washington journal live 7:00 eastern. join the discussion. ♪ >> the reviews are in for c-span's the president spoke. it recently topped -- the president's book. and from the new york journal of books, the presidents makes a fast, and grossing read. -- and grossing read. -- engrossing read. read about how noted historians rank the best and worst from george washington to barack obama. challenges they faced, and the legacies they left behind. c-span's the presidents is now available as a hardcover or e-book today at c-span.org/thepresidents or wherever books are sold.

one's michael beckel joins us now for a discussion on congressional leadership pac's and how congress uses the money that flows through the. before we get to that report, remind viewers what issue one is. guest: issue one is a relatively based here in washington, d.c. dedicated to political reform. that makes usngs unique as we are certainly bipartisan and our mission. we have put together coalition of former members of congress, former governors, more than 200 from all 50 states, both parties, almost a 50/50 split between democrats and republicans, all urging for more transparency in election, more government accountability, so we are very active on ethics issues and political reform issues. host: and how do you go about doing that? guest: we do a number of things. we have got a small policy team working here in washington at the capital, pushing for new legislation. and i am the head of our research program.

i am a former reporter who spent a long time covering money in politics, and we are issuing a number of different reports, tracking some of the trends that we are seeing as well as advocating for solutions, what can be done to fix some of these problems? host: the latest report focuses on the use of so-called leadership pac's by members of congress. what is a leadership pac? guest: a leadership pac is a political action committe controlled by a member of congress feared these reform in the late 1970's as a way for politicians to raise extra money to give it to their political allies, but today, they have proliferated nearly every member of congress in both parties operates a leadership pac, and the majority of money that leadership pac's are spending are not going toward those original intended purposes of contributions to political allies. instead, we are seeing them being able to you be used to pay

lavish vacations, five-star some of fine dining at the fanciest restaurants in golf buying golf to resorts, tickets to events, and often they are being used as flesh funds to be able to pay for one fundraiser at a fancy location to be able to pay for the next fundraiser at a fancy location. host: an exposure of leadership pac's, you were kind enough to tweet out the numbers, this 18% of sitting house numbers are not have a leadership pac. another 99% of sitting senators do have one, and 82% of sitting house members have leadership pac's, according to the reports. the researc that you did at issue one on this. what are the rules that govern and how they differ from what we know as a campaign committee and

the fundraising you can do for that? guest: all politics since have an official -- all politicians have an official campaign that they can use further election issues, so being able to pay for tv has come a digital as, canvassers, all of those come and thisur campaign, cannot be used for those kind of campaign expenses. instead, they were designed so they could dole out money to political allies, so whether you were trying to run for a committee chairmanship or subcommittee chairmanship, you could use your clout to raise extra money and spread that money around. but the statute that governs the personal use of campaign funds, as a member of congress, as a politician, you are prohibited from using your campaign funds t o, sya, buy a rolex. that would be illegal.

that statute was written at a time when no one in congress envisioned a separate political action committee called leadership pac's, so the law is a little bit less explicit, and there has been, i think, a rampant misuse of leadership pac's, because there has been less enforcement. host: money and congress and leadership pac's in particular is our topic until we end our program today at 10:00 this morning. if you want to join, michael beckel of issue one, you can do that on the phone line for republicans, (202) 748-8001 .democratics s, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. know theways want to most egregious examples. moneyart from your words, continue to buy leadership pac's, and that is just in the three months between october and 100 $13,0002018,

was spent by member leadership pac's at five star luxury inorts, one particularly georgia. $82,000 spent on private jets. posh dcc house, $15,900 at restaurants and hotels in las vegas. namesnt so far as to name in your report. what we've found is that leadership pac's are a bipartisan program. problem. you need tople say raise moneyt these fancy locations in order to successfully wine and dine wealthy donors and treat them in a way that they want to give you money, but one of our key findings in this for or does that a majority of leadership pac spending today is going toward things other than contributions to candidates and liberal groups, so for many members of congress, who operate these leadership pac's, they are 40%, 20%,you know,

