♪ host: good morning. it is monday, june 10, 2024. we will take a deep dive into

the world of campaign finance but we begin with a noonan. in it, miss newton worries that people are starting to enjoy the division that has come today's political discourse. we will get your reaction on phone lines split regionally this morning. if you are in the eastern or central time zones, it is (202) 748-8000. if you are ithe mountain or pacific time zones, it is (202) 748-8001. you can also send us a text this morning. that number, (202) 748-8003. if you do, please include your name and where you are from. catch up with us on social media on x @cspanwj and on facefacebo. very good monday morning to you. you can start calling in now. this was the headline piece by peggy noonan earlier this month.

she writes, we are starting to enjoy hatred. the country has long been divided but estrangement has become alluring in the age of biden and trump. thatw gins the caller. i am seeing something and maybe you are too■g we talk in our country about cal polarization, and israel. we are split into a thousand pieces with the left and rig particularly o where trageous and dehumanizing things are said to but what i am saying is we mind disliking each other now. we like it. that is the new thing we are enjoying, the estrangement. piece today. we are asking you if we are starting to enjoy the hatred in this country. if so, when did thatd why did that change? (202) 748-8000 if you are in the eastern or central time zones. and (202) 748-8001 if you are in the mountain or pacific time zones.

we will go through the entire peggy noonan column through the entire first hour of "washington journal," but here is a little more on the idea of people enjoying political hatred. she said, i said thatennjoying r political hatred now. why would that be, she asks. some see politics as an extension of sports. booing the other team as part of the fun of being at the game. i am not immoral like a trump supporter or aindless knob that drove the country into a ditch like a democrat, but some enjoy the hatred and this is the new part that she thinks is spread, because it helps them avoid seeing they involved in a tragedy that one of two old men,great, neither om distinguin terms of character or intellect, who are each in his way and rrassment, and who two thirds of voters do not want as presidential candidates will be chosen in this crucial

historical moment in which the stakes could not bewerful county on earth. peggy noonan writing in her piece. again, from earlier this month. we are s is what we are talking about this morning. we want■n. again, phone lines split regionally. (202) 748-8000 if you are in the eastern or central time zones. and (202) 748-8001 if you are in the mountain or pacific time zones. we will start with jason out of st. cloud, minnesota. we want to hear from you throughout the first segment of "washington journal." jason, good morning. what do you think of that column, we are starting to enjoy the hatred? caller: it makes me sad. it makes me sad. america should not be a country that is enjoying hating each other. where does this all start from? to me, this all goes back to our past president, donald trump.

if i can have a little bit of time, i heard a lot of republicans spreading a lot of lies lately. i want to put some truth out there. the truth is that our past president has lied over 30,000 times. in his current trail, his legal team agreed to a jury. ■he refused to testify. in the he said if you do not plead the fifth, itead the fifth, it shows you are guilty. over 4000 court cases filed against blue-collar workers. trump airlines failed, trump mortga failed, trump university failed. trump mortgage was fined. host: you don't think this idea of people enjoying the political hatred, of getting into that

part of political discourse was around before well, ok, you dida great job over the weekend showing past people talkingtant election of our time so i think people have always thought things are really important and they can always drum up their support in those kinds of ways, but again, look at what happened when that man came down the escalator. he changed the rhetoric completely. he started saying the things of fake news, don't believe them. everybody knows why he said that. he was turned to get out in front of the stories and change the stories because he knew there would be so much coming his way. now look at what is happening. you are talking about people enjoying the hatred. it is only one side of this political party -- of the political parties out civil war.

not an idea of slavery. not an idea of some other ethos. but just one man who has been a con artist his whole life. host: that is jason in minnesota. ■í of your comments already via social media this morning. general rights in that the democrats have so much he for people that they don't think -- that people who do not think or do what they want to do. trump 2024 ishe way to bring everyone tether is what general rights. ca says it is right-wing media on radio and tv that has a fueled the hate in this country. deb saying absolutely not others idea of whether we are starting enjoy the hate,ayg i have many activitieth include diverse people. i never enjoyed listening to drunk spewed hatred and violence. i just attended a moatic state function but there was

no hate. through peggy noonan's column earlier this month in the wall street gk been divided but estrangement has become of the ring in the age of biden and trump. marie, what do you think? caller: hi. good morning. so peggy noonan, provocative subject matter here, we are enjoying the hate. i ca■mnnot speak for what is in anyone else's heart, but i do not enjoy hatred of anything. ok.i distrust people that don't speak the truth. that creates divisions and problems. we have $34 trillion in debt. we have people that cannot afford groceries. we have a broken immigration system. and putin sending a nuclear■l sb into cuba. this has to stop with the let's

hate, our new hatred. we need to look at our problems. we need to fix our country. e it safe and secure for everyone th w here bo the right thing. stop being provocative. thank you. host: patrick, fairfax, virginia, good morning. you are next. caller: good morning. i agree with the previous cai certainly don't enjoy hate. my neighbors i have talked to don't enjoy hate. that does exist but it does not mean we enjoy it. i believe the majority of americans enjoy hate. yes, there are major divisions, but most people i lk■o to don't enjoy it. they don't enjoy hat■ye at all. that is all i have to say. host: that is patrick in

fairfax, virginia. it is a little more of that peggy noonan, we are discussing in the first hour of "washington journal" in which she says she things we are starting to the hate in this country. she says what we should be doing is asking each other how we are go make our ■way throug instead, people prattle about a those people talking about? neither side will raise an army and fight in the stree the most truporting state in the country will no on fort sumter, and even if anything like that happens, who getsdy of the nuclear arsenal and who is left sending out the social securityhecks? normally she says in a column like this you give a suggestion or two and h to turn things nd i don't know but at least itpeog are our countrymen. they share the country with you. we have to go into the future together because if we don't, we won't have a future. peggy noonan in the wall street journal. eating your reaction to that

column. , tennessee. good morning. caller: i read the article. ■i don't agree with it at all. i live in a very integrated neighborhood herinhighly educatd things. we just don't see that. i don't see that. she does not prode cinder empirical argument for that next a single empirical argument for that -- a single empirical argument for that. i agree with the first cal ler. . how in gods name can we fall for that? donald trump of all people. joe biden is more intelligent

than he is and joe biden had a speech impediment for years. we know that, but he is not a dumb, stupid man like trump. trump is an evil guy. host: your interactions with people, you say you don't see it in your community, so peggy noonan writes, when was the last time you set anyone try to address the other side with respect and understanding venture something like "i know you see it this way but this is how iee it and i want to explain it so maybe we may proceed with respect?" instead she says we accuse each other and put each other down and it does not feel high-spirited like political business as usual. it feels cold today. do you have those conversations with people you disagree with, bill? caller: my neighbor is of a different race than i am. in fact, all of my neighbors in this area. we get along fine.

we go to the coffee shop together. we talk about these issues. we just don't see this. i read the article. i am telling you, that is an opinion. and i don't know why considering she got it from -- i don't think donald trump is going to win the race. it is going to be close, but biden is not an evil man. and he has done a lot for this country. and i think about what has trump done but spearhead? when he came down that escalator with hatred against the hispanics and mexicans consistently, and republicans too. in the supreme court of course does not help. >-■z■ people at least

from my area, i live in midtown, and most people in my community just don't see it that way. host: that is bill in memphis. this is michael out of pensacola, florida. good morning. you are next. caller: i know this. i stopped attending a political club meeting because everybody was wearing trump hats. i did not think i waed to be discussing that. trump represents a different kind of republican, not the traditional republican. we are not talk about george bush or george junior or anything like that. this is the man that will advocate the overthrow of america and i am just tired of people falling for it -- people following somebody that advocates for the overthrow of america. that is what i feel. we have a segment going off the

deep end, and the republicans in congress know better and are not saying anything. host: that is michael in florida. this is really out of the lone star state. good morning. caller: good morning. good morning. i have not read the article, but about hate, hate i think is coming from one side. caller, you could hear the visceral hate in this person's voice when he was talking about the 30,000 lies or whatever. he probably could not tell you what 10 of them are. five maybe. the thing is there are people out there who love to debate. and the one part you read from peggy noonan's article about how maybe one person can say, listen, i would love to hear yourwe can have a pretty decent debate you cannot

have that with the way these democrats are, these liberals. liberals committee cannot have that with them because they are specificallynald trump. the man said it himself, when he came down the escalator, that is else started doing after this man for no good reason. so i think hate is one side, definitely particularly now. it is definitely one-sided. one last thing. if you watch msnbc or any other mainstream media, they will have a republican on, and of course they will try to splice them and dice them,n someone like aoc or rashida tlaib or any of those folks go on fox or newsmax? you won't hear it. host: that is really in texas

this morning. a few more comments out of bedford, new hampshire. -- underestimate it. i don't know how we can ever rern to civility. this fm ilip in ohio. i agree with peggy noonan. it comes from the other side, is considered wrong. the idea of possibly working with the other side is a sham. it is another way of pointing fingers to blame the opposite party. one more from pat in california. no, we the hatred. we are disgusted and saddened by the hatred and what the hatred to stop. peggy noonan's column is "we are starting to enjoy the hatred." the country has long been divided, she writes, but estrangement has become alluring in the age of trump and biden. here is how she views both sides and how they look at each other. more from peggy noonan's column again from earlier this month. pulitzer prize winning commentary columnist. she has written nine books about

american history and politics and culture. she has a weekly column in the wall street journal. she writes, "both sides have an equal but different sense of superiority. both sides enjoy looking down on the other side. the left leads to condemnation. it is going from trump is a criminal to trump supporters are criminals. they understand things that the other classes don't involve. i have quoted friends who sit recently with no bitterness that democrats see trump verb as toothless, smelly walmart shoppers. the left does look down sometimes from a privileged economic position, which makes it more shameful. trump supporters, she writes, lean towards manipulation. they charge the other side are bad human beings, selfish beliefs who have no feelings for or affiliation with the common man. they are coastal elites who look over flyover states as they sip martinis and fthey go to georgel

parties or similar gatherings in new york and los angeles. she writes this started a quarter-century ago but sped up with donald trump, and i thought at the time, our cocktail parties still going on? i knew they existed in the 1930's and 1940's because they were featured in old movies i watched on television. in my town, the elites who oppose donald have cocktail parties. they attend fundraisers for hospitals and libraries and go to professional events. the moston foes are among the hardest working people in america. they are earnest and run the institutions we rely on if you have a heart!b attack on the sidewalk or a story that needs exposing or a court case that needs taking. at least capital parties make them sound glamorous and carefree. but it is something that we are so estranged that we know nothing of the othere's lives and because we know nothing, even our insults are lame and they need updating as well. picking unit in the wall street journal.

