the hard work of citizenship to win full equality an shape our own destiny. that is the story that this house tells. this is now a national monument that young people will be inspired by for years to come. it would not happened without the efforts of the people in this room and the active support of this house and the outstanding example that they're setting. that you are setting. i'm very proud of you. congratulations. thank you very much, everybody. [ applause ] ♪ ♪

♪ ♪

the campaign 2016 bus continues its travels to visit winners from this year's student cam competition. our bus recently visited spanish springs high school to recognize jessica best for her documentary on the wild horse population in the united states titled wild horse management. the bus and crew headed to california then to meet with winners in that state including a visit to correia middle school

in san diego where congressman peters took part recognizing students tris ten, stella and jackie for their winning documentaries and congresswoman chu joined friends, family and classmates to recognize andy, hakeil and shannon on their documentary. special thanks to charter, comcast, cox and time warner cable for helping to coordinate these community visits. remember every weekday this month on c-span, watch one of the top 21 inning tren is before "washington journal." next, a conversation on the role of money in politics. from this morning's "washington journal," this is 55 minutes. >> in a tuesday roundtable on we're talking about money and politics, the impact of the

citizens united supreme court decision. meredith mcgehee is policy director at the campaign legal center. christian berg is former deputy general counsel at citizens united. christian berg, we'll begin with you with a bit of a history lesson. remind us what citizens united was about and what changed as a result of citizens united. >> sure. thank you for having me. citizens united a lot of people lose the fact this was a small nonprofit corporation trying to make a movie about hillary clinton. they really wanted the make their film, produce the film and run television ads about it but when they looked at the federal election campaign finance laws they realized there's civil and criminal penalties if they were to run television ads saying come watch our movie so they went to court really to just promote a film. they went to court for basic first amendment rights and that's lost in the debate. a lot of people say, oh, citizens united was about corporations. it's about corporations being people. that's really not why citizens united went to court.

they just wanted the show their movie. >> meredith mcgehee, take us to 2016. impacts of that case that you're seeing today in 2016. >> well, what we're seeing in 2016 is the impact of not only citizens united but also speech now and another case at the appellate level. what we have is secret money, no shareholder protection and we have single candidate superpacs. none of those were supposedly talked about in citizens united but are the results that we have. so we have a decision that was wrongly decided in the sense that it created the court went beyond and created a right for corporate free speech, if you will, in elections. but we are not given getting what the court promised. we are getting none of the disclosure that the court voted for 8-1. we do not have the ability of shareholders to know what is being spent by the corporations they have shares in and we have single candidate superpacs

coordinating closely only in the legal definition are they somehow independent so we really have a wild west of money and we, of course, then have the dark money groups. it's hard to lay that necessarily totally at the feet of citizens united. i think that the internal revenue service has to claim a lot of credit for these groups that could have foreign money in them. we have no idea really what the source of the money is and they're spending significant amounts to influence the outcome of the 2016 elections. i want to make clear. we are not only talking about the presidential level. but also, the congression al and state levels. >> the billions of dollars raised so far in the campaign cycle, the presidential cycle and not the senate elections or the house elections. christian berg back to you, that wild west term, do you think that that's accurate description? >> i don't think so.

when you look at superpacs, what people talk about, that's transparent. we know where the $100 million raised to support jeb bush came from. we can see that in the fec reports. certainly across the spectrum, i think there has been this worries that corporations are going to buy elections. it hasn't come to fruition and when we look at the cycle we are just not seeing it happen. >> can i just -- i want to jump in because the notion that the money is transparent disclosed is just not true. what we have is some disclosure at the federal election commission of where the superpac money is coming from but if one of those donors to the superpac is a group called, let's say, american who is love america, we have no idea where that money is from. so it is very limited and very inefficient and probably, you know, we don't even know where this money for the superpacs is coming from. we have llcs that made contributions. we don't know who's behind the llc.

the notion there's disclosure for superpacs is a bit of a misleading understanding. >> christian berg, not the first ruling on money and politics. what is the legal precedent this case is built on? blaming citizens united for a lot of things, there was legal press department before that. >> well, sure. i think you have decades of legal precedent that made clear that money is speech. we go back to buckley in the '70s. >> what was that about? what was that case about? >> i mean, really, this was about whether or not in part whether you could curtail how much an individual candidate could spend on their own race and you couldn't limit that. you just couldn't. money is speech. money is a proxy for speech. >> well, i actually think that this notion that money is speech, not exactly what buckley said. i mean, there were a number of issues at play in buckley, everything from expenditure limits, contribution limits, limits on independent expenditures, limits on what

candidates can spend themselves so these were all in the package and the court in that case did not say money is speech but said it had very serious implications for the first amendment. i actually think that justice stevens in the nixon case got it much more on point and he said money is not speech. money is property. now, obviously, he has not won the day with this court that has had 5-4 rulings empty last several years but there's a very interesting notion here about how you apply the first amendment to the notion that money is speech versus how you apply those protections and the restrictions if money is viewed at property. >> let me promote the lines to get callers to call in. if you want to join in the conversation, phone lines are open. republicans, 202-748-8001. democrats, 202-748-8000. independents, 202-748-8002.

