we're here to talk about
what's -- what's the legacy of buckley, what's living, what's dead, and how's it affecting things today. i just learned from talking to jan baran he went to the argument in 1976. i'm interested to your view, what it was like then. why don't you go first, okay, what's left of buckley all of these years later. >> yes. i have to admit, i have been around that long. i once was characterized by a government official as having been in town long enough to protect it by the federal antiquities act. so i was at the buckley argument. it was unusual. it was at a time when the court was still providing plenary to almost 200 cases a year. these days the court hears 70, 65 or 70 cases.
so it was a much more active court in terms of oral arguments and plenary review. and in this case, in buckley, just as they did many years later in the mcconnell case, they reserved four hours of argument. so you had four waves of lawyers coming up argue specific issues, two hours in the morning, then broke for lunch, and two hours in the afternoon. and the argument was led by an assortment of private attorneys. the department of justice was in such ill repute after john mitchell's tenure at the department of justice that the department concluded that they really could not participate as a party representing the government or executive branch which of course would have been gerald ford at that time, because president nixon had
resigned. and instead, the department of justice filed an amicas brief in buckley. on the amicas brief title page appeared ed levy, attorney general, along with the solicitor general's office, which would have been robert bork, ray randolph, and frank easter brook. >> wow. >> all, you know, recognizable names in the federal judiciary to this day. and then that was in october of 1975, which was an interesting time, not only because of the post-watergate environment that the scandal was associated with campaign finance, a lot of disagreement as to whether that really was the source of the scandal but that's the way it was characterized. congress took this overahaul of the campaign finance laws which was extensive. and the 1976 presidential
campaign was started in january 1 of 1976, were the first disbursements of federal money under the public financing system for presidential campaigns which were going to start that election for the first time. when the court decision came down january, i think there was a lot of surprise, not only because of the environment, the excessive way in way congress passed the law, but also the court of appeals in the district of columbia, which heard the case, the entire court of appeals had upheld every provision in the law except one, which would have required certain disclosure by groups like common cause that were simply involved in publiced a a advocacy not campaign related. the zgs comes down.
a lot of provisions were struck down. spending limit was struck down. the one that on how much a candidate for the house could spend on his or her own campaign in this law was $90,000. think about this, $90,000 is what congress concluded was all that had to be spent for a primary election and then another $90,000 for the general election, if you wanted to run for the house of representatives, and then a comparable formula for senate campaigns. and the court also struck down the way in which the federal election commission was composed because the law at that time provided that the president got to nominate two fec commissioners. the majority leader in the senate got to nominate two. the speaker of the house got to nominate two. and all six had to be confirmed by majority vote of both the
senate and the house of representatives. and amazingly, the court of appeals fond that to be perfectly normal, the supreme court said, you know, we went back to the constitution, reread the appointments clause and says here only the president can nominate people and only the senate can confirm them. so the result of that was that you had unconstitutional agency administering public financing in the gobeginning of the presil campaign. the court said we'll give congress 45 to 60 days to fix this and continue in a more constitutional way. so there was a very extraordinary environment. all of these unusual exigencies and the court came down with a surprising decision which made all of these fundamental constitutional distinctions between contributions
exexpenditures, it rejected the justification of using campaign finance laws to create arguable equality among candidates and participants and said you can't preserve the first amendment by saying you're going to mandate government equality. you have to basically fall on the site of liberty. it upheld public financing, but only on the condition that the candidates are agreeing to all of the conditions that accompany public financing. if you want the case shelling you have to do the king's bidding. if the government is going to provide you with money to finance your campaign, then ju to agree that you will not spend over a certain amount of money, you're only going to gain money in certain ways, that otherwise would not be permissible for congress to impose on candidates in general. and of course it also upheld
disclosure as codified at that time, that candidates and committees would have to register with the agency, once it was constitutional, and would have to file reports. by the way. what was the first reform that was passed in 1971. a disclosure statute. the federal disclosure act of 1971 which went into effect april 7, 1972, which is the water shed date in the watergate saga because prior to april 7th, the nixon campaign was trying to raise as much money as it possibly could, even in illegal amounts from illegal sources because they wouldn't have to disclose that money until the effective date of that first disclosure law. i always wonder what would in fact have happened to campaign
finance reform and whether there would even be a need for a buckley decision if such disclosure provisions had been in effect several years earlier and we became accustomed to a meaningful disclosure system. but that's not what happened. and the result was all of these other major changes. i think that what is remarkable from that time to this day is how much the buckley decision, frankly, all of the major decisions and grooetds of tingr buckley decision remained enact 40 years. there's been a diversion here and there which we can discuss, but i don't think there's anything completely or generally rejected by the courts since that decision. >> john? >> i would say, i want there, but i have studied the history a little bit. i think there were two personalities associated with buckley that i would like to
talk about that revealed something actually about the politics of the buckley versus valeo decision both interesting in their own right. first one, a man named john garner, i think passed away for some time, but he was at the time sort of person who came out of the '60s and that sort of thing, he was an urban liberal, if you can remember what that meant. he would eventually be the founder and have an organization called common cause. to me one of the most remarkable politicians or policy entrepreneurs of the late 20th century. here's why. as you know, the federal campaign law -- there were parts before watergate that whether interesting. major part before the court was passed in '74 and follow the watergate crisis.
watergate was when you look at it, was about abuses of power, disturbing things, about the president keeping enemies' list, about the president. alleged involvement in criminal conspiracies and so on and breaking campaign finance law. getting money from illicit sources, illegal sources, corporations. there was law breaking. but that was breaking of existing law. it wasn't -- you might have better ways of enforcing and so on but what you go out of that a novel set of systemic controls over campaign finance, over spending, over contribution limits, disclosure and everything. quite remarkable. why? john garner, i think, started saying watergate is actually the biggest campaign finance scandal
in history. and he was correct there had been campaign finance illegalities. didn't have anything to do with campaign finance, it was quite scary. he turned the problems of the watergate crisis and the realities of that into a -- the campaign -- you know, there's political scientists will say to you one of the things that happens in public policy, people look for problems, problems come down the pike, you attach them to the problems.
