DEAN MARTHA MINOW: We
are so lucky to have
here today the people
who are behind this
bipartisan commission report.
Senator Olympia Snowe
co-chairs the Commission
on Political Reform at the
Bipartisan Policy Center.
She began her
career in government
serving in Maine's legislature.
She has actually had the
most remarkable experience
of serving in both houses
of the State Legislature
and both houses of Congress.
And when she was elected
to Congress in 1978-- am
I allowed to say this--
at the age of 31,
she was the youngest Republican
woman elected ever to Congress.
She's won more
elections in Maine
than any other person
since World War II,
and one of the most
recognized and most respected
members of the Senate.
During her time there, she
was recognizable as one
of the most powerful women and
one of the top 10 US senators.
And I want to make a personal
plug for her book, Fighting
for Common Ground-- How We Can
Fix the Stalemate in Congress,
which is filled with wonderful
and constructive ideas.
We're so glad to welcome you
here to Harvard Law School.
And I have to say, we're
delighted to welcome back
Jason Grumet, who is the
President of the Bipartisan
Policy Center.
Because he's also a graduate
of the Harvard Law School.
And he formed this organization
with the former US Senate
majority leaders Howard
Baker, Tom Daschle, Bob Dole,
and George Mitchell
with the commitment
to develop and promote
bipartisan solutions
to our most difficult policy
challenges in this country.
And the organization has worked
on a wide range of topics,
including immigration
reform, health care, housing
and economic policy,
energy, security,
and really defying
the widespread belief
that you can't do
anything in America
because we're too polarized.
And so we're really
glad to have you here,
and to honor the work that
you have done following
a quite distinguished
career, particularly
in energy and air policy work.
So I'm going to
ask some questions.
But I really hope that others
here will join in soon.
Tell me, each of
you, why are you
so passionate about this
effort of the Commission
on Political Reform?
Why do you believe
it's so critical?
Senator Snowe?
OLYMPIA SNOWE: Well,
I think that it's
obvious by what's
happened in Congress,
and in Washington, the overall
political system today,
that it's simply not working.
And certainly, it hasn't
been working for some time.
And most recently it's
quite evident by the failure
of Congress and the President
to work together on issues that
are important to this country.
I mean, I was stunned
to the degree to which
the system had broken down.
And that's what
really contributed
to my decision to leave the
Senate, which I always say--
DEAN MINOW: A big loss,
a big loss for all of us.
OLYMPIA SNOWE: I
appreciate that.
But it surprised me
more than anyone.
Because I fully intended
to seek reelection.
In fact, I'd worked very hard
for two years or more raising
my money and organizationally.
And then all of a
sudden, it occurred to me
that it wasn't go to change.
The polarization was not going
to diminish in the short term.
And, unfortunately, it's
become exponentially worse
since I even left the Senate,
which was hard to imagine.
Because we were-- at
that point in time--
this was the end of 2012.
My final day, to be exact,
was on January 2, 2013.
But my final vote
was on New Year's Day
morning at 2 o'clock
in the morning.
So that sort of
illustrated how badly
the process had disintegrated,
that we were compelled
to be there on New
Year's Day morning
to cast a final vote to avert
another crisis that Congress
had created and self designed,
which was the fiscal cliff
crisis which resolved
the expiration of the tax
provisions.
And so it culminated
in that final vote.
So I thought it was sort of
a perfect metaphor for what
was happening in Congress.
DEAN MINOW: That was
your final vote, wow.
OLYMPIA SNOWE: That
was my final vote.
I know.
So we were right there.
DEAN MINOW: So Jason Grumet,
tell me why you're passionate.
And if you want
to, you could start
to also talk about how
deeply divided our we?
JASON GRUMET: So,
you know, we're
all passionate because we
care about the country.
And we care about
particular issues.
I think the passion around
this particular project
was really based on
the desire to have
a practical, actionable
set of answers.
Because I think in people's
frustration about gridlock
they tend to wander along
with notions that we should be
nonpartisan, or postpartisan.
There's a lot of transpartisan
advocacy today, which
I'm still trying to figure
out what the heck that
actually means.
And I think it is our view--
we are the Bipartisan Policy
Center.
We believe in the constructive
collision of ideas
among the two party system.
And we wanted to kind of bring
that realistic imagination
to political reform.
Because the history
of political reform
is that it's essentially
a center left exercise.
Most of it comes out of the
post-Watergate, common cause,
Ralph Nader imagination
of how to fix government.
And when you're talking about
changing the electoral system,
and it appears that the
changes you are making
are to advantage one
party or another,
those efforts go no place.
So our goal was to try to have
an authentically bipartisan
approach.
And to talk about
achievable things.
We don't call for a
Constitutional Convention.
Much as I think a lot of people
believe that money in politics
is a real problem, we
recognize there's something
called a Supreme Court.
And so we don't call for
getting money out of politics.
We avoided, I think,
the heroic narratives
that tend to lead to
disillusionment in favor
of some practical ideas.
Members of congress don't
know each other anymore,
which is a huge part
of the reason why
we can't metabolize
the aggression that's
necessary in any democracy.
So Olympia's most
popular suggestion--
let's stop governing
on Wednesdays.
Why not have Congress spend
five days a week in town
so they can actually deliberate?
So we have a number
of ideas like that.
Senators Daschle and
Lott developed a solution
to the filibuster, which our
video is for a broad audience.
We did not provide the details.
But the basic
notion is guarantee
that both sides have the
ability to offer amendments.
One thing most
people don't know is
that the majority party
has stopped the minority
party from offering amendments.
The minority gets angry,
and then filibusters.
So the idea is
let's make a deal.
Allow both parties
to have amendments.
And have the
minority party commit
not to filibuster until you
have the substantive debate.
Right now a lot
of the filibusters
happen on the motion
to proceed, which
is before you even
have the conversation
about the substance the bill.
So there are a
lot of those ideas
that we think could get the
system moving a little bit.
And I guess the passion I
would bring to it at the end
is that putting deals
together is really fun.
It is exhilarating
to get together
around the table with people
who have different views
and actually find
a common outcome.
And a lot of members
of Congress haven't had
that experience for a while.
So our sense is
if you could just
get the system moving
a little bit again,
it might start to
actually roll forward.
DEAN MINOW: Do you
think that there
is a moderate middle
either among the electorate
or among those who are elected?
JASON GRUMET: Not much, but I
don't think that's necessary.
I mean, people tend to
confuse passion with rigidity.
And the fact that we
have a polarized country,
and a lot of people who are
passionate around their views
does not mean those people are
incapable of trying to advance
those views together.
Ted Kennedy, right?
Let's talk about Ted Kennedy.
Here we are in Massachusetts.
Not a moderate-- Ronald
Reagan was no moderate.
But they were both
exceptional deal makers.
And so I don't think
there's a lot of centrism.
But I don't think
that that means
that there can't be progress.
OLYMPIA SNOWE: But
there are-- people
obviously believe that
you have to solve problems
in the political process.
