eastern, a look at how the american public feels about big business, the federal government, and lobbyists. president of the public affairs council gives his assessment. "washington journal" is next.

host: give us a call. parents can share their thoughts on this matter. teachers, give us a call at 202-628-0205. all other thoughts, 202-628- 0284. you can also join us on all other social platforms. a very good tuesday morning to you. and what to start with an article from "of washington examiner" this morning on the subject of paying students to attend classes.

host: we want to know what you think on this subject of paying students to come to school. while you are calling in, want to get to the congressional schedule for the next four days before congress leaves town. we're joined by alexander bolton with "the hill." thank you for joining us. but congress is getting out of here on friday. they are faced with a looming government shutdown as they do not extend or do not have a new budget in place before september 30. but what is the new on funding of the government? guest: they are not going to take up any extended stop-gap funding.

the funding for the government runs out at the end of the fiscal year. there was some thought that perhaps this could be taken off of the table as an issue before the recess. but that is not going to happen. instead, the senate will work on cyber security legislation. an extension of the bush tax cut. that means we could see a spending showdown in september. i do not think it is all but a likely. speaker john boehner has a six- month extension that would extend the government to next year. harry reid has indicated some support for that. there is some is to begin at the end of the year. specifically, looking at the bush tax cuts and the automatic spending cuts sequester.

>> how much time does this give congress to deal with that issue when they get back from the august recess? >> less than one month. congress will be back the week of september 10. the only have a few weeks to deal with this. they could do a short-term one- week extension. people are itching to get into town on the campaign trail. lawmakers do not want to spend too much time here and october. host: what have they said there would've done this week? what else is out there? guest: in the senate, but legislation is on the floor. there is a bill sponsored by joe lieberman.

there is a republican rival bill sponsored by john mccain. we will see some amendments to the bill. for example, a nation-wide standard. breached or compromise. democrats also looking to get legislation -- done amendment our legislation. the aurora studer bought thousands of rounds of the internet, but these gun amendments are likely not to go anywhere, because the nra is

strong. but we are unlikely to see any progress. in the house on wednesday, house republican leaders hope to advance a one-year extension farm bill. there are pushing for a one-year extension, similar to the transportation debate that happened earlier this year. and to patch the alternative minimum tax. that will happen thursday in the house. host: a very busy week. if you want to read more about the farm bill, here is "the

hill" newspaper. back to the subject of paying students to show up for glasses. want to read a little bit more from the washington examiner this morning. her name is melissa. talking about this issue.

host: give us a call. let us know if you think on this subject. we are to got a few comments on facebook.

if we want to require their attendance in school, went to pay their opportunity cost. especially if they have the attendance, as well. especially if we fail them in basic literacy. a program should also replace a path to low-wage work. this would start a movement were kids and not at risk would become at risk just to get paid.

host: we already have a teacher calling in. stephen from new york, new york. what do you teach? caller: i teach science at the high school level. my comments are, if the students receive money for going to classis, in order for them to receive that money, whether these courses are for credit or partial credit, they need to pass tests in order to earn that money. in addition to that, i challenge president obama and every school in the country, because if you cannot have an after-school program, the students to not have an environment to do their homework, pass their tests, and get the encouragement they

really need. they must pass tests. otherwise, they will lock in a as at the desk -- at-risk students. host: tell us about the at-risk students where you teach. are there similar-type programs? caller: as far as i know, the at-risk students to get certain class's better under special education. some of these clauses are around 12 students. the type of program that has been mentioned, at this point, as far as i know, has not been altered by the chance for at- risk students in new york city schools. host: thank you for the call. to get a parent now. scott from colorado springs, colorado. your thoughts?

caller: i worked in the school district. meme my oldest son is graduate and my youngest is in high school. i worked at a junior high. we have an after-school program. they do work. in our district, like a lot of districts across the country, we are hurting for money. i cannot see throwing money at a problem. our after-school programs are working. the kids are showing a but we are getting good results. we are working harder. as a committee, we need to work together. calling money and that is not going to solve the problem. host: a few comments on our

twitter page. don't pay students. public schooling is free to make citizens. starting in new handout slashed spending program is wrong. robert is from davenport, iowa. what do you think about paying students to attend glasses'? caller: i think it would work. a few weeks ago, i wrote a letter saying the repaying elementary kids. she was saying it should not be doing that. a lot of time the parents are working two or three jobs and do not have time. one of the things she said in the article is that it was working. if we sent for $5, $10, up $15,000 to the school and the kids not being educated,

something should be done. if you can get kids to read, that is the key to the whole thing. up until they learn to read, they are able to read so they can actually learn. it is imperative you teach these kids. the teacher from new york kind of makes me laugh. they what to do whatever they can. i know i have seen on tv in new york that they sit around and read comic books. the kids are the most important part of this. not to the teachers. and not anything else. they deserve an opportunity. those kids deserve to have an opportunity to learn and get a first-rate education. if that means paying them to motivate them, i think they should do it.

host: to be clear, the spokesperson did not say it was working just yet. they're going to study this year's results with the intention of possibly expanding the program next summer. this is a summer program that they are paying some students to show up and attend for about $5.25 an hour. more comments on twitter. host: i want to turn to another store about this issue. the headline is, "cincinnati high school paying students to come to school." this is from cleveland back in february.

host: that is the high school out in cincinnati. we will go to the others on line. your thoughts on some of these programs that pay at-risk kids to show up? caller: first of all, let me sit in an at-risk student myself. i grew up in an at-risk family. i graduate from elementary, junior high, high school, and college, and then i was told i m at-risk. throwing money at students is not going to help their home situation. it will not involve parents. parents being involved with their students and student achievement increasing.

all the research shows that if you involve parents matter what their education level is that, how rich they are or how poor they are, all students will improve. but we need to put money in a place so we can involve parents in the education of their parents. even the poorest parents have children that will increase their reading. if you will involve them in meaningful ways in the school system. not giving students the money themselves. host: thank you for the call. that cincinnati story caused a bit of a stir. a lot of commentary about that. one of those is written by a conservative columnist. he wrote after that incident.

host: we go to a parent in jasper, indiana this morning. thank you for calling in. what are your thoughts on pain and at-risk to show up to class

passage -- to class? caller: one of my concerns are these kids to go out into the real world will not want to work at their job because they have just shown up and expect to be paid for just showing up. the second thing i have is that they need to be taught that learning has its own reward. the third thing is that self- esteem comes by obtaining the skill and learning to do it well. the key thing is parents. parents and supportive teachers go a long way. host: what if a school hits its wits and, perhaps.

-- wits end, perhaps. there having a 13% graduation rate in dohn. shall we try these programs? or not even give them a try? caller: throwing money at a problem never works. just giving kids money for being at school is not the solution. host: thank you for the call in. tampa bay, florida is next. andrew is a student with a call and a comment. caller: i this think there are a lot of benefits for this matter. i was a youth wrestling coach for an inner-city program. i dealt with a lot of kids. i feel that their parents are not going to give them any time, parents could be a great

-- could be a great resource for these kids. the fact of the matter is, the parents are not there for these kids. that happens so much. you have to give them an incentive to want to learn. if you test the students and make them, you know, give them some type of incentive with money. within that program, if they're not adhering to a contract of some sort, then you take it away from them and make them pay back money that they have already received. a lot of kids when they drop out of school, they enter into a gang violence. there are doing it for this money. they want to obtain money because they see what power is can bring people. host: let me give you to respond to a comment from twitter that we have.

what about this idea of paying students for their achievements in and grades? caller: i think that is a great idea. that is giving kids more incentive to want to learn. also the comment to the woman who is speaking, she said that people are driven with skill. they obtain things. but kids can be ignorant. they did not have the experience to understand that self empowerment is going to be great. they do not have the life that everybody else has lived. money is going to be able to do that to get them to come into school and learn and benefit from all of these things. and later on, they will benefit these things that older people

are calling in. they don't understand that yet and they don't have the parents to give them these good things. the parents are working two jobs are now working at all in the living off the government. there are a lot of things that can come from this. it needs to be tested. it cannot be given to every at- risk student because some of them will take advantage of and not do the right things with the money. host: thank you for the call this morning. we will continue this conversation for about 20 minutes in the first segment of "washington journal" this morning. what to take heed to some international news. gop-candid it mitt romney is wrapping up his tour today in poland. [video clip] >> poland has no greater friend

and ally than the people of the united states of america. you helped us win our independence. your bravery inspired the allies in the second world war ii. your soldiers fought side-by- side with hours and iraq and afghanistan. we have fought together. we have died together. we share a common cause, tested by time, inseparable by fellow. in times of trouble and in times of peace, we march together. host: "the wallstreet journal" has a story on that trip today. "romney wraps up the foreign pour" is that headline.

