i want you to make homelessness and issue across the nation because we are seeing increasing criminalization of homeless . i would like to throw the issue to the national party that this issue becomes important to the party across the country. thanks very much. >> i think homelessness is poverty. i mean, i organize homeless people all the time. it is a very important part of what it is that we're doing. it's critical and what i teach homeless people is that with

all the pain and misery, they had to get out here and help to build it. success is going to make the difference. >> in arizona, we created the central arizona sheller which was an organization we created while i was in office and was involved in pulling -- putting together. it is amazing how after we put corporate people on that board -- first they came up with very good processes and procedures. they keep the organization healthy. but they also became a voice to the other side. it's my concept that i think that would trust you today is understanding the importance of symbiotic mutualism. you have to find ways to bring these issues together. when that happens it's much

more healthy for democracy and it has a much greater sustainability. [applause] >> homelessness is part of my platform in the state of illinois when i ran for government. so i keep that up there. >> hi, my name is adriana carry, i'm a third year student at green borrow. i study human development, african-american studies. and i have a question for the panel. how can reform and independent politics bring about social and structural change to a capitalistic society who is perpetuated on violence and keeping us poor and making the rich richer? >> i mean, things are brought to society by virtue of activity on the ground of

people so that society itself is not going to reorganize itself. it's going to reorganize itself. are young prepared? if we want to change it, we have to change it. >> yes? >> hi, i'm heather demarco and i have a question regarding moms rising. it's something that really intrigued me. and i agreed with both of you that we should not have social injustice on babies. how do you think that the psychological development of people of poverty has an effect as a whole nation culturally we're very passive when it comes to things? we can change the laws but culturally we've become very

sick. and the impression to think that a woman and a child is something that is not worth change is quite sad in this nation. we can use psychology to developing youth as a tool to change the platform for youth to be more interested in political situations. >> i think it's all about getting mothers and their kids showing up. and we actually had a great group of mothers and kids show up in washington state for paid sick days just two weeks ago, i think. and paid sick days are happening. so when things around working on the national level sometimes we can get really substantial successes at a local some of the paid six days have been

happening in cities and at the state level and start modeling good behavior. it is a big system and a lot to do. but the hope is that doing some of this work now it will start moving faster an faster. >> could all the young people in the room stand? or raise their hand. [cheers and applause] look at this. that's my answer. >> hello, my name is katiana barnes, i'm a representative of the voters of indiana. an i want to share an anecdote with my visit with jackie salit and joan when you spoke about changing conversations and into january, i went to the nevada women's lobby which i'm a

member of. we lobby our legislature. and this year we're faced with the most conservative legislature we've had in 30 years. so the question came up about young voters and the fact that we can't get them to the polls to vote and change what's happening with the legislature. so i asked a question. how do we change the conversation to a more inclusive and less -- they don't like the language. so how do we change that conversation and the entire room came undone. these are democratic leaders from the state. it's supposed to be a nonpartisan group and it got partisan real quick. i spent 45 minutes doing that. i just wanted to share that. >> good day, everyone. i apologize for the cell phone. my name is reginald sweep.

my campaign was run with just $4,000. we had seven candidates. once the democratic candidate won this primary it was a shoe-in. we had the same people for 39 years, 40 years. i'm just thankful to be here. i snuck out the house. 4-year-old son. i want to know how does the independent party groom its candidates? i'm looking -- i'm not frustrated. i'm just a little tired of the same two-party system where when i ran in that primary they were very upset. my goal is to have an independent voice. i don't feel switching parties because i'm angry at one party that really done do anything. but i've heard a lot oaf things about homeless an poverty.