to that point, buckley v. valeo 1976. citizens united 2010. for those who want to limit spending, what are the wins that they have had? are there wins that you hang your hat on on the supreme court level? >> i want to argue a little bit with your premise. i don't want to limit spending. to me that's not the point here. okay? i think the point is you have a system in which average people have very little ability to have any kind of impact on the races that are occurring. i want more speech. i want more speech by more people. i want more participation. we have a system now and raised in mcculturen but the dissenter saying that we have a system, particularly after mccutchen got rid of the aggregate contribution level and you have

a system now in which justice breyer put it, you drown out the rest of the voices. this is a question about amplification. we all want a system in which every american not only can but wants to participate. we don't have that right now. >> christian berg, are people being drowned snout. >> i don't think so. i certainly don't think mccutchen led to that. of $2,700 given to a candidate is not corrupting, give it to as many as you thought. that's all the courts did there. really i think post-citizens united, people have more speech. they have more opportunities to speak. they can join together with their friends, with their peers, with people with similar situations, similar interests, raise money together and speak with one voice so they have more of a mega phone now than before. >> christian berg is a former deputy general counsel at citizens united. what do you do now? >> now, i run my own legal

practice of pacs, super pacs. >> meredith mcgehee pollty director at the campaign legal center. phone lines are open. we eat get to the phone calls. robert in harrison, arkansas. a democrat. robert, good morning. >> caller: good morning. i think this is a timely topic. i understood a nonprofit was specifically for welfare purposes only. and as we have seen it go, now we have two major players. wefr got organized labor and the chamber of commerce and through these they take partisan stands and the first thing i would suggest is nonprofits lose their status if they are not for social welfare purposes only. my father's a p.o.w. in germany and the red cross was there. they weren't picking politics. so the man that is there that is legal counsel for these pacs, you're there for profit. you're making a living like --

you're a business. that needs to be taken care of. and then a corporation between an individual -- once -- they should be limited just like any other individual if it's $2,500 like it is here in arkansas, then that corporation itself could only speak i think it's outrageous to think that someone would even consider it being a person. it's an accounting principle. to protect the assets of those people there making money. so those people should be recognized and they should only be able to give the amount of money that is allowed like here in arkansas. i appreciate your time. >> christian berg, i'll let you start on the role of -- >> definitely. i think one thing to bear in mind, there are two forms of corporation when we talk about nonprofits. we've got 501-3-cs, charities. a special status in the tax law. if they engage in political

spending, they lose that status, the charitable deduction of the contributions. then we have social welfare groups. these groups exist to engage in public policy ideas, debates, framing issues, framing ideas, advocating positions. there i think it's incumbent on them to use every tool available in the tool box even if that's political speech. >> we'll throw up definitions for the viewers if they want to see it, as well. but if you want to jump in. >> yeah. i think it's very important here to talk about these 501-3-kr-4s in particular. it defines the supposed nonprofits. c-3s. c-4s. c-5s. c-6s. right? this is the world of these nonprofits. if you look at the law, the law says that if you are a social welfare organization, you're supposed to be organizing exclusively for the purpose of promoting social welfare.

the internal revenue service interpreted that to say you can do a little bit of political activity but you should really significantly be doing social welfare. in prak callty we have a practice in which an organization can spend up to 50% of their money on political activity and still be considered a social welfare organization. how that is exclusively is beyond reason. and yet, we are stuck in this world and the irs has not moved on it. we have had hearings up on the hill where this issue's been raised. and this question really is an essential part of how can you have a law that says exclusively and yet allow a social welfare organization that does not disclose the donors to the public? >> where did that interpretation come from? from the fec? supreme court? >> this is from the irs. >> irs, okay. >> it's not changed, actually, since the 1950s. >> primary purpose test.

