harbour is going to be restored. when it's done, it's hoped visitors will be able to imagine what it was like all those years ago. >> and reminder that that story and the rest of the day's news can be found on the website aljazeera.com. the tiny number of americand themselves bumping up against implements good news. the limits zoom into the millions get out your checkbooks it is inside story.

this week with's decision, crystallize add lot of the arguments in today's america, one side says in a country that gives one person one vote, it is a bad idea to give people with more money a stronger voice in politics than people with less money. on the other side, they look at the text of the first amendment, and say basically, what part of congress shall make no law don't you understand. there may be speech you don't like, but it is protected you can't limb it just because it is paid for in a 5-4 vote, the justices came down on the side that you can't limit speech by limiting the money one might use to pay for it. but wednesday, the high court struck down that limit.

it is the late nest a spring of decisions passed by congress after watergate, this time they did not change the limits on individual contra biggss to each candidate or the white house, that still capped at $2,600 per candidate, in the primaries and general elections. but the court throughout the cap, meaning donors can now give as much as $2,600 to as many candidates as he or she wants and they can legally give a huge check to campaigns to then be dispersed to individual candidates. at the center of the suit, is plaintiff sean mccutchen, a self-is described activist, he wanted to give $1,700 to 27 candidates but couldn't, because the total would have exceeded the legal limit. am al jazeera sat down with him when his case was argued before the street, back in october.

people that have difficulty raising money, i think we can get new ideas and new people into the process, which is positive, but it is going to cost more to do that, but i don't see anything wrong with firing more staff, and doing more adds and more business. >> the republican national committee financed his appeal to the supreme court, reactions following the ruling generally fell along partisan lines. what i think this means is freedom of speech is being upheld. you have the freedom to write what you want to write. donors out to have the freedom to give what they want to give. >> most democrats argue the ruling will only help billionaires advance their own agendas in washington. like political

donors david and charles coke. most people are familiar with the brothers. spending millions of dollars to rig iraqi a system, and who does he help them and by every indication, our republican colleagues are falling all over themselveses to help advance their self-described radical process. >> divisions were also evidence in the supreme court justices written opinions. while delivering his dissent, from the bench, liberal leaning justice stephen brier said that the decision eviscerated our nation's campaign finance laws and where money calls the tune, the voices of the people will not be heard. wrung of is majority just as clarence thomas wrote,

political speech is the primary object of first amendment protection and the life blood. a self-governing people. contributions to political campaigns no less than direct expenditures generate essential political speech by fosters discussion of public issues and candidate qualifications. the first ruling to lift expansions. since then there's been a rise in outside groups called super political committees or super packs. >> i never paid less than 13%. >> super packs are registered as nonprofits and can accept unlimited donations to influence voters. >> we took some emergency action, but that accounts for 10% of this increase.

leaving critics to call it shadow money. one of those is billionaire casino owner of las vegas. he and his wife spent more than 93 million-dollars in the 2012 elections, last weekend three potential republican candidates were president showed up for one of the events. hey, listen, thank you for inviting me. >> hoping to win over his support and his checkbook. critics say the event in las vegas is proof of the increasing political power, of the few. >> megadonors have bout themselves as lot more clout, they will have an open door phone calls will be answered. and the question is what might they get. >> after 2010 citizens united ruling from the supreme court, 2012 went on to be the most expensive election cycle yet. even though candidates denied federal matching funds.

know with mid eternal elections coming up, it looks more likely that again, fund raising and campaign spending records will be broken. mccutchen verses the f exc on this edition of the program. two post watergate attempts. election cycle after cycle election mechanics run to catch one what with the law allowed them to do. what things will this decision bring to the people that decide to run for public office, the people that contribute to campaigns, and you the elector rate. that tries to separate fact from fiction at campaign time head to the polls and make a decision about the future of the place you live. downing us this time on inside story, who leads

the political law practice, he is a former federal election official. professor of government at georgetown university, he is the author of the financiers of congressional elections. and craig holeman, government affairs lobbyists for public citizen. let me start with you, everybody runs their campaigns in response to these laws. they provide an architecture, we had one set of rules and restrictions monday morning when we all woke up, there's a different one about to be enforced what will it mean to the day-to-day running of campaigns? how will this change. >> well, there will be more money, particularly i would expect certain incumbents will have more, because the leaders can raise money for them. without limit, you their large and challenges will be able to raise some additional money. but i think lit be on the

