mr. Lowenstein why should the federal government subsidize political campaigns and limit individual contributions if you were to set out to create a country in which you would have one-man one-vote free speech guaranteed to everybody and then you'd have candidacies in which one side would be able to spend 22 million dollars in the other side of half a million dollars you'd realize that that kind of democracy was a hoax nobody would even argue about it yet those instances in our society have become frequent and the fact that they don't always occur doesn't mean that they're right when they do occur what we're proposing tonight is that there'd be a way in which everybody even if they're not born rich have a fair chance to be elected to public office today in the United States 90% of the political contributions come from 1% of the population and what we hope we can do is to amend the law so that there will be a guarantee that people will have access to funds so they can run if they have enough support to Meritor and then to put a limit on how much any one individual can give so nobody can purchase through wealth an undue share and the decision-making process to start the testimony for the evening I call senator Biden of Delaware kind of abiding welcome to the advocates Thank You senator Biden it's nice to have you here as the youngest member of the Senate the one therefore who may expect the longest career there I wonder if you excite us since it's clear that you're not corrupt and you got elected why should people think that the system produces corrupt results when there you are well I'm not sure you should assume I'm not corrupt but I'm thank you for that though the system does produce corruption and I think implicit in the system is corruption when in fact whether or not you can run for public office and it cost a great deal of money to run for the United States Senate even a small state like Delaware you have to go to those people who have won and they always want something well I wonder whether you would feel that there's some virtue and forcing candidates to go out and try to raise money I've heard people probably people who didn't run for office say that it's uplifting to go out and try to get money do you think that there's something on uplifting about putting a how much you can ask one man to give you I think it's the most degrading experience in the world to have to go out and ask for money because you know that unless you accidentally agree with the position taken by the person or group that has the money that you run the risk of deciding whether or not you're going to prostitute yourself to give the answer you know they want to hear in order to get funded to run for that office and it's coincidental in many instances when in fact you happen to agree with where they are and you run the risk by the way of rationalizing of saying well if I compromise on this one give them one I get 90% of what I want and I don't have to give in too much you feel it's it's a difficult temptation not only for the candidate not only if the people who give the money but for the people trying to raise it well you know where we were told that we politicians as the young kids say rip off the American public I think the American public in a way rips off we politicians by forcing us to run the way they do to raise three hundred dot three hundred thousand dollars is no mean feat and unless you happen to be some sort of anomaly like myself being a twenty nine-year-old candidate who can attract some attention beyond your own state it's very difficult to raise that money from a large group of people well now some people who agree with the problem or our definition of the problem turn around and say you just had full disclosure that would solve it do you think that would have a major effect on the problems you're describing I think full disclosure is essential we have that now allegedly but that's not going to get to the question of how you have to raise the money and the influence of those who come forward with the money whether they be a labor union or a corporate executive well if we put a limit on what individuals can give and if we have public assistance for candidates do you think that would work as some have suggested to make incumbency even more powerful that there'd be no way then the challenges could succeed no I don't but I do think you run the risk in limiting the amount that can be spent of continuing the tyranny of the incumbent for example I'm on this show for one reason I'm an incumbent United States Senator where this an election year this would be allegedly votes for me back home a challenger of mine would have to pay a great deal of money to get this kind of TV time we have a lot going for us when we're incumbents and we use it well but this process that we're suggesting tonight in your view would not make more difficult for people to challenge the company absolutely not as long as you have a bill like the anderson bill which doesn't limit the amount that can be spent but limits the amount that an individual can contribute and that way you broaden the process further broaden the participation because why does the guy want to give $50 when he knows that Clement stones giving 7 million dollars what influences his $50 going to have now you might say what makes it clear that a person is more effective at raising funds if you happen to know one man who can give them a million while someone else might know 100 who can give a hundred each that problem of access to money rich people tend to know rich people when you say that's a fact that's correct and those who aren't rich tend to move towards people who have ideas that that can raise a lot of money and then the president atmosphere would you say that with Watergate that we're reacting hysterically to this problem or make this very brief I don't think so at all I think this is the single most important issue that can be resolved by this Congress all right let me up the problem sorry let's go to mr. Ward oh I think he's eager to ask you some questions senator I noticed you said that it was the great he was glad and raise money does this mean that you are not in favor of the Anderson bill which does permit contributions up to $1,000 no it doesn't I think it's degrading to have to go out and know that that is your only source of money when the man you are talking to for example knows that in fact you're the own he's the only means by which you can even begin to run for office all you in favor of then this would be yes I am in favor the Anderson bill all right now let me ask you this question the Anderson