amendment in a way that at the least we are going to have years and years of litigation. but i do not mind that personally. what we are going to have beyond that is a significantly diminished ability to have this sort of ongoing confrontation at length that we have in our electoral process. the 2012 election in my view was a good example of this system working. there was lots of money out there. there was lots of speech. people heard, sometimes more than they wanted to, but they heard the views of the parties and had a chance to vote. that is way the system ought to work, and that is threatened by this legislation -- this amendment. >> professor raskin says the supreme court's decision in citizens united eliminated the

provision that kept trillions of dollars in corporate wealth flowing into federal campaigns. i think that is a misleading description of the case. as i read it, the citizens united case involved a nonprofit organization, not a wealthy for-private corporation, and the case did not involve campaign contributions at all. am i right? >> it left standing the contribution sections. >> we have seen a flood of corporate wealth flooding into campaigns since the citizens united decision? >> we have seen a lot of individuals giving money. we have seen an increase in the amount of money from what i call main street rather than wall street. but we have not seen is precisely what was predicted.

we have not seen enormous sums, let alone trillions of dollars, from the biggest companies in america flowing into the electoral process. that just has not happened. >> my time is up, mr. chairman. >> senator schumer? i might note there are two roll call votes on the floor. there is an effort to keep the committee hearing continued. senator schumer? >> thank you, mr. chairman, and i appreciate leader reid and leader mcconnell being here as well. i have been really surprised at the level of rhetoric that we have heard from senator mcconnell and senator cruz. i think they want to replace logic with hyperbole. the bottom line is senator mcconnell said how shockingly bad this proposal is. i will tell you what most americans think is shockingly bad, that our system has become

distorted by a few who have a lot of money drowning out the voices of the others. when john stuart mills said the answer to restrictions of speech is more speech, he did not just mean from one side. the world did not exist that way then. but it exists now. then senator cruz said americans would gasp if they heard what incumbents are trying to do. -- what democrats are trying to do. i will tell you what makes the american people gasp, is that a small handful of people can have a huge effect on our political system and not just offending incumbents. what a canard that is. most of the money that has come from the super pacs and for many of these groups are knocking out incumbents, particularly those from the other side, whether republican or democrat. senator cruz said we should be embarrassed about this amendment? i will tell you, senator cruz, i am embarrassed about how this

system is distorted by literally billions of dollars coming into the system undisclosed, unregulated, and unanswered. and senator cruz, maybe he considers himself to be a constitutional expert. he knows that no amendment is absolute. his rhetoric is over the top and makes it seems like if you support this amendment you're against the first amendment. i want to ask you, senator cruz, are you against anti-child pornography laws? he is not here. if he against anti-child pornography laws? is he an absolutist on the first amendment? does he think everybody should be allowed to falsely scream fire in a crowded theater, and if anybody's opposed to that, are they opposed to the whole first amendment against free speech? libel laws? if you're for libel laws, does

that mean you're against free speech and you are against the first amendment? absolutely not. we have always had. balancing tests for every amendment some of my college on the other side believe there should be one for the second amendment. i believe there should, but i believe there is a right to bear arms. i do not like seeing it through a pinhole. that is neither here nor there. we have always had balancing tests for every amendment. they are not absolute. and to say that you cannot have some regulation when billions of dollars cascade into the system, and that is unconstitutional? it is false. it is absolutely false. it is against 100 years of the tradition in this country, and we know what is going on here. i guarantee you that senator mcconnell would not have flipped his position, particularly on disclosure, if the vast majority of the money, unregulated money,

coming into the system were from democrats, not republicans. we know that, because i remember him being here, the strongest advocate of disclosure. we cannot get a republican to be on a single disclosure bill. i'm sure even mr. abrams would agree that this closure, the supreme court agrees, is not against the first amendment. >> yes. yes, that is correct. >> and i believe he would believe this is closure would be salutary. even if you are not for limiting the amount of money you get. do you agree with that? >> yes. >> to say when it comes to money there should be no balance contests, but when it comes other parts of this amendment and other amendments there should be a balancing test is logically false, demonstrably false. and all the rhetoric, the overheated rhetoric, the hyperbole that we heard from

senator cruz just defies logic, device constitutional tradition, and it is not going to make us back down. i do not believe the koch brothers are being denied their rights or would be under any legislation this congress would pass. i do not believe it is the same exact heart of the constitution, the same dearness that we hold in free speech, to get up on a soapbox and make a speech or to publish a broadside or a newspaper, as it is to put the 11,427th ad on the air, so your opponent cannot get a word in. i do not believe that is in the spirit of free speech, not just today, but when james madison, thomas jefferson, and our great, great founders, the most brilliant group of men ever

assembled, in my opinion, people, although they were just men -- i wish there were some women there -- [laughter] i think of thomas jefferson would look down on what is proposed here he would agree with it. he would agree that the first amendment cannot be absolute. he would agree that to keep a democracy going you cannot have a handful of a few who are so wealthy that they can influence the process and drown out the voices of the others. any of us who has run for offices and against one of the super pacs knows you can distribute a leaflet and answer it, but the way our political system works on it does not systemway our political works, you don't have a choice. i would like to get back to a fact-based debate on this

matter. first amendment has always, always, always had a balancing test. it did then. it does now. if there were ever is a balance that is needed, it is to restore some semblance of one person, one vote, some equality that the founders sought in our political system. i have gone over my time because i was a little bit excited. [laughter] >> ok, they are asking us to take a brief recess or i will miss the vote, which will be monumental. we will return very soon when senator durbin returns. thank you very much. we are in recess. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> tomorrow, on our companion network, c-span 3 will take you to the center for strategic and international studies for a discussion of china-russia andtions with stapleton roy the former national security adviser for president carter. , the homeland security committee will examine the security along the u.s. border with officials from u.s. customs and border protection, the u.s. office of special counsel, and the national border patrol council. now, if you wait until the thing shows up, that is the worst, the cheaper alternative, you have waited too long. expensiveer and less good in the case of air navigation example, we had companies like tom-tom and garmin and magellan and they knew that the smart, starting to take off.

