even as the investigation into the suspected domestic terrorist case continues. many are looking to the federal government, we are asking viewers to weigh in this morning. should soldiers be able to carry their guns on military bases and recruiting sites? the phone lines are open. democrats call (202) 748-8000 republicans call (202) 748-8001 independents, call (202) 748-8002. a special line is boring for active and retired members of the military, (202) 748-8003. you can also catch up with us on social media, twitter, facebook or e-mail at journal@c-span.org. we begin with the debate over whether restrictions on soldiers carrying their weapons on military facilities should be lifted. here's how "the washington times," put it. the chattanooga shooting spree has reignited the debate over whether will sorry -- military personnel should be able to carry on basis. as we noted, governors in several states already taking action since that shooting last week. "the wall street journal," says some of the actions taken since that shooting spree last week. another governor who is set to take action this week, or at least reviewing security measures at military facilities is governor bill haslam of tennessee. he was on "meet the press," yesterday. here's what he had to say. >> we have a review of all facilities, like the one that was attacked on thursday. and reviewing where it is appropriate for our officers to be armed to a better degree than they were in the past. both were that's appropriate and where it is legal. one of the challenges we have is that many of our facilities are federal facilities. we don't want generals in a difficult position of giving them in order they can't carry out because they are on a federal facility. we are doing a complete review to see what we can, we are concerned. we don't want to leave our folks out there as targets when we have has such a horrible event happen just three days ago. >> you may need and ask -- an act of congress? >> that would clear things up. on federal grounds, we have limited things we can do. it will be better if we have clarity from the federal government. host: the governor's statements making headlines in tennessee papers this morning. here is "the daily times," as calls for reviews for security, and "the free press," has orders tips taken to ensure the safety of the guardsmen as the headline. federal lawmakers are calling for action, the tennessean notes that a tennessee congressman republican, plans to introduce a bill today as a direct response to that shooting in chattanooga. that is republican congressman has released yesterday. a special line for active and retired numbers of the military, or if you are a member of a military family, we would like to hear your thoughts as well. (202) 748-8003 is the number. otherwise for democrats, republicans, an independents. steve in georgia, good morning. caller: good morning. i absolutely think the soldiers should be allowed to carry on a military base. i think it goes bigger than that, i'm tired of feeling like a sitting duck anywhere i am. anytime there is a crowd, we're a target. the world has changed i believe that everyone who is responsible should have the ability to protect themselves. host: do you carry a weapon when you are out? you have a permit to carry a weapon? caller: i do. i carry all the time. i have been in places that i felt scared to death without it. host: do you have friends that are members of the military, do you talk to them since this incident last week? caller: i do. i have a good friend i work with is a former active marine, once a marine, always a marine. he feels the same way, these guys need to be allowed to protect themselves. i get that there is youthfulness that may not allow them, when they are young, to control themselves. maybe there needs to be some studies on how aware where to let people carry there. but they need to be allowed to protect themselves. host: steve in georgia. trisha is in warsaw, indiana. for independents. you are on "washington journal." caller: i'm in total agreement with allowing are listed men -- our enlisted men and reservists to carry weapons at all times. our police departments men and women have their weapons with them, and i feel like in the age we are living in now, that this was a targeted shooting directed at our military people. in our governor, although i agree with him very little on things that he does, and governor indiana has made a statement that that will be allowed from now on, i totally agree, their safety in our country is of the utmost importance. they are sacrificing their lives , they are sacrificing their family time to serve our country , they deserve to be able to protect themselves. not only in war overseas, but also here at home. if the radicals are going to make targets of them, to make their statements, however sick and twisted it is they need to be able to defend themselves. host: in indiana, the governor according to "the wall street journal," directed his state to authorize arming at the storefront recruiting centers. one of the six states that is taking action as directed by the governors. the other five, texas florida oklahoma, louisiana, and arkansas. he saw statements from bill haslam of tennessee, was go to ralph for active and retired numbers of military, we oh texas. -- in el paso, texas. caller: my opinion is that you should have more military police in uniform with security on the post, as they get more security people out there. there's no way you should arm everybody on a military installation with a weapon. when i finished service, retired. and during that time, i fired my weapon very little because i was an administrative job. all of the military personnel would not be right, but visible people in uniform, so they could be a deterrent, that they conserve and protect the service people. host: ralph, before you go, the army chief of staff in a well quoted statement from friday in the associated press talked about his concern about over arming military personnel on basis. would you agree with that concern? caller: well, i don't know about over arming. we can go to far. but the main thing i think we should do is just put more visible people out there in all areas of the service, and we will be ok. host: ralph in el paso, texas. security in centers will be reviewed, but it's too early to say if the service will boost protection according to an associated press report. "stars & stripes," reporting that the department defense spokesperson said the commanders already have flexibly charms troop -- two arm troops. it will be limited and controlled to a cash to avoid accidents. it shall be limited to missions or threats, the policy refers issued in 1992 by donnell atwood, the deputy secretary of defense under president george w. bush and defense secretary dick cheney. the former fbi special agent brad garrett, who was also talking about this on the sunday shows yesterday on abc's this week, here's a bit of his exchange. [video clip] >> the world is a soft target except for these little bitty pockets. you can't take a recruiting station and target part of it because you take away what is therefore, which is for us to walk in and decide if we want to join the military. we have to face the reality that some of us are just going to be vulnerable doing what we do day in and day out. having said that -- >> do think they should arm people of these recording stations? >> we should not be in a big hurry. you are talking about arming folks that are walking around in a civilian population. i see big issues with that. >> what do you think we can do about soft targets? >> the only thing you can do is improve your intelligence. in other words, the shooting at january, we didn't know about. cannot happen again? -- can that happen again? of course again. but we are not going to an lockdown every facility in the country. host: we are asking viewers should soldiers be allowed to carry guns on both military bases and recruiting sites. we want to hear your thoughts, we've especially for active and retired members in the military. we go back to that line, in amherst, wisconsin. caller: good morning. i fervently believe we should have our military carry weapons. that's what we are trained for. to defend our citizens and our country. if president obama doesn't believe in guns are his secret service protectors carrying guns? when he gives up his gun, i will give up mine. in wisconsin, you don't have to take a class or anything if you are former military. you can conceal carry. i believe we have to protect ourselves. this is getting out of hand. until we take a stand and defend ourselves, the terrorists will keep going. they just keep growing and growing, as we stand there helpless. host: you are retired military, correct? caller: former military. i served in vietnam, content -- combat, infantry. in the military, it's you were him, that's the way we are trained. host: when you were on a military facility in the united states, did you ever feel threatened or the need to have a weapon? host: i was in the 1960's. this world was a different place in the 60's. there were a few radical people but they didn't come around shooting like they do now. host: i appreciate the call. adriana cohen and her piece in the boston herald makes some of the same points. she writes in an age of terrorism and makes no sense whatsoever that our military and veterans are left defenseless when the jihadist shows up to slaughter americans. -- why on earth is our government forcing them to hide behind furniture when the jihadist comes lasting into a military center. host: andrew in naperville, illinois. good morning. caller: good morning. first-time caller, i would like to keep my comment short. i have two comments. one is guns on the base, i disapprove of. because we don't really know each other, we don't really get along with each other. i think it would be totally unsafe. and would like to comment on john mccain, i was a vietnam veteran myself and i believe the donald trump is speaking the truth because john mccain has been writing on the back of the military for so long, and he's doing much better than some of the rest of us. john mccain is doing fine. he is not doing what he is supposed to do to help the vets. john mccain should wake up and stop goading and riding on the back of vets. host: andrew in illinois. line for democrats this warning. john mccain waited on the issue of military members having guns on base. he writes after the attacks on fort hood, little rock, and chandigarh, it's painfully clear that u.s. service members, many stationed in bases across arizona, targets both at home and abroad. the brave men and women of our military who volunteered to defend our nation around the world should not be left defenseless and military facilities here at home. he says i will work to take immediate steps in this year's national defense authorization act to strengthen the security of u.s. military installations as well as other military facilities including recording stations and ensure that military service members are able to defend themselves. that is part of his statement that he released on friday. ted is up next in los angeles california, line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. what i do believe is the military should have loaded firearms. but when i was in the military, i'm a vietnam veteran, we stood watches. and the person that had watch had a loaded firearm. and were instructed on what to do. i don't know why military facility would overlook the fact that they should just handle it the military way. as to some of the callers making mention that all society should have this open carry gun, unless they do anything about alcohol use in america, they are going to make a sad mistake letting people carry loaded guns on them. that's all it got to say. host: fred from huntersville -- huntsville alabama. line for active and retired members of the military. fred, good morning. for calling "washington journal." caller: good morning, c-span "washington journal." retired veteran, air force and army. i'm going to say this and i'm going to say clearly. not know, but heck no. heck no you don't need to go arming military people and installations. i was going to say down, that's an extreme idea. let's start out with baby steps using bulletproof glass of recruiting sites, let's step up the metal detection. use metal detectors and things of that nature. you don't want to have all these kids walking around with weapons. that's one of the dumbest, most extreme -- let's start out slowly first and if he gets up to where we have to arm the troops on post, heaven help us all. host: when you are on post, on base in a u.s. military facility, was there ever a time you wish you had a weapon when you didn't? caller: never. in 25 years, i have been all over the world, stationed in at least seven duty stations in the united states, i have never been in a situation where i felt i needed a weapon. host: do you think the threats today are different than what you faced when you were in the military with isis encouraging people on social media platforms to seek out members of the military and their families and do harm to them? caller: i do, that's what we have to be more vigilant. i've been retired i probably got the beginning of that. but we need to be more vigilance, these posts that have security of the front gate, mindy to check more, have metal detectors and check more vehicles. start out doing something slowly. we don't want to have a knee-jerk reaction of the weapons in every socials -- -- in every soldiers, that's extreme. thanks, have a nice day. host: from huntsville alabama. we will get back to more of your calls in just a second. i want to turn to a preview of ahead this week on capitol hill. to do that we're joined by mike lillis of "the hill." what are the key legislative items on tap this week? just a few weeks ahead of the august break. guest: good morning, john. thanks for having me. i think it is going to be all highways all the time. is the last thing they have to do, the last must-have piece of legislation they have to do before they leave for the long august recess. the time restraint here because the trust fund dips below a certain level up in of this month and that means that it is going to cut off aid to states other local governments. very few lawmakers want to get back home and explain to people there why they are not getting highway funds. there's a lot of pressure on congress to do this. they've done a number of times over the past -- the statistic i've read since 2009 they passed 34 short-term funding bills, the real trick is to they do a short-term patch or a long-term fix? the house is already passed its bill, last week it passed an $8 billion attached video and about five months. the senate republicans don't want to do that, they want to do something much longer. as mcconnell has said he wants to do some thing to get you at least 2016 election. there's another group bipartisan group of senators that wants to do something much longer than that, they want to do a six-year bill. but a lot of sticking points here and the number one concern is going to be the pay force everyone wants the highway bill, but a lot of disagreements on a partisan disagreements about how you pay for it and so you can expect all those fights to be taking place this week. host: is there enough time for a long-term patch for that fight to happen in the senate and the house? at what point does the senate abandon those plans of is not working for short-term patch? guest: good question. the answer is it depends on who you ask. there are guys that think a lot of these are not nearly enough. there are people have been working on them for years. the trick is getting more and more people on board. as the week evolves, we want open quickly of people are getting on board and if there is a possibility for longer-term plan. again, the ideas we see floated in the senate right now, one is $80 billion bill that we get you through the 2016 elections, this with senator mcconnell is looking at, and is and group that wants a $275 billion six-year deal. no one really think that's possible, at least this month. good question, when did they just go back to the house bill and passed the $8 billion and get you through december? how long do they keep fighting for $80 billion. we don't know the answer. we should know pretty soon, they have a procedural vote on this thing tomorrow. there shall he live on something, they don't a what it is. but we will know quickly what they are going to do. host: before you go, you mentioned members already looking ahead to the long august recess area gives a preview of some of the deadlines that hit in the fall, pretty quickly right when numbers of congress get back into town and take up legislative again? guest: they going to come back in september, the federal government shuts down a much over first. they have a month to pass appropriation bills or some kind of big package to prevent a government shutdown. remember