that is the, we are going through in the first hour of "washington journal." really want to hear from you about it. this is rhonda in california. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. her article is very interesting, and i do agree with many of her positions on what is going on. st recently, i have been watching a lot of c-span, watching the congressional hearings. i watched the dr. fauci hearing. and you can see amongst the ■congressm each other right in this public forum. at the momentt all of them, isn't anyone going to hit the gavel and say, ok, enough of this, enough of this? this is a public forum. there are people watching us. it is not how we take care of government and its people. it started with marjorie taylor

greene and the other colleague■" of hers. at the banter between them. i tried to stop watching the donald trump dr. phil interview. it was a 45 minute interview. dr. phil asked trump, you said if you were going to become president retribution on those o came at you. trump came from a position, well, that is really thought-provoking. well, i will give it a second thought. you know what this hate thing going on -- i hate gas prices. i hate the price of food. have dinner even once a month. that is what i hate. grocery bill that i can fit and pay my bills. that is what i hate. instead of people hitting on each other, why don't they hate about what is going on?

the economy is horrible. john, i am an independent and i have not decided who i will vote for. to be honest, i may not vote for either one of them. you. i am a big fan at a constant water. thank you, john. host: that is rhonda in california. as we add to this discussion on the divide in america, it is the pew research center's culture war poll taking america's temperature on a number of hot button issues. 7200 registered voters polled. here are some of the findings in today's papers. the finding of the culture war % of trump voters support■f national deportation of all illegal immigrants compared with just 11% of biden supporters.

only 27% of registered voters supporting trump agree the legacy of slavery affects the division of blacku7 people in america today either a great deal or a fair about. among biden supporters, 79% says slavery's legacy affects the division of people in america. more than six in 10 voters said the criminal justice system is not tough enough on criminals. 81% of trump voters. 40% of biden voters. 71% said religion should be separate from the government policies. that includes 86% of biden voters, 56% of trump supporters. there is a whole lot more in that poll. that is just some of the findings. taking your phone calls this morning as we talk about the divide in this country today. gabriel in maine, thanks for waiting. caller: thank you for taking my call. i think it is extremely

unfortunate, the way that both parties have demonized each other. i am definitely on the far left, and i feel like i hear it a lot more from the far right calling the left people and all of these things, but i mean it is sad both ways, seeing the left celebrate trump going to jail and stuff. is a sad day in our country's history to see a former president be charged. he is not going to jail yet, but to be charged with a felony, i think that is terrible. d ink with the two-party system, there is such -- i agree with the former caller who talked about social media influencing it. i think there is a lot of people profiting off of dividing us, think there is also foreign influences that can influence it, but i think it is really sad the way they are

pushing all of us apart and we don't have any middle ground we can actually talk about issues. host:eggy noonan? the crux of her argument is that hatred is a way of avoiding the fact that there are two bad choices for president. that is her assessment of why americans are starting to enjoy the hatred and get into the hatred, because it is masking having to worry about simply having two bad choices for president. whatthink of that assessment of this level of vitriol today? caller: i think that is a fair idea. i think with the two-party system that a lot of people go into their own corners and without having three and four and five parties and the ability to really focus in on what is important and to find middle ground bwe each other, i

think that people are going to want to. people vitriol, and social media and everybody seems to want to push that because that is what people want. that is why social media -- they found the algorithm. that is what gets us going, so it is unfortunate that we don't want to sit down and talk and figure things out. i don't know how it is going to keep going the two sides just want to keep hating on each other. it is a really scary system, and i don't think the two-party system works. i think that is one of the biggest problems. you go into your corner and have your echo chamber and nobody is able to sit downa■ and discuss very important issues that affect all of us. host: this is a tragedy right

pnow, that this is what we got, that these are our choices. she is talking particularly about president. she says when you have a major hate on, you don't have to notice. bradley in north richland hills, ■texas, good morning. you are next. caller: good morning, c-span. yes, i have not read the article itself, but u correct when you said this has been around before trump came along, and it has been. i drive a tractor trailer and i see on the highways everyway pee drive aggressively all the time. and it has gotten worse over the years. when it comes to politics, rush limbaugh used to say it best, the democratic party looks at politics like a bloodsport. it has been around long before trump came along, but he

correctly said that in describing it as a bloodsport. and that is pretty much how i see it too. the anger itself, you see it with the jew hatred. i never thought you would see jew hatred the way we see it in this world today. ita lot of that comes from a lak of morality. our moral compass, and it is getting worse. thank you very much for taking my call. host: bradley in texas. it is (202) 748-8000 the eastere zones this morning. (202) 748-8001 if you are in the mountain or pacific time zones. the opinion piece by peggy no is we are starting to enjoy hatred. the country has long been divided but estrangement has become alluring, she writes, in the age of biden and trump. we have been going through that column and asking for your responses. 02) 748-8000 if you are in the

eastern or central time zones. (202) 748-8001 if you are in the mountain or pacic timeones. this is carol out of rochester, new york. what do you think about this column? caller: i did not read it, but i listen to you. yeah. you know, i don't think it started with trump, but boy did akhe said in 1989 of the central park five, he said on the larry king show maybe hate is what we need if we are going to get something done. i want people to hate them. that is what he said. i could not believe it when i looked that up. it is cultish. you get with people you like and people you agree with, and it does close off -- it has closed off for me discussion't know.

ho does it close off where you go in this country? she quotes bl barr -- maher in an essay he wrote last month. would anyone ride a new york city subway wearing a bag i had or go to a nascar race in athat. she says it is shocking that is true, but it is. what do you think? caller: i think it is shocking, and i would not wear a biden shirt anywhere. i am just not going to advertise where i am in a strange environment. i don't think it is safe. i don' a sticker on my car, i feel like i might find flat tires when i came back. it is not specific to where i live, but i like to travel, so that is a problem for me anyway. host: the call

from rochester new york. i want you to keep calling in about this headle.that is what g about in this hour of "washington journal," and we will continue with your calls but we want to step aside as it tus to 7:30 on the east coast. we are joined by the justice department correspondent from "usa today" for a debate on the hunter biden guns trial. remind viewers where we are at courtroomlmington, delaware. guest: we have had one week of the trial already. today we return to the defense. the prosecution rested on thursday, so the defense will continue making its case this morning. potential witnesses on the president's brother, jamesals wh hunter biden, his nephew, and

biden's lawyer has said he helped pay for his drug rehabilitation programs so that would be the gist of his testimony if he justifies. and hunter biden himself will make a decision after other defense witnesses have all testified about whether he will testify in his own defense. so we have those twwildcards to look for today. host: how much time is they're expected to be left in this trial? what is the timeframe for juror deliberations? what are you well, the defense r said he expected to complete the defense case on monday regardless of whether hunter biden testifies or not. you have closing arguments putting on how far they get today, perhaps closing argumts tuesday morning, and then i suspect the jury could begin deliberations on tuesday. host: you have been watching this case for "usa today,"

covering it for readers there. what has been a key moment so far in this case? two of the rey emotional witnesses last week were both romantic partners of hunter biden in the past. his ex-wife testified about searching his car, searching his belongings for drugs and drug paraphernalia to keep them away from her children. she described finding a pipe in an ashtray in 2015. they were divorced in 2017.the gun purchased at issue in this case happened in october of 2018 so she laid the groundwork that there was some concern about his drug use for years. of course, he has written a book, a memoir in which he talked about having a drug addiction for years. his sister-in-law was mrio

his brother beau9, who died of brain cancer and 2015 -- in 2 015. she talked about hunter biden getting her onto drugs, and then she quit before he did in august of 2018. she is the one who found the gun in his truck and was so upset by it, flustered by it, that she took it to a local grocery store and threw it in the trash where it was found by a scavenger and then the police got involved and that is how we get to the charges today, so two former romantic partners each ■testifying just about the wrenching qualities of dealing with his addiction over the years. host: it is one thing for the defense to respond to other witnesses. how has abby handled the prosecution introducing hunter biden's own words through that

memoir into this case, and how has he responded to try to counter hunter biden's own writing? guest: not just the writing, but if he does not testify in his own defense, the jury has already heard his words. they played audio portions of and reading his own memoir talking about his superpower being able to find crack. what abby lowell has argued is that yes he has this addiction he wrote about, but at the time that he doled out a federal form saying he was not using drugs or addicted to drugs that he did ir the gun dealer who sold him the just committed a rehab program and was sober at that moment. this was i believe october 12, 2023. so the evidence so far has pictures of crack, videos

showing him holding a crack pipe that date to april of 2018. and then there are some texts saying he was looking for a dealer the day after the gun purchase and a text seeming to say he was smoking crack two days after the purchase. ■so abbe lowell is saying he considered himself sober at the purchase and should not be punished for thex question. they are going by the alcohol, tobacco, and firearms regulation asking about drug use in the previous year, which seemed to be a problem for the defense. ■the jury instruction about how that was handled i don't believe has been decided on yet, but that will be a crucial point as the jury begins these deliberations. how much drug use counted, and does biden fall into that?

the final question for you about in the courtroom this week. the president has not been in the courtroom. is he still not expected to be there this week? guest: i don't think i would expect the president himself to atone of the things he thought about his not trying to influence the case so he has tried to not talk about it terms of a justice department case against his son but just to support and love for his son as he works his way through addiction. i think he is keeping an arms length distance because not wanting to appear he is try to influence the trial or justice department in its prosecution of his own son. joe biden -- jill biden has been there almost every day except she took the trip to france for the d-day commemoration, and his sister ashley has also been

attending the trial. his daughter naomi ofn his support. host:ark jensen covering it we always appreciate your time on c-span. guest: thanks for having me. host: back to your phone calls now in the first hour of "washington journal." headline is provocative enough, we are starting to enjoy hatred, talking about americans enjoying the hatr and division, getting into the hatred itself have gone through it this morning, getting your reaction on the phone lines simply by region. if you are in the eastern or central time zones, (202) 748-8000. if you are in the mountain or pacific time zones, (202) 748-8001. and we have also been looking for your texts and your messages via facebook and social media. here is a few of those.

