his agency has been affected by the supreme court decision on campaign contributions. keith johnson with foreign policy will focus on the role of natural gas in relations between russia and europe. ♪ good morning, it is wednesday, april 16, 2014. congress is on recess. we have a three-hour "washington journal" this morning. we will take a deep dive into house and senate campaign fundraising reports. we will talk to the chairman of the federal election commission and discuss how russia is using its natural gas supplies in the conflict and ukraine. u.s.ll begin talking about attorney general eric holder. last year, some analysts thought holder might be ready to leave the administration. the attorney general has become a high-profile member of obama's cabinet.

we are asking our viewers this morning for their opinion of eric holder. how would you rate his job performance question might give us a call. republicans at (202) 585-3881. democrats, (202) 585-3880. independents, (202) 585-3882. if you are outside the u.s., (202) 585-5883. you can also catch up with us on all your favorite social media pages. on twitter, facebook, or e-mail us. very good wednesday morning to you. talking about eric holder and asking for your opinion. his job performance. several issues he has been involved in this year are highlighted in the headline tracker from "usa today." scrolling through a few of those. once $50 million to train agents against active shooters. most drug sentences reduced by

11 months. justice department looks into high-frequency trading. holder renews calls for civilian terror trials. the list of stories with eric holder in the headlines goes on " headlinetoday's tracker. in "the washington post," holder $15 million from congress for active shooter police training. one other story from "the to stopon times," bill paychecks for those found in contempt of congress. to go afterned holder. the attorney general in many different news stories for many reasons. asking for your opinion of him. i want to redo a profile piece from the cook the tribune -- f rom the tribune newspaper in several papers around the country. that is a picture of

attorney general eric holder. during his first four years as the top law enforcement officer, his leadership at the justice controversyeemed so prone that even democrats began to question what his attorney -- what he had accomplished and whether he had a passion to stick it out. since president obama's reelection, holder has tackled his responsive buildings with criticsion, surprising and supporters by striking out on an unapologetically liberal agenda. he moved to shorten prison sentences of nonviolent criminals. states to block laws he said would make voting more difficult for minorities. this month, he called upon states to scrap laws preventing former convicts from voting. he issued a directive expanded

government recognition of same-sex marriages to federal courtrooms and prisons, giving gay and lesbian spouses the same rights as married couples, even in states that don't recognize such unions. quoteser and -- it wu holder. we keep bringing you more from that story and are opening our phone lines, our twitter and facebook page are open as we talk about u.s. attorney general eric holder. a few comments from our facebook page. cspan.ok.com/ job, is 10 times smarter than the average joe." our facebooks on page.

our phone lines are open as well. ourst want to point you to twitter page as well. follow the conversation on twitter @cspanwj. texas on waiting from our line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning and thank you for taking my call. i totally agree with the e-mail you read about him being 10 times smarter. i am so proud of this attorney general. his stancey proud of or his comeback with the guy from texas. texas, can you imagine? i am very proud of him. for the republicans that are going to call -- do me a favor. do not allow them to tell lies. make them state facts and asked them where did they get the information? host: let me ask you -- another comment from facebook.

the attorney general takes everything to personal. attorney general eric holder is arrogant. your response to that comment? an incident where an attorney general was put through as many as these terrorist attacks as he has be en. let her cite some. host: we go to our republican line. bill in pennsylvania. caller: good morning. way holder ishe totally stonewalling with all the fast and furious things that have gone on. any investigation that any or congressional

committee starts is stonewalled. i do not like the way the whole administration and those justice department, him at the top, refused to uphold the laws of the constitution. there is never any investigation. why did he not investigate the banking scandals in 2008 when collapsed? almost not one person was prosecuted. when you look back at history, during the savings and loan scandal -- that guy we just saw on the news. that one guy went to jail for a long time. who went to jail as a result with what happened with the collapse of our economy and the banking scandals? i think the guy is a creep. host: a little bit more from the sribune story that notes in hi

early years, eric holder's time was consumed by national security debates such as the administration's effort to try 9/11 and spirit in the u.s. and operation.d furious holder hinted last year he might be growing tired of the job amid mounting criticism. he has faced constant calls for resignation, not just from lawmakers,ve who accused him of dragging his feet. also from progressives who feel let down from what they see as holder's failure to pursue civil rights policies. had holder steps down at the end of last year, he might be remembered as the first sitting cap and a member to be held in contempt of congress for confusing -- he might be remembered as the first sitting member to be held in contempt of

congress after the fast and furious case. the fallout from it and the contempt of congress issuance and ongoing case was the subject of a hearing last week. something one of our earlier callers brought up. a congressional hearing where holder got into it a heated exchange with republican louie gohmert of texas. here's a bit of that. [video clip] >> i renewed my request. >> we promised to provide you and your staff with -- >> i have read what your department promised. it is inadequate. i realize contempt is not a big deal to our attorney general but it is important we have proper oversight. >> you do not want to go there. >> i don't want to go there? >> no. >> about the content? >> you should not assume that that is not a big deal to me.

i think it was inappropriate and unjust. never think that was not a big deal to me, do not ever think that. >> i am just looking for evidence. normally we are known by our fruits. there has been no indications it was a big deal because your department has still not been forthcoming in producing the documents that were the subject of the contempt. [indiscernible] >> there have been other questions asked -- >> the document we were prepared to make available then we are prepared to make available now. the gun lobbyout and the desire to have -- >> we have been trying to get to the bottom of fast and furious, where people died. at least a couple hundred mexicans died. we cannot get the information to get to the bottom of that. i do not need lectures for you about content. i don't need lectures from you either -- >> it is difficult to deal with asking questions.

as a former judge, i would never ask questions of someone who has been held in contempt. host: last week's hearing in which eric holder was on capitol hill. bit ofstemming from a that debate. a subject of the "washington times" story. it would stop the government paychecks for officials who have been found in contempt of congress. to go aftersigned eric holder. mr. holder refused to cooperate with house republican probes into the fast and furious than walking operation. the bill was introduced by blake farenthold, a texas republican. he said the american people should not be footing the bill for officials' bad behavior. stan in new york on our line for democrats. how would you rate eric holder's job performance? caller: poor and criminal.

i am a registered democrat, i used to be proud of that. to have the attorney general sit there on tv and basically -- i sayng congress a man ingohmert, find this contempt and throw him in jail. these people work for us. we do not have to live under their boot. an explanation for everything they do. i do not care if you are a woman from texas or a guy from idaho, it is about we the people first. republicans and democrats -- those of us who get up and go to work every day, we have the right to wear those titles. when you get to washington dc it is nothing more than a ploy to manipulate people. lead themasically because they believe in the party lines. host: what recent attorney

general do you think did the best job? caller: i don't know. and goes soomes fast. most of it gets swept of the rug. a look at janet reno and all the things that happened when she was attorney general and clinton was in office. he had waco and all these things people never had to answer for. she should have lost her job. you do not send troops and against women and children, i do not give a damn what they are doing. we do not need a militarized police force, we have plenty of local law enforcement. take a look at nevada recently a few days back, it is not over yet. answer for who you are in bed with in china. host: from new york. andwitter, "ehe picks

chooses which laws to uphold." holder gets under the skin of conservatives." line, rob isnt waiting in michigan. good morning. caller: that last caller was very astute. he twitter you just read, picks and chooses. he cherry picks the cases and the laws he wants to uphold because he does it all on a personal agenda. the last time i looked, he is an employee -- he is the hired help. his job is to enforce the laws based on the united states constitution. "preserve and protect" don't they get?

what good is an oath? these people are as corrupt as the day is long. is sad and indecent. fast and furious, people died. people are dead. dead. ambassadors. you -- do cannot ask you think the attorney general post has become too political? would it be too political to matter who is in the job? caller: absolutely not. yes, there will always be tendencies just like with the supreme court justices. come on, this man is a deep, vile racist. showed that right from the beginning with the black panther voting scandal. it is amazing. if you turn these things around and look at them on the opposite side. if you had some white gentleman

ing dark uniforms threatening voters, you think we would have heard about that question mark host: rob on our line for independence. leslie in maine on our line for republicans. caller: i am sick of the criminals in the white house. nothing but the most since bill clinton. they are shipping jobs overseas, ond bully. richard nixon makes these guys look like -- i don't know what to say. nixon looks better than these guys. i will never vote for a democrat again, they are criminals. they want to bring everybody and. marriage,ro gay antichrist. i am a vietnam veteran. lbj branded barry goldwater

we get happy, vietnam. the democrats are criminals and socialists. host: do you think the attorney general post has become too political? caller: oh yeah. do, evenknow how to elijah cummings, all they know how to do is play the race card. host: leslie from maine. i want to play for you a speech at the national action network last week that you a lot of attention. brought upo callers the idea of the racial overtones. this speech brought up some of those concerns. this is eric holder going off script discussing the treatment of the administration and how the administration has been received by congress. [video clip] [applause] >> i am pleased to note that the last five years have seen strides and reform. even in the face of

unprecedented, unwarranted, ugly, and divisive adversity. [applause] way, forgetthe about me -- you look at the way the attorney general was treated yesterday by a house committee. has everrney general had to deal with that kind of treatment? [applause] what president has ever had to deal with that kind of treatment? the huffington got an interview with eric holder after those statements were made. eric holder says he was not playing the race card when decrying gop opposition. attorney general eric holder said he was not referencing race last week when he strayed from his prepared remarks during a speech to discuss the way he has been treated by the house judiciary committee.

"i did not say there was a racial component. i was very careful not to say that here, he told the huffington post when asked about those comments. much of the media interpreted that as a reference to racial divisions. he said he was referencing a lack of civility in washington. "i think what we have seen is a breakdown of civility in washington. that becomes important because it has a substantive impact. the 50thlebrating anniversary of the civil rights act. if we had a congress or an executive-legislative branch relationship where there is a lack of civility, i wonder whether or not you could have to geta compromises such a landmark piece of legislation passed. that is essentially what i was decrying, the fact that we cannot separate whatever our personal feelings are and the focus on our function as members

of the executive branch or legislators. i think i have done a pretty good job but it is frustrating at times." that was the interview with the huffington post. let's go back to the phones. daniel in washington dc on our line for democrats. caller: good morning. think some of the eric holder frustration is that -- i hear people contextualizing this around liberal and conservative. eric holder is essentially very conservative in some of his policies. theink he is reacting to political spectrum moving over further. he is reacting to the far right vitriol. antagonism and understand his commentary. he is trying to be on the in. he is a very aggressive foreign-policy wise. if people ever read the case and

understand what that was about, that was about american activists helping other people in other countries. they were on the state department list. he was very punitive to people who were breaking that law. by administration is sued academics for indefinite detention. it has gotten better in some regards. the department of justice is trying to do more noble, liberal things. these are incremental gains. i think what he is noticing -- he is the top lawyer in the country. he is trying to do things. in his effort to do things, he does things that are very reactionary. he is puzzled and cannot understand why mainstream politicians cannot let him do his job. it as a like progressive liberal from that side of some of the things he does. then't understand --

benghazi question. the main crime is the in itself,n in libya not a political fuel organize around issues like that. or fast and furious, which is a carryover policy of a republican administration. these are silly. comparatively, if you want to rank him as an attorney general, he is pretty much normal. host: daniel from washington dc. ron on twitter. "they believe themselves to be above reproach." "my opinion is that we need 24 more just like him." let's go to texas. joyce on our line for republicans from houston. good morning. ady, we are- the l neighbors, i hope she is still listening.