they understood it was possible that somebody who will, apple, some meals, would launch an application -- a navigation app. but they said we don't see any threat yet. we will show -- we will respond when it shows up. when it did show up, it took off and you had millions of people saying this was better and cheaper. this is worse and more expensive. which 1 am i going to choose? by then, it was too late for them to respond. incumbent businesses of any kind need to start looking much earlier into the lifecycle of new technology and recognize that even before there is a product there will be a lot of experiments going on. many of them are very visible. they are in the market, things like kickstart her and other funding sources. we say that is the moment when you should get worried. >> how technology is changing the way companies do business monday on "the communicators."

>> georgia senator saxby chandler's attended a sub security summit in washington, d c he talked about legislation he is working on with diane feinstein to address cyber security issues. the discussion was hosted by bloomberg government. it is about 40 minutes. you to sam and to josh and thank you for all of you being here and most importantly to senator challis who raced here from urgent business i capital here. -- capitol hill. there is important discussions going on with regard to cyber security and these issues. you are a critical player. some folks on the hill and folks

on the committee look into these issues as well. let's get to the news of the day. you are having a conversation with your counterpart diane feinstein on the intelligence committee about some of these very issues, business and .overnment collaboration you are working on a piece of legislation with her. can you give us an update on where that bill stands? me just sayall, let to bloomberg thanks for doing this. i will probably say again tried to get people excited about cyber security. most people's eyes glaze over. we have to do a better job of educating people around the country and you folks in this room can help us do that. so thanks to bloomberg for doing this. secondly, i want to thank sam about his comment about you folks being anxiously awaiting for me to speak.

when congress has a single digit approval rating, to know that anybody might be anxious to hear us, that's pretty good from my perspective. [laughter] [applause] so thank you, sam. let me just preface my comment on where we are on the legislation with two things. been on the, i've armed services committee and the intel services committee. obviously, we get regular briefings on any number of national security issues. i daresay that we do not have a briefing on any national security issue where the issue of cyber security is not involved and is not mentioned. it is simply on everybody's mind today. if i had to guess where our next conflict is going to occur, it is probably not going to be with boots on the ground. it is probably going to be in the area of cyber because of the

fact that we have so much activity in the world of cyber security today. secondly, here is what i hope is not happen. congress has to have a reaction to a bad incident in order for us to enact a comprehensive bill on cyber security. because we know it is out there so because we know it is important to the business community as well, it is incumbent on us to act on it. but here is our problem. trying to get the american people involved has been difficult. difficult it has been is that cyber security is not a roadmap. a blood and guts issue. it is a technical detailed issue.

when i say we shouldn't have to to getbad incident everyone's attention, we have inside with nieman marcus and the others you have heard about. those it happened to particular private sector entities, but it did raise the profile of the issue in the minds of the public to the extent that people all of a sudden are starting to say, hey, this could happen to me. i hear more and more when i go back home. i hear because people know i am involved in the issue. my colleagues have not heard much about it. again, that is why it is important for you to help us educate people out there. diane and i have been working on a piece of legislation for about a year and a half now. the issue is so complex, as all of you know, that it is difficult to try to get your arms around the issue in a compensability.

historically, as we did with the lieberman: bill a couple of years ago, the democrats come up with a built-in the republicans come up with a bill. it is just the opposite and we spent time on the floor and ultimately nothing happens. the votes aren't there to do anything. so diane and i took a different approach. we both said, lo, you have a different idea than i do about some aspects of cyber security but it isn't part of that we sit down and have a serious negotiation on resolving those differences. that is what we have been doing for a year and a half. we are down now to just a couple of provisions that we are still talking about that we've got to resolve before we can bring a bill to committee. i am confident when we bring it to committee, we will have a bill come out with a big vote and it will be a bipartisan bill. a bill that senator reed will and say, hey, that is

the kind of bill we can have a discussion on what we are down to now is liability protection and the issue of how an entity -- a private sector entity reports something funny i guess is the way i would did because it may not necessarily be a cyber attack. but the private sector entities see something come across its i.t. world. our bill says that we will create a portal at the department of homeland security and that that private sector entity will report that activity to that portal and there will be immediate real-time -- that is the key. this is an area where we had some disagreement and we had to resolve. but we did resolve it. there will be a real-time sharing of data information

across the sector of the federal government that has an involvement and across the private sector that has an involvement. today, and here is where we have a little bit of a disagreement and we have to resolve it -- today, if a financial entities sees something come across and its i.t. folks say, hey, it's not right, they will generally pick up the phone and call the department of treasury, let's say, that they have a relationship with. they know the i.t. folks at treasury. they will call them up and say, ok, this is what i am seeing. and treasury will he merely react to it and talk it through and figure out whether a countermeasure is necessary. if it is, they will carry it out and if it isn't, they will mark it up and say keep your eye on it or whatever. under our bill, as it is written today, it is you disclose that information to dhs at that

portal and it has been disseminated and a countermeasure is taken, the private sector will have immunity from liability because it went to the portal. what they would not have immunity for under that is the outside the portal conversation that the financial entity in my example had with the department of treasury. that is a pretty major difference. the reason it is is because this type of liability has been pacific we requested by government entities like the fbi and nsa and other entities who have this relationship today. so we are trying to figure out how to solve that and i am confident that we will figure something out here we have to figure something out. say thatfair to senator feinstein has a different view on how that

