package. it eliminated voter registration, it eliminated citizens awareness month. oneof this in one bill, month after the supreme court gutted the voting rights act. >> listen on the free c-span radio app. host: meredith mcgehee is director of the watchdog group, issue one, which produced a report called, "all-expenses-paid; how leadership pacs became politicians preferred ticket to luxury living." leadership pacs is and how long they have been around? guest: leadership pacs are a that nearly all members of congress have an most

-- and most people do not know they exist. even washington reporters can be shocked to find that in addition to the authorized campaign committee, members of congress have, or candidates have, they have this other little account on the side call the leadership pac and they use that money to pay for a range of activities, everything except their authorized campaign activities like yard signs and bumper stickers. that has to come out their authorized committee for their election. they have this other account on the side, leadership pac. host: when did they start and why did they start? guest: they started in late 1970's. former representative henry waxman, who was in progress for -- congress for many years, he and some other democrats went to the federal election commission and said we want to raise money to give to other candidates who

we want to support, but we do not want it to go into our authorized campaign committee. can we do that? the fcc said ok. from that idea, we now have a system in which almost every member of congress, house, and senate, has a leadership pac. the supposedly use is they want to support other candidates so they can rise in the ranks in congress. even if you think of that, they basically want to buy their way to the top with that money. host: bring us back to the history of doing that. who is best known for using a leadership pac? what would viewers were member. -- what would viewers remember? guest: they would probably remember the name tom delay. there was a race probably 20 years ago, a little bit more, for the leadership in the republican conference. bob walker was a republican

running to join in and rise up in the leadership. tom delay was there. tom delay had a leadership pac and used it liberally to help other members of congress, and in his conference and their campaigns. that made them beholden to him. robert walker gave $1000 total. he lost. everyone in the house looked at that and said maybe i should get a leadership pac because i potentially want to move up in the leadership. they discovered not only could they use it to give to other members of congress to help them rise in leadership, they could use it for just about anything because there are no rules about what it could be spent on other than it could not be for their yard signs or bumper stickers or paying their campaign staff. any other use, the federal election commission allowed them to do it.

until 2008, they did not even exist in law. they existed in reality but the law did not recognize them until then. host: are there now restrictions on who they can raise money from or how much they can raise? there is plenty of those kinds of restrictions on the usual campaign committees. guest: on the campaign committees they do still have the limits on how much these leadership pacs can accept and there are limits on how much an individual can give and one another -- and what another pac can give. there are no limits on what the leadership pac can give out and spend. there are reporting requirements. you can see all the money that is coming in. $5,000 or $10,000 or $2700 from an individual -- those get reported to the federal election commission, and you can see -- if you take the time -- where the money goes.

host: if i have a leadership pac, is there a limit on how much you can give me? guest: there are limits. the amount of money i can give your pac is the same amount i can give your campaign committee or another pac. all those limits remain the same. if you have an authorized campaign committee, let's say you're running for congress and you have your campaign committee, let's say i am the mary pac and i give you $5,000 for your primary and $5,000 for your general. i can give you another $5,000 for your leadership pac. instead of having a limit of $10,000, i have now given you $20,000. i can do that over many years. host: leadership political action committees is our topic. meredith mcgehee is with issue one, the executive director there.

taking your calls and questions. if you have not heard of them, maybe can learn a little bit more about them in the segment. the report issue one put out this year looks into these issues. why do this report now? guest: a lot of the money that comes into the leadership pacs -- nobody takes a look at. nor do they look at what leadership pac money is being spent on. we kept hearing on capitol hill these stories -- members of congress would say have you looked at leadership pacs? i hear these stories about how people are spending the money and i am shocked. the impetus to look at what was going on actually came from current members. they were hearing stories of other members and they started saying it and we said let's go look. we worked with the campaign legal center and the staff went through thousands and thousands

of expenditures by these leadership pacs. we went back a number of years and looked at what they spent. what we discovered was things like more than half $1 million on golf. disneyland trips. trips to las vegas. $500 pairs of shoes paid for out of your leadership pac. host: let's name names. who seems to be using these leadership pacs the most for these kind of abuses? guest: the reality is everyone has a little bit of this. the fiction that has little bit of reality is they are spending this money so they can raise more money into fundraising. that is how they put the nice little coat of paint on to make it look nice. i would think if most people heard of someone like senator rand paul buying a $500 pair of shoes, they would probably think that gets much closer to the