two years ago, the government did shutdown because they couldn't get that job done and it really bit the republicans politically, now they control both chambers, they don't want that to happen again, particularly a presidential election. no one is expecting a shut down but we do expect a tough fight over government spending. later in the fall unit the debt ceiling, another enormously contentious issue. a lot of republicans don't want to raise the debt ceiling, they just want to cut deficits and cut the debt that way. we will have that fight a later. the big one when they come back is going to be government funding with the two-year-old shutdown in mind and it's not an easy issue for the republicans to legislate with their conservative caucuses. host: mike lillis with "the hill." we always appreciate you on "washington journal." coming back to his question of whether soldiers should be allowed to carry their weapons on military bases, and i recruiting centers. we are getting your fox -- your thoughts this morning. democrats, republicans independents and a line for retired military. donald trump stirs the pot with a comment on military bases being gun free zones, this from "the boston globe." before marine shot to death on thursday never had a chance. the death toll rising out of five. they were highly trained but helpless without guns. trump tweeted on friday morning before later writing in all capital letters, military lives matter, and gun free zones. soldiers must be able to protect themselves, this has to stop. donald trump tweeting about that getting headlines on that. and other comments from over the weekend that we will get to. we want to get your thoughts, johnny is up next in maryland the line for active and retired members of military. caller: good morning. i was stationed in vietnam on two different occasions i was in thailand, and i served a week at a special forces camp near cambodia. at no time during my military career do i have a gun, because i was in the medical crew. at no time when i have wanted everyone in my installations to have a gun because we probably would have had more murders than the people have walking the street. i lived in housing among the via menus. i never felt like i was in any danger on the military installation because we had security people. host: what are your thoughts on the threats faced here at home by military members on bases by groups like isis that are encouraging these lone wolf type of attacks, if that's what this turns out to be? the investigation still continuing into this attack last week. caller: i think on a military installation, you have security personnel. they have the responsibility to secure the base. i believe on military installation, i'm not talking about the recruit office in a mall. on a military installation, i think we have enough security with people who are trained, to have a transportation guy walking around with a gun. you would probably have more arguments settled with guns in the military installation then you would any threat you get from loan world -- lone wolf carriers. host: what about those installations and malls in public areas? should there be one person with a weapon? caller: same as with the bank, i think so. host: east in maryland, troy, good morning. caller: good morning. i was a medic in the navy, and i got attached to a marine corps where i had to learn how to use a weapon. it takes a lot of training a lot of responsibility. i really don't understand -- the question is no come i don't that we should because who would we arm? nurses and doctors and the corpsman? i really don't understand who we would harm? it's not the old west where everyone can go around carrying a weapon. i concur with the previous caller. host: if cops can carry and citizens can carry, why not the most highly trained? it's irrational not to let them carry. caller: we all are trained in the service at whatever job we have. as i give the right for everybody to carry gun? no. shore patrol and mps, yes. they should be loaded. locked and loaded. but not the corpsman, not the person the payroll office. no. you have disgruntled people wherever you go. if i'm angry or i'm deranged and i'm carrying a loaded weapon, i think this will cause more trouble. host: troy in easton maryland. on twitter, someone asks how many times do attacks have to happen before common sense kickstand? -- kicks in? let's go to bob waiting in stevens point, wisconsin. also the line for active and retired numbers of the military. bob, good morning. caller: hello. host: bob, you are on "washington journal." caller: i agree that at least one personnel should be armed a recruiting stations, these days, just due to how our world is changed. unlike a post, we had mps, we had dates, we have protection, so to speak. but like you just mentioned, that major went rogue, it could happen anywhere. if i was a recruiter, i would feel safer if a gentleman or somebody had a pistol, that young man shot through the windows in that, how are you going to defend from that? you need somebody that can shoot back. i would love to see our veterans protected. that's just my opinion. host: "washington post," in chattanooga, frustration and inability to present -- prevent a rampage. in chesapeake, virginia, paul, good morning. caller: yes, i would just like to say during my military career, i was actually stationed a reserve center, navy marine corps reserve center. never felt threatened at any given time. my recommendation is that at reserve centers like that, and recruiting stations like that, you have people in the military who are trained as one caller had stated. you have your master at arms force, your shore patrol. with the military can do is assign one of those individuals who are highly trained as people have recommended as duty station at the recruiting stations and job fairs, whatever they have. same with the reserve center. have a security personnel assigned there. as far as the military stations, again, i agree. there is base police presence civilian-based police presence and military security presence. i don't think you need to arm everybody. i'm an agreement, office clerks and medical technicians, all throughout the base, that's looking for trouble. that's my comments. host: carol writes on twitter military should not be left defenseless because isis has put them on notice they are targeted. amy is calling in from midland michigan. good morning, you are on "washington journal." caller: i think the guns have become the golden calf of societies. we made them faster, bigger, huge. it's just ridiculous. part of the underlying problem that we have in this world, in our society as a whole is that you work hard all your life, you are loved by many and may be hated by a few. regardless, you get stuck in a hole in the ground. when it's all done. if we could get by that cemetery graveyard and start respecting people as they are and quit trying to just get them out of sight, these are our people. these are our forefathers. i believe in mummies and mummification, whatever. but just hide the evidence below the surface of the world, i think it just perpetuates this whole problem. the world was so big. host: amy in texas this ring. in the desiree news, associated press photo that's been going around, i man holding a rifle standing in front of an armed forces recruiting center in winchester, virginia on friday. the man stated he was there to protect the troops. security and military recruiting at reserve centers will be reviewed in the aftermath of the deadly shooting in tennessee. there's a photo from the disarray news that's also in several other papers. but getting jerry in north carolina, line for independents. caller: good morning. i've never heard so many misinformed people in my life about our soldiers carrying weapons. every soldier, were not talking about every soldier carrying a weapon. when i was in the military in the 1960's, the noncommissioned officers and the officers carried a 45, but they were trained with those weapons. they had to go to the range, the qualified with him, they had to go back several times the to be requalified and they know what they're doing. i think probably some of the people in our military places shouldn't be allowed to carry. we are talking about everybody. it's a necessary thing, i know there are a lot of people are afraid of guns, but in a time when our world is very dangerous right now, and her president is trying to take the guns out of the hands of american citizens you know right now he is to take the guns away from senior citizens, i seen that on the news this morning. our second amendment rights are being attacked, not only that, our soldiers when you join the military, you lose your second amendment rights. what in the world is wrong with the thinking of our government? want to take guns away from the people to protect us? host: that's jerry and harmony, north carolina. they are calling for rethinking of policies on troops carrying weapons on military bases very donald trump also making news for his comments about senator john mccain over the weekend here's a story from "the washington times," calls for donald trump to exit the contest for the 2016 presidential nomination for the republican party reached a fever pitch on sunday, several republicans said the real estate mobile -- mobile -- mougul disqualified himself by saying the prisoner of war john mccain was not a hero. [video clip] if you look at cheryl akin's rapport i, for side -- for time she said i said what i said it was fine. she got the press was covering a very fairly -- very unfairly and she stated that strongly. i respect her as a reporter. as somebody that a lot of other people respect. also importantly, i got a standing ovation, the biggest ovation they had all weekend, by far. when i left the room it was a total standing ovation, it was wonderful to see. nobody was insulted. what happened was later on, the republican candidate, some of whom are registering 1% and zero, they are very upset that i'm leaving the polls by a nice margin. they are extremely upset. they were extremely upset when the nevada numbers just came out , they are through the roof to. host: part of john mccain's interview on the sunday shows yesterday on abc. here's the editorial board of "the wall street journal," writing about this topic -- trump and his apologists is the headline they wrote for their leader vittorio. for conservative media elites too many have adopted the view that there can be no adversary to their rights, this was mainly a left-wing affliction the last century as many liberals refused to condemn communists. today, many on the right seem willing to indulge any populist outburst, no matter how divorced from reality or insulting to most americans. it donald trump becomes the voice of conservatives, they write, conservatism will implode along with him. the editorial board of the wall street journal this morning. a couple other stories to note this morning, the opening of the cuban embassy here in washington, d c is happening today. we're going to show it on c-span at 10:30. you can watch it here and here are the headlines from the usa today about that topic. the cuban flag will rise of the mcm washington, d.c. for the first time in live decades in the latest up towards normalizing relations between the u.s. and cuba. the flag raising will be part of a daylong series of events for the opening of the cuban embassy. later today, secretary of state john kerry will hold a news conference with cuban foreign minister bruno rodriguez at the state department where cuba's flag will be added to the collection of flags on the countries with formal relations to the u.s.. you can watch that today on c-span at 10:30 after "the wall street journal." a few more calls on this question of whether soldier should have more access to their weapons when they are on military bases and i recruiting centers in this country. jack is up next, on the line for active and retired members of the military. jack is calling in from kentucky. good morning. caller: i agree with the chief of staff of the army, to over on the military on these bases would be a bad mistake. a lot of military, especially in administrative or other jobs don't see a weapon for four or five years. what you probably should do is just increase the training of security, increase your security folks. i agree that someone at recruiting offices might need to be trained in arms for the future. host: arthur is up next in chesapeake, virginia, line for democrats. good morning, you are on "washington journal." caller: good morning. i think military should be able to carry their weapons. during the 1960's and 1950's, there was shore patrol and mission control. if were assigned for duty, they carry their weapons. i don't think everybody in the military should carry a weapon at all times. but should have shore patrol's and mps during their weapons. let me speak on this thing with donald trump if you don't mind. i think he is absolutely wrong. to downgrade anybody. i'm not a mccain fan, but this man shared my country. when john kerry was running for president, the republicans did everything they could do -- he was a war hero and they made him look a coward. and they may george bush like a hero. and george bush -- [indiscernible] to keep from going to vietnam. i think donald trump should just shut up. host: kelly on the line for republicans. caller: thank you for taking my call. i believe they absolutely should be able to carry guns. i believe this starts from the top. would we ever ask the secret service protecting the first family, the vice president, any others, would we ask them not to carry guns? i can promise you, they are carrying guns. my point being is, if they should be allowed to carry guns to protect the president, then why can't our military, who are trained, be able to carry guns when they have been notified by isis that they are on notice that they are under attack. and my last point being is that if you will notice, most -- the reason why garland texas was stopped was because people had guns. and the reason why when you were in moore oklahoma, with the poor woman, her family, the woman was beheaded was because the owner had a gun in his office and stopped the atrocity. this is tremendous. that we cannot arm our military and absolutely, they should be able to carry. if we trust them overseas, we should trust them here. host: let's end with the line for active and retired military. this is jake. caller: a lot of the people are mentioning that administrative and medical personnel shouldn't have guns. let me tell you something. one of the first things in boot camp, even in the navy that you do is you learn how to use a gun. you at least fire a gun. i'm not saying that every single member of the military needs to be walking around with a side arm like a cowboy. but you think those kids in for host training center would have rather had a gun? you think the people on the navy yard would've rather had a gun? i know that some people on those bases already been trained. if they had guns, somewhere in those facilities, where they could access them in case of an emergency, that would've stopped those atrocities. there are trained people in the military that are being held back by scared bureaucrats in the pentagon who are too afraid to put guns in their hands. these people who are saying i was never afraid, will they weren't even serving after 2001. they didn't serve after fort hood they didn't serve when jihadists were coming to america to kill our troops on her own stations. you can sneak a gun onto a military base and shoot people up, and that's what's happened. you can go to the is completely defenseless recruiting centers and shoot people up. to them, i would say go stand in front of their, i don't have a gun and i served in the military. let them go stand in front. if they want to haul the line, then have them do it. but if they are going to serve in this time, the need to understand that we need to be able to protect ourselves. host: our last caller in this first segment of "washington journal," the "washington journal," -- later today we are taking viewers live to jeb bush is presidential speech. he will be talking about campaign priorities in a speech from florida state university in tallahassee. also of note today on c-span the un security council will make it talk about the iran nuclear agreements, happening on c-span two. if you want to check that out. also, topic we're going to be talking about in our next segment of the "washington journal," anna palmer of politico joins us to talk about the lobbying war launched for against the nuclear agreement. later we're joined by andrew seeley to talk about the mexican spike against organized crime. that's coming up in a few minutes on the "washington journal." we will be right back. ♪ >> tonight on "the communicators," we speak with gordon crovitz on why he feels washington is a danger zone for innovation. >> if you go back to earlier technology like railroads and the