and brought suit against buckley, complained had the sense plaintiffed shochb eed shy in front. i don't know about that. he certainly felt strongly about campaign finance, restricts on free speech. what's interesting about him, he carried that out. one of the little known things about washington scene is, if you're against campaign finance regulations, it's very difficult, actually to raise money to fight them per se. now there's money for lawyers to bring litigation and so on. but it's an ongoing day to day pace si basis, it's very hard to do that. crane because of his particular
developments and particular commitments did that at -- first outside but ultimately at the cato institute dedicated some of the money he was able to raise at cato to that. and then again, by around 1990s. he met up or came into contact with brad smith, who you saw earlier this morning. for the first time you really had a day-to-day effective kind of answer to the reform community. both of those sort of things go back in a way to buckley versus valeo. >> if the essence of buckley has survived, the distinction between contributions and spending what's your view of it today? i mean did we get a system 40 years back that was a good system or they made a mess of the law 40 years ago and we've got a strange situation today whereas i said you could
spend -- i could spend $10 million to support a candidate and that's free speech. but if i want to give him $1,000, that violates the law. seems like a strange distinction. what's your view about where we are today? >> i think the distinction is peculiar because if we were starting with a blank slate in 1974, knowing what the constitutional principles are, you could ask the question, what would congress pass, knowing what was going to be unconstitutional. and certainly would never have devised a system of the sort which exists today, which is residue of what congress did pass but after it had gone through constitutional cleansing of the supreme court i think that could have been true in
buckley time. would congress have passed a law that would impose limits and still allow for unlimited independent spending. buckley made that distinction. i don't think when congress revised the law in 1976, after the buckley decision, that they quite accepted what the significance and practical significance would be going forward. perhaps in large part because they had to reconstitute everything quickly because there was a presidential campaign going on and also perhaps partly because they may not have appreciated the significance of the constitutional distinction. one of the elements of the dynamic when we have these decisions coming down from the supreme court is that there tends to be a reaction from the
pro-regulatory community that tries to either undercut the significance of a decision and/or try to devise other reform proposals that would actually discourage the exercise of constitutional rights. so after buckley, in the '76 election, we hadn't nothing that resembled independent expenditures even though they were now constitutionally protected. any wealthy individual could engage in spending that hypothetical $10 million that you referred to advocating election of jerry ford or jimmy carter. nobody realized that they could do that necessarily or wanted to do that or were certain in the post-watergate environment that that was the right thing to do. but when we got to the 1980 election, now all of a sudden we started having political groups
starting to organize, something called national conservative political action committee was created and its only purpose was to engage in independent expenditures and there was a reaction to that because people -- the reform community started filing complaints and said we're not sure what you're doing is constitutional. because buckley said, an individual may make an independent expenditure but we're not sure that a political committee can do this. and that had to be litigated. and then there were other litigation fights, including the one that i was involved in for the colorado republican party, which finally established principle that political parties had a constitutional right to engage in independent spending. that was in 1996. that was 20 years after buckley. there was, you know, an action about independent expenditures
going on for 20 years, both legally and constitutionally, which you know, created some, i would say, uncertainty as to both the constitutionality, legality, and also the political effect on this -- of engaging activity. >> keeps election lawyers engaged. >> well, it does, as long as your client is going to pay you. let me just tell you, that's sometimes very difficult, especially in this area, politicians are not known to spend they're money that way. but, yes, it's a distinction that has this constitutional significance. i think that the greatest outcome of the citizens united case is that it preserved and sort of emphatically underscored the distinction that buckley
made 40 years ago that you, congress, legislature, if you want to pass laws that limit how much you, as a candidate, can accept from a contributor, you can do that, as long as it's not too low. another court case says legislators can go too far and impose a contribution limit. but you can do that if that's what you want to. but that doesn't give you the license, under the first amendment, to pass laws that restrict how any individual or group of individuals, including unions and corporations, can spend their money to advance their advocacy towards the american public. and so now, congress and others look at this and say, well, how are we going to change the system? we, congress, would not have devised this type of a system from the beginning. and they're struggling with
that. you know, there are proposals to, let's amend the constitution. obviously that would be a solution. second solution is well, let's try and appoint different people to the supreme court, see if they reverse citizens united. or what we see going on all over town is, well, let's try and change the law in ways that are constitutional. let's device a new disclosure scheme and they tried that in congress and were unsu successu in passing amendments to the disclosure scheme. the backup strategy is, if congress can't do it, let's go to the independent agencies and let's get them to change the law. let's go to the federal election commission and have new rule making or the securities and exchange commission or the federal communications commission or, as we all learned, let's see if the irs
wanted to do something in this area, you know, some administrative way. that doesn't turn out so swell. but this is part of the campaign finance dynamic of we're struggling with our limitations on how we can regulate campaigns and every time the supreme court comes down with something we've got it find a new strategy to regulate in the way that underscores our approach to regulation which is, we want to equalize, limit money, as much as we can. now, how we do that will depend on what is constitutional and our strategy's always going to be we're going continue regulating indirect ways if we can't do it directly. >> there's a lot of legal talent in the room, and i have an idea about buckley i would like to hear -- i might be mistaken, i think it's right but if mistaken, people will point it
out. one of the parts of buckley that is dead is contribution limits. not in the sense contribution limits exist. if you think the purpose of contribution limit is is to limit how much a person can give to a campaign, there's a bunch of language here i know, but in support of a campaign, then they're dead after citizens united because if you want to give more than the contribution limits, at this point institutional developent in, super pac, and so on with trouble. but if you're giving that much money to a candidate, you're a sophisticated political participant, you'll be able to find some kind of organized outside group where you can give your money to. in the sense of a limit as a limit, that part is dead. there is an interesting part, i think, about that, though, which is this. in effect, between buckley and citizens united you have introduced a sort of bizarre bias into the system that what i
