presidential race. then ilan bermen examines iran's role in the middle east. and later sheila krumholz talks about the political action committees and super packs that could impact the 2012 election. "washington journal" is next. >> the president travels to missouri today to tour damaged areas later on today he will deliver brief remarks at a memorial service. sara palin kicks off her bus tour tomorrow. the political riding that the tour will take her to the northeast section of the united states in which politico says a scenario that has been unfriendly to her in the past. and president obama's choice for the joint chiefs of staff. general martin dempsey the current chief of staff for the army went to west point, got a

master's in english from duke university, also a pretty good singer with a fondness for frank sin at ra. a three-hour program for you today. in our first 45 minutes are f our thoughts are going to turn to voting laws in the nation. the "new york times" a has a cover story about various areas of the state that have tightened their laws. some dealing with photo ids. we want to get your thoughts on if tougher voting rules are needed within the state. so if you call in or tweet in or e-mail in you can give your thoughts, your state's example. and then we can have a conversation about it.

the "new york times" is where we find this story. it specifically looks at state laws regarding voting rules. here's the headline. and it's targeted to g.o.p. legislatures hoins saying that they moved to tighten rules on voting. key states enact laws. writing out of miami.

>> some of these rules are being tightened or tuffednd. we want to get your thoughts on these types of rules, tighting these types of rules, tighting of them, are needed. here's how you can do so again. the numbers are on the bottom of your screen. you can join us off of twitter at c-span wj. you can send us an e-mail. mississippi up first on our democrats line. larry, we're talking about

voting rules. and before you go into your thoughts, could you share about the types of voting rules that your state has for those going to the polls? >> i believe -- did you just ask [inaudible] to vote and you have to be living in the state and over 18. that's all it really should be. >> so when you go to the polls you don't have to show some type of identification? >> no. you have a voter registration card. that's it. and to me that's all you should really need as long as you vote in america. that's all you really should need. i am an army veteran. i've always had a right to vote. and this pisses me off what the republicans are doing. i know what they are doing. they're trying to stop minorities from voting. this is what this is all about. it's only happening in republican states. >> why do you think that's the case? why do you think the rules are put in specifically for that

case? >> because they want to suppress minority voting. >> why? >> that's the reason. they want to suppress minority voting. most minorities you know folks do not have id any more because most of them do not drive. >> next thauts are from illinois. republican. joe, what type of state laws are in the state of illinois as far as voting goes? caller: well, it's currently up in the air. they don't really enforce it. although every time i go to polls they wanted me to show my voters card. but not everybody does it. >> so as far as some of these other states that have made measures to change rules and tightening them, especially if it's a g.o.p. controlled state, what are your thoughts on that? >> well, my thoughts are simply this. since you're allowed to vote after 18 years old and you

carry around a drivers license all the time and the insurance card if you are driving the car, show it. it's the american way. and if you don't have it you don't vote. host: should that include a photo? caller: most certainly. absolutely. because our elections is last year proved, there was people that were not even of this country that walked up and voted and that's wrong. this is wrong. because if you are not a citizen or a voter of this country, there is no excuse. i hear people say, well, yeah, blacks do this or asians do that. that's all right. that's fine. but if you're going to vote, either you have the id or stay at home. >> silver spring, maryland. democrat's line. go ahead. >> well, in maryland the only thing touf do, you register to

vote and they send you a voter register card. now, if you get to the polls and don't have your card they ask you for your date of birth. and if you can give your date of birth and your name is on the register, you can vote. you don't have to show identification. and i think the whole purpose is you want to facilitate voting. voting. because in most elections the majority of people don't vote anyway. so with a democracy and people not participating, the results are not auts tick. and this whole trend of trying to suppress voting, and i agree with the first caller that republicans are trying to prevent minorities from voting because they want to maintain their control. and we should encourage voting. and we should design ways that would facilitate more people going to the polls and not trying to limit people from voting. >> what's your opinion on i guess the hang-up that somewhat

expressed about showing a photo as far as an identification is concerned? caller: everybody doesn't have a photo id. there's a lot of younger people that don't have them. if you don't have a car, you don't have a drivers license, you don't have a photo id and then you would have to say what type of photo ids are acceptable. that's my hang-up because it costs money. and everybody -- and people have to think ahead. everybody doesn't have money that can waste trying to get a photo id. particularly in these economic times. and that's particularly my hang-up. why do you have to pay for that? and you could be asking people -- it should not be a requirement. host: ohio, independent line. go ahead. caller: i have a drivers license, i have a birth certificate. afe dd 214 where i was discharged from the army. if you get on an airplane you

have to show it. if you open a bank account you have to show it. if you register a car you have to show it. i don't see where the crime comes in. just show your id. and if you don't have one, you can't play. that's just cold hard facts. there's nothing racial about it. there's nothing stopping anybody else from doing it. play right or go home. host: off of twitter. georgia. judy, good morning. republican line. republican line. caller: good morning. i am agreeing with the former caller the one that you just called in. touf have id for everything. even to get your power turned on or whatever. touf have id.

the part i do not understand is where racism comes into it and republicans. it's just the rules of the game. host: does the id need a photo? caller: i don't see why not. the state will issue a photo id. just like, if you go to cash a just like, if you go to cash a check, you fly on an airplane, touf have id. and there's too many people getting in line and voting. and if they can go vote one place, they can vote another place. it's just insane. that's what makes this country great is the right to vote. and everybody should have their vote count. host: so aside from that, let me ask a couple other things. at least your thoughts as far as laws that have passed within the state. the state. one of them would stop the idea of third party voter registration for elections. what do you think about that snr well, because there's such

-- what has happened in the past, i'm almost -- i think it was great but buzz of the fraud that has occurred, then make it more restrictive, more oversight or cut it altogether if the third party registration. and if they can't do it correctly and nobody is check behind them. and i'm not saying the third party registration is doing anything intentionally wrong but with no oversight. cut it out. >> host: let me ask you one more thing. another one shorten the number of voting days as well. do you think that's a good idea? caller: i appreciate the early voting days. but i think like two weeks out. so i'm not sure how many early voting days the article referred to. but early voting is very good

for a lot of people that travel. it keeps them able to vote and i mean that's a very good thing. but like i said, the basic thing is oversight. if you're not -- and i am so tired of hearing people say it's republicans that want the vote. i'm an american citizen and i want everyone to vote. host: that was judy from brunswick. and aside from photo id you can weigh in also the shortning of early voting days and the third party voting registration as well as you share your thoughts this morning. the lines will be on the screen as we talk about voting rules and if tougher voting rules are needed. this is in light of the 2012 elections. off of twitter, anthony writes about the experience in new york state h 6 em hurts, york state h 6 em hurts, illinois, mary on our democrats

line. good morning. caller: i've been an election judge and registrar with the league of women voters. and as far as i can tell, the system that we have here in illinois you do show an id when you register to vote. you need registration id two pieces of id. and a picture id. and then it's put on a piece of paper. your signature is in the files. and when you go to vote you sign your same signature. a signature registration to me is as accurate or more accurate than a picture id. if you're talking id ubbling give somebody else your id but you cannot give somebody else your signature when you sibe your name. it is your match. it is your match. that is you. and i think it's a very accurate way. andive never seen, to my knowledge, anybody voting that was not a citizen of the united states. and when you have people who

were born in another place, then you ask them for their place of changing their, making the citizenship. you ask them to give you a date of when they became citizens and the people in the registration office can look that up. that is the only tricky thing. and even people who are born outside of the united states, if their parents are citizens of the united states, they are citizens. and also, and when you come to vote, you sibe sign your name and you're given the ballot and you vote. host: so what you're saying is in your state particularly the laws are pretty much sufficient and no need for tougher laws? i don't want to put words in your mouth. go ahead. caller: i think your signature match, having already shown your id. now, i don't know if there are now, i don't know if there are places where you can walk up to vote just with a voter id and the day of voting. to me that would be a little

bit more touchy you know. but one of my things is i think they should have votes on weekends. why should bit on a working day? you should be able to go there all day long. you have these people coming in rushing to get in early morning, rushing to come after work. and you get these long lines. and that's a problem. because in the middle of the day it's all quiet and nobody is there. host: that was mary from illinois. another aspect of voting rules by an e-mailer this morning. . .

be president, why are all of these things resurfacing now when we have an african-american as the head of our country? all of a sudden, right now, those that do not understand why the minorities are insulted -- thinking back to the time when they could not vote, it is made very hard. you had to take a test the vote. now we have a black president.

the voters came out overwhelmingly to support barack obama. host: i and my experience, concerns about voting rules have existed throughout the election process. not just for one person in office. having had some experience here and discussing these things over the years. caller: but my comment is about those that do not understand why minorities are insulted. because they are looking at a time when their ancestors could not vote in here they have the opportunity to vote and now they are trying to put rules that were not their birbefore. host: most of the measures would require people to show a form of official identification to vote.

driver's licenses are the most common, but voters can also request free photo id from the department of motor vehicles, passport, or military identification, among other things. john sent us this e-mail this morning -- host: germantown, tenn.. republican line, rose, good morning. caller: i am amazed that all of this. this has been going on for years. the legal voting is not unusual. it has happened quite often and we have tried to change it over the years. it has gone too long and it is it has gone too long and it is about time that we start doing things right.

you can vote if you live in one state and want to go close to the line and vote in another state. it was a young boy that openly admitted that he had 28 dead people voting. acorn, one of those organizations, was used for illegal voting. it has to be stopped. we have to have honest integrity to the voting laws. back to the point where you have to show a birth certificate, registering at least 30 days before the election, letting everyone do it legally, honestly, without having to worry about illegal voting. it is going on and has been going on for years. the person that is elected is elected by the people, for the people, with all of the honor and integrity that the office

should. host: this story looks at sarah palin and the launch of her bus to work today. -- tour today. host: as far as her bus tour is concerned, if you go to her web site, there is information there. they also have a promotional video. to give you a flavor, here it is.

