ANNOUNCER: AMERICAN DEMOCRACY STARTED AS MUCH MORE OF AN IDEA THAN A REALITY.

AFRICAN-AMERICANS WERE COUNTED AS 3/5 OF A PERSON IN THE CONSTITUTION BUT COUNTED HARDLY AT ALL AT THE BALLOT BOX.

WOMEN COULD NOT VOTE, NOR COULD MANY YOUNG PEOPLE, WHO WERE NONETHELESS OLD ENOUGH TO GIVE THEIR LIVES IN DEFENSE OF THEIR COUNTRY.

SENATORS WERE CHOSEN BY STATE GOVERNMENTS RATHER THAN ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE, AND IN MORE GENERAL TERMS, ONLY THOSE WITH MORE MONEY AND EDUCATION THAN MOST COULD HOPE TO HAVE ANY REAL IMPACT IN POLITICS.

ALL OF THESE THINGS HAVE CHANGED, AND YET TODAY, MANY AMERICANS BELIEVE THAT THEIR GOVERNMENT HAS AGAIN BECOME UNREPRESENTATIVE OF ORDINARY CITIZENS AND THAT THE INSTITUTIONS OF OUR GOVERNMENT NO LONGER FUNCTION EFFECTIVELY, SO IN THE 240th YEAR SINCE AMERICA DECLARED ITS INDEPENDENCE, IS AMERICAN DEMOCRACY BROKEN?

THIS EPISODE OF "THE WHOLE TRUTH" WAS MADE POSSIBLE BY THE DORAN FAMILY FOUNDATION, AMETEK, AND BY... FOR HUNDREDS OF YEARS IN ENGLISH-SPEAKING COURTROOMS AROUND THE WORLD, PEOPLE HAVE SWORN AN OATH TO TELL NOT ONLY THE TRUTH BUT RATHER THE WHOLE TRUTH.

THE OATH REFLECTS THE WISDOM THAT FAILING TO TELL ALL OF A STORY CAN BE AS EFFECTIVE AS LYING IF YOUR GOAL IS TO MAKE FACTS SUPPORT YOUR POINT OF VIEW.

IN THE COURTROOM, THE SEARCH FOR TRUTH ALSO RELIES ON ADVOCATES ADVANCING FIRM, CONTRADICTORY ARGUMENTS AND DOING SO WITH DECORUM.

ALL OF THESE APPLY TO THE COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION, WHAT JOHN STUART MILL CALLED THE MARKETPLACE OF IDEAS.

THIS SERIES IS A PLACE IN WHICH THE COMPETING VOICES ON THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUES OF OUR TIME ARE CHALLENGED AND SET INTO MEANINGFUL CONTEXT SO THAT VIEWERS LIKE YOU CAN DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES THE WHOLE TRUTH.

ON THIS EPISODE, WE LOOK AT THE STATE OF AMERICAN POLITICS AND THE GOVERNMENT THAT OUR POLITICS GIVES US, AND WE ASK THE QUESTION: IS AMERICAN POLITICS BROKEN?

WELL, NOW HERE TO DISCUSS THIS, UH, QUESTION TODAY, WE HAVE, UH--WE HAVE 3 VERY DISTINGUISHED PANELISTS.

I'LL BEGIN WITH, UH, LAWRENCE LESSIG, UH, WHO IS A PROFESSOR OF LAW AT THE HARVARD LAW SCHOOL.

WE HAVE A HISTORY-MAKING ATTORNEY--MICHAEL BOOS, WHO WAS COUNSEL IN THE, UH, DECISION CITIZENS UNITED, WHICH IS PROBABLY THE MOST TALKED ABOUT SUPREME COURT DECISION IN THIS, UH--IN THIS AREA FOR AS LONG AS I CAN REMEMBER.

AND SEATED TO MY LEFT IS TOM DAVIS, A FORMER CONGRESSMAN FROM, UH, NORTHERN VIRGINIA, WHO WAS HEAD OF THE R TRIPLE C IN 3 ELECTION CYCLES, MASTERMINDED, UH, THE REPUBLICAN OFF-YEAR GAINS OF 2002, WHICH WAS A TRULY HISTORIC PERFORMANCE OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IN THAT ELECTION.

UH, I'D LIKE TO LOOK AT THIS CORRUPTION AND POLARIZATION QUESTION BY STARTING WITH CORRUPTION.

NOW THERE'S AN IMPRESSION, UH, THAT WE HAVE THE BEST CONGRESS OR THE BEST GOVERNMENT, UH, THAT MONEY CAN BUY, UH, THAT CONGRESS IS ESSENTIALLY FOR SALE, THAT ACCESS IS FOR SALE, AND THAT, UH, CITIZENS UNITED AND OTHER THINGS LIKE THAT HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO THIS.

WE ARE HEARING, UH, WORDS LIKE "OLIGARCHY."

HOW DO YOU ALL FEEL ABOUT THIS?

IS THERE A KIND OF-- IS OUR SYSTEM THREATENED WITH A KIND OF BASIC CORRUPTION?

SO AMERICANS ARE DEEPLY AWARE OF THE PROBLEM.

WE, UH, DID A POLL AT THE END OF LAST YEAR, WHERE WE FOUND 96% OF AMERICANS THOUGHT IT IMPORTANT TO REDUCE THE INFLUENCE OF MONEY IN POLITICS.

EISENHOWER: 96?

BUT 91% DIDN'T THINK IT WAS POSSIBLE.

SO THIS IS KIND OF THE POLITICS OF RESIGNATION.

THEY HAVE THIS STRONG FEELING, BUT THEY DON'T THINK THERE'S ANYTHING TO DO ABOUT IT BECAUSE THEY DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY WAY TO CHANGE IT.