we wasn't born poor. i wanted to put it out there. when you have candidates that previously ran somebody like myself, i wanted -- i came here before last year, i believe. and dalfar is a good friend of mine. my question is this. how do you vet the candidates that you put to run for these primaries and there's a little ground swell with the minorities within the middle-class upper lower middle-class. they want to switch spears. i'm so there's a lot of conversation at the table about one pear doesn't do anything. so you're going to have a lot of voters that are not happy with a lot of things that are going on. i hope some day i can meet someone that can talk to me more about your pear. but it was sweeney 2013. i videoed every debate. i wanted to make sure that i didn't sound like an idiot while i was debating these

guys. there are so many vulnerable seats that i think your pear can probably make son inroads. there's homeless, there are things. so i just want to thank you. i didn't want to take 30 seconds. good work and you never know but there's room for change. >> right. [applause] >> hello. there isn't a national conversation about poverty as the doctor said earlier. however since we last me two years ago there has been created a very prom nen international conversation about persistent and growing inquality of weal and income. and in the u.s. interestingly it really started with grass roots organizing and protests by occupy wall street and now it's gotten much bigger with

selling a mill yn and a half copies. ptial companies having to address this issue. "the wall street journal" on monday having an op-ed piece which -- which, you know, tried to refute the idea that the government and the political system can do something about -- about this -- these conditions. and so my question is whether you've been at all thinking about how to relate this to the problem political dysfunction because one of the most recent books did a study of 238 or so democracies around the world -- wealthy democracies and found that there is a direct relationship between the extent of inquality of wealth an income as is -- the structure of the political system anymore terms of how many vetos there

were before something could become law. and we're right at the the of that because we have the congress, the senate, the president and the supreme court. and i think what can be added to that from what the independent movement is doing is to point out that we have yet another dysfunction which is the partisan of the political pears -- parties that should be put into this conversation about what can be done about changing the growing inquality of wealth and incomeable. so my question is do you the we can enter sect this and -- with this issue about political partisan? -- partisanship? >> yes. [applause] >> hi, my name is doreen -- hi, my name is doreen ankra and i'm

the delegate from bcc and we were invited by dr. rafael mendez. my question is this is the first time i've ever been in a forum like this and i really like this. and i'm thinking about -- thank you. i'm thinking about being an independent voter. my question is if i accept myself to be a poor person and the government or the president is never allowed to say poor person or poor people but keep saying the middle-class how will i know that if somebody there who recognized my condition and will help me get out of it. and also now i want to be an independent voteerr. if i vote for any independent candidate what is the guarantee that this person is going to recognize my condition in the

society and can help me out of it. thank you. >> i have two quick things. one is -- i mean, i know we keep talking about voting for companies but what we're try -- candidates but what we're trying to do is transform the process is. so part of what they should be doing is they run for office is work og on that issue rather than win or lose. because that's the issue. i'm great. if i win for president of the united states and i won't but if i did the system's not going to change. we're trying to change things systematically. what is the first question you asked? >> my question is if the president is not -- >> oh, ok. you dump them. [laughter] [applause] no, i'm serious. obama did that. he went from talking to about

poor and poverty when he first ran and the night of his second inauguration he talked about middle-class. here's what we're going to do. we're going to take two more people from this side. i want to ask that you keep your comments very short. everyone else you'll get a chance to talk again in the second audience discussion. >> i'm a member of the u.x. i'm cica. and i'm also involved -- my question is this. we have been infiltrated our government by outside forces who are actually messing the country up. how do we go to those people who are inside the white house with their policies an their lobbies and they're causing roars and taking money out of the american public that we need here for education and the

kids. how do we stop these maniacs? >> one way to stop is vote more independent. that's the reality right there. i'm good. >> the comments that were made earlier about how do we vote people -- here's the best way to vet people. you allow everybody to run and the top two get to the next level -- the voters. >> hi, my name is othious jordan. i'm a daily volunteer with kathy stewart and neil hoffmann. i'm an m.p.a. graduate. and i noticed that the united states of america is the divided states of america. everything in this country is separated age color, gender everything religion.