mob bell telephone monopoly, those were regulated as common carriers, regulators set prices, they set terms, they set rules. and we all know what happened. there was very little innovation in railroads and in trucking, and in telephones. until the role deregulated. and all of those common carriers were essentially undone by congress. when it was so clear that innovation was being suppressed and the u.s. was falling behind in its competitiveness, that was the backdrop for the bipartisan consensus in the 1990's that the internet was going to be different. this was during the clinton administration, a clear consensus, democrats and republicans, that unlike earlier technologies, the internet was going to be largely unregulated. >> tonight at 8:00 eastern on "the communicators," on c-span two. >> "washington journal," continues. host: anna palmer of politico is our guest for the next 45 minutes. she joins us to discuss the lobbying effort that has sprung up for against the iran nuclear deal. let's talk what the targets of those lobbying effort. what is congress is rolled now the deal has been reached and what is the timing of when they have to make a decision? guest: 60 days, the clock start today. we're really going to see a lot of back and forth or you have john kerry on the hill this week briefing members, there's going to be a lot of politicking. but there's going to be some voting obviously as well. the house will vote on this deal, it's likely they will oppose the deal, then you have the senate, obama has said he will veto anything if they decide not to go forward with it. and that it will ping-pong back to congress and so what you're really looking at is can the obama administration find a vetoproof majority? host: that lobby effort beginning yesterday on the state of the union. here's a bit of secretary kerry's statements from cnn. [video clip] secretary kerry: the rear field -- the real fear is that you don't know. if congress would kill this, we have no inspections, we have no sanctions, we have no ability to negotiate because i assure you the ayatollah -- if the united states arbitrarily and unilaterally kills this coming not going to have another negotiation. they will feel free to go to the very things that this prevents. host: as you note in your recent story on the lobbying effort, the white house launching a series of phone calls on this topic. who are the surrogates that we are going to be seeing besides john kerry and ernie more needs? guest: you have the ambassador one of the senator saw him three times through the day, making the case. -- carter -- you have ashton carter. and the staff as well. it's going to be a major push as well, in terms of -- obama himself playing golf this weekend with members of the house, trying to have the soft sell that he hasn't necessarily been very good at. host: outside of the white house come up with a lobbying groups the white house is going to look to for outside support on this? guest: you have a lot of liberal groups, a multimillion dollar lobbying effort in terms of advertisements and polling there are a lot of liberal groups in general that have blended together to try and put up positions and put up pressure there. on the opposite side, you certainly have one of the most powerful lobbies in washington who is going out with -- they said they were going to raise even $20 million just on this effort. host: for folks unfamiliar with aipac, can you talk about who those groups are? guest: they have been sort of soft selling it for quite a while. you have aipac, much more in line with the israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu they are very opposed to this deal, they came up pretty aggressively against it. just the fact that they are signaling they are going to be doing this, $20 million campaign and 60 days, think about that, the vastness of how much money is going to be spent over the next 60 days just on this issue it's key for them, it will be probably the biggest. host: viewers are joining in on this question, if you have questions for anna palmer of politico, she's a senior correspondent there. democrats, call (202) 748-8000 republicans, call (202) 748-8001 independent independents, call (202) 748-8002. walk us through the strategy, where we seeing ads run? guest: one of the big things liberal groups are inside and outside polling, is a very washington focused campaign. they're also looking to go to the states, they're telling me they really want have some of the think tank sought leaders on these issues going talk to the key individuals where there's members that are important on this vote and have third-party people be able to make those kinds of selling points. they are also try to do polling to show where americans, jewish americans are on this issue. and then you have aipac, doing a lot of the same things, that this is hand-to-hand combat, the old traditional shoe leather lobbying. they're going to do tons of meetings on the hill, they're working those issues as well. they also have the national iranian american council to put out a full-page ad in the new york times of the weekend, stating their support. it's not just in the next 60 days, there's some groups like peace action that are saying we might withhold our endorsement of you, if you don't support this bill. there are going to be ramifications beyond whether or not they vote for this. where you can see certain groups play in the presidential or congressional politics. host: four jewish groups like aipac, is unusual for them to be on opposite sides? guest: you saw these battlelines being drawn months in advance of the steel coming forward. there are some people on a conference call you referenced earlier with the white house they had early frustration because they said pump the brakes a little on this, you guys are coming out with these anti-agreement statements, even before you have the chance to read it. i think there's been a kind of signaling, and the fact they rebel ramp-up in such short notice, the david deal was done, they were saying were going to have a multimillion dollar effort, the already had a third-party website that they launched on the soft launch weeks before. host: for j street, here's one of the ads they want to run. it's up now. [video clip] >> the bottom line -- this is a good deal. this does more for international security than any other outcome. it means no nuclear weapon for ron, it means inspections of iran, it means a safer israel. a safer america, and a safer world. host: as we said come on the other side of this issue, groups running ads as well pushing for a nuclear free iran -- they are also starting at campaign. [video clip] >> the bottom line this is a good deal. it does more for global security than any of the realistic outcome. it means no nuclear weapon for ron. it means inspections of iran. it means a safer israel. a safer america. and a safer world. host: we will get our viewers the citizens for the nuclear free iran added just a second. anna palmer, talk about the message here they are trying to get across to members. guest: they are basically trying to say no deal is not going to be acceptable. their point is this is the best thing that was possible, iran cannot have nuclear weapons and this is the deal that is able to cut it make sure that in the next 10 to 15 years, that isn't going to happen in projecting forward but this is the way where you're going to be able to normalize some things. host: let's bring in our viewers on this first topic. bernie and howard beach, new york. line for republicans. it morning. caller: good morning. two points. first, hitler and his mein kampf expressed exactly what he was going to do to the jews. enter russia. it was ignored. so when they were shouting kill the jews, it was ignored. and of course the jews, 6 million people and 27 million russians and on and on. the other point is that with this deal -- acknowledges the right for ron to have a weapon. -- for he ran -- itran to have a weapon. no one has mentioned what they are going to do to stop them from creating a weapon. if someone could clue me in and explained to me that i'm wrong i would be very happy. host: anna palmer, talk a little bit about this. what is the white house saying is going to happen after the time when on this deal expires? guest: there's things is going to go forward, it is in a 15 year horizon of the deal, goes beyond that. it's a framework where if there isn't a deal, iran is going to be able to have nuclear weapons much more quickly, this is going to allow for the u.s. in the world to inspect some of the places where there are the beginnings of the ability to create nuclear weapons, and it provides a framework for the world and iran to move forward on this in a way that's more sustainable than saying we're not going to have any deal and then iran will get much more quickly to nuclear weapons. host: ron is next on the line for democrats. caller: thank you. iran doesn't need to have weapons of mass destruction. they don't believe in it, never had. it's not about iran, it's about has below hamas, this is about all the roads to jerusalem which bin laden, hassan, from the fort hood, the bombers from the boston -- they all said because of the palestinian conflict, if you want to stop the war on terrorism solve the is rainy and palestinian conflict. host: ron in florida. trust is the big issue, those who oppose the deal saying iran can't be trusted and those for it saying it's not about trust but there is verifying going on here. in which case members of congress seem more susceptible to in your reporting so far? guest: i think you see a lot of skepticism of this deal. i think it's probably easier in some cases for them to be opposed for it than for it, particularly in the political sense of it. and really start to see this playing out really in the 2016 politics with a lot on the republican side those members, senator marco rubio say if he was president he'd work to disban this deal as it goes forward. you have a lot of skepticism. obviously lindsey graham, a very big hawk, has been aggressively opposed to this. you see the battle lines already starting to really kind of be apparent but then you see senator chuck schumer, someone everybody is watching and has gotten a lot of money from the israel lobby and gotten $260,000 from pro-israel groups the last six years. but where he stands, he's going to be the next leader likely for the senate and for democrats. that is someone we'll keep a close eye on it. host: one of d-d frederick's question is how much in congress will be spent on lobbying? it's not like they'll target every member equally right? who are the top targets and the ones to watch? guest: i was mentioning senator chuck schumer who is by far somebody who will be a lot of attention and money spent not only because new york is a extensive media market but also is a huge population where they're very invested in and interested in what happens here. i think you'll see that happen across the state. you're right in the sense that it's not going to be the -- the same amount of money won't be spent in north dakota as it is in florida or washington state. there is going to be a huge focus on jewish members of congress because they obviously not only themselves have followed this issue is a long time but a lot of those people have constituents. and it will be people who represent large jewish populations as well. host: we showed the ad from j street, those supportive of the deal. here's the ad from citizens against the deal, nuclear free iran. >> the iran nuclear deal good deal or bad deal? iran keeps their nuclear facilities. the military sites can go uninspected, restrictions end after 10 years. then iran could build a nuclear weapon in two months. iran has violated 20 international agreements and is the leading state sponsor of terrorism. congress should reject a bad deal. we need a better deal. host: that's an ad for citizens for nuclear free iran. do we know who the group is? guest: apac has been behind that so have a lot of big name donors, you'll recognize ashel , the casino magnate from las vegas and is a staunch opponent to this deal, has been putting money behind that as well as some of the other big donors who are really opposed to this pact moving forward. host: back to the phones. christina is waiting from augusta, georgia, line for independents. caller: thank for you taking my call. ms. palmer, can you tell me, i'm listening and i understand i have iranian friends who tell me both ways not to trust in everything and be very cautious. my question is, i keep hearing, even from senator kerry, now he's got his own position, but even he says that they have enough nuclear stuff to make 10 weapons right now. i don't know what they're talking about doing with that. but what happens if iran does the same thing that new york -- north korea does and makes one after they have a deal. then what are the american people's recourse if they just sneakily violate this deal? i mean, then we're stuck with them having a nuclear weapon. so how -- what is our recourse after that? can you please tell me that? and i'll listen ton the tv. thank you very much. bye, bye. guest: i think what we're talking about here and obama as well as secretary kerry said yes, we have to trust but verify the situation that if iran does violate the agreement or, you know if they don't let in inspectors and they do try to go for it even after this agreement goes forward that then there will be recourse and that everything becomes null and void. what the reaction would be i imagine would have to be -- i'm certainly not -- it would be a reaction that would be representative of what infraction was. so i think the bigger issue and what i think a lot of people think is not just them going forward with nuclear weapons certainly, but removing these sanctions and you start to see this in terms of, you know, some of the european and other countries really are looking forward to it, they want these sanctions to be removed and want to do business with iran because it's a big country, that it's hard to put those back into place. host: a question from peg on twitter, is this a accurate description of the republican positions right now. the republicans suggest keeping sanctions on iran forever and eventually this arm twisting will force iran to give us everything we want. guest: i don't think that's true. i feel they wanted more out of this deal than the administration was able to get done. i think they also are -- i was just saying they are very leary of removing sanctions with a country they feel like is a bad actor and who repeatedly has lied and hasn't seemed to hold up their end of the bargain. host: to leonard dayton, ohio, line for democrats. leonard, you're on with "politico's" anna palmer. caller: good morning c-span and your guests and everyone. our military itself has been cut dramatically and will be keep cutting so who is going to fight the war? my question here is does israel have a nuclear weapon, a weapon of mass destruction and do israel have a draft for people to fight in a war? guest: i'm definitely not an expert on israel and their army. i do believe that they do have all of their young people fight, they're automatically put through some service. i think they have a strong kind of military situation. i think they are very concerned that you know, if iran was going to be able to get a nuclear weapon that it would be a huge problem for them and that's something they are vehemently opposed to. host: that concern being expressed by prime minister netanyahu on the sunday shows as well and on "face the nation." here's a bit of his interview. netanyahu: this is a dream deal and maybe got a deal that may block or delay iran's pass to one or two bombs for the next few years, assuming they don't cheat, but pave their way to many, many bombs after a decade or so because they become a threshold state with full international legitimacy and to boot also get a cash bonanza to fund their terrorist and aggression against us and against the region and america and the world. i think this is a very bad deal with a very bad regime. host: anna palmer of "politico." can you talk about the role the prime minister plays from here over the course of the next 60 days. guest: he's been up on capitol hill doing personal meetings and if you take a step back it's an interesting position for him because it was controversial when earlier this year speaker john boehner invited him to speak to a joint session of congress and a lot of democrats were very upset with the remarks that he made and how aggressively he made them. so now he's having to come a little bit hat in hand with some of those members and try to make the case why this is such a bad deal. you had some democrats like speaker nancy pelosi giving a full-throated endorsement or she throw her support behind it or you had others like the minority whip, denny hoyer, who has been a little bit more hesitant to go out on a limb on that. host: a tweet last night from john