mean by that is, mostly you expect campaign finance regulation to be -- serve the interest of people who write it, insiders to the system, incumbents, groups affiliated with them, so on. however, the end of contribution limits introduces a bias towards outsiders. that is to say, if you want to continue above the contribution limits in law approved in buckley, you can't. so your only choice beyond that is to go outside to one of the super pac groups, in fact, above the contribution limits the law comes down firmly on the outside, on the side of outsiders. it's a bias towards outside groups. this uintroduces a different wa of looking at the law. if you think it shouldn't favor
insiders or outsiders it should be unbiased in a sense, what has handed is you've got a bad system because of the results and what followed from -- and you could end the bias by ending the contribution limits formal i will, which already in practice are not in existence. >> that would be your reform, john, they should have gone further and basically struck down -- said look, if this is a matter of free speech, money is speech and you're limiting speech by limiting contributions you think they probably would have been better and neater the system had they just struck down the contribution limits as well. >> yeah. given the fact there are laws, if you spend this money contributed to you on something other than politics or political advocacy or political getting people out to vote, you've go to federal jail. one or two go seems like every
election now. given that i don't see the distinction could hold up intellectually between spending and contribution spending. >> it does seem, if you think big money is rucorrupting or ha appearance of corruption, my example, if i'm giving $10 million to support senator smithers i think a lot of people would say that's more corrupting than if i was going to give him $10,000, i think for most people would think at some point the distinction starts to, if you're concerned about one big money person having an undue influence or acorrupting influence, it's not clear to me why supporting $10 million for his campaign is much different from giving $10,000 to his campaign. how about you, jan? if you were in charge of the world, would you strike down the contribution limits as well? >> well, in a purist theoretical
world, yes. if i were a justice or a politician and recognizing the widespread suspicion that the public has towards politicians and their interaction with money. i'm not sure how i would come out. i know justice thomas, and i think -- i wonder if alito and ska lea also raise theed the specter of revisit this part of buckley because there's not an intellectually consistent justification here in separating contributions from expenditures. but i don't know if that would be supported either judicially, certainly not supported popularly which kind of brings me always to what's going on in the states? i find the states to be very, very interesting because they
grapple with these issues all the time. and we have this wide assortment of approaches to campaign finance regulation. we heard from the political scientists from missouri, missouri's one of i think five states that has no limits on contributions from candidates. i'm from the commonwealth of virginia. we don't have limit there's and states like oregon and others that have a similar approach to campaign -- though it's constitutional to impose a limit, they have decided in those jurisdictions we're not going to have than we are going to have disclosure. if you're going to make a sizable contribution to a candidate for government or for state legislature, you may do so but it has to be pretty immediately disclosed, and that's accepted in those jurisdiction, at least for the time being, it has been in virginia forever. in fact, i remember candidates
for governor, you know, who would run back 20, 30 years ago at the time that pat robertson was a virginia constituent, resident, used to give $50,000, $100,000 to some candidate, would be a republican, but then the democratic candidate for governor will run an ad and say pat robertson gave my opponent $50,000, $100,000. >> $100,000 to the democrat, too? >> i don't know, for the life of me, the democrat thought that would be helpful to his campaign because a lot of people, particularly in the tide water think pat robertson is a good guy. if he gave $50,000 that candidate -- >> i thought it was a 50/50 proposition. >> that was the dynamic accepted in virginia. as a result, states like virginia they don't have bizarre
esoteric contrivances, super pacs, independent expent turs, what's all of that. if you want to support a candidate for governor of virginia give that candidate the money and they go ahead and do it. sometimes there might be a group that will have something to say and go ahead and say it and run an ad. usually that's the way the campaigns evolved. but these -- all of these states have to accommodate both the legal and the constitutional as well as the political dynamics of that particular constituency and other states, unlike virginia or missouri, i'm thinking tennessee, for example, inc. c changed their law after citizens united. tennessee was a state that prohibited corporations from making any contribution to a candidate for a state office. and after citizens united -- in fact, they were so restrictive
they wouldn't allow corporations to have a pact. they couldn't subsidize a pablt, all right? after citizens united the politicians in the state house looked aaround and said, now we're going to have unlimited super pacs which causes a problem. it means that we've got to get more money for our campaigns from somewhere. what are we going to do? now we're going to change the law and corporations for the first time may now contribute to candidates for public office in tennessee under a limit. i don't know,s $1,000. >> there is a limit? >> that's correct. of course, 29 states and the district of columbia permit corporations from contributing some amount to campaigns. 43 states allow unions to contribute to their state and local campaigns. this notion that somehow corporate union contributions are prohibited is fairly
uniquely federal for house, senate, presidential campaigns. back in the states, they have greater allowances. there are some states just like the federal law, but there's a great discrepancy as to how they're going to regulate their campaign finances and i think a lot of it is based on practical considerations, you know, florida, they have a limit, $500 -- now it's $1,000, they raised 1,000 to a campaign. you can give unlimited amount to political party. all jurisdictions are trying to compensate for the need for resources to undertake meaningful campaigns in sometimes large jurisdictions like florida. you want to run for governor of florida? that's a costly proposition. where are you going get the money? you're going to get it for your own campaign and might get it
through your political party and there will be other things. >> i want to make a brief point. the ad with robertson contribution is an example of a proper use of disclosure, one the justifications of disclosure given in buckley versus valeo, that is finding out of information about the contributions would give you, give the voter, guidance on who to vote for, right? if you know this person's contributed to robertson or whatever, that tells you something important and you can guide your vote. that's not usually how disclosure works in a sense that, first of all, campaigns don't usually use it. mostly, there's a lot of information about the disclosure, but except maybe george soros and a couple of brother from wichita, even then i question whether most people know who contributors are and whether it can help them guide their vote. was supposed to be a way to give
people information they could use. i think it's probably come up short, though there's some disagreement about that. >> how do qyou see this going forward? as we said, it's been four years, this particular dichotomy has survived. do you think it's got many years ahead? because i thought that there's been a -- i said the last ten years there's been no decision that's at least from what i can tell about polling, that's been most -- the way the public less enthused about it than the citizens united case. maybe it's because it's been misreported or misunderstood. even the gay marriage case, there's a very strong disagreement but it's a pretty even disagreement. i think there's a large percentage of the public says, they don't like the citizens united decision. they remember the part of it that says unlimited corporate spending. in fact, corporations are not actually spending a lot, but people don't like the idea.