eric holder is very arrogant. woman black, 81-year-old republican. i am proud. i left the democrat party years ago because of the policies. you cannot say anything about eric holder or barack obama unless the race card is played. i am sick and tired. they talk about policies. we are in terrible condition in this country. i am looking at him standing there with al sharpton telling us that al-shater didn't -- al sharpton should be in an orange jump suit. they get away with it because they are black. obama,ing about

everything is because they are black. they have gotten passes -- houston, texasm talking about the statements eric holder made at the conference last week when he went off script. we talked about his response to that. he said he was not trying to play the race card. here is a story that just came out from the national review online that also talks about that as well. it is my journal goldberg. say criticism is racially motivated by the notion that the media would take it any other way does not pass the laugh test. he writes that holder's hypocrisy is stunning. there is nothing special about a rough time holder has received. janet reno and john ashcroft never got cake and ice cream from opponents. the best recent comparison is alberto gonzales,, george w. bush's second attorney general.

i do not recall gonzales insinuating that efforts were anti-latino. holder has earned his contempt by refusingcitation to provide documents tha in fast and furious. even inside the white house, holder is considered too political. he quotes an unnamed white house official according to "the washington post." that is a story that just came out today in the national review online. carolyn in towson, delaware.

good morhining. caller: i think that he is -- he fails when it comes to going after the banksters on wall street. be guy out west, he should -- they should go after that guy with all barrels. he stole millions of dollars from we the people. they should go after him. whoody who is in congress, has sworn to protect the constitution and then tries to pare down the u.s. government should be tried for treason. that is what they should be doing. he is not doing any of that. he has militarized the police for the average person while letting these banksters who

ruined the world economy get away with murder. talking about the 82nd attorney general eric holder. asking your opinion of him and of his job performance. .n twitter we will keep taking your questions, comments, and thoughts for the next 15 or 20 minutes on "washington journal." a few other headlines around the country. the ukraine uses military force for the first time. fired itsmilitary first shot tuesday in the fight to regain control of the restive east from pro-russian separatist. the soldiers repelled an armed mob. the acting president of ukraine said the antiterrorist operation began in the early morning hours in the northern part of

the donetsk region. he described it as a "phase, responsible, and balanced" effort. that the obama administration voiced support for what it calls ukraine's measure of response. saying the situation has become untenable. "the ukrainian government has a responsibility to provide law and order." that is white house press secretary jay carney ordered by "the wall street journal." former defense officials urge for ukraine.de citing general wesley clark, who went to ukraine. there is a picture of him there any report. he wrote implementation of nonlethal military aid is flawed and needs correction. ukraine has a need for nonlethal

assistance like body armor and aviation. clark, whof general ran for the 2004 democratic presidential nomination, took place in late march and early april at the invitation of the ukrainian officials. for byp was paid the potomac foundation. there is a picture of general clark. other news. that was korean ferry sinking off the southwest coast of korea. peopleernment says 293 are missing after the ferry that was carrying hundreds of high school students sank en route to the resort island of jeju. the coast guard's footage showed ferry submerged off the southwest coast of the korean peninsula.

they are heading with the rescue operation. we have about 15 minutes on this opening section. we are asking your opinion of attorney general eric holder. stephen on our line for republicans. good morning. are you there? caller: i am 46 years old and have been watching politics since i was a kid. iwatch republican and democratic presidents. this man is so disgusting. i have never seen an attorney general so far and away from the constitution. he tells people to legalize marijuana in small increments. you have fast and furious.

200 mexicans were killed. he doesn't answer questions. he goes up there playing a race card with the president. skin colorr seen used in this country. there is no racial violence going on. i work with people all day long. this man has such a problem in this country. he is doing it on purpose. he thinks he is smart and slick. i watched nancy pelosi, every one of them doing this. host: i want to play one more clip of speaker john boehner after a response to a question about eric holder's comments after a speech that we played earlier. here is what speaker boehner had to say. [video clip] >> the frustration is the

american people have not been told the truth about what happened at the irs. the american people have not been told the truth about what happened with fast and furious or about and ghazi. --benghazi. they have made it impossible to get to the documents. they have not been forthcoming. when it comes to benghazi, we have four americans that are dead. the administration refuses to tell their families the truth. host: we have some tweets that have come in. host: let's go to our

independent line. jim is waiting in chicago. good morning. caller: people need to do their homework and go back in history. john mitchell went to jail for his arrogance and divisiveness. eric holder needs to go to jail. roberto gonzalez was about to be impeached. eric holder is nothing but a political thought and a bully. for him to use the race card is ridiculous. everyhe 1970's until now, attorney general has been criticized. including janet reno under bill clinton. they all have been criticized. eric holder is nothing but a bully and a thug. host: some background on holder

in the story that profiled that ran earlier this week. he grew up in new york and he feels a special responsibility to african americans and other minorities. reducing racial inequality in states and federal prison populations and sentencing. 40% of the nations prisoners are black. that is a tribute profile piece that ran earlier this year. we are asking our callers their opinion of eric holder. give us his job performance rating. jerry in baltimore, maryland. good morning. caller: good morning. am attorney general is -- i

really glad for his attitude with that republican. i really think we need a more aggressive ag to investigate the corruption of congress. i am sorry. in bed with close the money people. the bankers and the drug companies. leave the man alone. let him do his job. janet reno sent in the troops. you haven't seen eric holder shoot anybody, except anybody in -- but that wasn't the feds. host: a question we have asked some of the earlier callers. do you think the job has become too political? perhaps.

as americans, we have a hard time agreeing on anything. warannot agree to go to over russia violating the thing in ukraine. what ist seem to agree constitutional. other people say it is anti-constitutional. not one of them holds a degree or is a constitutional lawyer. thereby they have no opinion and i think it is moot. host: want to show you a few other headlines, stories we will be discussing later this morning on "washington journal." company began supplying ukraine with natural gas on tuesday. the deal underscores the extent

to which europe has depended on russian gas. we will talk about the subject of russian gas and the role of the conflict in ukraine in our 9:00 hour. coming up next, money chase puts some democrats ahead, is the headline from "the wall street journal." primaryl drain of charges for some. we will talk with a reporter "rom the "national journal, about those reports, who the winners and losers were for first-quarter fundraising. bloomberg sets his sights on the nra. this from "the new york times" today.

million to spend $50 motivate voters. host: the story sites larry plight, who dismisses the plan. and got the money two ways i guess he is free to do so. if you want to read more on that story, that is in "the new york times" today. we have about five more minutes to talk about eric millender. he wants $15 million for active shooter police training. this is a story from "the

washington post." there have been recent shootings. host: the latest news about eric holder. we have about five minutes left to get your thoughts on the position of attorney general. florida to richard in on our line for republicans. good morning. caller: i believe eric holder is corrupt. the eclipse you showed of john boehner made a list of the things to investigate.

he isare covering for -- barack obama's acatiting hand. host: what are you most concerned about? caller: i don't know where to start. look at chicago. watch what happens in chicago. they go after homeowners -- people that want to protect their rights and property and their families. they are all about legalizing drugs. a crackhead or somebody on meth, these psychotic people. they will stuff out of life in a heartbeat for a $10 high. they want to take away our guns? we are trying to protect ourselves. i think they are very logical.

they say one thing and do the opposite. host: some of the drug issues written in by edward. host: arthur is waiting in memphis, tennessee. good morning. caller: i think eric holder is a great attorney general. every last one of them will watch fox news and listen to rush limbaugh, i'll bet. host: that is arthur in memphis. that is all the time we have in this first segment today. up next with reports on the first fundraising quarter of 2014, we will discuss which

campaigns are winning the battle as we talk with alex roarty of the "national journal." later lee goodman will talk about campaign finance and a recent supreme court case. we will be right back. ♪ >> our colleagues have spent this evening and i want to make sure we clear up the information. has saidndent -- despite the fact my colleagues have said that he felt pain and laughs and cries, that is inaccurate. hearst ruble cortex has been liquefied. that area of the brain responds

to reason. they talk about six neurologists that have said she is not in this is-- in a persistent vegetative state. that is inaccurate. court-appointed physicians that have examined her, two appointed on michael schiavo's side, they have all examined her. the neurologist who had academically researched wasimony, their testimony deemed to be clear and convincing that she is in a persistent vegetative state. the other testimony was discounted. i want to close with the commentary from the guardian ad litem. herpent 20 of 30 days with and put his face up close to

her, trying to will heart into giving him any kind of sign. he said i would take her. --he said i would beg her. tell everybody. but she never made eye contact. she never made contact with her parents, he said. he never got what he most wanted, a sign. he said, i felt there was something distinctive about who terri is. he was plagued by nightmares. >> time has expired. 15 seconds. >> thank you. the evidence behind her diagnosis was credible. he still felt that the medical experts would never know where she was. he was dismayed to learn that an

attorney claimed she tried to speak. speak. terri does not highlights on our facebook page. c-span created 35 years ago and brought to as a public service. >> "washington journal" continues. host: alex roarty, chief local correspondence for "national journal" and joins us to talk winners and losers from the first quarter fundraising report. put the numbers into perspective for us. from january 1 through march 30. how important is the first fund raising quarter of the year? guest: it is the first

fundraising quarter of an election year. i think there will always be extra scrutiny the closer you get to election day. you do see some separation from people that are doing well and maybe candidates that are not doing so well. host: what is a good fundraising number? guest: keep in mind what state you are talking about. a candidate in montana will not raise as much as a candidate in georgia. for a senate candidate, about a million dollars in a smaller state. in a larger state, you want to be closer to to william dollars. $2 million. house races are much smaller. $500,000. it is no disaster if you raise

$300,000 or $400,000. those who raise $27,000, there might be a problem with that campaign. talking about the first-quarter fundraising reports. the good. guest: look at someone in kentucky who raised roughly $2.7 million, and outraised mitch mcconnell. she is a pretty formidable candidate. it turned out to be a joke or not financially. that really sticks out --it turned out to be a juggernaut. mary landrieu in louisiana turned in another recorder. she is seeing as a good candidate. kate hagan in north carolina. she has raised a heck of a lot

of money in north carolina. raising prestigious amounts of money, $2.8 million this first quarter. there is a republican primary. she doesn't have a single republican opponent. they are busy fighting amongst themselves. host: headline in today's " usa today." was it mostly democrats who did the best this quarter? guest: there were some republicans that raised a good deal of money. in alaska, $1.3 million. with alaska, a small estate, that is a great deal of money. that was more than the democratic incumbent, who raced about $1 million.

