again later today, 5:30 p.m. eastern time. this is part of our weeklong look at recent health related hearings. tomorrow we'll take a look at alzheimer's research with actor seth rogan among the witnesses. wednesday we'll focus on brain injuries among the elderly. we will continue thursday with a hearing on chronic illnesses and wrap things up on friday with hearing on patient safety. >> here's a look at what's ahead on c-span2. this week special primetime programming on the c-span networks. tonight on c-span, a debate over scottish independents. then on tuesday, issues spotlight on virus targeting of

conservative groups. wednesday night the principle of hartford connecticut's capital preparatory magnet school on educating children. thursday the house budget committee hearing on federal state and private and the property programs. friday night native american history. on c-span2 this week booktv in prime time.

>> join the c-span conversation, like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. >> up next it's today's edition of "washington journal." we kick things off today by asking viewers if they thought the republican party could woo african-american voters the next election. this is just under 15 minutes. >> host: let's begin with a look at some of the headlines on this monday morning. from the union leader and new hampshire james foley is free now. free funeral services, memorial service held yesterday in

rochester new hampshire for the american journalist who was killed by isis. from "the boston globe," militants for u.s. rider held in syria. that is from peter curtis was released. it was a ransom paid, a detailed outline this one in "the boston globe" and "the new york times." this headline, a dat day of sil. michael brown's father pleading for a low while the sun is laid to rest. the economist has a story that a sale online at economist.com as the republicans are trying to woo black voters. the battle for the hearts and minds of black voters won't be won or lost in the pages of scholarly journals. the campaign takes place on the street in churches and at the grassroots level. the republicans are fairly determined to make a difference in those all important settings. a few years ago in his book the political mind political persuasion is all about moving people emotionally and not appealing to the rational

faculties. i am the one who account on the republican but i would suspect the black voters looking to the democratic party will not be easily broken by a few dozen crafty political operatives. that's this morning from the economist. you can also join in a conversation by the way by sending us an e-mail at a journal at c-span.org and you can join us on social media at facebook.com/cspan or send us a tweet at c-span to bj. jesse holland is for all of this for the ap. he wrote a story the republican struggles to recruit black voters and candidates. is joining us live on the phone on this monday morning. thanks for always for being with us. >> guest: how are you? >> host: the gop, break would have been a string hold on the black voters going for democratic candidates on the national and statewide level. >> caller: following the election of barack obama, the republican party sat down and

looked at who its voter base was there i also covered demographics. when you look at america, america's becoming a minority/majority, more of a majority-minority country. the republicans found out that their voter base was lacking minorities. so they sat down at the last couple of presidential elections and try to come up with a plan to make their party more attractive to african-american, hispanic and asian voters. and a special african-american voters because historically african-american voters started out with the republican party. republicans don't want them to come back so they're out doing grassroots efforts to attempt to bring these voters back to the republican fold. >> host: let's put this in terms of numbers. courtesy of the census department and published by the the ap, a growing black vote. in comparison to we saw in 2000

about 13 million african-americans casting their ballots in a presidential election. in 2012 approach in 18 million growing. >> caller: right. one of the reasons behind it was the historic candidacy of barack obama, but we are also seeing a growing number of minority voters in non-presidential election years. so what seems right now that the number of minority voters in america is increasing overall, and the republican party wants to get some of those votes on its site. the majority of these votes are going to the democrats but the gop is making an effort to bring some of these votes to the republican side. it's still to be seen how effective these efforts are action going to be. >> host: this again according to "the associated press" commitment to 2008 and 2012 when barack obama was leading the ballot where the overwhelming majority, 95% in 2012, 99% in 2008, voting for the democratic

candidate, slightly less but still strong for democrats back in 2004. 93% of african-american voters cast their ballots for the democrat in that case al gore. in 2000, john kerry in 2004. >> caller: right. once again ever since the dixiecrat movement in the south, when the dixiecrat's went from republican, from democrat to republican ever since then african-american vote has been majority democrat. that are still black republicans out there. they are still out there and they are active. but the overwhelming trend, prove that we have is that most african-americans vote democrat. it's going to be a difficult time right now for republicans to get that to change, especially coming behind president barack obama's

candidacy and winning the white house. now, i went out with some of the republican candidates in georgia. they are starting at the grassroots level. they are going to churches, committee centers, talking to black and hispanic business people. they are starting basically from scratch and they're hoping to build up from the bottom. but that's going to be a years long effort. it's not something that's going to change overnight. so it's hard to see their efforts being effective immediately in this upcoming midterm election. one of the things that we did see, especially if you look at the mississippi republican primary where thad cochran was trying to win the gop nominati nomination. a lot of african-americans did turn out and vote in the gop primary for thad cochran. the question we have not been able to answer yet, did voters come out to vote republican or did they come just vote for thad cochran? we did see a high increase in

the number of african-american voters in that mississippi primary. >> host: in case you're just tuning in or for listing on c-span radio, i guess this jesse holland. he covers race, ethnicity and demographic issues for the ap. the question we're asking this morning in part from the economist, can the gop woo african-american voters and also african-american candidates? let me share with you, jesse holland, this is from a democrat, he worked for president bill clinton as a speechwriter and posted this essay. he said the republicans pushing to restrict voting rights nationwide are betting on invitation by the american people. emboldened by recent supreme court case limiting the reach of the 1965 voting rights act, gop legislators have moved swiftly in the number of states to cut early voting and same-day registration. is that a paradox because often the african are composed of those who cast their ballots early according to a number of studies. >> caller: that definitely is a paradox. you would think someone was

trying to recruit voters would want to make it as easy as possible for those people to vote. now, a lot of republican operatives will tell you that even african-american are concerned about voter fraud. that's one of the issues that they tried to point out when they look at voter id laws. however, the practical effects of id law is a makes it hard for some people to vote. one of the things we have been looking at is whether this effort can boomerang. if someone sees you, if someone thinks that you're trying to take away their power to vote, that may make it, make them even more intent to make sure they vote. so some people say that these voter id efforts could actually boomerang and bring more people to the polls to exercise their rights than they would have otherwise. so that's one of the things we'll have to keep our eyes on

when elections come around in november host of jesse holland from the ap. thank you much for getting up early on a monday morning and adding your perspective to this issue. we appreciate it. >> caller: thank you. >> host: get your calls and comments in just a moment. a look at west coast headlines. the earthquake that rattled the bay area, and also from the "orange county register" in southern california, the bay area rattled, 12 people admitted to the hospital. one of the photographs from napa valley in california which was the epicenter, residents digging out after the biggest jolt since 1989. get to your calls and comments on the issue we're focusing on for the first 40 minutes or so this morning, and the read -- can the gop will african-american voters and candidates? robert first from henderson kentucky. good morning. >> caller: good morning, steve. i would like to echo your last

caller. i do believe the gop is trying to woo black voters. i don't think they're going to be successful because they are not sincere. >> host: how have they not been fair? >> caller: well, i think the efforts are only for votes. they don't have a sincere effort to make a change in the black committee. they say good soundbites, but ththeir heart is not in what they're saying. for instance, historically blacks were republicans because that was the party of abe lincoln. and jesse holland expressed clearly the southern dixiecrat where democrats that were opposed to the civil rights bill. as a matter oas a matter fact is who introduced the civil rights bill and the democrats who are opposed to it. and blacks have been beholden to the democratic party for so long

because that was the party of fdr and the new deal. however, the gop, if it's going to make a sincere effort, it must make a sincere effort that they seem genuinely and not as lip service type of situation where they bring in some figurative negroes -- pardon my expression, to be the face of what they think black american wants to see. they parade adam west, herman cain, larry elder. these people don't speak for black america. black people are not monolithic. we all don't agree. we all don't eat the same things. so some of us are republican or to some of us are independent to some of those are democratic and some of us are apolitical. but in order to genuinely succeed and win black voters, the gop must absolutely make a genuine effort to connect to the community. it has to be seen as virginia

wine and not just for votes. i don't think that they are doing that. i think they're hypocritical. i live in kentucky, ma senator rand paul i believe is his name, i don't believe anything he says. mitch mcconnell has said that he wants president obama to be a one-term president. so all he's done, he's been an obstructionist. he has not been good for kentucky. he has been a disaster. and hopefully, just hopefully alison grimes can get him out of office. because of the gop, if it's going to be so sal in winning our vote, they must be sincere and they can't be by lip service. it has to be by actions. >> host: thank you very much for the call. in a recent piece for "time" magazine, senator rand paul made an appearance on yesterday's "meet the press" wrote about this issue. here's part of what he had to say. "when you couple the militarization of law enforcement with the erosion of

civil liberties and due process, allowing the police to become judge and jury -- host: >> host: that sometimes magazine. of course, the funeral service being held in ferguson, missouri, for 18 of michael brown. that is this, this from john in north carolina who says, the gop seeking black votes is an exercise in futility. they are 100% committed to redistribution and government dependency. next is kathleen joining us from chicago. good morning, kathleen. kathleen, you with this? we will try one more time.

okay, randy, shreveport, louisiana, good morning. >> caller: good morning. the gop and the democratic party, they're both the same. i'm white, and i'm an independent and i believe in the tea party. if the black people want to get somewhere, you need to get to the tea party. because the republicans, they are just as much a criminal in this government as the democrats are. they played off of each other. and until people realize that it's going to be business as usual. they don't care about the american people. democrats don't care about the american people. the only people that really give a flip is the tea party, and they do not -- and the gop doesn't want the tea party around. they want this two party system as it's always been.