they don't like the idea that wall street or big corporations could have an undue influence. and so i've always thought there's at least the possibility that if hillary or bernie sanders gets elected, that one of her or his main planks and the democrats going forward will be to put some limits on political spending. i'm curious how you see this playing out over the next few years. >> well, if there was such legislation, then still would have to pass the supreme court review. >> correct. correct. >> i note two years after the citizens united case, there was a decision in supreme court of montana that said we're going to uphold limits on independent spending by corporations because we, montana, we're special, we're different, we have a
justification for doing that here because 100 years ago you know the copper and mining industry interests bought our political system and we don't want that to come back. and so the supreme court of montana says, you knowing we're different and that's the distinction we're making. that case was appealed to the u.s. supreme court and it was summarily reversed. basicallily the supreme court said we meant when we said in citizens united and there's nothing special about montana that deserves an exception to the first amendment. if there is going to be legislative efforts of that sort, which i think is unlikely under the current atmosphere but always possible, i think the legislative effort is more indirect and it's reflected in the disclose act proposed in the last couple of congresses where
the proponents, based on the upholding of disclosure requirements in the citizens united case, which was 8-1 decision -- >> i guess part of my question, i was assuming if hillary clinton is elected, for example, one of the things that she's going to say most clearly is that the next justices i choose for the supreme court will be committed to whatever, overturning or reversing -- >> there's actually -- i don't think anyone -- the way things have sorted out over time, i don't think anyone she would appoint to the supreme court -- she doesn't have to ask them the question. she knows the answer. there could be a question how important that is to you. the people you're going to get are going to overturn that decision. if you have that majority, all you need to overturn the decision is the state of vermont to pass a campaign finance law that violates, you know,
citizens united the whole idea under it. then the question becomes, how far does that new ma majority go? in this context, what i'd like to throw out there, what he thought until now was dead as a door nail equality justification for campaign finance regulation. it died in buckley and its death has been extended by the roberts court. that majority, feeling that a hundred years of precedent had been overturned by citizens united can say, you guys started this game of overturning presidents we're going to end it because we're going to resuscitate the equality rational. once you do that, presuming it's a manageable kind of way of writing legislate, that really is, i think, would be a bad turn in american politics. i don't know that kind of rational, it's an open-ended rsh
nal. there's no constraint inside of it, i think. but it would be a very difficult problem -- it is a problem to pass campaign finance legislation, after mccain/feingold, which had perverse results for members of congress. i think it would be hard to get something through congress but it wouldn't be hard to get something through vermont's legislature. >> that's the risk in congress, they can pass certain legislation, and of course, the legislative process is a complex one, there's a lot of horse trading top get something through congress like mccain/feingold or as trying to do with the disclose act, there has to be an acceptance by the majority of the legislature that what is being passed is not only directed towards solving the perceived problem but will be at the very least neutral for their
own re-elections and on top of that, will survive constitutional review. and i think that's one of the things that has been learned here from the buckley experience and the mcconnell litigation experience and all of these other supreme court decisions is that, even if you pass something, what is the supreme court going to do with it? which parts of it is it going to strike out? if there are things that are struck out, what does that look like? are we going to just have an even worse system that we didn't anticipate -- >> there's always law of unintended consequences. >> when it came to mcca mccain/feingold, that was the law of intended consequences because there was an awful lot of criticism and speculation from critics that there would be provisions in that law that would be struck down.
and congress went ahead and passed it anyhow. of course that was a very, very attractive piece of legislation to incumbents because they, first of all, said we're going to defund the political parties of half a billion dollars much of which used to finance advertising, crit adverti criti candidates of the other party. we're going to make it illegal, a kram to mention your name before the election if you use certain sources of funding. and then, by the way, if you happen to be faced with an important who is a millionaire, we've got a solution for that, we're going to jigger the contribution limit for you. and so on and so forth. gosh, before we knew it, there were 15 old republicans in the senate who said, hey, that sounds great, you know? dick lugar, domenici, all of those guys.
hey, that makes a lot of sense. >> there's one thing that should be mentioned, given earlier comments, we can be pretty sure that what won't be passed in congress in the future will be a serious public financing bill. there -- only public financing at federal level in the post-watergate eras was for the presidency for another branch of government and there have been -- you've had one thing passed in the early '90s that didn't have a financing element to it, it was a public financing bill without money. and then four, five years coming up with very pure public financing that would have given real money to challengers and those came nowhere near passing. >> let me ask -- i was asking about the view on the left about what would happen. how about the on the political
right? if president trump/cruz/rubio is in office next year, do you think the republicans and suppose they have control of the house, senate, and white house, probably a lot of things they'd like to do, is there much sentiment, do you think, for knocking done or pulling back further on some of the campaign finance limits in the direction of deregulating more free speech? do you see that as much of an issue on the right? >> well, yes, certainly is for ma majority leader mcconnell and what we've seen in the last two continuing resolution bills at the end of a session of congress is some adjustments that are inserted into major unrelated
legislation. all of which seems to be geared towards loosening up some of the limits. for example, once they got rid of public financing for conventions, they then added a provision that allowed partied to raise private money in large amounts from certain sources, namely, individuals and political action committees or in the last go-round, the senator was seeking a change for the law that would allow political parties to collaborate with their candidates for the house and senate and president and spend money on behalf of those candidates and not treat it as intdependent spending tha was not acceptable to the democratic majority or senators in the senate. but the thrust of it is, we're going to try to make some accommodations hopefully will be
acceptable in a bipartisan basis to recognize this new universe that's been created that we would not have invented ourselves but the supreme court has adjusted four of us, which is that we want to provide more resources for campaigns and political parties in order to be able to respond to the virtual unlimited resources of independent groups because of the effect of mccain/feingold and supreme court decisions is that it has shifted more availability of resources outside of the campaigns and the political parties. and the parties can only respond by increasing or limits or eliminating any limits on certain types of sources and funding. >> knocking down the sort of soft money being for parties,
right? >> well, that would be one thing to consider, it hasn't come up yet. but because even the revisions that were passed two years ago for the political parties under the continuing resolution bill it allowed them to raise more money for conventions for redistricting litigation and for building an overhead activity. but they maintained the ban on soft money in a sense there are limits and the sources of such funding can only be individuals and other pacts. under the sold soft money regime, pre-mccain/feingold, money could come in any amount from any individual, any political committee, any corporation or any union, with some minor exceptions. so that regime has not been reinstated. i don't know of anyone who proposed it legislatively but that might be something that
would arise in the future. the supreme court litigation, the battleground now is disclosure, you know, because that's one thing that the supreme court has upheld in princip principle, there can be disclosure, mandated disclosure of independent spending and so forth. the issue legally in the court is is going to be how far can the government go in mandating disclosure? how burdensome can the disclosure be? how pervasive can it be? how can it be enforced? and that to me in terms of the short term is likely to be the battleground both in terms of federal disclosure statutes and state laws that purport to do the same thing. >> that's the inside story. i'll do the d.c. wonk story. seems there's a couple of things that would come together that might change tendencies of one of the candidates if elected. there's a critique right now
among people traditionally skeptical of liberalism, federal government, it's the problem of crony capitalism, that is, the idea that business is using this is special interest critique, another version. so that's out there. and that inevitably will be tied to donors, pacts and so on. but the other side of it is, the movement called reform conservatism. reform conservatism is kind of a washington thing. but the base sick sense of it is that the traditional kind of -- the republicans' traditional concern about entrepreneurial activity, business, liberalization, limited government, those are good ideas but they've gone too far and they've actually -- you've got to be concerned particularly about programs sort of redistribution, more effective
welfare state and so on. in other words, sort of leaning left in a certain sort of way. so i think it's possible. you see something like in the work of "the weekly standard" writer jay cost and his writings about the certain skepticism about mcconnell smith view of campaign finance and i think their candidate might be marco rubio and he might be doing things nontraditional and distant from the mcconnell view of it. with trump, trump can say, look, let's get money out of politics. i've already done it. which not everyone can run on the basis of free air time. >> he sort of juggled all of the categories, doesn't he? if anybody has a question, we've got time for question or so if anybody wants to -- has anything they wanted to ask about.
