i would sound hysterical and radical. it's funny even some of the most baby feminist writing i did 15 years ago isn't very good it's like the most mild pop feminism when i think about the comments i got back then a lot of them were rooted in. a woman who's mad because men don't like you. when i was writing pop commentary about paris hilton the response automatically puts your too angry for me to take you seriously even when i was covering it up with jokes. >> lobbying and campaign finance the issues for gq rollcall this morning to answer questions

about spending by outside groups in the 2,018th cycle. there's a lot of ways that outside interests and try to promote a candidate or influence andio election. start by explaining the difference between the terms we are going to be using, super packs, committees, even 501(c) organizations. >> we will start with super pacs. that is one that's gotten a lot of attention since they were created about eight years ago.. those are independent of any candidate, independent expenditure funds you can give any amount of moneyyo you want o super pacs. that's why they are called super. one of my mentors came up with the term super pacs so thank you for that term. like i said, if you are a wealthy individual you can get any amount you want to a pacs

running ads for or against specific candidates that you can't coordinate cummings were not supposed to coordinate for the candidate, so these are independent outside voices just trying to influence the outcome or inep some cases a policy iss. another type that's gotten a lot of attention this election cycle is the sort of corporate pacs. these are the political action committees. companies, the businesses, trade associations and the like. these are not necessarily thesi big money. i looked up atat the biggest spending business and corporate cycle with my little cheat she sheet. if you contrast that with what the super pacs are bringing innt

its $100 million. so the difference in the amount of money. >> the other group that we hear about. >> guest: tha >> guest: that is more the dark money. super pacs even though(c they gt lumped in with the dark money groups, super pacs have to disclose their donors where they are spending their money to the federal commission. so we have a bit of insight. the union pacs and business, they disclose where their money is going. the organizations are what we call the dark groups. 501(c) organizations are sort of welfare groups. they are focused on maybe less politics and policy in the debate the country. we don't know who the donors are. they don't have to disclose that

if they are often running ads and we see them from groups that are trying to influence the debate over judge kavanaugh nomination into the spending money on ads related to that. >> do you have questions about the outside money now would be a good time to call. kate ackley covers lobbying finance issues. if you are democrat, (202)748-8000, independent 202-748-8002. you've been talking a lot about disclosure. a good place to go on these issues is open secret.org. a lot of information about outside spending. one chart i want to show to explain how we are focused on them right nowr it is on the tye of spending in the 2,018th election.

some 2,127 super pacs have spent well over $268 million just so pardon the 2,018th election and that is compared to some of these groups. 48 million, 17 million further -- groups and party committees spent from $81 million so far. a lot of money there but short of the 268 million for the super pacs. is it safe to say this will be the most spending by any midterm election. if you want to pull up a slide by comparison what we are finding in terms of congressional races and outside spending towards the midterms seems to do the. previous point so we are on track from these

big-money groups aimed at influencing congressional elections. >> let's talk about the specific big-money groups because they don't necessarily explain who they are supporting war wheregr theil money is going. the top super pacs so far according to open secret is the congressional leadership having spent some $52 million so far this cycle. >> in the final month they have plenty of money to spend. they are back with republican candidates for the house. that'sid what they do. >> rj set up by the leadership, and who makes the decision? >> these are supposed to be independent of specific candidates.

it leads to a misunderstanding. people think that they are regular political action committees like corporate pacs. they are independent expenditure only funds, so these are operating independently and in the chart you had up a minute ago, you know showing how super pacs and other outside spending have eclipsed the parties are spending and certainly people can disagree and argue about what effect that has on the political debate and so forth, but the numbers wal are clear te are a dominant force in our national conversation. >> one of the senate majority pacs, some 42 million in independent expenditures so far this cycle. there was news this morning that they had about four. this was super pacs ece attack

ads that people and you see attack ads against josh holly challenging claire mccaskill for her seat in missouri. so this is a super pacs organized to try to elect senate democrats. >> i want to get through a few more that i have some calls joining as well. natalie in washington, d.c., go ahead. >> caller: good morning. citizens united is the worst thing that the united states supreme court has done to america. what we need to do in my opinion take the money out. about two other states tried to get him to stop putting in this

dark money and that is what is running this place. ultimately i would like to point out people look at mr. mcconnell. he's done nothing but bring problems keeping the united states guy and perso of person e supreme court of for almost a year. >> host: real trick to stay focused on the super pacs. stick around for "-open-quotes into the public will come up in about 20 minutes. on key efforts to bring more sunlight into the dark money spending. >> guest: the caller i think is reflecting what the polling shows the majority of americans sort of feel even in a bipartisan way you see republicans and democrats independent there is a sense of a backlash against big money.

