dave levinthal talks about his ongoing investigation a potential financial conflict of interest for members of congress. later, the hill's editor-in-chief bob cusack on what is ahead in congress this fall as lawmakers prepare for midterm elections. "washington journal" starts now. ♪ host: security barricades have come down at the u.s. supreme court following this summer's protest over the court's abortion decision. but concerns over the direction of the court remain, particularly among democrats. according to one survey, public opinion of the court has fallen to its lowest level in years. like everything else these days, it is now a political viewpoint and the response depends on who you ask. they begin their new term in little less than a month. we want to hear how confident you are in the u.s. supreme court. welcome to the program for this

tuesday, september 6. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 is the republican line. independents and all others, (202) 748-8002. you can text (202) 748-8003. include your name and where you are texting from. you can also send us a message on facebook or hit us up on twitter or instagram. we are at @cspanwj. do you have confidence in the u.s. supreme court, our opening question on this morning's program. we will look at a number of articles about the court, about the recent term, its upcoming term, and we want to hear from you and know what is behind your opinion on how you feel about the courts. do you have confidence in the u.s. supreme court? (202) 748-8000 free democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans.

all others, (202) 748-8002. we start our question from a survey done regularly by pew research. the headline published less than a week ago, positive views of supreme court klein sharply following -- declined sharply following abortion ruling. democrats said the court has too much power. pew says america's ratings of the supreme court are now as negative and more politically polarized than at any point in more than three decades of polling on the nation's highest court. following interim in which we sought the ruling ending federal guarantee of the right to abortion, along with several other high-profile cases, that often split the justices among largely ideological lines, the shift in views of the court have been driven by transformation in democratic views per 28% of democrats and democrat-leaning

independents now view the court favorably, down 18 percentage points since january and nearly 40 points since 2020. positive views remain among republicans and republican leaders have increased modestly, they write. 73% now and 65% from the start of the year. as a result, they say, the present gap in favorable views of the supreme court, 45 percentage points, is wider than at any point in 35 years in polling on the court. part of the research and survey done by pew research, and we will touch on that more later on. this is an opinion piece by paul bland, who works for republic justice, this was published in the hill in late august, congress needs to modernize the supreme court and bring it into the 21st century. he writes, for many years, conservatives spoke of the

importance of the supreme court acting with restraint in the area of constitutional law. that was talk about the importance of respecting the court's own precedent, narrowly deciding cases on the issues set forth in not carving out legal positions that were far past the views and mood of the public. all of those principles, he writes, have been disregarded in the courts recent maximalist decisions which have dramatically unsettled the legal and political systems. it is clear the court needs reforming and modernizing. that is why we are calling on congress to take action first. he writes that first the court should be expanded to 13 justices, and second, term limits should be implement it, capping the service at a maximum of 18 years. we should embrace this opportunity to bring our courts into the 21st century and stop the politically motivated assault on our democracy that is sadly now too often emanating

from our own highest court. the views of public justice paul bland in the hill. (202) 748-8000 for democrats, (202) 748-8001 for republicans, and for all others, (202) 748-8002. we will get to your calls in a moment. and you can also send us a text at (202) 748-8003. the court opens their term just a little under a month from now, first monday october, monday, october 3. joe is on the line from bradenton, florida. how confident are you in the supreme court? caller: very confident, 100%. host: what makes you so? caller: ok, let me speak my mind and i will tell you. i have a lot of confidence on the supreme court. the far right conservatives,

they will vote against roe v. wade, they will vote against voting rights, they will vote against civil rights. i mean, on sunday, pedro asked the question, what do you think about maga? well, when i hear that word maga, i hear the word insurrectionist traitors. i hear the word confederate traitors, the word fascist, the word adolf hitler. i mean, there's a lot of words. putin is a good example. putin.

hey leader from north korea is another good example -- a leader from north korea is another good example. we're talking about dictators. and trump wants to be one of those. and let's make sure trump will not be a dictator. host: you mentioned these political figures, nationally and internationally. do you think that the u.s. supreme court has become more politicized? caller: i mean, sir, come on, the judge, he is not even experienced. come on, for god's sake. just to slow down. host: all right, we will get to that in a moment. we will go to david next in riverside, california, republican line. do you have confidence in the supreme court? caller: i do have some confidence in the supreme court,

certainly thought their decision on roe v. wade and the dobbs decision was one of the great decisions in the supreme court history. but on other issues such as gay rights, they have done very poor. you can give gender denying surgery to children, boys castration and girls hysterectomy in teenage years when they do not know who they are are. kids are known for identity crises. but we are not enabling them to have children in the future. i do not know why you would do that for children at that age. host: do you think the court will be asked to weigh in on a question like that? caller: i do think they are. so far, they would not even hear the parents in the bathroom bill. conservatives would not even comment on it or even hear the bill. so that has not been a strong point. i am very concerned for the

children. these could be children with no futures because some ideas, and it does not make any sense. host: a call from whitefield, maine, jimmy on the democrats line. caller: well, i have zero confidence in the supreme court. i think the only way around is to pack it. it looks to me like our experiment of the constitution of 1789 is over and has failed. have a good day. host: on twitter, tony says this, i have increasing confidence in the supreme court because they seem to be stepping back from being a policymaking body. i am disgusted at the attempts to corrupt the court. an attack on the court is more dangerous than questioning elections. kathryn says i have full faith and confidence in the supreme court, a bedrock of our

democracy. that is why they are called branches of government. one more from stephanie, i have no confidence in the justices appointed by presidents that lost the popular vote. a call from massachusetts, eddie on the republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. i believe the court is still relevant. what they took away, the life of children, this word gives back. when eisenhower retired, he said the worst thing he did was electing his foolish federal judges. they were a mess. they could ruin the country. they made american people pay for abortions with the planned parenthood nonsense. now we should be able to get rid of that. if some states wish to have abortions, go ahead. there are atheists, agnostics.

there are people who believe in the 10 commandments and thou shall not kill. how can a young woman kill a baby is unbelievable to me. thank you. host: at the top, we mentioned security fencing that had been put up because of protests after the dobbs decision. in the scotus blog last week, security fencing removed but the public building is closed to the public, and an eight foot tall fence erected in the spring has been taken down with replacement of public barriers. in response to protests that follow the leak of a draft opinion indicating the justices were poised to overturn their landmark rulings recognizing a constitutional right to an abortion. bill in patriot, ohio, good morning. democrats line. caller: how y'all doing this

morning? host: fine, thanks. caller: i am 65 years old. i have been voting since 1976. and i have got really good confidence in our supreme court. i know that a lot of people are pissed off at them on both sides. but if they were not doing their job, the people on both sides will not be pissed off at them. so i have a lot of confidence in the court, and i am waiting for our election in november so i can go vote again. thank you for your time. host: this is from a group looking at a couple of the upcoming cases in the fall term, which begins a little less than a month from now. upcoming supreme court cases could alter the racial makeup of college classrooms. the supreme court of the u.s.

