ckofessor stephen raddi discusses the house intelligence memo. think christopher pharrell from judicial watch will be on to talk about reaction to the memo's release. watch c-span's washington journal live at 7:00 eastern monday morning. join the discussion. > steve: joining us on "newsmakers," tim phillips. he is the president of americans for prosperity. and joining us with the questioning is maggie severns, reporter for politico, and bill allison, who covers campaigns for bloomberg news. thank you all for being with us. let me begin with an opening question regarding the economy and the midterm elections. will the economy be enough for the republicans to maintain their majority in the house and the senate? mr. phillips: off-year elections, especially the first one for the party in power, are always tough. you know the numbers historically. obama lost 63 seats in 2010, clinton lost 54 house seats in 1994, even reagan lost 26 seats, and he started from a minority

position. they are challenging, but yeah. a good economy, which we are starting to see, alleviates the dangers. but it is still a challenging environment for republicans. there is no doubt about that. steve and you now have more than : 40 house republicans who are either seeking another office or stepping down this year? mr. phillips: right. those are high numbers. you saw another one in from new jersey just this past week. it is a challenging environment. in some ways, having folks not tied to washington and the anti-d.c. sentiment that is out there right now could be a good thing in some of these districts, actually, because they are not tied to what is happening in washington and they can run as their own person. steve: what race worries you the most in terms of the house or the senate? which one are you keeping a close eye on? it could be the barometer for the midterm elections. mr. phillips: i think when you look at some of the democrats who are up in the senate, we will find out if heitkamp and donnelly and mccaskill can be so partisan, vote against the tax cuts, and still make it. i'm really interested to see what happens there, because they clearly chose a more partisan

bent over legislation that was going to be more popular in their states. i'm interested in those seats. steve: let's turn to maggie severns of politico. maggie: tim, over the weekend you laid out this figure that there are 80 seats that you all think could be in play by november, and that is a big number, bigger than a lot of republicans have guessed. and that would include some seats that people would think of as probably being pretty safe republican seats. numbers-wise, can you talk about how you got to the 80 number and do you think it is possible that some other republican groups and republican lawmakers are maybe underestimating the threat to the house? mr. phillips: i do not think they are underestimating. when you talk to speaker ryan and others they know both the history and the unique circumstances right now with the public being skeptical of washington. and by the way, i think it is a good thing to have some healthy skepticism about whatever party is in power, but i don't think they are underestimating it. the 80 number, we think right now there are 40-45 seats that are absolutely in play. but we do think that number will rise.

history -- i do not need keep going back to that -- if we think about 2010, i think most people in january of 2010 at have said there were 35, 40 democrat-held seats in play. that number kept rising and it ended up being almost to 100 by the time you got to the fall. so i think it is a prudent thing to assume that when you look at some of the special elections, the wisconsin state senate race that concluded a week or so ago, it was a troubling thing. there is no way around that. but republicans would be wrong to do anything but look at that raise, look at the virginia margin on the governor's race. it was not surprising to see gillaspie lose. virginia is trending a bit blue. we all know that. but the margin, 9 points, that was significant. the left is energized right now. i think it is important to it -- to understand that, acknowledge it and think of ways you can work on it. maggie: and do you think some of the recent democratic victories -- are there missteps you have seen republicans take? we have seen democrats win several times. where do you think or do you

think there needs to be any kind of course correction or different strategy going forward to make sure republicans keep the house? mr. phillips: i think it is important to extol the benefits of what happens or what the tax cuts and tax reform bill are doing for the country. and also, the positive impact of getting rid of so many of the obama-era and some bush-era regulations and red tape that stifled opportunity and growth. and frankly, they led to a decade in which we never had a year with plus 3% growth, which was devastating. steve: bill allison? bill: so at the donor's summit, it was announced that charles and david koch and the network they have put together will be spending $400 million in this cycle at all levels, and they have spent some money and your group has been out promoting things like the republican tax plan and some of the issues in washington. how much of that total has already been spent and how much are you going to be targeting house races in the midterms in

terms of the dollar figure? mr. phillips: you make a great point. that number includes both 2017 and 2018. you are exactly right. and it also includes policy efforts. so we announced roughly up to a $20 million, maybe more effort to explain the benefit of the tax bill that passed to the american people. so it is not just the politics, it is also involving a lot of policy. that is an important point. and we probably spent 35%, 40% of that in 2017. so it is important that is a two-year number, and it also includes state-level efforts as well, with the state level and gubernatorial, both electoral and policy fronts. bill: are there other agenda items you will be pushing a policy realm going forward? obviously we have immigration coming up, the infrastructure bill. are there other issues you will be promoting in addition to spending on the elections and state and local, as well as federal? mr. phillips: we are encouraged by the president's right to try