everything is so separated but we say we're united. my thing is is that if we would focus more on solutions to the problems instead of focusing on poities and give the people more of a voice we would -- we would find better solutions to these problems. i don't believe that it's fair that only two pears dictate these directions of how the country goes. i believe that if we have this political reform where we just eliminate parties. just eliminate the parties -- no, i'm being frank. i'm going to wrap it up in 20 seconds. at the end of the day it's the solution we need. i'm a fitness instructor for faye. and i know you know what's happening with faye. but at the end of the day we

need to speak out and be more involved in our community to have a better voice so that the solutions can be made more apparently clear. [applause] >> hi, i'm richard winger. i have a question for drsm felani. i love the video agreeing this morning. i saw that wonderful picture of you in 1992 campaigning in the democratic primary. that picture said above it, two roads are better than one. what you meant by that is two roads to run. i'm running in d democratic primary in new hampshire an i'm running in the general election. if we had had a top two system and the presidential election of 1992, you could not have run

in the general election. one of your rose would be taken away. i wonder how you feel about that. >> first of all, what i was speaking to was the real of the political process at that time appear i was supporting reverend jesse jackson because it was important in the democratic primary. i ran myself as an independent because i knew that the democratic party was not going to give their primary position over to or whatever their presidential slot over to jesse. so i don't know if this is a trick question -- [laughter] but that has particular historical meaning. i don't think everybody -- every time somebody runs or the next time that i ran on a two-way strategy and so -- i -- i'm not -- i mean i don't know what else to say. what is it that you done like?

[laughter] >> i'm a san francisco voter. my ballot -- >> i love the top two. that's what you're speaking to. and the reason i love top two is because i have watched in the communities that i'm most close to an we see all over the country, the same people run for office. the same people get elected. there's no challenge in the black community and in other communities. you can be the dumbest person in the world. but if you've been in office for 55 years, there's nobody to have a debay with. -- debate with. i want people to go in there and i wan them to kick their buts. i wan them to say to these politician, let me tell you what you should be working on and say to the community i'm better than them. you don't have to get locked into supporting them because they're the only people here. we love top two.

>> i'm a san francisco voter. my ballot had one republican an one democrat and nobody else. so i didn't vote for the first time in 50 years. >> that's fine. >> and it's good to see you. >> ok. >> last two. >> my name is dominique edwards. i'm a student at the university of north carolina. i'm a dance major as well as a psychology major and a minor in human development. the myth i'd like to break is that you don't care to get involved with changing the structure of the government. i'm 20 years old. and i promise you that we're with you guys. ok. creativity is such a beautiful gift to each an every one of our minds. it doesn't just lie in the hearts of painters, musicians, dancers. it's in all of us. finding new ways to do things is and you come of creativity. i think those who believe in continuing b bipartisan system

lack to create the process not because they are scared. our school doesn't allow us to practice creativeity so that it will stick with us in all areas of ours lives. >> -- [applause] >> already. let's have another round of applause for our panelists. >> kentucky senator rand paul today announced he is running for president. >> to rescue a great country now adrift, join me asing to we seek a new vision for america. today i announce with god's help, with the help of liberty lovers everywhere that i am putting myself forward as a

candidate for president of the united states. [cheers and applause]

>> you could see all of senator rand paul's presidential campaign announcement tonight at c-span at 8:00 p.m. eastern starting the introduction of his wiche. then senator rand paul's amounsment speech. >> each night, conversations with a few new members of congress. >> when you raised your hand and took the oath of office, what were your mom and dad thinking? >> i knew my mom would be crying and my dad was proud. my dad's 82 years old and he usually walks with a cane and he showed up and he didn't have a cane? he said i'm in the capitol. i don't need a cane today.

please stand by

>> than they have a full quarter to come up with the biggest number they can with their first report. >> before they declare, what are the rules for how much they can raise, and how much they declare versus after they announced? what is the distinction? guest: the period right before they declare is often referred to as testing the waters.