useful that among the voters obviously we know president trump carried a message on the campaign trail of draining the swamp, criticizing money into politicspo so this is something that resonates to the voters across the political aisle so you see that obviously in our divided country way people want to see a policy response is too much money in politics or undue influence in politics it's sort of different. some republicans would like to see even fewer regulations they would like to see a taxpayer financed overall.

it'it's so to incentivize more taxpayer financing or to completely overhaul the system so that the taxpayerr financed system that i think we are a way off from those proposals being enacted. >> you mentioned at the maine republican house. some $26 million in spending from that group the house majority that's the same on the house side for democrat. $12 million in spending the cycle. women vote has spent 12 million on independent expenditures this cycle. >> guest: funding in support of democratic candidates i think

it is interesting because one of the things i've chronicled at gq and rollcall in this cycle not just running for congress as i knothey know you've documented pretty well, but also to in the funding campaigns we are seeing and using some of the open secret data about a year ago i wrote a story with this extreme rise in dublin in donating to federal campaigns. and i think that this is a largely on the liberal or democratic side that is fueled in opposition to the republican congress and certainly president trump. whatever the reason do you see th, you see thehuge number of wo run for office, but to give money to those who are running for office. >> host: maria in new jersey independent. >> caller: i am so grateful to have this topic. i have four questions.

my first how much is the dark money problem from the fact there's been no full audit of pentagon spending and also the stock act before eric cantor (-left-paren made sure that it wasn't going to be enforced that actually family and friends could benefit from inside knowledge. >> host: let's take those two questionske first because those are big questions we talked about before on the program. >> guest: as far as the dark money into pentagon spending, i am not sure that i completely understand of the questions. first it's the fact nothing has been done on the pentagon and would that help to clear up some of the concerns or questions or ats least add more sunlight to the issue. >> guest: certainly that would add more sunlight to the issue on the pentagon spending.

i don't know that that would necessarily shed light on dark money in the political spending. that is two separate issues. >> host: and then the stock act. >> guest: the stock act is so that lawmakers can't use the information that they've gained in their elective office in also. they can't use that for insider trading. if you are a member of congress had no that you are going to be bringing a bunch of corporate executives. it's maybe a courageous example -- an egregious example for the

member of congress or staff person. that is a great question and thisn. is something. i think right now we are left with a big question especially when we talk about these organizations. it is not permitted for the foreign nationals to donate money to the candidate.

it's something that remains mysterious to us and the more that this gets looked at whether it is in the special counsel investigation or other situations i think this remains a very puzzling and potentially troubling question. >> corporate spending also brings up a recent piece that you did. candidates this cycle saying they are not going to take corporate money are at an high.me >> guest: thi >> guest: this has been sort of a trend on the campaign tra trail. currently 127 people runningng r congress who have pledged not to

take corporate money and some have gone even further running for the senate seat in texas against senator ted cruz he said he'd take no kind of money so union pacs, corporate, trade associations be seven. he says he won't take that mon money. he isn't going to be swayed by corporate pacs and other types of pacs. so this has caught on among democrats and you see the people we've talked about as being potential contenders on the democratic side with 2020 presidential race.

some have made a ver it very ta, no corporate money and some said none of any kind. this is a way for democrats to speak to voters who are disillusioned with the role of moneyy in politics. it's not the most painful or difficult way to to take on the idea of money and politics because as we talked abou to ate top, corporate pacs are not big money. we are looking at northrop grumman's, $2.6 million. that is real money most of it is going to incumbents anyway some of the people to search hundreds taking this they would necessarily be in the pool for being recipients of this mystery and corporate tax. so it might not be the most painful sort of way to talk

about money and politics. >> $268 million in money spent by super pacs so far this cycle s the numbebut the number is $n raised by super pacs so for this cycle. again, that is some 2100 super pacs information from open secrets.org. is it your expectation we will see all $792 million of that spent over the next 35 days? >> guest: it's hard to believe there could be more political ads running but yes, there will be more political ads in the coming week. so yes i think you will see th that. you are going to get tired of the super pacs ads and politics. one thing that has unleashed in the campaign-finance system.