♪ [roar] >> freedom is a god-given right. it is worth fighting for. the constitution provides that road map. these are in during troops. they have been passed down from washington, to lincoln, now to you. we know that our best days are yet to come. ♪ host: let's talk a little bit in length about this tour. james from "politico" joins us. has there been any sense of the

why behind this tour? why behind this tour? caller: what we do not know are a lot of the details about this tour. sarah palin has seen her attention that she gets decline dramatically. the conversation has really shifted away from her. she has kept a low profile for some time now. increasingly it has been taken among conventional wisdom in washington that sarah palin will not run for president. that she does not want to jeopardize for lucrative television and book business. this is very clearly a calculated move to put herself back in the conversation. to take the limelight as other potential 2012 candidates have gotten attention. we still do not know quite a lot

about what she is doing in the northeast. we know general destinations, but not detailed times. she is going to visit the rolling thunder motorcycle rally. the group did not officially invite her. she will be within the alaskan veterans group. we do not know what time she will show up or what she will do there, exactly. she is supposed to go to gettysburg, the battlefield in pennsylvania. otherwise many of the details are up in the air. it shows just how she does not play by the same political rules as every other political figure in america. host: as far as you mentioned her wanting voice in the conversation, is she trying to making -- is she trying to make herself a kingmaker?

caller: we do not know. it is still possible that she will run, but the odds seemed very low. she seems to be considering -- when mike huckabee decided not to run, making it clear that there was a big opening for a social conservative in the race, that is a space that she could fill. it is not clear whether she is thinking about running in her head or if she just wants the spotlight on her for a little while again, to keep herself in the conversation because she just craves that attention. host: what attributes to the diminishing that you were talking about initially? talking about initially? caller: a variety of episodes over the last year and was where people wrote her of as less than serious. last year the same day that the

president gave a significant speech in tucson, ariz., about the victims, she recorded a video in which she lashed out at critics in talked about blood libel. the biggest reason that people have taken her less seriously is that she has not taken any of the steps that one need to take if you are running for president. she has a very small inner circle. she has not hired it big team. she has not visited iowa in some time. she has not visited new hampshire since 2008. people take for less seriously because she is not doing anything tangible to suggest that she is actually a serious candidate for president. host: as far as the visuals, talk a bit about how she has

decorated her bus. a copy of the constitution, those kind of things. talk to those elements and, what gives us the message she is trying to bring? caller: this fits with the hyper-patriotism that is so emblematic of who she is and her political persona. the idea is that it is officially promoted. that is one nation campaign is part of energizing americans about our nation's founding principles and in order to promote the fundamental restoration of america, you know that from my colleague, it is about visiting historic sites and holding herself in the liberty bell, one of the places

she is supposed to be in philadelphia, talking about how the country has moved away from the constitution. the constitution. host: gene: is joining us to talk about fair payment of the bus tour today. thank you. we are back to talking about tougher evolving -- voting rolls and if they are needed for the upcoming election. as far as putting in rules, we are getting your thoughts as well. you can join us, for democrats, 202-737-0002. just like jonathan johnson this morning, adding this question,

"what is stopping the president from stepping in to clean up voting machine irregularities? caroline, what are the voting rules like in your state? of caller: i will tell you, just this past week they passed a bill where they required us to have a picture of voter id. i do not have a problem with voter id. i am in my 50's i have always had to present identification when i voted. in not having that much of a problem with having a photo id. but bigger problem is the way they have redrawn the districting lines since 2000.

i was very upset when they i was very upset when they kicked out my district and we did not have a chance to vote on whether we wanted him or not. they just read through the district lines. in light of voter id and what i am seeing is that it seems to me like it is a return back to jim crow laws. when you had to pay a poll tax to vote and all of this. for some of the people that are here that are foreigners and may not have citizenship papers yet , by having these extravagant identification's required from them for voting. host: governor carey signed this a bit last week.

what kind of interest did this play out in the state? caller: there were some people, your hispanics, who were opposed. some of them may have difficulty getting picture identification to vote. host: asheville, north carolina. brian, good morning. caller: this is more of a question of whether or nepal they have the right to vote before they have an id card. there are seriously anti- democratic forces moving to the direction of restricting voting or opening it up. it is fairly obvious which can the democrats and republicans go towards when they make these

decisions. host: new york, new york, go ahead. caller: yes, the laws should be tougher. the first caller, the way that he outlined it, you could go vote somewhere else in the district. the lady from illinois, that is funny, we have counties where more people are voting that are registered in the district. you have got to look back at the clintons. they had a registration booth in the airport. you just had a walk 100 yards to get to a registration booth. do not forget who brought you here. another woman called and said that people do not want to take the time. the time to get a photo id. do you know how much time it takes for the challenge?

no one is refused if you go to new york. if you say that you moved, you fill out a challenge form. it is one of the reasons that new york is always democratic, they have very loose by it -- voting laws. check out the country's foremost authority on voting. they have outlined all of the devious ways in the manner is that people voted, as your earlier caller said, 28 times. host: this new ohio mall eliminate 28,000 from the voting rolls, according to mary from twitter. another way that you can contribute to the conversation. hollywood, florida, democratic line. shannon.

caller: in florida you need a photo id to vote. i do not have a problem with that. on the other hand, people that tend not to have them are younger people or minorities. the last i checked, if you want to vote in this country, you have to be a citizen. qualifications are being born here, or having an idea, it is another layer to being able to vote. but the but -- the criteria is being born here. but it is discouraging when you go to the voting booth and the line is wrapped around the building. working-class people are not

retired, who do not stay at home, they have to kind of rush and are less likely to vote because the line as to freaking long. i was happy to come and not stand for four hours and hours. the limiting of the days is working against the lower half, the young people. host: you have heard the term -- a gang of six -- used several times. you also know that senator tom coburn left the gang. he is our guest this week on " newsmakers." the leflore group on may 17. he discussed related topics like the gang of six, why he joined, why he left, and whether

republicans would be willing to agree to revenue increases and spending cuts. >> it seems like where the gang of six was going, if you reached the agreement we were homing in on, you would have had more democrats willing to embrace it than republicans, because republicans, with the exception of a handful of people, are less willing to give on the question of revenues. >> i do not think that is true. i think that republicans want to fix the problems just as badly as anyone. first of all, they have been burned. and few get the revenue increases but not the spending. we were trying to negotiate spending cuts.

i think that a lot of republicans will go there if they think it solves the problem. but it passed a relief of a problem. we have an impasse that you are not really addressing. significant programs in a way that will create significant savings. host: you can see that program right after this program. if you miss it, you can see it at 6:00 this evening. our video library has a lot of information regarding not only our programs, but a couple of other things as well. general martin dempsey, he has been nominated twice to head the joint chiefs of staff,

saying that if he is confirmed he is currently -- he will become the president's senior military adviser, who will become the defense secretary robert gates retires in late june.

host: jason, south carolina, independent line, voting rules, do they need to be tougher or tightened? what do you think? caller: i have noticed that most of the callers and legislation to route these republican controlled state are talking about driver's licenses as a tool that can be used. what most folks do not realize is that driving is a crowd -- privilege and voting is a right. if a voter fix up a d y charge, they will lose that license. when you go to register to vote initially, why do that -- why do they not administer it

[unintelligible] rather than voting for drivers licenses. host: republican line, bill, kansas. kansas. caller: who in their right mind would wake up in the morning and say -- i am going to wake up and go do voter fraud. for if there is that much voter fraud going on, there has to be something bigger out there getting these people to do voter fraud. i cannot imagine an ordinary, normal citizen waking up in the morning the day that it is time to vote and go to all of these different polling places, boating for my candidate. -- voting for my candidate.

coast out talking about inflation, it is the highest since 2008. taft cuff

host: the detroit, sunday free press has a story at the bottom , below the fold, saying that the crime lab in detroit has a disturbing new trend. accused in recent years of making big mistakes. host:, but hampshire, jim,

independent line. good morning. good morning. caller: you are a suburban post. i wanted to echo the gentleman from kansas. i simply do not believe that sort of claim. i cannot believe that foreigners would infiltrate and tried to commit voter fraud in that way. consider the most widely and well documented exhibit of voter fraud out there, the five members supreme court that did not have to show their identification and they hijacked the 2000 election. thank you. host: pete, democratic line. caller: i have been voting in the same place for 30 years. even if there are new people, they only look at my signature.

this is where they try to pull down the boats. this thing is controlled by republicans. trying to keep people from voting. i am sure that it says somewhere in the article that minorities tend to vote democratic. republicans know that if they can hold the boat down, it works to their advantage. this has been going on and on. like the previous caller said there are many urban myth out there. there has been an infinitesimal amount of votes that were proven to be fraud but never got past

the election judges. if this the that makes sense, just look at who is trying to hold the vote. host: republican line, colorado. caller: the id issue is not the real problem. there are other dirty tricks going on. like in el paso county, which is very republican, of the democratic votes all have the wrong return post office box numbers on them. most of those people had to go vote again. i do not think that the identification is really the issue. i think that the time frame, not allowing third-party to register, elderly people have a hard time getting to the areas where they can register. these are dirty tricks that we have to watch out for.

the other callers are right on about the issues they have got. host: this message from twitter -- most of one more call. chicago, illinois. stuart, good morning. are you there? one wartime? caller: hello? host: go ahead. caller: this is the new and improved modern day poll tax to impress the folks. there has in virtually no evidence of major voter fraud in this country. there are small incidences', but otherwise none in people cannot document them. the fraud, if you look at, is on the right. in florida they did not even allow minorities service people

to cast votes. voting machine fraud, this is just a way to prevent minorities from voting. if the conservatives can hold down the minority vote, they will only get the votes of white conservatives, therefore they've been. the name of the game. thank you. foes fell that is the last call that we will take on this topic. he may have heard a new acronym that we are used lcv. it stands for local content vehicle. our 2011 city store has vehicles going across the country. video journalists go talk to interesting people. this is a joint project that you can see this weekend. can see this weekend. we have focused the two were on tamp up. the republican convention, taking place in 2012.

video journalists have gone out to take a look at the history and other aspects of that life there. we had a chance to talk with a congresswoman of her city's immigration history and the impact he had today. host: tampa has a small history. especially in the late 1800's. young people, old people like, they came to work in cigar families. -- factories. they developed a very vibrant latin quarter. what is unique is that they have all established their own clubs in central assistance strategies.

primarily the central folks came from spain, through cuba, to work in cigar factories. a lot of young men, but over time because of the culture in , the health care and hospital established, they became a very integrated and unique community. today if you live in tampa you can point back to your grandparents' working in one of these clubs. host: that is just some of the material that she will see from our local content vehicles as they travel cities in the united states. you can find out more about this on our web site to learn

more about the program and the city's that we plan to visit. we want to thank the networks in florida for hosting us. coming out, we will engage in our 2012 political roundtable. we will pick that discussion up after fees and costs nancy callow gives us some news -- c- gives us thecalo news roundup. >> topics today on medicare, spending, unemployment, housing for veterans, the 2012 election, and the situation in the middle east. noon, eastern, we begin with "meet the press." mitch mcconnell, chuck schumer, and harold ford.