AND I THINK WHAT'S IMPORTANT IS TO IDENTIFY WHAT THE NATURE OF THE PROBLEM IS.

UM, I DON'T THINK CONGRESS IS BOUGHT IN THE OLD SENSE OF CRIMINALS HANDING DO-- UH, STACKS OF MONEY TO CONGRESSMEN TO GET THEM TO CHANGE THEIR VOTE.

THAT'S--THAT'S NOT THE SYSTEM.

I THINK CONGRESS IS FILLED WITH PEOPLE OF HIGH INTEGRITY, WHO GO THERE FOR THE RIGHT REASON, BUT THE SYSTEM THAT'S EVOLVED FORCES THEM INTO A LIFE WHERE THEY ARE CONSTANTLY FOCUSED ON HOW TO RAISE MONEY FROM THE TINIEST FRACTION OF THE 1%, AND WHEN YOU SPEND 30%, 40%-- THE ACADEMIC STUDIES I'VE SEEN-- UP TO 70% OF YOUR TIME RAISING MONEY FROM THIS TINY, UNREPRESENTATIVE SET-- UH, SLICE OF AMERICA, YOU CAN'T HELP BUT BE SHIFTED IN THE WAY YOU THINK ABOUT PROBLEMS, AND YOU CAN'T HELP BUT BE RESPONSIVE TO THOSE PEOPLE YOU THINK YOU NEED TO RAISE YOUR MONEY FROM.

SO THIS VERY WAY IN WHICH WE'VE ALLOWED FUNDING OF CAMPAIGNS TO EVOLVE CAN'T HELP BUT MAKE CONGRESS RESPONSIVE NOT AS MADISON PROMISED TO THE PEOPLE AS A WHOLE, WHERE HE SAID IN "FEDERALIST 57," BY THE PEOPLE HE MEANT "NOT THE RICH MORE THAN THE POOR, " BUT INSTEAD RESPONSIVE TO THOSE WHO ARE IN THE BUSINESS OF FUNDING THE CAMPAIGNS.

EISENHOWER: THE REELECTION RATES TO CONGRESS, UH, ARE--ARE VERY, VERY HIGH, LIKE, UH, 95% AND SO FORTH.

THERE ARE A LOT OF SAFE SEATS, AND THIS IS CONTRIBUTING TO POLARIZATION.

IF SO MANY PEOPLE HAVE SAFE SEATS, WHY ARE THEY RAISING MONEY ALL THE TIME?

WELL, BECAUSE I KNOW THAT EACH PARTY PUTS DUES ON THEIR MEMBERS.

YOU WANT TO GET A GOOD COMMITTEE CHAIRMANSHIP, YOU WANT TO BE CHAIRMAN, THEY WANT TO KNOW HOW MUCH MONEY YOU'VE RAISED FOR THE CAUSE.

BOTH CONGRESSIONAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEES ARE FOCUSED ON THOSE 20% OF THE SEATS THAT ARE THEORETICALLY COMPETITIVE, AND A LOT OF MONEY GOES INTO THOSE RACES.

IN THE OTHER RACES, YOU DON'T SEE MUCH SPENT, AND SO THE PRESSURE IS CONSTANTLY THERE, PARTICULARLY FOR COMMITTEE CHAIRMEN AND MEMBERS WHO ARE ON KEY--WHAT WE CALL FUNDRAISING COMMITTEES-- WAYS AND MEANS, ENERGY, AND COMMERCE, FINANCIAL SERVICES, WHERE YOU HAVE A LOT OF BIG INTERESTS.

CAN--CAN--PEOPLE CAN WIN OR LOSE THEIR FORTUNES BASED ON A PARAGRAPH IN A BILL INVEST HUGE MONEY IN THESE COMMITTEES.

GENERATING POLITICAL WILL TO ME SEEMS TO BE VERY CHALLENGING, ESPECIALLY CONFRONTED WITH, UH, 96 FEEL SOMETHING IS BROKEN, 91 SAY NOTHING CAN BE DONE ABOUT IT.

CONGRESS INDIVIDUALLY-- CONGRESSMEN AND CONGRESSWOMEN ARE LOVED BY THEIR CONSTITUENTS.

THEY'RE POPULAR PEOPLE, SO YOU'RE NOT GONNA RALLY FROM THE BOTTOM UP, UM, AND WE DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL ACTOR WHO'S REALLY THERE TO SAY, "LOOK.

CONGRESS IS THE PROBLEM."

YOU KNOW, STRIKINGLY WHEN THEY WERE DRAFTING THE CONSTITUTION, UM, THEY HAD ORIGINALLY MADE IT SO THE ONLY WAY TO AMEND THE CONSTITUTION WAS FOR CONGRESS TO PROPOSE AN AMENDMENT.

RIGHT.

AND GEORGE MASON STOOD UP AND SAID, "YOU KNOW, WHAT IF CONGRESS IS THE PROBLEM?"

SO THEY CREATED AN ALTERNATIVE PATH TO AMEND THE CONSTITUTION THAT CONGRESS COULDN'T CONTROL UNDER THE ASSUMPTION THAT MAYBE SOMETIMES CONGRESS WOULD BECOME THE PROBLEM, AND THAT'S MY VIEW.

I THINK WE ARE AT A TIME WHERE THE FAILED INSTITUTION IN OUR DEMOCRACY IS CONGRESS.

IN THE OLD DAYS, YOU GOT A LOT OF STUFF DONE WHEN IT WAS BIPARTISAN.

