>> tonight on c-span's landmark cases -- we'll explore the civil rights cases of 1883. the supreme court decision that struck down the civil rights act of 1875, a federal law that granted all people access to public accommodations like trains and theaters, regardless of race. justice john marshall harlan, known as the great descenter, cast the election that eclipsed the majority opinion. explore this with danielle howard alker, dean of university's law school. watch "landmark cases" on c-span, c-span.org or listen with the free c-span radio app. for background on each case, order your copy of the "landmark cases" companion book available for $8.95 plus ipping and handling at

c-span.org/landmarkcases. >> this week on newsmakers, the chair of the democratic national committee tom perez. james with "the washington post" and the washington bureau hief for "usa today," susan. susan: there is a great group of senators talking about gun control and the president embraced democratic backed proposals when it comes to gun control. should they make a deal with the president or do you have doubts about whether you can trust and follow through on some of the things that he said at that meeting? toim this is like --

the messenger: this is like charlie brown. tom: this is like charlie brown. senator durbin and others appeared to say i want to help the dreamers. we see this now with gun issues. we see it with this off-the-cuff statement about trade enforcement. and he's just not reliable. that's the problem we have here. and it's a problem for the american people. it's a problem for the american workers. he tells the carrier plan, i am going to save your jobs and those jobs are gone. he tells dreamers, i'm going to pass the clean dream act. commonsense gun violence reduction measures and the second amendment can't coexist. we will certainly fight for it. i don't have faith in him. he met with the n.r.a. you saw him backtrack within hours. susan: i wonder if you have concerns, maybe not so much as d.n.c. chairman but as an american, the kind of chaos we saw at the white house including the announcement thursday on terrorists which

took white house staffers by surprise. are you concerned we're seeing something quite serious happening at the white house? tom: i think he's the most dangerous president in american history. he's not trustworthy. that's a significant problem when your president is not trustworthy. our allies don't know which america they are going to be dealing with. when you see so many examples, whether it's dreamers, whether the russian intrusion on our election, the biggest voter integrity issue is russia and yet he still hasn't instructed anybody to do something about it. and this has national security implications. this has economic implications, and it's an abdication of moral leadership. the moral bankruptcy of this administration, you look at the number of people who have had to leave sex scandals, the culture of corruption. this is dangerous stuff, and it really -- our image around the world has taken an absolute

beating as a result of this. james: a lot of the reasons it looks like it's going to be a good year for democrats. the president's historically unpopular. you unveiled a plan to contact 50 million voters in 201 which is very, very ambition. but fundraising's been hard spite the energy and enthusiasm at the grassroots level. the d.n.c. has $7 million. will they ride the wave in 2018 that looks like it will be form something tom: won another special election in new hampshire. before that there was florida and kentucky and missouri and minnesota. and elsewhere because the energy is there. on the fundraising front, we raised $67 million last year which was more than 2015, more than 2013, more than 2007, more than 2005.

in 2005, the republicans and you saw -1 what happened in 2006 in the house. republicans have a lot more rich donors. 2/3 were small donors. the average online donation was $21. the reason i have so much confidence moving forward, while the republicans raised more money than the democrats, undeniably, the tax cut, they have a transactional party, they're morally bankrupt. they helped roy moore get elected in alabama. they are excited about a sheriff who is a lawless heriff in arizona. they're paying donald trump's legal bills. the moral bankruptcy of the legal party, the party of

lincoln is dead. we're winning because we're fighting for the issues people care about -- good jobs, health care, retirement security, the ability to form a union. james: because we're talking with c-span, a lot of people who care about these races follow this closely. i want to talk about the big races. we had a lot of special elections but in pennsylvania there is a special election in western pennsylvania, an area where democrats used to win a lot but trump won this district. the republican congressman there resigned because of a sex scandal. democrats spent 10 times -- republicans spent 10 times more money than republicans. there is not a lot resources being spent there. maybe the resources might make a difference. obviously you have to conserve them somewhat but how do you make those decisions? are you confident there will be enough resources to win in that pennsylvania special election? tom: as you know, that's