10% or less on these donations to their political allies and instead are spending it on some of these very lavish things. host: who are the people doing that the most? guest: we see that democrats and republicans alike are named in this report-. about a republican from north carolina, for instance, who spent about 80%, george holding, 80% of his money during the his last two years went toward things other than contributions to political groups and political allies, being able to pay for a trip, for instance, to london, staying at a very elite club over in london. named, a number of individuals in this report and this is just the tip of the iceberg. by no means is this a comprehensive list. host: taking your comments and questions on the issue of leadership pac's and money in

congress, michael beckel with us until the top of the hour. rose is with us in nashville, tennessee, a republican. rose, good morning. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call. i have two questions. one, this money from the leadership pac's, is derived from taxpayer dollars? and the other question is, i was wondering if that slush fund was still around in congress, which i understand is taxpayer money to pay off people that are accused of sexual harassment. and we heard about that a while back and never did hear anymore about it, so i was curious about that. is that slush fund still around? thank you for taking my call. host: rose, thanks for the question. guest: thank you for a much, rose. those are great questions. do off the top of my head, i not know the ins and outs to your second question, but i can say to your first question, this

is not taxpayer money. leadership pac's are separate political action committees that are raising money typically from special interests in washington, so you see a lot of lobbyists you see a lot of wealthy donors, you see a lot of labor pacts, trade association pac's, funding leadership pac's on both sides of the aisle. its is not taxpayer money, is as money mainly from washington power players who know how to play this game. individual americans have not heard of a leadership pac and are not donating to a leadership pac, but you can be assured that washington power players know that this is very much part of the game to buy access and influence in washington. host: i want you to explain what is going on here, a map up here some $16,900ll, spent in just three months between october and december

through leadership pac's at charlie palmer's steakhouse. then there is the capital grille, a little bit farther down pennsylvania avenue, $11,800 spent there. capital,locks from the 9000 spent. $4000 spent at a restaurant closer to the house side on capitol hill. explain why restaurants have become such a magnet for the spending. guest: that is right. there are a number of establishments within blocks of the capital building that politicians are going to to try to raise money for the campaign committees and for their leadership pac's. so this map highlights just leadership pac spending in the final three months of 2018, and you can see that there are a number of establishments within walking distance of where lawmakers have their day jobs. and so they can just skirt off for a breakfast meeting, a lunch

meeting, a dinner meeting, to be able to use leadership pac funds to pay for fancy dinners at some of the best steakhouse is in town. is there something that they tried to submit a receipt from their congressional campaign committee, why couldn't they be reimbursed for that, if they were having a meeting about a campaign? guest: if they were meeting and doing official business, that is one thing, but if they are an event, and many of these are designed for their leadership pac and not fundraising for their committee, you can make a whole separate fundraiser for the campaign committee, but these leadership pac's are a way that many political action committees, corporate pacts, labor union pat summitt trade knowsat association

that they can show up to these fundraisers, cut a check, and have an opportunity to mingle with a number of congress, to anre their ideas, to have opportunity to build a relationship that others do not have come and they can step away blocks away from the capital and have these kind of meetings. host: plenty of coals for you. mary is in key largo, florida, a democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. ofseems like the membership these leadership pac's is something like a pyramid scheme. isn't that illegal? thank you. guest: one of the things that we are very hopeful about at issue one as there does seem to be bipartisan interest in curbing the abuses of leadership pac's. i think a lot of people across the country are concerned about how these things are being used. there are some of the strongest conservative voices raising concerns about leadership pac's as well as some of the strongest progressive voices.

in this congress alone, you saw a group of bipartisan legislators come together in the house to propose some reforms to leadership pac's, and we think that is very heartening in this era when you have so much partisanship in washington, this does seem to be an issue republicans and democrats agreed reforms are needed. host: some 99% of senators and 82% of house members have leadership pac's, how hopeful are you that they will want to reform this? guest: it is certainly an uphill battle. we know that there are some people who are using leadership pac's in ways that we would think anyone should be concerned about, and there are other people who have long defended this as part of the status quo in washington. you will know that the big h.r.-1 legislation, which the house passed earlier this year, which is the biggest political reform bill in a generation, whether you agree with what is in it or not, does not even mention the issue of leadership pac's.

so that speaks volumes. i think it is an uphill challenge, but clearly an area where democrats and republicans have shown an interest in coming together to make meaningful reform. host: where the members joining together to try to push legislation on this? guest: the main members pushing for this include republicans capital,agher and john and democrats kathleen rice and derek kilmer. they have an issue that issue one has been supporting. look at you want to what we have been discussing, it is at issue one. more examples from that report, specific members, specific spending by their leadership pac's, only 36% of the $1.6 million in spending between january 2017 and decembe januar8 by senator thune went to contributions. alone, it went from

charter jets to accompany, a minnesota-based company that focuses on luxury vacationers. bene also appear to traveling in luxury on the ground, $1400 in just the final two months of 2018 on transportation that included perhaps luxury services in his state. only about 43%u, of the $829,000 in spending for jenny great way 17 and december for january of 2017 and december of 2018 went to contributions of political groups. $800,000 on a luxury hotel in vermont as well. from theese numbers report from issue if you want to examples asific well. we are talking about it with