initiative he talked about on the health-care front. we have supported efforts like that at the state level, and that could be one of the bipartisan approaches. because i think that arizona, we supported efforts there that were successful to allow right to try for terminally ill americans, and there is some bipartisance. but i really hope americans and i hope democrats will look at that. it is important. it is genuinely not a partisan thing. the infrastructure you mentioned is important. we want to make sure it doesn't end up looking like the obama stimulus of 2009, which did nothing. it was not shovel ready, it it was just a bunch of giveaways. frankly, to corporations more than anything else and other groups. we want to make sure it is not devolve into that. steve: can i take a step back and ask about the connection between americans for prosperity and charles and david koch? mr. phillips: sure. steve: what is the connection? mr. phillips: david is the chairman of the foundation, the americans for prosperity foundation, and charles is key leader in the broader network that americans for prosperity, both the c4 and c3, are part of. absolutely.

we are proud to have their support and help and everything else. steve: where do you see yourselves in terms of the rnc and other outside groups trying to help in this midterm election? mr. phillips: the party's job is to get the candidates elected and reelected, and our job is to advance policies. so we look at candidates -- if they are not with us on most of our issues, then we do not help them with -- republican, democrat, we focus on the policies. so for example, in the last cycle we decided not to help out with senator kelly ayotte in new hampshire, because on our issues, she was not a champion. we stayed out of that race. she ended up losing by a couple thousand or so votes. their job is to elect every member of their party regardless , of policy or philosophy. our job is to advance policy, and so if candidates do not align, we do not help them. steve: and numbers wise, how many are you helping this year, roughly? mr. phillips: we have not made any final decisions, but we are looking at the 10 democrats on

the senate side who represent states that trump carried. they are not voting with the folks in their states. i mentioned earlier -- heitkamp, donnelly, and mccaskill on the tax cut bill. that is an example of them blatantly choosing partisanship over what is best for the states, and i think it will be held accountable in an effective way on that front. steve: have you ever supported a democrat? mr. phillips: we have on the state level. there have been some good free-market champions over the last decade or so. and at the federal level, we would love to. we were genuinely hoping senator manchin or senator donnelly or heitkamp, who talked a good game at the beginning of this year -- we were hoping, and reached out and said guys, support this tax reform, support some of the cra work, rolling back or getting rid of regulations using the congressional review act, and they have not done that and it has been disappointing. maggie: you had asked about the structure of the network, and i know you have that big $400 million plan for the midterms. last cycle, there was some talk about and some reports of the koch network scaling back its

reach. you talked about the spending target for the midterms but will , you have the same staff and a scope with the various groups that are part of the network that are similar to 2014 or other past elections? mr. phillips: we announced we are spending 60% more than we have spent in the 2016 election cycles, and we will be spending more on any midterm in our network's history. we are exceedingly involved, expanding our efforts in the politics and the policy arena, and i know you were at one of our seminars. you know we are a comprehensive network. there are elements that work to alleviate poverty, joblessness in the higher red level. that is one of the misconceptions about our network. we do policy and politics but it , is more broader than that. maggie: and in terms of boots on the ground in this cycle, you are proud of having grass-roots

chapters across the country. are you going to have a similar or greater number of people doing that on the groundwork, or will the money go towards television and that kind of funding? mr. phillips: we have spent years building field staff, field offices, and volunteers. florida for example we have 13 , field offices from the dadendle to date county -- county in south florida. that makes us unique on our side. we do television and radio, and have already done some of that this cycle, but what makes us the most effective operation on our side is that infrastructure. it is hundreds of staff, thousands of volunteers. steve: bill allison of bloomberg news? bill: you said you are active in 36 states? mr. phillips: yes, sir. bill: there are 14 states you are not covering. are there concerns -- california is one where you do not have members where there are some tough house races, some incumbents who are setting down. is it a problem not having the network and some of these areas and is it something you would

like to expand to in the future? mr. phillips: we have thought about that. we only get involved in a political situation when two criteria are met. one is the candidate align closely with us on key issues? and two, do we have an infrastructure to make a difference? not just tv ads, but make a difference. we are not in california, we are not in new york state, we are also not in alabama, which is more of a red state. so we talked about it. , we want to make sure when we go to a state, we can move the needle. those are states we do not feel like we are ready to move into yet. steve one of the issues that did : not come up in the state of union addresses the rising deficit. it will increase the debt over the next decade. the president is calling for $1.5 trillion in infrastructure spending. is that an issue your organization has or will address? mr. phillips: absolutely. we are concerned about spending, and we were deeply disappointed