liability ought to be extended? >> she does. we are at the point now where we are counting votes and there are a lot of private sector -- excuse me, a lot of privacy advocates that want it a certain way. you know, when you go to counting votes, you have to make sure that you pacify both sides of that privacy issue. and she has concerns about that, i think it is safe to say. that is where we are but we are getting close. >> getting close and i don't need to remind you, senator, you are not running for reelection. you are not going to be in this town to money months longer. something that you feel a certain level of confidence this can get done in this congress before you leave? >> for two reasons, it can get done. number one, it is a bipartisan bill. that rings a bell in harry may's mind versus a bill

come out of judiciary committee, .et's say, with a partisan vote it would probably have no chance on the floor. a bipartisan bill will have a chance on the floor. secondly, the need for it. i mean, if we don't do it between now and the end of the year and it is thrown over to , the house isess going to have a new influx of members. the senate will have a new influx of members. the balance of power may change and you are looking at a year from now and i am betting you nothing will be done. so in my mind it is critically important and i know the leadership on both sides, folks as well aso reid's folks. on the house side, that is a whole other fight, isn't it? i havetor feinstein and

a great working relationship personal. rufus berg and rogers have a great relationship personally. previousof us, unlike house and senate intel committee's that have been like this, we have worked very well together. we pre-conference all of our authorization bills and other matters like this we talked through early on. we have been talking about this for months with congressman rogers and congressmen resist berg. we have a difference on the liability provision and there are a couple of other major issues. but, as i've heard mike rogers , we are confident we can work through those issues in a quick offer its get this done. >> for anyone who suggested the executive order from the president was enough, what would

your answer be? >> first of all, i have my differences with this administration from time to time. got one going on right now that you all are reporting on every hour. frankly, i was a little bit suspect when i first heard that the president wanted to -- he was going to issue an executive order on cyber security. he and i had a conversation a year ago. we were playing golf and i had a hole in one. [laughter] i just wanted to get that in. >> touché. >> by he and i talked about it that day as we were riding in the golf cart and i told him where i was. and he told new where he was. it was amazing that we were basically in the same place. so when the president issued his executive order, even though i

was still a little bit apprehensive, that executive order is playing out pretty well. that he didn't include, obviously information sharing, which is in our jurisdiction, but there were some other things on standards and whatnot that he laid out a framework in there that is actually working. this is doing a good job of thinking through this in the right way and engaging the private sector, engaging the public sector. >> what about the hhs ida -- the dhs side of the equation? was the focal point of the lieberman-collinsville. that was the big problem with lieberman collins. no one had confidence that dhs had the capability of administering the sever security issue with the seriousness of it is they couldn't keep in troll of the secret service, border security,

and the list goes on and on. but when jeh johnson came in, let me tell you, things changed. anything about the previous director, but jay comes from the private sector. he understands both sides of it and he has a real appreciation for getting the right people in the right spot and he gives me a lot more confidence with dhs and a lot of my colleagues who have had a problem with dhs a lot more confidence in that they are going to be able to do a better job with this issue because we do have some people that have the capability of thinking through because they had the experience of it. so i think we can manage the dhs side of it. >> let me change gears a little bit. the title of our discussion is "keeping the digital trust."

that trust has been called into question the last little bit thanks in part to edward snowden and what happened. business and government working together, there has to be a level of trust. what is your assessment of that relationship right now, in light of snowden, in light of the concerns expressed by big-name ceos that their businesses are being hurt abroad by the whole debate over surveillance? pricere paying a overseas. >> interesting you bring it up in that way, peer, because we all hands on deck in the senate reefing about a guy who spent a year and a half ago on the issue of cyber security. all the power houses, although leadership from nsa, dha, the white house, dhs. we met in a room and the administration laid out their bill.

it was a take it or leave it attitude. i was a freshman to stand up. i said, let me tell you something. what you all have done is come in here and you said to a hundred members of the senate, folks, this is our bill. this is the way we think sever security ought to be handled and the drill government can do a good job of handling it and you ought to vote for this and go home and sell it to your constituents. you, if thesentee folks went home and said, hey, guys, guess what did we are going to turn the most important issue on the table charlie over to the federal government, all of them are going to get voted out of office and they should be. and the reason is nobody trusts the federal government. and we've got to figure out a way, again, this is my comment -- we have got to figure out a way to instill trust from the

private sector in the federal government and vice versa on this issue. otherwise, we are not going to solve it. there is a way to do it. whichs why, in our bill, takes a little bit different approach from the house side -- what diane and i tried to do was to incentivize the private sector to want to participate in the cyber security protection that they might get. if they do certain things, the federal government will do certain things. that is a whole different ballgame from what we have been operating in. it is critically important that we build trust on the private sector in the federal government , particularly in light of i amen, which incidentally totally amazed at some of the things i read about what this mainstreamd the press just buys into it.

it couldn't be any different from that. the fact is -- well, some things i cannot talk about it here. i would have to kill everybody in the room. and i like these people here. [laughter] i will give you one example. the first time i saw snowden interviewed, he made the comment hade said if i had president obama's e-mail or his cell phone number, i could have monitored all his e-mail traffic and listened in on all his cell phone conversations. there is no way, no way that could be true. it's just not. is still a believe in a lot of the minds of people out there that that is the case. he made another outlandish statement the other day that is simply not true and i think the nsa released some e-mails that verified the fact that that wasn't true. but there are a lot of other things in the middle that are

simply not true, too. may, we do need to make some changes in the way we handle our monitoring of individuals. it is a very delicate allen's am not a very delicate line that we have to walk from a privacy versus protection standpoint. but we say in closing on that, suffice it to say that we have done a pretty good job. the fact that we have not had another major attack on domestic soil since september 11 is validation in my mind that the fact that what we have been .oing has been successful we might do extreme on some things, but it does work. >> a separate along the floor just got a vote on the house. that is the house proposal to end all collections.