$1.2 million. more than the incumbent, john walsh. he was just appointed earlier this year. those challenges raise more than the incumbent. mcconnell about mitch and the term burn rate in campaign finance lingo. guest: how much money you take vis how much money is going out. they raised a lot of money in the first quarter, about $2.4 million. and thatmore than that has a lot of people wondering or making a judgment that he knows he has a competitive race on his hands. he has a primary against a

businessman from louisville. he is probably the favorite in both races and is taking it pretty seriously. .e has been able to raise money he still has $10 million on hand, one of the larger sums of any candidate up for reelection. he has a formidable war chest. host: focus on the none. georgia.democrat in the seat is held by a republican. democratsurned out -- are excited when she announced her candidacy. i don't think anybody expected this level of fundraising. it is a massive haul. she is raising a great deal money than any republican in the

race. republicans have five viable candidates. they are splitting the money amongst themselves. she is quadrupling some of these republican candidates. theorth carolina, you have republicans fighting among themselves while the democrats are off to the side raising a lot of money. a good thing for the democratic party. host: do we know the most expensive congressional race? guest: the kentucky senate race because of mitch mcconnell. that is one reason they are raising so much money. democrats in new york and california and anywhere else. you probably do not like mitch mcconnell sicken the money and i can get him out of the senate. host: we have the map here.

it leans republican. how do you rank that race? guest: the kentucky race leans republican. a lot of people would have expected the last six months have not been good to the democrats nationally with the a problem with obamacare. you might have expected kentucky to slide off the map but it hasn't. has amcconnell competitive race. i think they know they have a competitive race. it is probably the kind of contest that will come down to election day. host: remind people about the map. guest: republicans have to take a net of six seats. joe biden would give control to democrats. they need to win six seats and

have a good shot at doing so, probably better than even odds to retake it. they can contest a lot of races in deeply red states that meant probably did well in likened south dakota, west virginia, louisiana, arkansas. states heldetty red by democrats. host: we are talking about first-quarter fundraising. alex roarty is a local correspondence here to take your questions and comments. phone numbers are on the screen. republicans, 202-585-3881. democrats, 202-585-3880. independents, 202-585-3882. 202-585-3883.s., ohio.ican line in

good morning. caller: when are we going to -- are you going to have a date we can critique to see what kind of job they are doing? host: happy to take those comments as well. caller: i want to talk about campaign 2014. why do we have to listen to people to tell us who is going to win or who is going to lose? are we supposed to believe them? let people call through as independent or whatever they are? they tried to do to eric holder. you had six callers. all of them were republican. host: we invited everybody to call. our phone lines were open to democrats, republicans, and

independents. how you come up with the leans democrat, leans republican. guest: you start with the political makeup of the state. there are a lot of red states up for reelection. louisiana and north carolina that mitt romney win. you move there to the candidates themselves. do the republicans have good challengers in those states? is the democratic incumbent strong and can they raise money? consider the national environment. but get president obama's approval ratings. that sets the tone for the race nationally. do your own reporting, call people in the state. host: how much do you factor in

the numbers? this is one place you can compare apples to apples. guest: the fundraising numbers. it matters a great deal. it doesn't make a huge difference if they are at parity. thatere is a huge gap, makes a difference. themselvessing hauls to put focus on. it does show the level of support. are they getting grassroots donors to contribute to the campaign? are they exciting the base another big donors across the country? these are important gauges of the campaign's appeal. host: ralph in michigan, good morning. you were on with alex roarty. caller: in your calculations,

are you referring to campaign spending or campaign contributions to the candidate's fund, or are you including the outside groups? in michigan, we have the americans for prosperity, the koch brothers-funded group. they are running ads in some of the primary races. they are running ads against gary peters in the senate race. they are referring to obamacare. most of them have been question as far as their factual basis by "the washington post" fact checker. i believe they are in every state. they have offices in every state and are running ads in every

campaign. host: we have one of those ads you were referring to running on obamacare. we will play it for you now. [video clip] >> people do not like lyrical and --people do not like a lyrical ads. it is about people. millions of people cannot see their own doctors. millions are paying more and getting less. obamacare doesn't work. it just doesn't work. start thinking about people. host: one of those americans for prosperity-funded ads. since outside spending 2010 has played an outside role in politics.

this cycle more so than ever before, in terms of the landscape. a group has been north of $30 million so far this cycle, an incredible amount of money so far. remember what we were talking about. i mentioned kay hagan. she brought in $2.8 million. americans for prosperity has spent $8 million in north carolina and has helped republicans a great deal. obamacare is an issue front and center for a lot of people. individual campaign fun riding -- fund raising matters a great deal. host: explain the disclosure process and how it differs from the candidate disclosures we are

talking about? guest: there is a lot less is closure. posterity who runs as a 501(c). it is not have to dispose any of their donors to the federal elections commission the way candidates and political parties have to. we do not know who their donors are necessarily. we do know that some tax filings and other things that people have reported that the coke -- koch brothers, most of whom are wealthy and contributed to those causes, but there is a significant difference between a group like that in a group -- and what you see with a campaign like kay hagan's or some of her republican challengers. from poor richard question twitter -- as a reporter or ordinary citizen, is it easy to understand campaign disclosures? guest: no. it does take a little bit of time. i will say the federal election commission is pretty easy to use

once you get used to it, and you do get to see, i mean for the candidates and parties who are required to disclose, it is a great deal of information not only to be interesting but where the money is owing actually, and it really does -- it can tell you a great deal. anyone can go on the website and take a look for themselves. host: and to help further explain the federal election commission, we have a chairman of the fec coming up next on today's "washington journal," so you can stick around for that and ask him your questions. first, let's go to patty waiting in north branford, connecticut on our line for independents. good morning. you're on with alex roarty of the "national journal hotline." caller: good morning. i will be a little off topic. i was trying to get through on the last topic. host: patty, we spent 45 minutes on that and we want to use alex roarty why we have him here to do that. we will go to harry waiting in

sarasota, florida on our line for republicans. harry, good morning. caller: good morning. i am talking about how of 16,sman burr ki congressmann and how his fundraising is going. he has an election coming up in november. generally speaking he is a qualified congressman. it is an interesting thing that we are talking about the senate the most right now. opinion ofis the most analysts that republicans have a solid lc on b -- lock on the house right now. generally speaking, republicans might expand their house majority. host: has that made it harder for house candidates and house members to raise money since

their chamber is not up for grabs? guest: we were talking about outside spending, significantly less outside spending on the house right now then there is on the senate. you see a big difference on that. house candidates are still raising money at a pretty fair clip, especially locally, those races need a great deal. and to a lot of people with a vested interest in congress, there is a lot of focus on that. but no doubt more focus on the senate right now. come line for democrats paul is waiting in north carolina. good morning. caller: yes, sir, what happens to the money, if they raise a bunch of money and they've lose the race, what happens to the money that is left? host: the money that is not spent? caller: yes. questionat is a great and it is usually an interesting focus of reporters taking a look at some of these campaign camps

after people leave office. and there is some concern that they can be used as a hush bond for these candidates who are no longer in office and really have no reason to spend it politically or not, so it is certainly something that bears continue to scrutiny even after they leave office. maybe especially after they leave office. host: an interesting campaign reports, how much money individual campaign candidates are giving to their own campaigns, especially if they are wealthy. are we seeing a lot of self funders the cycle? guest: there are a few and is a difficult economy sometimes because there is a republican house canada in new york as a matter of fact -- excuse me, in new jersey, who has given himself millions of dollars, and of course, for a house race, that it is a biscuit amount of money, but actually has not raised a whole lot of money separate from that, and so you are left wondering -- it is not just about the money itself that

you are raising, but the amount of money that you raise really forn important barometer how much success or how much appeal your campaign has among regular people and regular donors. it is difficult to gauge sometimes. political parties love fundraisers because money is very important and if somebody can guarantee they have the cash, that is going to be really important. but it does not always guarantee success, that is for sure. host: we talked about the winners of the first quarter campaign fund-raising reports, we do not get to the losers from your story. who do you cite as the losers? john walshntioned montana baggot inn mean and alaska respectively. they raise a pretty good amount of money and they were out raised by their republican tomlengers, and arkansas,

cotton raise to somewhere around $1.3 million in the first quarter, and is generally seen as one of the strongest republican candidate this cycle in a state where a lot of democrats are worried that they're going to lose arkansas and become red since bill clinton's day. so you really look at those three candidates. it is never a good sign when an incumbent running for election is out raised by their opponent. and you could also say for mitch with alison grimes out raising him. host: the american prosperity americans for prosperity is here in arkansas spending loads for tom cotton. i have not heard one paid ad for or by tom either, it is all americans for prosperity. guest: it is not just arkansas. it is north carolina, louisiana, kentucky, see heavier spending from afp.

that group has been up since october really pounding a lot of these democrats and spending a considerable amount of money and really changing -- i mean, democrats really hit the panic button earlier this year with their own donors saying look, we are being heavily outspent, and that is making a difference right now. we do not need your money come the summer time when elections get here, we need your money now because we have to go on air and respond to some of these ads. they have had some success with that. they have responded, but a lot of these candidates like kay landrieu,ike mary mark pryor in particular, those candidates have had to start spending their own money and plan to start spending more of it in the near future to respond maybe a little host: earlier than they would have otherwise. you bring a mary landrieu in louisiana. here is one of her as doing exactly what you were talking about. [video clip] i i am mary landrieu and approved this message. beenr years, she has

a washington to many respect for louisiana. >> when it comes to gas reduction in the nation. >> like stopping offshore drilling. >> nothing about this makes sense. just louisiana. it is 300,000 people they go to work everyday in this industry. you cannot just beat up on them. >> when we were cheated out of oil royalties. >> antiochus in here and listen to the federal government say we cannot share a penny with you? i will not rest until this injustice is fixed. >> and see one. now as the chairman of the energy committee -- >> you think there are budget fairy godmother's out there that you can wave a magic wand? powerfulse to the most position in a senate of louisiana. >> we produce oil and gas. that is the message to the president. my job is to represent the taxpayers and this country. host: democrat mary landrieu in her ad, what was she trying to do there, alex roarty? guest: a couple of things.