YOU HAD PRESIDENTS WHO KNEW HOW TO WORK WITH PEOPLE FROM THE OTHER PARTY.

THE HIGHWAY BILL UNDER--UNDER PRESIDENT EISENHOWER, A--A HUGE BILL.

UH, WE BALANCED 4 BUDGETS WITH BILL CLINTON AND JOHN KASICH ON THE REPUBLICAN SIDE WORKING TOGETHER, BUT THOSE DAYS ARE BASICALLY GONE.

THEY'RE GONE FOR REASONS THAT WE'RE GOING TO EXPLORE.

WE HAVE WITH US, UH, THE LEAD COUNSEL IN CITIZENS UNITED, WHICH IS, UH... ONE OF THE GREAT CASES IN AMERICAN JURISPRUDENCE.

YOU KNOW, TO MANY PEOPLE, THIS IS A KIND OF, UH, DIRTY WORD.

IN OTHER WORDS, UH, CITIZENS UNITED IS A--UH, SOMETHING THAT, UH, UNLEASHED A FLOOD OF MONEY IN POLITICS, HAS CONTRIBUTED TO POLARIZATION.

REACTION TO THE COURT'S DECISION RAN THE SPECTRUM.

PRESIDENT OBAMA CONDEMNED IT.

IN A STATEMENT, HE WARNED "THE RESULT WILL BE A STAMPEDE OF SPECIAL INTEREST MONEY IN OUR POLITICS," BUT REPUBLICANS WELCOMED THE DECISION.

HOUSE MINORITY LEADER JOHN BOEHNER CALLED IT "A BIG WIN FOR THE FIRST AMENDMENT."

I THINK WE'RE ALL FASCINATED BY THE STORY OF THAT CASE.

I DON'T THINK IT'S WIDELY APPRECIATED THAT, UH, THAT THE PLAINTIFF-- UH, YOU ALL WERE ACTUALLY FACING CRIMINAL SANCTIONS AND THAT, UH, IT WAS POSSIBLE FOR SOMEBODY TO ACTUALLY GO TO JAIL FOR MAKING A MOVIE ABOUT HILLARY CLINTON IN 2008.

HILLARY CLINTON: YOU DEBATE AND YOU DISAGREE WITH THIS ADMINISTRATION, SOMEHOW YOU'RE NOT PATRIOTIC, AND WE SHOULD STAND UP AND SAY WE ARE AMERICANS, AND WE HAVE A RIGHT TO DEBATE AND DISAGREE WITH ANY ADMINISTRATION!

HOW DID THIS, UH, CHALLENGE COME ABOUT, AND, UH, MICHAEL, A QUESTION THAT I WOULD HAVE-- AND I THINK ALL OF US WOULD HAVE-- IS HOW SECURE OR HOW SETTLED WOULD YOU CONSIDER THE ISSUES OF LAW RAISED IN THAT CASE TO BE?

UH, HAS THIS DEFINED A SORT OF NEW UNIVERSE THAT WE'RE GONNA BE IN FOR THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE?

WELL, THE--THE CASE, AS YOU POINTED OUT, AROSE OUT OF A DESIRE ON THE PART OF CITIZENS UNITED, WHICH WAS AN INCORPORATED NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION, THAT WE WANTED TO BROADCAST ADS FOR A MOVIE CRITICAL OF HILLARY CLINTON, AND WE WANTED TO BROADCAST THE MOVIE ITSELF, AND UNDER THE FEDERAL CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAWS, THE McCAIN-FEINGOLD ACT, AS IT'S COMMONLY REFERRED TO, IT WAS A CRIME.

IT WAS A FEDERAL FELONY TO BROADCAST THIS MOVIE BECAUSE IT WAS PAID FOR WITH CORPORATE FUNDS, AND WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT A PUBLICLY TRADED INTERNATIONAL CONGLOMERATE HERE.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION THAT CHOSE THE CORPORATE STRUCTURE JUST LIKE MANY LIBERAL GROUPS CHOOSE THE CORPORATE STRUCTURE, A GROUP THAT HAS AN AVERAGE CONTRIBUTION OF LESS THAN $100.

OUR ANNUAL DUES ARE ONLY $15.

TRYING TO POOL TOGETHER FUNDS IN ORDER TO PUT ON A MOVIE THAT WAS CRITICAL OF HILLARY CLINTON, AND SO THAT BECAME THE VEHICLE, THE TEST CASE FOR CHALLENGING THIS BAN ON CORPORATE MONEY, AND IT REALLY GOES TO THE QUESTION WHAT IS THERE INHERENTLY BAD ABOUT CORPORATIONS THAT THEY SHOULD BE-- THAT THEY SHOULD BE BANNED FROM SPEAKING?

CORPORA--THE CORPORATE FORM IS NOT INHERENTLY CORRUPT.

WOULD YOU SAY THAT IT HAS HAD THE INTENDED CONSEQUENCES?

DO YOU FEEL THAT THE ENVIRONMENT THAT WE ARE IN TODAY, UH, IN WHICH CORPORATIONS ARE ALLOWED TO ESSENTIALLY SPEND INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURES, ESSENTIALLY UNLIMITED-- DO YOU THINK THAT THIS HAS HAD BENEFICIAL EFFECTS?

DO YOU THINK IT'S HAD UNINTENDED EFFECTS?

WELL, I THINK THE EFFECTS HAVE BEEN LARGELY QUITE BENEFICIAL.

FIRST OF ALL, THE--THOSE WHO OPPOSE THE DECISION IN THE CASE WERE SAYING THAT PUBLICLY TRADED CORPORATIONS WERE THE ONES THAT WOULD BE PUMPING BILLIONS, TENS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS INTO POLITICS.