will soon hear two cases that have the potential to permanently change the racial makeup of college classrooms. this fall, the supreme court will hear oral arguments like cases against harvard university and the university of north carolina chapel hill, which argued that the affirmative action policies at those goals are discriminatory. the cases allege the universities break the law by looking at race, with a preference given to indigenous, black, and latin-x applicants discriminating against white and asian candidates, especially in the case against harvard, grace used as a wedge between people of color, claiming asian americans are being sidelined from admittance. they argue the university works to ensure a certain amount of diversity in class, which penalizes asian americans, who perform better than other communities of color. the cases will be ruled on saturday, as justice ketanji brown jackson as a graduate of arford, and she will recuse

herself from the case -- justice ketanji brown jackson is a graduate of harvard. boston, massachusetts, is next, eugene, you have confidence in the supreme court? caller: i have absolutely no confidence in the supreme court at all. as a matter of fact, i do not even view the supreme court currently as it sits as even legitimate. i do not see how anyone can. we just had a former president that committed treason throughout his entire presidency to put on not one, not two, but three justices. i think that they should be rescinded, taken off the court, along with clarence thomas, because his wife has committed treason and was involved in it. so that leaves four judges open that the democrats put on two, that the republicans put on two, and two of the four should be

women and none should be catholic. that is how you rectify that. that is the only way it will be rectified, because the supreme court as it currently sits is an illegitimate court. host: thanks to eugene. he mentioned justice clarence thomas and his wife, who allegedly was involved in the election results of 2020. here is this morning's editorial cartoon from the "washington post." the scales of justice tipping here, with ginni thomas in the bin here and justice thomas hanging on. a comment from the "washington post" editorial cartoonist. spring, texas, joel, republican line. caller: good morning. it is frightening that we have a

citizenry that feels like eugene, with that mindset. that is truly scary. do i have confidence in the supreme court? indeed, i do, in the each member. i am on the conservative bin, but each one of them i think is a fine individual. do i agree with everything they come up with? no. but i know they are doing so in good faith. so i just wanted to say let's come together as a country. there is nothing wrong with them. we do not need to be expanding the court and trying to do all that. that is something that franklin d roosevelt came up with. let's support the court and know they are doing the best they can. that is about it. i love the supreme court. host: now over to anita on the

democrats line. do you have confidence in the supreme court? caller: i do have confidence in the supreme court. and if it went the other way where people were not getting their way on the others, these people that want to pack it, they would be calling wanting those people rescinded, too. so i do not understand why we can't just leave them alone. they have never been an issue before. it is just something to take away from us being united. we need to just let the courts follow the constitution. and as far as congress packing it, like paul bland suggests, they should be up to the voters, not just one person from the hill suggesting what congress should do. thank you. host: appreciate that. independent line next, we hear from alan in stanley, virginia. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call.

i just have a couple quick points. first, i want to talk about the last decision the supreme court in reference to abortion, people need to understand this, everybody listening this morning or making comments, look, what the court did, they simply put the power in the hands of the states, which allows individuals in each state to make that decision. i think it was a good decision. second point i want to make, i think the supreme court gets beat up on things they should not get beaten up on basically because the media blows it totally out of proportion. and this is a good example, what i just pointed out. third, some of these callers calling in, you have every right to your opinion. i appreciate your opinion. but for god's sakes, educate yourself. the last two callers makes a very good points, but some of these callers either must not have any knowledge of it or they do not understand the subject.

but again, thank you and thanks for allowing me to speak. host: let me ask you a quick question, on knowledge of the supreme court. do you think americans' knowledge of the supreme court would be improved if we were provided regular video coverage of the oral arguments in the supreme court? obviously, on c-span, we have aired those oral arguments live, the audio anyway, and certainly some of the audio comes out the same day. what if you could see the supreme court on television, would that help people's understanding of the court? caller: i think that is a good suggestion. along with that, in admission to that, -- in addition to that, talking republicans, democrats, and news media, if they were forced to tell the truth and explain to the public properly, i think you would see a good rating amongst the supreme court.

i do not agree with everything they do, but none of us is going to agree on everything. but we need to work together and move forward in the best interest of the country and its people. but that is a good point. i think what we can do to support that and even make it stronger. host: a caller mentioned this story earlier, the reporting from the "new york times," trump having seized records, decision down the road that could have some constitutional implications. a federal judge intervened on monday in the investigation a foreigner -- former president donald trump's handling of sensitive records. an independent auditor reviewing a trove of materials seized from his private residence in florida. the judge also temporarily banned the justice department from using the seized material for investigative purpose until the work of the arbiter, known

as a special master, was completed. the order would prevent, for now, federal prosecutors from using key pieces of evidence as they continue to investigate whether the former president illegally retained national defense documents at mar-a-lago or obstructed the government's repeated efforts to get them back. the order may serve only to delay the criminal inquiry into mr. trump, but the scope and candor of the judge's language and reasoning, the ruling seemed to carve out a special exception for the normal legal process for the former president and reject the justice department's's implicit argument that mr. trump be treated like any other investigative subject. back to your comments and calls on the supreme court. do you have confidence in the u.s. supreme court? democrats line, we hear from alan and in annapolis, maryland. caller: good morning, and thanks for c-span peer do you guys do a great job of showing america in the raw.

i have absolutely no confidence in the supreme court. six out of nine members are of the catholic faith, which is very misogynistic faith. so you knew they would come down on anything dealing with women's rights. you also have three members that were picked by a, i would say, a criminal ex-president that has been impeached twice and is under the fbi -- the fbi had to go in and retrieve documents that he stole from the government. and you also have a supreme court justice whose wife tried to help to overthrow the last election, to overthrow the government. and you have a supreme court justice, the last lady, ms. barrett, i have been in court more than she has. do not have a separate room court anymore, we have a catholic tribunal. we should face the fact of that and try to re-create the supreme

court. six out of nine of the justices, if they were muslims, people would be up in arms, losing their minds, and we all know that. so this supreme court is not a supreme court at all. it is a catholic tribunal, as far as i am concerned. and i thank you for c-span. host: to larry on the independent line, eugene, oregon. caller: good morning. interesting question. i would take this a little further. i think it is utterly preposterous that a handful of people, political appointees, have veto power over the entire government, all state government, can ignore the role of the entire population. i think we need a serious look at serious reform of the court, not just adding or subtracting members. but what is the court for?

historically, it essentially followed an antiquated constitution, which also could use reform. over the years, we have empowered the court to essentially crush labor in favor of capital. the whole purpose of the court was originally to protect property. and i think the nation has been ill-served by the court, for the most part. been some bright spots, but those have been essentially accidents. back to the original question, no, i do not think anybody should have confidence in the court. host: has your confidence over the years, hasn't been higher than it is today -- has it been higher than it is today? caller: yes, but i never was a believer. i always thought -- politics is my field of study, and it came to me to be, sadly,

misguided as a concept. host: on that note, in terms of the role of the supreme court, constitution is pretty clear about what the house and senate can do. do you think the constitution is clear enough about the role of the supreme court? caller: yes. and, again, so what? we are still back to a handful of people essentially dictating terms to the entire nation. i just think that is a ridiculous concept. and the constitution itself is a big part of the problem. this is 2022, not 1789. we need to get our act together. the country is falling apart. the court as part of the reason. host: we read a story the other day for a potential call for a new constitutional convention of the states.

it is called, you would -- a new constitutional convention -- would you support something like that? caller: yes. host: appreciate your insight. question this mike, do you have confidence in the u.s. supreme court? (202) 748-8000 is the line for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. independents and others, (202) 748-8002. labor day weekend works kind of the official, the sprint to the finish of the election season. president biden yesterday had a stop in milwaukee and also in the pittsburgh. the headline on those events from the "washington times," biden on maga republicans during speech, here is something the president had to say yesterday in a stop near pittsburgh, pennsylvania. [video clip] pres. biden: one thing clear to me is this new group headed by the former president, former defeated president, we found ourselves in a situation where

we really are going to look forward looked backwards. it is clear which way he wants to look, clear which way the new maga republicans are peer they are extreme. democracy is really at stake. you cannot be a democracy when you support violence when you do not like the outcome of an election p do you cannot call yourself a democracy when you do not count the votes people legitimately cast. you cannot be a democracy and call yourself one if you continue to do what they are doing. folks, look, we have a choice. when trump and the maga republicans made their choice. we can choose to build a better america or continued on this sliding path, oblivious. host: on our opening question this morning, we have a poll. you can participate on twitter, @cspanwj. 66% of you are saying you do not have confidence in the u.s. supreme court. that poll continuing throughout

the morning at @cspanwj. let's hear from ray in ithaca, new york. republican line. caller: 100% -- host: go ahead. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i have 100% confidence in the supreme court and the current makeup of the court. i am stunned by some of the calls and the hostility towards the supreme court. they make decisions that the majority of people in america make decisions, that is another job, it is to follow the constitution. many people do not respect the basic concept of that. host: to lee, charleston, south carolina, democrats line. caller: good morning. i have no confidence in the supreme court. sad to say that.