1:00 p.m., "this week." former minnesota governor tim pawlenty, mitch daniels. fox -- "fox news sunday "errors again at 2:00 p.m. eastern. john mccain, alan west, and don edwards. 3:00 p.m., "state of the union." all right off. patty murray, the chairman of veterans affairs. finally, 4:00 p.m., open quote face the nation." face the nation." on the republican jobs plan, politics of medicare and campaign 2012.

the five network talk shows begin at noon with "week to press," "this week," "fox news sunday," "face the nation," "in the washington d.c. area. tuna in on satellite radio, download as an iphone application, or listen anywhere at cspanradio.org. host: we want to introduce you to judd legum, the founder and editor of "think progress." also joining us, guy benson, political editor. thank you both for joining us. let me point you to a poll to start off with. taken by abc news, rankings rudy

giuliani and others in the republican field as far as to how others are responding. rudy giuliani, sarah palin, mitt romney, they are the top three. lower on the list, michelle bodman, but pawlenty, ron paul. booking at all of that. booking at the list, how it stacks up, looking at the polls, what does that mean for the 2012 elections? guest: two of those caught three may well not be running. and fluid feels that presents challenges for the eventual nominee. we are likely to have a very competitive and win the battle for the republican nomination.

i also think that you do not yet set a candidate on the republican side that is galvanizing people. as far as the commentary, there is a lot of support around tim pawlenty. but in the general public to see that he is not making it through yet. it is going to be an interesting year, publicly, and the president and his advisers are probably feeling pretty good about the shape of the republican field so far. host: where are the republicans going to be registering, do you think emma caller: there will always be concerns. they make this very competitive and challenging for the president. particularly whether the underlying economic conditions in november of 2012, but as far as a candidate that has emerged

that has motivated the republican base and shown the potential to draw in independence? we haven't seen it yet. it does not mean that someone will not emerge, but if you look at the field, sarah palin, rudy giuliani, mitt romney, we have seen them before. we do not have that star quality person with potential to break out yet. >> we have people all over the country in iowa, south carolina, reporting on what is killing donkey -- reporting on what is going on, and i urge everyone to check us out. we all launching the side again

on tuesday. host: our next guest joins us fromskyhall.com guest: this might be boring television, but i agree with almost everything he just said. those caught three, really only one of them is clearly going to run. i spoke to one of the former advisers of rudy giuliani last week rise if you jump in. why would you not, if you thought you had a path to victory? sarah palin, her contract with fox remains intact, so they do not think she is running. this is a name recognition game at this point. these are all high profile names. mitt romney probably the last the month of three, if you had to rank them in terms of

national name recognition if we had been sitting around four years ago, we would have been nodding your head that hillary clinton would be the nominee an barack obama would have had a spirited campaign. all some of the someone is going to be the nominee and that will be the galvanizing the people want to see. people do not want to see barack obama reelected. in 2012, some people say that a cardboard box to be him. i am not convinced of that, but if it comes down to an external factors and republicans are able to put forward someone who is credible and plausible, you will have a real shot.

host: how long before the front runner has to emerge? guest: gosh, i do not want to rush the process. it is what we do in washington, and was into has the momentum this week, next week but when a first boat people last week said that any decision from governor hammond is months away i do not think that that is unhealthy for her or anyone else. host: tell us about town hall dot com. guest: we are apolitical aggregate. we have loads of original content over there. we have a heavy focus on a horse

race politics. by colleagues and i will travel the country throughout 2012, giving everyone lots of fun, exciting, conservative information. we actually just had our be launched two weeks ago. if you have not been there in a while, check it out. host: i and all that time, you are a radio talk-show host as well? guest: guess, actually it airs tonight in chicago and washington, d.c. host: you can contribute to the conversation as well. for democrats, 202-624-1111. for republicans, 202-624-1115. for independents, 202-624-0760. if you want to reach us by e- mail, journal@c-span.org. twitter.com/c-spanwj is our

twitter address. what is the most important thing in your mind, looking at 2012? guest: one of the things we have seen emerge is the issue amount medicare and how would will play into the 2012 election. obviously in upstate new york we had a district that was a solid conservative district, one of four in the state won by john mccain in 2008. you saw the democrats be the republican in that district. there were factors there that would not be duplicated in every single district. but i think that you have to look around the country. there are 97 districts that are more favorable to democrat in that district and in the i think

that all of those members in the house voted for the plan and they are going to have to answer to that. you have the republican front runner who still will not answer this relatively answer this relatively straightforward question, do you support the paul ryan plan? he will not answer that question. id is a situation where there is an uncomfortable nature on the part of some of the republicans with this issue. it could play a major factor as far as tipping over some of these swing districts. host: the new york election, is that a harbinger? guest: there is wishful thinking of both died. people on the left call this a referendum.

huge problems coming up for republicans. the paul ryan. and you have some conservative saying that there was a fake, third party, phony tea party candidate that muddied the waters. republicans were fighting a two part battle and it was an anomaly. i don't think either analysis is accurate. new york 26 with a strange case. i do not think we will see those circumstances replicated, although i am sure that the left if hunting everywhere for fake tea party candidates. on the right. legitimate concern, not so much on the viability of the rise and when, but more of how we will talk about that issue. if jane corbin waited and waited while kathy hopeful

slammed her every day and she won that discussion, corralling that narrative, but the time: even realized she had to address it, it was far too late. republicans have to be careful when forward. you have to offer a robust- spirited, fact-based defense of the plan and go right back out there, going hard on the attack, saying democrats -- where is your plan? one does not exist. host: here is john boehner responding to the special election in concerns about medicare. >> i will give you three passports -- 3 fax about medicare. the republican plan that preserves and protects medicare for current and future retirees

is the plan that we put forward. the second fact, the only people in washington, d.c., that voted to cut medicare were the democrats when they cut out $500 billion during obama care. the third fact, the democratic plan is to do nothing. the trusties of medicare have made clear that continuous benefits will be cut. those are three factors. we have outlined the plan that we believe in the other fact is that the democrats have no plan, which will do to bankruptcy at cut in senior benefits. host: how would you respond? guest: it makes sense. the word fact was used, but i do

not know how many facts were in there. what is the history of this issue? look at when the medicare trust fund ran out of money. health care reform last year ended the viability by an additional 10 years. if you repealed health care reform, which is what boehner and his republicans want to do, it goes back to 2014. the reason why it is the elimination of over-payment. moving away from the fee-for- service model. pushing things into these private plans for vouchers, premium support to pay for a private plan, which has been found to be more expensive. i think that democrats have put

out plans that increase the length of medicare. president obama pfeifer release more proposal to in april of this year. the idea that there is no other lands and that this is the only thing is not really accurate guest: it is accurate. there is no democratic plan. you just talked about the paul ryan plan and we could get into that, but the fact of the matter is that democrats have proved absolutely nothing. democrats put across the universally panned program last year. angers sullivan called a pile of it word i should not use on c- span. did increase the national debt by $5.90 trillion over 10 years.

that is the only democratic plan on paper currently. then the president said he had a new vision that will magically save money, with the rationing board doing more rationing. senate democrats know that there is no plant here. they have made a short term calculation and i cannot say that it was a bad one, politically. republicans put themselves out on a limb, putting themselves out there with a bold plan. we are going to run against it. in some cases we are going to lie about it. it does not be to us to put out a controversial alternative. we are going to sit back and throw pot shots. as far as the actual issues facing the nation, it is terribly irresponsible because

of the fee-for-service plan and would by seniors, it is unsustainable in the long term. something has to be done about it. republicans have had the guts and the vision to try to do something about it. it has to do with parlaying that into successful attacks on the left. host: keith, you are out first. caller: i do not think that republicans can govern. they never could really catch the eye of the people. they talk about a whole lot of they talk about a whole lot of things, but got just like a regular person that works every day, getting up in the morning, having to go and take the kids to school, you know, coming home to the dinner table, they do not

know anything about that. guest: a democrat that thinks the republican cannot govern. i am stunned. if keith is in his 50's or younger, by the time he has been working that night that five jobs, paying into medicare every single year under penalty of lot, s system that is about to go bankrupt, republicans have put together a proposal that will help him and other people, including myself in my 20's, see the benefits of a program that will go the funk. this is something that belle help every single taxpaying american but wants to have a social safety net remaining intact decades into the future without it being eviscerated by european-style austerity measures, the path we are headed down and it is very unfortunate.

guest: we have to get back to the reality of what the ryan to plan is. instead of actually figuring out that way to make the system more efficient, we will reduce costs by paying for which need as a senior, instead we would rather give you a voucher to pay for private insurance and we will only increase that by the rates of inflation, 3% or 4%. what that will do is shift the cost from the government over to the people that can afford it least. but this does the slash taxes for the very wealthy, taking the top rate from 35% to 25%.

it is a serious effort to get ahold of medicare costs. this was something that was embraced by paul ryan as recently as 2009 when the that the paid first choice act. there was a board that would make these decisions to figure out the most efficient ways to provide service. we are in a great position in that it is not simply the case that the more money you spend, the better care the to get. there are things that we can do that with improve costs and health care outcomes. host: bryan, ohio, steve, republican line, good morning. caller: good morning, everybody. guest: hey, steve. caller: over the last three years, i have been a republican.

i think that i will become an independent. but republicans seem more concerned with the poverty of wealthy people saying that sometimes if we have to, but we will lie about something to get our way, which is totally disingenuous. i cannot believe that there are people in national politics that thing that lying is the way to go. sarah palin, who was going to be her running mate, take jocelyn? guest: to be clear, i was not suggesting that conservatives go out and lie as a policy that the, more the democrats have been lying about it, saying that it destroys medicare. not saying that that is a tactic that i would embrace.