THAT HASN'T HAPPENED.

THE FREE MARKET DOESN'T ALLOW THAT TO HAPPEN BECAUSE THEY WANT TO-- THEY DON'T WANT TO RISK ALIENATING THEIR CUSTOMER BASE.

WE GOT TO REMEMBER, IN THIS COUNTRY, WE STILL SPEND MORE, A LOT MORE, ADVERTISING FAST FOOD THAN WE SPEND ON POLITICS AND ADVERTISING AT THE FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL LEVELS COMBINED.

I WOULD THINK ELECTING THE NEXT PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES IS A HIGHER PRIORITY THAN ADVERTISING FOR HAMBURGERS, BUT A LOT MORE MONEY IS SPENT ON HAMBURGERS.

A LOT OF THE MONEY COMING IN NOW IN THESE CAMPAIGNS IS NOT TRANSPARENT.

AT LEAST IN THE PAST, IT WAS REGISTERED.

I WON MY FIRST RACE RUNNING AGAINST MY OPPONENT'S LABOR CONTRIBUTIONS, WHO VOTED AGAINST NAFTA, AND IN A TECHNOLOGY DISTRICT, THAT DIDN'T FLY.

UH, YOU CAN USE YOUR OPPONENT'S CONTRIBUTIONS IF YOU KNOW WHERE THEY'RE COMING FROM, BUT TODAY, PARTICULARLY THESE 501(C)(4)s ARE SPENDING HORRENDOUS AMOUNTS OF MONEY.

WE DON'T EVEN KNOW WHO FUNDS IT, AND I THINK WE CAN ALL AGREE THAT PROBABLY THAT OUGHT TO AT LEAST SEE THE SUNSHINE.

EISENHOWER: SO THAT'S PART OF THE PROBLEM ISN'T IT, TOM?

IN OTHER WORDS, WHEN WE TALK ABOUT POLARIZATION OR WE TALK ABOUT THIS, UH, SORT OF CYNICISM, THE LACK OF DISCLOSURE, DISCLAIMER, THAT TYPE OF THING, THE INABILITY TO BASICALLY GET A HANDLE ON WHO'S SAYING WHAT.

WELL, I THINK THAT'S PART OF THE PROBLEM RIGHT NOW IS THERE IS WHAT WE CALL DARK MONEY AT THIS POINT.

WE DON'T EVEN KNOW WHERE IT'S COMING FROM, AND CANDIDATES ARE GETTING HIT.

THEY DON'T KNOW-- YOU KNOW, HOW--HOW DO YOU RESPOND WHEN YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW WHO THE ENEMY IS AT THIS-- YOU CAN'T EVEN POINT TO SOMEBODY WHO'S FUNDING IT AND THE MOTIVES BEHIND IT?

LESSIG: I THINK THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT, BUT I THINK, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE PROBLEMS HERE IS THAT WE'RE TOO RESTRICTIVE IN THINKING ABOUT HOW WE COULD CHANGE THE SYSTEM, RIGHT?

IT'S NOT JUST ABOUT HOW TO LIMIT CONTRIBUTIONS.

IT'S ALSO ABOUT WHERE SHOULD THE MONEY BE COMING FROM?

SO STATES LIKE CONNECTICUT, WHICH FACED A VERY SEVERE CORRUPTION CRISIS IN THE NINETIES AND THEN ADOPTED, UM, SMALL-DOLLAR PUBLIC FUNDING AS A WAY TO FUND THEIR ELECTIONS, IN THE FIRST ELECTION AFTER THEY DID THAT, 78% OF THE EXISTING REPRESENTATIVES, REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS ALIKE, OPTED INTO A SYSTEM WHERE THEY DIDN'T HAVE TO SPEND ALL THEIR TIME RAISING MONEY BECAUSE THE SYSTEM WAS ACTUALLY PROVIDING FUNDING THROUGH THAT, AND IF WE BEGIN TO THINK ABOUT OTHER WAYS WE COULD FUND CAMPAIGNS, UM, RATHER THAN RELYING JUST ON LARGE CONTRIBUTORS OR CORPORATE CONTRIBUTIONS OR UNION CONTRIBUTIONS AND INSTEAD BEGIN TO FIND WAYS TO GIVE PEOPLE THEIR OWN MONEY BACK TO BE ABLE TO FUND CAMPAIGNS, THAT WOULD-- BUT--BUT WE TRIED THAT AT THE PRESIDENTIAL LEVEL, AND IF YOU REMEMBER, PRESIDENT OBAMA WHEN HE WAS RUNNING DECIDED HE WAS GONNA TAKE THE LARGE CON-- THE LARGER, UH, CONTRIBUTIONS AND NOT TAKE THE PUBLIC FUNDING.

BY THE WAY, BUSH HAD DONE THE SAME THING IN THE REPUBLICAN PRIMARIES, NOT IN THE GENERAL ELECTION PRIOR TO THAT.

SO YOU HAVE TO HAVE PRETTY HIGH THRESHOLDS.

NO, BUT--BUT YOU'RE RIGHT.

WE HAD THAT AT THE PRESIDENTIAL LEVEL, BUT THAT WAS VERY DIFFERENT.

THAT WAS TOP-DOWN PUBLIC FUNDING.

WHAT MANY PEOPLE ARE TALKING ABOUT NOW IS A KIND OF BOTTOM-UP PUBLIC FUNDING.

SO REPUBLICANS ARE TALKING ABOUT GIVING PEOPLE VOUCHERS, LIKE DEMOCRACY VOUCHERS, RIGHT, WHERE YOU CAN USE THAT TO GIVE TO CANDIDATES WHO AGREE TO FUND THEIR CAMPAIGNS IN SMALL CONTRIBUTIONS.

