It's now 6 minutes after 12 noon your listing to midday on Minnesota Public Radio time to go now to the Hyatt Regency in Downtown Minneapolis and the Minnesota meeting. Good afternoon. I am Judy Duffy president of the League of Women Voters of Minnesota. And a board member of the Minnesota meeting. It's a great pleasure to welcome all of you to today's Minnesota meeting members of Minnesota meeting represent. This community's leaders from business government Academia and the professions. This is our 16th year in the marketplace of ideas. I would also like to welcome already audience to the Upper Midwest who are hearing this address on the midday program of Minnesota public radio broadcast of Minnesota meeting are made possible by the law firm of Oppenheimer wolf and Donnelly with offices in Minneapolis-Saint Paul and major cities in the United States and Canada. I am here today representing the Minnesota compact for project of the lake of women Women Voters education fund. The compact is proud to join the Minnesota meeting to sponsor today's luncheon the compact which is supported by a number of Civic organizations and Community leaders too numerous to mention today was created for a simple reason to improve political discourse during critical political campaigns like the gubernatorial Congressional and state races which are underway right now. We want to and attack ads and the influence of big money and maximize the intelligent debate on public issues. We couldn't have a better speaker to kick off this year's efforts. Mr. Norman Ornstein is resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy research and one of the nation's leading political thinkers. This Minnesota native has a resume on a cold as an as an influential influential advocate for reforming our nation's politics and how we choose our political leaders. He writes regularly for the op-ed pages of the New York Times The Washington Post and USA Today. And he's quoted nearly every week in the nation's major media. The Columbia journalism review calls him the nation's hottest pundit the National Journal cause him quote and icon of the press. We call him a friend and a neighbor and we're very pleased to have him with us today. Following his address. Mr. Arnstein will take questions from the audience Gloria McClanahan and then can darling of the Minnesota meeting will move them on you to field your questions. It's a great pleasure for me to present to you. Mr. Norman Ornstein. Thank you very much Duty. And it's up. It's a pleasure to be back in my hometown and back of the Minnesota meeting. I spoke here last several years ago. If any of you got the flyer announcing this you saw that picture from several years ago and and a lot more hair go to I want to recognize some of my family who are still here. Join me here today on my brother read David Ornstein My Sister Margaret Jaffe and her husband to Stanley and my nephew Mitchell Bernstein are also here helping to make this continue make this a great City even though I left. I did have one announcement. I wanted to make as we've been sitting here at lunch. There was a news flash a group of unidentified man apparently broke into the Pfizer Factory in St. Paul and have a stolen the year supply of Viagra and I would ask you all including listening audience to be on the lookout for a band of hardened criminals. I apologize. But these days it's obligatory to tell at least one Viagra joke. Anything's have such a short half-life that you got to use them in. I do not reside in Washington DC and I want to bring you greetings from a city with many distinctions not the least of which is that we are the only city in America where the mayor rides in a limousine where he made the license plates. For those of us in my business the announcement by mayor Barry that he's going to be retiring, you know, cause some morning that meant a whole range of jokes would just be lost by the end of the year. So there was rejoicing last week when Jerry Brown became a mayor of Oakland will have to move from cocaine jokes to Prozac jokes, but at least they'll be somebody out there we can use as a foil Washington of course is a city that's now gripped with rumors and gossip and Tails of Scandal. I wanted to bring you up-to-date on the latest. There's been a rumor sweeping the city this week that Al Gore when he was in college apparently experimented with facial expressions. But I want to reassure you having known Al Gore for 20 years. There's no truth whatsoever to that rumor. And just to expand a little bit on the introduction that you gave me. I did want to bring you up-to-date on what I'm doing like so many other people out there in the country now seeing where the future is. I've been dabbling with a screenplay and Washington of course is a Hot Topic right now. So I tried a number of things in my spare time. The first idea that I had was I called the full Monica, but I abandon that Then I tried the big Lewinsky, but now I've settled on something I call Capital One. It's kind of a take off on Air Force One, which was really the best of the Washington Chandra movies in a long time and the premises that receives the capital and threatened to release the members one by one unless their demands are met but enough of that the subject here really flows both from a meeting of an advisory committee. In fact call the gore commission, which I co-chair that we held her in Minneapolis yesterday to look at the future of Digital television broadcasting and what public interest obligations go along with it and includes some very important discussion of the role of television in campaigns and politics. And following on the heels of that meeting and we're moving towards making some recommendations. I hope important ones in that area. We had of course this press conference this morning that UD mentioned on the Minnesota compact one attempt here and it's going to spread to other states this year as well to try and pull together public interest groups citizens journalist