you have to tackle that issue as well as well as the judiciary committee. what do you make of what came out of the house on that front? you suggested you would like to see some modifications. what is it you don't like in a bill that you would like to see changed? >> hi think they went a little bit too far on the collection side of it. i wish i could go into the number of i could going to the number of times that our agencies have actually accessed telephone numbers. it is so miniscule. >> why does it make sense for more transparency on that issue? >> i think you're going to see that. but the way the house approached

it is a little bit different. dianne and i are not 100% on this together, but we are close. we take a different approach from what they do. some people would like to see the 215 program eliminated and some of us in kitchen stay as is -- some of us think it should stay as is. can the telephone companies keep these records versus the nsa, we can have an argument over that. i would argue when you need to access it, you need to access it like that. if you don't have that capability, something bad can happen. there are some differences like that that we are going to have to discuss. i'm confident we can bridge that

gap quickly, if we can get a bill out of the senate. it is not going to be easy. we've got folks on both sides of the aisle. this is what is interesting about this. both sides of the aisle, we have the far right opposed to this and they have their far left. it is going to be the coalition in the middle that figures out what the sweet spot is. i wish harry would do let us bring it to the floor to have the debate.

i want to have the debate. i just had a conversation with rand paul. rand really wants to have a 215 debate. he said we should have the debate. i agree. so hopefully we are going to have that here in >> it is a potent -- that. >> it is a potent political issue, in terms of congress and this is something that taps into something we have seen in our reporting, the american people feel strongly about this. the most recent report, they have seen that the nsa is looking at facial recognition. that came up with admiral rogers. what is your take on that? they still question, i am not sure i can trust my government on these issues. >> well, i was criticized by some of the left-leaning press about a statement i made during all of this disclosure, which was, look, the reason nobody has known about this, about this program, is that it has worked. it has been secret and people have not been listened to.

i still think that is an accurate statement. again, what i have said publicly and what people back home have felt good about hearing is that if you are a housewife and you are talking to your neighbor about going to the grocery store and picking up something for me, those conversations are not going to be listened to. no conversation is going to be listened to a lesser court determines there is a national security problem and that you are a foreign agent and that the substance of the conversation is something that we need to follow. they have to have valid reasons for why you want to follow weight. which means if you are a law-abiding citizen, you have nothing to worry about from the standpoint of your phone conversations being listened to. if you are a bad guy plotting to

kill and harm americans and you are inside the united states, you are just as dangerous than if you're doing that outside of the united states. should we listen on those conversations to interrupt any terrorist plot? i think we should. that is the fine line that we have to block and why i say, and hopefully the transparency issue will solve this. the number of times we listen in on folks inside the united states is miniscule. >> compared the relationship between the business community and the government in terms of collaboration versus a year ago/. when you hear google, microsoft, venting about the government, what is your take on that?

are they overstating this? >> i do not think they are crying wolf. i understand and when i hear that it is costing them business overseas, i can relate to that. and i understand then. that is why we've got to fix it and have transparency. whether it is in cyber security, or modernization, and we will have an open hearing on this issue. whatever it is, we have got to engage the private sector because the last thing we need to do was do something stupid in congress, and we have a tendency

to do that, that has the consequence of harming the economy. we've got to make sure we don't do that as we go through this sensitive issue. the thing about it is, everybody knows how slow the federal government moves. if we enact something and realize that it is an unintended consequence and we've got to change it, the time it takes to change, if we don't do something different will cause a delay in time that will allow something bad to happen. my point is you've got to be able to move quickly. the private sector can tell us how to do that.

the government does not do a good job develop dingoes fast-moving targets. the private sector it does it every day. we need to listen to them as we develop modernization bills and security. >> we had the news about the indictments against the chinese military agents accused of cyber espionage. at has added a wrinkle to this conversation. do you think those indictments have been a good think? have they sent the right message to china? they has -- there has been a ripple effect. >> i hope everybody has read the report that came out a year ago. if you haven't, you need to read it. that laid the groundwork for these indictments coming

forward. yes, the answer is it was a good thing they came forward. the chinese are bold and their blatant. they've got a building filled with pla that are doing nothing but trying to hack into computers in the united states, and other parts of the world. not only are they going after our military information, for the most part they are going after the private sector to your information that will have such an impact. i'm not saying anything new, but that is why these indictments are important. we've got to raise the profile and make the general public aware of why this type of activity has got to be stopped. >> i'm going to go into the audience just a moment. there are some microphones. identify yourself when i come to you. one final question, in your role as vice chair, you get to hear a host of things you can't share with us that would be unnerving. what is keeping you awake at night as you get sent to leave congress? what worries you most on the cyber front? >> homegrown terrorists.

we are seeing more and more activity. we just saw last week in syria a u.s. person strap a suicide vest on them and blow themselves up in syria and blow up a bunch of people. i worry about homegrown terrorists. in the cyber world, i just worry about the fact general alexander said in a speech the other day that between dod and other government agencies, we are getting hit millions of times a day sometimes by hackers. the russians are getting better. the iranians are getting better. those are the three primary activists in the world of hacking. i worry we are so far from a technology standpoint, we have been able to stay ahead of the curve, we have been able to slow down and detect it. i worry that we are going to reach a point in time where these companies are getting

anxious. you talk about google, oracle, all of them, and rightfully so. if we don't have their cooperation, we are not going to be as far around the curve as we need to. >> let me go to audience questions. there are some microphones. you answered all of their questions. it is unbelievable. right here in the front. there is a microphone. coming your way. if you could identify yourself. >> hello, i am morgan johnson with lockheed martin. i have heard information sharing one million times today and the importance between the two way medication. -- communication.