host: we will go back to this

question we have been asking so far this morning on paying students to show for causes. -- for classes. george, what do you think? caller: i was a little dismayed to see that we give $400 billion to afghanistan for their infrastructure and hospital costs, but we are men sitting on a education for kids in our country. it is like no child left behind. and we have to get with our kids and see what they have to learn and what they are capable of. there has to be a study.

thank you. host: thank you for calling in. i want to take you to cincinnati, ohio, the state of one of the schools we showed you this morning. maggie is waiting on our line for all other colors. caller: i heard about it. in the ninth good, i was given $30 a month. i am 51 years old. to maintain a c average or above. host: was this from your parents? caller: no. this was from a program here. it was to keep my grades up. i was also promised that at some point if i continue

throughout high school i would get a full scholarship to a high of state university. because i came from -- i had both parents, but we were pretty much no income. both of my parents were not able to pay for things that i needed. i think it should be a volunteer program where they offer it and some students can sign up for it. the: don't you think all students would sign up for it? caller: no. i have five kids to have all graduated college. i know the importance of education. my daughter is a teacher there. this is their first year teaching this program. i told it was a good idea. the only problem is the 300 kids

werethey send theire supposed to get jobs. they showed up thinking they were going to work and not to school. they felt this was not what they signed up for. when they get their paychecks the next day they do not show up. i do not think the program was implemented in a way that would benefit the kids. it was offered and give an incentive. not once a week for just showing up. that is not good incentive. but the way it is implemented should be looked at. host: thank you for the call from cincinnati this morning. i want to take you to a few more tweets.

and to quickly take you to two other ones. and lastly, joseph wright cynne -- joseph writes in. i want to take you to a few of the other headlines this morning while we have you. we'll keep you on the discussion of paying students to shop for class, particularly at-risk students. it noted earlier in the show that the shooter in colorado was in court. here is the headline from "usa today."

host: he was in court yesterday. in d.c., some members of congress are calling for more control over ammunition sales. this is the headline from "did

new york daily news." host: that is in today's daily news. "the washington times" had a response about that announcement yesterday with the two members of congress.

host: back to the subject of students. with a junior high school student calling in. chuck, thank you for calling in. your thoughts on pang of jealousy is to show for class? caller: i think it is a bad idea -- your thoughts on paying students

to show up for class? host: i think it is a bad idea. " we did a survey with the kids who were just in school because they had to be. they said they did not think it would make a difference because they don't like coming to school. they said they just would not care. i do not think it will work, personally. host: thank you for calling in. we will go to another student. peter is waiting. aying studentson pen to show up? caller: it is an absurd to pay a student to show up to class. i think it sets the wrong example that money will face your problems and be the incentive for you to do well for yourself. i grew up in a group home. at times, when i was in high

school, i had to do what i had to do to survive. i feel like, not only that, there are many ways it can be abused. one is kids who live in at-risk families you're doing well are encouraged to do poorly just to meet the standards to give the event of this incentive. host: thank you for calling in this morning. a few other things to know today is run off day in the texas primaries. the front page of "the houston chronicle" this morning.

host: this is an article from "the new york times" today.

host: should also note that the 14th congressional district is having a runoff to replace congressman ron paul. the presidential candidate who is retiring. want to go to larry now to join the discussion about paying the kids to show up for class. your thoughts? caller: i think it is a bad idea to pay anyone to go to school, whether it is at-risk or general students. i come from a single-parent homes. my mom had 12 children. when i was in elementary and high school, i had to work at

the school to even have my lunch. i graduated at the top of my class. i was the graduation speaker and went on to college. believe it or not, i tudotor at- risk students. i think mentors is the answer. somebody who will tell a child, you can do it. in america, we all do it. let's not celebrate ourselves. we all can do it. every child can learn. he just needs a good mentor. to another call. bonnie, thank you for giving us a call. caller: my state of maryland already pays the inner city children to take the tests. it doesn't matter if they can

read or write, as long as they can pass that. i raised my children and then i raised three grand children as a single, older grandparent. they are required to have calculators. they have to have computers. these children cannot write. math.annot thzerodo the date -- they cannot do math. they think the equipment does all this for them. host: one of the issues as they cannot teach them if they do not show up. do you think paying these kids to simply show up is a legitimate use? caller: no. that is a slap in the face to the ones who do show up. why should they get paid to shop when i make sure that my children showed up. all three of my grandchildren

graduate, but it was hard. host: i want to read you an article that came out about the aclu for suing michigan for depriving students of their right to read. host: what do you think about a school system that does not have a lot of options here? what can they do?

caller: all schools should be treated -- not every state is the same. every state is different steven chu. you have to have somebody in there who will make it equal for all children. it does not matter if they're living in poverty or if they are rich. they should be treated equal. and they are not. it is always the port, the inner city. they can learn just as well as my children. i m on social security. i raise my grandchildren on social security. host: thank you for the call. want to go back to the original stories started. for folks turning in later, the district of columbia is paying students with behavioral records to attend summer school.

host: one more call on this subject. your thoughts? caller: i think they should be paid. host: all students? how would you separate them? caller: at-risk students. i think more -- they should get paid based on their grades. i do understand people who say we shouldn't throw money to

solve problems. we throw money at everything. with the money at the bankers. the talk about pellets of money being delivered to iraq. to say the money does not solve anything, i bet if other people were thrown money, they would jump at it as fast as other. those people are full of crap. there are some people who survived a difficult situations to graduate. but these are difficult times. these of the worst economic times in decades. all of these older people are saying, well, i made it. these kids have no other options. to give them $5 an hour, where the going to get? around $40 a day? so what? they get a little more education and maybe they get incentivize to go to college. host: thank you for calling in. that is the last call we will take on this subject. up next, we will have a conversation on the subject of

negative campaign ads with kenneth goldstein from kantar media. gregory nojeim from the center of democracy and technology will join us. >> we did not begin as a city in kentucky. there is on a native american -- and later a town in the state called ky. we begin as a louisville, virginia. >> joined a book tv from louisville, ky. literary life. and authored jason on the

rebuilding american politics. the internet revolution. and at 5:00 p.m. eastern on american history tv. it would be key in shaping abraham lincoln's views on slavery. to work that plantation today. also, the steamboat on the ohio river. once a month, c-span's local content vehicles exported history and the life of -- and life across america. >> "washington journal" continues. host: with less than 100 days until the election, negative ads dominate. we turn to kenneth goldstein from kantar media. how negative has it gotten?

positiveere aren't no that spirit there is an obama spot -- no positive ads. there is an obama spot talking about romney. host: you talk about this positive at. "the washington post" and found three and all three were in spanish. compare what is happening right now to previous races at this point. are we at a specifically, particularly negative points? guest: i spent much of my career is saying it is not the most negative race ever. i'm sure we will discuss, and i am sure some callers might want to discuss it negativity is a bad thing. it sounds like a scary word.

both campaigns are focusing their ammunition on the other. i expect to see that change a little bit as we go forward by. i expect to see the obama campaign remain pretty focused on mitt romney. at some point, i think we will see the mitt romney campaign start a positive track about itself because the need to introduce himself to the american people. host: in "the hill" newspaper.

host: do you think it will go there? guest: i do not know if it will go there with television advertising. that is an important point the article is making. just because one campaign is talking about the other campaign, does not mean it is unfair or nasty. most of the debates -- sure, we've had typical sorts of exaggeration. but i do not think we have seen anything particularly below the belt so far. host: if you want to join in with kenneth goldstein from the campaign media analysis group, give us a call. the number to call for our democrat line is 202-737-0001. the number to call for our republican line is 202-737-0002. the number to call for our independent line is 202-628- 0205. while folks are calling in, give us a sense of what your group does in tracking these ads.

guest: we want to see political consultants who are nonpartisan. one bucket is the news media. we have major news organizations in the country who work with us to track political advertising. it tends to be the most visible form of campaigning. we will see over $3 billion spent on spot television alone. there will be $3.7 billion spent on television. we track that for the media and the campaigns. but we are working for both the obama campaign and the romney campaign. we work for the party committees as well. host: as you are tracking these ads, how you define a positive at versus a negative ad.

