then, christopher will son of the woodrow wilson center discusses the recent presidential election in mexico and what it means for the u.s. later, al jazeera english correspondent alan fisher talks about how al jazeera's english news network covers american news in the united states and around the world. "washington journal" is next. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] host: good morning, it is monday, july 2, 2012. right now you are looking at the shot of the pentagon in arlington, virginia, as we spend the first 45 minutes talking about recent changes to the role of women in combat. the department of defense recently opened up 14,000 military jobs closer to the front lines that have previously been closed to women. but critics are questioning whether the military have gone far enough. as we discussed those efforts of

this money, we want to know what you think. give us a call -- a very good monday morning to you. we should note that congress is away from washington this week for the fourth of july recess, but it is still going to be an important week politically with the fallout from the supreme court decision and the new jobs numbers coming out on friday. but this morning, first we want to turn to an article in the "christian science monitor," the cover story. it is up in arms.

women have been warriors in iraq and afghanistan for years. will the military now formalize the rise in combat roles? i want to take you inside that story today. it is by anne maureen --

to give you some information about those jobs, i want to turn to a "washington times" story from early this year. it noted the air force has long allowed women to be assigned to 99% of its position so most of the new jobs of the women opened up in the marine corps, the navy, an army. the marines will allow female volunteers to the debate in an offense -- officer industry -- infantry course as part of a research project this summer.

so, give us a call. we want to know what you think about what the role of women in combat should be. i want to read you a little bit more from the christian science monitor story this morning, the cover story. there is a picture of a former assistant secretary at the u.s. department of veterans affairs. she also ran for congress. she lost her legs in combat while piloting a black hawk helicopter. she wanted to be part of the fighting in the wake of the 9/11 attack, the article notes. and as a member of the national guard, being a pilot was one of the few paths to a combat job for a woman. but the article goes on to say she has not been alone and her

experiences out there with her male comrades. the pentagon's 1994 exclusion policy -- women can be attached to infantry units but never permanently assigned to them.

another thing i want to point you to is a congressional research service report that has a few statistics about women in combat the past 10 years. this report was from april of earlier this year. the report notes that in 10 years of combat and operations in iraq and afghanistan --

i want to start this morning with jim on the republican line from woodbridge, virginia. good morning. how were you? caller: thank you for taking my call and for opening up this issue. host: your thoughts? caller: two fold. i am a marine corps officer -- you mentioned earlier how the marine corps is opening infantry officer course to be no candidates. i have gone through that course. it is incredibly rigorous. i cannot possibly fathom how a female was going to pass, to be honest with you. i guess my comment would be pointed toward congress, boston military is not a social engineering project. -- the military is not a social engineering projects -- private. trying to engineer afghan society and it has failed.

the military is there to fight and win wars. host: you think this experiment to open up 14,000 positions that are closer to the front lines is a good thing? caller: well, listen, i can't say -- i don't know what all of those commissions are specifically and i cannot say that all of those positions -- that no female would be capable of doing those jobs. that brings me to my second point, and this is very unofficial numbers. i did not have any research to back it up. but the anecdotes is, we have the female engagement teams or cultural support teams in southern afghanistan. special forces unit out and the field. what the deal was these women would go out and engage with afghan females trying to promote women's rights and human rights throughout afghanistan. it is a horrible idea. of course, congress got behind

it and a lot of folks like that, it sounds good, it reads well, and it kind of falls into this continuing narrative that we need women on the front line. host: jim, thanks for the call. thomas would possibly disagree with jim this morning. he writes on twitter -- again, we will be discussing this issue and specifically this story from "the christian science monitor" this morning. give us a call. we will go to curtis on the democratic line calling in of from pensacola, florida. good morning, curtis. caller: good morning. i am very disappointed -- i am a vietnam marine and disappointed at the officer that spoke, there republican mind-set and chauvinistic and very and very anti-woman. it is sad. if a young lady wants to protect

her country, so be it. i would like a little editorial, if you don't mind. it seems like democrat or something has a problem with their own, because them off but if they are a republican give them more time. i wish you would give the democrats as much time to talk and speak as he do -- host: what you think about a 14,000 positions that are opening up that were previously " the -- closed as the experiment? caller: just the fact that she happens to be a woman -- if she can do the job. host: open it up all the way, is what you are saying? caller: if they can handle the job, so be it? why are white male chauvinism wants to penalize a person for being a female. if they can handle the job, go for it. i am proud of them wanting to be in the country and defend it.

i don't get it. host: curtis from pensacola, florida. thank you for coming in. it is a chart that goes with the "christian science monitor" story that talks about the growing numbers of women in the military going back to 1970. the numbers were about 27,900 women serving in the military, about 1.1%. officers, the smaller block, you can see the number of officers who are female, 12,750 from 1970. fast forward through the years to 2010, today, up to 166,729. 35,341 are officers. today, women make up about 14.1% of the military. i want to read you a little bit more from that story this morning, talking about some of the personal experience that she gets into in her story. she talks about army reserve

colonel ellen herring will have a 28-career and west point, the upper offir echelons and said she will advance no further because her job has been "limited" to support positions with no ability to compete in combat arms. she was --

host: john is on the democratic line from high point, north carolina. what did you think about the policies opening up more roles for women in combat question of caller: sur, thank you very much for taking my call. i know this is kind of peripheral to what you're speaking about. but the truth is, i think the mos distinction budget not be as important -- because you have to

pass the ability test to get the mos and to get the job. so i would see why they would open these doors. but until they fix the problems where they say these women are sexually harassed and molested -- i have a 21-year-old daughter and a 40-year old daughter and i come from the vietnam era and i am retired. from my point of view, until they can protect us from us, how can they possibly protect them in a situation where it is more distinct and more isolated. and i also have another question, which is kind of my own, just the fact that the people that i met were highly professional, they were women, but they were much less. i was surprised to see there was so little difference in the amount of women that were in the service now that were in combat

situations that were deployed from back in the 1970's because it seems like it was a lot more participation. but this sexual harassment thing has to be corrected and the protection of our own troops -- if we cannot prevent them from us, how can we protect them from anything else? host: john, thank you for the. earlier this year the pentagon announced its new policy regarding women in combat and i want to show you a little bit from the announcement. deputy assistant defense secretary for military personnel policy. [video clip] >> the part required additional time to make sure this important issue receive the fullest consideration within the department of defense, military departments, and joint chiefs of staff. i will now provide a brief overview of the report, which reflects the secretary of defense position that removes barriers that prevent service members from rising to the

highest levels -- with the responsibility their talents and capabilities warrant. the report's findings represent a concerted effort of all the military services and have the highest confidence of both departments civilian and military leaders. the report recommends changes to current assignment policy and -- prior notification congress of our intent to open over 14,000 positions to women. these were identified -- two policy changes that are insignificant and own right. opening these divisions of the month lessons of over a decade that were for women who have proven exceptionally capable and indispensable to mission accomplishment. host: we want to hear your thoughts today on the role of women in combat and the changes that the pentagon has made. let's go to dave on the independent line this morning from carroll county, virginia. what do you think? are you there? caller: can you hear me? host: yes, go ahead.

caller: i am maybe a non-airline that and i spent 15 years in the army -- i am a vietnam era vet, spent 15 years, and i have seen a lot of fine women in a military. but there were problems -- a lot of frivolous sexual harassment suits while i was in, and i worry about battleground romances, and for the most part, most women that i was in the service with were not actually physically capable of carrying on hand-to-hand combat or being on the front lines. the rear echelon and all of that, fine. but when it comes to special ops and stuff like that, i just can't see that. i guess it is old school because

that is just the way that i feel. but i think it would be a big mistake if they were put in combat positions. thank you. host: appreciate the call. a little bit more from that congressional research service report on how the policy developed over the years. department of defense policy restricting women from serving in ground combat units was most recently notified in 1994. under this policy, women may not be assigned to you as below the brigade level was primary mission is direct comment on the ground. not a law that controls the

policies by the department of defense and administration. dustin from ohio on the independent line. what do you drink wasn't caller: i am just begun that these people -- not saying anybody is right or wrong here, but i want to say -- i cannot hear what they are saying on the tv right now. but i am just trying to say that women, if you are going to say, that is like putting a man and woman together to see who is tougher, maybe the man will win but if you put them head-to- head -- you are opening up different jobs for people. new have all these different jobs -- and a woman can just be as equal as a man. i know women who can sit down and they are pretty smart and can outthink new. host: our facebook page. beverly young writes in --

to london on the democratic line. bristow virginia. your thoughts on the pentagon policy of opening up several thousand jobs that are closer to combat. caller: good morning. recently retired army nco, and one half of a military couple -- my wife is still on active duty , and the proud uncle of two graduates from west point in 2012 this year. my opinion is this -- one, the old way of thinking that, that is lanier, two armies facing each other -- combat is linear,

duking it out, it is over. the battle is 360. you are in the front line simply because you are in fear. with that said, if a person can perform at that level and lead soldiers, marines, air men, there is absolutely no reason why a female should not be able to do the job. the thought of restricting them simply because of gender, it is a really old way of thinking and as you said, the last time the politics was updated was 1994. things have changed. host: the subject you bring up is part of the "christian

science monitor" story this morning by a staff writer over there. he interviewed a lot of the women, including tammy duckworth, who would argue women are in combat already and already in danger and the pentagon should continue to move forward with some of the changes. you can see, that is tammy duckworth at the world war ii memorial in washington, d.c. norbert on the independent line from florida this morning. caller: i am a retired marine corps officer and i am an old guy, one of these chauvinist who believe -- was brought up and was in the marine corps when men were men and women were women. and i agree completely the of former commandant of the marine corps who said not only don't i want and eight women in my

marine corps, i don't want any married man. quite frankly, i think this country should start getting back to where women are women and men are men and women then it can start having a -- host: you think women cannot do the job or are you concerned about relationships between men and women in combat? caller: all of it. first of all, women -- certainly there are some women who are more physically fit than some men but generally speaking, more rouse why is and the whole concept of what our country is and should be as far as i unconcerned, trying to pull women out of the house and having children and so forth and making them into something else is about like trying the same thing, which they do, is bringing the men of of where

they should be out doing something and bringing them into the house and being namby pambies, and as far as i am concerned we have a situation in this country which is to me just artificial and ridiculous. there is a difference between men and women and whether the radical feminist would like to admit that, i am sorry, nature has spoken. host: from florida arguing for a more traditional role for both men and women. we will go to bill on the republican line from north carolina this morning. your thoughts on this debate over the role of women in combat. caller: good morning. i ask a question -- would you rather have an all-male army or and all-female army? we know what the answer to that is. host: why can't be both? caller: i think you have a far

better army if it is all male. the navy suffers more with this problem than the other services. to put females on an atomic submarine in that confined space for months on end -- now, these guys are loaded with testosterone, they put their hand or -- host: do you think men controlling themselves is the issue? caller: the female income that just causes problems that we need not have. thank you. host: bill from north carolina. i want to take you to some of the other news of the day. i want to point out "the new york times" caucus column today talking about a holiday week in a tough campaign for president

obama.