albert writing in that in boston, massachusetts, the only we are sick ofheolling. have seen that america's growing. we see people with different opinions but hate seems to be the norm now. they push the lies and insults. god is watching, even if you d't care. from stephanie in michigan, i don't enjoy e hatred ts country. ever since trump got in the fray, families split. democrats are reacting to it because we don't understand h this country could have evolved into such a low place where e ignored. a few of your comments. we will keep looking for those as we hear from you. this is david in maryland. good morning. thanks for waiting. caller: good morning, c-span. good morning to the american people. i just want to make a comment. c-span showed a clip of john mclean at a rally with a■ó lady

who was in the audience in the rally when she was talking about barack obama, trying to put him john mccain said we are not going there, no, he is a decent man. what i am saying is john mccain told the truth. donald trump is sitting there trying to win by telling lies. i think that is where the problem is at he is turning the democrats and republicans at each other. but once this is over, everything will come back to normal. thank you and have a good day. host: the moment was written about quite a bit at the time. you can take a look back at those stories. this is one from vox on it. john mccain defending barack obama against a racist daughter. she said barack obama was an arab, and that is when john

mccain took the microphone away from her, calling barack obama a decent man, saying he knew barack obama, and told her he is a decent family man, a citizen that i just happen to have disagreements with on fundamental issues, and that is what this campaign is about. john mccain talking to that john mcca this is brent in maryland. good morning. caller: good morning. i get the point that noonan is trying to make with the headline in tay's political climate, but we are not starting to love-hate in this country. the reality is that the 30% of americans who are trump's strongest base■, we can gloss around this and danced around it, but hatred for them is something that has been a part of their social

long as we want to go back. the wild thing is that -- host: what a that? you say a part of their social fabric. the more specifics. caller: sure. i am painting with a broad stroke and that is unfair to some people that might hear me say that, but there are number one, when we go trump bey d -- asked about david duke, he says he doeknow who he is and he doesn't know anything about him. this is a lie. more than a lie. he is evading the question. what we have known about donald trump all along is that he is unsavory. and of course, there are folks who are past that, but there are

also many folks who endorse that. and to be more specific and to tie it back in, we are talking about race. in this country, the reason i say it is not new to this country is because, again, donald■ trump has -- where did e start his campaign? ■i am not talk about coming down the staircase in trump tower but how he divided us saying all of this fake news, fake news. all of a sudden, there are two truths. the truth that he endorses and that allowsh saying and doing the things he does and allows the people who support him to feel ok about that. and then there is the actual truth. that mythatruth has been used to perpetuate racism and everything else that has come with it, slavery, discrimination, the whole nine, for decades,

hundreds of years. and as a country, i believe that if we do not open up to the reality of that history, if we continue to say we love one another, everything is great, america is the best country in the world, and we continue to ignore that nasty, nasty truth, and we continue to perpetuate that myth and that■/ lie, then o say hate is doing just that. it ignores all of the enjoyed ss inception. people who will call in and say this isot about race, but this is just about history. it is not about anything else. it is about history.

fake news is not new. racism is the best example of fake news because it tells a lie that oneual to another because of the color of their skin. and america used that lie, parts of america, to make it. host: that is brent in maryland this morning. about 15 minutes left in this segment of "washington journal," asking your thoughts on picking unit's column, pulitzer prize winning columnist, author of nine books on american politics and culture and history. she worked in the reagan administration as a speechwriter back in the 1980's, and her weekly column appears in the wall street journal. the headline of the recent one, we this is bob in naperville, illinois. good morning. caller: good morning.

good morning. host: what do you thi, bob? caller: i think this is something that has gone on for a very long time. think back to johnny jon stewart. they all built their reputations on picking on other folks and we left along with them, but now i look at some of the political speeches and things we hear on tv. what portion of the united states is actually hearing this? if you have 30 million or something, that is a huge part of our population. the only way to get■ heard is to do something outrageous. that is what trump has done and what biden is doing right now i believe. host: bob, when you talk about comedians talking about li ourselves more back in the day?

caller: i would say probably. we were. but we were more clickish. i believe back in the day. right now with the social media and that kind of thing, but i recently read a book that everybody lies. so you start building on all of the information that has come through on google and facebook, however you want to get your "news." it is repeated over and over again. and we are in a less expensive number of people from my andpoint that i am talking to everyday. i just laugh. very interested that you sit there and listen to these people come in and make notes -- make

jokes and they will not act nasty, but they will support whichever candidate is on television right now. ar feedback from people when you are strapped to a hospital bed and he cannot respond with any kind of fact or fiction. host: thanks bob in illinois. here is michael's take on it frrida. hate does not exist in a majority ofcans, but there are a handful of politicians on boes of theisle who receive all of the media attention dividing this country, and they are absolutely full of hate. vote them out is what michael says out of fl one mo f you this morning from william in louisville, kentucky. peggy unit is absolutely right. he writes to a point whaa strange is the left is accused of the party of hate rthan themselves. the facts write up that

theie the left is disgusted and fearful of maga, not into violence. that is william in kentucky. this is frank in new york. good morning. caller: good morning. let me set the record straight. first of all, donald trump is not a republican. he is a criminal. a republican is like liz cheney or mitt romney. i have been a republican since 1964. i have never voted for a democrat, but i tell you what, when this election comes around, if i have to get dragged there by a bunch of people to help me, i will vote against every most of them have no spine. they don't stand up to this criminal. they are afraid of him. they vote for him. i have some beautiful relatives that i really enjoy talking with and whatever, but i cannot bring

up that name. they love trump. they pulled for his diatribe. i thought when the internet came along it was the best ring since sliced bread, but now i think it is the worst thing that ever ppened to this country. it is going to ruin this country because o many people get on and tell misinformation on& the internet. at fox news is one of the biggest -- i don't know how to say this. they tell lies all the time and people listen to them. it is like back in germany. a lot of the people did that a lot of the german people did not want to go to war but he sold them a bill of rights. host: this is kathleen in dayton, ohio. caller: good morning. i love "washington journal."

i want against peggy noonan, who i respect, and i will be honest, i have not read e article. however, i will give you four examples. i am a sanders person. that is who reflects my values. but in 2016, i decided to go to a trump rally outside of dayton, io. everybody said to me, go, you will get your butt kicked. i had a sign that said i am a sanders supporter and i want to talk to trump supporters. yi stayed there 4.5 hours. people going into the venue, coming out, having fabulous conversations about jobs, health care, pay scales people who worked at delphi, gm. just wonderful, civilnversation. host: did you find you agreed wi people more than you disagreed or was it just disagreement without hatred? caller: i want to give you my

other examples as well. host: sure. caller: on jobs, on health care, on pay scales, again, these people were former gm workers, delphi workers prior to trump getting elected, and i wanted to know. ly open questions. how did you get where you are at? what is trump saying that makes so then we would have dialogue about that. i would then say to them you have no evidence about jobs and pay scale and issues. there is nothing to base your decision on. host: y s2016. would you do that today? feel as comfortable today doing that in 2024? caller: i want to give you a couple other examples. i sat with five trump guys and

have for six years. they love to say to me when i sit there with them they know where i am a and we have civil dialogue. they say to me, kathleen, you know we are packing. i laughed and i am not into guns but ing as you don't kill me. they laughed dialogue. recently, 2022, when trump came to town for vance, i went to that rally with a sign i am a multimillionaire and need to make more money. i had incredible dialogue. aouelling trump merchandise and that a couple of people were standing there and then the police came over. the police who were guarding the parking lot and the venue and then a couple trump supporters. we sat around in a circle just having civil conversations. recently ias

to denver in april and someone overheard me talking to this young woman about her life and what she was up to. another 45 minute conversation after we got off the plane, there were trump people. i did not say right away i think you are trump people. we got to the airport and had a 45 minute discussion, so i want to challenge the public. i want to challenge peggyget oug the way they think. if you are going to blow a fuse, don't do it. if you cannot do it in an open , really curious about how people end up thinking the way they think, i think all of this type about everybody hating each other is indeed just a lot of hype. host: one more question before you go. there is other people waiting. how think a trump supporter would be received at a biden rally who carried you didg

i am a trump supporter and want to talk to you about x, y, z? how do you think that would go over? caller: i think that is a really interesting take because i have to say i voted for biden because i did not like the alternative. but i have to say i found some dems as down. because when i would bring up hillary clinton's war record, i did not say go vote for her, just think about it, tnk about her war record. i think some dems are wired up, hardwired as much as some of the alleged republicans. hey, we saw them break into the capitol. those people are extremist. there are some dems that are so hardwired they are not open to other people's opinions can absolutely. host: kathleen in dayton, ohio.

five minutes left. we will have this conversation later in the program as well this is michael in arizona. good morning. caller: good morning. thanks for my call. e with the woman that called before about conversation. people have to talk. you have people afraid toin lin, anywhere. when you get to the older ones -- by the way, i am 77. i will be 77 in august. i will cut to the chase here because there is a lot to say and you have a lot of callers and i can call again. businessmen get things done. list and scratch them off. they get them done. year-round school, this thing about race is killing me. a in 1968, i voted for obama twice.

i also spent three weeks in kenya. i can go on and on. we need to get things right, and that's businessmen get things right and we are brainwashing kids. i want to let other people copied -- other people right. cise video -- host: i am not sure where you i am a trump supporter, and i want to say, what about kathyñb griffith, who held a bloody head of former president trump? what about that democrat who shot up the baseball game representative steve scalise and all the other republicans that were practicing playing ball? the democrat shot those people up. what about madonna saying she +b wished she could blow up

the white house when former president trump was president? and johnny depp said, where is a shooter like john wilkes booth? because john wilkes booth is an actor. hoping someone would shoot president trump. senator reed lied about romney en he was running for president, saying that he did not pay his taxes. tsand when it was over, they sad that was not true and he said, well, it worked. so they line. msnbc, cnn, the view is so full of hate. these lies about trump saying bad things about mexican people, that is not true. he did not say the thing about the bleach. that is not true. i am in michigan, and you would not believe the commercials the democrats are putting ou lies.

i just can't believe it. president trump like the bloodbath. he was talking about the car industry, but they took that little piece out a made it sound like he was saying if he does not get elected, that is not true. host: that is kathy in michigan. one more call this segment and we will return this question lateon thanks for waiting. caller: i did the lawsuit against donald trump, but i did not know his ne because he did not put his name on the deed of trust that he was filing where he purchased my property from and i sat in the upper left-hand corner -- host: i am not sure what you are talking about when we are talking about the peggy noonan column and political discourse. we have a minute left. did you want to talk about that?

caller: well, the thing is the real the federal case, and what is wrong with this world is bad sex. host: our last caller in this segment of "washington journal." we will return to peggy noonan's column later today. up next, we will get a preview of the week ahead in congress with christa case bryant with the christian science monitor. and later, we will get the 101 of campaign finance laws and the role that money plays in politics. stick around for that discussion in our 9:00 hour. we will be right back. ♪

>> in the first week of publication of eric larson ook, "the demon of unrest, they put it at the top of the bestseller list. it's about the start of the civil focus on the five months between the abraham lincoln election and the day of the first shot fired sumner, off of the coast of charleston, south carolina. that was april the 12th, 18 61. in his introduction, larson writes "i invite you now to step into the past, to a time of fear and dissension. i suspect your sense of dread

will be all the more pronounced in light of today's political ord. >> larson onnotes plus, availabr you get your podcasts and on thm free c-span mobile app. [crack of the bat] [cheering] >> batter up, time to play ball. get ready to cheer on your favorite team this year in the annual congressional baseball game where republicans face off against democrats. watch live play-by-play coverage wednesday, 7 p.m. eastern on c-span. c-span now, our free mobile video app. or online, c-span.org. >> here's the ball, hit deep into left field. bouncing up and into the bullpen. [gavel] >> the house will be in order.

