manufacturers in the united states. but the organization is under attack now by two major lawsuits, one from the new york attorney general, claiming and oneon and spending, in washington, d.c., claiming misuse of the nra charitable foundation funds. the nra says it has done nothing wrong and is turning to its 5 million members for help and support as it revs up for the 2020 presidential election primary. our question for you, what do you think about what is going on with the nra and its troubles? do you agree with the new york attorney general that the nra should be dissolved? if you agree that the organization should be resolved, we want you to call (202)-748-8000. with the newee york attorney general, we want to hear from you, and your number is going to be (202)-748-8001. nra members, we especially want to hear from you.

your number is going to be (202)-748-8002. and if you are in american gun owner but not part of the nra, you should be part of this conversation, as well. your number is going to be (202)-748-8003. keep in mind, you can also text us your opinion at (202)-748-8003 and we are always reading on social media on ontter at --@cspanwj, and facebook at facebook.com/c-span. once again this week, new york state announced a major lawsuit against the national rifle association, accusing them of corruption and misspending of the organization's funds. here is a bit of the story from "the new york times." " new york attorney general has issued an existential threat to the national rifle association on thursday, arguing in a lawsuit that years of runaway

corruption and misspending demanded a dissolution of the nation's most powerful gun rights lobby. while the legal confrontation could take years to play out, it constitutes another deep blow to an organization whose legendary medical clout has been diminished by infighting and financial stress. the suit was swiftly followed by two others. the nra struck back against the office of the new york attorney cia james claimed -- claiming her action was politically motivated and organization's first amendment rights. and there attorney general of washington, d.c., filed suit against the nra and its charitable foundation, alleging the nra misuse millions of dollars of the foundation's funds. this james, who has special jurisdiction over the nra because it was chartered as a

nonprofit new york 140 years ago, also sued for current or former nra leaders, seeking tens of millions of dollars in restitution. in addition, the longtime chief executive, they are john frazier, the organizations general counsel." we are going to show you what the new york attorney general said when she announced the lawsuit against the nra. here she is from her press conference. [video clip] ago, mya few minutes office filed a lawsuit against the national rifle association to dissolve the organization in its entirety. for years, the self-dealing and illegal conduct that violates andyork's charity laws undermines its own admission. the national rifle association, or the nra, is the largest and most influential pro-gun organization in the nation.

1871, thefounding in nra has been a registered not-for-profit charitable corporation in the state of new york. the attorney general's office has a wide range of regulatory and enforcement powers over charitable corporations and the trustees, including the nra. the nra's influence has been so powerful that the organization went unchecked for decades, while top executives funneled millions into their own pockets. nra divertede millions and millions of dollars away from its charitable mission for personal use by senior leadership, to award contracts to the financial gain of close associates and family, and appeared to dole out lucrative notional contracts to former

employees in order to buy their silence and continued loyalty. host: once again, we want to know what you think. do you agree with the new york attorney general? should the nra be dissolved? call in. we want to know what you think. let's start with al, calling from massachusetts. al disagrees. al, pronounce the name of your town. caller: it is saga succumb massachusetts -- it is massachusetts. let's dissolve the law, the nra, let's just dissolve our entire society. i mean, your show this morning in itself is skewed. here the show i want, since we are going to get rid of the police in portland, and since the police cannot help you, shouldn't you have the right to have a gun?

why isn't that the show this morning? ont: do you think the nra is the same level as police departments around the country? caller: the nra is an association to protect my right to carry a gun. we never would have ended slavery. the british started slavery. we would have never ended , but when the farmers british, read about the concord bridge. that is where the british were turned back and this country was founded and we ended slavery. host: i am not quite sure how you are equating that with the end of slavery after the civil war. caller: well, how could we end slavery? the british introduced slavery with the slave trade around the world.

if it wasn't for america, we would not have ended slavery. having those weapons available enabled us to stop the british, and that was their right as farmers. the farmers stopped the british. so my point is you and i should all have a right to carry a gun. people in a room with a gun and one that person comes in, 10 people will shoot the one that person. if one bad person comes in with people with no guns, how do we stop the bad person? bad people do bad things. good people do good things. host: let's go to christopher, calling from oklahoma. christopher says the nra should be dissolved. good morning. caller: hey, how's it going? host: just fine, go ahead. caller: it is early. [laughter] i just had to call in because i was thinking back to when i was a kid.

my dad was a member of the nra. i had like, i don't know, like a kid package, a little sticker decal or something. host: the eddie the eagle program? caller: i can't remember. when i look back now, i look at it as propaganda. well, i was kid, a probably, let's see, about 20 when columbine happened. the big thing i remember is that the nra came in and had a big rally in denver like right after that. times therea lot of is money wrapped up in all of this in weird places, like you will see a big boost, like we will have a mass shooting in the states, and then you see a big , ont in nra advertisement

facebook, google, and these social media companies profit through the nra indirectly connected to the mass shootings. do you understand what i'm saying? is illegal to it advertise and all this stuff, but it sends a weird message to people if you have ever lost anybody close to you to gun violence. proponent for the second amendment, i do believe in the second amendment, but i think it is a hairy situation. if the money is there, they are going to be doing that. host: let's go to robert, calling from pennsylvania. robert is an nra member. what do you think about the lawsuit and what is going on with the nra right now? caller: i have been a member for

45 years to the nra. havingy reason we are these lawsuits is because of the crooked politicians who want to ,ake guns away from the free supposedly living american people, and who are protected by the second amendment to the constitution. any have no right to take body's guns. host: let's separate the gun issue from the organization issue. there has been a lot of leadershipin the nra with oliver north and wayne lafayette air. those issues began before the lawsuit. how do you think about how the nra is being run right now? caller: i think they are doing a very good job from all the pressure they have, from the crooked congressman who want to steal the guns. host: the nra actually released

a statement after the lawsuit came out, and i will read a little bit from mr. wayne lapierre who said this to "the new york times." "this is an unconstitutional, premeditated attack to destroy the nra, the vicious defender of american freedom at the ballot box for decades. we are ready for the fight. bring it on." and the nra's president said "you can set your watch by it. it is going to reach a crescendo as we move into the 2020 election cycle." president trump was asked about what was going on with the nra, and here's what he had to say. [video clip] president trump: terrible thing that just happened. i think the nra should move to ands and lead a very good beautiful life. i have told them that for a long time. i think they should move to texas. place, ord be a great

to another place of their choosing. i would say texas would be a great place and an appropriate place for the nra. this has been going on for a long time. they have been absolutely decimated by the cost of that lawsuit. it is very sad, but i would suggest that that is what they should be doing. host: let's go to debbie, calling from clearlake, california. debbie disagrees with the new york attorney general. good morning. caller: good morning. dad fact in three wars. i am pretty much an army brat. he fought to give us the right to bear arms, and by the grace of god, we are supposed to protect ourselves. and the democrats are just trying to take everything away. host: debbie, are you a member of the nra? caller: no, but i'm going to

join. [laughter] host: once again, as i asked another caller who was a member, the discussions about how that nra was being run has started before the lawsuit from the new york attorney general. there was a bunch of concerns between the leadership of oliver north and wayne lapierre. oliver north is no longer a member of the organization. what do you think about how the organization was being run? well, i just think it is a necessary organization, and i believe you needed. we need an organization like that. tot: all right, let's go karen, calling from houston, texas. good morning. caller: we are a gun owning family in houston, but i think the question i would invite the

dallas becausen for one thing, that is where the headquarters is, i understand, of the irs nonprofit division. they could really take a close and i hope books, the nra tax-exempt status. host: you are a gun owner. are you a member of the nra or any other type of gun organization? caller: no. i am not. host: is there a reason why you did not join? there are 5 million people in america who are gun owners like yourself you are a member. is there a reason why you did not join? caller: i believe there ought to be restrictions on gun. and the nra proposes that. host: what type of restrictions do you think should be put on going ownership -- gun ownership? caller: i think anybody who is

clearly a danger to themselves or others should not have a gun. there ought to be background is this gunse there show loophole. i propose more controls over nra, i understand, has an education program. that is fine, but they have violated their tax-exempt status, and that is very serious. osettalet's go to r from new rochelle, new york. rosetta believes the nra should be dissolved. caller: yes, i think it should be dissolved. i am disappointed it is only criminal or i mean only civil them being undissolved for civil

and not criminal charges. why? why isn't anyone going to jail for what leticia laid out? guns,have everybody with it is too much. the police department, the armed services, ok, but we don't need the nra. dissolve them quickly. host: the supreme court issued a broad rolling on the second amendment that agrees with the nra's position. even if the nra goes away, it doesn't mean the supreme court will change their position. what should be done about gun ownership? even if not the nra, should there be a group like the nra to advocate for gun owners? caller: no. there shouldn't. and some of these charges that the was laying out should be criminal. why aren't they going to jail? why aren't any of these actions

that they have taken criminal? just settled? i am just so disappointed in that part of it all, but, yes, it should be dissolved. host: let's go to spring hill, florida. lee, good morning. caller: i am a gun owner. i think the nra should be dissolved because it is a and theyrganization, were corroborating together. host: explain what you mean about collaborating. who were they collaborating with? caller: well, the attorney general took out this charge the other day that they were paid off with no bid contracts. 11.6 what do you need million for six months for a vacation counselor? what is up with that? how much counseling do you need for vacations? host: lee, you are a gun owner. do you belong to any gun advocacy group outside of the nra? caller: no. i am a democrat.

they never really represented my philosophy, but, again, i don't think you should be able to own automaticr m-16 fully unless you are in the reserves. unless they are arming the deer and hogs and forgot to tell me, i don't think you need that much firepower. host: you said the nra does not represent your philosophy of gun ownership. what is your philosophy of gun ownership? caller: well, i believe i should be able to hit my target with a rifle at 100 yards with open sights, but i do not think i need an ak-47 to have a discussion with you on whether i like trump or biden. host: let's go to howard, calling from california. good morning. caller: good morning. my nhra safety

deemed ready at eight years old. i just believe that they need to go back to teaching kids, anddren the respective guns what they can do and stuff, and that instilled in me the safety of guns and things. they actually showed people who do not go to defense right and got shot because they did not put their safety on. this has been with me all my life. guns, total respect for people, and everybody else. i think kids need to learn about what they could do it in early age again, which they are not teaching. host: are you saying you like the nra's educational foundation and lessons? sorry, go ahead. caller: no, finish what you are saying. host: you are talking about the

educational portion of the nra. caller: right, but i am not an nra member. i was a member then, but i never paid my dues or anything. i am not going to join or pay my want my samei number from 1952. that is just the way i think, but i do think people need to learn more about gun safety and stuff. but it is a mental thing. to respect what you have and what your rights are to have that. yeah. go to carl, calling from monroeville, new jersey. good morning. caller: good morning. host: go ahead, carl. caller: good morning, how are you? host: just fine, go ahead. member, but an nra

i am concerned about the leadership. i do remember when oliver north came in and left, but i am in supportive member, and i think we are supportive now of years past. it is a free country, and i think i should maintain my rights under the second amendment, and i believe that is really where this political momentum has gone. i just wanted to say i am , but i do of the nra not believe it should be dissolved. host: let's go to charles, calling from las vegas, nevada. good morning. caller: good morning. i just spent three years, eight months and nine days in china. i had to leave in february because of the coronavirus. when talking to my friend in

china, we say you cannot discuss the three t's. ted budd, taiwan, and tiananmen square. , and tiananment square. i do stand for the second amendment and i do own several guns. i talk on children gun safety. i did not join the nra initially because i believe they supported ocular bullets and things like that. i do support certain restrictions, but any authoritarian government is going to take your guns away first. hitler's did it. the chinese didn't. my friend said to me once and china, america would not be america without the second amendment. that is what i believe. callingt's go to tomas, from bloomington, indiana. good morning. caller: good morning.