i am hesitant to believe someone who says they are a lifelong republican who in the last three years has suddenly decided to go left. another thing about the paul ryan plan, it only increases at the rate of inflation? we know that health care costs go up faster, but we thought that obama care was going to fix that. that is what we were told. on the tax point, yes, rates are lower across the board. by the way, other tax loopholes are closed. host: which ones are closed? guest: i would have to get back on specifics, but the same ones that were called for to be closed by the presidents that

commission. almost exactly the type of thing that the debt commission recommended when they came back. the measures that the presint msf or colelygnorinalstve silene guest: the reality is that it is a giant *. then they say that, well, this is revenue neutral because we are going to find tax loopholes that make up for the revenue. even if you eliminate huge tax cuts and tax breaks, like the mortgage interest deductions, you would not even come close to filling in the revenue that is lost by the paul ryan plan. i think that what you have your is a very strong ideological

document. but it is not a serious document when it comes to how we get a hold of the handle on medicare costs. guest: really quick, responding to that, cutting taxes across the board for every one, part of the revenue problem is the fact that we have such anemic growth. a lot of people think that on burdening many with high tax rates, you encourage growth, the economy grows, you see more revenue coming that way. you might say that that is apocryphal and will never happen, but i would like to see those so-called in efficiencies and cost reductions that always seem to be in the back pocket of the democrats.

you keep attacking the rhineland plan, but it cuts for dollar trillion off the debt in the next 10 years. the only democratic plan on the table adds $5.90 trillion to the debt. host: clinton, md., good morning. caller: how is everyone doing? host: very well, thank you. caller: that is good. i have been voting in the pennant for quite some time. i do not trust democrats very much. a little bit. but i do not trust republicans at all. let me explain why. republicans came up with this idea of starting the government of resources, money, because they could not directly attacked the social programs put in place. what they did was come up with a way of giving people their money

back. tax decreases. it was a way of keeping revenue from the government so that they could more easily attacked the programs. this is why the medicare thing is coming up now. social security during the george bush administration. if the person on the right-hand side can explain [unintelligible] true santa claus theory, it would help a lot of people understand why we are at this point now. host: you said you did not trust democrats either? why is that? caller: because i've seen them play games as well sometimes. politicians, you have got to be very careful about when they say

something. guest: i agree with that. you have got to be very careful and hold politicians to account. one of the things that i think is going to play out here is that we are going to have this debate about what the future is about the country. how are we going to deal with it the risks and costs across society? as people find out more about the direction of the republican plan, the paul ryan plan, the debate is going to shift somewhat. i want to get back to this idea of they're only being one plan on the table and that being the one that we can debate. you can have a situation where you put out an ideological plan. the paul ryan planned prior to 2012 will not become law.

there are plenty of plans on the left that our budget plans produced by the democrats in the progressive caucus, amongst others. or we can try to get together and find a compromise. i think that that is what is playing out in the group being led by vice president joe biden. jon kyl in the room, eric cantor, trying to work towards an agreement that can actually pass. to me, that is much more productive. productive. guest: we have seen these commissions appointed by the president. the oldest play in washington.

left and right, pointing to these commissions, abdicating leadership on this stuff. the big one, the bulls some sin commission, came out with recommendations that the president did not like, even though this was exactly the type of thing they say they were waiting for. they refused to implement those recommendations at all. host: are you a supporter of that plan? guest: large elements of it and it is better than what we have seen from democrats and the president, which is nothing the democrats have controlled the senate since 2007, they have not passed a budget in the u.s. senate under harry reid in something like 760 days. they did not pass one in 2010 because they were worried that voters might perceive them as big spenders. they just said they would do a

piece after piece in the short, continuing resolutions, causing problems down the stretch. they are once again making the same cynical calculations, not even introducing budgets, attacking the paul ryan plan. guest: they did try to pass it in 2010 and it was filibustered by the republicans. there was an attempt to pass the budget in 2010 before the new congress got in, but it was filibustered. host: political editors joining us this morning judd legum and guy benson. for a lot of their a -- four lauderdale, florida. caller: first of all, i support the president obama re-election. i would like to make a

prediction about the republican front runner in 2002. karl rove said that he would be interested in helping jeb bush become president. i know that many people think it is unlikely, but he has a very large base. he has an edge on the hispanic vote, the christian right in the nra, they love him. he has wealthy, influential supporters. his policies left florida in a shambles. but he is very ambitious and arrogant. what do your guests think of the possibility of him running? guest: quickly responding to that point, i do not think that he is running. he has said that repeatedly. his last name is bush in whether or not we are over bush 50, i am unconvinced for the 2012 cycle. he left florida in such incredible, it revocable shambles, i wonder why his

approval rating there is between 60% and 70%. perhaps they do not realize the damage that he had done. you cannot filibuster a budget, as i am sure the to know. you can filibuster by last- minute spending on the actual budget. a giant document at the end of the year. it was blocked by republicans. guest: the point of a budget is to get police spending bill. to get police spending bill. guest out the point of a budget is that this will blueprint. host: richmond, va., you are up next. caller: i think you should run for office, guy benson. you are absolutely fabulous. i am probably the democratic worst nightmare.

then african american woman living in the cell -- in the south. we are having the same conversation about what happened to this country. we are not willing to vote down the party line. it is just quite extraordinary how everybody wants to cover how incredibly offended the left is right now. 2012 has a lot to cover and i do not think that you guys will be able to do it. look at the stimulus bill that was supposed to help the economy. but you say one thing and then you see $3 billion going to a shrimp on a treadmill it is despicable. obama-care, actually cutting $500 million from medicare. to go in front of seniors and

say that republicans want to take away from medicare, the paul ryan budget was supposed to help to reduce costs in medicare over 15 years. you have someone pushing a woman off of a cliff? now we know the democratic plan. to push people to mess up as many elections as they can. the covers off. guest: i feel very confident about my ability to change this caller's mind. just to try to respond, i think that the situation with obama care and medicare reductions that we have seen obama a lot

art with programs like medicare that it. there are extensions on the life of the planters spending money more efficiently. that is what they have done. that is what john boehner likes to say that the obama care plan has extended the life of medicare by 10 years. it was not just a plan for a vote, but something that extended the life of this program. there are people that are going to be unhappy about sides with what is going on. at the end of the day but have to figure out a way to come together on these issues. i do not think that that involves fundamentally changing the nature of what medicare is. which is saying that when you are elderly and infirm, we as a society are going to make sure that you can get needed health care.

breaking that social contract and saying look, instead of making sure that she will get the health care the to meet, we are going to give you a voucher and premium support to help you pay for a private plan and if the cost of the plan goes out, you are just going to have to pay more whether you have it or not. i think that that is the fundamental debate going on. i think that democrats are feeling confident in that debate. host: huckabee she said that you had a lot of seats to cover in 2012 in the senate. guest of that is that " -- absolutely true. democrats have more seats that are up, numerically. it is going to be a challenge. i think that it will be a different year from 2010. the dynamics of change.

we do not know what the economic conditions will be. you have seen pretty steady job growth in the private sector and it needs to be a lot more. if you see that trend starting to continue, think about where we were in january of 2009, we were in january of 2009, experiencing one of the greatest economic disasters since the great depression. i think he will start to see those races turning around. guest: i agree, 33 of the 23 seats are controlled -- 23 of the 33 states are controlled by democrats. i am not running for office, thank you very much, though i am flattered you should run for office, you are terrific.

one of the big promises in obama care who was that if you like your plan, you could keep your plan, but then the president made an exception, taking that away by the way to extend the life of medicare. one of the biggest tricks that the democrats use. -- counting the $500 billion. saying that they will extend the medicare life timeline. on the other hand, used on the cbo map, a brand new entitlement program that we cannot afford and that americans do not want. the greatest breaking of that factor is the trajectory today. sitting back and doing nothing,

that promise and reality will go away and the paul ryan plan helps to prevent that. host: we saw the first signs of a very intense advertisement coming out this week. those of you that have not seen it, here it is curious i will let you respond after that. ♪

♪ ♪ host: that reaction? caller: that was made to get free time on television on shows like this and obviously that is successful. i do not think u.s. and many democratic candidates running ads like this in 2012. people would not react that

well. it does at least reference underlying point. if we are now going to say that we both get you a little support to get a private plan, and we have the costs are going up and up, what happens when seniors who are on fixed-income do not have the resources to purchase health care anymore? what happens to people like that? we do not have an answer under the program plan. caller: i thought we had dave -- guest: i thought we had a new tone of civility in this country. this is so over-the-top that it will turn off a lot of of voters. democrats would be wise to say away from that demagoguery. debbie wasserman shultz is saying this is a tornado ripping through nursing-homes.

current seniors to have medicare will keep it under the ryan plan. seniors who will retire in the next 10 years will keep the current system under the ryan plan. this is about the future. you ask the question, what will seniors do they do not have the ability to pay for the health care that they need? that is the essential question. the paul ryan plan will give them a little bit of money. according to the cbo, seniors will get a dog dollars per year -- seniors will get $18,000 per year. if your are sicker, you will get more than that. they will also be eligible for health savings accounts up to $8,000. we come back to the main point. if medicare goes broke, which it will on its current path by 2020 for, and we are cutting left and

right, against our will, then what will seniors do? guest: you were just citing cbo numbers. five minutes ago, cdo was cooking the books and double counting and now you cite them as an authoritative source? i believe the cbo numbers and i believe the numbers and he just cited. would those numbers also say is that seniors, on average, will be paying $6,000 more. there are some seniors to do not have an additional $6,000 in disposable income that can continue to go up under the ryan plan and only increases at the rate of inflation when medical costs go up at a greater rate. guest: quickly, i did not accuse the cdo of cooking the books. the democrats took to the books by double counting a lot of things including $500 billion in

obamacare cuts. paul ryan has been pushing back forcefully on this coming effectively, hopefully. that scoring did not include the health savings accounts that the most needy seniors will be eligible for under his plan. host: omaha, nebraska. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you, a gentleman. i have a question for guy. i am wondering about the republican candidate that can make it through the primaries and still been a viable candidate. is it possible that a moderate, like john huntsman, can get through and not have to change whatever it takes to have to say to get through the primaries and still be a reasonable candidate? if i would like to see the president challenged by someone