what is your cutoff point as you track these ads? guest: there is a number of different ways one can go about doing this. we have a very simple decision tool. if the ad is about the other person, it is a negative ad. if it is about you, it is a positive at. we do not code for accuracy, mudslinging. others do that. we have a simple determination on whether it is negative or positive. host: let's look at one of these ads of now. this is a romney add that is defined as a negative ad. [video clip] >> barack obama's attacks against and romney are untrue. but that is barack obama. he also attacked hillary clinton with vicious allies. >> he continues to spend

millions of dollars perpetuating a falsehood. >> mitt romney as a plan to get america working. >> shame on you barack obama. host: we are looking at some of these ads. is there a downside for the candidates themselves? everyone says they hate to them. guest: everyone says they hate them, but there is a big debate both from social scientists who study the affected campaign advertising and the real practitioners of advertising. is there any sort of backlash on a person who errs the ad? there was some talk and some coverage of this past week that the obama campaign was concerned that there was a rebound against them. but they were airing of so many negative ads that it was having an impact on the president's

favorability numbers. i have not seen strong evidence of bad either way. i think there are strategic demands in the campaign. this is an election that will not be determined completely by political advertising. obviously, it will not be completely determined by political advertising. the referendum on the incumbent. it is generally determined by reality. what are the conditions? what is the president's place in the world? with a president in the gray area. things were going better. barack obama, at his approval ratings were higher, he would almost certainly be reelected. if things are going worse, he will almost certainly lose, no matter who the opponent is. if he is in that gray area. he is also in a position, like george w. bush was in 2004 where

the obama campaign is not want to change attitudes about press and obama by advertising. there are people who like the president and people who dislike the president. there are very few undecided voters. there are few people will not minimize about president barack obama. the other pretty clear thing is that their attitudes will mostly be shaped by what is going on in terms of reality. even though this presidential election will be a referendum on the incumbent, mitt romney's to reach that threshold of reliability. barack obama is very well-known. ms. romney, not so much. that is why you see the obama campaign going very strong on that romney. they are trying to introduce men romney.

dare try to stop him from reaching a threshold level of credibility. [video clip] >> tax havens, offshore accounts. mitt romney has used every trick in the book. he estimates that over the last two years he paid less than 15% in taxes on half $43 million in income. it makes you wonder if he paid taxes at all. we do not know because he is only released one year of tax returns. >> i put out as much as we will put out. >> what is mitt romney hiding? host: "the washington post" has a special section specifically on negative ads. who is going negative is the question. your stats find that about 50

friends -- that 57% of all ads run by barack obama have been negative ads. where are the concentrations as we showed the map here in the market? host: this project -- guest: this is a concentrated race. we're talking about virginia, ohio, colorado. very focused on eight states. it went from 0 to 60 incredibly quickly in the states. it went very negative very quickly. pay attention to how those states change or don't change. we can hear a lot of spin from campaigns. they're obviously doing their polling and their strategy. but where they end up staying and going over the next 98 days

is going to tell you a lot about how this campaign is going. if we see political advertising starting to be in places like wisconsin are pennsylvania, that will be a good sign for republicans. if we see continued heavy advertising, that is good news for the democrats. it is a stage, a must-have. wisconsin and pennsylvania, must-have for democrats in the general election. if they plan on the other side of the field, that is a very good tell that it is going well for once under the other. host: the latest numbers of july 18, obama at 46%, romney at 47%. looking like this will be tight all the way out. let's go to the phones. pamela is on the independent line. thank you for joining us.

you're on with mr. goldstein. caller: in as wanted to make a comment about the outrageous, disgusting amounts of money that are spent on this election -- and the election. it outrages me. $1 billion? i am appalled at the amount of money that is spent. there is not a hairsbreadth course of difference between any of these candidates. i have not believe that there has been a decent president since harry truman. i realize this sounds like an old person talking. this negative stuff, does anybody believe that romney kept all his money by being an honest and upright human being? and the same can probably be said of any candidate. the amount of money outrages me. there are people in this country who are hurting.

it just outrages me. i wanted to make that comment. host: according to mr. gold sting's group, about $246 million has been spent on advertising so far in this campaign. guest: if pamela is appalped by $1 billion -- we're going to have over $1 million spent on political advertising just in the presidential race. that does not include the things that campaign spend money on. it is interesting when people attack negative advertising. the quality of our presidents

for the past 60 some odd years. she had a very strong feelings about politics and about mitt romney. that is called a negative ad, or somebody using their first amendment rights and voicing their opinion about politics. we can have a discussion about the quality of our political leader and i think honorable people can agree or disagree about that. the notion that political advertising is especially venal in terms of tone or volume, that the talking points of members of congress and members of press

say, it is part and parcel of political rhetoric in the united states. to just focus on advertising, i think it is unfair. negative advertising tends to be more about the issue then positive advertising. should campaigns do positive ads? sure. there is nothing that one could verify in them. body walking on a beach in a yellow shirt with they lab. who can verify that?

why is that better than somebody talking about somebody's record in a factual way? host: have the fact checkers have an impact on this race? guest: i think the campaigns do worry about that when they craft an ad. it made them have their backup evidence for the ad that they are running, and it adds to the debates. it would be difficult to say that one side will win or lose in this race if they do not get a chance to get their message out. host: catherine in maryland on

the republican line. kenneth on with candles bei goldstein. caller: refresh my memory as to the three positive spanish- speaking is that aried last week. one wasthey were -- wa obama. the romney ad was his son speaking in spanish about his father. ad and the retracing the experience of a family. caller: to conclude, the negative advertising shows a lack of maturity and creativity,

so i endorsed positive advertising. host: michael on the democratic line from north carolina. you are on with mr. goldstein. caller: thank you. why are political candidates allowed to only use part of a comment that somebody says? president obama says it was the infrastructure, small business would not be able to create jobs. there's no laws that would keep somebody from only using part of a comet they have made. -- part of a comment. i thought there was supposed to be a law with super pacs.

he is allowed to go to a retreat that mitt romney run. guest: the law that allows candidates to take words out of context is the first amendment. you cannot change the contact of political comments that are submitted by the candidates. again, do political advertisements in particular take words out of context or claims out of context? absolutely. the question about what the context that groups are allowed

to have with candidates, i would defer to my friends who are political attorneys. candidates are not allowed to coordinate strategies. a lot of people in town are not seeing each other socially if one is on a super pac and one is on the campaign. host: so more stats on the numbers you compiled for "the washington post."

host: we go to a question on twitter from maverick talking about the tactics of negative campaigning. guest: mitt romney was introduced to the american people in 2008. he was introduced in 2012 in the primary. there is a lot of people that do not watch c-span in the morning. medtronic is still unknown by about a third of the electorate. there's still a lot of room for mitt romney to grow when it comes to what people know about him. that is what this campaign will be about. whether the romney campaign does

that. host: timothy is waiting on the independent line. you are on with mr. goldstein. caller: good morning. i am concerned about this country and what is going on in it. negative campaign ads. a lot of time truth comes out through those. during the 2008 election process, i found out about the sanctuary cities from hillary clinton. it is disturbing that there needs to be fact-checking organization because the media it should be on that. to theeview back business of not changing the context -- or the content of what you're given by what people who are campaigning.

what the person who claims to be a war hero, as are protected. the truth if it embarrasses someone, humiliates them, stearns them in any way, you can go to jail for five years now. what is more disturbing is the fact that i have seen one good candidate come down the pike and i have watched the media suppress him three elections in a row. he would be the best choice for president of this country. he would be free, productive, and we would have a country that would advance, as we should. that man is dr. ron paul. he has made his money honestly.

i scan the television and watch several peopl because he of foxken off network because they mention ron paul. host: we have a tweet. at some point is there a saturation point in negative campaigning where $800 million on negative ad -- guest: there are diminishing returns and we have probably reached diminishing returns and we still have several months to go. they are not negative returns. this is an election that will be

decided by the fundamental factors. distribution of party identification in the country. it looks like a close election. advertising can matter at the margins. ask al gore if advertising could matter at the margins? would he like to spend more in florida? that is the way the campaign managers think. they are risk adverse. that additional to hundred million dollars could make an impact -- that additional $200 million could make an impact. they are thinking about ohio in