in other news, lots of reaction over the weekend to the supreme court's health-care decision. several members were on the sunday shows. one of those being speaker of the house john boehner. i want to take you to his comments now. [video clip] >> the idea of the federal government can mandate of that the american people purchase a product is shocking to me. but they made their decision, i respect their ability to make that decision, but all it really does it strengthen my resolve and the result of republicans here in washington to repeal this awful law, which is increasing the cost of health insurance for the american people and making it harder for small businesses to hire workers. >> the house has already voted some 30 times to repeal or in the fund -- defund -- >> we will do one more time.

we want to show people we are resolved to get rid of this. host: "usa today" this morning has a headline. the subhead is the white house said the mandate will affect 1% of americans.

one other story on that. the widow of senator ted kennedy was on the sunday shows yesterday. saying sunday her husband would have been gratified but not surprised about the supreme court ruling on health care. i want to take you -- and of the democratic senator was on the sunday shows, senator chuck schumer of new york. his comments on the political fallout of the health-care law. [video clip]

>> well, i think republicans make as the number-one issue the repeal of health care, they are certainly going to lose the election in the house and senate and the presidency. the bottom line is, both americans are not for repeal. if you look at all of the polls, a little more than one-third of for repeal and the rest are either for keeping it or changing it but not revealing it and some of those for changing it want to make it tougher. there is good reason for that, as you pointed out. there are lots of things people like in the bill. the obvious ones like your kids can stay on your health insurance until they are 26, the doughnut hole, prescription drug payments for seniors, but others that even republicans like surprisingly, subsidies for people who cannot afford health care, requiring employers to provide health care. so the bill overall, people do not want repeal. number two, mitt romney is in a total pickle. he prescribed this, this was his bill. speaker boehner saying it is a

tax increase, the have some ads saying it is a tax increase -- of a single to romney had the biggest tax increase in massachusetts? forget about that. host: we will take you back to the discussion was but that this segment with, the role of women in combat and the pentagon that a recent decision to open up 14,000 positions closer to the front lines for women. that is despite a recommendation by a congressional panel to go even further. one to get your thoughts -- on twitter. let's go back to the phones. wisconsin. glenn is on the independent line. what to get your thoughts this morning. -- want to get your thoughts. caller: this whole issue about women being in, it -- , that is a fraud. you have to make distinctions between combat zones and combat.

because a woman is in a combat zone is completely different than those being in combat. there is a reason why women did not play football and the national football league. it is because of the physical advantages men have obviously over women and the same thing with basketball. but when you have politicians involved, you will not get integrity with the results, you will get political results. and there is no way that a woman physically income that can match a man's physical attributes, their strength, and so one. the other thing, too, when boys and girls are together they are going to play. this is an unnecessary distraction to have women in that circumstance. there are plenty of duties they can perform in the armed forces, but combat is not one of them. again, it is going to be a political decision. i guarantee you that no general is going to stand up against the

politicians who want to do this for political reasons and votes. the man who said -- if we had an all female army or and all amle -- male armond, what would be the result? i think it answer the question most distinctly. it simply would not work. host: thank you for the call this morning. some information on how this would actually happen if it were to happen, if there were changes. in 2006, when it to the congressional report --

mike on the democratic line from massachusetts. caller: thank god for c-span. i am a former army nco back in the vietnam era and to bring in more up-to-date, i wanted to give a situation -- like the last caller touched upon -- where you bring females into an actual combat situation. let's say you are talking about an army or marine sweep through fallujah where you are going door-to-door and if you picture a squadron of six-eight women going door-to-door against these men, they have been physically stronger, that to be physically quicker. they might get into a hand-to- hand combat situation. and all of these things can come up so suddenly, and if they are captured, then the are going to do terrible things because they did not respect women anyway.

to play psychological games with our people. host: do you mean stronger and faster than their male counterparts? caller: yes, that is right. they have to be, to react quicker. if you are begging a door down and you are doing a sweet and you see that guy you better be ready to pull the trigger and move. if you are a second slow, you are dead. they cannot run as fast and generally speaking -- you will have the exception. one woman wanted a great while to this role. host: if that woman qualifies and passes the same test as her male counterparts past, you still cannot think that she should be allowed to serve? caller: i guess you can ask a question, if that one person could be integrated with a bunch of men -- can move at the speed and have the strength and dexterity. host: that is what these women are arguing in this story, that

if they can pass the test, if they can show they are qualified as men, why shouldn't they serve? caller: they can serve and a lot of positions and they did when i was in. it has nothing to do with intelligence or anything like that. i think they are probably smarter though we are. but it is a strength, speed, and agility and endurance kind of situation. i did not think our people secondarily to that take it well if we had a bunch of women captured and they are doing horrible things to them. i think it is just the psyche of our country really. but physically they cannot do the job, most of them, and most of the time it will prove out. the one size fits all is not the solution. host: mike from massachusetts this morning. a few other headlines this morning. overseas headlines. of what to take you to "the washington times" world section. about 800 died in a week, says

sarah's opposition. -- syria's opposition.

another story from around the world. having to do with the military discussion we are having this morning. u.s. resisting changes to afghan projects, this from "the washington post." if you want to read more on

that, that is from 0 "the washington post." jacksonville, north carolina. lisa is waiting to talk about the role of women incumbents -- comeback. what do you think? caller: just to give a background, i am pretty young, a marine corps girlfriend here in jacksonville, north carolina, and i just want to say i am really angered by these last comments that have been saying that women need to be stronger and better than men or whatever because over there, i say in quotes, the and not being respected. i did not think we are respecting women here to not give them a chance to prove themselves. i think that is the whole point of this thing that women are given these trials to see if they can perform in combat. i did not claim to be an expert. but i think the problem ultimately will have to deal with it is our woman being respected by their own in our armed services. and that think it is absolutely ridiculous to say that women

can't do this, women can't do that. it is an old and david argument and i am glad it is generational and it seems that this hopefully will be phased out soon and i just wanted to say that. host: you think it is going to be phased out, or de you think this 14,000 jobs that are closer to the front lines that the pentagon has opened up is a way to continue to hold back? does it make you optimistic or bring less so? caller: i think it will be phased out. i think in the same way, we are finally getting over this whole problem of the don't ask don't tell situation. yes to it -- just to add to the comment, i personally have family members to serve in the israeli army and they are women and it is absolutely fine. but that is another situation -- in other countries it seems to be working fine, but in some reason in the united states we have such a big problem with

that. i think we need to deal with white men have this problem and not -- why men have this problem. host: james on the independent line from new hampshire. good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to answer your question as to why we can't have both. we can have -- if this would stop being an argument about this woman and that -- put it on a major basis. as of right now, all men between the ages of 18-25 who are u.s. citizens or immigrants must register for the selective service. all women of the same ages are excluded. if you want equality, why not have all women have to report the same way all males do, you would have the quality. but i don't think you will find that many women who want that

kind of equality, but i may be wrong. host: thank you for the call this morning. here is the front page of "the new york times," the ld story. we will get into that story later in "the washington journal" today. but here is a picture of the man who is expected to uphold it out in mexico, and reggae pena nieto. charlie on the republican line to continue our discussion on women in combat. caller: i wanted to make a comment about women in the

military. host: yes, go ahead. but those i am -- caller: i am in north carolina and i am retired military and i listen to lease earlier and i am fairly impressed. issue we need to bring about is not sex but the individual person. but they are capable of doing the job, they should be allowed to do the job. there have been multiple studies that show that women are just as fast in reaction time and sometimes faster than men. women are just as intelligent as men. they have strength in different parts of their body. look, they are capable of doing the job, allow them to do the job. host: thank you for your call. another comment from twitter. this is robbie on twitter talking about congressional efforts to open up this process of the more for women.

got a few more minutes left in this segment before we move on. andy on the democratic line from port richey, florida. caller: good morning. i believe that women can do anything and man can do in combat. but, you know, years ago we used to treasure our women. i love our women. i do not want to see them in harm's way. but i believe, like i said, they could do what we can do. why not bring jobs back to the country so they can find jobs. i believe some of these women cannot find jobs so that is why the joy, to make some money and support their families. i was a rescue worker at the world trade center and i had seen plenty of women down there, doing the same things we did. but like i say, the politicians years ago, we used to love our women. these guys, they have no morals.

they don't care about anybody. from as far as i can say, both parties. so they will just send the women over there. but i love my women and i did not want to see them come in harm's way and i did not know what these pigs would do if they ever captured them. thank you very much. host: again, the story in the christian science monitor weekly. that is it for the first 45 minutes this morning. up next, a look at one of the other supreme court cases that was handed down last week. this one regarding campaign finances. melanie mesa's from the "los angeles times" and "chicago >> jim -- " will join as and later kris wilson of from the woodrow wilson center talk about the outcome of the mexican election yesterday. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

>> this weekend, had to the state capital named in honor of thomas jefferson with book tv and american history tv in jefferson city, missouri. new eastin, literary life on book tv on c-span2. former senator and missouri first lady on family life inside the governor's mansion from her book open " if walls could talk." and the provisions list from ancient mesopotamia to the university of missouri that a special collection, the story behind mr. babylonian clay tablets. then on american history to be -- >> at one time in 1967, this was called the bloody is 47 acres in america. >> a former morgan takes you through the former missouri

state penitentiary. walk back through history in the halls of the missouri state capitol and governor's mansion -- mansion. watch how local content of vehicles explore the history of literary life of cities around the -- america. from jefferson city, c-span2 and c-span 3. [video clip] hippa is dead, it is pretty clear the effort ran into a lot of controversy and miscommunication, so i think those bills are not coming back again this year or ne year for that matter. >> code-share of the congressional and annette caucus and va republican bob black on prospects of anti virus in legislation in the next congress and other telecommunications issues -- virginia republican bob goodlatte.