[inaudible] thomas, in my opinion -- i am a black american -- is an embarrassment to me. he does not care about people that look like him. it should be clear that -- [inaudible] -- ask god for forgiveness, because you are not doing the right thing as american people, human beings. i saw last night in alabama what happened, and i cannot believe it. [inaudible] like dogs, and here we are coming out of church every sunday.

we have to be reminded, and now we got people who still want to perpetuate this. you guys have to get it together. you are going to reap what you sow have a. host: on the republican line, good morning. caller: i am 77 years old, a registered republican. i am also a catholic. and i totally agree the people that think that the court is too heavily catholic. for that matter, i have in church, many times, heard priests say vote your conscience. if you are catholic, you know what that means. it means vote for somebody who is against abortion. one person i happen to know four

people, my mother and aunt, my best friend, and my stepdaughter's sister-in-law who had very dangerous, life-threatening pregnancies. this is very much about religious ideas. and to me, the republican party has merely used a lot of our basic moral principles, such as freedom -- and they don't believe in freedom. anybody who believes in freedom would never be so much against women having control over their own bodies. they do not believe in patriotism. what group of people would support what went on -- not the court, but excuse what went on on january 6 if they believed in patriotism?

my party seems to me to have totally lost its mind. they would probably call me a rhino. i think of them as rhinos. they have no idea what the basic principle of the republican party is about. it is more about economics. it goes back to edmund burke, and the economic part of it has been heavily influenced by people who are more interested in supporting a state which is capitalistic and very unbalanced in terms of the power of billionaires. and i am a person who would be considered wealthy. i do not have a problem paying taxes. i paid over $200,000 in taxes one year after the sale of a house, when i had a very big

capital gain. host: the question for you this morning, do you have confidence in the u.s. supreme court? on twitter and text, a couple comments. edward says this, what can the court do congress won't do? citizens aren't treated equally under the law. there is an equal protection under the law for us all peer the pendulum swings back and forth. one century human rights are protected under law, in another, they are not. frank in pennsylvania says, absolutely, no nine people making opposing rules for 350 million people really in the year 2022, something needs to change with that activist court. mike says, no, this court was formed by devious means. there were accusations by a faulty investigation. during senate conference -- confirmation hearings, senators were deceived related to settled

law. williams is never have three justices been appointed by a dark money partisan organization with an extreme and conservative agenda. zero confidence in this court except in the predictability of their rulings. from georgia, i haven't confidence in the supreme court and geniuses who invented our form of government. what i don't have confidence and are democrats who are so quick to scrap the foundations of our way of life whenever they lose on an issue. back to the pew research, the basis of our question this morning, their semiannual look at what people think about the u.s. supreme court, part of their findings, a rising share of public says the supreme court has a conservative tilt. it has steadily risen over the last two years, about half of americans, 49%, said the court is conservative, up from 30% who held this view in august 2020. another 41% of the public says

the court is middle-of-the-road. in 2020, democrats and democratic-leaning independents were divided on whether the court was conservative. today, two thirds of democrats say the supreme court is conservative, while 27% say it is middle-of-the-road. on the democrats line, angelo in new jersey. good morning. caller: hagens, new jersey. no, i don't have confidence in these justices, because i watched the hearings on that and these guys perjured themselves. they lied and said they were not going to judge anything that was law. they should be impeached. if they were democrats, the right would be screaming, and they probably would have attacked the supreme court then. have a great day. host: jeff in erie,

pennsylvania, independent line. caller: hello? host: you are on the air. caller: oh, good morning. i would just like to say, how are we supposed to have confidence in the supreme court? we have one justice who literally believes that thousands of children are on ventilators from covid. that is a lie. we have another justice who hands out the minimum sentencing for raping children. yet, she is voting on the court -- she is voted onto the court. it is just disgusting thank you. host: next up, charlotte calling from taxes on the right -- from texas on the republican line. caller: personally, i do not

feel real confident to say the supreme court is a good court. but the other thing is is that they are judging cases based on the constitution. you know. we are the ones that are politicizing the supreme court. the supreme court is not political in itself. and people need to understand that. because they did not get the ruling they want does not mean they are not doing their job. i have a lot of confidence in the supreme court. are we going to say it is not a good court now that ketanji brown jackson is on edge? come on, let's get real. they want to destroy our government and our republic, and it has got to stop. it has just got to stop you thank you very much. host: here is a piece in the latest "new yorker," by margaret

talbot. profile of justice samuel alito, called last word. against secular america isn't over, the headline, and she writes this, since 2000, as a recent study in the proceedings of the national academy of sciences found, the court is estimated to have moved the ideological right of roughly three quarters of americans. we are asking you this morning, do you have confidence in the u.s. supreme court. (202) 748-8000 is the line for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. independents and others, (202) 748-8002. to michigan, randy, democrats line. caller: good morning. i want to start by thanking you and all the other men and women it takes to bring us this great program.

you are doing the nation a great service. unfortunately, no, i do not have confidence anymore in our supreme court. i tried to when they first packed it, when the republican party packed it. i gave them the benefit of the doubt. but after the roe v. wade decision, they have just become nothing more than just a radical religious group that now has power to dictate to the rest of the nation. the whole federal system is getting bad. you got one judge giving the former president special treatment when it comes to the courts. it is not looking good in this country when it comes to our justice system. that used to be the one thing i could trust. i understand politics. i don't understand this new justice department ringing in politics on the supreme court. thank you, sir. appreciate the time. host: thank you, randy.

next to joseph in gilbert, arizona. caller: hi, good morning, and thank you very much for giving me a voice. i really appreciate this show. from what i remember about the supreme court, they have had political leanings since the days of oliver wendell holmes, and for the first time since the warren court, 1960's, for the first time, the supreme court now has a more conservative philosophy, which goes over about 60 years. now the democrats, because it is going to a conservative philosophy, want to pack the supreme court because it is not going to agree with what they want. and for the last 60 years, nobody has been talking about getting rid of the supreme court.

nobody has been talking about packing the separate them court, really. and now all of a sudden this certainly changing the supreme court has been going through the media for years -- not for years, but for the last year or so. and my issue really is kind of like it is an indication of the intolerance on the left. if you disagree with them on the supreme court, if you are a supreme court justice, now all of a fascist. if you are -- if you disagree with them politically, you are a maga republican, which is, to me, you are being vilified because you disagree. and i think there is a bigger issue of intolerance on the left than the supreme court.

the supreme court is always going to be either a little more conservative or a little more liberal. that has been its history. so i do not see why the need for change now. and i just don't see that. i think it is more of an issue of people wanting to get rid of political enemies than it is an issue of whether the supreme court is competent. these guys are competent. they have always been competent. i mean, they have made good decisions. they have made bad decisions. they made plessy versus ferguson, but they also did brown versus the board of education. politics has been part of the supreme court, to me, since i could remember studying when i was a kid. host: sort of begs the question, how do you take politics out of it? is there a way to take politics out of it? caller: i don't think so.