And the question
is whether or not
there are a sufficient
number in the House
and the Senate who
are willing to cross
the aisle-- because
Democrats and Republicans sit
on opposite sides of the
aisle-- whether they're
willing to cross the
aisle to work things out
on a particular issue.
I mean, Jason mentions
Senator Kennedy.
And I had the good
fortune to work with him
in the United States Senate.
To give you an
example we did was he
and I cosponsored
an initiative called
genetic nondiscrimination,
which was to prohibit employers
and insurance companies
from either losing your jobs
or losing your insurance
because you engage
in genetic testing, which is so
important as we well know today
in terms of treatments.
And it took us the better of a
decade to accomplish this goal.
But we did.
But the bill came
before his committee,
which he chaired at the time,
which the Democrats were
the majority.
And traditionally, when the
chairman brings up a bill
and reports it out of the
committee his name or her name
goes first.
But he differed to me.
And he called it the
Snowe-Kennedy rather than
the Kennedy-Snowe.
And I wasn't even a
member of the committee.
That was the kind
of deference that he
was willing to give, and to
make those overtures that would
almost be unheard of today.
Fact is, even working with
somebody across the aisle,
you run the risk of being mocked
by the ideological political
base of your party, all
those outside groups
that you'd see ads running
perpetually now on TV.
Runs the risk of getting an
opponent in a primary where
they will raise the millions
of dollars against you
and target you because
you had the temerity
to breach the political divide.
I mean, that's the kind of
atmosphere that exists today.
Whereas when I started
out in politics-- and up
until in recent times that you
were able to solve problems.
I mean, ultimately
everybody understood
that it does
require a compromise
to reach a consensus.
And somehow there's
this mistaken notion
that compromise is such a bad
word in the political arena.
When, in fact, there's nothing
you can do without compromise.
Unless you've got all the
marbles-- which in this case
would be all the
votes in the House
and the 60 votes in the Senate,
and the presidency-- then
you have to compromise.
Otherwise, you can't
move legislation forward.
And then, ultimately, you
can't move the country forward.
DEAN MINOW: One of the
reasons many people think
things have become
so polarized is
that the primary system and,
indeed, the electoral process,
the districting, is to blame.
And your commission spent a lot
of time thinking about that.
Is that because that's
also your diagnosis?
Or is that something you
think that's winnable,
to have redistricting, and
to have the one-day primary
and so forth?
Is it doable?
Or is it going to
fix the problem?
JASON GRUMET: So
it's complicated.
In the broadest sense,
the fact that we
have a country where
the politicians get
to choose their voters
as much as the voters get
to choose their politicians
is corrosive to the idea
of a democracy.
So I think there's no
question that the process is
manipulated.
I think it's generally
perceived to be unfair.
And I think it discourages
people from participation.
It does matter.
It doesn't matter quite as
much as some people suggest.
So a number of folks
say, all we have
to do is fix redistricting.
And there are a lot of
different studies out there.
There's a Stanford study that
says they thought in 2012 six
to eight seats might
have been influenced.
There was a recent study
just a couple weeks ago
about North Carolina, which
says it does have an impact.
But I think the issue that
people need to contemplate
is that we've basically
sorted ourselves.
It's an organic infrastructure
and an organic gerrymander.
And my favorite political
poll of all times
is the Whole Foods
Cracker Barrel Poll.
You all ever heard of this?
So in 2008 when Barack
Obama became president,
81% of the people who
voted for President Obama
lived in a county
with a Whole Foods.
36% of the people who
voted for President Obama
lived in a county
with a Cracker Barrel.
Fast forward two
years when there
was a big sweep of
House Republicans taking
over Democratic seats, 82%
of the seats that flipped
were in counties
with Cracker Barrels.
So we have divided
ourselves up such
that the way we draw
the lines matters.
But it's not entirely
consequential.
And I think the
easiest way to think
about that is there are no
districts in the Senate.
So the high watermark for
perfect redistricting,
in some ways, is
the Senate, which
historically has
been a little more
collaborative than the House.
But it's not exactly the
"Kumbaya" of collaboration.
But that's not to
say-- it matters.
But it is not the answer.
It's, I think, an answer.
OLYMPIA SNOWE: I think
it's part of the equation.
Because in the House
of Representatives
when you have 435 seats-- and
virtually very few of them
are competitive seats
now because of the way
these seats have
been gerrymandered--
that's a problem.
That's why you don't have
a competition of ideas.
Because these have become
very homogeneous politically.
So they're either
all Republican.
Or they're all Democrat.
And they've been
designed that way.
There's some
interesting architecture
that's associated with
some of these designs,
as you probably have seen.
I don't know if you've
seen-- there's one,
I think, in Illinois
that's an earmuff district.
So you've got two sides
and one little span
here with a road that
connects both sides.
So, I mean, they've orchestrated
all of these districts
so that there's no
competition of thought.
Because you don't have a
diversity of the population.
So if you could change some
of those congressional seats--
and, by the way, you know,
with 2020, the reapportionment,
you don't want to be locked into
this for another decade beyond.
It is a time in which to
identify those states where
you could get an independent
redistricting commission, one
that's supported by both
sides, by the Democrats
and the Republicans.
But it has an impartial process
and fair criteria in which
to design these districts.
So if you do enough
of them, then you
can sort of break the
headlock on the polarization
in the House of Representatives.
And the same is true
with the open primary.
So it contributes to
broadening the participation.
It's interesting.
Because does it matter?
It does.
Because there are so few people
voting in political primaries
today.
That's a problem.
And so I know just
from the people
I know that are in the
Republican Party, for example.
Are they going to go to their
local committee meetings,
or to their county
committee meetings?
No, because it's so
ideologically driven now.
And so it sort of
dissuades the moderates
and the more centrists
who, you know,
be involved in party politics
no longer are interested.
Because it doesn't
reflect their views.
That's what's happened.
So it really has turned
off a broader segment
even within each party.
Because the lines have been
drawn in such a harsh way,
politically and philosophically,
to the exclusion
of everybody else.
DEAN MINOW: Well,
and there's a kind
of predictable
polarization when you
have relatively
party-homogeneous districts
so that the primaries are
always people outflanking
to the right or the left whoever
is there, at least to try
to draw attention.
And so then the
people who get elected
are further apart
from each other
than it would've been
if they were elected
from a more mixed district.
What difference would
the one-day primary do?
JASON GRUMET: If we acknowledge
that the primaries tend
to elect the
candidates-- really,
I mean, the real election
is in the primary.
Right now, four out of five
people who are eligible to vote
in primaries don't.
One of the reasons is
that they decide not to.
An even larger reason is they
don't know it's happening.
There was the primaries-- now,
in the presidential elections,
there's quite a bit of attention
around the primary day.
Because you have two or three
candidates in each party
vying for the nomination.
But in the off year,
mid-term elections
the primaries are scattered over
a course of almost half a year.
And we saw some
polling which said
that more than half the people
who didn't vote actually
didn't know it was occurring.
And so the thought
simply is that if you
had a single day, or at
least a few days where
there was kind of
regional voting,
there'd be more attention.