YOU JUST GIVE THEM A TAX CREDIT.

EISENHOWER: BUT WE'RE ALSO TALKING SPECIFICALLY ABOUT CONGRESS HERE, AREN'T WE?

WELL, THAT'S RIGHT.

AND IN CONGRESS-- WE'VE IDENTIFIED A PROBLEM HERE, AND THAT IS THE CONGRESS, YES.

UH, I ASK THIS OF YOU BECAUSE YOU'RE AN AUTHOR ON THIS SUBJECT.

UH, LOOKING BACK OVER RECENT, UH-- OR MODERN AMERICAN POLITICAL HISTORY, WE SEE NUMEROUS INSTANCES OF PRESIDENTS REACHING ACROSS THE PARTISAN DIVIDE, UH, CONGRESS COMING TOGETHER.

YOU REFERRED TO SEVERAL INSTANCES.

THE LATE NINETIES, THE BALANCED BUDGET.

IN FACT, IN YOUR EXPERIENCE WHEN YOU WERE WITH THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, YOU--YOU, UH, RECALL AN ERA WHICH WAS, UH, SOMEHOW DISTINCT FROM THE ONE THAT WE ARE IN NOW.

LET ME SAY BIPARTISANSHIP USED TO BE A LOT EASIER BECAUSE YOU HAD LIBERAL REPUBLICANS AND CONSERVATIVE DEMOCRATS.

TODAY, THE PARTIES ARE WHAT-- IN POLITICAL SCIENCE, WE SAY THEY'RE IDEOLOGICALLY SORTED.

THERE ARE NO MORE LIBERAL REPUBLICANS OR CONSERVATIVE DEMOCRATS IN THE HOUSE OR THE SENATE.

JUST BY BEHAVIOR, IT OPERATES MORE LIKE A PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM EVEN THOUGH WE'RE NOT A PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM.

WE'RE BALANCE OF POWERS.

AND THE SINGLE-PARTY DISTRICTS HAVE CERTAINLY CREATED-- HELPED TO CREATE THAT WHERE THE ONLY RACE THAT COUNTS IS THE PRIMARY ELECTION.

FOR MOS--FOR 80% OF THE HOUSE, THE ONLY RACE THAT MATTERS IS THE PRIMARY.

NOVEMBER'S NOTHING MORE THAN A CONSTITUTIONAL FORMALITY THAT THEY'VE GOT TO GO THROUGH.

SO THEY PUT THEIR TIME, ATTENTION, AND THEIR VOTING RECORDS TO THEIR PRIMARY VOTERS, WHO ARE A PRETTY THIN IDEOLOGICAL SLICE OF THE ELECTORAL PIE.

UM, ADD TO THAT THE MONEY IN POLITICS WE TALKED ABOUT, WHICH IS CLEARLY A CULPRIT IN THIS.

THE MONEY HAS MOVED FROM THE PARTIES, WHICH ARE CENTERING FORCES, TO BASICALLY OUT ON THE WINGS, WHICH PLAY IN PRIMARY ELECTIONS.

PARTIES DON'T PLAY IN PRIMARIES BECAUSE THEY--THEY HARBOR THAT MONEY FOR THOSE 20% OF DISTRICTS THAT ARE COMPETITIVE BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT DETERMINES MAJORITIES.

THE THIRD THING TO TALK ABOUT IS-- IS THE MEDIA MODELS.

WITH THE ABOLITION OF THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE BY THE FCC NOW, YOU HAVE ACTUAL BUSINESS MODELS THAT RELY ON BEING POLARIZING MODELS-- TALK RADIO, CABLE NEWS, AND--AND THESE INTERNET WEB SITES.

IT'S INCREDIBLE THE STUFF THAT COMES OVER THAT THAT'S NOT VETTED AT ALL THAT GOES OUT AS FACT.

EISENHOWER: BUT THERE ARE WAYS OUT OF THIS, AREN'T THERE, TOM?

THERE ARE WAYS.

NOW--NOW WHAT--WHAT DO YOU SUGGEST, UH, TO END THE PARTISAN DIVIDE?

WHAT--WHAT--LET ME PUT THIS WAY.

WHAT WOULD YOU CONSIDER TO BE THE MOST PROMISING SUGGESTION OF THE ONES YOU CAN THINK OF?

WITHOUT DOING ANYTHING, CONGRESS ON ITS OWN-- IF YOU BRING BACK EARMARKS, THAT GIVES EVERYBODY A STAKE IN THE GAME.

YOU'RE MORE LIKELY TO BE ABLE TO PASS A TRANSPORTATION BILL, UH, AN APPROPRIATION BILL.

NOW IT'S GOT TO BE TRANSPARENT.

I MEAN, WE HAD PEOPLE GO TO JAIL FOR SELLING THEM, AND THAT'S WRONG, BUT THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH THE PEOPLE THAT ARE GETTING THE MONEY AND PASSING THE BILL TO DESIGNATE WHERE THE PROJECTS GO.

FOR 100 YEARS IN AMERICA, THAT WAS THE ONLY WAY THINGS--THINGS-- THINGS WORKED.

UH, BUT THE OTHER-- THE OTHER THING-- GETTING BEYOND THAT IS REDISTRICTING AT THIS POINT, IT'S A JOKE.

IF YOU LOOK AT SOME OF THE PICTURES OF SOME OF THESE DISTRICTS, IT DOESN'T PASS THE LAUGH TEST FOR ANY AMERICAN TO LOOK AT THESE THINGS.