the secondee with amendment. i do not agree with the nra per se because i do believe it is corrupt. what do we have atf four and stuff like that? for assault rifles and semi autos capable of long distance shrapnel's, when you have a more developed brain and you are not trying to get an ego or something like that, you know? i agree that there are a lot of people who need education courses and guns because they are not raised around guns. that is why i believe there should be more shooting ranges around so people can learn about these things. i had to take hunter's education because i was born after 1986 to be able to go hunting. i do think people should learn about survival because you never know. look at this coronavirus. you never know what we could go to. [laughter] of ouret's see what some

social media followers are saying about our topic this morning on the nra. here is one person who text and said, "no, i do not agree. thanks for stirring the hornets nest. they essentially issued a call to arms to increase the vote for president trump." another person text and says, "as a former nra member, i quit renewing when they began engaging in dishonest rhetoric about the government, which coincides with the beginning of their management excesses." is aer text says "the nra pact that needs to be dissolved into bankruptcy. we do not need the nra to protect our right to own a gun, that is guaranteed to the second amendment. anybody that thinks otherwise is very ignorant." one last text that says, "it should be dissolved, but inevitably, it will be

reconstituted under the same or another name. the nra is a chartered organization that can be disciplined by a gees, but it is also a incurably american philosophy that is impossible to long suppressed." we want to know what you think. do you agree with the new york attorney general and her contention that the nra should be dissolved? do you disagree? we want you to call in and tell us what you think. let's talk to dean, calling from louisville, kentucky. good morning. should be put in treason because they are robbing the piggy bank. a new organization should take its place because how can people send money to them when they are spending it on luxuries, buying beach houses ?

and i am a combat vietnam and if they want something else for an nra replacement, but they should be replaced. they are a crook. chris,et's talk to calling from eugene, oregon. good morning. caller: i agree with many of your last few callers. the nra is not the second amendment. did represented well before, they do not represent it will now. and misuse of the funding is the obvious point of the lawsuit. is americana, and who wants bazookas? people need to learn how to separate the difference between

organization support to support the second amendment and those that actually do. this organization should just go away. they do not represent me or any gun owner that i know. host: let's go to david, calling from pennsylvania. david, good morning. caller: hello? host: you are on the air, go ahead. hi, if you are going to dissolve it for a few bad people, then you would have dissolve the government for the same reason. the nra is therefore second amendment rights. that is my comment. callingt's go to joe, from columbia, southar carolina. good morning. caller: hello. my question would be, why are they checking into a private organization -- sorry, the dogs are barking. why are they checking into a private organization's financial

records? and do you think that broadcasters ought to be held accountable when they tell lies on television? as i first of all, joe, read earlier, the nra is registered as a nonprofit in new york state, which allows them to be under the authority of the new york attorney general. sorry? why not check into all nonprofits, whether they be churches or blm? host: let's go to david, calling from rockford, pennsylvania. caller: good morning, sir. host: go ahead, david. caller: i believe that we should keep the nra. i am a member of the second amendment in my part, and they see that guns kill people. you know, this is a story i was

told a long time ago, and it is really true. it was not the match that burns the barn down. it was the match that was in the person's hand. and i believe we ought to have more laws on ownership of guns and not get these crazy people involved. host: what do you mean by that, david? are you saying you are in favor of or gun restrictions? -- of morgan restrictions? caller: to a certain extent, yes. host: what type of restrictions do you think there should be that there are not now stood mark are you still there quest -- that there are not now? are you still there? caller: if somebody is mentally disturbed, they should never own a gun. that should be checked out. gun that has insed all this bad stuff

these schools and all that, all these people were deranged. even though they went and got it from there dad's gun cabinet, that person should have had it , safe for him, and not his kids. host: have you ever been a member of the nra or caller: caller: a similar organization? no -- nra or a similar organization? caller: no, i may have been a member years ago, but i cannot afford all these memberships at different organizations. i just quit all the organizations. host: let's go to james, calling from sierra vista, arizona. good morning. caller: good morning, sir. how are you? host: just fine, go ahead, james. have --all right, i

when she went to iraq, she would not allow a water pistol in her house. we bought 212 gauge shotguns -- two 12 gauge shotguns because she saw what is going on here. in arizona, this is a disaster. yes, we are, and, supporters of the nra. yesterday i got a letter in the do you want to rejoin the nra? you know what? them.oing to support these doggone democrats want to take our damn guns away, and they want to strip us of our

constitutional rights, and i am not having. -- i am not having it. host: let's talk to alan. good morning. caller: good morning, how are you doing today? host: just fine, go ahead. caller: i think the nra should definitely be dissolved. they do not represent gun owners. they represent an manufacturer's, and the only reason that they want to have free access to guns is just to make money so the gun manufacturers who keep giving them a good rate. host: why do you say they represent gun manufacturers more than owners? againstwell, they are all restrictions, and what i am talking about here mostly is the assault rifle types, the

ar-15's, ak-47s, stuff like that . even handguns in some cases. they are sporting guns. they are not necessarily hunting guns, and they are not necessarily for home defense. they are just going out and banging away a bunch of rounds on the weekend or whatever. those should be restricted, but the nra does not want them to be restricted because they could fire up the populace, so to speak, and get them fired up and go out and buy more guns for the gun manufacturers. new: let's hear more from james fromey letitia her press conference on thursday on the lawsuit she filed against the nra. [video clip] >> they use millions upon millions of dollars from the nra for personal use, including for

lavish trips for themselves and their families, private jets, expensive meals, and other private travels. phillips,erre, woody joshua powell, and john frazier instituted a culture of self-dealing, mismanagement and negligent oversight at the nra that was illegal, oppressive, and fraudulent. they evadedand internal controls to allow themselves, their families, favored board members, employees and vendors to benefit the reimbursed expenses, related party transactions, excess compensation, side deals, and waste of charitable assets without regard to the nra's best

interest. host: let's go back to our social media followers and see what they think about the the new yorkhat attorney general is arguing for, the dissolution of the nra. fromis the text that says a list of accusations from the ag of new york, it sounds like she and other people around her have clearly done their jobs, or as the nra, if you are running crooked charity, you need to be investigated and yes if needed dissolved. americans like to voluntarily destroy themselves themselves money to an operation that keeps detailed records about its members. he was another that says i still hope the nra would turn itself around, even though reagan found members do anything but pay, pay, and pay. i shoot alongside nra certified

trainers and range officers, and who are all salt of the earth, honest to god patriots. "let's bext says, honest, if you and i had a not-for-profit set up and used it as our own personal piggy itnk, we would be in jail. is time we leveled the playing field, no matter who or what." one last text says "the nra should be dismantled due to the fact that the organization for years has tried to dominate the presidency with its members and followers. i hope the new york ag is successful with the lawsuit. this will teach other organizations not to do illegal activities within the top tier of the organization." once again, we want to know what you think about new york attorney general's lawsuit against the nra. let's go back to our phone lines and talk to ray, calling from lake dallas, texas. good morning. caller: good morning, how are you? host: fine. caller: really quickly, i have three points to make, if you

would please allow me. one is i do believe the nra should be disbanded, but not for the reasons you probably think i would. i absolutely believe in the second amendment. i believe in the right to bear arms. that is in our constitution. however, i must say that some of the things i have heard your other callers mentioned is they are suggesting in some way that politicians or people are wanting to take their arms away. that could be the furthest from the truth. nobody is wanting to take anybody's arms away, ok? this is about common sense laws. that is all they have ever wanted to make and to do. register ay a gun, gun, close the loophole at these tradeshows, etc., and i will not go through those because everyone knows what they are. they are common sense laws, but nowhere in their is anyone saying they want to take guns

away. they just want to prevent weapons getting in the hands of people who do not need to be having them. i think that makes sense to me. the other reason is, and this is is not aant, the nra mechanism to train and help young people anymore, or train people how to use a weapon. it has become more of a political machine. a great example is if the nra is giving money to a politician to help get them reelected and that politician does not follow in line with what the nra wants, they will turn right around and use their power, money and wealth to find somebody else to run against that person and the state they are from to get them out of office and then find somebody else who will give them money or take their money, so they become a lobbying power more than they have become a

nonprofit that was originally designed and actually or wasught into reason brought into for the sake of teaching people. ast: ray, isn't there right an organization to decide what they want to do, whether lobbying or education? caller: well, i am a little mixed by that. initially, their lobbying power was not very strong, but then they become much stronger. where i have a problem with it is they are flatly telling people those congressmen, senators or whoever, is taking their money and saying, if you do not toe the line, we are going to find someone to run against you. mitch mcconnell has done the same thing to people who would not toe the line under his leadership. i think that is a big problem in our government right now.

and lobbying is in our constitution, too. you have the right to lobby. i just think citizens united, anything else you can think of, i don't want to go through it in this conversation, that i think everybody knows where i'm going with that. the other is, yes, absolutely. if the ag in new york has found that they are doing stuff that is not proper, ok, i believe they have a right to go after them. just think about it for a minute. if you or myself had a nonprofit and we were using those funds for private gain and not using them for what they were supposed to be used for, you could bet somebody would be going after us and we would be going to jail if we were convicted. nra -- i don'tke think the nra is above the law. host: let's go to pat, calling from gainesville, florida. good morning. caller: good morning.