this is where it would be candidate or potential hopeful is determining the feasibility of candidacy. this is not just -- this is an actual term with the federal election commission. they are looking for a sign that the candidate is conducting activity that would indicate they are indeed testing the waters, like polling, like making calls for supporters. doing travel. these are things that do not necessarily trigger the threshold of becoming -- jewel -- an actual candidate. but they require that the candidate is raising funds in limited amounts. in this cycle, $2700 per donor per election. $2700 for the primary and general. if of course somebody is testing the waters but really not so

serious about it, and they do not and of running, it does not matter how much money they have accepted from people. they are not a candidate. i could go out and accept a million dollars, but if i never register as a candidate, there is nothing to report. i have done nothing wrong. at the point i am testing the waters, all of those contributions need to be in limited amounts and ultimately disclosed to the federal election commission. host: here is an editorial from last week, mocking the law. a dark cloud looms over a fledgling campaign. they rightly fec has established rules for those testing the waters. but some are simply skirting the rules by saying they are not testing the waters. those named are jeb bush, martin o'malley, former senator rick santorum, and wisconsin governor scott walker, a republican.

the washington post saying they are mocking the law. please candidate saying we are not doing anything wrong. what is going anything wrong? caller: i think the washington -- guest: i think the washington post is citing complaint to the commission that these are flouting the law or the intent of the law. they are dodging the rules so they can have their cake and eat it too. they are going through verbal gymnastics to avoid saying they are candidates. sometimes having to walk statements back because of fear that the fec might enforce the rule. they are trying to raise unlimited funds from unlimited sources for their superpacs which in some cases they have established themselves. and this would be impossible, not permitted, would they --

were they testing the waters or officially a candidate. so they are trying to act like candidates in terms of fundraising, in terms of outreach to the public. building momentum for their campaign. they are making jokes about what the fec is watching. this allows them to go after mega-donors during this critical period. host: and bring in as much as they can from these donors? there is no cap? guest: absolutely no limit. the citizens united ruling, the basis for it, depends on outside groups to be fully independent of the candidates. and to disclose donations. and in fact, these are candidates, for all intents and purposes. and they are closely associated

with super pca -- pacs. that they will have raised tens of hundreds of millions of dollars. host: we are talking with the executive director about the center for responsive politics. 2016 candidates, those eyeing the white house, what are they obligated to do and not do under the adderall election commission rules? call in with questions and comics -- comments. you can also send us an e-mail. www.c-span.org. sheila, the headline on poetic recently, hillary clinton's headquarters, she has signed a lease for the building. what does that mean for the fec? guest: she is testing the water,

so the legal center consider the candidates and judged her actions to be in this "testing the water" phase. so she does not have to declare yet. she will presumably in the next few weeks in order to begin fundraising ahead of the second quarter report. to bolster their numbers. this is the time of getting the excitement ahead of a launch announcement. which is a critical first impression. this is all very carefully choreographed in order to set the stage, set of feeling about this person and what their candidacy will stand for. host: the federal election commission has ruled that a candidate has only 15 days between conducting campaign activities and filing an official 2016 paperwork. is this an official act by hillary clinton? guest: the clock is ticking.

from the time she signed the lease, she had 15 days. that is why you are hearing reports, hillary clinton, any day now, will make the announcement. host: for most of the candidates , will they take this period to make their announcement? this was widely anticipated. these are the kinds of actions which triggered the clock to take in the fec to judge them to be a candidate, whether or not they have declared. a lot of scrutiny lately about the clinton foundation and the money it receives. and what that means for a campaign. a white house bid. foreign money going to the family foundation. what does the fec say about how foundations raise money and what that means for any sort of campaign for elected office?

guest: these are nonprofits. with the clintons associated with him, they are very politically associated nonprofits. so there is -- they are able to collect unlimited funds from unlimited sources, like all nonprofits. with the clinton foundation, they have attracted huge money from foreign donors and governments. so they have stopped accepting foreign funds at this time. this does not change the fact they have a wide and broad network. and that this has been money that has helped if not help directly, of future clinton campaign and has helped bolster her reputation, name recognition, which is quite wrought -- broad. other candidates will have similar networks to tap. jeb bush's campaign will tap