boehner, president obama abandoned his own standards for a good agreement, speaker using all of his social media platforms and other platforms to talk about this deal. perry is up next, washington, d.c., line for independents. good morning. caller: at first i was going to ask about the year all of this is due to take place but i do want to respond to what netanyahu just said. he's saying that they're getting a money bonanza but what i'm understanding is that these were iran's already frozen assets of their own money that had been frozen. so it's not like our government is giving those people -- and i'm not on their side. but it's not like they're giving those people some of our money, so that's a distortion. but i wanted to know, i mean, what kind of time frame are we talking about, and i just don't even recall in my own history the time when -- what year was the vote made for israel to have their nuclear weapons? i'm just trying to put it all together. host: when you're talking about the time frame we're talking about, are you talking about the time frame of congress' vote on the deal that was reached with senator john kerry? caller: yes, exactly. what kind of time frame because it seems to me this thing can go on and on and on. host: got you perry. anna palmer? guest: if i understand correctly, the time frame they have now is 60 days for them to -- for the congress to debate this and they will have to take a vote before the u.s. can move forward with this agreement. host: what happens, we're kg up over a august recess where members are away from capitol hill so what's going to happen during that time frame, are we expecting members of congress to be back up here to talk about it? guest: what is really interesting is members of congress do town halls and go back home into their districts and the real question to me is going to be what is going to happen at these town halls? is this going to be the big dominant issue at some of these for specific members because it's one thing for apac or a lobbyist on k street to make the case why they should vote a certain way. it's another thing when you hear over and over again from your constituents, the people who will be voting for you, particularly if you're a house member or if you're up in the 2016 election cycle that there's an overwhelming majority that want you to vote one way or another. host: is this then the focus of these commercial ad campaigns, not just to target members to change their opinions but to get constituents to show up at these town hall events and question their members and push them on one side or the other? guest: that or also to get constituents to call, right? almost all these ads direct to you a website and that website will say call your member of congress and this is what you should be telling them because that's something all members of congress track so they're going to track the poor, and again that will be something that will weigh in their decisionmaking. host: austin, texas, line for democrats. laura, good morning. caller: good morning and thank you for taking my call. i have a couple comments and a question and i'll do the question first is who stands to make the most money off this deal? this seems to be more of a business deal than a matter of states craft. and the comments i want to make is why should we trust anybody in this administration when they failed so misserableably with isis and they've not contained those people and they dropped some bombs on them but they're not effective at all. and that i consider a real threat to the americans to us, to this nation. those people have vocalized their plans for this nation and we're doing a deal with iran and ultimately with isis? host: can i ask you, you're calling in for our line for democrats. is there a candidate right now in the democratic primary field who you trust on foreign policy? it seems you're not happy with the obama administration. caller: oh, i'm not, i'm absolutely not happy with him. and if you want a shocker i'd vote for trump in a heartbeat. because i don't trust the republicans and right now i do not trust the democrats. i think we're being sold out. host: from austin, texas can you address her question on it, sort of follow the money type question. guest: sure. one of the reasons why we're looking at -- you have all of these countries that are so supportive of and you have people leading negotiations in iran now before the vote comes up is because i think there are a lot of countries who want to do business and the sanctions not only hurt iran but the economies in europe and other countries who have helped negotiate this deal as well who i think are very excited and want to get in and want to do business and restart the economy and their economic trading there. host: let's go to wesley, san diego, california, line for democrats. you're on with "politico's" anna palmer. caller: thanks for taking my call. i just want to say i agree with the previous caller regarding iran's assets, if it belongs to them, then they should unfreeze it and give the money back to the people of iran. because it's their money. and regarding benjamin netanyahu, i think he made a big mistake coming to the u.s. congress injecting himself into the political fray. he should just have stayed out and let the executive branch cover the deal. and it's an arms control deal, not a weapons -- everybody has weapons over there in the middle east so i just think it should be -- we should stay out and not look for another middle east war. host: anna palmer, can you talk about the speech the prime minister gave before congress and how that has influenced the debate since? 's guest: absolutely. with a i think you saw is usually being pro-israel has always been bipartisan, kind of the american -- an ally of israel and there has been a long-standing, strong relationship the country has used in the middle east when there's been tensions and trying to find a peace deal which obviously has been allusive. but what happened was speaker boehner basically invited him and it was a really unusual thing, right before he was -- his election for re-election. he was running and it was a very tight race and seen as a political move and he also really castigated the u.s. he's obviously been very opposed to obama and his deal, that secretary kerry was trying to forge at that time and you had a lot of members of congress that were very upset, some who didn't decide to attend and some were so upset he decided to go forward with the speech as they say was particularly political. and there are great tensions that weren't there before. host: earl is up next, elway wisconsin. line for independents. good morning. you're on the washington journal. caller: gerald. it might sound simplistic, they spent tens of millions over the years to try to get a treaty or deal on it. and i was thinking, if i was wanting to be completely fair with a deal, i would just say look, i could do it in 15 minutes, i'm not like donald trump talking it away but i can do it in 15 minutes. expect any time anywhere unequivocally, that's it. if i have nothing to hide, i would say go ahead, in my own room, if i have nothing to hide, inspect me any time day or night in my home or country and have it done, i'd sign the deal in a heartbeat and be happy. give them their money and unlock everything and that would be it because i have nothing to worry about if i can come any time any where, i would do it. host: got you, what is anna palmer saying to the white house concern the iranians are still going to hide work on a nuclear program? guest: i think what they're saying is this deal allows inspectors to go in and they have -- there's a certain time frame they lay out and it's 30 days and 60 days but that they could go in any time they need to. obviously the counterargument for people that are against this deal is the iranians have a history of lying. it's a shell game. they might say you can come in and they'll move things around or make it as hard as possible for the inspectors to do their job. before they were supposed to have some inspections done and the inspectors weren't let in. those concerned for opposing the deal, you lift the sanctions and the hammer on this and you just have a carrot and there won't be any follow through. >> talk about tom cotton, the freshman center for a member of congress from arkansas and has become sort of the face of the anti-deal movement beginning with that letter that he sent a few months ago. what has he been saying since the deal has been reached? guest: he's been unequivocally, unapolicy getically -- unapologetically opposed to this deal and isn't necessarily shocking given that letter that he was the shepherd of that kind of backfired a bit on him. but, you know, he's going to be one of those strong voices against this. i think as a leader in the republican, in the senate republicans on this, you have lindsey graham, marco rubio. i think in general you're going to have strong opposition by most republicans on this in the senate. host: you mentioned two republicans running for president. can you talk about how this iranian nuclear deal issue will play out in the primary debates against the candidates, the first ones beginning within the 60-day time frame? guest: i think it will play a big role in general. one of the things i heard a lot from the people out on the trail and when you talk to voters in the early primaries is that national security has become a much bigger issue compared to the 2012 election. you'll have republicans kind of fighting to be the most -- the candidate that is national security that understands and is going to keep america safe on the homeland. you already have callers talking about isis and other things. this is something in top of mind for voters and for sure will be something that will be a major issue in the debates and you'll see republicans kind of jockeying on this. host: senator rand paul is running for president, can you talk about his reaction since? guest: he'll have an interesting position to play in this. he is a little bit different sometimes in terms of where he is as the kind of more libertarian since of -- sense of things that will play out and watch where he is maybe versus a ted cruise or other republicans. host: let's go to helen, line for democrats. caller: good. how are you? host: good. you're on with anna palmer. caller: thanks for taking my calls. i have a couple of questions and statements. my statement is this agreement is not only with the u.s.a. there are five other countries involved. therefore, if congress is able to vote the deal down would the other five countries ever stand with us again? well well benjamin escalate and antagonize the iranians so he can go ahead with his nuclear weapon? people in the united states are just waiting to get contracts in iran like halliburton whose project would profit. no war, please. drafts can be reinstated overnight for those who think there's no draft. i think that we are more threatened within the united states by our words we here than any other place. we are an ally to israel. benjamin netanyahu is one of the biggest problems standing there in front of israel ready to start a war. let's not have war. and those are my comments and thank you for taking my call. host: hellen in hyattsville, maryland. can you speak to her first question on how the other members of the p-5 plus one is watching and viewing this debate that will happen on capitol hill? guest: they're watching it closely and you've seen a lot of these countries wanting to go in. there are delegations that will go and i believe there's a german delegation this week going into iran. so i think you're going to see them try to push and say this is something that needs to happen. we all agreed upon it. but the rule of congress should not be diminished. certainly in the role of the u.s. it's hard to see this going forward. host: robert calling in from newport, north carolina. line for independents. good morning. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call. with our twindling dependence on middle eastern oil, how important is the middle east to our national security? and isn't this really about protecting israel? guest: i would say the unrest in the middle east is a huge issue, if there was a war the u.s. wasn't involved in, certainly with different factions. it's going to be a major issue in terms of how the role the u.s. does play. it's not just about oil but having war and factions fighting against each other is not something in the u.s.'s interest. host: let's go to sandra waiting in wilmington, north carolina, line for independents. good morning sandra. caller: good morning. two previous callers asked a question regarding israel as having nuclear weapons and where congress stood and where was the bait when that was decided. those comments were not addressed. i wanted you to address that. guest: i'm sorry. host: are you still with us? i think we lost sandra. let's go to abbas in beaverton, oregon line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. a while back somebody asked a question about ms. palmer and she indicated she's not an expert on the israeli situation and the policy and that's been a cop-out it looks like some of the congressmen, some of the people that know the system and all. i'm not a scientist and all. she's smart enough to know that the israeli government has over 200 -- at least over 200 bombs already in their capacity. and so how do we trust them and at the same time we cannot trust another people? you know that's just -- this is the situation. we always cop out and try to pass the story and that's my question. guest: yeah, i think i was trying to say i'm certainly an expert on loyying -- lobbying and what's happening in washington on certain issues but am not an expert on israeli policy. host: talk about your experience reporting on lobbying issues and how you go about finding this story about how different groups are going to be lobbying on both sides of this issue and where they'll be running at? guest: absolutely. what i focus on the story and have been following pretty closely is what groups have vested interests that are representing both sides of this, either they're for the deal or against the deal and you know, how they're kind of coming in with multiplatform campaigns and in terms of are they focusing in washington or in the states and also what that means and where they'll spend this money, just in busing people in and having them meet with members of congress or doing more so of internet ads, phone calls, things like that. host: how long have you been covering lobbying issue in washington? guest: 10 years. host: the story in politico, groups claiming to represent israel's interest are suiting up for a bruising fight on capitol hill. the reporter, long time lobbying reporter, anna palmer, our guest on the washington journal. always appreciate your time. come back again and talk to us further. guest: absolutely. thanks. host: we'll be back and talking about andrew sealy about mexico's fight against organized crime and later today will be talking with dave lemonthall from the center of public integrity about money raising reports for the 2016 presidential candidates. we'll be right back. ♪ >> c-span gives you the best access to congress. live coverage of the u.s. house, congressional hearings and news conferences bringing you event that shape public policy and every morning "washington journal" is live with elected officials policymakers and journalists and your comments by phone, facebook and twitter. c-span created by america's capable companies and brought to you as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. tonight on "the communicators." we'll speak with "the wall street journal's" information columnist gordon crovitz, of why he thinks washington is a danger zone for innovation. gordon: if you go back to earlier technologies like railroads and the ma bell telephone monopoly, those were regulated as common characters, regulators set prices, they set terms, they set rules and we all know what happened. there was very little innovation in railroads and in trucking and in telephones until they were all deregulated and all those statutes essentially undone by congress when it was so clear that innovation was being suppressed and the u.s. is falling behind in its competitiveness. that was the backdrop for the bipartisanship consensus in the 1990's that the internet would be different. this was during the clinton administration. a clear consensus democrats and republicans, that unlike those earlier technologies, the internet was going to be largely unregulated. >> tonight at 8:00 eastern on "the communicators" on c-span 2. >> "washington journal" continues. host: andrew sealy of the wilson center joins us now for a discussion on mexico's fight against organized crime in the wake of that prison escape by joaquin elchaupo guzman last week and remind us who el chapeau -- el chapo and what it means? guest: he was one of the most wanted criminal in the world and is