personal use. if you use your authorized campaign committee to buy coat or shoes or a mink pay for your trip to disneyland, that would be illegal. people have gone to jail for the personal used of their authorized campaign funds. if you are just smart enough to use your leadership pac funds, then there are no rules. the personal use rules on your campaign committee funds are not applied to the leadership pacs. you do see things like expenditures on shoes and trips over and over again to broadway shows. a congressman from ohio. you see trips to las vegas for fundraisers. the reason they do this is they get on a cycle. you can go and say i'm doing a fund-raising trip and then go to disneyland and las vegas and

vale and broadway and have a great life. at the expense, of your contributors. host: d.c. restaurants are a key place where these leadership pac s have been used. just to run through some of the numbers, some $253,000 spent at charlie palmer in d.c.. $54,000 at bisto bis. $114,000 at fiola. $112,000 at morton's steakhouse. plenty of more examples. if viewers want to take a look at this report, issueone.org is where they can find it? guest: absolutely. all-expenses-paid, the name of the report. i should be clear that the rules allow this. they are not breaking the law. at the moment. they can use their leadership pac funds for these personal

uses and they can intermingle. if you talk to members of congress that have these leadership pacs, they say this is not personal use, i'm just doing fund-raising activities. wouldn't you love to be able to say i'm going to disneyland and i'm doing fund-raising? or i'm going to the super bowl or las vegas, and other people are going to pay for it, usually special interests, and you get to have a great time and bring all the other people who want to donate to your campaign. you have a luxury lifestyle at the expense of contributors and those same contributors usually have interests before congress. it is a cesspool of money and a political slush fund. the federal election commission said extend the rules and if the fcc does not act, congress should act. host: if you have questions about leadership pacs, we're talking about it this morning. republicans, (202) 748-8001, democrats, (202) 748-8000,

independents, (202) 748-8002. caller: i think all of this corruption goes back to the supreme court ruling of 1976 or 1977 in which the supreme court foolishly equated the graft of campaigns, freedom of speech. since then everything is gone downhill leading to massive wealth inequality and the social problems have exponentially increased. that opens the door to a 2010 supreme court ruling of citizens united opening the door to super pacs, and in 2014 opening the door to dark money in political campaigns.

the supreme court cannot see the forest for the trees. they know the tree at the some -- at the subatomic level but they do not realize they are in a forest. guest: i want to appreciate the caller's knowledge of the supreme court cases. he is exactly on point of naming these cases that have led us to where we are in jurisprudence and some of the concerning issues about the role of money and speech and how those are seen in the court jurisprudence. i would note in this case that there is nothing in buckley v valeo or citizens united or any of these cases that would stop the federal election commission or congress from enacting laws to ensure these leadership pac funds cannot be used for these personal uses or the funds themselves should not exist. while the caller is correct

there has been a long line of court cases that has created jurisprudence that has a lot of folks in america questioning how we have ended up here with super pac's and dark money, it is important to note that in this case, there is nothing in the jurisprudence that should stop the federal election commission or congress from acting immediately. host: new jersey is next. bill is a republican, good morning. caller: my question involves tax altogether. what does your guest think about the idea of abolishing all tax and having a public funding of congressional elections? guest: i would note that the courts have generally upheld the ability of citizens to have political action committees

under the theory people can pool their money and therefore augment their voices. if congress did pass a law that outlawed political action committees in the roberts court in particular, i am dubious it would pass the constitutional muster this court. there have been efforts made in the past to deal with pacs back in the days when a senator from oklahoma was in office. there were efforts made. with this particular court, i am doubtful. 5-4 in the rulings. there are many people that support public financing of elections. certainly after the rise of dark money, this money that is being spent in elections that nobody knows what the sources are of that money, and the super pac's similarly where you are seeing a

very small number of very wealthy individuals or interest playing outside roles in our campaigns, a lot of discussion is going on right now at the state level and the local level and here in washington about how we can change the privately financed system. there are a number of efforts going on. in my home state in new mexico, albuquerque is going to be voting on a system to create more public financing. there is a system in seattle in which they have a seattle public financing system. there are a lot of places around the country, particularly in localities and states where the move toward public financing is happening. i would say we do not see that same amount of energy around the public financing issue right at the moment here in washington. every time we have an election, even when you talk to members of congress, the amount of time they spend dialing for dollars