and as far as i'm concerned, lb jay for the black people under the bus with that gray society bs. i mean, it's ridiculous, you know? people need to wake up to smell the dirt, you know? i mean, it's a shame, and all this stuff going on in ferguson. that's all orchestrated. >> host: by whom? >> caller: it's a police state. you know? i saw it. they murdered that got in new york, the big man in new york. on the streets there. they are trying to start a race war is not okay randy, thank you very much for the goal. we will go on to cornell. good morning to you. were are you calling from? >> caller: [inaudible] good morning. the problem with republican party is big business, and right now the stock market is off the roof. everybody is making money except for the layman or the poor

people. and they have wiped out the middle class. the problem with what's going over the last six or seven years is how they have disrespected the president of the united states, no way can the republican party will the black african-american voters. >> host: okay, thanks much for the goal. would it be nice if mlk junior's a dream judge not by the caller of skin the content of character had come true? our question this morning, can the republicans with the african-american voters? o african-american voters? the comments from michael steele this morning, "the party cannot engage black voters while voter idously favoring

laws the disproportionately affect african-americans." beverly, michigan, good morning. caller: hello? host: turn the volume down on your set. go ahead, please. my concern is not so much about the democrats and the republicans. jewish vote, the ok? 4 million jews in the united states. there are 30 million blacks in the united states. we can't get anything to vote. but the 4 million jews get exactly what they want? host: which is what? caller: whatever. the congressman. the senators. whatever. 4 million jews, 30 million blacks. ask them a question like this. think about it. , million jews in this country

whatever you all say, you all jump. .his is a diversion that's all this is. have a good day. host: are you still with us? clarify that one point, when you say we all jump. any time congress, especially senators, feinstein, haverat, republicans, something to do with the jewish vote, they jump. >> caller: with 30 million backs we cannot get anything done. >> host: marion is next. welcome to the conversation. >> caller: thank you for taking my call. i think that president obama as the first elected african-american president should help the black people and he has oppressed them so bad that my heart breaks to see all these young kids that don't have

anything, anything, and we wooed them and promised them and the whites got it and now it seems like this favorite is the hispanics and the muslims. i think anybody with open eyes look at the military and health care system. how in the world can nancy pelosi say we have to pass a bill before the american people knee about the bill and let us vote on it. she is reck less and irresponsible and should be thrown out of office. i say give the african-americans -- when i was growing up there were basketball courts, swimming, tennis and everything. now there is nothing.

>> host: on the washington times today there is an article about governor perry visiting new hampshire he points out that jeb bush is laying low. regina, in daytona beach, miami. >> caller: good morning. we had the worst eight years under president bush but the republicans dedicated themselves to destroying this new black president. as far as them trying to woo black voters? they are against everything the

working class is for including whites and blacks. they were against president obama's infrastructure job bill which would have created probably a million jobs. can they woo african-americans? they can twist themselves but it isn't in their dna. >> host: cal from new york on the democrats like. good morning. >> caller: good morning. your reporter at the top of the hour was very right in attributing the rise of african-american voters to the election of obama. i think that in the crime of the obama administration that that interest will decline and that will be the advantage for the

republicans. not in their attempt to woo voters from the democratic party but in a couple years if obama is viewed as a president that in the end hasn't very much helped the black people of this country and he is viewed at someone who is initiating another war in iraq then they will stay home and that will be the advantage to the republicans unfortunately. i feel that director massachusetts institute of technology, center for digital business -- eric holder and michael brown things are waking up african-americans to they have no rights. i don't if that will translate

to electing hilary clinton. i think they will lose interest and the republicans will gain advantage because of the lack of participation. >> host: peg has this on her twitter page. you can share at cspanwj. she said no on the question of can the gop woo african-american voters? from the national review there is this on rand paul. a party for all. how can republicans get behind the minority voters. paul's pursuit of the african-american voters. talking about the militarization of local peace shows he is

trying to change the base that massively voted form democrats. and we are learning and i am going to try to break barriers that existed for many years. that from june of this year with st. paul. tyrone is joining us from philadelphia. >> caller: we have to be clear about one thing. it isn't about what they say. it is the policy. all of the policy and all of the bills that go up to help the black community fail. they are knocking the policy so hard to help the blacks. no construction bill, no highway bills. so no economics in the poor

white or poor blacks. this is a wall street issue. the top is getting richer and the bottom is getting poorer. the people are getting disenfranchised with the vote. this isn't by accident. this is orchestrated. >> host: what has to be done? >> caller: republicans are serious about wooing voters then you have to put the bills on the floor. put the bill on the floor. they don't vote anyway to help poor whites or blacks. what they are doing is they have the bottom just shifting around. yes, the black community is hurting. but you have the white people not voting for their own interest. they only warn the white community because the first thing the white community feels is if they are up there in washington they will take care of them.

they are not going to take care of you. this is all orchestrated to kill out the bottom and they have done that. >> host: thank you for the call. sweeney from georgia is up next. >> caller: thank you for taking my call. i would like to start off by giving honor to our commander in chief. he is a great president as well as other presidents that come before him. first on this topic we have to talk about the gop. the african-american men and woman are intelligent. we see what is going on in america and i am very sad for american. the gop, republicans, you need to step in the rear because you are so ignorant. you are willing to take your country and let it go all the

way down the ladder because you refuse to do the things necessary to get the country bag on board. i am so sick and tired of people worried about money, money, money, and capitalism and you will not look at the structures you built when you are failing. when the republicans speak there is no message. this is ignorance. people, white, black, american -- whoever you are across the country is seeing this. they are getting sad. this is ridiculous. you are going to have pandemonium in this country. it is starting with people having riots. you don't care people have nothing to eat. you don't care no body has no jobs. why don't you give back your salary, work from home and keep doing nothing? this is nothing personally against anyone.

i am someone who has worked for years in america. i was a little girl in 7th grade to had an american dream. and do something about the immigration law. those people do serve to be over here and respected. >> host: is there anything the republican party can do to thing your mind on this? >> caller: the first thing they can say is stop saying we don't know how to fix it. that is your job requirement. if you don't know how to fix it why did you ask for the job? there are plenty of smart people that know how to fix this. will you step up with your law-making brains and take over and make the changes that are necessary to make america

started going back up the ladder. >> host: reverend al sharpton who is a host of his own show pointed out in an article from overweight track suits he has transformed him into whitehouse's civil rights leader of choice and a poster child for a strict diet of salad and juice. in new york he said you are competing with time square lights so you have to be 300 pounds and crazy to get anyone's attention and then you refine yourself. i always anyhow under those 300 pounds of track suits was a refined, slim, dignified man. and they look at his relationship dating back to 2003

with then state senator obama. and the fully story is available inside today's new york times. on the republican line from walker, louisiana, is james. how can your party woo african-american voters and candidates, james? >> caller: good morning, steve. we can't. what are you doing? is brian lamb this alive? this has become the most racially divided program. yesterday you invite armstrong williams. you have a race show. you have 50% people calling in from acorn hating on republicans. i have watched this show for 25 years and it has gone to the

dogs, steve. >> host: thank you for your call. lori on the republican line. >> caller: what i don't understand -- i know third grade students can figure this out. but everybody is talking about how obama did great. i mean common sense. a 10th of your brain would tell you no more jobs are being created. they say 100,000 a month but don't tell you how many have been lost. but when you let 200,000 mexicans coming in and obama is against the big corporations -- they do that so they can keep the wages low. the more jobs and less people to work will pay higher wages.

the average person -- it is sad if you listen to people call in. they always blame it on republicans and all of this b buttbut common sense. if you keep letting the illegals in -- they are driving now suvs, and getting all of the food stamps and i am a poor white man. but the average person -- i graduated, maybe most people didn't. put you would figure it out that if you ain't making put 200,000 jobs a month and not telling house education and workforce committee we are loosing because three plants in ashville are about to close now. i don't understand why they said

they need to let them in and work. the more you have of anything the cheaper it is. in other words they can pretty much pay what they want to pay. common sense. the less you got of anything the higher it is. more jobs than you do people the more they are willing to pay to get the people to work. i don't see why people are not catching that point. and people say obama is just helping the country out. no by letting them in he is not. >> host: from the new york times a situation from napa valley and next to that an al-qaeda affiliate letting go a syria victim and britain is close to identifying the suspect of the british beheading. they are close do identifying the young militant who beheaded

james foley on the video last vehicle from the islamic state. in the last hour we will turn our issue to this issue and as the president meets with the defense secretary what options are on the table? donald from tallahassee florida. how do you answer the question can the gop woo african-american voters? guest you steed a message steve, army you make a style to cap. you need a message. these people's message is let's blame obama for the earthquake. these people really believe they

are intelligent and people are stupid and they are smart. the answer is no. not in a million years. and steve, their message must be let's have compassion. steve these people would throw their own mother under the bus in order for them to live their social life. they want to be something they are not. and most importantly they only influence poor white folks who believe they talking to them. poor white folks already told you you too is in that boat. but yet instead you go along with them. >> host: donald, are you a regular and consistent voter in national elections?