the biggest drug lord in mexico, the biggest supplier of cocaine to u.s. markets, a huge supplier of marijuana as well at a time mexico managed to disarticulate, take apart organized crime groups and his group kept operating and was successful and 17 months ago got him inside and seemed like the end of an era and sure enough he escapes through an air conditioned tunnel. host: he escapes and several prison workers have been charged and arrested in mexico as a part of that. what does it say about organized crime's reach into the mexican government and mexican police and prison forces he was able to escape? guest: it tells you they have lots of money and able to penetrate authorities. nobody thinks the top government officials were involved in this and in fact are the ones most embarrassed by this but was able to buy off people and had blueprints for the prison and those who looked the other way when they may have heard noises and something happened to lead to you suspect some people in the prison system were involved in some way, at least lower level folks. host: talk about the u.s. scommerts that allowed mexico to fight guzman but organized crime in general. what are we spending to help mexico on this issue? guest: the truck trade is circular. mexico traffics drugs northward and american consumers pay for the drugs and the money goes south. this is a joint effort and the violence has been in mexico but really -- we have put in millions of dollars in a joint eight package. probably most important there has been a lot of intelligence sharing between the two countries. there was a task force in america that went after him. there has been joined intelligence between the two countries hit. host: are these part of the marriage initiative? guest: it was proposed by president bush and president calderon in 2007. intelligence sharing has been going on longer than that and has deepened over time, to the point where there are u.s. agents on mexican soil and mexican agents on u.s. soil. host: a chart showing a plan for an assisted spending for mexico over the years, we can show our viewers that, in 2015. up to $137 million on planned assistance to mexico. with all this spending and the initiative that has been going on, what are the metrics of success? can we say it has been helpful to mexico? guest: interestingly enough, despite this huge debacle, the reality is violence has gone down in mexico, which is the main metric that both countries had set. it has gone down somewhere between one quarter and one third. most of the big organized crime groups have been taken part -- taken apart, at least partially. what has not changed is the supplies of drugs themselves. they are just handled by independent contractors. host: andrew seeley is our guest , a senior adviser at the mexico institute at the woodrow wilson international center for scholars. we are taking questions about organized crime in mexico and u.s. efforts to help the mexican government fight organized crime. democrat can call in at 202-7 48-8000. before we get to rank far away from l chabot, i want to ask you -- el chapo, i want to ask you about expectations where he might be. guest: i doubt he would come to the united states. i think his biggest fear is being caught in the united states and being put in a u.s. prison. he is very comfortable in the mountains. he is a man with a third grade education, rumored to not be able to read and write very well. there is a sense he is probably going back to that area. that is where he is most comfortable, most protected, and my guess is he will eventually and up there. host: there were some songs written about him, seeing him a sort of a robin hood figure in mexico. can you explain the folklore? guest: he is both very generous to people in the area that he is from. he is the kind of person, unlike the other drug traffickers who are predatory, who engaged in kidnapping. he does not do that in most places he operates and he is very kind. at the same time, he is the one who started much of the mafia wars in mexico. he is a ruthless drug lord. in the places he operates, he is seen as a robin hood figure. he has escaped from jail twice and you have the beginnings of a mess, some -- myth someone who seems larger-than-life. host: can you give a size -- a sense of the size of his cartel? guest: years ago i would have said there were six cartels in mexico. they were trafficking from 6 billion to $10 billion in drugs. they are probably trafficking a lot more that -- a lot more than that. host: is that to the united states? guest: yes, primarily in the united states. they really specialize in the u.s. they are the center of the trade to the u.s.. we are the biggest consumers of illegal narcotics in the world and they have found good customers in the united states. based upon this mess, we believe that chabot -- myth, we believe el chapo maintains 40% of the drug traffic. it is a $5 billion business that he runs, a fortune 500 company. host: let's go to girl calling in -- i am sorry, judy calling in from wisconsin on the line for democrats. caller: my question is, couldn't just legalizing all the drugs and packaging and selling in the government solve some of this problem? i will take my comment on their. -- off air. host: she asked whether legalizing drugs might change the drug war. guest: much of the drug war is about heroin, cocaine meth. marijuana is about one quarter of the profits. as far as we know, according to a rand study. i do not know if you can get the federal government involved in this. there is something in the u.s. where public opinion does not seem to support that. there is a lively debate on whether we take marijuana out of that equation. i do not have a personal position but that is something that is being debated in the united states, and then you focus on the harder drugs. it might make sense in theory. i do not see much of a movement in the united states host:. dena from rockland, california. caller: good morning. i have a question. i was just wondering if your guest might know if the united states is going to lower the amount of aid that we send to mexico. i am amazed how much aid we send. they are obviously not taking care of their poor, since there are coming across the border northwards. we also have businesses leaving the united states like ford, and i believe it was westinghouse out of ohio taking 3000 jobs going into mexico. they are taking our jobs and they are sending us their poor so i am just wondering, i'm amazed at the amount of aid we sent here it what exactly do they use the aid for? guest: it is interesting, but we have not had much migration, at least not legal immigration, since 2007. there are very few people coming over from mexico. what is coming over since then is mexican investment. mexican companies have been investing in the u.s. at a rather high rate. the largest company in the united states is a mexican company. sara lee, owned by a mexican company. a lot of brands of milk. mexican investment has been flowing into the u.s. more than mexican migrants, interesting enough. it is a much more equal relationship on the economic side. when you get into the political side, there are many issues in mexico and i'm not sure the usa has been able to fix it. we have done a lot of work with the mexican government on police training has been somewhat successful, judicial training has been much more successful. we have spent a lot of time doing intelligence sharing and joint police actions. most of the mexican cartels have actually been captured. unfortunately, l chapa --el chapo seems to be the one who keeps getting away. violence has gone down but it will not go all the way down and that is a huge pending challenge for mexicans. host: the escape of guzman has been embarrassing for the mexican government. are there members of the congress who are looking to lower the amount of support? in the outcome of goos mann's -- guzman's escape, are we looking to cut aid? guest: probably not. overall, that has not been the reaction. most of us have been saying, there was someone at the top involved in letting him go. no one actually thinks that today. the most embarrassed person is the president of mexico who could not keep him in. the top leadership wants to do the right thing, at least vis-a-vis some of the top leaders of the cartels. they could do more and improving the police departments, but they seem to be going after the bad guys. host: rich from massachusetts is on our line for independents. caller: i want to ask, i am a senior citizen but when i was at yale i wrote a paper on organized crime. my professor and i listen to this before computers. he said, anyone who has three vowels in his name cannot be trusted. number one. number two, i want to ask you because you are the scholar, you have a count on organized crime. to me it seems to be a scare tactics -- scare tactics because of the relationship between jimmy hoffa and bobby kennedy. if bobby kennedy was alive today, we would not have all this nonsense. i will give you an example -- host: are you saying that by labeling the mexican cartels as organized crime, it is more scare tactics? caller: whoever is in charge on the borders shows favoritism to what they look like. in other words, if you are a good-looking immigrant you get a pass. if you are ugly as sin, you are gone. host: andrew seeley, something you have ever come across? guest: have not come across this. clearly, organized crime is hard to get rid of. it has throughout the history of the united states come in different forms and guises. anyone who has seen "the godfather" knows about versions of this. they have to do primarily with drug trafficking. the day that we managed to get some control over this, i have a feeling that we will see organized crime develop around some other substance that we want to prohibit. it is clearly the way we deal with informal markets. host: these cartels from mexico, are there specific parts of the most, that they have the largest networks in? guest: there really everywhere. in the 80's, the colombian cartels dominated most of the drug trade. in the 1990's, the mexican cartels moved into the southwest and they are everywhere, other than on parts of the eastern seaboard. the dominican groups and the colombians have a foothold everywhere else in the united states. the mexican organizations actually do the wholesale drug trafficking, although the handoff to u.s. groups in urban areas, often gangs. quite often they are restaurant owners, bicycle gangs. host: we have about a half an hour left with andrew seeley, advisor at the woodrow wilson center for scholars. we are talking about organized crime in mexico. doug is up next, silver city new mexico on the line for democrats. caller: are you familiar with a book that has been featured on book tv called "chasing the screen"? the thing in the book that upset me was the fact that mexico used to have a very open situation with their rules about drugs. and then when the drug war started up in the united states, they pressured mexico to make all those -- all their rules more like ours. it was then that things really -- and that really helped stimulate all the illegal trafficking. i go to mexico very frequently. i have been to south america central america, and believe me, the conditions in central america are the worst. a lot of that is due to american interference and the big moneyed interests, and they run the drugs from the palm oil foundation -- plantations, etc.. it is a horrible place. mexico, i have a lot of mexican friends, and it is a, on its own those people are good people. they are very good people and they want to do what is right. but as you say, i think the key is this book -- i cannot remember the author's name. guest: thank you for your comment. it is worth pointing out that the homicide rate in mexico is not that high. the worst homicide rate in the world is in three countries in central america, where violence has been going up over time. that is what -- mexico has actually been going down. that does not help you if you are in one of the places in mexico where there is intense violence between to rub traffickers. it is about 18 per 100,000. it is not far off where it was in the united states back 20 years, so it is not a huge rate. the mexican trafficking organizations are the ones that dominate much of the drug trade. you really have a combination of the biggest consumer nation for illegal narcotics in the world the united states, next to a country with weak rule of law. what you get is organized crime groups that take it vantage of mexico's week law. my guess, if we were to talk about this 10 years from now i think we will see most of the big groups rate up. my guess is over time we will see them locusts -- we will see the locust of organized crime into central america where the rule of law is even weaker. host: how long have you been studying mexico, and have you lived there? guest: i have lived in tijuana and mexican city, all over the place, and try to get down about once a month. host: andrew seeley is our expert talking about this issue. bruce is in bay city, michigan, the line for independents. caller: good morning. what i want to know is what you think about donald trump wanting to put a wall along the border there. i think that is a good idea because i lived in colorado, and there are a lot of illegals, not just your dealers -- drug dealers, that come across. i lived in denver, colorado and saw a lot of people get killed from car accidents and assaults. if we had the wall across there they could never get across. they would never come on that side if you had a wall to stop them from getting away, but it costs so much money for these illegals when we get them in jail. they look better in prison here -- they live better in prison here than they would in mexico. rule of law in this country has weekend since we got this president here. he has invited all these undocumented kids. they let other people from other countries come through mexico. we have so many people coming through that border that do not like us, a wall would be great. host: i will let you respond. guest: there is not actually much of a migrator across the u.s.-mexico border. there was if you go back to 2007. we probably have a negative migration, which is more people leaving them jumping. there's a huge jump in central american kids last year. it is about one third of what it was last year so it is much lower than it was. there is a large number of people coming in from elsewhere in the world that come in with legal visas as an overstay. i think we need to change our framework. we used to think about illegal immigrants coming across the border and staying here. most of it is people coming in on legal visas and then they are overstaying and staying in this country. that means we really need new ways of trying to do enforcement in the workplace and at ports of entry to make sure that people who do not have legal papers cannot be employed. congress has looked at ways of doing this at the same time that they bring people in the community at the shadows and give them legal papers, and we will see how this plays out over the next few years. my sense is that in terms of illegal immigration, we have shifted our focus because there are not that many people coming over the mexico border anymore good we do not really have a way anymore of making sure they do not overstay their visas. host: getting back to the drugs coming across the border, how are they coming across? where are the ports of entry for tens of billions of dollars of drugs? guest: we spend most of our efforts at the border trying to stop people coming through the border at ports of entry. we have been fairly successful. that is one reason why there is not that much immigration today. most of the hard drugs come through the ports of entry themselves he in legal containers. marijuana is a bulk crop and you actually have to take it across so they are still flying it on low planes and underwater. in terms of the hard drugs that generate most of the profit, they are coming in in really small quantities in legal shipments and are very hard to stop. host: we just saw a group that can build an air-conditioned tunnel. are the tunnels under the border still a problem? guest: yes. someone sold el chapo the idea in the late 1980's, and they have been doing it ever since. it is surprising, no one thought he might try to get out of jail that way since his cartel is known for just -- tunnels. host: are there any estimates on how many tunnels these cartels have underneath the border? guest: i think we have found several dozen of them but what we do not know, we do not know. we managed to find one and close it down, and often it is the u.s. authorities. sometimes the mexican authorities find them and close them down. every time we shut when down, they build another one. host: george from arkansas is waiting on the line for democrats. caller: one issue i have is that when you import, when these people -- and you let them stay and they have