you spoke about leveraging what the private sector does in terms of being able to respond to things in a timely manner. can you talk about what the government is doing to make sure that communication is going both ways? >> sure. first of all, an indigenous tree like you are involved in, there is daily contact -- in an industry like you are involved in, there is daily contact. for two primary reasons,

proprietary information that you guys are being hacked on every day and these adversaries are attempting to obtain information in those areas. and if we do not constantly engage with you, we're going to fall behind that curve. you are the prime example of the way the government can develop a trust relationship. because you need us as much as we need you. a financial institution needs us as much as we need them. a small business person really does not trust the government, inc. i can do it if the government stays out of my way.

what we are trying to do is take the example of our relationship with the defense community and other sectors and on that so that we can develop that relationship with the next tier below the big guys in the game like lockheed martin. as a practical matter of how we do it, it is very difficult to do. we are trying to reach out in various ways from an education standpoint into that next tier. if we don't, we are going to solve the cyber security problem with lockheed martin but one of your contractors that has access

to your information is going to be the next one to get hacked. it makes it difficult. >> what is the level of confidence lockheed martin or the subcontractor, how confident should they feel that if the government has identified the next heart bleed, they will share it with the private sector? >> and right now i would say there's no confidence that is going to happen, unless you have a long-standing special relationship with, in the example of lockheed martin, which i'm using as an example, they have a relationship with dod that may include different

agencies. they have developed a trust over years because they have dealt with each other. that is not the case with the vast majority of the business world. there is no way in the world that of the group that is out there that is just as important as lockheed martin from the standpoint of some virus getting in, there is no way you can develop that other than into new to reach out and develop. >> should the government be obligated to share right away? >> from a government standpoint, you would find we would be willing to share, but not the private sector, as willing to share information when they can be exposed to extensive liability. that is the key. >> our next conversation with my colleague sandy reback. unrelated to this, who is going to win the georgia republican primary for your seat? >> they are both of my friends and one of my friends will win. [laughter] >> thank you for joining us. >> make it clear, but it on the balance sheet, make everyone aware. when you deliver it through

enterprises, delivering subsidies to public companies with private , executives extract a lot of that subsidy for themselves. that is not a very good way of subsidizing homeownership. >> read more of our conversation with gretchen morgenstern in our "sundays at eight." now available as a father's day gift from your favorite bookseller. >> with primaries occurring in states around the country we take a look next at some of the potential outcomes and what they could mean for the midterm elections. this is from "washington journal." it is 40 minutes. >> we returned to the topic of the 2014 election. joining us again to put a spotlight on the u.s. senate races that could determine control of that chamber is

jennifer duffy, senior editor of the cook political report. after tuesday's primary conference we will be half with through the season. do you see enough to make a prediction? guest: it is a 50-50 proposition at this point. one event can change things. we do still have a couple of more primaries to go. we now have a runoff in mississippi that may have some impact on the overall picture. when i think about when the cycle started in the past for republicans was very narrow -- you can do it but it was very narrow. everything had to go right.

what republicans have done is expanded the playing field. now that they have a little bit of room for error they don't need that perfect game. you have 15 republicans but 21 democrats. democrats are defending more seats. more important is where they are defending those seats. there are eight states that the democrats have to defend that mitt romney one.

-- mitt romney won. it really is where the races are more than how many there are. host: we are showing the map from the cook political report. the states in great are listed as the tossup races. some of the key battles of the cycle, louisiana, arkansas, north carolina, kentucky, michigan. we will be talking about all of those over the course of the next 45 minutes. the latest news on the senate races coming out of virginia, where republicans now have a candidate after yesterday's convention. ed gillespie is on the table for virginia. guest: whether virginia gets to the point of what we would call a tossup or lean democrat, it will depend on the local environment. i think virginia is still very much a swing state. it is very easy to see how gillespie gets to 46%. those last couple of points are

going to be a challenge but the convention was unlike last year's gubernatorial. this year was pretty free of drama. host: no big surprises. guest: they did it on the first outlet, and after acclamation of the only competitor to drop out. they were worried at the beginning. turnout was much lighter. when you had ew jackson, the lieutenant governor nominee who us so controversial, get up and endorse shaq hill -- there was about an hour of conservative -- it blew over. let's be got over 60% of the vote. -- gillespie got over 60% of the vote. host: we are halfway to the primary season. what you want to see in the second half before you can make an actual prediction? guest: i want to see what happens in mississippi.

i think i have a good idea but let's see how close it is. i want to see what happens in south carolina on tuesday. south carolina is another runoff state. the threshold for that is 50% of the vote. north carolina is 40% better. lindsey graham has six opponents. that 50% might be a little bit challenging. and if it is a runoff it becomes a completely different race. the tea party is divided between two or three tea party candidates. in a runoff there is a possibility that they unite. graham has been a target of the tea party since before the tea party. he has always had a primaries. he has always got through them. by tuesday he aims for 50%. pat robertson has a tea party challenger, who has been somewhat controversial. august is a long way away. i remember 2010 when we thought that the tea party was done after the early primaries and they decided they would go to alaska.

lisa murkowski ended up losing that primary and then she was a write-in. we are always watching. of the other thing to remember is -- the other thing to remember is one bad candidate can be a problem in every senate race. we saw that with todd akin, with richard murdoch in indiana back in 2012. democrats effectively use them against other republican candidates to pretty great effect, especially given the controversial nature of their comments. just because you have one candidates does not mean that one candidate cannot be a big problem. host: if you have questions or comments about the senate race is going on, our four month are open. -- our phone lines are open. happy to take your calls and comments. we talked about the runoffs going on.

here is an ad from one of the republicans in that race, going after john kingston. [video clip] >> he is the one who has made a mess. he chewed on business. he took a $1 million bonus. it also millions more from obama's stimulus. and he has no problems with common core standards that nationalize schools, eating away at local control. david purdue, something does not smell right. >> i approved this message. host: jack kingston, one of the two candidates in that runoff.