>> hi, i'm jose. and i think that i am developing a good understanding of the first amendment arguments against sort of onerous campaign finance regulations. because yeah, i think it's a strong case to say someone who donate $23 to bernie sanders should have the same voice as somebody and more means that donates maximum of $2300 to jeb bush what happen i don't hear a lot of times mentioned is when you have the new wild west groups of super pacs and someone donates $1 million to an independent organization, i think that there's definitely a case to be made that you can't
necessarily prove quid pro quo this happened three thursdays ago but it's unreasonable to think there isn't some kind of favortism that can come from that because handshakes and events happen across town. it's something i don't hear mentioned very often. i think that gets lost in the first amendment cases that are made against campaign finance regulation. >> jan, you want to -- >> i think there were -- might be at least a couple of comments. i mean in the previous panel, we heard from the political science professionals that there has been -- have been studies as to whether or not the spending of the money changes any office holder's position as opposed to reinforcing the support they get
from that particular source. the example that i always like to refer to is, you know, i think people who have a position on right-to-life will contribute to candidates who are for right-to-life and if they may be proponents of that viewpoint not only in their contributions but in their independent spending. the only time i think there would be a potential for corruption is if there was a demonstration, that that particular candidate used to be pro-choice and changed his or her position because of the money. now i think we're into the realm of the quid pro quo because -- it's not because of the money, it's because of the candidate because that's -- they are corrupt in that sense. i think that the difficulty in accommodating all of these considerations in first amendment juris prudence is that we do have this constitutional
principle that it is not up to the government to regulate political activity, speech and association. in fact, it's the principal reason we have the first amendment, is that we made a decision, we, you, i'm an immigrant, so you all made a decision 200 years ago that we were not going to allow the government the power to regulate in that fashion. and once you start giving the government an allowance to regulate, you have to recognize that that can be more harmful than the speech that is being protected. that's why i -- i just don't understand why we want the government in the business of deciding who ought to speak, how much they ought to speak, where
they get their resources. and the presence of money is necessity of being able to engage in those types of freedoms. otherwise, we could pass a law and say you can't spend anything, right? don't spend any money or we could have a law that says, "los angeles times" doesn't need more than a million dollars a day to publish its newspaper. the way things have been going we would take a million dollars. >> kni know. >> a follow on that, maybe the earlier example and complicated version. say you own casinos and you're a billionaire and you have a strong view about israel, current prime minister of israel, the foreign policy of the news the region and so on, strong views. and naturally you want to contribute to in some way or
another, in a legal way, you want to contribute to conditions and you give a candidate $10 million. you could say, well, that candidate is being strongly affected by the di $10 million, keeps you in the race and so on. however the other problem to come up against is, if you are -- the group of people who are running and seriously running for the presidential nomination and the republican party as thing have developed over time, primarily because of changes in the primary electorate of the republican party are going to be very strong supporters of the state of israel and the current prime minister. you're going to be -- you're going to have people that support that and so did he give the money to them for that reason? did he change what that person would do? because that person if they
didn't get the money and had enough money to run they would be a person that's a strong supporter of state of israel one of the things about the really big money it's ideological money. money that has -- it almost has the campaign finance reform view, which is that we should have campaigns about ideas and people should give money based on their ideas rather than their interests, right? casinos and the regulation of them shouldn't be the issue but it's foreign policy of the united states should be why they give money. that's what most people do. and it manifests itself in political dynamics in why different ways. i remember when jimmy carter ran in 1976, one of his platforms was, i'm going to create a department of education. the single, largest profession represented at democratic national convention that year
were teachers. members of the fea which endorsed jimmy carter and turned the vote out for jimmy carter as did, as i recall, the united autoworkers whose president became the first ambassador to china. now i'm sure there was some money expended in in that campaign by those supported groups and that they were supporting jimmy carter because of his position, which he in fact adopted. now is that corrupt or is that the normal operation of a democratic system? it seems to me we have to distinguish the danger of a corrupt relationship from the normal dynamics of politics and with the presence of money the most effective treatment to try
and preserve a healthy environment is disclosure, which is why i think the supreme court upheld the principle 8-1. disclosure can be abused, it if that's the antidote fear and corruption in my opinion. >> we ran out of time and i want to thank you both. a good conversation and thank you all. >> well, we have come to the end of our conference. >> again, thank you, david savage for excellent questions and the audience for making it through the snow today.
one last point of information to give. the states, they do not limit campaign contributions for the amounts and source of corporations, unions and individuals can give. there six state where individuals can give unlimited amounts to candidates and parties and approximately half, i think the individuals can give unlimited amounts to parties. unlimited amounts of contributions are enormous rather than contributions. the final thing i would like to mention which is that people want more information from our organization and the center for competitive politics, the kato institute which has beyond campaign finance and virtual ly
everything you can imagine. >> c-span's campaign 2016 is on the road to the white house for the iowa caucuses. our live coverage starts at 7:00 eastern on c-span and c-span 2. with live precaucus coverage taking phone calls, and tweets. a republican caucus on c-span and a democratic caucus on c-span 2. we have been in iowa talking to voters in advance of tonight's caucuses. here's a look. >> we are north of des moines and two founding members of the liar's club that meets here four times a week. we are with roy jones and wally ray. roy jones, do you talk about the politics of guns when you meet?
>> we do. >> what does the conversation come down to? >> gun rights and the ability to have ammunition of guns in the home. each one of us that are members of the liar's club have multiple guns and we are not limited at any point in time with what we told. >> what do you think this election means for gun owners like yourself. >> that depends on who guests elected in the end. we all have a different agenda. it's not just the guns. we can't remember to just talk about guns. there other things to it as well. >> what are the other issues that are important to you? >> my gosh.
the economy, people working. we were lucky. we have to save money to come to this. >> have you picked a candidate? >> i have. >> who is that? >> rubio. >> why? >> because of a different situation. it's not just the guns. hoe has other things. he will do a great job with. he will have some time to view the economy and the isis thing is coming in here. i think he will do a better job than anyone else in my opinion. >> have you picked a candidate? >> i have not. >> what is it going to come down to to tip you one way or the other? >> staying on health insurance, gun control, the economy, and what their backgrounds are.