she is trying to put distance between herself and the white house, and she is talking a lot about the oil and gas industry, which of course in louisiana is really the main economic driver and is really seen as important. and she has done this a few times. she ran an ad late last year where she showed or talked about how she really pushed the administration to extend health insurance plans not being canceled because of obama care because they did not meet a certain standard, so this is a playbook for her. interestingly, there is a controversy about that ad. the committee hearings were actually states, they were not actually taken from what happened in the capital. they were staged after the fact to re-create some of the committee hearings that she participated in. for an otherwise good added, that was a distraction and she did get some christendom for that. some interesting, -- criticism for that. it is interesting, the godmother

anyone. actorsy have also gotten in the as that is received scrutiny. host: alex roarty of the "national journal hotline," here to take your calls about the first-quarter fund-raising reports that are now in. we are talking about those this morning on the "washington journal." let's go to jason waiting in hyattsville, maryland, on our line for independents. good morning. caller: good morning. i have a statement and a question. the statement would be this is a very important topic, but it is such a shame that there is a whole segment devoted to the politics and how corrupt the whole system is. said it is not just about the money, but when you think about all the time, all of the smart businesspeople forming these nonprofits so they

can back candidates, all of the contributors, the irs, the people that to track where is this money going or trying to have some controls on it, what a waste when this could be so much effort, not just the money but the brainpower, go onto something that the country really needs, something productive. so the question is -- how close are we, and i know the supreme court weighs in on this such that money is free-speech, but wouldn't it be a good system and the a lot of energy is government has said senators, here is $200,000, house members, here is a limit for you, and let candidates run on principles and there believes rather than the money? thank you. host: jason, i will ask your tear when hehe fec

joined us for the next admin of the "washington journal," but i will also let alex roarty answer. guest: the caller sounds a little like john mccain, another campaign reform advocate. there are some reformers in washington that would like to get something like that in washington, but i see mentioned, the way the supreme court ruled, up toolitical spending is free speech, legally, but that does not mean there are not creative workarounds that people are advising right now. you have a system where perhaps that would encourage small $2 that a every $1 or grassroots contributor would give to the campaign, the state would match with their own, which again amplifies the support of small donors. that is one idea that people are floating. there is no doubt that the campaign-finance reform community, the people that would

like to see less money in politics have not had a great few years. in fact, that supreme court decision earlier this year, that eliminated the amount of money that someone can contribute to all the candidates in one election cycle. -- ank a lot of them system like the caller proposed is probably not feasible at this point legally or political for that matter, but that does not mean that there are not -- they are not busy working away at other solutions that the caller would appreciate. host: james on twitter asks -- -- what did heey money advantage do for alex sink in florida 13? guest: not a whole lot. she lost a very close race. he goes to show you that money is very important but it is certainly not everything in politics and maybe an issue like obamacare or the general

distaste the average voter might have for president obama or the voting matters there more then her advantage. to runink declines again, this coming just this week. yesterdayually just and a row blow to house democrats on how they already have an uphill climb. they had really heavily recruited her to run again, really thinking that despite losing earlier this year that she had a much better chance in a midterm election when there was going to be a larger turnout , but she turned down there offers, the chairman really lobbying her personally on this. it does not look like a great cycle for house democrats, and this was not great news for them on top of that. comments on's,

twitter -- alex sink loss in florida when she could have won being apologetic about the affordable care act instead of defending it vigorously. is that what happened in your assessment? guest: several activists suggest that. a lot of political professionals will really caution against a full defense of obama care because it is unpopular. if you look at any polls right now, it is pretty popular. be -- younot going to could be seen as a politician that is pretty out of touch if you stand up and say how great this law is when most of the people who are listening are not really sure about that themselves. it's interesting you mention that, there have been some instances where democrats have offered a more full throated defense of it, in fact, one of the outset groups and helping talking about how

she had been a cancer survivor and she was able to get insurance because of obamacare, because it illuminated pre-existing conditions, disqualifying you for insurance in some cases. it was one of the first times we've seen the democrats really embrace obamacare head on. and it is interesting. you kind of wonder if we will see more of that as 2014 approaches. host: let's go to martha in augusta, georgia on our line for republicans. we have talked a bit about the georgia senate race already today. caller: yes. the man that owns ameritrade, he is backing this cut the spending group, and we are sick of his ads already. they run 12, 13 times a day. host: what is martha talking about? ofst: we talk about a lot the outside spending focusing on democrats. this is a situation, one of the few where a group that she mentioned, joe ricketts pace out of chicago, then add against a

republican, which is what some people were waiting to see if these groups would do, a lot of republicans unhappy elections,t o christine o'donnell and todd akin lost the party a seat. thatct, there is a belief if the party had nominated better candidates the last couple of years, they would be in control of the senate majority already. some, philng to gregory is seen as one of those ey isdates -- phil gingr seen as one of those candidates. it is interesting that she finds it distasteful and then she does not like it because there is a lot fear that these kind of ads could backfire, and her comments would suggest that maybe that is the case and in fact, this encourages people to vote for

phil gingrey anyway. host: let's go to sue, good morning. caller: i agree to the last couple of callers, the last one to went underway. citizens united have caused this debacle. and money trumps, and we have got billionaires and corporations that pass legislation, and they are taking over everything, so as far as i'm concerned, you know, the little people are losing their in order to win these elections, which republicans will win, it is the money and the suppression of the vote. one thing i do want to say to republicans -- you were not invited to the party. as much as you defend these billionaires, they do not need your help. they have lobbyists. you are not invited to the party. you will be in the same boat as the rest of us when it is all

over, when they take away your social security and medicare. that is all i have to say. thank you. host: alex roarty, your thoughts on sue's comments. guest: that is a concern of some people in an age where there is a lot of money flowing out of politics to these outside groups, the individual donors do have less of a say. that is certainly be line you will hear from a lot of reform advocates on capitol hill. again, how the people can legislationhat with either at the federal level or state level remains unclear at this point. host: question over e-mail this morning -- who has raised the most money without any large donors? guest: oh, wow. it is hard to answer that without really going into the report line by line and seeing the small donors. host: any candidates that have sworn off any of these tax contributions, the mega-donors?

guest: among all the major candidates, no, not really. maybe someone like mitch mcconnell again who has been raising money steadily for pretty much six years and as i mentioned earlier has over $10 million on hand. some of that does come from smaller donors, but generally speaking that it's not a major push for many candidates right now. about marylked landrieu from louisiana. let's go to lafayette, louisiana, leo is waiting on our independent line. leo, good morning. caller: good morning. yes. i constantly hear about louisiana trying to be a red state again, all the ads are brothers from the koch , but i can assure you that mary landrieu will win louisiana, and i can assure you that if you the state of

louisiana, because a lot of this is coming from republican governors, that we have a governor that will go down in history at the worst governor ever in the history of the state of louisiana. if you look at texas, they have a republican governor, and these are things we need to hit on. they have the highest rate of uninsured babies in the united states, and that is directly to not extend the medicaid that is directly extended to republicans and big money. thank you. host: leo in lafayette answering a mary landrieu victory. we showed the ranks by roll call , pure talk of going into the 20 14th election. where does the "national journal " have it? guest: the pure talk as well. and he is not the only democrat certain that mary landrieu will pull us out. even though it is a very difficult state and congressman

bill cassidy is there. she is having a little magic when it comes to campaigning, and her connections, of course, her brother is the mayor of new orleans, her father was a very popular mayor of new orleans, her family has a very long connection to the state, and people are wondering, you know, the sort of thing that is hard for an analyst like myself to quantify that she could still pull this out, even if it looks pretty difficult right now. host: we are talking with alex roarty, chief political correspondent for "national journal hotline," previously covered as of any politics and government before politicspa.com. we have about five minutes, 10 minutes left with him to take your calls and questions this morning as we talk about this week's financial reports, campaign finance reports that came in on house and senate races. another call in louisiana on our line for republicans.

clay, good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i am old enough to remember joe laughs abouthis communist, i am appalled that harry reid brought up the name of a private citizen, the koch brothers, and lambasted them as being un-american. well, the democrats have george and lots ofveon.org others. it is no quiz event that any printer is president neil -- tcher isny pri president he obama administration pulls up and mary landrieu is history. thank you for taking my call. perry has taken a lot of criticism and he has under a lot of rhetoric for the koch brothers. it is interesting to give in mind and this is part of a

political history, the democrats are really focused on making charles and david koch central to this election, saying that republicans are doing the bidding of these out of touch billionaires, trying to cut programs like medicare and social security. there are questions about how effective it is going to be, but what is interesting to note is that harry reid doeis not shooting off at the hit here. as they calculated strategy for democrats of all kind. georgia, bobby is on our line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. yes, we do not believe anything those tea partiers say. one intolay any money any money one put entity canada, and we will still vote democrat. host: all right, on our twitter page -- are unions spending any money on candidates? guest: they are.

he spending has not really been visible thus far. they do spend a great deal of cash on the elections. coming to remember about unions, so far we have really focused on advertising that goes on tv. that is obviously very visible. er morepref person to person come a knocking on people, the "ground game." they really focus on that instead of the ads, so it is a little less visible, sometimes not as easy to gauge here in washington, but they do spend a great deal of money on politics. ont: you want to focus virginia for a second, something you brought up in your story, the virginia senate race. guest: sure. people really thought that might warner was going to have an easy time of it. as of late last year, but the former chairman of the republican national committee, ed gillespie, said somebody entered the race and is raising

a great deal of money, he actually raised two point $2 million in the first quarter, which was a great deal. and mark warner actually raised $2.7 million, so he did out -- he did out raise gillespie. the former governor may because of a row race on his hands, facing a tough election, somebody like mark warner who is so personally popular in virginia, a state that is pretty good for democrats, has a row race on its hands. candidates like mary landrieu and mark pryor in states that are far more conservative. host: and this expanding be playing field, as it were. guest: right. they called expanding the map. not only do republicans have a chance of winning in virginia, but there has to be more money sent to virginia instead of a place like arkansas. that is the theory. host: by democrats -- guest: by democrats. instead of spending money on mary landrieu, they have to go shore up mark warner in virginia

instead and essentially that $1 million is maybe -- mark warner mary but it weakens landrieu, and maybe she loses as a result. that is a theory anyway. host: let's go to a call waiting in miami, independent line. caller: good morning. how are you? the way i see it, what is going on, citizens united has to be looked at in the context of everything. the context of everything is the long-term plan of the republican party to take permanent control of the government, and that may sound extreme, but this is the way it works. they took control of all of the swing states in the 2010 election using this red map strategy that jane mayer wrote about in the "new yorker," they sent ed gillespie as it were done to north carolina to work with pope, and they funded every they won 80% of the seats, and the controlled the

north carolina legislature for the first time in years. after that, they controlled florida, georgia, south carolina, north carolina, virginia, west virginia, pennsylvania, wisconsin, michigan, indiana, iowa, and so on and so on. once to control the states, you control the u.s. house of representatives by gerrymandering, which they did. citizens united, gave them all the money they needed to do these things forever, actually. exxon mobil had a $44 billion profit last year. withu find 30 senate races $100 million each, that is only $3 billion. that is nothing to the corporate wealth available like the coke brothers, whose personal wealth went to $40 billion last year. and all of that advertising they can do to basically discourage people from voting by maligning their candidates. on the other side of the coin is

the five republicans on the supreme court who after doing citizens united then gutted the voting rights act. host: howard, we are going to let alex roarty jump in because we're running out of time to let him get his thoughts on your comments. guest: it is a concern of a lot of democrats that republicans just have more money and some of these corporations could be spending heavily. it is interesting to note that we have not seen a lot of direct corporate spending so far, at least that has been publicly available. of course there is a problem with some of the nonprofit groups. we do not know exactly who their donors are. we have to remember for a group like target, which of course .veryone knows the retail store they donated to a republican candidate in minnesota, a gubernatorial candidate, and there was a huge amount of backlash because it turns out the candidate opposes gay marriage. amount ofwas a huge about backlash against targets nationally. they can come with a significant

political cost or bottom-line theseor some of corporations. as a result, i do not think you have seen a whole lot of involvement for them. that is not to say that there is up a real infusion of money from all quarters. host: alex roarty, before we let you go, in the last reset if we have here, we are in a bit of a lawless limit primary season, but onwhat are the the primaries coming up? guest: north carolina, may 6, one candidate they think can beat kay hagan, the state house speaker, whether or not he can get to 40%. he will finish first, but the question is whether or not he will hit 40% and avoid a runoff. and of course, may is a big month in nebraska, senate primary, heated battle among republicans there. and of course you have georgia, and depending on who republicans nominate, maybe michele done will have a role chance of winning in the fall. host: alex roarty of "national journal hotline," thank you for joining us today. guest: thank you. host: up next, we stay on the

topic of campaign-finance as we are joined by federal election commission chairman lieberman as he talks of -- chairman lee goodman, and later on our spotlight on magazine segment, we will focus on a foreign-policy magazine piece that discusses russian president vladimir putin using energy exports as a political weapon, but first, we will give you a news update from c-span radio. 8:30 one eastern time. some international news this hour. an update on the situation in ukraine from the head of nato was that the alliance is strengthening its military footprint along the eastern border in response to russia's aggression. secretary-general rasmussen says nato will immediately deploying forces to the region. he says there will be "more planes in the air, more ships on the water, more readiness on the land." but the secretary declined to specify how many troops will be deployed thin saying only it wil

be "enough," and more will be done if needed. he says the move is about the torrent in the face of russia's aggressive behavior. first-quarter economic growth in russia is slowed and moscow's economy minister is interpreting it to uncertainty over the ukraine crisis. there has also been what the minister described as "serious capital flight." the firstountry in three months of 2014 than in all of 2013. in turning to the u.s. military, a new website is now available for service members to make it easier to calculate their benefits. vice president joe biden's wife, jill, will be promoting the website today using what is called the g.i. bill comparison tool. service members can estimate tuition and fees, housing allowances, and book stipends for each school. before the website was greater, service members had to consult multiple sources to find the same information. now it is a quic clinical way.