And our group, in an effort to
be both heroic and pragmatic,
suggested that we
should try to increase
the participation in primary
voting from 20% to, I think,
30%, or maybe 35%.
OLYMPIA SNOWE:
Isn't that amazing?
JASON GRUMET: Which
sounds pretty lame,
but that would have
a profound effect.
Because it would change
the character of the people
participating.
And I think we believe
we have the benefit
of diminishing the extremity.
And then there are some other
interesting ideas that are
a little too early to judge.
California's doing
this interesting top
two primary, where it kind
of removes the parties.
Whatever two candidates
get the most votes then
compete in the general election.
So it's almost like having
two general elections.
So everyone has to compete
for the whole populace.
The imagination was
that this would actually
increase turnout, and
increase enthusiasm.
The early results are
that turnout decreased.
The theory is, which
is interesting,
that if there were just two
Democrats on the ballot,
or two Republicans
on the ballot,
the folks on the other
party were like, eh.
If you have two Democrats
running for governor,
Republicans don't feel like
it's such an exciting thing
to show up to.
But all these experiments
are worthwhile.
The whole way the country has
achieved what it's achieved
is through these kind of
state-based experiments.
So we don't have much to lose.
OLYMPIA SNOWE: The Washington
Post mentioned in July
that in the primary system
where these primaries span
from March until September.
So that's the other
point-- that's
why consolidating all the
congressional primaries
in a single day like the
Presidential Super Tuesday
Primary.
It would have a great
effect and elevate
the public awareness and the
interest in terms of the media
as well with respective to
the candidacies for so many
of the congressional seats.
But The Washington
Post cited the fact
that of 123 million
people who could
vote in primaries at that
point, in this last July,
only 18 million had voted.
And so the primaries,
as Jason said,
are playing an
outsized role today
in determining who,
ultimately, is elected
to the House and the Senate.
So you're really having
a small percentage
of the population
that's determining
who are the Senators
and members of the House
of Representatives.
And that's what's so disturbing
and alarming about what's
occurred, because so few
people are participating
in the primary system.
That's why it's important
to focus on that event.
DEAN MINOW: So let's talk about
campaign finance, which is
a very related set of issues.
You have several
recommendations related to it.
And the growing role
of money in politics,
the amounts of money
that's involved.
You believe that that has
increased partisanship,
I take it.
But you also are realistic that
the Supreme Court has ruled.
And so what prospect is there
that the recommendations
that you make will make a
difference in that domain?
JASON GRUMET: So this
was an area where there
was a lot of disagreement.
I think one of
the reasons why we
produced this video
was to just give
a little bit of a sense of the
breadth of the people involved.
There were some folks
on the commission who
don't believe that money
in politics is a problem,
and kind of take
the Citizens United
view that it's part of
the expression of interest
in speech.
A lot of folks felt differently.
But because we didn't
think that that was really
an-- we could have that fight.
It wasn't going to
take us anywhere.
We really focused on
the issue of disclosure.
Because what has happened in
recent years is that the kind
of creation of these--
first the 501(c)(3)s,
the (c)(4)s, the super PACs.
Now a lot of these folks can
spend money with absolutely
no accountability.
And there was some
recent analysis
of the character of ads coming
from the different types
of organizations in the
last election cycle.
And I found it
pretty surprising.
90% of the ads run
by candidates were
deemed substantive or positive.
50% of the ads run
by parties were
deemed substantive or positive.
10% of the ads run
by the dark money.
Now, if it weren't for those
negative ads, maybe the party--
you have to understand
it's a dynamic connection.
But there's no
question that if you
don't have to be
held accountable--
there were a lot of ads that
ran in the last election cycle
that the DNC or the RNC
could have never run.
Because they were just
vicious and untrue.
But if no one's taking
account for them,
there's no feedback loop.
So we are not trying to
change the ability of people
to make donations.
We are trying to make sure that
it's on a level playing field.
And if the Supreme
Court matures,
then it will come
back to that question.
DEAN MINOW: There is
a problem, though,
turning to the people who
are incumbents to make
a change in a system that
largely has benefited them,
particularly on disclosure.
And there are other avenues
to have disclosure, right?
The FCC could
require disclosure.
They have the authority.
The SEC could require disclosure
if it's corporate money.
So I don't know if there's any
way to press for other actors.
But there's a difficulty turning
to the elected officials here.
OLYMPIA SNOWE: Well, that's
true because-- no, that is true.
But the pressure should be
placed on elected officials
to support it.
And people are so turned off.
It was my provision on
Citizens United that was
struck down on issue advocacy.
It had been before the
Court one other time.
It was sustained when Sandra
Day O'Connor was still
on the court.
And then after that, obviously
it lost, regrettably.
And we tried to
draw a bright line
so that we wouldn't get into
the constitutional questions.
But, nevertheless,
it didn't work.
But, frankly, transparency
cannot be discounted in what
Jason was describing in
terms of these 501(c)(4)s.
Because, really,
it is masquerading.
Not only who is
perpetuating these ads, who
is supporting these ads,
people have a right to know.
And the reason why
there's not disclosure,
because there's not disclosure.
Because people who are
contributing to these
organizations don't
want to be revealed.
And so believe me, that
will have major impact
if there was disclosure.
And there's going to be greater
pressure on elected officials
to require disclosure.
And, frankly, a lot of the
candidates who run for office
would prefer that.
Because oftentimes,
believe it or not,
they may be running
an ad for you.
But it's not working.
Panic sets in when
all of a sudden you
find out an organization has
run an ad on your behalf--
because they have to be
independent of your campaign.
And they run it with
the wrong message,
the wrong people on the ad.
There's been an abundance of
problems with those types ads.
So nevertheless, it is
critically important
to force disclosure
of these donors.
Because I think it'll change
the dynamic and the equation
of how much money is invested.
You see, super PACs
have to disclose
according to the Supreme Court.
In fact, the Supreme Court
did say that Congress
should require more disclosure.
So super PACs disclose.
But all they have to
disclose is that Citizens
for a Better America
contributed to the super Pac.
They weren't required to
disclose the donors to Citizens
for a Better America.
That's what we want to do.
And furthermore, we want
to ban leadership PACs.
Now, leadership PACs when
they first were created
were by those who
were in leadership,
or running for leadership.
And now everybody,
virtually speaking,
in the House and Senate,
has a leadership PAC.
So that's one more
level of fundraising
in addition to your
political action committee.
So it takes not only time away.
It puts more money
in the system.
And I didn't have
a leadership PAC.
I just refused.
I think I was one of the
last five in the Senate.
It might have been down
to three out of 100.
Because I was not going to
be there for perpetually
raising money.
And I just didn't see the sense
to be having a leadership PAC.
But it was requiring members
to have those leadership
PACs, so they can contribute
to other colleagues
and to candidates.
And, in fact, in the
House you had chairmen.
They couldn't be
chairs of committees
if they didn't give
X, Y, and Z. And we
were expected to
give X, Y, and Z
if you were going
to be chair ranking
members of the committees.
I mean, it's terrible.