good morning. host: go ahead, pat. say i: i just wanted to am not understanding why this is any different than a nonprofit .hurch entity we have had housing authority offices throughout our country that have misused funding. those are criminal things. they should be taken as such and prosecuted, but to tell somebody they have to disband their organization, i do not see how they have the authority to do that. i do think that whoever the governing power was that was supposed to be watching this obviously has a lot to fix in their organization to why they were not overseeing this in the to tell an, but organization they have to

disband because they misused funds, i think it is the people in there that misused funds and they should be held accountable. but to disband i do not agree with. host: "the new york times" article interviewed several legal experts on whether ms. james' complaint would actually end with the dissolution of the nra. here's what the story says, "legal experts said that while misses james' complaint was serious and exposed vast problems, dissolving the organization would face challenges in court. delaney, the same division now handling the case said 'i think the facts are very strong, but i think the remedy of dissolution is a stretch because the ag would have to prove the organization is arrived with fraud that there is not anything sufficiently substantial in the organization's charitable programs to make it worth 'ving', but david samuel said

it appears to have a strong case under new york law for dissolving the nra. new york's law on conflict of interest and related party transactions was tightened in 2003,'he noted. facecurrent lawsuits violations of these positions designed to have misuse of charitable assets,'mr. samuel said. has touted the political clout of the nra several times and talked about this at their last national meeting last year. had to what mr. lapierre say. [video clip] >> when we started this in the early 1980's, we had only three states with decent right to carry laws. now we have 40-some. historic decisions

that reaffirmed what our founding fathers wrote into the bill of rights, that the second amendment is not the government, it is your individual right. that is what it is all about. [applause] all amounts to a brick by brick restoration of this freedom, and it was accomplished by you, by people like you all over this country. it would not have happened without us. without us, we would not have had president trump. we would not have had george w. bush. i mean, there is not another organization in the country that is directly responsible because of the influence we all have as american cities that stand for the second amendment of delivering those states like

pennsylvania, wisconsin, ohio, and michigan, and although states that made the difference. just think what that did, the hundreds of judicial appointments you heard the presidents talk about, and kavanaugh, and gorsuch, who will all protect your freedoms for generations. it could have all been lost, like has happened in so many of these other countries that you and i shake our heads about. before we end this hour, we also want to talk about the major news going on in washington now, including about the economic relief measures in congress on the white house over helping americans during the coronavirus pandemic. a story from "the washington post" sums up what is on the plate right now in washington. president trump on friday signaled he was ready to forge ahead without congress to try and address economic relief measures for millions of americans, but he stopped short

of declaring negotiations dead. the path forward remained unclear as he had a press conference friday evening to discuss it, but he did not stipulate whether he would follow through. "if the democrats continue to hold critical relief hostage, i will act under my authority as president to get americans the relief they need," trump said. democratic leaders on friday said the white house refused to meet them halfway negotiations, which dragged on for two weeks with little progress. provides not remit to additional relief to address the coronavirus pandemic's economic fallout. again, is going -- once president trump says he is going to put out executive actions to break to the logjam and congress over coronavirus relief. we will talk a little bit more about that in the next hour. let's get back to talking about the nra and new york attorney

general's lawsuit and whether you think she is right and whether the nra should be dissolved. calling from tim, oswego, wisconsin. good morning. caller: yes, sir. i was just calling, listening to various people talk. i do not know how many people have any group of history or what the constitution says. if you see any authoritarian country in the past century, what they do first is they usually take control of your medical care first, but then they disarm the public. i hear all these people calling in and saying, well, the nra does not teach anymore, it is a lobbying group, it does not have the right to do that. well, they do have a right to do that. i just wonder if all these people who were so concerned about the nra's misgivings or corrections, if they are so concerned about planned

parenthood and their same corruption? host: 10, are you a member of the nra? caller: no. host: do you belong to any type of gun advocacy organization? caller: no, i am just a gun owner. host: do you think those organizations have a place in the united states? should there be organizations like the nra? even if the nra went away for some reason, do you think there is a place for organizations like the nra? caller: they have a right to impose their views, just like anyone else. i am a gun owner, and i hear these people talking about how it is illegal for someone who is mentally ill to have a weapon, and all these people are making these speeches, and they are not releasing who they are. they are these far-left lunatics who want to see all guns taken away. one guy said, well he has never heard any democrat who has said they want to take your guns away. well, obviously did not listen

to beto o'rourke a year ago, and joe biden a few months ago said, you bet i'm going to take your guns away if you have an assault weapon. we all know an assault weapon, that they can deem whatever they want to deem an assault weapon. of course the democrats are trying to take peoples weapons away. they will do it by some ill-gotten means or put some fancy dressing on it to make it sound good like this is for the kids. most school shootings are in gun-free zones. host: let's go to william, calling from anniston, alabama. good morning. caller: yes. i think the people calling in, like that man that just got off the phone, mr. tim. you are totally missing the point about what the ag was talking about. she is not talking about the entire nra. she is talking about literally four men.

four men misusing the funds. they have millions and millions theirbers that send in money to a nonprofit organization, and these men are taking their money and using it for their personal use. , he wouldce, lapierre send his wife on trips, which with the folks from the nra paid for, like $50 million for her to go back and forth on the airplanes -- $15 million for her to go back and forth on the airplanes. they had a $300 million house, and they are doing this with no other people. everybody think it is about taking their guns away. they are not talking about taking your guns away. they are talking about the corruption in the organization of the nra. host: let's go to gym, calling from new york, new york. -- jim,

calling from new york, new york. jim is an nra member. caller: i would like to pose a question for everyone to consider. if there is corruption and criminal activity by the united states government, with that justify dissolving that government and the constitution? host: jim, the united states government is not a nonprofit. it does not operate under the same rules. caller: it is certainly not-for-profit, but that is not the point. the point is that we have the possible case here may be made against several individuals, and if they have a case that can be made, let them prosecute these individuals. to dissolve the entire organization is a political act, which is designed to further the tyranny of the democratic party and the american left. gerald,t's go to

calling from los angeles, california. good morning. caller: how are you doing, young man? host: just fine, go ahead. caller: i want to tell you something. god taught us to love everybody. , ifou love your neighbor you love life, you would not do things that are wrong. you have got to ask yourself, would jesus do it? about the nra and their being dissolved because they already misusing money, audit them. that is all you have to do, audit them. host: let's go to kenny, calling from astoria, oregon. kenny is a nra member, good morning. caller: good morning to youcaller:. i would like to start off by saying that i was sort of born and raised right into the national rifle association.

my grandfather, who raised me was a lifelong member of the national rifle association. , they came to our one thatschool for four grades served in one room and one teacher, and the nra showed up and they asked if anybody wanted shoote classes and go to some guns and learn safety, and my grandpa sign my papers. , got to go get trained although i was already trained by my grandpa. he was a world war i veteran. i was a vietnam veteran. i am a vietnam veteran i should say. kidmember as a little

reading american rifleman, which published by the national rifleman association, and it was a wealth of information. now, i really would like to say yesterday, after i heard on t.v. about the attorney general doing this lawsuit quickly gotnra, i on my telephone and donated $200. i am on a fixed income nowadays. i am in mid-70's. one to them to fight vigor -- i want them to fight vigorously against it.actually , there has been no proof of what this ag is saying.

is information she obtained that may be or may not be true. shooting, even at my age. i still go out and shoot. i use my ar-15 as a hunting rifle. so they are a very effective hunting rifle. course, you carry the m-16 into vietnam. support the nra. host: let's go to michael, calling from ontario, new york. good morning. caller: hey. i believe in the nra. laws.ot believe they make hello? host: go ahead. caller: i do not believe the government should make laws and use these laws to pick winners and losers. i do not believe in the idea

that if they do not agree with my philosophy, i'm going to try to do away with them and use the laws and beat them up. you have people saying that they should not be able to support and put millions of dollars into supporting a candidate. how about teachers unions? how about any union? we support a side, so that is what we do. how does it work that way, some people have rights and others don't? all rights are for everybody. i have a right to my opinion. i have a right to do what i want to do, as long as i'm not breaking the law. but why are we making laws to try to do away with our opposition? host: if the attorney general is able to prove the money was mismanaged, you, of course, would not disagree with her up she is able to prove her case, right? caller: you don't question the organization. a lot of that people in that organization are good. tell me a union that does not do that. host: let's go to antonio,

calling from san jose, california. good morning. caller: good morning, thanks for taking my call. listen, there are a couple of points i wanted to make. i heard one of them made a couple of times is i am 60 years old. when i was 10 years old, i went to an nra hunter safety course and they taught me about gun safety and carrying your gun the were doingand they some good in the country because they taught gun safety, and they also taught stuff like keeping your guns locked up so they cannot fall into the hands of kids. i heard a caller say earlier about how these people went and dad'sere gun out of their gun cabinet. well, their dad should have taken some of these courses that taught him gun safety. when the nra was doing that, i say they served a good purpose.

somehow in the past 50 years, they changed and became an organization that i have nothing in common with the nra. i don't hunt anyway. but that was the 1.i wanted to make, that they changed it -- one point one it to make. they changed it. if they could've stuck to the hunter safety stuff and gun safety and put that stuff out in public, but all you hear about them is how they do not want any restrictions on anything. that was my one thing. the other thing i wanted to say was you can see how good this information is because i hear people getting on here saying, they are not going to take away my right to own a gun. nobody said they were going to because the nra is not second amendment. nobody is saying let's get rid of the second amendment. i think these people are listening to that information -- bad information, and they get on here and say, the democrats want

to take your guns. i am a staunch democrat and have no desire to take anybody's gun, but i don't think anybody should have ak-47s running around on the street either. host: there are some opponents of the nra that are taking advantage of this news and running commercials of their own. here is one group, a march for our lives, and the ad they are running about the nra's current troubles. [video clip] when we were stuck inside, we wondered, would we face a plague of gun violence again? would we fear gathering in our schools and churches again? would we be shot for the color of our skin again? but a fight for justice forced us out to the empty streets. black americans are still being killed for being black in america. the pandemic hitting people of color disproportionately has only worsened the epidemic of

gun violence in those same communities because it it is clt for racial justice is still on, it.we will not live without carried ainm he confederate flag. in arizona, she stood for her patients, but she stood with a swastika. we took it to the streets. when we leave our homes this time, will the people carrying the weapons of war decide our future again? or will we stand up and demonstrate our power? allpower means we demand gun sales licensed. our power means we demand weapons of war be banned for good. our power means lawmakers must listen. our power means we refuse to let black people be murdered in the streets. our power means we refused to

fear for our lives. we refuse to live without justice. it is our power, and you will use it. host: let's go back to our phone lines and talk to paul, who is calling from worthington, minnesota. good morning. caller: thank you for c-span. to me, it is all about freedom. we live in the freest country in the world. and it seems like we take it for granted. the freedom to bear arms against the british -- if not for their freedom to bear arms against the british, the united states would still be a colony. in world war ii, the japanese decided they have too much freedom -- freedom. we take it for granted. aren't we taught history anymore? ,ven these march for our lives

there is freedom to do propaganda like that. there is freedom for anybody to sue anybody over anything. to me, does all about freedom. the second amendment -- i love this country because of freedom. please do not take my freedom away. host: let's go to gordon, calling from tacoma, washington. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you doing today? host: just fine. go ahead. caller: as far as the nra is concerned, they are irrelevant. i like to stay with the amendment. i am allowed to carry an arm. i can carry arms under certain stipulations. the nra have nothing to do with anything. i just like to keep my freedom. and i have one question kid i noticed on all the newscasts, everything has to do with "to bear arms" or the amendment.

i was wondering who does the programming stipulate that is what you are going to be talking about today? host: the programs are always decided through a consultation with all of the staff here at >> "washington journal" continues. -- three consultation with all of the staff here at "washington journal." caller: good morning. i wanted to say what the a.g. should do is file criminal charges against the people she has against, not the organization. organization -- we are hung up on the second amendment because what other amendment is so under attack? what she should do is file charges and then help us. because we need help to get rid of lapierre. because i believe he has wasted money. host: are you a member of the nra or are you just watching it from the outside?

