Transcripts For CSPAN2 Capital News Today 20120801

side of having tons of speech whether it is quite or loud or accurate or inaccurate or whether the speech is a very negative, frankly this morning. super. >> host: a comment from james writes in the vote buying accomplishments, so somebody who is perhaps in favor of the ads. want to point out that the washington examiner from yesterday obama defends the negative campaigning as the head line president obama invoked the founding of politicians to defend the negative campaigning before predicting that he would get the economy going and this phase of the campaign you see a lot of negative ads and contract adds although when people start saying how terrible this obama said during a fund-raiser at the hotel in new york city i have to remind them to take a look at what jefferson and adams have to say about each other and democracy has always been pretty rough and messy the campaign preferred term with their heads on romney. going back to the days of the founding father if not a little bit more modern. >> guest: that is absolutely true john adams accused thomas jefferson as being in the pocket of the french and procuring american versions for french nobility. andrew jackson when he ran for president was criticized to read and his mother was a british war balad the political advertising back in the 1840's. look at the highest level of what we think of has historically the highest level of american political debate or of rhetoric. the lincoln-douglas debate. the the date has to bring in the supporters and the douglas supporters separately so they wouldn't brawl and put them on separate sides. it might be wrong for people to pay attention to now maybe one person speaking yet another for 90 minutes and another person speaking for an hour. but what they were doing is attacking the their person's position and the other person's position on slavery. what we not want to have a negative ad by abraham lincoln criticizing his opponents for supporting slavery? it seems okay to me. >> host: let's go to fred on the independent line from bedford pennsylvania. you are on. >> caller: good morning, gentlemen think you for taking the call, professor goldstein. i have to wonder about all this money being spent. i guess it has to be spent. but i don't understand why as far as the presidential election goes because they don't elect the president or vice president. and we used to focus more on congressional senatorial campaigns as far as money being spent and positive and negative ads and outside of that, of the lady called earlier and said she was really mad about all the money being spent and everything and i kind of agreed with her that it's like going through a restaurant menu and then you have these little fast food items is what they are selling at a high price. we are 15 trillion in of the whole and we have all these people with law degrees and five tvd education and they can't do better than this is really sad. and i would also like to say i support ron paul. i've read a few of his books and it just doesn't seem the popular vote has anything to do any more. it's just like a formality. the current republican candidate from my opinion he is in a hurry to get this process over. >> host: if you want to comment. >> caller: there's a lot in that comment and he's getting a lot of information out on your show for sure. there's going to be a lot of money spent on the senate races. there's no doubt about that. the senate very much in play is like the presidential race and advertising number small number of states you're also going to see advertising targeting nine come ten states that have competitive senate races. the house will be more of a heavy lift for the democrats to take back but also very competitive elections in the house and we see a lot of money spent. again, you have incredible passion by many of your callers and that's terrific but it's also interesting to see how there's passion for -- there something that's very clear in the political science research with the communications research called the ha style media where you can show people with different predispositions about particular subjects the same exact story and one side will think it's completely one-sided and the other will think it's completely one-sided for the other. so perceptions of ads in the same way the perceptions of speeches and perceptions of campaign events are very strongly driven by peoples predispositions. and you have a line for democrats here. you have a line for republicans because i guess you think people's dispositions are driving their attitudes of little bit and we are going to label them and then we have independent. what seems to be different about your independence which is great most independent scott there are not very engaged in the political system and i think one of the things that's happened in this country is you have a shrinking number of independents or you may have a large number of independent but you don't have a large number of independent voters who actually showed up. >> host: let's go to one of those now. kevin is an independent from jacksonville florida. what do you think about mr. col d'aspin's comments? >> because i'm from a swing state -- good morning, gentlemen, sorry. because i'm from a swing state like ohio, we get a lot of heavily concentrated and one super pak for another side or directly from the campaign and i would like to credit you for number one being open and honest and having democrats and republicans and independents. i'm not a supporter of him that ron paul here and around the nation they are getting shot out by the mainstream of commercial television, cable news network's and their voices are not being heard. at least the ideals can. having you and also pbs to fact check most of these things and show coverage of the senate floor and house of representatives gives us of seeing to it because the negative campaigns, these ads that they have lee highlight the things they actually want you to know about and the three things that they actually want to concentrate on. >> host: he talks about the bar being too high for running television ads. can you talk about the ads getting into the social media, facebook, trader. what do we see spending on these other platforms? >> we are seeing spending on digital. the spending on digital tends to be for two things. one, to raise money, so the candidates put ads for videos on the web to raise money and then a the television stations that air the ads on the air. political advertising tends to draw a lot of media attention. so a lot of time they are putting them out and may not even put them out at very heavy levels because they are trying to draw the attention into the free media. one of the old tricks in the book is to make the ad and you used to have a press conference once and try to get a bunch of media coverage. hearing to put it out on social media or facebook and then try to get the news media to air the ad. >> host: want to put out one more for you. at the end of the electoral campaign race, negative advertising is seen as a desperate resource just like mccain and 08. take us to what you think in a minute or so we have left here is going to happen in the final months of this campaign in terms of what we are going to see from advertising to disconnect 100 days from now until the election and i think you are going to see a couple things happen. obama has had to get vantage in terms of the volume of tv advertising early on in june and july i don't we think we are witnessing the president and his allies have an advantage in the air war mexico obama have a slight advantage in a couple states mostly obama over the last week we have seen state after state on republicans able to air more ads we are going to see the romney campaign able to spend more money and the republican groups spending more money. we are certainly going to see the president remained negative on mitt romney because he needs to define mitt romney. the big thing to pay attention to were the two big things to pay attention to which states are the ads going are they still on this it's pretty decent news for the president of the playing field expands that's better news for the romney campaign depending where it expands and the big thing to pay attention to is how does the romney campaign and how are their allies in groups going to start introducing mitt romney over the next couple of months i think we will see a little bit of that proceeding the convention. they are a big chance for the campaign to introduce their guide to the american public and then we are going to see more of a mixed balance of advertising on the republican side with mitt romney for the rest times triet >> host: you can see more of the work at kantarmediana.com or at the "washington post" and.com. thanks for joining us. >> guest: thanks for having me. >> we have to be clear about the ways we own ourselves and we own our history and the history is phenomenal and a vital and special. >> kathleen sebelius joined a number of democrats to promote new women's health provisions from the health care law that goes into effect tomorrow. coverage provisions require companies to offer certain preventive care services without additional co-payments in putting annual breast exams, prenatal care and contraception. this is an hour. >> good morning everybody. i first want to start by thanking senator mikulski for organizing this announcement today and for inviting me to join these wonderful senate leaders and a consumer from ohio to talk about women's health. the leaders i met today have been such strong advocates for women and their health for decades and i am really pleased to join them. today we are here to mark a new day for women's health in america. starting tomorrow thanks to the new health care law all insurance policies will be required to cover new care that women need to stay healthy and they will cover the care without charging women anything out of pocket. as women we are likely to be the health care decision makers and our families keeping our children up to date on checkups, urging our spouses to take care of themselves, helping an elderly parent stay on medication or find the extra money in the family budget to pay for health insurance. but too often we put our own health last and that is especially true when it comes to preventive care, the regular checkups and screenings pursue important to staying healthy that can be too easy to put off and what makes it worse is that before the health care law, many insurers didn't even cover basic women's care. other health care plans charge such high co-payments that they discouraged many women from getting basic preventive services. so as a result surveys showed that more than half of the women in this country believe or avoided prevent care because of its costs and that is simply not right and it's not good for our country that thinks to the health care law it's about change. thanks to the new law, new private plans and medicare have already begun covering potentially lifesaving tests and care for men and women such as cholesterol screenings and flu shots with no co-payments. beginning tomorrow all new insurance plans will be required to cover additional services and tests for women with no out-of-pocket costs including domestic violence screenings come fda-approved contraception, breast feeding counseling and supplies and a wollman visit where she can sit down and talk with her health care provider. according to a report released today by our department, approximately 47 women in america will soon be eligible to receive this care with no co-payment. no woman should have to choose between seeing her doctor and putting food on the table for her family. now many women won't have to make it difficult to place any longer. it's important to note that soon women will see even more protection thanks to the new health care law. starting in 2014 it will be legal for companies to deny someone coverage because they are a breast cancer survivor were pregnant or a victim of domestic violence, and will also be illegal finally in america to charge women more than men just because they are women. in other words being a woman will no longer be a pre-existing condition in this country. for too long insurance companies have stacked the deck against women forcing us to pay more for coverage that didn't meet our needs and thanks to the affordable care act, a new day for women's health has finally arrived. now i would like to turn over the podium to senator mikulski who not only has been an incredible champion for women's health is the dean of women in congress. senator mikulski. >> good morning everybody. what a happy day. tomorrow, august 1st will be an opportunity for women in need of preventive health care services will be able to take a giant step forward to have access to the care they need without the barriers of cost or discrimination. tomorrow, august 1st, put this down on your calendar. women will be yet to have access to a central preventive services that will provide early detection and screening for those situations they are most at risk and also provide opportunities to care and services that they need as wives and mothers. this is called the women's prison of health care amendment. during the health care debate, we wanted to do to things. we wanted to be able to save lives and money. we knew preventive health care was and he essential cornerstone to that early detection and screening provides the kind of information where we know the problem before it spreads to a lethal nature. one of the most important tools we have is mammograms but in the midst of the health care debate, they wanted to take mammograms away from us. well, not gone on in here. [laughter] and what did we do? we organized with senator harkin and senator dodd leading the committee working with the good men and women that support us i was able to bring to the floor the preventive women's health care amendment. we suited up, we put on our lipstick and we were able to pass this legislation. what does it mean? it means we will be able to have access to those early detection screening things for breast cancer, colon and rectal cancer, lung cancer, all of those dreaded c words that we are terrified of when we know that a woman gets the disease that not only affect her but the entire family. but we in congress didn't want to write the benefit we wanted to turn to a learned society like the institute of medicine to say what are the essentials services and that's why they came up with the annual checkup, the breastfeeding support, the domestic violence screening as well as access to contraception. what we now will be little to do is at the top pillars of women will no longer go undetected. the kind of support services that we need to be healthy, to be good mothers and to be able to have our family life to be able to do it and we even many of barriers of care of the most important was cost because of the women didn't seek that because of the co-payment and the deductibles, to read the second was the attitude of insurance companies that charge women more and we got less. we've eliminated those barriers. we feel eliminated those benefits and august 1st women all over america will be able to have access to care that they've had to fight for for so long. i'm grateful we passed the act the we have the support of the leadership. women offered it often brought to the attention we have the support of a fantastic man senator tom harkin was one of the prime movers for the affordable health care act he's one of the movers and the whole concept of prevention and wellness when we save lives and save money and he's been a great champion for women and of quality never are shy about supporting women who seek equality let me bring about our good friend and said champion senator tom harkin. >> is it tough to follow barbara mikulski. [laughter] think you for your dynamic leadership but that part of health and human services i can't think enough senator mikulski we team up together senator kennedy asked each of us to have a certain parts of the health care reform bill. we work together very closely to put this all together and while we work hard to put together a strong preventive package that includes everyone because we wanted to change of a sick care system to the health care system one where people could get early checkups and prevent an illness from progressing. a lot of that went into effect a couple years ago under the preventative services -- preventive services task force recommendations but that covered everyone. what we are talking about that goes into effect tomorrow are the recommendations of the institute of medicine that pertain particularly to women and that is the barbara championed and brought to the senate was this focus but because you need to state the obvious women are different than men and certain health requirements for women are different than men as we asked the institute of medicine to come up with a list of preventive services that ought to be included in this package. they did. that's what starts tomorrow. so tomorrow 47 million american women will now be able to get preventive services they couldn't get before at no cost, no co-payment camano deductible, they will be about to go in and get a wollman visit annually as a checkup. i know we took as a lot of breast cancer and other cancer screenings and i will return to that in just a second but there's a lot of other things, too detecting this early whether it sells much, diabetes or a whole host of other things women need to have a visit every yar so will start tomorrow. 