guest: the runoff is july 22. it is a very long time between the primary and runoff. south carolina is only two weeks. mississippi is three weeks. it is like nine or 10 weeks in georgia. it is a long time to have a very big fight, which i think you are going to have. host: that fight continuing in david purdue's response to jack kingston. let's show that. [video clip] >> jack kingston has been in georgia for more than two

decades. the voters do not want more big spending experience. what is jack kingston to do? what all politicians do. he lashed out falsely at david purdue. the truth is david purdue has saved and created thousands of jobs. we don't need more washington bid we need a conservative

outsider. >> i'm david perdue, and i approved this message. host: jennifer duffy, what does this runoff mean for this race in november? this is one place where republicans got something that they wanted, which is, they got to candidates that either of whom they would be happy with in a general election. it is interesting to see this republican establishment has seemed to rally around kingston a little. he has gotten some endorsements, the chamber of commerce has been up with an ad for him. i thought that maybe they would stay out, but that isn't the case. i think purdue made a couple of mistakes in the primary, that worries republican strategists some. this is going to be a very interesting race, david purdue has a lot of money and is willing to invest it. we also have several vulnerabilities.

you sought in the beginning of kingston's at, he went into companies and tried to fix them. that usually ends up costing jobs. they've given king some some fodder. i haven't seen any polling here yet, it will be interesting to see the first round and how they are doing. host: who is the democrat waiting for this? guest: michelle nunn. she is ceo of the largest volunteer organization in america, and the daughter of

former senator sam nunn. longtime senator, moderate democrat. she is running as a moderate, an outsider. she has done very well so far. polls show that this race is very close, she has gotten the gift of this republican primary runoff. this general election will not start until late july. host: jennifer duffy is here to take your questions. barbara is calling in from bridgeport, connecticut. caller: i think what disturbs me

so much is that the republicans seem to like to cheat all the time. they never want to win anything fairly. they also lies so much, it is so disturbing. sometimes i have to turn off the tv because when you listen to them, they don't tell the truth. they are cheating -- i'm african american, and it bothers me. the cheating at all of the different states to win, they are switching around the voting districts. gerrymandering, i think that's the word for it. they are trying to take away our voting rights.

why don't they just try to win fairly? they know they won't win if they do it fairly, so they resort to cheating. host: jennifer duffy, on this cheating issue that barber brings up. guest: it's interesting. gerrymandering, i suppose if you are on the losing end of that process you call it cheating, but it's really the way the system is set up. the party in control in each state gets to draw the lines. what needs to happen, if they want less of that, is states need to redraw their districts differently. look at california. democrats control the processing california for decades, and republicans got the very short end of the stick there.

they have gone now to a nonpartisan citizens commission, and they -- they also went to a top two primary, which means everyone runs in the same ballot, the top two candidates regardless of party moved to the general election. for that reason, we are seeing a more competitive house races in california than ever. iowa is another good example. nonpartisan commission, there are always competitive house races in iowa as a result. they are drawn fairly evenly. i understand why the caller wants to blame republicans, but really, you're to blame the system. host: you brought up senator lindsey graham, this is from twitter. senator graham hasn't in a foreign he wants to avoid. our foreign affairs issues an issue in this primary? guest: not really. it's whether or not graham is conservative enough. you have to understand the graham -- his committee assignments lends itself to

getting involved in those kinds of issues. he works a lot with john mccain, they'd travel a lot. he is on the armed services -- he actually has an ad up with some servicepeople thanking them for getting him the right equipment in afghanistan. those committees lend itself to that, so yes, he gets involved a lot. meddling, i'm not sure i'd use the word meddling. host: states are having a primary on tuesday, we were just talking about iowa being a state with competitive house races. also a state with a competitive senate races well. battle creek iowa, on our line for democrats. caller: it's michigan. host: sorry. also competitive race in michigan. caller: i was wondering two things, one, what is the effect of the koch brothers spending and americans for prosperity? they have been spending money in this race. recently, the republican candidate kind of flopped at the mackinac center, she had problems dealing with a press conference. is the co-brother money going to be a big effect in michigan and another senate races? host: before jennifer duffy johnson on that, let's show what you are talking about. here is an americans for prosperity ad from late may, going after democrat gary

peters. [video clip] >> everything seems to cost more these days. middle-class families are struggling. conversely gary peters is making things worse. voting for obama care, driving up our health premiums by nearly 40%. putting even more pressure on family budgets. can your family afford to pay more? in michigan families pay more? tell contributors to stop supporting obamacare. guest: americans for prosperity has spent millions, tens of millions of dollars not just in michigan, but in most of these competitive senate races. they have focused largely on obamacare. i think what they have done is sort have -- sort of kept the playing field level. i don't think we will see any democratic candidates get outspent because of this money. it just started earlier, i think the big winners here are tv stations.

but when i look at in spending by race, use the democratic groups start to catch up. i don't think the scale will be out of whack. host: before we leave michigan, here is an ad from the senate majority pack. guest: the senate majority pack is the super pac that supports democrats, both incumbents and challengers. the head of it is harry reid, he raises a lot of money for it. but they are sort of the unofficial arm, so to speak. host: here's the senate majority pac in michigan. [video clip] >> she would outlaw abortions for victims of rape nss. >> i can't afford it her. >> if the billionaires bankrolling her make -- make it bigger tax breaks. >> michigan women cannot afford her. host: jennifer duffy, is this an effective ad? guest: it's very effective. i'm not sure all of it is true. but it is interesting the use -- it is interesting these two ads you chose.

they are at the heart of this race, his war on women. i haven't really used it much against women candidates. their campaign is fighting back on this issue. she didn't add -- she did and add a month ago where the kicker line was i think i know more about women than gary peters. it was a fairly effective bad. -- it was a fairly effective add. you will see more republican women fighting back on this charge that they are waging a war on women. host: south carolina has a primary this tuesday, let's go to david in south carolina on our line for republicans. caller: i am hoping the people down here will wake up this time. lindsey graham needs to go.