>> this year c-span celebrates 45 years of celebrating -- covering congress like no other. since 1979 we have been your primary source for capitol hill, taking you to where the policy is debated and decided with the support of america's cable companies. c-span, 45 years and counting. wered by cab.>> "washington jou" continues. host: we like to take time to take a look at the week ahead in washington on mondays. we do that today with christa case bryant■&, correspondent for "the christian science monitor." continued fallout after the trunk guilty verdict in new york on capitol hill. what is happening this week? we know that the judiciary chair, jim jordan, called alvin bragg to come testify on capitol■cwhee

fallout? guest: jim jordan has been on this case for a long time, sending letters way back last year and now that the verdict has come down, he is stepping up that campaign. one thing that is important to understand is the backdrop of all of this, deep republican concern shared by voters that the justice system is being politicized against them and against their likely nominee here. that is a part of what we are going to see jordan pursuing in the judiciary committee this week. he has called a hearing with alvin bragg, the district attorney in new york, on this case. that would be for thursday. alvin bragg has said that he will not appear until after the sentencing later this summer. host: otherews last week, continuing into this week, after some back-and-forth, a date is set for benjamin netanyahu to speak on capitol hill. week,

when he will actually be up here. what are you going to be looking for in that address and in the reaction from congress? guest: one thing that will be interesting to watch is how the democrats and or all of this. -- handle all of this. we have seen them air broader viewpoints israel since the attack by hamas on israel andso, i think that somes probably latent feelings that are now, now people feel comfortable sharing of it also e party is shifting on this. çcso this intense military conflict in response to the hamas has really sort of created a much broader range of viewpoints to come out into the open with much more public debate within the party. there is no greater example of that than nator john fetterman

, who is very interesting. you know, he was seen as a progressive, someone who wants legalization of marijuana, very strong on pushing for criminal justice reform, and he's really surprised everybody by coming out so strongly in support of israel. you know, hison has a pretty strong jewish component. i think that pennsylvania, philadelphia, pittsburgh, those are two of the cities in the u.s. greatest share of population in terms of jewish community. i think that's part of it. i don't think that's all of it. obviously, we are clear on where he's going to come down on this. but for the democratic caucus, havingenjamin netanyahu, who embodies the israeli state and the right wing government that just became more right wing, with the step aside this weekend, it's going to be tough. there is a lot of pressure on them to support israel.

this is a longtime friend of the united states. just like any of us can appreciate in our individual relationships, it's hard to say to a friend that you have had for a long time that i don't really like how you are acting. how do you have that conversation in a way that doesn't make it seem like they are completely itching the friend? to the point where you can really explore the concerns and talk about them. host: if viewers want to dig int's on csm onitor.com. what do we know about reception on the oth e of capitol hill? you watching from netanyahu when he comes to visit? biden has been interesting to watch on this issue. he came out so strongly in support of israel after the attack. just -- we are going to be there for you, we have your back,

focusing on prime minister netanyahu. what i heard on the hill at that was he's having these conversations to try to encourage them not to get into the difficulty that the u.s. got into with urban warfare in the middle east, to try to warn israel to be thoughtful a,lbout how they approach it so that they wouldn't get a global backlash. and then he went there in person very soon after. i remember senator tim kaine of the democratic party saying that these other conversations you need to have in person, telling someone that we have your back, we need to be careful about how we do this. we have seen biden evolved. it has happened as we see polls in michigan, where there is a strong air voter demographic, that's important for his presidential reelection. the disapproval became more and more obvrted putting more and me

pressure on israel to show more restraint and you know, the whole thing over roff, recently, where he sang don't do that, if you do that we will withhold military weapons, which was controversial on the hill. somegressives wanted him to go further. they have already crossed a redline, aren't you doing anything? republican saying that this is ridiculous to tie the hands of one of our closest allies when they are facing t. i don't know, it will be interesting to see -- biden is a warm guy, will he extend that to netanyahu, or have the politics become so difficult that it will be a cold and formal who has the upper hand. host: christa case bryant, good person to follow if you're interested in this topic. you have been the editor of the israeli bureau and current

senior congressional correspondent. topic or any topic coming up this week on capitol hill, now is the time to call in. democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. as folks are calling in,u watching? host: in the beginning, the bash -- backlash against the justice department will be really interesting. also related to the topic of justice, democrats are pushing on thelook, we really need a ber code of ethics. so, the supreme court finally, despite pressurem conservatives not to cave in on this issue, came out with a code of ethics last fall that basically just formalized what they said they had been following anyway. enforceable, it didn't have teeth, there was

no way to hold them to it. one of the key concerns around that is that 20 supreme court justice refuses themselves from a case, they don't have to explain why. that is one thing democrats would like to e them be more transparent about. coming to a head because of concerns■u over clarence thomas and a trip that he went on that was paid for by rich donors to the republican party. also, justice alito had flags by some as emblematic ofence supporting january 6. those things have really accelerated the conversation and the pressure for some sort of accountability. i think that on tuesday, jamie raskinmanagers, also a longtime constitutional law professor, will be holding a conversation with alexandria ocasio-cortez. a discussion, not a heang.

's a ranking member, can't hold a hearing, but they will be having a conversation about why there is a need for ethics. saying that it's just not right at the highest court in the land has the lowest bar in terms of ethics and federal and state judges have much more ■xhurmalid code that they need to follow. so, there is a big push this week on capitol hill to hold them more accountable. it is interesting to note that the main controversies are around alito and thomas, who have been called out for their positions on some of these issues about abortion access and in the case of thomas it's basically he said we need to precedents, like griswold, whi for married couples to use contraceptives. people are like great, we thought this was settled so long ago, just like abortion. that i democrats are really pushing on that this week intern

the senate, bringing a number of ■ébills. republicans are calling the messaging bills, but the democrats are in a vulnerable position. it's not clear that they will hold onto power in the senat voe about and there was a poll from "the wall street journal" finding that suburban women see abortion as the number one issue for 31% of them. you are right and they want to put republicans on record, where do you stand. they the vulnerable members of their party to be able too fight for . you want abortion access, you want ivf, we are here fighting r republicans are blocking everything. host: never a dull week. i should note that they are not in today. the house and senate are voted in tomorrow and you can watch it on c-span,coverage.

ed, georgia. guest: -- caller: i would like to ask her -- what about all the middle-class real americans who are struggling financially while biden has 14 million people come into the country illegally and he doesn't seem to care. one more question, how come the democrats never our republic. it's not a democracy. host: immigration, georgia, what's happening on that front? gues thanks for your call. great points. on the immigration issue you are tapping into an issue that has proven to be number one for many voters in the election, so i think it is an important qutibiden has tried to reframe s after three years in congress

saying that this is something congress should do, so i am waiting on congress to act. there is a bipartisan bill brokered in the senate that was basically dead on arrival because after trump came out against it, a number of republicans said they were also against it, though it was negotiated by one of the most conservative members of the senate, james lankford in oklahoma. so, biden tried to go on offensive and said -- i'm ready to do something on the border, i'm just waiting for congress. once congress did not act, he took steps to make executive orders■ that would, in his characterization of it, tighten things along the border. republicans are like -- you could have done that on day one instead of reversing all of these executive orders that were there under trump that seemed ee if you look at the numbers if im remember correctly there has been a quadrupling of encounters on the border. that is not the same thing as

the number of people who come and stay. if someone is rejected immediately, it counts as encounter. that is a quadrupling of actual encounters and then of course there are also those got away's, the ones they detect on camera but can't get to and then there are in unknown number. so, therethe rate of illegal imn has dramatically increased under biden and the argument is over who's fault is that and does it have to do with a difference in policies between trump and biden but biden is rlizing that's this is something that voters georgia and it's just is this action that voters will give him credit for this point. i lov■the other point you brought up, why are they always talking about saving america's democracy, we are not a democracy. it such a good point, you are right, it is a republic.

there have been various changes over the years moving toward straight demracy. one example, the senate, senators used to be chosen by legislature but in the early 1900s because of a corruption case in montana, that was changed socted directly by the people. another example is parties use to choose the nominees,? for the presidential race. now that is directly by the in recent years we have seen a college, another one of those mechanisms the founders put in place to try to balance the rural and urban interests of the country, bigger states in smaller states. i think you are hitting on a really important difference between have democrats see the country and have republicans see the country and what it is are trying to save. host: steve, new jersey,

independent line. good morning. caller: hiyou for taking my call. words are important and for the life of me i can't understand why the word progressive is associated with fanatical islamic fundamentalism. it's anti-gay, homophobic, misogynistic. it's against free speech. i mean, why is that wor reported as it is related to fanatical muslims? even innocent civilians in gaza tend t1po om■ who hold hostages. or peaceful, we hear peaceful a picture of the protests, we know it's not peaceful. i think that words are important. reporters have done a horrible job in defining things. host: what do you think?

