tv John Kasich Remarks in New York City CSPAN April 13, 2016 12:46am-1:25am EDT
talk to your point, the original chart i was showing you what the candidates still in is a chart with the same number, the over $1 billion with individual campaign committees and supporting those, of all the presidential candidates have been in the race, and there is a lot more charticans there on that -- including the other democrats who have run as well. your caller does not quite have a complete view of a lot of people in the tea party with politicians working. it is one of the reasons you see the move behind donald trump. there is a new organization working on the issue from a conservative point of view, called take back republic. a campaigny who was manager, of the representative of the. can tour. -- eric cantor.
george w. bush's ethics counsel. book,a very interesting taxation only with representation. he looks at how the current for our national security, bad for business because it encourages -- it is bad for having a competitive race and holding incumbent members accountable. these are not from democrats or rhinos or whatever. are from very conservative republicans who think the system is really out of whack. is campaign finance a partisan issue? guest: i am not sure. i think there are two positions one is poor regulation is one is for deregulation. disagree with
that characterization that i'm not pro-regulation. what we need is a system that enables more americans to feel they have a voice. and what are the incentives? we do not have any right now. illinois, line for democrats where harold is calling in. thank you, c-span p are diverse a lot of good ideas on this. term limits, gerrymandering, all that, but let's get down to the fact the issue. donald trump came out and said what all republicans think but they usually keep under there had. and gave toficials their campaigns hoping to get something in return. in the old days, you went to jail for that. lobbyists, it used to be that you went out and gathered nonatures and you found
signatures in your district and your person would address the issue. now, if i can give you a bunch of money, you will vote my way. i think it is just a matter of the people getting back the power of sending these people to jail. if you bribed a public official, then you ought to go to jail. if the public official takes the money, he ought to go to jail. that would end all of this. i think the way this is set up right now, they are not going to do nothing about it until the people stand up. i am voting for bernie sanders and i hope he makes it. the bernie sanders thing will work is after you elect bernie sanders, you need to get rid of congress since chart all over. thank you. , start withian berg you. legal definitions again. quid pro quo, campaign contributions, what does it take
? if someone is actually buying you off, if there is a direct payment for service, like meredith said, you need someone in the room to testify. has: meredith mcgehee, anyone been sanctioned under the idea of quid pro quo? guest: this is a very difficult prosecution for the public prosecutors. you have some representatives like cunningham, who was brilliant enough to write down his right list on a cocktail napkin. this is probably not the calendar -- caliber we will see with most members of congress. i want to take an issue with the caller when he talks about legalized bribery. i talk to a lot of business people, i know a lot more about legalized shakedowns. it is expected to give a contribution. play the game,
their interests and business and whatever issue they are interested in will be hurt. the reality is it is coming from both weird but there is a sense that if you do not play, and you talk to most lobbyists in washington, they feel like, if i do not play and have that breakfast, go to that fundraiser, make sure to bundle money, my clients or the interests i represent will be hurt. there is a feeling of the pay to play that you really have to do theere and i would note quid pro quo idea and the notion of corruption, part of what happened in karen -- is very dangerous. and that is, justice roberts has basically said corruption is quid pro quo bribery. there was a much more expansive concept of what constitutes corruption.
ability to show the money toen can be very difficult prove. we're seeing that in the mcdonnell case this month. i think meredith highlights something that is important. she is talking to her friends downtown, these lobbyists, and this is part of why so many americans are fed up and frustrated with washington, d.c. you look at the rise of outsider candidates like donald trump and ted cruz. explain what that case is. guest: the case with bob mcdonnell, he was convicted in , he has challenged those convictions, that what he act.as not an official it therefore cannot be corrupt.
when he gave access to mr. williams, he used the governors to meet with mr. williams and discuss what they could do. a businessman selling health products. giving a rolodex to the governor, letting him drive his car, catering his daughter's wedding. the defense governor mcdonnell's putting up is because none of those things about arranging the meetings constituted an official act and there was never annexed explicitgreement -- an agreement i would do that with the rolex -- rolodex. [laughter] you know, this will be a very interesting decision. has sown net -- is so narrow, you think of mr. jefferson, $100,000 in his freezer.