47 million american women, 519,000 in my state of iowa when they get their plans renewed will have the scriven of services available to them. we fought hard to include these. senator mikulski has given me thought but we would never have been able to do it without senator mikulski is leadership should focus is like a laser on this issue making sure that women have all of these preventative services available and if i had one regret it would take us two years to get your butt better late than never so to marvel is a new day. on a more personal level i lost both of my sisters of breast cancer. my only two sisters. at a fairly young age. when my older sister died and we went to her funeral, her younger sister was there and had no idea that she also had breast cancer. within two years she was dead also it to the left young families. they lived in rural areas, small towns. they didn't have any money, they didn't really have health care coverage. for them to go and get a checkup would have cost money, money they could ill afford at that time. they had kids coming and as i said, they didn't have a lot of money. they didn't have health care benefits. it would have been different if they had this available to them. early checkups come early screenings but for them it was too late by the time they discovered that so this has a very personal poignant meeting to me. i hope women in this country now will take advantage of this and will go and get those annual screenings and checkups. early detection we know works and millions of lives can be saved and senator mikulski said families will not have to lose a parent or a sister because of breast cancer or cervical cancer with the affairs. so when i year republicans say and they still say they want to repeal this if they want to take this away from women i stand with senator mikulski not as long as we are here. senator landrieu. >> thank you, senator harkin for your extraordinary leadership and willingness to share such a personal and moving story to underscore the importance of today and i think senator mikulski for her tireless leadership and in tuzee sestak leadership and continuing to fight hard for this amendment which was adopted. and secretary sebelius fer leading the nation had a really transformational moment for all of us. the goal of the affordable health care act is to help our nation become healthy, more healthy and in being a more healthy we can be a more prosperous and economically vital nation. it is a blessing when the citizens are healthy and it's truly a blessing when the women of the nation are healthy and the mothers of a nation are healthy because as senator mikulski point dhaka and secretary sebelius, women are the primary caregivers of the nation's a little fear of the caregivers are, the better the nation is going to be. it makes more sense if the shame that this was all the legal until today. so with this legislation, with this government requirement, which is important, a partnership with insurance companies, women will be able to get the care they need to stay healthy to raise their children themselves. the cost of having mother's healthy being able to raise their children as opposed to transferring some of that burden and the society or the town or the community are enormous. for louisianan, the state i represent come over 600,000 women, senator mikulski, tomorrow with private insurance. not when and on medicare, women on medicaid which would benefit as well but 600,000 women with private insurance would be able to access them to keep themselves healthy and well working minimum-wage jobs or women that show up at the highest levels of the largest companies in louisiana at the corporate level. it wouldn't happen without senator mikulski's leadership and senator harkin we are all grateful so let's keep our women and our mothers healthy. thank you. senator lautenberg? >> thanks, senator landrieu. i am pleased to be here with colleagues that had the guts to stand up and fight the battle women deserve. recently healthcare led by barbara mikulski who always surprises us with her leadership, her dynamism, her tenacity and all the things the resulted in where we stand on this right now. could you imagine what would have happened just february when one of our colleagues in the senate decided to bring an amendment would strike the women's health care section of the reform bill? .. to repeal health care the first state to start repealing the first day he has office. well, we are seeing too bad. you don't know barbara mikulski and her following. all of us salute when she comes in the room because she has art respect and thanks. i want to keep their mitts off my kids and grandkids. we'll continue to fight the fight led by barbara mikulski, by secretary sebelius and my other colleagues here. be ready. tell those guys on the other side. tomorrow is a new time coming and we will keep on shining a light on that. thank you. >> first, let me tell you on behalf of the people of maryland but i had the honor of representing over 1 million women who benefit from today's announcement in my state. we are proud that we have sent to the united states senate one of the great leaders on gender equity issues in america and senator barbara mikulski. she has been a leader throughout her career on gender equity issues, whether it is pay fairness with the lily that better act or the preventive health care. senator mikulski, we thank you on behalf of a grateful nation with the progress we've made to close the gap on fairness and equality in a health care system. i want to thank secretary sebelius and president obama for taking on the health care crisis in america and the passage of the affordable care act. our whole nation benefits that it's a right not a privilege, but it's particularly important for women because more women are uninsured. more women have been discriminated in our health care system and provisions of the affordable care act help to close the gap and fairness in america on health care. secretary sebelius already mentioned what a stake in effect. we are to have no limits on lifetime caps, which affect women more than men by 2014 the annual b. gaughan on insurance policies. we talk about the preexisting condition. women who have been discriminated against are really the poster children for why we need to eliminate preexisting conditions. that will end in 2014. higher premiums charged to women just because they are women, that will end. on august 1st, tomorrow, there are new provisions to take affect. i went to highlight one quickly. the premium rebates. so insurance companies have to get value with the premium dollar. that takes effect august 1st. once again, women will benefit from that provision. i'm particularly proud of the preventive health services you've heard about. senator mikulski was responsible for the amount that would put into law. the fact the institute of medicine will do what services are needed for women. it is their report and recommendation we are now implementing tomorrow that would give women the preventive health care services they need without copayments. this is an important day as we continue to make progress in america to provide quality affordable health care to other people in the nation and i'm proud to be on senator mikulski mikulski's team. with that can't let me introduce senator shaheen. >> thank you. tomorrow, august 1st is a great day for women and families in this country because tomorrow the provisions of the affordable care act that are so important to women go into effect. i want to thank senator mikulski, senator harkin and all my colleagues here for the work they put into making the affordable care act and these provisions the law. the data is very clear. these provisions a senator harkin said so eloquently will save lives. now, opponents may not want to pay for those common but the reality is that because these provisions are going to go into effect tomorrow, that women will be better off, their families will be better off. and as we look at the underlying cost of health care and mrs. m., we will be more cost effect to what these provisions. so it is a great day for women and families. >> i am really proud to follow senator shaheen and to stand today with some of the giants in the senate and i agree with everything that has been said except i think frank lautenberg said -- i think he is the worst surprise by senator mikulski's tenacity and tireless men by someone who i have really come to admire, i am not surprised, but admiring. they're a two giants that are not with us today who stood strong and tall. senator kennedy and senator dodd. i'm very honored to follow senator dodd as the senator from connecticut whose 270,000 will benefit tomorrow. they will see this new day and new dawn and it will be a great day for america because it combines the quality and quality. it saves lives, but it also saves dollars for anyone who may be impervious to the life saving a fact of both my share, let's talk about dollars. prevention and detection save resources and expenses and they will drive down costs as we must do in our health care delivery system. we talk about diabetes screening, cancer screening, basic health screening that means protect demons stopping disease before it's cost spiraled astronomically out of control. and that is a great day for all americans. it's a great day for families because when a mom or sister gets sick, the entire family suffers. it is a great day for health care delivery system and i think it's an historic day for america because we are seeing here today we will not retreat, we will not repeal. we will not reject a step in the right direction. washington can get this thing done. we can break the gridlock in assisting forward and i want to thank my colleagues for their great leadership and introduce someone who has been a champion of health care, senator brown. >> thank you, senator blumenthal. there have been a number of heroes in this country. some well-known, some not so well known fighting for gender equity. barbara mikulski, no one has done it better and longer than she has. i was in columbus two days ago with someone, somebody stepped up because of her fight with my run this country, especially lower income women are making better income and earning what they had to earn. because of her efforts than there's another hero in the fight for health care for women, anne creech from cleveland, ohio. a year and half ago i was in toledo and we announced as people across the country announced the beginning that began the effort for medicare and preventive care, starting in early 2011, some 600,000 or 600,700,000 senior women in ohio began to have preventive services. mammograms, various kind of physical and no co-pay, no deductible. that was the beginning of this. tomorrow my state, starting tomorrow, 1.8 billion women want access to services. notable among them you will hear from anne creech is not a typical story. a typical story someone with the curry she is shown perhaps, but a story that is all too common. she's the mother of four. she says for kids and the grandmother of 12 kidletts as she says to me. hundreds of thousands in other states she is really the reason that we all make these fights. i remember in the house committee with senator mikulski and tom harkin as we wrote some of the preventive elements in this bill and how important they were in the fight says to me to do the right thing because the people like anna creech that are living their life everyday caring about the community and she is willing with all of her donna says to step up and fight an ongoing way. she's an activist in toledo and activists here in were proud and i'm proud to introduce anne creech. >> thank you, senator brown and senator mikulski. it's a pleasure to be here and it is an honor and listening to everybody's speed. three minutes is kind of a tough thing to keep when you're talking about human life here. [inaudible] >> okay. i'm a three-time survivor of cancer. you live with cancer every day of your life. it doesn't just go away. i've been very fortunate and very blessed. my first thought was 30 years ago when i was diagnosed with breast cancer and i did have insurance painfully. i also had checked myself for 18 years because when i was 18 years old they found a lump and i glad i had a doctor who said to self-examinations and watch out and pay attention to your body. so i did find a lump when i was 36 years old. i was very lucky i had double mastectomy is and eight other surgeries for repair work done because of my stack needs. but it all worked out great and i was in 1982. and the year 2000 i was diagnosed with colorectal cancer. i will tell you i had no signs at all until he found a little bit of blood one day an ipod because they paid attention to my body i realize they shouldn't be. so i called the doc or right away and they did a sigmoidoscopy i mean and they found a large tumor that they felt and i had seven different doctors opinions. they all felt it was a ten-year growth of that tumor. now i was 55 years old at that time. that was 11 years ago. had i had a colonoscopy at 50, the might of been avoided. have i had a 45 i would never go through anything. thankfully, and i say that very much. i'd have insurance because i ended up at washington d.c. down here at a hospital for special procedures that was taught all over the world and us fortunate enough to get into him to have the tumor removed. when i came back malignant attitude of much more extensive surgery and i was back to columbus ohio because no one wanted to work on me in toledo. the expertise wasn't there at the appointed time. now we come forward into the year 2000 i was free diagnosed with breast cancer. i called my insurance company right away because the insurance i finally got. i was denied insurance after my employer had asked me right after that colorectal. an employer asked me if it please go off the insurance because i was costing everybody too much in the company. the figure he gave me a later found out was costing the company. not the individuals. several individuals were carrying a couple different jobs. there was no way he wanted them to pay extra because of me. i said of course i would check for other insurance. i had no idea what i was walking into. i was refused by several other insurance companies. i finally ended up at open a moment. my cheapest with 1650 a month. i finally ended up with insurance at 385, but i was on total life exclusion for cancer and respiratory and respiratory came up because apparently through the anesthetic i got a little bit of copd from the colorectal surgery. i don't take medicine tyranny