And so that's why
money is a real factor.
There has to be change.
Both in terms of time, about
the money, and the distortion
of these campaigns,
and how they've really
turned off the public, and
have corroded the conference.
And it's demonizing
the other side.
As Jason said, they're
all attack ads.
So it only enhances
the negativity.
And people don't
forget that they've
been attacked in the elections.
Then they go to the Senate.
They go to the House.
And you think they forget it?
Absolutely not, they
don't forget it.
And then they elevate
it to the next election.
It just gets worse.
DEAN MINOW: Well, this
dialing for dollars
of the current
political time-- I mean,
the amount of time that elected
officials spend, actually, just
on fundraising is staggering.
And you're describing
a situation in which,
because of the
leadership PACs, that's
not simply looking for
the outside constituents
or donors for money.
It's looking within for money.
And you're recommendation is
to restrict the leadership
PACs so the top three-- is
that right, the top three
in the leadership positions?
OLYMPIA SNOWE:
Absolutely, absolutely,
because that's become
a whole other level
of fundraising and point
of interest on both sides.
There's a lot of
pressure on members
to not only raise a
certain amount of dollars,
but to contribute.
And if you're in a chairmanship
position, ranking position,
even more so.
There is a tremendous
amount of pressure.
And that is on top
of everything else
you have to raise for your
own reelection campaign.
That's a staggering
amount of money.
JASON GRUMET: Our sense is
that people would actually
be rather relieved--
OLYMPIA SNOWE: You got it.
JASON GRUMET: --if they were
prevented from doing it.
Just so you all
understand, a leadership
PAC you can't spend
the money on yourself.
So you're basically being
taxed by leadership.
If you want to
chair a committee,
you have to show that you
give money to the leadership.
It used to be that
the leadership would
raise money for everyone else.
Now it's everyone else
raising money, essentially,
for leadership.
And if it was not allowed
people would whine a little bit.
And then say, thank goodness.
At least that 45 minutes a day I
don't have to be telemarketing.
DEAN MINOW: So I'm from Chicago.
And this beats anything that
we learned in Chicago politics.
So I want to also
plug Jason's book.
Jason has a
marvelous book called
City of Rivals--
Restoring the Glorious
Mess of American Democracy.
You tell terrific stories
there of surprising bipartisan
collaboration.
Do some of those proposals
that the commission recommends,
in terms of internal
congressional activity,
do you think that they
hold promise of bringing
more of those kinds of moments?
JASON GRUMET: So this is an idea
that I think is hard for people
to appreciate the
significance of.
Because you think of
members of Congress
as somehow
otherworldly beings who
don't have the same emotional
responses as you do.
But guess what?
Members of Congress make
friends the same way we do.
They take trips together.
They go out to dinner.
They spend time basically
just kind of hanging around.
And that just doesn't
happen anymore.
It's not just that
members of Congress
are alienated from
the other party.
They don't know the names of
people in their own party.
I think a story I
didn't put in the book
was we were hosting a
meeting for freshman
members and sophomore members,
folks in the first two terms
in the House.
And we had a couple of
committee chairs come.
And people were going around
the room introducing themselves.
And then the committee
chair said, and who are you?
And it was a woman
on his committee.
It was a young person.
He thought they were
like a staffer of mine.
So they don't know each other.
And my broad argument
is that we have
been polarized and
productive in the past.
It's not just that all
of a sudden politics
is a rough sport.
Some of you may have been
alive during the Clinton
administration-- politics
of personal destruction,
Contract with America,
30 day shut down,
they impeach the guy.
And within a few weeks of
President Clinton being
impeached, he was
signing legislation,
which means that
while impeaching him
they were negotiating.
They were working on bills.
They used to be able to
handle that kind of aggression
and get things done.
And I think a lot of us believe
it's because they actually had
relationships with each other.
So getting Congress to
spend more time in DC,
requiring
congressional travel as
opposed to demonizing
congressional travel,
turning the cameras off.
CSPAN is a lovely institution,
but not all the time.
Take the opportunity
occasionally
to have discussions,
as they very rarely do,
in the old Senate chamber.
All of those kinds
of changes, I think,
have the possibility
to not say, we wish
the country wasn't polarized.
But to accept this
is our country.
How do we still get things done?
DEAN MINOW: What
kind of reaction
are you getting to the
commission's proposals?
JASON GRUMET: So everyone's
being lovely about it.
I think the question
now, obviously, is,
can we make that next step?
This congressional rules
package, which is another
rarely talked about
occurrence-- at the beginning
of every Congress, Congress
gets to make its own rules.
So this will happen
right in mid-January,
will do a lot to set the tone.
And a lot of our
recommendations are actually
recommendations to
Congress to change
their own rules-- the
filibuster, and schedule,
committee activity.
Senator McConnell and, I think,
McCarthy have both made very
strong assertions in the last
couple of weeks that they would
bring back some of just the
basic operational traditions
of the Congress, that they
would allow amendments in both
houses-- something that hasn't
happened in quite a while--
DEAN MINOW:
Conference committees.
JASON GRUMET:
Conference committees,
just committees at all.
And our view is that when
leadership says that,
they actually mean it.
It's just that there's
very little infrastructure
to help them succeed.
So a lot of what we're trying
to do with the commission
is to provide not just that
encouragement, but also
the support and the
kind of applause,
in case they pull it off.
Just to give you a sense
of how troubling it is,
Mark Begich, who is running
for reelection, Senator
from Alaska-- so he's been
there for 5 and 1/2 years--
has never had an
amendment voted on.
Not a bill passed, or, you
know-- poor guy has never
had the ability as a US Senator
for five and a half years
to offer a thought and have
a response from the body.
That's what has to
start to change.
OLYMPIA SNOWE:
That's just amazing.
It's stunning, too.
Because that's precisely what
has happened in the Senate.
And it's in the House.
But in the Senate, where
it is a deliberative body--
that's what it's
all about, being
able to deliberate,
to modify, to amend.
That entire process has totally
been jettisoned in the Senate,
virtually speaking.
That's why you have
up and down votes.
But you don't have the
consideration of legislation
through the normal
legislative process.
And that's why we're focusing
on certain initiatives
institutionally
that need to change.
And the key day is the opening
day of the new Congress, which
is the first Tuesday in January
for both House and Senate,
and the new members
are sworn in.
At which point,
they adopt the rules
to govern the next two
years in their proceedings
in each chamber.
And so that's where
we hope to include
some of these changes
when they adopt the rules,
such as filibuster reform.
For example, there's
obviously a number
of filibusters under way.
And the record
keeps being broken.
But also the problem is that
amendments are not allowed.
So the proposal that
we have is to eliminate
the filibuster and
the motion to proceed
to bring up a bill on
the floor of the Senate,
allow two hours for
debate on that motion.
But at the same time,
allow 10 amendments
as a floor for consideration
equally divided
between the majority
and the minority.
So that at least
that begins a process
for consideration of a bill
with amendments being offered.
Because today that's no longer
the case, as we've heard.
It obviously has been-- it
was the case when I was there.