.ou can find the site those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> there is an old saying that fathers and100 defeat is an orphan. i would not be surprised if information was ported to the recent activities. we are just talking about the anct that in in a terro interrogation, senator goldwater had questions about the carrier with their markings painted out. well, we figure that somebody over there told them about that thing on wednesday morning, and therefore it is going to spring it and they're going to try to spring it in such a way that it looks like they are all u.s. air and iand you were wrong was wrong in saying there was not. >> historic audio from the u.s. cubant to overthrow

premier fidel castro on c-span radio in washington dc on 90.1 fm, online at c-span.org, and nationwide on xm satellite radio channel 120. for over 35 years, c-span brings you event from washington, putting you in the room at congressional hearings, white house events, briefings, and conferences, and offering complete gavel-to-gavel coverage of the u.s. house -- all as a public service of private industry. we are c-span -- created by the cable tv industry 35 years ago and brought to you as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. watch us in hd, like us on facebook, and follow us on twitter. "washington journal" continues. host: earlier this month, the supreme court handed down a high profile of ruling in mccutcheon v. federal election commission. here to talk about what the fec

does is fec chairman lee goodman. what does the sec do, and how does that work change as a result of what happened earlier this month? >> well, the federal election commission if the federal agency in washington, d.c. that regulates the flow of money in politics, that is the flow. we had minister of the law, we interpret the code as written by congress, and issue regulations and add more detail to the laws that congress writes. we educate the public and the regulated community on how to comply with that law. we have training sessions, online webinars, we review all of the federal financial disclosure reports submitted by all committees, we review those for accuracy, for mistakes, community regularly with the filers, that is the campaign,

political actionm committees. we are a clearinghouse for all of the data. that means the federal election commission took in reports and ndsclose on his website a made public folders closure of billions of dollars worth of campaign-finance activity in federal elections. law as enforce the written by congress and as interpreted by the courts. wellr what is changing, -- host: that law was interpreted earlier by the supreme court. guest guest:: the pendulum has swung back and forth since a seminal supreme court ruling in 1976 called buckley v valeo over the contours of the government's ability to regulate money in

politics with the purpose of preventing corruption from occurring in the halls of congress. freedomfirst amendment of people to participate in the political process, which necessarily implicates the use of money to buy communication and to buy advertising and to mitigate with the public about political ideas and about electoral preferences. in the last five years, the supreme court has begun to read first amendment rights more expensively, and to restrict the government regulate money in politics. just this month, the supreme decision, yet another once again expanded first amendment rights and restricted the government's ability to regulate once again indicates called mccutcheon v. federal election commission. host: and to review what that

is, it had to do with aggregate limits, explained in a nutshell what that is. guest: yes, prior to the mccutcheon decision, the federal law imposed on every individual, an aggregate limit on how much he or she could donate to political parties, political action committees, and candidates, and that aggregate election $123,000 per cycle, every two years. and to give you some dimensions $123,000 ithin that forget limit, there are are also individual limits per campaign, per party committee, so the law had a system of belt and suspenders on people's ability if youte money so that are running for congress, john, i can only give you $2600 per

election, if you had a primary and general election, i can only give you $5,200 per election cycle. now, the average congressional race will run through about $1.5 million to $1.6 million, and congress made a judgment that it at that limit i could not possibly corrupt you. in addition to those individual limits on each campaign, the law also imposed an aggregate limit the set i could not get more to the three national party committees of either the democratic party or the republican party. thanld not give more $48,600 to all the candidates i might choose to give to, even assuming the individual candidate limits, and i could $4 give more than

8,600 even though each of my each one was to limited. even though they said there are limits to each campaign and each party is sufficient to protect against corruption in the system. we do not also need the extra aggregate limit to protect individual congressmen and congresswomen from the potential of corruption. long does the fec now have to rewrite the rulebook here after the supreme court decision to put the new rules into effect? guest: there is no statutory time limit for us to act, however, each commissioner, and there are six commissioners at the federal election commission, no more than three for each party, three republicans, three democrats, and we have to act on a bipartisan basis, so each of us took them out to uphold the

constitution. the supreme court has not ruled on what the constitution requires, and at least i feel an obligation to conform the regulations that we write to the supreme court's holding. just to show your viewers, this is the book of regulations that the federal elections commission issues. it is called the "code of and theyegulations," have full force and effect of law. thatently in fr," you see it stated. i do not think it is important to perpetuate unconstitutional provisions, so in the short run, what i believe the commission should do, and i will be intriguing my colleagues on the , is toion to help me conform that "code of

regulations" to the supreme court for the decision in the next month or two. we have already removed online all references to the aggregate limits, and here is a chart that you can update from the federal election commission's website of the campaign contribution limits. and the commission has already removed from a chart of limits the aggregate limit of $123,000 -- host: that would have been in this spot? guest: yes, sir. in the short run, we have complied with the supreme updating ourg by contribution brochures as well as the materials online, to the public on what their right to donate is, and what we need to do over the next two months is a down and conform our "code of federal regulations " to the new supreme court ruling. host: we are talking with lee goodman, chairman of the federal election commission.

he is here to talk about what and to talkoes, about the and pain finance. finance powerful minds are open. republicans can call (202) 585-3881, democrats (202) 585-3880, independents (202) 585-3882, and if you are outside the u.s., it is (202) 585-3883. already, folks are waiting to talk to you and ask you questions about it. amy is in shelbyville, indiana, on our line for republicans. amy, good morning, you were on with chairman goodman. caller: good morning to you, and it is so nice to talk to you. i have a question about donations to federal campaigns by foreigners, non-us citizens. i have heard that that is the illegal and i wanted to know,

isl, is that illegal or not my first question. and second of all, with campaigns selling t-shirts and ball point pens and all kind of campaign things that are sold on websites, and donations that can , doade on websites foreigners -- are they able to make donations to campaigns and hide that because it is being put on a credit card? of course, i have heard stories about the barack obama campaign getting a lot of donations that were coming through foreign servers that were in, you know, i don't know, germany or europe or something like that because they were being put on credit cars. host: amy, we will let's league of men answer your questions. guest: a, good questions. first, the law prohibits foreign citizens from making contributions to federal

campaigns. that is one law that i think all commissioners take quite seriously. as for the selling of t-shirts and pens online, sometimes t-shirts and pens are sold by vendors to make money. selling goods and services so long as a vendor is a bona fide vendor who wants to sell goods smith" or "ite for like smith," they can do that as long as it is a bona fide business transaction and does not result in a political contribution be made to the candidate commission on their commercial ware. as for websites, this can be a challenge. it has been a challenge for some campaigns. usually, however, when you make a donation using a credit card, you have to provide an address as well. campaigns have some responsibility of due diligence,

to check behind the address that is given in to ensure that the contributors giving to them are u.s. citizens or foreign nationals, resident alien status who are allowed to give as well, typically green cardholders. and it is a challenge especially for very large campaigns taking in many contributions -- you mentioned one that took in hundreds of thousands of contributions from small donors online, and that is a challenge, indeed, andy federal election commission remains vigilant to make sure that campaigns use their best efforts to ensure that the contributions they are receiving are from u.s. citizens. host: how many people do you have on staff doing that job and how many are on the enforcement side versus some of the regulatory, sort of rewriting the rulebook sigh that we were talking about? guest: you can challenge my knowledge of the size of each vision here, but we have about 350 employees in total at the

federal election commission. the annual budget of the commission is about $68 million. standards,government that is a small agency. we have a very good reports analysis division. these are the people who review all of the reports that come in, and there are about 30, 40 analysts who review all of the for hundreds and hundreds of local committees registered with the federal elections commission, and they are very good at what they do because of budget constraints. that division was cut significantly, and now we are trying to rebuild the division to give a thorough review of the reports filed with us. when they find mistakes, they write letters back to the committees, asking them to add supplemental information, and if problems arise, they can make referrals to our enforcement

division where there are probably another 30, 40 lawyers to investigate cases, prepared cases for presentation to the commission and the commission decides whether or not to enforce the law based on those recommendations. host: mike is waiting in texas on our line for democrats. mike, good morning. you're on with chairman lee goodman. caller: chairman goodman, thank you for taking my call. first of all, had the commission ever looked at the situation in which, for instance i am in texas, i am a county chair in a county, and i find that the oak brothers -- koch brothers, individual, gives money to candidates throughout our delegation but have a r behind their name and not a d behind her name, and i was born and i but not at night, and i would like you to respond what that means. and has the commission ever looked at the fact that spending

on the side of congressional candidates involves credit cards in which they spend money on, and they receive a large line of credit, and then the reddy car company simply does not collect the money and therefore giving him a contribution in that way. i will listen off the air. guest: mike, a white for your you for your call. if i understood your question, you are talking about how certain donors to to get to either republican or democratic candidates because the very definition of political support usually is partisan in our two-party system. i think it is quite common for some donors to choose to give to either republicans or democrats. i think that is a fairly common pattern. on your second question on credit cards and line of credit,

many campaigns take on goods and services on credit, and some do , and the "code of federal regulations" do cover in substantial detail the rules that govern the use of credit, the reporting of credit -- in other words when a campaign takes on debt, it must report thet at so that th public can see that debt, and the regulations require credit to be issued only in the ordinary course of business and due time.red in extended outside of the ordinary course of business, then yes, these tension of credit can be considered a contribution to the candidate's campaign, and he fec has a history of enforcing extraordinary extensions of