>> caller: absolutely. >> host: have you voted republican? >> caller: never in my life and i never will because if you don't have a message why should i listen to you? these people messages -- listen to fox news and let's blame somebody. and they run off with we have a message. but the only thing they have is i am blaming obama. blaming obama for what? and they said the news told me to blame people and that is how they live. >> host: thank you for the call. inside the new york times another look inside ferguson, missouri as the funeral is held for michael brown today. there was an interview with rand paul in guatemala traveling down

there and here is a portion of senator paul's comment on the situation in ferguson. >> let's say none of this has to do with race. it might but. but the belief in ferguson is they see people in prison that are mostly black and white. there is a chance it had nothing to do with race but because of the arrest and the way people were arrested everyone is perceiving it has the police is out to get us. that is why you have to change the war on drugs. i am not making a judgment on the shootings. but i know what is happening when you look inside the prisons. >> host: all of the shows can be heard every sunday. back to the calls on the issue

can the gop woo african-american voters? on the republican line from redding, pennsylvania. >> caller: i am happy to talk to you again. it isn't the republicans, it isn't the democrats, it is the whole system and not working for one reason. we have the lobbyist doing a rotten job in this country. five people control this country. they will meet every month in texas. i am going to tell you what is going to happen here. the police department is chasing the black people for one reason. if you look at your prisons. they have 75% of black people and mexicans. every time the black man goes bye it benefits them.

that is where the problem is. sharpton and jesse jackson are not helping the situation. it isn't republicans that got rid of jobs. nafta is where it started with clinton. i have a job and you can tell me how much money i am going to give them i will go somewhere cheaper. i find this every day of my life. and i tell you one thing, steve, i am a warrior about this country, i am 70 years old. i have a wife who is very sick. but the young generation, i feel sorry for them today because it isn't going to be that way. americans are american. we should all get together and stop playing games. the whole idea is get rid of the

politicians. term limits. >> host: are you a lifelong republicans? >> caller: no, my wife worked for a government for 37 years and she fell down and she is diseased and i am suffering all of my life with her. she is a very smart cookie. and my daughter is a cop. but my daughter doesn't act that way. the whole idea is we have to change the styles of the country. blacks they have to like the whites and whites got to like blacks. if you fight between us -- what they did the other day was no good. they are making bets on themselves. the whole idea is we have laws. these prosecutors are the dangerous ones. they stick up with the police and don't give a damn about the

case. >> host: an image of disconnected obama fuels the mid-term worries. it says the president returns to washington an a two-week vacation that wasn't restful to productive from the ferguson to the israeli issue and to iraq issues and to the execution of james foley it has been a tough two weeks. carl from chicago on the democrats line. good morning. >> caller: i hate to say this but your question is somewhat ridiculo ridiculous. when the president took over, we had a country in the economic crisis and the gop said our main goal is to try to make sure we cannot get reelected.

not about the welfare of the country. they don't care about black voter, white voters or working voters. all of this stuff is just something to distract from the fact that gop knows their policies don't work. last time they had power for six years under bush their policy didn't work. if you look at the gop the last 10-20 years you will see they have not offered anything and just helped the people of the country. they have not put any bills up to help the people in the country. blacks and whites of any color. this thing -- can they woo the black vote? that is just non-sense. you had a caller from north carolina who is a republican --

gop is only concerned about money. and they just want power. >> host: there is this from one of our viewers. the gop has a messaging problem and let me follow-up because a lot of you questioned why we are asking this question and with all of the questions and topics we focus on the "washington journal" every morning for three hours the question is based on the debates being talked about across the country. this is from slate magazine my advise to the rnc, between the investments in minority engagements and visits to black colleges i have no doubt he is sincere about the outrage but if

you want to win don't suppress this. it is a discussion and hopefully the question is open ended enough to get a variety of responses. we appreciate your feedback if you like it. nate on the republican line. >> caller: interesting enough i am a republican county committee man from york county, pennsylvania. and we were successful at removing some of the establishment gop from the county committee. >> host: how are you doing that? >> caller: i am talking up a lot of the common sense efforts that were successfully executed by the democrats.

they have done a great job with outreach to the community. we don't have a governor -- well, we have a former senator but not governor that is president of the united states. we have a former community organize organizers. block by block and neighborhood by neighborhood and found old grievances and addressed those whether it was four-way stop signs or dealing with a crack house or more police presence. and they made this happen. and they attached mare brand to it. so what are the republicans do? they are lost. they have no connection whatsoover with the black folks. the republican party is out of touch and only interested in rich people. i have been called one of the

good republicans. i know i have a relationship with black folks and i don't see people as that different from one another but as a republican it has been a challenge getting more support from that community. >> host: do you think it will make a difference in 2016? >> caller: i don't know if theas enough time. we will have to impact the general assem why in our state, starting with the local level, and taking over count a committee seats and then take over the school board and local electrics and show people that we are concerned about the african-american people behind barzani, the poverty, the broken families, the drugs, the crimes, the disinfranchisindisinfranchi.

the republicans leading the party are impostors. >> host: in a story from "the new york times" this morning a profile of the 47-year-old president of nbc news and as for meet the press she said she worked to david gregory to take changes but we were not able to build a new vision in the end. ... a return to the are original format -- to the original format your code this from paul ryan, who is out with , calling for gop

unity. on the sunday morning programs as well, as well -- including "face the nation." [video clip] >> in seven southern states; alaba, florida, kentucky, maryland, south carolina, texas and west virginia. participants include former federal reserve vice chair alice rivlin along with the heritage foundation scholar and an editor from the online news site, box. you can see that on c-span. a little bit later, should scotland be an independent country? on september 18th, scotland will vote on an independence referendum, whether to end their

305-year-old political union with england. bbc scotland will host a debate later this afternoon. you can see that debate live beginning at 3:30 p.m. eastern also on c-span. and tomorrow is primary day in a number of states; arizona, florida, oklahoma and vermont. voters will go to the polls. you can follow c-span for results and speeches tomorrow night. yahoo! this week special prime time programming on the c-span networks. tonight on c-span, from glasgow, a debate over scottish independence. then on tuesday issues spotlight on irs targeting of conservative groups. wednesday night the principal of hartford connecticut's capital preparatory magnet school on educating children from disadvantaged backgrounds. thursday, a house budget committee hearing on federal, state and private anti-poverty programs. and friday night, native

american history. on c-span2 this week, booktv in prime time. tonight at 8:30 eastern a discussion about school choice. tuesday night at 8 writer john hope bryant on his book, "how the poor can save captain limp." and on wednesday, a biography of neil armstrong. and on friday at 8 p.m. eastern, "in depth" with former congressman ron paul. on american history tv on c-span3, tonight the reconstruction era and civil rights. on tuesday, the end of world war ii and the atomic bomb. wednesday night the 25th anniversary of the fall of the berlin wall. thursday a look at how americans' attitudes about world war i changed through the course of the war. and on friday, a nasa documentary about the 1969 apollo 11 moon landing. find our television schedule one week in advance at c-span.org,

and let us know what you think about the programs you're watching. call us at 202-626-3400. e-mail us at comments@c-span.org. join the c-span conversation. like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. here's a great read to add to your summer reading list, c-span's latest book, "sundays at eight." >> i always knew that there's a risk in the boehm january lifestyle -- bohemian lifestyle, and i decided to take it because whether it's an illusion or not -- i don't think it is -- it helped my concentration, it stopped me being bored, stopped other people being boring to some extent. it would keep me awake, it would make me want to prolong the conversation, to enhance the moment. if i was asked would i do it

again, um, the answer's probably, yes. i'd have quit earlier, possibly be, hoping to get away with the whole thing. easy for me to say, of course. not very nice for my children to hear. it sounds irresponsible. if i say, yeah, i'd do all that again to you. but truth is, it would be hypocritical for me to say, no, i'd never touch the stuff if i'd known because i did know. everyone knows. >> the soviet union and the soviet system in eastern europe contained the seeds of its own destruction. many of the problems we saw at the end begin at the very beginning. i spoke already about the attempt to control all institutions and control all parts of the economy and political life and social life. one of the problems is that when you do that, when you try to control everything, then you create opposition and potential dissidence everywhere. if you tell all artists they have to paint the same way and one artist says, no, i don't want to paint that way, i want to paint another way, you have just made him into a political

dissident. >> if you want to subsidize house anything this country and we want to talk about it and the populace agrees it's something we should subsidize, then put it on the balance sheet and make it clear and make it evident and make everybody aware of how much it's costing. but when you deliver it through these third party enterprises -- fannie mae and freddie mac -- when you deliver the subsidy through a public company with private shareholders and executives who can extract a lot of that subsidy for themselves, that is not a very good way of subsidizing home ownership. >> christopher hitchens, anne applebaum and gretchen more gainson are a few of the entertaining stories in "summeds at eight," -- sundays at eight, now available at your favorite bookseller. a look now at the role the justice department plays in securing civil rights from. today's edition of "washington journal," this is just under 40 minutes.