with connor lamb. by 18-20 points and 2016. connor is running a good campaign. to help raise money for him, and other things, i think an upset is a real possibility there and i'll tell you why. he's fighting for the issues that people care about. there's a lot of union members out there. i've been in that neck of the woods. there are a lot of union voters who voted for donald trump. and they voted for donald trump because he promised change. and what they're seeing is the change they're getting is not change that's improving their lives. when you put the affordable care act at risk, that's not improving their lives. hen you nominate and confirm a supreme court justice who's poised to take away the right to organize, union members get that. when you talk tough about trade

but now the trade deficit with china has increased and you see the buildings that donald trump builds, they're all built with chinese steel, they get that. and lamb is speaking to what people care about, brighter future. i think he has a chance. theyou look at everywhere where we have been winning, and the common denominator is these areas is they were trump districts. we can win everywhere. that's the lesson i learned in 2017. whether it's oklahoma last year or pennsylvania this year. susan: texas, the first real primary severe next tuesday in texas. a decision by the democratic campaign for research on one of the progressive candidates. laura mozer. who twinges, was it the right thing for the d.n.c. to do and

does this signal tension between the progressives in your party who have a lot of energy and other less liberal elements of the party that may be concerned about the party moving too far left? the first question is, was that dccc to thing for the do? tom: i wouldn't have done it, because i think when we talk about the issues, when we do what we did in virginia, they talked about the issues at the end of the day ralph northman won and we came out of there strong. i wouldn't have done it differently. the dccc has an ability to endorse in primary and they do that from time to time. but, again, i would have done it differently. i think we -- as we move forward, what i'm seeing everywhere, including places

where there are spirited primes, democrats, like we did in virginia at the end of that, it has increased turnout and our really put wind in back for the general elections. were going to keep fighting. we have some real opportunities in state houses. we have some real opportunities in governors' races. i've been traveling across the country. i was in oklahoma recently. there is a great candidate for governor there. south dakota, they have the best candidate i think in 40 years. james: in places like south dakota and oklahoma, progressives can win but sometimes you can't be as -- you look at joe manchin from west virginia is not as liberal as a lot of other senators. i guess my bigger picture question what susan said, republicans lost a lot of winnable races in 2010 and 2012 like christina o'donnell in --

tom: there is a long list. james: republicans would have had the majority. they could have won -- they could have won the senate majority in 2012. in 2014 mitch mcconnell, republicans in d.c. got very aggressive trying to clear the field and anoint people -- rub the grassroots level the wrong way on their side. in general without the party controlling the white house, you're the leader of the democratic party, what role do you see to make sure democrats don't nominate the analogue of christine o'donnell or sharon engel, especially in a state like south dakota or oklahoma? tom: well, i don't believe we should be anointing candidates. texas should be electing people in texas. virginia last year, i think what worked best, everybody who went to the polls felt like they had a fair shake and their

candidate had a fair shake and to me that's the most important thing. what we're doing as democrats since 2017, one of the keys to our success has been that the candidates that have been fielded have been spectacular. i spoke personally to almost all of the candidates running in the virginia house of delegates because i wanted to tell them the new d.n.c. is about helping elect democrats from the school board to the oval office and we did help them. they were incredibly qualified. in oklahoma i met the four new members who are democrats of the state legislature and the state senate. spectacular candidates who were talking about the most important issue in oklahoma which in oklahoma is public education because kids are going to school four days a week in public schools because the republicans have cut the budget to the bone. actually threw it a bone. and so i think what we're -- what gives me optimism about 2018, james, is that we are

fielding really good candidates and the candidates who are winning are winning in the aftermath of very, very fair, open and spirited primaries. imaries where there really are high road debate going on and that's the key to our success. susan: you talk about party unity. i wonder if we can talk what happened in california to a democratic icon dianne feinstein elected five times to the u.s. senate in california but failed to win the endorsement of the california party because they argued a new time for leadership. said she was too likely to compromise on issues that are important to progressives. are you surprised she failed to get an endorsement? threshold to 0%