guest: i agree that words are important and i think that if you are speak about characterizing muslims in general or hamas in specific as progressive, i'm not sure i have heard people call hamas progressive, but there is definitely alignment between the progressive movement and stronger advocacy for palestinians. i don't think they are advocating for hamas specifically, but there seems to be a lack of awareness about exactly what hamas stands for and what their position is on, like you said, lgbtq rights and other issues that progressives care a lot about. having lived over there and being into gaza a numbert such x situation over there. i don't understanding all of ths and outs, it's complicated on the ground, but even something as basic as where hamas stands

on these issues is important to progressives it is really important. i think it is a part of why there is so much frustration over the support of hamas and a blurring of lines between hamas and the governing entity in gaza and the armed wings that launched these attacks on israel on october 7 and the palestinian people in just because some members affiliated with hamas are holding hostages, does that mean that everyone in gaza thinks it's a great idea? remember that they are living under a progressive government that hasn't held elections since 2006 and they are sealed into a tiny territory and it's difficult to get in and out, even as a weern journalist. and so you cannot say that everyone in gaza supports what hamas is doing. my colleagues at the christian science monitor had a great a few months ago about the people

in gaza becoming so frustrated with hamas that they were starting to speak out. knowing the level of intimidation there, to me thatss you are absolutely right, words are important and it's important to recognize what hamas stands for and that this is an guest: you touched on -- host: you touched on this before, how big of a deal is it that beneganz retired from the war cabinet? it depends on who you talk to in israel, but from the u.s. perspective, remember, he came to congress on a roguevisiy netanyahu and is seen as the more reasonable of the two. the one with more experience in the military. i'm guessing that what he was trying to do was reduce the

credibility of the israeli government by removing hthe bale to the■d right. that's problematic for u.s. supporters, including the democratic party, who might have felt like with benny gantz there, there's a counterbalance with netanyahu, but now we will hear this call from senator schumer where they are getting rid of netanyahu and its extraordinary for a leader of the senate to say thi think it . i don't know how it will play out. not me who has had incredible staying power in israeli politics and is on his fifth term now. like i said earlier, he has come to embody the israeli state. there is an israeli journalist who is a top comment w had an oe recently saying that no one will say it publicly, but in jerusalem everyone is looking

over to trump being reelected because they think it will be better with him in officebecauso biden, that has revived his political status in israel, because=á everyone in israel los someone who stands up to a president that is not fully it sounds like he's getting we will see. california, berkeley, go ahead. caller: the lobbyist system has destroyed the free country of america. it really has. the lobby is everything. all the killing, the murdering by the thousands, now people think as many as 200,000 have

israel is now in really bad life . the whole world. by the way. -- by the way, the war in hamas was created by no one else but that yahoo!. what he did on october 7 was■$ stay in office, hold power, and it's shameful. joe biden will go in history as one of the bows -- worst and bloody were criminals for giving , for allowing weapons to go to israel to destroy and commitf; thousands of kids alone. host: a couple of things there, including a pack. can you -- aipac. can you explain it? guest: the primary israel lobby here in washington, d.c.,

and has been very powerful over the years. we have started to see other groups like j street, for example, taking a different lin . it very strongly in support of a two state solution. aipac■& used to be the main grop that would take embers of -- members of congress on trips to israel. you can take a trip to jerusalem , two different trips and come away with two very different impressions. j street is now bringing new ideas and perspectives. they are also putting pressure on members of congress and people running for congress. host: who is j street versus aipac? guest: j street is another advocacy group that is i would say centerleft, democrats believe in democracy, want to support israel but don't want to give it carte blanche.

when they talk about lobbying and having a strong influence, on the israeli front we have seen more to the advocacy efforts. that is one of the reasons why there is a greater spectrum of perspectives voiced publicly by members of the democratic party. the people killed, will take until after the war to sort it out, it's so difficult to figure out how to count thing exactly accurately in the middle of a war. there is concern that because the gaza health ministries

controlled by hamas, the numbers we are getting out of there may not be accurate. worse they may not be able to get everybody who has been killed, count them and track everybody down. but there is no question that this has been the biggest and deadliest conflict in gaza we have ever seen. i remember talking to someone in the fall who said that this is another knock bought, the word that palestinians use for the catastrophe of 1948, it's so much worse and playing out daily on news channels and social media. the images for sure are just heart wrenching. i think the question is, how do you assign blame for that? i hear you that you are blaming biden for that because of his support for israel and continuing to send aid there. others like federman, for example, saying over and over that we have to remember the whole reason this is happening is because hamas attacked israel.

,as with anything in the israeli-palestinian conflict, you can say -- where did it start? solutions that fell apart that aren't going anywhere, this is their only way of getting attention. we can argue that all day. but there are different interpretations about who is to blame for the ongoing bloodshedd that if hamas would agree to a stop right now. host: can i get your thoughts on the raid over the weekend and the freeing of the hostages? and help violent and bloody the raid ended up being? guest:■b from the israeli perspective, the raid had a huge ic effect. one of the hostages released has become the face of all of the hostages because of this video of her with her arms away on a motorcycle, reaching out to her boyfriend and screaming.

the fact that they were able to get her back is just huge. the images of her reuniting with her father is poignant and ul. the people on the beaches of tel aviv were alla really poignant e country and maybe something else that might help netanyahu. it as you said, you know, once again, very disproportionate costs a palestinian lives to the f israelis saved. again, it's a question of who do you blame for that? do you blame hamas for not coming to an agreement and taking the hostages in the first place over a cease-fire for the re hostages? or do you blame israel for using disproportionate force to get civilians back? host: running out of time, frank, new york, waiting a while to chat with us. caller: i'm from new york,

surrounded by democrats. these phone calls seem to be democratic. hamas is not a country, it's a group just like blm, antifa. seemsnce and damage, they are looked at as if they are. you know? israel is a country, hamas is a group, a terrorist group. the people in new york who want to stay pro-palestine against jewish people,ou know what? pack up your bags and go to gaza and see if you could help. i'll be honest with you, look at hamas, you look at them like they are doing something right? they killed people, you know? as far as biden goes, you want to vilify trump? biden, every single thing he has done reaction, overturning ttru.

it'■-s a no-brainer. host: gotere's a lot there, whau want to pick up on? guest: host: i don't remember, i think it was the republican mine. guest: i was like, by lost a roof -- lost the democrat there. host i think he said he was in new york surrounded by democrats calling on the republican mine. guest: ok, ok. beenni theterritory, they are an organization designated by the as a terrorist organization in there are those who dispute that, they feel that palestinians have a right to fight for their national sovereignty. they have been wanting a state in the area for a long time. they rejected the 47 u.n. partition plans. ever since then, they have been fighting to get back their land and they it to israel.

so, it is not a country. it is basically half of palestinian government right now, the palestinian authority is running the west bank. some palestinians would say that is the problem, we don't have a country, don't havent, we are nl footing with israel. i don't think that all palestinians by any measure would support what hamas did on october 7. but that is what they did. so, you have to weigh both things. the fact that palestinians don't have a state and open to them nonviolent way, mahmoud abbas from the palestinian authority has made zero progress if not backwards progress on that. and then you have toei not a got is the israeli obligation to them?

do they need to be treated like a nationstate or is it like a terrorist group in syria or something? which they might help hind the scenes to address? it's a tough topic to cover. host: and i know we are half a on capitol hill.th what else are you covering this week on capitol hill and what else are you going to be looking for? what did we not get to? guest: i think we covered it. [laughter] all the main things. i also want to thank the callers for calling in. it's so great to know that there are americans still engaged in the news and have these thoughtful questions. eing with us this morning. host: christa case bryant, is wn see her work. guest: great to be here. host: coming up, a deep dive

into campaign fince and election 2024 but before then, we return to the question we began with today, the recent peggy noonan common -- column, we are starting to enjoy hatred in this country. phone lines split regionally. eastern and central time zones, (202) 748-8000. mountain and pacific, (202) 748-8001. start calling in, we will get to your calls right after the break. ♪ >> in to c-span's the 2024 natil political conventions, starting with the republicans in milwaukee july 15. next up, catch the democrats as they convene in chicago. stay connected to c-span for an uninterrupted and unfiltered glimpse of democracy at work.

watch the republican and democratic national conventions, live this summer on c-span, c-span now, and online at c-span.org. your unfiltered view of politics, c-span, powered by cable. >> since 1979, in partnership with the cable industry, c-span has provided complete coverage of the halls of congress. from house and senate floors to congressional hearings, party briefings, and committee meetgs a front row seat and how issues are debated and decided with no commentary, no interruptions, completely unfiltered. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. >> c-spanshop.org is the online c-span store.

browse through ourcollection of, books, home to■d c and accessories. there is something for every c-span fan. every purchase helps us support our nonprofit organization. shop now or anytime at c-spanshop.org. >> "washington journal" continues. host: time to return to our opening question as we focus on a recent column by peggy noonan in "the washington journal," the headline of that column that him out earlier this month, we are starting to enjoyshe said the cg been divided buthas become allue of biden and trump. she begi tieceif you haven't read it, i'eing something and maybe youre, we talk about political polarization in this country and its real. we are split into 1000 pieces,

decrying the hss oour politicalcour. particularly online, where outrageous and dehumanizing thin are sai. t whatseei is that we don't mind disliking each other now. we like it. that's the new thing, we are enjong estrangement. enjoy hatred, is that what you is that the reality for you? if so, anything we can do about it in this country? (202) 748-8000 in the eastern central time zones, (202) 748-8001or mis in this segment. go ahead. caller:ood morning. i've been calling in every now and then. it's probably been 90 days since i said something to you folksg object to talk about. from what i can see in life, i

have been both a democrat earlier in life and a republican earlier in life. from what i can see, when i lived in portland, oregon, it was the democrats whothey wouldo out and burn buildings down, destroy property. destroy police cars. destroy private property as far as car dealerships go. i just, i don't understand that. these places didn't do anything to. so, why are they destroying their property? for no other reason then just to destroy things. that is what i see in portland, oregon and through the democratic party. the republicans, yes on january 6, that one s the hundred plus days of the country

. yes, it was a stupid move to go in there like they did. it was a sad moment when the only person that was killed that day was a civilian, unarmed, by an officer. we still haven't heard who the officer was. we need to know. as the public, we deserve the right to know. do you think that we are starting to enjoy hating each other in this country? caller: far as i can see, my entire life, i'm 61, it has been building almost every year since . it's an interesting concept of how our world is continuing to get more hateful. if you are a christian, you understand that is what the bible says will happen.

doesn't bother me the way it bothers other people because i understandha that was jerry and. ountry is in part a way to avoid the reality of what she says arewo bad choices for president, a tragedy, she calls you have a major hate on, you don't have to notice the tragedy of having two bad choices for president. she says that's whsh gotten so e hatred in this country in political discourse. darrell, kentucky, what do you think? caller: yes, understand that, but you ask the other lady on they here from georgia right there, i do agree with■■ him, as the united states.

i was here couple months ago, lincoln riley killed by a mountain migrant immigrantme ov, killed poor helpless girls. jo in -- joe biden didn't haveith the family. president trump did. he met with e funeral, giving s support towards them. host: that was darrell in kentucky. this is bob in michigan. you are next. caller: the previous caller, people keep bringing up this lincoln rally. it's a shame something like that happened. how many people are killed by our ow understand. they keep driving something into the ground. getting back to hatred, you

know, i don't think that people hate certain populations. theynh might hate the governmen. then, when they do something bad, they take it out on the population. just like over in israel. you know, go back five, six years ago, there was a sitting u.s. president that went over and told netanyahu that we will make jerusalem the capital of israel. far as i'm concerned, that's what started everything. what happened there last october. the trouble is, the jewish government, they just, they let their arms down. they went to sleep in that is when hamas attacked. host: talking about the peggy noonan column, the headline there, we are starting to enjoy hatred. here is a bitore towards the end of that piece of what she said. ch other how we are going togbe

nstructively.through she said thatpeople prattle abcomi civil war, but whatre they talking about? the most trump supporting state in the country is not going to fire on fort if something like that happens, who gets custody of the nuclear arsenal and socl security checks? how about giving a sugge on how turn things around? she writes she doesn't know but are so harshly judging our our own countrymen, they share the country with us. we have to move forward together, because if we don't we won't have a future. that was peggy noonan in "the wall street journal." getting your thoughts on the split phone lines this morning. continuing the discussion here, caroline in texas. good morning. caller: can you hear me?