from a more independent stance. i want to see the president challenged. guest: it is a good question. this is always the dance that both parties engaged in. will the person who emerges from the field and of being viable in in a general election? the number one issue that most republicans agree is that they want obama to lose. the question is who is best positioned to do that? i will not sit here and tell people how to vote. jon huntsman will run into some problems because he works with president obama. heat is a very smart guy. he was a successful governor in utah and speaks fluent mandarin. there will be some harbor moving forward. john mccain was this merger of the conservative right for many years and he managed to win with no clear front runner and in 2008, so we will see what

happens. i'd also point out that barack obama won won by a pretty hefty margin. a lot of that has to do with the mood of the country as well. if some of these economic factors do not improve, a strong conservative or moderate could beat obama. guest: this is a problem for the republican party because they have moved very sharply to the right in a short amount of time. if you look at someone like huntsman, it is also romany, and gingrich, pawlenty. they have supported these radical, socialist position is that we hear about now like individual mandates for health care, cap and trade as a way to regulate carbon emissions. like these so-called "rationing

boards" or the independent payment board's committees were embraced as moderate to conservative and now they are viewed as disqualifying. that is a struggle in terms of finding a candidate that will have a broad appeal and for these candidates within the primary trying to explain, well, two years ago i agree but now i do not think of two years ago i agreed with a mandate and now i do not. how you explain that the primary voters? host: what about michele bachmann? guest: should to be a strong contender in a place like iowa. when huckabee got out, it opened up an avenue for someone like her to make a difference. she has an extremely strong, grass-roots fund-raising and

does not have to do a lot of organizing. host: rick santorum? guest: another social conservative. respected by some in the base, for sure. he has a tough road to hoe. i am not quite sure that is the general mood of the base even though it has allegedly shifted to the right in the last two years. i think we have to be careful whether santorum and bachmann and this shift to the right will play out. host: will social issues be as big a deal? guest: they will believe, but not as central. there's not a single republican in the race who is not pro-life. maybe if rudy jumps in.

that is an issue that matters to most people, but it will be more bread-and-butter economic issues in 2012. host: will social issues be a play in your mind? guest: has begun to the general election on the democratic side, but what we have seen, even since january 1st, there was a story in "the new york times" this morning that there has been over six the anti-abortion measures passed in state houses and it does not get a lot of attention on the front pages. there is a lot of activity and anxiety within the democratic base on these issues. i think you can see this playing a factor is we move closer to november 2012. host: two more names to run out there. met romney? -- mitt romney? guest: he will run a very

disciplined, very well run campaign. if he were to be the nominee, he would definitely take off the gloves with barack obama. he would be a good debater. there is romney-care where he did it not just a word with an individual mandate but he married it in the massachusetts. that was his baby. he has to argue that it was ok to do it at the state level and that it works, which it has not, but it is unconscionable at the federal level and repeal it. that is a need bill he will have to try to thread. i do not think he has persuaded a whole lot of people, but we will see. he is in this for the long haul. he raised $10 million in one day. host: tim pawlenty? guest: there are a lot of republicans who desperately want him to catch on and are trying to figure out a way. i think he is struggling to get

name recognition and a following. someone like herman cain who is viewed by the elite republicans as a fringe figure has doubled the support of the former governor. there is something going on were he is not catching on. can he turn that around and start getting support? things have a way of building on themselves. if you do not get the support, show up more strongly in the polls, you can raise the money. if you cannot raise the money, you cannot do the things to start showing up in the polls. there is a lot of time, but on the other hand there is less time than if you think. he needs to get the momentum going because we are not that far away from january 2012 when the iowa caucus will start. guest: he had a very successful interview with russian lombok and came out with some of my

opening proposal to bring -- proposals. he has had some funny tweets. he is a guy that democrats are scared of. he won twice in a tough state for democrats. he won reelection in a state that had elected al franken as a senator. host: what is the untold story? what is the thing that people should be watching out for that may not be on the front page of the news as far as the 2012 election is concerned? guest: i think security will be interesting. obviously, economic matters are paramount right now, but traditionally has been get closer to the election, it has been something that the republican nominee has done. the have hammered on the idea that the republicans are the ones you can trust on national security.

with the death of bin laden, will that be blunted some one this year? what kind of impact will the national security issues as we headed down to election day? guest: national-security and foreign-policy are getting the short trip. they're welcome to a robust debate about those issues. the killing of bin laden was a "gutsy call." in some ways it was an obvious call, but it is hard when you're putting words on the ground to make sure you're getting the job done. no one will take that away from the president. a lot of the intelligence that led to that moment was developed using bush policies and during the bush years, but this president made that decision. it was an excellent decision. we can all agree that he should be commended and get credit for it.

host: guy benson from townhall.com and judd legum from thinkprogress.org. later on, the nature of political action committees, how they work, how much money they can raise. also, a discussion of iran and the american foreign policy council. we will be right back. >> people often say to me, how much of your time to you spend writing and how much time you spend doing research? great question. no one ever asks, how much of your time you ever spend thinking? that is the most important part of it. >> part two of the q&a interview with david mccullough, his writing process and, "the greater journey -- americans in

paris." you can download our signature interview programs online on." -- c-span.org/podcasts. >> today, looking at the history and literary life of the tampa-st. petersburg area. plus, a look at the book industry with local booksellers. american history tv on c-span3, from the st. petersburg museum, the first scheduled their craft and a book at the history of 750 former slaves and seminole indians in the early 1800's. local content vehicles with civic leaders today on c-span2 and 3.

host: ilan berman from the american foreign policy counsel joins us. he is there a vice-president. we have heard about areas of the middle east. as far as what you have heard on a whole, can you tell us how iran fits in late on foreign policy right now? guest: if you have been reading papers or watching television, there has been a tremendous amount of the people in the middle east over the last several months. it has been colloquially called the arab spring. the moniker may not been apt, because it is not clear that this will end up with greater democracy. but we are seeing a tremendous amount of instability, and political ferment in a region that has been historically politically stagnant. you're looking at on the order of eight or nine different revolutions or political upheavals in different shapes.

we only know the big ones -- libya, egypt, tunisia. there are others including unrest in morocco, jordan, yemen. of the region on a whole is more dynamic, more so than it could have been expected and historical it ever has been. iran slipped in a very interesting way. they have spent time talking about how the arab spring is the logical evolution of the region in the direction of iran. this is, what they would like to call, a belated embrace of the islamic resolution of 1979. internally, you are seeing something very different. iran, after all, is the front- runner of the arab spring. the tabs of protesting your seeing elsewhere in the region actually began in early summer

2009 in iran. iranians are balance of your precariously. they want to spend this as an iranian victory that gives them greater freedom of movement, but they are for that what is happening in the rest of the region could come home within their own borders and could galvanize and reenergize the pro-democracy movement they have been struggling with the bank of host: our guest is with us to talk about the history of iran. the numbers are on your screen. journal@c-span.org and tweets at @cspanwj. going forward, we have heard about iran as far as policy wise, but where do we stand on policy? what efforts have been made? guest: we are in the throes of a fairly substantial policy

evolution on the number of fronts. we know that president obama came in with the idea of a really reaching out and engaging as a counterpoint to the bush administration sanctions policy in an effort to stop, to derail, to modify iran's nuclear capability. what we have seen is that the iranian ayatollahs are really that interested in talking about it. we have seen the white house shift incrementally toward a greater support for sanctions, multilateral pressure on iran. the understanding here is that the engagement track, while still desirable, is now reaping the benefits. so we need to put pressure on them to bring them with compliance to the international demands for transparency in their nuclear program and increasingly for greater human rights standards. rights standards. host: sanctions?

guest: last summer, they've passed the comprehensive iran sanctions act, the most sweeping sanctions ever levied by the united states against the republic of iran. this was seen as the gateway to put a lot of work pressure on them over their nuclear program. we have not seen it as much as the number of us would like to. over the last number of months, it has only been implemented twice and only with very small companies. if the idea really is for the united states put pressure on iran economically to ratchet up the cost of their nuclear endeavor, convince them that this is not a smart bet, we would have to do a lot more to tell them that what they are choosing, the nuclear pact, carries actual cost. host: our guest is ilan berman, the vice-president for the

american foreign policy council. first caller. caller: i am a supporter of israel and i think they have the right to live like everyone else. i would like to ask you, regarding your remarks -- regarding president obama's remarks about negotiations between the palestinians and israelis, there is nothing different than what other presidents have said. guest: this is slightly off topic, but i will hazard an attempt. the back and forth we are seeing between the israeli government and the u.s. government over the israeli-palestinian issue is very telling. if you remember, the president from his discussion about the 1967 borders about a rebirth of the israeli-palestinian negotiation track in the context of a larger speech of the middle east policy. what is the most striking is that it the look in egypt,

jordan, morocco, tunisia, yemen , one of the things these people are not protesting about is israel or the stagnant nature of the israeli-palestinian conflict. that does not mean that it should be resolved, but what you're seeing is a number of separate dynamics. the united states has focused on the israeli-palestinian issue as the unifying theme to look at the middle east. personally, i think that is a mistake. there are a lot of things going on regionally including the rise of iran as a geopolitical power that has nothing to do with israel, the palestinians, and needs to be paid attention to. host: who are the main losers in the arab spring? is iran potentially capable of being a loser? guest: there is the danger that the iranians are on the losing side of this. after all, if you look within

iran as a country, it is not healthy sociologically, economically that they have the highest drug addiction rate in the world according to the u.n. to have inflation tied to 15%. 20% of their population lives underneath the internationally recognized poverty line. the idea that all politics are local really applies here. when you have a regime that is not delivering on real, tangible socioeconomic levels, there is a danger of unrest. areiranian ayatollah os concerned that this could translate into a shot to the arm for their political opponents and the democracy protesters that they have managed to beat back so far. host: republican line from rancho cucamonga, california. caller: i would like to ask a question about their potential

impact regarding europe. you made a comment in that we need to put tighter sanctions on them to keep them in line with the international community. being a republican, i do not think we should be in the business of nation-building. at anything good came out of libya, it is that europe is doing their own part to finally protect themselves. i have always believed that iran is a greater danger to europe. we should get involved unless europe is involved as well. guest: i think this is a very useful intellectual threat. when you talk about europe and iran, hysterically the europeans have tried as hard as they could -- historically, the europeans have tried as hard as they could with the iranians. the eurozone are cumulative greatest trading

