-- participants noted that trends in global financial markets, principally associated with the condition in europe, meanwhile, inflation has declined, primarily reflecting lower prices of crude oil and gasoline. logger-term inflation expectations have remained stable. the committee anticipates that inflation will run at or below the 2% rate it judges consistent with the statutory mandate. more specifically, participants project that inflation will have a central tendency of 1.2% to 1.7% for 2012, and 1.5% to 2.0% for 2014. the projections submitted our condition under individual assessments of the appropriate path of monetary policy. as you can see from the chart, participants have a range of views about when the initial increase in the federal funds rate will be warranted. after a thorough discussion on the ongoing uncertainty and risks surrounding the outlook,

the fomc maintain its collective judgment of economic conditions being likely to want exceptionally low levels to the rate at least early 2014. they agreed to provide further support to the economy in continuing the maturity extension program. the committee is prepared to take further action as appropriate to promote a stronger economic recovery and sustained improvement in labor market conditions in the context of stability. i'll be glad to take questions. >> mr. chairman, looking back on the last four years of fed policy, i think it is fair to say it has been bold and yet at the same time halting. you did killy won, then stop, then the qe2. you extended operation twist. how would you respond to a young mit graduate student coming over and saying, several

years from now, the policy problem was that it was to incremental. the reason why the economy underperformed was because of that incremental policy. what you think the dangers are right now that today's action is also to incremental? >> of course, we cut the federal funds rate in a continuous fashion until will -- to designate. -- since december of 2008. since then, we have been operating with nonstandard monetary tools, including asset purchases and the extension of maturities. by nature, these tend to be lumpy. we have not done them in a continuous way. but our view of the effects of these programs on the economy is that the total stock of outstanding securities in our portfolio is what determines the level of accommodation that the economy is receiving. in that respect, it would not be a start and stop. rather, whenever we have stopped purchasing, the level of accommodation already in the

system remains there until conditions warrant further action. underlying all this, of course, is the fact that the outlook has changed. like many other forecasters, the federal reserve was too optimistic early in the recovery about the pace of recovery. we have had to add additional accommodation going forward, as we have seen in the fact that the headwinds have kept recover from being as strong as we would like. by the nature of these on conventional tools, they tend to be more discreet in their size, but they continue to have accommodated the facts, even after the pattern of purchases has ended. >> [inaudible] >> we have taken eight substantive step that will provide additional economy accommodation. we're prepared to take further steps it, if necessary, to promote sustainable growth and

recovery in the labor market. we are prepared to do what is necessary. we are prepared to provide support to the economy. >> reuters. many analysts have characterized today's step at a somewhat modest. with lower g.d.p. projections, higher unemployment outlook showing possibly no improvement at all in the unemployment rate to the end of this year -- the program itself is smaller and a shorter duration than the original operation twist. given this weaker outlook, why such a modest program. would he say -- when you say you are prepared to take further action, does that mean you are prepared to do a full-on a new asset purchasing program? >> there has been a great deal of economic news since our last meeting. the incoming data were somewhat

disappointing, but not entirely clear. we had issues about whether there was seasonal adjustment and other factors. meanwhile, europe has had additional problems. we have seen those defects in the financial markets. there is some cases to be made for making additional judgments about where the economy is going. that being said, the step that we took, the extension of the maturity extension program, i think, is a substantive steps that will provide additional support. additional asset purchases would be among things we would certainly consider if we needed to take additional measures to strengthen the economy. >> john allison, wall street journal. i would like to ask you to respond to a different set of criticisms. the criticism you hear from capitol hill and wall street that the fed has already pushed

interest rates to an extraordinarily low level. there is not anything that the fed can do more to help the recovery. that criticism is that the fed, at this point, should stand down and let congress or the white house attend to the economy's ailments, or let market forces tend to the economy's ailments. what you think of those arguments, and how would you respond? >> as i have said many times, monetary policy is not a panacea. it will not solve our monetary problems. we welcome support from any part of the government, so collaboration would be great. i would not accept the proposition that the fed has no more ammunition. i do think that our tools, while they are nonstandard, still can create more

accommodating financial conditions and still provide up -- support for the economy. they can still help us return to a more normal economic situation. that being said, again, any other support that is forthcoming, any other economic policies undertaken that are helpful in terms of making our economy is stronger are welcome, but i do think that monetary policy still does have some capacity to strengthen the economy by easing the financial conditions. >> thank you. mitt romney recently said that qe2 had a relatively little impact on the economy. he said that was in part because of the president's policies. he said that qe3 was unwarranted and could have negative effects. do you agree that qe2 had little effect on the economy?