credit. however, campaigns are allowed as it isn debt so long within the ordinary course of business. host: terry o'brien have a question on twitter -- how is anyone supposed to understand these ridiculous campaign finance regulations? the answer is simple -- immediate disclosure. your thoughts? guest: well, we have a lot of disclosure right now. i let 78 2012 election cycle, over $7.3 billion -- as i said, andy 2012 election cycle, over $7.3 billion was disclose, and we make it immediately available on our website. host: fec.org. guest: absolutely. thank you for plugging that. www.fec.gov. we have a data center there and we have several applications on our website that help you find the data you may be interested in. you can search donor finance, you can search individual

committees, you can look at committee's actual reports filed come as we have a lot of data and we are working on our data to improve the presentation on the website as well. committees currently, that is campaign committees, currently report on a quarterly basis, every three months of they are reporting all of their si receipts and all of their disbursements on my to us. political action committees report on a monthly basis during an election year so you have more hyper disclosure there. there has been some suggestion that we can go to immediate .isclosure of contributions that would require a statutory change, and there are laws pending in congress to do that. i think that with technological developments, that is great promise. that is what i would call hyper disclosure or immediate disclosure. what you can lose with immediate disclosure is sometimes accuracy in the ability, personnel

cash-strapped campaigns to review their materials, to review their accounts, and to make it accurate when they do submitted. i think you would lose some accuracy be more pressure you put on them to report each disbursement and each contribution when it comes in -- host: they would be putting their books together at the end of every three months and a reporting period. campaignsolutely, and want to use their money tomarily to wage campaigns, put out messages, to organize follett tiers, to get the candidate out -- to organize volunteers, to be the candidate out to audiences. so the more pressure you put on the administrative side of the campaign, it draws from the ability to be able to speak on the matters that matter most to the public. so we want to find the right, delicate balance between administrative burdens on these the public'srsus

right to know and to know quickly. right now, that light has been drawn at monthly reporting for political action committees, quarterly reporting for campaigns, a lot of pre-election reporting outside of the , like beforeeframe election. i should also add that there are at least a dozen very good nonprofit organizations out there that are on a daily basis taking data from the fec's website, making it available to the public and even adding editorial content and other meaning to the data, and many journalists use those websites as well. just about any day you pick up a , you will find some auditory about who is spending how. they are getting that data because we do have a very good system of disclosure now. host: what is an example of one of those websites? guest: the sunlight foundation, and there are any number of others. wisconsin ono to

our line for independents, dave, the money, you were on with fec chairman lee goodman. caller: thank you for taking my call. in my opinion, the whole system is broken. by aggregate decisions ♪ b the supreme court has made it impossible for the average person to really have any kind of a say in this. all the candidates, democrat, republican, they have to spend so much of the time dialing for dollars, and for anybody out that once they get into office, that the money does not matter is either naïve or fooling themselves because decisions being made are made because of how they got there. that is just my opinion.

i cannot see how anybody else could see it any other way. host: mr. goodman, if you wanted -- the point that dave raises is at the heart of the national debate over campaign finance. -- whatinance campaigns i would ask dave and people like is thatonsider currently there are significant limits on any individual's ability to give to each candidate, so right now i can only give to congressman smith's peraign no more than $2600 election. congress drew that line as a judgment. that is not the only way to finance campaigns. in some states, like my home state of virginia, there are no campaign contribution limits at all. there are no source prohibitions will suck even corporations can evennlimited amount of --

corporations can give unlimited amounts of money. host: these are in state elections. guest: yes. other states have similar rules and much broader records and there is not a record of corruption in those systems. what i would ask dave to consider is that the federal level, none of this money that goes into campaigns goes into the pockets of the politicians. the politicians are not being bought like brides. absolutely prohibited by law. they're not enforced by the federal election commission. we enforce the money that goes to the campaign. give to candidates and elected congressman are limited to no more than $100 per year, and lobbyists are prohibited from giving gifts to congressman. see you have got a field of protection around our elected

officials. host: do you think those limits might be challenged now that we have seen what has happened in the mccutcheon case, that the aggregate limit, there might be further challenged to some of those other individual limits that you are laying out? guest: are you talking about limits on bribes and gifts? the individual candidate contribution limits, the $2600 limits, are used taking some will see towns is that might reach the supreme court? guest: i believe that in light of the mccutcheon decision and some of the language used by the court there, there are some people that are contemplating challenging other limits. the one that i think would be probably front and center from any people who are thinking aret challenging the limits the contribution limits to the parties, particularly state parties, local parties because i believe there is a lot of political science literature developing, that the parties are actually quite good and

constructive in the political process, and that the limits that have been imposed on them, especially at the state or local , not beneficial to the political system. look at the core decisions that have come out over the last five years by the court, not that the court is writing a team of horses, but if you look at the ability to spend in politics like a team of horses, some horses have gotten further out in front, and that has disadvantaged some of the other participants in the political process, particularly the political parties, and i believe the political parties are quite constructed to the political process, and i believe some people will be looking at challenging some of those limits. host: let's go to brian waiting in myrtle beach, south carolina on our line for republicans. good morning. caller: good morning. i had an experience recently

candidate'sed a messageand i had left a be gladey said we will to give your message, pass it along. well, could you please repeat the message back, and they said oh, no, i cannot do that. and it just hit me. i was wondering how, and that was, you know, with all of these that representatives and senators have, and people calling in, leaving these messages, i just wonder how many of these messages do get through to them. you might gethink a better response if you said you were a donor to one of those candidates? caller: i even said i was a donor.

i had given some good money and everything. i told them -- i called the office and i never heard anything back. expecthat should folks if they are a donor to a candidate? guest: you are also a voter and you certainly have the ability to vote. when you have an unresponsive public official, state official, local official or federal oficial -- the lifeblood being a democratic representative is to stay in touch with your constituents. it sounds like you did not get good constituent service. i wouldn't kurt him to write his representative. i would also encourage brian to get involved in politics in ways that don't require a lot of money. on an important subject to me, one of the best ways that

brian and others can get involved in the democratic process at no cost to them other than their time and energy is through state and local political parties. they are very accessible to people. they are at the state and local level, close to the people. all the politicians rely on and are involved in their parties. the parties have a way of channeling and organizing a lot of volunteer, grassroots political activity. smallre some of the most -- i would encourage you to not get that heard but to get more involved in the process. one way to do that is to be in your state and local local party. host: we talked about the mccutcheon case. how is money equals free speech fair to average americans? i'm a reader of supreme

court decisions just like the reviewers are. ruled6, the supreme court process,a democratic in order to rent a broadcast that should big media owns the printing presses and distribution capabilities newspapers -- for anybody else to use those facilities to communicate to the public, they have to rent space. rent space in the newspaper. rent time on the broadcast nation. because your ability to speak necessarily incurs a cost, the ability to spend in politics is a first amendment right. holding of that case

still holds true today. it is the core of all the other decisions that have come since that time. individual people can participate in politics bite cooling their resources -- by pooling their resources with others that they may be aligned with. you may want to donate to the sierra club if you're an environmentalist. you may be a person who likes to own guns and takes the second amendment quite seriously and you can join the nra. you can volunteer for a campaign or you can pour your money and to support campaigns. this is the way that ordinary people get involved. the there has been a great

democratize or called the internet. . any individual has a pretty impressive in his hands at a cost of about $300. that's a personal computer and internet access. over are bloggers all america who are having a say in the political process at very low cost. "i'm not concerned about how much money is given, but how much influence is bought." this go to marry in potomac, maryland on our life for democrats. what is the best wayr: to bring term limits on members of congress? guest: we don't regulate term limits o. many of the holdings regarding spending in politics has affected competitiveness of politics.

prior to coming to the federal election commission, i was a lawyer in private practice. i had one client that exercised its citizens united rights by getting involved in primary elections of long-standing incumbents that they thought had lost their way of both political parties. that exercising their citizens united rights, they could spend about $250,000 in a primary and help move the needle one way or the other. the people who founded that political action committee were people from the term limit movement of 10 years ago. having been frustrated in the term limits movement, they found , there is another way to affect term limits. that is through political competition. there is more political competition when more people can participate in the political

process. that is one of the benefits of citizens united. host: let's talk about the leadership the fec. more thant between no three republicans and no more than three democrats. you were nominated by president obama and recommended by mitch mcconnell back in september of last year. sworn in in october. evens your political party a factor when it comes to a leadership of the fec. in 1970 four, congress established the federal election commission is a bipartisan agency. to administer the laws. administering the laws of politics is quite a delicate and sensitive matter. if you were to like in the political process and regulation of it to a baseball game, or a football game, you would want one team to be able to appoint

all of the umpires and referees. all the balls and strikes and to call everybody out or safe at first race. teamlso would not want one to be able to write all the rules to their advantage. in the way many other agencies are run where a majority of commissioners of the fcc follow the presidency. congress very consciously and carefully drew up a commission that requires bipartisan support to take any particular action. opinion, toadvisory put in a new regulation or two taken enforcement action requires some element of bipartisanship. it takes four votes of the six. that is the way congress consciously drew it up. to draw the sports analogy one step further, if your team has a

great pitcher, you would like to draw up the rules for a broader strikes him. is known for its hitting, you would like to draw the strike zone to be very narrow to help ureters. the same can be true of the rules of the political process. -- to help your hitters. it adds accountability to those of us who regulate the process. it requires us to be fair and subject ourselves to bipartisan efforts to gain support. host: let's go to harry in georgia on our line for independents. caller: thank you, sir. i have a couple of things. i wanted to ask, what would be the rationale for anyone to give money to a candidate who is not a constituent?

,ince the question was raised since there is no test for oficers of a court citizenship, there are several foreign nationals or officers in the u.s. corporations. why do corporations need outside ofpeech citizens speech? they have the same political rights as a citizen. they don't need rights as a corporation. i would like to stay on the line to hear the answer because my computer is buffering. i understood your first question, i believe you're liveg me, why would i -- i in the fifth district of virginia -- why would i take an interest in a senate race in another state like south carolina or georgia? why would i want to give money in those races? was that your first question?

yes, sir. that is correct. elections are national. all of us are affected by what happens in congress and all of us have a first amendment right to speak even outside of our new residence. if i can harken back to a historical reference point -- i grew up in this new south. as a student of civil rights, i remember the claims and criticisms of what some people called outside agitators. why would one person come into my state and try to influence the public affairs of my area? states and theed united states congress affects all of our rights. we are not limited to just where we reside and how we voice our support for candidates. some candid in another state may have an issue that really

matters to me. politicians, it might not matter as much to me. i may want to step outside my state and support a candidate in another state because i really believe in what they stand for. as to the second question about in the citizens united decision, the supreme court held up u.s. domestic corporations are associations of people. that is really easy to understand where you have a small corporation up 2-3-10 .hareholders it is easy for those people to be themselves as an association of people with a common interest. people have a harder time seeing that, but i think it is the same if youcally even a fe are a large corporation of thousands of shareholders.