"washington journal" continues. host: lost in the reaction to health care and immigration law was another print -- supreme court decision that has implications on campaign finance. "los angeles times" and "chicago tribune" money and politics reporter joins us to discuss the case. explain what this case was about and how it is connected to the controversial citizens united case. guest: in terms of the facts of this particular case, montana had a bill on the books since 1912 that said we don't want any corporate money in our state elections. the history is there were these copper mining interests in the state of montana using their enormous wealth and influence to really influence state elections and in one case a man who essentially bought his own senate seat. in 1912, the citizens of montana passed a referendum who said we did not want this type of spending in our state anymore.

after 2010 when the supreme court said corporations just like other individuals have a right to unlimited free speech as long as it is independent, american traditions partnership, and non-profit connected to energy interests, challenged the law and montana and said we did not think -- weeping supreme court invalidated the law. the montana supreme court said, no, we don't think so. we will uphold the law, we believe the history of montana is unique and we think this law should stay so americans additional partnership was not happy and went back to the supreme court and what the supreme court said was they a senseless slapped the montana supreme court down and said no, because of citizens united, this ban on corresponding is no longer constitutional. it's good two-paragraph rolling? guest: very summary judgment, very terse. host: the money quote was "there can be no serious doubt that citizens united does apply to

montana state law." guest: that essentially said this idea -- it is not just a matter of the case of citizen united but a matter of law. spending, as long as it is independent, is not corrupting throughout the country. host: 5-4? guest: the same way as the citizens united ruling. host: what did the other justices argue? guest: justice breyer wrote a dissenting opinion that was more grief, more sort of lamenting. saying briefly that we saw that the spending can be correcting after citizens united, but it was not along firing again 79 but a great lamentation that the ruling was going to be upheld. host: if you want to call in and you have questions about citizens united, campaign finance, or this case last week, give us a call --

one of the key players in this was also involved in citizens united. guest: james bopp is an attorney based in indiana and has been on this crusade for decades to try to peel back a lot of regulations that has to do with campaign finance. if there is a big case that has to do with campaign finance and rolling back regulations there is a pretty good chance he is involved. host: i believe you said in one of your pieces -- here is one of them here -- this is a long-shot attempt by fox who are against citizens united to get the courts to possibly go back and take a look at that. is the door now closed on going back and looking at citizens united? guest: it seems at least as long as the current justices are still there. montana essentially proved the supreme court justices have no buyers remarks with the citizens united decision, at least the

five in the majority. reformers are looking at the supreme court as sort of a closed avenue to try to combat what we have seen post citizens united. it could take through four of those who do not know citizens united as you do -- host: take us through citizens united for those who did not know it as well as you did. guest: political spending is a form of speech and so long as the spending is independent, you cannot restrict us kind spending regardless of the identity of the speaker. not only wealthy individuals but corporations and unions who could not saleh -- up to this point spend out the general treasury. not only does it give blessings for corporations to do this independent political spending an unlimited amounts but also set off a domino effect where you have subsequent court rulings that that paved the way for the creation of the so- called super pacs we're very wealthy individuals and some corporations and some unions have been pulling together extremely large contributions, six figures, seven-figure

contributions, and died of going to town this presidential election season. host: name some of the super pacs that are out there that are probably the most well-known? caller: america -- guest: american crossroads, founded in part by karl rove, the republican mega super pac supporting mitt romney but also acted in house and senate races as well. another high-profile run would be restore our future, a pro- mitt romney super pac formed by former aides of the former massachusetts governor. on the democratic side, priority usa action, co-founded by former white house aides and they have been active and on the air with, particularly hitting mitt romney on the bain capital history. but a liberal groups are really just being trounced in terms of fund-raising by these conservative groups, particularly restore our future, a juggernaut. host: the overall fund-raising numbers from the super pacs, according to the center for responsive politics.

independent expenditures were sort of a key thing in this montana case. what is an independent expenditure. guest: independent expenditure is mostly a way to spend be a broadcast television or radio, also direct mail or phone banks. it is to directly advocate for or against the election of a federal candidate. the key is it is independent. it cannot be coordinated with the campaigns themselves. and this coordination is particularly regarding strategy. you cannot talk a campaign and say i did we should go up to ohio this week or we will go to florida so you did not -- that kind of coordination is not allowed what these independent expenditures. host: marietta, georgia, democratic line.

caller: good morning. yes, ms. mason, i enjoy hearing from you and i agree wholeheartedly. what puzzles me -- and i don't think what people are really seeing is they talk about states' rights all the time and then did the supreme court takes away a state that since 1912 had a law on their books. then we talk about a fourth of july coming up and the lot of people still are not working and the congress is out at home on vacation. that does not stand really well. we talk about having health care for everyone and maybe everyone having the same health care as of the senate and the congress -- sunday on the talk programs they say, well, i pay my premiums for my health care. yes, but you are making over 100 grand. if we are putting your saleh taxes we should have the same health care as you whether you are paying your premiums are

not, you are making over 100 grand. have a great fourth and we love this country. and women are probably better shots in the military than in any way so they should be in combat if they want to be. host: thank you for the comments from the first 45 minutes of today's "washington journal." houston, texas, a republican line. caller: how are you doing? listen, the only thing that worries me about the rulings -- the supreme court rulings, it is already giving morals that -- immortal status to the corporations. there should be a limit to a lot of the stuff as far as the financing of the whole thing. host: let's talk about some of the limits that are currently out there to educate folks about the election law.

guest: there are limits giving money directly to candidates and the parties. within the structure, there is a limit to how much donors can give, romney a donor, whether an individual or corporation, can give a million dollars to the group supported the candidates so it kind of gives -- to influence the election. host: it seems like the next frontier, another one of the stories that you wrote for campaign finance folks who want to lose in the laws is the disclosure issue. texas a little bit through some of the disclosure laws on the books now. guest: i think that is one of the more interesting things. at that stands right now, committees registered with the federal election commission like super pacs must disclose their donors. but what we have seen is the

increase in activity of these other types of groups, nonprofit groups, either social welfare groups or trade association to do not have to disclose their donors. they have been increasingly influential, increasingly cents citizens united. what some, pain finance reform advocates are pushing for is expand disclosure laws so they can see who can give money -- who is giving money to these groups. on the other side you have conservatives, someone in a slip of how they view disclosure. for the longest time, the mantra you hear from conservatives is to regulate and disclosed, but all the money flow wherever it was the flow but let us make sure everyone knows where it is coming from. in recent years and the citadel the recent months, and ever growing drumbeat from the conservatives saying, you know, disclosure may be more burdensome to free speech than we really want. host: a question from twitter, this from joseph perry -- from

joseph. what is your take? guest: does a good question. citizens united hinges so much on free-speech rights and that political spending is a form of speech and justice anthony kennedy and others in majority saying the more speech, the better, and not necessarily because edition that the intent or their job to preserve the quality of free speech. if you have the resources to do it, it is unconstitutional limit the resources. host: reisterstown, maryland. dorothy on the independent line. caller: just give me a few seconds. you all know what citizens united really is about? let me tell you what the underlying thing i believe it is about. it is about social security and medicare. believe me. this is what it is about. the republicans want to privatize social security and medicare. that means wall street would get all of the trillions of dollars we are sending.

this is true. medicare, they give you a in a certificate that no senior citizen would be able to get insurance if you have pre- existing conditions. host: explain the connection to campaign finance. are you saying that some of these groups trying to do that willcaller: yes, that is why yoe the corporations are putting this money behind mitt romney. he knows they're going to kill so security and medicaid. i mean they're going to privatize it so the corporations and things will have this money in their coffers or whatever you call it so they can use that money on wall street. i'm telling you people are not listening. known as asking that romney what he means when he says entitlements. host: thii will give you a chane to comment. guest: post citizens united, so

many people focused on corporate spending, what people expected was an influx of corporate cash, corporations giving directly out of their treasuries to these super pacs. we actually have not seen that to a large extent. we've seen incredibly wealthy individuals, many on wall street and many with business interests, and sort family wondered -- family-owned corporations giving to super pacs. they may be giving in these undisclosed groups we have talked about earlier. one of the reasons the rise of these nonprofit groups is so significant is that we might be seeing a lot of corporate spending, but we do not exactly know who is giving to these groups. host: she brought a fundraising numbers. looking at main members, the romney campaign raised about $23.4 million in may. the republican national committee raised about $34.2

million for total $57.6 million. there are some democratic members out there we will give to you. the obama campaign raised about $39.1 million in may. the democratic national committee raised about $19.9 million for a combined total of $59.1 million. i want to point out "washington post" story, today, in a conference call made late friday from a special campaign phone on air force one, recording was obtained by "the daily beast." if things continue as they have so far, i will be the first president in modern history to be outspent and reelection campaign.

host: talk about what we're hearing from the white house that there would be the first sitting president to be outspent. guest: part of it is a way to rally donors and part is to acknowledge the political reality. but only can mitt romney collect larger checks because he is jointly fund raising with the republican party and other affiliated committees, but there is this lineup of outside groups that are collecting enormous checks on his behalf. you just have not seen that embrace of the outside money system by the democrats that you have seen through the republicans. host: new york, democrat line. caller: a couple of observations and a question rid first observation, citizens united oral arguments, one of the justices was asking, why shouldn't we be able to distinguish between an

expenditure and a contribution? what is the difference? elena kagan was unable to give the simple answer, i don't care if you call it chopped liver, no one is spending that kind of money and orders to do anything but influence someone's opinion, which brings us to the vicious cycle of propaganda. obviously, the more money you spend, the more people believe what they hear when you hear it. my question is, while i was listening, trying to understand the difference between, for example, contributing to the heritage foundation and a super pac. if you contribute to the heritage foundation, they are walking around talking about lower taxes, just the same as if you are arguing for a candidate who was doing that. exxon, for example. i get anxious when i see acts of promoting all these teachers

while it the same time paying campaign contributions and/or contributions to the heritage foundation. all about lowering taxes and limiting fines. can you distinguish between those? guest: the heritage foundation is a think tank in washington. my understanding it has a nonprofit status a little different than social welfare organizations. i should say i'm not entirely sure what their tax status is. it is very influential and helps coordinate allied of the ideas coming out of the republican party -- a lot of the ideas coming out of the republican party. they're not inserting themselves into the election process, the morning policy side. there's a difference between giving to a super pac and giving to a group like a nonprofit affiliate of american crossroads, which is that in the

super pac, you will have to disclose who you are when giving that donation. with the other, you still have anonymity. host: what is the supreme court's take on disclosure? guest: more less very favorable towards the disclosure. another part of the citizens united ruling was an 8-1 decision upholding the importance of disclosure in these laws. anthony kennedy wrote a very strongly worded opinion that sort of a sign the praises of transparency and said thanks to the internet, this can even be more instantaneous than in the past. in another case that had to do with disclosing petition signatures in washington state, justice antonin scalia wrote a strongly worded opinion calling for civic courage and people being strongly -- he does not want to live in a country where people hide behind their beliefs. franklin's go to

square, new york, republican line. caller: i just want to make a comment about the citizens united decision. i think it is the greatest victory, free speech, in our lifetime. why do i say that? because thosof us who are political junkies -- we are so boring -- and we watch the major networks, we watch the cable networks, and we see 100% positive coverage of not only the president, but all democrats, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year. no candidate, republican or any other party, can compete with the billions of dollars of free air time that democrats gatt. so that is why i am in favor of

the super pacs. i would like to call them mega pacs. without them, we cannot level the playing field. you would like to comment? guest: that is an argument that most people on the right make. why not let everyone spend as much as they possibly can and let the best argument when? it is not just an argument that benefits one side or the other. if you're a wealthy donor or individual, where every land on the spectrum, you can spend a lot of money promoting the causes you believe in. what conservatives particularly say is, if you have a good argument and the resources, let it compete in the marketplace. host: an email question talking about for many getting involved in u.s. elections --