>> host: we want to welcome bill yeomans, he is a veteran of the justice department including in the civil rights division and now a professor of law at american university here in washington d.c. as we look at the investigation into the situation this ferguson, missouri. -- in ferguson, missouri, thanks very much for being with us. >> guest: it's my pleasure, steve. >> host: let me begin with the headline this morning, funeral services held today for 18-year-old michael brown. his father is pleading for a lull while his son is laid to rest saying this needs to be a day of silence. but, of course, behind the scenes a lot of questions and a lot of investigations including a federal probe. so let me given on that front -- begin on that front. what is the justice department's role in all of this? >> guest: okay. well, the justice department has authority to enforce civil rights laws that date back to reconstruction. the one that would be relevant in this case date cans back to re-- dates back to reconstruction. and what it prohibits is a

willful deprivation of federal rights. and the way that statute has been interpreted by courts, it requires the government to show that the officer acted with the specific intent to use more force than was reasonably necessary under the circumstance. now, that sets a fairly high bar. it means that a mistake, a misjudgment frequently isn't enough. the government actually has to show that the officer intended to inflict more force than was necessary. be so what's happening now, of course, is that the federal investigation has begun in pair rell with the state investigation. -- parallel with the state investigation. the fbi has interviewed witnesses. they are collecting documents, and eventually the government will decide whether it's appropriate to start a federal grand jury. and in the federal grand jury you can start introducing evidence, bringing in witnesses and building the evidence to see if there's a case there.

and then finally at some point it will make a decision as to whether or not it's accumulated sufficient evidence that it thinks it has a reasonable probability of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that officer wilson violated that high standard that i talked about. >> host: we're going to come back to that point, but we heard over the weekend from governor nixon of missouri who said as of now he supports the prosecutor looking into this case, the state prosecutor. >> guest: yeah, yeah. robert mcculloch who's the county prosecutor has vowed to stay on the case. there were calls for him to recuse himself. he had, he has some personal background in that his father was a police officer who was killed by an african-american man. and so there was some suggestion that he might be be biased in the case. he has insisted that he will do this fairly and thoroughly, and the governor supports him on that. so i think we're not going to

see him step aside, and i think that the test of his independence will be in the investigation that he conducts, and it shouldn't be judged by whether or not he indicts. it should be judged by what evidence he develops. and i think it's important for him to make the evidence public once he's collected it. >> host: you're a veteran of the justice department, explain the civil rights division. why was it created? what is its responsibility? >> guest: okay. it dates back to 1957, and in 1957 congress was finally able to pass the first civil rights statute of the modern era. it was not very, not very significant in many ways. it was significant primarily in that it was the first time that the democratic filibuster of civil rights statutes was broken. but one of the things that it did do was create the office of assistant attorney general for

civil rights. and that led to the creation of a civil rights division. but it wasn't until the 1960s that the civil rights division really started to get the authority that it needed to make a difference in american society. so in the 1960s, of course, we have passage of the iconic civil rights statutes of the 1964 civil rights act, the 1965 voting rights act, 1968 fair housing act which really dismantled the racial caste system that had been established by jim crow. dismantled it as a legal matter. and the civil rights division was tasked with enforcing those statutes. so those statutes create basic prohibitions against discrimination in employment, housing, voting, the fundamentals of american life. and, of course, they've been supplemented in subsequent years by statutes like the americans with disabilities act, the national voter registration act and others that the division

enforces. so the division consists of over 800 employees. there are something like 350 lawyers in the division now. and it appropriator operates nation wild -- it operates nationwide and works in conjunction with the u.s. attorneys' offices around the country to enforce those statutes. >> host: and if you want to file a complaint, what's the process? >> guest: contact the civil rights division. go to their web site, they'll tell you how to get in touch. >> host: i want to share with you from the san francisco chronicle, federal cases against individual police officers during the bush administration it was about 4.8 cases a month, and during the obama administration about 5.5 cases per month. again, this is from your former civil rights division. does that tell you anything? >> guest: it certainly suggests that the obama administration has been very vigorous in enforcing civil rights laws. i think that's accepted. attorney general holder has made the civil rights division a priority. and i think that's, it's been a very positive thing from my

perspective. it's difficult to measure success in these cases by actual outcomes. i think these cases are very difficult to make, but i suggest that the obama administration is working hard. >> host: from your perspective from over the last 20 years, from rodney king to trayvon martin now to michael brown, how has this issue evolved? >> guest: well, it's interesting. i think on the one hand it's tempting to say it hasn't evolved sufficiently because we keep having these incidents, and we obviously still keep having these deep divisions and underlying tensions. on the other hand, i do think a number of police departments have made serious efforts to reform their practices, and frequently those reforms have followed kind of eruption like

we're see anything ferguson now. so -- seeing in ferguson now. so one of the things we can hope will come out of ferguson is further improvement. and there are things, for instance, that the justice department can do in ferguson beyond the criminal investigation into the shooting. so it has the authority to pursue civil litigation if it can establish that the ferguson police department has engaged in a pattern or practice of violating people's rights. and that litigation can result in a, an agreement between ferguson and the federal government or a consent decree that's entered in court that will institute broad reforms in the way ferguson goes about its policing. i think there is probably also a good indication that someone should look at ferguson's hiring practices. ferguson has a nearly all-white police force policing a majority african-american community which suggests that at the very least it is not reaching out broadly

in its hiring practices and that there may be elements of discrimination built into the process somewhere. so the department has authority to conduct an employment discrimination investigation as well. so things like that can make a difference. on the broader picture, obviously to, this problem is not confined to ferguson. you know, as you suggest we have periodically seen these eruptions at different places around the country suggesting that these tensions and divisions remain a national problem. and again, one of the things i think we can hope will come out of ferguson is increased sensitivity to the relationship between police departments and the communities they police and for the need for the establishment of trust and communication and building institutions that maintain links

between the police and the commitment. and the community. and part of that, of course, as i was saying about ferguson is that police departments function best when they look more like the communities that they police. so that'll be an important element. >> host: we're talking about the federal investigation into the situation in ferguson, missouri. our guest is bill yeomans who is a veteran of the justice department. he served 24 years in the civil rights division including the former acting assistant attorney general for civil rights and the deputy attorney general. he is currently a professor of law at american university, he's studied at trinity college, harvard law school and boston university law school. let's get to your phone calls on this issue. from maryland, lenny is on the phone. good morning, welcome to the conversation. >> caller: yes, good morning. >> host: go ahead, please. >> caller: yes. i have some issues with the governor interjecting before he knew the facts and stating that there should be some kind of

justice, but he was -- he meant justice for mr. brown, but there's no one saying, well, how about justice for the police officer? i have some issues with that. i have some issues with the attorney general coming and interjecting his views. and last question -- well, actually, this question: why was there 40 fbi federal agents in this case? i don't see any cases where a black cop shoots a white kid. why is that? because that has occurred. >> guest: well, let me respond, first, to the importance of emphasizing that nobody should be jumping to conclusions about guilt or innocence at this point. the important thing now is to conduct a thorough, fair,

impartial investigation. and, excuse me, as the attorney general emphasized when he was in ferguson, it may take a while. but it's more important to do it thoroughly than to do it quickly. so i think everyone needs to have patience while both the state and the federal government conduct their investigations. as for the attorney general going to ferguson, i have to say i thought it was very appropriate. the community was very troubled. whether this was a crime or not, it was certainly a tragedy, and it was a tragedy that it was important for our national officials to address. and when the attorney general was in ferguson, again, he emphasized the importance of the fair and thorough investigation. i was not suggesting that there had to be a prosecution or that officer will soften was guilty. so -- wilson was guilty. so i think that it's important in this situation to distinguish between the fact that there was

a tragedy, but we don't know yet whether there was a crime. but we'll find out. should the president go to ferguson? >> guest: i don't -- well, you know, it's up to him, but i don't think at this point that it's necessary. i think that the attorney general's visit was extremely important, and i think it was very successful. i mean, we have seen that the community listened to his call for patience, i think, and ferguson has been a more peaceful place since he went there. >> host: another part in all of this, and this is a tweet that says: six shots equals excessive force. any questions? >> guest: yeah. well, until we know the actual circumstances in which the shots were fired -- and there is basic conflict about the underlying facts -- we don't know whether the amount of force was reasonable or not. six sounds like a lot of shots. but once a police officer fears for his life, thinks he is in jeopardy or others, the safety of others is in jeopardy, he's authorized to use force.

i mean, we cloak the police in this authority to protect us by using force. and the question in the investigation will be whether the amount of force that was used was the amount that was reasonably necessary under the circumstances. if it turns out that it was excessive, then that's a crime. if it turns out that officer wilson was in legitimate danger and fear and trying to protect himself, then it's not a crime. of. >> host: our guest also spent three years as the chief counsel for the senate judiciary committee. bob in texas, republican line for mr. yeomans. go ahead. >> caller: can you hear me? >> host: we sure can. go ahead, bob. >> caller: i would like to ask a couple of questions that have not been related in our area, because i talked to my brother in dallas, and he said that the local stations there came out with the fact that the kid got,

actually, beat the cop up in the car trying to get the gun, and the gun went off, and he took off running. and then i saw i think it was cnn where they said that there were two cops there. and i said, you know, maybe somebody would give us the correct information so it doesn't -- i mean, you don't go off spreading incorrect facts. and if we can't get the true knowledge of what's going on and also, you know, why there was local policemen stood there and let the looters vandalize the store and didn't protect the owners or their property. >> host: bob, thanks for the call. let me go back to his first point, conflicting reports into exactly what happened. >> guest: well, i think this common can straits how much we need a -- demonstrates how much we need a thorough

investigation. there seems to be a real conflict in statements from the people who were there. and we now have three autopsies that have been done on the body. and one of the things that does seem to have come off the the autopsies is that all of the shots hit michael brown from the front which contradicts one of the initial stories, that he was shot in the back while he was running away. but beyond that i think at this point we just, we just don't know, and i think people need to be patient. and it's going to be a difficult process because now that in the state system, this is in the grand jury and may soon be in a grand jury in the federal system, a kind of veil of secrecy comes down around the case. grand jury proceedings, by law, are secret. so we're not going to know what evidence is being presented to the grand jury unless someone who was testifying before the grand jury comes out and speaks. but everyone else who's involved in the grand jury is prohibited by law from talking about it. so i think, again, we need patience, we need an

investigation because there are conflicting stories. >> host: and to bob's second point about the looting that took place after the riots took place, the uprisings, the demonstrations. >> guest: well, you know, looting, looting is bad, despicable. nobody supports looting. i think, you know, the police response was tempered by the fact that the situation had gotten a little bit out of control. obviously, there was great criticism of the ferguson police department for its initial response where it showed up in real militarized force with heavy arms that seemed inappropriate for crowd control. but as for the looting, it is up to local officials to keep looting under control, and i hope they will do that. i hope there will be no more looting. >> host: another question from one of our viewers, if there were a criminal trial, could we expect the prosecution to strike all black potential jurors?

