kathleen williams for that states at-large seat. live coverage on c-span, your primary source for campaign 2018. congresshe control of in question, see the competition for yourself on c-span. watch the debates from key house and senate races, make c-span your primary source for campaign 2018. journal,'s washington issues that impact you. look at the lawsuit to stop california's new net neutrality law with the senior research the roosevelt institute, todd tucker talks about this week's announced trade deal. we get the latest on the fbi investigation of supreme court

nominee brett kavanaugh. be sure to watch "washington journal" live at 7:00 a.m. eastern wednesday morning. join the discussion. discussion. kate ackley covers lobbying and campaign finance issues for cq roll call. to answer your questions about spending by outside groups in the 2018 cycle, kate ackley. there are a lot of different ways that outside groups can influence an election. explain the difference between the terms with are going to be using, super pac, pac, party committee, and even 501(c) organizations. guest: thank you. it is great to be on with you. we will start with super pac. that has gotten a lot of attention since they were created eight years ago. those are independent of any candidate. they are independent expenditure of funds. you can get any amount of money

you want to super pacs. that is why they are called super. my mentor who coined that phrase ,ame up with the term super pac so thank you, eliza. if you are a wealthy individual, a company, you can give any amount of money you want to a super pac. as right's are running now for or against -- ads for or against candidates. you are not supposed to coordinate, it is illegal to coordinate with a candidate. these are independent outside voices trying to influence the outcome of an election or policy issue. that hasype of pac gotten a lot of attention are known as corporate pac. 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 $2.3 million this cycle. you contrast that with the super pacs bringing in $100 million this cycle. host: we also hear about 501(c) organizations. guest: that is sort of dark money. lumped in with dark money, but they are more big money. they have to disclose their donors. insight into where that money comes from and where does. pacs andfor corporate union and business pacs.

they disclose where their money is going. 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. ads.are often running we are seeing ads from groups that are trying to influence the debate over judge kavanaugh. we are seeing organization spending money 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. is the number if you are a democrat. (202) 748-8001 four republicans.

for independents. 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. 127 super pac's have spent well over $260 million so far this election. for compares to $48 million (4) groups. 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.

it is tough to compare to a nonpresidential election year. what we are finding in terms of congressional races and outside spending toward the midterms, every cycle seems to outdo the previous one. 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. the top is the congressional leadership fund having spent $52 million so far this cycle. caller: -- guest: and they have raised about $100 million. this final month before the election, they have 20 of money 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? 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 have a minute ago -- had a minute ago showing how super pac's have eclipsed what the parties are spending. reasonable people can disagree whatrgue about effect that has on political debates, but the numbers are clear.

these are really a dominant force in our national conversation. pac, the senate majority $42 million in independent expenditure this cycle. guest: there was news this morning that they have spent more money. againstattack ads people like senator dean heller in nevada. you see attack ads this week against josh holly, who is challenging claire mccaskill in missouri. organized toer pac try to elect senate democrats. natalie is in washington, d.c. 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. 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. running thisis place. we have become the corporate united states. that is outrageous. 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.

i'm sure that topic will come up during open funds. kate ackley to bring more sunlight into the dark money spending. is reflectingler what polling shows a majority of americans feel, even in a bipartisan way. you see republicans and democrats and independents, this 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 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. taxpayercentivize more 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, for senate republicans. $26 million in spending for that group. the house majority pac, that is

the same on the democratic side. 12 ninete! has spent dollars on independent expenditures this cycle. who are they? guest: that is a liberal leaning pac. they support democratic candidates. i think it is a 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 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? act, the major part of it was not going to be enforced so that emily 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? would addtainly that 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 just is that lawmakers cannot use the information they gain in elected des, theyd therir ai 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 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. 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 ford influence

on our -- foreign influence on our elections. this is left as a big question mark. especially 501 c 4 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. cyclecandidates this saying they will not take corporate money or at an al

l-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. peoplere currently 127 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. you look at his campaign website, it says something like powered by people, not pacs. points that his key 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 potential -- them as being potential contenders for 2020 in the presidential race, they have all taken no pac pledges. some have been tailored, saying haverporate money, some been very broad. you see this as a way of democrats speaking to voters who are disillusioned with the role of money in politics. this is not the most painful or for, especially challengers, to take on the role of big money in politics. top, talked about at the corporate pacs are really not

big money. we look at northrop grumman, $2.3 million, that is a lot of money, but mostly it is going to incumbents. these challengers would not necessarily be in the pool of candidates to receive corporate pac money. you mentioned earlier, $268 million in money spent by super pacs this cycle. $792 million raised by super pacs this cycle. that is 2100 super pacs. expectation that we will see all $792 million of that spent over the next 35 days? it is hard to believe that there could be more political advertisements running then there are now. but yes, there will be more

running in the next coming weeks. some of that is just going to irritate voters. they are going to get tired of these super pac ads, big money in politics. one thing to follow up on no corporate money pledges, one thing that has really unleash the campaign finance system for democrats this cycle is that by taking a pledge like that, and they are all kind of different, but by taking the pledge, it seems to unleash a large amount ,f grassroots contributions $20,e who might be getting $100, a couple hundred dollars, that has been a big phenomenon this election cycle. you trade out the corporate money, if you will, although

they still take money from corporate executives and people .ho work for the company it is not treasury money that shey can give with super pac by taking. this pledge, it has really allowed and energized grassroots donors. host: from missouri, nate, a republican. caller: good morning. i want to know is the majority of the money going to republicans or democrats because obama got more funding than all the dlc candidates combined, hillary's pac raise more money ads any pac ads and ran tv for free on shows such as fox and friends. guest: you have to look at the

end of the election cycle and run all the numbers, but as far you see every other super pac is a republican super pac, and undemocratic and then republican and then democratic. at this point in the cycle, it is still fairly equitable. is that what is your finding -- what you are finding in the chart? host: the chart breaks it down by spending by recipient party. you can see these four different pieces of the pie. 16% of the spending is against democrats, $97 million. spending million in against republicans. 3$39 million for democrats. for republicans.