putting their economic interest, which is a time-honored right, people still might associate around that economic interest and want to voice their support for or against issues or for an or against candidates. those corporations have the same andts as other groups associations whether they are incorporated, for-profit, unincorporated. jasonone question that asked our previous guest -- he was concerned about the amount of waste in money and brainpower that goes into elections in this country. waste was the term he used. he offered setting a limit of $200,000 for each candidate to

be able to raise and then spend on their campaigns. your thoughts on that -- guest: early on in the earlier days of the federal election campaign act, hundreds try to impose limits -- tried to impose limits on how much money they could spend to get out their message. they ruled that is an unconstitutional violation of freedom of speech. to say you can only speak up to $200,000 and you can speak no more. -- ir waste, i don't know is concerned that there might be too much speech. i don't know that we should limit people's freedom to speak .n are subjec we should leave it to the marketplace for political

parties and campaigns to decide how much they want to speak. thinkillion -- i don't that was too much speech for the democracy to sustain. host: we will go to robert in south carolina on our life for republicans. you're on with lee goodman. caller: thanks for c-span. i will try not to give you too many questions here. but i'm very concerned about where our country is going. yourt to listen to response to these questions. why the american people so apathetic about the election process? general and midterm. how can we get term limits among the senators and congressmen?

american apathy in some cases is a choice. i believe we should support democratic institutions that go out and encourage people to register and vote. let me come back to the issues of the parties. that has been the greatest benefit to the political process. they go out and register people and identify voters and encourage them to vote for the candidates here and we have largely shut the political parties out of the process and diminish their role. promote in policy and enforcement policy is to free up the political parties so they can get back to what they do best. there are many nonprofit organizations from the right to the left of the spectrum, from tea parties to the naacp that regularly go out and enlist

people to participate in the process. i would hate to see the irs issue new rules that diminish the role of nonprofit organizations that go out and register people and harness their votes. the: lee goodman is chairman of the federal election commission. you can see all the work the fec does at fec.gov. we thank you for joining us today. up next in our spotlight on magazine series, we will focus on reporter keith johnson's report in foreign policy magazine which discusses russian president vladimir putin using energy exports as a political weapon. here's a news update from c-span radio. >> more election news this hour from jeremy peters writing for the new york times. that former hhs secretary kathleen sibelius is -- several democrats

said that mrs. aviles had been mentioned with growing frequency as someone who could wages here is a challenge to senator roberts was running for a fourth term and is considerable verbal. one person who spoke directly to saysleen sibelius that she was thinking about it but it was too soon to say how seriously she was taking the idea. it is just last week that she said she would step down from her cabinet job. she will have until june 2 to decide as the deadline for filing for the senate primary in kansas. thecommerce department says u.s. home construction rose in march to the highest level in three months. construction of single-family homes rose 6%. offsetting a 3.1% drop in the construction of apartments, condominiums and townhouses. applications for building , clouding the

outlook for future construction. president obama and joe biden traveled to pennsylvania today to announce $600 million in new competitive grants for training and apprenticeship programs that they say could help people and well-paying jobs. the announcement takes place at a community college in western pennsylvania. some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. newome of the administrators early on who are not lawyers gave the kids badly lit by switch was, don't tell your parents. don't get lawyers. cooperate with the police. gave -- duke thought they had legal exposure because of that. beyond that, there was this desire to make this go away and protect the duke brand and make sure -- once it was decided

these kids were innocent, the last thing duke wanted was to have to litigate with them about all that happened. the easiest thing to do is pay him his $20 million and have them sign nondisclosure agreements which also displays why they're not talking to me or have not talked to anybody since they settled. clear why dukely felt the need to pay these kids -- people get wrongly convicted all the time. there are places who defend those kinds of people and try to reverse the judgments that were made. examples of people wrongly convicted for murder, spending 18 years in prison -- 18 years and getting $20,000 of payments a year as a result. no time in jail

, no time in prison and got $20 million. >> in the price of silence, author and duke alum william d cohan looks at the duke scandal of 2006. >> washington journal continues. host: each week in this segment of the washington journal, we put a spotlight on a recent magazine piece. we are joined by keith johnson of foreign policy to talk about his recent report -- prudent putin aims his energy weapon at your. to europe. gas what is russia doing with its natural gas supply? guest: in terms of supply, russia has not done anything yet. ,hat they have done in the past since the fall of the soviet union, russia has used gas weapons on 50 occasions.

this is straight out of the playbook of the post-soviet russian state. to use the fact that they are huge supplier of natural gas as a weapon to influence what other states do. since the start of this crisis, they have not shut off supplies. they have threatened to. the main thing they have done is jack up the prices severely. that adds to the stress for the new government in kiev. host: why does this matter to the greater eu? guest: europe gets a big portion of its gas from russia. the biggest single supplier for the european union's russia. goes across ukraine. depending on what happens in the dynamics between russia and ukraine, you could physically disrupt the amount of gas that gets into europe. that matters for heating and electricity. it matters a bit less now that

we're in the springtime. in the past, russian gas was cut off in the winter when you could feel it. it is more acute in april and may. not such a big bill. host: let's talk supply and demand as we show our viewers a few of these charts here. the first is the chart from the energy information administration. russian gasis iran,ves, followed by qatar and the united states. how big is the russian supply on the world market? guest: they're the ones who supply europe -- there are small quantities that should be going east to china. that is one of the things on the discussion this week and next month. he will go to china -- to vladimir putin will go to china. -- you heard about the

natural gas boom in the u.s. true.s right now, that is all for domestic consumption. the u.s. may start exporting gas in a few years. other than mexico and transfers to canada, it is not really a big exporter at this point. the share of russia's natural gas exports by definition from 2012. big singleany is the buyer. the smaller eastern european are actually quite vulnerable as well. many of them are 100% dependent on russian gas. you look at the case of the baltic states, belarus, ukraine. the further west you get, the u.k., spain, france have all alternatives like north africa and norway.

as you move from east to west, the dependence lessons a bit. host: explain how russia controls its gas supplies. guest: it is a state dominated gas giant. they have a very close relationship between the company and the kremlin. while being treated as a public company, it is very much used to support russian state policy. gastimes, the kremlin and company are in conflict. there will be times when vladimir putin has to say to officials, i prefer you to do this or that. let's try to make a deal with the chinese and get some other markets so that we are not so dependent on a single set of customers. host: they have a board membership that letter has to go to? the dynamicst know over there exactly. it is definitely a situation unlike exxon mobil in the u.s.

which works on its interest and the interest of its shareholders. they have a different relationship with political powers. host: let's talk about the strategic importance of ukraine and the movement of this gas across europe. here's a map showing the natural gas flows through the ukraine pipeline. becomes a choke point for a lot of these pipelines. been the store owner ability between russia and europe. if you go back to 2006 and 2009, both times there were shutouts in the dead of winter of russian gas, which affected not just ukraine but customers further downstream. was still going straight through ukraine. when that happened, european union was a bit upset because

ukraine has not always been the most reliable transit state. there were allegations in the past that they were siphoning some of the gas meant to be shipped downstream for their own use. the russians certainly blamed ukraine for being an unreliable middleman. that is why, in recent years, russia has been trying to run around ukraine. there is a northern pipeline that is already operational and a southern pipeline that russia is trying to build. the idea is to continue supplying gas to europe and could ukraine out of the equation. host: russia is starting to raise prices on ukraine. it does ukraine have any sort of strength position in this? could they cut these pipelines and stop russia from sending its natural gas on west? guest: if they did that, they would end up harming the states and the european union that are nominally supporting them right with the imfng

loans. they just sign an agreement with the european union. the idea is not to anger the other countries in europe. the leverage ukraine has a somewhat limited at this point. one of the good things for ukraine and europe is that it was a warm winter and we are coming into spring. coldn't have these ice temperatures as we did in 2006 and 2000 nine. your demands for gas and heating are lower. gas torch levels are relatively high. that ukraineshion could hold out for a few months even if they cut off supplies. host: how much cushion does russia have? these exports are such a big part of their economy. this is why it's such a double-edged sword. we always talk about europe and ukraine's owner ability for the

need to get russian energy. three quarters of sales are going to these european customers. it's $100 million a day. if europe were to boycott russian gas and say, forget it, we are not going to buy your product anymore, it would be a pretty serious economic head to moscow right now. host: we're talking with keith johnson of foreign policy on our .potlight on magazine series if you have comments or questions for him as we go , you can callory in. republicans can call (202) 585-3881. .emocrats, (202) 585-3880 .ndependents, (202) 585-3882 mac is waiting in pennsylvania. an independent. caller: good morning.

this ongoing drama between ukraine and russia is like america at play. there are no good actors on either side. the ending can only be tragic. this is one of the situations -- a lot of people have talked in the past about the problem in ukraine. ofot of corruption and a lot crony business associates. a large part of the culture that existed before the december uprising was due to this natural gas trade anyway. question from james on twitter. haven't we announced that we are going to plot all the stops to expedite natural gas exports to europe? guest: they have been quite

vocal in response to european requests for u.s. gas. the problem is, the u.s. right can't actually ship natural gas to europe. years in a couple of there will be some limited quantities that could become available from terminals being built on the gulf coast. by 2018, theoretically, we could have maybe 4-5 terminals where they can make those huge tankers liquefy the natural gas and ship it around. in four years time, you could start to send some very modest volumes. a u.s. gas company. these are private companies that work in the u.s.. they contracts with their own customers. it i they already have contracts to to customers in india or

japan. it's not a question of the white house picking up the phone and saying, hey, send gas to germany. they needed. portsmouth, ohio on our line for republicans. caller: thank you for c-span. think that this may spark an interest in a more renewable energy source for these baltic and european nations? specifically germany. 24% -- that may make them go to a better energy source and get away from this natural gas from russia and cut that ability of russia to impose these embargoes. guest: absolutely. germany has begun its transition. it is making a big bet on renewable energy because it is phasing out nuclear power and

needs to replace that. crisishe wake of this come advocates of her noble energy have another arrow to say this is domestic. no matter what he does, he can't shut up our windmills or solar panels. old,ink of ukraine as an petrol stay.control state.ol wonderful and twitter offers up this comment energy as a using biblical weapon. what major world powers don't do that?" do a boycott in

order to put financial pressure on the exporter. generally, you have to be the exporter. allies have its used sanctions related to the energy sector in the case of iran to try to modify their behavior. it is a slightly different situation. a prettyan case is clear and consistent pattern of using one foreign-policy lever with pretty consistent ends. host: michelle waiting in colorado on our line for democrats. caller: good morning. recentlyering, i heard that the russian oil company as opposed to start drilling in the gulf of mexico in partnership with exxon mobil. guest thinks our

that perhaps president obama is considering cutting off that type of drilling as retaliation for what putin has been doing. sounds like a logical thing to me. i know we're not trying to push him too hard. if things go this nasty, it's an option. inst: how far can you go terms of sanctions or punishments? obviously, the energy sector is sanctioning russian companies' abilities to the u.s. business. attacking their ability to attract financing in the international market is another way to clip its wings. there is a number of energy firms in russia that over the course of years have shown

interest to joint ventures and other operations with u.s. majors and european majors. some of those are very quietly moving along during this crisis. some projects are put on hold. it has not so far been all cooperation between u.s. firms and russian firms. southtalk about the stream pipeline and what that is. we will show a map of where that is expected to go. the blue line on this map. guest: this is the second leg to go around ukraine and bypass ukraine as a transit point. of thes the second half russian plan to keep supplying gas to europe but cut ukraine out of the equation. the north stream going through the baltic is already done. what is the problem? to complystream needs with european union regulations in order to become fully