>> so this is one of these situations where there's so much that could be done without even having to change the law by, you know, whether you go to the irs and they look at this question about what constitutes exclusivity for the purpose of social welfare, whether you go to the securities and exchange commission and say, what should shareholders be able to know about the political spending of their corporation which, by the way, the citizens united case promised was going to happen. whether it's the federal communications commission where you get to know who's running the ads, when's the true sponsor of the ads. or whether you go to the federal election commission and they actually define questions like what constitutes coordination. these are all things that could be done right now. don't require any constitutional amendments and don't even require congress to act. >> a lot of places to go to try to understand how an election works and money in elections. let's go to john in tampa, florida. an independent.

john, good morning. >> caller: yes. i'm appalled how the way the media has a blackout on equating the graft of big money in political campaigns to freedom of speech. how can he be qualified adds a supreme court justice when he can't even equate that the simple concepts? i mean, citizens united, like so many other supreme court rulings, have been disastrous for this country. please answer this question. >> christian berg, do you want to talk about merrick garland? >> sure. we have a tiered system in the judiciary. the supreme court is the law of the land. the district court from the district of columbia's bound to abide by what the supreme court has handed down. i really think judge garland and deciding any cases in that court is bound by supreme court precedent. that's his job. >> i think it's -- you know, the question was there in the speech now case and he did confirm and

the way that the court looked at that was to say, well, this is what the supreme court has said. you know. >> this was post-2010. >> yes. >> the speech now case. >> so i think it's -- we don't really know where he would come out on this if given the opportunity to revisit. that's not really the role of the appellate court at the district of columbia to challenge what the supreme court has said. so it's not necessarily reflection of how he would rule but i don't know if we're going do get an opportunity to find that out. >> maybe -- chuck grassley is talking about it. >> right now. >> maybe they're not talking about it. we'll see and look at the headlines tomorrow. darlene in st. paul, minnesota, republican. darlene, good morning. >> caller: good morning. i would like to ask both of your guests to comment on this. the unions have been doing this for decades. the unions have been contributing hundreds of millions of dollars every

election cycle. when's the difference? as far as i'm concerned, i mean, i'm not -- i prefer to be no money. you know, in politics and so but i think the citizens united decision is just leveling the playing field. so i'd like to hear from both of your guests on that. thank you. >> christian berg to start. >> i agree completely, darlene. we have certainly seen unions have outsized political influence for decades. citizens united in a play leveled the playing field but in a way said everyone has the ability to speak. corporations, individuals, labor unions. it gives everybody that voice, everybody that space in the public debate. >> well, i think it's important to remember that when the 1976 law was devised originally, this notion of treating unions and corporations the same was a political compromise. it wasn't necessarily a realization that they were actually the same types of

organizations. we have seen a huge decrease in union membership and so i think you would find that the sway of unions in politics and certainly with the union membership decreasing, they don't have as much say i would say as they did 20 or 30 years ago. there's speculation, obviously, that the citizens united decision applies to the treasury funds of unions, just as it does apply to the treasury funds of corporations. therefore, they can have the same right to make these so-called independent expenditures. you know, to me the issue here is not so much whether or not you think they should be treated as the same, similar types of entities or if they should be treated differently which is what the union members and the unions claim. they say that they're nothing like a corporation. that's a whole different discussion that you have with the unions who have not been happy with some of the legislation that's come before them. >> meredith mcgehee has been on our show several times.

for those not familiar with the group, talk about the campaign legal center. >> it's a nonpartisan, nonprofit working on issues of democracy. we work on money in politics issues. voting rights. redistricting reform. and we really try and take a look at those issues from a very nonpartisan way. our president is trevor potter. some of your viewers may know him from his appearances on the colbert report. he was john mccain's general counsel and a republican member of the federal election commission. our executive director i would note is a democrat who's done a lot of electionary law for democrats. i've done nonpartisan lobbying for 30 years. >> and meredith mcgehee and christian berg with us for about the next 35 minutes or so taking your calls and questions. charles is in cincinnati, ohio, a democrat. charles, good morning. >> caller: good morning. i just had a question for you.

okay. hillary has taken money from the fracking business. right? i just wanted to know, doesn't that have more of an influence to beat the other component out? can you all answer that question for me, please? >> say the question again, charles. charles hung up. anyone catch that? >> i think charles' point is hillary's taken money from special interest and as we have heard about citizens united and the impact on the cycle, look at bernie sanders when's won eight of the last nine contests against hillary clinton. while disavowing citizens united, disavowing superpacs and shown the ability of small donors to have an impact. >> hillary clinton and bernie sanders. open secrets website. hillary clinton has raised $159.9 million for her individual campaign committee. superpac supporting her, raised

$62.6 million. bernie sanders has raised $139.8 million for his individual campaign committee. superpacs supporting him about $46,000 total raised this cycle. >> i think it's somewhat ill frustrative of the issue azumi friend here talks about hillary clinton being the recipient of superpac funds. i mean, i don't want to nitpick your words but supposedly those superpac funds are supposed to be wholly, totally independent of the candidate and shows you how ridiculous the system is. everybody knows when's going on. the wink and the nod. makes this notion that the citizens united case talked about where you're going to have these supposedly independent expenditures is a farce and everybody knows it's a farce and i think he sees it as a farce. >> i don't see it as a farce. . it's the benefit of the spending. >> but you are saying she's the recipient. >> what's the line of what you cannot do with superpacs if