host: any talk about the rules of foreign money? guest: there are still rules and regulations. there are multinational corporations, so what constitutes a form to a nation or not? individuals must be a u.s. citizen in order to contribute. those rules have not been challenged or seem to be in the process of being challenged. the point is a good one. now that we have so much money coming in and much of it is not disclosed, we do not frankly know where the money is coming from. host: another comment -- . oklahoma.o

go ahead. caller: i just heard spent $98 million for a pentagon in afghanistan? host: we talked about the building effort over there earlier, yes. caller: how come they do not spend that $98 million and pay off people's mortgages that are going bankrupt or are homeless? people are starting over here in the u.s.a., and they want to build something over there -- host: that is a good question, the right now we're talking about citizens united and campaign finance critic to of a question about the finance laws that came down last week? caller: i think is very unconstitutional. people were put in there by george bush and republicans, it is just a chain line. it is depressing. host: we will go to the democrat

line from san antonio, texas. caller: good morning. i am really, really -- i am so glad [unintelligible] i never see such hateful people like romney and republicans. i do not know what is wrong with them, you know? this is our country. we should build it up, not destroy it. host: do you donate to campaigns? caller: yes, i do. host: what you think about limits for corp. donations? caller: i think they are too dishonest anymore. there is no fairness anymore. host: miss mason, what avenues are left for advocates for

stronger campaign finance laws? guest: there are some measures right now in the works in congress, in particular a bill called the disclosed act, looking to expand the disclosure regime to cover some of these outside groups we were talking about that do not disclose their donors. if you spend $10,000 more on an election, you have to rebuild your top donors are. it does not look like there will be much chance of that passing in this particular makeup of the house. the republicans are not particularly thrilled about this idea and in the senate for the democrats do not have a filibuster-proof majority and mcconnell gave a speech where he strongly came out against the bill and said it was an attempt to muzzle democratic critics and called it somewhat of a nixonian tactic. you can tell this is a priority of his to squash this bill.

host: another, from twitter -- host: can we talk about some of the enforcement mechanisms for these disclosures and what they have to comply with? he runs this process? guest: the federal election commission, which is deadlocked, split evenly between republican and democratic chairman. they cannot agree on anything. you see a lot of deadlocks, which means a lot of gaps and enforcement, particularly at what it means to coordinate. you see a lot of these independent groups inching closer to the line of what coordination means because it is incredibly vague concept. also in terms of disclosure of these outside groups, in fact, a lawsuit that congressman chris and hollande brought against

the sec saying it had not been properly enforcing some disclosure laws that congress had passed with regards to outside groups that run issue ads called electioneering communications. that court case is still proceeding and there is a possibility a district court in washington may find they do need to require disclosure of some of these groups that so far using anonymous donors. host: we're talking with melanie mason of the los angeles/chicago tribune. how long have you been there? guest: a little over a year. i have also worked for politico and in the bay area. host: always covering campaigns and elections? guest: covering politics, yes. host: robert, on the republican line. caller: i would like ms. mason to respond to a comet i'm going to make. for years, the electronic

processing has always been an emphasis on an individual voting and voices and individuals getting involved in campaigns. the super pacs are greater influence of these lobbyists. the voice of the individuals is getting lost in the process. guest: it is an interesting point and one reformers are very concerned about. they're honest hoping that would be something people would rally around to maybe bring people over to the cause of campaign finance around. you see the emergence of these billionaires becoming household names because they are spending so much money supporting the candidate they choose. for example, sheldon adelson, a casino magnate from las vegas gave tens of millions of dollars supporting newt gingrich and now is getting quite heartily to super pac supporting mitt romney as well. these names have become

household names, you are right, because of the huge amount of money they're pouring into this. host: miami, florida, independent line. caller: i have several comments. i find it interesting we tout free speech and it seems to me free speech is very expensive these days. in florida, our governor wants to test welfare recipients for possible drug use. how about we test corporate welfare recipients? another comment i want to make, i find it ironic we have to an advertisement where a company's product is pulled and they are fined for misleading the public or untruthful statements about their product, but these people can say whatever they want with impunity. it is a shame there is not some sort of a perjury law. i don't know, it just seems very

inequitable. guest: that is interesting. the fact checkers working on this election have their work cut out for them. not only erasing much more ads coming out because of the additional crew spending, -- not only are there many more ads coming out because of the additional spending, but they cross the line. the ads are almost negative if they're coming from outside groups. that much more tendency to attack ads against the candidates. you are seeing fact checkers really give a lot of pants on fire ratings or pinocchios because they do not have a candidate directly responsible for them. you cannot go to the candidate and say, this was untruthful, when they do not have anything to do with it. host: can they be penalized or be forced to take off the air?

guest: to my knowledge, no. there have been cases where an ad has been found to be so untruthful, it can be pulled. but a lot of it is shades of gray and people will make the argument, there will show you the evidence and maybe tv stations do not want to wait until the debate up who is the most correct in debating the merits of the ad. host: and a lot of these are happening during real time, so weeksannot spend reek researching. guest: absolutely, there's a very quick turnaround. you are seeing both the outside groups and the candidates and parties themselves putting out web videos within hours of news breaking. if there's a gap, for example, and president obama said the private sector is doing fine, you have the romney campaign, outside groups, all within hours and days putting up web videos to hammer him on that point. host: you brought up sheldon

adelson, the casino magnate. here's an article from your old paper "politico." host: do we know much about the grass-roots institute? guest: this is the first we have heard about it. it was a great story.

thekoch brothers ran san diego where they gathered a lot of donors, activists, people interested in their cause. they have these twice yearly. strategizing to figure out where their priorities are. they are very potent and powerful spinning force in conservative politics. the main group is americans for prosperity where they sit on the board. it has been one of the prop vendors and adds, particularly against obama, but also keep senate races as well. host: and disclosure rules apply to them? guest: no, they are social welfare group which means they cannot spend more than 51% of their activities on over political ads, ads that say vote for or vote against, but they can run a lot of issue ads. they have got very, very deep pockets and have been very, very active not only on the air, but

in the field. host: the white house has got into it with them to try to call them out. guest: yes, ec the engage with the koch brothers and one run by karl rove, where they have formally -- the campaign lawyer has actually put in a complaint with the irs saying we believe these groups are more political and their purpose and their social welfare designation would allow, and we believe they should be disclosing their donors. host: what is the status of the complaint? guest: the iris is somewhat slow-moving information, so campaign finance news like myself have been looking for any indication the irs may be moving on this question, an issue reform advocates have been yelling about for years. so far we have not seen any major moves to force their or reevaluate some of the status of these groups. host: north carolina, democrat

line. james, are you there? did i lose you? go ahead. caller: yes, hello? host: yes, you are on. caller: this is kind of a problem because i see that -- it is like fighting the invisible man. host: what do you mean by that, james? go ahead. caller: you have someone attacking you and you do not know who is attacking you, city cannot really fight back. host: you think we need stronger disclosure laws? caller: say that again? host: you want more disclosure? caller: i think he should be able to fight back. guest: is interesting, because

one of the things are reasons why people say disclosure is important, there is the appearance of corruption. it is support that disclosures of these transactions are above board and there is a lot of sunlight. another reason is, the supreme court said the idea of voter information. when their voters are listing to the ads, they should know who is sending these messages to them. if the other group, for example, say americans for a better future, what does that mean? you do not necessarily know that is a group of energy interests or a group of liberal philanthropist's. the india behind disclosure in addition to preventing corruption is the idea voters should know who is tried to influence them when they send out these messages, particularly over the air. host: a tweet fro--

guest: this is important. super pacs are no more technically as independent expenditure on the committees, but most people to say super pacs. these are entities within the federal. what ucr other outside groups that are 501c4, also known as social welfare, and c6, which is trade. you may hear them say more, "call your senator and say this," with their incredibly active. host: an independent senator brings us back to the supreme court case from last week. guest: montana was basically saying the heart of citizens united was so long as spending

is independent, taken the unlimited regardless of who is giving, even corporations. montana took issues because of laws that proves that on the books. the supreme court reaffirmed the decision of citizens united. even if it is a corporation, these independent expenditures are not corrupting, therefore, constitutional. host: we got a lot of reaction to the health-care decision. what was the reaction to this decision? guest: on the reform side, there was a lot of disappointment. they said hopefully this will cause a lot of rolling to their cause and maybe acts and congress are passing through or pushing for constitutional amendment that was it something to the fact that congress has the right to regulate campaign finance contributions, or corporations are an anti- personhood said corporations do not have the same free rights or same free-speech rights as individuals. the folks on the other side, they were thrilled. jim bopp said there were

flailing around and sees this continuing on the trend of to regulating campaign finance. host: what did the white house say? guest: they condemned it, saying the supreme court missed the opportunity. host: cleveland, ohio, independent line. caller: the supreme court has been very active. as far as i can remember, this is the first time, second oral argument critic by chief justice roberts. no. 2, mccain is saying something negative. no. 3, fec [unintelligible] they cannot do anything until the election is over. it is just too late. pretty soon, you can auction off the white house and paid through

paypal. guest: it was an unusual way the oral arguments played out. the initial case was very narrow and dealing with this pay-per- view movie called "hillary, the move because >> i believe it was. it was a negative documentary on hillary clinton. the question will be talking about their technology of video on demand and corporations can use that instead, the court reheard oral arguments and expanded the case significantly so they could arrive at the conclusion they did, which is a much broader ruling on free speech rights for corporations. host: houston, texas, democrat line. caller: ultimately, it boils down to we live in a democracy.

the most important part of our democracy is education. it does not matter how much money people spend, if you do not sit down and read the newspaper, watch the news, understand the politicians are voting for, then you lose. the whole part of democracy is in the smarter person in the argument. if you do not know what is going on, it does not matter how much money they spend, you will never truly get what you want. sit down, read the newspapers, read the magazines, look at the right news programs and educate yourself. democracy only works of the people who are voting are smart enough to know what is going on. thank you. host: we of another email comment --

guest: i will confess i have not heard the 10th amendment argument, so i do not want to spot any legal theories i'm not an expert of. but in terms of the constitutional amendment, you're hearing more and more reformers mention as an option. you can look particularly at the corporation side of bush and anti-personhood amendment for corporations or there can be a somewhat broader take that congress has the right to do these types of regulations and explicitly inserted into the constitution these regulations are constitutional. host: 1 last caller on the segment with ms. mason. good morning, gerald. caller: early in the campaign,

obama kept saying he was going to raise or will be a billion dollars. then they complain about super pacs contributing. they're just trying to compete with the billion dollars he was going to raise. guest: i should say the campaign really pushed back against the $1 billion figure, that certainly has been thrown out there, more time by folks on the right and left. considering what a fund-raising juggernaut president obama was in the 2008 race, it was expected he would continue to be able to amass a sizable war chest and would have the money advantage. and he has. he has done well. he is a little down and pays from 2008 and some folks have dropped off, particularly from wall street, a migration over to the republican side. but i do not think anyone really

anticipated with the super pac structure would look like in the presidential election. we started to see within the primary itself, particularly with people like sheldon adelson, the red white and blue fund, then you start to see these groups are going to raise an enormous amount of money and play very aggressively. that is when the obama campaign relies perhaps the field was away from their favor. host: melanie mason, thank you for talking politics. thank you for joining us. and next, christopher wilson of the woodrow wilson institute center joins us for a recap of the mexican presidential elections and later we began a week-long series looking at news boroughs and the covers of u.s. news. we will be right back.

