gwen: money, momentum and the midterm elections. we look at the situation in the house and the senate and examine the latest rulings on gays in the military. tonight on "washington week. pulling out all the stops -- >> philadelphia, i think the pundits are wrong! i think the pundits are wrong. i think we're going to win. but you got to prove them wrong. >> i've traveled all over this country, i've been in 97 races so far, and let me tell you something, i'm angry. gwen: democrats hit the hustings, but it's the republicans who are raking in the dough. $14 million for nevada's sharron angle, $120 million for california's meg whitman out of her own pocket, $31 million for

the republican governors in just three months. >> november 2 is right around the corner. i can see it from my house! gwen: what will tip the balance? plus,another judge rules against the military's don't ask/don't tell policy. covering the week, jeanne cummings of politico, john dickerson of "slate" magazine and cbs news, major garrett of "national journal," and nancy yousef of mcclatchy newspapers. >> award-winning reporting and analysis. covering history as it happens. live from our nation's capital, this is "washington week with gwen ifill, produced in association with "national journal. >> corporate funding for "washington week" is provided by >> my client, gloria, has a lot going on in her life. wife, mother, marathoner. but one day it's just going to be james and her.

so as they are financial advisor i'm helping them look at their complete financial picture, even money invested elsewhere, to help them create a plan for all kinds of markets. >> with you when you need a financial advisor fully invested in you. wells fargo advisors. together we'll go far. >> what if you could just be you? what if you had your last bad date? what if she's out there? what if he's out there? what if you could be loved for exactly who you are? you can. >> corporate funding is also provided by boeing and exxon mobil. additional funding for

"washington week" is provided by the ethics and excellence in journalism foundation, the annenberg, the corporation for public broadcasting, and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. once again, live from washington, moderator gwen ifill. gwen: good evening. 18 days to go. a recession that won't go away, and we are drowning in money. no, it's not in your pocket. it's on the air and in your mailbox and on the streets as candidates, political parties, and partisan outside groups spend hundreds of millions of dollars on midterm election campaigns. and that's just in california. no, i'm serious. that's just in california. but everywhere, big money has turned this into kind of a virtual campaign where most of what we know about candidates can be boiled down into expensive attack ads like these. the first, paid for by the

national democrats. the second by a republican affiliated outside group known as american crossroads. karl rove, ed gillespie -- they're bush cronies. the u.s. chamber of commerce, they're shills for big business. and they're stealing our democracy, spending millions from secret donors to elect republicans to do their bidding in congress. >> they have failed missouri. and robin carnahan is one of them. carnahan stood with obama's health care law that cuts medicare and could raise insurance premiums. gwen: the goal in both overly dramatic cases is to blame the other party for washington's problems. but how expensive is this getting, jeanne? >> it's really hard to keep up with. i used to be able to come here with one sheet of pipe. look at this stack i have. it is costing so much that the outside groups have spent more

than $200 million. it's a dramatic increase over the midterms in 2006. the spendy by outside groups is triple what it was just four years ago. it's an entirely new landscape caused of course by the supreme court ruling earlier this year that opened the door for corporations to donate money. and where they have gone are into these groups like american crossroads that created themselves in a way that they can keep their donors private and that's where a lot of the money is going. gwen: who is outraising whom? or outspending whom? >> well, it's difficult to track but the democrats as a party and as candidates, if you look at the democratic party they outraise the republican party and candidate by a good amount, $200 million. but these outside groups when you add them in, the democratic advantage is gone. so i talked to some folks on

the republican side and on the democratic side earlier this week and they think finally they're pretty close to parity and if anything the republicans have an advantage because these outside groups can raise so much money so fast. people are cutting million-dollar checks, multimillion dollar checks, so overnight you can see a big load of ads go up and change a conversation in a campaign. >> it's a good thing we passed all those campaign finance laws a few years ago. what happened to all that? is campaign finance just dead? >> i have to tell you if you talk to the reform advocates as we have they feel like they're at one of their bleakest moments. they feel that in some respects the situation has gotten worse than pre-watergate, which is when the first campaign finance laws were passed, in part because of the anonymous nature of this money. the big watergate reforms were intended to limit the amount of donations and get big business