caller: i've been a member for 10 years and have a lifetime membership, and i want them to use my money for gun safety, which i think is the purpose of and to fight people that are against the second amendment. what other amendment is so much under attack? susan, callingto from revere, massachusetts. good morning. caller: good morning. well, i can bring a bit of perspective to this. i agree -- to conflate the nra with second protectant second amendment rights is ludicrous. it has been a personal bank for the leadership and everyone down the ranks, and it is incredibly corrupt. they long ago lost their mission of gun safety training and teaching respect for guns and

respect for hunting. and certainly, their advocacy for assault weapons and military rocket launchers and that grade of weaponry in civil society is a disgrace. anyway, i was a member of my high school rifle team. at the time, my family lived in pennsylvania, and i drifted into it, and i loved it. at that time, i was a junior member of the nra. at that time, the organization gunstrictly about safe ownership, especially in communities where hunting was sort of a way of life. they have just long ago abandoned that. dad, a world war ii veteran, had his army air corps when weistol, which, hit puberty, he got rid of that gun right away. and one last thing, a lot of your callers are these elderly men, and i worry there is a

coming crisis with a lot of these elderly gunowners going into dementia, and i am not joking here. but to have all of these guns in the hands of these misguided elderly people who may be going into dementia and all timers scares me half to death. in the last thing -- that elderly man who says he loves to go out shooting with an assault weapon -- wow. how is foresman like is that -- how unsportsman-like is that. host: let's look at some of our social media followers and see what they have to say about the topic of the nra. here is one tweet that says it is possible that there could be misconduct in the nra for management, and the action against them is a political attempt to stifle their free speech. i am struck no action was taken against the individuals in the

nra. another tweet says the nra is an organization like any other and must obey the law and the rules about its status. have nothing to fear from the law. the nratweet says if does not get resolved, they should lose their tax-free status. another tweet says it is not about politics, it is about breaking the law. another tweet says the nra is the voice of support for the second moment in d.c. a.g. knows this. if she can pull this off, it can be the first government intrusion into gun ownership by private citizens. with the funding of police on the rise, this cannot deal out. ,nd one text says nra bad crooked clinton foundation good.

let's talk to raul, and nra member. caller: good morning. i am an nra member. i am cuban-american from miami. i am 63 years old. i am what i am what they call a pager number of the last patron member of the nra -- i am what they call a patron member of the nra. i have contributed thousands of dollars. i intend to write a few more big checks to the nra. this has very little to do with the second amendment and a lot to do with the first amendment. because governor andrew cuomo, from new york, through his attorney general, has, for some time, been trying to destroy the second moment in his estate. he is already done a pretty good job. it is almost impossible in new york to get any sort of firearm now. he has been very open about it. this is no secret. i find it ironic, listening to all of your callers.

the nra is a member organization. nobody forces me or anyone else to join the nra. nobody forces me to give money. the nra has had problems in the past, leadership issues in the past. members have resolved that over the years, and they will resolve that again. but this whole idea to take an entire organization and throw them out the window because of the suppose it -- and i emphasize suppose it -- elections of its leadership is ludicrous. it is a total suppression of free speech. it is the authoritarian state at its worst. basically using its power and abusing its power to get rid of an organization that they do not like. also let's go to max, calling from florida, but from naples. good morning. caller: good morning. i just heard the gentleman before. let me say this. first of all, i think people

whom i have heard have misconstrued the purpose of the lawsuit brought by new york. not too, in any way, interfere with the second amendment or our rights under the second amendment. i grew up in a small town in upstate new york, which was a hunting area. a lot of my friends and family had guns. required about 18 long guns. i think i had about eight todguns, and i belonged shooting organizations. i stopped being a supporter of the nra, although i was compelled, as a matter of the policy of the gun clubs, to be a member of the nra. lapierreonduct of mr.

and others was very troubling to me. thethat reason, i became lowest level member that i could be, and now, i am a life member, so i do not have to supported at all. i think that the conduct that is alleged -- and i point out that it is alleged and it must be proven before any remedy is is a degree -- is a disgrace and instruction of the purpose of the nra. the nra was founded for a good purpose. it gave safety information. it provided a great deal of information which was of great benefit to anyone in the country interested in guns or not. of late, i think they have corrupted that, from things i've ton over their opposition

just getting background checks. ivan, calling from tampa, florida. a string of florida callers. good morning. caller: how are you guys? theirker and his wife, church was disbanded for the same actions. the nra are being accused of criminal misconduct in a charitable organization, so it is no different from something like that. also, guns have only one purpose -- to kill. to take a life. there is nothing else in your home designed specifically to kill than a gun, if you think about it. think about your home -- there is nothing in there that does that. so guns are like the christian doctrine of turning your swords into plowshares. you turn your gun into something peaceful. if he could get rid of all the guns in the world, that would be great. we only need that because there likevil people out there

russians and enemies of america, criminals who want to break into your home. but other than that, a gun is an evil implement, and christianity teaches us we should turn swords into plowshares. this is a charitable organization. just like tammy baker and jim baker, it needs to be dissolved, because it is a criminal enterprise. callingt's go to al, from st. joseph, missouri. caller: good morning. can you hear me? host: yes, go ahead. caller: i kind of agree with what the caller right before me just said. everybody seems to be missing the real issue here. the issue is the lack of response ability of issuing all these charity licenses. everything in the world, like the nfl, soccer, major league baseball, and eliminate stand --

this is all about the misuse of charities. the way you solve this problem with the charities being used is to eliminate all charities for businesses and everyone until the national debt is paid for. this is all about a charity, so you do not have to pay taxes. this has nothing to do with the organization. breaking the charity 501(c)(3) laws. thank you. host: we would like to thank all of our callers and social media followers for that great conversation for our first hour. up next, discussion of the job numbers released yesterday with marketplace's kimberly adams. goldsteinhor joel k. will join us for a discussion on the role and history of vice presidential candidates. ♪ >> sunday night on "q&a," the

manhattan institute president examines the question on whether another exodus is ahead for u.s. coronaviruso the pandemic and civil unrest. >> you will see a period from 1980 to 2020 where you saw tremendous prosperity in a number of major urban centers, and that 2020 beyond, if we do not approach this in a thoughtful, careful way, could represent a result in which that economic activity, that talent, that flooded into our city starts to flood out of our cities. atreihan salam sunday night "q&a."m. eastern on >> "washington journal" continues. with kimberlyack, adams, correspondent with marketplace. she is here to explain some of

these job numbers we just received. good morning. guest: good morning. how are you? host: i am doing great. guest: first of all, tell us about marketplace and what you do there. marketplace is a business and economy program that airs on radio stations across the u.s. we are the country's largest podcast -- broadcast business program. downwe try to do is break the numbers of the economy and the stories of the economy in a way that is fun, little irreverent, and hopefully useful for everyone in our audience. what i do there specifically as i am the washington correspondent, so i do my best to try to unpack everything that goes on here in d.c. as a relates to the economy, along with my colleagues, as it asates with executive orders what is going on here. the joblk to us about

numbers released friday. we saw the unemployment rate sellsed at 10.2% and we 1.8 million jobs added. are those good numbers or bad numbers? tell us what is going on with those numbers? guest: i guess it depends if you are one of the unemployed or not. it seems it is stabilizing. we are not seeing this crazy spike in job losses that we saw earlier on in the pandemic. the president and the trump administration are saying this is an indication that things are stabilizing and that we are on our way to recovery. a lot of analysts are not quite so rosy with these numbers. number of notthis long-term unemployed but people in the mix between short-term and long-term unemployed, because there are certain cut off for it, that number keeps ticking up a bit. we are seeing more and more people who thought they were in

temporary layoffs are actually in permanent layoffs. that lines up with what we are seeing in businesses that thought they were shut down temporarily actually being closed permanently. the longer that this pandemic goes on and businesses have to restaurant may be, a at 50% capacity, they will still not hire all their staff back. consumers that do not have as much discretionary income because they lost a job or hide furlough or had sick -- had to take a pay cut, they are not putting that money in the economy. unfortunately, these jobs numbers, while it is great we are not seeing a ton of new layoffs in the way that we were before, it is giving us a little bit of concern -- a lot of concern, honestly, about whether or not people will actually be able to go back to work soon. host: are we seeing jobs that were people who were furloughed earlier in the pandemic now

finding out they are no longer furloughed, that they have been laid off, so are we seeing those changes now? what is the impact of the ending of the ppp loans and all of the things we are hearing now with congress not being able to come up with a new deal? terms of people switching from temporary to permanent job losses, yes, that is happening. early on in the pandemic, a lot of businesses -- certainly many of the business owners i talk to, were saying we will just send people home for a little bit, and while everybody goes through these lockdowns, and once we come out of the lockdowns, we will hire them back. these are good employees, we do not want to lose them -- remember, it was a really tight labor market before this pandemic. businesses were working hard to retain and keep employees. at the beginning of the pandemic, while i -- what i was hearing from employers was we do

not want to lose employees. this would be temporary until the get out of this. but we did not get out of this. with the ppp money, for many business owners, that was a lifeline. part of the rules of that money was to keep people either on staff or hire them back. as long as that lasted, they said, ok, i can still validate paying my employees on staff because i have this loan. as that money runs out and as we get indications that this pandemic is not going away anytime soon, that is where you are seeing these job losses become permanent. host: let me remind viewers they can take part in this conversation. we will open up regional lines. if you're in the eastern and central time zone, your number will be (202) 748-8000. those in the mountain and pacific time zones, if you want to talk about the recent economic report with the unemployment and job numbers, we want to hear from you at (202) 748-8001.

and we will open up a special line this morning. this line will be for people whose jobs have been impacted by the pandemic. that should be almost all of us, but specifically if your job has been impacted by the pandemic, we want to hear from you at (202) 748-8002. keep in mind, you can text to (202) 748-8003. and we are always reading on social media, on twitter at @cspanwj and on facebook at facebook.com/cspan. is themberly, how pandemic affecting the job market right now? with schools gearing up for virtual or returning back to campus, do we see that usual back-to-school surge in stores? are we seeing people get rehired as schools are thinking about what they are doing for returning back to school?

where is the back-to-school surge not happening this year? guest: i am certain he seeing plenty of advertisements for -- i am certainly seeing plenty of advertisements for back-to-school sales. i am not seeing the tax holidays -- first of all, it will be a hard limit to make for parents that kids should have new wardrobes and backpacks for virtual learning at home. at the same time, college students, who may not be returning to their campuses and may not be staying in dorms -- when i went to college, that was a big shopping trip, to outfit your dorm for your first foray into adulthood. all of those moments are economic drivers. so that is the impact on the economy on back-to-school as well. in terms of people getting hired as a result of this -- businesses and the schools that are choosing to reopen, the

school districts choosing to reopen, are certainly having to hire a lot more cleaners, having to spend more money on assistive learning, because not everyone has the same kind of access and may need additional help learning from home. they are spending our money on technology to help students learn. willrms of hiring back, it be very interesting to see what teachers do. a lot of american teachers are older adults, many of whom are in the riskier categories for covid-19. a lot of them are really pushing back on demands that they return to school. they are saying it is not safe. at the same time, you have the creation of all of these pods where people who have the resources or are more financially stable are wealthy are actually hiring teachers to teach small groups. that may have some effect on which teachers actually returned to school. report camehole job

out right as congress and the white house were debating but not coming to agreement on additional relief legislation. here is what steven mnuchin had to say about the white house and what it was going to do because of these stalled talks. i want you to react to what he says. [video clip] >> the chief and i will recommend to the president, based upon our lack of activity today, to move forward with some executive orders. we agree with the speaker. this is not the first choice. but people have run out of the enhanced unemployment, so that is something we will recommend an exec of order on. when it relates to rental foreclosures, we will recommend an executive order on that, and also student loans. it will take a little time for us to finalize these and process them, but we will do it as quickly as we can, because the president wants action. he realizes, despite what was a

big pick up in jobs, there is still too many people impacted by this. have ann the president effect on the economy just through executive orders or is this something that has to be extract -- a congressional package? guest: the president of newly has an effect. there are things that can be done just in executive agencies to change how people experience this economy had already covid-19 has been sort of a conduit for rolling back certain regulations. that affects how business operate and that affects the economy. in this particular case, there are certainly things that they can do over housing and urban development that will affect the rules around evictions for people in homes or property back by federal loans that is something where they can adjust the rules to potentially affect how people in that particular circumstance operate.