michael beckel of issue one. , anlie is in new york independent. charlie, good morning. caller: good morning. corruption in our government, we will have to change the words, because the words are very important. when somebody gives a politician money to get favors from them, it is called a bribe, and yet we are calling it leadership pac money term, and i do not think we should do that. i think we should call it what it is. that will be the power of words, and this will tell us what we need, this money out of our government. guest: that is a very important issue, charlie. i think there are a lot of semantic games and word games played in washington, but clearly we know that contributions to leadership pac's are part of the way that money flows into politics from very well-connected special interests, and most constituents, most americans who

might be inclined to make a small dollar donation to their preferred candidate are not the people funding those leadership pac's, and clearly the relationship between money and policy outcomes is a very big concerns was that issue one. host: it is part of the way that money flows to politicians from special interests. can you run for all the ways it can do that? guest: absolutely. leadership pac's are one slice of a very big pie. there are a number of groups spending tens of millions of dollars on lobbying expenditures, paying for lobbyists to go to capitol hill to pay for their positions. you have cancer pain contributions to members of -- you have campaign contributions to members of congress. raising tens of millions of dollars on a regular basis, turning to lobbyists sometimes to bundle those campaign

contributions. even if you hit the legal limit of how much money you can donate to a candidate or a political turn toou can, in turn, your friends, business associations, and act as a fundraiser to help cure more money for these entities. and ever since citizen united, we have seen in the last decade a proliferation of super pac's and dark money groups, which have no contribution limits. you have individuals, corporations, labor unions able to write sometimes six-figure, seven-figure, a figure checks to these organizations, and that is a huge avenue for money flowing into the system. host: from grand gorge. caller: good morning. a news program that set in 21 government agencies, 60% of the time of employees is spent on watching porno and games, and i am not

sure whether this has anything to do with pac's, but if people are donating money to things, this is a terrible infringement on the public. host: might be two different issues there. guest: yeah. i think most of the money that we see going to leadership pac's is all money from private interest groups. this is not taxpayer money. this is not funding, you know, taxpayer activity. this is what politicians are using the separate political action committees to do. some donors are perfectly ok with how politicians are spending this money. they want to be able to attend the fundraiser or that meeting, that event where they can make a with a lawmaker and share their ideas in a private setting, and donors do not care if they go off and use the check that they get today to fund a trip to go skiing in colorado or go to the beach in florida. we know other donors might have

qualms about that, but leadership pac's are a totally different animal. host: former congressman jason chaffetz, at the end of 2018, there was spending on supplies at costco from his leadership $1200. the tune of $2800 at the trump international hotel in washington, d.c. what happens to a leadership pac when a member leaves office? guest: another great question, where the rules governing all political committees, whether a campaign committee or leadership pac, generally allow some members -- they allow members some amount of time to be able to wind down, say if they are not running for reelection again, they might incur some costs for phone bills or rent that it makes sense they would still be paying a few months after they lost their election or resigned from office or whatnot.

but there is no law in the book that says you have t wind down your committee by a certain date and time. there are people who put forward proposals, to set rules, but in some cases, these committees can essentially live on forever, that politicians can operate a political action committee, whether you call it a leadership pac were not is sort of a matter of new ones in legalese, but politicians can have these political action committees under their control ad nauseam until they decide they want to terminate them. host: fort lauderdale, florida is next. jack, independent, good morning. caller: good morning. it appears to me that you have while perfect case of viable candidates running for office should be given free television time and free newspaper ads in the paper, because i work for a major

company, and the lobbyists interfered with a lot of things that were going on, and 15 guys got fired, and five guy went to jails for doing the same thing, for taking from lobbyists. i think the only way to straighten this country out is to take the lobbyist money out of the political game. and you have made a fabulous case, and i thank you very much for exposing everything that is going on in the country. thank you very much. guest: thank you for your kind words and tuning in this morning. one of the reasons we wrote this report was trying to raise more awareness about position. i think a lot of americans are concerned about the appearances, at to play politics, and issue one, there are a number of reforms we are pushing to try to curb that influence of big money in politics, and we hope that more people read this report and follow us on our website at issueone.org. host: atlantic heights, new

jersey, tom, independent. good morning. caller: good morning. what i'm curious about, even if it was not settled structurally like rules or having to put in an actual reform or measure, if you put just one on and announce the fact that they were only going to receive any money anonymously, that they do not want to know who, they just want to receive anonymous money, and they are glad to take it, because they need money to make things go around, so getting rid of all of the money i do not think is feasible. but to say i do not know who you are in particular to represent my ideals, and when i've run on is my stump speech. i wanted to know your thoughts on the. guest: i want to be clear. at issue one, we are most concerned about the influence of big money in politics, and we want to see politicians do more to get more money in the system from ordinary americans. we think that there is a lot of energy right now around small dollar donors, for instance.