And that also contributed
to my frustration.
Because when I was a freshman
in the House of Representatives
back you know when,
it was amazing.
I mean, I never thought of
myself being in the minority
in the House of Representatives.
And there's 435 of us.
And as a freshman, I was able
to offer amendments, and get
voted on, and got it adopted.
And it was a
controversial amendment.
It was on changing the
formula for funding programs,
like revenue sharing.
It was kind of cyclical funding
in the tough economic times.
But you could do that then.
That's the way it worked.
And the same was
true in the Senate.
But not currently, and
that's what's got to change.
DEAN MINOW: One of
your suggestions
is that committee
chairs should solicit
the views of committee members
in advance of committee markup.
OLYMPIA SNOWE: Doesn't
that sound crazy?
DEAN MINOW: It's
kind of stunning.
OLYMPIA SNOWE: I know.
See, it's all changed.
I always on many occasions
threatened to go to the floor
and conduct a refresher course
on how a bill becomes law--
you know, School House Rock?
DEAN MINOW: Yes.
OLYMPIA SNOWE: And
say, OK, let's see.
We draft the bill.
Introduce the
Senate to committee.
Because that's where
the work begins
is in the committee process.
And that's where you
get the rank and file.
So you have their voices heard.
You mark up a bill.
You build support
for initiative.
You hear the other side.
You have actual debates.
You go back and forth,
and get it done.
Then you report the bill
to the floor of the Senate.
And you go through
that exercise as well.
That's how you, ultimately,
reach a consensus, if presuming
you want a consensus.
But if you want the
political position,
then you're not going
to go through all that.
You're just going to say,
it's an up or down vote, which
is exactly what's happened.
It's sort of like a
parliamentary system now.
Each side offers their position.
Both get voted down.
And they just take it
to the next election.
I used to kid my leadership--
and this was actually not just
in the recent
years, back-long, I
would say-- how many votes do
we have to have for the base?
And actually,
relatively speaking,
we didn't have a lot considering
what's happening today.
Because it's all about the base.
And it was all about appealing
to the base, the base vote,
so that you can drum up
support from your party.
And so you can take it
to the next election,
put the other side
at a disadvantage.
And run ads, those 30 second
ads, with that particular vote
enshrined in that ad.
So it's all the gotcha votes.
And so it's about that, and
not about designing a policy
to go back to the basics, which
has totally been abandoned.
DEAN MINOW: And that's
conference committees as well.
OLYMPIA SNOWE: Oh, conference
committees, oh, they're
so rare.
Even in my time, they were a
total rarity, which is amazing.
Because I used to serve
on conference committees.
And they were incredible--
DEAN MINOW: Between the
House and the Senate,
when you have the two
versions of the bill.
And you want to come up
with some reconciliation.
And that doesn't happen anymore.
OLYMPIA SNOWE: No,
nothing happens anymore.
I mean, I'm not exaggerating.
Nothing is happening,
virtually speaking.
If you just look
by measurements,
I mean, it's stunning.
The last Congress which I was
sitting, we passed 283 bills.
And it was the least
productive since 1947,
which President Truman described
as a do-nothing Congress.
They adopted 906 laws.
This Congress has 165 so far.
JASON GRUMET: And it
sounds like a lot,
but there's a lot of
post offices in there.
There's a lot of state
flower of Arkansas,
but there's not
165 consequential.
OLYMPIA SNOWE: I mean,
just think about it.
Literally nothing has
happened in that sense.
DEAN MINOW: How
much do you think
that that's the goal of some
people who are elected, to make
sure that nothing happens?
JASON GRUMET: It is
worth acknowledging
that there is a group
whose actual view is
that government is too big.
And just less stuff is better.
So it's not all
pure incompetence.
There is some intentionality in
some parts of our government.
We at the Bipartisan
Policy Center
don't believe that that's
a particularly constructive
voice.
I think something that we
don't talk about as much
is just recognizing the
arc of the Tea Party,
which was created out of a
tremendous amount of, I think,
very reasonable
anger and fear that
grew out of this recession.
And a sense that we were bailing
out big banks while people
were losing their jobs.
People were deeply hurt,
and incredibly angry,
and incredibly resentful
of institutions.
And that energy created this
insurgent, very angry movement.
That happens in our
democracy from time to time.
But they do tend to get
drawn into the system.
And while it's very
frustrating for a lot of us who
see important pieces of
legislation stalled right now,
I don't think in 100 years
we're going to look back
at 2013 as this remarkably
discordant moment
in American history.
But these movements do tend to
shut things down for a while.
Because they come to Washington.
And they play by a
different set of rules.
People can't believe
that these 83
legislators are simply unwilling
to even come to the hearings.
There's a while in which
it just doesn't register.
And over time, the
system starts to realize
that it's going to have to
be able to accommodate that.
And the people get
kind of drawn in.
It's hard to run against the
system four cycles in a row.
After a while, even the
people who are aggressively
arguing against government
have to show that they've been
able to accomplish something.
So our folks kind
of did a head count.
And I guess in 2010
when the Tea Party
was most ascendant--
I think the sense was
there were about 90 members who
actively described themselves
as Tea Party candidates.
Our very rough read was about
30 were absolutely true,
will genetically,
fundamentally never shift
from this worldview.
For about 30 it was they were
conservative legislators, had
some views in common.
And about 30 were
just faking it.
This was the ascendant energy
in the political system.
And after the shut down
and debt ceiling default
where people kind of
started really getting
fed up with the sense that
there was a group in Congress
just trying to stop
things, our sense
is that those numbers
went down to about 50,
that the 30 who were faking it
were conservative legislators.
But they were no longer
actively engaging as Tea Party.
And then the middle about
30% had kind of stepped back.
So it's going to go up and down.
I'm not suggesting for a minute
that the Tea Party movement
is not going to be an
active voice in Congress
in two, four, and six years.
But I don't think it's
going to be 100 members.
I think you're going to have
the ability as a house majority
leader on the Republican
side to make decisions that
don't go along
with that ideology
and not lose your speakership.
DEAN MINOW: Our
colleague Larry Lessig
has pursued some
conversations finding actually
some common ground
between some Tea
Party and some Occupy people.
JASON GRUMET: I think it
was that common alienation.
You kind of meet around
the backside of the moon.
When we finally do something
to address the debt deficit,
the Tea Party will be taking
some appropriate credit
for having focused
on that issue.
DEAN MINOW: So I'm going
to ask two more questions
and then open it up.
My two more questions
are many people
are predicting that this
election coming up very, very
soon will lead to the
Republican control
of the Senate,
Republican-retained control
of the Congress.
What will happen
to bipartisanship
if that's the case?
And what will happen to your
proposals if that's the case?
OLYMPIA SNOWE: Well,
we're certainly
hoping that we will see
some changed behavior.
Because it's clear
from all of the polling
and the people's frustration
that has been certainly
exhibited in this
election-- hopefully
everybody will get out and vote.
Because that's key
in all of this.
I know people are very
frustrated by what's
happened in Washington,
and certainly disheartened.