thing, but i'm denied. in 2010 when this happened and i got pre-diagnosed, i called the company right-of-way and said are you to cover me he said probably not because of its if you don't mature deductible. i'm not a sick person. i take good care of myself, but i get cancer. i don't know why. i came back positive because i had cancer and was a preexisting condition they were going to cover me. i canceled right then and there because i was paying money and not getting anything back. luckily it was approved for the bcp program through ohio, the and cervical cancer program and i was very fortunate because my bill for my one day surgery and an out $4000. i'm single and that would've really put me back. so is very fortunate to have that and i'm glad they took over. i still had about eight to $10,000 of bills on my own, but that was a sure cry difference from $40,000. pardon me? >> or being dead. >> i'm just a voice to represent not just thousands come at billions of people, women and men. being of women, i can't even tell you how much we appreciate bush are doing and how much the impact is going to be on women. most of the people i know around here women fighting cancer. i've a friend who's been fighting for six years from a recurrence many years ago. she can't move. she could hardly get in and out of the car. she can't sit in the sun because of that institution but it's too hard to get out of bed. she could be around for another six to 10 to 20 years because until lung cancer has her vital organs, you can live for a long time. i can tell you it's painful. so to live in a world of pain and agony and fear and when you hear those words, you've got cancer, i will tell you it's a paralyzing moment. once you get past the moment, you decide what to do because the decision itself is gigantic. until you make that decision, you are in a very black hole and you have to move forward and do what you're going to do and make up your mind that you get better. but the screenings and the testing and learning about your body and educated is very important because most of these cancers can be avoided. i know i would not have had colorectal cancer if i would've had a colonoscopy before the time i did. i breast cancer could've been a lot worse had i not noticed in an early stage. i've been very fortunate. thousands out there, millions that are not as fortunate. i will just throw wanting out. i'm talking about just cancer patients alone, but if you take 9/11 and you take a 9/11 every other day of the year, then you have the same amount of people that are dying from cancer in our country. 9/11, there was terrific. it was every expletive you can think of. these are people dying day by day and living with pain and fear and devastation, financial devastation. some losing their families. i do have four kids and 12 kidletts. i don't want to see my friends go anything untrue. i lost my brother three months ago my sister was just diagnosed with melanoma internally. and it's tough. it's very tough. so, i thank you are much, senator and all of you that have supported this bill and put this into a fact. and i pour upon each bought a strong voices the people that are not putting human life is a top priority. i don't understand how they can't, but since they are not commit thank you and please take those voices and strong. i would like to introduce marcia greenberg, a founder and copresident of the national women's level. [applause] >> before marcia and judy come up, i just want to thank them and all of the advocates because bush you heard it and testimony, she's worked at the american cancer society, cancer action law center, judy glickman for women and families, we could not have done it without each other and we were all in it together. and i want to thank the advocates because it's their voice that really brought this to the floor. many nice things were said about me today, but you have to talk about the people who were in the trenches every day, the people affected, but he's okay to give voice to the wall, statistics and so on. i want to publicly thank them because they could have never done this without their incredible, incredible homework and more compelling narrative shows why we'll never live without the repeal or even try to repeal this bill. so we will fight it and now one of the great warriors, marcia. >> thank you so much, senator mikulski, all of the champions for women who are here in this extraordinarily exciting day. anne, your story is such an amazing reminder that we are not talking about statistics. we're talking about people. we are talking about the most heart wrenching of circumstances that can be avoided and certainly an ameliorative without access to the health care system with decent health insurance for every american in this country. that is what the affordable care act, says anne with this preventive health care coming into effect tomorrow for each new plan as it comes online, the promise for women and their families is just incalculable. i want to just add a few things to what is art event that thou movingly by others who spoken earlier. first of all, it's actually the 40th anniversary this year of those women's law center. it's step by step by step, effort i have for has taken this long and longer to reach today when women's health is not an afterthought, when it isn't an add-on, when we are trying one service at a time to get included. when the model of health can include and health care can include women as well as men. and that is really what is so fundamentally thrilling about what we are on the brink of experience being. because of this affordable care act and the preventive health care amendment that senator mikulski latour's passage, where men are not only not a preexisting condition, but we have had expert identifying from the get-go. what is it that makes women healthy? what are the services that women need? they need to be included. they need to be a part of what is available in this country, not for charity, not through happenstance, but because the law incorporates women how is his fundamental purposes. you know, the national women's law center and number of years ago did a report of the individual market and anne told pretty movingly how it was to be on your own and go through help insurance. and what we found was women who have to buy health insurance for not only charged routinely more than nine, as much as 85% more, but also, that was excluding maternity coverage, excluding contraception. now, we will face in the day when women are not charged more than men and their health care needs are covered. whether it is counseling services as domestic violence survivors, whether it is the kind of testing to try to detect gestational diabetes, whether it is the availability of all forms of fda approved contraception that women no longer have to avoid because of the cost, deceased is and most affect a means of contraception for them. whether it means a visit so that the maternity coverage of follow-up is available for women. these kinds of services are they saving. they are recognition of the fact that as has been said, women do have to take care of their health and often are, because of the cost, the first one to put their health care last as they take care of others. so as each new plan turns over and women across this country and their families can really let out a side of release that they will get access to coverage once and for all, we have a lot to be thankful for, but we know that it didn't come out without affaires, without fight, without leadership, without determination and we have to continue all of those efforts to keep this progress in place. one of the things on the banner is a hash tag for health. and i know there's going to be a lot of preteen and following today and tomorrow on the aspects of what this new day will bring and what it promises over time. so it is important to state about and stay engaged and in the fight so we continue this progress and make sure that it turns into a reality for every man, every one in, every child in this country. thank you. >> i forgot to introduce a dear colleague and a dear friend, judith lichtman. >> thank you, marcia and thank you senator mikulski and of course secretary sebelius and all the wonderful champions on behalf of the affordable care act and most especially women's health. this law is the greatest advance for women's health in a generation and tomorrow, august august 1st, 1 of his promises becomes a reality as you've heard from millions of women who will be healthier as a result. beginning august 1st, the affordable health care to ensure that you insurance plans cover preventive health care without car sharing and with no co-pays. for too long have put these critical services out of reach for so many women. this is one of the most tangible benefit from reform. thanks to the affordable care act, no longer what women go without birth control because he can afford the co-pay. no longer what women go without hiv and sexual disease transmitted disease protection. no longer will women go without being tested for the supplies they need to breast-feed their infants and give them a healthier start in life. no longer will teens and adults at risk for domestic violence go without potentially life-saving screening and counseling. it is about time. the affordable care act covers annual breast exams, mammograms and pap tests at no cost. tomorrow will be a determined to the preventive care that millions of women need and soon, reform will outlaw gender discrimination and price is at long last. .. starting tomorrow we have the affordable care act and its champions to think for that and we thank you. we had some time reserved this morning on this issue for the the leader so she asked me to try to field any questions the house bill to ban abortion and the district of columbia and given the of gulf between the two chambers and the two parties on the issues is that something that is going to be resolved after the election? >> a long time ago i chaired the committee on the district of columbia. i said then and believe them and believe ever since the congress of the united states should not interfere in the government of the district of columbia. regardless of banning abortions after 20 weeks or whatever this is, this is no business, period. >> they have declared this regulation to be a legal and unjust. it could be enforced on the center. do you believe the government has the right to support the small business owners? >> what i do believe is the obama administration carved out a very sensible sort of middle ground exception to this in which churches, religious organizations certainly are exempt from this, but for-profit businesses that cover a broad variety of people. they don't have to pay and if they don't want to for the individual but they do have to pay into the health care and it's up to the insurance company is whether they want to carry this as a provision. the obama administration comes up with a sensible. i think we also have to keep in mind a lot of times we talk about birth control or contraception. many times for many young women of child-bearing age, it's not just to prevent a birth or pregnancy. there are many women who take birth control pills for example because they have terrible menstrual cramps once a month. some of them almost incapacitated, can't work. i know of young women myself who because of this are able to work and be productive and its prescribed by their doctor. are we being told a woman has to take that from a doctor back and show it to her employer? or show it to her insurance company about what the diagnosis is? >> we wouldn't ask anyone to do that. i wouldn't ask anyone to do that either. so i think that we have to move ahead on this. i don't know what the outcome while the case is decided i don't know all the facts in the case. i just don't. but we have carved out the obama administration has carved out a viable exception for religious organizations and churches. anybody have anything to add to that? >> i would say briefly that the injunction stage i think if you look at any of the legal precedents this particular provision is well within the legal bounds as well as being sensible as senator harkin said, and of course in this particular case a company that i believe is installs heating and air-conditioning and the like that is what the company is, ironically enough of course for those that happen to work for this company, whoever thought they were working for a religious company as they are and it's not a religious organization at all, they are paying in whatever their share of insurance is coming and so when men need to be able to get access to health care just like men can and one of the things we have to make sure of is that this does respect women's health needs and women's own religious principles and beliefs, too. so in the balancing, legal and constitutional precedents take all of this into account, and that's why we are quite confident of this this case and others move forward that the provisions will be upheld. spoon over the last couple of years a number of studies have come out regarding the health care debate that reported that breast cancer screening mammograms and these kind things have become excessive and have the emotional concerns for people because they were positive and then . it seems as this is a response to the discussion these prescreening tests are crucial and necessary. the problem also is a lot of these studies are coming out of increasing insurance rates. there has to be a regulation on insurance the debate on single-payer and the public option has to be retaken under this consideration explosively because what you see is deregulated financial industries like we saw with of the wall street situation on the scandal. we need fundamental regulation like we need glass-stegall so maybe you can take up -- >> so that's a statement, not a question. >> the statement on glass-stegall is an important. >> the executive intelligence review. >> what are we going to do about the private insurance companies what's going to regulate them and mandated them to keep prices low is we need to have real health care for people. how do you provide a affordable insurance? it doesn't simply do the job. >> on the exchanges it well. ebal have a different system in 2014 with the exchanges of more transparency with people being able to see what is offered on the exchanges and with different companies are offering. quite frankly was going to happen is the american people get what we have here in congress the different plans we can pick and choose from. i know i've changed my plan from when i was here my wife and i and when we had kids we changed it and when our kids got older we changed it again to what ever the situation was. most people haven't had that option but now they will in 2014 and we hope that will keep prices down but i also believe as strongly as anything but what we are talking about in terms of moving to more preventive care, early detection is going to do more as they say i hate to use this phrase been that the cost curve than anything we have ever done and this is in part of the women's health care preventative health care is a big part of it. [inaudible conversations] at the foot of the bridge i was beaten. i thought i was going to die. i thought that i saw death. we came within hearing distance of the state troopers and a man identified himself and said i'm major john with state troopers. this was an unlawful march and wouldn't be allowed to continue. one of the young people walking beside me said major give us a moment. and the major said advance. the bipartisan policy center hosted a discussion today on campaign finance and the era of supertax. panelists described the system with groups that do not have to comply with disclosure laws on outstanding those that do. a recent study by the advertising consulting firm says title campaign spending will reach might lead $8 billion this year with about half of that collecting super pacs. this is an hour and 20 minutes. some get a bipartisan policy center and i have more than a passing interest in this issue as running ten campaigns