you think the president's policies have had any effect on the effectiveness of monetary policy? do you think is appropriate for a presidential tended to account on monetary policy -- comment on monetary policy? >> both asset purchase programs have significant effects on asset prices and financial conditions. although there were certain problems with transmission, for example, the housing market has not been as responsive, we think they were both effective in providing support for the economy and, in particular, so- called qe2. it ended what looks to be an incipient deflation problem when we first introduced it. i think those have been effective. as i said, we think the extension programs still can provide additional support. with respect to the rest of your questions, i want to reiterate to the federal reserve is non- partisan. we're very serious about taking

our decisions on purely economic grounds that political considerations. we will continue to do that. >> jim with "the l.a. times." mortgage rates are already at historic lows. how much more help and an extension of operation twist do to lower interest rates? >> well, the interest rates are quite low, and they are being pushed down more by safe-haven factors. that being said, i think we can lower interest rates more. beyond that, operation twist and asset purchases work to other channels, in particular by acquiring securities in the market and bring them on to the fed's balance sheet, we essentially induce investors to move into substantive securities. for example, an investor who

sells a treasury security to the fed may end up buying a corporate bond instead. the effect will be to lower corporate bond rates and corporate spreads. or, a bank may, having sold its treasury securities, may decide to make a loan instead. it is not just the effect on long-term interest rates. there's a broader set of the facts that work to other asset prices, other interest rates, other spreads, and provide a broader ease in financial conditions that is supportive to the economy. >> jeff from bloomberg news. given the projections today going out to 2014 on unemployment, seeing it almost where it is now for two more years, can you look past 2014? now that we are five years past

the top of the stock market, six years past the top of the housing market? can this go on for a decade? can this go longer? can you reassure americans that it will not go on for a dozen years, like the depression? >> it is our intention to do what we can to make sure that it does not go on indefinitely. unemployment is still too high. but it has come down. it was 10% at the peak. now is closer to 8%. it is going down too slowly, but it is going down. our sense is that people are finding jobs, but not at the rate we would like to see. as i said, and as the statement says, if we do not see continued improvement in the labor market, will be prepared to take additional steps as a bric. jig if appropriate. >> "new york times."

i am the net projections released it said unemployment will be between 8% at the end of the year. the city defining factor would be whether employment was -- unemployment was coming down. that is barely a decrease. i'm struggling to understand why, in that context, you are not doing more now. he said he would do more of that was not happening. >> again, we did take a substantive step -- step today by extending the maturity extension program to the end of the year. that is a meaningful additional step. it depends on each individual -- each individual has their own path suboptimal policy. -- of optimal policy. we will provide --we will provide more information about that in the minutes. we are prepared to do more. information about the state of economy, where things are going, what is happening in europe. i would add to that that each of these non-standard programs does have the various costs and

risks associated with it. with respect to market function, financial stability, the exit process. i do not think they should be launched lightly. there should be some conviction that they are needed, but if we do come to that conviction and we will take those additional steps. >> dow jones. you have said that european policy makers are the first line of defense for european debt crisis, but under what circumstances would the fed get more directly involved with other central banks? >> as you say, europeans are the first line. europe is a wealthy area. they have adequate resources to address these problems. there are very committed to addressing these problems, because keeping the eurozone together, keeping the eurozone trading together is very important to the economies of

those countries. we leave to them the leadership. the federal reserve is very much involved in talking with the consulting -- talking with, consulting with european leaders. i talk frequently to central bankers in europe, including mario draghi. we try to pronounced would ever -- provide whatever help we can. we did coordinate earlier in the tradition of the dollar swaps to other central banks, which have been useful in reducing pressures in dollar funding markets and allowing european banks to continue lending in dollars, including two u.s. borrowers. at this point, we are consulting frequently. we are prepared to work together if that can be done constructively. but at this point we are mostly in consultation now. >> peter bonds, fox news. you talked about trying to get help from the other branches of government.