that is why you have elections, and the presidents name the justices. they could try, but -- i have not really seen too many right wing justices appointed by a democrat or too many left-wing justices that were appointed by -- recommended, actually, the senate appoints them -- anyway, i think politics is part of the idea of choosing them. and i think this is what elections are for. trump did happen to have three justices, but that is what the system is. the system didn't say, oh, we're going to change this because we want donald trump to pick three justices. it is just the way that things happened. host: president biden's first

pick, ketanji brown jackson, we will hear her first case when the supreme court comes into session first monday of october, monday, october 3. we will have plenty of those cases available on the c-span networks, the oral arguments, i am sure. back to the campaign show, president biden out yesterday, two stops, milwaukee and in pennsylvania, near pittsburgh. biden blasts extreme gop in labor day swing state trips, and he touted some of the benefits on medicare in his recent package that passed in the u.s. congress. [video clip] pres. biden: talk about the inflation reduction act. i have been fighting, when i was a senator, for a long, long time, fighting the pharma companies, negotiating the price for medicare drugs. well, guess what?

any of you have a child who has type two needs insulin once a week? guess what, it costs those outfits $15 to make and package it. that is all it takes they charge somewhere between $625 a month and $1000 a month. it is simply wrong that they can make that profit. they said it cannot be done, but guess what, we were able to change it, allowing medicare to negotiate drug prices. we pay the highest drug prices of any nation in the world here in the united states of america. and guess what, there is no rationale for it, so week vinyl he passed it and then -- medicare is negotiating, no senior, because of what we did, no senior, no matter how big your drug bill is, if you are fighting cancer or any other serious problem thomas spending thousands and thousands of dollars on treatments, guess

what, you will not have to pay more than $2000 a month, no matter what their bill is, no matter what their bill is. [applause] they need insulin, they will not have to pay more than $35 a month. i am fighting pharma for my entire career, my entire career, and we finally beat pharma. host: john fritz covers the supreme court for "usa today." he has a piece published online this morning for subscribers. it will be in the printed edition tomorrow. headline, how the supreme court is already influencing the november midterm elections. they say in this story, you will read about one of the supreme court's first major cases this fall dealing with redistricting, and the high court will also decide on how much power state legislatures decide on setting election

rules. our question this morning, do you have confidence in the u.s. supreme court? basing it off a pew research survey of the court of americans about the court. (202) 748-8000 is the line for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. for independents and others, (202) 748-8002. text comment, no faith, two justices accused of sexual assault and one with less than 10 years of judging, one citing 17th-century legal opinions. the supreme court has recently been presented as a defective vote for any contested gop policy. when is that injustice states an interest in rolling back rights, the country has an issue. stephen in new mexico, citizens united handing all power to money. from shelby, it has been politicized and is now broken. elaine is on the republican line from washington next. caller: i do not really

understand how a person would not have confidence in the supreme court, because if you look at the decisions, and i read a lot of them, if you look at the decisions, most of them do not go down party lines. they either flip between both parties, if you want to call them parties, people. but most of them there is a consensus on the court itself. so if you lose confidence in the court, then you are losing confidence in the decisions but not necessarily the court itself. you may disagree with the decisions because you do not understand it. but one thing i can say about this court, when it writes a decision, it states emphatically why they are doing what they are doing, and they hang every word on some case law or some law

some place. and i really appreciate that, because it gives them a better foundation on the decisions that they do issue. host: where do you read most of the decisions? caller: i downloaded the scotus website, and so they have all the decisions that they issue, they usually come out in a synopsis first of the decision. so i read those first. then when the decision comes down, i download them and then read them. host: does that synopsis give you a synopsis of the case and then the decision that follows? caller: it does. they give you a syllabus and then it tells you how it was decided. host: do you have a legal background? caller: kind of. i worked in law for many years. host: day in and day out, what

is it that fascinates you about the opinions of the justices? caller: how they dig into something and what they find to support their decisions. that is what i find fairly interesting. because most people do not study the law, so they have no idea what is out there that would influence a justice. that when they write the decisions, and you can look up -- when they hang their hat on something, you can look up that decision that precedent, whatever it is, and read more about it to get more insight into where they are coming from. generally speaking, you do not have to, because they describe what they are doing and why they are doing it very well. host: the hearings of the justices before the senate judiciary committee, a lot of attention is paid to the term

stare decisis, whether previous decision will stand. as you read these opinions of the court, do you think the supreme court today generally adheres to what previous decisions the court has announced in the past? caller: the presidents -- p recedents? generally speaking, yes. when they go away from it, they usually have a reason for doing it. just like with the dobbs case, i found that very interesting. along with citizens united, if people read the citizens united case, that was such a simple lawsuit. it had to do with an ad they wanted to place about a movie, and they were denied placing the ad. but that is one of the most enlightening decisions, because they were not even asking for what they ended up with.

the court kind of got in between a rock and a hard place, and they had to issue that decision as they did because if they didn't, it would disagree with the precedents already established. host: i appreciate your insight in your reading of these opinions and sharing that with us. elaine and the washington state. ill on the democrats line in michigan, go ahead -- bill on the democrats line in michigan. go ahead. caller: thanks for taking my call. i have no confidence in the court. i do have what i consider a suggestion. if you want the best judges out there, each president should nominate the opposite of their party. that way you get the best judges . you will find out who is worthy of being on the bench instead of

just picking your favorite sons and daughters. it is not possible, of course, but it is common sense, we can make it equal, like five and 5, 5 democrats, five republicans. make it five to five, and then they have to actually work and abate on the issues in -- and debate on the issues and then go with the constitution, not how they feel their views are. they have kind of gotten lazy. they just say this is how we feel and this is our view. any member could make it equal. they may have to work on it and debate it and come up with a solution, instead of one side deciding it because they have more power. i think it should be equal, both sides. debate it and then work on the

constitution. otherwise you can say you are working for the constitution and you really are not. and nine justices that have control over 340 million people's lives? i know they are not all involved, but they are affected by the decisions. i know there is no limit to how many you can or cannot have, but i would like to see it at least be equal, five to 5, 4 to four, get rid of that odd one so it has to be equal. then come up with a solution. host: this comes from cases cited by the supreme court, reported by the associated press pizza pre-and climate ruling could impact nuclear waste case. the supreme court's landmark ruling on climate change regulations could have implications for other issues, including a case involving

nuclear waste storage and a proposal requiring companies to disclose how climate risk affects their businesses. that is across the political spectrum. two republican attorneys general, including a west virginia official who challenged environmental protection agency greenhouse gas emissions by power plants, says the supreme court ruling applies more broadly to other executive branch actions, and in at least one case, environmental groups appear to agree. you can read more about that at washingtontimes.com. in ohio, david on the independent line. caller: top of the morning to you, sir. i do not agree with the supreme court. one, i think all of your listeners should read the harvard law review based on an article called business paradox, dated november 10, 2021.