for congress, successfully, one unsuccessfully. we will talk about that last one. but i was there when the history changed and when campaigns began to become very, very expensive and so this is a matter of personal interest to me as well as a matter of great interest to the country but we are delighted to welcome you for the 60-cent in our democracy project 2012 election series. john will introduce the democracy project here, the project as chaired by myself, dirk kempthorne the governor from idaho and steve case. and so, the topic today is the capitol behind capitol hill developments in the campaign finance and the 2012 election cycle and i suspect the panelists will not be limited only to what is happening on capitol hill but will probably dhaka the presidential race as well because that is the material and. sometimes in this debate i think that capitol hill gets neglected in the discussions we talk about the money going into the presidential race when in fact the impact of money on a congressional and senatorial races is probably greater than it is on the presidential races. as mentioned having witnessed the increase in pac money has had on the elections at every level of government over the last three decades as well as a growth of super pacs and related entities in the past few years i think it's important to bring down the numbers and discuss to what degree money will affect the upcoming elections and the panelists are very talented and able to do that. i do want to raise this point these are not abstract money about politics, the amount of non-super pacs money, the amount of super pacs money and hard and soft money. the fact of the matter is these issues go to the basic lessons of our democracy and that is our our elected officials able to make decisions based on what is in the public interest or does money prevent them from making decisions that affect people in their daily lives? does the amount and volume and intensity of money affect public policy decisions? simply put and perhaps rather craft fleet as it by votes, does it by outcomes and if it doesn't, why is it given at all? why are people putting this huge amount of money into the political system other than trying to influence the course of history and the direction of the government? the other thing is how does it affect the interest of civility? i noticed in today's "washington post" a full-page ad by the knights of columbus. a house divided against itself cannot stand. help us amend the tone of american politics. a lot of folks including we are not talking about the tone come civility, respect for institutions, how the public views government. the question is how does money, the intensity, the volume of money and the relationship and lots of negative advertising impact how the public views our political system and is it any different than it ever was before and i think our panelists can give some perspective on these things as well so this is an important topic and i want to turn things over to my moderator for today. >> thank you. with me introduce the panel and then turn to them and have a discussion. a professor of political science at the state university of new york at albany and has written extensively in books and academic articles as well as popular articles on campaign finance as well as other topics on conagra's and other institutions. a senior fellow at the center for responsive politics. for are the special assistant to the staff to deter the federal election commission where he spent 30 years really knowing the numbers from the inside and now we are hoping he can tell us from the outside what is going on. rod to my right is a partner at covington and birling where he heads up the collection in political practice group and has clients across the different parts of the political world parties as well as federal candidates and more on the republican side is fair to say as well as testified before the numerous committees of congress and written extensively on issues related to campaign finance. and eliza camey is the staff writer of the gq roll call where she covers lobbying come campaign finance, other election administration related issues and also spent a significant amount of time writing on the same issues for national journal for ten years covering the congress, political money and lobbying. we are going to turn to the panel and again what we are going to do is go back and forth and ask some questions to start off so what the panelists tell us what the big landscapists kuhl what's new, what's different and significant. we are going to have back-and-forth and then turn to you. let me begin with michael and ask very broadly first a couple of reports that have just cannot in the campaign finance institute one on the national party and the other last week on the presidential donations from the second quarter which the numbers have just come out and michael as he always does has put them in the context historical context as well as looking at the big picture of what they really mean. so, not asking you to summarize the reports but want to put you on what is new this cycle what is big and different in 2012 but was not the case in 2010, 2008 where are we going and what is the significance of it? i am going to give a big frame overview of one of the reports and doing it because to help from the conversation this morning the national party's report looks like this for those that are catching this on video you can get it at www.campaignfinanceinstitute.or. the political party report was released yesterday i'm not going to go through the details but some of the conclusions are worth pointing out and look at the table numbers two, four and five. all of these compared receive overtime and we will look at the amount of money and the sources to set frame for the tables what are the two main thrusts of the bipartisan act of 2002 or mccain-feingold to the contribution limits on all of the money that they've taken with soft money because table four and five goes back to 2000. it lets you see that after mccain-feingold the parties managed very quickly to replace all of the money they lost. that is essentially became feingold did no harm to the political parties, and they did this for three devices. one, they got more support from small donors and number to the committee's collected a lot more from the members of congress and number three, the dnc and the rnc got more help from the presidential candidates to be as a result the parties became the most important players in the congressional elections where they asked about congressional particularly. in the closing months the parties for spending more and competitive districts than the candidates and other groups through most of the decade. this year the situation looks different with the parties are still raising a lot of money you can see that on table to. but almost all of the increase comes from the national committees and most of that can be attributed to presidential joint fund-raising committees. if you look at the dnc, you can see that the amount of money from small donors is about the same but the percentage has dropped from about 50% to 25% and the amount coming from 30,000 plus is up to 42% of the total and that is mostly through the presidential joint fund-raising. the congressional party still a different story. here are the sources of funding that haven't changed in the level hasn't changed house committees have a little bit, the senate is down a little bit. if you ask the question what does this mean in any election and i will stay away from that policy the party receipts are level with the rest of the world is changing but the independent spending from the nonparty groups the big point is this if the political parties raise the same amount, and the rest of the world changes the that means less power relatively for the party and we should talk about what that means but rather than meeting that i going to say what does that say about the policy questions. should anything be done about that? what should the future agenda be? i can start by saying as a matter of self for heisman that people when this room including us are going to be doing a lot of thinking about the future agenda ought to be. there is a lot of thought that has to occur but if you think broadly what we are hearing the noise most loudly are two different kind of answers. on the one side you hear those that say let's do away with contribution limits. let's have unlimited contributions and then all the money will go to the candidates and the parties. well, i think that that would probably do away with or affect candidates specific super pacs but i don't think that will deal with the major driving engine of the others but we can talk about that. the other side says everything flows from the supreme court citizens united decision or what buckley. let's amend the constitution. i personally just laid out where i am and don't fall on either of the camps. i think i support contribution limits and may be the constitution as problematic. but i also think that by stressing the point so much in the current conversation we miss how much of what's going on relates the policy that's not constitutional awful a couple examples to set the table and then others move on. they grow not treacly of the constitution, they grow rather in the definitions of what counts to the court delayed for independent spending. there's nothing in the constitution the would prevent a policy maker from redefining that. the constitution would clearly not only allowed but the supreme court is encouraged extended disclosure. internal revenue service foley was under the constitution looking at the nonprofit association. there are many other ideas in the consideration including ones related to the political parties we might want to get laughs to the comeback to the end of the last 1i would mention is the court has clearly upheld the constitutionality of public financing. i've co-authored articles that point out the strengths of matching funds to reinforce the small donors and in fact the experience in new york city. the large ones they not only bring in more people, they change the candidate. they also change the mix of people. candidates have an incentive to poor neighborhoods and so forth. governor cuomo and and do new york introduced an idea that i think has a good chance of passage that will extend the new york city style program for the state most of the federal bills on the agenda include something that looks like the new york city part of the program. not much chance of something happening on the federal level and short term but a pretty good chance of new york passes there will be action in a lot of states or other states. so i think that in fact will help set at least the policy conversation agenda for the future and having set an agenda or try to set an agenda that's a good place for me to let this conversation moved forward. islamic i think you're the one we segue to. i am from wichita kansas. two of my former constituents were charles and david or at least charles was from there so everyone thinks i'm particularly close with this family although the actively worked against me during some of my political campaigns. i don't mean to use them as just a foil but i wonder if you can talk about independent expenditure, super pacs, 501c4, other forms of soft money entering the system. what are the developments, what are the trends showing in that area? >> in a way it is a disadvantage because it is the subject most of us know about and hear about every day but i will give you a broad outline and then talk about some of the subtext you mentioned. we've seen in this cycle an explosion of what are called independent expenditures. these are advertising messages, communications with voters and others aimed specifically at supporting gordon dividing candidates. now more than $200 million has been on the independent expenditures so far in this cycle. >> that's every but the combined, that is up substantially from 2008, 2010 in the congressional context but i want to stop there for a minute and because i'm old and i've seen many cycles of campaign finance activity over the years i want to pull back and look at how that compares to similar activities in some cases very similar activities we saw in the past. during the 1990's all the same kind of contributions from individuals, corporations, unions were accessible to the party. they couldn't use it specifically for independent expenditures and say vote for this candidate or defeat the other but they could run the issue had for it to see -- advocacy. the message was clear to the voters so we've been there in that context after mccain-feingold when that was prohibited we saw the growth of other kind of organizations in those days it was 527 organizations that were acting in 2004, 2006, even 2008 in a similar kind of way. messages that encourage voters to call their congressman and tell them to stop being stupid or whatever the context of the and the particular message. so i spent some time this spring looking back to compare the levels of activity per those kind of things, parties in the 90's and the money context and the other groups in the early 2000 to get a sense for whether or not a phenomenon in 2012 was really so much change or was it just the kind of definition where we define the activity now is independent expenditures where before it was something more complex or a little more esoteric. then it seemed to be the case there was a huge growth in the activity rick large if you compared with the parties in the 1990's that has changed in the last couple of months pretty genetically. if you remember back to those days the parties were increasingly successful raising this money over the years so you could plot a kind of trend line for soft money activities and if you take the line as it stopped in 2002 which was the most successful and extended for ten years in a straight line backed you would come close to where we are today so in some respects you might say the world has changed a lot but it's where we might have been otherwise. that's true as long as you expand another definition to what we talked about so far is the information that's actually reported to someone and one of the problems with the understanding these kind of activities with its campaign finance or another context, too is that we define the data. we understand the information we can get and we pursue that and look at that and follows specific values, even though maybe the activities go beyond that. it's changed. it's innovation and other kind of changes its migrated in another way. and the example of that are the 501c4 organizations primarily who are doing the same kind of messages the issue efficacy including very elaborate media campaigns in the states and throughout the country and targeted states where there's no reporting that has a lot of discussion with the lack of reporting for guns but spending itself. it's been defined in mccain-feingold on the basis of the timing for what is the electioneering communication we have to report these things within 30 days of a primary election but beyond that they are issued. they are tracking the media around the country. but that is upwards of more than $70 million has been spent just in the last couple of months in the presidential context and that kind of activity. philosophical reasons why those exist they are important in the constitutional context and we can talk about that perhaps that's an important consideration but it's the case that the same kind of activity focused on the campaign and a pretty direct way has increased the level of activity by at least a factor of the third over and above what we've seen routinely reported in the federal election so whenever we have these conversations about how much money and how it is used and where it happens the dessel really is in the details in both of the context of how we define the activity, what gets reported anhow we understand what's actually happening on the ground and they can do different things that has policy consequences, too. the problem with the regulatory system being perhaps as important as