when you are talking about extending unappointed benefits, that one is a little more challenging. i am still interested to hear from the administration how they plan to do that, because continuing to pay people to hundred dollars or $600 extra a week takes money from the treasury. in congress has the power of the constitutional -- in the constitution. so how the president would do approvalout congress' is something i would be interested to hear their logic on that. what it really tells us is they are pushing for these executive orders is just how far apart they are in this dop of the have been working on these negotiations for a couple of weeks now, and they really seem to be at an impasse. that has the biggest effect on the economy, because the virus is still raging, the economy is still struggling, and our leaders in washington cannot seem to come to a deal. host: let's let some of our

viewers join the conversation. dennis is calling from miami, florida. good morning. caller: good morning. will get better. the economy will see its maximum it likenless we do other countries, bring down the covid. not, people are going to be sent to work, sent to school, and we will have a sick economy, people who are working sick, people who cannot fulfill their full capacity as the employer. host: go ahead and respond there. guest: he is right.

he is absolutely right. we do right now, and probably for some time -- that phrasing was artful -- a sick economy. and economy revolving around how many people are sick and an economy where many people out and about our sick, and that affects spending decisions, and an economy that, in a more traditional sense, is sluggish and not operating at full capacity because of the pandemic. he brought up why we cannot be like other countries. if you look around the world, other countries are going back to school, are reopening their economies, because they took stronger action earlier in the pandemic. we did not. we are still struggling for a unified or national response, and so we are going to be feeling the effects differently than other countries. pleased withis that 10.2% unemployment rate. but that is down from a high of 14% back in april. is this a cause for optimism

that the economy may be turning around? around may be a bit stronger than i would put it myself personally. there are definitely points of optimism. yes, the unemployment rate is going down. some people are going back to work a that is great for those individuals. to the last back recession, 2008, two thousand nine, the financial crisis and the recession that started afterwards, the immediate job losses were not necessarily the big issue. it is people who stay unemployed for a long time. that is where a lot of policymakers are starting to focus right now. how do we -- we could ring back some jobs right away as businesses started to reopen. they had to adjust supply chains, policies, so some were able to adapt and reopen, and that brought some jobs back. but what seems increasingly

clear is a lot of the jobs that were lost in a lot of businesses that were closed that have not come back yet are facing an even steeper uphill battle to return. host: so this economy seems to be affecting some people worse than others. leasee numbers for different races and -- we see numbers for different races and ethnicities are almost darkly different. for example, we see the unappointed rate for whites is 9.2 -- the unemployment rate for whties is 9.2%. agents, 12%. blacks, 14.6%. hispanics, 12.9%. is anyone talking about reducing the disparity in the unemployment rate for the races and ethnicities out there, and what can be done about it? guest: the pandemic is having a

much tougher effect on communities of color, both from health effects and economic impacts. you see a lot more of the job losses, as he just cited, in those communities. people are definitely talking about it. i had a conversation with the chair of the dallas fed, robert kaplan, and asked him specifically about this. one of the things he said is they are very aware, at the federal reserve and the other federal reserve presidents, about this gap in unemployment across racial lines before the pandemic and even more keenly now. one of the things he said was a before theu was federal reserve stops its own actions, they want to see the economy on the road to recovery. and one of the signals for him is seeing that cap narrow.

-- gap narrow. host: let's go to christian, calling from woodbridge, connecticut. christian's job has been affected by the pandemic. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i wanted to make a couple of points, if i can the first point is i know that, since this pandemic began back in march, that approximately 50 million people have applied for unemployment in some shape or form. if we are to believe this unemployment number and with approximately 150 million working people in this country, and you have 50 million people -- and, mind you, every week there are one million plus people filing new unemployment claims. so if you just do simple math, the idea that the unemployment laughable, ands

i have a bridge to sell you in brooklyn. and if i could just point out one other thing to c-span, you have done no shows on the corporate bailouts, the wall street bailouts that are being executed by chairman powell and kaplan and all those federal reserve chairman she just mentioned are the nasdaq is at an all-time high. the dow was almost there. the s&p is one point away. during a pandemic with 50 million people unemployed, and we are supposed to think the unemployment rate is 10%? we are dealing with massive propaganda here. guest: i would like to respond to the point about the corporate bailouts first. this was something i actually have brought up to several -- in the same conversation i was having with kaplan, i asked if the fed's actions were, in some way, exacerbating the fact that wall street and corporate

america were almost doing better in the pandemic at the expense of everyone else. he said, look, we can only do so much. is this lending in the market. some of it has to be fiscal policy. completelyistian is reasonable and being frustrated that it seems like there is more support going to businesses and corporate america, and that is happening faster than the physical response we are seeing that tends to affect everyday people. what a lot of people who spend a lot of time on this -- i am not an economist and will not get into that -- but they will say keeping corporate america and businesses open and running, even if it cost us in the short term, is going to keep more people employed in the long-term. now there is a whole debate over whether or not that manifests in reality, and there will be many, many books and papers written about that in the future, looking at how we come as a

country, handled this, and whether or not that was the right way. back to the unemployment numbers, i agree again, that the unemployment number, as we calculate it -- even the bureau of labor statistics acknowledges it does not necessarily capture everything. it is a number we use, one of toeral metrics that just try track what is happening. even if it does not capture the full picture, it gives us something to go on that we can track over time. one of the things i think we have to keep in mind is that there are still people trying to file for unemployment for the first time. we had a lot of outdated systems that were overwhelmed at the state level, when people were losing their jobs and trying to get unemployment. and then, for whatever reason, people -- some people did not even bother filing for unemployment because it was so hard or the rules were very stringent or they did not think they would get enough money to

make it worth their while. there are definitely always people not captured in those numbers, but it gives us something to track, and policy numbers need some sort of data to look at in order to make the best decision they can. is calling from coral springs, florida. caller: good morning, c-span. thank you for everything you are doing for the unemployed. my husband works for metro porte services for everglades. the cruise line industry will not be sailing until probably mid december. the problem is the corrupt unemployment system in florida. my husband has been waiting for benefits for five months. it is a total disgrace. sorry that is happening to you. isortunately, that story depressingly not rare.

a lot of people are struggling to get their benefits for the reasons i mentioned earlier. these systemsn and to respond and to beef up unappointed systems costs money, and states are really struggling, at the moment, because they are seeing a decline in tax revenue. they are struggling with their own work from home arrangements. and also, there is a pandemic that is killing people and requiring additional resources, so it is very challenging for states find the money to fix these systems and even find the people to fix them in this timeframe. revealing sortly of where investment were made in shoring up the systems before the pandemic, because if those investments were not made or if the rules were particularly stringent, though states are struggling to deal with this

onslaught of unemployed now. i am so sorry that is happening to you. i also think your point about the cruise industry is an interesting one. i've seen some data that cruise bookings are up quite a bit, looking out to the future -- but that does not help people working in that industry right now. and you do have some sectors of the economy -- toursim, -- tourism, cruise lines, the airline industry, and things that have to be done in person, that really cannot come back until the pandemic is under control. so getting back to some of the points that were raised earlier, until this virus is under control and we are not seeing 1000 people dying a day and cases going up in various parts of the country at different points in time, it will be very hard for some of these industries to return to full operating capacity. to react to you

democratic leader chuck shooter -- andmer and nancy pelosi their conversation with white house republicans on getting another economic package through congress. [video clip] negotiate with-- democrats and meet us in the middle. do not say it is your way or no way. if we do that, we can accomplish a whole lot of things. the other choice is for them to do executive order's which, by their own admission -- they said it to us repeatedly -- is not close to as good. it does not cover opening schools. it does not cover testing. it does not cover dealing with rental assistance. it does not cover elections. it does not cover so many things -- there is a long gate i could go on and on and on. host: do you see any breakthrough anytime soon? of,t: i tend to not, sort follow the leaders around on the

hill very much, to get this intel, the blow-by-blow of the actual negotiations, but based on everything i've seen, it seems like they are very far apart. think, of ahe fx, i little bit of stabilizing in these jobs numbers is that it is giving some folks on the hill a sense that maybe we can just wait and see, and that there may not be the same sense of urgency. among theed deal republicans and the democrats is definitely what everyone would like to do, but the economy, without additional support from the federal government, is going to be in greater danger than it is now. some of the things we have seen that have really helped stimulate the economy, to prevent this recession from being worse, have been the

things that have come out of those negotiated agreements, so while i cannot speak to what is happening behind closed doors, it is not looking terribly optimistic. if we can gete two more callers and before the end of this segment. let's hear from eric mccauley from durham, north carolina. am interested in knowing what are your facts on disbursements of federal funds to the unemployed? i noticed that, in a big district in durham, the research triangle, there are many people who are still out of work -- not unemployed, but their businesses have probably gotten a lot of money from the federal government, so they can send their employees home. , iy are not considered

guess, unemployed. -- they are i am a, myself transportation person. lyft, and iber and have not worked since march. because, basically, those companies do not really cover you in the pandemic. effort to safeguard their workers. go ahead and respond -- and let me add something. how has this economy been four gig employees, like those who work for uber and lyft, like this caller was saying? guest: one of the things in the

cares act was to extend unemployment benefits to people who are independent contractors or people in the gig economy. in the past, people who worked as independent contractors were not able to get unemployment benefits. that helped a lot of people. however, if you are still trying to work just not working, that does not really help you that much. on a plumber benefits will only do so much. it can, as we have heard from callers and seen in the data, it can be really hard to get those on a plummet benefits. additionally, unemployment benefits rarely make up someone's full salary. there are certain cases where the extra $600 a week that was provided up until the end of july boosted some people's wages over what they were making, but that is not really a systemic thing. he talked about businesses who received federal funds, but their employees just went home -- there were a lot of businesses that used their ppp we arehat way, that said

not working, we do not have any customers -- maybe it is a restaurant, but we will keep our staff on salary with these funds, so it will be faster to bring them back. there are definitely companies that used that money to state -- to pay people to stay-at-home. and i can appreciate if you are putting yourself at risk, that can be frustrating. host: we would like to thank kimberly adams, correspondent for market place, for coming on this morning and helping us make sense of those july unemployment numbers. thank you so much. guest: thanks for having me. i appreciate it. host: and we appreciate you being here. ofing up, we have the author the vice presidency, joel k. g oldstein. later on, we will look at how the coronavirus has impacted independent music venues.

the national independent venue association will join us. stay with us. we'll be right back. ♪ >> the perjury case against president trump's former national security adviser michael flynn will be heard by the full court of appeals by the d.c. court tuesday. the panel of judges will decide whether to dismiss the charges as recommended. here the case live at 9:30 a.m. ortern tuesday on c-span listen live with the free c-span radio app. >> bench watch but tv this

summer. 8:00 p.m.venings at eastern, settling and watched several hours of your favorite authors. tonight, we are featuring books written by former first leaders -- laides, including rosalynn includingladies, rosalynn carter, barbara bush, hillary clinton, laura bush, and michelle obama. toni morr featuring ison. watch al lsummer on c-span 2. ♪ theext week, c-span's contenders looks at the lives of 14 men who ran for the presidency and lost that changed political history. watch the contenders next week at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. monday, henry clay.