that leads to questions about the fiscal cliff. have you seen any evidence that a lack of progress on resolving the fiscal cliff issue is having an impact on the economy right now? is it slowing economic growth right now? job creation, as we saw last year during this same debate -- if you have not seen it yet, when might we start to see it hit the economy and hurt the economy? >> is still a bit early, but ase economy? >> i think it is a bit early. as we move forward in the year, we anticipate some economic effects. in the meeting, we had analysts talk about firms that might be government contractors. we're not sure that the contracts will be in place, come

january. more generally, financial markets do not like uncertainty. i think that will be a negative. most important is that congress gets the policy right. i have talked about three elements for fiscal recovery policy. first is do no harm. second, maintain the effort to achieve a sustainable path over the longer term. and third, to modify the tax code and make good use of government programs. if congress does all those things, the benefits will be substantial. >> peter cook, with bloomberg television. if i could follow up -- how

beneficial would it be for the u.s. economy right now given some of the talk on capitol hill that they do not want to kick the can down the road -- would sooner rather than later and some of that uncertainty? >> well, that's a difficult problem. i'm not entirely sure. declared he would probably be helpful for the reasons i described -- the clarity would probably be helpful for the reasons i describes. on the other hand, investors would like to see congress make policies for long-term sustainable growth. it could be-looking at the seriousness of congress on this issue. >> financial times.

mr. chairman, one critique of the fed's actions is it has helped the people with the least propensity to spend -- the wealthy and large corporations. i was hoping that you could perhaps addressed this criticism, particularly with the focus on the access to credit? >> sure. access to credit is a major issue, no doubt about it. the credit market is much tighter than it has been for a long time. credit-card access is tighter than it has been for a long time. that being said, i don't think it's at all accurate to say our policy is not helping the broad public. first of all, many americans are able to take advantage of lower interest rates.

many people have refinanced or bought homes. others have taken out loans to buy cars. bottle loans are cheap and widely available. -- auto loans are cheap and widely available. more broadly, there is the indirect effect. if a firm has a low cost of capital, and we have seen a lot of corporate borrowing, then they are more likely to expand to add capital, to add products , and consequently, they are more likely to hire. the extent to which the payrolls have increased has been disappointing. but there have been significant increases. some of that comes from the broad impact of bad policies on spending, on investments, -- of fed policies on spending, on

investments, and those are promoted indirectly by promoting hiring and demand by the people who are producing. >> kevin and then over to marcy. >> my thanks. kevin hold. -- holt. i wanted to know more about what you think might be the chokepoints in the economy? europe has a much bigger path than anyone anticipated. yesterday at the round table, they said europe not so much. pc o of boeing said "clearly we are trimming -- the ceo of boeing said "clearly we are already trimming jobs." what do you think? what is your sense of where the choke point our backs --

chokepoints art? >> sure. and give a sense of some of the head winds in my opening remarks. first of all, europe is not in a recession in every country. that affects our trade with europe and the demand for products. more broadly, european concerns on financial markets have brought down stock prices and generally have been a negative for economic growth. that has been an issue. more broadly, we see some slowing in economic growth more generally, including in asia, which does reduced somewhat our ability to export. so, those concerns have been important. i have mentioned two others. one is housing. housing usually plays a very important role in an economic

recovery, both through construction itself, but also because higher house prices increase consumer wealth and promote consumer spending. housing does it seem to be doing somewhat better. there are some good signs in housing, but nevertheless, we're not getting the amount of help in the recovery would normally get. the other area, as you indicated, is fiscal. that happens at all different levels. state and local. notwithstanding, programs earlier and going forward, we have been seeing fiscal consolidation. tight budgets have led to a lot of layoffs and cancellations of projects and so on. we understand these are necessary steps from the perspective of individual states and localities. i am not criticizing that. its just the fact that we are

affecting the pace of growth in the broader economy. i think that would be the important thing. put them all together, and you have an economy that is growing less quickly than it normally would following a recession of the magnitude we saw. >> thank you. thank you. marcy gordon with the ap. given the environment you have sketched out and the fact that interest rates are at historically low point, would it make sense, would it be an option for government to issue more long-term debt at this point? >> well, the government is very gradually increasing the duration of its debt, and it has been doing that for some time. there is a bit of an issue here,

which is the federal reserve with the program announced today, we are taking longer term debt of the market in order to induce investors to move into other assets and lower interest rates, to the extent that the treasury actively saw to link then be duration of borrowing, to some extent, it's all set in the policies. my understanding is the treasury has a plan. they are sticking to that plan. therefore, on the margin, the effects of the fed's actions will be felt. >> you clearly seemed to be waiting on the labor market. can you be more specific? what exactly are you looking for? the rate of job growth? also, the unemployment rate comes down -- is that enough, or do you also look at labor participation and the whole