during the years the republicans had the congress, even though it was president obama, who did not care about deficit. they blew through the spending caps. we held republicans accountable and called them on it. it was disappointing. the years we had sequestration held the spending in place. it was not perfect, but it did that. republicans have failed on spending, and they are still failing on spending. they should get to a regular quarter budget. -- regular order budget. they absolutely should. there is no excuse to have the house and the senate, for several years, and not have a regular order budget. we criticize harry reid, and rightly so, when he and nancy pelosi failed to have the budget all the years they were in power. but republicans did the same thing. it is a failure of both parties. you are exactly right. when we look at history, we believe that tax cuts and lowering rates stimulates economic activity and increases revenues despite lower rates. we saw that with the kennedy

cuts, the reagan cuts, and in the bush cuts in 2001 and 2003, in a time of war. we saw revenues to government go up. so both parties have failed miserably on spending. you are exactly right. steve: we saw it with george w. bush and the republicans controlling the house, senate, and the white house, and the gop is not addressing it. mr. phillips: and they need to. we have urged them. you are saying social security and medicare is off the table. at least address medicaid, which is a third key entitlement, although technically it is not. there are over 70 million americans on medicaid, which we believe is a failure of obamacare. it is substandard care. at least address medicaid, and we have urge them even now, this year, let's take some reforms and try to provide a better service to americans on medicaid, and get a handle on spending. both parties have failed. i agree with you on that. maggie: let's stick with that idea because i have heard some rumblings about different areas where you think there could be

an opportunity for entitlement reform this year, which is obviously a hot button issue and one i think a lot of republicans are nervous to address heading into an election. can you talk to me about the different areas of entitlement reform you be urging lawmakers to take up? mr. phillips: medicaid. i will give paul ryan credit. when he was budget chair back in 2011, 2012, when they had the house. they did the ryan budget. you are member those budgets. to their credit, they addressed medicare and medicaid, reformed both, and they were good plans. they were not perfect, no budget is. it was gutsy. they did it, they passed it through the house, everyone knew it would die in the senate with harry reid. it was important that they did that document. it was real. when paul ryan gets picked as vp, the left jumped all over that. it did not work. the share of the vote that romney and brian got on safety five and older went up. the american public is willing

to listen at this point on entitlement reform and spending reform. at a minimum, medicaid. block granting it to the states, letting them experiment will provide better services and save dollars. maggie: and you think it is a feasible policy for republicans to tackle this year? mr. phillips: i wish they would. i do not see evidence of them doing it yet, but we urge them to do that. and again, the ryan budget in 2011 and 2012, generally reformed medicaid and medicare, and the share of the vote went up with 65 plus voters. maggie: and you are waiting into immigration, as that conversation gets started. i understand it is the first time that the koch network has looked at immigration policy federally. you are different from republicans who are hoping to severely curtail future immigration. can you talk about how you are approaching that, specifically when it comes to the trumpet -- trump administration and the markers they are laying down. do you see space to work with them? how are you going to approach

this question of whether they will curtail immigration in the future? mr. phillips: we applauded the president's proposal and -- on immigration when he cannot after we studied it last week. it was thoughtful and it provides a path for dreamers to have some certainty in their lives, which they deserve and need. we don't think there should be arbitrary cuts to the number of individuals allowed to come here. you can have a reasonable discussion, which our nation should. we would hope it with that meant -- it would segment out the dreamers, which is a different area. there is a timeframe, march, that is there. we would urge get that done. on the other side, between allowing reasonable approaches to family-based immigration versus the very real security and job fields, those are only reasonable debates to have, but hold them separately. because there is a time, and deadline, timeframe for the dreamers. we have said that.

those who are just in an ad hominem fashion attacking the president on immigration, certainly from the left, it was a nuanced, thoughtful program and deserves better than nancy pelosi and the others have called it. bill: in meetings with reporters, the president said by putting that 1.8 million number out there, they essentially boxed in the democrats. they were surprised that the number was so high. did you sense the same thing? mr. phillips: i think the president put them in a box by providing a pathway for dreamers. it is like the democrats do not want to accept yes for an answer. they are so afraid of their own hard left base, the indivisible folks, the resistance folks. democrats are horrified of their base and are scared of their own shadow when it comes to the hard left that hates the president. they do not want to take yes for an answer, even on something like the president's approach to dreamers.