IF PICASSO WERE ALIVE TODAY, HE WOULDN'T NEED TO GO THROUGH HIS BLUE PERIOD.

HE COULD GET THE ARTISTIC FULFILLMENT THAT HE GOT JUST BY DRAWING THESE DISTRICTS AND PROBABLY MAKE A LOT MORE MONEY.

WE HAVE A CONGRESS THAT IS NOT REPRESENTATIVE OF AMERICA.

I MEAN, AMERICA'S MORE POLARIZED-- YOU'RE EXACTLY RIGHT-- BECAUSE IT'S SORTED.

THE ATTITUDES OF AMERICA IS NOT ANY DIFFERENT FROM WHAT IT WAS 40 YEARS AGO, BUT WE'VE SORTED INTO POLARIZING DISTRICTS, BUT THE WAY WE PICK MEMBERS OF CONGRESS THROUGH THIS FIRST PAST THE POST AND THESE GERRYMANDERED DISTRICTS, MOST OF THEM BEING SAFE, PRODUCES THE KIND OF POLARIZATION WHICH WE COULD TOMORROW FIX IF CONGRESS JUST TOOK IT ON ITSELF TO FIX IT.

EISENHOWER: RIGHT.

AND WHAT KIND OF DEFERENCE DO YOU THINK THE SUPREME COURT WOULD PAY TO, UH--TO A CONGRESSIONAL SOLUTION?

AND IN FACT, UH, TOM YOU'VE POINTED OUT WHAT, UH, ARTICLE 1, SECTION 4 AND 5.

"CONGRESS IS THE JUDGE OF THE, UM, QUALIFICATIONS "OF ITS OWN MEMBERS.

UH, IT DETERMINES TIME, MANNER, CHOOSING--OF CHOOSING."

THEY--THEY HAVE A LOT OF TEXTUAL POWER, UH, CONTROL OVER THE WAY DISTRICTS CAN BE DRAWN, AT LEAST IN THEORY.

WHAT'S YOUR SENSE OF THIS?

PEOPLE THAT BENEFIT FROM ONE--FROM ONE SYSTEM ARE UNLIKELY TO ADOPT ANOTHER.

LESSIG: UNLESS THERE'S A STRONG MANDATE TO SAY, "ENOUGH.

FIX YOURSELF."

THEN THEY'LL FIX IT.

THEY USUALLY OVERFIX WHEN THERE'S A MANDATE.

CONGRESS HAS THE POWER UNDER ARTICLE 1, SECTION 4, TO STRUCTURE THE WAY WE SELECT MEMBERS OF CONGRESS DIFFERENTLY, AND IT COULD DO IT CONSISTENT WITH THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT IN A WAY THAT DIDN'T PRODUCE THIS POLARIZED CONGRESS.

EISENHOWER: SO CONGRESS HAS THE POWER TO DO THIS.

IT HAS DONE IT MANY TIMES, RIGHT?

IT ORIGINALLY HAD A MULTIMEMBER SYSTEM.

IN 1967 IS WHEN THEY FINALLY ADOPT THIS WINNER-TAKE-ALL SYSTEM THAT WE HAVE RIGHT NOW.

'67?

'67, RIGHT?

SO--SO THE POINT IS THIS IS A PROBLEM CONGRESS HAS CREATED FOR ITSELF, AND IF WE COULD BUILD A MANDATE STRONG ENOUGH TO SAY, "CONGRESS, YOU'RE A FAILED INSTITUTION.

WE'VE GOT TO FIX YOU," THIS WOULD BE ONE DIMENSION THAT WOULD BE INCREDIBLY LUCRATIVE.

TOM, LET'S GO BACK TO THIS BIG POINT.

THAT IS, THE STAKES UH, HERE RIDING ON THIS.

IF CONGRESS DOES NOT REFORM ITSELF, WHAT HAPPENS?

WELL, EVENTUALLY-- EVENTUALLY, VOTERS GET FED UP.

IT'S--IT'S A PRETTY HIGH THRESHOLD FOR VOTERS TO GET FED UP.

AS ONE MEMBER SAID TO ME-- HE SAYS, "TOM, THEY DON'T EXPECT TOO MUCH OF US."

[LAUGHTER] IN A MOMENT OF CANDOR.

UM, BUT THERE-- THERE COMES A TIME WHEN PEOPLE JUST REALLY GET FED UP, AND AT THAT POINT, THAT'S WHEN YOU GET THE OVERFIXES AND THE REVOLUTIONS WHERE THESE THINGS OCCUR.

BOOS: IF CONGRESS WENT BACK TO THE WAY IT USED TO BE PRIOR TO THE WATERGATE ERA REFORMS, WHERE YOU HAD PART-TIME LEGISLATORS, THAT MIGHT GO A LONG WAY TOWARDS REFORMING THINGS BECAUSE THIS PARTISAN DIVIDE HAS BEEN BUILDING AS AN OUTGROWTH OF THESE WATERGATE REFORM-ERA LAWS WITH MORE REGULATION.

CONGRESS HAS NOW BECOME A FULL-TIME INSTITUTION.

IT USED TO BE THAT MEMBERS OF CONGRESS LIVED IN THEIR DISTRICTS THROUGH MOST OF THE YEAR, THEY HAD REAL JOBS BACK IN THEIR DISTRICTS, THEY WERE PART-TIME LEGISLATORS, THEY WERE IN CONSTANT CONTACT WITH THEIR CONSTITUENTS BECAUSE THEY WERE SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS.

THEY MIGHT HAVE BEEN DOCTORS, LAWYERS BACK IN THE DISTRICTS, BUT MEMBERS OF CONGRESS ON THE SENATE SIDE AND HOUSE SIDE ARE BANNED FROM DOING THAT NOW, AND THAT'S A REFORM THAT CONGRESS COULD MAKE.