and candidates to try and improve our political discourse. And even as we speak at the House of Representatives has moved back to another effort which may or may not have any chance of success of doing something about the campaign Finance system that we have which has Kareem out of control. We saw some examples of the problems in campaigns once again last week as we've seen with a whole host of special elections last week in California course, we had a major primary election that got a lot of attention mostly outside of California. It became the first hundred million dollar primary election much of it focused on a Governor's race one that got more attention in Minnesota, perhaps that otherwise would have because of course of the first 30 to 40 million dollar candidate. I'll check he was thinking about that as I flew in on Northwest yesterday thinking that be taking that 30 million dollars and use it to upgrade from peanuts to pretzels. we all would be better off him to People are drawing lessons from that campaign a campaign, of course in which that massive spending resulted in Mr. Chucky's support plummeting to a point where he barely eked out a second-place finish a lesson that many Drew being that well money just can't buy elections anymore. We've turn the corner on this issue, of course the third-place candidate Jane Harman spent it appears about 17 billion dollars of family money in that campaign. But what seemed to get ignored in the process was that the candidate who ultimately one that primary grade Avis lieutenant, governor, California? Who didn't have a lot of independent wealth spent 12 million dollars? Now California has a $500 contribution limit for individuals in state campaigns. What really happened in California? Was that working night and day 7 days a week for more than a year. Raising what would have to be if he got maximum contributions 24000 separate $500 contributions to reach that level of 12 million dollars, which ended up being of course the whole lot more Gray Davis managed to come up with enough money. What in any previous year would have been considered a mind-boggling some what was ignored because of the much larger box spent by El Jackie and Jane Harman and managed to win money still matters and matters enormously. It doesn't mean if you have the most that you win but it means you got to have enough to get a message across to put the Andy in at the table of what has become a higher and higher Stakes game of poker in this process and to raise that money. Means if not selling your soul at least selling your time your body and everything else around you for months. If not years getting obsessed with the process of raising the money they in the campaign. Now another lesson that seems to have been drawn from California is that negative campaigns don't work. I'll check you went and ran a negative campaign and look what happened to him. He went from front-runner to also-ran. But I would remind you that what he did was to focus his ire on another candidate who'd emerged early on Jane Harman and what happened to her once those negative as she went from being FrontRunner temporarily to being also ran both candidates dropped. But the fact is that negative campaign did work and nobody in the political Consulting business is going to draw the lesson from California that you should avoid negativity. They're going to keep trying it and as long as it works, they'll keep using it and in many cases it's still will Now we have other lessons from California, of course as well. California Was a Race in which more money was spent on television advertising in a campaign than any other time in history, but it may also go down as a race in which there was less coverage by television of that campaign there any other major election in history and we're talking about a major election many races up the Senate Statewide races. In other levels Governor, California is going to have an enormous role in the future of the State of California and Across the Nation for years to come. It was virtually ignored by California television stations that race and the only information that many voters got came from the commercials themselves. No, California journalist misjudged their voters, I believe because we did have one very significant Statewide debate among the gubernatorial candidates. It was run at 11 in the morning some of the television stations dutifully ran it and they got double or triple the ratings that they expected voters wanted more information. They weren't getting the information and what we learn from California is Money does matter negativity still Reigns and if people out there from the candidates through the journalists through the political figures in the politician setting the system right down to the voters themselves don't engage themselves and doing something about this process. We're going to look back at the campaign in 1996, which made virtually everybody cringe and we'll look back at this gubernatorial circus in California with nostalgia. Because things are getting worse. They're not getting better. Now let me say one of the things that happen in California without checking. It wasn't just the negative campaign that he ran but he badly misjudged the state of the electorate this year check here and by saying if you like the status quo don't vote for me. Well, you pick the worst year in modern history to take that message out there. California in 1998 is a hotbed of social rest. Like most of the rest of the country people feel better about themselves better about the country better about their Futures then they have in three decades. What that meant in California was that voters decided and pull showed very surprising results there. Voters decided that they preferred a candidate with experience over one without any. 4 years ago no epis. It would have stung an individual more than to call him or her a professional politician. this year Gray Davis use the term professional politician to Advantage now that may not