gestalt? [laughter] >> i can give you any numbers because ultimately this is a committee decision. but what the labor market is going to do is all the other measures of labor market activity, they are going to try to get a sense of whether or not the labor market is improving in a sustainable way. it is not a month to month proposition. we have seen a few months of strong job gains. month to month, i think there's going to be fiscal noise, weather, a lot of factors that could jobs -- could choose job gains to barry. is it sustainable? is it long-lasting? i can be more specific than that. -- i cannot be more specific

than that. >> steve beckner of market news international. mr. chairman, when you speak of the fiscal cliff, i you typically do not address the tax portion of that, which gives me the impression you're giving equal weight to both sides. some would contend the automatic tax hikes would be more onerous. if i may be permitted, i am also curious to know -- how are we going to continue market operations if by the end of this year we essentially have no short-term securities to use? >> their fiscal clef, the way the programs -- fiscal cliff, the way the programs are set up, the tax cut expiration's,

including the payroll tax cut and so on, is larger than the spending cuts, as i understand it. and not making any judgment about individual programs. the point is, putting all these things together, you have a very substantial withdrawal of income that will affect the ability to be recovered in the short run. again, they are making decisions about how to modify these changes. what is the sufficient tax structure? those are tough decisions congress has to make. in terms of the fiscal clef, in terms of what is going to happen in january, it is really the total of spending cuts and tax increases that has the impact, which we have identified as being a concern.

we will continue market operations with our securities even if the amount of short-term debt is very low. indeed, over time, as securities come close to maturation, we will of other securities that are short duration. -- we will have other securities that are short duration. >> hi, mr. chairman. there are a lot of questions as to whether the bull parol would have helped jpmorgan. -- volcker rule would have felt jpmorgan. as a supervisor, do you think this moment is the right time to slow down the rule writing process, or has this recent episode made a stronger case for putting through the volcker rule expeditiously?

given the fact that regulators might be late on the rule, could you speculate on when regulators may be ready to release the rule? >> it is a five-agency rule, i believe, so a lot of coordination is needed. it is a very difficult process in terms of the amount of work that has to be done, the amount of coordination that needs to be done. i don't have a day for you. i think there is a silver lining. and maybe there are some things we can learn in terms of writing rules and thinking about how they would work. one aspect of our rule that would have been important in the context of the law is that in the rule, a bank would be required to provide a plan in advance explaining how the head was going to be done, how it was

dgeng to predict how the hea was going to be done, how it was going to work. it would be necessary that compensation for the executives involved in that management position would not be touched, that it would be incentivized in a proprietary position. one aspect of the rule that might have been relevant, and again we are still looking at that, as are the sec and others, would be government-backed part of this. that might have changed the outcome. >> mark gregory, bbc. how much worse will the situation in europe have to get before it is seriously limiting

the prospects for the american recovery and changing policy making? >> i hope it doesn't get worse. i think it is already one of the factors that has been a drag on the u.s. recovery. not the only factor by any means. there are a number of others i have mentioned. it has been having an effect and it has been having an effect on the economies of other countries as well. it is an issue. we are hopeful that europe will take additional measures and do all that is necessary to stabilize the situation and provide the basis for ongoing stable structures in which banks and sovereigns are both stabilized, in which there is a program for growth, in which

fiscal operations are cleared. so, there's a lot of work to be done. again, we think that the policy makers in europe have a very strong incentive to get this right. we are very hopeful they will get it right. we have been in contact with them as they work on these issues. again, it is also important for us to be prepared for any problems that might emerge with your. we have been doing that. for example, our stress test for the large bank holding companies, we ensure that they get enough capital in the event of a european crisis. we of been monitoring the exposures of banks and other financial institutions to europe. and of course monitoring the situation very closely. the best.hoping for we're hoping policy-makers will take the additional steps they

need. but we are prepared if things get worse to protect the u.s. economy and the u.s. financial system. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i just want to give back to lending and credit. the uk started a program where the bank of england is going to make lending to banks to only land to households and companies. is that something under consideration at the fed? >> we're very interested in it. we're going to follow what. is not just of bank of england program. it is jointly held with the british treasury. one question might be is there some fiscal subsidy being included there? we have looked for new programs, new ways to help the economy,

and this would be the type of thing that would be on the list of programs we look at. >> you have an inflation target of 2%. i was wondering if you could explain why. you said the fed would be willing to do more if necessary. could you briefly comment on what action he might take and specifically what would be the cost of doing more qe? >> in terms of the inflation forecast, again, i think it should be said the economic projections have a lot of uncertainty about them. we talked about that. you should not take a false sense of precision from those numbers. that being said, there is an

