>> "washington journal" continues. host: we are joined by niall stanage, a white house columnist for the hill newspaper to talk about controversial issues are playing out in state legislation. good morning. guest: good to see you. host: you recently wrote a column in the hill newspaper talking about how the culture wars in the united states are playing out at the state level. tell us a little bit about why we are seeing this. guest: it depends on the specific issue. abortion has been a culture war issue forever. clearly, that has been moved to the states by the supreme court decision 11 months ago. then, you have other additional issues like so-called crt laws, which have come to the force as a matter of debate more recently. in addition, you have some

politicians presidential ambitions caught up in this. ron desantis from florida has been asserting himself into some of these debates. abortion ban, so-called anti-woke act. host: why are we seeing this being built in state legislatures rather than in washington, in congress at the white house? why are we seeing this coming up in the gubernatorial and legislative at the state level? guest: a couple of reasons. one in relation to gun laws, very salient this morning for very sad reasons. there have not been a lot of federal action on that area. the pro-gun control groups have increasingly focused on state legislatures and have by their likes made some progress there. that is one part of this picture. i think also, there is the fact

of our politics have become increasingly nationalized. these big issues that excite such passions have become dominant even in state level races and as you say, gubernatorial races and sometimes at a more hyper, local level. things like school board elections are being fought on crt issues and things like that. host: is this a good thing, or is this bad these are going on, the same conversation going on in different places, likely coming two different solutions? is this a good or bad thing? guest: one of the experts i spoke to suggested this was a good thing. his argument was, it is in a sense the job of the states to experiment a little bit more. he put it that the federal government is a guardrail if things go crazy. state legislatures and other state audience can deal with these issues at a level by its

nature closer to the people. a law you might want in alabama is not necessarily the same kind of law voters in vermont are going to support. having those state level disparities is not necessarily a bad thing. host: does that, especially when it comes to hot button issues like gun control, abortion, does that mean that americans face different laws in different states and may or may not know what jurisdiction has which law? guest: i think that is a really important point, particularly on those two topics of gun laws and abortion laws. we really see very dramatic differences, obviously on the gun question there are all sorts of questions around reciprocity and whether one states law should be recognized in another state. in the abortion question, prohibiting -- a nation of this size prohibiting or completely

prohibiting it. the northeast taking a view going out of their way to protect reproductive rights. does that contribute to the since we are in some ways to separate nations? possibly, but it is also reflective of voters in those places. host: speaking of the voters in those places, there are some people who say that there is a national move, a national group that is manipulating these state legislatures by trying to push through the same laws in different states using lobbying, using their political power. are we seeing these shadowy, national groups pushing through laws that states may not have moved on their own? guest: i want to be careful in answering that one. i think the different laws in different states reflect different political cultures in those states and different views on the parts of voters.

that said, if you want to variously affect things -- the variously -- nefariously affect things, you can get more bang for your buck in state legislatures or localized areas, those races do not typically come with big budgets attached, certainly not the way a presidential election does or a senate race. you can impact state legislatures and school board elections if you wish to do so, much easier than you can do on the national level. host: are we seeing more lobby money from larger groups focusing on state legislature? i think we can both agree, congress is pretty much deadlocked. you are not going to get anymore controversial or big-name issues through congress. do we see these groups moving their money away from congress and towards state legislatures where they can get changes they may want? guest: in broad terms, we do. we are seeing that increased

focus and increased recognition of the importance of these issues or matters. you look at something like the debate over critical race theory. 18 states now have passed some form of restriction or prohibition on what might broadly be called crt. defining crt is another battle, as you know. abortion, we talk about 13 states with almost total world missions, 14 dependent on how you characterize it. about the same number with very tight restrictions. i think those typical issues do encourage groups with interests to involve themselves to a greater extent. host: i want to get a little deeper into some of these issues. i want to remind our callers they can take part in this conversation. we are going to open up our regular lines. democrats, you can call in at (202) 748-8000. republicans, your line is going to be (202) 748-8001.

independents, you can call (202) 748-8002. keep in mind, you can always text us at (202) 748-8003. we are always reading on social media, on twitter @cspanwj and facebook at facebook.com/cspan. i want to dive in more today about gun laws in the united states today. we had that tragic shooting yesterday in austin, texas. we have seen different states with different gun laws and we have seen a whole plethora of gun laws trying to be pushed through in several state legislatures. what is the landscape we are seeing right now? guest: i think there are a number of states that have actually passed more stringent gun laws pretty recently. you look at michigan, where the governor recently signed something that basically increases the storage requirements for guns.