2004. they are thinking about 2002 senate races in places like montana and virginia -- missouri and minnesota in 2002. all races decided by razor-thin margins. host: paul is on the republican line from indiana. caller: good morning, mr. goldstein. i'm sitting in my easy chair. ami senior citizen and i have a question -- i am a senior citizen. an attack on the republican candidate on his wealth and his so-called outsourcing of jobs. the obama administration do not

bring forth the information that they are five billionaires sitting on his cabinet. we do not hear anything about that. they are all outsourcing jobs. act andall the facts a fa call a lie a lie. host: are their themes that have come up that both sides have used? guest: the obama attacks have been what the caller said they were. there were trying to attack mitt romney on his business experience and claimed he sent lot of jobs overseas. the republican attack on barack obama, there have been more

carious of those attacks. los numbers from "the washington post -- those numbers from "the washington post" -- they are holding obama accountable for the situation in the country and that he is not up to the job. that caller has strong feelings. political advertising seems to stir lots of comments. that is a good thing in terms of politics. people will have strong opinions whether it is ron paul or obama advertising or mitt romney advertising. is that the only source of

information out there? no. advertising sometimes reaches people that are not political junkies. people who read multiple newspapers every day checking multiple screens -- there are other people out there who need to be engaged a bit more. words taken out of context, high political rhetoric. they are engaged to seek out more information. host: we are with kenneth goldstein from the kantar media.

he was a political science professor at the university of wisconsin at madison. kathleen is on the democrat's line from indiana. thank you for calling in. caller: good morning. how are you? one of the points was proven by the last caller from indiana. where did he get that notion that the people on the president paused cabinet are billionaires? he threw out all this stuff. the media plays a huge part plus already elected officials like the republicans -- no one is saying you're spewing all this stuff out and you show me for a fact what you're saying is true. no one does it.

i know that romney -- i saw an interview with him yesterday. he was complaining like a spoiled brat that you cannot talk about him and the ads are misleading. people have not said, "have you ever told the truth in one of your ads or has karl rove told the truth in one of your ads?" i say no. guest: i have never met governor romney in person. you have callers who are deeply engaged in politics and deeply

angry. most of the contents would be negative. i don't believe anyone is calling for the shutdown of the c-span morning show, not allowing callers to call in. there are ways for people to get their arguments out. those arguments could be accurate and truthful. what we decide in this country is to err on the side of having speech. most of the speech has been negative. host: a comment from james, writes in.

somebody who is perhaps in favor of the ads. there is an article from "the washington examiner" from yesterday. host: can you put some of this in historical perspective going

back to the days of the founding fathers? guest: that is absolutely true. john adams accused thomas jefferson of being in the pocket of the french. andrew jackson was accused of not being able to read and that his mother was a british whore. that was a pretty good political advertisement back in the 1840's. look at the highest level of political debate, the lincoln- douglas debates. they had to bring the supporters in separately so they would not brawl. what they were doing was attacking the other person's

position on slavery. would we of not wanted to have abraham lincoln on slavery? host: fred from bedford, pennsylvania. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i wonder about all this money being spent. as the understand as far presidential election goes because the popular vote does not elect the president or the vice president. you know, a lady called in earlier and she was mad about the money being spent and i kind

of agree with her. it is like getting a five-star restaurant menu and you have these fast food items is what they are selling at a high price. we are $15 trillion in the whole and people cannot do better than this and that is sad. i support ron paul. i have read a few of his books. it doesn't seem that the popular vote has anything to do with anything anymore. it is like the formality. the current republican candidate is in a hurry to get this process over. host: if you want to comment.

guest: there was a lot there in that comment. ron paul has a lot of information on your show. there is a lot of money spent on health and said -- house and senate races. you have the senate very much in play and the advertising targets on a small number of states, nine, 10 states that have competitive races. competitive elections in the house. you'll see a lot of money spent there. you have incredible passion by many of your callers and that is a terrific. it is interesting that there is passion -- there is something

very clear in the communications research where you can show people with different predispositions about a particular subject and one side will think it is one-sided for one side and the other side will think it is one-sided for the other. perceptions of ads in the same weight and perceptions of speeches and of a campaign event are strongly driven by peoples predisposition. you have a line for the democrats and four republicans because i guess you think people's predisposition are driving their attitudes. then you have independents. more independents are

independents because they are not engaged. you have a shrinking number of independents. host: let's go to an independent now, kevin. what do think about mr. goldstein's comments about independents? caller: good morning. we get a lot of heavily concentrated super pac from one side and i would like to credit you guys for being open and honest for haven't a line for democrats and republicans and independents. ron paul has a lot of support

here and around the nation. they are getting shut out by the mainstream and their voices are not being heard. get through,i get throughnot at least his ideals can. it gives us a way of -- these negative ads only highlight the things they want you to know about and the three things that their opponent that they want to concentrate on. host: sometimes the bar is too high for running television. talk about these negative ads with social media. guest: we're seeing spending on

digital. the spending on digital tends to be to raise money. candidates put videos on the web and they are trying to raise money. they take that money and give it to the television stations to air the ads. political advertising tends to draw a lot of media attention. they are putting them out and not add heavy levels because they are trying to draw the attention of the free media. you make the ad and have a press conference and show it once and tried to get news media coverage. you can put it on facebook and try to get the news media to air

your ad. host: we have one more tweet for you, from guillem. take us to what you think will happen in the final month of this campaign in terms of advertising? guest: we are 98 days until the election. obama i think has had the advantage in terms of the volume of tv advertising early on in june and july. i do not think we will see the president have an advantage in terms of the televising air war. over the last week, we have

seen state after state, republicans able to air more ads. the romney campaign -- we will see the republican groups spending more money. the president needs to define mitt romney. which states are teh adthe ing?go how is the romney campaign and their allies in groups going to start introduced mitt romney over the next couple of months? the convention is a big chance for the romney campaign to introduce their guide to the american public. then more of a balance of

advertising on the republican side with the democrats aiming at mitt romney. host: you can see more of kenneth goldstein's owrk at kantar media or at thewashingt onpost.com. up next, we will be joined by gregory nojeim for a discussion of cyber security in the senate. and a new survey with doug pinkham. first, a news update. >> the democratic party has chosen the mayor of san antonio to deliver the keynote address at the convention. he will be the first hispanic keynote speaker at the convention.

a new republican draft report on the failed gunrunning operation says that five key officials at the bureau of alcohol and explosives ranging from the special agent in charge of the field division share the blame for what went wrong. the report finds agents used a tactic called gun-walking. u.s. border control agent brian terry was killed in one of those locations. pakistan and the u.s. have signed an agreement allowing the shipment of troop supplies through pakistan to and from afghanistan. pakistan pushed for a written pact following a blockade after airstrikes killed 24 soldiers last fall.

we'll hear more this morning when the senate foreign relations committee meets to consider the nominations of new u.s. ambassadors to the countries. those are some of the headlines on c-span radio. [video clip] >> we have to be clear about the ways that we own ourselves and that we own our history and that we make decisions that our history is phenomenal, vital, and special. >> the former president of bennett college rates on -- writes and comments on african-american economic history. this sunday, your questions and calls for the author of "surviving and thriving." live at noon eastern on c- span2's "book tv." "washington journal" continues.

host: we turn now to a debate in the senate over the proposed cyber security act of 2012. gregory nojeim explain, the personal privacy component to this legislation. guest: a major part is about letting companies to share information with the government about the cybersecurity threats that they see in the internet traffic that goes over their network. it is about scaring e-mail and internet use -- it is about scaring e-mail and internet use. it is import they do not share personal information that is not needed for cybersecurity.

host: some of the components will be talking about and you can call us on the democratic line, 202-737-0001. republicans, 202-737-0002. independents, 202-628-0205. we were showing some stats about the cybersecurity act of 2012. host: your group is concerned about the personal privacy aspect of this bill. guest: we do not support it. the major problems are the breath of the authority is given to companies.

