this election. ,s a supporter of donald trump i think the republican party will do a better job of advancing the agenda, and the democratic party will obstruct him. >> i want women to control congress. i'm tired of people who do not live my life telling me what i need to do. we need more women in all sorts of powerful positions. in congress, as the president, state and federal. bad fornk it would be the country if impeachment proceedings failed, because they will initiate if democrats i think ie house, would like to see a sweeping so theyic victory, could get in a full impeachment, or to have republicans keeping

the house of representatives and there is no impeachment at all. it would be bad to have that albatross hanging over the country's head. >> voices from the states, part of c-span's 50 capital store. -- capitals tour. kate ackley joins us today, there is a lot -- host: kate ackley joins us today, there's a lot of ways to promote an outside candidate, can you explain the tour -- the terms we will be using, super pac's, party committees, even 501(c)(3) organizations. it's great to be on with you. we will start with super pac's. that is one that has gotten a lot of attention, since they

were created about eight years ago. these are independent expenditure funds, if you could give any amount of money you want to a super pac, that is why they're called super. one of my mentors can up with that phrase, thank you eliza for that term. if you are a wealthy individual, a company, you can give any amount of money you want to a super pac. super pac's are running as right now for or against -- ads for or against candidates. the rob is that you cannot, you're not supposed court may, it is illegal to coordinate with the candidate. these are independent outside voices trying to influence the outcome of an election or policy issue. another type of pac that has gotten a lot of attention are

known as corporate packs. corporate pacs. these are the political action committees of companies, businesses, trade associations. these are not necessarily big money. these are not like a super pac. i looked up the biggest spending corporate pac this cycle, it is $2.6 million this cycle. you contrast that with the super pacs bringing in $100 million this cycle. it's a big difference in the amount of money. host: we also hear about 501(c) organizations. guest: that is sort of dark money. super pac's get lumped in with dark money, but they are more big money. they have to disclose their donors. we have insight into where that money comes from and where does. -- goes. the same for corporate pacs and

union and business pacs. they disclose where their money is going. 501(c) 4 organizations are what we call dark money groups. 501(c) 4 organizations are social welfare groups. they are focused on less politics, more policy or something in the debate of the country. we don't know who their donors are. they don't have to disclose that. yes they are often running ads. we are seeing ads from groups that are trying to influence the debate over judge kavanaugh. we are seeing organization -- organizations spending money on ads related to that. host: if your questions about super pacs and outside money in the 2018 election, now is the time to call. kate ackley covers lobbying and finance issues. (202) 748-8000 is the number if you are a democrat.

(202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8002 for independents. you have been talking about goclosure, and the place to for disclosure on these issues is open secrets.org, one chart i want to show to help viewers understand why we are focusing on super pacs. this is the total by type of spending in the 2018 election. 2127 super pac's have spent well over $260 million so far this election. that compares to $48 million for 501(c)(4) groups. party committees have spent some $81 million so far. a lot of the funding is well short of that super pac money. is it safe to say this will be the most spending by super pacs

by any midterm election since they have been created? guest: it is tough to say. especially as this is a nonpresidential election year. if you pull up a slide by comparison for 2016, but what we are finding in terms of congressional races, and outside spending towards the midterms, every cycle seems to outdo the previous one. i think we are on track to see more spending from these big-money groups aimed at influencing congressional elections. host: let's talk about the big-money groups. they have names that don't necessarily explain where they are spending the money. is the super pac so far congressional leadership fund, having spent $52 million so far this cycle. guest: and they have raised about $100 million.

this final month before the election, they have plenty to spend. host: who are they? guest: they back republican candidates for the house primarily. that is what they do. host: are these set up by speaker ryan? the leadership? who controls them? guest: these are supposed to be independent of the candidates. that is why super pac is a great term, but i think it leads to misunderstanding. people think these are regular political action committees, like corporate pacs. these are independent expenditure only funds. these are operating independently. the chart you had up a minute ago showing how super pac's have , eclipsed what the parties are spending. reasonable people can disagree and argue about what effect

that has on political debates, but the numbers are clear. these are really a dominant force in our national conversation. host: the senate majority pac, $42 million in independent expenditure this cycle. guest: there was news this morning that they have spent more money. this is a super pac aimed at electing senate democrats, so ut -- you see attack ads against people like senator dean heller in nevada. you see attack ads this week against josh holly, who is challenging claire mccaskill in missouri. this is a super pac organized to try to elect senate democrats.

host: natalie is in washington, d.c. a democrat. go ahead. caller: good morning. thank you. citizens united is clearly the worst thing the united states supreme court has done to americans. what we need to do in my opinion, just take the money out. taxpayers can pay for it. we can have limitations. and we can have control. i suggest people look at what happened in nebraska when they tried, and 22 other states tried to get them to stop putting in this money. that is what is running this place. we have become the corporate united states. that is outrageous. i would also like to point out that people should look at mr. mcconnell. who made mr. mcconnell the dictator of the united states congress? he has done nothing but bring problems, keeping the united states, keeping the ninth person off for almost a year from the supreme court. why?