it shows that the supreme court has expanded businesses rights and reduced their liability. they have made the decisions for the rich and for business. that has been ever since roberts has been the chief justice. a couple examples, citizens united versus the federal education -- elections committee, holly hobbie versus burrell, nestle versus doe, ford versus montana, eighth judicial district -- these are all decisions that were made by the supreme court in favor of business. and they are not doing it for us. and they are not basically following the constitution. they are expanding the constitution for business, to give them rights and make them

people instead of entities and business. the last thing i have got to say is we have one third of the government that is appointed for life? that is not very democratic. host: thanks, david. we have been running a twitter poll, do you have confidence in the u.s. supreme court? you can take part at @cspanwj. poll numbers showing over 71% saying no, they do not have confidence in the u.s. supreme court. an issue before the u.s. senate coming out related to the dobbs decision that the court came out with over the summer, democrats weigh gay marriage in pre-election sprint. reading from the politico about that potential vote on same-sex marriage. the toughest political question for senator schumer's whether to hold a vote on how fast election codifying marriage protection.

he has held off on it so far, aides say, because he wants to pass, rather than force, the gop into a hard vote. a spokesperson for senator tammy baldwin, lead democratic sponsor of the bill, says she will meet with the gop when the senate returns from the august recess to compare notes on the outreach effort and build more support from senate republicans. the senate back from their august recess today at 3:00 p.m. eastern. live coverage of the senate always over on c-span2. we will hear from steve next in maine. good morning. caller: good morning. yes, i have confidence in the supreme court. i actually have ultra extreme confidence in the supreme court. the main reason i watch your show is for education, like the lady that called from washington, d.c., -- not

washington, d.c., washington state -- she had a lot of information. i wanted to share one piece of information. someone called and said that trump packed the supreme court, but they do not know what the definition of packing means. i think it would be worth describing what that actually is to them. host: thanks for that. we can find an article on that. we just have a moment or two left here. caller: the woman who talked, really knew what she was talking about but she said the judges tend to make a decision and go back to find out information that will support the decision. that is not the way it is supposed to work. i want you to know that the

decision, the dobbs decision has created so much trouble in this country that the women are going to rise up and everything is going to change. that decision was made by judges who not should be there at all. and we all know it. we know what pact means. we know what it means to pack the court. this is moot. i have no confidence in the court. host: appreciate your calls for this segment. up next we will be joined by dave leventhal. the deputy chief insider gone the ongoing investigation of members of congress and potential conflicts of interest. we will get a preview of congress this fall. still lots to do on capitol hill. ♪

>> c-spanshop.org is c-span's online store. browse our latest selection of c-span products, apparel, books, home decor, and accessories. there is something for every c-span fan and every purchase helps support our nonprofit operations. shop now, or anytime at c-spanshop.org. ♪ >> middle and high school students, it is your time to shine, you are invited to participate in the student camera documentary competition. in light of the upcoming midterm election, picture yourself as a newly elected member of congress and we ask what is your top priorities and why. make a five to six minute video that shows the importance of your issues from opposing and

supporting perspectives. do not be afraid to take risks. be bold. among the 100,000 dollar cash prizes is a $5,000 grand prize. videos must be submitted by january 23, 2023. visit studentcam.org for tools, kits and to sign up. >> there are a lot of places to get political information but only at c-span do you get it straight from the source. no matter where you are from or where you stand on the issues, c-span is america's network. unfiltered, unbiased, word for word. if it happens here, or here, or here, or anywhere that matters, america is watching on c-span. powered by cable. >> listening to programs got

easier. set your sport speaker to c-span radio and listen at 7:00 a.m. eastern. weekdays at 5:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. eastern catch washington today for a past -- fast-paced report. c-span, powered by cable. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are here on "washington journal" with dave leventhal. he is with us to talk about members of congress in potential conflicts of interest and what may be next in terms of financial guidance for members of congress. first i want to ask you in terms of, what are the current roles --rules governing stuff like

that? guest: it is effectively the rules of the road. this was in response to scandals and situations that had taken place in the yet years with lawmakers not necessarily doing with their personal funds but at least in the opinion of many the public's interests. it tackled three things, it addressed conflicts of interest which would be investing their personal money in a way that could directly conflict or contrast in not a greatly with the public's decisions that they are making on behalf of the body politics. another one was insider trading where lawmakers would in certain cases have used information by

being an elected official and taking that information and having it inform personal financial decisions buying stocks or other things. and the other thing was transparency. more details and all of that more quickly so that they could, we could see what lawmakers were doing. it is adding another layer of security, if you will to the process to make sure that voters have information to act on themselves when they went to the ballot box. for example if they didn't like the idea of a member of congress who sat on say the services committee purchasing stock in raytheon or one of the defense contractors that relies on government funding to do its business and the government funding can increase stock prices. so they would have that information available in a relatively quick amount of time.

host: let's say if a members child or wife or brother-in-law but the same sort of stock, would that be transparent to the public, to the media? guest: it addressed that too and not only the lawmaker is subject to these rules but dependent children, and spouse. if you look at the report from any member of congress, what they have to do is not only report their own personal stock trades but those of their spouses, those of their dependent children and it is sort of an extreme example of this that we see frequently right now is house speaker nancy pelosi. she does not personally trade stocks, but her husband who is a capitalist not only has worked trade stocks but personally trades stocks in a way that

would benefit him and benefit his spouse who happens to be the speaker of the house. he trades at tens of millions of dollars in stock options every year. we know that based on the reports in silly -- nancy pelosi certifies herself. host: what about the ramifications? what is the enforcement of the stock act? guest: it's fairly strict that if you violate any of the provisions of the stock act, you consent before -- you can get sent before the committee which has the power to reprimand, center or in extreme situations kick a member out. also, there is potential criminal liability that could come with this too or the

department of justice could investigate if they were acting in illegal ways. exchange commission could investigate and has in one notable incident involving senator richard burr. all of these things can happen simultaneously. the penalties over the past 10 years have been incredibly light. the investigations that have taken place are almost universally have led to nothing happening and some sort of concern that has been raised especially in the past many months is what good is the law if ultimately it doesn't have any teeth? lawmakers may not be compelled to do the right thing or they may get involved in activity that is not going to be becoming of them. host: you opened the door

therefore the weaknesses. a 10-year-old law now, defined some of the other weaknesses that you think need to be addressed by congress. guest: one of the fundamental issues is the third column i just described which is the transparency aspect. if you don't know what a member is doing, you don't know how a representative is investing their personal finances. you can't tell if there is a conflict of interest. what we have found in our reporting along with other media organizations is 71 examples that we have found since last year of current members of congress who have violated the stock act disclosure provision. it is relatively minor, they may be a few days late of what is a 45 day deadline.

any sale, purchase, exchange of stock or related financial implement. but in some cases, it has been months or even years past the deadline. congress has established for itself the rules of the road that congress created for congress. so when you have a situation like that and some situations involve hundreds of stock trades the months late and potentially millions or tens of millions of dollars in some cases. the yield entity for that which has come to bear is a $200 late filing fee. all of these cases that i just mentioned, that is basically the extent of the penalty that we found. the critics of this law who say the stock act is simply too weak , they're just going to keep doing it. there are no ramifications if you can go and rob a bank into the police officer is not going

to chase after you, my keep rubbing thanks. -- banks. host: the organization has been relentless on reporting on this. one of the headlines 71 members of congress have violated a law designed to prevent insider trading and to stop conflicts of interest. we welcome your calls and comments. the lines are (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 the republicans and independents and others (202) 748-8002. what's next? what has been proposed to fix it? guest: back in december we published an article. there are stories, investigations to try to make this real. try to explain what conflicts of

interest, or perceived conflicts of interest are in play. it has not engaged in the proper disclosure of their finances. we also have senior congressional staffers who are subject to the stock act and they too if they are very late or have failed to disclose their activity, we reported that as well. when that published, we asked nancy pelosi in a press conference, brian metzger he asked her what do you think of this? should members of congress be able to trade stocks? should they be able to play the market while they are on capitol hill and the answer she gave at the time and i'm paraphrasing, it is a free market economy. and members of congress should be able to participate in that economy. she endorsed the status quo.