last and of course it's they're basically because people think the countries turn the corner and we're in the midst of the best economy, perhaps In a history of the modern world all of the factors working together, that's not going to last forever. But that feeling of contentment and the belief on the part of people that having a little experience in public life isn't so bad. Maybe being a politician isn't the worst thing overall provides us a temporary narrow, but real window perhaps to begin to resurrect the political system not by trashing politicians, but by saying maybe they're not all bad and maybe we can do something to encourage more people to get active in the process and even to run for office because let's face it folks. We live in a world now where people robust Lives who been out there and who can offer something contribute something to the public would look at running for office and in most cases would say you would have to be out of your mind to run right now. Look at what it costs look at what you have to do to raise the money. If you don't have independent wealth and then look what happens. If you get out there and run and even win if your opponent doesn't strip the bark off you the Press Corps will and generally they both work in concert to do. So, so we need to step back and do some deep thinking about the kind of culture and climate that we've created that has made serving and public life hazardous to one's Health reputation and livelihood. Now one way of doing that is to change the campaign Finance laws. It's one step that isn't going to solve every problem but it's an important one. It's not the only one. I'm going to come back to it in a minute to talk a little bit about what we might do. But we've got to go beyond that we have to do the sorts of things that start at the level of rebuilding a culture and getting people together at the elite Mass level to Think Through what we're doing with our lives and with our society. That's why the Minnesota Compact and the broader National effort led by my comrade-in-arms who's here today Paul Taylor former reporter with the Washington Post who now runs an organization called The Alliance for better campaigns is so important. Because we have to take people in the Press Community people in the political community. The candidates the consultants and all the others and basically say look what you're doing step back from it and figure out a way to do it better. Now that may not work. We got to make the effort and we also have to change the laws including the campaign Finance ones and including many of the other ones that we have surrounding conflict of interest disclosure and others that start with the premise that everybody will gets into this business as guilty until proven innocent. We need to cut a little more slack here and move beyond that particular culture. We do have an opportunity to change the campaign Finance laws right now up in the House of Representatives. I have to tell you the chances are Slim. We're not dead yet. We are on life support in the house. The Republican leaders are doing their best to try and use the house equivalent of a filibuster to make sure the campaign reform basically just Peters out over there and frankly many of the reform communities are doing their best to form a circular firing squad and looking to replay the notion that the the best is the enemy of the good and keep anything from happening. But if somehow against the odds a package does make it through the house, there's a chance to go back to the Senate which passed a campaign reform plan a reasonable one a version somewhat altered of what we knew as mccain-feingold with a majority support earlier in the year, which then died on the basis of a filibuster LED Again by the Republican leadership. Now, this is not a partisan issue. In fact mccain-feingold of course was driven by John McCain. Republican and there are many and both sides of the aisle who want to see something done. The reason of Republican leaders are in the spotlight right now is more because they're in the majority and anytime a party is in the majority. They prefer the status quo. There's a larger problem out there, which is that almost everybody in Congress by definition is a winner under the existing system. They may not like it. But there's a fear of change. We got to try and do something in the proposals that are up now would at least begin to move away from the worst excesses that drove this system out of control in 1996, you know about them. There was the explosion of soft money which doubled between 1988 and 1992 and triple began between 1992 and 1996 2 / 260 $2000000. The worst part of it is frankly, but these are unlimited contributions and that means you get a problem moving in both directions. It's not only that fast-buck artists can come in and give out a couple hundred thousand hear a couple million there to exert great influence. It's also the political figures with the stakes being high. Will turn to large contributors and coerce them into giving more and more money using state power basically to Shakedown individuals and you take away the protection from a donor of being able to say, I'm sorry. I can't give anymore. I've reached the maximum cuz there is no maximum. At the same time we saw an explosion in a new form of advocacy which one could call Sham issue advocacy? Under the campaign Finance laws in the ruling of the Supreme Court in 1990 and 1976 in the Buckley vs. Valeo decision. There was a distinction made between political Communications design directly to influence an election to Electra defeat candidates. The court said those kinds of communications. You can't limit the spending on First Amendment round what you can limit the contributions and disclose the contributions because you need to prevent corruption. But then they put on the other side of the line other kinds of communications that did not explicitly move to elector defeat candidates, which they called issue advocacy and said the