operational. as a result of this crisis, the european union is quite obviously slow walking all of the legal and technical work on the pipeline. right now, at this point in time, the european union is saying, we will not give you this type of legal approval you need in order to get this south stream operational while the ukraine situation is ongoing. a comment from carly in minneapolis, minnesota writes in -- "will be a capitalist or a -- will putin become a conqueror?"r a guest: this was the initial thrust of the western reaction. what is the impact on the wealthy individuals? what is the impact on the oligarchs? what is the impact on the

russian financial markets? we sell the stock exchange in moscow take a huge hit. it is going to be more difficult in the future for russian firms to access capital in international markets if this sort of thing continues. there may come a point when you get pressure from firms that no longer do what they need to do because of political climate. that has not been reached yet. it is certainly one of the levers that the u.s. and the west could try to push. host: we're talking with keith johnson of foreign policy on our series.t on magazines putin aims his energy weapon at ukraine. you can check it out on foreign policy.com. we have about 20 minutes left with him. we want to hear your comments on this subject as well. daniel is in pennsylvania on our

line for independents. good morning. caller: good morning. , when will europe give its gas -- where will europe give its gas gave russia cuts off gas? field is developing a gas off the coast of israel. iran has the largest reserves of natural gas and they are trying iraq andct with th syria to build a pipeline to supply europe. there is all the conflict over there. could all of this conflict be over competition? guest: to answer the first where will europewil

give its gas? gas needs are much smaller in the summertime. if it were an immediate shutoff, europe could doubly meet its .eeds it would not be impossible to restore some egyptian production . they were a big exporter to southern europe as well. they have had some issues lately. -- you a number of areas could take care of europe in the short term. longer term, as soon as next winter, you have a volume that would be difficult to meet without russian gas. it is going to be a couple of years before any volume of u.s. gas will be exported. there are sanctions in place in iran.

the eastern mediterranean gas all have potentially large gas reserves. there is a lot of confusion and doubt as to whether those projects will be built, how they will be brought to market and when they will be brought to market. the eastern mediterranean could be the solution. that will be maybe by the end of the decade. it was a european union pipeline idea after the first big showoff in 2006. they were concerned about not just russian supply but ukrainian transit. the idea was to get some gas from the caspians. they weren't exactly sure where. the idea was to get some gas to central asia -- gas from central

asia and find another supplier. it was a bit difficult -- it was a european union project. in the end, died. there is now an alternative pipeline that would bring some gas from azerbaijan. the volumes are not huge, but every bit helps. go to bury in maryland on our line for democrats. barry.s go to conflict going on in the middle east is all about resources. the united states has overthrown 80 governments and it's all about resources since 1953. the united states is hypocritical. praetorian ew

the democratically elected government of ukraine. and now they are complaining about the russian separatists who are peacefully wanting to break away from the ukraine and that these saying folks are terrorists. read a story earlier in the show about the ukrainian government sending in troops into some of those eastern provinces with some of the unrest that is going on there. how secure are these pipelines underground if we are starting to move to these sorts of actions? inst: when we first started crimea, from an energy point of view, yes, it was strategic for

ukraine and there is a naval base there, but neither terminal was in the crimean peninsula. silver lining to crimea was, this does not affect the transit. however, you start getting into the eastern provinces, that is right where you have the transit pipelines coming through. russia has said since the beginning, they want to keep maintaining the supply and a high price. it is not in their ages right now to cut out the supplies of gas. that is $100 million a day. if you start getting some anflict up there and you have risk of pipeline disruption, this is where you start to see europe scrambling and lining up those alternative supplies we talked about earlier. host: tim in wisconsin on our line for democrats. the morning. caller: good morning. my main question that i was going to bring up as already been addressed -- has already been addressed.

this is going to be a great opportunity for wind power that can be scaled up relatively quickly on the european area. was suggestedthat before. to broaden that out a bit, europe for a number of years has been trying to be cleaner in the wade uses energy. be cheaper trying to and help consumers have more choice. it has been trying to enhance its energy security. these are the three big pillars of what they have been trying to do. they clash a lot and don't always work in the same direction. that is why the european union is calling it a trilemma. the interesting thing about this crisis is it but a special emphasis on energy security rather than just a climate west just a climate question. you see articles in the german press saying, r putin can't shut

up our wind turbines -- vladimir putin can't shut off our wind turbines or solar panels. host: we are talking about your story in foreign policy. how long have you been covering energy issues? guest: off and on for 10 years with the wall street journal. renewables,oil, rubles, gas, iraq. host: have you been to russia? guest: i'm trying to speak with the folks and go to see what exactly the situation is right now. it is a publicly traded company and has some duties to its shareholders.

i would like to take a deeper look at that. i have not heard back yet. host: let's go to steve on our line for independents in chicago. caller: good morning. i've been looking at this since 1982. i had my first data computers looking at resource issues and mexicofieldwork in concerning their petroleum reserves. is what-term issue here kind of currency will emerge from a chinese-russian gas distribution system? with the russian reserves of gas , the chinese is a logical market for them to go to. whatever the germans may do in the dominante factor. i could be very wrong about this. of gasracteristics

production is very problematic for the u.s. and the longer term no matter what the propaganda is. guest: this is a fantastic point. we have had our eye on this the relationship between russia and europe when it comes to energy. the elephant in the room is russia and china's relationship. grown.997, china has russia is a massive energy exporter. the marriage waiting to happen has been waiting since the late 1990's. the biggest single problem was price. the chinese did not want to pay european gas prices and the russians wanted to keep charging european-style gas prices and . the russian foreign minister was in beijing on tuesday.

president putin is going to beijing next month. everyone expects this will be the final signing of this long-awaited gas deal between russia and china and this is going to really change the dynamics. china will be getting natural gas at a decent price. russia will be able to maneuver away from europe, which will change europe's relationship with russia. effects on other asian countries as well. they could benefit by having additional gas in the market. andfuture of russian chinese energy relations will be a game changer. host: johnny in oklahoma on our line for republicans. caller: good morning. europe, asn developed as they are, do they have a hand to mouth feed for natural gas?

uproarl the political putin is creating, iscreati there a contingency plan? , but: is not hand to mouth they are not quite as robust in terms of storage capacity as we are in the u.s. it has gotten better. these were lessons learned in the past decade from other gas shallots. the interconnections -- these are 28 individual companies in the european union. not like 50 states. is a bit trickier. having said that, europe right now does have gas supplies in storage and can hold out for a few months. one of the things they have been doing in the short term

is reversing pipeline flows. germany gets some gas from tosia. they can pump that poland and hungary through the back door and ukraine. there is a contractual problem that has not happened yet. there is the sort term contingency plan for europe to be supplying ukraine, which is normally a gas re-exporter. host: we talked about the impact and ukraine of what's going on with this crisis over there and the energy imports from russia. what is the next country that probably will be the most affected by this ongoing crisis? we talk about energy supplies from russia to these different countries. who is the next most horrible? guest: everybody in the east is vulnerable. if you talk with folks in the baltic region, they are 100% dependent on russian gas.

the lithuanians are building a floating terminal. it is a temporary facility that will enable them to bring tankers into the baltic and they can get enough gas to meet their own needs. they are scrambling to get that ready within 10 months. they are petrified. ally of then kremlin. they are also completely under the thumb. the central european countries like slovakia and hungary are , so they don't even have the ability to build a floating terminal. the further east you go, the more scared and dependent they are. host: some of them are featured on this chart. importsa, 92% of its

come from russia. slovakia, 98%. poland, 91%. bulgaria, 90%. hungry and 86%. germany, 30% of its energy imports coming from russia. those charts courtesy of the wall street journal. in california on our line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. one of your previous colors touched on this. c one of your previous allers touched on this. china has made no secret that it is thinking of itself as a challenger to u.s. dominance. , that being the case , the borders russia and china share and this upcoming gas contract that the western powers

would be at some pain to stay .riendly with russia it did not seem to be very diplomatic. guest: it is a great point. a great political author wrote a book a couple of years ago in which he specifically talked about the idea of the west and head using russia as a against rising china. they were not willing to join that party. until this crisis in the ukraine am a japan had an intensifying its relationship with russia, looking at new natural gas deals, trying to finally end of world war ii. as a way to hedge against a very aggressive neighbor they see in china. that is on hold a bit for now.

,uring the crimean annexation senior officials were still in talk you talking about major investments. it is an idea that has not quite coalesced. from roger green -- "nothing but mass energy exports to the area will make a difference. the state department was blind to the threat and remains ignorant in responding." -- "why hero joe writes are we fighting over the gas supply in eurasia? why not put energy into building a pipeline here in america?" guest: i would not say that the state department has been blind to the threat. bureau thatentire is responsible for nothing but energy diplomacy. that ambassador was just an ukraine talking about immediate measures and longer-term measures. one of the things that the u.s. government does is try to help spread shale gas technology

around the world. the more countries that can actually exploit their own shale gas reserves, it is better for thee in rime and because it's cleaner burning than coal, the more gas you can put into the global supply and you pushed rice is down. push prices down. , weerms of u.s. pipelines have plenty of gas pipelines. there is one our sand pipeline coming up from canada known as keystone which has been contentious. that would not do anything at all for u.s. energy security. towson, maryland on our line for independents. the morning. -- good morning. caller: good morning, sir. i have a two-part question. what sanctions has president russiamplemented against

and letter putin -- vladimir putin? have they had a detrimental effect on russia? the u.s. priority has been to assist countries that do need a military power help. the u.s. has not done anything to help the ukraine. could this be a bigger gasroversy to increase prices? guest: in terms of the sanctions, the first was on individuals. it was not of the highest ranking individuals. there was speculation between th before the sanctions came out that some of p utin's inner circle would be targeted.

that was not the case. limited effect so far, which is why the u.s. and european officials are talking about round two. the heavy artillery would be to go after the heads of gas and make it difficult for these heavyweights within the russian economy to do business with the west. that would be more problematic. host: how close of thais do those folks have with the oil and gas industry here in the u.s.? guest: it depends. the oil company has joint ventures with u.s. firms and foreign firms. there is a project on the table for the black sea. while companies do business with each other or talk about doing business with each other all over the world. there are multi-year, multibillion-dollar projects. all oil companies are talking with each other all the time. energy sanctions

regime put in place, it would freeze a lot of those conversations. he asks whether this was all an effort to pump up oil and gas prices around the world. price is not a global gas price. gas prices are regional. we have cheap gas here and european gas prices are what they are. in terms of oil prices, ukrainian situation does not lot to do with gas the oil prices. cliff in ohio to on our live for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. about peoplerried in other countries when this multitude of

resources -- it has nothing to do with us. it is to get our minds off what is going on here. kind of like the malaysian plane. what can we do about that? what's going to happen here, -- the texansia and take itthe oil away from the eastern southerners realize the oil is not going to be any good in this country because it's polluting the atmosphere and everything and they are going to move up here. that is what they are slowly trying to do. as in ohioan, i'm not going to do it. int: let's go to john richmond, va on our line for republicans. caller: i have a question