get this. this isn't the first time. when i read stories that made it appear this was unprecedented, actually it's not. one thing i learned when i talk about unity, we have to be careful not to confuse unity with unanimity. unity means we don't have to agree on all the issues. in california they have robust debates about health care, for instance. how do we -- we all believe that as democrats that health care is the right for all and not a privilege for a few. thanks to president obama we're 90% of the way there. we're having a spirited debate in california and elsewhere how to get that last 10%. i think that's a big source of debate within the party and it's -- susan: did senator feinstein or allies to get some help, get over the finish line she doesn't face the situation, not catastrophic but embarrassing for a senator with that longevity, did they reach out? tom: i didn't speak to senator

feinstein before the convention last week. i can't say i was surprised. actually, if you look up and down the ticket i don't think -- i'm not sure anybody got up to 60%. i think there's one candidate who may have gotten to 60%. and so what it reflects in california there is a spirited debate within the democratic party about where we should go on really important issues. but to me what's most important, at the end of the day, and you've seen this in california and elsewhere, people understood our number one goal and our number one imperative -- not goal but imperative -- is to take back our democracy and make sure this most dangerous president in american history is someone that we are confronting and putting our values forward clearly. james: in illinois there's another primary there, there is a spirited debate coming up the week after next. voted nski, democrat

for 20-week abortion bans. a lot of women's groups mobilizing to stop him. he's a democrat. you're neutral in that race. is there a place for someone like dan lipinski in the democratic party, someone who hasn't supported choice pretty consistently? tom: there are many democrats who are -- play a very important role in the democratic party who have a different view on that. i want joe manchin to get re-elected, for instance. we're working hard to make sure that happens. i think the democratic party has that place. again, i am proud of our platform and our platform very clearly says, a woman's right to choose is not a matter of row v. wade. it's about women's economic empowerment. i very much believe in that platform. at the same time, i also want to make sure joe manchin gets

re-elected. james: but not dan lipinski not necessarily? tom: when you have a spirited -- when you have a spirited primary like that, one thing we learned at the d.n.c., when you in fact are in perception trying to put the thumb on the scale in a spirited primary, that can undermine public confidence. that's why we've been neutral. james: let's talk about that. susan: early question that james asked was about some of the financial difficulties you had that the r.n.c. has outraced you about 2-1. does some of that reflect continuing wounds from the primaries, the presidential primaries last time around and the feeling by the bernie sanders forces that the d.n.c. did have their thumb on the scale? tom: again, when you look at the facts, when i got to the d.n.c., we had a ton of work to do. it was a turn-around job at scale. we were a shell of our former self.

it was a year ago almost to the day, february 25, when the election was. and that was standing those challenges in 2017 we were able to raise $67 million. in 2015 and 2013 we had the white house. what i was most proud of is 2/3 of our money, susan, were from small donors. one of the folks we hired who is doing our online fundraising is someone who worked for senator sanders because senator sanders did a spectacular job of getting small dollar fundraising. i'm very excited we were able -- we had four people in our finance shop. we're supposed to have 30. it took until august to staff up. even with that we were able to do that. again, the republicans will outraise us. the only thing they talk about is they've been able to outraise the democrats in money. they can't talk about the issues because they supported roy moore. they want to support joe

arpaillo. they have to pay a lot of legal bills. they have a sock in their mouth on sexual harassment. they have a sock in their mouth on the issue of the russians. as a result, the moral bankruptcy of the republican party to me is the big story. we've been able to lead with our values and that's how we're rin wynning. we're talking about the key issues on people's minds -- good jobs, retirement security access to health care. how much t blank, money do you have on hand? -- greta: point blank, how much money do you have on hand? tom: more money in january of 2018 the them in any month, january in our history. the question is, do we have a montage of enough money to implement our game plan? bsolutely. susan: that's one we think is important in the latest fcc

report, $6.5 million. a debt of $6.2 million. are you basically broke? tom: no. how do you think we're winning elections? we invested $1 million in alabama. we have made more investments to strengthen state parties in the last year than any time in the last 20 years. and i'm proud of that. that's how we're helping win elections. our investments in organizing helped get boots on the ground in oklahoma. our investments in organizing in ohio helped get signatures on a ballot initiative that forced republicans to come to a table and compromise on new way, an electoral commission to build fair maps. so we keep winning elections and keep -- and that's important, winning and making investments in long-term organizing and making sure we have the technology tools to