[indiscernible] republicans found out what he was doing and got rid of him, democrats wouldn't hire him. we vote with the democrats against him, he needs to go. barbara needs to leave the tv on a longer, and see who is doing the lying and cheating. host: david, one of the voters that might give lindsey graham out on tuesday. guest: it's funny, but that is a common theme we hear, that grandma votes -- that lindsey graham votes too much with democrats. he is not the most conservative

member of the senate, but he is also not the most moderate. he is in the middle of the pack. south carolina, that is not what they want to see. they want somebody like tim scott, very down the line conservative. host: let's go to mariano in florida, on our line for republicans. caller: when is the republican party going to work on getting their message out? they seem to always have a problem with getting a consistent message. i was a democrat for over 45 years. but i recently switched parties, i got tired of the democrats prevaricating. and playing politics, and then trying to give away everything

to everyone. and then not taking responsibility for anything. or as the republicans, -- whereas the republicans seem very earnest. the problem they have is that they don't know how to get their ideas -- their fundamental beliefs, which is their strength. they don't seem to be able to convey that. they want to play the same game the democrats are playing. but their fundamental philosophy doesn't really go along with that type of thinking. host: jennifer duffy, some of the issues that mari otto brings up, do they get lost in the primaries? guest: i think that they do get a little bit lost because, when

you spend so much time and effort, and money on primaries that pivot to the general election can be really tough. not every candidate does it. they also tend to provide democrats with a lot of fodder. the caller talked about them playing the same game, they don't have much of a choice. one of the fundamental rules of politics is you don't let an attack go unanswered. does the message get lost, maybe. i think the other problems that exist here is that republicans do not have the white house. there is not a head of the party, a national figure like obama, like the president, or even like harry reid who feels that -- who articulates the

message day after day. if there is no one who has that role in the republican party, i understand why the caller doesn't feel like he is hearing the republican message. host: john boehner isn't in that role, or mitch mcconnell? guest: john boehner is not particularly well suited for that role. he knows it. he tries. but he has a good dose of honesty, he will tell you exactly what he is thinking. it may not always be on message. mitch mcconnell right now doesn't have that role, because he is up for reelection. he has to focus on kentucky. they need somebody to fill that vacuum. again, the party is at odds on a few big issues. immigration being one of them. so that gets in the way of the message. host: kentucky is one of the races that seems to be a tossup race this year. north carolina, we have john in north carolina who seems to take

some issue with that. i think it will be close, john writes. guest: i think maybe he was at the republican convention this weekend. why do i have it is a tossup? that's what the polls say. this is a margin of error rates. one of the things that benefits tom tellis -- tillis. hagan is in the low 40's, that's a bad place to be as an incumbent. money has been spent against her on things like health care reform, that is a particularly tough issue in north carolina. they got hit with very big premium increases right off the bat. this is really a tight race. it is going to be one of the closest. obamacare in north carolina in

2008, -- obama carried north carolina in 2008. romney carried it in 2012. it is very purple. host: harold in pennsylvania, good morning. caller: i totally agree with the woman from connecticut 100%. these republicans are almost acting like domestic terrorists. they are belligerent, they're arrogant, they have no respect. they shut the government down last year. they are hurting a lot of people in this country. host: jennifer duffy, the government shutdown that harold brings up -- how is that playing in the 2014 election? guest: i see it in ads, it has come up and adds that so-and-so voted to shut down the government. but folks are paying real attention to it. voters have moved on, they are concerned about other things.

i think of any candidate got up and said flat out, one of my objectives here is to shut down the government if we don't balance the budget, then that is an issue. but by and large, they are avoiding it. host: another response to our caller from connecticut. host: we're talking with jennifer duffy from the cook political report. lots of calls from south carolina this morning. pat is waiting on our line from republicans. caller: good morning. and thank you for taking my call. lindsey graham -- the problem with lindsey graham is that he has been up there too long. we need term limits. he loves to give our money to every country in this world, when we need it over here. we need term limits, i don't care what party is, they do not stay up there 20 years keeping us at heart. thank you. host: pat, and south carolina. -- in south carolina. you said it was a tough year in senate races, i want to play and add it from american crossroads

about the senate race going on in arkansas against senator mark pryor. it tries to tie mark prior to president obama. [video clip] >> your next word is prior. >> may have the definition? >> mark pryor is the deciding vote for obama care. >> pryor, obama. >> close enough. host: how does obama play in places like arkansas? guest: i think he is a huge issue in some of the states. he is very unpopular in arkansas. mark pryor has a fairly moderate voting record, but he has supported the president 95% plus on key votes that have been selected. republicans believe that part of their path to victory is to link him to obama as much as possible. especially since he voted for health care reform. you will see a lot of bad like that in a number of states.

host: here is an ad from the mark pryor camp talking about the republican candidate. [video clip] >> i mark pryor, and i approved this message. >> he voted five times to turn medicare over to the insurance companies. >> the national committee to preserve social security and medicare said cotton's care is expensive. >> it removes the care of of health coverage. >> tom cotton is running from his record.

host: medicare, health issues. guest: yes. arkansas tends to be an older state. democrats are aiming this at seniors, they are aiming this at their base. we have seen democrats talk about medicare and social security. in every cycle i can remember since 1986. it may play well here, but the cotton campaign hit back.