you're a candidate legally? >> you can't directly koord in it. >> what does that mean? >> the superpac can't speak with the candidate about how to spend this money and can't have a discussions with the candidate or his representatives. what they can do is do the same thing anybody does. open up the newspaper, read the tea leaves from public statements and try to infer how they could best spend their money in support of a candidate or candidacy. >> if you're the candidate's brother-in-law, mother, former staffer, i mean, you don't have to have a lot of tea leaves to be able to read those. >> how do you prove coordination? prove that they did something illegal under the current laws? >> it's next to impossible. this means someone is in the room and said they had a conversation. every once in a while that happens. but even if you did, more importantly, even if you found proof that there was a conversation, we have a federal election commission that is so deadlocked there would be no enforcement so everyone feels totally free to go ahead and

figure out where these blurry lines are and not worry about it. they go and talk to lawyers like christopher to say we know what the rules are. there's no rules for all intents and purposes particularly because so many of the superpacs are run by operatives very close and have worked with these candidates for so long. they don't need to have that conversation. >> well, obviously, superpacs are going to be run by people supportive of candidates. there's to question about that. people most supportive may have a history over time of supporting a candidate or being familiar with the candidate, their positions, their ideas so it's no surprise to me that people who have long been in the orbit of a candidate would go set up an independent organization to support and advance that candidate. >> let's go to ira in west palm beach, florida, an independent. ira, good morning. >> reporter: good morning. my comment is, you know, with the funding impacting the

presidency candidacy race at this time, it has been forever, you know, and with the 501-3-cs and the 501-4s, the money factor that is are holding the nonprofits and the corporations together today. but, you know, with the new seeds of funding like the 88 and the corporate packages that they have available those type of funding options allow a different schedule of funding to the candidacy's parties but at the end of the day, you know, the other thing that's going to matter is electoral vote. >> all right. that's ira in florida. let's go to j.r. in woodlawn, tennessee. a republican. j.r. good morning. >> caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call.

something that i found kind of of astonishing when you showed your chart of how much each candidate had raised so far, i counted very interesting to notice that the democrats were raising twice if not triple the money of what republicans are raising but when i hear people talk about this issue the main people that i hear hollering are democrats. and it's almost like they're talking out of both sides of their mouth by saying, oh, we shouldn't have all of these evil pacs and, you know, people giving money, but yet, we don't hear them talking about their own candidates. other than, granted, you know, bernie sanders has, you know, been talking some about this.

but even he has raised $150,000. >> j.r. to show you a different chart and let the guests answer -- talk to your point. the original chart of the candidates in the race, here's a chart with the -- that same number that over $1 billion between individual committees and pacs supporting the candidates, of those those in the race and there's more republicans there on that chart. you can go through all the numbers at open secrets.org. that's the full numbers of the candidates who have run and the other democrats who have run, as well. but on the political divide here over this issue. >> well, i think your caller doesn't quite have a complete view because there are a lot of people that are in the tea party that are very upset with how the system is working. i think it's one of the reasons that you see the move behind donald trump. there's a new organization that's working on the issue from a conservative point of view and it's called take back our republic.

it's run by a guy who was david brad's campaign manager. david brad is the representative who beat eric cantor. if you talk to mr. richard painter, he is george w. bush's ethics counsel. he's written a very interesting book. "taxation only with representati representation" and he looks at the current system of the way the campaigns is financed is bad for the national security. it's bad for business because it encourages crony capitalism. it's bad for having a competitive race and holding incumbent members accountable. these are not from, you know, democrats. these are not from if you will rinos. whatever. these are from some conservative republicans who think the system is out of whack. >> christian berg, is campaign finance a partisan issue? >> i'm not sure it's a partisan issue. i think there are two positions.

one the pro-regulation. one is deregulation. i think it's philosophical issue more so than partisan. >> i'm not pro-regulation. i'm pro-participation. i think what we need is a system that enables more americans to feel like they have a voice. >> it's a difference on what that participation means? >> right. >> and what are the incentives? we don't have any incentives right now. >> let's go to illinois, line for democrats where old is calling in. harold, good morning. >> caller: good morning. thank you, c-span. i have heard a lot of good ideas this. term limits, gerrymandering, all that. let's get down to the facts of the issue. donald trump came out and said what all republicans think but usually keep under their hat, that he actually bribed officials, gave to their campaigns, hoping to get something in return. in the old days that was called bribing a public official and

you went to jail for that. that has went away. lobbyi lobbyists, you used to gather signatures and you found enough signatures in your district an your person would address that issue. now it's if i can give you a bunch of money then you'll vote my way. i think that it's just a matter of the people getting back the power of sending the people to jail if you bribe a public official then you ought to go to jail. if the public official takes the money, he ought to go to jail. a couple of people go to jail, that will end all of this. i think that the way that this is set up right now they're not going to do nothing about it until the people stand up and i'm voting for bernie sanders and i hope he makes it and the only way bernie sanders thing is going to work is after you elect bernie sanders, you need to get rid of congress and start all over. thank you. >> harold in illinois.