.o block data, n the breath of the security given makes us wonder why companies will be monitoring -- they monitor for any action that might result in something bad happening to data. that is a lot of actions. we are trying to make sure that when this legislation comes to the floor, there is an amendment that will allow for votes on things like striking over brought authorities and protecting the bill. not an know you're expert from the security world but i want to talk about the

perceived threat. the top u.s. military official in charge of defending the country against cyber attacks said there was a 17 fold increase of attack. this from "the new york times." host: does your group believe the situation is as dire as

being represented? guest: we have to do something to make sure that it doesn't get worse. i don't think there's a lot of dispute about that. you can read about a lot of stories where the government is losing sensitive information including information about weapons systems. some companies are being jacked into. have a problem. we believe information sharing is part of the solution to that problem. the fight is about whether we will preserve privacy while responding to that problem. host: this is from president "the wallitorial in street journal" talk about the

depths of this problem. host: that is president obama's editorial in "the wall street journal."

host: breakdown a few parts of the bill for us and maybe one of the more confusing parts to it. guest: to give companies liability protection if they share information so they cannot be sued for dealing with the law permits. the other is whether to give companies protection if they meet standards that are set by partnership.ector private shi those concerns could be mandatory instead of voluntary because the protections would ies met if the company' the standards.

i think there is some legitimate concerns about whether to have an entity that would be setting the standards. there are a lot of entities right now that turnout a centralized approach that are setting security standards. there are a lot of standards out there. you wouldn't want the cyber security bill that are cleaning up standards that are doing a lot of good work. this section has been controversial. that there are negotiations about how to approach this problem. host: what happens if industry it does not want to comply? sen

under lieberman has talked about taking away the mandatory aspect of this bill -- senator lieberman. guest: if it doesn't comply, there isn't protection for punitive damages if somebody gets hurt downstream by cyber attack that could have been prevented had they complied. they are not first in line with the sharing of information or for assistance from the government if something goes wrong from their information systems. we should think twice about those incentives. it is like the police saying, we will protect your neighborhood better if you would use these certified deadbolts on your doors. if you do not use them, we will not patrol your neighborhood as much as other neighborhoods.

that does not seem a good approach to cyber security. they should be getting the threat information first and everybody should be getting it first instead of there being some discrimination about whether a company that complied with the mandate would be a standard mandate. host: senator lieberman spoke about the bill. [video clip] >> it is no longer mandatory but there are enough incentives in here and the very fact that there will be standards, private sector generated and approved by a governmental body, i think will create tremendous inducements and maybe even pressure on ceo's or private operate is to adopt those

standards and implement them in their business or else in case of attack, they will be subject to an enormous corporation- ending liability. host: that was senator joseph lieberman talking about the bill he is cosponsoring with suzanne collins. we'll go for a few questions with our guest, gregory nojeim. bill is waiting from omaha, nebraska. caller: is there such a thing as privacy anymore? aren't they going to have all of the information? this may be something that is going to happen with the advance of technology. everything is going to be known

by certain individuals. we can have laws that make us feel better but the reality is that information is out there and there will be certain individuals that will make use of that dislike certain crazy individuals can hack in now. guest: privacy is challenged by advances in technology. the answer is not to throw up our hands but to make sure the laws keep up with technology. one amendment is one to update the electronic communications privacy act. if an e-mail message is sitting in your in box for more than 180 days, it is available to the government with a subpoena. most people do not know that.

we are trying to update that statute. this amendment would go a long way toward that update. bill on the republican line. caller: good morning. what constitutes a cyber attacks? every time i mess up a pass word? somebody ends up in the wrong place? are those cyber attacks? guest: i do not think mistakes like that are cyber attacks. an effort to corrupt and information system. i think the bill does a pretty good job of defining what date

attack is. cyber host: these are the cyber threat information that they talk about in the bill. do you want to run through the information that they can use? guest: it is defined functionally. if there is an effort to overcome a technical control that is put in their comeback to beat a cyber threat indicator. a phishing attack. if you see a phishing attack, you can share that information. if that information is shared with the government, what can

the government use it for? to prosecute a person completely unrelated to cybersecurity? can it dump the data into a database and mine it on whom to wiretap to get more information? it is the secondary uses that concern us a lot. the most recent of the bill, ary.onse ve an amendment would roll the clock back and make it so that the cybersecurity program turns into a back door wiretapping program. host: explain what the center for democracy and technology is. guest: we are an internet group that works for free speech on the internet. we have been around for about 18

years. we have been involved in cybersecurity ever since the first cybersecurity bill which the proponents had the internet kill switch. that provision is no longer on the table. the sponsors agree it was a bad idea. it would have given the president the power to order the stoppage or limitation of internet communications coming to, from, or over critical infrastructure. critical infrastructure will probably include internet backbone systems. host: do other versions have that kill switch as a part of it? is a competing senate version.

guest: no other bill has that feature. the kill switch has been killed. host: marco from new york this morning. caller: good morning. i wanted to ask, how do you feel about the anonymous -- host: i think we lost you, marco. we will try to get him back. alan from florida. are you there? we are losing. caller: i have a question dealing with psychological profiling on the internet. and also, the internet was used here in florida where they left

out key components in the software to present gerrymandering. that is my question -- how the government can manipulate our elections and psychological profiling. guest: i do not think those issues are addressed in the legislation. i'm not sure what psychological profiling is about. this bill is about whether and the extent to which the government will be involved in providing security for computer networks and the extent to which companies will be sharing information with government. there is going to be some amendments on the senate floor that could change the legislation.

one would substitute the republican bill for the democratic bill. if that amendment passes, that would create the back door wiretapping program that i mentioned earlier. it would allow the government to use information for other reasons such as intelligence surveillance and for criminal law enforcement. host: a follow-up question on the idea of the internet kill eclerk.from boringifilecle guest: i think that nobody knew the extent of the effect it would have on international

communication. that was a reason it was not agreed to . host: the republican line from florida. you're on with gregory nojeim. caller: i am concerned about people voting on line. my identity was stolen. many people know how to get into the computer. i think that president clinton will speak on wednesday and biden will drop out and introduce his wife as the next candidate for obama. host: let's talk about the data theft issue. guest: those are not the big national security issues,

placing a worm in a network and exfiltrated secret information. everyday people, everybody who uses the internet has to be concerned about cybersecurity. you want to be able to know that when you click on a link, it is save to do so. it is important that companies be able to do what they do now to help insure that when your surfing on the internet, you're not going to have a problem with your computer. those are all cyber security matters. they are everyday securities that people have to be concerned about. one issue on the information

sharing idea. if a company see something and suspects in might be something other companies are seeing on their network, it makes sense to allow them to share that information. part of the legislation is about taking a reasonable approach to allow the sharing to occur. host: maverick writes in on twitter. i want to bring up another issue that you had with this bill in its original form, concerned about a military agency overseeing this cybersecurity initiative. tell us about that. guest: there has been debate about whether the national security agency or the department of homeland security

will have primary security for cyber security. if cybersecurity goes to nsa and companies are sharing information, the consequence will be that nobody knows what is happening to their personal information. companies will know what happened to the information they shared with the government. it will decrease trust, and trust is essential to the cyber security program. the nsa operates severely for a good reason. it makes sense that the governmental entities that would receive the information from the private sector --the department

of homeland security does the best job in government in informing people about what it is up to. it issues assessments that are very detailed and give visibility to what they are doing. i have not seen that privacy impact assessment from an intelligence agency like the nsa. host: john mccain disagrees with you on that and he is quoted in an article in "wired."

guest: the threat is not always a national security problem. everyday things like information about virus sharing. it is not the case that all cybersecurity is a military or intelligence function. what would happen under the lieberman-collins bill is that information would be shared with the department of homeland security. they would determine if there is a national security link. the alternative is having companies that might not know make that decision.

i think it makes more sense to have hds in that position -- dhs. host: cape may, new jersey. caller: i have two points. i think history has shown the government does not have any ability to keep sensitive information and not use it for its own purposes. you can see that with the current administration and with others. they leaked certain information they feel in their benefit. there is less information that the government has about people, the better off we are going to be. ,he thing i'm concerned about what identifies a threat? there is an issue with chick- fil-a, because of the religious

beliefs of the owner. at other people perceive that to be a threat. i'm afraid the government will take this information and they will mine it and use it to persecute and individual. guest: the caller raises two good points. right now, the beating cyber security bill tilts the scales led intimation is more likely to flow to the government and company to company. 85% a critical infrastructure is owned by the private sector. bin laden people among them believe -- the people among them believe this.

would suggest the legislation. modified so that the company to company information sharing is put on an even keel with people to people information. you would equalize the liability protection for companies that share with their peers instead of an exchange likely operated by the government. the other issue was secondary use of information. that is one of the biggest issues in the legislation. it in our mind, and permission shared with the government for cyber security reasons should be used for no other reason. we would include the process -- the prospect of its cyber security crime. a threat indicator shows someone illegally hacks into a computer. surely you should be able to

prosecute someone for that computer crime. what secure i.t. does is it says the government could prosecute not only for computer crimes were prosecute any of the hundreds of crimes that are a predicate for wiretaps. some of them are not so serious. a lot of them have nothing to do with cyber security. should the government be able to use information share for cyber security reasons to prosecute for tax fraud, immigration violation, making a fake i.d.? all of these are crimes under the secure id act that could be prosecuted with information shared for completely different reasons than on cyber security. host: adam in baltimore, md., on the democratic line. you are on "washington journal."