in washington state, the governor there signed an actual assault weapons ban and a number of other restrictions. colorado governor -- the point i would make of those, those are all democratic governors. we are not seeing those kind of moves made in places like texas. despite these catastrophic events, the uvalde massacre as well as what we saw yesterday, there has not been traction for gun control efforts in texas. in fact, you remember the last gubernatorial election, we had governor abbott who is a strong advocate of the second amendment quite easily defeating beto o'rourke, the democrat, who had been pushing for much more stringent gun laws. host: how does one state's decision to be more stringent on gun laws affect the next state across the border?

four, are these laws -- or are these laws -- on themselves? guest: they are affected in a fairly nebulous way. often, they affect the general perception of what may be politically possible. for a long time, there was this perception any mention of gun control was bad for democrats and good for republicans. that has been eroded in a number of these states. it is not a universal rule and there are these big differences between states that are much more resistant to gun control laws and those that favor them. does it have an impact? it has an abstract impact, but not always a concrete, specific one. host: you said earlier state legislatures and state laws are -- have a greater chance to experiment. especially when it comes to these hot button issues. then, don't they have the supreme court and the entire court system looking over their

shoulder saying, well, i know you want to do this in your state, but it is against the constitution? guest: they absolutely do. they also have state courts that sometimes intervene to take a very obvious example, we were just talking about the six week abortion ban in florida. i'm not sure the media has done a great job in pointing out that is not in effect yet, because the courts in florida are looking at how it comports with the state constitution. you have the supreme court, pretty short distance from where we are sitting now, that can weigh in on a number of these matters and declare state measures on constitution. host: let's let some of our viewers take part in this conversation. let's start with the mark calling from florida on the democratic line. mark, good morning. caller: hello, good morning and thank you for taking my call. since we are talking about culture wars and the role of state legislatures, what does your guest know about the

culture war your texas state representative's little upset there? guest: not very much is the honest answer to that. i do not know if you want to enlighten me or otherwise, but i am not aware of mr. slayton's activities you are alluding to. host: i think he may have dropped off. all right. let's go to -- i actually do not know what he is referring to, as well. we will look and see what we can find. let's go to gary, calling from livingston, texas on the republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. i just wanted to correct what you said a while ago. the shooting that happened yesterday was in allen, texas. and not austin. thank you.

host: i do not think so. anyway, it was in allen, texas. let's go to lewis, calling from kansas city, missouri on the independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. could you discuss the difference between -- and the influence of forces with congressman? guest: that is a great question. that could be a long discussion. the influence of money in politics is something that has been an issue for decades. but, seems to be intensifying as an issue. at what point is the purchase of influence illegal? there is no say, the thing that

is scandalous what is legal rather than what is illegal. a lot of politicians of both parties are pretty dependent upon getting financial donations. they would argue universally that does not affect the votes they cast or the positions they take. i will leave it up to you to adjudicate whether that is true or not. host: one of the things we have seen, especially as it comes towards the next presidential election, we talked about earlier that some governors seem to be using these culture wars at the state level two, let's just say, increase their national standing. one, is the democratic party, the republican party or any party, particularly benefiting from having these local, state level culture war battles in their state legislatures?

does that give the republicans an advantage, does it give democrats an advantage? guest: i do not think it is that clear cut. i think there are some areas in which it does benefit republicans. to your point about presidential ambitions, we mentioned governor desantis earlier. he very clearly has used his state powers legitimately to promote or gain prominence for a particularly conservative position on these culture war issues. but, those are ultimately -- does that ultimately benefit one party or another? i would argue -- for gun control has more success at the state level and locally. not the issue on the liberal side, issues like abortion has primarily benefited conservatives. host: one issue that has popped up on a local level that we have not talked about yet is the gender affirming care issue and

the transgender issues we have seen all of the sudden that seem to be talked about in quite a few state legislatures. where do we stand with that? guest: there are a number of legislatures either considering or trying to pass bills on that. that actually gets back to your previous point about which issues benefit which party. it is notable there was a poll a couple of days ago in the washington post that broadly speaking, the american public favor -- well, the more republican or conservative position, that was a poll that found a majority of americans believe that gender is determined by the sex assigned at birth and a large majority of americans were opposed to trans women or girls being come -- being permitted to compete in sports with the people who had female sex assigned at birth. i think in that issue, that is one where clearly it seems to me