issue about whether or not there is sufficient stimulus in the economy. as i mentioned earlier, one problem is we're now in a zero balance, and the types of international programs that are available, we know less about them. they have various costs and risks. for that reason, he may get a different amount of financial accommodation -- you may get a different amount of financial accommodation in this regime them one in which interest rates are very free. in terms of the costs, i would look briefly at large assets purchases to increase the size of our balance sheets. the large assets purchases mean

the fed owns a larger share of the titular -- of a typical type of asset. there are some financial stability issues we're monitoring and have to take into account. any kind of assessment of the appropriate policy, both as an out look to the economy and for, and at the costs associated with new measures, new steps -- that being said, i think the point is we still do have considerable scope to do more and we are prepared to do more. we can monitor the economy and see how things evolve. again, if we are looking primarily at the labor market in this respect, if we are not seeing sustained improvement in the labor market that would require action, in terms of balance sheet actions, we are unlikely to do more because we

have taken that about as far as we can. so, we have taken other types of steps to add to the amount of stimulus in the economy. >> thank you, chairman. you hear a lot of conversations about the liquidity trap in the u.s. if the u.s. economy is in a liquidity trap, if that happens, how can it escape from that? >> the u.s. economy is in a place where short-term interest rates are close to 0%. it has been one of the themes of my own work for a long time, including the work i did for the bank of japan, that central banks are not out of the was once the initial steps up and

taking, and we have demonstrated through communications techniques, documents about future policy, which is something the japanese have done as well, by the way, and true asset purchasing, which the bank of japan has also done, to provide financial accommodation to support the recovery even though short-term interest rates are close to 0%. these non-standard policies are less well understood. they do have costs and risks. at the same time, i think they can be effective in helping the economy. >> jennifer laberta, cnn money. chairman, are you concerned about the ability of banks to

lend and credit to consumers? >> credit to consumers? no, i don't think so. i have heard the argument that by lowering interest rates to make it unattractive to land. i don't think that's quite right. we are lowering the treasury interest rate. that should make it even more attractive for securities to look for far worse and to earn the spread between the safe rates and what they can earn by lending to households and businesses. so, i think that macro policy and monetary policy can support lending. the question arises whether there are other barriers to lending, as exist, for example, in some parts of the mortgage market. of lower interest rates on securities and other types of assets, all things being equal, free of banks to look for higher-yielding returns to loan

to households and businesses. >> returning to europe briefly, some analysts have said should onesituation deteriorate, way to support them would be to buy it sovereign debt. are there any countries you would rollout? >> the federal reserve will not be buying european sovereign debt except as part of our foreign exchange reserves. that pertains to a small number of countries. that is not something we would be engaged in. >> you brought to new fed governors aboard. -- two new fed governors

support. did that change the dialogue? >> they are two terrific people. i have no jeremy for a long time. he is an outstanding academic and knows a lot about finance. jay has a lot of experience in government. they both bring a lot to the table. to some extent, they were in listening mode. they do have a lot to offer. i really look forward to working with them because i think there are exceptional people. i'm glad. this is the first time we had seven governors at a meeting since 2005. is great to have a full complement of people that will help us to our other work as well as our monetary policy work. >> thank you. >> thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

>> on "newsmakers," john klein looks at student loans, education, and job training. 6:00 p.m. eastern here on c- span. >> how do you approach a book interview differently? >> i look at it as gathering history. i think that as -- i think that as gathering contemporary information. >> how difficult is it to remain impartial in your reporting? >> i am going to try to, as best as i can, give people as full an understanding of what is happening in this campaign. it is not that difficult to put your biases to the side.

>> how will this change your life's work? >> twitter is a primary new source for anyone who covers politics or pays attention to politics. >> tonight, purdue university students interviewed the washington post's dan paul on the newspaper business, covering presidential elections, and the rise of social media. tonight at 8:00 p.m. on c-span. >> now a look at the latest fund-raising totals from today's "washington journal." this is half an hour. >> we are going to turn our attention back to the issue of money and politics. good morning. let's talk about the campaigns. mitt romney is surpassing barack obama in some of the latest

figures. what did you learn? guest: most of the money that mitt romney's campaign raised probably $50 million came from joint donors, up to $75,000 for mitt romney's campaign reelection effort. host: some of this is taking place this week in utah. this morning, we learned there were 700 people. he said the individuals were bringing 5000 -- $50,000 or more. >> this is a clear effort to bring those donors in to the