But on the other hand, if
you stand on the sidelines,
you can't contribute
to the change that's
so essential and necessary.
So the imperative is first
to vote and to participate
in this election.
And then secondly is
making sure that you
hold your elected
officials accountable.
So if the Republicans
recapture the Senate,
and therefore control
the legislative branch
of government, obviously
they have the responsibility
to determine how they want
to move forward where they've
been invested with this trust.
And realize they
don't have a mandate.
Because I don't think
it's going to be
a vindication of Republicans
and an excoriation
of the Democrats, but rather
because people had to make
a choice in this election.
And the choice
is, frankly, as to
whether or not
that they're going
to see some kind of change in
Congress, and its willingness
to work with the
president, the president
willing to work with Congress.
Because it takes both
branches of government.
They can't operate as
parallel universes.
And try to restore some
confidence in the public.
So will they take those steps
forwards remains to be seen.
Now, I know that
Mitch McConnell,
he's up for reelection.
And he looks like he's in a good
situation to win reelection.
And he would be the majority
leader if Republicans
recapture the Senate.
And he has indicated
that he wants to return
to a committee process.
He wants the rank and
file to be engaged.
He wants them to work five days
a week, like including Fridays.
I know, getting back
to basics again.
So he's indicated that he plans
to make sure that members have
the opportunity
not only to vote,
but going to have
to cast tough votes.
Because one of the deals
today in what's happened
is to avoid the tough votes.
Each senator has to
protect their members
from voting on tough
issues so that they aren't
used in the next election.
And that's not what
it's all about.
If you're going to the House,
and going to the Senate,
you should be expected
to cast the tough vote
on some tough issues.
And so hopefully
that will happen,
and that they don't
overstep their bounds.
Because oftentimes
majorities do.
They interpret their
majority as being, somehow,
they have a mandate.
And, generally,
it's not a mandate.
It's that people are
sending a message.
Listen, we want change.
Because we are dissatisfied with
the way things are functioning.
So hopefully they
take that message.
DEAN MINOW: So you want
to comment also on that?
No.
JASON GRUMET: She made
the points I would make.
DEAN MINOW: So my
last question-- and I
hope others have questions
because I could keep
going on-- is, given all that
you've studied and now spoken
about the problem
of polarization,
why would any young
person in their right mind
get involved the
political process?
JASON GRUMET: So I think this
is something we focus on.
We did some polling.
We worked with USA Today
throughout the course
of this project and did some
polling on public service.
And I can't remember
the exact numbers.
But we found that there was
an overwhelming expression
of interest by the
millennial set to be engaged
in public service, like 80%.
And very few of
those folks thought
that government was, in
fact, part of public service.
So there is a little
bit of a challenge
that if everyone is kind
of loathing of government,
it doesn't make for a
exciting career opportunity.
So I think one of
the things that we
try to do with this
entire process is
to talk about the profound
opportunities, and just
the incredible personal feedback
and exhilarations you can get
from being part of that system.
We make some
recommendations that
try to talk about some specific
ways to encourage younger folks
to get into electoral politics.
I think we have been in a
vicious cycle for a while.
And this is really about a
virtuous cycle, to the extent
that government starts
to make some progress.
And I think in a moment where
things are so gridlocked,
a little bit of
progress can actually
be seen as quite heroic.
The system could start to
work a little bit better.
I'm just going to end
on a story which we
thought was quite compelling.
The last real debate
that we've had
in Congress of real
significance and substance
was the Senate
Immigration Reform debate.
And it was actually
a real debate.
It was a markup, and
a Judiciary Committee,
and there were amendments.
And there was the kind
mood that, I think,
Senator Snowe experienced
in the bulk of her career.
Some of my staff came back
after one of the markup days.
And they were just
kind of laughing.
And I asked them
what was going on?
And they said that
a bunch of the staff
thought that was
just so much fun.
People had been on the
Hill for four years.
They'd never
experienced that before.
And they didn't know what
their boss was going to do.
And they were actually
surprised that he or she
had read their briefing memo.
Because there was an
actual legislative moment
of consequence that caused
them to not just spend
the evening fundraising.
And so there was this
sense of like ebullient,
what a wonderful thing this
democratic process can be.
And so that's our hope, that
it actually is incredibly
rewarding when it works.
And it will work again.
OLYMPIA SNOWE: Well, that's why
I was in the legislative branch
of government for 40 years.
And did I intend to be
in it for that long?
No.
But it was the ability
to make a difference,
the power of the office to make
a difference, and to do good.
And that's what
it was all about.
And the reason why I left--
and it was interesting,
one student asked me at one
point at one of the campuses,
said, you know, you're
asking us to get involved.
And you left.
And I said, well,
that's a good point.
But I said, I'm at a
different stage of my life
where I feel I can best
contribute to encourage people
to get involved and to
reassure them that they can
change this political system.
And somebody told me--
in the medical community
said that people
your age are going
to be living to about 125.
So how long do you want to put
up with this current situation?
JASON GRUMET: By the
way, Social Security's
going to run out at about 70.
So the last 50 years,
you're kind of on your own.
DEAN MINOW: Great,
just identify yourself.
AUDIENCE: Hi, my
name is [INAUDIBLE].
I'm a 1L here.
I think it's somewhat
ironic that we've
seen such an increase
in partisanship
during the administration
of the man who
arrived on the national stage
talking about a purple America.
And in that time, we've
seen redder get red,
and bluer get bluer-- more blue.
I wonder if you could maybe
comment a bit on the extent
that you think that race
has played a role in that,
or have been exploited
to encourage, I guess,
additional paralysis and just
polarization on either side?
And as well, how you
think the upcoming
presidential elections
may be an opportunity
to see the candidates
or the parties either
work to mitigate
or even exacerbate
the lack of partisanship
that we now see?
OLYMPIA SNOWE: Well,
I certainly didn't
see evidence on the
question of race
in Congress in that regard.
I think it was just
totally a difference
of philosophical and
political opinion.
What did surprise
me is how quickly
the process between the
president and Congress
derailed so soon in
his administration.
In fact, in the early
weeks of his administration
was the consideration
of the stimulus plan.
And I know, because I was
one of the three Republicans
that were working on
it with the president.
And I was stunned to the degree
to which the whole process just
really broke down because
of the philosophical divide.
And there were a number
of issues that were
involved as to what happened.
But nevertheless,
truly surprising
at the outset of a
new administration
when both sides
actually had agreed
that a stimulus was necessary.
The question was the
content and the size.
But unfortunately, I think
that it took off in the House
and being drafted.
And at that point, it sort
of cemented both sides
politically in the House.
And by the time it came to the
Senate, it was almost too late.
But I worked on it.
Because I thought
it was important.
But from that point forward, it
seems-- and then of course we
veered into health care.
And that created and
enhanced a further divide.
And I was involved in
that issue to the point
I was the party of one,
as somebody described it,
on my side working on the issue.
Everything philosophically
became extremely divisive.
And there was no
point of repairing.
So to the point to which
what's happened today
is that even mentioning
the whole notion of being
bipartisan or
embracing compromise
is sort of capitulation
on your principles.