bill: switching back to electoral politics. you talk about getting the right kind of candidates in, and we know that early we had the situation in alabama, with luther strange, and an insurgency. are there candidates like in -- like chris mcdaniel in mississippi or other challengers to incumbent republicans that are backing over a sitting senator in the republican party? mr. phillips: over the years, we have stayed out of the primaries almost completely. i think there was one or two exceptions, a north carolina house race. we had an egregious house member there in the last cycle. we stayed out for the most part. there are other groups do that, and that is not really the comparative advantage we bring to the table. bill: and you mentioned some of the senate races, that you were focusing on. are there incumbent republicans, like in nevada, where you are also thinking of supporting candidates? mr. phillips: we have not yet

ruled out or ruled in individual republicans. we were deeply disappointed with senator heller last year on the health care legislation. especially on health care here . his effort on tax reform on the committee -- it was on the finance -- he played a crucial role in both helping craft the legislation and then standing tall on it. we held a meeting with him this saturday afternoon after the final big vote on the senate side. so that was important for us with regards to senator heller. as far as incumbents go, we're not looking. but we have definitely ruled in approaches in wisconsin with regard to senator baldwin and senator heitkamp, donnelly, and mccaskill who are so bipartisan -- so partisan at this point. bill: you mentioned the tax plan and the health care vote.

when you are evaluating candidates, what -- mr. phillips: we said tax reform was our top priority. that will be the most important. we do look at other issues, like spending in general. criminal justice reform. that is an issue that folks to hear we have worked on. but we worked on it during the obama years. leverage -- we worked with holder and others on criminal justice reform. we think that is a pathway, there is a pathway for passage on the federal side. there was some bipartisan support and we are urging that. that is important to us. sometimes republicans want to beat their chest and say we want to be tough on crime. you are not being tough on crime. instead, you are being tough on taxpayers and not helping to alleviate the crime problem when you take an anti-reform approach to criminal justice. obviously judicial nominations and confirmations on the senate side. this president and senate

deserve a lot of credit. this is the most federal judges confirmed for an administration since the nixon years. i believe that is accurate. we think mitch mcconnell and cornyn and those guys deserve a lot of credit for the gorsuch confirmation. they moved quickly and got it through in the face of very nasty opposition from the left. that is something we really respect and will remember. steve: you don't control the president's schedule, but barack obama -- mr. phillips: we tried to. steve: they did not put him out there a lot in 2010. is it helpful or hurtful to have donald trump on the campaign trail in october and november? mr. phillips: he was an effective advocate in the state of the union. i watched that speech. it was effective. that is the message americans need to hear. i think the president made an effective case, also vice president pence in west virginia. bill, you mentioned west virginia? he was an effective advocate there.

i think he is in pittsburgh friday night. i do think on this issue they have shown they are effective spokespersons. steve: but he did not campaign in virginia for the governor's race or in alabama? mr. phillips i think it is most : effective when an administration campaigns on the policy, because the history of any president being able to stem the tide in an off year is not as good, especially the first off-year election. it is always tough. there is always a pushback from the electorate, regardless of who the president is. maggie: so it was a lot of news in 2016 when it became clear the koch network was not going to support trump as he ran for election. i'm wondering looking after the big win on tax reform and which -- and gorsuch, which you were all pleased with, is there any possibility heading into 2020 will be spending money to help the president of the reelection? mr. phillips: that is a long way down the road.

we have 2018 on the policy front and 2019 on the policy front. we will make that decision down the road. maggie: but you are not ruling it out on this point? mr. phillips: we have not even discussed 2020. let's get through 2018. there is a lot of ball to be played on the policy and political front. and in 2019. i will say this president had one of the most productive years for president on actually broadening opportunity and genuine freedom of any president in a generation, going back to reagan. that is how good a year this president has when you look at all they accomplished on the economic front. especially the epa appointment, interior appointment, and the reforms we are seeing there that have given energy independence -- they had a really good first year. that was impressive. bill: i was talking to a donor who told me he did not support donald trump in 2016 last summer, a member of the network said if i had known he was going to govern like this, i would have supported his candidacy in 2016.