fold and keep on donating, because as you mentioned, they are not only people who would likely reach out to the republican national committee, but they are also probably donors tan organization that can contribute unlimited funds to. they want to keep donors in the fold. they want them to feel as though the romney campaign apparatus is well-run. they want to know there money is making a difference in the selection. host: i know you have been keeping close track of this. you can see exactly where the big money is coming from. this is the breakdown. you can see in new york, washington, d.c., miami, texas, florida -- that's where the big fund-raising is taking place. guest: you see president obama and mitt romney going to those

places all the time. president obama will likely be there more to more -- much more in the coming months. they have a very similar donor base. wealthy people, sometimes wall street, sometimes business people. they have starkly -- historic plea tapped the same donors. i think president obama is looking at wall street donor's. they have turned there backs on him in terms of how much they are going to contribute to the campaign. host: this shows from new york down to south florida and again most of the money -- it's right there. it goes to two folks. guest: absolutely. increasingly, texas has been a great place for democrats and

republicans to go for campaign cash. some of the major cities like boston and houston, -- austin and houston, the donors are very active and well organized and engaged in the fund-raising apparatus that has only grown since george w. bush became president and activated that part of the republican party. host: our lines are open -- you can join the conversation on our twitter page, or you can send an e-mail. our guest covers money and politics for politico. in our first hour this morning, we were focused on money and politics. you said there was corruption

in american politics. he was interviewed on the pbs news our. this is more of what he had to say. >>clip: i wish one of them have run for county sheriff. we have one of the five supreme court justices wanting to invalidate what we know as mccain-feingold. there is too much money washing around political campaigns today. and it will take scandals to get the supreme court to go back and revisit these issues. the supreme court rules on constitutionality, so just passing another log just doesn't get it. i'm afraid, we are going into a

very dark period in american politics. suppose there is the senate campaign in a small state and 10 people get together and decide to contribute 10 malt -- $10 million each. do you think that wouldn't affect that campaign? host: if you were measuring the amount of donations, not the amount of influence, where's the evidence of influence? good: that's a really question. i think it remains to be seen. one of the things our paper has been trying to do is talk about what major donors want. foster frees was very interested in family issues and was very interested in islamic extremism. he talked to reporters about

why he was donating to rick santorum. and he said that he believed rick santorum would focus on those issues if he was elected president. that is not evidence of corruption, per se, but it does open up the question of whether candidates will be sensitive to the desires of there donors -- their donors when they are donating millions and millions of dollars. host: let's go to south carolina. good morning. caller: i would just like to give a little bit of kudos to my sister, kathy from cleveland, who got on the air yesterday to discuss the farm bill. i think that was really great of her. host: younger sister or older sister?

caller: my question to the political reporter is -- how come we're not talking about violation of the law? to say there is no coordinated effort is ridiculous. and also, john mccain is right. the influence that citizens united is having -- the breaking of the law must be stopped. i just don't understand. host: your sister -- was she older or younger from cleveland? caller: i'm sorry. she is younger. host: thank you for spreading the word. we appreciate it. guest: thank you for your question. i think that is a really good point that needs to be cleared up. part of it is the laws that

exist now -- it is not illegal for these outside groups and campaigns to coordinate on message, but they are allowed to courtney to some degree on fund-raising. so mitt romney can go to donors and solicit checks to say "i would like to donate a specific sum of money to this group." the law is very ambiguous and it allows groups like those in utah to occur. i think groups on the democrat and the republican sides are utilizing the ambiguity to maximize the amount of money they can raise. host: writing about utah --

pointing out that mr. romney's political operation seemed all but shut down and relocated to the mountains of utah. there guests were from texas and north carolina and new york. they deliver briefings on the effectiveness of mr. romney's campaign. there were also senior administration officials including ed gillespie. guest: it goes to show how important donors are to the republican apparatus. this is all about donors. they are looking at cost benefit analysis. they want to know there money is being well spent. this is both on the part of the

campaign and the karl rove organization american crossroads'. there are going to be very many large checks to get to the romney campaign goal of $800 billion for the election cycle. american crossroads has a goal that is even higher than that. a lot of money is being raised, upwards of $1 billion. $1.5 billion. some people even say $2 billion. host: abby phillip covers campaign finance for political. good morning. caller: good morning. steve, right? i have listened to your show for many years. basically, i have called several years ago. i am calling this morning