>> this weekend, had to the state capital named in honor of thomas jefferson in jefferson city, missouri, saturday at noon eastern. c-span2 on family life inside the governor's mansion from her book "if walls could talk." provisions list from university of special collections. sunday, american history tv -- >> 1967, this was called the

bloodiest 47 acres in america. >> a former warden takes you through the state penitentiary. walk back through history in the halls of the missouri state capitol and governor's mansion read once a month, c-span's local content vehicles explore the history of every life of cities across america. this weekend from jefferson city, saturday at noon and senate at 5:00 eastern on c- span2 and c-span3. >> i think it is pretty clear the upper that was undertaken there ran into a lot controversy, a lot miscommunications, so i think those bills are not coming back this year or any year, for that matter. >> co-chair of the internet caucus a virginia republican on prospects for anti pursue legislation in the next congress and other telecommunications issues,

tonight at 8:00 eastern on "the communicators" on c-span2. host: coming out of the associated press is that enrique pena nieto, the presidential candidate for the institutional revolutionary party, has won the mexican elections, although the final counts are not in and one of the candidates, obrador, says he will not concede from the race until the final results are in. to discuss the results, we're joined by chris wilson of the woodrow wilson mexico institute to discuss the results. this was not exactly a surprise last night, correct? guest: that is right. we saw the polls give enrique pena nieto a steady lead of about 12 to 15 points. host: enrique pena nieto is?

what is his party? the ap's and this is a return to power from 12 years ago of this party. explain who he is. guest: enrique pena nieto is a from thepri. one party ruled mexico for seven years. that ended in the year 2001 fox took power. that was part of the democratic transformation of mexico, really change the country dramatically. but now see a return to the previous ruling party. some people are concerned this means a return to the less democratic path to mexico, but many others feel pri has presented a new phase enrique pena nieto and that is pena nieto represents, a youthful candidate, his wife is a soap opera star in mexico, he symbolically represents this new phase of the pri the lives in a democratic world rather than an

authoritarian one. host: who was his biggest competition? guest: obrador of the left party, the prd. he barely lost elections in 2006. after the 2006 election, he had massive protest and did not accept the results. there really divided the country and gave him sort of a negative aura that he was never quite able to overcome this time around. >> so surprised the incoming party candidate came in third? yeguest: yes, came in third pla. the truth is, she had over 50,000 dead in the fight against drugs and organized crime in mexico, and that was hanging around her party shoulder.

plus, and mixed economic situation. it left a checkered economic record. host: is that white voters wanted a change, because of the violence? >> exactly right. it was neck and neck of which was the most important to the electorate in mexico. on the security issue, they faced a big challenge, try defense -- convinced they could improve the security situation when you had seen rising murder rates, and a mixed record on the economy, but poverty has not significantly decline over the past six years given the recession. host: if you want to talk about the mexican elections or what this means for u.s.-mexico relations with christopher wilson of the woodrow wilson center's mexico institute, give

us a call -- host: here is the front page of the "miami herald closed with a picture of enrique pena nieto. what is his relationship with the u.s.? is he going to change the way president calderón operated his government with the u.s.? guest: president calderon, we've seen a huge improvement in u.s.- mexico relations as he asked for help from u.s. with organized crime. enrique pena nieto has done his best to say, what i'm going to continue working with the government of the united states. while some people would be worried he would give a or negotiate with some of the criminal groups, get a pass to

them, he says he will continue its. he says he may do it in a slightly different way, but will continue to work with the u.s.. he sees the value in u.s.-mexico trade, economic benefit. he has done his best to allay any fears there be a dramatic shift in u.s.-mexico relations. host: but the fear that he would go back to the way his party operated for what, 71 years? guest: there's a sense that when the pri, the party he represents, when the rule for 71 years, there is a sense that they were corrupt, that they did maybe negotiate criminal groups, but he says, no, they will not do that. part of his acceptance speech or victory speech last time he said specifically, try to address the concerns and there's no return to the past, there is

no negotiating with these criminal groups and we will continue to fight them. host: we will probably see that more of his actions and upon it's coming up for his administration, correct? what are we watching there in terms of some of the old guard coming back? guest: the pri has a big umbrella, so they represent everything from some pretty progressive leftists to conservative business leaders. we are looking to see who of those people get the key cabinet posts. his top campaign adviser is an mit ph.d. in economics, a real economic reformer. maybe some of the people, they call them dinosaurs in mexico, people who represent the old guard, some of the political operatives might also show up in the administration. we will be working to see who does show up in the key positions. host: yesterday in "the

washington post" on the dinosaur issue -- host: would you agree with that assessment? guest: i would. one question is whether the party has changed, pri, and it

has, but really, mexico has changed. that undergone a dramatic transformation. the societal level, government level -- he did not mention federalization. there's much more power at state level. all those for checks and balances of the president did the president cannot just name and throw out governors at a whim. the president has to answer to the media and congress. host: on twitter -- guest: the ise was created sort of as a result of pressures on the single party system in the 1990's. heavily organized and created an institution that is very independent, very strong. italy does guard the vote. everything is done completely -- it really does for the boat.

everything is done completely transparently. the count of the votes is done in front of representatives of all the parties with the citizens present, so there is complete transparency in election itself. host: a headline from earlier this month in "the washington post" -- did we see any of that last night? guest: there were reports a little bit by with scare tactics, but more about buying votes. as long as their small-scale enough, they should not affect the main result. the truth is, enrique pena nieto with a significant advantage, it appears so far, and that really delays in the concern that these types of small-scale fraud added up to a real problem for the electoral system.

host: tampa, florida, independent pretty good morning, peter. your thoughts on mexico's election last night? caller: curious about your opinion as far as some of the free trade agreements the u.s. was involved with. since you're with the woodrow wilson institute. one of the things i'm curious about is whether or not you are forcing any change in policy coming out of the executive branch here in the united states because of obama's sudden about- face after he statistically has deported more mexican citizens who were in here attempting to get green cards and things of that nature. statistically, it was listed obama has deported -- and this could be a fact check you want to check on -- approximately 1.2 million people back to mexico,

which was more than what bush had done. as you know, bush was quite cozy with the presidential nominee who had gotten in previously. host: a couple of issues, both on nafta and immigration issues with mexico. guest: the party that just came back to power in mexico has made it clear they would honor nafta and believed this trade between u.s. and mexico is free helpful for the economy. i do not think on the u.s. side there would be any move to help that -- a change that any time soon, either. nafta is an institution, trade between the two countries is just too important to let -- really, for both economies -- to let that go by the wayside. on the issue of deportations of migration policy, if you know, mexico and the early 2000's tried to negotiate a bilateral agreement with the sunday fox

and president bush. -- vicente fox and president bush. but we see this as a domestic political issue. a real change, any major change in the visa policy or migration policy would have to come first from the u.s. and then maybe mexico could work with the united states to implement that if it was something they felt they could support. but really, that issue is a domestic issue. the trade is an international one and won both countries support. republican go to the line from pittsburgh, pennsylvania this morning. caller: how're you doing, mr. wilson? i have a question pri pri's election. with the legislation that was passed recently about the policy for the mexican president

wanting to use the ad will mexican military, what does this dynamic do with the pri in in power? t think that will change? do think the doing business as usual in the past? host: the policy he is referring to, using the military? guest: the situation regarding human rights in the military, how the military can be held accountable for human rights violations, been held more accountable recently, i think that is a policy the caller is referring to. the military will continue to play in a poor role in the fight against drug-trafficking organizations -- play a role in the fight against drug trafficking organizations. there is not the police force to entirely take on the struggle, currently. enrique pena nieto has said he would like to expand use of federal police. he would like to grow the

federal police, which is seen as more professional than the local and state level police were there is significant corruption. in the time being, which will probably be for several years, we will continue to see the use of military. in terms of how to use the military and respect for human rights, i think that is an open question. it is a challenge to military is facing, as they become more involved in the fight against criminal organizations, there have been more human-rights complaints against the military. and that a sort of related to just the simple involvement, the amount of interactions they have with the communities, the mistakes they make, but really there are some pretty horrible accusations as well of torture and things of that nature. it is an open question how the pri will deal with that, how the will continue to hopefully hold the military accountable for any violations that come about. that is really in the pri's

interest. any human rights violations, they carry negative reaction for both the military and the government. if you're trying to improve the security situation, you need to build confidence among the population. it is really important military act exactly within the guidelines set by the law. host: if you want to talk about some of these issues, give us a call. the numbers are up for you there if you want to talk to christopher wilson. no relation to the woodrow wilson center? guest: no actual relation. host: explain what the center is and with the mexico institute does. guest: it was greeted wasrtisan, ain't -- it greeted by a bipartisan, we try

to inform the population as well as the population on the major issues of the day. at the mexico institute, we work in quantum in areas. security, immigration, trade, and the border. we try to do those things, which tried to be a link. president wilson was the only president to have a phd. he was a link between academic and policy world, so we try to do that a little ourself. host: fairfax, virginia, independent line. caller: good morning. i am action from apex, north carolina. we're probably all trying to recover from the heat. it has been incredibly hot oven down the east coast. i think is important we have

people with attention from different countries, but i also think the way mexico has done said the last century, i don't know if a makes any difference who gets elected their as to how their policies pertain to what we're trying to accomplish in this country. i think immigration and the drug-trafficking going on our direct subjects -- i mean, maybe you could talk about this as far as -- sort of a simple question and i know the answer, but i want to hear what you have to say. why the people that come from mexico come to the u.s. and they go back and for dissipate and their own democracy or do they stay here -- participate in

their own democracy or do they stay here and vote absentee? there are a lot of mexicans in north carolina. i know they're coming here for the jobs. what you think mexico is not developed economically like say our country has? wire all of their people coming here and not the reverse? guest: there are several issues there. your right to point out there's a connection between economic situation and migration. remarkably, we have seen migration between u.s. and mexico has gone to what we call net zero, meaning there are many mexicans, maybe more, like the more, leaving the u.s. than entering the united states. i think that is a big shock to a lot of people who hear the stories of the border and people crossing the border. it sounds like there are a flood of mexicans coming to the u.s., but remarkably, there are more mexicans leaving the u.s. at

this point. that has a lot to do the recession here in the u.s. there simply are less jobs here for mexicans to get. at the same time, there's a growing middle class in mexico, growing -- the gdp has been growing faster over the last years than in the u.s. mexico was recovered very strongly from the recession. there's a change of dynamics. i think over the long term we will see sort of a conveence of the quality of life in both countries, but it is a very long-term process and we have a long way to go to get there. regarding the participation of mexicans politically after they come to the u.s., it is still relatively low, but you can vote from the u.s. if you're a mexican citizen. i think the number was around 40,000 votes, which is a pretty small number compared to the several million mexicans living in the u.s. over time, and really over generations, as a mexican

migrant family comes to the u.s. and children that are american citizens, as they grow up, they tend to be involved in u.s. political process and not the mexican political process. by both law and culture, they are american. host: you said mexico recovered strongly from its recession, but not strong enough for the incoming president's party to win another election? or was that more about the candidate who was running for that position? guest: it recovered very well in 2010, 5.4% gdp growth and around 4% for the next two years, including this one. a really that just took back the loss mexico faced in the recession. there is an old saying that when u.s. catches a cold, mexico catches pneumonia. we did see mexico fell even further than the u.s. did in recession in 2009, so there was a lot to recover from.