field provides $1,000 limitation on contributions is are you saying that going out and asking for $1,500 is degrading no I think you missed the point er I thought I haven't made the point properly if in fact you know that the only way you can raise any money to get to run for public office is to go to vested interest groups then in fact you're put in the position that you have to begin to wonder whether or not you prostitute the ideas that you have about government in order to get the money to begin to run of course you've had recent experience with this having been elected in 19 - that's good I believe you just said that your campaign called some $300,000 276,000 well I'd say and you raise that money by public contributions did you know that's correct and you raised that money on a race against an incumbent did you not that's correct yes and senator I'm sure that that you would agree that that show service in the Senate up to this point has not reflected any particular concern for the logic contribute dollars well the fortunate thing is I didn't have many larger contributors and the only reason see I went to the big guys for the money I was ready to prostitute myself and the men and men in which I talked about it but what happened was they said come back when you're 40 son and so I had to cloud or I had to go to a number of small contributors well I think we're all grateful son you didn't take no for an answer now in this Anderson bill there is a provision for the federal government to match dollar-for-dollar contributions from small contributions up to a hundred dollars is that correct I believe so so that means that federal tax monies are going to be used in political campaigns and in Delaware Illinois or Mississippi or wherever exact correct that's correct now senator isn't that the history of this country that federal control follows federal money in a recent example didn't the president decide it was expedient to have a 55 mile an hour speed limit on all the highways and didn't he get to Congress to pass a bill that says to a state to get no full federal money unless you pass a 55 mile an hour speed limit can't blame it all on the president but yes he did well but in the fact is that in any instance where federal money goes into any given area there is federal control as to how that one is going to be spent there's federal control right now sir and exactly how the money can be spent what manner in which it can be raised the only question is whether or not there will be taxpayers money involved directly who is going to exercise the control over the spending of this taxpayers money the control be exercised by as you point out the federal government in terms of whether or not the means of distribution in terms of how it can be spent whether or not you can buy a balloon or a billboard with that money there is no control in this legislation or any that I'm aware that is correct but but doesn't history tell us that there will be that control well that sort of smacks of the argument always heard about civil rights you know once we get into that field where it you know the foot-in-the-door argument that you're making applies just about every means of legislative every particular piece of legislation we passed what else um I have been admitted for campaigns but you don't like if you I have been in there's always somebody that comes up with what I call the damn fool idea now I've had a city gutter you're gonna have any protection in these bills against the damn poo factor no I think that's human nature there are awful lot of damn fools in the Congress and the Senate and those who want to get there but either there's no way you can legislate against that right but you're thinking the long run that the American people are gonna put up with there might have been being squandered on all sorts of wild political notions the question is how long the American public gonna put up with a small group of men and organizations determining the political process by deciding who can run a whoo camera but what Senate aren't you a living example I am an anachronism unny as I was able to have a national constituency to run for office because I was 20 now I'm like the token black for the token woman I was the token young person we're talking about this national this national constituency some of the money that's not an announcement for coffee ha ha ha I want to have you there up here let's go back to mr. Lowenstein for a question I just wondering mr. bordelles seems worried about that thousand dollar limit if mr. bordeaux would agree to support our principal would you agree to go to a fifteen hundred dollar limits I'd agree to go to a three thousand dollar limit which is a bill that I in fact co-sponsored when I said I'd support congressman Anderson's bill I do it's better than what we have now I'd like to see some slight amendments to it but I think the principle has to be adopted alright let's come back to you mr. Bordeaux senator aren't there some First Amendment problems in telling somebody that you can't give but $1,000 took quite frankly I think there are but we've already in the federal Corrupt Practices Act broached that question and if in fact we agree that it's legal to do what we're doing now and that is not violate the First Amendment it seems to me this is a natural transition and I if we haven't violated them now I don't think we're violating with this as an example of the First Amendment question if let's say I give a thousand dollars to a candidate of my choice I take it I'm limited under this bill from giving any more is that right that would be correct and if something happened during the campaign that I wanted to speak out on and spend some money to put a newspaper ready and I couldn't do that isn't that right that is correct and I take it that's what you mean isn't it by the restraint absolutely there are similar restraints that exists now though in terms of how we can spend our money for example we say now you can only spend up to a certain percentage on 10% per capita on media six cents of that on on television I mean we've already restricted it in that regard but they are no statutory restraint on the amount of giving by an individual at this time of it no there are not but I fail to see the distinction between the amounts and the means but there may be i senator but and I want to thank you very much for being with us tonight thank you for having me [Applause]
This is very good and very much worth watching the whole thing. I also kind of wish a show like this was still on, though I can't imagine many sitting politicians would want to take part.