because this topic really interests me. it seems to me that this time when it comes to issues like this i am very biased in favor of the democratic party. in recent months, they have consistently said that obama is a head when it comes to fundraising. and your lady from politico has not mentioned anything about the democratic party. substantial amounts of donors to the democratic party -- and we all know that. besides, c-span has been very, very liberal for years. there are substantial amounts, a

gigantic, humongous amount of money being raised in hollywood. i can believe the bias is so against the republican party. the media has been so biased. i do not see any republican candidates in this country being elected. especially at the media continues to be biased and misinforming the american public. host: let me jump in. as you might imagine, i would respectfully disagree with your point. anyone who watches our programming on this network or on c-span.org will know that we provide balanced coverage on all of vince. we began this conversation by pointing out that mitt romney raised more money than barack obama. he is raising -- $65 million?

is that that the amount? thank you for your call. i would disagree with you. we appreciate your call on us. keep it coming. guest: i would add two things to that. it is important know we have more information about how the romney campaign is a fund- raising than we did a month ago. everyone has pointed to the potential for romney to outpace obama in his fund-raising. the largest donors on the wrong side are very enthusiastic about the possibility of him having a good shot of winning the white house. they are very enthusiastic about wanting to contribute to get barack obama out of the white house and they are using that enthusiasm to donate large sums of money, as we mentioned

earlier in the program. not to say barack obama is not getting money from large donors. the president raised quite a bit of money last month with a litter of hollywood fund-raisers with george clooney and he has upcoming fund-raisers with sarah jessica parker. but the sheer number of donors has dwindled over the years. i was discussing a few weeks ago with my colleague ken vogel that wall street supporters have gone from barack obama to mitt romney. they are writing $1 million checks to mitt romney. this could help turn the tide in the fund-raising at this moment in the campaign. host: thank you. marietta, calif..

welcome to the program. caller: your gentleman from the -- from virginia was a conservative guy. i will disagree with that guy from virginia. just take a cup of coffee, take a breath, wait for the next guest. this gentleman hosting this show is probably the most fair post c-span has. and to our lady from politico, maybe we ought to look at the business of c-span. i think many of your callers would be quite amazed to know there is not one federal dollar going into c-span. ok? this is sponsored by business. and to speak to the republican

guy, i am really excited, because i think republicans, led by mcconnell who has said he wants to make this republican a one-term presidents for the simple reason of his political philosophy. the tarp funds that were spread to the unions that sponsor our teachers, firefighters, and police. we all like teachers, firefighters, and police. but we also realize if we leave the democrats in power, this will be a continuous battle of tax, tax, spend, spend. in one of his speeches in that campaign, he said democrats all they do is "spend, spend, spend

." nothing has changed. host: final point? caller: i would just say i am excited about the ability of the republicans to put together a message that will eliminate this president as president. thank you. host: let me pick up on his point. it was a statement by karl rove. mitt romney saying he would shrink the gap. put this in perspective. in 2008, barack obama opted out of campaign matching funds, criticized by senator mccain. this could raise for the democrats close to $1 billion and people that for the republicans and the romney campaign.

that does not even count the amount of money being used in congressional races, which could be another 1 billion, $1.5 billion. guest: we have come a long way since 2008. there are a lot of democrats who say the president has ushered in the era of unlimited money in campaigns by for going public funds in his 2008 race. they had a nearly $800 million advantage over his opponent. at this point in time, the obama campaign is facing the possibility of not being able to exceed the number from the last door around. partly because they have been hearing a lot about the influence of outside money in the campaigns. they are potentially going to be unmatched for the first time.

for democrats, that is a very scary prospect. that could mean obama might not be able to match dollar for dollar what is being thrown at him from the other side. host: democrat's line. good morning. caller: hello. host: we can hear you, thanks. good morning. caller: if congress doesn't work together, how can you work with someone that doesn't like you and you know they don't? the thought that is scary is that i lived during the jim crow era. i am 66 years old. i know this much. people tell you you need to get out and work. i worked all my life. i've been in a cotton field. it is not that people don't want to work. they don't have anything to do.