the constitutional questions and how we have that understanding of what is happening or defining what goes on. we should talk about that, too. >> you make the case there was a lot of money that might be called in dependent in the past and soft money but almost by definition, money couldn't have won two primaries and when they went to the parties. a lot more money being spent now for the independent expenditures than primary -- >> sure. it's an interesting phenomenon in the context the was a key part of the republican campaign for challenge independent spending there was was a very specific, kept a couple of campaigns alive, longer than they would have otherwise which has an important role. against the discussion in the gives people traces they wouldn't have won the primary ballot. we are going to ski for example in the runoff to the texas senate race where a candidate who was not considered to be just a few months ago partly because the timing of the election and the support from outside groups coming in very aggressively and they may well be successful today. that's happened in a lot of specific contexts. sometimes it's from the candidate's family members who. it's groups that are philosophically diverted to having the competition in primaries. there's a committee that the committee for primary accountability which spent money on both sides. there are lots of seats for one party around the country so if you want competition and change, if you want a candidate to be responding to their constituency places not in the general election the primary. they look for save candidates that were not paying attention back home to find in a bible alternative but across party lines that something we've never seen before. >> perhaps of making these primary is more interesting and competitive club also perhaps more polarized. spec we do want to come back to polarization but i don't know if that's one of your clients. maybe you could let changes in the legal landscape and what's been significant. if people focus on the citizens united is the game changer but there are many cases as well as the significant regulatory decision so what's different this round and why is it happening in effect? >> i really want to go back to to those in three because there's been some change in the legal landscape in the last few years by far the most dramatic change in the campaign finance system is the mccain-feingold bipartisan campaign reform act, upheld by the u.s. supreme court in 2003, and it fundamentally changed the way our. michael characterized the data, michael malbin. if you look at the chart on the report if you see only today, only now on the 2012 presidential cycle justify a little bit exceeding where they were in 2002, the 2002 cycle which was an off-year election. you don't raise as much. the parties are pulling themselves of the mass barely from the impact of a mccain-feingold. from the national political parties and towards our site groups this was widely predicted that the time by critics of mccain-feingold. what we see today is we are reaping the world wind that was set in motion by mccain-feingold to read it is true that the parties are now doing a somewhat better job in raising money and there's been a significant uptick since the last presidential election cycle in absolute terms. in relative terms, the parties are being left in the dust and that has had a dramatic effect on the political system. in good ways and bad ways i think the positive affect has been election that we've had in this country since before the federal election campaign act in the 1970's and arguably since before the early years in the 20th century or even a 19th century tremendous increase in the competitiveness of the selection both in the primaries and now in the general election a much greater pluralism of speech and activism in this election and that is a positive development that outside groups have contributed to. on the other hand there's a very unhealthy trend which is that the political parties traditionally are moderating influences in the system. when you move the money away to the outside groups, you tend to radicalize the system and balkanize the system and we've certainly seen that trend has become a long term secular trend in our political system and campaign finance system. they were respecting the politics and a profound way so there's a reason that we see much more involved in the process than was true in the past said there's those two competing trends, one of which i think is unhealthy, the author of which i think is healthy and a judgment call you. while it was somewhat important, while there's been other recent court and regulatory decisions the or somewhat important, none of them had anywhere near the impact today. >> i want to ask eliza this but the cover of the hill magazine today ancient obama plants all fund-raising sprees. i'm not sure he would agree that he's anxious. but you could take obama out and that any elected official in our country from mitt romney down to hundreds of members of congress and we thought challenges to them. if we plan. we've covered these issues in campaigns for a long time. how do you see the developments affecting campaigns how they spend their money and how these people act as public servants. >> writing in part the anxiety the president does genuinely feel and its candidates somewhat below is the notion that they get to change back to 2002 or 2003 when the mccain-feingold was enacted. it was important but i don't think that candidates and parties and activists felt that was nearly as dramatic as and citizens united and other rulings that suspect. if you are in campaigns, they are really bold. they don't see this as being comparable to anyone that can be for. it's the first presidential race baala talked about there are also very significantly the empowerment of taxes those groups are active. one of the things that is overlooked and there's rhetoric it's about citizens united it's not that they just deregulated spending. for the 501c4 to spend politically and i'm not here to make fallujah judgments or recommendations for solutions as some are. but i don't think that the numbers really lie and there's a couple of three important reports that illustrates the shift here. the center for responsive politics and public integrity analyze. the source of their contributions outspend those that do buy 33 code to in 2010 and we are seeing that again in 2012. if you look at actual independent expenditures right now it's about 135 million on can pan. you cannot actually analyze these expenditures in the same way because it's these nonprofit groups and they don't disclose on the same level but the look to reports from groups that followed and broadcasts and tax records and all sorts of things and they came up with a dollar figure of 172 million so far so that tells you recognizing these are not definitive numbers but even in off the cuff back of the envelope estimate suggests undisclosed expenditures are now vastly outpacing the expenditures so to go back to the implications i think again without opposing the value judgment there are definite dangers to this vote for political players and voters and candidates in the government. i think the danger is absence of transparency and accountability and some corporate spenders are already filling this contributing to alex groups that have contributed to the u.s. chamber of commerce. some of them are feeling public relations blow back and there are corporate leaders very concerned about the public relations fallout from the political expenditures. there might even be self correction down the road that has nothing to do with new laws or regulations are constitutional amendments where some corporate spenders might say there's too much risk. we might not be able to follow the money which isn't something the supreme court intended by citizens united. we know the court came down 8-1 in favor of full disclosure. so it is the key going forward and all roads for better or worse seem to be leading to the internal revenue service which is a quirky place. nobody wants to revenue service to go outside of players and republicans on capitol hill are very worried that the irs asking questions of conservative groups and they've written a lot of letters saying don't you go after groups in a political way but by the same token you have groups like the asl clu we don't like that act of was recently rejected because we think it would show legitimate constitutionally protected activism by the outside groups so these are free to delete the tricky questions and recommend going forward people set aside ideological answers and start to really grapple with these tough questions to regulate the activity by nonprofit groups that appear to be political timoney average people but in some cases would be advocacy in a more legitimate context. >> i would just point out many corporations are beginning to face proposals by their shareholders and some of that relates to how they spend their money for political purposes so that may be close to the free-market working so to speak and trying to deal with this issue in a limited way i don't know how effective it is pretty but it points out what you were talking about now. >> can i follow up on disclosure to the croupier. three things about disclosure. one might think it is fair to say that the republican position on disclosure used to be pretty universally that was a good thing it might be against limits and other regulations but disclosure was a good thing as a philosophical argument being made much more strongly in dividing on the aclu that some contributions should be disclosed and intimidation maybe they would be groups that don't speak as freely because they feel they will be castigated for a campaign will be made against them because of their spending. second, what about the interest of companies cripps, those who don't want their money and their funding to be disclosed. this principle, there is interested finally i guess we could take up on the point where if the political parties and candidates have more freedom to give to them would some of that money that is undisclosed flow there or is it just sitting out there because individuals and interest groups want some money to be spent that they don't want ability to the accountability hard money to parties and candidates that were disclosed so i opened it to anyone who wants to weigh in. the the the show's more money being spent by the outside groups that do not have to disclose their activities principally the 501c4 and c6 that don't have to disclose their to the. the relative insignificance of the citizens united decision because that activity all took place before citizens united and the same kind of way and it takes place after citizens united. the irony of the citizens united allowed for disclosed groups so-called super packs that have to report every penny and receive the bulk of the money flowing from those groups to the undisclosed groups that's not new in this cycle we've seen that for many years now and it's been a steady upward trajectory and it's not going to stop some for example candidates could raise this kind of money, political parties could raise unlimited money political parties could coordinate with candidates the candidates and political parties are in the disclosure regime and that's where we have mccain-feingold paradoxically forced the money outside of this closed regime disclosed in detail part of mccain-feingold into these outside groups and a lot is absolutely right that's where the bulk of the money is coming, not the super packs. >> there's a reason those restrictions were put in place in mccain-feingold. i guess in a way it depends whether you think the process is fundamentally bribery or extortion. [laughter] >> during that time i would sometimes go and give presentations to groups like the association of business tax and other organizations and after the sessions you would be out in the hall and there were people coming up to me saying can't you just put a stop to this because i'm getting stronger armed police members of congress to people in the administration it's made no difference. and there wasn't so much that there was all this pent-up corporate and institutional interest in participating financially in the process. there was the we had a party leaders acting as concierges the white house in order to provide sleep over for the congressional campaign committee then maybe something can happen. that is an environment of the conference decided was unattainable. >> how come the money is still flown the? >> it's not the same money. one of the conclusions people have drawn and are surprised by in the cycle is there hasn't been a flood of corporate money. even at the levels we are seeing its equivalent to where we would have been. >> it could be coming from corporations. >> that's a great point. to go back to the notion states it's true at side spending was happening in 2003 and 2008 and 2010 but in 2003 when the money was behind campaign it was exposed then we saw the so-called 527 group bid was disclosed to the irs said it is a disclosure ici's the dramatic change citizens united read i think there are two questions raised wrote this suggestion. one is a statement that you make that the supreme court said we are permitted to regulate donations. i'm not sure that the supreme court would go so far as we shouldn't the contribution limits. they might, but maybe not. that's one question. the second is. then why aren't. if you buy that argument and ticket you wouldn't have disclosure of candidates either. i think what some people are saying and the some of the of azar good for the campaign and why they are. i think the supreme court said it's okay and constitutionally protected to have a boycott. that's considered to be okay and the intimidation and harassment. so for some of the attempt to knock back the disclosure law. and i do raise the question whether the court would agree disclosure equals intimidation. >> i have a question for you all and this comes back to. how does all of this affect the behavior of these people who are getting the money? and is there any data to show how it affects the behavior? after all is the essence of our discussion to determine whether our system of campaign contributions legal and constitutional and accepted and whether the public will is being done in this process but the impact of all of that is the people that are getting the money are serving the public or not serving the public and one thing i don't see in the data is how it affects behavioral politicians running for office. >> there are two ways people studied this and people on one side of the argument like to point out there is no demonstrable effect on public and physical activities like roll call votes. the dispute among the political science is how much you can see in a roll call votes. they are the most visible and the place we would least expect to see. what you have in the depositions and the political science as a demonstrable agenda setting a fact. people who think we shouldn't get into this problem because a will hurt us. i have so many good things like could spend my time on. do i really want to go there? there's a new book out by linda powell looking at state legislature and older book by richard hall. this is pretty throughly demonstrated the people that our motion and that the subcommittee hearings, you can pretty clearly tie this to the contributions. i think i just want to probably weigh in on this but i want to respond to the last point was made to respond first just a quick factual thing where he said it's a lot of the same old, the lines to keep going up. well, the one thing that is new, unprecedented, we'd never seen things like it before was the independent spending committee has an extension of the candidate. fetes no what's below the contribution limits. we need to talk about that because you see a value of contribution and if you don't the committees or shall we say made out of chanel were made out of some sort of material. but i do see contribution. i think there was plenty of documented evidence because i extortion