he also made a claim that writing letters was not an official act. it is a big question about what you expect. abdul, maryland, good morning. us is my first time calling. my comments are based upon earlier. you mentioned a nonprofit organization in the constitutional political race. why would they not be will to running,e to someone and also, i like the comment on donald trump. proposing lowering corporate tax, is this --
thank you. guest: i can speak to nonprofit speech. use,inly helping at risk but if you're on the left or the right, i will always believe more speeches better speech. i will always fight for your are --, to the extent we quote -- participating in the political process is speech, i think it is important and within the wheelhouse, within the right of an organization to advocate for candidates, for their policy. even with citizens united, the court did not say corporation can give a direct contribution to a candidate. an independent expenditure to express their views, but they still upheld the restriction on the ability of a
corporation, whether a 501(c) corporation or a different kind leading directly to the candidate. host: tom, texas, a republican, good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. every year, billions and billions and billions of dollars are spent campaign for democrats by these leftist super pacs, abc, nbc, cbs, npr, the our times. would he have any objection to putting strict limits on the amount of money that abc and nbc and cbs spend each year to produce their product? if so, what is the basis for her objection? in several cases, and it is ironic you bring up about the media, one of the groups that has claimed the media exemption thatederal law which says
abc, cbs, and other newspapers can spend their own money to express their views, one of the other groups that has that exemption is citizens united. and this hasa, gone before the court several times, about whether or not a media exemption is appropriate or the courts have looked and said, it is not necessarily a controversial topic, even with all of these other disagreements in the 54 decisions. -- is toaving a robust ensure there is an ability to have these views. concerned about this if we were talking 20 or 30 years ago. with the growth of the internet, with organizations like citizens united now having the immediate not think thatdo is necessarily where the problem lies. i want a robust debate.
i want more in the system. it is not about getting money out of politics. getting more out of money. it is saying, how to we take a system in which there are very few players, far less than 1% of all americans get $200 or more. it is something like .05% tier that is pathetic and it is dangerous for democracy. what we really need are changes that will have the ability to energize more people and give incentives to both the candidates and individuals who want to participate and get money to those involved. when you look at the election and see a billionaire running, you see someone like hillary clinton, who has huge amounts of money and super pac's, you see all the other candidates taking money from sheldon and those super pac's, it dissuades most
americans from feeling they have a voice. host: daniel in west virginia, a democrat. and thankod morning you for c-span. i would like you to ask your we used a point to america when it comes to going outingorruption and corrupt officials. panama we frown on the the wealthye corporations and individuals stash their cash and avoid paying taxes? pac's, also tax havens as well, finally, i would say, amplifying speech, if my grandmother is listening to her radio and i am with you
to 90 watt speakers down the basement, you know who will win. can you please answer the question for me? are they donated the money they are donating to the super pac? guest: you certainly covered a lot of topics in that question. the panama papers, money being stored by individuals off-shore, but the issue does not have much to do with campaign finance. pac'se look at the super and citizens united, this argument that widespread corruption, i have not seen this play out. see anyone standing up saying they're paid for and bought four by a corporation. i do not see anyone saying i am corrupt as of campaign finance law. it does not happen.
i think citizens united has given more voice to more people and that is great. the more we process, the better. i think the question of corruption, again, the united states being a eakin of how you actually try to fight for democracy and corruption remains a large question. about howt to talk policy -- you do not have to go to much further than chuck hagel. group that i work with called issue one, a bipartisan of money and the role in politics, a film i would recommend to everyone, and mr. role oflk about the special interest money. our defense policy, how we could end up with systems that the department of defense does not
want. with levels that are not necessarily the best things for the the policy. i think we have a system here in which we are threatened with a correction that is not a matter of saying here is a dollar -- that is the way you want to look at it. the dynamics of a very complex democracy. notion that there is nothing that can be done is absolutely wrong. i am urging all of the viewers to be in regular contact. i think this is where christian and i agree. we want more voices in the system. we may disagree about how you do that but that is the you have a more vibrant talk. host: you mentioned the federal system earlier in the show, in our opening, we highlighted some
of the things going on in the campaign finance level in the state system contribution limits that different states have, the disclosure requirements that , -- is there anything happening that you think is working in the federal level? i think a lot of things are going on. in seattle, every voter is going to get four vouchers for $25. they can then give that voucher to the candidate of their choice. an interesting and innovative way of saying, we want every registered voter to and to to participate have a voice. i think that would be fascinating. gives a smaller
of money. you have to have a candidate who has some ability to resonate with voters. it is an important part of making sure the system works. you do not just want to throw money to candidates and say go for it. you have a candidate who is repeatedly tested in the political marketplace and if the message resonates, they get rewarded. there are a lot of things that at state and city levels and it would be fascinating to see how it out. these ideashearing and i hear the public financing , i am a free guy. if you cannot generate support, i get a little wary of government stepping in to help foster support. the system, i would be alone --us about giving vouchers
i think it is all of hours duty to join the process but i do not want the government to have to force or perverse you. host: alan is in new york, a democrat. bergr: i cannot thank mr. for a better way into my segway. people in the country do not know the history of broadcast rules and the government giveaway licenses for convenience and necessity. in the 1930's, with that compensation, it is understood broadcasters with the acting for the public. then saying money is speech, there was never really a strong argument made then when the government began to give away public property to broadcasters for free. you basically have the government giving public money away without any compensation in