hopefully, the economic growth in mexico will continue at the rate it has for the last couple of years where weakens a real gains, real poverty alleviation, creation of new jobs. down to texas, democrat line. good morning. caller: i just want to throw in my 2 cents about the voting. people come from mexico over here have dual citizenship. they can vote in mexico and here. also people here have worked at the polls. in texas, all that is required torove your identity is a sam's club card. you can look that up. i would like your comment on that. guest: as i said, there is dual

citizenship. mexican citizenship is your vocal by constitution, meaning if a mexican migrates to the u.s. and takes your citizenship, they keep the mexican citizenship. it is really up to them if they want to participate in the mexican politics. if someone lives here in washington, they would need to register a special process that would vote absentee essentially, several weeks in advance, registration has to be even further than that. there is a number -- they are not unreasonable hurdles, but democratic hurdles that limits the amount of participation of mexican voters from the u.s. and the electors or process in mexico. host: i believe the number the mexican government put out, there are 80 million people eligible to vote in mexico's election yesterday. do we know what the turnout was?

was a relatively high compared to the last time? guest: just over 60%, which is a little higher than regular participation in mexican elections or may be right around regular. there was sort of a fear there would be low turnout because there is a sense that people were not really excited about any of the candidates. many voters were choosing the least bad candidate. nonetheless, we did a pretty strong turn now. 50 million voters in a country of 110 million people is reasonable. host: on twitter -- guest: absolutely energy was an issue, but in a different way than here. less about gasoline prices, a little more about what to do with mexico's energy sector. mexico's a big energy producer. devastate run well company. the question is, the production

has been declining over time from insufficient investment into the state oil industry. pri did something pretty remarkable. they said they wanted to have more private participation in the state-run oil industry. and mexico in the 1930's, when oil was expropriated by pri the government, and that was considered a symbol of national pride that the will ban was from mexico. for the same pri candidate to say they would open the state oil company to more private investment is a bit of a watershed moment. they would need a constitutional amendment really do so in a significant way -- host: it is written in the constitution they cannot open it up? guest: yes, oil is owned by the state and the would need -- significant partnership would

take a constitutional amendment. host: what would that mean for the u.s.? guest: on the side of businesses in the u.s., it would open up a lot of business opportunities for u.s. auto companies who are well situated, works in the gulf of mexico, have a lot of experience there. a lot of business opportunities. it also mean greater energy for the u.s. if mexico could invest more money, privately, produce more oil, would mean the u.s. could be less dependent on oil from the middle east and rely more on its partners, neighbors canada and mexico, who are right now the no. 1 and no. 3 oil providers to the u.s. already. dallas, texas,to republican line. good morning. caller: i am a man of wisdom.

i could be you all's grandfather. i was born down there in vellero and live their most of my life. host: what do you think of the recent election there yesterday? caller: i am not enthusiastic about any election down there. i am more confused about the fact that hundreds of thousands of jobs have left the country, including recently 4000 jobs from whirlpool in arkansas. we are becoming a jobless nation. you young guys, it is up to you. not as old guys that are full of wisdom but not energy. there is no jobs in america anymore. they are all there, china, india. it is saddening. it is very sad.

i knew a guy who was on bill clinton's mark america free trade program. you know what he told me? three years ago i wish i would have voted against it. what are we going to do? you see young ladies in restaurants and ask them if you are going to college. they said we are ready finished college and cannot find a job. there were interesting. there are no jobs in america. and when are republicans and democrats going to wake up to the fact that there are no jobs in this country anymore? host: mr. wilson, let's talk about jobs in mexico. are they experiencing a similar situation to what he was talking about? guest: unemployment did go up, but we're seeing that some key industries having growth and producing jobs, automobile

industry in particular. aerospace industry. and mexican is growing into a middle class. it is a slower process, but there is change happening. to address the issue that the calller brought up more directly, i think one way to create jobs in the united states -- there are 6 million jobs is one estimate in the united states a link to trade with mexico, but the key issue is competitiveness, but not just for the united states but a regional issue. since the creation of nafta our countirries areur linked together competitively. and if we can compete, then weaken export, create jobs and increase manufacturing in the united states. it is about working with our

partners in mexico to make goods in the most competitive way possibly. it means lowering barriers at the border so we do not have to pay extra cost to go back and forth across the border. there are ways we can work and partnerships to create jobs in both countries. host: what about things americans have a lot of experiences with going across the mexican border? changes in policy with tourism? guest: i think the challenge is the image issue in mexico. since the level of crime has gone up in mexico, really in certain parts. many of the tourist destinations have been saved of this type of violence, but mexico you read stories in the newspaper and a large majority of stories you see are about drugs and violence. that means people are a little bit more hesitant to go to mexico. nonetheless, in spite of that we seek to raise them as really recovered since the recession. it is strong and mexico, but

probably could be stronger if mexico could improve the security situation. host: albuquerque, new mexico, john on the democratic line. you are on with chris wilson. good morning.ler: always an honor to follow a man of wisdom like the last calller. i've lived on the border my entire life. live in the albuquerque area since 1998. we have a lot of mexicans from mexico we are border states. we do not do all of this difference up. in some parts it abrogates me. bs me.egate's as far as the presidential election, how do you think this

will affect the drug cartels? is he pro-drugs, anti-drugs? are we ever going to have a politician that realizes the number one export to the united states is marijuana. i have my mayor won a license to grow marijuana. i no longer buy any from the country of mexico. this is the third year where i have not purchased and the black market marijuana from mexico. i grow my own. when will the government wise up the marijuana is the no. 1 import/ guestt? guest: the incoming president, pena nieto is anti-drugs. a group of ex-presidents throughout latin america have begun a conversation about it in

the region. there is a movement to look at drug policies throughout the whole region, but nonetheless in mexico there is strong opposition to any move towards legalization, and i do not think that is the strategy we will be followed in the next administration. we will probably see more pressure on the criminal groups that target drugs and then an attempt to dismantle them. consumption in mexico has been a problem. it has been growing as more drugs are traffic through mexico. some of the criminal groups the beginning to pay in kind. instead of paying them in cash, they would pay and drugs, which there would have to sell on their own in the streets of mexico. there is a serious problem with growing grapes of addiction in mexico, and that is something the new president will have to deal with. host: here is an article from " the washington post" from

yesterday. talking about the outgoing president. what do you think it's like to see will be? guest: no doubt his legacy is about security situation. right after he came into office, he said the military to those on stay in western mexico to take on the criminal groups. that is a head-on approach and has led to a fragmentation and has weakened them in some ways, but also weighed -- led to greater fighting among the groups. we have seen a series increases in violence in certain parts of mexico, and that will be in part his legacy. it will be the audacity and courage to take them on. yet he did not have success. i -- he did not have time to get to the point where there was success, but he is seen the rate raised.

>> let's go to new york. bernie on the independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. a couple points. 20 years ago i remember reading an article about the election in mexico at that time. i forget who it was at the time, but he came out with an economic policy. he intended to improve the situation. the article went out to talk about how he was approached from representatives from the united states, and they told him he cannot do that, that the policy that was in place is what suits the u.s. and mexico. i tend to believe that a lot of stuff that goes on in mexico is based upon what the u.s. wants, and not necessarily what is good for the u.s. or mexico, but certain people within the power structure. to show where i am coming from,

i have always been an existence of the new world order. a lot of stuff going on that does not help mexico. this leads to my second point. a man in north carolina is saying the mexicans are coming up to take jobs, but there are people in north carolina with no jobs. we have been led to believe we no longer up to do certain jobs in the economy. i believe a society that refuses to do its own jobs is doomed as a society or culture. giving you a chance to talk about any of the point the calller brings up. guest: i would like to talk about mexican independence. i think historically the united states did insert a great deal of control over certain that american countries. in some ways, that is relative of the cold war.

in the new context certainly mexico and a lot of other countries found a great deal of autonomy, ability to make their own policies, days of the u.s. opening up foreign economies that i think, come to pretty much an end. i think mexico right now is making economic decisions based upon what it sees s interests. given the huge amount of trades, it is decided it is in the interest to continue working with the united states. at the same time, mexico looking internationally tried to export more to latin america and think more about how to engage asia and grow economically in that way. all of those things eventually will deal with the immigration issue. as i said before, it is amazing, but mexican migration -- there is more leading the united states the coming to the united states. it shows a shift in the

dynamics. sherry from louisiana is next. caller: think you for taking my call. one of the things i am concerned about, how interested in this president is a developing economics. he said the united states coming to the aid economically had been coming to an end. i think the problems americans have it is that this president has given $2 million for oil exploration off the coast of mexico, and $500 million to build a plant in mexico. why wasn't that done in mexico. -- why wasn't that done in the united states?

we can build cars down here. why was it the money we're giving to other countries put into this country and let mexico develop their own economic policies. can you talk about the foreign developments in mexico and concerns of the incoming president's economic outlook? guest: sure. first of all, u.s. aid to mexico is basically under the merit of an issue. we of transnational crime. drug-trafficking driven by demand in the u.s. and supply in mexico and south america. we have a share problems, and the united states decided to work with partner countries such as mexico to try to deal with that issue. there has been some money put

towards that initiative in foreign aid. relatively a small amount compared to the total foreign aid budget. there is little actually on the economic side. most of the investment is private investment, meaning companies, car companies for example are working to open plants and expand production in mexico. this could be seen as a good thing to the united states also. they buy more parts from the u.s.. the economic challenges need to be faced by mexico. there is no way the united states can make mexico much of a faster rate. the amount of money needed to do so is not something that the united states will ever get to mexico. it is something that mexico is happy to do for itself. there are a number of reforms that the economic present has talked about.

some of the other ones are the labor markets. mexico needs to make the labor market more flexible. right now a lot of bureaucratic red tape making it more difficult to hire and fire people. by cutting through that they could really take advantage of the people that they have and keee. another one is the school reform. take in more taxes in the region and countries from mexico and the united states. the taxes they taken as a percentage of gdp are very low. there will be increases for taxes. get rid of loopholes and tax evasion, and there is another issue of transparent spending so it is clear government spending is for the good of the people, not going into anyone's private pockets. there is a laundry list that need to be tackled and it will be tough, because the pri

incoming party will have to work in collaboration with other parties. mexico has experienced a lot of political gridlock recently. we have to hope that the pri finds ways to negotiate and work with other parties to pass the reforms that a lot of mexicans to the other feel are needed and not as one ideology or political spectrum. >> christopher wilson of the woodrow center. the key for joining us to talk about it. we will talk about what the incoming president does. up next, we will start a new series on how foreign news outlets covered american news. we will start that said it with allied fisher of al jazeera english. -- we will strike that segment with alan fisher of al jazeera english. we will be right back.