host: yes, ma'am. caller: great. i'm disabled and in a wheelchair. had to run over to make it good. on the topic ofliterary and oths built on anger and danger it. coming over with the pilgrims and such. these third world countries and what they are going through now, they beenme. the division of the country is like the woman said. i read part of the column that she wrote, she's very smart. we are very familiar with eight. racism and hatred has been going on for a long time. it should be no surprise to america. e to choose and pick our battles. we have to hope that people in third world countries that cannot defend themselves have some kind of help. host: that's caroline in texas. caller: good morning.o

i would like to put the focus on corporate, profitmedia. they are a huge problem in our politics. it seems like they don't really want to drill down on the issues. we don't talk about issues in the political races. we talk about the haute -- the horserace. how is the immigration issue going to affect biden? what did trump say today? why don't we talk about how to control immigration and how much the united states can take? why not talk about the shortage of affordable housing in the united states and where all of these immigrants are going to live? these issues are never addressed , because they don't want to offend their advertisers. corporate media wants to build an audience, sell it to advertisers, and make a profit. ifhey talk about issues that might offend advertisers, it

threatens profits. that is just one issue and i think it is one of the biggest ones.■k■& host: where do you go for your news? caller: i read everything i can on the internet. "the wall street journal," liberal talk radio, conservative talk radio, i listen to all the sunday shows on c-span, a fantastic service that you provide the united states. c-span is a shining example and i love it, because you hear real americans talking about real issues. but the political class, they don't really talk about the issues, it's always the angle. using the issue to win the election. we hear that endlessly, which is boring and stupid, but the corporate media does not want to drill down on the issues. host: brian in albuquerque. louisiana, good morning. caller: i want to echo caroline

from texas. hatred has always been a part of the american fabric, since the beginning the pilgrim days. the trail of tears. when the indians were forced off of their land, that was hatred. to slavery and the civil rights movement. we have always had some form of hatred in our country. this is nothing new that peggy newman is speaking of. she's only actually highlighting what was always here. since we have a news media that tends to focus on hatred. news media apparently enjoys the hatred. thank you so much, have a great day. host: mike, wisnsin, what you think about the peggy noonan column that we are starting to enjoy hatred in this country?

caller: good morning. i love what i heard from the last three callers. th i was going to say about how this on hatred. you think they loved the native americans, the way they treated them? you think they loved of the slaves, the way they treated them in this country? no, the hatred was always there. that separating and dividing us has always been there with what corporate media is doing. your last three callers kind of slow my thunder and i agree with in this country we had better start learning to get along again. we can't survive in a divided house. the media needs to, as the one caller said, drill down on these issues. what the politicians are saying.

a border bill put out by conservatives, you know, they■2■ind of glossed over the fact that republicans didn't vote for that bill because trump told them to kill it. what was in the bill? why did they punish the republicans for that? a lot of the issues that we see in this country that divide us, we created the issues and can fix those issues. we are intelligent enough as a people to do that and we should be moving forward. i always go back to the days of reconstruction that i learned way back in high school. had americans alone and let us move forward, we were trying to correct ourselves, but we had to go in and messed that up. we have to figure out a way to get along and move america forward. it's a great country, a very good country. host: more from that column, she asks -- saw someone tried to address the other side with

understanding, saying something like i think you're seeing it this way but i want to tell you why we are seeing it so differently and that way we might be able to proceed with respect for each other." instead, "it feels cold, with both sides having an eql but different sense of superiority and both sides enjoy looking down on thether." that is from her column in "the wall street journal." jim, henderson, nevada, good morning. caller: am i having feedback? i guess i'm ok. yeah, peggy noonan, as an ongoing acolyte of ronald reagan, is a simpering idiot. i don't know how she continues in the employ of any major newspaper. host: she has won a pulitzer and

written nine books at this point. caller: i'm sorry, am i still on? host: i was just pointing out that she was the winner of a pulitzer prize and has written nine books on politics, history, culture in the united states. caller: they are all gibberish. you think she is wrong, we are not at a point where we have so much hatred in the country that some are trying to enjoy it? caller: she's coasting on a reputation she established during the reagan administration. it's completely irrelevant. i don't think that we do it that way, hating each other. as lewis laughed him terms that, the class war from the

frightened rich and the angry dispossessed poor over the last 40 years. jiggy with that. she's an ignore aim. -- ignoramus. host: all right, got your point. elmhurst, good morning. caller: good morning. i cannot really agree about whether -- comment on whether we enjoy hating one another. but i find it sort of delicious that from the right, now, it's time to discuss the hate after generations of marginalized populations have survived as they can as the recipients of marginalization.

only now has that crept to the wealthy suburb where peggy noonan leaves. i don't know if we enjoy hate, but it seems we have finally gotten both sides knowled■fú%gey might slight inconvenien■d■m9ñc- slightly inconvenienced by other americans. host: that's elmhurst, it will annoy. mo from our social media fes, michelle sayinghat hatred comes from being detached after feeling alienated. e side or the other feels imized. instead of finding solutions, everyone wants the bad guy in any scenario, legitimate or otherwis ■qone more fromout emotion. hate keeps you focused and

motivates you to action. one more from andrea, don't know if anyone enjoys hatred, but i know that people can become addicted to it. more of your calls, 20 minutes left here. the peggy noon on column, we are starting to enjoy hatred in america. jack, go ahead. caller: i don't think it is necessarily enjoyment. this interest was enjoyed by division. people that came to this country were separated.

people were marginalized in the benefited from it. what we have to this day our politicians. carefully take corey's this is what the politicians are that we continue to perpetuate. i think that what isend up , lest we become aware, we've got to different classes of people, the working class, the wealthy and the poor class. the wealthy clas they keep us at gender's throats divide and conquer tactics. host: how far away are we from

including, as you say? we have to work with the politicians that we have, but these are the tactics. we are pretty close to it. it seemed like during barack obama, the citizens were beginning to unite. once some certain politicians get in, they fed on that. now we are back apart. host: rufina, omaha, go ahead. caller: hello again. i think a lot of it is the way that people look at things.i tre where they are at. just kind of accepted.

-- accept it. i have friends that support. i don't think they are bad, just because i know that that the cod their life to now, up until this point in t17■?heir life, that is just what they believe. now, a lot of people do get into the drama of it. i guess it is just kind of a mix betw ego. people need to identify with something in their life. [laughter] [applause] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, c-span.org [indiscernible] [indiscernible] so [laughter] that they know they are [laughter] [appla -- so that they know who they are. it's a problem. they are defending an identity

that may not even be reality. but for them, it is. that's omaha. alexandria, regina. caller: rufina -- virginia. caller: he's right on the money. we defend our identity politicst do a small thing. i have friends across the full spectrum. since from was elected, one friend voted for obama and then for truck fine, i just want to listen to live, we have been friends forever in heaven. -- prince forever and have been teachers. she had a lot of stuff going on in her life and she didn't want to talk issues. she wanted to just, you know,

started to say that i was lost and everything because i didn't right away agree that he was the one. that had never■( happened betwen us before it happened with another friend from the west coast. another friend from around here0 years. i just her, when the january 6 hearings were happening and i hadn't learned yet that republicans were being given the opportunity to hear the hearings because certain news outlets would hear, to me it was like another watergate and i wanted to discuss it with her. she, you know, even though she knew i was a democrat and i knew she was of republican and we agreed on some issues in the middle, she just suddenly talking more along the lines of, you know, she would say things like these baby

killers and these homeless people who are invading, going more on the extremist things. the prior caller had it right, people will get up in what they are hearing from their leaders and not having their own common sense and discussing it, destroying relationships. i was completely ready to hear her. she was worried about the economy, i said i understand. and she said she blames the leaders in power. you know, the democrats, the pitiful democrats i thought she had never spoken to me like that before. we had known each otr for years. we are very close. we even spent holidaytogether it was really heartbreaking that the whole crux of two really great friendships were wayed -- based on the fact i wanted to understand where they were coming from. host: you don't talk to that person at all now?t

caller: no. we have a common friend, though. she says, have you heard from s. i mean, i would love to. i would love t want to -- i want to avoid confrontation but i also -- the last thing i said to her was let'lk things we said were basically texts and i was showing empathy and listening and hearing her side, and then she said that -- she basically what they call it ghosted me. i sent her a birthday card like i always do. i called her, no response. i thought, you know, she's decided to close in the wagons and don't nt of so many years ad fellow american. we both had mothers who spoke the same language mothers had a different first language. mine came -- anyway, long story.

it's heartbreaking. so i think what we really need t holding our friends close,e whoe different views from us and not blaming them and not getting on to some big bandwagon and saying you are wrong, you are wrong. that's a sign of a bad relationship, a marriage that needs fixing. you can't play the blame game. i hear so much blaming, and i hear people saying the democrats this or the republicans that. we really need to stop and think what the basic needs are of everyone, all of our friends and what their are. find out what we have in common and hear each other, not start blaming this president or tha af cases, the ecomy happens in spite of things. people have been able to work across the aisle or the decades and that's where things get done. host: that's catherine in

alexander. steve, long island, good morning. you're next. caller: hi. i am not sure if we enjoy hatin. it's funny that peggy noonan started this because she used to make fun of poor people. rush limbaugh started this, fox news probably started this. host: how do you think we end this? caller: i am sorry, what? host: how do you think we end this or can it be ended? caller: social media has made it so much worse. i think it will tone down a little when unfortunately or fortunately when trump and biden are done. but it's becoming an industry on the internet.ut people, giving false information. a lot of it has to do with the individual and what is going

with them and they're blaming others for their -- for whatever unhappiness or lack of something. but i think it can beas bit, for sure, and i think that will probably happen when these host: that's steve in long island. this is more from peggy noonan, saying in her column, what we are seeing is a larger trend. bill maher wrote, would anyone ride the snork city subwa■ry wearing a maga hat? that's she says. other parts of the country are seen as no-go zones. that's the quote from bill maher. she says it's shocking that it's true, but it is. peggy noonan in "the wall street journal." this is janet in florida. what do you think? caller: hi.