during this money period and before watergate and i do think that's a problem if the limit our targeted in to that problem is different from truly independent spending. did mccain-feingold drive this to the officious complex i don't see. it was long disclosed, you can't do all trend lines will take the argument both phase but was there before the keen feingold. when you do see when you look at the party charts, 2008 was the historical high point the parties then 2008 people raised a lot because they were anticipating mccain-feingold but the parties came right back in 2006. i agree with bob kelner that it's important to be concerned about parties. i agree we ought to think about ways of getting the parties to do more and coordinated spending but that should be done how can that be done in a matter that is consistent with contributions to control the other demonstrated fact of this clause i extortion that did exist in the system. >> somebody on to weigh in on the quid pro quo question. >> it's not just quid pro quo. >> a risk adverse attitude nobody wants to do anything for fear of a super pacs convention down the road. >> i'm sure i'm not the only one that read mcconnell fcc but that's great reading. there are a lot of testimonials from the former members of congress, politicians who basically said the system stinks maybe it didn't need an. with a mega donors would hand them checks with the blessing of the party so the money could go into the car or the gmc and didn't like that and the donors didn't either so it's worth coming back into reading that ruling. i think it is kind of interesting. the amount of time and you talked to candidates and activists, again, one of the things that shocks them about 20 to office towers early the money is being spent and you alluded to that in your opening comments. people are spending a lot less money at the end earlier phase. the president is very scared. >> clearly it's one of the things i don't think anyone would dispute and it's raised a level of anxiety on the parts of so it has to things to happen. it is expanded the period of the campaign. i spent the weekend in ohio not for political reasons but. sherrod brown, who's the incumbent senator up for reelection had a tough race and was very aggressively and advertising now in mid to late july. in the collective bad campaign coming from the chamber of commerce not from his opponent or the team but from. maybe improving voters information but certainly it's caused people to spend money they'll otherwise wouldn't have been spending at this time which means they're raising more. >> my fellow panelists seemed concerned about the anxiety. i'm not the worst. after the act was enacted in the 1970's which created a long period of stasis and our political system in which incumbents were protected by. in the system the required them to raise money in small increments without the help of constituencies, without the help of political ian angels. those walls are indeed coming down and its the al-sayyid groups bringing the walls down. .. what do we mean when we say expenditure of expenditure. we could have a healthy debate about whether we need a much clearer to pen jan of independence of coordination. at that issue's been around for a long time and i begin up to campaign finance reform committee does a really deeply engage on that, i think, very valid question because they do assume the expenditures would be truly independent and there's an argument to be had there. anxiety among officeholders, i think that's terrific. >> does anyone want to take up this question of coordination? >> i have a take on it, yes. i talked to reform groups and they're really not happy about coordination issues. they've written a lot of letters and yammered a lot. they are sure to get the fcc to take action on this. they tried to pressure president obama to reform the fcc are quite new people up at us for those coordination definition is brought down. or try to come up with an effective definition of independence is versus coordination and has it succeeded. i don't think that's an issue ignored, but has stymied the federal election connection. that's an interesting point of discussion. with a regulatory agency in place to place political expenditures and fundraising? if not, what would it take to come up with something both sides could agree with the parent accountable? >> were going to get to the mic for questions. one last question why we get to make sure and that his canoe up in your crystal ball and think about the fall. here we are, we have been attacked by the presidential finance system, which most people would agree does not exist anymore or not effectively is fully went away first in the primaries and now i assume both general election candidates will not take public money come assumable default look like with both candidates raising money in their own campaigns, parties raising money in each of his advocate super packs attack as an butter that congressional race is going to look like? are congressional races going to be bombarded by asset money or our parties associated going to respond? what is your crystal ball for the fall as we look ahead? >> i am still convinced that neither candidate will win or lose presidency based on the lack of funding support. i had the resources to run the campaign therefore wasn't was successful to their vote between parties, groups, campaigns themselves and have sufficient resources. you have to remember a lot of spending, particularly advertising are fairly ephemeral in some ways. they are useful in defining candidates to people that are familiar with them in useful in pointed messages that very specific points in time. but the shelflife is pretty short premise that these are pretty well defined. so i think the margins are going to matter. it's not going to determine the outcome. >> the congressional race can make a difference. >> at a well in the small side of 30 or 40 house races in six or eight senate races, where the control of both of those chambers is in question. and it can make a difference because it can do one of those two things. >> i think the future is now. if we want to know what the fall will look like, it's now. the ads are up, will stay at. i do think the impact of a site spending will increase the further down ballot you go. it won't be determinative in the presidential race, but there certainly some congressional and senate races or could have an impact and it's important to keep in mind, too, they are on the state and local level now. those are races for a super pack or outside ray's conflicted race completely. do you know, i have my im six months after the election. i cannot wait until some good data come out and we can actually analyze that data and draw some strong conclusions about what these changes have all meant because i feel as though were operating to some degree in the realm of the theoretical and still to some degree arguing about whether or not citizens united ruling had a germanic and packed. i'm looking forward to see just a different this election was from those that preceded it. >> i want to echo the state legislative races. huge amounts of money being spent in the state legislative races. and man state of kansas, again, the home of the koch family, koch industries. they used to cost 15, 20, 25 years ago. >> just six months after the election, before you go to questions, and i are to underline the fact that anything up keltner and i have to come in sets of questions, but maybe not the same proposals as they both say and a lot of times there needs to be serious thought about what constitutes independence and that is very important in the changes in this year. and too many to think seriously about political parties. i think that's going to be part of the agenda release about agenda. >> so we want to hear from you and we have mics here if you could identify yourself. we'll go right here in the front. >> thank you very much. >> emd being from brookings executive education. he talked about the volume of money, but using s., if money is actually a problem in a take that off the table for the point of the question. is that the amount of money or is gerrymandering and the number of districts in play creating the final five, accentuating the question -- the problem if there is a problem? how does that play out? >> you know, i would just say the redistricting process has and with us for a while. it has been systematically abused by both political parties to draw political boundaries in their own party's interest. i don't really fault them for that. it's the way the system is currently structured. i think these two things go hand in hand. i think certainly the redistricting process reduces competitiveness of the system. i think the way money functions in a political system has for some time reduce the competitiveness of the system. i think it would be very difficult to disentangle those two effects and judge which one of them is the predominant effect. >> are some interesting tests issue in california california. there's like you to be a number of competitive house races because redistricting process was different this time in a maybe some other states will that be true, too. >> we actually have a report coming out and redistricting. i guess i would say just the simple point is there's probably a few less competitive season they were the last cycle, but it's a similar number. but i think what we're likely to see is that because there is a universe of competitive seats and whenever that is, some due to redistricting and sent to the fact of close races that there is a lot of money concentrate on the 30,, 50 set of races that are people giving money to those races. i'm not sure redistricting has exacerbated that as much as it has created a universe of small competitive districts. the other thing that we noted in this report is there are a lot fewer people today holding districts that they shouldn't hold. democrats holding strongly republican districts, which used to be the case not so long ago, 10, 20 years ago. or you have to think about the long changes in politics in transformation of political system, but also primaries where you have people if you're trying to hold the district, republican district come to look over her left shoulder and if you're trying to hold a pretty moderate democratic district, you look over your right shoulder in a primary challenge. here i think the money is potentially going much render primaries come about from racing as well as independent groups. that is significant to contribute to the polarization. >> it's a good question to ask because this for pointing out that i don't think anybody on this panel. there are maybe some people out in the world, but a much smaller number -- nobody on this panel has said there's too much money being spent on political discourse. the conversation has all been about sources on candidates, facts on this group and that's a different conversation and so by asking the question, you point out something that was unsaid that is important. >> okay, front of the room here. >> here's the microphone. >> yes, thank you. any dispatcher renard, a howard university student. my question is, can a property man and a non-property man becomes equal through the vote? i think that is what our democracy is. that's what i thought it was about. when i listen to the conversation today, the lies that, i'm glad she brought up butmcconnell versus fec because he was one who is for this. he said a lot of good things than not, but when it came down to disclose, he voted it down this past time. and proper, as you said, you think anxiety is good for democracy, but if our political elected officials are anxiously campaigning and not governing for the people, then how is that democracy? thank you. >> well, i think the founders intended for us to have a very vibrant campaign season. and if you look back at american history, really before the federal election campaign act in the mid-1970s, with a long history of very competitive races, particularly house races. it indicates for a long time that members of the house are essentially engaged in a continuous campaign because they only had a two-year term and that's actually a very healthy thing for us. and it is disturbing when we reached a point not so long ago, where house members so relatively assured that at least after they made it through their first term of office and were reelected once they basically were locked into that seat for life. because of redistricting, but also principally because of the way the campaign finance system discouraged challengers. so while i understand the candidates and officeholders do not enjoy the process of seeking out support from various constituencies of seeking out funds for various constituencies, it's a very fundamental part of a democratic assassin and important part of the process. >> i would just add as a former officeholder in many ways to myself that today, political viability as an import word, and equal ability to raise money in large part over any other quality, certainly over i.q., experience, wisdom and cover judgment. i am not a fool to believe that any business you have to be able to create a product in research dollars are capital in the public sector. but this is a business of ideas and again during the public interest. so if money is the primary criteria, then he goes to rackley cheer question versus property, versus non-property and is money the primary criteria for american politics and participation of american politics is a very important question to ask. >> so the question is a really good one. and if it's correct or viability equals the ability to raise money, and people that are running for office naturally wilco were as easy as to raise money and it's a lot easier to raise 10,000 or 1% than $100 each from a thousand people. one of the nice things about small donor multiple matching funds is about research of regulation, so much of the conversation we've been having about distorting or not distorting power about the effects of regulation to tell people not to do things. the matching system gives candidates a positive incentive to go into poor neighborhoods and give people $25 than they were. the empirical evidence is that these intact franchise people who were not playing. and i think that is an important goal to be thinking about. and it is not one that has been distorting the facts. >> it is interesting to hear the focus on competition now in the wake of citizens united. i heard a number of people aside all of this extra money is good because it's enhancing competition. what i often think of when i hear that is the analyses i've read about the public financing system and the impact that has had. if you want a system that enhances competition, for better or worse like about public financing system software. it's really remarkable. all people who've never run before i let dead. much higher percentages of women holding public office, much higher percentages of minority and it groups holding public office can you do in a conventional system. empirical data if you want competition, i would say probably the public financing system would enhance much more dramatically than anything else. >> derby since i be hopeful about the nature of technology, too. if i would give us more distributed resources that the money buys. it's not the money itself. it's whatever you can get and how you translated into communication with voters and other interaction. we still haven't seen the final result of this dramatic technological change that allowed the obama campaign to be so successful financially in 2008 that allows you to communicate in ways that don't crowd out the other potential uses of the tools. as i continues over time there's reason to be hopeful they are. in terms of distributing access to resources that will really be important. >> the question here. >> hi, george lyle. does the amount of money being spent aside quality voters can get positively or negatively? >> we should have the atterbury center here. >> actually, the study showed that we all know their emotional and unfortunately they are more informative than