no civil rights, who is the last people that were not given civil rights? would you agree that it was the slaves? so what you have today in america is modern slaves. when somebody is under threat you can get them to do pretty much any illegal activity that you please. guest: i agree. i think one of the big issues raised i republicans and democrats when we talk about immigration is that in fact we have an underclass in u.s. society that we do that that has no rights, that we do not know who they are for the most part, and limit the margins of society. we are raising kids who are u.s. citizens and very precarious situations where they think they could be deported. there are lots of ideas on the table. it is a democracy we are not used to having. certainly it does not live up to our ideals. interestingly enough, according to all the studies that have been done, immigrants actually commit very few crimes. most immigrants want to stay out of the eyes of the authorities for obvious reasons. immigrants actually -- we always hear about it, there is someone without papers who gets arrested but in reality, studies tell us that immigrants commit crimes in a much lower amount than nativeborn americans. that does not mean that you have -- that you do not have people working in drug activities and other activities because they are vulnerable. that does happen. overall, they actually have a lower rate of committing crime than the rest of us. host: back to the cartels, a question on twitter about an effort to drastically step up the u.s. response. "how hard would it be to locate where these cartels operate and just thrown them into submission? " guest: we have been doing a lot of work with drones. there are u.s. drones operating in mexico. they are unarmed because the mexican government is sensitive about having the u.s. authorities operate with armed drones or personnel within mexico, for obvious reasons. we have been cooperating a great deal with mexico, taking pictures from up high, tracking cell phones using the drones, and that is a big part of the cooperation that goes on to in the two companies -- countries which is the u.s. technology edge. my guess is that the mexican government would not permit killing. mexico is a modern country, a strong country. we need cooperation, and i think that would be a nonstarter. host: let's go to michigan where sally is waiting on the line for independents. caller: i have so much to say and so little time, and i am terrible at public speaking. in order to lower the demand in america, what we need to do is completely eliminate schedule one. if we eliminate schedule one, drugs will be legal. regulated all to hell but still be legal. and then next, drug addicts one person in 30 is successful in rehab. we need abstinence-based treatment. dr.'s -- doctors must be allowed to prescribe the drug. it is why the drugs are still getting in because the government does not really want to end the war on drugs. there's too much money involved. do you know how many people would be losing their jobs if you legalized drugs? there is too much money involved. the drug companies, the prisons, the police. it is amazing how much money is involved with legalizing -- with stopping drugs. guest: your expressed yourself very well. if we were to legalize drugs, my guess is we would see an increase in usage. we have seen that in the past with marijuana legalization. we saw it with prohibition. as soon as it ended, alcohol abuse and use went up. that is one of the hesitancy's people have about legalizing drugs and changing schedule one. it is a major question about whether we want cocaine or heroin to be legal on the streets of the united states. i could certainly see with marijuana, which is probably less problem than alcohol. i think it is harder for many people in the united states to do the same on other drugs. i would have said a few years ago that heroin was the popular exception because it was combined to about 200,000 frequent users who are in and out of the criminal justice system. we have seen a huge increase in heroin consumption over the past few years and it has become much more of a social drug. we are nearing about half a million people using heroine which is a historic high. if anyone is interested in looking and that more, i would recommend sam quinone's book on this. host: where is the best way to fight mexican cartels? is it with drones, at the points of entry, in american cities in rural areas? guest: i think it is a combination. some of it is on the demand side. we do have to invest in treatment. investing in money laundering and going after money laundering, because this is all about money. we have to stop the billions of dollars flowing to mexico. working with the mexican government on identifying some of the leaders of these cartels who feel like they have impunity. finally, helping mexico build its rule of law. finding police that are trustworthy and jails that function, that is what the mexicans have to do. we can send judges and court clerks and police officers to do training, which is something we have spent a lot of money at. we can do a lot on our side, particularly on the addiction side and the money side. the money that supplies the cartels is our money. host: he is a senior advisor with the mexico institute. taking your calls and questions. mary is waiting in florida on our line for republicans. guest: good morning, mary. caller: good morning. i see a lot of stuff down here, primarily i see the children are not getting grades. i see many people using drugs trying to forget what they did the day before. i see harvesting of organs. i just want to know, how much of the money that is in our country is being spent on our government payrolls, and how much is it being financed from these oligarchs, these rich people and queens and kings from other countries? host: our focus is on the mexican cartels and drug cartels. if you want to pick up on that, is very a concern about those cartels buying influence in the united states? have there been any cases involved with that? guest: the mexican cartels in the u.s. tend to lay low and operate in a very decentralized way. in mexico, they operate very centrally although that is starting to change. when they come across the border they want to stay out of the limelight of law enforcement because they know if they are big here, they can be taken apart by fairly effective law enforcement. even state and local police will notice them and go after them. a few mexican cartels have actually set up shop in u.s.. the most brutal cartel in mexico is pretty much on the run and have been divided into a bunch of different groups. the longtime leader of the cartel ran a ranch. host: a cattle ranch? guest: it was actually racehorses, he had cattle and racehorses. he got caught in part because he got into racing. when you start to win a few races, it caught the attention of the authorities and eventually they got to the leader of the cartel. host: calvin in toledo, ohio, on the line for democrats. guest: hello calvin. caller: i'm going to start back in the 1970's under nixon. we had the heroin epidemic. next in -- nixon wanted to keep people, the cause of the black panthers, everybody got scared. they flooded the market in the ghetto with heroine. then we come to ronald reagan, he started the crack epidemic. i want to know -- and they said at the beginning of the crack epidemic, they were something like -- they were saying something like $100 billion was being made just on cocaine during that epidemic. not counting marijuana and other drugs. i feel as though that the drug epidemic is a part of our economy now, and we cannot get away from it. it is a part of our economy and they can let the drugs just stop. the low-level drug dealers in the black neighborhoods, they should let them put their money in the bank or something. because it is not right what they are doing. host: any thoughts on calvin's solution question mark -- solution? guest: the current heroine influx is primarily white. there are other users and there are people who are low income, but it has been a much more middle-class weight heroin epidemic. it is primarily people who have been using prescription drugs and discover that black tar heroin were a good substitute. the spike is in the middle class. crack usage was huge in the 1980's and 1990's. for those who lived in urban america, weaver never this incredibly well. it fortunately has gone down. cocaine overall has gone down over the past few years. one of the reasons why we might have seen such violence in mexico starting in about 2003 is that there was a real drop in cocaine usage. we are not sure that is the only reason but it is probably one of them. what has been going up noticeably is heroin and to a lesser extent, meth. drug addiction is not a question of african-american communities or low income communities or urban communities. it is everywhere in american society and is something that has historically been around. much of the violence, at least in the 80's and 90's has been in the urban areas but addiction is everywhere. host: a tweet "who are more dangerous to the u.s. citizens, isis or drug gangs? " guest: homicide rates in the united states have been coming down which does not mean there is not violence, but overall, the united states has good law enforcement. you will be put in jail and tried him and put in jail for a period of time. drugs in the u.s. are very decentralized and they try to escape notice and be much less violent then they were in the 1980's and 1990's. in mexico, they are incredibly violent and do not fear the law in the same way. even groups who have their disputes and distribution, do not tend to fight it out in the united states, they do it in mexico. my guess is, isis is probably a big question in terms of, if we worry about a major attack on u.s. soil i would worry about isis. if we worry about the effects of drug addiction, i would worry about the drug cartels. host: arnold in tennessee on the line for democrats. caller: good morning, how are you? guest: good morning. caller: i think that the only answer, there is only one answer to all of the problems facing the world, including the drug problem and the poverty problem and all the wars going on. and that answer is love, love is the answer. it is the only thing that is going to save humanity. if we can get folks to love one another. i have written a book, and i mention this when i call in from time to time. the book is free online and the website is lovegodislove.org. it is a story of spiritual experiences that god gave me to share with folks. host: and share them with us as well. let's go to rex in pennsylvania, the line for independence. caller: i'm glad you took my call. i have a couple of comments. number one, after living in mexico in various places i think that you would probably identify with the warm, generous nature of the mexican people and their culture. that has been my experience, very hard-working. as far as these drug cartels off of this huge industry, [indiscernible] the jug trafficking and how it finds its way into legitimate businesses, and how huge those businesses must become. many people could say the names of them because of the billions of dollars in profits. something has got to happen to that illegal money because we cannot just pile it up. have you looked into any of those kinds of destinations for that money? guest: yes. it is a great question. i share your opinion of mexico. in general, mexico has evolved enormously over the past 20 years. mexicans are more educated, they have better salaryies, better health care, better access to consumer goods. millions of u.s. jobs depend on the relationship with mexicans because they by our goods at a rate that no one else other than canadians do. you have evolved enormously in 20 years and it is a fabulous country. but there is a drug money and illegal trafficking that is also part of the story and it really is a break on development in mexico. here you have a country that is investigate in educate -- invested in education and health care. that really presents a weakness for the future of the country. you see illegal money going to legal enterprises, very hard to track. there is quite operation between the u.s. and mexican governments to track some of the businesses that launder this money. i remember 20 years ago i worked in an office in tijuana, mexico. after we had been there for a few months one of my colleagues said, has anyone seen a car ever sold off the lot across the street? we realized they were laundering the money off the car lot. here was a legal business that was constituted basically to launder money, right in front of us in a busy area in the city. unfortunately, it does put money in the mexican economy but what violence does and drug trafficking does is put a brake on the country that has been developing pretty quickly and holds it back from being a first world country. host: those kind of investigations in mexico, who is doing the best work, the federal authorities in mexico or local authorities? are they able to go in and break up these businesses? guest: the local authorities are scared to do it so they tend not to. the state governments in mexico are not as strong as they are here and have often been afraid to jump in and take on these challenges. the treasury department has been good at this and they were closely with our treasury office in trying to identify these businesses. there is a list online of businesses they have uncovered, including the horse ranch in oklahoma. that were once legal businesses that they have called out as being part of a drug enterprise. host: alden in tulsa, oklahoma, line for independents. caller: good morning. i do not know if you are aware but these drug cartels are only because of the scheduling in the drugs in the federal law. it is a fact that doctors are prohibited by law from prescribing heroin, even for cancer patients. i watched a group of doctors argue about the effectiveness. when dr. thinks he should be allowed to prescribe it for his patients, and i agree with him. do you think these cartels are formed because of the lapse in the drug laws that we have that are so unorganized? guest: the reality is, any time you prohibit something and there is still a desire to buy it, there will be in illegal economies formed. this happens with all sorts of things in history. the question then becomes, or we willing to make these drugs legal or not, and that is a big question. we do prescribe other opiates morphine, and oxycontin, and other drugs in hospitals that are related to heroin. they come from the same origins. we have decided we will not allow heroin to be legal because it is more potent and more addictive. there is an active debate in the medical community. i think these are debates that we will only continue to have for the foreseeable future. host: joaquin from washington d.c.. guest: good morning. caller: i believe that winding down, prohibition will lead to a reduction and violence. mark goodman says that the challenge cartel has a $5 million r&d budget. these cartels are cropping up and owning cell phone towers and doing highly advanced and actually recruiting and kidnapping technologists and system admins. and going to a level that we have not really seen before in technology. organized crime. guest: i think that is right. when you see the tunnel that guzman got out, it was air, it had a movable motorcycle device to get him out. this is a guy with a third grade education who can barely read and write, and he has some of the best engineers, architects, lawyers, financial people working for him. this is a multibillion dollar very successful business, and he has an enormous talent pool kind him. this is true of all of the cartels. have started using submarines, some of the colombian organizations have been using disposable submarines. we have seen enormous amounts of creativity. the tunnels built under the borders, they actually have used some, we would probably call them simple airplanes, they are between airplanes and drones used to fly marijuana across the border but keep it out of sight of the raider. there is a lot of technology being used. as long as drugs are illegal and the market is here in the united states, we will see increased activity. it may not be the mexican cartels 10 years from now. bit by bit, if mexico is able to build rule of law it may be harder to operate. you may see central american or south american groups, or russian groups take over this business but someone will be moving drugs into the united states. host: andrew seeley is the current executive vice president and senior adviser at the mexican institute. if you want to follow him on twitter it is @seeleyandrew. dave leventhal will join us to talk about the winners and losers in the race for 2016 campaign cash. we will be right back. >> tonight on "the communicators," we will speak with "the wall street journal" and why washington is a danger zone of innovation. >> i think if you go back to earlier