>> this weekend ahead to the state capital made in honor of thomas jefferson. saturday at noon eastern. but through life with c-span to. former senator and azeri first lady, jean cunningham of family life inside the governor's mansion. it falls apart. a business contract from ancient mesopotamia to the university of missouri special collections. the stories behind clay tablets. sunday at 5:00 eastern on american history tv. >> at one time this was called the bloodiest 47 acres in america. >> taking it through a former state penitentiary.

take a walk through history in the halls of the governor's mansion. once a month, the c-span local content vehicle explores the history of cities across america. this weekend saturday at noon and sunday at 5:00 eastern on c- span 2 and 3. are dead.and pipa i think that is pretty clear that the efforts undertaken there ran into a lot of controversy, miscommunication, and so i think those bills are not coming back again or any year for that matter. >> code gesture of the congressional internet congress on prospects for anti-piracy legislation in the next congress and other telecommunication issues tonight and o'clock eastern on c-span to. "washington journal" continues.

host: starting today and the rest of the week washington journal will look at foreign news agencies. wednesday "voice of america." thursday we will take a closer look at japanese broadcaster "nhk." we begin our series with al jazeera english, the first english-language news agency centered in the middle east. alan fisher joins us from al jazeera english. good morning. what is the mission, and how has it related to of jazeera air of it? guest: the stations are obviously sister stations, but they are different. the idea grew out of all jazeera arabic. someone suggested to people that

an english channel might be an idea. english developed and we went on. so that is why you see we devote a lot of resources to africa, asia, south america and central america as well, as well as the normal places across europe and united states and america. the idea is we will give a voice to those who do not have the opportunity normally to appear on television to tell their stories. >> who is your audience? guest: there is a huge election going on at the moment. those results will be presented very soon. we know it is going to be reliable and has been conducted in many countries around the world, so we know it is extensive. that is the first time it was

carried out. i think we will find many people who watch this, english is their second language. we're no longer popular in bangladesh and south america and asia as well. also, surprisingly in some parts of europe. i am told we have a big audience in germany, which surprised me as well. we also know just from our own data that there are lots of young people watching us. a lot of people in the united states watching us, because they can access us easily online. during the arab spring we knew the audience was substantially watching. we have a very young, very dynamic, very engaged audience. host: we just caught a glimpse of al jazeera english on

spanish. how does this change the way you are perceived internationally? guest: perhaps the perception internationally change. we've gone through a number of significant stories. we covered the war in gaza where we had correspondents based their which other english- speaking broadcast stations did not have. we covered the war from georgia. i know, because i was there. the next challenge was the era of spring. i think we continue to do the job we have always done, which is people on the ground with people who knew the area intimately and cover the story from a number of year, and they give excellent eye-witness reported. we did a lot of resources, time, and energy into covering the arab spring. this was a story that the whole

world wanted to know about. if you wanted to know about it at that point, you should tune in, because it gave the most comprehensive coverage you'd find anywhere. i think it was that the change. it was not the work we do, but the perception of what we do. >> if you would like to join the conversation and talk with alan fisher, here are the numbers to call. republicans. you were talking to us from the washington bureau and cover stories that are happening here in america. taking a look at how al jazeera covered the supreme court ruling that came down last week. >> this is the moment word of the supreme court decision trickle-down. slowly it dawns and those in favor get the word answer

inhalation can be seen on the faces. the supreme court is normally a very sleepy building. faster year it has been involved because of the health-care issue. take of the supreme court's decision may have been formally handed down, but people staying here for hours on the steps of court celebrating, commiserating, arguing on decision or not. that will not change in america any time soon. host: alan fisher what kind of appetite is there for american news internationally? guest: huge. it is the one of the most important places in the world. people want to know what is happening here. still one of the major power centers around the world.

what they're also doing is showing more of america. we're not just trapped inside the beltway. we did not just do it from washington. we went out and spoke to real people to find out how it impacted them. we went to upstate new york. i think it is support we continue to do that. all around the world we will go around and tell people that you are from washington, d.c., they want to know what is going on. they want to know on various political issues who takes what states and how well will impact them perhaps somewhere down the line. i think the appetite globally for stories of america are huge. i think it can be better served by as doing the kinds of stories and the way we do them. host: steep, democratic calller

and columbia, maryland. caller: i walked over the air in virginia and has been great. a i wondered to questions. one, argues scaling back your coverage your news programming here in america? i read somewhere your scaling back your america operations. number two, what kind of regulations do you face in broadcasting over the air? think you. i will take my answer off the air. guest: think you. we are aware of how important africa is and how and reported it has been. that is why we send people to places like maui. they get very little mention

elsewhere. and i know there is the appetite in our headquarters to go into a news story there. the country was on the edge of famine. i spoke to someone who work for another broadcast organization, and their view is when it comes to famine, we will go to report it. we wanted to show what was happening there and why it was important to go there before it reached a tipping point. we are not scaling back on what we're doing in the u.s.. we had a rationalization of staff and the u.s. that was the end of the two-year process where management looked at how we do things. at one point we have four new centers around the world. that was fantastic when we went around the world. the idea is each new center would follow the news coverage. that turned out to be incredibly expensive to duplicate 70 teams around the world. the decision was made to look at a better way to do this.

there's more ammunition in the service we are giving in united states. we have people going out in covering stories on a daily basis, but it was sad that a loss of the good people, the country has tried to find them jobs elsewhere. since we lost those people, the stories of the united states have gone up. we are covered by the same regulation that everyone is. i was based in london for six years. there is a broadcasting regulators in london. we have to be the same restrictions and same standards that every other broadcast organization had. not as if we had some free grain because we're headquartered in the middle east. we realize to get access, we had to meet legal requirements. but we give you an example. during the french election, they

can break the embargo of who they think has won the election, and they do so ahead of time in quite lively as well. because we are broadcasting as a license, we took the view we should broadcast at the same time as -- same time as the french broadcasters. we are in the same boat of every other broadcast organization. host: a comment from twitter. maverick writes -- guest: censored not by management, and certainly some countries would like to enforce censorship. we certainly saw that during the era of spring where hosni mubarak was disappointed by the coverage, because al jazeera was reflected what was happening on the streets. tried to close down the bureau to withdraw all of our broadcast

license, and when that did not work, he tried to stop the satellite transmission. we then found people on the ground were subjected to beatings, arrests, regular harassment. people in the broadcast were incredibly brave, incredibly good journalists and manage to get the power -- story out, despite some and tried to restrict what we are trying to do. it is becoming increasingly difficult for governments around the world to stop news from getting out. host: john joins us from fairfax, virginia. good morning. caller: good morning. i want of jazeera almost every day. -- i watch al jazeera almost every day. people put up an antenna to watch it. i am appalled the washington

journal showed ignore rt. they have the best world news program, i believe. they have very interesting, compelling information you do not get anywhere else i want to thank "al jazeera" for what they do, but you should be ashamed to include russia tv. host: it was certainly not intentional to leave anyone out. thank you for the advice. why do you like "al jazeera" so much? caller: first of all, they do not have a lot of commercials, and i started watching it during the arab spring, and they were by far the best for covering it. looking at a live shot.

they're covering the mexican elections in small yet. you also hear from a local viewer who enjoys our programming. he is right that you can watch the coverage in washington in new york and watch as online at the time. we have light streaming 24 hours a day. we know that was incredibly popular in the united states throughout the arab spring, and it continues at that level. i was talking to a student and told me he watched regulate and people would gather to watch it together. it is terrific that people are tuning in and taking the time to watch. we never forget how grateful we are for viewers taking the time to watch it. host: next calller.

gabriel it depended calller in massachusetts. -- independent calller in massachusetts. caller: i notice i you interrupted the last calller when he started talking about the rt. there are news people try to influence politics. our media is like the extension of the industrial complex. they only tell us what they want us to hear. i always hear someone at saying the people in media are the people that are holding the goal post or something, but it seems like it is a bunch of people leaning one side for the other. you do not really find out that habeas corpus has been suspended. we have no rights, that is why congress on both sides are basically pushing everything through without the people's consent. a lot of people around here are basically losing their rights to

get the oppression they have here, but i always thought when we started over the airways, it was for the people. leaders that sit here behind closed doors and make deals without letting the world know what is really going on. i get my news through the internet, overseas, rt, al jazzera, all other media networks. satellite and everything else. guest: if you've been watching, you will see we have done a number of stories about habeas corpus and what has happened there. we have done a number of stories that affect ordinary people here in the u.s.. we have with the president obama's record on human rights in detail, to peer yeo. i am not sure how you would judge that by any reasonable

measure. i think what you get is we cover the stories that we think people should know about, and that includes habeas corpus. very few of the american networks have more than 30 seconds. american networks are not serving the the worst terribly well. -- the viewers very well. they have gotten caught up was awarwith celebrities. we look a much more substantial issues and try to do that every single day. >host: our calller asking if we could get focused on other news stations. we are looking at a sampling of four news operations in the united states and getting a sense of staff from operations and what the mission is. we will look at agencies and others. anhk

it makes the decision about content, and that is the editorial process happen? guest: there are a number of meetings throughout the day. this is not a top-down situation and some appearing saying this is the story and how it will be done. there is an open discussion. when you're working in an organization that has over 100 nationalities, people have various inputs that are very worthwhile. obviously someone will make a decision in the end. i think it is a very open democratic process here. certainly some stories leap out such as the healthy, but there are some that are not marginal calls. that is something we look at.