partner. it matters a greater deal more than with the united states does. the multilateral trade for us is less than $1 billion per year. but the fact that the europeans are stepping up, as you say, is a good sign. it is a more heartening sign that we have seen additional, far more serious economic sanctions amount of the european commission. this includes sanctions on entities like the big hamburg- based iranian base which has been a key player to the iranian guard. the fact that europe is paying attention is good news. they have the ability to focus iranian attention on the fact that there are concrete penalties much more than we can. we have been out in front for the past decade or so, on that

the europeans, if they get serious about this, have the ability to dramatically amplify that message. host: off of twitter guest: a good question. iran likes to style what they are doing as being defensive. the iranian foreign minister, the then foreign minister in 2003, outlined as the policy of deterrence and defense in which he said we are building up weaponry, focusing on the nuclear program as a way to stand off the international community and protect ourselves. if you are iranian looking at the region, you can understand being a little bit leery. you have coalition troops to the left and right and there is a reason for concern. two things. if you look at iranian ideology

in the iranian constitution and from ayatollah khamenei and in ofir actions sucin the support it, they styled themselves as a country and and i'll -- as an ideological movement. the type of meddling you are seeing on the part of iran, in places like iraq, lebanon, for example afghanistan, suggest strongly that when the iranians think about the region they are not thinking on the defensively but how to improve their geopolitical position and how to public life for us and our coalition allies in such a way that we do not turn our attention to what iran is doing. host: on the independent line for ilan berman. caller: good morning and thank you for c-span for all that you do. i think the iranian situation is

very important for two reasons. first, human rights and democracy, making sure that people in that country have the right to choose their government and had a serious impact in the making policy. two, nuclear non-proliferation. i think it is very important to make sure that iran does not have a nuclear-weapons. the nuclear non-proliferation treaty was implemented. treaty was implemented. that being said, the nuclear non-proliferation as two points. first, we have to make sure we cutaways for new weapons to be put out there. second, we have to make sure that people who have nuclear weapons do not having nuclear

foothold. guest: this is an interesting thing to follow. it is something the obama administration has been focusing on, the idea of a global zero, leading by example, drawing down our stockpile. it is something the administration has been grappling with for the last 1.5 years or so. it is the major impetus for the new start agreement that the administration pushed through congress in last year for new strategic arms reductions with the russian federation. it is important to understand that, first of all, i could not agree with you more. the human-rights issue, the human dimension in iran is the critical issue. a look at the numbers, it is very clear that you have a regime that is overwhelmingly young. the median age is 27 years old.

67% of the population is under the age of 35. and the practical sense, that means that most of the population was not alive, or at least politically aware, when the ayatollah khamenei carried out his revolution and therefore they may not care as much as they would like you think. they care about research prosperity, political dynamism, engagement with the international community. region and an understanding with that demographic thinks in iran is crucially important. we have not spent nearly enough time doing that on an official level. on the nuclear level, the global zero paradigm really breaks down with regards to iran. the iranians have demonstrated that we like them to give up their nuclear capabilities and provide additional transparency said that the international community can be reassured that they are just pursuing a

peaceful civil nuclear program. they have sent pretty clear signals that the nuclear path that are on the dacey as a gateway -- than they are on they see as a nuclear prominence, and pursuing a greater role in a region. it does not mean that they will have a bomb tomorrow or that they are looking to build one. when iran looks at their nuclear program, they see a catalyst for a greater regional role for them in a changing middle east. they like it. the idea that we could convince them to give this up is certainly a proposition that we should test, but so far we have not made a compelling argument to them that we should. host: off of twitter -- guest: a good question. the old joke that the israelis have been saying that there are two years away from a nuclear

bomb and at some point they will be right. what is important to understand, and this is not and it is really an argument or even a golf argument, but a lot of these countries, including israel, they are not separated by and large ocean. the threat posed by iran, the threat by a nuclear iran and an iranian subversion, looms very large. they cannot extricate themselves geographically from the problem. i think the numbers are really telling. in the run-up to the iraq war, there was only one declared nuclear country, it was iran. a few months prior, it had been discovered that they had a nuclear program that was clandestine. now there are something like 14 countries that have resumed a nuclear capability. some are doing it for energy purposes, turkey for example. other countries of the gulf

cooperation council are doing it in this fashion because, quite frankly, they are afraid of the iranians and want a counterweight to the iranian program. that should really give everyone pause because we are really concerned about non- proliferation and the spread of this type of technology. it should give the israelis pause because they did not have the ability to move out of the region and say, "it is not our problem." problem." that are there through thick and thin and they have to deal with a multi-nuclear middle east. host: another question off of twitter -- guest: that, i think, is a great question. what we have been seeing, if you follow iranian politics, is it fairly novel. the political spat in the open between president ahmadinejad and the supreme leader.

the reason it is important is the understanding here is the supreme leader, called so for a reason, but ahmadinejad was his guy. he served at the supreme leaders pleasure. now you're seeing a very public role of at reining in of politics, the reigning in of ahmadinejad saying you are talking out of line. the set of policies are disruptive and that they want to control him. this suggests, i think it, that iran is not a monolith. when you see ahmadinejad talking about a world without america or israel, he is not the only decision maker in the room and thank goodness for that. i think it is a mistake to assume that, first of all, he has no power because he does. also, to assume that, many -- that khameni opposes him, the

situation is much more complicated than that. we have a political ferment in the iran we have not seen for quite some time. the fundamentals of the regime, those things are staples, there are the rules of the road and they will remain. the public face of the regime is it may change. host: from new york offer the democratic line. caller: have we given much thought to what will happen when iran does get a bomb? we know that they will. and maybe five years, 10 years. we could bomb them back into the stone age, but they will get one. maybe this has to do with president obama's policy right now. guest: i think it has a lot to do with president obama is policy. the policy of the last

administration, even into his second term, when it added a little bit with his approach to iran was essentially preventive in nature. if we marshal all of these resources, we can stop them from crossing the nuclear threshold. "we're seeing now from the white house is more double-edged. there are still trying to prevent, hence the sanctions and diplomacy, but at the same time there is talk about detaining and tearing iran. these are loaded words because they presume, there is an assumption on our part that no matter what we do that iran will become a nuclear power and we will have to "manage the situation." is it possible for us to manage the situation? so far, what we are seeing is that we do not have a lot of understanding about how iran think strategically, who is in charge, how this elements within the iranian government are going

to act. that all makes a big difference in trying to figure out whether it is possible to addition and middle east where iran is no clear but we are allowed to operate freely, our allies are still secure, and we can secure our interests without having to worry about iranian nuclear blackmail. host: what is the iranian threat to the citizens of the u.s.a., economic or military? guest: that is the crux of the question. in part, because when we talk about the iranian threat i just think it is constructive to talk about the iranian threat to the goal for the israel -- threat to the gulf or israel, but what this means for our interests? jim jeffrey, the obama administration envoy to a rocket, landed there last year -- envoy ro iraq.

when he did his initial tour in the baghdad coming give a press conference and made a very troubling comments in which he said that by his estimates iran was responsible, directly or indirectly, for 25% of coalition that's in -- deaths in iraq since 2003. that suggests strongly that they are pursuing a campaign against us. whenever there reason, they are committing an asymmetric were against us. the answer obliquely to the question is that we made, to go to war with iran, but for a variety of reasons they are at war with us. they did not want us in iraq, they do not want us in afghanistan. they do not want us to focus on what is happening within iran. they want to preempt the preemption. for all those reasons, you

know, we mean that at the iranian threat -- we may look at the iranian threats and a nuclear program as a threat. that is a large component, but what they are doing on the ground in these places where we have lasting strategic interests that you can think of going forward for five or 10 years, what iran is doing their matters a lot. host: atlanta, georgia rock, on the democratic line. caller: you mention 14 other countries were having some sort of nuclear program, most of them for energy. water going to do about -- what are going to do about embargoing them? guest: this is, i think, pivotal when you think about power and our policy towards iran and

nuclear proliferation at large. iran is emerging as a crucial test case of the existing non- proliferation regime. lot of these countries are getting the capability because they are afraid of iran. some of them, like syria, the capability because no one has done anything about iran. the one lesson you can draw from this is that what happens to the iranian nuclear program, whether they are made to stop it, whether they are penalized as a result, whether the international community sees there are real costs involved of them pursuing this will shape the terms of that debate other countries have about acquiring a nuclear capability in the pretty profound sense. the fact that iran looks out american policy towards their country and does not stay up light -- late worrying should be troubling. troubling. if they do not think we are serious, the syrians will not,

the saudis will not, the egyptians, on and on. host: abraham on our independent line. you are on with ilan berman. caller: i do not believe most of the news that comes out of the as long as the government, but at the same time i want to say that in this country the fact about iran is all distorted and it is all politically motivated. one thing is clear is that nobody has proved that iran has a nuclear weapon or is working toward a nuclear weapon including the american government. really, the problem and the issues about iran is all in the context of political motivation. this gentleman is a very pro- zionist and anti-iran -- guest: that's great. i appreciate the collar and his

honesty. i think what is clear here, to be fair, i never said that iran has a nuclear weapon and i never talked about the fact that they have now. you can make a pretty compelling case based on the available evidence from the united nations, the u.s. intelligence community, that iran has a number of elements of its nuclear program that are not necessarily strictly used for civilian energy generation and a large portion of the program is that they have not done the things they need to do to institute a clear nuclear program. when you marry that ambiguity and the plate and potential they have for building a nuclear capability -- and the blatant potential they have for building a nuclear capability, expansion, and it is fairly

hostile to the region, not only israel but the arab gulf as well. you have a country that clearly sees this program in the strategic terms. this is not just for energy generation. they about are the second- largest producer in opec. there's no need for them to build a civil nuclear energy program. they see this the way other countries have seen this after world war ii. this is how iran will get a seat at the big boy table. a nuclear capable iran will be a power. there's nothing wrong talking about it in those terms. if you read the iranian speeches, it is very clear that they see their nuclear program as a catalyst for a more dominant position in the region. host: off of twitter --

guest: when comes to iran, there is a lot more there. for one thing, you have an independent monitoring agency, the u.n. nuclear watchdog, which has had eyes on the ground. what they have found has been troubling, not because they found a smoking gun but because there is a lot of ambiguity that should have been cleared up by now about iranian nuclear intentions that have not been. what you have with regard to iran is that the same policy. after all, the bush administration chose to use the intelligence that they had cleaned, erroneous in part, to go to war with iraq. no one talked about going to war with iran. we are talking about putting pressure on the iranians said

the clear up the ambiguity, whether the pressure is political or economic is another story, but it is very clear that the international community, and the europeans were not on the same page as the bush administration when it came to a rock -- to iraq, that they see this in a much more unified way. host: from michigan on the democratic line. caller: good morning and thank you for c-span. i would like to make three comments. host: we are running out of time, so the first. caller: who has the right to tell iran what kind of weapons they can have? they did not start a war in afghanistan. they did not start a war in the north korea or vietnam. north korea or vietnam. host: we will leave it there.