their specific background in being an experienced politician. i don't care if my politicians can shoot or not. >> what do you mean by that? >> the politicians have to go to the table with people from other worlds. they can't put a gun to their head and tell them what they are going to do. they have to have the experience to have a foreign policy in my opinion. >> and a reminder you can watch our live caucus coverage tonight at 7:00 eastern on c-span and c-span 2. >> the issue that i am interested in is border control. i think we have too many illegal aliens and too many problems in this country right now to continue having this type of thing. >> i'm here supporting governor
chris christie. he keeps recognizing all over the state of iowa the rural power program and we are very proud of his efforts on our behalf and glad he recognizes all of these efforts as we try to fight the clean power plan and come up with a better solution. all of the above. including nuclear and non-carbon resources. >> one of the things i saw throughout this entire timeline is that most of the founding fathers in the early presidents knew that safely was wrong. they knew it. but they weren't willing to inconvenience their own lives to make that come true. >> sunday night on q&a. he discusses his book the invisibles. the untold story of african-american slaves in the white house. >> the majority of the first
presidents and the founding fathers who became president were all slave owners. they would bring in slaves from their plantations. george washington did this as well. he brought in slaves to new york city and philadelphia from mount vernon. they served as the first domestic staff to the united states president. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern on q&a. >> illinois governor bruce rauner gave an address in springfield. he talked about creating a competitive business environment that involves changes to labor regulations. the state worker compensation system and decreasing property taxes. he always addressed a budget stalemate and called to cast aside their partisanship to achieve a resolution.
to our distinguished guests and to the media, thank you for attending today. to the members of our national guard, our service men and women and our veterans, thank you on behalf of a most grateful state. a unit of our guard will deploy to afghanistan. let's keep them in our prayers. to our firefighters, first responders, corrections officers, and all those who keep us and protect us, thank you.
to our state troopers, to our state troopers and all of our local police officers from our smallest towns to our biggest city, thank you. the illinois state police do so many wonderful things to build relationships between our police and communities. from midnight basketball leagues to citizen police seconds to statewide holiday toy drives, our police officers are giving back. among many of the initiatives, police officers participate annually at the american legion youth camp and sponsor the team illinois youth and police camp which they hope to replicate in the chicago area this year. i want to recognize the master sergeant who leads the illinois youth police camp and is with us
today. thank you. thank you again to all of our officers for your service and your sacrifice. we deeply appreciate you. this past year we see major storms, deadly tornados and record flooding. in every instance, our emergency management team our timely assistance working impact of communities and local officials. i am constantly in awe of the way our communities coming to n times of trouble. this spirit inspires me every day. james joseph, our director, is with us today for the work you do, all our first responders and emergency personnel, police accept our deepest appreciation. thank you.
today we are going to discuss the great state of illinois. our opportunities and goals for the future. we were all elected to do a job. our job is to improve the quality of life for all people of illinois. that means more economic opportunity to increase real incomes for all families. higher pay and lower cost of living for everyone. the key to that is excellent education and vocational training combined with multiple opportunities made available by companies competing to hire workers. illinois is a wonderful place. our people, our work ethic and our sense of community and dedication to help with each other and commitment to giving
back. absolutely extraordinary. it makes our state a great place to live. we have the hardest working people in america and the best location of any state. the most fertile felts and best agriculture. we have the commercial capital of the midwest, the heart of america in chicago. we were the manufacturing center of america and we had the best infrastructure in the country. we have the ability to lead the nation in growth and opportunity. and instead jobs and people have been leaving our state. we watch other states emerge from the great recession while our employment and growth stag nates. we have
infrastructure and first class universities and amenities and white collar communities have mostly been able to overcome the financial mismanagement that is strangling cook county. it's difficult for the rest of the state. harvey, blue island, kankakee, danville, mount vernon and marion. they have to compete with other states like indiana, wisconsin, south carolina and too often we have been losing. in recent years, we have oust
more than 300,000 manufacturing jobs. many of you argued that we should not try to compete with other states. because that would be a race to the bottom. the numbers prove otherwise. the factory workers in indiana, tennessee and south carolina when you adjust for the cost of living make more than workers in illinois. that's unacceptable. factory workers in texas are now making more than illinois workers even without adjusting for the cost of living. that's outrageous. we should be kicking texas tail. the numbers don't lie. we are losing the race for good paying jobs. as jobs have moved to other states, we have a smaller tax base and less money to invest in education, infrastructure and quality of life here.
instead of letting indiana and texas take our workers, let's compete and take their jobs. illinois's policies were meant to help working people in the middle class. they are now having just the opposite effect. to see more people employed at high pay, we need to stop crushing employers. to create good jobs, we need more job creators. now, i understand that union leaders and trial lawyers are putting pressure to keep the status quo. if we don't offer a competitive environment for businesses, pretty soon the unions won't have any more jobs to unionize and the trial lawyers won't have any more businesses to sue.
all i'm asking for is a return to balance in this state. we don't have it now, we don't have competitive balance and jobs are leaving. to bring good jobs to illinois, we have to make illinois a place where it's good to do business. we must fix the worker's comp system. labor regulations and liability costs and property taxes that make us uncompetitive. and push job creators out. the cost of workers comp is the biggest factor driving job losses. if we simply aligned the costs with those of a state like massachusetts which is hardly a bastian of conservatism, we can save state and local taxpayers over $300 million a year. while protecting people who suffer workplace injuries and grow more careers at higher
wages. let's get it done. one of the most critical ways to lower our cost of living and compete for more good jobs is to reduce the property tax burden. we have the second highest in the country. they are crushing homeowners and small business owners from one end of the state to the other. in many cases people are paying more in property taxes over the course of living in their home than the original purchase price. that's ridiculous. the government should not make more off of a home than the owner. last year the lieutenant governor led a bipartisan task force to stream line and reduce
costs on local governments. it is a road map for reform. thank you, evelyn for your leadership. now, i know some items in the report are easier to pass than others. let's pass the easier ones first. we don't have to pass them all they want. we need to get started on consolidation and mandate right now. the families of illinois are tired of waiting. to create true long-term relief, we to give local governments a way to control costs. some said local control is impossible and many in this chamber have embraced it before, voting repeatedly to give chicago more control in the contracting and collective bargaining rules. we should not force others to come to springfield to beg for more control.
let's give local control now so homeowners can afford houses and communities can compete to jobs with neighboring states that have far lower property tax burdens. reducing our tax burden is not only about taxpayers and their property taxes, but citizens and their government. like it or not, there is a serious deficit in public trust when it comes to government in illinois. it's tr. citizens don't trust the government and businesses don't either. we pay for this trust deficit in lot of economic growth. victims fit everything in illinois have a special interest to prove. we need to regain public trust and restore employer confidence that illinois is a safe place to do business. they will invest more here and growing more high paying jobs and expanding the tax base.