the news. so there is not a negative effect between advertising and level of information. if anything it's positive that is perhaps surprising. >> okay, right here. microphone coming from this direction. >> edward roder from sunshine press. >> just respond briefly to some pains dr. malbin said earlier about the money having no effect or, should nothing. >> i never said that. >> old whether the money is the fact is. i'm sure the number of articles i read in the voting records of congress is in three digits and that's probably true for a lot of journalists in this town. the money either corruptly influences politicians were illegally influences elections or is being spent by fools. there is no other way to parse that. but my question is this. about 15 years ago, the pacific economy, the tiger economies that have collapsed and the reason was that the governments were bought off. and they were illegitimate and the economic successes weren't a result of producing more and better, but rather by enough the crown for the presidency or whatever it is in that particular country. what do you think will be the fact that the money is able to prevail? in our elections over a period of a couple of decades? that will be the effect on america? is it conceivable that when capitalists kept their wishes they destroy themselves as seemed to have happened in that economies in 1897? >> will this goes to the question of accountability c. in transparency and rest of the business community and business leaders heard it quite sensitive to. i would say to that i might be worth looking at a gallup poll that cannot yesterday, which suggested that for voters to number two issue behind jobs and the economy is corruption in government. the number two issue that they want to let that officials to fix. that really surprised me. that suggested the voters are very concerned about what's happening and it's as much higher on the radar screen than in previous elections. >> what is so interesting about that gallup survey and others like it is that over the years the percentage of the public that believes the government is corrupt and that? trust in the government has produced steadily increased even as we have clamped down on the campaign finance system, with each iteration of the reforms of the campaign finance system and the increase system -- campaign finance system right through mccain-feingold. those have stayed on a relatively constant trajectory thus the campaign finance reform really has not reduced the level of cynicism in this country about government. there's lots of explanations for that level of cynicism that have little if anything to do with the campaign finance system. >> jaime pressly to take up the point take up the point in the sake of the governments are talking about, the one-party governments, that the question of competition and whether the money is really flowing to challengers in primaries, challengers of outside parties. i would be one response to this. >> candidly i don't think you can remotely compare our system to the system that prevails in asia and southeast asia. those countries have much more significant problems than we do, it ain't god and their political systems are not anywhere near as transparent and filled with disclosure is our system is. you can also compare our system to the united states was saying an 18th century. big money, if you want to set phrase. i'm not sure exactly what it would mean has been present in our system from the founding and we've survived these 200 plus years. >> i would also echo what bob biersack said. money does affect people. i thought this would be akin to one having to do with film piracy. without going into the merits of the issue, there is a public uprising, regarding the issue of what the government should do to deal with film piracy and hundreds of hundreds of thousands of people petition their government, irrespective of what the government institutions were doing and prevail that members of congress to change positions and that's a fact or we haven't seen before. recent public pressure on government, but not this kind of instantaneous, massive public pressure and that has both that possibility stood because of the facts are wrong it can be very destructive and disrupt it, but isn't empowering force and i don't think they had that in singapore or the other countries you're talking about. >> to reinforce the transparency elements of this, though, i continue to be amazed. we went through this financial disaster in 2006, 2008 a large part because there was a good transparency in terms of their important financial transactions. huge amounts of money traded amongst people who didn't know who counterparties were, didn't know who the other part of the transaction was or what incentives might be, didn't know whether they were being honest and straightforward about the nature of those transactions at way virtually collapsed the system. why we would want a political process that mimics that, we don't have transparency, where you don't go to the parties to the transaction start at the end of the day escapes me. >> we might have time for one more question. >> showman in the back there. >> will take one -- >> will take your question on this last and answer them together. >> is assigned? >> what i have is not so much a question, the sort of clarification on television advertising. television advertising, and even in the year of this increase different forms of technology, is still an increase in the primary means of communication in campaigns in terms of expenditure of money. indeed the expenditure in media advertising is increasing at a greater rate than the overall campaign expenditures. the second thing is the night inc. bob, you said this correctly. the advertising in presidential campaigns, you know, does not have as much impact because there's so many other sources of information and has enormous impact on race is below presidency where there is no other source of information and that is a serious question for the health of american democracy. and accept unquestionably the answer together. >> thank you. larry borer e. am a sole proprietor. david works this morning in the times said that the selection was boring and consequential and mention the fact that this incredible outpouring of advertising this early is primarily aimed at the uninformed and the uninvolved. because the parties seem to believe in candidates seem to believe that there are so few undecideds that what they really going after are the people who really don't pay any attention by making a proper tasting. could you, and on the whole question of undecideds is and how to own? >> sew up into the audience and panel in questions of campaign advertising, especially on the money and affect them targeting undecided voters. >> i'll just quickly note that it's not just advertising the causes election outcomes. it's also the ground game. one of the reasons why groups on the left are worried as they don't have as much money. fish is no question the outside money in terms of advertising is outpacing the conservative outside money and the liberal outside money by more than three to one. but if you look at labor unions and if you look at other grassroots groups and other, they're really trying to knock on doors and go door-to-door and give voters that way. of course groups on the writer during the the same thing. so i think it's going to be interesting how effective these ads are. some might declare the ambiguous to watch any colossal waste of money. people are going to try anything to win an election, especially one as close and high-stakes as this one. >> this is the most micro-targeted election in u.s. history. the technology has evolved to a point that both presidential candidates are able to target voters with precision that we've never seen before. and so, one of the effects of that is they are not necessarily aiming at the bulk of the american public, that narrower and narrower systemic baptism constituencies. on the ground game point, again i heard salivating and looking back at the data, but the problem is the relevant data won't be there because a lot of that ground game takes place in the undisclosed world. it is sponsored by five o. one c. groups who don't have to report their dignity. just one other example i think where much of the activity that's very relevant this fall will take place below the radar client and will be visible even to academics who might have at the fact what to analyze what actually happened. >> and on that note, we'll thank all pallas enclosed panel. [applause] >> we did not begin as a city in kentucky. there is only a bag, native american region and later a county and in other state called kentucky. but we began and 1778 as virginia. >> as we began the final three months of the presidential campaign, "washington journal" looked at the advertising strategies and their use of negative ads. we talk with media analyst, ken goldstein for about 45 minutes. >> was less than a hundred days to election day, the 2012 race has become dominated by ads for a discussion about how nasty it might become return to kenneth goldstein of the campaign media analysis group. mr. goldstein, how it hasn't gotten out they are on the airwaves would you say? >> guest: almost no positive ads aired now. we went through a couple weeks were the only positive ads were a couple spanish-language ads. ayers and obama spot running at low levels, but generally obama's talking about romney and balmy and allies talk about obama. >> host: the "washington post" according to an article monday for three that ran last week and yes all three were in spanish. compare what is happening right now to previous races at this point. are we had a specifically a particularly negative point in this race comparatively quiet >> i spent much of my career saying it's not the most negative race after it certainly so far this has been a very negative presidential race. i'm sure we're going to discuss and i'm sure some callers might want discussed is negativity necessarily a bad thing? it sounds like a very scary word, but both campaigns are focusing ammunition on the other at this point. i would expect that to change a little as we go forward. i would like to see the obama campaign remain pretty focused on mitt romney, that at some point we'll see the mitt romney campaign at introduce a positive track because it needs to introduce up to the american people. >> an article from yesterday's hill newspaper, best buy just in sync right at the same time present a bomb in the rummy suggested there's a limit to the mat able to in this campaign. both have vowed to avoid personalized attacks. romney's mormon religion in history with jeremiah wright has so far been off-limits. get an election to come down to a handful of swing states, some think it will be harder and harder for the two sides to lead ammunition on to table as the race intensifies in the fall. do you think they will go there and some of these issues? >> i don't know if they'll go there with television advertising. they may go there. their allies may go there in other ways. i think that is an important point that article is making. just because one campaign is talking about the other campaign doesn't mean it's unfair, doesn't mean it's nasty and i think most of the debates, sure we've had typical source of saturation, speeches building across the street from us, but i don't think we seen anything particularly below the belt. >> host: if you want to join in on the discussion with kenneth goldstein, give us a call. democratic line is 201-737-0001. republican line, 202-737-0002. independent line is 202-628-0205. and while folks are calling in, give us a sense of what your group does in sort of tracking these ads. >> guest: so, we want to seek components out there that is nonpartisan. we basically have three buckets of client. one bucket is the news media. so we have a number of major news organizations in the country who work with us to get political advertising because it tends to be the most visible form of campaigning and is where most of the money is spent. we are going to see his little over $3 billion spent on local television allowed and when you add in money spent on cable television, you'll end up being 3.5 to 3.6, 3.7 spent on television. we tracked it for news media, campaign so i can confidently say it will work for the next president because if they obama campaign and romney campaign to my work for the party committees as well in addition a number of trade associations in town. >> as you track these ads, how do you define a positive bad per se negative ads so there some that are probably pretty easy to talk, but what's the cutoff point? >> there's a number of different ways one could go about doing this. we have a very, very simple decision tool. if the ad is about the other thing, it's a negative ad. it is about you as a positive bad. we do not code for fair or unfair, accuracy or mudslinging. others do that and think that's terrific, but we have a very simple determination of whether it is a negative out of positive bad. >> host: let's look at one of those ads now. this is a romney ad out and running that has clearly been defined as a negative ad. >> barack obama's attacks against mitt romney are just not true. the "washington post" is on every level it's misleading, unfair and untrue, but that is barack obama. he also attacked to a clinton with vicious lies. >> he continues to spend millions of dollars perpetuating falsehoods. >> but romney has a plan to get america working. barack obama, worst job since the depression. >> shame on you, barack obama. >> is elected as hopefully a few more in the segment, is there a downside for the candidates themselves in running negative ads clicks everyone says they hate negative ads, right? >> everyone says they hate negative ads, but there is a big debate as social scientists who study the effects of campaign advertising in the world and the real practitioners of advertising. is there any sort of backlash on the person who areas beyond? there was some talk in coverage this week that the obama campaign is concerned there's a little bit of rebound against them, that they were airing so many negative ads against mitt romney said he was having an impact on the president's favorability numbers. i have not seen strong evidence of that either way. i think there's a strategic demand in a campaign. the same, this is a presidential election that is not determined completely by political advertising. obviously not. this presidential election is a referendum on the incumbent's and generally that referendum on the incumbent is determined by reality of what are the economic conditions and what is america's place in the world? we have a president who is very much in the gray area. things are going a bit better and barack obama's approval ratings for a bit higher he'd almost certainly be reelected. if things are worse, and barack obama's job approval was left, he'd almost certainly lose no matter who the opponent was. but he is in that gray area and also in a position like most incumbent presidents, like george w. bush was in 2004 where the obama campaign is not going to change attitudes about president obama by advertising very much. basically like the president, despite the president. there's very, very few voters and people who have not made up their mind about president barack obama. are they going to end up voting is one question. the other cleared name as their attitudes will be mostly shaped by what is going on in terms of reality. with the obama campaign can try and control his perception of mitt romney. even though the election like all presidential election will be a referendum on the incumbent. but romney needs to reach the threshold of credibility. barack obama in very well-known, but romney, not so much. that is why you see the obama campaign going very strongly negative on mitt romney. they are trying to define that rummy and introduce that romney and stop mitt romney for which an official level of credibility. >> we showed you one of that rummy sad to lose sure you know when a president obama is negative