guest: no one is talking about starting a war with iran. any serious political planner you talk about, whether democrat, a republican, or independent, the idea of military interaction with iran is a really bad idea. that does not mean it should be off of the table, because as john mccain said, and i think he is correct, that the only thing worse than bombing iran is in iran with nuclear weapons. what he was talking about with the idea that they will have the capability to dramatically increase their leverage over the region. we can argue the specifics of that, but no one is telling the that, but no one is telling the iranians incidentally that they should not have a nuclear capability. the last administration tried it twice to offer nuclear technology to the iranians.

the caveat was that it had to be limited for civilian usage and the technology had to be transparent in the nature and monitored by the international community. the office you see by the obama administration on the nuclear front have been the same way. the message to have gone back from the iranians are that they are good with the path they are pursuing. that suggests to this administration, as it did to the last, is that they are not pursuing a civilian nuclear program but a military nuclear program which could threaten the rest of the region which is why we are concerned. host: last call from remain on the republican line. -- from maine on the republican line. caller: what about the iranian relationship with kuwait? can you fill us in on how the two countries get along? guest: there is a constructive

tension with regard to kuwait. a good it prison to see their relationship not only with kuwait but also bahrain and saudi arabia is the shi'ite minorities. the role of islam is in the two. they are the overwhelming minority because they represent only 15% of the muslim world. iran is primarily shi'ite. winning here about this in late saudi arabia, bahrain, you hear overwhelmingly about how iran is using, not direct political contact, but covert engagements to talk with and power in the minority politically. they talk about it in those

terms because what they sensed what iran is doing, correctly or incorrectly, is that they are powering the minorities to change the political status quo in their favor. the great example of this is in bahrain where there was a recent invasion with the authority of the bahraini government. the reason that an invasion, essentially an occupation, was authorized was because the government of bahrain, which is minority sunni, was concern that the iranians were going to overthrow. we see what "the wall street journal" has called a cold war between the two factions of muslims playing out all over the region including bahrain and kuwait. host: ilan berman the vice- president of the american

foreign policy council. one more segment to go. we will learn about the work of political action committees in our last segment with shiel and -- sheila krumholz said. >> news beginning at noon eastern when c-span radio air is the five network radio talk shows. topics today include the debate over medicare, spending, on employment, housing for veterans, the 2012 presidential election, and the middle east. we begin with "meet the press" with david gregory. democratic policy committee chairman chuck schumer and former congressman harold ford, formerly of tennessee, a democrat. at 1:00 p.m., "this week" with the former minnesota governor and republican presidential candidate 1tim pawlenty.

host chris wallace welcomes ranking member john mccain, republican congressman alan west, and maryland democratic congresswoman donna edwards. at 3:00 p.m., "state of the union." union." also, democratic senator and the chairman of the veterans affairs committee. at 4:00 p.m., "face the nation" and bob schieffer talks with eric cantor and debbie wasserman shultz. those are the five network tv talk shows are as a public service by the networks and c- span. they begin at noon eastern with "meet the press," "this week," "stated the union," and at 4:00,

"face the nation." on xm 132, downloadable, and online at c-spanradio.org. >> follow "washington journal" on twitter and joined of yours to get an advance notice of tomorrow's guests, the question of the day, and links to key program highlights. you can tweak your questions to our guests and add comments to the conversation. do not mess any updates twitter.com/cspanwj. this weekend on c-span3, ben bradlee and bob woodward of watergate and the fallout over president nixon. this is a professor at george mason university talking about the foreign policy of president reagan.

visiting fort myers, va., to learn about the oldest active infantry union -- unit, the old guard. get the schedule emailed to you. host: our last segment is with sheila krumholz from the center for responsive politics. she is there executive director. welcome. what is a political action committee? guest: it is a committee organized reporting to the federal election commission that supports a candidate for public office. they can receive and contribute money directly but they must disclose. host: how many times per year can day disclose? guest: monthly or quarterly. if they've disclose quarterly, they only have to do that twice. this year, we will not see

anything about quarterly filings until july 31st. host: to they have to disclose how much they have given are where the money comes from host:? -- comes from? guest: both. they're very transparent. we know where the money is coming from and going to. that is the good news. host: what is the bad news? guest: many organizations use this to give a far in excess of what they could give individually. it is a way for individuals to accumulate power and deliver more influence to members of congress. host: as a person, i can only give some much. as a political action committee, i can give so much. guest: as an individual you can give $2,500. through a pac, you can get $5,000 and you can give more for that channel as well.

it is a way for an organization, corp., union, a trade association to really pack a punch. host: you can get $5,000 into a candidate. $15,000 per year to a party committee, is that the rndc? you can get $5,000 to another pac. explain this. you can give $5,000, so does that mean someone can contribute to yours as well? citigroup wants to deliver $5,000 to a leadership pac and a different pac the editors that -- that is sponsoring that congressman, that is a way for them to give even more money and gain more credit with that member. host: and have to register with

the fec within 10 days of pounding. guest: that is for a different segregated fund. they have to be in a segregated account and cannot be a part of their general treasury. they must file immediately upon forming. if it is a non-connected -- there are two different kinds. there is the segregated committee and then and now- connected committee which is not sponsored by organization that is a collection of individuals. they have to report was to have a $1,000 in financial activity. host: we are going to be talking about political action committees and how they work. the numbers are on your screen. journal@c-span.org. #cspanwj on twitter.

explain, sheila krumholz, the difference between a pac and a super pac. guest: it is an independent expenditure on the committee and is a new breed of animal formed following the citizens united decision. last year, in january 2010, the supreme court decided in the citizens united versus the federal election commission case federal election commission case that they can spend directly on independence expenditures. these are political ads and that was really an earthquake in campaign finance law. it then precipitated another decision, speech now, which allowed for corporations and allows for groups to set up

independent expenditure on the committees which filed with the federal election commission and can take an amount of money in any denomination to spend directly on a candidate's defeat or election. they are super because they have superpowers. they can receive money in excess of the normal pac's. host: stephen colbert said that his own pac. guest: he wants to sent up -- set up a super pac. they will be used to influence the 2012 election. he then had to go to the fec to ask for a media exemption because they are sponsored by, the center, viacom, and concerned that it would be an income contribution. host: all of the online, houston, texas. go ahead. caller: i wanted to ask about

the supreme court decision that makes the idea of pac's a non- entity. the amount of money that now gets into politics will be overwhelming as compared to what pac's could use to influence elections. guest: the citizens united decision made the laments seem almost quaint to some given that corporations, unions, groups with deep pockets can now get into the fray and influence the vote. however, there is still lead despite the very big difference between pacs and super pac's. corporations and unions, so far, are not allowed to contribute directly to the candidate. money in their pocket is very

influential and, in many ways, very powerful than money that is spent in ways that they do not even approve of. contributions can go directly to the candidate and the super pac's contributions may not. a virginia district court judges said that, in his opinion, the citizens united decision means that corporations should, in fact, be able to contribute directly to candidates. host: the top one listed is the american crossroads. the american families first fund is $5 million club for growth action is $4 million. the advocacy fund is $4 million. and caller: i would like to get your opinion that something.

we are at the end of the regulatory problems and citizens united issues. in 1910, congress acted to limit its own size to 435 ensuring that congressional district would grow to these huge amounts. amounts. the congressman robert -- represents 17,000 people have to raid -- raise $5,000 and cannot be challenged by anybody who is not famous unless they raise millions of dollars. what do you think about a proposal that would vastly increase the size of congress by reducing the size of districts down to a more manageable number. the original constitution said 30,000 was the number. in california, the state legislature, each senator, there are 40 of them, represent about 1 million people. the state representatives represent as -- represent half a million people. they need to raise millions of dollars. if we just reduced the size of

these districts down to numbers like new hampshire will average representative has 3000 constituents -- and guest: i have heard about the proposal. we are not endorsing any particular platform for reform. we exist to make transparent the way that money is raised and spent and how and why. we're concerned about the disproportionate influence that money can wield in politics. all of these ideas about how we might regain the high road should be on the table for citizens to consider. we think they must have the information about where the money is coming from and the motivations behind it in order to make the best decision. host: rhode island, independent line, good morning. citizens united test on

the issues of foreigners and foreign desk of corporations -- there had to be a certain percentage that was u.s.-owned before a corporation could contribute. considering citigroup, is there anything being done to point out which corporations are majority foreign-bound and not eligible? also, i want to touch on the previous caller when he talked about making the smaller districts. our founding fathers were very specific when they wrote the language about districts. language about districts. guest: the question about foreign-owned companies is one that has weighed heavily on people's minds. we don't want foreign corporations with their governments to be able to influence our elections. foreign corporations have been

able to participate through their u.s.-based subsidiaries which can form pacs and have been able to do so for a long time. they can raise revenue in this country which is sufficient to cover their contributions. it is resumed their able to participate in this way. americans who work for foreign- of company in the united states can make contributions in u.s. elections. this is a concern because of the undisclosed money that is now being funneled into independent expenditures for and against candidates. there is a far greater proportion in this last cycle that was undisclosed. it was about 50%. the groups that have foreign operations say this is completely separate and apart.