that starts with fundamental changes. term limits and redistrict reform. the people of illinois deserve the chance to vote on term limits. the state supreme court made it clear it takes legislative action to put term limits on the ballot. this is the year to make that happen. i was told last year that the legislature only takes up the constitutional issues in years when they hold statewide elections. i look forward to a vote this session. president obama has come out strongly in favor of both term limits and restricting reform. just two weeks ago at his state of the union address, president obama pressed for non-part an redistricting reform, saying we
have to end the practice of our districts so that politicians can pick their voters and not the other way around. i agree and the president and the people of illinois agree. the only reasons no the to do this are pure partisan politics and a desire to clean the palette. the vast majority of voters, democrats and republicans are in overwhelming support of both term limits and redistricting reform. the time for excuses and blame is over and the time for action is now. let's get it done. change is hard. reform is difficult. but we can't just raise taxes again. we know that doesn't work. while the 2011 tax hike was in place, our credit rating was downgraded five times.
we barely made a dent in our bill backlog and state support for schools was cut. the unfunded liabilities went up $28 billion and economic growth fell to half the national average. raising taxes without improving our ability to compete will not help the people of illinois. in fact it will make things worse. they continue to negotiate and lower taxes, our organization is not waiting to takes action. we are moving ahead to make government more effective and provide our taxpayers with major long-term savings. let's review our actions. over the past year, we eliminated more than a half billion through department action and began the process of getting out from under our
degrees that accumulated. we reformed the edge program to eliminate special deals and only provide credits for job creation. we banned the revolving doors of turning lobbyists to make money off the programs they designed. we began a review for handling use of deadly force between officers and community residents. we began the process to sell the thompson center. we implemented records to prevented $188 million in improper insurance claims. under the director we took action that the net state taxpayers $250 million, improving redetermination and providing care and coordination. thanks to the leadership of
director george sheldon, dcfs move more children from shelters to foster homes. these efforts are only the beginning of a complete transformation of the way we provide health and human services here in illinois. historically -- it's a big deal. historically the state spent most of the resources, tens of billions of dollars on a broken patch work of reactive, expensive and effective interventions. after decades, illinois residents are sicker and no better educated while some of the most vulnerable communities suffer from unemployment, violence and incarceration. our transformation puts a strong new focus on prevention and public health and pays for values and outcomes rather than
volume and services and makes the data driven decisions and moves individuals from institutions to community care to keep them more closely connected to families and communities. many of you have been working on the issues for years. i ask for your support. together we can finally bring illinois up to par with the best run states, helping to make us far more compassionate to increase cost and in some cases reducing cost. one of the biggest taxpayer protections is to take on the compensation costs of the state government. most of our state employees are terrific hardworking public servants and deserve to be well-paid. they receive higher compensation in the future. it should be based in part upon higher productivity and shared benefit in taxpayer savings rather than just seniority.
unfortunately the compensation demand is out of touch with reality. adjusted for the cost of living, we have the highest paid state employees in america. undeterred and unashamed they demanded $3 billion more in overall compensation. that $3 billion should go to our schools and human services and not into the government bureaucracy. our state employees are paid almost 30% more than taxpayers are in their own jobs for the same work. that is just not fair. it's time we restore balance between taxpayers and state government. it's not just the price tag that
is hurting us. they are losing from the hidden cost. because of the work rules, they have seen them file grievances against volunteer campgrounds for visitors of out of states and volunteers at a veteran's home. against the supervisor who pitched in to eliminate a backlog of tax returns. that's not right. unfair work rules have allowed them to manipulate policies to boost their pay. costing taxpayers tens of millions of dollars. we paid $22 million in overtime for the 15-minute roll call that occurs at the beginning of shifts. our former auditor general highlighted the practice of so-called shift swapping where workers use sick time for a regular shift and get paid to work a later shift that same
day. we need to install common sense into our union contracts. one of the more critical aspects offer them a fair deal to enact constitutional pension reform. nearly everyone in this chamber understands the need for it. we have the worst unfunded liability in the nation and because of that, nearly one in four goes towards making tension payments. over the last ten years, we contributed $1.4 billion a year and this year's schedule to pay 7 penalty $6 billion. over the summer, our administration developed more than two billion in relief to cities, counties, universities and school districts in addition to the state. while it remains my hope that
the general assembly is interested in providing more comprehensive help, we cannot wait any longer to help the state. as a first step towards bipartisan compromise, the president and i have agreed to support his pension proposal that will save $1 billion a year from four of the plans. i destructed administration attorneys to work with the senate president staff to finalize language as soon as possible. when they do, i urge both chambers to pass it without delay. one of the biggest impediments holding back the efforts to lower taxpayer cost and improved services is the technology system. we are a model of inefficiency and ineffectiveness. the three highest spending
states on it, but that's not just recent. that's for years. we are one of the worst states for digital service is delivered to the public. too many of our agencies can't communicate with each other and they are vulnerable to cyber attacks and expensive to maintain. the state government needs a digital revolution. this week i created a secretary level position to see this mission through. the department of innoefvation and technology will allow us to stream line our it systems to better serve taxpayers and businesses to foster innovation among employees. with us today, where are you? they will lead our transformation to improve service and productivity and allow them to be more proactive in the quickly changing world of
it. it's not just it. the department of commerce and opportunity is hampered by red tape to make the business development more difficult. they boosted economic efforts while illinois stood still. it it stalled in the legislature. they increase our competitiveness for job creation and investment. this morning the illinois business and economic development corporation filed articles of incorporation with the secretary of state, the first step towards bringing the development efforts into the 21st century. in the days ahead, i will be designing an executive order formally establishing our collaboration.
