retiring. and fourthis third appointments to the high court, the president knew his choices would affect the destiny of the nation long after he himself had left office. "reel america"h this weekend. announcer: president donald his nomineennounce for the supreme court on monday at 9:00 p.m. eastern. on c-span.atch >> coming up next, a look at campaign fundraising for the upcoming midterm elections. then, a discussion on the spread of misinformation.

means house ways and committee meeting. >> center for responsive policy, what does the money race look like going into the midterm election? record-setting election. another record breaker. we have already seen $1.3 billion raised by all the candidates this cycle, raising 850 million -- spending $850 million. i think that is leading in the direction of at least matching the $3.8 billion spent in the last midterm election. and we are seeing increases in outside spending. i think we are on track for another record-breaking cycle. are we seeing any trends so far? guest: i think the one important

on thes keeping tabs outside spending. this is money that is not being raised and spent by the candidates themselves. it is being raised by outside not disclosing nonprofits. secret donors where we can't see who they are. and they have no limits. they can raise and spend as much as they want and will, in many cases, exceed what the candidates themselves spend. host: democrats can call in at (202) 748-8000, republicans can call in at (202) 748-8001, independents can call in at (202) 748-8002. and you can always join us on , on twitter and on facebook. remind our viewers what the center for responsive policies is.

the center for responsive politics is a nonpartisan, nonprofit research group that tracks money in politics. we mostly focus on the federal level. though much of the outside spending is happening on all levels of the government, because of citizens united. of dollars spent, not just on elections, but also on lobbying. once the elections have decided the victors, the money turns to influencing what decisions those policymakers make. we try to cover those -- to cover all areas, all flows of money. the job is growing more complicated as the money grows. host: you said earlier, the money is not just going to the federal level. are we seeing more money flowing into state and local races? guest: yes. one initiative we are looking at

is tracking that money, particularly coming from the ---disclosing political highly politically active nonprofits, often referred to as dark money organizations. they are active at the federal level, but many of the same groups are trying to shape electoral outcomes in states, especially in those states where they are hoping to shore up an advantage that will have a ripple effect down the line and to federal elections. ocasio-cortezia surprisingly defeated -- and the new york district. these races usually run over $1 million. was her victory and aberration? guest: a stunning aberration. in addition to her being outspent -- outraised, more than 10 to one, representative crowley probably raised about $3

million. she had raised two thirds of oft money in small donations $200 for less. that is really, i think, speaks to her power going into this primary. arrays a really unusual of facts for a candidate, especially a first-time candidate. were talking earlier about the influence of outside money on elections. do you expect to see more of that in this election cycle than in the past? if so, why? as of early june, super pac's and nonprofits and spent $146 million, a 40% increase over there spending at this time in the last election. -- especially worrisome is more spending by these outside, in

theory, nominally independent groups, but very often, focused on one single candidate, and many times, their donors are unknown. host: why is that worrisome? guest: voters need to understand where the money is coming from in order to understand the messages they are pushing. when we see political ads run by a group that is very well known. say, the national rifle association or planned parenthood. you know what their stances are. but when it is from americans for america, or some unknown group with some patriotic sounding name, people leaned in to say, who is that group? what are they saying? so we give more credibility to these organizations then we ought to. can, as much as they want, outspent the candidate to get there spending out. host: nick is calling from

illinois, on the republican line. how are you? good morning, thank you for taking my call. have ally don't really comment on this, but it kind of goes in with what you guys are talking about. i think the democrats are having a messaging problem and a fundraising problem, because of colors like that lady from philadelphia, who wasn't clicked off for calling republicans jive-ass jive-ass honkies. you can call us whatever you want. we were called deplorables by hillary clinton. republicans have been called a lot. i would like everyone to know, we can't say nearly half the things that have been said about us about the democrats. that's pretty disgusting, number one. number two, the democrats will

continue to lose. if you think a democratic socialist is going to lead you to the utopia you want, you are going to run out of everybody else's money. host: the democrats have a fund-raising problem? fact, democratic candidates have raised more than republican candidates so far, however, there are more of them. on average, democrats are raising less than their republican counterparts. host: less? guest: on average. her candidate, they are taking in less in receipts. but when you look at the money overall, there's more money going to democrat candidates because there are more democrat challengers running this time. i think we've seen a real drive for new candidates, in particular. a lot of diversity, first-time candidates, women and people of color running for congress this cycle. from washington dc

-- caller from washington, d.c.. i am an african american scientist and i'm very concerned about our politics. the fundraiser is a disadvantage to poor people. we have to be mindful of how this electoral college works, and our people have to get out to vote. the electoral college, 538 electoral fellows. and they will vote if you don't. al gore had half a million votes, and they elected bush. hillary clinton didn't lose this election, she had 3 million votes. she was sabotaged. our people must be mindful of how the electoral college works. you have two years left. call up your brothers and sisters in those swing states and make sure they vote. we have the power to do something about this electoral college.