there is no way that foreign money can creep into our physical activities. without having access to the specifics, it is a good question whether or not it is possible for organizations can be involved. >> are their foreign-bond pacs? there is a list of foreign pacs. host: would recognize these names? guest: yes, companies like toyota. these are not associated sometimes with foreign corporations at this point. you will see in some cases familiar american names which have far in parents and foreign companies with u.s. operations which have four in pacs. this is a question which is of this is a question which is of greater concern for this outside -- contributions from

corporations going to outside concerns. host: democrats line. caller: can you speak to this notion of the asymmetry of influence in our political system as it relates to money given by pacs and the fact that we have given corporations that are artificial beings, in effect, the ability to have a symmetrical influence on our political system. why can't we just give corporations one vote -- the power of one vote as we do a natural person? guest: i think we have to distinguish again between pacs and super-pacs. pacs have been delivering money to represent the economic or ideological interest of the organization. these are still contributions

coming from individuals. a super-pac can come directly from the corporation or union. the question refers back to the united -- citizens united decision which said that corporations are people, too. corporations, for the purposes of election law, are considered to have free speech rights equivalent to an individual. of course, the truth is corporations and unions are not people. that is legal fiction created for the purpose of law. they can't vote. they don't have a conscience. this spread a huge debate. this has raised a lot of concerns among the american public. host: on our independent line,

from saratoga, n.y., john. caller: i just want to put my opinion as an independent out there. i am sort of against the pacs. i am for. public for i would really like to hear the ideas of the actual person who ideas of the actual person who is running for office instead of the ideology mixed with the money. between the money and the ideology, we need good grass- roots ideas more than these battles that go on as far as who is backing these people. i want what the person actually believes instead of what is paid for. that is the way i feel. guest: yes, i think the caller raises an excellent point. increasingly, voters will not hear as much from the candidates so much as from these wealthier,

deep-pocketed outside interest groups that are holding sway over the messaging. in the last cycle, there was a telling quote from a democratic operative in colorado who said -- he was running a candidate campaign -- he said it is as though the outside groups are in the driver's seat and the political parties are riding shotgun and a candidate is being in the back seat being told to shut up. told to shut up. and even recently, in the new york upstate election, the candidate raised $1.7 million and her congressional bebid that is less than what one

super-pac spent. host: guest: that is a serious question. if the candidates need to raise $1.8 million to run for a house race -- $1.4 million for a house race and $8 million for a senate race but the outside groups can run advertisements and send money triple that, how can a candidate get their message out? host: are we going to see public financing of campaigns be an issue in the years ahead? guest: the public financing groups out there hope it will be. it has been embattled after the citizens united ruling that

ruling has engendered a lot of new concern among new constituents. it leaves this issue squarely on the table for the voters to grapple with. host: greensboro, n.c., you are on. caller: my comment is indirectly related to what we're talking about today. republicans were secretly hoping that the economy would not recover by 2012. i think that is something the american people should be aware of. in terms of the information that they wholeheartedly support is how you relate that in time, they're givingat for the publicity and support that they give to the republicans? host: 10 networks contribute to

campaigns directly? guest:no, they cannot. that was the concern of the viacom contributions to the colbert pac. the outside groups have to pay fair market value for the political ads they run. these are extremely expensive. as is fund raising. the amount of money keep riding higher with each election cycle. higher with each election cycle. the republican party does not want the economy to recover, that seems to be the way the game is played. neither party wants the other party or candidate to have the event it. americant want the continent -- economy to fail but they are looking for advantages

to capitalize on recent events. host: steubenville, ohio, republican line, go ahead. caller: i would like to read a quote that i saw. "the hypocrites crying is that he bears full witness against himself. what makes it possible to assume that hypocrisy is that integrity can exist under the cover of all other prices except this one. only the hypocrite is really rotten to the court. e core." your last guest the find the definition of a hypocrite. host: i apologize. we have moved on to this

segment. west virginia, democrats line. caller: i think there should not be any finances at all for any campaign, presidential, congress, senate or anybody. we have enough television stations and radio stations where they all can be given equal time on tv or radio to express their opinions at what they will do and everything and have the people vote accordingly. no finances whatsoever because that is what corrupt got -- the government. guest: that is a novel view. in the campaign finance reform and public finance a communities, some people agree it takes resources for a candidate and party to get their platform out to inform the public. information is good. we would not to center any candidate. the money is so in balance.

-- the money is so imbalanced. money is power and money will be overlooked -- overwhelming in the next election cycle. will the candidates be able to get their message out? the candidates are going for current media. earned media. that they have not paid for. host: 2009-2010 cycle, we saw blue.all act guest: they are a political action committee representing liberal-democratic interests. it is almost a fund-raising mechanism. it is an on fund-raising tool to help them

bring in money. it is a conduit. if i give to a candidate, i might be getting through active below as they use that as part of their fund-raising scheme. list.the seiu and emily's moveon.org and american crossroads. north carolina, republican line, go ahead. caller: good morning. responding to the list you just put up that i was looking at, i want to get your reaction. i am pro-citizens united. i am a conservative republican and i think the ruling was good. why does there appear to be such outrage mainly from the left

with corporations? that word is used to denote evil just like profits and everything else. why should corporations, an organization that groups themselves for economic gain, financial gain in this country, made up of people, why shouldn't they be able to support candidates and political causes when they have to live under the laws and regulations and taxes and everything else our government passes? the dislikerstand for not allowing corporations or companies or businesses to be able to participate in the political process by donating to their causes or to organizations that support particular candidates. guest: for the progressive or liberal communities and others who are opposed to the citizens united decision, the great concern about corporations is

there a vast wealth. they can use that to create any imbalanced advantage for their motives and their agenda which is not one based on an ideological purpose but on the bottom line. they have a fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders and not the american prior -- american public and also unions. trade associations have access to all the corporate dues of their members and can push their agenda backed by millions of dollars. that is something that regular citizens and candidates cannot do as easily. i cannot speak for the anti- citizens united movement. we don't take a position on citizens united. we take position on disclosure.

we're not for censoring information but we want the american people to have access to who is funding these mega- campaigns to influence specific races and influence the outcome of the boats. we want the american public to have access to that information so they can make the best decision possible. decision possible. they can be trusted with that information. if they have access to that, there will make the best decision based on their own needs. host: we hear two men's come off a lot -- george soros and the koch brothers. guest:the koch industry has a pac and both organizations give tens of millions of dollars politically. they are enormously wealthy and enormously powerful political

poster children for their causes. outside of contributions directly of candidates, they give to interest groups, nonprofit that have political influence. used as theften example of what is wrong with the other side. the problems that we face are far broader than these two individuals or interest groups. host: how are you guys funded? host: how are you guys funded? guest: we are funded by large foundations. pew, the sun life foundation, and individual donations and fees for service.

with contracts for research and data. host: independent line. caller: i was wondering why emerging countries are incapable holding fair elections. pacs different arare from being corrupted? guest: they have been demonized by having corruption in the system. the money that is given by individuals either who are contributing to a pac or intruding themselves -- or contributing themselves is often motivated by the same economic or ideological interests. webber comes to pac may or an individual -- whether it comes

from pac or an individual, we have the opportunity to see where they money is going. we can see whether that has undue political influence on the political process. we can see if our representatives in congress are basing their decisions on the money or on the merits of the decision. their real concern for the potential of corrupting influence of money is this kid in money that is going to outside interest groups through non-profits that are setting up outside groups to spend money on electioneering and communications are directly on the independent expenditures. one problem with super-pacs is that they are accepting contributions from nonprofits which do not reveal their donors. we have a question of transparency and accountability. host: this is from twitter --

guest: there is a whole world of pac law that applies to tax- exempt organizations. a charitable organizations like mine, churches, universities cannot set pacs. should they be able to, we would benefit by having more concrete divisions between chatter rebel organizations and social welfare organizations that have a greater ability to participate politically. host: oceanside, calif., democrats line. caller: i like your opinion on how we could have avoided what we have here in california. we had a candidate who apparently did not need any money.

schwarzenegger was a may be a billionaire from all of his films buddy team up with bush and between the two of them, they were able to get the ofgray out of office. it would be nice if we could vote for somebody for character and intelligence and apparently he is an intelligent man that all this is coming about about all the corruption that went on and how he collected from the various pharmaceutical companies. how could we have avoided this in california? guest: since we are not a campaign finance reform organization, we're not proposing one path for another. if you speak to someone who supports public financing, they would say it for you reduce the need for those seeking huge sums

of money, you will have a more diverse pool of candidates to choose from. if you look at the money in the primary process, it often is narrowing the field and an early point in the political campaign. early money indicates a wealth primary. it is a much smaller pool of candidates and it is affected by their ability to raise money. host: on our republican line, illinois. caller: my comment is about the election of 2012. there is no candidate that stands a chance against

president obama because he walked a fine line with both democrats and republicans. he is not necessarily on the republican side or necessarily fully on the democratic side. as far as republicans running, the best thing they have is running at raising campaign money. after these republicans and other democratic presidential candidates to run, what is the process that they have to go through to obtain the leftover campaign money? sarah palin bashoor unnecessary. for any woman in america to not vote for sarah palin is a tragedy. guest: i won't weigh in on a question of whether women should vote for sarah palin but i would say that excess funds may not be used for personal

financial gain. any candidate with leftover funds after election day may give them in full to the party committees, to charity, they could return them to the donors who might appreciate that rebate or they may contribute them unlimited amounts to other candidates. that is often the case. host: you don't often see a refund of funds? guest: not usually. they may simply want to build a war chest. host: we to talk aboutauto-pacs -

guest: the party committees are the representative parties. they're organized in large part to support their candidates with fund-raising. however, they already knew disadvantage compared to these outside interest groups that are trying to have an outsized influence on our elections and we should get ready for a juggernaut of spending in 2012. many members of congress have leadership pacs that act as a slush fund about that. that they have. they can use that money for their on travel and help build name recognition for their next jump to higher office. host: one more call, democrats line.

caller: i think what it has come down to in this country is the rich are able to buy their candidates as much says if they candidates as much says if they took a suitcase full of money and gave it to the guy. the american voter does not have a voice in the elections that set with their one vote. guest: that one boat is very powerful. -- that one boat is very powerful. i'm not a pessimist. i'm not a pessimist. we have recourse through narrow vote or through our activism. we want to get this information and we want you to arm yourself and we want you to arm yourself