let me give you an example. recently we did a story about the election of fred broker who became the first african- american to head the southern baptist convention. we think that is a fairly significant story, given the southern baptist convention acknowledged racist past. here it is the black man becoming president of that organization. we spent some time with fred. we did a profile of him. we think that is the sort of story that would make people stop and go i never knew that and suddenly become better informed, not just about america but the world. that is what we have to continue to do in the story choices as we go forward. caller: i was wondering why the media -- today it seems like all the countries that have social

security and workman's comp and unemployment are all going broke while china is making all of this kind of money. why doesn't the media say something about that? why don't countries that have social security and things like that get together and say we will put tariffs on third world countries that are destroying our way of life? guest: i think the idea that the media not reporting those things is not true. when you say all the countries with social security are going bust, i do not think that is the case. and there are 209 sovereign nations. a large number of them have so slick 30 such as australia, new zealand. you talk about france. the united states, canada. i do not think we are in the position where we're not

reporting these things. i think they're trying to bust the whole mold. we want you to look at the news and perhaps walk away slightly better informed. host: what does al jazeera mean? guest: it means the peninsula. it is essentially that island. it sums up exactly the geographic position. host: let's look at details of the al jazeera english channel. it is a 24 hour news network. it first went on air in 2006. and stuff is about 1000. the headquarters is in catarrh. the main american hub is a washington, d.c., with the sap of our 150 people.

places like mexico city and toronto's. let's hear it from david. caller: my question is, i have called all three of the cable companies that serve as cape cod in massachusetts and ask them about al jazeera and i get a blank, no answer. when will they be carried by comcast and direct table? guest: you are like many hundreds of thousands of the united states that are calling it to be more widely viewed. there are negotiations ongoing between the distribution department and the number of people stationed here in the u.s. and hoping there will be announcements very soon. . we recently found a deal to get on to cable and satellite in india. many other companies are waking

up to the spirit and super tuesday, as we were doing live on the camera outside of the river, a number people were terribly excited and decide they would go on line. hopefully very soon you will be able to watch us over the broadcast channels as well and enjoy what hundreds of millions are enjoying. host: you mentioned super tuesday. talk to us about how your covering the presidential election in the united states. guest: we have been covering it for a very long time out. i was in ohio in september and cover the ronald reagan dinner. went to ohio and came back and said rick santorum. we covered the primary process

all the way through. we continue with a very good political team. we have an excellent white house correspondent. the teams are terrific. we have great teams. we are drawing up plans going forward. obviously we will be at the convention. we expect to have a well-known name in american television to be one of the key in the list. we will be in tampa. we will be in north carolina, and we will cover all the way to the elections itself. it will be slightly different. we're not just interested in the process as a lot of networks are. not just about the opinion polls of who was up and down and what that means. we will also look at the real issue. we will look at the economy, education and foreign affairs, because that is very important for our audience as well. we will do that over the course

of the next few months. we will do it again on a fourth of july. i will be in virginia. what makes a swing state? how you win it back? we will cover all of that on the fourth of july in virginia. it is very exciting. i have covered the u.s. presidential elections in the past, but never from the start to the end. host: alan fisher senior correspondent with al jazeera in english. was working with the network prior to the launch. went on the air in 2006. prior to that, a columnist of the online current affairs magazine scottish review. taking another calller from john, independent of baltimore, maryland. host: taking another call. caller: i follow this from my app on my phone.

two questions about access and the middle east. starting the revolution in syria, do you have access to syria? the second question, how much free access to you did in israel? syria access is difficult. we are currently banned by the government because they do not like people going in there. we have built up a network of people that we know and trust, and they continue to feed us a lot of materials and video. they said that on youtube. it is all checked and verified, but we have been able to, despite restrictions, given excellent -- an accurate reflection of what is happening on the ground, and we will try to continue to do that. i've watched it on the number of occasions.

the access there is normally very good. we have never had any significant issues. they have always treated us with respect. there is at least one international cable company taken off the air in israel because the israeli audience felt it was biased, but it was not "al jazzera." we interviewed, at times very harshly, representatives of the israeli government, but they felt what we were doing was honest and fair, and you can ask for no more than that which you are trying to cover a story of the complexity of what is happening in the middle east. host: san antonio, texas. welcome. caller: good morning. wanted to thank you for "al

jazeera." it amazes me so many people did not know about linktv. you have to dig for the truth. we have two types of media in america now. we have those that talk all day long and do not have a life experience and do not know what is going on in the country. did you have the ones that of been there so long that they have a party with the same people they are supposed to be investigated. it amazes me. we have the iraq war because of the media. i would ask the questions they needed to elect. we do not have a choice anymore. it does not surprise me at all that you are banding israel. they control our financial system and bought out much of the congress. you really have to dig for the truth. i want you to know how much we appreciate that some voice is out there. guest: i appreciate your call. perhaps you did not hear me quite clearly.

we are not banned in israel. i think they quite like what we do because we seem to be fair and honest. i think you're right, there is a real challenge for journalists not to ask the questions that need to be asked, not just to expect with the government tells you. i think in america, cable channels, people are not being well served. there was a great line in the paper in london from a terrific writer. he came over to the united states for a while and said the you that -- the idea of news for american television seems to be three middle-aged man shouting at each other. people want to be informed. after nine the/11 people said why did this happen? -- after 9/11 people said how what did we not know about this?

it was smart, clever, committed. people responded by watching in record numbers and by newspapers and record the embers. suddenly we realize that becomes expensive. when that starts to tail away, the audience started to fall away. it will reward you by buying the newspaper are watching the broadcast. we are finding audience is growing for the united states and globally. the reason for that is we're giving the people something we do not have elsewhere. they could watch the news and find out something about the country and walk away slightly smarter. as a journalist, that is always my priority. i always hope people get something out of what we do. host: alan fisher what is the biggest misconception you find people have of al jazeera english and arabic? guest: al jazeera arabic, i

cannot say with the biggest misconception, because it did not speak arabic. i can watch it in visually it looks terrific, and i know the head of news is a fantastic journalist and very nice man. it is really interesting. just before we went on the air, i did a number of talks at universities, and i ask, the people believed they showed a be heading. i would guess initially 75% through their hands up. we have never shown of the heading ever, either on arabic or english. -- never shown a beheading. these urban myths developed over the past four or five years. we recently won a peabody award. we were given news channel of

the year award. people exposed to the quality of the work in journalism and the quality of reporters. then they see a lot of what they had was simply wrong or propaganda or lies, and they judge it on its own merits. that is why we are getting a borrowing audience. host: an earlier calller says the russian network, "rt" is great. the more informed, get them. and just so our audience knows, we did reach out to invite them to be part of the week-long series, but they declined. we are taking a look at for news operations that have bureaus in the united states, how the cover of the u.s., what the audience is like, and what this that is and how they're funded. alan fisher, how are you fund it? guest: we get a grant that is handed over to the channel and we decide how we would bus than that.

people think there may be something suspicious about that, but let me give you a parallel. in the united kingdom -- i am a scottish, but the british government collects a tax. it is called tv licensing, which funds the bbc. i think it is fantastic. it is one of the things i miss in the united states. the taxes collected centrally are handed over to the bbc to decide how to spend it. there is no editorial interference in the news. the similar things happens with al jazeera. we of a sports channel, a children's channel, a documentary channel and english and arabic and a new balkans channel we will launch soon in turkey and africa. it is up to the management of the channel to decide how that money is spent and where it should be distributed and how much should be spent. so we are funded in a very

traditional model. i am sure there would like to see more advertising. everyone has been struggling with that of the past four-five years. host: question on twitter. jack says this -- alan fisher, what do you think of the basic premise? guest: i think he is mistaken. i think we reflected what was going on here and we decided either the facebook revolution or the twitter revolution. they did not have people on the ground for as long as we did. there was things that were so new that there was widespread dissatisfaction. there was widespread entered as what they saw as government-

endorsed corruption. there came a point during the revolution where the fear was broken and people no longer feared the consequences of defining government forces and went on to the streets to protect. at that point, "al jazeera" reflected that carefully. i think when you watched and saw there were 10,000 in the square in alexandria or 50,000 in tahrir square were there were calling for a protest, that fear disappeared. people suddenly worried that anchor, discontent was not something they could voice quiet we. this was something that many thousands, in the end of many millions felt it took to the streets. i think we reflected that, rather then fermented that. host: alan fisher with al jazeera english. bill is the next calller from

maryland. caller: good morning. [inaudible] this is simply a political entity. not necessarily a news entity. we're seeing this regress of the targeting and murdering of your correspondents in thiraq. i thought that was egregious, the people that order that and executed that should be held for war crimes. i think that was a very bad

thing for this country to engage in, trying to silence a news agency and deliberately targeting them. i thought that was agreed just. -- egregious. by sympathies to your colleagues. guest: thank you very much. it is interesting to point out on the day that all jazeera bureau was in baghdad, to other places were hit as well. reuters television was hit. i know very closely about the reuters position, because i lost a very good friend, the cameraman that was killed and the hotel. the interesting thing is all three places that were hit were written off as accidents. all three were broadcasting live showing american troops coming into baghdad. you can make the decision whether or not you think that

was a coincidence, but all three places were targeted and were going live. we are where would we go into places, and i have covered a number of conflict zones, that we are taking a risk to report the story and go and tell people what is happening in the world, and some have paid a very heavy price for trying to expose the truth. a number of colleagues have died, one was killed last year in libya. it is tragic when that happens, but i think it speaks volumes that even after that happens, there are journalists better prepared to go into these areas and prepared to try to show the public the truth, particularly when you talk about iraq. what is being waged in their name and what is happening in the name of the people the way tr is being waged for. thank you very much and we

appreciate the fact that you recognize how difficult the jobs is at times. host: that was back in 2003, april 8, 2003. cnn talks about a reporter died earlier in the week when a u.s. air strike hit the network baghdad headquarters. going on to north carolina. independent calller. good morning. caller: good morning. i am so glad we have al jazeera. we got a lot of information about what is going on exactly in the country. i am very thankful to that. also, i would like to see if you guys can help a little bit in the country's where you have some type of competition going on, the kids who cannot work and

do not have any means. maybe they can contribute in terms of giving you some other news that are going on in the country. for example, in africa. this is very close to america and europe, and they are restoring all of the very old vestiges of africa over there. we have extraordinary things, and they are destroying everything. these are just like drug addicts, because they do not know what they are doing. somebody has to do something over there. we talk about it more and more before it gets overhead. they are controlling drugs over there.

they are controlling the weapons and resources, uranium and everything else. i do not know why el jazeera is not yet going there and talking about this problem. hostguest: i think you will fine spent a lot of time and now we. we have excellent teams across the country of africa. we recently had a series about what was happening there. we spent a lot of time and effort and money covering africa, because there was not a cheap place to operate for a broadcast organization, but we are committed to doing it, and we will continue to do it. now we, places you never hear of on any other network, we continue to follow the regularly on al jazeera. just recently i was watching a cable network channel who said let's take a look around the world in 60 seconds.

we think the world deserves a bit more than 60 seconds. given the perspective from the middle east, it allows us to do that. we certainly know how significant and important africa is. if you look of the u.s. expansion, we are covering that as well. i am grateful you continue to watch of jazeera and glad you could information there. i think if you continue to watch, you will see a great deal more. host: even though you've been talking about access, we're still getting tweets asking have to find your programming. for the audience, a switch to find you? guest: www.aljazeera.net/english, live streaming there. i have used this in many places around the world. i believe there are other options that are available