cash for the public good given way for the podcasters. that problem became compounded when reagan did away with the fairness doctrine. .to require viewpoints you have a system taken over by using public resources without taking count their responsibility to the public. they have to buy back that airtime from the broadcasters to pay for advertisements. --is an assert situation absurd situation because most people do not know the history. and a newderstood it broadcasters were using public resources without payment, they would demand far more in the way of public trust content and free
substantive debate time and less profiteering than we have today. this is an issue i worked on for a number of years, if you go to a person on the street and ask, who owns the airways, people will usually answer, abc owns the airways. it somewhat relates to the the airwaves are publicly owned. the broadcasters and public trustees are supposed to fulfill the public interest obligations. i think the federal communications systems have fallen woefully short in ensuring an exchange for saving those licenses for free, this is what people do not really realize. the local stations that serve, not the network, but the local stations that serve the community around the country do
not pay anything through the federal government for the monopoly they are given to use the airwaves. ist we have often push for to have much more robust public-interest requirements in the sense that right now, it is an absurd system. candidates go out and spend so much time dialing for dollars in raising money. they get the money in their campaign and then what do they do? they spend 70 or 80% just to get on the airwaves that the public already owns. the only person really benefiting from that are the people running the station. it is an absurd system. the federal communications system to try to put some real meaning behind what constitutes public issue that is supposed to be for the free licenses. it has not is happened and there have been proposals up on the hill to talk about what those public obligations should look like.
the broadcasters have defeated those efforts. they are very powerful in their local community. i one-time talked to a member of congress and they said, you know the only thing worse than being on television and they're showing me picking my nose, it is not showing me at all. we could talk for hours on the fcc, i really do not have much to add. host: a hypothetical on twitter -- guest: i don't think so. the influence of money in the political process, but there are other ways you could speak out, go to a rally, have aer, find a way to voice. i make phone calls on behalf of candidate.
i put in my time with my hours, my hard work supporting candidates i believe in. walter, baltimore, maryland, independent. good morning. caller: good morning america and what i call you, i want to talk to the people beyond those guest you have just to say this. when citizens united attacked hillary clinton in the right wing scam and then they got this decision from the right-wing court, i just want to ask them, are you serious? you and the right wing are frauds. fortalk about tax breaks the job creation, they do not create any jobs, talk about edom of speech and deny the right to vote. you are out there with right-wing colleagues denying denying that there is
voter fraud, that it does not exist. i just want to ask you, when will you stop the us against them, white against black, white against mexican. host: you have got a lot and i want to give christian berg to respond. guest: i will tell you what, walter. i disagree with you wholeheartedly, but i will fight to my dying day to make sure you have the ability to raise your voice. at the end of the voice -- a fan of the day, i believe in the first amendment and even when i disagree with you, i'm glad you have the ability to raise your voice and put the ideas out there. host: in pennsylvania, a republican, good morning. religion -- i want to respond to the lady who said in washington that she will give vouchers are a want to know who will pay for the vouchers. i want to know why we have to supply a voucher to support abortion being promoted through a candidate.
it is not anyone's business when the state teachers union takes money out of someone's paychecks and exempt them from the paychecks here does their name,, personally, that they gave the , supporting same-sex marriage couples. if this is free speech, i do not i do notdcasters -- want all of those alums on there. we give the money where we believe, and that money will be used for the candidate supporting us. i think i have to disagree with the caller in the sense that we have a situation now where, with the current way that campaigns of finance, but cities,many states and you have where the candidates are forced to go to make these phone calls, to private
interests, and safe on my campaign, and then they turn around the same day and go and vote on matters directly affecting the people. there is an inherent conflict of interest within that system. the question is how are you innovative in trying to get more people to participate. the seattle thing is interesting. we will see how it works out. it does not say you have to give the vouchers. it does not say whom the vouchers have to be given. here is the right, opportunity. if you want to give a voucher to a candidate whom you support, then you can do so. you do not have to give us if you do not want to. you do not have to give it to a candidate you do not support. i think the whole idea here is to say, right now, the system is to gively tilted incentives to those who could fork over large amounts of
money, if you are a member of congress, who will you call? 100 people to get $10 apiece, or one or two calls when they could give you 5000, 10,000, or even more through your campaign. we have got to change those. get in charles, who has been waiting in west virginia, a democrat. go ahead. caller: i appreciate your show and i like what is going on this morning. i think the american people need to know one thing. does all these here super pac's get to deduct their contributions on their taxes? people that other give the money and do not know where goes to, they should still have a right to say, that money goes to not the super pac's. thank you very much. don't see a tax
break for political contributions. , is thatedith mcgehee something that has been considered or no? guest: these organizations are usually tax-exempt. it does not mean that if you give to them like a charitable organization, -- that is a different question. these are tax exempt under the code. is therequestion here are some places here that are trying not only tax credit, but also other means of saying, if you give a political contribution, then you can get a tax credit for that. the whole idea here is there is a governmental interest in having a robust democracy. you still want the voices of individuals to count more. the current system discounts the voices of african -- average an individual americans.