what happened after that was kind of a curious series of events. you had members of congress such as alexandria ocasio-cortez, the representative from new york saying well, no. that is not good and that is not what we want. we want to do something different. we need to ban members of congress from trading stocks because the current rules are not working. and you have some republicans who are essentially saying the same thing. you have the senator from missouri, later you have donald trump and kevin mccarthy saying yeah we need to consider banning members of congress from trading stocks. you would never put those representatives and politicians in the same conversation on the same page but nevertheless, that is where they were painting. to the question that you asked,

where they stand now? what happened in the interim between december and today, there has been a series of pieces of legislation that have been introduced by democrats and republicans that have struck on that very issue. saying we need to do something different, we need to ban members from trading stock and ban their family members from trading stocks as well. throughout the margins, there have been differences in the approach. should this extend beyond congress? supreme court justice's? or other members of the government? there is a question about should i just apply to a member of congress or the family? right now we have three different avenues here. we have the senate, the house looking at it, and then sort of a coalition for rank and file members who are aggressively pursuing this. host: you pointed out the

speakers husband trading stock. has she committed to taking up legislation when it is finalized? guest: i think she has had an evolution between december and february. december of last year and february of this year where she warmed to the idea at least in principle saying more or less, ok, you can go forward. we will consider legislation. that led to an april congressional hearing that ultimately addressed this issue in a public forum any --in a public fashion. there has been debate that has not led to black and white text for consideration on the house floor but that is were advocates hope here in september that congress is going to get to amending other priorities. host: you mentioned senator richard burr. explain some of the trades he

made or potential conflicts of interest. he is retiring, obviously. we will play an ad here in a minute but what was the issue with senator burke? guest: this is not just applicable to him the other members of congress around the time. there were lots of trades being made, sometimes in very rapid fashion basically in january or february, march of 20. the pandemic was beginning to sink its teeth into the united states. these trades looked, if you are being generous curious. the idea is that some people were saying what's going on here? there may have been, or the suspicion was that members of congress were using information

that they had gathered as a member of congress to either themselves make stock trades or order up stock trades that could have benefited them because of insider knowledge about the way that the economy. the way that vaccines were being developed. and when we reported after the fact, we found dozens of examples of members of congress who in the house and the senate democrats and republicans who were purchasing around that time stocks in companies that might not have been typical for them to purchase. pfizer, moderna, johnson & johnson, makers of vaccines. makers of cleaning products. makers of self -- shelf stable foods. ultimately the stock purchases or the trades that were being made were such that there were questions being asked about whether these were just trades being made in the normal course

of one making a financial trade or if in essence they knew something about what was going on or decisions in that were going to be made that could have been beneficial. host: the transactions of members is not a national stock issue but a national campaign issue. back to north carolina it is on the minds of many. she is a democrat in north carolina here is that. [video clip] >> i have never worked in washington but there is a lot going on there that makes no sense. at this, 64 members of congress, republicans and democrats have broken able to stop insider stock trading yet washington refuses to do anything about it. i'm sherry beasley and i say let's ban members of congress from trading stocks altogether.

senators should be working for you not themselves. that's why i approve this message. host: an issue in north carolina. are you surprised it's not a bigger issue nationally? guest: there have been a few other campaigns for this comes up. the economy, the pain that people are feeling at the pump, other issues that are part of any campaign but essentially in 2022 midterms. ads are going up about this issue, other members of congress are running on it. abigail spanberger is in a close race. she is very much a vanguard of pushing a stock and -- band. other times you can weaponize this as a politician, to the political party. the republican congressional wing of the republican party,

the national republican committees have been very aggressive against democratic members of such as representatives in new jersey running for reelection. very tight race that he could quite essentially lose. we reported he had dozens of stock trades that he had simply failed to disclose back in 2000 and 2020. they had become a campaign issue. still nevertheless, it is one that is coming up in the 2022 midterm unlike we have seen in previous years. host: potential conflicts of interest, (202) 748-8000 is the democrat mine. (202) 748-8001 is for republicans and for independents and others (202) 748-8002. let's go to the democrat line first. caller: i.

-- hi. an understanding is members of congress had the same rules as anybody else, basically, some kind of blind trust. mi wrong? host: trust which is alien interest -- an interest in this. any member of congress has the ability to combine -- make a blind trust. it is the ability to create a qualified blind trust. you effectively give over to an independent third-party your financial dealings. it is something that took -- the

documents are made public. it is somewhat time-consuming. it can be quite expensive. perhaps not surprisingly there are very limited members of congress including we just mentioned the one from new jersey. he went this route after he ran into some trouble and others who have gone ahead and taken the step. but the vast majority of members of congress don't. so the question of do members of congress have to play by a different set of roles than the average american? they do. the stock act is a different set of rules that members of congress are subject to. i should note there are federal laws for candidates who have to record every financial transaction disclosure. as we reported as well, they have been very good about

disclosing in the application there really is no penalty to bear as well. host: pike on -- why constant reference to nancy pelosi. has speaker pelosi violated any law? guest: she is the speaker of the house with great power comes extra scrutiny. her husband is trading in a way that most members of congress or their spouses don't. when you are dealing with hundreds of thousands of dollars or in the case of paul pelosi tens of millions of dollars in a short. of time as a reporter, as a journalist we are going to absolutely scrutinize those trades to understand what they are and whether they are in conflict with decisions that nancy pelosi would herself be making and one example was when there was an act a couple months ago.

electronics, conductors he made trades involving video. ultimately decided to sell the purchase that he made very quickly after making that purchase. it was in response to some controversy that came to bear as a result of the activity on capitol hill whether it was intentional or not coming into play at the same time when he was making stock trades. host: what constitutes a conflict of interest? guest: credibly attune to what the rules are. they follow them very closely. we are focusing on those who have broken the rules or don't seem to understand rules. in all fairness to the members of congress who do play by the rules, some are diligent about it. i have talked to many of them and they say this is a priority for me. it is a priority for this office, we are going to play by

the rules into it by the. and they do so there is a problem with that. others seem to not really know that it is something that applies to them. they don't know what they need to disclose and when. this kind of came up when the house at the -- ethics committee let three members and ultimately for off the hook who had violated the stock act disclosure provisions. one was a republican from texas one was a democrat from new york. a democrat from new york or a republican from new york and all three of them even though you can demonstrate that they had broken the rules and you can read the rules and compare it to their actions, and they violated it.

the ethics committee says this was not a knowing and double violation. this was just a mistake. we are going to give them the benefit of the doubt here and beyond pain just that standard $200 late filing fee there were no other ramifications. they were given basically the free and clear to go on with their business without having any type of reprimand or additional penalty beyond what they already had. host: why are not all stockholders of congress made public? so the public be made aware of all conflicts of interest for what is the public through in this area? guest: that really strikes to the heart of the disclosure aspect. the provision provides an answer to the reader or the

caller's question. if you trade in stock or cryptocurrency or make any kind of real estate trades or different types of financial trades that are subject to the stock act do you make any of those with the member of congress? you do have to disclose them in a certain schedule time which depends on the type of trade. we won't go into that too much there but the bottom line is that they do have to do those. the problem because or the problem arises when they don't do it. they don't follow the rules. instead of disclosing that, they forget or they fail to or for one reason or another that information just doesn't come available to the public and that becomes a problem because you can't judge a member on whether they do have a real or perceived

conflict of interest if you don't have the information to make the judgment. host: phone lines are (202) 748-8000 democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans and fors -- for independents and others. (202) 748-8002. caller: good morning, when the subject comes up, i get baffled because i vote for the federal government and annually, annually we were notified. all of the auditors were notified that it was time to take their independence training meeting we held stock for. every year, they were notified they had independence training and we had to have an independence statement.