WHAT ARE WE ARGUING ABOUT?

UH, I UNDERSTAND THIS, UH, DEBATE BETWEEN, UH, LARGE GOVERNMENT AND SMALL GOVERNMENT, BUT I DON'T SEE AN ISSUE SIMILAR TO, SAY, SLAVERY BEFORE THE AMERICAN CIVIL WAR.

I DON'T SEE THOSE KINDS OF DIVIDES.

WHAT'S STRIKING TO ME IS, UM, WE DON'T SEEM TO HAVE THE ABILITY POLITICALLY TO TALK ABOUT THE DEAD ELEPHANT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ROOM, RIGHT?

WE HAVE LOST A REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY.

UH, ON THE OTHER HAND-- CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, TOM, BUT I THINK THAT, UH, TURNOUT HAS CERTAINLY GONE UP IN PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS.

IN OTHER WORDS, YOU'RE SEEING--I SEE MORE PARTICIPATION IN POLITICS THAN I SAW SOME TIME AGO.

IN OTHER WORDS, OUR SYSTEM MAY BE BROKEN, BUT I THINK THAT THERE IS NOW A DEVELOPING, UH, CONSENSUS THAT SOMETHING HAS TO BE DONE ABOUT IT, AND THERE ARE MEANS-- MEANS OF DOING SOMETHING ABOUT IT.

BUT THERE'S A VERY BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE PRESIDENT AND CONGRESS, AND I AGREE WITH YOU.

AS FAR AS THE INSTITUTIONS, THE PRESIDENT'S MUCH BIGGER THAN THE FRAMERS INTENDED IT TO BE, BUT THE PRESIDENT IS NOT FAILED IN A SENSE, BUT, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS, PEOPLE TURN OUT.

WE HAVE CONGRESSIONAL ELECTIONS, NOBODY TURNS OUT.

WELL, LET ME JUST SAY I THINK THE VOTERS ON--ON THESE ISSUES REACT MORE TO OUTCOMES, AND WHEN THEY'RE GETTING BAD OUTCOMES ON THE GROUND, IF THEY'RE NOT GETTING AHEAD, IF THEY'RE NOT MAKING MONEY, IF THEY SEE A WAR WITH BODY BAGS COMING HOME YOU CAN'T EXPLAIN, THAT'S WHEN THEY TEND TO REVOLT.

THEY DON'T REVOLT ON PROCESSES AND PROCEDURES.

WE CAN TALK ABOUT THAT RESULTING IN BAD OUTCOMES, BUT UNTIL THE VOTERS SEE THAT ON THE GROUND, I DON'T THINK YOU REALLY GET THE KIND OF REVOLUTION THAT YOU NEED TO TRY TO TURN THESE THINGS AROUND.

YOU'VE GIVEN A GOOD DEAL OF THOUGHT TO WHERE WE GO FROM HERE, AND, UH, I WOULD LIKE TO JUST SORT OF CONCLUDE THIS BY SAYING WHAT IS-- AND WE'LL START WITH YOU, MICHAEL.

UH, WHAT IS A KIND OF WAY FORWARD?

ARE--ARE YOU SATISFIED WITH HOW THINGS ARE NOW?

DO YOU--DO YOU FORESEE SOME SORT OF CHANGE?

UH, WHAT--WHAT-- WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?

WE VIEW LARGE GOVERNMENT AS BEING A BIG PART OF THE PROBLEM.

THE POLARIZATION THAT WE'VE SEEN IS ALL PART OF THE GROWTH OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND--AND THE GREATER CONTROL THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS OVER EVERYDAY LIFE IN MICROMANAGING CITIZENS IN THIS COUNTRY, AND--AND ULTIMATELY, THE SOLUTION IS GOING TO BE IN MOVING THINGS BACK TO THE WAY THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO BE, ALLOWING STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO HAVE A GREATER ROLE AND GREATER SAY IN THE AFFAIRS OF PEOPLE AND THEIR COMMUNITIES.

CONGRESS SHOULD BE A PART-TIME POSITION.

THE ENTIRE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE GENERALLY SMALLER THAN IT IS TODAY AND ALLOW THE STATES AND THE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO HAVE THE SAY THAT THE FRAMERS HAD INTENDED.

EISENHOWER: OF COURSE, THE STRIKING THING IS WE'VE BEEN HAVING THIS DIALOGUE FOR 20, 25 YEARS, AND WE'VE HAD VERY CLOSE ELECTIONS.

WHEN ARE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE GONNA MAKE UP THEIR MINDS ABOUT THESE QUESTIONS?

THIS QUESTION HAS BEEN OUT THERE, BUT-- WHAT I THINK, UH, IS WE'VE GOT TO RECOGNIZE THE PROBLEM WITH THE INSTITUTION AT THE CORE OF OUR DEMOCRACY, AND THE STRUCTURAL PROBLEM WE HAVE IS THAT NOBODY HAS AN INCENTIVE TO TALK ABOUT IT.

UM, CONGRESS DOESN'T HAVE AN INCENTIVE TO TALK ABOUT IT.

FORMER CONGRESSMEN DO, AND THAT--THAT'S VERY VALUABLE THAT THEY DO BECAUSE I THINK IT'S THE REALLY INFORMED VIEW ABOUT WHAT THAT PROBLEM IS, BUT THE PRESIDENT DOESN'T HAVE AN INCENTIVE TO TALK ABOUT IT BECAUSE IF THE PRESIDENT STARTS BASHING CONGRESS THEN OF COURSE IT'S GONNA BE HARDER FOR THE PRESIDENT TO GET ANYTHING THROUGH THAT CONGRESS.