>> guest: i don't think that the prosecution would do that. [laughter] >> host: would the defense do that? >> guest: of course, it's not appropriate to act on the basis of race, so i would hope that that won't happen. it does seem the me, obviously, just speaking in realistic terms that the attitudes about the incident are, unfortunately, somewhat divided on the basis of race. and the prosecution is probably favored more heavily by african-americans, and the defense seems to have more support from whites. i would hope that those racial divisions would go away once we have an investigation and once the facts are clear. >> host: let's go to tommy next in charleston, west virginia, independent line. good morning. >> caller: hi. great guest. thanks very much. i'd like to ask what

hypothetically particular federal crime might officer wilson have committed? also if he's found not guilty of criminal conduct, does he have a right under federal civil rights laws to sue al sharpton and the others who have launched this lynch mob mentality against him? i'll listen off the air. thank you. >> guest: the crime that officer wilson could hypothetically be charged with is a violation of 18usc242 which is a statute that was passed after the civil war. and what it requires in this instance is for the government to show that officer wilson, when he shot michael brown, acted with the specific intent to use more force than was reasonably necessary under the

circumstances. that would amount to a deprivation of michael brown's constitutional right. it would be an unconstitutional seizure. that's a difficult standard to satisfy, and we'll see as the evidence develops whether it can be satisfied. as for suing al sharpton and i assume other protesters, we have in this country a very strong respect for freedom of speech, and suits against people for what they say are and should be rarely successful. >> host: if you're -- excuse me. i was going to say if you're interested in getting more information about the civil rights division at the department of justice, this is what a link to web site looks like. log on to doj.gov as we go to denise in antioch, california. good morning, denise. >> caller: good morning from

shaky antioch, california. [laughter] i would like to ask your guest, does he believe that that policeman is going to get away with murder as they have so many times in the past? and i'll take my answer off the air. thank you. >> guest: well, again, i think it's too early to say what the outcome of this will be. i do think, though, that it is important to take this occasion to look at incidents that have occurred in other parts of the country and to understand that this is not a problem that is confined to ferguson, that there are significant tensions in many places between police departments and minority communities. and so i hope that people will take this occasion to help illuminate those tensions and help us to figure out how to address them. >> host: you earlier mentioned the situation of predominantly

white police force in a predominantly black community. what is under title vii, the civil rights act? what does that state? >> guest: well, it's a prohibition on discrimination on the basis of race and gender as well in hiring. and so it applies to public hiring which includes police forces. and there are two standards under title vii. one is intentional racial discrimination, saying to someone, no, i'm not going to hire you because you're black or because you're white. but there is -- excuse me -- there's also a provision that was adopted by congress in 1991 that had been previously read into the law by the supreme court that says that hiring practices that produce a disparate racial impact are unlawful unless they can be justified by business necessity. so what that means is that in a place like ferguson b where there is -- ferguson where there is a clear racial disparity in a

work force, there can be investigation into whether or not there are certain parts of the hiring process that are producing that disparity. and if those parts are not sufficiently related to the job of being a police officer and are not required by business necessity, then they violate the law. >> host: bill yeomans, who spent many years in the civil rights division at the department of justice, is also former chief counsel to the senate judiciary committee. harry is joining us from pennsylvania. our line for republicans. welcome to the conversation, harry. >> caller: good morning. thank you for your description of the law and what's going to happen. my comment is all based on respect. i mean, if you think about this policeman who's up every day, goes to work, he doesn't know whether he's going to get spit on or whether he's even going to come home alive.

we're not teaching respect for the law on that fundamental level in our schools and especially in our society. when you're challenged by a policeman, you have every right to recourse if you think it was unjust. but today, from what i see -- and i'm an old man, i've been around a long time -- you don't do that. we challenge that policeman immediately. and it just leads to bigger and bigger things. and it's very disturbing when i see the divisiveness when we try these people on the media. i welcome your comments. >> guest: thank you. i, i agree with you that we should not try people in the media. i think, as i've tried to explain here, it's a dangerous thing, and it's not fair to anybody. i do, and i certainly agree with you that respect is important, and respect for police officers is important.

you know, we entrust them to protect us and to preserve the peace in our communities. on the other hand, we do give them enormous authority, and it is important to establish limits and to enforce those limits. and police officers are trained, they need to be trained in where those limits are. and the consequences can be so grave when they cross those limits that the limits do have to be clearly established. and i would also add in this regard that one of the things that we need to look at much more closely -- and some people have been looking at it, but this is an occasion to go further -- is the way that police forces deal with minority communities. so this has been a big issue around the country in our major metropolitan areas from new york to los angeles. and there are things that police

departments can do to build better relationships with minority communities and to avoid the kind of tragedy that we had in ferguson to have enough communication in the community and enough understanding that things don't escalate the way they periodically do and erupt into unfortunate circumstances. >> host: jim is a number, one of a number of tweeters who had center in this question: what is the point of this segment? we need to quit this until the facts come out. in fact, that's the very reason why we invited our guest, bill yeomans, to join us, to look at the federal investigation into all of this. did you want to respond to that sentiment? >> guest: i would hope i've made that point, that we need to be patient. there needs to be an investigation. but i do, i hope it's helpful for people to understand the process and what the investigation would have to establish in order for officer wilson to be prosecuted. >> host: and we appreciate you being with us. so let's go to joanne in san

diego. good morning, republican line. >> caller: good morning. mr. yeomans, are you familiar with these cases of prosecutorial misconduct about this justice department? i think it was a federal judgement in louisiana who kind of used bad tactics to accuse some police officers there like not giving the defense certain information and misleading juries and so forth? and it's not clear to me that any of these offending attorneys were fired from the justice department. what kind of oversight is there? i guess this is about the 20th time they've gone into local law enforcement. i don't know why they even think this officer was a racist or anything, and to send in 40 fbi agents to go around the community? i'd love to hear from law enforcement people this morning, because i think it's kind of insulting. i really don't know what to think about this. is there any oversight on

overzealous department of justice? >> guest: well, there is oversight. let me first make the point that just from a legal perspective race is not an element that has to be proven in this case. so just in case there's any confusion about that. i amgenly familiar with -- am generally familiar with the situation that you mentioned from new orleans. it's my understanding that all the people who are involved have left the u.s. attorney's office, not necessarily voluntarily. there is strong oversight of prosecutors in the department of justice through two separate bodies; one, the office of professional responsibility which investigates attorneys who are alleged to have behaved unethically, and they were very much involved in the new orleans situation, and the other is the inspector general's office which also investigates the conduct of

employees of the department of justice. >> host: next is tracy joining us from long beach, california. a lot of california viewers this morning. go ahead, tracy. [laughter] >> caller: hey, good morning. >> host: how are you today? >> caller: a couple of questions, the first being, you know, generally in these situations we're reactive as opposed to proactive. what policy or legislation that could be enacted on the federal level that will rein in some of these clear abuses from law enforcement? i mean, we're talking about ferguson, but, heck, scan the papers across the country, particularly out here in southern california, you know? mentally-challenged individuals being stopped and frisked on the street, it escalates into an, you know, an officer-involved shooting. and, again, unarmed. and this plays out over and over

again, and we go through this cycle, and get the, you know, justice department and people involved when policy, policy and real remedies that will, you know, impact these police forces. i mean, it's terrible. and my second question -- >> host: tracy, i'll come back to your second point, but let me go back to your first question, how would you change these policies? what's your solution? >> caller: my solution, well, one would be simple. racial profiling. >> host: okay. >> caller: that's a big one. let's stop it with that, you know? you leave people shaken and, hey, man, my day is ruined, okay? [laughter] that's if i get out of there without getting shot or whatever. >> host: okay. stay on the line. i'm going to follow up with you, i promise. let me go to bill yeomans. >> guest: okay. i agree completely. racial profiling is a serious problem. and there have been a variety of efforts to address it.