i have to agree with some of the prior callers about ibe rich that peggy noonan is stating her opinion on this because i do feelike we are at a place that has a lot to do with conservatives ever since honestly the genesis of c-span. i remember back in the day when newt gingrich would speak in empty chambers and i believe it's kind of the first time that we really heard fellow elected representatives refer to the other party as not being patriots, andeí that's what peot startedonestly -- i feel like it's the genesis of where we are at, and that targeting of your

fellow american as not beingha a patriot really started there. it's funny■ó because it was like the pre-social media knowing to c-span. so again i think that it just kind of i me that -- irks me that people like peggy noonan are now going to talk on this subject because i do feel like she and other conservatives hav. host: that's janet in florida. this is kay in california. good morning. just about 10 minutes left hereh caller: hello? caller: go ahead, kay. caller: i believe love and hate is in our d.n.a. that's my comment. host: that's all you want to say? caller: yes. that's all i want to say. love and hate is in our d.n.a. host: can we get back to more

love than hate, kay? caller: i beg your pardon? host: is there a way to get back to more love than hate? caller: i said love and hate is in our d.n.a. host: all right. that's kay. this is lee in rhode island, good morning. morning. so i am listening to this conversation problem sometimes that we have is that we are so eager to include ourselves in the conversation. this could be a confession. my question would be, how do you define the word "we"? who is we? this may be a comment she's making about herself. you understand what i am saying? if i sayo you we are really enjoying skydiving, if you've never beenw do you include yourself as we in that

conversation? we are really starting to enjoy smoking marijuana. if you don't smoke marijuana, you are not the "we." when she says -- host: you are saying peggy[ noonan is painting with an overly broad brush here? calleryeah. th is that you are trying to have the conversation or maybe the debate on whether her comment has any merit. you have to assume her premise. i am taking it like it's a confession when she says "we are really starting to enjoy about herself and the people she rose with? the people that she associates herself with, the people who are among her crowd, then i guess she can qualify that as we are really starting to enjoy hatred. it could be her and her crowd. it doesn't necessarily mean the entire country. you don't have to include yourself in that to say, oh, people get defensive. well, i am not enjoying hatred.

obviously if you are not enjoying hatred, you are not included in the word "we." host: this is darren in bel camp. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you doing, c-span? the previous caller had a point about "we." i thinthe hatred really started for many when donald ard there was a lot of stuff that he says and does and they applaud. they applaud at his rallies. you know, i mean just the stuff that a person -- a normal person uldn't even say, you know, he talks about everybody. everybody is crooked except him. he is the one that's, you know, being pers cuted -- persecuted and he can talk about anybody

and his followers just laugh, laugh at the bitter jokes that he tells. he says stuff like bloodbath, the hatred, you know, to the point where i can a pickup truck with an american flag on the back, and the first6 or is he a white supremacist? they try to wrap themselves around the flag and call themselves patriots. i don't understand this. so is a lot of this hatred came -- it's coming from trump. and that's all i have to■ say. host: donald trump held a rally in las vegas yesterday. this is the headline from "the

washington post" at a swelterin# rally, trump turns up the heat on immigrants courtitino vote in important swing state. the story notes swiks people taken to the -- six people taken to the hospital due to the heat there at that rally. the next caller, alex in washington, d.c., good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. i think peggy noonan is an idiot. let me explain. i voted for joe biden in 2024, but i think what is at the core of our problems is one, we have a class divide in the united states. two, we have groups of people that live with two totally distinct set of facts. i think where a lot of the anger comes from is people who have said something on different eabs and then -- issues and then been attacked and called names and it turns out they're right, whether that's the likely origin of

covid, where people are called racist for where people are called racist or white nationalists or whether it's it's dossier where people are called russian puppets. hey, this is the way it looks to me and they're called all sorts of names without evidence. then it turns out they're right three or fouyears later and everyone wants to -- the laptopt story. the officials still won't say they were wrong. that's where the anger comes from because those are people that get paid by the taxpayers and they say it doesn't matter that we are wrong. we are still going to shove it down your throat. i wish peggy noonan -- i think she knows that. host: this is what she says in her column, we have to slow down our desire to look down. we have to be a little more generous, stop enjoying our hate so much and we will have to come

up with thoughts that are better than indefinitely like this. peggy noon in that column we have been talking about today. just time for a couple more calls. pamela, thanks for waiting, in california in ridge crest. go ahead. caller: good morning. yeah, i don't know -- i think there have always been people who enjoy their hate, and i think we can look at our history and see that there have been a lot -- has been a lot of hate in this crythink what is different now is politicians are weaponizing those feelings of anger and hatred and seem to really enjoy that when they hold rallies. i think the way through this is for americans -- i don't think a majority of americans by any means enjoy hate, but i think there is that segment of the

population that does and they get a lot of press for it. and that just kind of amplifies it, but i don't think it's the majority of americans and that's all i have to say. thank you. host: william, last caller in this segment, st. louis, missouri. go ahead from the show-me state. excuse me.llo, how are you since i am the last caller, i am going to make it real quick. so people who state that america has always hat, are right, very correct. you cannot that america is a christian nation and america was founded under hatred and hated native americans. those two things are opposed to one another. the other thing that i am going to state isfñ this. 1986, somewhere around in there, when ronald reagan repealed the fairness doctrine and our

airwaves on the radio became inundated with what got us here. we have always had an air of decorum but in e 1986, 1987, somewhere around in there, that's where -- host: i think we got your point, william. sorry that you cut out. last caller in this segment of the "washington journal." we will take a deep dive into the topic of campaign finance. we will be joined by saurav ghosh of the campaign legal center for that discussion. stick around. we will be right back. >> in the first weekblicatn of s latest book "the demon of

unrest," sales put it at the very top of the bestseller list. it's about the start of the civil war, with the focus on the five months between abraham lincoln's election and the day of the first shot fired on fort sumpner. that was april 12, 1861. in his introduction, larson writes, "i invite you now to step into the past to a time of fear and dissension. i suspect your sense of dread will be all the more pronounced in light of today's polital discord." >> author erik■garson on this episode of book notes plus. mobile app or wherever you get your podcasts.

>> batter up. it's time to play ball. get ready to cheer on your favorite team in this year's annual congressional baseball game where republicans face off against democrats. watch play-by-play coverage on wednesday at 7:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. c-span now, our free mobile video app, or online at c-spang.org. >> here is a ball, deep into left-field lined. bouncing up and into the bullpen.]e■s >> this year c-span celebrates4s like no other. sincen your primary source for capitol hill, providing balanced, unfiltered coverage of government, taking you to where the policies debated and decided all with support of america's cable

company. c-span, 45 years and counting, powered by cable. >> c-span now is a free mobile app fee -- featuring youriew ofs happening in washington. keep up with the day's biggest events with live streams of hearings from the u.s.s, campaigns and more from the world of politics all at your fingertips. you can stay current with the latest episodes of "washington journal" and find scheduling information for c-span's tv networks plus a variety of compelling podcasts. c-span now is available at the apple store and google play. scan the q.r. code to download it for free or visit our website, c-spang.org/c-spannow.o washington anytime, anywhere. >> "washington journal" continues.

host: with just under 150 days until election day, a conversation on campan finance laws, political fundraising, our guest is saurav ghosh of the campaign legal center. mr. ghosh, remind folks first what the campaiglegal center is, what your mission is. cdguest: sure. campaign legal center is a nonpartisan, nonprofit. we advocate for every voter's right to a responsive government and to meaningful participation in the democratic process. host: since we will be talking about money, how is the campaign legal center funded? guest: we are funded with a combination of individual and institutional donors. we actually don't take any money from political cdidates or p.a.c.'s. we disclose every donation above $200 for up to a year in the interest of transparency. host: what does the campaign finance reform director do? guest: i do a

watchdog work and reform advocacy. on the wchdo my team and i look for violatisderal cas and we file complaints often with the federal election commission or other regulators as appropriate, urging that these regulators enforcehe law, and on the reform side where we see areas of campaign finance law that could be stronger or potential gaps, we try to identify those and work with members of congress to esnt sure the laws are stronger. host: when we are talking caaign finance, there becomes lots of different kinds of money. what is dark money? guest: dark money is not a term of art, but it refers to any kind of money spent on elections that is dark in terms of the voter's ability tow source of the money. essentially any money where you

k to who is trying to influence the election. one of the main vehicles for dark money is the 501-c4, any type of entity that claims nonprofit status. these entities, despite claiming to be a nonprofit and engaging in social welfare, they're able elections.oney directly on host: what are some of the biggest names of those entities that viewers would know? guest: americans for prosperity is a long running dark money nonprofit. really there are a bunch of them. there is one called future 45, supporting in this election. they tend to hav obscure names. that's one of the ways in which they operate. they have a name that's easy to forget and doesn't mean a lot. host: dark money is not illegal? guest: it's not illegal. it's■ an area where transparency

in our election process could be stronger and as you can mamg, that's one of the areas where we are advocating that congress should require disclosure of nonprofits that are spending money on elections. they should be required to disclose their donors. is soft ? guest: soft money, though it t thing. soft money is any money that doesn't comply with federal election laws, the laws governing contribution limits, the requirement that the money be disclosed on disclosure reports, any money that doesn't comply with those requirements is what we refer to as soft host: what is the bigger problem, you think, in campaign finance today, the role of dark money and not enough transparency o money? guest: i think dark money is the far problem because transparency about who is spending money to influence elections is really one of the

bedrock principles of campaign financers have a fundamental rit to know who is spending money to try to influence their vote and they have a right to know who is backing the candidates when they're evaluating their and deciding who they want to support politically. dark money fundamentally undermines that right and ensures that a largending happeg on our day-to-day lives is actually not disclosed, actually impossible for the average voter or reporter to know where that money is coming from. host: what has the campaign legal center asked congress to do right now to address some of these problems, and how much mes of congress to make changes in the campaign finance law that might make it harder for them to raise money or to have to report it in different ways that they may not want to report it? guest: well, i think on the question of will congress act or at their incentive, it's

tough because at the end of the day you are asking them to impose more requirements on themselves, you're asking them to perhaps limit the ways in which they raise money, but there are reformers in congress who see that as part of the government but for the peoe. and as far as how to address dark money, pretty ready made solution for that already exists. it's called the disclose act. it's a bill that c.l.c. has endorsed. it's been sponsored and put forward by senator whitehouse of rhode island for many years, i don't even know exactly how long, but it is a bill that would fundamentally require the disclosure of money spent by of entities and require the traceback of any of that spending to the original source. host: we talking campaign financ and campaign fundraising. a great time to call in if this is a confusing topic or if you

have ever had a question on it. saurav ghosh joins us from the campaign legal center. he can answer those questions for you. how long have you been in this work? guest: i have been doing this si 2015. host: 202-748-8000 to call in. 202-748-8001 for republica to call02 for independents. we will also look for your texts well. when we were last -- the last time that congress addressed this issue in a big way, and there may have been smaller bills in between, but the 2002 bipartisan campaign reform act, bcra as it's bcra do? guest: it was addressing the soft money issue we were talking about. before bcra, basically a lot of state level organizations were

able to raise money outside of the federal campaign finance framework and spend that money inflewsing federal elections. so bcra was congress' effort to rein spending. what it says is federal candidates cannot raise and spend soft money in elections. host: so this happened in 2002. citizens united happened in 2010. what did citizens united decide? guest: citizens united was a supreme court decision that basically opened the doors to corporate expenditures in our elections. that had been prohibited for decades, close to the supreme court in that decision said that money on eles provided two things, first that all of that spending be openly disclosed, and second that essentially spending had to be independent of any candidates or political parties. one of the main problems we see

today is both of those conditions, the prerequisites for corporate expenditures and for super-pac's which came after that, both of ■uthose conditions are not being met because of the dark monlot of this spending is not disclosed and as we documented, c.l.c. did a report about this last with the independence requirement is it's often a complete fiction. the dark money groups are often working directly with candidates and with the political parties. do they do that? guest: that's what our report is all about, the different tactic. one of the tactics they use is called red candidates and the parties putting on their websites, on publicly available sites, what d they want these outside spending groups to say in their messaging?