in order to counter the procurement system of prior governors, we know who they were, the assembly passed the procurement reform law. unfortunately that law is creating far more problems than those it was designed to correct. the law more than tripled the time it takes to complete in the process. taking in the process from two or three months to nine to 12 months. the real solution is comprehensive reform both legislative and administrative to maintains the safeguards and stream lines bureaucracy and offers greater flexibility and follows the best practices from other states. done properly, we believe this can save taxpayers more than $500 million a year. we look forward to working with this legislature to get that
done. now, let's talk about one of the most significant transformations. we created a bipartisan commission led by the director of public safety to propose reforms to the criminal justice system. the commission recommended 14 reforms that can help us achieve the goal by 25% by 2025. they implement risks, needs assessments and evidence-based programs that target underlying issues that contribute to criminal behavior, particularly cognitive behavioral therapy and substance abuse treatment. these and other reforms will lead to fewer victims of crimes and a better pathway back and safer communities for all. state senators michael conley and michael nolan kwa kwame
raul. they served on the criminal justice reform commission. thank you all for your hard work on this critical issue. with your help, let's pass your recommendations into law this year. finally let's educate our young people. i know each of you share my passion to make illinois schools the best in the nation. i'm excited to work together to make that a reality. we are blessed with wonderful teachers. i want to thank the thousands of educators for the excellent work they do each and every day for our sons and daughters. the key to rising family incomes and more jobs and a better life
is to have a high quality fully integrated system from cradle to career. from early education from the k to 12 public schools and outstanding colleges and universities. all the way to coordinated job training and technical training later in life. to drive that result, we are committed to eliminating bureaucracy and putting more money in and freeing up the teachers to teach and holding our schools truly accountable for results. we have 10 long-term goals. this legislative session we will begin. we want to work closely with the president to significantly increase state support for education. focusing our additional resources more on low income and rural school districts so we can provide high quality classrooms without taking money away from
other districts. second, we have to provide proper funding for early childhood education while setting benchmarks for program performance so we can continue to be national leaders in this important work. third, we need to give school districts more flexibility when it comes to bargaining, contracting and bidding to save taxpayer money while enabling districts to pay higher teacher salaries. fourth, let's empower our universities and community colleges to reduce administrative costs. pensions and unfunded mandates and offer additional financial support to schools who showed real progress in putting more resources in the classroom where it belongs. let's support more partnerships
between high schools and community colleges and local employers so that our young people who are not going to university can receive the training and step into good paying careers begin in their teenage years. the student growth measure and not necessarily based on the park system so we can track progress towards the college or career. they eliminate unnecessary testing and bureaucratic mandates. they are stuck in failing schools. >> they created schools of choice as a way to get them back in school. let's consolidate the majority
of task forces under the p 20 and early councils to decrease bureaucracy and increase outs and improve the coordination of these working groups. they had the career education in order to provide higher quality and got integrated services for the young people. this education and change is difficult. by working together, we can make it a reality. the people of illinois deserve nothing less than the best education system in america. we all know all of us in this chamber had a difficult year together in 2015.
>> we came together to solve a budget crisis early in 2015. we came to improve our unemployment insurance system benefiting employers and workers alike. we came to pass historic criminal justice reforms and much needed police reforms. if each of us commits to serious negotiations based on mutual respect for the coequal branches of government, there is not a doubt in my mind we can come together to pass a balanced budget alongside reforms. if we work together, illinois can be both compassionate and competitive.
our job in this capital is to improve the lives of all the people in illinois through more economic opportunity, better educational opportunity, and more value for their hard earned tax dollars. to achieve a grand compromise, we must cast partisanship and ideology aside. we must break from the politics
from the politics of the past and do what is right for the long-term future of the state. i'm ready. it is my hope that you are too. let's continue this journey together and illinois can't wait any longer. thank you all and god bless you. god bless our great state of illinois. thank you. >> c-span's campaign 2016 is taking you on the road to the white house for the iowa caucus us. our coverage begins at 7:00 eastern on c-span and c-span 2 with live coverage taking your phone call, texts and tweets. at 8:00, a republican caucus on c-span and democratic caucus on
c-span 2. c-span spoke to a vice president for microsoft about the technology being used this this year's caucus. >> danny is corporate vice president for technology in microso microsoft. >> we have a team member who is familiar with people and i in the process. as part of our broader civic engagement agenda, we are working on the road to 2016. we reached out to both parties.
we were losing the applications for each party in the specific approach that allows them to correlate the results in the precincts. they will have a dual factor and authentication that will drive the reporting results to the server. we reached out and helped them to drive the efficient results. >> these are the caucuses and the tabulation will be done by each of the precinct captains to the central location in des moines. there were problems in 2012. and declaring that mitt romney is a winner. they won by three dozen votes. walk us through the mistakes that were made and how each party wanted to make sure it's not repeated on caucus night. >> what we are doing has no
correlation to the specific process. it is really the party process by which they gather and tally the votes. our application is a process by which they can record the solution and the out come from each precinct. what we are doing is helping with the process. it doesn't tie back the results from 2012. >> can you explain how it will work and how to make sure it is secure and authentic? . >> the first thing is the authentication and the precinct and the television number they assigned to the system. we know it's the individual captain who is putting results into the system. then of course because there is a computer in the phone, there is math that can be done. if there is a number of people that registered, you can't have vote that go beyond that.
when you results are pushed to the service, the parties here in des moines have the ability to peer in and see the result and as they check and confirm, they will release those results collectly to the reb sight to see and through a programming interface make the same results available. they will make that result and information available to the media. they will have control over all of that. >> how significant is this for mike soft and the political parties? >> we think it's an important step andy we are proud to be part of the process. the idea that there mobile devices that are highly capable and the fact that there incredible cloud services and the datacenters we have around the world allows for a much more robust and secure and realtime result. we think it's the beginning of a
process and engagement where the citizenry will be in a more open and effective process using modern tools. our view was iowa first in the nation, major election in 2016. the world is watching. we think it's important for us to offer up services and help provide these kinds of things as a way to make it clear that in the modern world there ways to do things that can be new, different, highly different. >> when they write the books on the premier standpoint, how significant is this not only for the company, but for the technology. where can this lead us in 2020 or 2024? >> i think you are on to it when you point that out. where is the evolution as you know that is a absolutely thing. things change and technology is pervading every walk of life. whether it's all these realtime communications and capabilities or the fact that virtually everyone in the world today,
particularly in this process as access to a smart phone or a computer. by 2020, the level of what i would call machine learning or high level analysis of the data as well as this realtime capability are going to change the face of the way we engage in civil discourse. iowa is first in the nation and the shows case of what's possible. >> the engagement, what are your job responsibilities. i look after five or six areas and everything from the environmental sustainability and how we work with research institutions and things with policy and technology are going to intersect. accessibility for the people with disabilities. we are looking broadly at a new mission for the company that is focused on em 54ing every person
on the planet to realize their best as a result of technology. that's a combination of these mobile devices that people will carry. the sensors that are placed are called the internet of things. how cloud services and high end new learning capabilities will let us see and act and empower people on an incredible level. it's a collection of what i would say little machines that people carry or big machines that are the cloud service datacenters which will allow for machine learning and software to correlate interesting new things to empower people and the civil discourse and hopefully where technology can be an empowering capability for humanity. our world view is very broad and iowa is a very focused instance of how we think it can make a difference. >> for those who are not as immersed as you are with regard
to cloud technology. what is that and how is it going to be on caucus? >> that's a good question. it sounds like an airy fairy thing in the clouds. it's a bunch of computers. thousands and thousands. millions and millions of computers. sitting in physical buildings around the world. in many ways people will go to the machine.