rules don't apply. Well candidates and consultants and outside groups more and more have discovered and begun to exploit. What is a loophole by running massive attack ads that are every bit the same as in fact virtually identical to campaign ads, except they don't use magic words, like elect this candidate or defeat this candidate instead. They say send this candidate the message. We know from a very solid study done by the Annenberg Center at the University of Pennsylvania that over a hundred and fifty million dollars was spent on such ads in 1996 that they were more negative than any other kind of bad including candidate commercials and that in fewer than 10% of the cases. Did you have an organization or a group actually advocated position on an issue? They were attack ads against candidates. But when you run those kinds of bad you can use money from any Source in unlimited amounts foreign contributions including from foreign governments labor union dues corporate offers and there is no disclosure whatsoever. And we know that we had money laundered in through three or four different organizations so that you couldn't tell where the attacks were coming from tax made at the right at the end of a campaign. We know the parties were manipulating groups so that they could attack a candidate and let their own candidate be out there saying I'm shocked stunned at these negative ads, but I had nothing to do with them. So that their hands were clean because they didn't manipulate them directly and voters not having a clue as to what was going on there and what we seen since 1996 is that this giant loophole is being exploited more and more in special elections like one for the house. Santa Barbara just a few weeks ago in the California primary and it will take off in 1998 and all the talk by some of the opponents of Reform. One of the things that have taken great Delight in his the two most visible opponents of political campaign Finance reform in the House of Representatives now are named John Doolittle and Tom DeLay Doolittle and delay. Central Casting couldn't have provided a better names say well, we're for No Limits, but full disclosure except there were against disclosure of anything about these kinds of ads if you end soft money and don't do anything about this forget about it. You're going to have a loophole big enough to drive Minneapolis through out there driving the campaign system. Now if we manage to do something about these two big problems with exploded in 1998 1996. We're still not going to solve all the problems. We're still not going to be able to get a better quality of candidate going out there in California. I'll check e Gray Davis Jane Harman ran. But remember that Dianne Feinstein Leon Panetta and other superb potential candidates declined to run because they didn't want to get out there and get into the money Chase knowing that they have to work night and day to raise the money to even begin to compete. We've got to find a way to get the resources to candidates. We've got to find a way to change the nature of Television including television advertising and find a waste of the candidates including a lot of Challengers who can't even get to the starting blocks have an opportunity to get a message across we're going to have to find a way to bring small contributors back into the campaign here in Minnesota. You have a tax credit for small contributions It's Made A Difference. We need a tax credit for small contributors at the federal level as well so we can begin to move the playing field back and tilted away from the giant contributors and back to the rank-and-file contributors and get more and more of them out there and engage Motors in the political process their ways of doing this by changing the laws by working with broadcast. The newspapers and magazines and others to try and alter the nature of the coverage that's out there and the way in which the campaign to run by using peer pressure against candidates and Consultants to try and make the campaigns a little bit better. It's not going to happen this year all of it. It's not going to happen overnight. It's going to be a long hard struggle. We all have to recognize the steak we have in it though. Yes, things are good, Minnesota. They're good in California. They're good and Washington, they're good in most of the rest of the country right now. But we have big problems ahead in this country problems that have to be solved and government is going to have to play a role and if we continue to reduce the pool of the kinds of people, we want engaged in public life and continue to debase the dialogue that we have in the discourse so we can address these issues over the long run. We and our children will pay a very heavy price. So we all need to get engaged and I hope that we all will and with that let me stop and open up to whatever questions or comments you have on this or any other matter. I thank you very much. Thank you very much. Mr. Arnstein. I'm everything radio audience is listening to Norman Ornstein resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute speaking to the Minnesota meeting in Downtown Minneapolis. We have a question first from Amy Klobuchar who's a Democratic candidate for the Hennepin County attorney a name. I remember well for my years here. Yes. Thank you. And I appreciate your comments as a candidate running for office. So I never envisioned that running for office would require me to go through a directory and find people that I had dated 20 years ago and asked them for money. We appreciate your ultimate Revenge, isn't it? The problem is it's not an expanding base. Which I have to start dating more again Amy. I don't know. My question is this when I talk about this issue in my campaign cuz it is a concern. I'm not under the state matching fund program that you talked about a Minnesota eyes can glazed over. How do you get the public behind this issue? I would think that if the public was more behind this issue you'd see more movement in