and the super-p.a.c.'s wait for. host: explain how that works. i can't imagine it's we want them to spend am money on this message,hat blatant? guest: it didn't used to be. it emerged as a wink and nod method. the name comes from there would section of the site that was intended for those eratives and it would contain coded messages like voters need to read, voters need and it would contain these signal words that were used message and the demographic that they should target. over time that has actually gotten more blatant because unfortunately the f.e.c. has consistently failed to police coordination in a meaningful way. host: what is another way that they coordinate besides red boxing? guest: another common one is through the use of common

vendors. a political campaign is actually hiring the same vendor as an allied super-pac and there are requirements that prevent that from happening in a way that material information is being passed on because that's using a middleman to coordinate the message. host: you are frustrated with the f.e.c.? guest: yeah, i think that would be the right word for it. host: why is the f.e.c. not policing this in a way that you think they should be policing this? what is their explanation? guest: i don't think there is one co-heerpt explanation. -- coherent explanation. i think bit by bit, they seem to be just refusing to enforce the laws written and taking extremely a hands-off approach to the laws designed to protect voters, to make sure special interests don't capture the political process. i wish i could say there was a

really philosophy behind it but it seems to be at every turn when there is an opportunity to take a more robust, aggressive approach in protecting voters which is their mission, they choose the opposite. they choose to favor the interest of the candidates. host: in the environmental community, if they believe the executive branch is not enforcing environmental laws the way it should be, they take the government to court and try to get a court decision to force them to then enforce the law. doing that with the f.e.c.? guest: definitely. my colleagues and i often bring lawsuits to require the f.e.c. to enforce the law when we think their interpretation, their refusal is contrary to law, and one ofems with that whole process is that the very o the certain ex-- to a certain expent, that's baked into the case law, but in many cases, the problem is simply discretion,

the agency invoking its right not to pursue certain things as an exercise of its authority. what we have often seen is that they invoke prosecutorial discretion in a meaninglessd thl to enforce the law, their refusal to even investigate a lot of these cases is actually based on a misinterpretation of law. host: what is the biggest enforcement case that the f.e.c. has done -- what this they -- what have they decided meets the standard? guest: i think one of the areas where they are enforcing the law is where we see foreign money inflewsing the elections -- influencing the elections. it's been hard to ignore. there have been a few f.e.c. decisions where there were big influence our elections. a group host: let me stop there and give you some calls. beth is waiting in florida, the

republican line. beth, you are on with saurav ghosh. caller: good morning. i that when amy coney barrett was being nominated for the supreme court that there was supposedly $70 million spent and i would like to know, where did that money come from and who did it go to, to get her nominated and installed in the court? i think citizens united is a big problem that we need to really address, that a lot of our problems today and a lot of problems we were addressing in thement all stem from, citizens united. thank you. support of, thank you. or against a judicial nominee isn't the sort of spending that campaign finance laws cover.

that's money that's outside of the scope of federal campaign finance, which deals with all of the candidates for elected office. so the supreme court is notn ths nominated by the president, confirmed by the senate. so i don't really have an answer for that as far as where the money came from. it's quite possible that it came from a group that doesn't have to disclose its donors. it might have an overlap with the inability to trace the sources of the money, but as far as campaign finance laws, i don't have an answer for that. host: gregory in new jersey, democrat, good morning. caller: yes, good morning. how are you doing? i am calling in reference to lobbyists. both parties have lobbyists, and corporate america runs this country. the anything to do with the laws or anything

that goes on country. both parties are corrupt as far as i am concerned. but i want to know more about that. they buy off the politicians and whenta■■ they want a bill to be passed, they -- whether he is republican or democrat, they pay it off. guest: sure, i think that is a common refrah parties have a lof special interest money behind them. so in that sense one thing we try to emphasize is that this is a bipartisan problem. there are democrats and republicans alike who are supported by dark money, supported by special interests and one of the things that we can do about that is to tray to rein in the influence that they have and so coordination between

super-p.a.c.'s and the candides and their parties, that coordination allows them to work closely together. it increases the influence that they have and so policing that coordination, that's the responsibility of the f.e.c. a much better job of. one of the things our report found ishat citizens united, 14 years on, the f.e.c. has never found and enforced the law with respect to coordination. that's only making the problem of corporate spending in our elections worse. host: wh is the f.e.c.? guest: it is a six-member agency, six commissioners. by law there are no more than three from any one party. in practice, that'socrats and te republicans. like other agency heads, they're nominated by the president and confirmed by the senate. host: how long do they serve for? guest: i believe their term of office is six years, but the

reality is they're allowed to stay on after the end of theiraa replacement is found. the oldest serving serving commissioner has been there for many years, and i think one of the main issues with the f.e.c.e were deadlocked ■ on lot of issues, but for most of their history they were able to find con accept sus -- consensus. this concept of dysfunction is a recent one, but if anything they seem to be moving in the wrong direction and doing more deregulatory decisions than ever before. host: back to the people that the f.e.c. polices, are there two or three federal candidates that most concern you when it comes to looking through fundraising reports and seeing how this money is going or where you can't see the money? are there some candidates that always are right at the top for

guest: it would be hard to have this conversation in 2024 and not mention donald. domed trump has -- donald trump has played fast and loose with camp laws almost since the moment he came on the national stage. the whole new york trial that just concluded, the underlying facts there were campaign finance related, the spending of money to hush up a negative story just before the election. a number of other violations that seem pretty obv o their face, but as far as enforcement at the f.e.c. he has never faced even an investigation let alone actually seeing the law enforced. soft money, the use of conduit vendors to hide who is getting paid by his various political committees, you could really write a law school exam on the campaign finance laws that tru appears to have broken. host: is there a congressional candidatngress that particularly

concerns you? guest: i think it would be hard to pick a seems to perennially violate the law or anything like that. we try to calln we see them, but no, no one springs to mind. host: what are open secrets? guest: a nonprofit that we often rely on. they track more of the money and the■j spending. so whereas we are sort of a law firm that does analysis of campaign finance issues, they keep track of the spending. so it's really helpful to have their excellent work tracking that spending and sort of articulating what it means as far as the ramifications and the long term trend lines. host: open secrets opens that information up to anybody, correct? guest: yes. it's on their website. host: to carol -- sorry, to carl in franklin, tennessee, independent. go ahead. caller: yes. i would like you to talk about how corporations can be considered and

also how -- maybe discuss how the inequality that breeds in our campaign finance system. guest: those are great questions. they basically underlie the supreme citizens united and a lot of people disagree with that basic framework that corporations have the same rights in terms of their ability and their right to express themselves in their political preferences as well as the baseline assumption that money is equal to speech. i think those are assumptions that the courts have made. they aren't necessarily assumptions that they should be making because after all, individuals who are members of our democracy, vote. they have the right to express their political views. the supreme court has said that

corporations have the same rights, but that's a problematic view to take. host: bill on asks, any comments on politicians paying family members to work in campaigns? guest: yeah. we see that happen quite often. we see that with candidates who hire members. legally that's allowed as long as the family member is paid the fair market rate and they're providing bona fide services but as you can probably guess, those are issues that often come up when you are talking about a candidate hiring a family we have encountered situations where it wasn't clear wh■

these finance laws be alleviated if we went back pre-woodrow wilson and had senators wilson and had senators won the elections for their state as it was originally thine system we should have, bill? caller: yes, it is. of course it is. those were the laws they made.fz woodrow wilson destroyed that system where the senators were appointed for the reason to have the governor to have an ally in the congress or the senate, one way or the it was done. now, it's fr all. any popularity contest winner is your senator. so that doesn't make sense. i believe that was the plan. host: saurav ghosh, on campaign finance, was it even something the founders thought about and when did we develop our modern campaign finance system?

guest: i the founders ever thought about campaign finance, but i seriously doubt it. i think even approximate you go -- if you go back 30 years, the amount of spending on elections was dramatically lower than it is today. the modern system ee merminged after watt -- emerged after watergate, after the scandal which campaign finance angle to it. it turned out■( president nixon was not getting all of his money from above and so the federal election campaign act, which is the statute that covers most of federal campaig 1971 and it regulated the amount of money that anyone could give to a candidate or to a p.a.c. it required disclosure of all of those contributions and i think in thele last 2 1/2 decades, a t

of that has been rolled back. i think the amount of money has increased due to citizens united. the assumptions that the supreme court made simply have not been true almost since the beginning of the contemporary regime. dark money groups have ensured that a vast majority of spending is actually obscured or another and special interests are able to work far too closely with candidates. host: what does an average member of the house spend to win an election? guest: i think it's going to vary widely depending on where they are in the country, how competitive their district is, and frankly i think it's going -- the biggest factor is to what extent is their race going to attract outside spending and i mean that in terms of spending outside of their district as well as outside spending meaning the dark money groups. a lot of that is sort of

choreographed nationally. if a race is particularly important to maintaining the ■÷lance of power in congress, the party will essentially direct more outside spending and that's where red boxing, which i talked about early yes, comes into play. they were actually ask groups to spend more on that election, depending on the importance. host: is that legal? for the campaign arms to do it? guest: for the campaign arms as far as the red boxing part, i would say it's coordination. host: coordination is illegal? guest: coordination is illegal.