there have been many efforts in the department of justice to come up with policies on racial profiling that will apply to all federal law enforcement. congress has not acted. there have been various attempts to get legislation enacted. racial profiling is against the law, it's very hard to establish and to get a remedy for it, although it has been done. so i agree, racial profiling is something we should be looking for remedies to. >> host: let's go back to tracy for a follow-up. >> caller: yeah, and my second question, you know, and it sort of piggybacks on the previous segment about the gop inroads into african-american voters. gosh, and i hear some of these guys, african-americans calling not each open to the -- not even open to the idea of, you know,

sitting down and listening to gop legislators that may have policies that may address some of the issues that are plaguing our community. ask yourself under the obama administration how has that helped you? how has that -- the only, the only executive action being taken by that particular administration doesn't affect our community, you know what i mean? so that's what we have to ask ourself. and we can't just say, you know, we're going to go and vote democratic monolithic. it's stupid. i understand that the impetus for it, but it's cutting off your nose the spite your face, you know, so to speak, however to say it. >> guest: sure. >> caller: but we've got to evolve. that's an area where we have to evolve. >> host: tracy, thanks for the call. quick follow up? >> guest: i feel like i've slipped into the wrong segment. [laughter] >> guest: another segment we need to talk about the republican party and its role among african-americans. this is from one of our viewers,

when was the last time an officer was convicted under the civil rights act? >> guest: oh, it happens on a regular basis. the, i think the criminal section of the civil rights division convicts scores of officers every year. there is a distinction, though, between officers who use excessive force short of killing someone and shootings. shootings, convictions for shootings are much rarer simply because it's rare that an officer pulls out his gun when deadly force isn't justified. it does happen, obviously. but in the, you know, there are hundreds of police shootings every year, and a very small handful ever end up being successfully prosecuted. but beatings are -- by police officers of arrestees or people in custody -- are prosecuted

much more frequently, and they're slightly easier cases to make. the rodney king case is an example. many people are familiar with it. rodney king was driving while drunk, led police on a high-speed chase. he was stopped, the police got him out on the street, and king started off by resisting arrest. the officers beat him badly, and two of them were finally convicted in federal court because prosecutors were able to show that a few of the blows were inflicted while king was subdued. the rest of the beating couldn't be prosecuted, but a few of the blows were excessive. they went beyond the amount of force that was reasonably necessary to make sure that he was compliant. >> host: of course, he did receive a settlement. he's also since passed away separate from the beating that took place back in the 1990s. just a couple of minutes left

with our guest, bill yeomans. we welcome our radio audience heard coast to coast on xm channel 120. he's formerly with justice department as we look at the civil rights investigation into what happened in ferguson, missouri. carl is joining us from headsville, west virginia. good morning. >> caller: good morning. sir, i would like for you to look right in that camera and tell me why the people in the civil rights division of the justice department did not prosecute those black panthers in philadelphia for standing in front of a polling place with billy clubs threatening white people? and one more thing, why did eric holder turn this irs thing over to the civil rights department when he should have been in the criminal division? >> host: two points. >> guest: okay. the new black panther party

prosecutions, this was a situation in 2008 in philadelphia where two men dressed in sort of military, paramilitary garb stood outside a polling place in philadelphia, largely african-american precinct, and they were african-americans, and they purported to be from the new black panther party. police came, talked to them, one of them left, the other one stayed. the one who left had been carrying a baton. the bush add, very end of the administration, filed civil lawsuit. they decided not to -- there was, the criminal prosecution was declined. filed civil lawsuits against these guys and the leadership of the new black panther party. when the obama administration came in, lawyers who actually had worked in the bush administration as well, they were career people, decided

there wasn't sufficient evidence to proceed against all of the parties but did proceed against the one person who'd been out in front of the polling place holding the baton. and a judgment was entered against him. this has, it was -- no voter or would-be voter came forward to say that he or she was intimidated, and i think that the outcome was perfectly appropriate for the circumstances. >> host: oh -- >> guest: now, the irs -- >> host: yeah. >> guest: the reason that that investigation was assigned to the civil rights division -- i don't have any inside knowledge, i wasn't there -- but i imagine it's because the civil rights division does a lot of investigations for making false statements to government officials. it's a violation, and under a statute called 1001 to make a

false statement, and i believe that's probably what the focus of the investigation is. so it's natural to give it to the civil rights division, the criminal section of the civil rights division which is stocked with career prosecutors who know what they're doing. >> host: our last call is from eric in middletown, new york. good morning. >> caller: good morning, gentlemen. i was wondering if professor yeomans might be interested to go a little further on an earlier comment about how it's important to handle these type of cases thoroughly more so than it is to handle them quickly. >> guest: yeah. i think, obviously, there's great pressure to resolve this. the community was in turmoil, and we had civil unrest, and so people wanted a quick result. a quick result would be helpful if you could insure that it was an accurate result. it's much more important, though, because there are very important interests at stake here. i mean, certainly in fairness to

officer wilson and in fairness to the the brown family and the community it is important to get it right. it's important that we establish the facts. it's important that we talk to all of the witnesses. it's important that we study the forensic, collect and study the forensic evidence and be able to reconstruct the actual situation in order to determine whether there is any criminal liability. >> host: bill yeomans, a veteran of the justice department, former acting assistant attorney general for civil rights and also with the senate judiciary committee, now at the american university school of law. thanks very much for adding your perspective to this issue. we appreciate it. >> guest: it's been my pleasure. thank you. >> some live programming to tell you about today. join us later for a look at progress in implementing the affordable care act in seven southern states; alabama, florida, kentucky, maryland, south carolina, texas and west virginia. apartments include form -- participants include alice rivlin along with an editor from

the online news web site voxx. you can see that live starting at 1:30 eastern on our companion network, c-span. a little bit later, should scotland be an independent country? on september 18th scotland will vote whether to end their 305-year-old political union with england. join us later today when bbc scotland will host a debate between alex salmon and better together campaign leader alistair darling. you can see that debate live beginning at 3:30 p.m. eastern also on c-span. and tomorrow is primary day in a number of states -- arizona, florida, oklahoma and vermont -- where voters will go to the polls. you can follow c-span for results and speeches tomorrow night. >> this week, special prime time programming on the c-span networks. tonight on c-span, from glasgow a debate over scottish independence. then on tuesday, issues spotlight on irs targeting of

conservative groups. wednesday night the principal of hartford connecticut's capital preparatory magnet school on educating children from disadvantaged backgrounds. thursday a house bum committee hearing -- budget committee hearing on private anti-poverty programs. and friday night native american history. on c-span2 this week, booktv in prime time. tonight at 8:30 eastern a discussion about school choice. tuesday night at 8 writer john hope bryant on his book, "how the poor can save capitalism." and wednesday at 8 p.m., an interview with the author of a biography about neil armstrong. thursday night at 8, a tour of the headquarters of book publisher simon & schuster. and on friday at 8 p.m. eastern, "in depth" with former congressman ron paul. on american history tv on c-span3, tonight the reconstruction era and civil rights. finish -- on tuesday, the end of world war ii and the atomic bomb. wednesday night the 25th

anniversary of the fall of the berlin wall. thursday, a look at how americans' attitudes about world war i changed through the course of the war, and on friday a nasa documentary about the 1969 apollo 11 moon landing. find our television schedule one week in advance at c-span.org, and let us know what you think about the programs you're watching. call us at 202-626-3400. on twitter use the hashtag c123 or e-mail us at comments@c-span.org. join the c-span conversation. like us on facebook, follow usen on twitter. >> how do congressional candidates raise the millions of dollars needed to run for office every two years? we looked into modern political campaigning this morning on "washington journal." this is about an hour. >> host: if you decided you want to run for office, you often have to develop a message, conduct some polling, and if you're running in a congressional or statewide race or even mayor, you more often

than not have to develop some campaign advertising. but you can't do any of that until you raise money, and all this week here on c-span we'll be focusing on all aspects of campaigns, and is we want to begin with fund raising 101. we're joined here with jo -- joanna burgos and joeless stinggy, thank you very much for being with us. let me put this in perspective, and we'll talk about congressional races. if you wrap for office in -- ran for office in 1992. the winner spent on average about $600,000. a senate winner spent on average about $3.5 million. compare that to where we are 20 years later in the 2012 cycle. if you ran for the house and won on average, $1.6 million, and the average senate winner in excess of $10 million. joanna burgos, what does that tell you? >> things are getting more expensive, right? that's actually just part of the problem. i mean, that's just part of the issue. when you look at outside money,

the real price of a congressional race is actually it could be closer to $10 million, a senate race could be triple that. when you count, you know, the other candidate outside money, the party committees. so, i mean, tv time is expensive, that's where the majority of your budget goes. but also it's just competition. there's a lot more people trying to get more messages out there. >> host: joe, let me talk to you about the super pacs and outside monies because this is a whole new component as a result of citizens united. >> guest: yeah, it is, and it has just flooded the market with more people trying to get a message out, like joanna said, trying to win races, and it brings in groups that are interested in particular niche issues, perhaps, billionaires like climate change they want candidates talking about, and it floods the airwaves. as joanna can tell you, from a tv perspective that just drives the market value up which makes it more expensive for campaigns

as well. >> host: on average, what percent of the population contributes to a campaign? >> guest: very, very, very small percentage of the population will contribute to a campaign. in fact, when you look at the ratio to actual voter turnout where this year we expect it to be somewhere around maybe 50% in most areas, you're looking at maybe a fraction of that, 5% of actual people will contribute as little as $10 to a race. it's very, very, very small because there's typically party activists, family and friends, people who have a vested interest in investing in the campaign. so it's very small, and that's where a bulk of the money comes from. from these outside groups, though, they can come from anywhere. >> host: joanna, we have used this in the past, but it is a striking comparison. back in 1976 when we had federal matching funds, the first time that the fec was fully in place post-watergate, jimmy carter and gerald ford each accepted $20 million in federal dollars. fast forward to 2012 where barack obama and mitt romney