side of inequipments. and it is going to increase the amount of money available for both the air war. the t.v. isn't already saturated. you will see more and more money go into the ground war as welp p pairing people to get out during the street, and get the vote out. and more money, means more influence for those who are in office. and that's basically where we are headed. >> is that all necessary my a bad thing? >> more money, in elections is not necessarily a bad thing. but what -- this case poses is a very very real risk of corruption. we are talking about a lot of money being poured into the election process by a very small hand full of people. think act the contribution limit prior to yesterday, was $123,300. how many americans can contribute that much in

the first place? there were 646 that could afford that in election cycle so now we are talking about lifting the lid off of 123,000 for the 646 very wealthy individuals. that means they can contribute one, two, three, million or even more, to someone like john boehner, or nancy pelosi, if they organize a joint fund raising committee. ands that going to buy and certainly appears to buy a lot of influence professor wilcox, could that money already find its way into the process by other avenues and other means. which are not transparent, you don't know who is giving the money like chamber of commerce, so i'm still thinking through what kind of impact this really has. if you want to give millions of dollars

there's already a way to do it. >> you talk about lifting the lid, but a lot of those big money donors can already find places where their point of view can be represented. political organizations, willing to carry their water. >> right, think about what we just saw, certainly the amount of money that aidleson threw into nonprofit groups or super packs but it was not the same of handing over a $3 million check to a lawmaker who will be determining public policy that you are concerned about. in you have to lander your money flu a outside group, if you can hand over $3 million directly to obama, or say boehner or performance loisty, you will buy indebtedness.

this is going to result in some serious corruption scandals coming up. and it is something we should were withry about after this beak, to respond directly to what he just had to say. after this break, we will talk about how campaigns are run, and what the practical effect of changing the rules under which people can donate money to political campaigns really means. this is inside story. >> scared as hell... >> as american troops prepare to leave afghanistan get a first hand look at what life is really like under the taliban. >> we're going to be taken to a place, where they're going to make plans for an attack. >> the only thing i know is, that they say they're not going to withdraw. >> then, immediately after, an america tonight special edition for more inside and analysis. >> why did you decide to go... >> it's extremly important for the western audience to know why these people keep on fighting... ...it's so seldom you get that

access to the other side. >> faultlines: on the front lines with the taliban then an america tonight: special edition only on al jazeera america

google and the world brain >> it would be the worlds greatest library, under one digital roof. but at what cost? >> google could hold the whole word hostage... google and the world brain only on aljazeera ameria

>> associated with canada, and now how they are going to spend it. a kay after the election, caw ology under the current system, or the system before. i think it is another mechanism that can be corrupting. but i don't know with that we weren't already there. >> fred, who has been doing activism in washington for decades now. saying i i will write you a check, provided i know

what your position is. and then giving his wish list. super packs thathave coordinate already. so someone can go in today and wrote a $2.5 million pack, and say by the way, this is my list of policy preferences. i think that citizens united kind of destroyed the frame work. so craig for all the fuming, it sounds from all three of you, like it is really citizens united that changed the game, and this is a tweak maybe in your view, in the wrong direction, but that is that case that did it. >> well, the citizens united case was devastating. and it was more sweeping than the mccutchen case. but it just opened up that window of being able to

literally bribe an office holder into getting what you want. you know granted super packs -- new mexico no defender of super packs especially with their unlimited contributions. but there are a difference when a lawmaker gets that two or $3 million check, verses it going to someone else who is going to spends the money. the lawmaker, the candidaten't ways direct control over their campaign. they want to produce the ads. lawmakers want that in their own pocket, much more than they want somebody else take thing check. i think the problem i have with this case is not that we will have outright bribery. it could be. but i don't think with that's where we are headed.

the standard is no longer undue influence. it is no longer things like access that's okay now. we used to say hey, don't buy access that sounds bad to me, i don't like the sound of that, sounds like you are too much influence with this money. this case says now that's okay. we understand you are buying access. >> exactly. >> in order to regulate it they have to prove a bribe. i thy you talk about playing evening the playing field with the supreme court, they don't want to hear it. if we have evidence of quid pro quo, that is a very tough field to regulate money and politics. i think a lot bad can go on before you get to bribery. and that's why the standard should not be that high. hey, wait a minute, you are allowing people to give too much money, so you say that's okay, that's not a problem. >> in practice, though, is this really

going to change the amount of cam mains? the number of campaigns that one individual might be interested in contributing to? he went to court because he felt that it was too limited. but in my examens, when i have covered campaigns a lot of the highle roger williamsers give to members of a special committee, in their party, to influence outcome, or if they are based largely or seoully in one state, to the members of their party who are in the delegation from that state, they don't give willey nilly to every candidate that they share their concerns or share their ideas about something. they give in a way that more closely mirrors their own convictions on one question or another. yeah, i think the group of donors that benefits from this is lobbyists. they don't like writing that many checks but they will be asked to write that many.