you have politicians that are running the gamut, from president trump to senator innie sanders to everyone between, really trying to get more people invested in the political process. and one way people are invested is making small dollar contributions, and those people typically are not giving money for the same reasons that you have washington lobbyists and power players and special interests giving money. people getting involved in the process is good, but special interests being able to use the process to their advantage is when we start having more concerns. tot: we will head up wisconsin. michelle is a democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. i was also wondering with this leadership pac money, which comes from special interests, big donors, wealthy people, and so on and so on, how did this citizens united ruling have an effect on this?

because i am thinking it might run into glitches trying to get is underway so that way these, you know, wealthy donors and outside interests cannot just come in and influence our politics and politicians. always under the assumption that politicians work for all of the people, not just lobbyists and wealthy people. thank you. guest: thanks for the question. clearly citizens united presented another major advance them for wealthy donors and special-interest groups, big labor unions, big corporations. that decision gave them new ways to play politics, being able to fund super pac's, being able to fund dark money groups that would run ads, being able to funnel money for a serious upgrades to do those kinds of

things. funnel money through a series these kinds of things. voters around the country are being barraged by those types of ads. indership pac's were created the 1970's as a way for politicians to give away money to their allies, whether you like that system or not, it is clear that it is proliferated, that the abuses are running more rampant today, in part because both congress and the federal election commission has fallen down on the job. there is more that the leadership pac's can do and there is more that the elections commission itself can do to curb the abuse of leadership pac's. host: do you know if the total amount of money that flowed through leadership pac's in the 2018 cycle? about $150 million had

floated to all of the leadership pac's, controlled by sitting members of congress last year. host: time for one or two more calls. in shreveport, go ahead. i know that there are supposed to be contributions, but wouldn't they be taxable in some ways? another reason not to trust our politicians. thank you. i will take your answer. guest: good question. good question. every time that you make a political donation, that is entirely different than making a donation to a charity, so that is not a tax-deductible activity or aou as an individual political action committee or a corporation or a labor union. these are political expenditures that they do not get to write off in that same way, so when you have that money flowing in to leadership pac's, this is money coming from these

interests, and as the report shows, more and more of it is getting spent on some pretty lavish expenditures, such as trips to luxurious resorts, golfing at some of the best golf resorts in the country, fine steakhouses. we were shocked to see that in the past two years, only 46% of the money and leadership pac's were going to contributions to political candidates and political groups. host: this report from issueone.org is available to look at, and it focuses on october through december of 2018. winter we expect the first look at leadership pac's in the 115 congress? guest: leadership pac's, unlike some of the other political animals out there, only have to file their reports generally twice a year, so you can circle your calendar for july 21, if you are the type of nerd who wants to dig through these filings themselves.

that is when the midyear reports will be filed, but we will not see the full calendar year of these impacts until january of next year. host: we will circle our booking calendar as well journaln's washington live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. karl discusses report on former members of congress who end up lobbyists. they feature nature magazine contributor to talk about her investigation piece, gag order, looking at a super max prison in colorado. ke will talk about his group's effort's to support the localization and commercialization of marijuana. watches c-span journal on c-span.

join the discussion. watch live coverage of the 2020 democratic candidates in iowa this week and on c-span. tonight, we're with cory booker in iowa city.. live on sunday at 3:00 p.m., democratic presidential candidates at the iowa democratic party hall of fame ceremony in cedar rapids. speakers include heat to judge, kristen -- peter junior -- peter buttigieg, and elizabeth warren. watch live coverage of the candidates in iowa this weekend on c-span. c-span.org oron listen with the free c-span radio app. q&a, darrell davis talks about his book, clandestine relationships, where he details presenting ku klux

klan members and convinces them to leave. >> this night hawk walked into the room first. he was wearing military camouflage fatigues with the blood drop emblem right here and the initials kkk on his chest embroidered across on his head, knights of the ku klux klan. on his hip, he had a semi-automatic handgun and holster. he came in and was followed behind him by the grand dragon, dark blue suit and tie. when the nighthawks entered the room and turned the corner and saw me, he just froze. and mr. kelly bumped into his back. and i stopped short. he regained his balance. i knew what they were thinking. they were thinking either they gave him the wrong room number, or this was a setup, an ambush. so i would like this to display my hands, nothing in them, and i

stood up and approached him. i said hi, mr. kelly. my name is darrell davis. come on in. >> on c-span. >> now, former senator and governor sam brownback space at a heritage foundation event on human rights abuses in china. he currently serves as the state department's ambassador at large for religious freedom. this is 90 minutes. >> i think we'll get started here. i'm walter. thank you for coming out. welcome back. really important issue we're here to discuss today, what minorities face in western china today. what we hope to do is understand itit