Here is Joe Biden today ob campaign finance:
REDUCE CORRUPTING INFLUENCE OF MONEY IN POLITICS
• Introduce constitutional amendment to eliminate private dollars from federal elections from corporate interests that seek to distort it
• Enact legislation to provide voluntary matching public funds for federal candidates receiving small dollar donations
• Propose legislation to keep foreign money out of our elections
• Create the Commission on Federal Ethics
• Enact legislation ensuring SuperPACs are wholly independent of campaigns and political parties, from establishment, to fundraising and spending
• Work towards a constitutional amendment to eliminate Super Pacs
• Increase transparency of election spending by requiring advocates for or against candidates must disclose its contributors
• End dark money groups. Federal law recognizes “social welfare” groups, also known as 501(c)(4)s, which were intended to advocate for specific causes. But after Citizens United, they’ve increasingly been used as dark money groups - spending hundreds of millions of dollars on federal and state elections without disclosing their donors.
• Prohibit 501(c)(4)s from spending in elections
• Entities spending more than $10,000 on federal elections must register with Commission on Federal Ethics and publicly disclose its donors
• Requiring campaigns and outside entities running ads within 60 days of an election to disclose any new contributions within 48 hours
• Ban corporate PAC contributions to candidates
• Prohibit lobbyist contributions to those who they lobby
• Propose legislation giving any political party that receiving more than 5% of the national vote, have its national convention publicly financed
• Close the federal contractor loophole allowing officers and directors of federal contractors to contribute to federal candidates
RETURN INTEGRITY TO THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND OTHER EXECUTIVE BRANCHES
• Prevent the president or White House from improperly interfering in federal investigations and prosecutions • Block any future president or anyone else in the White House from improperly interfering with decisions about who or what to investigate and prosecute
• These decisions must be based on the facts and the law alone, free from political or partisan influence
• On day one issue an Executive Order that no White House staff or any member of his administration may initiate, encourage, obstruct, or otherwise improperly influence specific DOJ investigations or prosecutions for any reason
• Pledge to terminate anyone who tries to do so.
• Give DOJ Inspector General full power to investigate any allegation of improper partisan influence on DOJ investigations
• Require IG to report in detail to Congress any time such an allegation is substantiated
• Any federal employee who learns of an improper attempt to influence a DOJ investigation or prosecution knows how to report it and receives full protection (whistle blower protection)
• Make DOJ policies transparent and accessible to the public
• Established watchdogs in every Executive Branch agency
• Give IGs full subpoena power and independence needed to investigate and publicize any official’s actual or attempted improper behavior
• Government contracts and permits to be based on merit and expertise, not on political preferences
• Ensure DOJ has resources and authority to enforce our laws
• Re-commit Department’s Civil Rights and Energy and Natural Resources divisions to their missions.
RESTORE ETHICS IN GOVERNMENT
• Establish the Commission on Federal Ethics
• Make all information of special interests seeking to influence our government easily accessible
• Tighten existing loopholes which let public officials hide assets in discretionary trusts, or lobbyists cloak influence campaigns
• Create ethics.gov which will disclose campaign finance, financial disclosure, and lobbying information in one place
• CFE will be run by a five-member Commission, appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, with no more than three commissioners from the same political party with 10 year terms
• Only those with experience in prosecuting public corruption or regulating ethics and campaign finance will be eligible for appointment
• Require all candidates for federal office release tax returns dating back 10 years prior to the date they declared candidacy for their first federal office
REIN IN EXECUTIVE BRANCH FINANCIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
• Prohibit the president and other senior Executive Branch members from influence by personal financial holdings
• As President, just as he did as Vice President, Biden will hold only Treasury bonds, annuities, mutual funds, and private residential real estate
• Any retirement plans benefiting Joe or Jill Biden will be in large-cap mutual funds
• Demand strict compliance with ethics agreements of his Cabinet and other senior administration officials
• Ask Congress to enact legislation to apply similar standards to its members
• Eliminate trust loophole in existing financial disclosure law
• Require candidates for federal office and senior Executive Branch officials to disclose their assets
REFORM LOBBYIST LAWS AND STANDARDS
• Hold elected officials accountable for public transparency of lobbying meetings
• If your Senator or Representative is meeting with a special interest group, you will know
• Members of Congress will be required to disclose any legislative language or bill text submitted by any lobbying party
• Executive Branch officials will be required to disclose any regulatory text submitted by any outside entity
• Lower the definition of a lobbyist to include anyone who earns more than $1,000 annually lobbying
• Require disclosure of what they’re doing, who they are meeting, materials they’re sharing, any specific legislative language they are proposing, and outcomes they’re seeking
• Completely prohibit foreign governments’ use of lobbyists
• Require congressional & senior Executive Branch officials to disclose any policies their office has instituted on when to accept or prioritize appointments
• Disclose White House visitor lists
Great video. Have never seen a young Biden before and it’s refreshing to see that someone who has been in politics for as long as he has, goes to shows that a person changing during the course of his lifetime based on society’s changes - it’s great!