, the left, progressives, whatever term you want to use have got quite a -- where the american public is. host: you mean, the left is -- guest: not in step with where the american public are. yes. host: how does that affect where we are on the state level? does this mean republicans can try to pass laws that will put them at an advantage in their next upcoming election? guest: yes is the short answer. i think that is because you can use laws at the state level in the literal sense of trying to prohibit things or encourage things. what -- you can also use laws at the state level two promote or amplify a particular issue. on that issue of what we might broadly call trans rights, if republicans calculate what seems to be correctly looking at the data that the public is broadly sympathetic to their position,

they can push these bills in state legislatures as a means of keeping the national spotlight on those topics. then, there is political advantage to be gleaned from that. host: let's go back to our phone lines and talk to richard calling from verona, missouri on the democratic line. richard, good morning. caller: hey, just wondering. i talked a while ago. the guy was wanting to know about bribes. you do not think he has bribed a supreme court justice, it makes you wonder sometimes. another thing. these guns and abortions in texas. it is a republican deal i guess, guns and abortion now. i was old enough to remember when abortion was illegal all over and women went to back alleys and places like falling

down steps, taking coat hangers and stuff like that. you can pass laws, it is not going to change peoples way to do things. there is guns and abortion. i hope that will be the death of the republican party is coming up election, because i am tired of it. i am afraid to go to the little mall in springfield. i am scared i'm going to get shot. the church, who wants to go to church if you are going to get shot? it is pretty disgusting now. it has been a long time living, seeing history like these people are talking about, i have lived through that history. things were a lot better now than they ever have been, i will go that way. thank you, sir. guest: i think richard raises a number of interesting points there. in relation to the supreme court, the current controversy around justice thomas is adding

-- to the cause for there being a code of ethics for the supreme court, which there is not at the moment. on the point of abortion, the point you raised about how things were in the past when abortion was illegal is an important one. certainly, there are republicans , more moderate republicans who have expressed concern about the party as they see it pursuing too hard a line on it. congresswoman nancy mace from south carolina had suggested or required -- demanded that the party should try to find some middle ground on that issue. we will have to see if those calls are successful. host: let's go to rachel, calling from forney, texas on the independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. i was listening to someone on c-span the other day. they was talking about what the

bill expired that can sell military rifles. right after that, the cartels were able to get military rifles. that is when we started having problems with people coming over from mexico and we had problems with illegals coming over here. this time they were going to let this brady bill expire, over 80% was against military rifles being sold. then, fox news and conservative radio lied and said the sale of the military rifles was going to help the iraq war. that is the reason why so many people allow the brady bill to expire. why isn't fox held accountable for the lies? guest: i am not exactly sure quite in relation to iraq.

the assault weapons ban did expire. there have been calls from president biden himself to try to resurrect that ban. there are not immediate signs of that happening in congress anytime soon, but it remains alive political issue. just not one with much of a chance of instant action on. host: since the caller brought up fox news, i am wondering how much effect does the state wide and local media have on the laws and coverage? does their coverage affect these issues being fought at the state and local level, the way we see congress and covered by the national media? does the same relate exist at the state level? guest: probably not, for a reason we will find discouraging. at the state level, the media has been hobbled out to a

considerable degree. one can look across the nation how many fewer correspondents there are, whether it is with state newspapers or state broadcasters covering what goes on in these legislatures. i would argue that those to the other point you raised earlier in our conversation about whether lobbyists and money interests can affect things in state legislatures. broadly speaking, we both know the media has its faults. we are not perfect. broadly speaking, the less scrutiny there is of anybody in power, the more liberty they feel to do shady stuff. i think that is a bit of a problem. host: four our viewers, we did not forget. our wonderful producers have found this story on yahoo.com i want to read to you about the lawmaker that our first caller asked about. a house committee in the texas

state legislature on saturday recommended the expulsion of state representative brian slants and, who reportedly fired a 19-year-old intern with alcohol in his part in, had inappropriate sexual misconduct with her and gave her a loyalty test to try to pressure her to stay silent. that was the lawmaker the first caller was talking about. we did not forget about it. we wanted to be sure we brought it to you. do you have anything you want to say about this? guest: i do not. i literally was not aware of that allegation until you read about it. my working assumption is that he denies he did those things. host: that would be my assumption, as well. guest: i do not want to get too far ahead of what the facts are. if those facts were borne out, that would be reprehensible conduct. host: are there national groups who specifically push legislation at a state level that we can look at and see? these are groups that are pushing this, these hot button

issues at state levels? are there groups that specialize in that? guest: i think that our -- there are groups that are increasingly concentrated on that. on the liberal side, you would cite the pro-gun control group. it has in combination with an organization has very much emphasized the capacity to change laws at the state level. now, on the conservative side, there are a number of groups that clearly concentrated on that. there were a number of groups i think affiliated with what used to be referred to as the coke brothers. there is one coke brother particular active in these things anymore -- they clearly saw purpose in pushing laws at the state level. host: let's go back to our phone

lines and talk to michael, calling from sterling, virginia on the democratic line. michael, good morning. caller: hello, there. thank you so much, c-span, for taking my call and providing this forum. also, i would like to mention my respect for mr. stanage and his willingness to take on an issue like culture wars, which i am sure is wide open and quite frightening from your perspective. i wanted to go back to something you said about the difficulty in determining where the line is when we try to determine whether somebody is fundraising or actually being influenced i money. -- by money. i never thought about it much. when you talk about it, you cause me to think of something.