the electoral college was supposed to protect us from .emagogues, but it failed i'm a scientist, i put my hands on a bible and i swore that i --ld protect america demagogues and foreign powers. failed electoral college to protect the united states of america. this is my warning to our democratic leadership. make sure that all of our people nine of 13 swing states. the 50us who reside in states of the union, get on the phone, call your brothers and sisters up, go to your yearbooks and look at the phone numbers. understand how the electoral college system works. the constitution is flawed in this way. what is the financial picture for the national political party? how does the republican party look compared to the democrat party? guest: we have a whole section

devoted to political parties, candidates, all kinds of sources of funds, on our website, open secrets. generally speaking, the concern with parties is that they are being outgunned by these outside groups. again, they don't have to even identify who is behind the group, who is funding it. , which do have to disclose, might disclose that they are getting money from their nonprofit arm. we might not get full disclosure with these outside groups, and that is part of the advantage for them, compared to the parties. that's why they are often referred to as shadow party committees. but it is a disadvantage for voters. when we talk about outside groups, we refer to super pac's.

independent expenditure only committees. groups that are spending for and against candidates, but are, in theory, independent from those candidates. and most troubling, nondisclosing nonprofits. a nonprofit can spring up without registering with the irs , and the money can come from anywhere, in fact. since we don't know the source of the money, there is great concern it might not even be coming from domestic sources. cycle in particular, following concerns about russian meddling in 2016, i think it is especially worrisome that we haven't gotten a grip on the secret money flowing into our elections. host: remind our viewers what the rules are for super pac's. guest: they are packs that only run independent expenditures. perhaps they are running tv ads or online ads, advocacy for or against candidates.

in many cases, they spring up and go away after the election or a certain amount of time, then they reconstitute themselves under a different name. kind of playing a game of cat with these groups. many are affiliated with the parties, though they are moretially, just before kind of shadow party element, registered as a super pac. are dedicated to electing or defeating a single candidate. we have tothe case, question how independent they are. some of these are run the parents of the candidates. laughable topretty think they are completely independent of the candidate. go to roger, calling from virginia beach, virginia, on the democrat line. caller: good morning.

how are you doing? i just wanted to know if you had ever thought there would be a time when money would count less , and that politics will return what people do and say, and what the politicians stand for? can we take that out? and we just make money not matter anymore? that is a great question. money has always been an element in american elections. we have privately funded elections. unless and until we moved to a system with public spending on elections, this is the system we are stuck with. and there are positive elements. it's good for candidates to have to get out there and introduced themselves, sell their vision to constituents.

unfortunately, they are raising money often by people outside of their district or state, who can't vote for them. voters areocketed funding american politics at an not equivalent to what most americans are giving. most americans don't give anything at all. in fact, only less than one half americans, of adult americans, provide 68.3% of all campaign donations at the head of the level -- at the federal level. hand, money is huge and increasing. hand, with eric cantor in virginia, for example, who was unseated by congressman david brett. even though cantor was a

fundraising powerhouse, he was able to win because he connected with the voters and constituents. similarly to alexandria cortez, she raised most of her money from small donations. offersnnection connections to the big money mostly fueling her elections. host: mike from north carolina, calling on the republican line. caller: good morning. you kind of just stole my thunder. is it -- i want to pronounce your name correctly. guest: that is right. caller: you made a great point look back through, i guess our modern electoral there are numerous cases where the favored candidate, most likely the

incumbent candidate, both the both democrat and republican, rarely independent, does not always get the free pass. because they are loaded down with big donors. i can't remember his name, the had hisovernor who issues with ethics and stuff in new jersey. he was just a lock. i can't remember if it was chris christie that upset him, but there'sst-to-coast, numerous examples from local to state and national level. senators and congressmen, saying my money is going to give you an advantage. we've seen what happens with campaign-finance laws. i'm 62. been following this for 50 years. every time you pass a new one, it is welcome all -- it is whack a mole, i think.

i'm not in favor of publicly funded elections. the government has enough to do in my personal opinion. and if i may, in closing. it would be nice, appreciated by constitutionalists like myself, conservatives, when people bring up -- mostly from the left -- this idea of a popular vote. that c-span would politely and professionally shut that down. there is no such animal and never has been. there probably never will be. ludicrous.o it is we have 51 separate presidential elections in this nation every four years, one in every state and one in the district of columbia. have a national election for president, and you guys know that or you should. when people bring that stuff up, you should politely correct them so it doesn't float out there into the ether.

and people just continue to believe wrong things. so got bless you both, thanks. let's go to john from washington, d.c. on the independent line. good morning, how is everybody doing this morning? listen, i have just a couple of comments to make. first of all, america, we need to pump our breaks. we have a system where money rules everything. people calling in -- someone was to -- we need to stop going against each other, left against right. -- i look at the situation down the middle. would all vote independent this go around, i guarantee you, we would change the minds of a lot of these politicians out here.