christian berg, start with you. >> sure. >> legal definitions again. quid pro quo. under campaign finance, under campaign contributions, what does it take to be convicted of a -- >> if someone's actually buying you off, if there is a direct payment for service. >> how do you prove that? >> influence. i think like meredith said, you need someone in the room, you need someone to testify under oath testifying to this. >> meredith mcgehee, has anyone been sanctioned under this idea of quid pro quo? >> this is a very difficult prosecution for the public prosecutors. you do have some representatives like duke cunningham who's brilliant enough to write down his bribe list on a cocktail napkin. well, obviously, this is probably not the caliber of -- we're going to see with most members of congress. they're smarter than that. i want to take one issue with the caller when he talked about legalized bribery. when i talk to a lot of business folks and people in town, i here

about shakedown that those on the end, expected to give a contribution. feel like if they don't play the game their interest, their business, whatever issue they're interested in, is hurt. >> coming from that direction, not the giving direction. >> well, the reality is, it's coming from both directions but there is certainly a sense if you don't play an you talk to most of the lobbyists here in washington, they feel like, oh my goodness, if i don't play, if i don't have a breakfast gorks to the fund-raiser, make sure and bundle money, my clients or the interests that i represent are going to be hurt. and so there is this feeling of that pay to play. that you really have to do it. this quid pro quo idea and notion of corruption, this is a dangerous development and that is that justice roberts has now basically said corruption is quid pro quo bribery.

buckley v. valeo there was a much more expansive understanding of what constitutes corruption and i think it's very important because that ability to show, you know, the money given, the bribe taken and the official action taken is -- can be very difficult to prove. we are already seeing that in mcdonald case and will be before the court just this month. >> i think meredith actually highlights something that's very important. he said as she's talking to her friends around town and the lobbyists, this is why americans are fed up and frustrated with washington, d.c. you look at the rise of outsider candidates like donald trump and ted cruz, because people are tired of business as usual here in the district. >> the case you mentioned, just then, explain what that case is, the one coming up. >> in the case with governor bob mcdonald, he was convicted in virginia of accepting bribes basically in violation of the bribery statute.

and he has challenged those convictions on the basis that what he did for mr. williams was not an official act. so therefore, it cannot be corrupt. so when he gave access to mr. williams to use the governor's mansion, when he brought in officials from his administration to meet with mr. williams and discuss what -- >> mr. williams a businessman selling -- >> selling health products, giving a roledex to, catering the daughter's wedding. the defense of governor mcdonald because none of those things constituted an official act and there was never an explicit agreement that i would do this in exchange for the rolex -- not the roledex -- >> that might have been -- >> would have been a better value. right. but, you know, i mean, this is going to be a very interesting decision because if it gets

sonar row, you're going to have a situation where members of congress, you think of mr. jefferson, a representative with the 100,000 in his freezer, and he also made a claim that writing letters on the congressional stationary was not an official act. so, this is a really big question about what you expect from your politicians and your office holders. >> let's go to abdul waiting in maryland, an independent. abdul, good morning. >> caller: good morning. i'm listening to you guys for a long time now. first time calling. my comments are based upon earlier you mentioned the nonprofit corporations and contributions to the political race. if a nonprofit has a specific, let's say, at-risk youth, why would they not be able to contribute to someone running who has the same morals and values they do? and also, i like to comment on

donald trump. yes, he's put all the money up for his campaign but isn't he proposing lowering corporate tax? is this an investment for him? thank you. >> christian berg, you want to start in. >> i men, i can't speak to donald trump's personal motivations for running for president. i can speak to nonprofit speech and when i look at 501-c-4s and helping at-risk youth, i think is a very noble cause, on the left or right, i believe more speech is better speech. i'm always going to fight for your ability to speak. to the point that participating in the political process is a part of speech, i think it is important and i think it is certainly within the wheelhouse and the rights of a c-4 organization to spend the funds to advocate for candidates who support their policies. >> i would just note that even if citizens united, the court did not say that a corporation can give a direct contribution to a candidate. >> that's correct. >> they can make an independent

expenditure to express their views but they still upheld the restriction on the ability of a corporation, whether it's a 501-c organization or a different kind of corporation from contributing directly to the candidate. >> let's go to tom in texas, a republican. tom, good morning. you are on "washington journal." >> caller: good morning, c-span. thank you for taking my call. yeah, every year billions and billions and billions of dollars are spent campaign for democrats by these leftist superpacs like abc, nbc, cbs, pbs, npr, "the new york times." i was wondering, what ms. mcgehee have an objection on the strict limitations that they spend each year to produce the products. if so, what is the basis for her objection? >> well, i would note that in several cases, and it's ironic that you would bring up the