ads. >> i am barack obama and i approve this message. >> tax havens, offshore accounts, mitt romney has used every trigger the bug. he spent less than 15% in taxes on 43 million in income. makes you wonder if some you see paid any tax at all. we don't know because he is released one full year of his tax return and will say anything before 2010. >> i put out as much as were going to put out. >> what is that rummy hiding? >> the "washington post".com has a special section on negative ads, which are group provides information for. who's going negative is the question and the number one group running negative ads to be president barack obama's campaign. that is find out about 57% of all ads by barack obama have been negative ads and that is a total of $39 million in spending so far. where are the concentrations show folks this map here in the market started being targeted? >> this is a very concentrated ray. people talk about 13, 14 battleground states. it's really a battleground states. so we talk about virginia, north carolina, florida, ohio, iowa, colorado, iowa. very focused. it went from zero to 60 very quickly in the states and negative very quickly in those states. pay attention to how those states change or don't change. you can hear a lot of spin from the campaign. they're obviously doing polling and strategy. but where they end up staying and where they end up going over the next 98 days will tell you a lot about how the campaign is going. if we see political advertising starting to be in places like wisconsin and pennsylvania, that's a good sign for republicans. we see continued heavy advertising in north carolina, that's good news for democrats. north carolina is the state that is a must-have for republicans in a general election. wisconsin and pennsylvania must have democrats in the general election. so if the advertising begins to your plate on the other side of the field for an opposing side, that is a very good tell that it's going well for one side or the other. >> latest numbers from the cbs "new york times" poll from july 18, obama has 46, romney 47 looking like this is tiny all the way out. let's go to the phone lines now. pamela on the independent line from illinois this morning. thanks for joining us. you were on with mr. goldstein. >> caller: jess, i just wanted to make a comment about the outrageous disgusting amounts of money spent on this election, an election. it just outrages me. a billion dollars? i am appalled at the amount of money is spent and there's not a harasser at the difference between any of these candidates. i frankly believe there has not been an honest, decent president since harry truman and i realize this sounds like an old person talking, but they're all and to take one way or another. and this negative stuff, does anyone actually believe romney made and kept all his money by being an honest upright human being? probably the same thing can be said of any candidate, but the amount of money, just outrages me when there's people in this country who are hurting the homeless, the oppressed. they just outrages me and i wanted to make that comment. >> pamela, you will be happy to learn according to mr. goldstein's group, about $246 million has been spent on advertising so far in this campaign. positive that's about 80%, negative as full 2%. >> well, if pamela was appalled by 1 billion, i note the word is for the seven or 8 billion that's actually spent in politics in this election cycle. we're going to have over $1 billion spent on political advertising about just in the presidential race. that doesn't put advertise in another race and all the other things campaign spend money on. it's always interesting to me when people attack negative advertising and there's obviously strong feeling about the state of american politics in general for the last 60 some ideas. >> that is one discussion, but she had very strong feelings about politics, very strong feelings about elected leaders and strong feelings about mitt romney they wish your voice. you know what that's called? that's a negative ad for that college is someone using their first amendment rights in voicing their opinion about politics. so we cannot have a discussion about the quality of our political leader and i think honorable people can agree or disagree about that. but the notion that political advertising is especially phenol in terms of its content or tone or volume than speeches we have been members of congress, that the talking points that members of congress and the president's press people say that the campaign's press people say is part and parcel of political rhetoric in the united states. we could have a discussion whether it's good or bad, but to focus on advertising is a little unfair. >> declercq writes in a twitter twitter, negative ads remind us it's not about issues, but how bad you can make the other candidate look. >> actually negative advertising is more about the issues and positive advertising. at the risk of being repetitive, disappointed made on the show before. listen, she campaigns to positive ads click sure, they want to, but often the stories we see really don't have any meat in them. there's nothing one could verify and then. i do is give the example of someone walking on the beach in their khaki pants with blue shirt. who could be against that? how could you verify any of that? and why is that any more meaningful or normatively better than an ad talking about someone's record in a factual way that can then be checked by the people, common citizens in the media? >> of those fact checkers had an impact on this race, this rise of groups like fact check.org and the "washington post" has one as well? >> the campaign do worry about that when they crafting at. this income i don't think they sit around saying i think what to make it a couple of pinocchio's we better not get that. but at least it makes them hounds their backup evidence for the ad that they are running and also adds to the debate. i am one who believes the campaign should say whatever they want in the media should say whatever they want. and it would be very difficult to say one side is going to win or lose in this race because they don't have a chance to get their message out. it would be very difficult to say people don't have sources for information. postcodes at a cabinet clarksville, maryland. you are on with ken goldstein. >> caller: good morning coming thank you. >> caller: please if you will, refresh my memory as to the three positive spanish-speaking commercials that aired last week. were they pro-obama over the pro-mitt romney? >> guest: , one was prometa from mayor to wear pro-mitt romney and obama. so it was his son speaking in spanish about his father and then it usually is a spanish language ad when they are tracing the particular experience of the family. >> caller: to conclude with the question, my opinion on negative advertising versus positive advertising, the negative advertising shows a lack of maturity and creativity. so i endorsed positive advertising. thank you. >> we will go to michael and the democratic line from burnsville. michael, you are on with mr. goldstein. >> caller: i have a couple comments. why are political candidates allowed to, you know, only use a comment like when president obama said that with infrastructure, small business would not create jobs but the business they had. i don't understand, there's no laws that would keep companies from only using part of a comment they make. the second comment i have is when it comes to super packs, i thought they were supposed to be some kind of that did not allow the head to have direct contact with mitt romney, the yankees allowed to go to a retreat that mitt romney runs. thank you. >> well, the law that allows candidates to take words out of context is the furthest amendment. in fact i love, television stations cannot reject or cannot change the contact of political advertisements submitted to them by candidates. they can and have responsibility to do so for her noncandidate adds. again, do political advertisements and negative advertisements in particular take words out of context, take claims out of context? absolutely. do other forms of political rhetoric to the? absolutely. the question about the context that groups are allowed to have with candidates i would defer to my friends who are political attorneys. candidates and groups are not allowed to coordinate strategy. i know a lot of people a lot of people in town are not even seen each other socially, who one might be on a super pack in what might be on the campaign. i certainly don't know the details. >> host: here's some more stab from the numbers you compiled for the "washington post." he talked about the karl rove group, the crossroads group. dirty 3 million. 33.5 million in negative ads. 100% of the size -- 33 million in negative ads is 100% of their total outs, correct quakes that romney has spent 29 million on negative ads. a few other republican leaning also priorities u.s.a., pro-obama about $6.1 million spent in negative ads so far 91% of total spending. we go now to a question on twitter for maverick talking about the tax kicks in negative campaign. isn't it a little late to introduce that romney to the american people, the gop primaries were supposed to do that. >> yes, that romney was introduced in 2008 in republican primaries introduced in 2012 here in the primaries. but there's still a lot of people out there who don't watch c-span in the morning and are political junkies and that romney is still unknown by a third of the electorate who are not going to rate him when pollsters asked the question. so there's still a lot of room for mitt romney to grow when it comes to a people know about him and that is that the campaign will be about. whether barack obama does a better job of introducing to those one third of people who don't know enough about that romney or whether the mitt romney campaign does. >> let's go to log onto washington. timothy on the independent line. thanks for getting up in joining us this morning. you run with mr. goldstein. >> caller: good morning. and i'm up early every morning because i'm very concerned about this country of ours and what's going on in it. now, negative campaign ads, something that may not be released by everyone as sometimes the truth comes out in those. it was in a nod, but during the 2008 election process, i found out about the sanctuary cities from hillary clinton. okay, but it's very disturbing that there need to be fact checking organizations because the media should be on that. there wouldn't be a need the media were doing their job. let's go back to the business of not changing the context of the content of what you're giving by people who are campaigning. especially with the person who claimed to be a war hero, lives are protected under the first amendment, whereas the truth, if it embarrasses someone come humiliate someone, disturbs them in any way, you can go to jail for five years now. but what is more disturbing than all that is the fact that i've seen one good candidate come down the pipe and i watched the media suppress him three elections in a row. and i and a lot of americans not only believe, but know that he would be the best choice for president at this country. he would be free, productive and we would have a country not back the way we work, but that would advance as we should. and that man's name is.to ron paul. he's made his money honestly. i've heard many countries against him have also heard them fall by the wayside. and i scan the television. i've watched several people including judge napolitano taken off of the fox network because he mentions ron paul. >> host: thanks for the colonists morning. c-span democrat were thin on twitter. i don't believe the fact checker as with the you didn't build it hazzard speeches are mostly gross distortion. i wonder if some point, is there a saturation point in negative campaigning, where $800 million on negative ads versus a billion dollars, is there a point where there's diminishing returns here? >> is absolutely diminishing returns of a probably reached the point. >> we still have several months ago. >> guest: but the returns are not negative returns a nonzero returns. again, like we discussed, this is an election decided by the fundamental factors that decide all presidential elections, distribution of party in the country with the state of the economy. that said, evidence had been a close election and it certainly looks like one, advertising commander at the margin. ask al gore is advertising commander at the margin. but he is like to spend another 10,000, hundred thousand million dollars in 2000 that's the way these campaign managers and people running for office pain. they are risk-averse, so even though that other extra additional $200 million will make a pretty small and productivity of other billion dollars the party spent, they are thinking about the 540 books that al gore lost the presidency on in ohio in 2004. george w. bush wins ohio by a very narrow margin. they think in about 2002 senate races in places like montana and virginia. 2002 races in places like missouri and minnesota in 2006 senate races in places that virginia and montana. all races decided by razor thin margins and in those cases the u.s. senate in 2,002,004 decided the presidency. >> host: wabash, indiana, paul and the republican line. you run with mr. goldstein. >> caller: good morning, mr. goldstein. how are you doing? >> caller: i'm doing good. sitting in the easy chair. i'm a retired senior citizen and i've got a question of the republican candidate about his wealth and about his so-called outsourcing of jobs. the only thing is the obama administration does not bring forth the information that they are 5 billion air sitting on his cabinet. but we don't hear anything about that. and they are all outsourcing jobs. so let's just balance it up and call the factory fact, a lie a lie. okay? >> host: mr. goldstein, either themes that if it merged in the negative ads that have come up so far that using those sites is? >> guest: the obama attacks have been what the viewer, with the caller just said they were trying to attack that romney do what is perceived as strength, his business experience and claimed that he spent most of jobs overseas. the republican attacks on back obama has been more carriers of those attacks in the numbers you read from the "washington post" show how obama had to carry much of the water in terms of the campaign and political advertising. we have seen more players on the republican side. but they are seen as trying to hold obama accountable for the situation in the country now in setting out a theme that he's just not up to the job. again listen, that color has very strong feelings. political advertising seems to stir lots of comment and for many years i was a college professor and things that could engage people and get people to talk about it are a good thing in terms of politics. are going to cause some people a strong opinions whether it be on ron paul or strong opinion on the obama advertising are the wrong advertising. should people's only source of information be political advertising? no. but is that the only source of informa

Related Keywords

Montana ,United States ,Louisiana ,Burnsville ,North Carolina ,Minnesota ,California ,Washington ,District Of Columbia ,Connecticut ,Bedford ,Borough Of Bedford ,United Kingdom ,Dhaka ,Bangladesh ,Iowa ,Spain ,Richard Hall ,Ohio ,Singapore ,New York ,Missouri ,Texas ,Kentucky ,Cleveland ,Florida ,Illinois ,Columbus ,Indiana ,Wisconsin ,Virginia ,Idaho ,Colorado ,Maryland ,Pennsylvania ,Kansas ,Capitol Hill ,France ,Americans ,America ,French ,Spanish ,British ,American ,Kathleen Sebelius ,Barbara Mikulski ,Mikulski Latour ,Ron Paul ,Andrew Jackson ,Ken Goldstein ,Jeremiah Wright ,Judith Lichtman ,Linda Powell ,Frank Lautenberg ,Harry Truman ,Abraham Lincoln ,Jaime Pressly ,Marcia Greenberg ,Kenneth Goldstein ,Judy Glickman ,Sherrod Brown ,Barack Obama ,George W Bush ,Mikulski ,Tom Harkin ,Anne Creech ,Romney Mormon ,Anna Creech ,Al Gore ,Dirk Kempthorne ,John Adams ,Hillary Clinton ,George Lyle ,