So unfortunately, you
become a political target.
So the question
is whether or not
we're going to be able to
turn the corner with those
who are running for
office, and for the future,
and what they're
going to embrace.
But I'll tell you one thing.
As citizens, you should
demand accountability
on the part of those who are
going to be elected on Tuesday,
and those who are running
for the presidency in 2016.
And how they're going
to make government
work from both sides.
We have to make
them accountable.
They have a
responsibility to make
their branch of government work,
and to work with each other.
Because that's the
way it was designed.
And that's what the
American people deserve.
AUDIENCE: Hi, I'm Robin Ladd.
I'm a 1L also.
You managed to
win every election
you ran in with
stances that were not
a party line for the GOP.
And what I would
like to know from you
is how would you
advise those of us who
don't have positions that
fall across party lines
to navigate the very partisan
environment that we'll
be going into?
OLYMPIA SNOWE: Well,
that's interesting.
And I hope that it becomes
less partisan in that regard
to respect differing views.
The difference was
when I started out
as a moderate Republican
in the Republican Party,
the party itself embraced
a diversity of views.
President Reagan used to
speak to that question,
that we should agree on the 80%.
And recognize that on
the 20% that we're going
to tolerate the disagreement.
And when somebody votes
with you 80% of the time,
we consider them
allies not enemies.
And so that's, unfortunately,
what's happened today.
And so I think that it's
going to be important
as you go forward in
life, and all of you,
is to accept those differing
opinions and viewpoints,
and working with the other
side, and knowing that you
don't have all the great ideas.
And to bring that
viewpoint-- whether you
decide to join a
political party,
whether you decide
to run for office.
Because the more you share
that viewpoint, the more it's
likely to influence
others around you.
We've got to start
changing the conversation.
I don't know a
sphere of life where
you get 100% of what you want.
If you do, let me now.
Because I haven't discovered
it yet in my life.
It's a part of negotiation.
And the whole notion,
this mistaken notion,
that you can't compromise
is, frankly, it's ridiculous.
I love what Alan
Simpson always says.
If you can't learn
to compromise then
you shouldn't go-- without
compromising your principles,
then you shouldn't
go to Congress.
And you shouldn't get married.
And it's so true.
And I think that's what it's
all about for you young people,
to take a different notion.
Do not accept what
you're witnessing today.
And certainly don't take your
cues from this current climate.
This isn't what it's all about.
And it hasn't been.
That's what's so preposterous
about what's transpired
in the political system today.
Because, as Jason mentioned,
there wasn't always
a golden era of bipartisanship.
We had fierce debates and
fights, which we loved.
We loved to debate good ideas.
Well, you're in law school.
DEAN MINOW: That's
what we do here.
OLYMPIA SNOWE:
That's exactly right.
That's what you do.
You like to get the best
of ideas [INAUDIBLE].
Get the best facts.
See how I could prevail.
That's what I worked at.
And that's what we did.
But at the end of
the day, we knew
it was about solving problems.
Now they've lost
the purpose of what
public service is all about,
which is about problem solving.
They just take it to
the next election.
DEAN MINOW: If I
could just observe
three things that I've seen you
do that helped you navigate.
One was that you
found bridging issues.
You worked on gender
issues across the parties.
Another is that you--
you're just really smart.
So you'd come up with
proposals that didn't clearly
have a partisan dimension.
They just were really
smart solutions.
And a third thing is that
you would also, at times,
be just incredibly important
as the one, or two, or three
people who could be
talked-- could be
part of a bipartisan solution.
So those are three things
that I saw you do that I
thought were pretty impressive.
OLYMPIA SNOWE: I
appreciate that.
JASON GRUMET: She's also really
nice and really stubborn.
DEAN MINOW: A great combination.
OLYMPIA SNOWE: I said,
I'm also a fighter.
I always attribute that
to my Greek ancestry
on the Spartan
side, I always said.
That's how I survived.
DEAN MINOW: Coming
from Maine, great.
AUDIENCE: Thank you.
DEAN MINOW: Thank you.
AUDIENCE: Hi, my name is Chris.
And I'm a 1L as well.
I was wondering if the
commission or either of you
could talk about the effect
that the decentralized media
landscape has had on
increasing partisanship,
or the options we
might have in how
to deal with that
constructively as part
of the political system.
You can't really control
the media directly.
And I was wondering if you
had any thoughts about that.
Thank you.
JASON GRUMET: I'll
offer a couple thoughts.
So first of all, the media has
always been pretty bad when
it comes to this kind of stuff.
I will just share with you
one rather shocking story
from the wonderful
election of 1800.
Two statesmen, Thomas Jefferson
and John Adams-- statues,
memorials, big shots.
The newspaper
supporting Jefferson
said that John Adams was of
a horrible, hermaphroditic
nature, having neither
the firmness of a man
nor the sensibilities
of a woman.
The newspaper supporting
Adams responded essentially
that if Jefferson were elected,
freed slaves would attack
your wives, and daughters.
And the streets would
be rent with blood.
So we have a history of this.
Now, you were asking,
of course, about how
the technology, and
the filter bubbles,
and the Google algorithms-- it
certainly has had an effect.
There's no question that we
don't have the central voices
that people accept as being
the basic facts of an issue.
But it's also done a
lot of great things.
The amount of access that
people have to information
is unlike anything ever before.
The ability to find
like-minded people,
and create movements
that can have
influence-- I
remember when I first
started in politics
and government,
the fax machine came around.
And that was awesome.
Because you could actually
get legislation the same day
it was being worked on.
So it's changed.
I don't think there's much
value in complaining--
it makes us feel better to
complain about the media.
But it's not a particularly
actionable idea.
One thing that just
as individuals,
I encourage my staff
to do, is to go on
websites you don't like.
You learn an incredible
amount when you just
understand how other people
frame issues, perceive issues.
We've been talking a
little bit internally
about trying to create some
opportunities to get people out
of their filter bubbles.
It's kind of like a
poison pen pal operation.
And so I think as an
individual, there's
a real obligation to not get
caught in the comfort of what
Google thinks you care about.
But I've never heard anybody
who has an answer for how
to change it societally.
AUDIENCE: I first just want to
thank you both for being here.
My name is Paul [INAUDIBLE].
And I'm a 3L.
And I actually grew up about
six hours north of Boston
in Aroostook County.
OLYMPIA SNOWE: Oh,
did you really?
AUDIENCE: So, Senator
Snowe, up until last January
in one way or another,
you've always been
my representative in Congress.
And I think one of the reasons
why-- first of all, I'm
very thankful that you gave our
voice-- maybe our state's voice
a little more volume
than our state deserves
in terms of its population.
But I think one of the
reasons that's the case
is up until very recently
at the state level
we've had very sensible politics
in Maine-- sending people
to the national
government like yourself,
and Senator Collins, and Cohen,
and Mitchell, and others.
And I was just wondering
if either of you
have hopes that some of these
initiatives you're proposing
at the national level
will help to cure issues
at the state level as well?