with the congressional record that showed back in 2011, mark pryor talks about the possibility of having to raise the retirement age. host: we're talking with jennifer duffy of the cook political report, for the next 10 minutes or so as we go through the key battles of 2014. david in michigan, for our line on democrats. caller: good morning. thank you so much for c-span and for taking my call. the koch brothers ads in michigan, everyone of them have gotten debunked. terri lynn land it was our secretary of state, all she is

known for is cutting. they make her out to be a hero for the automotive. it was gary peters that saved it along with president obama. everyone of their ads is getting debunked. if republicans don't cheat, they can't win. as far as gerrymandering, democrats have never gerrymandered like these republicans have. michigan is really paying the price for republican rule. host: jennifer duffy. guest: he's not right about democrats never gerrymandering, of course they have. that is the name of the game. drawing districts has gotten much more sophisticated. it used to be a bunch of people in a room with maps and magic markers, now we have technology, it can take you down to individual blocks. or individual neighborhoods in cities and towns. that sort of the point of

gerrymandering. the automotive industry, the bailout he brings up a good point. terri lynn land did not vote on that. it is an issue the democrats are using. given its michigan, they may use that to great effect. host: the democratic senatorial campaign, the national republican senatorial campaign committee, one of these groups? -- what are these groups? guest: these are committees that are established by each party, their job is to protect their incumbents. and second, to recruit challengers. they do everything from independent spend insurers -- expenditures, and both committees have been out there

buying television time for the fall. they give advice to campaigns, they do some polling, they do a lot of research. they raise money both for themselves, for their operating expenses, and to help a senate candidate. the committees have evolved. my boss will tell me the stories about -- as recently as the late 70's -- late 1970's, they didn't need their own building. they have gotten that big. they shared office space with the senate, but they have gotten so big now that they have moved out on their own. host: and raising quite a bit of money this cycle. the democratic committee has come as of the end of april, $25 million in cash on hand. that's after raising six point 3 million dollars in april. the republican counterpart has $22 million on hand at the end of april, after raising $6 million that month. you talk about reserving tv

time, they give viewers a sense of where these committees want to play. guest: they are going to play in the races that are closest, they have been reserving time in places like alaska. alaska is going to see more political advertising in the senate race the cycle than they have ever seen. i was told by somebody in alaska that the tv stations don't quite know what to do, they are getting so many requests. millions of dollars there, you will see them spent in arkansas, louisiana, north carolina, michigan. they will spend money in all these places. host: you bring up alaska, a story in the new york times, outdoor -- outside money floods alaska. host: we are with jennifer duffy for a few more minutes. sandra is in virginia, on our line for independents. caller: good morning. i would like ask your guest

about what she thinks about the race with eric cantor. his competitors running on a platform of being against amnesty for illegals? guest: i don't think the cancer has much of her problem. i was looking at the ad spending in that race the other day, he doesn't really have the resources to do it. cantor takes nothing for granted, he spent a lot in ads. and getting his troops ready. the one thing we are seeing in the house is that some incumbents, and i don't think you do need to republicans, are underreporting -- under performing. they are winning, but not by as much as they should be. i think it is voters -- voter unhappiness. all these guys and women work in an institution with a 12% recruiting -- approval rating. host: cantor's race happening this tuesday. on the senate side, we saw the convention happening. we are talking with jennifer duffy of the cook political report, you can check that out at cookpolitical.com. let's go to herman, in illinois, for for democrats. caller: good morning.

my comment is, the american people -- do they really realize republicans tried to shut down the government? they did shut down the government. my other comment is about dick durbin, is the number two, and why it's even majority leader if harry lead -- harry reid if the democrats keep the senate? guest: actually, that is a good question. about whether there is a leadership change if democrats lose their majority. i think that is not outside the possibility, it is certainly the subject of much speculation

around washington. there are two people who would be considered to be the next leader. what is dick durbin, who is up for reelection. and the other is from new york. i think you talk to members, no one wants to see that race. both are well-liked, well respected. it would be quite an interesting battle, if it comes to that. i suspect that some deal will be reached before it ever comes to that. host: dick durbin listed as a solid democratic seat by the cook political report. you can click around and find information about each race and candidates.

in their last election, dick durbin got 68% of the vote. you can see it the full map on cookpolitical.com. caller: good morning. just a couple quick comments. as far as all congress, they are there to serve the people. the biggest problem is they have gotten away from serving the people. they are now self-serving.

i believe that it was dead wrong for the bailout in michigan. i don't get bailed out for my negligence, irresponsible spending. neither should they. i was for the government shutdown, because the lesson can be learned if there is constant hampering, bailing out, changing the rules of the spending ceiling and stuff like that. that's all i had to say, thank

you. host: greg, expressing this anti-incumbent sentiment that we have heard about. how mr. incumbents need to be concerned, especially about the sort of feelings? guest: i think very concerned. a lot of democratic incumbents in the senate are feeling that dissatisfaction that people want a little bit of a change. outsiders are tending to do pretty well, at least in primaries. it is interesting. this is what i love about politics, the gentleman from michigan was very supportive of the bailout. as far as he's concerned it, that is government working for the people. the gentleman in virginia, very opposed to it, and in his mind, the shutdown was working for the people. that's what makes this so much fun. host: jennifer duffy is the senior editor at the cook political report. thank you for coming by this morning. up next, jonathan allen will >> the headline in "the post and in the," a clash showdown as challengers accuse

the senator of compromising on immigration and declaring his time in the senate too long. next, a debate from charleston courtesy of the south carolina educational television network. it ran for one hour. the state, the green balloon, the island of paca, myrtle beach, the herald of rock history, and the items from sumter, presenting a debate. tonight, republican candidates for u.s. senate. and now your moderator, charles beer bauer. joining me tonight to ask -- bill conner, orangeburg, lindsey graham,

seneca, nancy grace, charleston, richard cash, anderson, spartanburg, dead bowers, and benjamin done. somee we begin tonight, brief ground rules. each candidate will have one minute to respond to the uighur names when the candidates arrived for the order in which we will start. that first question will do to mr. connor and then all of the rest of you in turn. this has been a contentious race by most assessments. we have a two-term incumbent and six aspirants to replace him. what i would like to know and what the voters would like to know is if this is a referendum on lindsey graham, why do you have a target on your back and why specifically, candidates, is