taking a pledge of some kind of seemthat seems to unleash a reay large amount of grassroots contributions, people who might be giving $25, $50 from a couple hundred dollars over couple of years. by taking this pledge of some

kind. >> caller:. they have internet ad run on tv shows for free. every other super pacs is a republican super pacs and then a democratic super pacs.

at this point in the cycle it's still fairly equitable. is that what you're finding in the charge? postcards by the recipients party you can see the different pieces of the pie about 16% of the spending about $85 million against republicans, $39 million, four of them specifically, $43 million. the cycle wasn't done yet. >> host: coincidence talking about the dark money when just

last month on the local pbs station the heavy documentary about the effect it's having a speed to it's just a coincidence that people not being mechanical for people who do want to take a stand for issues in their community. >> host: that's what they've been doing now for a long time. >> guest: if it's money that

isn't disclosed you rely on other news reports and so there isn't a sort of disclosure you have to rely on people for what's happening. i didn't see it last night i watchebut iwatched it early thie did a podcast he had the filmmaker on to discuss that but it affected something that voters want to know more about. >> caller: i want to put a littlele perspective to go backa

little bit. it's to get togethercr and evaluate a gift makes a joke out of it to the tragedy in this country. the propaganda has taken over there as ten or 20 years ago i would put a yard sign in my yard now i am afraid to because of the hostility on both sides.

i will make one point and then i will shut up. this thing with the irs for political action committees to t try to pass themselves off as charities and according to the law it's the job of those people to determine otherwise he would have churches popping up everywhere. i've heard it on various programs it is a minor point they sweep it under the rug. they should have been given medals not criticized. they didn't have anything to do with freedom of speech.

you are not free to have a tax-exempt status claim. >> guest: there's a lot of things to unpack. the irs did look at trying to update the rule for the nonprofits and u political work that they do it's very controversial on both sides of the aisle. there's been a lot of debate this year that the johnson amendment that prohibits them from basically coming out for or against a candidate that's something ii also continue. >> host: wanted to ask you whether other super pacs that caught your eye? >> guest: i'm glad you asked. the last caller was a veteran

said he might find this interesting one of the few that is basically nonpartisan or bipartisan is the owner fund. they give to bot get to both red democrats again very unique for a super pacs that supports candidates that have served in the military. there are some that are trying to get out of the partisan gridlock and take it from a totally different perspective but obviously the partisanship. >> host: spending to the tune of $6 million did you want to talk about one other one that caught your eye? >> guest: we don't necessarily understand what they are that

primarily supports the candidates i think it had a little bit. you can't know much about the groups just from the name then if you look at those that are on top so far this cycle again not as much as super pacs that to the candidates and party committees to

the party that should control is the democrats because it is obvious that we need some checks and balances. that would definitely bring checks and balances to the process which is much needed. i would like to see the republicans regained control of congress in both chambers after

this because as a supporter of donald trump i think the republican party is going to do a better job of advancing his agenda at the party is going to obstruct him. >> i'm tired of people telling me what i need to do. we need people in different positions in congress, the president come in the senate, state and federal. >> i think that it would be bad for the country. to fall below that threshold

there is no impeachment at all the proceedings going on for many months. part of the 50 capitals to her it's his intention to have a full senate vote on the supreme court nomination of brett kavanaugh. additional roads have been delayed by the ongoing

investigation into allegations of sexual assault that date back more than 30 years. all that occurs in several lawmakers continue to speak about the nomination. next we will look at what some had to say on the senate floor. >> if you stop and listen you can hear the democrats trying to move the goalpost on the nomination to the supreme court. remember before he was even named, several democrats on the committee indicated that they had opposed to matter might turn out to be the senator from california for example explained on television that whomever president trump chose to bring about the destruction of the constitution of the united states as far as i ar