technologies like railroads and the telephone monopoly, those were regulated as common carriers, regulators set prices, they set terms, they set rules. and we all know what happened. there was very little innovation in railroads, trucking, and telephones until they were all deregulated. all those common carrier statutes essentially undone by congress. when it was so clear that innovation was being suppressed and that the u.s. was falling behind in its competitiveness that was the backdrop for the bipartisan exercise -- consensus that the internet would be different. this was during the clinton administration, a clear consensus, democrat and republican that unlike those early technologies, the would be largely unregulated. >> tonight at 8:00 eastern on the communicators on c-span two. >> washington journal continues. host: dave leventhal is back at our desk, a senior political writer. we just got a look at where the presidential candidates stand in the all important money chase. who are the candidates who came off looking the strongest in this first peak? guest: perhaps not surprisingly, jeb bush and hillary clinton are in a great position of strength. hillary clinton led all candidates when it came to the amount of money that her own campaign pulled in. jeb bush even though these numbers are unofficial, was able to take in an incredible amount of money through a supportive super pac, not one of these outside organizations that are run by his friends and collectively between his campaign and the outside group took in more than $100 million at this early juncture. some of the other candidates many candidates who are in this race put up some decent numbers in their own right. their campaigns taking in millions of dollars. people like rand paul, ted cruz having relatively decent second quarters as they came in and entered the race. when it comes down to it, hillary and jeb are doing really well for themselves, but that is not terribly surprising, given their name recognition and the strength of their organizations coming into the race, and the notoriety that comes with the in who they are. that will instantaneously attract money and it did just that. host: as you mentioned, the jeb bush super pac $103 million, but hillary clinton's campaign committee raises $63 million -- i'm sorry, $47 million compared to just 10 million or 11 million for jeb bush. what is most important to look at in terms of the strength of the campaign, the super pac money raised or the individual campaign money raised? guest: they are different pots of money. you might think, throw it in one pot and that is the money candidate has at his or her disposal. it is more complicated than that. when a candidate raises that that is money they can use instantly. that is money they can use directly. if i'm hillary clinton, jeb bush, or anyone else, i can say we will spend $1 million on television ads, pencils and paper clips. they can only raise limited amounts of that kind of money in increments of $2700. if you want to donate to my campaign, the best you can do during this primary season, $2700. super pac's can raise unlimited amounts of money. there is no on how much money they can raise. if a donor wants to give one million dollars or $10 million to a super pac that will support one of the campaigns, they can do it. these are the people like big name donors who likely will play the super pac game in 2016. the limiting factor is this -- they are not contrarily -- directly controlled by candidates. there is an intimate relationship between super pacs and the candidate committees but there is not direct command and control. also, super pacs do a lot of television advertising. that has been the biggest expenditure that many have made. candidate committees, when they buy television ads or mass messaging, they can often get the lowest rates from the tv stations and the networks that they are putting those ads on. super pacs a lot less efficient because they can get charged an arm and a leg in some cases to put those ads on television. a $1 million donation to a super pac might not go as far as smaller donations to candidate committees. it is a very important consideration, particularly in a race as utterly competitive as this where we have 20 seven legitimate candidates. host: dave leventhal, he is our guest for the next 40 minutes or so. we are taking your calls. the lines for democrats republicans, and independents are on the screen. who had the most disappointing campaign cycle? guest: mike huckabee is somebody who may be pretty high in the polls. he is right there with donald trump and jeb bush, oftentimes number three or four. he is somebody who in 2008 had great success, at least given the size of his campaign, winning primaries and caucuses, and hopes to make another kind of splash. he put up some pretty low numbers, even his pole standing. just a couple of million dollars. somebody like rick santorum, abysmal numbers. his 2012 residential campaign still has more debt, more money that it owes creditors than his 2016 campaign has cash on hand. we are talking less than $500,000 in each case. although you have some of these other candidates who are trying to make a name for themselves, trying to stand out from this incredibly crowded field, it will be difficult to do that and get your message out when you have a very limited amount of money. $500,000, $1 million, $2 million might seem like a lot of money but let's look at it nationally. you are running a campaign in all 50 states. you have primary contests coming up fast and furiously in february and march. you have to play in most of those states. if you do not have the resources to hire the staffers to get out your message, buy television ads, and travel around, that candidates need to do, it is going to be very difficult competing against the likes of a gem who will have significant resources. host: what was the total raised and spent by the obama/rodney campaigns -- obama/rodney campaigns? guest: over a billion dollars for each candidate. we expect the nominee for the republican and democratic parties will easily match that probably exceeded when you factor in not only the candidate's spending but spending by super pacs and nonprofit organizations. these will be incredibly supportive to the candidates that they support and destructive potentially for the candidates that they oppose. host: let's go to terry waiting in michigan on the line for republicans. caller: good morning, how are you? host: you are on with david leventhal. caller: he was trying to get his through congress but they were blocking him. as a law-abiding citizen, i was wondering if those were impeachable statements or not in your opinion. guest: host: not really in the realm of campaign finance. guest: cannot speak to the question that i can say that congress will be a bit of a different question in 2016 in the sense that they have their own battles that they are going to be fighting. we see so much money going into the presidential race, there's plenty happening on the congressional side as well in the sense that they are competing for cash. oftentimes, you get these very hysterical messages from both democrats and republicans trying to raise money, almost as if they are saying, member us, we are trying to compete in 2016. the presidential race has taken up a tremendous amount of oxygen at this early stage, and expect this to continue. host: let's go to indiana just the waiting on our line for democrats. caller: good morning, thank you for taking my call. in light of all the millions and billions being spent on the 2016 election, i think it is important to point out that bernie sanders, who is on the democratic ticket, is only taking public donations and union donations. i think that is very important to point out, when we have so much money in elections. i think that is a very important point to point out. i just wanted to say that this morning. thank you so much. host: dave leventhal, here is a chart from the new york funds -- near times that shows bernie sanders compared to hillary clinton. guest: it would be remiss not to mention bernie sanders who came in with very strong numbers, easily exceeding the amount that either martin o'malley, former governor of maryland raised, jim webb. relative to the other candidates on the democratic side. or lincoln chafee, who hardly raised any money at all save for the money he donated directly to his campaign. the caller's point is spot on in the sense that bernie sanders is not unique but almost unique in that the money that he raised was not coming from big dollar sources. you are limited in how much money overall you can give directly to a campaign. bernie sanders has been wildly successful in raising money from what we would like to call small dollar donors, people giving $200 or less. it might be the mom-and-pop operation giving $50 or somebody who just has a couple of pennies to scrape together, and write a five dollar or $10 check to him. for bernie sanders, about three quarters of the money that he raised during this last quarter came from those type of small dollar donors, small dollar sources. lots of checks for -- not checks for $1000 or $2000, but money from people giving $20. about two thirds of ben carson's money also came from is very types of sources. we have a couple of candidates who are not getting the bulk of their money from the big dollar sources but are getting it from small donors sources. host: what is considered the best combination of small dollar donors and big dollar donors? is it just all the money that you can get? guest: all the candidates want to raise as much money as they can to run their operation area but there is -- operation. but there is importance to anyone who is making a donation of any amount. i've dollars, $500 or $5 million -- five dollars, $500, or $5 million. in a way it is a guarantee that you will have their support. they're very energetic support. if you make the automation and you take the time, putting in the trouble of giving them your credit card information, sending in a check, you are much more willing to make phone calls. talk to your friends about that candidate. you might volunteer for that candidate. certainly, on a twitter feed, on a facebook age, a might promote that candidate. there is a sign that you might have people investing in your campaign if they have those small dollar donations. they go beyond sheer dollars and cents. it goes the something that will be greater broader potential he tantamount to momentum or a movement. that is what bernie sanders is certainly hoping for. it is a big question for bernie sanders at this point. is it going to be enough? particularly with hillary clinton having such overwhelming name recognition, momentum, and resources. in 2012 we saw a certain example , a perfect parallel not really, but ron paul. such energetic support. so many people giving donations. when you added it up, it was not enough to compete with mitt romney. is that going to happen again with bernie sanders on the democratic side? we have a lot of time left to answer that question. it is, as we say, a semi-decent parallel. host: pittsburgh, pennsylvania is up next. bill, republican line, good morning. caller: good morning. thank you again for c-span. i wanted to make a point. as for some of the examples from your guest, i have been watching the attempt to control political campaign donations for 40 50 years now. they created a complete mess. the parties are limited. their role has been greatly diminished. especially in presidential campaigns. every candidate has to try, has to play the money game at the beginning. and -- and we end up with anomalies like candidates who spend their own money. the supporting pacs cannot coordinate. they cannot put out a unified message. it is resulting in a bunch of absolute nonsense. i wonder why mitt romney did not have enough primary money to counter the capital ads, for example. i wonder if your guest could comment on that and perhaps point out some more of the ridiculous absurdities that the attempts to control campaign finance spending have created. host: go ahead. guest: we have a pretty bizarre system. there's no two ways about it. i've spoken to plenty of democrats and republicans about this all the time. in candor they will tell you -- look, if we were drawing up a perfect system, if we were starting from scratch if we were trying to form the way that campaigns were funded and operated in the country today, would we draw up the system we have right now? almost universally, regardless of political persuasion, they will say absolutely not. this is crazy. this is insane, what we have right now. that this is the system we have right now. the question is why. we could spend the next hour talking about the history of all of that. in brief, what it is is a system that has been cobbled together with little bits of pieces added, little bits and pieces taken out. most prominently of late court decisions that have really rewritten or at least change the laws in a major, major way. giving rise to organizations like super pac's. effectively giving the ability of certain nonprofits to engage directly in elections in ways they had not really before. you have this kind of odd tiered system where campaigns cannot raise nearly as much money in a race as a super pac. the organizations that are truly running their own campaign have fewer resources than other organizations who are not directly run by the and pain itself. the caller made a good point about parties. republican national committee, democratic national committee, various other parties, they would not in a perfect world draw up the system either. they do not have the same power that these sort of shadow parties do. these super pac's, these nonprofits. they are also limited in the amount of money that they can raise from individual donors. playing second fiddle to these cause iparty organizations out there that have the ability to raise unlimited money. host: can you connect the super pac's to the organizations? if you could run through some of them? guest: well, we are confused about them too. 20 different candidates, 20 different super pac supporting this candidates, many of which have similar names. for example, jeb bush has the light to rise organization. he had a hand in creating that area but then he aim a candidate and he broke apart from the super pac and run his own campaign. but the super pac will be run in part by mike murphy and a couple of other people who are very close friends of mine. it is the second best thing to running it yourself. you could not run your own sports team as a kid, but you had your brother do it. it is about as close as you can get to running a campaign operation. hillary went in had the ready for hillary super pac. -- hillary clinton at the ready for hillary super pac. they were ready to support her prior to her becoming a candidate. when she announced, ready for hillary rolled its operation down, still existing, giving support and resources to the present campaign. other super pac's have come up to take up the arts. you can -- the oxygen. you can already see how confusing this is. every candidate at this stage in the game are going to these legal machinations, jumping through these what seemed to be like a trapeze act of different types of legal maneuverings in order to make sure that this is all copacetic. largely the law for this is very fuzzy. we are in a bit of a brave new campaign world where many of these types of a audit political organizations have not been tested firmly in a legal sense to see if what they are doing is truly legal or not. host: monticello, jeff, republican line, you are on with dave levinthal. caller: [indiscernible] seems to me like these super pac's is by the candidate buying the election. over before you even have the main one. why don't we just have a one-day primary? whoever gets it, gets it. instead of buying a candidate pretty much down the road. can you answer that for me? guest: time is a really critical factor that a lot of people don't really talk about. i think the caller's frustration stems from that. these campaign seasons seemed to last forever. they never stop. in a way it is absurd that we are even having this conversation right now. even when you're out it would seem a little odd. presidential campaigns, being a nationwide affair, take time. but i have spoken with some folks about this notion of not just money, but of time. should we have, like some countries do, a limited. of time -- limited period of time in which they run. an election season that is a season, not omnipresent. is that in the offering for the united states? probably not. there does not seem to be much appetite on capitol hill which we are overlooking right now that would change the amount of time that candidates could raise money, for example. but it is something that probably get talked about more today than it did for, in the sense that it just seems tiring and endless for the candidates. it is very tiring when all that you do