host: thank you, blanche. guest: i think there are a lot of people who believe the way you can bring back progress or productivity to washington, d.c. is to change the composition but the congress and the white house that is controlled by one party. know that that is necessarily true. i don't think this election is necessarily going to deliver both houses of congress to the white house or to one party or to another. i think we are for the foreseeable future going to have a mixed composition where republicans and democrats are going to have to battle over the white house. people are going to have to learn to work together. it will have to continue now. we are seeing are really dramatic fiscal cliff and

congress has serious issues to work out in terms of what the tax levels are going to be, what the spending levels are going to be. retirement for seniors. these issues are going to require cooperation. host: if you want to keep track of how much money the candidates and the parties are raising, you can go to the fec website. we were at the obama headquarters last tuesday. there are two areas. fe and there is a compliance office. is set up in the newsroom-type area. guest: one of the reasons for that is that is where scandals

happen. people who potentially might not be legal citizens of the united states or giving more money than they're supposed to be giving, giving above the federal limit, or potentially giving money when it is not there own. -- their own. if the obama campaign is smart, they returned checks all the time. because money is where corruption in its up -- in up in the political system. they want to avoid that headline. if it's expensive, but well worth it. host: our interview with david axelrod will be seen tonight on 6:30, 9:00 p.m. eastern time. one of our viewers say you keep pushing this two-party system.

we will be covering the green party convention next month. guest: now is one of those times when people say this is the time for third parties to arise. this time of confusion in the american political system is the first -- is the perfect opportunity for a third party to come into the system, partly because of the freedom with which they can raise money from all sorts of sources. on the other hand, i don't think we're seeing a huge run on a third-party enthusiasm. i'm not exactly sure why that should be, but there have been very clear opportunities for third-party candidates. right now, there is an effort called america's elect. that was an opportunity for someone to come into the system and change the way we think about politics.

candidates need to be guided through the conventional system. i think the voters need to get to know candidates the way they have traditionally got tina m.. campaign events. the long process. i think it has become very arduous and i think it is boring for a lot of people. they got no candidates out of america votes. i think that opportunity needs to be fixed because a third party candidate -- if a third- party candidate is going to break through, people say money is perhaps the problem. i think that is only partly the problem, because americans have a lot of money behind america's elect, and they were still not able to field a candidate. host: jan saying "with all that

money out there, i don't think a third party will ever have a chance." caller: hello. yes, this is donald. i would agree with what john mccain was talking about. basically, it is run by a lot of money and greed, and we need campaign finance reform and term limits. but i also believe in a 3rd party. it is too bad that the supreme court justices have decided anyone can throw -- corporations and everybody -- can throw all kinds of money in there and actually, that is not good for the voter. to me, also a supreme court judge should not sit in there all there life -- their life.

guest: i think that is an interesting point. i think the supreme court will want an opportunity to believe there belief that money is not corrupting. that large sums of money does not necessarily mean candidates are going to do what's voters want. i think a lot of voters are starting to believe the supreme court will want to revisit that question, particularly in light of this election cycle, where we see for the first time, this kind of money and practice. one of the faces in which money is causing the most influence is the house ballot, city council races, and like john mccain said, in a sheriff's race. a small amount of money can make

a big difference. if there is going to be reform, it ought to be with an eye for those areas where a $1 million check can essentially buy an election for a candidate. i do not want to commit ron paul because i know his supporters are very active. he was actually very successful at running what amounted to be a third-party candidacy by raising money from very small donors. people giving $20 and $50 from their pockets. he raised millions of dollars that way. i think he shows that it is possible to compete with the support of small donors. host: abby phillip keeps track of political money for political. her work as online. thank you for joining us.

come back again. >> tomorrow on "washington journal," brian beutler talking about legislation in congress. rea hederman and vonn johnson examines immigration policy and deporting people from the united states. that is live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. today, a look at president obama's reelection campaign with senior strategist david axelrod. they will talk about operation vote to get key voters in battleground states. and we will look inside the chicago headquarters. that is today at 6:00 27:30

p.m., on c-span. >> how do you approach book interviews differently? >> i think you look at them as gathering history. i think of interviewing when i am working from the news side as gathering contemporary information. >> how do you remain impartial in your reporting and not get caught up in the campaign? >> i tried to give people as full an understanding of what is happening in the campaign as i can. is not that difficult to put your biases to the side. >> how has social media changed your work? >> twitter in particular is now a primary new source for anyone who covers politics or pays attention to politics. twitter did not exist four years ago for all practical purposes. >> tonight, purdue university

students interview the washington post on the rise of social media. tonight on c-span. >> we welcome you to the governor's mansion. >> here we have a photograph of the first governor, his wife, and his child. what is interesting is the fact that his granddaughter wrote the book "good night moon," which is very popular with school children not only here in missouri, but all over the united states. >> we look at the culture of the missouri state capital, jefferson city. >> the story says he rode h