each raised in excess of a billion dollars. [laughter] >> guest: yeah, that is true. and, i mean, same is true in senate races and governors' races across the country. i mean, there are governors' races this year that will spend $100 million in one state, you know? it depends how big your state is, how many media markets are in your state, how many voters you have to get out to vote. but, you know, it just, it just depends on the size of your state, depends on how many people are interested in your race. for example, there are some environmentalists, outside groups that are interested in specific areas. if they come up, that means, you know, there has to be a republican group that comes in to counter that. there are some anti-gun billionaires that are out there also walletting to spend a lot of -- wanting to spend a lot of money, and they have unlimited funds. they have millions and millions, $50 million to spend on the election. that just means that creates competition and creates a demand

for someone to counter them and to come in with something close to that amount. so, i mean, i think races look -- we'll see races get more and more expensive. >> host: in case you're keeping track of all of this, we are 71 days until the midterm elections. all this week we're focusing on every aspect of a campaign, and one note as we move into the fall, we'll be your place for those congressional and gubernatorial debates that will be happening around the country. check out the schedule information on our web site at c-span.org. let me go back to the issue of outside money. how will 2014 be different from 2012? >> guest: it'll with, it'll only be different in that there'll be more people playing. in fact, as joanna was mention ing, the environmental groups are interested primarily along the keystone pipeline which is where you have a big governor's race in iowa and a big senate race down that corridor as well. these are all areas that are extremely volatile, and outside groups are going to come in, and they're going to spend a lot of

money. the building down the street from you guys here controls a lot of money and a lot of influence, and a lot of people are willing to pay top dollar to try to get influence in there. >> host: what about self-funded campaigns? back in 2009 michael bloomberg spent his own fortune, about $108 million, and meg whitman running for governor of california in her campaign she spent $140 million. she lost, michael bloomberg won. >> guest: yes. you see self-funded candidates at all levels. it helps. it helps to have that extra money. however, that does not mean that that candidate does not raise money most of the time. self-funding candidates still have to make calls to donors, still does sometimes, you know, mail fundraising or events, fundraising events. it helps to have a few million to help you out given how expensive races are nowadays. it might encourage some outside groups maybe to not come in knowing that you have the ability to compete with them.

but it does not mean that they don't fundraise separately from their own money. >> host: our topic, money in politics. the first of a weeklong series here on the "washington journal." our phone lines are open to. the number's on the bottom of the screen. frederick from indianapolis, good morning. >> caller: yes, good morning. i would just like to comment, and it rather surprises me how apathetic millennials are and single issues are the only thing that is driving the money raising, and it's a shame that republicans and democrats are just at war constantly. nothing will get done, and it's all about raising money, and the overused low information voter is just, he'll be subjected to, you know, the wisecracks and people like yourselves that have

to generate some sort of secret message to get them out to vote. and it's just money grubbing, and the system is totally broken, and we have to figure out some way to fix it. thank you. >> host: okay. fred reck, thanks for the call -- frederick, thanks for the call. let me turn this into a question, can voters still trump the power of money and influence? both of these points, how do you respond? >> guest: yeah. well, i mean, the fundraising is just part of it, right? that's to to pay for a lot of things that voters can then be a part of. so voters can still go and volunteer on a campaign. grassroots operation is a big part of the budge of the campaign. having hundreds or thousands and sometimes tens of thousands of volunteers is very important. so a voter can go and make calls, knock on doors, volunteer on a campaign for, you know, in a variety of different ways. that's important. i think it's important to also realize that candidate.facandidl

dollar increments. the voter is still a big part of the fundraising for a candidate. it is a big part in voluntary. what is on messaging? generale do some consulting and polling. we work for committees. we do every aspect of the campaign. we raise strategy.

we work with them on their polling to make sure that and then help them come up with the right message to do tv advertisements and digital campaigns. >> host: and joeless stinggy, graduate of the university of georgia, the chatterdam group is what? >> guest: we're a targeted communicationses firm. so unlike the tv guys who broadcast messages on broadcast mediums like tv and radio, we take messages directly to a targeted vote for a particular reason. whether it's through mail or online, our objective is to find specifically who a swing voter is and take a message to them that they want to talk about. it's a little different than the tv guys. we really delve into numbers, we delve into small communities and really try to find individuals that need persuasion. >> host: there's an interesting piece in "the new york times" just on how this microtargetting is taking place. if you are a dish satellite

network subscriber and based on what you're watching will determine the campaign ad that you see that night or the next day. how does that work? >> guest: this is fascinating technology, and this is all part of where tv, i think, is headed, because tv is starting to -- in our business, on our side, at least, are losing money to the internet guys because they can check individual voters. so tv wants to get into that game. your behavioral patterns on whau watch on tv will tailor ads. this is something that ford is interested in, coca-cola. they want to know if i can deliver a particular commercial to you but deliver a different one to your neighbor which is fascinating technology. it's all collected in the big data system in the world we live in now, and used to sort of make sure you see what you want to see or what they want you to -- >> host: so let me bring this back to money. if i am a candidate and i'm placing those ads on the dish network, is the price any different? >> guest: it's still expensive. and that doesn't mean you're not

going to continue to do your tv advertising that is targeted to your base or swing vote. you're going to do that. you just now also have the tonight to, in addition to that, target towards a more specific audience. so kind of the stuff we've been doing for decades in the mail, knowing exactly which household you're going to. we are now in the last couple of years have been doing online knowing who we're serving on a certain computer, and we'll be able to do it on television. >> host: we're getting a lot of tweets on this including this from a viewer saying campaign finance reform in eight words: no caps, full disclose jury and u.s -- disclosure and u.s. citizens only. agree? disagree? >> guest: well, first of all, u.s. citizens only, i think, is primarily the rule now anyway. ..me thing. overave to report anything $100, but you can take unlimited money. it makes the candidate more responsible. corporations can give.

super pac's can give. the candidate has to respond if there is an attack on one of those donors. host: gladys is on the line. caller: hello. i may be a little naïve. i want to know where all of these billions of dollars come from. i am trying to say this right. for mitt to vote wheny or president obama, they talk about ads or things on tv, i watch the local news. , the my information newspapers are all biased and hope fully your local news isn'

>> caller: then if you have somebody coming on meet the press and he is talking i am listening. >> host: how do you respond to that? >> guest: the candidates need money to hire the people talking on the local news. but that is important. i don't want people to think because candidates are encourageed to raise so much that other areas of the campaign suffer. because it is expensive it is a major part but it doesn't mean other parts are not growing. the communication team that would be talking to your local news station and giving the interview, those stats are growing with time, too. we are in a totally -- the media is totally different than it was

a few years ago between twitter and everything is digital. newspapers are not just on paper but they are online all of the time and need a story every few minutes. you will see the campaign staff growing and the numbers have grown so they can supply you with more information. >> host: later this week, we will focus on how campaigns deal with crisis management and polling. tomorrow we turn the attention to the development of the political message and campaign ads. david from alantown, pennsylvania. good morning. turn the volume down on your set and go ahead with your question. >> caller: hang on, please. how are you doing? i turned it down. i would like to comment on the campaigns and the ads and stuff and all of the money and i

realize they have to get their message out. my only problem is all of the negative and slam campaign tactics is ridiculous. it would be more respectable and informable in an elected official running would just put his ideas out and voters can cast a responsible ballot for the best candidate instead of the one with the most dirt thrown at them. and as far as president obama goes, he constantly is on the campaign fundraising trail. it seems like that is the main focus of his administration. that is all i have to say. thank you. >> host: thanks for the call, david. joanna burgos? >> guest: i am guilty of creating negative ads.

but at times they are important to explain to voters what someone's record is. i think what you will see more and more is people having a lot more positive ads in the races or ads that are negative and you don't find out they are negative until after you kind of look through the information and you say they actually attack their opponent there and i hardly noticed. so voters are becoming more cynic cynical and more pessimistic and they are noticing that. >> host: let me get your response on what then senator obama said when asked about money and politics. we will get that up in a moment. let's go do a tweet. money isn't speech.

it is property and should be regulated. >> guest: the supreme court does disagree with that. they believe money is speech. and unfortunately there are regulations on money let's be clear. certain contributions limits. and when you think about a congressional race that is $1 million a max is $2600. so it is a small part of that. but unfortunately airtime, cost money to buy airtime and papers for the fliers and they have been raising the price of campaigns. as technology has developed and give n us the ability to target individuals that need to be spoken to through campaigns the price went up and that is more resources they need to raise to make sure they are talking to voters. a campaign is about a contrast and two people running from a office because they want to represent you and they want to go to congress and make a

difference. they have to outline to you why they are different and a better choice than the other person and they have to advertise to you to do that. just like coca-cola does and others. >> host: from 2008. : >> once you have run for the united states senate you start getting a sense of the less attractive aspects of running particularly fundraising, dialing for dollars, asking strangers for money. that i think is probably the least attractive aspect of it and the one i would like to change the most. i have to spend quite a bit of time going to fundraisers and eating chicken dinners and some of that time i would rather be spending talking to workers or you know studying the latest

policy ideas that would make a difference in the lives of ordinary people. >> i know the ups and downs and what you have to do. i know about the long days. >> host: that is from 2008 and then senator obama. joe lestingi? >> guest: candidates do hate fundraising. here is what the breakdown is. there are a lot of chicken dinners, phone calls and die dialing dollars. a lot of donations are around $250 and they have concern hours they can make the calls and you have to spend $5,000 a week to be on one channel and they have

to have blood in the campaign, which is money, to fund these things. the president is right. anyone running for high level offices has spent days locked into room raising money. >> host: the top spending house candidates won in 93% of the race and the top spending senate candidate winning in about 87%. george is on the phone. >> caller: good morning. my issue is regardless of how much money you spend on any campaign it doesn't change the view you may have. it changes the exposure that people may get from hearing your message over and over again. now unfortunately if that is what a strategist may use to determine where the votes are

being moved in one direction or another by the exposure they get, i understand. but if you do your own research and you can almost go back to when some pof those folks say local leaders and moved up flew the ranks you will pretty much know where they stand on certain issues. >> host: do you want to respond? >> guest: i love a former georgian resident called in. but we have lives and families, food to put on the table, 9-5 jobs and going online to do the research is tough. it is hard. that is what the makes the political advertising world. there is a void in the market and that is where this comes in. most families in november have one day marked on the calendar and that is thanksgiving.

we have 50% turnout projection this year. we need engagement on this all levels. when obama spent billions we had the highest turnout in the nation. how they engage is up to them but it is the ability to draw contrast between romney and these are important distinctions that need to be made. >> host: $2.6 billion is the total for last election. and congressional races in 2012 $3.7 billion. patty from sterling, virginia is on the line. >> caller: calling as a former candidate twice in virginia.