♪ >> "washington journal" continues. k.t: we are back with joel "thetein, the author of white house vice presidency: the path to significance, mondale to biden." good morning. guest: good to be with you. thanks for having me. host: i will go right into your most recent article. you wrote in "the atlantic" that joe biden's vice president could be the most powerful in history. why do you think that? guest: actually, that was an article that i was quoted in -- it was an article written by somebody else. but i think that vice president biden's vice president would be very important and

consequential. the office has grown really withficantly, beginning the walter mondale vice presidency from 1971 to 1981. it is no longer just a stopgap equipment. ofis a robust, ongoing job real consequence. i think the fact that vice president biden served himself or eight years is a very consequential -- as a very consequential and engaged vice president gives him a unique appreciation of the office, and i think he is likely to interest his vice president, to use his vice president in important ways, and to rely on his vice president -- perhaps some ways different from president obama use but to make significant of the vice president. aboutlet's talk a little

the history of the vice presidency and how the office has evolved over the years. in the articles of confederation, there was no vice president. how did they come up with the idea of the vice president and how was the person who was vice president first chosen? guest: it is an interesting story. we do not really know exactly what was in the minds of the founders in creating the vice presidency. what we do know is the vice presidency was conceived towards the end of the philadelphia convention, and it came into the discussion at the same time as the electoral college. my best judgment is that the primary reason for creating the was not focused on any particular governing responsibility. i think the governors -- of the founders were thinking primarily that we need someone to preside

over the senate or we need to have a successor. what they were really thinking of was to try to make the original electoral system work. they were worried that, after george washington, they would a national to elect president, that the electors from different states would favor their own states' favored sons. so they came up with a system where they gave the electors two votes, but they provided one of the votes had to be cast for someone who is not from the elector's home state. what they hoped was at the second vote would go to the consensus national president. in order to make the electors take the votes seriously, they created the second office of the vice presidency. in the 12th amendment in 1804, what they determined was at the original electoral system was not working, so they changed the electoral system to have

separate elections for president and vice president. some people suggested that we no longer need and vice president, but the vice president survived and has grown and evolved in a way that is very different from its original conception. host: now the vice presidential office depends on -- their duties -- they have on constitutional duty, that is to over thest to preside senate. are there other duties specifically for the vice president? guest: pretty much every thing else depends on the president, his or her leadership style, and the relationship between the two. the constitution says that the vice president is the president of the senate and can break tie votes and that the vice president is first in line of

presidential succession. but vice presidents, beginning with richard nixon in 1953, almost never preside over the senate. their work is done at the other end of pennsylvania avenue. and although the successor role is important -- we have had nine vice president who became president where the president died or, in one case, richard nixon, resigned -- 80% of the time, the vice president does not become president, so most of what the vice president does depends upon two things. the patterns i've developed, beginning with the .arter-mondale administration they developed a new vision of the vice president, where the vice president serves as sort of an across-the-board advisor to the president on policy, personnel, politics, and so forth.

and the vice president serves as a troubleshooter on matters that need to be handled at the highest level. what a particular vice president does depends on what the president asks him or her to do. rank vicehow do we presidents? is there a vice president you can look at and say, definitively, this is a vice president who is the most successful at being vice president? how do they rank in history? guest: well, it is a good question. we do not really have a vice presidential ranking. it is a little bit tricky, because for much of our history, the vice presidency was very different. it was very much of a nothing job. top-ranked people used to turn it down. when daniel webster was asked -- was given the chance to be the ticket,mate on the 1848

he declined, saying i do not propose to be buried before i am dead. so really the significant vice presidency begins with walter mondale. i think mondale was the most significant vice president, because he really reimagined the office. showed that the new office he and president carter created could work. since mondale, the other vice presidents have largely copied the model that mondale created. i wrote an article several years ago, at the end of the obama presidency -- i think it was called "the stunning success of vice president biden's vice presidency." i the key was the most successful to turn vice president in the sense he had remain engaged at a high level, throughout the two terms.

his relationship with president obama, his involvement, has been sustained up to two terms, and that was really significant. vice president cheney was very influential, particularly in the first bush administration, but less so in the second of initiation -- administration as president bush came to rely much less on his advice. host: let's let our viewers join in. we will open up our regular lines. that means, republicans, your number will be (202) 748-8001. democrats, we want to hear from you at (202) 748-8000. independents, your number will be (202) 748-8002. keep in mind, you can always and us at (202) 748-8003, we are always reading on social media, on twitter at @cspanwj and on facebook at facebook.com/cspan.

we have had a lot of whoersations recently about democratic presidential candidate joe biden will choose for his vice president for his run against president trump. here's a quote from "the boston globe." take could be about any election. and since 2000, the presidential political environment between republican and democratic teams has large involved trench warfare. the marches and poles has been small. this is not where we are at --biden has a commanding lead and is winning in nearly every important swing state. so i will turn to you -- does it matter who joe biden chooses as

his vice presidential running mate, when it comes to this election coming up in november? guest: sure. i think it always matters. it matters in several different respects. matters in terms of the campaign. campaigns are dynamic. we have seen come over the last few months, the political context in which we have operated has changed dramatically, so we do not really know what the world will september, october, november. anything for take granted. specifically vice presidential about the messages selector, how he or she goes about making decisions, what the selector's values are, what are the themes of the campaign. in terms of sending messages about vice president biden, the

pick is important. and also in terms of engaging somebody at a high level, wherever he picks will become very active and visible during the campaign. my guess is that vice president biden is also thinking more than most presidential candidates do about his pick in terms of what kind of governing partner the person would be, given that vice president biden has such an andeciation of the office has seen its potential importance, i would think he is looking very hard and thinking a partnert what kind of different options would be. of course, the third reason, the most remote reason, is there is always the possibility of presidential succession, either through a presidential death or inability. it is a remote contingency.

weis one that, fortunately, really have not had since the nixon resignation in 1974, but it needs to be in the back -- or really come in the front, of residential candidate's minds when he or she is making a decision. host: do -- sorry, go ahead. guest: well also, one of the things is that, by and large, picking somebody as a running voters view as a plausible president who is somebody they can see sitting in the oval office is not simply good governance but also good politics. by and large, i think the most effective vice presidential candidates have been people who anducted themselves in such impressive level during the campaigns that voters looked at them and felt a certain comfort

level of them being president, should that happen. host: the list of women that democratic candidate joe biden is picking from seems to be from a pool of whether it is senator elizabeth warren, california senator kamala harris, whether it is karen bass or susan rice. one of our social media followers wants to ask you this question about the pool. why is it that biden needs to choose his running mate from the pool of fellow politicians? why can we not look at other fields of endeavor? why not academia or business leaders? maybe a woman of a major university. limited to the

cool of professional politicians. have they been mostly politicians or do they reach outside of politics for their candidate? guest: that is an interesting question. particularly in the modern period when presidential candidates start their process they start with a long list and they think outside the box. considerationo business leaders, university presidents, foundation heads, non-politicians. ultimately, when they get to the invariablyg process, in both parties what is left are people who felt significant. if you look at the vice

presidential candidates who have been chosen, first time vice presidential candidates in modern times always come from the pool of past or former senators, past or present senators, past or present governors, past or present members of the cabinet or high executives in the federal government, or members of the house of representatives. governor 1936 when alice landon picked a newspaper publisher did somebody from outside those categories been selected by a major party as if ice presidential candidate. ultimately, the job involves politics and government. so, typically in terms of

looking for prospective people we look at people who have to high and risen levels and done well in positions of public service and government. host: let us let the viewers take part. we will start with freddie calling from brooklyn, new york on the democratic line. caller: good morning. how are you doing? host: good. go ahead. onlyr: in my lifetime the person was dick cheney. out an exploratory search for could not get takers. pick because with cheney's qualifications he had the qualifications to be

president. dick cheney did a lot of the legwork with changing things with agencies by himself. that.ecided to approve think dickime i cheney was the most influential vice president. host: do you agree, joel? caller: and president bush's vice president cheney had enormous influence and i think that was true before 9/11. hisafter 9/11 where experience as secretary of defense during the persian war became important. think, toward the end of the first term, president bush began to have misgivings about the advice vice president cheney had

given him and during the second listen to viceto president cheney, but increasingly vice president cheney found himself on the losing end of the important discussions in the bush administration. by the end of the administration 's favorability ratings were in his20's -- administration favorability ratings were in the 20's. as freddie points out vice president cheney came into the office with enormous credentials. he had been the chief of staff to president ford as a young man. leader inrs, he was a the house of representatives. he served as secretary of defense, he was the ceo of halliburton, he had been engaged in the period he was out of

government. he had one of the best resumes of anyone selected as vice president. peopleere were a lot of who thought he made mistakes in terms of some of his evaluations of some of the intelligence and policies he pushed. one of the things -- it is a cautionary tale that just because somebody has experienced does not necessarily mean they will be successful. abraham lincoln served one term in the house of representatives a dozen years before he was president. he had very little experience and yet, he is our consensus greatest president. sometimes presidential caliber waysof resists the formal

we try and test it. host: we have done a lot of talking this morning about the democratic vice presidential slot. let us talk about the current vice president, mike pence. pence as you rate mike a vice president in the list of vice presidents? what does he bring to the trump ticket coming up in the fall? i will add something a follower asked which is how do you think he has handled the pandemic president trump put him in charge of? guest: i think vice president ce has follow the patterns of vice presidents from both parties that began with vice president mondale. he has been an advisor, a

troubleshooter, he has taken on assignments, sharing the task is then coronavirus prime example. he has also taken on diplomatic roles. every presidency is different pence hasresident responded to president trump's leadership style. one thing that has been distinctive about the vice president has been that he has -- all vice presidents are supportive of the president and part of their job is to defend and support the administration's position. i do not recall any vice president in history who has gone to such an extent as vice president pence. he has been effusive in his praise of the president.

he compared him to ronald reagan, theodore roosevelt, king david. he said he would be the best friend to the american military of any president in our history, which is quite a statement given george washington, ulysses grant, and dwight eisenhower were among the presidents. in terms of looking forward one of the advantages and attributes president trump has talked about in praising vice president pence has been his ties and relationship with the evangelical community which is an important part of the republican base and president trump's base. i think that president trump would be looking to vice president pence in part to help thegize that base during 2020 campaign. i think the other thing vice

president pence -- in one of the other questions it dealt with why do we not look at people outside conventional experience? we have a president who is the only president in history who had never held any office previously before being elected. one of the things vice president pence has provided is some sort of political awareness and has been a liaison who has worked with republican members of congress, governors, and so forth. in terms of the pandemic and his handling of the task force, it is a little hard to tell exactly what his role has been doing the briefings. president trump has taken center stage and sort of -- vice president pence has been

pushed aside. the pandemic and our handling of as onedemic is not, would hope, been great and i being given this responsibility and the problems that continue in such a glaring way, that he will have it a challenge in explaining what he does not bear response ability. host: randy is calling from slaughter, louisiana on the independent line. caller: i want to make a comment on richard nixon. handlingite well in nikita. respond.ahead and guest: it is an important point.