caller: i understand your concern with privacy, but would you concede that even when the government uses secondary information they use by pursuing cyber crime investigations, they find other criminal evidence, would you think that's a good thing? they could stop a child pornographer or some kind of other heinous crime that is maybe being stored in someone's personal files. would you conceded that is a good thing and not a bad thing? i understand your concern with privacy. if we go through the information and see what they're up to, -- i understand privacy, but i think it is a double edged sword where it is both useful at the same time. guest: say there was a computer intact. the government to prosecute the person for the cyber crime. in connection with the prosecution, they could seize

the persons computers they believe that it contained evidence of that crime. if it in seizing that computer they found evidence of other crimes, they can also be prosecuted. the issue is whether the intimation that company's share in itself can be turned over for other non-cyber security prosecution. the lieberman bill does allow, in addition to the cyber security crime prosecutions, sharing of information to law enforcement to protect children from serious crimes and serious injury and to protect everybody from immediate threats of physical harm. i fink and those are pretty good protections and a pretty

good compromise on this area. host: a question of of twitter. guest: it is separate legislation. it has been introduced, a privacy bill of rights legislation. i'm not sure where it's going to go. i do not think this legislation is going to cover that issue. host: a been introduced in both chambers? -- has it been introduced? guest: members are looking at it and tried to figure out what could be moved. business has an interest, as do consumers. i think that is on a separate track. host: new jersey on the

republican line. good morning. caller: i have two questions and i will take my questions after i paid out. because we need phone lines to do this, is it necessary to go through the courts? is that what this bill is trying to avoid? second, i get emails you cannot believe. if i opened one or two of them, maybe three days in a row that interested the government, would that put me on a list that made it necessary for them to rip my life apart on the internet? thank you. think that the government is worried about you opening two or three emails. i do want to focus a bit on your first question a little more

carefully. normally, when a government wants to get the kind of information that this bill would allow companies to share with it, they want that information and it has to go in front of a judge to approve probable cause and get a court order. but a court order is served by provider and they turn the intimation over. this concept is captured in the wiretapped active in the privacy act. what this bill does is preempt those laws. it says even if a warrant would normally be required, we're going to create a new rule for cyber security. no warrant required, no evidence of crime required. instead, companies can voluntarily share this information with the government even if the privacy law would otherwise protect. in that world, where all the privacy laws are pre-empted a, it's critically important to make sure the pre-emption is as

narrow as possible so only the intermission that needs to be shared for cyber security is being shared and it is being used only for cyber security reasons and to protect people. host: of of twitter, looking further down the road. guest: i think there is an issue if there is obvious violations. the fourth amendment kicks in when the government mandated disclosure when it conducts a search. in this case, a company can volunteer the information to a government. in that world, the fourth amendment does not offer much protection. if there is protection, it has to be in the statute. host: douglas on the independent line from cleveland, ohio. good morning, douglas. are you there?

caller: yes, good morning. i think there may be a natural solution developing about privacy for the individuals. myself and a lot of the elderly population are already canceling our subscriptions to the internet. in conversing with each other, i know this will be a long time developing, but these break in's to our privacy, worrying about bank accounts and so forth, many of us are just eliminating our internet subscriptions altogether. i do have a question though. i know this will take a long time, but how far as technology developing bad there are any other in roads in the communications in the future besides internet conversing? i will listen to the answer offline.

guest: internet use is going up. more and more people are getting broadband. more and more people are using the engine that to communicate with friends and family, to buy products, to conduct business. the internet is not going away. what we need to do is to make sure that as we use the internet that we can use it safely and with some level of privacy. there are new challenges to technology and some of them are coming from the government. for example, the federal bureau of investigation has been telling congress that it is "going dark" because some new forms of communication like. pier communication are harder for them to wiretap than a regular phone call.

they're asking congress whether they would consider legislation to make it easier for the fbi to wiretap this communications. they want to build in a back door for the fbi to get access. that is a fiber security problem in itself. if the fbi can get access through a back door that a company is required to build in, so can the bad guys. there are some new technological challenges and there are some proposed solutions that would make our cyber security worse, not better. host: ogden, utah, on the republican line. austin, you're on with mr. nojeim. caller: as far as privacy on the internet, we all should know there is no such thing as privacy on the internet. there's a facility on your raley utah built by the nsa that is massive in scope.

they're pretty much monitoring all communications just about on planet earth and they are storing it indefinitely for whatever purposes they deem necessary. you also have googled, one of the largest network search engine on the plan that and they are also willing to share that information, as far as jumping into bed with the government. as far as the department of homeland security being transparent, i do not trust the department of homeland security as far as i can throw the entire planet. they just recently purchased like 500 million rounds of ammunition. i'm not sure why the dhs needs 500 million rounds of ammunition. also, we know that the devil is always in the details in these bills. they have these bills they are continually adding amendments to. i know this cyber security bill,

one proposal is to get new gun- control through in the cyber security bills of the devil is always in the details. host: austin, thank you. guest: i think that is accurate. host: is anything of private anymore? off of twitter. is there a sense out there that nothing is private anymore? guest: if there is, it's not quite right. people are volunteering information and making it public. they are on facebook with a public page and they're putting up a lot of information. and especially young people are surprised when other people read it, when a potential employer looks sad it. we live in a world now where it is easy to share information where people want to take advantage of that ease.

it does not mean that we do not have privacy. it means that when a person wants to keep information private that there ought to be a lot allows you to keep their private unless there's a good reason allowing you to go, for instance. host: one last call from saratoga springs, new york. caller: the guy from utah stole some of my thoughts. this goes beyond the internet. it's one reason i kind of back ron paul to road block the internet, the snooping. i did not know if anyone calls him, but there is always the one person that calls in that says, "i do not have anything to hide ." i do not think people realize how dangerous this is. host: your final thoughts on this subject.

guest: we are concerned about giving the national security agency pipeline of information about regular people's use of the internet. as scholars have said, it's not transparent about what it is doing and it's not clear what would happen under this legislation. it makes sense to make it there for they share with a civilian entity and not with the nsa or another element of the defense department so there's at least some level at which privacy will be protected. in this town, in washington, power flows with information. the nsa wants more power, more information, and it makes sense to have a buffer between national security, military agencies and americans you're just trying to use the internet

for everyday use. host: gregory nojeim is the director on the project of freedom, security come and technology at the center for democracy & technology. thank you for joining us. up next, a look at a new survey out today from the public affairs council looking at views on big and small business, the federal government, and lobbyists. first, a news update from c-span radio. >> consumer spending numbers in show consumers spend no more in june than they did in may even though income grew the fastest pace in three months. the big rise in income and no increase in spending translated to a jump in the savings rate to 4.4%. republican presidential candidate is telling the polish people their economy is a model of small government and free

enterprise that other nations should emulate as they struggle with the recession. governor romney wrapped up his trip today with a speech in warsaw. earlier today, he laid a wreath at the tomb of the unknown soldier. supporters can find to be the first to learn of the vice- presidential choice by downloading a new smartphone app that will push a notification after the name is released and allow users to share and comment across a variety of social networks. it will be freed on iphone and android systems. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. [video clip] we did not begin as a city in kentucky. there was a very native american region and later a county in another state hauled ky. we began in 1778 virginia.

>> joined the c-span local content vehicle from louisville, ky. literary life on c-span2. on the kentucky senior senator mitch mcconnell and on up reverting american politics, the internet revolution. sunday, on american history tv, three weeks at this plantation would be key in shaping abraham lincoln's views on slavery. also, the heyday of the steamboat on the ohio river. take a look back. once a month, the local content vehicles explore the literary life across america. this weekend coming louisville, ky.

host: welcome back. today, the public affairs council released a new survey, views on business in an election year. we turn to the group's president, doug pinkham. first tellus to the public affairs council is and why you did this survey. guest: we are an unusual organization. most of our members are fortune 500 companies and we are right on k street. we do not lobby. we have 600 member organizations ranging from chevron to the minnesota vikings to the mayo clinic. i do not have to get them to agree on anything. the real research has been done on american attitudes about business in society. if you look at other polls historically, people have asked if ceos and generally make too much money in the answer is generally yes. we wanted to drill down and get

a sense in what americans expect from companies and government. host: let's start with the people's views on big business. what did you find? guest: we did the survey for the first time last year and this is our second one. initially, my expectation was that people would not have a positive attitude towards big business. what you see in the media is fairly negative. 67% had at least somewhat favorable view towards big business. last year it was 61% so it actually increased. host: federal government is the other side of the coin. guest: government did not do as well. we are down in the 40% range in terms of a general favorable feeling about the government and its role. small-business does extremely

well. small business got a score of 88% on the favorability scale. host: do the changing attitudes have something to do with the ongoing presidential campaign? guest: i'm not sure. the fact that the economy got a bit better over the last year may have helped. the public is extremely critical of all major institutions including the news media, government, and business. small business, i think people are favorable good times and bad. host: everyone likes the mom and pop shops. guest: it is always in the political ads featuring small businesses. that is what resonates with just about all americans of every political stripe. host: we will take you through

some of the themes of the public affairs council survey. added to done is -- attitudes on big business. if you want to talk about any of these issues with mr. pinkham. the numbers are on your screen. we will go to one of the independent scholars now from minnesota this morning. thank you for calling in. you are on with mr. pinkham. caller: i did hear the gentleman say that his organization was non-partisan. however, everyone in this country is either a democrat,

republican, or independent, or even green party. the majority of his company, are the majority independence? i would feel more comfortable if everyone in his organization were independent. then i would know that i was getting a very non-partisan view. host: do you want to talk about the methodology of this survey? guest: your concern about partisanship is a valid concern. people should always be skeptical. if you go to our web site for information, pac.org, you can read our membership directory. i actually do not know the political beliefs of most of our members. most business executives would it identified as republican.