THE PROBLEMS THAT WE CARE ABOUT SOLVING, WHETHER-- YOU KNOW, I'M ON THE LEFT.

I CARE ABOUT SOLVING THE PROBLEMS OF INCOME INEQUALITY, OF CLIMATE CHANGE, THESE ISSUES, BUT IF YOU'RE ON THE RIGHT, YOU WANT TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM OF THE SIZE OF GOVERNMENT OR SIMPLIFY THE TAXES.

THESE ARE ALL PROBLEMS WE CAN'T SOLVE UNTIL WE GET A REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY THAT CAN ACTUALLY DO SOMETHING, AND RIGHT NOW, WE DON'T HAVE THAT.

SO FIXING THIS DEMOCRACY-- OR I THINK FIXING CONGRESS IS THE FIRST PRIORITY IF WE'RE GONNA HAVE ANY OPPORTUNITY FOR THIS DEMOCRACY TO FUNCTION.

AS THE REPRESENTATIVE ON THIS, UH-- ON THIS PANEL OF THAT INSTITUTION OF GOVERNMENT, CONGRESS, SOMEONE WHO'S SERVED THERE, TOM, YOUR WAY FORWARD.

YOU HAVE A HOUSE CURRENTLY THAT IS REDISTRICTED IN A WAY THAT BENEFITS REPUBLICANS.

DEMOCRATS GOT MORE VOTES FOR THE HOUSE IN 2012 THAN REPUBLICANS, 1.4 MILLION MORE VOTES, REPUBLICANS HAD A 17-SEAT ADVANTAGE.

THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE, THOUGH, HAS A DEMOCRATIC ADVANTAGE, THE WAY THE ELECTORAL VOTES ARE PROPORTIONED, AND IF YOU LOOK AT VOTER BEHAVIOR OVER THE LAST 30 YEARS, THEY'VE DIVIDED GOVERNMENT ALMOST 80% OF THE TIME.

UH, THE VOTERS RELY ON THESE PEOPLE TO WORK TOGETHER, AND AT THE BEGINNING, THEY DID.

IT'S JUST BECOME MUCH MORE DIFFICULT.

SO VOTER--SO AGAIN, JUST TO REPEAT MYSELF.

VOTERS WILL REACT TO BAD OUTCOMES AT THE END OF THE DAY.

AS V.O.

KEY USED TO SAY, "THE VOTERS AREN'T STUPID.

"THEY'RE JUST NOT ALWAYS WELL-INFORMED, "BUT THEY KNOW WHEN THEIR SHOE IS PINCHING AND IT'S TIME TO GET A NEW PAIR OF SHOES."

EISENHOWER: VOTERS OR EVEN ME.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, ALL 3 OF YOU.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

NEARLY 2 1/4 CENTURIES AFTER WASHINGTON PEACEFULLY AND GRACEFULLY SURRENDERED THE PRESIDENCY TO JOHN ADAMS, AMERICANS ARE STILL WATCHING PRESIDENTS SAY FARWELL WITHOUT HESITATION.

OUR CONGRESS, THOUGH ITS WHEELS SEEM CREAKY OF LATE, CONTINUES TO PASS LAWS, AND OUR SUPREME COURT, HOWEVER CONTROVERSIAL, IS OBEYED, DEMONSTRATING OUR PROFOUND SENSE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE RULE OF LAW.

SO AT THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL LEVEL, AMERICAN POLITICS ISN'T BROKEN.

STILL, MANY OF US HAVE A SENSE THAT SOMETHING HAS CHANGED IN RECENT YEARS FOR THE WORSE IN THE WAY OUR INSTITUTIONS ARE WORKING.

THE DISAGREEMENTS BETWEEN POLITICAL PARTIES SEEM FAR DEEPER, AND THE INSTITUTIONS OF OUR GOVERNMENT SEEM TO RUN IN PLACE AND AT TIMES NOT RUN AT ALL.

WE FIND OURSELVES IN A WORLD OF HARDER LEFT AND A MUCH MORE FAR RIGHT CLASHING IN WAYS THAT FOSTER A DEEP CYNICISM IN OUR POPULATION, AND OF COURSE, MANY HAVE THE SENSE THAT OUR GOVERNMENT IS THE BEST ONE THAT MONEY CAN BUY, HAVING BEEN CORRUPTED BY AN EXCESSIVE INFLUENCE OF MONEY IN POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS.

IN THE FINAL ANALYSIS, EVERY GENERATION OF AMERICANS FACES CHALLENGES OF POLITICAL REFORM, CHALLENGES ON HOW TO LEAVE ITS MARK IN MOVING THE PRACTICE OF AMERICAN DEMOCRACY CLOSER TO THE CONCEPTION OF AMERICAN DEMOCRACY.

WHAT SEEMS TO ME TO BE THE WHOLE TRUTH OF THE MATTER IS THAT AMERICANS OF OUR TIME CAN FASHION REFORMS NEEDED TO REGENERATE THE CONFIDENCE THAT OURS REMAINS A GOVERNMENT OF, BY, AND FOR THE PEOPLE.

I'M DAVID EISENHOWER.

THANK YOU FOR WATCHING.

ANNOUNCER: THIS EPISODE OF "THE WHOLE TRUTH" WAS MADE POSSIBLE BY THE DORAN FAMILY FOUNDATION, AMETEK, AND BY... AND BY CONTRIBUTIONS TO YOUR PBS STATION FROM VIEWERS LIKE YOU.

THANK YOU.