the vice presidency really began to grow significantly when richard nixon was vice president . it was during the nixon vice presidency that the office really moved away from the senate into the executive branch. vice president nixon took on foreign missions, diplomatic missions for president eisenhower. committees,xecutive he did a lot of political work. he was the first vice president to really turn the office into a presidential springboard. the gentleman mentions the kitchen debate between vice president nixon and nikita crew where nixon acquitted himself well. successfulon was a vice president although the

office had not nearly to the extent they did beginning with mondale. it was wise think for joe biden to limit his choice for vice president to women only? i'm going to read something that was written by the founder and president for the network of enlightened women. here is what she said about him doing that. womanmmitting to select a at a debate in march before he figured out who would make the best running mate biden signaled he would not be picking his vp based on merit or what the country needed as the election approached. he restricted his pool of candidates exclusively to women to virtue signal, not to do what is best for women or the country

." was it smart for him to limit the choice to women only? guest: i am not sure exactly what were the considerations that led him to make that promise. before it was clear with the nominee would be i had written that if the democratic nominee man that the running mate would be a woman and if the running mate was a woman, she would pick a man. i thought there might be some diversity on the ticket. would have been highly unlikely that, given where the country is right now, for the democratic party is right now, we would have ended two whiteticket of

men on the democratic ticket. wasmately the question whether he might have left it open and considered some men who were minorities. i think one of the things vice president biden's promise spoke to was that we have come to a time in our history where there are a number of talented, able women who were holding traditional positions. there are 17 democratic women in the senate. when walter mondale chose geraldine there were none. there are six democratic governors and when mondale made the pick there was only one who had just been elected.

i think a quarter of the house of representatives right now are women. or maybe close to a quarter. in 1984 there were far fewer. positionving to a where a number of women of real excellence are moving into politics at the highest levels and i think vice president biden's statement was a recognition of that. goingher factor is that, through the vice presidential selection process is a taxing, demanding process and if you determine at an early point that your choice is going to go in one direction, to have people go through the process who are not going to be seriously considered were serious contenders is, in

some sense unfair to them,. host: you have a pic for who joe biden should pick? guest: no. i think it really is a choice -- i think it is difficult for an informedto make an recommendation. we do not have access to the information, we do not know what his relationship is with different people we might be an, who he feels would effective governing partner with him. i think there are a number of people who are talented and able who are among those he is considering. search youn this

have people you can look at and say different people have different strengths and weaknesses. that is always the case. you look at somebody like vice president cheney who presented himself with an overwhelming resume and yet, he was somebody there were questions about in terms of his health history. you can go down the list of any of the people who were selected in the past and they all had strengths and weaknesses. that is part of the challenge vice president biden faces. us talk to bobby calling from jackson, mississippi on the democratic line. caller: how are you doing this morning? host: just fine. go ahead. caller: i think picking the

right vice president is very important. picked joe biden and i think you made a good decision. commitmentade this thinkk a woman and i susan rice would be a good pick in my mind. thank you. host: has an ambassador or former ambassador ever served as vice president before? guest: yes in the sense that anrge h w bush had been ambassador to the united nations. i think what is distinctive about ambassador rice is that she has not bee previously run for an elected office.

was sargente shriver in 1972. while george w. bush was extraordinarily -- george h w , he was an extraordinary and hadved two terms been defeated twice. in 1980 andresident had been the runner-up to president reagan. he clearly had more electoral experience than ambassador rice does, but he did not have a lot of electoral experience. he was viewed as a very effective candidate, a very good choice, and a very effective

vice president. ambassador rice, from both her service in the united nations and as the national security advisor, has really been involved in diplomatic and national security matters at the highest level in a way that is relatively unusual. henry lodge who was richard nixon's running mate is another former ambassador to the united nations. he was ambassador when nixon picked him as the running mate which he had earlier been a united states senator from massachusetts until he was defeated by john kennedy. earlier abouted daniel webster turning down the vice presidential slot. accepting the vice presidential slot and not becoming president, or running for vice president and your

ticket not winning, is that a career under for a politician? you accepted the vice presidential slot and your ticket did not win or you never became president. does that mean your career is over? [laughter] guest: it really does not. franklin roosevelt was the vice presidential candidate in 1920 when james coxe and franklin roosevelt lost in a landslide. 12 years later he was elected to the first of four terms. he has been the most successful in terms of presidential politics of unsuccessful vice presidential candidates. if you think about some other people who ran for vice was thet, earl warren losing vice presidential theidate in 1948 and became

chief justice of the united states in 1953. pivotal role in brown v. board of education and caseser of other critical that are among the most important supreme court decisions. edmund muskie who ran a marvelous campaign, but was unsuccessful in 1968, became the secretary of state at the end of president carter's administration. lloyd benson was the vice presidential candidate who lost in 1988 and became secretary treasury under president clinton. there have been a number of unsuccessful vice presidential candidates. paul ryan was unsuccessful in country 12 and became speaker of

the house of representatives -- 2012 and became speaker of the house of representatives. there have been examples on both sides of the aisle of people being unsuccessful for running for vice president and later became successful. host: harrison is calling from south carolina on the democratic . good morning. caller: good morning. i have two questions. oftalked about the successes vice presidents in the past and what they have gone on to do. my first question is based on the fact that i think if joe biden wins, he will be a one term president. we will probably be setting up a launchpad for the next president. first question is out of all the presidents in the u.s.,

going back to george washington, how many were vice presidents? the second question is are there any statutes or laws that regulate the conduct and role of the vice president? as you mentioned from nixon on the office has become more powerful and associated with the executive branch. those are my two questions and i will take the answers off the air. thank you. the first question was -- host: the first question was -- guest: number of presidents who were vice presidents. host: correct. guest: there were 14 of our 45 presidents who were vice president first. 45 first became

president because their predecessor died or resigned and they were vice president who succeeded the presidency. presidents were elected president while vice president. richard nixon, who narrowly missed being elected president in 1968 iss elected a former vice president. more than 30% of our presidents have been vice presidents. if vice president biden is successful, it would be 15 out of 46. by and large the office has grown not to changes in the

constitution or statutes. it is through practices that have developed that brought the vice presidency into the executive branch and made the vice president an important troubleshooter. the vice president is a member of the national security council and there is that statutory requirement. statutes also certain that govern the conduct of vice presidents. for instance, in terms of disclosure of information, preservation of certain records. i am not really an expert on those statutes and some of those became controversial during the bush-cheney years when vice president cheney resisted

complying with some of the provisions and argue the vice presidency was not within the terms of those statutes. other vice presidents had complied with them, but there are some laws like that that apply to the office of vice president as well as other offices. host: we would like to thank joel k goldstein who is a authoriona professor of law and of "the white house vice presidency: the path to significance, mondale to biden" for being with us this morning and walking us through the history and role of the vice president. thank you so much for being with us this morning. guest: thank you so much for having me. i enjoyed the conversation. host: coming up, we will talk venuesndependent music

with reverend moose and look at the impact coronavirus has had on those venues. we will be right back. ♪ ♪ announcer: american history tv every weekend. sundayup this weekend on the 75th anniversary of nagasaki bombing of japan. at 9 a.m. live eastern at how they ended world war ii and the aftermath in the decades ahead with richard frank and the professor at the

american institute of nuclear studies. they will take your questions and at 4:00 p.m. eastern the -- 1946 film. harry0 p.m. eastern truman informed winston churchill of england and joseph stalin about the new u.s. super weapon. exploring the american story. watch american history tv this weekend on c-span3. ♪ ♪ c-span covered every minute of every political convention since 1984 and we are not stopping now. this month's political convention will be like none other. with the pandemic still looming

gatherings are being altered. the democrats will meet to nominate joe biden as their candidate the week of august 17. president trump will accept his nomination the following week. what she spent at 9:00 p.m. for live coverage of the convention starting august 17. the republican convention starts august 24. live streaming and on-demand at c-span.org or listen with the free c-span radio app. c-span, your unfiltered view of politics. "washington journal" continues. host: reverend moose is the cofounder of the national independent venue association and we will have a conversation on how the coronavirus has impacted music venues. good morning. guest: good morning. how are you?

host: i am doing fine. let us define this conversation. tell us what an independent music venue is as compared to other music venues and tell us what your organization, the national independent venue association, does. guest: independent venue is one that is not owned by a multinational or publicly traded corporation. it normally means locally owned. often times it is family owned that has been handed down. people in the community that are hiring in the communities, taking care of neighbors, opening their door for fundraisers, hired out for special lifetime events. they are the ones taking chances on emerging artists and, in trying to build more community-based initiatives. ago, to four months literally to the day, there was not an organization that was

able to speak on behalf of these thousands and thousands of individually owned venues and promoters across the country. i think a good portion of that was because we did not need it. part of being independent is finding solutions and putting them into play and everybody is so busy with running a business you do not have the support staff or legal counsel or the office in a different state to be able to help take care of some of these things these massive corporations have the ability to do. host: tell us how the coronavirus is impacting these venues. -- i from some of your want the audience to see this. according to your organization 90% of independent venues announce they will close permanently in a few months without federal funding. there is an estimated $9 billion

lost in ticket sales if the venues stay closed and that live quarters ofde three all artist income. what is coronavirus doing to the venues? guest: independent venues were the first to close and we will be the last open. i know that everything you have said sounds alarmist and the reality is the business model was not taken into consideration and the funding programs put in place did not handle them. because we have been closed by government order and because we were omitted from the programs that currently exist it leaves us with no options. the whole idea behind being independent is this is your primary economic driver and you do not have ancillary businesses able to generate income. when you take away a business's ability to earn

income you take away the ability to pay the artists, pay their staff, and do everything else we bring to the community. payroll, utilities, tax, insurance does not go away. we are dealt with a massive problem with no solution. because there is no timeline for reopening, because we legitimately have no idea when that could possibly be and because of the ramp up period to get operations into business internally, hiring staff, preparing the venue, and getting artists booked and rafting tours on a national basis -- routing tours on a national basis, are a complete unknown. then you deal with when is this going to end and you see there is no lifeline.