host: we will try to focus on super pac's. and outside spending. but stick around for open phones, i'm sure that topic will come up in 20 minutes. ackley, bringing more sunlight into the dark money spending. guest: the caller is reflecting what polling shows a majority of americans feel, even in a bipartisan way. you see republicans and democrats and independents, this -- there is this sense of a backlash against big money. you saw that amongst trump voters. obviously, we know president trump carried the message on the campaign trail of draining the swamp, criticizing money and politics. this is something that resonates the voters across the political aisle. you see that, obviously, in our divided country. the way people want to see a policy response to their

concerns about too much money in politics or undue influence in politics is different. some republicans would like to see even fewer regulations. the caller noted she would like to see a completely taxpayer financed overhaul so that there was no private money in elections. there are proposals on capitol hill right now to basically do that, to overhaul campaign finance system. either incentivize more taxpayer financing or completely overhaul the system so it is taxpayer financed. i think we are a ways off from those proposals being enacted. host: you mentioned the congressional leadership fund, it is the main republican house super pac, i'm assuming the

senate leadership fund is the same thing on the leaders side. right, from senate republicans. host: $26 million in spending for that group. the house majority pac, that is the same on the democratic side. women vote! has spent 12 nine -- $12 million on independent expenditures this cycle. who are they? guest: that is a liberal leaning pac. they support democratic candidates. i think it is interesting because one of the things i have chronicled at cq roll call this cycle is not just the rise of women running for congress as you have documented well, but also through funding campaigns. we are seeing and using some of the open secrets data, about a year ago i wrote a story of this , extreme rise of women donating to federal campaigns.

i think this is largely on the liberal or democratic side. a lot of it is fueled in opposition to the republican congress and certainly president trump. whatever the reason, you are seeing a huge mobilization of women, not just to run for office but to give money to those who are running for office. host: maria is in new jersey, independent. caller: good morning. i am so grateful to have this topic. i have four questions. my first question, how much of the dark money problem comes from the fact that there is no audit of pentagon spending? how much of it comes from foreign countries? also the stock act, the major , part of it was not going to be in force, so that family and friends could benefit from inside knowledge. host: let's take those two questions first because those are two big questions that we

have talked about before on this program. guest: as far as the dark money and pentagon spending, i am not sure i completely understand the question. host: i think the question was the fact that no audit has been done on the pentagon. would that help clear up some of the concerns or questions or add more sunlight to the issue? guest: certainly that would add more sunlight to the issue of pentagon spending. i don't know that that would necessarily shed light on dark money in our political spending. that is two separate issues. host: and then the stock act. remind us of what that is. guest: the jist is that lawmakers cannot use the information they gain in elected office and their aides, they cannot use that for insider trading. if you are a member of congress,

and you know you are going to be bringing a bunch of corporate executives before a hostile committee to ask tough questions, you might be able to glean that the stock of that company could tank. let's say you own stock in a company, you might sell it in advance of the hearing. that is an oversimplification, or a really egregious example, but the idea is you cannot trade on the knowledge you gain from your position of being a member of congress or staff person. host: ray is in california, democrat. good morning. caller: citizens united was passed. how much dark money is coming from multinational corporations, things like ge that used to be american but are now run by multinationals? guest: that is a great question.

this is something that since the 2016 election has exposed this scandal about the foreign influence on our elections. this is left as a big question mark. especially when we talk about 501(c) four organizations, we don't know where their money is coming from. it is not permitted for foreign nationals to donate money to candidates or parties, but if it is not disclosed, it is hard to say. this is something that remains mysterious to us. the more this gets looked at, whether it is in the special counsel investigation or other situations, i think this remains a very puzzling and potentially troubling question.

host: this brings up a recent piece you did candidates this , cycle saying they will not take corporate money or at an -- are at an all-time high. guest: yes. this has been a trend on the campaign trail among democrats. there have been maybe a couple republicans here and there. this has taken off among the democratic party. there are currently 127 people running for congress who have pledged not to take corporate pack money. some of them have gone farther. beto o'rourke who is running against senator ted cruz has said he will take no kind of pac money, unions, trade associations, corporate pacs, he will not take that money. if you look at his campaign -- his twitter handle, it says powered by people, not pacs. it is one of his key points that he is making.

he is not going to be swayed by corporate pacs and other types of pacs. this has really caught on among democrats. any of the people we have talked about, you see the as being -- them as being potential contenders for 2020 in the presidential race, they have all taken no pac pledges. some have been tailored, saying no corporate money, some have been very broad. you are seeing that this is a way for democrats to speak to voters who are disillusioned with the role of money in politics. this is not the most painful or difficult way for, especially challengers, to take on the role of big money in politics.