out of politics. well they're back in a big way and we don't know their names. >> there was a circumvention through soft money, then soft money was outlawed by mccain feingold. then you have this new case. big buys -- big business likes to be anonymous. they liking to anonymous. why? >> the big benefit is that you don't upset your customers or investors. what i have found in looking at the corporations that were willing to step up and give to groups that had to disclose with the federal election commission, if you look at those corporations, one common thread is that they're dominated by a singlele personality or they are privately held. and so these are names familiar to us. harold simmons of t.r.t. holdings. he's been around for a long time. he gave to the swift boaters in

2004. so these people have already put themselves out and no harm will come to them for pay -- staying out there. people are accustomed to them. >> it seems to me, then, are individual voters being drowned out by this? are they solt after less for donations? >> you mean the individual donors? the individual donors ironically have kind of held their own. they are being stomped by the big boys but if you look at the democratic side, the funnel for small donors is up and running at a pretty good click -- clip and the tale partiers have found and enslive -- enlivened the republican side. >> it was one of the original resources before the republican establishment figured out what a threat they posed. gwen: right.

gwen: so let's take this apart. john's been following senate races. majors been tracking the house. interestingly enough, john found an excuse to get to las vegas, where senate majority leader harry reid is fighting off a stiff challenge from republican sharron angle. here's a taste of their debate last night. at issue, as always, it seems, the future of social security. >> man up, harry reid. you need to understand that we have a problem with social security. that problem was created because of government taking that money out of the social security trust fund. >> don't frighten people about social security. the deal that was made by president reagan and tip o'neill is holding strong, and money is there and it's taking care of our folks and will for the next 35 years as i just indicated. gwen: not the first or last time we're going to hear that social security argument in the campaign. what is familiar and what is different about what we're seeing play out in nevada?

>> well, you suggested i go to las vegas on a lark -- gwen: no, no, no. [laughter] ing >> but it's a familiar old argument. you have the size of the government as the big argument and government spending. harry reid was making the case that in these tough economic times nevada has the worst economic, unemployment rate in the country. really hard hit. he says i brought home jobs to the state. it helps the state and health care helps people in the state. sharron angle says well, that's just not what government does. it needs to be shrunk and to help the business environment so it can create jobs. in connecticut almost the same argument verb atim about how you create jobs. and in california the gwen: the same arguments i heard in kentucky and flax

florida and in every state. and not just in senate races. >> and this is such an interesting race because harry reid is the senate majority leader and sharron angle is the most famous tea party candidate. so this race has a lot of interesting parts to it. >> this is the first debate, or, scurege the only debate these guys will have. who was hurt and helped by it? >> it was the only debate they will have and i think they both couldn't be happier. they both have a career of gaffes and troubles and they did not upend their reputations for not being very good public speak erks. -- speakers. both were quite bad and at times it seemed like there were sentences missing in their responses. but harry reid has spent months and months saying sharron angle is crazy and she came on stage

and was forceful. she came and stood toe to toe with harry reid, who gave a very lackluster performance. he too ducked many questions. sometimes his talking points kind of dribbled out so in that regard she did well. the question is how many people had their minds changed? this race has been out there and in the public and there probably weren't a lot of nevadans who had their minds changed. >> this kind of embattled race needs a game-changing performance. did we see it? >> no, we did not see a game-changing performance from harry reid. sharron angle really took the fight to him. she said he lived in the ritz carlton. he tried to begin with his humble beginnings in searchlight, nevada and she came right back at him. he was every inch the senator, talking jargon and naming pieces of legislation. at one point he kept calling