where are the big areas you think he has fallen short of where the networks priorities are and americans for prosperity's priorities are? mr. phillips: they have done so much good in the first year. i want to be careful to criticize, because they have done a really great job. we do urge them to bring on entitlement reform and to start rolling back spending, because that is so important for the country. tax cuts are crucial. they did that, and it is the best tax cut in a generation. more so, i think, even in some ways better than the 1986 tax reform that led to so much economic growth. but we would urge them to generally rethink the timeline -- the entitlement reform. even though we are having economic growth, thankfully, we are on a path to bankruptcy if we do not make some dramatic changes. that is an important thing they could do. some of the rhetoric on trade is worrisome. we think free and open trade is something that is crucial for prosperity, and the long-term

health for our nation. also the world. but especially our nation. it has been good for our nation. nafta has been so good. i was in wisconsin a couple of weeks ago. nafta is crucial to our farmers and manufacturers there. it is a robust trade. i was in texas before that. the top exporting states. you have swing states, red states, blue states, but forget all that. americans benefit from free trade. we hope the rhetoric on that comes down and we make sure that law stays in place because three trade is a good thing for our country. steve: let me ask you about speaker ryan, because the question continues as to whether he will be speaker in 2019. will the seek reelection? will he stay on as speaker? the you have any insight? he has talked about entitlement reform is his priority this year. mr. phillips: he checked off something you has wanted to do for his whole time in public office, a genuine tax reform. he has wanted to do that from one of the first times i met him over a decade ago. the other thing he wanted to do

is genuine entitlement reform. we have said that hey, that ryan budget, medicare and medicaid reforms that you had -- let's take a stab at something similar. we have updated it. i hope he stays around and serves, because in many ways, he has done a good job in difficult circumstances. i don't know what he is going to do. i wonder if he knows what he is going to do. i think he is maybe still thinking it through. steve: ted phillips, president for americans were prosperity. thank you for being with us on "newsmakers." mr. phillips: you bet. steve we continue the : conversation with bill allison and maggie severance. bill, let me begin with you on daca and the immigration debate. we are reaching the deadline on funding the government, and of course where this goes will determine what happens with the spending plan. where is this heading on capitol hill? bill: i thought it was interesting that tim phillips said that they would like to see daca split off from the rest of

the immigration proposal, which is almost a nonstarter with the administration. they see this as a package. if you give up on daca, if you put out the 1.8 million pathway to citizen for people that were brought to this country when they were children, you do not have any leverage talk about things like chain migration or family reunification or visa lotteries. i thought that was a very interesting point of conflict between the position of the koch network. and there are other solutions -- a visit want to see an immigration solution that generally support republicans. where this is going this is , awfully hard to say. we have a president who has been unpredictable on the issue. we have democrats who are in some ways -- on one hand, we have got the progressives, who are really looking at this is an issue for 2020. you have moderates, who are looking for a solution because

they are running in red states in 2018. i really do not have a crystal ball. i am not sure where this will be heading, but i have a feeling we will see -- you probably will not see the kind of shutdown that we did the last time, or -- although how this gets resolved is not certain. one of the big things is that there is a court decision that delays the march 5 ending of the daca program, which gives them more breathing space, and it seems like they will need that to figure it it out. steve: your beat includes campaign-finance. they change for the rnc with replacing steve when. -- steve wynn. how significance was this replacement, and death the replacement of steve wynn and the allegations he is now facing? bill: it is not what the republican party needs right now. the fact that your finance chair has been accused of sexual misconduct. they moved very quickly for him to step down.

the report came out on friday, he was gone on saturday. in terms of how it will affect the republican national committee, one thing a lot of donors told me is that it was not just steve wynn that was responsible for the amazing fundraising with the republican party. they outraised the democrats two to one during 2017. they broke all records for an off-year for the republican national committee. if you look at chairwoman mcdaniels, she was involved in this. made a lot of calls to donors. bringing on todd rickets, who is the son of joe and marlena r ickets who are big donors in super pac's. sheldon adelson was a supporter. the have the kind of rolodex you need for this kind of a job. the thinking is it will not hurt fundraising that much with the team at the rnc.

-- trumpism not >>

there are some real concerns, but also republicans are in a pretty good position right now. they have majorities in both chambers of congress. we will have to see. steve: maggie severns of politico, bill allison of bloomberg. thank you for being with us on c-span's "newsmakers." >> tuesday morning, we are live in jackson, mississippi for the

next up on the c-span last 50-capitals tour. general jimattorney hood will be our guest during washington journal, starting at nine claim 30 am eastern. this is 90 minutes even >> he asked me to be very brief and introducing our panel. i'm going to point it to their nametags. what i really think you need to know about our panel is between f the four of them they have argued 84 cases at the supreme court. if you think about the number of cases they hear each term, that is well over a full term's worth for the panelists. i want to thank the supreme court for giving us interesting stuff to talk about today. emerging,as one theme it has to be redistricting.