into his brother and father's political networks. this is really ground zero of the concern in 2016. this is where dark money, secret contributions, unknown sources is seeping into the system and will directly or indirectly support candidates. in many ways, they will be closely connected to the candidates themselves. this was the concern of the supreme court and citizens united where corruption or appearance of corruption can be found. host: can in brooklyn. you are on the air. caller: i have a question. i know that all the campaign laws are for the appearance of corruption. i want to donate to a candidate without my neighbor knowing who i support. what are my choices to donate to

a campaign without getting repercussions of everyone knowing my political support? thank you. guest: you can give small amounts of money. if it is under $50, that will not go on to the roster. once you tip that $50 trigger, it has to be reported to the federal election commission, name, address, employer. this was deemed necessary by the supreme court to protect the integrity of the finance system following the watergate scandal in the 70's. this was seen as a reasonable bargain. if people want to pay for candidates to campaign to run to support them, they need to, as justice scalia says, have the backbone to do so publicly so everyone can know the system has not been rigged or bought by

wealthy, well-heeled donors. all donors must be willing to provide information if they want to contribute directly to a candidate. they can give unlimited sums directly from a corporation or super pac that support the candidate, or give to nonprofits that will be able to, to a limited degree, engage in political activity to support a campaign. host: john in virginia, democratic color. caller: thank you for taking my call. we are sick and tired. the way the country is going the supreme court allows myself to contribute the same amount of money. i cannot challenge walmart or

corporate america. the reality is we are selecting people. corporate america decides who is the president of the united states. it is a shame in the country that i love that we have no votes whatsoever. it is not an election anymore. it is whoever has the most money. host: sheila? guest: i think what the caller is describing his discontent -- is discontent broadly reflected across the political spectrum. people are concerned about the implications of citizens united. that this is injecting huge sums of money. not just from corporations and trade associations, but from unknown sources. potentially foreign sources. we have no idea where the money is coming from. when it is coming through dark money nonprofits.

so i think there is concern on the one hand. we have not yet seen evidence that megacorporations are wielding vast resources to inject money directly into a campaign. they could. this cycle may be kind of the cycle in which corporations get involved more dramatically in supporting super pacs. they may be supporting political nonprofit outside of our view. so the work that we at the center are undertaking is trying to expose where the money is coming from and going to, in terms of politically active nonprofits. host: remind our viewers of the difference between a super pac and political action committee. guest: political action

committees can contribute to candidates. contributions are limited. i can give $5,000 per year. the contributions to candidates are limited. you can give in the regular cycle, $10,000 to a candidate. the issue with super pacs is that they can accept unlimited sums from unlimited sources. so they can spend money to support a candidate but not take the large sums of money and transfer it to a candidate directly. what we are seeing is that many super pacs are single candidate super pacs they exist solely and exclusively to benefit or attack a single candidate.

and this is why they are of great concern. a wealthy individual or corporation can back a super pac and have a massive impact on the electoral outcome in competitive campaigns. host: david in ohio. good morning. caller: good morning. i have a solution to the problem. congress has an approval rating under 10%. this would be a great issue to mobilize persuasions within the argument. just a constitutional amendment to restrict $1000 per candidate per election cycle. and term limits and restrictions on politicians leaving office going into lobbying positions immediately. i feel that, if we as a people can come together and form a

constitutional amendment and take the power issue away from the supreme court and give the power back to the people, as many of your callers have described, i do not think it would matter if you are republican or democrat. it is obvious that the congressional ratings and approval of job performance is hovering at under 10%. this course of action would definitely realign bogus money that is ruining our system. host: we will take your ideas. sheila? guest: we at open secrets.org are not advocates for a particular reform. we advocate transparency. we believe that we do not, without having an understanding of the facts would not have the information to make a lasting and sustainable reform. there are a number of reforms

like a constitutional amendment, like public financing, on the table. that americans are rallying around. but until there is enough support from the public and pressure on legislators to make change, we are stuck with citizens united ruling, which is, of course, favoring free speech and disfavors action that would curtail large sums of money from unknown or secret sources. the judgment in that decision was, if there is no quid pro quo, there is no corruption. i think that kind of techniques for antics seeing now, some of these future candidates are playing, give light to the notion that all is working according to that scheme

presented in citizens united. host: sam, an independent. caller: good morning. we have been following dark money. this money is so dark, you have to have night vision glasses to read the denomination. it goes through the tides foundation. it is from hollywood the epa sierra club. different places. this professor at harvard lawrence lessis -- lessig, says it is the darkest money he has ever seen. the goes through foundations and is distributed to the democratic hearty. -- party. even like the money that was taken from all them armors. they say it went overseas to england.