question of the media, because one of the groups that has, in fact, claimed this media exemption in federal law which says that abc, cbs, nbc and other and newspapers can spend their own money to express their views, one of the other groups that has that media exemption is, in fact, citizens united. >> yes. >> so, the whole idea and this has gone before the courts several times and has been spoken to directly by the courts about whether or not media exemption is appropriate. and the courts have looked at this and this is not necessarily a controversial topic for the courts. even with all these other disagreements in 5-4 decisions is that part of having a robust, free press is to ensure that there is the ability to have these views. now, i would say that i would be more concerned about this if we were talking 20 or 30 years ago. with the growth of the internet, with organizations like citizens

united now having the media exemption, i don't think that's necessarily to me this is not where the problem lies in that we want -- i want a robust debate. i want more voices in the system. this is not a -- i want to be very clear. this is not getting money out of politics. this is not about let's get more regulation of money. this is saying, how do we take a system in which there are very few players? right now, far less than 1% of all americans give $200 or more. in fact, it is something like 0.05%. that's pathetic. and that's dangerous for a democracy. so what we really need are changes that are going to have the ability to energize more people, feel like their voices matter and give incentives to candidates and individuals to want to participate, to give money to get more involved. right now, when you look at this election and you see a billionaire running, you see someone like hillary clinton who has huge amounts of money in

superpacs, you see all the other candidate that is are taking money from sheldon and their superpacs, it's dissuading most americans from feeling like they can have a voice. >> christian berg, i'll give you daniel in west virginia, a democrat. good morning. >> caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. i would like you to ask your two guests. the wall used to point to america when it comes to going after corruption and outing corrupt officials so how can we frown on the panama papers and not frown on citizens united? panama papers, of course, is where the wealthy corporations and individuals stash their cash and avoid paying taxes. so, are these superpacs also tax havens, as well? and finally, i would say, talking about amplified speech,

if you -- i have my grandmother upstairs. if she is listening to a small radio and i'm listening to my 90 watt speakers in the basement, you know who's going to win if we try to amplify our speeches so can owe please answer this question for me? are these corporations paying taxes on the money they donate to the superpacs? >> got it. christian berg. >> you covered a lot of topics in that question there. the panama papers, money being stored offshore by individuals. that's certainly a big issue. doesn't have much to do with the campaign finance we're talking about here today. when we look at superpacs, when we look at the post-citizens united world, this parade of horribles, this argument that widespread corruption is going to occur, i just haven't seen play out. as i sit here, i see the united states capitol right in front of me and you know what? i don't see anyone there standing up saying they've been bought and paid for by a

corporation. i don't see anyone standing up saying, i'm a senator. i'm corrupt because of campaign finance laws. it doesn't happen. certainly i think citizens united is has given more voice to more people and that's a great thing. the more voices in the process the better. >> well, i think this question of corruption, again, that the united states being a beacon of how you actually try and fight for democracy and fight against corruption remains a kind of a large question. i would note that some of -- if you want to talk about how policy's affected here in washington by the system, i think you don't have to go too much further than chuck hague l. a republican senator of nebraska who served as secretary of defense. one group i work with issue one which is a bipartisan nonprofit working on these issues about role of money in politics has done a film and i would recommend to everyone and mr.

hagel talked about the role of the special interest money in our defense policy. how we end up with systems that the department of defense doesn't want. how we end up with questions about troop levels being influenced by interests that necessarily aren't the best things to do for the defense policy. so i think we have a system here in which we are threatened with a corruption that's not a matter of saying, here's a dollar given in a vote bought. if that's the way you want the look at it you don't understand i think the dynamics of a very complex democracy. but this notion that there's nothing that can be done to deal with some of these issues i think is absolutely wrong. there's so much that can be done and i'm really urging all of the viewers here with c-span to be in regular contact. i think this is where christopher and i agree. >> christian. >> i'm sorry. christian 'i agree. we want more voices in the system.