i wanted to ask you to expand on it some. how crazy is the idea to completely pull public -- not public, but free money out of elections and debates and that type of thing? and just purely have it be taxpayer money to pay for that stuff, maybe possibly require some of the media forums to provide some space. also, to have taxpayer money ensure that journalism is clear and transparent and upright. i just want to know how crazy is the idea to fully disallow any kind of money into campaigns and

just make it taxpayer money. these people are working for the taxpayer, anyway. you know? i will just take your answer off-line. thank you, sir. guest: thank you for the kind words. it is not a crazy idea. problem is, you need to get lawmakers to vote or them before it becomes law. there are all sorts of examples in the world of public funding of elections and the banning or severe restriction of private funding. but, can you get such a law passed here? that is the question. you also raised the point of journalism and transparency in journalism. that it's into your -- that gets into a tricky area, that gets into government funded journalism and people will have understandable concerns with that. host: at what point do these

state movements or hot button issues turn into constitutional issues, where states are now involving themselves in things that the federal government should be doing? the biggest example i can think of immediately is the border states and immigration and their complaints that washington is not doing anything, so they have to do something. but, can they? guest: that is a great point. immigration until now --there are real serious constitutional issues there, because it is the responsibility of the federal government to make immigration law. then, you have states including texas that say, well, we just cannot tolerate the current situation of thousands and thousands of people coming across the border. in that issue, there are clearly constitutional issues. there are clearly issues of federal power and the

federalization of the system here. when you have governors like governor abbott sending people to the border, state forces to the border, then you get into constitutionally deep waters on that one. host: but, when the same thing go for gun control, for example, since the second amendment, the interpretation of the second amendment is in the constitution? guest: i guess the scenario there would be one in which as state legislatures passed a very restrictive gun control law, could gun rights groups protest against that and take it to the supreme court? yes, they could make a compelling case that it actually violated the second amendment. of course, the supreme court right now is currently constituted as a clear, conservative majority. in that hypothetical scenario,

those gun rights groups might find a favorable hearing. host: pino several -- i know several of these hot button issues sometimes go to states with an expectation that a conservative state will do this, a liberal state will do that. sometimes, there is a surprise like what happened in nebraska and south carolina and their attempts to pass more stringent aboard june -- abortion laws. talk about that. based on what they do in presidential elections. guest: nebraska and south carolina, there was an attempt to restrict abortion in both those states that failed in both those legislatures despite the fact they are conservative states. i think that goes to this really complicated and knotty question on the politics of abortion. we have seen that almost as soon as the supreme court struck down roe v. wade. you might member there was a balance initiative in kansas, the liberal or pro-choice side

won. we have seen a pattern repeated in a number of places on the same day as the midterm elections last year. there were ballot measures on the ballot in five states related to abortion. the liberal side won all five, including in kentucky and montana, states that are not renowned for their liberal leanings. host: is that the state legislature not being where it's constituents are, or maybe trying to get ahead of where its constituents are? guest: can be, it can be the whole scenario we see over and over again in politics of politicians warning about a primary challenge. sometimes, we will see politicians propose these bills that happened in south carolina, that was a near total abortion ban being proposed. actually, the reason that failed

was one, two or three slightly or moderate republicans who said, i am personally conservative, but i cannot vote for this. that was an interesting development. host: let's go back to our phone lines and start with tom calling from redford, michigan on the republican line. good morning. caller: good morning, gentlemen. i have a comment about uncontrolled -- gun control. you did bring up how governor whitmer just signed into law the new gun control laws for michigan. about storage and stuff like that. with michigan, it seems prosecutors are not enforcing the laws we already have on the books. the shooter in this last -- he had a concealed weapon by the police and went through the process of going through the

court and everything. then -- they ended up charging him with a misdemeanor, illegally carrying a weapon in his vehicle rather than a felony guns charge. because of that, he was able to purchase guns that he then years to do the shooting in east lansing. if we have all of these laws, it is all well and good but we are not enforcing these laws to begin with. it seems like the criminals that appropriate these guns will end up not following the laws, anyways. i would be curious to hear your thoughts on that. guest: i think that is a valid point. one that comes up a lot. there is clearly on the liberal side a push for all kinds of gun controls, you do not need me to repeat them. you know the various measures we are talking about. often times from something tragic -- when something tragic, with it often does with a