her my friend, very senate, as if she was really -- already in the next cloakroom. >> john, take us east too. we had a debate in connecticut where there is another female tea party candidate who is obviously roiling the waters, christine o'donnell? that one seems to have gone the other way. >> well, right, in delaware we have christine o'donnell. >> oh, excuse me. >> the momentary tea party favorite but she now the policies have her down as much as 20 points. son so much at stake. another candidate who haps been lampooned by everyone, the democrats and the press, but she held her own but she has a much longer distance. in connecticut you had another ininsurgent candidate, linda mcmahon, who looked like she might be moving up but it looks like the democrat might hold. gwen: and in west virginia they

have governor manchin who they thought would just walk in but -- >> right. and we have others mofpk away from the president thegwen: now over to the fight for the house. we've been talking about a republican takeover for weeks now, and nearly every generic poll backs that up. but major writes in this week's national journal" that the democrats haven't given up yet. really? >> well, of course they isn't -- haven't given up. they're not going to hand over a majority they spent years trying to win. democrats are well organized. is not like the 1994 cycle at all where democrats did not see a tidal wave coming. they predicted one as early as 18 months ago. it may still wash on shore but not without a significant fight. gwen: where are they looking?

>> they're trying to target, and this may be the pivotal factor come election night, can they pick off enough republican seats to make their losses less pronounced? let's say republicans pick up 44 combrose seats. the net is less than the 39 the republicans need to take over the house. -- house. it's all going to be a net-net game for democrats come election night. probably seven the republicans have a chance of winning. two are already in the bag. delaware at-large seats, and louisiana's special district, that's going back to the democrats. illinois' 10th congressional district, mark curk running for senate. california's third district, dan lund grevpblet problematic

the political skills, never really delivered as much as republicans hoped he would. so they have found a few places around the country. allentown, pennsylvania. 15th district. charlie dent could be in jeopardy. so if democrats can stitch together enough of these victories they might be able to hold off the republicans. >> but, major, could they stitch together those victory and still lows -- lose? >> yes, because so many other seats are on the board. john dingell has gone in in two weeks absolutely safe, michigan institution to jeopardy. other races once thought to be safe are now tossup races. the cook political report which we're affiliated has 8 tossup races. the numbers just work so much against democrats. in this stage of a campaign when you're areas of vulnerability keep expanding and your targets of opportunity keep narrowing, it's hard to

adjust. >> tell us about nancy pelosi. the leader of the republicans -- democrats in the house. gwen: and the star of every republican attack ad! >> and pelosi is part of the reason harry reid is having so much trouble in nevada because she's not going to lose. so the next biggest co-star is harry reid. that's why all the money is going to nove. nancy pole essy has become a figure of rallying intensity for republicans. institutional republicans weren't really prepared to attack her as much as the tea party, more energized republicans are and that's becoming a huge part of this dynamic that washington is out of control, spends too much, washington doesn't listence to you. whether or not nancy pelosi actually represents any of those things is less important than the symbolism of what herb

headership along with harry reid has come to represent. >> what is the tea party effect on the house side? >> on the house side it's much more positive writ large than in the senate. very few races where the tea party has nomibaverted a -- nominated a clunker. and the flu -- because the house races get much less visible coverage, the flaws of any particular candidate aren't as visible the gwen: and if you're john boehner or michigan mcconnell and the tea party folks who say a pox on everyone -- does that make the job of speaker less appealing? >> well, no. john boehner wants to be speaker and have as many republicans under his wings as he possibly can but the

leadership understands and it preparing for the possibility of wing the majority but these are wild cats that are coming into and are not going to be easy to herd. that's always true but especially some of these wild cats are going to be vociferous and upset with -- about spending. gwen: i'm so looking forward to wild cats in washington. nothing wrong with that. >> nothing at all. gwen: another dilemma for president obama. this week, a federal judge ruled that the military cannot expel soldiers who are openly gay or lesbian. and that was one of the first things he was asked about at a young voters' forum sponsored yesterday by mtv, bet, and cmt. his reply -- >> it has to be done in a way that is orderly because we are involved in a war right now. but this is not a question of whether the policy will end. this policy will end, and it will end on my watch. gwen: but not right away, apparently -- the obama administration has already asked the court to stay its order.