if is every year. so i don't understand how congressman could just overlook the fact about the disclosures. you know, it just baffles my mind. but given that as a taxpayer i'm concerned based on portfolios not with the american people need. i think this whole system has to be overhauled and all these people have been there forever doing the same thing year after year after year, it is a lot -- it is time for a lot of those to move on, bring people who have fresher ideas and what it is you're supposed to. guest: some cases are more

strict. that is one point to make. congress, they make the laws. if they wanted to change any aspect of this, if they wanted to make it more strict for any aspect of the government, they do have the ability to do that. that is what is being debated right now with the various bills and the various committees and coalitions that are getting together to discuss whether to do exactly that at the end of this current congressional session in january. it remains to be seen whether something monumental will happen, nothing will happen or something in between. frankly, based on many conversations we have been having with congress and the staff it seems this is where it is going to land. host: wordy they get most of the information on these trades? guest: we look at the reports that come in and quite literally every day about financial transactions.

there are annual reports they have to file that give a whole variety of information covering a calendar year. those usually come out midyear. for individual stock trades, members of congress have to take an added step. they file periodic transaction reports. it is details about individual stock trades or crypto trades or other types of trades of that sort. the idea there for having those sort of interim reports is that, hey, if a member of congress is dealing with a bill, a piece of legislation that it could have some bearing on the financial interests, the public should have a right to nap that information. not next year but relatively close to real time. members of congress would love to ban members of congress from trading stocks and safe at minimum that should be almost

instant disclosure and we shouldn't have to wait 45 days. it should be five days or one day because we have this thing called the internet. we have digital communication and have the capability to do it. some of the most diligent members of congress, the day they make a trade if they do trade stock, they will reported literally the same day. so we know that is possible. host: to eastern kentucky, robert is on the republican line. go ahead. caller: is insider trading against the law according to this fellow that is trading -- talking? where are the legislators about the law if that is the law? host: it was seen the penalties described under the stock act or maybe less than insider-trading for those outside of congress. guest: insider-trading is against the law.

it is against the law for members of congress. the act is explicit and if you engage in insider trading as a member of congress the penalty is, again theoretically, their lease affair -- severe. how do you prove they are engaged in insider-trading? the burden of proof is incredibly high and members of congress, richard burr said these curiously climbing stock trades are not insider-trading that was just coincidence. or i had nothing to do with the personally. my stockbroker was making those traits and i don't have any communication with him. that is difficult to prove, the level of communication or direction that any member of congress have with their financial advisors or their stockbrokers unless you have the blind trust that we have earlier -- that we talked about earlier

where you are signing away your personal finances to a third party and doing it in a public fashion where everything is written kind of for how rules of the road are going to apply to your finances. you are kind of taking the congress members work for it that they are doing the right thing. there is a trust prepared by the aspect. host: what is the most recent instance where the department of justice has looked into possible insider-trading? guest: they may have looked into it in the richard burr case. what we do know is they have never had an investigation come to the point were a member of congress is in charge under the stock act. there have been other financial related activities where a member of congress has gotten into trouble but that wasn't necessarily related at all to the stock act.

10 years on right now there is no prosecutions and convictions under the stock act. host: let's hear from nick in maryland. caller: it's a conflict of interest question and it is not necessarily to start trading it is more or less to builders. i have an opinion that if you take government assistance, you should give up your right to vote. if that rate there is a conflict of interest. you are getting money from the government then you should not be able to vote for you getting more money from the government. guest: i don't see how that would necessarily work. voting is a right given to people qualified to vote. many people on government assistance would find that difficult in essence that we all benefit in some way from government actions.

under those rules, yeah, i think i understand what the caller said. host: the president election back to you wrote about in the insider $424 million in taxpayer money is locked away so lawmakers won't spend or return it. you check the box on your tax return what is going on there? guest: that is probably the only thing people remember is the checkbox you have on your tax return it's to give three dollars to this fund. you may have done it out of habit or not have done it at all but what that is supposed to do and what it does do still is fund this presidential matching fund and the presidential candidates for many years during the 1990's in the early 2000's would use this money that had been set -- sent by taxpayers

into this fund and they will use it to run their campaigns with the idea that the federal government would provide this money so the presidential candidates wouldn't have to worry about fundraising as much as they would otherwise. they would have to raise a certain amount of money to get those magic funds. but they would get this big pile of money and then they can go and run their campaigns. george w. bush took this money, just as carrie took this money, john mccain 2008 take this money. but president obama did not take that money because 2008 when he was running against john mccain, he thought he could raise more money in a way that would allow him to stand a better chance of winning the presidency. i should know, presidential candidates holding them to limits and ultimately --

host: did that set the trend for them not to take money and that's why this fund is piling up? guest: it basically killed the fund. no major party candidate from after the 2008 race has failed himself to this opportunity to get money. so what has happened between 2008 and present-day, the fund continues to grow and grow. congress which has the ability to decide do we want to look -- repurpose this money? it depends on so many things. we have talked to numerous different interests including taxpayer advocates who say if you are not going to use it for anything refund the taxpayers. a lot of people could use this money it would be incredible the

government to handed to charity which they could do. they can return it to the general fund to pay down for example government debt or repurpose it for a very targeted purpose in another government program. the pot of money continues to host: grow. let's hear from jay in new hampshire. caller: in morning, everybody. i think great concern the stock trading and insider information obviously a real problem but the big prize is clearly the regulatory capture of the agencies. the fda granting liability free protection for these horrific clashes. that is where the most damage is being done.

how this impacts the faa something were vacation safety is being compromised by making pilots take experimental shots is a real concern. turning back to a previous segment on the court we don't have the rule of law in this country. we have the rule of power and those are my comments. also, be nice to hear a few more calls coming in and i really appreciate c-span. host: and speak to some of the things that the caller said that we haven't done direct reporting on them. definitely there are questions about funding all over the government how congress should use the money that it has the ability to find ways to fund other aspects of government. coming this month, there is another.

where congress is going to have to fund the government in order to keep it open. host: on the issue of the courts the stock out has it been tested in court? guest: has not been tested in court as far as deeming it unconstitutional. this has remained law for 10 years. there do not seem to be any efforts on the horizon to undermine this law. really, the issue is not trying to knock it down in a court but the real action is on capitol hill trying to expand this law in a way that would make it illegal for members of congress to trade because even some members of congress themselves say it's just not working. members of congress are not abiding by the relatively modest rules we put in place. we need to strengthen them. host: let's hear from the caller in rhinelander. caller: i just wanted to point

out i have been looking at this for quite a few years the student loan industry and the colleges, the most notable for-profit universities they have been inflating the judiciary committee with money for years and it's not just one thing it is also their campaigns and so forth. the others they have family members that run the packs and it is just flooded by the student loan industry and others. i sent a payback for them it's been great. these student loans have been weaponized. they have been stripped of bankruptcy protections. stagen of limitations. they have been turned into licenses to steal. in other quick point is probably

half of congress, when they get out of office, they end up teaching at a college. so you have to kind of look at, you know, over the horizon what plans they have. and it is just a big mess. i'm not sure what the answer is but i appreciate your thoughts. guest: the revolving door issue on that. we are talking and focusing on the personal finances so much here today about lawmakers but there is the issue of campaign finance. how they get the money they need to run their campaigns and often times the money will come from corporate packs that will come from the executives a very large companies who help fund campaigns, help fund raise for a particular candidate. it is all perfectly legal.