is disturbing for them and for the public. it is as much, sometimes, as 40% of their time spent dialing for dollars. if you talk to members of congress, they often say this is not why iran for office. for office. i do not have time to pick up the expertise i should have. i do not have time to meet with other members. the current system is not serving the public well and not serving members of congress, most of whom have come here to represent their constituencies. host: if you want to join in the conversation, republicans (202) 748-8001, democrats (202) 748-8000, independents (202) 748-8002. john is a republican from albany, new york. caller: i believe money does play a role in the financial spectrum. we had trump come in with $7

billion and he stole it. he was not popular. he had the cash. no. he was popular. what we will have after this is a new spectrum of characters. i do not know if we will get the cream of the crop. i think it is going to look more famous. if oprah wants to run, i believe oprah would be a wonderful person, to put herself forward for that. if god is telling you to do it, lady, you know what? i do not do anything god tells me to do but i still get by. guest: i think it is important on the leadership pac front to note this is a republican, democrat, and independent issue. this is not a partisan issue where one party is doing it. almost every member of congress has a leadership pac.

this is not one that usually breaks down in terms of partisan divide. we know that in terms of money in politics there is one thing for sure that it's going to happen with money. if you do not have it, you will lose. if you have the most, that does not mean you will win. the lack of money is difficult to overcome. one of the big roles money plays in our elections and the congressional elections have to be looked at differently than the presidential races, is that it is very important to have that for name recognition. if you look at someone like president trump, he came in with name recognition that most politicians would greatly envy and spend a lot of money to try to create. as well as earned media. a lot of politicians spend a lot of their campaign money trying to get that media.

there is no magic bullet in terms of what that balance should be. the hope is that we have a system in which more people have a feeling that their voice matters. when you have one half of 1% of all americans -- let me repeat that -- one half of 1% of all americans give $200 or more to federal candidates. when people feel like my member of congress or my elected official does not listen to me, probably they have legitimacy in feeling that way. they are not the one half of the 1% that is funding the races. host: you pointed out that one of the ideas behind the leadership pac was for a member of congress to give money to another member or to raise money for their campaigns. that purpose, you note, has been happening less and less. only about 45 percent of money

from leadership pacs goes to that same purpose and the rest is spent on these other things. guest: there are two points, and i think it is an important point you raised with the 45%. the first question is should they be spending money on these personal uses that are essentially financing a luxury lifestyle, going to las vegas or new orleans or new york on someone else's dime and then saying they are doing fundraising activities so that legitimizes it. that is the question we are raising at the heart of this report. there is another question here which is why they have leadership pacs at all? the thought that the way you become the leader of our nation is that you have to buy the affection of your fellow colleagues kind of raises serious concerns. most of these members do not want to give them up because they are slush funds.

host: you pointed out rand paul. your report notes 7% of rand paul spending since 2013 has gone toward contribution to other candidates. in the 2018 cycle, it has already spent $11,000 at restaurants in italy and malta, $4500 on limousine service in rome and $2000 at a hotel in athens. i read one report were a member -- in which a member of rand paul's staff says they use the leadership pac to pay for things that otherwise the senator would put on a federal credit card and taxpayers would be responsible for. do you believe that? guest: i find that an interesting explanation. what is happening here is that senator paul, along with many other members of congress, used his leadership pac money to underwrite their political

travel. they do not want to charge taxpayers because they do not want to be accused of a taxpayer-funded junket or they do not have committee money because it is not an official trip. in many of these cases, not only do they use this money for personal use, they use it to further their political interests. you can sometimes the members of -- you can sometimes see members of congress using their leadership funds to travel to places like iowa or new hampshire. i wonder why they would be paying from their leadership pac to go there? that is because they are anticipating a run for higher office. in this case, my view is that members of congress should comport themselves like most business people. if you're doing the public's business, the public should be paying for it. that is to whom you are beholden. if you're not doing the public business, then you should be paying for it yourself.