we may disagree about how you do that but that's how you have a more vibrant democracy. >> we've been talking about the federal system. earlier in the show in the opening we highlighted some of the things going on on the campaign finance level and state contributions limits that different states have. disclosure requirements that states have. the states doing the public financing option. there's 13 state that is have different options. is there anything happening in the laboratories in the country that you think is working and maybe should be brought up to the federal sflefl. >> i think there are a lot of interesting things going on at the state and city level. for example, in seattle, they just passed a system in which every voter is going to get four vouchers of $25. and then give it to the candidate of their choice. so, this is -- it's very interesting and kind of innovative way of saying, we want every registered voter to be able to participate and have

a voice. i think it's going to be fascinating to see how that works out. we know we have a matching system in new york with a very robust match. an individual gives a smaller amount of money and then that money is matched. therefore, you have to have a candidate who has some ability to resonate with the voters. it is a very important part i think of making sure the system works. you don't want to just kind of throw money at candidates from public funds and say go for it. i think what you want is to have a candidate that is repeatedly tested in the political marketplace and if their message resonates then they get rewarded so i think there are a lot of thing that is are going on the at the state and the city levels that it would be fascinating to see how they work out. >> anything going on at the state and local level that might work? >> i hear the public financing ideas every few years we see new it ration of them. i'm a free market guy. if you can't generate support on your own, i get leary of the government stepping in and

finding a way to help foster that support. the seattle system, i bead a little nervous about giving out four vouchers and compelling people to become part of the process. i think it's all of our duty to join the process but i don't want the government to have to force or coerce you into it. >> allen is in brooklyn, new york, a democrat. allen, good morning. >> caller: good morning. i couldn't thank mr. berg far better seg way to my question. we often have people who don't remember the history of broadcast rules and the government was giving away licenses for the public interest, convenience and necessity back in the 1930s without compensation to the treasury and understood they would be acting as trustees for the public. then with buckley v. valeo saying that money is speech, there was never really a strong argument made if that's the case then when the government began to give away public property to

broadcasters for free then basically the government was giving public money away without any compensation in kind or in cash for the public good that's being given away to the broadcasters. and that problem became compounded when reagan did away with the fairness doctrine in the mid-'80s that used to require equal time to holders of contrary viewpoints when controversial statements were made on air. so we've had a system now that's basically been taken over by people who are using public resources without adequately taking account of their responsibility to the public and the public now has to raise vast amounts of money to give their candidates enough money to buy back that air time from the broadcasters to pay for advertisements. it's an absurd situation and it's really allowed to exist only because most people don't know the history and if they understood it and if they knew

broadcasters using public resources without payment they would demand more in public trust content and free sub standive debate time and less profiteering off advertising than we have today. >> meredith mcgehee, you're nodding your head there. >> yes. this is an issue i have worked on for a number of years, this notion if you go out and talk to the person on the street and ask who owns the air waves, they'll -- usually people answer that's abc owns the air waves or cbs. somewhat relates to the previous caller and, in fact, as this caller identified, the air waves are publicly owned and the broadcaster broadcasters -- commission fallen woefully short in ensuring that the -- in exchange for receiving those licenses for free, i mean, this is what people don't really realize is

that the local stations that serve, not the networks, but the local stations that serve the communities around the country do not pay anything to the federal government for the for monopoly they are given to use those airwaves. what we have often pushed for is to have much more robust public interest requirements in the sense that right now it's kind of an absurd system. candidates go out, spend so much time dialing it for dollars, raining money. they get the money in the campaign and what do they do? they expand sometimes 70 or 80% to get on the airwaves that the public already owns. the only person that's really benefitting from that are the people that are running the stations. so it's a pretty absurd system. there have been proposals before. try and put some meaning behind what constitutes the public interest obligations that are supposed to be the payment for the free licenses. the reality is, it hasn't

happened. there have been proposals up on the hill to try and talk about what should those public interest obligations -- what should that payment look like. the broadcasters have successfully defeated those efforts. they are very powerful in their local community. one time i talked to a member of congress. he said, you know the only thing worse than being on television and they are showing me picking my nose? i said, no, sir. he said, that's not showing me at all. >> christian berg, did you want to jump in? >> we could talk for hours on the fcc. i don't have much to add to the topic. >> i have a hypothetical for you. if one doesn't have money to buy political speech, is their first amendment rights to free speech then being violated? >> i don't think so. certainly -- i mean, we have seen the influence of money in the political process. but there are other ways you can speak out. you can go to a rally.

you can go volunteer on behalf of your candidate. you can find a way to have a voice. i make phone calls, knock doors, put in my time with my hours, my toil, my hard work supporting candidates i believe in. >> walter is up next, baltimore, maryland, an independent. >> caller: good morning. i want to talk to people beyond those two guests you have. just to say this, when citizens united attacked hillary clinton in that right wing scam of a movie and they got this decision from the right wing court, i just want to ask them honestly, mr. berg, are you serious? dude, and the right wing are fraud. you talk about tax breaks for the job creation and they don't create jobs. you talk about freedom of speech and you deny the right to vote.