there is no ability to say if i could just make a other month, we will be ok. if i make it another three months, we will be ok. our reality is we do not know when we can reopen much less allowed and that could be six months, 18 months, two years. what we know is that we are dead last on every single list of businesses that are going to be allowed to reopen or return. that is our reality. we have no financial assistance through this, no guidelines from the government as far as how to do it safely, and we are banding together to try and be able to create those opportunities that will allow us to last through the shutdown. host: let me remind our viewers they can take part in this conversation. we are going to open up regional lines. if you are in the eastern or central time zones, we want to hear from you at (202-748-8000). if you are in the mountain at

pacific time zones, we want to hear from you at (202-748-8001). i want to hear from venue thatyees and those artists patronize these independent easy venues. what is going on with you? how have you been surviving through this pandemic? artists, what do you plan to do if this continues to go on? your line is going to be (202-748-8002). if you do not want to call in, you can always text at (202-748-8003). we are always reading a social j andon twitter @c-span w on facebook/c-span. i want to redo a statement we have from audrey schaefer who is the spokesperson for local independent venues here in washington, d.c. like the 930

club and merriweather post pavilion. this was in the washington post. "we have no revenue, but we have enormous fixed overhead of rent, utilities, insurance, and a host of taxes. in addition, we are paying insurance premiums for our employees who are on the insurance. even the 95% we have been forced to furlough. we have negative revenue. that is when you have no revenue but have to cancel or shows, representing refunds of a quarter of a million tickets. it is like a vacuum cleaner to your bank account." is that what independent venues around the country are seeing? guest: every single one. if you have a bad night, a bad show, if there is a storm that comes through, if there is a localized disaster that happens,

you have some type of mechanism or community support for federal support that is going to help youget through it or suck it up and go to a bank and say this is my history can you help me out? whether this is a professional bank or an uncle or whatever the case may be. we have no timeline whatsoever. we have every single cost associated with running a business. we have no assistance from the government. we are being told we cannot operate from a governmental level and there is no business that can possibly sustain in restrictions like this. it just is not economically feasible. it is not possible to be able to run a business where all you are doing is spending money. there is no income coming in. those venues that have been able to be creative and run fundraisers which have, as far as i can tell, exclusively to help the staff be able to

thoser this as well, and who have been able to sell t-shirts or open the kitchen or try to adapt their business in some capacity, the income has been negligible. it is a very dire situation and because we do not have any other ancillary income options we really are just spending money to try and exist to the future. but we do not know when that is coming. it is why we have been so strongly supportive of the save our stages act, the restart act, the encores act because these would all help us be able to sit here and say, we have some resources, we are able to keep these businesses alive, and then we are able to make it through to the rebuilding phase. we have no rebuilding phase if we cannot get through the shutdown phase. host: i will tell you i am

seeing a social media some people wondering why they should care about independent music venues. here is some statistics i want you to talk about the came from your organization. every dollar spent on a ticket equals $12 in economic activity in communities and estimated annual economic impact of venues is nearly $10 billion. according to your organization these venues are a major part of local economy which is why people should care. guest: yes. i just want to be clear. it is not a my town problem, it is in every town problem. metropolitan cities, rural america, these are busy neighborhoods, desolate neighborhoods. often times the venues that come in, because you are talking about rather large spaces, it is difficult to be able to afford to open a new space in an active

and expensive part of town. they are generally the types of business that pull business to them. i think the 930 club is a perfect example. they relocated many years ago to a part of the city that was, you know, not necessarily economically viable. now you go to the neighborhood and your coffee shops and other hotels, it, clubs, has taken on a life of its own. that has been seen time and time again all around the world. somebody can sit here and say i am going to bring a little bit of cool to the neighborhood and everybody else was to pull off of that. the statistic you quoted, for every dollar you spend there is $12 generated, is very obvious if you think about it. you go out to an event like a comedy club, a show, a theater

performance, whatever the case might be you are paying for a parking garage, parking meter, you are grabbing dinner with friends at a high-end restaurant or pizza parlor, you have flown into town because this is something important, you have pay tolls so the city is getting money. all of these things are money being generated in the neighborhood directly as a response because of the independent venue. once you pool those independent promoters and venues out of the equation every single other business suffers. we have seen that through our own members who are in neighborhoods where neighboring businesses have called and said, we tried to reopen. we have no business until you reopen. what is your timeline? our timeline does not exist. it is not there. it is really affecting not just our businesses, but the entire

neighborhood in communities in which they operate. host: let us go to the phone lines and let the audience join in. we are going to start with a venue employee. this is jim calling from tennessee. good morning. caller: good morning. everybody having a good day? host: so far. go ahead. caller: i am an independent vendor. all of mine have been closed and i cannot work. i noticed the independence are shut down while big-box stores are operating. i would like to give my opinion of what is going on. i believe this is a corporate takeover to wipe out independence and replace with corporate business. that is basically what is going on. ood luck finding independents when it is just

corporate chains everywhere. guest: that is a very real risk. we can sit here and talk about the praise of what we feel our members bring to the community and it is real and documented, but the real risk is even if you look at this, or not necessarily caring about the other businesses or artists or employees, from a selfish level you can realize the lack of independent venues also mean that u.s. the consumer have less of an opportunity -- you as the consumer have less of an opportunity of where you spend your money, which artists come through town, who is booking them. whether it is locally or somebody from across the continent or the world and all of these things really tap into freedom of choice and cultural opportunities and local opportunities. it affects people on a local level, economic level, it affects underrepresented

communities. all of these things disappear without independent venues. the fewer people making choices which, in this country is largely to companies outside the independent sector, means every single person is going to be affected. they might not necessarily see it directly, but they will see where they buy their tickets, what the fees are, what the artists are paid, what the artists charge, what merchandise they can sell. all of these get decided by fewer and fewer people as there are fewer independent venues. host: i am seeing a version of this question coming up from several social media followers. they want to know can you not go to online concerts at a lower cost with a wider audience? it may be even better to not have to drive to a particular venue not just for you, but for the artist who does not have to drive around in a bus, plane,

staying a hotel. can independent music venues just go online? guest: sure. well, i think from a functional level, and we have seen many try that and we are certainly -- around the world we are seeing people do streaming events. in theory you have the ability to reach many more people and often times they are drawing more numbers than what they would normally perform for locally. also keep in mind the saturation point as well as the economic dot to be able to do that not necessarily lead to long-term development. if you have a touring artist and they are plane 45 days across the country to a 5000 capacity room, you are talking about 5000 $25 or $55 ang ticket in every town. they are able to make that their own business and that goes

toward the food vendors, the bartenders, the security personnel, the bus drivers. all of this stuff is where the funds come. as you are moving this online those funds get much more limited. you are generally not paying the market rate ticket price. you have the ability to reach more people, but you can only reach them so many times. what we have seen from the actual return of that is that it is not sustainable to be able to help the venues through this. most of the venues we have seen have been offering that platform to be able to help the artists so they can generate revenue and some of them have been able to donate some of that money to the venue themselves because it is important to them or to other operations. unfortunately, as creative of a

sector we feel we are and we have members trying a lot of , the reality is they are not sustainable. at best it is a stopgap. it is not a solution. dori callinggo to from baltimore, maryland. caller: hey. i am watching this and you answered the question about the economics and the community which is what i primary question was. i am looking at this across the country and besides being music venues it is theaters, community theaters, all of those things. it is a $1 billion industry also supporting communities. but i thinkout it that is the most import thing for people calling in to understand. this is a billion-dollar community that is going to be

decimated and is decimated right now. thank you. guest: that is understated. this is a massive 10 that is,ollar industry at this point, totally shuttered across the country. host: let us go to michael calling from minnesota. good morning. caller: good morning, gentlemen. my question and concern is the venue of the higher education level. my son goes to school in new york city at the new york city conservatory arts theater, television, and music. they have been furloughed from school since may. we had to drive up there to pick him up and drive back to minnesota because there was no other way for them to live on campus. since that time they have not had any contact with the schools

or financial aid. speaking of financial aid my son and other students have had to take loans out to go to school and now they are not able to broadcast their future with this pandemic or whatever we want to call this notion. it is almost like they wasted their time. host: go ahead and respond. guest: michael is right. this is indicative of what we are trying to fight for. independent venues and promoters are responsible for being able employ and welcome and give a stage to all these students and the next generation of emerging artists. artists that generally tour or need part-time jobs and every

problem michael is describing is the same problem we are describing from a business perspective and it is painful. the independent promoters and vendors across the country are employing locally, working with local schools, working with the educational programs, charities, working with nonprofits. a lot of them are deeply endeavors toei create opportunities for another generation that may be did not have those opportunities long ago. anythinge do not have we are able to do right now it also pulls away those opportunities for everyone our members are trying to help. i will also say a lot of our employees and staff do not live where they lived five months ago because of this. they have gone back home or they were not able to afford living

in city center. sotever the reason might be, when we do have the opportunity to reopen it is not just a matter of unlocking the front door. they are going to have to staff up, train, there are cleaning protocols that have not been identified by local councils or federal government, and we are going to have to figure out how to route nationally touring artists in a way that is viable. that is a struggle when you do not have a timeline. host: let us talk to brendan calling from glenwood, maryland. brendan is a venue employee and artist. good morning. caller: i used to work in meriwether back in the day. my wife is a full-time teacher and during the summer to supplement income she works at meriwether. that is now zero.

anything we can do to get money flowing would be beneficial to her and everybody else that works in every small venue across the country. guest: brendan, you are not alone. independent venues hire in the summer for the amphitheaters and they hire part-time work that are teachers or students. fortunate opportunity for everybody involved. when people talk about venues or promoters their first thought is a small rock 'n' roll club or a comedy club. yes, they ares -- small rock 'n' roll clubs and comedy clubs, but also 17,000 capacity amphitheaters, city-owned rooms, they are theaters that are serving their local communities, they are

owned by individual operators, owned by local groups. they are every description you could possibly think of. host: talk to us about the save our stages act. what is involved in this? what could people expect to see and where it i is it in the legislative process? guest: it was specifically written to help independent venues and promoters. when we launched a our stages campaign we used it as an opportunity for people to write to congress and say how important the independent venues were to them. lettersated 1.7 million to congress. we have had over 1000 artists who have reached out to congress to say how important venues are to them. 600 signed onto an official .etter

introduction of save our stages what it does is establish a grant program, not a producers,romoters, tele-representatives, and independent,for non-multinational venues. when you are talking about all of these different programs being argued for a capitol hill i think it is important to understand that a, we had no options that were suitable for our business model. we were completely omitted. it was likely not intentional, but it is still the truth. now we are trying to put this into place where should congress pass it, which we are hopeful they do, it gives us a lifeline not just for this year but an option to kick in for next year

as well. the reality is we do not expect to be open anytime soon. host: let us squeeze in one more quick caller. from seattle,g washington. caller: i am a part-time musician and i am wondering if we are moving to a paradigm where we may have smaller venues . the singer/songwriter in the cafe versus bigger events. if this pandemic is moving us in period.d of guest: congratulations for being a musician and being awake before 7:00 a.m. what we are trying to preserve is that option for emerging artists and developing talent and local talent to be able to

play in rooms. if the independent sector is annihilated, which we are on the precipice of being, that affects the look artists and developing artists more than anyone else. our members who have the smaller rooms are going to disappear and where musicians going to play? are they going to be performing in a coffee shop that is able to put a mic in the corner? what does that mean compared to being a bill show and having an show and-- built having an audience? best torying our protect the independent sector specifically because it effects local artists and small artists more than anyone else. as much as i have used the massive names as highlights of

who has been supporting the independent sector the reason they are so supportive is because they played these venues. they are the ones who have come up through the ranks and they have seen the support. gaga atelton john, lady bitter end. all of these artists had to play somewhere first and all of them had to go up to somebody and say i think i am doing something cool. would you give me a shot in degree from there. host: we would like to thank reverend moose cofounder of the national independent venue association for coming on the show and bringing this issue to our attention. thank you so much. guest: thank you, jesse. host: we would like to thank our guests, caller, and viewers this morning. we will be back tomorrow at 7:00 a.m. stay safe and continue to wash her hands. have a great saturday, everyone. ♪

♪ [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2020] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] ♪ week, c-span looks at the live of 14 men who ran for the presidency and lost, but changed political history. watch the contenders next week on c-span. starting on monday, 1844 candidate henry clay. >> the perjury case against president trump's former advisor

michael flynn will be heard by the full u.s. court of appeals for the d.c. circuit judge on tuesday. the panel of 10 judges will decide whether a federal district court judge must dismiss the charges as recommended by the justice department. here the case live tuesday -- live, or listen live with the free radio app. next, a conversation with former secretary of state condoleezza rice who talks about the federal response to the coronavirus, reports of russian bounties on u.s. troops in the debate all of military bases named after federal leaders. this is part of the aspen institute's annual security forum. >> welcome. >> thank you very much, thank you for everybody for setting this up, what a great way to