Washington on the federal level at what do you suggest we do to get the public excited about it? That's a very good question and it's a tough one most voters are for reform. But frankly, it's not at the top of their agendas. It's not even in the middle of their agendas and we have to overcome. What is a very strong level of cynicism a belief that they may talk a good game about reform but whatever they pass but it'll just go back to being the same as it was. So there's no real reason to spend a lot of time and effort on this and there's some truth to that but let's face it. One of the things that we've got to deal with is the reality That there is no magic bullet here and that if we did manage to make everything work and get a campaign Reform Bill passed it's not going to change the world overnight. One of the problems. I believe we've had is that reformers have tended to exaggerate their own rhetoric and say boy if we can just do this everything will be great. And then it turns out not to be the case being more realistic that an affect. What we're trying to do is just to put some limits on system out of control will be helpful. The analogy that I've used is the Jurassic Park 1 the people who are the consultants and actors in This political Arena are like the Raptors in Jurassic Park and you remember they kept brushing up against that electrified fence see what limits they could test. Well, the Raptors in the political Arena discovered that Not only was the electricity gone from the fence, but there's no fence anymore. And we need to put up a fence to bring this Behavior back into bones to do that. We're going to have to frame the issue in a different fashion and we may get some help in Congress. Frankly speaker Gingrich has provided an enormous amount of help by blundering on this issue trying to kill put in a clumsy fashion and having it brought back and by doing that we're going to get a little more public attention focused on it and the need to do something about it, but it's not going to work unless Not the political figures but those of us in this room including an awful lot of candidates raise it wherever they go and sensitize boaters to the reality that the pollution they get on their television screens or the lack of any coverage of serious and important things out there is driven to a considerable degree by the system that we have and it's not just changing everything in the world around them, but creating a better quality of life for themselves when they turn on the television set that is an important issue here maybe with that we can make a difference but let's face it. We cannot rely if we're going to get any campaign reform done on the hope that voters on the whole will go to the mattresses to the barricades to make this happen. It's going to have to come in other ways that are harder and take much more effort from those who care enough to really spend a lot of time on the issue. Thank you. Mr. Arnstein. We have a question now from Rodger Hale the CEO of 10 I missed Ornstein. I fully support the idea of campaign Finance reform, but I want to relate a little incident and ask her opinion of it several years ago. I was in France for about a week during the time of the run-up to the presidential elections and each evening. I was just amazed at what interesting and thoughtful and thorough dialogue there was with all the major candidates individually collectively. All the Talking Heads were going out there hour after hour on all the channels during prime time. And I thought this is the way it ought to be. This is thoughtful people really into it and so on the problem is as I thought about what goes on in France and how what happens with her country the way they deal with foreign policy with immigration issues with on it with employment issues. It isn't absolutely clear to me that that system works better. Could you comment on that? Absolute and in fact Francis deteriorating from a low base at this point very badly dialogue alone in a campaign is not enough funny part of it is a culture part of it is the nature of the organization and structure of the political system and in France not going to get into great detail about all of the hills in France, but let's face it. You have a welfare state there that has simply not adapted to the global economy and you have a political process in this is true in a lot of places in Europe where demagogues in this case including the particularly those in the radical right or exploiting it and not helping any so we have to recognize that changing a few laws isn't going to be enough. There's an awful lot else that goes into it the nature of the governing structure itself. I happen to prefer hours of the separation of power system one the Is much more oriented towards individual freedom and a market system than the French were other Europeans have and a culture itself as well. But that doesn't mean that leaving the laws as they are especially those involving the governance of campaigns is meaningless nor does it mean that we shouldn't work to change and improve our culture because even if we're doing terrifically well compared to the French or the Germans or some others. We're not out of the woods and as I mentioned earlier, we've got to find ways to focus on long-term problems with an aging population with a world that is still a very dangerous place as we're learning daily, and we're at what we need to do. Now when times are good is to convince Americans. That the role of government plays if it's not the dominant role others in the private sector play a role to means we have to take some steps now that involve a little short-term pain for long-term game. If you don't trust in the system in the people running it nobody's going to be willing to take the short-term pain because they don't think they'll ever be any long-term gain and we won't get any discussion of what that game does the pain in the game would entail so we've got to do something about it. Let me mention one idea that we are moving around out there both in my advisory committee. And in other venues one small simple step that we could take to help improve this dialogue. We are asking all broadcast stations to commit to the following. During the 30 days before an election provide 5 minutes of time a night. We Define the night broadly V. When a lot of people begin to watch newscast through 11:35. 