democrats, republicans engaging in the system. you have many calling to perform the system and you have other court decisions that allowed over the years and influx in money coming from corporate sources, nonprofit sources, they are intermingling with those hard many sources coming from other packs and individuals. does that relate directly to the personal finance the lawmakers? a b maybe not. but it definitely's under the very broad heading of financial issues when it comes to campaigns and the personal finances of lawmakers are concerning to a lot of people. they feel the rules that are in place for both of them are not necessarily the best they can see for the public's interest when it comes to make sure congress is doing the right thing. host: one more quick question does this stock act -- federal

reserve action. does it provide income security of specific guest: companies? that led to scandals in that area as well. yes, there are rules that are very much in place for that aspect of government. really every aspect of the federal government. talk about state governments, those are all over the map. really it depends on where you are in government and it also depends on the level of government as what the rules are. the potential for shenanigans, if you will is ultimately a free-for-all. host: you can get a business insider.com. 71 members of congress have violated a law to prevent insider trader -- trading.

thanks guest: for being back here. thank you. host: still ahead in just a little bit we will be talking to bob cusack who is the editor in chief of the hill. he will join us to talk about what is going on in congress. and what is ahead in the midterm elections. up next week will open up the phone lines for any public policy or item in the news that you are curious about. (202) 748-8000 the line for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans and all others (202) 748-8002. we will be right back. ♪ >> middle and high school students, it is your time to shine, you are invited to participate in the student

camera documentary competition. in light of the upcoming midterm election feature yourself as a newly elected member of congress and we ask what is your top priorities and why. make a five to six minute video that shows the importance of your issues from opposing and supporting perspectives. do not be afraid to take risks. the volta. among the $100,000 in cash prizes is a $5,000 grand prize. videos must be submitted by january 23, 2023. visit studentcam.org for tools, -- rules, kits, and to sign up. ♪ >> c-span now has a free mobile app. keep up with the day's biggest events with live streams of floor per of hearings from the u.s. congress. white house events, tech things

and more from the worlds of politics all at your fingertips. you can also stay current with the latest episodes of "washington journal" and get information for c-span tv network and radio. c-span now is available at the apple store and google play. downloaded for free today. your front row seat to washington, anywhere >>. there are a lot of places to get political information. but only at c-span do you get it straight from the source. no matter where you are from or where you stand on the issues, c-span is america's network. unfiltered, unbiased, word for word. if it happens here, or here, or here, or anywhere that matters, america is watching on c-span. powered by cable. >> host: host: "washington

journal" continues. a chance for you to call in and talk about items in the news you are following. (202) 748-8000 the line for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans and for independents (202) 748-8002 and others, we will break away in just 10 minutes. houses coming in for a brief session. we will continue on with your calls after that as well. headline this morning, the lead story in politico gop still has inside track to house majority despite democratic gains. they write in politico among the special election upsets and improved standing in alec pulling soon to be expanding for the gop in some heavily blue districts.

the sheriff has lifted some out. the battle over abortion rights upended the political landscape juicing of the democratic race and giving them data points that are now inflected in private polling. one of the most competitive swings to -- seats. president biden's approval rating has picked up recently. let's get to your calls and comments. we will go first to genesis in kentucky. dennis, welcome. caller: i would just like to see the joe biden gave a wonderful speech there on labor day. a gave me something related think about. but really needs to think about one thing.

if there is no social security, how are how are millions of people going to make it? the thing of it is we have a group of people that really don't care whether people live or not. as far as the union goes, mr. fine for speaking, people would not have jobs if they didn't have unions. i am supportive and i think the democrats, it's not the democrat republican thing. we need to remain to be a democracy. i think you very much. host: thank you for your call. let's hear from jeremy in mississippi. caller: i want to talk about the thing that the president is doing for us especially our

young folks need to realize [indiscernible] if they would only just come out and vote, they could change laws. they can make laws. they lost a vote in my point is this i would hope they would realize that the key to our future and if they go out and vote it would start a movement that can change a lot of things. so hope for that, that they will come out and register and vote. let me tell you, i will do all i can for them to help them to get registered and start voting. thank you and god bless america. host: from they keep new york

times, russia is buying north korean artillery according to u.s. intelligence. julian barnes is reporting that they are purchasing it from north korea. they had to turn to riot states for military surprise. it comes days after russia received an initial shipment of israeli made drones. u.s. government official said russia's decision to return to iran was a sign of and export control caused by the united states and europe. let's hear from larry, springfield, ohio. caller: thank you for taking the call, sir.

i would like to talk about social security. i have been retired for about 20 years now. and -- i didn't grow any when roosevelt was president when i was also security it was supposed to be something we can draw on later. i think we had politicians who have robbed that system so much in the last 30 years there have been over $2 trillion taken from that fund and it was put over into the general fund and now they are saying it is going broke. it's because they are being robbed by the politicians there in washington. host: next up is tom in theodore, alabama on the democrat line. good morning. caller: this is tom.

i would like to talk about ronald reagan and nixon. tricky dicta took us off the gold and the dollar cost 90% of its value and reagan, everything roosevelt did it took away from the people. he said it would trickle down from the rich. it hasn't trickled done yet. host: this is what the dvc.com looks like this our as the new prime minister takes precedence. miss truss how the leader and prime minister of the u.k.. on our republican line is open form here on "washington journal". go ahead. caller: i was just responding to

the gentleman from kentucky. he was talking about biden and social security. i just wanted to say you can't believe everything biden says because he has been in politics for 50 years. he is a professional liar, professional politician. donald trump was not. he was not either and they all hate him because they couldn't control him. that's all i have to say. host: here is the washington post with the kickoff of the election season the labor day weekend the habel -- outline as biden celebrates accounted the labor movement mandate in two states. the democrats facing competitive elections in november. the first up in milwaukee biden appeared next to governor tony e verse while the democrats voted

mandela barnes. in his second stop just outside of pittsburgh biden would appear with john fetterman, the democratic nominee for senate. josh schapiro did not join biden. the two had appeared just last week. biden's itinerary underscored the challenge facing democrats on whether they agree to be seen who has a relatively low approval rating but is coming off a string of legislative victories. steady 40% of registered wisconsin voters approved of the job biden was doing while 55% disapprove. it is open forum until about 915 nine and's eastern. we are going to break away in a

couple of minutes. the house comes in at 9:00 eastern. should be fairly brief we are going to take you -- continue to take your calls. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 republicans and for independents (202) 748-8002. next upgrade on the independent line. >> hello i'm calling all my friends about which they [indiscernible] for the benefits. i have a great pension and that's a lie can basically say. host: which one where you end? how long have you been retired?

caller: i have been tired for about eight years now. host: thank you for the call. next up stafford virginia on the republican line. caller: good morning. i was wanting to say after listening to joe biden's speech the other day it reminded me of something that nobody has done since 1977. everybody have a great day. host: hamilton virginia, brian is next on the independent line. go ahead. caller: good morning, where do i begin? people will say trump isn't an outsider. he owned a business. he was a dictator in business. he could hire and fire. biden with his drug thing, you're only going to negotiate the price on 10 drugs. only 10. it seems they're going to

negotiated on all of them, they are not. you need to read these bills. host: a call is breaking up a little bit. we have to take a quick break as we go to the floor of the u.s. house coming up on c-span. the houses is coming up briefly. we will return -- we will take you to the house forum and then be back with your question and comments. you can go ahead and keep calling.