then the pentagon said it would not enforce the policy. why isn't this contradictory, nancy? >> because what the obama administration is trying to do is say how zones repealed and they want it done through congress. there is a real risk from the pentagon's and administration's point of view of doing it through the courts. the administration's feeling on this is if you do it through congress it allows the administration and debt of defense to manage sort of when it happens. they can tie it in with the review they're doing on the implyations -- implications of repealing don't ask/don't tell. they can set the timetable and give it finality, not let it drag on for years and years in the courts and go back and forth. gwen: well, the president is

leaning toward orderlyness and clarity, yet if he -- at the end of the week this whole issue is anything bument >> that's right. quite extraordinary at the pentagon. they seemed to be caught flat-footed by this injunction but the judge had said a month ago she would issue this worldwide injunction on enforcing don't ask/don't tell. so today a letter came out that said you can did, you probably shouldn't say if you're a gay or liz byan soldier because you don't know. gwen: which note -- we note for service members that altering their personal conduct in this uncertain legal environment may have adverse consequences for themselves and others should the court be reversed. >> right what i'm concerned about, all the slog of the two wars and how tired we hear military families are and then you have now this, you know,

the lack of clarity and with a warning lane attached, what is this going to do for recruitment? >> in the immediate, if someone comes into a recruiting office and says i want to join the united states military, they're still not allowed to ask what someone's sexual orientation is. the real problem is if someone calms -- comes in this week and says i'm gay or lesbian and i want to enlist in the army and then they're brought in and then if there is a stay, will they proceed on don't ask/don't tell? what does that mean going forward for service members both enlisting and already in the service? so this week say case of legal limbo not only for those coming into a recruiting office but for those whose cases are pending under don't ask/don't tell. >> what about -- well, one of the argument up thes is the

effect on good order and discipline. if it's installed, what is the practical effect? >> the pentagon's argument is we have to look at housing, health benefits, how we would go about doing that. that's their argument. some people say the truth is soldiers are serving with gays and lesbians every day and they know it. they're allowed to say, i know you're gay or lesbian, yet the service mb san loud to say it themselves. it hurts cohesion. the brass say it needs to be done slowly. you ask the younger officers though they're sort of past it and seem to say that they're ready for the repeal now and that it wouldn't have much impact the way the services have said it would. >> isn't it also true that though the president may want clarity it's not going to happen any time in congress? either with the congress going out or the new one that is

going to be much more republican and much more hostile to changes of this nature? >> what you are really asking is whether the court is legislating from the bench. the most relevant to compare it to is roe versus wade. that was legislated in the courts yet it remains a politically divisive issue. this this takes a long time it could take a long time and be a political issue. gwen: thanks, everyone. we're done here, but the conversation continues online on the "washington week" webcast. we'll be keeping track of all these political and policy developments every night on the pbs newshour on air and on line, and then we'll be back around this table next week on "washington week. good night. every thursday get a preview of our topics and panel with our "washington week" email alert available at "washington week" on line at pbs.org.

funding for "washington week" is providing by -- >> we know why we're here. to give our war fighters every advantage. >> to deliver technologies that anticipate the future today. >> to help protect america everywhere from the battle space to cyberspace. >> around the globe, the people of boeing are working together to give our best for america's best. >> that's why we're here. >> it was 1975. my professor at berkeley asked me if i wanted to change the

world. i said sure. that's the start of it. exxon mobil opened a facility to identify the most productive strains of algea, amazing little country. ers that is he creet oil and to do this on a large enough scale to someday help meet the world's energy demands. >> corporate funding is also provided by wells fargo advisors and e harmony. additional corporate funding for "washington week" is provided by the ethics in journalism foundation, the annenberg, the public broadcasting foundation andand by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like