>> host: in what office? >> caller: house of delegates. i have a personal view of what these people do and i don't want to disrespect them because they are trying to wake up voters, but i used to refer to it as the political industrial complex because the way that my media people dealt with me was just to try to drive the extreme, you know they want today do a mail piece on a certain issue and make it as inflamtory as possible and i said no. i had a very ultra conservative point and i wanted to make the case i was moderate, he was conservative and let's be clear on how we would vote. and points they made were most

voters don't pay attention so they have to be woken up. billions is raised so these people can try to wake them up but they have to wake them up with messages that are not c constructive to knowing the person and the positions. it is the responsibility of the american voter, which i found to be very disappointed, and i had to spend five hours a day calling strangers to ask for money and two hours a day knocking on doors getting to know my voters. if i was ever to run again, i would only accept money from people that could vote from me and i have been thinking about how to write a piece of legislation that would put that in front of the congress to get

them to vote on, you know, if you could only contribute to people that you voted for, things would be a lot more fair. i had massive amounts of outside money against people and people that could not vote for me were giving me money. it warps our democracy and keeps the people who should be responsible for the person that is up for election -- thugs be the ones influencing how that person's message gets communicated. not the koch brothers or planned parenthood. it puts us in a race where the middle class is sucked for money just to feel like they have a tiny bit of influence on what happens. give me $10 and your $10 versus

the koch brothers money is a shame. >> host: will you run for office? yes? no? maybe? i don't know. patty? >> caller: i work for the federal government so i cannot do anything right now because i am hatched. but, you know, it is definitely a massive deterant. most people don't answer anymore. you leave them a message, they don't wall back and you end up spending 90% of your time calling people that will not

call you back. >> guest: there is a lot of people that see this hard work but take the step and run so i want to congratulate her. house members don't get any time off. they finish an election and within 2-3 months they have to go back do an undisclosed place and start calling again. at the end of the day, people run to make a difference and change the policies of government and i think you try hard enough and if you have it in you and you can do it it is important once you get there and can make a difference. >> host: and the national journal said in an eight hour day members spend about four hours dialing for dollars. sarah from alan town florida,

welcome to the the conversation. >> caller: i am very disappointed with the democrats and i am registered as a democrat. i will not vote for anybody anymore. i live in a mobile home for retired people and everybody is not going to vote for no body because we worked for our living and government automatically deducted from our paycheck and we tried to be good citizens but we are dead, government forgot us. we have our medicare. they pay for us being sick. but why ask for our vote when they don't care for us. >> host: did you want to respond

joe lestingi? >> guest: yes, i am sorry you are disengaged and feel left out. this is why the is important for them to reach out to you and talk about your problems. in the end, patty went door to door talking to voters and that is the counter to money. there is money and time in a campaign and in the middle you can sandwich in what i call sweat equity. this is an example of where i hope democrats reach out to you and talk to you and see what your concerns are and talk about medicare and social security and issues facing seniors. unfortunately finding you and getting to you does cost money. we have to find you in a voter file. and we need to sort of crack

that shell and get voters to engage and that is one way to do it. i hope you will come around, talk to democratic officials and call local officials and candidates running and say i want to be engaged. >> host: joe lestingi with the chatter group and joanna burgos on message inc. ava is joining us from new york. good morning. >> caller: thank you for taking my call. good morning. from what i understand people say get information from the news and the last couple elections they have not had news in their that covers both parties exactly. i know that even when bush, jr.

was running they could told how many beers he had at college but when obama was running you never heard a thing negative about obama because news now is controlled. but like the woman that was on there running for office i know exactly what she is saying because when they call me up to donate toward the party platform i say i am not giving my money to anyone except if i know who is running. >> host: let's go to joanna burgos. >> guest: i come from a communications background and

started in republican politics being a press secretary and a lot of people say that is true. i think it trains us better and forces us to kind of tell reporters both sides of the story. i think it is important to watch the news. i think it is important to watch the least bias news, of course, and use both things and facts to shed your opinion. however there is a lot of people that watch the news and read the paper and are not persuaded and that is the undecided voter. and we use television, mail, digital and everything else to try to push that voter and hopefully the advertising, when it is tv or mail, gets them there. >> host: and we will dive into the strategies of those voters

later in the week. jim from sterling, virginia. >> caller: i would like to follow-up on the caller who said she ran for office. she made a comment i felt strongly about and the panelist didn't address it after she went off the air and that was the fact that individuals and organizations in say for example texas or california can spend large amounts of money to affect or influence and impact an election here in virginia. i understand if you are running for president that is an office that affects the entire country. but if those people can't vote in our elections because the people we are electing are

representing us why are they allowed to impact our officials who are going to be elected by contributing large amounts of money or using their funds to make advertisements either for or against a particular candidate when they cannot even vote for them. >> host: jim, let me take the other side of the argument and then we will get a response from joanna burgos. if you want to con tribitute a candidate you like in wisconsin shouldn't you have the right to do that? >> caller: shouldn't i have the right to vote then? if the elected representatives are supposed to recognize me and my views then i think those are the only individuals who should be able to contribute to them. >> host: not in the district, not in the state, you should not

be able to give to the candidate? >> caller: that is correct. >> guest: i know patty's district well. there is only about 70,000 people in the district and trying to get people to get donations only from that area would be very hard. i grew up in athens, georgia and as a democrat i had no representation from democrats so other democrats that shared may ideals helped me. i think they should be able to donate outside. my mother lives in ohio and if

she wanted to donate i should be able to take that. the guys coming in from the outside with big amounts of money see a state as a place they want to do business and want to make it friendly to whatever they do. so they are trying to elect people that share their ideas whether that is supporting unions or fair trade. they want to open a state to business and that is why the outside influences come in. >> host: tomorrow we look at ad making and voter targeting on wednesday. bob is joining us from tampa, florida. >> caller: good morning. i would like to ask two questions. one question is do both of these people depend on money from big organizations such as the koch

brothers for their livelihood? >> host: okay. stay on the line and we'll follow-up with your second point. joanna burgos? >> guest: i personal don't. a couple committees are my clients. >> host: joe lestingi? >> guest: there are several groups that do outside work with me. in a past we worked with planned parenthood so that could be an outside group. but in general no, most are people running from a office and paper and online ads cost money. >> host: bob, want to follow-up? >> caller: yes, i would-like to know since corporations are considered persons and i am a person can i have tax breaks of the corporations?

>> host: any of you respond? >> guest: in virginia if you donate you get to right it off on the taxes. i disagree with corporations being people but that is another call-in show. i hope more states adopt this engagement that if you c contribute that you receive a tax break. when you file taxes you can contribute to a campaign. i support states and hopefully the federal government giving a tax break to someone who wants to spread their voice. >> host: this is from clinton, new york and a number of e-mails we have received. carol says i don't think most voters realize how important their vote is.

they would vote if they knew their vote could be not one of 250 million but 6 million. it is the state by state total that determines the presidency and i would like to wonder why people think off year voting doesn't count. >> guest: in the last election we saw that a lot with a couple middle class citizens who were just unhappy with the country and the economy and therefore stayed out and didn't vote. campaigns notice that. they have been using some social pressure but also some language that is similar to that e-mail that says you know in your prestinct or district we lost this race and your vote is important to us.

using mail we are able to engage some of those voters who unfortunately, because of the economy and state of the country in the past elections, vnt haven't voted. >> host: and kathy says the obvious concern for americans should be who do the politicians literally represent? there is a quid pro quo for the money involved. >> guest: i think nazis -- i think that is a little on the far side of this. most are investing in the candidates because they their the beliefs. the voters got the candidate elected in the end and that is important for everyone on capital hill and capital hill in in individual states as well. the voters put them there. i am using that money to talk to

voters that i need to win because i want to make a difference is the message. my first boss in the business was called landslide jim because he won by one vote. he never took a vote for granted. he received donations from packs and organizations in the state of virginia. voters need to remember their vote is what puts the person there and that is why voting is so important because in the end that is all it matters. >> host: jim is who? >> caller: jim scott. he is retired. >> host: let's look at how much money has been spent in the house and senate campaign. 1992 cycle courtesy of the