it is great when you see a -- thate cap -- second can excite that. we will probably end up with a situation where we have candidates, either you have to be a billionaire, or you have to have a super pac and i do not think that is really the best way to get most americans engaged and involved. host: we want to thank meredith mcgehee and christian berg x more from this morning's washington journal on campaign fund-raising 2016. is the executive director for the center for politics, and she joins us now as we continue our discussion on money in politics. explain what open secrets is in the work you do there.
open secrets is the website for our organization. a nonpartisan nonprofit research advocate we transparency. if we cannot do it, if we do not have access, then the voters cannot do with a need to do to inform people and hold their elected officials accountable. on her website, you can find all kinds of information about where the money is coming from and going to and what quantities and what the trends are over time, how our campaign finance system is evolving and we tried to present the data so we can answer whatever questions people have. we talked a lot about the citizens united case so far in the program. do, how the work you did that change after citizens
united? guest: it has become far more difficulty or not only accept the data that is reported to the federal election commission and is provided to us, which is big enough in itself, because we are constantly gathering new data and standardizing it by organizations so we can present it in a lot of different ways in our website, we are also going to the filings of politically active nonprofits with the irs, and those are not filed frequently. when they are, we grab them and then we have to do the digging to find out where those groups are getting their money and much of that is simply not available. host: in terms of the number of groups you are tracking, can you give us a sense of the number and how much that changed before citizens united and after? are hundreds of thousands of organizations represented in the data. these are based on contributions as well as individual donations which are itemized. going to candidates.
the data we are getting on politically active nonprofits is a drop in the bucket by comparison but these other organizations that have really to the top in terms of the amount of money they are raising is pending and they can strikeit with laserlike on the most competitive races. they can have an enormous impact even though there are not nearly as many, with the hard money reported contribution going to candidates. super pac's, regular packs, 501 before groups, when you do your job to try to bring transparency to the process, what is the toughest to crack there? guest: 501(c) nonprofit. charitable or a gift -- or educational organization's.
these are organizations that are mostly not political. they have a limited ability to be political. 501(c) four's, social welfare organizations. along with the chamber of much morecan be political and some organizations, especially following citizens united, have been created, apparently to be and see itolitical to be violating the terms of tax-exempt rules to act like a political committee, which reports to the federal election commission, but pretend they are social welfare organizations disclose that need not their donors. that is the crux of the matter. it is the real issue here.
we have these organizations pertaining to be something they are not in order to deliver a secrecy to their sources. if you have questions about these groups and tracking money in politics, remember the house and senate campaigns going on, the phone lines are open in this segment. -- host: let's get to thing you are tracking? thing the most important to know is the incredible increase in funds raised and spent by outside organizations. as well as super pac's, which are technically independent expenditure only committees. independently of
those campaigns and use unlimited sums from unlimited sources to do that. many of thee is organizations are very closely tied to the candidates and staffed by top lieutenants and even created by the candidates themselves. enormous sums of money are gushing into and through the organizations and our target is one of the most competitive races, as well as competitive house and senate races. we are seeing already, $300 , six times spent what was spent at this point in the cycle in 2014 and three times the list then in 2012. we see big increases and bigger injections of funds coming from reportedly independent groups -- instead of truly independent groups.
have dry -- drive their funds, spend more than $21 million so far compared to the last presidential cycle. that is only if the patterns from 2012 from this point and that cycle, hold. host: when we hear the term dark money, that is what we are referring to. generally, politically active nonprofit organizations. most nonprofits are not politically active. research organizations like ours or a charitable organization. are advocating, they lobby on clean water or whatever the issue may be. what we're seeing now is a strain of politically active nonprofits which are pushing, if not blowing past the linecal activity that
has allowed them -- questions or comments about political fundraising, that individual candidates, we can walk you through that. website, open seat -- open secrets.org. pennsylvania, a republican, bill, good morning. caller: once again, i am first up in the conversation and is difficult to know where it is -- going.n general, in general, i am very concerned about so much be made of money buying votes and all that sort of thing. the only thing that counts is what the vote actually was. how did your legislator vote on specific measures? i do not care whether the guy is bought