present degree of frequency, people do not often know some of these changes do not seem to match up to the actual nature of the shooting. would a certain change in the law prevent what happened in east lansing, what happened in allen, texas yesterday? that is, i think, a valid point, even though i think people of valid concerns with a sheer number of firearms in this country and ease of availability. the point about laws not being enforced and so forth seems to me a legitimate point to make. host: we have seen a list of culture war issues show up in state legislatures like reproductive rights, gender affirming care. you do not hear as much about crt, it is still out there, and gun control. as we move toward the presidential election, do you see any other culture war issues you expect to see pop up at the state legislature level? guest: i think you have hit most

of the main ones and what you said. we are talking a moment ago about immigration. immigration in a sense is a culture war issue. it does to people sense of security and to people's sense of changing american culture. there are all sorts of different strands within that debate. there is clearly a big divide overall between liberals -- how liberals and conservatives see that issue. the main ones are the ones you mentioned, the abortion debate, the gun law debate, the crt debate. governor desantis is in a battle with disney, i am not sure -- it is national because it is a big case, but i am not sure other states are going to start attacking mickey mouse. host: ok. let's go to phil, calling from illinois on the independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. ok. i find it incongruous that the state legislatures want to

protect the life of a fetus up until its birth. but then, they do not want to protect that same life by allowing high-capacity, semi automatic guns to be owned so that those same children now can be killed in school. guest: yeah, i wasn't sure if you are adding more to that. that is a point i think is rightfully raised a lot. the sanctity of life is something that is cited all the time by opponents of abortion. there was not much sanctity in life in texas yesterday, unfortunately. i think that is a valid point to raise again. i think you used the word

incongruous, i think that is something politicians primarily on the democratic and liberal side raise on that particular topic a lot. host: we have seen more of these culture war issues play out in the state legislature. we also see more state legislators protest and take action inside their state chambers, like the tennessee three, zooey zephyr and montana. do you expect to see more of that as these hot button issue start showing up more and more as these -- at the state legislative level? guest: i think so. i thohe tennessee three casearticularly important and emblematic of some of these bigger issues. it started off as a debate about gun control. that is what sparked the original demonstrations from which those lawmakers were then expelled and subsequently reinstated. the fact the two lawmakers expelled were black clearly

played into that discussion, as well, in a state that has -- how would i put this tipple medically -- a checkered case of relations in that states history. i think that was a point where you saw these explosive strains in american life of issues of racial equality and issues of gun control and violence come together in a combustible -- that is why this particular controversy got so much national attention. seemingly coming from nowhere. to be the central, national storyline, i think we could see that happen again in the future. host: ok. let's go back to our phone lines and talk to kay, calling from houston, texas on the democrats line. good morning. caller: good morning. yes. i was calling, the guns need to

really be more stronger. host: more stronger on what? tell us more about what you are talking about. caller: if this governor has weakened the law to have all of these people in this state -- it is like it is the wild, wild west again. it is maddening and out of control. guest: you were talking about gun laws. is that what you are referring to, the wild, wild west? caller: yes, yes i am. guest: right. yeah. i am in a tricky position here, i am not here to express personal, political opinions. rarely, there are a lot of people who share your feelings. at the same time -- clearly,

there are a lot of people who share your feelings. i would note in the wake of other shootings in texas, there have not been restrictions on gun laws. in fact, i think it was in 2021, there was a permit list carry law passed in texas. you are absolutely entitled to the beliefs you hold and those beliefs have not recently carried the day in the texas legislature or the governor's mansion. host: we are going to run out of time. i want to ask this question. we talk about these culture war issues going down to the state legislative level. we have talked about crt inc. taught -- fought at the school board level. do we see these issues going to county councils, town councils, city councils? do we see these entities adding ready to make their own judgment on these culture war issues? guest: we do.

i am trying to think of examples. i read about instances having council elections being fought on things that policy councils do not have much control over, things like crt issue or abortion or things like that. where those issues that are not really within the legislative field of influence of hyper local races become central issues in those races. i think that is part of what we are talking about earlier. the nationalization of our politics, it becomes less about do we think jane or john are going to be people who can fund the school properly and it becomes more about where they stand on trans rights or something. that is competent -- has complicated those hyper local races by a lot. host: this makes it more important to participate and vote. we would like to thank niall stanage for being with us this

morning and talking about how controversial policy issues are playing ou and -- in

biomedical research.