we have 15% nonprofits and i'm not sure of their political beliefs. we actually do not ask. it is in our bylaws that we do not take a political agenda or policy stance. it's nice to be in the political world but not have to pick sides. host: who ran the survey? guest: we went looking last year for an independent pollster. they are hard to find because most of the mark for the republicans or democrats. we worked with princeton research service which does a lot of the major research for the pure research center which is a robustly independent think tank. it is a survey of 1750 adults, in english and spanish. we reached people by cell phone and not just landline because a

lot of americans do not have landline bones anymore so it's getting tougher so we decided to do the right way to get the most accurate information. host: here is one of the results of the poll being released this morning around 9:00. this is the longstanding negative view of big business. three-quarters of americans, 76%, think too much power is concentrated in the hands of the large corporations. the numbers really have not budged since 1994. i know you have only done this survey for two years, but is there a golden age of people's trust for big business? are we just not seeing it on this time line? guest: there is some bad news in the survey.

corporate ceos should not break up the champagne and think that people like them after all. three out of four americans have concerns about too much power in corp. than the number has not changed since at least 1994, the last time we could find someone asked that question. it has been a public concern for a long time. we also asked if they thought companies made too much profit. 63% said yes. at the same time, the public is generally pretty favorable about them, but they're concerned about too much corporate influence and profit. we also asked if they had confidence in big companies to do the right thing. 44% were concerned that they could not count on them to do the right thing, so it's a mixed bag. there are some deep-seated public concerns about them. host: trawls from d.c. on the independent line. thanks for calling in.

-- charles from d.c. caller: thank you for taking my call. i want to know what are the attitudes of the drug war, the federal war on drugs? the numbers i'm seeing, people are getting a lot more negative. i'm just wanting to know where it is on a national scale. a lot of people are pushing more towards decriminalization. host: did you look at that in the survey? guest: no, but we are seeing it more in the public debate. the legalization of marijuana and policies going forward. host: you did address trust and confidence in the government to solve problems, correct?

what did you find. guest: four out of 10 say they have trust in confidence that the government will be able to solve our most pressing national problems, terrorism, drugs. they have lost a lot of trust. the federal budget is really tight. this next year of congress is going to make some deep cuts and there is not the expectation that government will do more. there is an expectation that the government will do less and that has people quite concerned. host: you broke down those numbers of trust and confidence by race. you can see the results here in the survey.

guest: that will be one of the big issues we will face in the next several years. people have been less than trustworthy of the government for some time, but now we're facing big challenges, especially economic challenges and people cannot count on the government to come through, they will be looking for new answers. to tennessee. out on the democratic line. caller: good morning. i want to thank c-span for your increased coverage of state and local governments that i have heard lately. i think that's a really good thing to be doing. so much of the laws we live on duran the regulations come from our state legislators, county, city councils. what i wanted to ask was if mr. pinkham asked people's views on

state government? i heard him mention the federal government. i did not hear anything about the state or local governments. thank you. guest: we did. in terms of overall favorability, state politicians did not do great, but they did better than the federal government. i think the more local and more people can feel in touch with what government means to them at that level, they're generally more favorable towards it. this country has a history of states' rights and not necessarily support for washington. they did better, but not great. i think people also realize when we ask the question of faith in government going forward, it was all forms of government. certainly, at the state level, budget cuts have been more severe than they have been at the federal level.

the midwest especially has seen some very big budget cuts and they're feeling it. there's a growing realization that we may not be able to count on the state and local government for as many services. host: off of twitter -- the there any part of your survey to address that? guest: people are pragmatic. last year, when we got some of the positive results, i did a focus group on my son. i asked him what was up on the public opinion on big business. we normally assume young people are more anti business. when i was young, i was anti business, but people 18-40 ended up being more favorable towards big business. i think they are increasingly pragmatic. he said what is the point of

hating all big companies? there are certain companies i do not like, their political involvement, outsourcing, or other behavior, but there are companies that i really like, so there's no point painting a broad brush. this country is getting increasingly more discerning and do not want to lump everyone in one category. there are people your absolutely concerned about companies having more power, but they like the fact that they get their big screen tv or cellphone from a big company in the field generally good about the experience. host: writing in. on the independent line from kentucky this morning. caller: what i did not like a bomb big businesses they have

their hands in the back pockets of congress on both sides of the aisle. nothing can get done because of the tax issues and the things like the rise in budget. they're always wanted to cut medicare or social security but they never want to do any tax raises. i don't believe that we have just corrupted our government when the supreme court did what they did in allowing all these big businesses to come in our pockets like they have. it's not right. anders me so much. we do not have a true electorate of the people because of the big businesses and big money. host: talking about some of the lobbying that these big businesses do. what did you find on lobbying? guest: we put forward a bunch of activities that companies could be engaged in including giving

money to political campaigns, lobbying, donating to charity, advertising about environmental issues. we asked if it made them feel more or less favorable. 54% of the public said it would make them think less favorable of a company to hire as a lobbyist. we asked another series of questions asking what a company is lobbying to create jobs or protect jobs, open new markets to new business, level the playing field against competitors or reduce the cost of business, then what do you think of lobbying in? people were overwhelmingly ok with lobbying. i wanted to make sure there was one they would not support, but lobbying to get government grants and handouts. but i did not use the word "handouts." host: to secure a government

funding or grants. 52% found it acceptable. 44% found it unacceptable. 3% did not respond. guest: this is true about how the company talks about its lobbying. be specific. then you take the idea of lobbying away from politics, and insider dealing. it is directly there have been a lot of problems in washington. a lot of people get that. the words lobbying and lobbyists have become so pejorative. when you use lobbying as a verb and to advocate, to protect interests and the stand up for something, that is where we are.

as a corollary, companies need to do a better job of explaining in general why they are involved in politics. here is our position, here is what we do come here is what's involved. they need to be more front about why they are engaged in politics. host: right wing on twitter. cynthia on the republican down in florida. you are on with doug pinkham. caller: good morning. i'm concerned basically about your statistics. most of the animation, i feel, comes from the news media when they talk about profits. they do not mention growth vs. net. they do not talk about executive salary bursas employee --

verses employee. i think your statistics could be off because people are not getting the right information, especially profits. what are they talking about? i advise year-old son, him to go out and work for a while then cast a vote. guest: my son got a doctor is graduated with a liberal arts degree. we were worried. he has done a very well. is it not a representative of his entire generation, but we asked questions about things like ceo pay, executives bonuses, outsourcing. i would be happy to give more detail, but people really do not like ceo's. only 8% feel it ceos have high

levels of ethics. that does not mean every ceo deserve their reputation, but it's important to know that the environment in which they're doing business. it's better to know that than not know that. people do not like executive bonuses. but if they give a bonus during the good time? the you think better or worse? what about if they give a bonus when profits are down and during a down time? a sure way to take off the public is to give an executive bonus. that should be obvious. a good percentage of americans had real problems with executive compensation because most people do not get bonuses. i think that is a real point of controversy. we tried to be as comprehensive as possible in the questions we asked, but i appreciate your advice on how we could word questions. host: that part of the lessy, o87% finding it

favorable. in negligible margin said they would be more favorable. robert on the democratic line from d.c. thanks for joining us. caller: in the interest of time, i would just like to ask one question. independents are still human beings and their still biased based on their experience in life. if you could elaborate why they complain about big government and states rights? could you elaborate on why the government had to get involved in dealing with states' rights? can you imagine what the country

would have been if it were not for the country stepping in and making rights better for the majority of the population? guest: that's not much for the survey but this is just a personal opinion. during tough times especially, and for good reason, they're critical of government and government employees. there are a lot of good public servants out there who work very hard trying to make a positive difference in their jobs. often, politician to get all the media coverage are not the strong public servants. the really good one the work behind the scenes. living in a washington, it's easy to be cynical, but there are a lot of good people working on the citizens behalf. the second point i would make is we get the government we deserve. as voters, we have the ability to vote people out. a lot of talk about money and

influence in politics is a factor, but the overriding factor is if it was all about money then meg whitman would be governor of california and ross perot would have served two terms as president. it's not all about money. if we would pay closer attention to how politics works, who is sticking up for our rights, who is not, we will get a better government. in the meantime, during tough times, there's a tendency polybus to complain about government and what it does. -- a tendence for all of us to complain. host: off of twitter. wayne on the democratic line from kansas city, kansas. go ahead. you are on with mr. pinkham.

caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. i have been watching for about 30 years now. i would just like to bring up a point and maybe you can elaborate on this. maybe it was something you saw in your polling, about the fact that companies are sitting on a whole lot of money these days. they have been making record profits. in the downturn of the middle class, they have been able to do quite well. my second point, the republican congress seems to be in lock step with business, or the other way around. it seems like your survey showed 53% of people have a

favorable view of business. they are mostly republicans. even though you are non- partisan. i appreciate business. also, it just seems like the president's jobs bill is going nowhere. they're sitting on so much money. they should be investing in our country and getting us back to work and things like that. host: let's give it dog a chance to respond. chance. give doug a guest: a number of companies have quite a bit of cash. overall, that's probably a good thing because it means as soon as the economic signals start to 401k e that you'll see

plans going up. as the economy sorts itself out, were it not for europe and all of their problems right now, the economy would be doing considerably better. lead of the uncertainty in this country has started to diminish, but the uncertainty overseas is quite a lot right now. when a top republicans in congress walking in lockstep with business, it's interesting to find the areas where they do not walk in lockstep. for instance, immigration reform. there are a lot of the company's who would like to see some level of immigration reform that is not so strife in persuading them to go along with that. last year, of when we almost did

not raise the debt ceiling, the business community was going nuts. the markets can crash and businesses can go under. congress took us that close to the brink. hopefully that will not happen again. just because republicans tend to be more pro-business, it does not happen all the time. host: talking about the new survey from the public affairs council that you can find at pac.org. off of twitter. guest: last year we did. we have an affiliate on our web site where you can get the 2011 results. we asked where they got their news and information.

newspapers are not doing very well. most people get their news from tv followed by the internet and then other media sources. television, and this show, is still contributing to where people get their information. host: n.y., you are on the "washington journal." caller: hello, mr. pinkham. earlier, he made it very interesting point in the pipelines and other development, they never say it will hurt big business but it will hurt small business. the people on the other side who oppose these things at various times, they use the same argument about hurting small business. guest: that is completely true. we're not the only ones who have

asked the question what you think about small business. you see a public policy debate were both side they're bringing in public -- small-business people. you see these in the presidential campaign, too. both president obama and governor romney will talk about their support for small business because that is one of the phrases that americans tend to feel very positive about. host: writing in -- virginia on the democratic line from hyattsville, alabama. caller: hello. how're you doing today? i'm thankful for c-span.

i want to talk to mr. doug pinkham. on may 8th, 2012, your card supporting -- you were caught support the tea party. you're not talking to an ordinary citizen. guest: i need some clarification. i was caught supporting the tea party? caller: i'm familiar with your mannerisms. i worked for the government with 40 years. i went through security clearance. i noticed when you came on that this organization was created about two years ago and this is

just the billion dollars from the koch brothers. pinkhamt's let doug explain. guest: it was greeted by an president eisenhower. terms like corp. responsibility did not exist then. over the years, we have been working on getting companies more engaged and more generous in society, more engaged in government. in terms of strategy involvement, trying to understand public and personal interests. we take no political positions. i do not donate money to any political candidate. that is public. i try very hard to be right down the center on these issues which is a good thing for an organization is most money is coming from business to try to be down the middle. we are a voice of reason in a time when business involvement in politics and government can

be very controversial. host: david is an independent from santa fe. caller: good morning, gentlemen. in 2006, the law was passed to have life insurance policies and paying them off and having their families go to these corporations and buying products to pay for people who one time worked for them. then they turn around and pay the golden parachutes through this process. host: would you say you have very little trust in the big business or government to solve these problems? caller: both of them are so out of touch with reality and what is going on in the world. host: is that the same reaction

you saw in your survey? guest: there is a certain number of people who were so frustrated with the economy, a lack of feeling that they have power and influence, that they're very upset with the government at all levels, very upset with business. it is understandable at any time to feel like that, but during tough times there are more people with the frustration. it's not uncommon. host: jeff on the independent line for morgan. caller: -- from oregon. caller: good morning. i'm here in small town, u.s.a., a population of about 5000 people. i'm wondering if the survey discusses profit sharing within the business and if it could change the opinions of the employees towards the company

rather than have no profit sharing. i also wanted to know, regarding the federal government, what impact -- host: i think we lost him. did you survey employees about their company? guest: we did not, but we try to get a cross-section by race, gender, so you have a lot of corporate employees out there, clearly. i think you raise an interesting point. i have not seen data on it. if a company has profit sharing so that if it does well, every employee does better. perhaps they share in that and get a small bonus, i think that could be a good strategy for creating a sense of everyone being on the same team. some companies are not financially able because of

their size. you get a sense that the company does well, i do well. that creates a greater sense of allegiance. host: the survey again is available at pac.org. how do you want this information to be used? >> 1 take away is that american viewers are not quite so simple. they are often a lot more complex than people give them credit for. it does not mean they are capable holding two opinions together. i would hope that our data will be read by the presidential candidates in their campaigns and understand that attitude about corporations, government, regulations may be a bit more complex than they think. one of my favorite questions was what is the biggest threat to the middle class? too much government regulation in business or too much government -- money in business.

aboutave more concernt regulation than corporate power.clearly clearly, they had read that question. even president obama has read that becasue they have talked about needless regulation. when you drill down, americans are more pro-regulation. 44% said there's not enough regulation on the environment. 22% said there was too much regulation. when you get more specific, they

visualize what this means. do i want my meat inspected? do i want clean air? people are not as anti- regulation. in the short term during a tough economy, people are concerned that too much regulation nor dumb regulation could cause jobs, but in the long term, they're not as anti regulatory as you might assume. host: also regulation of banks and financial institutions. 48% said that there is too little. 21% said too much. birmingham, alabama. olivia is waiting on the democratic line. good morning. caller: arm really liking this conversation. liking thely conversation.

i do not like to see when the democrats and republicans coming on with their opinions. you're making your point both ways. you're very good. when i get on an airplane, i want to know that it has been checked for safety. when i drank water, i want to make sure my water has been checked. i think the point that president obama is trying to make is that the private sector and the government goes hand in hand. we cannot have a private sector and government reform. the gentleman that came on talking about the private sector and what president obama said, we found out he was taking bribes from the government.

let's get real, america. read and know what we're listening to. you are making a very good discussion this morning and i'm enjoying it. have a good day. guest: i liked the "young man" part. idea myself as an independent moderate. it is important to dick on us look at both sides. host: on twitter. guest: no, i don't. host: something to include next year? guest: that's good. what kind of company do you work for? the appeal the same way about your company and big business in general? that's a good question. host: marcia.

caller: the business of america is business. that is what keeps this country running. government does not replace anything. look at general motors. my family has stock in it and it was stolen from us and given to the union. obama is not playing with his money. he's playing with our money and it's all going to disability, food stamps, medicaid. that is where his heart is. we need to get back to building stuff in america. we need a president that understands business and does not try to punish it. obama hates business. he hates wealth. he tries to discourage people from any intelligence, ambition. they're paying kids to go to summer school in washington, d.c. their reward failure and punish ambition. host: we will try to get in one

more call on this segment. sally on the democratic line from silver spring, md. caller: good morning. i've been trying to talk to you for half an hour. and really enjoying this program. the only thing i wanted to ask you is if you need anyone else on your research team. i'm 87 years old and i have a lot of good ideas. host: send us an e-mail on pac.org. caller: i do not use a computer. i just have a telephone. host: what do you think should be surveyed talking about the people's trust in big business? caller: i have a feeling that some big businesses do very well. i think you just have to be careful. i lost a lot of money in the stock market. they really did not take care of the middle class people