is get up every single day and spend, in some cases for some candidates hours either at fundraisers or on the phone dialing for dollars, doing fundraising operations as opposed to other types of campaigning, or for congress, legislating doing the job that they went to washington to do. it makes you scratch your head and say -- what is the priority here? raising money to perpetuate your time in office? or doing your job as an elected official to represent the people that you have been sent here to represent? the reason that it is in the -- an interesting thought exercise i expect it will be talked about a little bit more, going forward. it is public integrity.org, if you want to check out that work on campaign finance issues. one of the more recent stories, along with several others there is a presidential campaign owner hedging their bets, contributing to 2, 4, or even six candidate. host: we will be taking your calls for the next 20 minutes or so. mike, sell art with, massachusetts, republican line, good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. i thought i would comment about something that was said. bernie sanders is getting most of his financing from unions rather than individuals, is that right? guest: that is correct. caller: i don't think that that's much of a point. democrats are always funded by the unions rather than individuals. the democrats, it's almost as if they are being bribed by the unions to have power. the unions seem to be keeping democrats who are socialist in power, like bernie sanders. i don't think hillary is very much different than bernie sanders. guest: these unions have their own mechanisms. there is not a new about unions supporting democrats, that is to be expected in 2016 as much as it would be in any other time in recent history. bernie sanders has a long track record of getting some work from various unions and that appears to be the case going forward. getting back a little bit to the story from a couple of days ago you do have particular examples of the dollar donors, people active in the political money game hedging their bet. they are not just giving to bernie sanders. they are giving to bernie sanders and hillary clinton. or hillary clinton and martin o'malley. in some cases we found that the were given to hillary clinton and jeb bush. not really talking about the candidates themselves, but the donors, they want to be on a winning team. they want to make sure that as they are now giving money to candidates, as they tried to play the political game themselves, that they show signs of support to the candidates with an eye towards 2016, when ultimately there will be one democrat and one republican running against each other in a general election. it is a smart move, with the field being so large and so competitive with any number of republicans competing into 2016. if you get out early and show support, even if you are flirting with numerous candidates all at once and have a dalliance with several of them at the same time, that can be a smart move for some of these donors. host: william is on the line for democrats, north carolina. good morning. caller: good morning. yes. i would like to know, do you expect there is really no court nation between these candidates and super pac's when the people who are running these super pac's part so closely related -- are so closely related to the campaign? guest: we don't expect it anymore. 12 years ago -- four years ago during the 2012 election, there was this bright line. mitt romney famously said in an interview on msnbc -- if i coordinate with a super pac, i could end up in the big house. well, no, he's not going to wind up in the big house, neither are any of the candidates running in 2016. as a candidate committee you can get pretty darn close to the operations of your super pac. you cannot direct your super pac to do certain actions. like, ok, run the same ads as me. on this specific day put up a big ad by. --buy. i would likely be crossing the line. but as we spoke about earlier you can have people who have known you for decades know how you think as a candidate, who are your supporters, your friends, your confidants running that operation. it is indeed the second-best thing to running it yourself. father down the road these groups can see where the candidates are spending money and sort of follow along with their own money and at there. the notion of coordination is a bit overblown. the candidates can telegraph their intentions to the super pac's for violating any law, for all intents and soup -- purposes. there is a very open question as to whether anyone would do anything about it. in the federal election commission we have an agency that had been sent out in the aftermath of watergate to police federal elections. to make sure that campaign finance laws were being followed. an agency that over the past several years has been mired in a tory us gridlock. they've had difficulty really agreeing on anything of great subs. -- substance. as a result, many of these areas that we are talking about are very fuzzy. court nations, nonprofit organizations and whether they can spend as much money as they want to on politics -- coordinations, nonprofit organizations and whether they can spend as much money as they want to on. many of these issues are being punted. agencies cannot agree on it. they will be weighing in in 2016 which leaves everything up in the air on these specific questions. host: for the radio listeners we showed a headline to one of dave levinthal's recent stories about gridlocked elections watchdogs. questions about these campaign reports? time to call in in general. democratic line, st. louis missouri, good morning. caller: good morning. mr. leventhal, this is a hypothetical question. if you were to add up all the money that was spent on campaigns, presidential on down to state legislatures, over 10 years what kind of figure of money with that be? guest: the caller is going to challenge my math at 930 in the morning. -- 9:30 in the morning. i can tell you this, without penciling it out in full, you would be talking about tens and tens of aliens of dollars. -- tens and tens of billions of dollars. presidential, congressional elections easily exceeded $5 billion in 2012. in 2016 that is likely, almost certainly going to well exceed that figure. that does not include state races. that is not include mayoral races. if you go back over 10 years you can see from these examples how this money is going to add up very quickly. some people will make the case that -- all right, that seems like a huge number, but look at the operations with advertising budgets and spend millions, even billions over a long. of time to promote their products. -- long period of time to promote their products. what is so bad about these candidates getting their message out? a fair thing to debate. we have this wonderful thing called the const duchenne, it has a first amendment that gives us a right to speech. free speech is one of the most revered aspects. you can talk about what you want to do is a candidate. you can tell the public what you think is right and what you think is wrong. i don't think you will get an argument from anyone that the candidates do not have the right to get this message out? all right, can you use unlimited amounts of money to do it. can you be somebody who does not revealed to the public that you are funding massive campaigns to support or oppose, to promote or teardown a certain candidate and effectively operate in the shadows while you do this? these are some of the big legalistic kinds of questions. even some people would consider it moral questions, as we do this most public of things sending people to washington to represent us in the halls of power. host: mary, republican line good morning. caller: i'm curious to know who finances the center for public integrity. i just googled it and i found the two names that jumped out at me george soros and arianna huffington. can you explain why you have support from such a left-wing force? guest: sure. i am not involved in the financing of the center. i'm a journalist. i can definitely say that if you go to our website we have a list of numerous funders, some of whom are conservative, some of whom are liberal who support our work. we are an investigative news organization and we take money from any source, foundations primarily, and individuals who want to support our work. we would encourage anyone regardless of political persuasion to look at the work that we do, judge it for themselves, and support it if they'd like to. host: can you tell us about where you worked before you came to washington? guest: seven years at the dallas morning news before politico. and then before that the mighty "eagle tribune come -- tribune," covering mighty new hampshire politics. host: as you said, dave levinthal, a man who knows campaign finance inside and out. we have about 10 minutes left rear questions. robert, line for republicans. good morning. caller: good morning, sir. host: go ahead, robert. you are on with dave levinthal caller: --dave levinthal. caller: what would you think if donald trump dropped out of the race? what if he ran as an independent? how would that affect the election? guest: republicans do not know what to do with donald trump right now. some of them do, those are the ones who are supporting him, thinking that he is the ultimate anti-candidate candidate. someone who is going to breathe life into the republican party that they year has feared too far to the right or the left or lost its compass. lots of reasons why lots of people are supporting all of these. candidate. dachshund. -- myriad candidates. if he did not win in the republican primary season, to pull a ross wrote in 19 -- ross perot and run as an independent. even start his own party. who really knows what donald trump is going to do. he is someone who is a total ex factor in his race right now and as a result is causing a lot of const or nation among republicans. certainly the other candidates running the nomination. and the party brass, who are concerned about many of the comments he's making. most recently one was very critical of john mccain's military record. donald trump is in this election and he is probably here to say. as a result, this notion of him breaking off? he could run his own campaign for sure. he has the money to do it. whether he has 4 billion, 10 billion, $6 billion. host: how much money could he put in? guest: as much money as he wanted to from his own pocket. if you wanted to be self-funded like ross perot did he would have the ability to do that. this is somebody where money is not a concern for him. support would be another thing. it goes back to that notion that if you have a lot of people donating to your campaign, it's more than just money you can use. it's an investment that people are making to support you. whether donald trump gets that is very unclear but he definitely has the requisite amount of money to run his own campaign, if he's going to spend his way to do it. you can be a billionaire, but when you are talking about billion dollar campaigns he will have to pony up a lot of his own resources. host: good morning tom republican line, louisville. caller: i'm wondering how much of the actual campaign money is spent to continue illegal immigration. i guess the simple fact here in kentucky -- california has got at least nine representatives that do not represent citizens. they are actually representing illegal immigrants. i know in texas the supreme court was going to look at the fact that republicans were redistricting so that they could take advantage of those illegal immigrants. to me that is probably the biggest in going on that you hear nothing about. what would you have to say about that? guest: in a campaign sense it is difficult to quantify how much money in a campaign is going to a specific issue, like illegal immigration or any other issue, for that matter. what i know is this. in the past we have seen some candidates spend a good chunk of their money and resources on messages, on advertisements or promotional materials that did talk about the issue of illegal immigration. we haven't talking about super pac's and outside groups a lot. some of those organizations also talk about immigration to a pretty strong degree. they cast those messages and advertisements in the light of what those candidates have done, what their record is. as you will see with other issues as well. while i cannot give the caller a specific figure, you connect spect that certainly on the republican side during the primary that areas antedates are going to be -- a various candidates are going to be talking about this issue and expecting to say a decent amount and spend on that issue as well. it will definitely be in the mix. host: just a couple of minutes left. tom, pittsburgh, pennsylvania, democratic line, good morning. caller: all of the money they are spending on these elections is at seen. let me tell you something else. when george bush, the dad, became president, one of the first things he said was -- we are going to have a new world order. peace, prosperity, partnership. one nation. that's what the democrats are doing two. i'm a democrat. between hillary and bush? i cannot vote. another thing. the black population of this country, between 18 and 30, is over 22%, yet we are taking in all of these immigrants. all of these immigrants. it's awful. host: let's see of we can get in dave, california. caller: i wanted to ask -- we spent all of this money, billions of dollars on and pains in the. we don't have no money here. that seems pretty greedy to me. i just wondered, if it seems like the election officials are just in bought. people are always talking about immigration. they can solve immigration in a minute to what the president of the united states says. they don't want to do that. they want people to come here and work for two dollars per hour. cheap labor. that's the only thing. build a fence, built 10 fences, it wouldn't do any good. if they want to solve a problem when an employee target people illegally, he will go to jail and that solves the problem right there. host: what are we looking for when are we looking at the next campaign finance numbers coming out? guest: potentially you will have a new set of numbers coming out in october for the candidates themselves. what we will get our first look at what the super pac's who are supporting the candidates are raising. just at the end of this month we will be reporting on that as well. the last caller brought up an interesting point as well -- why are we in this situation in the first place? why can we not change it? in short you have the players also serving as the referees. neither the democrats nor the republicans want to give the other side and advantage, which is why it is so difficult to get reform or change on the campaign finance and passed into law. --end passed into law. host: always appreciate your time on "the washington journal." guest: thank you. host: that is our show. see you back here tomorrow morning at 7 a.m. eastern, 4 a.m. pacific. have a great day. 202-748-8003[captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] ♪ ♪ >> the cuban government will officially open its empathy to the united states later on today as the two countries

Related Keywords

Arkansas , United States , Vietnam , Republic Of , Jerusalem , Israel General , Israel , Louisiana , Nevada , Alabama , El Paso , Texas , California , Fort Hood , San Diego , New Mexico , Russia , Hyattsville , Maryland , Washington , District Of Columbia , Mexico , Arizona , Bay City , Michigan , Florida State University , Florida , Cambodia , Massachusetts , Monticello , Pennsylvania , Rockland , Cuba , Los Angeles , New York , Canada , New Hampshire , Germany , North Carolina , Iran , Kentucky , Boston , Illinois , Indiana , Town Hall , Virginia , Colombia , Wisconsin , Georgia , Oregon , Beaverton , Denver , Colorado , Oklahoma , Tennessee , Thailand , Howard Beach , Stevens Point , Huntersville , Tijuana , Baja California , Ohio , Dallas , North Dakota , Capitol Hill , Naperville , Warsaw , L67 , Poland , Colombian , Americans , Mexicans , America , Mexican , Colombians , Iranians , Iranian , Israeli , Russians , American , Russian , Canadians , German , Palestinian , Cuban , Ma Bell , Marco Rubio , Ben Carson , Denny Hoyer , Nancy Pelosi , Adriana Cohen , Ron Paul , Ronald Reagan , Anna Palmer , Dave Leventhal , Jim Webb , George Bush , Arianna Huffington , Jimmy Hoffa , John Kerry , A Robin Hood , Dick Cheney , John Boehner , Rick Santorum , Benjamin Netanyahu , Donnell Atwood , Bobby Kennedy , Andrew Sealy , John Mccain , Leonard Dayton , Bernie Sanders , David Leventhal , Chuck Schumer , El Chapo , George Soros , Const Duchenne , Brad Garrett , Robin Hood , Woodrow Wilson , Obama Rodney , Andrew Seeley , Jeb Bush , Mike Lillis , Ashton Carter , George W Bush , Lindsey Graham , Mike Huckabee , Las Vegas , Lincoln Chafee , Mann Guzman , Ross Perot , Mike Murphy , Hillary Clinton , Ted Cruz ,