we have a lot of people in america who are tired of this bickering and fighting. for us something done here. we are hungry, starving. money in politics has ruined everything. the human aspect of elections no longer exists. big corporations are being considered as people. it's just crazy. we need to pump our breaks, backup, and start this thing a new. if everyone feels the way i do, that is right down the middle -- i agree with some republicans and some democrats, but i think we need to start finding some common ground again and vote independent, get some of these republicans out of office, some of these democrats out of office , and bring america back to the neutral stance where we once were at where we really listened to the people. the people know exactly what they need. was's with the constitution put in place for, to serve the people, so the voice and tell

republicans and democrats and independents what they need to survive. you guys are doing a great job , because this forum the american people really need somewhere to voice our opinions. nowadays, the demagogues of america don't want to hear what you have to say. have a good day. host: we've been talking a lot about money in elections. are we seeing money being spent around president trump's upcoming supreme court nominee? guest: yes, there's already a lot of money being spent these outside groups. nonprofits in particular, mobilizing to support particular candidates, and will presumably have the nominee on monday. as president trump has promised. but we've seen the money mobilize last year for justice

gorsuch. and we are seeing at this year. not only coming from right-leaning organizations, groups across the aisle. host: greg is calling from wisconsin on the republican. good morning. i have a question for sheila regarding the knowledge base about potential voter fraud in the united states. tell me if i'm correct, i'm understanding now that in some states where illegal immigrants can get driver's licenses, they are automatically put on registration rolls for voters? college students that go to school in one state, but their home is in another state? this a concern, something being investigated? i'm getting a lot of different mixed facts about what is happening. concern.ere's a lot of

i think some of it is misplaced, but we do not follow election administration issues and voter fraud, that is not one of the areas we study. william from shelbyville, kentucky, calling on the republican. line.the republican caller: good morning. the subject i often talk about is the election fraud of money used. it seems today that the one who has the most money wins, and it should not be that. we need to change our voting laws and financial laws for , that -- for candidates they get so much money allocated to them by the government and that is all they can spend. i think that would eliminate a lot of these super pac's, lobbyists. it is a sad thing when somebody goes into office making $179,000 year, and$192,000 a

in six years, eight years, they come out as multimillionaires. i don't know if you are a financial wizard, but it's not going to happen. it is coming from lobbyists and they are basically buying votes. decisions that affect all americans. the other thing i wanted to that is very bothersome to me is these candidates that say, the democrats or the republicans, those across the aisle. they don't work for the democrat or republican party, or the independent party, they work for us, the americans, and they need to start listening to us. president trump, do i like him or agree with everything he says? no, but he is doing good things. he is the president of the united states, and i'm going to support him. president, ima was didn't like him, but i supported

him by paying my taxes and working. these are the things we need to take. politicians need to realize they work for the american people, not for corporations or for a political party. thank you again for a year program. --t: how does the recent affect union giving in the political realm? guest: the janice case determined that unions will not ,e able to demand agency fees and that will have an impact on their ability to amass toward collective bargaining on behalf of their members. and on the half. it reduces their funds. unionsrstanding is that are saying it won't have a huge impact, but these judicial decisions that continue to

unions'away at the power, cumulatively, do have an impact. this is -- not friendly to union concerns. from arizona, calling on the independent line. caller: good morning, how are you. just two comments. number one, the biggest problem i see is if you keep in mind, wereongress and the senate -- 1980, the mid-70's, 75% of them were military people. and our government ran just fine. since then, we're talking about , george soros and the koch

brothers involved. keep this in mind. let's look at the differences. in -- heput it all -- the koch brothers fund a lot of republicans, but i've never seen them funding any riots. also, let's keep in mind the money. we are talking about the money. last i checked, trump isn't even taking a salary. what about hillary? she's getting a senate pension, probably getting a secretary pension. bill is getting his pension, obama is getting his pension. supposedly getting involved with netflix. all of these pensions and this money. trump is trying to clean up

america, and for some reason, instead of talking about her politics and money, talk about the real money and the crooked deals. host: we would like to thank sheila krumholz f >> c-span's "washington journal" live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. this morning, john fiah discusses his book, "the evangelical road to donald trump." then, we will preview the upcoming nato summit with have their connolly. c-span's "washington journal" live beginning at 7:00 a.m. eastern this morning. join the discussion. tonight, on "q&a" tom dunkel

on his washington post article, "locked and loaded for the lord." on at the going sanctuary church in pennsylvania the culmination of a lot of undercurrents in the country of toigion, politics, and guns a degree we have not seen before. it is still a small church. no question about that. son has a worldwide following. 200 people are in the congregation in pennsylvania and 500,000 worldwide. these days, you can follow a church on youtube. going --t combing inmingling of passion

america and what does that say about us as a culture? is it a precursor of what we might see down the road? when you let the genie out of the loss of -- out of the bottle , it is problematic. p.m. onht, at 8:00 c-span's "q&a." next, political science professor center less discuss the threat of misinformation through social media and other outlets. they also talk about the evolution of technology and how information has been shared throughout history. posted by the brookings institution, this is 90 minutes.