compete because the republicans beat us at our own game in 2016. they invested in organizing. they built a technology infrastructure that was undeniably impressive, and that's the catch-up we're playing now and i'm proud of the team he we have and help. james: you mentioned senator sanders' campaign is helping you out part of your reorganization effort. to supporters of bernie sanders from 2016 who are worried the scale was tipped, they didn't get a fair shake, how is 2020 going to be different? what things to make sure the playing field is level next time, what can you tell them about specifically things that are going to change? tom: well, we had the unity commission was meeting in 2017. for your viewers, the unity commission was people from the sanders campaign, from the clinton campaign, and folks that i put on the commission. and the goal is to figure out

what are some recommendations that can help ensure that the process is open to everyone, that we are making it easier for people to vote and that people have confidence in the democratic party, that's what it was about. there was some great recommendations that i embraced. as we speak right now, the d.n.c. is actively attempting to operationalize those recommendations. recommendations such as making primaries -- making caucuses more open. too many times you have to win the boss lottery in order to vote in a caucus. that's not fair. there will actually end up being less caucuses as a result of some of the recommendations of the commission. also reducing the number of superdelegates. i think the most important thing we need to do are two things for 2020. number one, we got to make sure the process is fair in fact and

fair in perception. so everyone feels like they have a fair shake. equally importantly we have to make sure whenever we get to the nominee in 2020, that that person is handed a technology infrastructure and organizing infrastructure that will enable them to hit the ground running. those are the two principal tasks moving into 2020. greta: we have a few minutes left. susan: we will have 2018. "usa today" poll we put out today, just this week, in this week's paper, we found americans by 2-1 -- so they wanted to elect a congress in november that would mostly stand up for president trump, not one that would mostly cooperate with president trump. give us a number. what are the odds you think democrats will win control of the house of representatives in these mid terms? tom: i think we can win both the house and senate. susan: just talking about the house. do you think 100% guarantee? tom: you never will have 100% guarantee. what we do have -- the reason

we got the wind at our back is we're fighting for issues people care about. people want a president who's honest. people want a president who levels with them. brings people together, doesn't divide. people want a president that's fighting for good jobs and health care. this president has done the opposite at every single turn. and people are embarrassed by this president. and we had promises made. the workers in indiana he had carrier plant, i'm going to save your jobs, then those jobs leave. wisconsin, the kimberly clarke employees. they lost their jobs after they got a massive tax break. what do they do with it? stock buybacks and job losses. i think we can win both the house and senate because we're fielding good candidates and leading with our values. if you ask to put odds on it? i'll leave it to the las vegas

oddsmakers. i have good feeling the house. susan: let me ask one follow-up. if democrats win control of the house which is now clearly a prospect, a realistic prospect -- tom: and the senate. [laughter] susan: there are some democrats in the house who are already talking about impeachment proceedings. nancy pelosi, the leader, has tried to tamp down some of that talk. if democrats win control of the house would it be a mistake for there to be a push to pursue impeachment proceedings against the president? tom: i think when we have a successful november, i'm pretty confident that the first thing we're going to be doing is fighting for better wages for works workers, fighting to make -- workers, fighting to make sure we have health care, fighting to make sure we have a tax system that's fair. giveaway for wealthy people and corporations is coming at the expense of our children's future. those will be the areas

congress is focus on. making sure we pass the clean dream act, make sure we take on the issue of commonsense gun violence protection issues. i think those are the issues you are going to see democrats focusing on because those are the issues that make sure we're leading with our values and building an america where everyone feels like they're getting ahead. greta: one last quick question. james: i guess economic issues. the "usa today" shows everything. it's very easy to get distracted by the commotion in washington but also there's a very legitimate investigation into russian interference. the d.n.c. was hacked last time. should democrats also be talking about russia and the threat that poses to our democracy, and how do you do -- without making that what bob mueller is doing overshadow it? tom: i do talk about russia and i do talk about it because the most serious threat to our electoral integrity is not