5 minutes a night for candidate centered discourse experiment with the different formats give a candidate pick the races that matter that you think really need attention. Give the candidates a minute to get their message across a little mini debate for 3 minutes or 5 minutes do interviews do a lot of things but if every station did this for 30 days and you don't have to do it in one 5 minute block, you can split it up a little bit to make it creative in Lively and worthwhile. You get candidates who don't get any chance to get a message across and you have an opportunity to focus and engage and things that matter in ways that probably would get people paying attention and listening and would suggest to everybody send out a signal this stuff is important and it matters just at a time when people do pay attention if we can do something simple like that which frankly is television stations want to be creative they could do without it costing them a nickel of commercial time. Maybe we could take that small step to get the kind of Engagement that we want and maybe if you had candidates who just took a minute to get their message across there would be a little bit less need that they would feel to do some of the negative stuff. Now that's only one step. We can take four or five like that. We would be better off and we would increase our advantage over the French in terms of the quality of our life and our politics. Thank you. Mr. Arnstein. Our next question is from Bob White who's in international Affairs correspondent for the Star Tribune? Have you said just now that one of the purpose of a compact and reform is to improve public trust in candidates and to return some respectability to people running for public office. I wonder if I'm interested in your views on the effect over the years of the term limits movement, which it all seemed to me to be running in the opposite direction. What is the effect and what do you think should be done or encouraged to be done about term limits? Sure Bob. Let me say at the outset. I'm against all term limits. There's only one Constitutional Amendment that I would endorse and that would be the repeal of the twenty-second amendment that limits presidents to two terms now. Well, I got one one back her out there. I get another 249 million. We're going to go somewhere. Actually. I have to be perfectly honest. There's another Constitutional Amendment that I would consider supporting Woodrow Wilson originally raised it and that's a constitutional amendment that would allow the president once every year without any explanation to summarily execute a person of his choice. Just make Sam Donaldson Sweat Make it all worthwhile, but I think term limits are very very destructive. And we see the impact everywhere in California where they have now implemented term limits and as many other states we see what's happening. The proponents of term limits believe that ambition is a corrosive thing in public life and you got to get rid of it in the way to get rid of it is by limiting how people can serve the framers spend a lot of time focusing on ambition and they knew you couldn't eliminate ambition. You had to channel it appropriately the problem with term limits. Is it a channels ambition in the worst possible ways. What's happening in California is that people in the assembly who know they can only serve six years as soon as they get their start the flat out there moved to the Senate and people in the state senate start the flat out their move to the House of Representatives and before long you'll have people in the house figuring out how they can get to the center of the United States. And if they're not going to stay in public life, they're figuring out how they can move to the next cushy lobbying job or something else. So instead of focusing on what they're doing or on building the institutions of which they're apart looking at the long-term they care about what happened to you in the here and now so that they can use it as a springboard for something else. Now, we see it and another very interesting way when the Republicans took the majority in the House of Representatives for the first time in forty years in 1994. The first thing I did was to implement a series of internal reforms most of them very very good ones and necessary and ones that have been ignored by the Democrats have been entrenched in power for 40 years, but one of the things I did was to bring in term limits for their committee chairman and the speaker. We're moving towards for years. What is a 6 year limit on the terms of the chairman? And what's happened? Japanese lot of the chairman who know they can't serve any longer are figuring out how to run for speaker. They're out there campaigning or they're running for president or they're figuring out some way to subvert the term limits for the retiring figuring will I have that I'm not going to go back to this one. I'm not going to be a chairman and every other member of the committee is stabbing every other member in the back because they all want to jump over everybody else to become the chairman. The speaker has an eight-year limit. Newt Gingrich is out there running for president. Why is Newt Gingrich exploring a presidential campaign? Not because of an approval rating that's two points below the Unabomber. But rather because he looks out there in an open contest for the presidency and knows that if he stays the speaker if the Republicans keep their majority 2002, he's out anyhow, and that isn't a very good year to start looking for employment. So why not begin to explore run for speaker? The meantime if you look at what's happening