it is an access orienting giving. if it is joint fund lazing and you have to give a large check for that's something they will do. but i think the super pack created the problem. you don't even know who the donors are. sometimes it is a c 4, we don't know where it comes from. so iny there will be a limited number. but i agree that it is a problem. i'm not defending it as a good decision, i am just saying the big big problem is citizen united. let's address this issue in terms of different paces. let's address it in terms of the roberts court. you know this case today is just one of the string of decisions those five justices have issued that have torn apart our campaign finance laws. may started with the david decision, and then

citizens united. it is those same five justices that are dismantling our campaign finance laws. when you read the decision, you find those five justices justify campaign finance laws only upon quid pro quo bribery. which means almost no campaign finance law. >> too narrow. >> that's right. >> we will take a quick break, when we come back, we will talking about the coming campaign cycles and how this new decision might effect the way we run campaigns. this is inside story. >> al jazeera's investigative unit has tonight's exclusive report. >> stories that have impact... that make a difference... that open your world... >> this is what we do... >> america tonight next only on al jazeera america

welcome back to inside stor. the supreme court says campaign donations are free speech. under the citizens uniterred case, it's true for corporations and now under mccutchen it is true for individuals. this week's 5-4 opinion states inform the first

amendment protects flag burning, funeral protests and nazi parades despite the profusion they cause, it surely protected despite popular opposition. professor of government at georgetown university, and craig holman, government apairs -- and in our past, as a republic, we have had supreme courts where a lot of people have held very high level public office, but now we have a court made of academics, judges, law professors various people that come out of a nonelected background. is is having a court of nine people who have never dialed for dollars or had to throw fund raisers changed the way these people see these questions? >> i think so, i think

so. we have five justices, essentially overruling a legislature, this is having a cascaded attempt. and perhaps more -- and they have not been elected to anything. not one of them, maybe student council president, i am not sure. who was the fifth vote going the other way in the direction of recklation, before she was essentially replaced by justice alead doe. upheld these rules and she was an elected official. so the last elected official left the court, and is the regulation of this money shifted away. you know, maybe there's something in that. >> so you all agree there will be more money in the coming cycles, so how does that change the election? >> you eno it isn't the election, it is not the

fact that more money will flow into the process. what worries me is the small number of individuals that can now cut a single check to a lawmaker who is going to be determining the policies or even government contracts that effect that. that's the danger that eel the real danger. it isn't the fact we are going to have more money in there. political science will show it is a bell curb, when you have the amount of money being spent on elections. there's a diminishing return. i have never met a politician or a law maker who believes that. they just want as much money as they can get. they believe that the more they get, the better chances they have. and so they have particularly susceptible to i am going to call it, bribery. >>

in the light of this decision, what chains? >> well, the thing that we have noticed. a number of super packs being formed. so we saw the presidential super packs in 2012, 2013, we are starting to see -- a few house candidates already have super packs. possibly, this would change the focus away from the super packs somewhat to joint party fund raising. i am guess there is' more money around. i believe the real problem is not who wins this election, it is the interactions with big donors giving big checks. >>

many of them are noted so ainges to give unlimited amounts. yes, there are many that will, but there will be a lot of pressure to give that otherwise weren't going there. i wonder, i wonder, when you throw this issue of what has changed, whether this will shift some of the influence away from the national party committees to individual leaders in congress. they won't be capping the same ways but these joint fund raising will enable leaders whether it's harry reid or john boehner to raise a lot of money. >> that brings us to the end of this edition, thank you for being with us, in washington, i'm

ray swarez. >> sclz >> good morning and welcome to al jazeera america. i'm thomas drayton, here are the top stories we are following at this hour. authorities identified the man they say opened fire at fort hood texas on wednesday. 34-year-old ivan lopez was a soldier with a history of mental health issues. there's not motive but he may have argued with another soldier before the attack. >> australian officials are conducting subsurface searches for the black box. the first time they are going underwater to look for it. they have two ships trying to