and nothing was ever done. they accepted all that money illegally from farmers. host: all right, sam. sheila? guest: the caller makes a good point, that the phenomenon of groups raising unlimited sums from known and unknown sources is a bipartisan phenomenon. it is a tool that both parties and candidates are taking advantage of. we have seen the kind of shift from primarily conservative organizations to liberal organizations taking advantage of super pac's. and i think we are going to see particularly for the presidential campaign, lots of the money and activity focused

on the white house for their party. this is by no means relegated to one party or the other. this is a phenomenon across the spectrum. host: usa today reporting billionaire tom stier is going to target gop hopefuls to impact the white house election so that trying to tie the republicans on climate change to the koch brothers. what do you make of billionaires getting in on a single topic issue, trying to impact the results of the white house? what are your concerns of what they might expect in return? guest: our primary concern with regard to billionaires funding massive ad blitzes to influence electoral outcomes is to make sure that people understand where their messages are coming from. i think the gentleman who just called, if he were on the

receiving end of an ad blitz from tom stier's campaign, as long as it is going through a super pac, will be able to judge for himself whether or not he agrees with the message and to gauge the credibility of the message and messenger. that is a critical element. if we cannot know who the messenger is, we cannot effectively gauge credibility the message merits. if i am viewing and ad from an abortion group or gun rights group and i am familiar with that group, i can decide whether i agree with the message and i understand is sending the message. if it is coming from some group i have never heard of before unfortunately what i will do is listen more easily and potentially give the group more credibility than they deserve.

what we are concerned about is making sure that americans have information before them. including who is behind the group, what individuals are associated. what campaigns are connected and where the money is coming from. host: tom in minneapolis, you are next. good morning. caller: hello. are you there? host: you are on the air. caller: i just want to say, a quick comment on the previous section, that you should have a weekly call in on the jobs problem in america. believe me, things are bad out here. with my comment, a weekly once a week thing. i bet your calls would be off the hook. my comment is, i do not think we have any hope left anymore in this country. this is on the political spending issue.

we have a corporate-tocracy. anyway you want to look at it huge amounts of money in the election cycle. it is crazy, and there is no hope. the supreme court made it even worse. i was amazed the other day. the other day, about a week ago i heard the british isles were starting their election campaign. they started it in late march and are going to have an election in may 6. six weeks. they spend six weeks in britain. we are not civilized anymore. guest: that does sound refreshing. our campaigns have evolved into very expensive of affairs. that may not be a big deal, but the implication is that fewer people can afford to run. they have great charisma and

ideas, but if they do not have money, they are not going to be viable. so i think that is a valid concern. what is the solution? i think if there were a scandal akin to the scandals of the 90's or watergate, that could propel the public to move and to demand action from their legislators. we may see people rallying around a particular reform. leveraging technology to gather people to their campaign. and building a movement. but there has to be a recognition of the problem and there has to be debate about what is going on and what we can do about it. people need to take responsibility for their democracy. if it is not working, no one is going to fix it but us.

host: arizona, is it reis? caller: yes, thank you. i think we need to get the money out of the system so that our leaders in congress and the presidency do not have all these strings tied to them. commitments from big-money. the other thing i would like to say two people running for the president of the united states is ridiculous. the most powerful office and person in the world. and we have two representatives. it is too easy to control the office. thank you. guest: the caller makes an excellent point that the problem with this money is not just who can afford to run, but what

happens when they are in office. and they are bringing to office all thek -- the iou's to the people who put them there. the question is, if people in office are giving us the best policy they can craft based on the merits, or whether we are getting policy based on the money. based on who is spending to support candidates and who is lobbying when they are in office to shape their vote. our system has always been privately financed. if we are to retain the system of privately financed elections, with it comes the responsibility to be vigilant about who is spending the money and what they want in return. what they are getting in return. and holding elected officials accountable. we have an accountability deficit.