it breaks down almost exactly even if we are talking about percentages. guest: i think that will hold up at the end of the cycle. jeff, bronx, democrat. caller: it is kind of a coincidence that you would be talking about this because last night on the pbs station they had a documentary on the pac money and the effect it has on some communities. they were focusing on the state and toxic water there. just a coincidence, dark money, people not being accountable for the contributions they make to

people who do want to take a stand for issues in their community. host: do you want to talk about your effort to track down dark money and what that involves as a reporter? guest: if money is not disclosed, you rely on your sources and other news reports. there is not a portal for on.losure that you rely the dark money film, i did not see it lasting. i watched it earlier this summer. we did a podcast at cq roll call with my colleague, and he had the filmmaker on to discuss that. very interesting story. i think one of the things , andrats are trying to do this is what the film was looking at, how to start money affect -- does dark money affect

public policy? that is what voters really want to know more about. host: two kansas city, democrat, good morning. caller: thank you for the program. it is very interesting. i am a 74-year-old veteran. i wanted to put a little perspective and go back a bit. we used to have equal time. i don't support equal time. i think we need more of a panel of qualified republicans and democrats to get together and truly evaluate some of those claims that are made because this thing with the fact, liar makes a pants on fire joke out of what is a terrible tragedy in our country. so much money is been spent, but it is that the propaganda has taken over on both sides. i am a democrat. i see it on both sides.

10 or 20 years ago, i would put a yard sign in my yard. i am afraid to put a yard sign in my yard because of the hostility of the opposition on both sides has grown to the point where this isn't the america that i know and love. the other thing i want to mention is there is not enough of the news they have a tough job. they are not following up on critical points. i will make one point and then shut up. this thing with the irs. poor irsoried these workers when they were trying to investigate those political action committees that were trying to pass themselves off as charities. according to the law, it is the job of those people to determine -- just like a church cannot go too far. i support the church.

nobody --uestion is, i have heard it on various programs, but it is such a minor point that they sweep under the rug -- these people that work for the irs should have been given medals, not hillary. they did not have anything to do with -- pilloried. they do not have anything to do with freedom of speech. they had nothing to do with tax exempt. host: thank you for the call. we take your point. guest: there is a lot to unpack there. roles thatated their was really controversial on both sides of the isle. that is something that continues. , and that was really controversial on both sides of the aisle. that is something that continues. the johnson amendment prevents

them from coming out for or against a specific candidate. the law remains what it is. host: it is something that is of debate. are there other super pac's that caught your eye on the list? guest: that last caller was a veteran, so he might find this interesting. is of the few pacs that bipartisan is the with honor fund. they give to both republicans and democrats. that is unique for a super pac. they support candidates who have served in the military. this is the pac that jeff bezos announced he recently gave $10 billion to. there are some super pacs that are trying to get out of the partisan gridlock and try to

take it from a totally different perspective. obviously, the partisanship mostly reigns. spent to theve tune of $6 million this cycle. you have time to talk about one other one. is also citizens for strong america. you don't necessarily understand from the name what they are. they primarily support republican candidates, also some democrats. you cannot know much about these groups just from their names. we were looking at the top. if you look at corporate pacs, who is on top so far this cycle. we mentioned northrop grumman, and also the national beer association is up there. not as much as a super pac, but these are direct

donations to candidates and parties. host: journal"'s "washington live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. this morning, we look at the trump administration's lawsuit to stop california's new net neutrality law. this week's announced trade deal between the u.s., canada and mexico. and the latest on the fbi investigation of judge brett kavanaugh. watch c-span's "washington journal was quote live at 7:00 eastern -- "washington journal" live at 7:00 eastern this morning. join the discussion. >> coming up live on was stay, a nominees forg on

census bureau director and a seat on the postal regulatory commission. that is on c-span at 10:00 a.m. eastern. by the, a process used olympic committee to protect athletic -- athletes from abuse. stewart kaine and corey face-off in their second debate. and then more debate on c-span2 on brett kavanaugh's supreme court nomination. and there is the hearing on c-span 3 at 10:00 on a system to prevent train accidents called positive train control. festival the atlantic andinues with john kerry senator kamala harris of california. the c-span bus was recently in honolulu, hawaii, for the

39th stop of our cities cap -- capital cities tour. exploring hawaii's history and culture as well as public policy issues facing the state, saturday on c-span at 7:00 a.m. eastern on "washington journal," the director of hawaii's office of planning. we will talk about homelessness and the lack of a for the housing. c-span 2, stewart coleman on his book on the life of legendary native hawaiian surfer 80 ical. visit of the university of a wahoo. sunday, our hawaii weekend continues on washington journal. on renewablena energy efforts in hawaii.

on american history tv on c-span 3, at 2:00 p.m. eastern, we visit "the valley of the priest" on the north shore of a wahoo -- of oahu. at 4:00 p.m., three short documentaries about why a. -- about hawaii. watch hawaii weekend this weekend on c-span, book tv, and american history tv. listen to hawaii weekend on the free c-span radio app. we are featuring the honolulu mayor saturday at 10:00 a.m. eastern. a serieslantic posted of discussions in washington about the constitution, all attacks, and civic