in the house instead of focusing on the long-term problems and public policy there. Not you look at what's happening in California and everybody's running against everybody else and what they're mostly looking at is redistricting so that they can draw districts favorable to themselves for the next step up and it's not doing what it's supposed to do. Let voters decide. We're getting lots of turnover otherwise, and we need turn over and you got to find ways to make elections competitive. So the good candidates will run the challengers can get a message across and incumbents. Don't just have a free ride every time then you'll have a better system term limits isn't going to do it. Thank you very much. Mr. Ornstein. We have a question now from Jerry Joseph. Who's the chair of The Advisory Board to the Humphrey Institute of public affairs. Including the the Senate Majority Leader and then I'd only people in politics but even outside of politics are now equating this ability to spend as much money and raise as much money as you possibly can with free speech. How do you answer that? What do you say to people who say well this is you know, check he can spend 40 million dollars. It's his money and he's got things to say we have some very very difficult issues here involving the First Amendment of the Constitution. There's no question about it. We know what the Supreme Court said in the Buckley decision and it was of course a decision framed around the first amendment and wherever we turn we have to be sensitive to the First Amendment rights that individuals have and frankly, I think no matter what we're going to have to live with one element of that Court decision, which is an individual's can spend as much of their own money as they wish on campaigns and there's going to be nothing done about that other than to find ways to level the playing field enough. But others who don't have permanent personal wealth can also get out there and get a message across the more General thrust of what people are interpreting is the Buckley decision. I think we need to re-examine that is in part the notion that money itself is equated with speech and that the spending of money and the raising of money. Just like speaking out can't be regulated and laws can't be in pose that will put some limits on now. We do have to recognize that the First Amendment says there should be no law abridging it, but there is such a thing as we know to use the old cliche as shouting fire in a crowded theater. We already have some limits. We know that we grappled with and we brought some limits to what's defined as obscenity, even though we have great difficulty doing it. And I believe that what we can do in the system consistent with the first amendment in particular. The spirit of the first amendment is to create a modest but meaningful regulatory framework that preserves the rights of speech while also creating a better political system. Let me give you an example hear the people who don't want to even allow disclosure of contributors or the perpetrators of this sham issue. Advocacy say that it's a matter of free speech. No. The court said that is within the Constitutional framework in the First Amendment to require disclosure and put some limits on contributions for an ad that says Norm Ornstein is a bum Norm Ornstein stinks vote against normal in Steam, but that you can't do the same thing for an ad that says Norm Ornstein is a bump Norm Ornstein stinks in this is an ad the day before the election say send him a message. I believe that you can create a definition of what we could call electioneering that would Encompass ads close to an election where the context is clear and a candidate is targeted and say they can be regulated in the same way make them part of that Level Playing Field that means disclosure and it means taking out camp corporate contributions labor union dues or foreign contributions and that's consistent with the First Amendment and frankly as somebody listening to that speech. If somebody comes forward and runs an ad that says and I'm sitting there as a voter listening to it Jerry Joseph is a bum Jerry Joseph stinks. Send a message to Jerry Joseph. I want to know what I believe. I have a First Amendment right to know who's sending that message. I'm not going to have any context if I don't have that part of speech is you want to know who's speaking and I believe that that's also consistent with the first amendment. I don't want to trample on anybody's rights virtually every figure who has run the American civil liberties Union have been a major part of it except for the current leadership believes as I do. It's only the current leaders who basically say shout fire in a crowded theater. Why not? And I'm afraid I don't go along with that. Thank you. Thank you. Our next question is from Dean Barkley who's co-director of the Minnesota compact. Welcome, it's nice to see another soul mate about campaign Finance reform. You know, the more I've gotten into politics has been six years The more I've I've come to understand I think you're on the most important issue facing. Our democracy witches were campaign finances hitting Minnesota is fortunate. We do have public financing for legislature up to president. What's missing is Congress. In fact a 1994. Most people don't realize their governors race with Arne Carlson and John Martinez at $1 back money was accepted by either, and they managed to run do you believe public financing is at least a partial solution to our problem? And what do you think the chances of that ever been passed the way Congress operates right now? Let me say I am not averse to public money in campaigns. I believe we eat there was also a role for private money and I want to have at least some element of a market at work where candidates have to go out there and demonstrate a broad base of support. But I also think you need to be sure that you have the resources provided a full Public Finance. System is simply not going to happen. The Practical