both in the con pain finance system -- campaign finance system and elections. we are all busy trying to hold down multiple jobs, in many cases, as your earlier guest was being about. and yet, if we cede our place at the table, lobbyist will have the ultimate say in shaping what is past. host: we told you about tom stier's plan to go after republicans in this next election. the koch brothers also strategizing, expanding in texas, and mobilizing latino voters ahead of the election. that was the houston chronicle this morning. one of our viewers wants to know, is the -- does current

election laws allow donations from foreign entities to enter the campaign? guest: foreign donors are not allowed to make contributions directly to federal candidates. however, now that citizens united is the law of the land, outside groups including politically active nonprofits, which do not disclose sources of their funds, are campaigning on behalf of, or against, federal candidates. this is the concern. we cannot know that that activity is not being run on behalf of a foreign corporation individual, or government. host: on twitter, why are political donors to -- afraid to reveal who they support? guest: political donations are a valid way to participate in our

democracy. if you support the ideals of a person running for office, to be able to contribute and support their campaign, i think it is a terrific thing. i would prefer and most people would prefer that more americans were giving amounts that are perhaps not as large. the money is coming from a very elite few americans. research shows that less than less than half of 1% of americans fund the campaigns in this country. there are lots of small donor programs trying to encourage more money coming from more people that would not have the iou's attached to it. many of these are voucher programs or they have credits in

place. there are a lot of different ways to get there. i think that kind of reform coupled with technology that makes it easier for americans to participate by giving contributions, may be one solution. host: oklahoma, jerry democrat. caller: it is actually terry. thank you very much. i have been wanting to get this message out forever. as american people, we should elect only politicians republican democrat independent and green, that spend the main focus of their campaign to take the money out of politics. it is amazing how many problems that would immediately solve if,

when we voted for a person, if they did not -- that was the focus of their campaign and their time in government. two -- to end campaign financing. host: we are going to jack next in mississippi. caller: i think they can leave the money where it is. people can donate all they want. as long as they make the politicians wear blazers saying who their contributors are, like they do in nascar, then we know what we got. there would be no question about it. host: we will go to bruce in chicago. republican. caller: how are you? i was just wondering what you think about the disclosure of people donate political money after the irs fiasco, where they

chased all the conservative people around. guest: the irs has not come out with their next rulemaking on how they are going to enforce rules on tax-exempt organizations. obviously, they were ham-handed in their handling of how to identify which nonprofits are deserving of tax-exempt status. most of the attention fell to their focus on tea party groups. the report that came out made clear that they were also looking at liberal organizations. the bottom line is that the irs really should not be the government entity that is making decisions about political activity. the federal election commission ultimately, we will need to have a much clearer line about how

much political activity is allowed for these groups. right now, it is pursuant to be -- presumed to be 50%. but some are spending more than 50% of their revenue and really should be filing with the commission as a political committee. there are indications that these groups are trying to fly under the radar in their activities. the irs and congress is going to have to get a handle on how to regulate these organizations. >> coming up on the next washington journal, a look at the debate over u.s. immigration policy. our guest is mark rosenblum deputy director of the immigration policy institute. ross eisenberg of the national association of benefactors, and

mike livermore of the university of virginia law school discussing the cost and benefits of regulations. washington journal is live every morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern. you can join the conversation with phone calls and comments on facebook and twitter. >> coming up tonight on c-span senator rand paul announces his candidacy for president. and president obama speaks at the easter prayer breakfast. that is followed by our profile of ruben gallego. during senator paul speech, he was raising $24 per second. the post writes that in the upper right corner, one of the leading forums monday was a message that may have seen cryptic to an outsider. stand with rand, it read. the idea of