you are out there with your right wing colleagues denying photo i.d., denying there is voter fraud, that it doesn't exist. i want to ask you, when will you stop us against them, white against black, white against mexican? >> you got a lot there. i want to give christian a chance to respond. when you hear this criticism, what is your response? >> i tell you what, walter, i disagree with you. i disagree with you wholeheartedly. i will fight until my dieing day to make sure you have the ability to raise your voice and your opinion. i believe in the first amendment. i believe in freedom of speech. even when i disagree with you, i'm glad you have the ability to raise your voice and put these ideas out there. >> regina is in pennsylvania, a republican. good morning. >> caller: good morning. i want to directly -- my original is directly to respond to the lady who set in seattle, washington, she's going to give vouchers. who will pay for the vouchers?

why would i have to supply a voucher to support abortion being promoted through a candidate? free speech is i give to a candidate. it isn't anybody's business when the state teacher's union takes money out of somebody's paycheck and exempts them from the paycheck. does their name come up that they gave that money, supporting what the union supports, same-sex marriage couples? this is free speech. i don't want the broadcasters to give free time, because i have to watch all these hoodlums on there. we give our money where we believe. that money will be used for the candidate that is supporting us. >> got your point. meredith? >> i think have i i have to disn the sense that we have a situation now where with the current way campaigns are financed at the congressional level, particularly but also in many states and cities, you have

where these candidates are forced to go either hat in hand or making these phone calls to private interests and say, fund my campaign, and then turn around that same day and then go and vote on matters that are directly affecting the people they have just solicited. there is an inherent conflict of interest within that system. so the question is, how are you innovative at trying to get more people to participate? the seattle system i think is interesting. we will see how it works out. because it doesn't say you have to give the vouchers. it doesn't say to whom the vouchers have to be given. it says, here is your opportunity. if you want to give a voucher to a candidate whom you support, then you can do so. so you don't have to give those if you don't want to. if you want to -- you don't have to give it to a candidate that you don't support. and i think this is the whole

idea is to say, right now the system is so heavily tilted to give incentives to those who can fork over large amounts of money. fur if you are a member of congress, who are you going to call? 100 people to get $10 each and one or two calls when they can give you $5,000, $10,000 or even more to your campaign? so we have to change those incentives. >> not a lot of time left. we want to get in charles. he has been waiting in west virginia, a democrat. go ahead. >> caller: good morning. i appreciate your show. i like what is going on this morning. i think the american people need to know one thing. does all these here super pacs get to deduct their constructions on their taxes? and anybody -- all these other people that give the money and don't know where it goes to, they still should have a right

to say who that money goes to, not the super pacs. thank you very much. >> i don't see a tax break for political contributions coming into play anywhere in the system. >> meredith, is that something that's ever been considered or no? >> well, we have looked at it the other way. these organizations are usually as political -- say are tax exempt. that does not mean if you give to them like a charitable organization, you get a donation. these are tax exempt under the code. i think the real question is, could we find -- there are places trying not only tax credit s but other means of saying if you give a political contribution, then you can get a tax credit for that and use the tax system that way. the whole idea here is that there is a governmental interest in having robust democracy. that is the way that you have a vibrant democracy. but you still want the voices of individuals to count more.

the current system, unfortunately, discounts the voices of average americans and individual americans. it's great when you see a candidate that can excite that. but even then, i think if you look at what's going on in the election right now, we're probably going to end up with a situation where we have candidates either you have to be a billionaire or you have to have a super pac that is backing you. i don't think that's the best way to get most americans engaged and involved. >> we will talk more about what's going on in the campaign right now. first i want to thank meredith, christian. appreciate your time this morning. >> thank you. >> thank you. c-span's washington journal, live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. coming up wednesday morning, south carolina republican congressman tom rice on the prospects for passage of a republican budget. tax reform proposals, cyber security and taxpayer information and the 2016

presidential campaign. then pennsylvania democratic congressman brendan boil will join us to discuss top issues before the horse foreiuse foreis committee. his thoughts on the candidates and the democratic national convention taking place in his district. mark warren, executive editor for "esquire" will talk about the blurring lines between politics and entertainment. watch washington journal wednesday morning at 7:00. join the discussion. madam secretary, we proudly give 72 of our delegate votes to the next president of the united states.

up next, education secretary john king testifies about the nation's new federal education law. then a look at fema spending and emergency preparedness. later, a debate on assessment testing at universities. the campaign 2016 bus continues its travels to visit winners from this year's studentcam competition. our bus visited spanish springs high school in nevada to recognize repeat student cam winner justice best for her third price documentary on the wild horse population in the united states titled, wild horse management. our bus and crew headed to

california to meet with winners in that state including a visit to san diego where the congressman took part in the ceremony recognizes three students. and congresswoman judy chu honored andy chan and shannon ka for their winning documentary on social security. a special thanks to charter, comcast, cox and time warner cable for helping to coordinate the visits. remember, every weekday this month, watch one of the top 21 winning entries at 6:50 a.m. eastern before washington journal. education secretary john king took questions from senators on the every student succeeds act which replaced no child left behind. he testified before the senate health, education and pensions committee which is