we are in this world, and what this study shows is that special interests -- these are people that have matters before congress -- are putting money into these political slush fund accounts known as leadership pacs, and that money is available for them to use however they wish. host: you found one of the biggest beneficiaries has been the greenbrier sporting club in west virginia. $765,000 of member leadership pac money has been spent their. what is that and why? guest: it is a good place to do a fundraiser. it is a nice place to go. what i would say for most americans is it would be great -- i think you and i would love if someone would finance a trip to the green briar. it is a lovely place. rather than having to dig into

their own pockets, they contact -- they can tap into their leadership fund, enjoy a beautiful place and have someone else pay for it. host: frank, topeka kansas, line for democrats. caller: could the pac money be used to help people that need it? guest: absolutely. there are no meaningful rules about what you can spend the leadership pac money on other than not on their authorized campaign committee activities. any other use is permissible. they could take that money and hand it out in the streets because the only restriction is if you're going to run campaign activities to reelect yourself, you have to use your authorized campaign committee. any other use, you want to buy a yacht, that would be -- that

would not be prohibited for leadership pac funds. host: i am going through your report, i'm trying to find a line for charity donations. were there any? guest: there are some. again, this is a great use. that is not the problem. the problem is i have a lot of charities and you do that you would love to support. if i support those, i'd take -- i would dig into my own money and i support those journeys. what this sets up is you can have someone else pay for those contributions, you get the political credit, and therefore you can be generous with your charitable giving. it is all underwritten and the funds are also applied by other people. host: do you have a ballpark of a was spent on charitable donations? guest: i do not remember the

statistic. i am certain the members of congress do that and it is a smart thing to do if you're a politician. if you are seen as giving to charity, that will make you look like a good politician and that would be a good thing to do. that is not the problem. is not. giving to the charity is not a problem and using your leadership pack funds. the source are all these businesses and interests and individuals who have interests before congress. they are providing the funds and you could to use their money to make you look good. 800 $71,000 over that five-year period on golf related expenditures. marsha is in ohio. a democrat. good morning.

i just have to mention that usa today had an article yesterday about the congressman travel andoney to saying they are working. it has something to do with an ethics thing. i wanted to bring that up. host: we have that story on air yesterday, thanks for bringing it up. they had members that had already announced they are retiring. usa today had money they had since spent. go through that article little bit for us. guest: the question arose in that article of when members announce they are leaving and they are still in office, sometimes for several months before they are no longer a member of congress. what the usa today story found in the report that looked at those details is some of them

continued to take taxpayer-funded trips to exotic locations. my comment, and i would say this here.-- i would say this they are still members of congress so they will be voting on issues. they are representing their constituents and that is a worthwhile activity. at the same time, once you have announced you are not running again, there should be greater disclosure rules for those of announced they are not running again, that they should be obligated to make clear how that travel is related to any upcoming issues that are applied , and i think it is important for the public to have a clear idea what the purpose of those trips are. it is a potential abuse. i would not say all the trips you hear about by lame-duck members of congress are abuses. they are voting.

it is something that requires greater scrutiny. host: last call from new york. good morning. democrat. caller: money in politics, in theory, is not necessarily a bad if you are running at the local level, it may not matter as much, but when you are running on the national level, you want to be able to take your message to larger people. that does mean advertising and it can mean travel instances. era,lso, the modern politicians can use twitter, they can use -- finisher comment because you are going in and out. caller: i am sorry.

i think that might be better, but basically, congress needs to speak to make sure money is not misused. politics asoney and may a necessary evil, but they definitely need to weigh in. host: got your point. guest: congress absolutely needs to weigh in. the issue here is not to take all money out of politics. the question is, what should the role of money be? how do we ensure that constituents have a voice and feel like they have a voice? the biggest issue for members of congress as they have approval ratings hovering in the single-digit or very low teens. there an interest among congress to make any changes to these leadership pac;s? saying as i started out guest: that

members of congress were saying do you know what is going on with these leadership pacs, so that actually came from conversations with current members of congress >> we take you live now to the heritage foundation for the hearings of judge kavanaugh. has served onh the u.s. court of appeals for the district of columbia since 2005. in that time he has written hundreds of judicial appearance -- judicial opinions. we will be hearing from lawyers and law professors. expecting this to start shortly just waiting for the panel to take seats. you're watching live coverage on c-span.

>> welcome to the heritage foundation. i am elizabeth, a legal