hese made up voter fraud allegations of republicans. the most serious threat is russian interference. we know they will do it again because they tried in virginia to get involved in that campaign. we'll continue to try and that is why we need to talk about this. i mean, the president's actions in this and the president around them, the culture of corruption that you see around this administration. imagine if we had a president in hillary clinton right now and so many of the people around her had been indicted or had had to resign under scandalist circumstances, gosh. what were them, 50 benghazi hearings. that would all they would be doing. so this russia interference issue is very, very serious. and the involvement at the highest levels of this ministration -- the wagons

keep circling around this because it's pretty clear. this president, you know, continues to be putin's poodle. and i can't understand why he wants to be a lap dog of putin unless putin's got something on him. that's the only thing i can think of as a reasonable explanation for why this president, mr. tough guy negotiator, has become putin's poodle. greta: well, i'm sure these two reporters would love to follow-up. chairman tom perez, thank you ery much for being this week's "newsmakers." susan, james, thank you as well. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2018] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. isit ncicap.org] >> on capitol hill the house will gavel back in at 2:00 p.m. eastern time for more speachings. legislative work starts at -- speeches. legislative work starts at 5:00 with bills naming post offices. any votes will take place at 6:30. and this week, delay or suspend

certain emissions. you can watch live house coverage here on c-span. "the washington post" reporting republicans in congress are maneuvering to stop president trump from implementing terrorists on steel and aluminum imports. they argue the tariffs run counter to the core of their economic agenda and could cause political problems as they head into the 2018 mid term elections. members of the house ways and means committee are also circulating a letter arguing against the tariffs of 25% on steel imports and 10% on aluminum. you can read more in "the washington post" online. we could hear about tariffs and the congressional response during today's white house briefing with press secretary sarah sanders. that's scheduled to start at 3:00 p.m. eastern time. and later, we'll hear from education secretary betsy devos speaking to a gathering of state education officials in washington, d.c. she'll be there live at 4:15 eastern time on c-span3. also on c-span3, vice president mike pence and u.s. ambassador

to the u.n. nicki haley will be speaking at the american-israel public affairs committee conference, joined by congressional leaders. we will have that at 5:00 p.m. eastern. >> tonight on "the communicators" democratic f.c.c. commissioner mignon clyburn discusses the f.c.c.'s rejection of net neutrality, spectrum auctions, and how to expand broadband throughout the u.s. she's interviewed by brian fong, technology reporter for "politico." brian: earlier you brought up the federal trade commission and this week there was a big court decision involving the f.t.c.'s authority and whether or not they can sue at&t for its alleged misrepresentation to consumers about unlimited data. what lessons do you draw from that court ruling and particularly through the loophole involving the common carrier exemption?

commissioner clyburn: i'll try to start things out positively. on a positive side there is a loophole meaning the court gave some clarity as it relates to whether or not there is authority under the -- whether there is a mix of common carrier or not. there was some clarity given there. but what is also clear is what is still troubling to me, that the f.t.c. is still not the expert agency. it still is not the agency that has any background when it comes to common carrier or net neutrality regulation. the f.c.c. is still the agency that does not answer or come into play unless a harm is done and unless you can prove unfair or deceptive practices. those are very high hurdles for mignon clyburn's security system to be able to realize or be able to bring to the f.t.c.

>> watch "the communicators" tonight at 8:00 eastern orange c-span2. -- on c-span2. >> tonight on c-span's "landmark cases" -- we'll explore the civil rights cases of 1883. the supreme court decision that struck down the civil rights act of 1875. a federal law that granted all people access to public accommodations like trains and theaters regardless of race. justice john marshall lar harlan, cast a lone vote in opposition and his dissent eclipsed the legacy of the majority opinion. explore this case and the high ourt's ruling of holley-walker, howard university's law school dean. kirsanow, u.s.

commission on civil rights attorney. you can order "landmark cases" for $8.95 plus shipping and handling at c-span.org/landmarkcases. >> next, a discussion about driverless vehicles. hosted by the american association of state highway and transportation officials. this is an hour and a half. >> he's here. one of our panelists is out.