OLYMPIA SNOWE: Well,
nice to meet you,
thank you, fellow
Maine-r, all right.
I would hope so.
That's what we're
planning, to influence
the national politics,
the national elections.
And that candidates
embrace these views
and these positions.
And, hopefully, we're
going to get more traction
before that time to have
the Congress working
over the next two
years in a more
productive fashion than,
obviously, has been the case.
Because we're going
to lose another two
years in the life of America
again wasting time not having
accomplished anything that's
so important to this country
and a variety of issues.
So absolutely, and
we would hope so.
And I think that
the public, it's
all of you demanding that
as well of candidates
and putting the pressure.
Because, frankly, it's going
to be important for candidates
to have that kind of pressure.
They need to hear your
voices about what matters.
And that's why it's important
to weigh in in these elections,
not only on Tuesday
but in the future.
And also throughout
the year, making them
accountable during
their time in office.
AUDIENCE: Thanks,
I also just want
to let you know that I've
already mailed my ballot North.
OLYMPIA SNOWE: Thank you.
AUDIENCE: And this
stay in Massachusetts
is very much temporary.
OLYMPIA SNOWE:
We're glad to hear.
We need young people
back in Maine.
AUDIENCE: Hi, my
name is Ryan Alter.
I'm a current 3L.
I was just curious.
People talk a lot about
women being much better
at compromise,
especially in Congress.
And with the so few women,
I was curious if you ever
found that that was
the case, it was
easier for you to
find common ground
with fellow women Senators.
OLYMPIA SNOWE: Well,
I did a lot of work
with women across the aisle.
In fact, I co-chaired the
Congressional Congress
on Women's Issues
for almost 11 years
with Congresswoman
Pat Schroeder,
a Democrat from Colorado.
And we worked on issues
important to women,
and families, and
children and produced
a number of initiatives.
Because there were
so few of us, we
thought we couldn't
afford to be partisan.
And we set aside differences
in our issues, worked together.
We were compatible,
but not always
agreed on all of the issues.
But we created the
right environment
in which to nurture that.
And I did find that in
working with other women
they were natural allies.
Maybe not on all issues,
but certainly they
were active listeners and
willing to work with you.
So I did find, certainly in
the House and in the Senate,
we had our monthly
dinners, which
also built up collegiality.
Because we got to
know each other.
When Jason was talking
about members of Congress
not having the opportunity
to become familiar
with one another, it's true.
You have very few opportunities.
So we created that opportunity
on a monthly basis.
And, in fact, invited the women
justices of the Supreme Court
to several of our dinners.
And they, in turn, invited
us to the Supreme Court
as well to share that.
So there was that ability
to understand one another.
And, yes, there is much
more willingness to produce
and to be result-oriented than
some of our other colleagues,
which shall go nameless.
DEAN MINOW: So we're
running out of time.
Maybe we can take the
three questions here.
Just each of you
ask your question.
Make it brief, if
that's possible.
AUDIENCE: Hi, my name
is Kira Hessekiel.
I work at the law
school, actually.
And my question is
about some of your ideas
that you mentioned
about campaign finance.
Given what you said,
just the Supreme Court
has made a decision
on how we spend money,
and how that ties to free
speech-- and what you said,
Senator Snowe, about really
holding people accountable,
holding representatives
accountable--
how do you propose we do
that in the context where
in the current
interpretation of the law
some people can unlimitedly
make their voice heard?
And some people have
very, very limited means.
How do we-- besides the simple
answer of the vote-- maybe
going a little beyond that?
OLYMPIA SNOWE: Well, in terms
of campaign financing itself--
because some who can create
the super PACs, which
is unfortunate.
They tried to correct that.
And short of a
Constitutional change,
it's hard to get at the
question on the First Amendment
with the court, unfortunately.
I thought I had at
least accomplished
that with issue advocacy ads,
and drawing that narrow line
in terms of who was trying
to influence elections.
If they do, then they
should constitute
as a political action
committee, not just
an open-ended entity that can
contribute unlimited funding
for this advertising.
But that's why we could
talk about disclosure, just
automatically on disclosure.
Because that will have some
force of accountability
on its own.
JASON GRUMET: And before
you get too discouraged,
a lot of the people
with more money lose.
So look at-- Haley
Barbour's a good friend,
and does a ton of work
with us in the DPC.
But Crossroads
spent $300 million
in the last election cycle and
didn't win that many races.
So I think money matters.
But I think we make a mistake
if we assume that it's-- you go
knock on 100 doors, and
you've had more impact than
giving $3,000 to a candidate.
So we can't be held
hostage to that.
DEAN MINOW: Great.
So let's have the
next two questions.
Just hear the questions.
And we may not even be
able to answer them.
AUDIENCE: I was
wondering-- I'm Shane.
I'm a 3L.
I was wondering
if you could talk
a little bit about the
human cost of compromise.
Because compromise
sounds really pretty.
And when we're talking in
a law school classroom,
it's really easy to be
like, oh, well maybe we
can find some middle ground.
But then I'm taking a class
with Barney Frank right now.
And we are talking about ENDA.
And he kind of proposed
the, I guess, hypothetical
for us of the 2007 debate
over ENDA in the House
where he cast a vote for
a non-transinclusive ENDA,
and kind of threw
that question to us.
And it was really hard
for me who kind of tends
towards compromise very often to
then turn to my trans friends.
And say, yes, actually I
was willing to throw you
under the bus, perhaps,
or perhaps not,
in the name of compromise
when the next year
the Senate would pass
a more inclusive ENDA.
So just how do you
balance, or did you
learn anything in your 40
years in the legislature
about how to balance the
human cost of compromise?
OLYMPIA SNOWE: No, you do.
That's a tough question.
No, it isn't simple.
Compromise isn't simple.
And sometimes you
come to the point
where you can't accept
the final package.
You reach a point.
And you have to weigh that.
Do you get a foot in the door?
Sometimes we would say, or the
camel's nose under the tent?
Can you start someplace in
order to make a change in hopes
that you can build upon
that change in the future?
So does it become
that bird in the hand,
to use another metaphor.
Because it really is important.
If you've taken so long to
get to a point of passing
legislation, then you
decide, OK, is it better
to get this part of it
and then hope that you
can build on it in the future?
So it's not so much
about throwing somebody
under the bus, or
having that human cost.
Is to say, is it better to
get something versus nothing?
And that's always a challenge.
And when you're weighing
what you're discussing,
so you have to weigh that out.
And it's not always easy.
And it's not simple.
But when you look at the
overall legislative process,
sometimes it becomes
interminable.
It takes you-- as I said on
genetic nondiscrimination,
for example, it took us 10
years, practically speaking.
So you decide is it
worth getting in the door
that principle, that
philosophy, that right?
And so it's from that standpoint
you make that decision.
DEAN MINOW: I think,
unfortunately, we're
going to have to stop.
And maybe you can ask
your question here.
But would you all join me in
thanking our wonderful guests?
OLYMPIA SNOWE: Thank you.
This page was last edited on 5 April 2021, at 21:41