reality is given the cost of campaigns given public skepticism. It's not going to happen finding ways to engage the public and provide the resources however can happen and if we can make it happen through provision of opportunities for broadcast time for less expensive mailing costs. We can make it happen through tax credits when I find is Democrats and Republicans alike who including many conservatives who viscerally opposed public money in campaigns take a different view when it comes to a tax credit for say contributions of $100 or less because they see that as such a positive goal and it's and it's an indirect way of getting at it. I think you can do it and I think you can do it while involving some public funds more in an indirect way that can make the system better, but we're not going to As a practical matter move to a full Public Funding system, and we also have to recognize one other very important element here. There is no perfect campaign system and there is no campaign funding system that will solve all these problems whatever you do is going to involve trade-offs and it's going to have a downside to it what we need to focus on more than anything else is what practical steps can we take that will bring the system back into bones that will create a better climate in which to encourage people to run and it will create opportunities for candidates get messages across and then as soon as it's as we do that start work again because I can tell you The Consultants the party officials the candidates the outside groups who have an enormous taken this who care about who wins and who loses who are very smart are immediately going to start to work on ways to get around that system just like the tax system and if you're lucky you can make it work for 5 years or 10 years the system that we devised in 1974 was in very imperfect one, but it basically didn't work too badly for about 10 years before it began to fall apart. So we have to take a realistic attitude here that realistic attitude involves some public responsibilities and some public funds, but there is no overall solution. Thank you very much. Thank you. Mr. Arnstein for your timely remarks and your considerable insights. It's been a great pleasure, but don't leave the stage quite yet on behalf of the Minnesota meeting. I would like to present to you a token of our appreciation has a previous speaker. You already have our traditional gift a handcrafted Native American peace pipe, but we do have another Memento for you a companion ceremonial tobacco trade. The basket is handmade and hand died. According to very old traditions by Indian artists Margaret Hill of the Mille Lacs reservation. Thank you for joining us today. Are we listening to the Minnesota meeting liar from Downtown Minneapolis? Today's guests Norman Ornstein the resident scholar of the American Enterprise Institute, and we hope you are a chance to here today speech and if you miss part of it or want to hear it again, you can listen to Minnesota Public Radio tonight at 9. What rebroadcast the speech Norman Ornstein gave to the Minnesota meeting. Broadcast of Minnesota meeting are supported by Oppenheimer wolf and Donnelly with offices in both Minneapolis. And st. Paul providing legal services to businesses around the world. It's now three minutes before 1 you were listening to midday on Minnesota Public Radio on. Fanelli. Will it be checking news headlines in just a couple of minutes and listen for Talk of the Nation with Ray Suarez coming up in just a few moments as well have some time to look at the weather forecast for the state and for the Twin Cities today, we should start off as some current temperatures on the cool side temperatures ranging from 64 the warmest spot International Falls today 64° the cool spot both Rochester in the Twin Cities the temperature in both places 52° and drizzle in both locations. It looks like Southern Minnesota will see clouds some showers and drizzle all day today. Maybe some patchy fog as well. Probably mostly cloudy skies across the north heisted a only the fifties near Lake Superior and lower 70s and Northwestern Minnesota and red around 60 across the South variable clouds tonight to slight chance of a thunderstorm in the far Southwest after midnight Lowe's either side of 50 tonight and then tomorrow should be partly cloudy chance of afternoon thunderstorms in Western sections Heist tomorrow middle sixties in the arrowhead and the middle seventies in the west as we look ahead do Thursday through Saturday. There is a chance with showers and thunderstorms both Thursday and Friday, I temperature is mainly in the 70s Lowe's in the 50s and 60s on Saturday to continue a chance for showers and thunderstorms in southern Minnesota high temperature is generally in the 70s and low temperatures in the 50s. The Twin Cities forecast to Cloudy Skies some drizzle or a few sprinkles of high temperature in the lower 60s and east of Northeast winds 10 to 15 miles per hour. As I mentioned Talk of the Nation not coming up here in just a moment Ray Suarez a conversation today with national Symphony Symphony Orchestra conductor Leonard slatkin about New American music is efforts at Outreach and a new role for symphony orchestras in the u.s. In the second hour or two on top of the nation a look at the legacy of Barry Goldwater and his influence on the modern Republican party. So let her slacking coming up at 1 and then look at the legacy of Barry Goldwater at 2 on top of the nation. small but growing number of gay male couples are using high-tech medicine and surrogate mothers to have their own children on Stephen Smith find out more Thursday at 7:20 on Morning Edition, Minnesota Public Radio k n o w FM 91.1 you're listening to Minnesota Public Radio. Cloudy Skies from drizzle of 53° now at Canada W FM 91.1 Minneapolis and st. Paul mention the forecast for the Twin Cities today tonight variable clouds. Hello in the upper 40s and then for tomorrow partly cloudy a high temp red around 74. It's 1