those acrobats. you can find out more on the website. plenty of analysis of the aftermath of the attacks in paris. why not take a look at it. it's at aljazeera.com. [ ♪ ] [ ♪ ] tonight - both parties seem to agree on one thing - there is too much money in politics. so why couldn't a presidential candidate running on that issue gain traction in the polls. also - sexting between two minors - should it be legal. and my final thought about how the most hated professor in

america actually has a valid point when it comes to big media i'm adam may, welcome to "third rail". businessman donald trump recently touched a "third rail" of american politics. >> when they call, i give. you know what, when i need something from them two years later, three years later i call them, they are there for me so is congress bought and sold? it's an issue where the left and the right are starting to agree. >> billionaires are literally able to by elections and candidates, let's not kid ourselves, that's the problem now. >> the problem that underlies all of this is the cronyism and corruption of washington. there's a lot of talk, former presidential candidate lawrence lese joins me, great to have you with us. first of all, what happened. you dropped out of the race in

the last week. frankly, not a lot of people knew you were running. >> right. we started about 12 weeks ago a campaign literally at zero, with not a lot of prospects. i'm a harvard law professor with funny glasses and my first mime is leicester. we raised a lot of money and registered in the poll, the democratics party said if you get three polls in 1% within six weeks of the debate i would be in the debates. we did that, at the last minute they changed the rules and kept me out of the debates. >> do you believe there was a calculated effort by the d.n.c. to keep you out of race? >> the rule was designed to make it so i wouldn't get in. some one called it larry-mandering they gave it a therm. -- term. what is the fear. >> if i was the democratic party, i would be worried that

someone would come in from the outside and begin to attack a fundamental problem, which in my view is a crippled and corrupt institution of congress, which is corrupted because of way we fund campaigns, that's the issue i would want to put to the table. i would not be surprised. we don't want that out there i want to dig deeper into your issue, but first, you say congress is corrupt. is it so corrupt we don't have a democracy. >> we don't have a represented democracy, it's corrupted because of way we make money and the way they jerry manneder the districts. all produces a system where we don't have fair representation, but extraordinarily representation of the most powerful, and that is not a representative democracy didn't we always have money

in politics, isn't this the course of history. did we truly have a representative democracy. >> this corruption today is worse than it's been in 100 years, it's a different corruption. 100 years ago it was old-fashioned, bribery. this is in plain site. i don't believe the guys are criminals, but that they allowed a system to evolve, where they are forced to bend over bcked. so we have not seen this level of perversion in 100 years. and it's certainly the case and unless we find a way to address it, you may not have a government capable of doing it. >> if it's so corrupt, why were citizens united upheld. >> they were two issues in citizens united they were

compelled to interpret in a strict way. here, it is changing the way elections are funding. giving candidates the options to fund campaigns, without depending on the billionaires, millionaires or the wealthy to give them the money needed. >> it makes me think of the presidential race, president obama and mitt romney both raised about a billion apiece. did it influence the race. do you think that people, donors are calling the white house saying to the president that i gave you this money and expect a favour in return. >> a problem we have is focussing too much on the presidency and don't realise there's another brans, and that is congress. i don't believe the presidents are engaged in quid pro coe. some think they are. i don't think that's the problem, the problem is the institution of congress is

dysfunctional. it is a failed institution. they are thinking can we take this position. given the way the funders will respond. are we allowed to bring the issue up, given if we do, we lose funding from the industry. this is deeply endemic to the way the institution does not function. we have to find a way to talk about the failed institution. >> polls show that people are concerned about money in politics, and it's the reason you felt you had to run. you felt you had the support of the people, in the end you barely register in the polls, are people more concerned about the bread and butter issues, the issues of the economy. wedge issues and other single issues, and maybe people are concerned but don't understand the gravity of the situation. >> i think it's not true. it was the case before. people would give lip service to the issue, but not vote on the basis of it. this is central in this election

cycle. that's part of a reason why donald trump triggered so much excitement and forced people like ted cruz to talk about the issue, and senator, because it's salient on the right in left. you did a poll of vote erls, asking if the next president could do one thing, what should it be. the most significant answer, the number one answer was to fix the corrupted way that cam mains were funded. in my campaign, you can look at this in two ways. i think we rally support behind the campaign, in polls that had me, where people knew me and martin o'malley, i was beating him. >> why didn't you stick it out then? >> if i'm not in a debate, being an outsider non-billionaire, there was no chance to bring the democratic party around to this. we knew from the beginning the only way the campaign made sense was to get in the debates,

that's what we focused on, and that's the goalpost that was moved. >> you ran as a democrat, are democrats and republicans equally corrupt or one more than the other. >> democrats and republicans are deeply dependent on the money raised. i don't think there's a difference in the economy of influence. republicans are slower to propose practical changes. democrats and marylands opposed an aggressive way is to change... >> he's in one of the safest districts, i know that. >> exactly. the one thing to say if there are more like john in the democratic than the republican party. you have a group called take back the republic, a group started by the guy who helped david bratt beat eric cantor in

the upset in the last primary season, and that group is focused on recruiting republicans to the cause of changing the way elections are funded. in the end republicans and democrats - if the base hate the system that we have. >> it's an issue that you see a consensus on between the two parties. i wonder who you will support for president. who is talking about this issue, and laying out a plan to address some of the problems. >> on the democratic side, every one of the three candidates checked the right boxes, they center not addressed how to solve the problem they have identified. they've not made it clear to the american people that we have to address this issue first. you are talking about taking on wall street or raising the minimum raise or raising taxes to support social security. you cannot begin to address those issues until you address the corruption first. what i'm looking for as i watch

the debates unfold is someone to acknowledge that we need to rally america to this reform, if we have a chance to do what they are talking about. >> couldn't donald trump, who is self-funding his own campaign, be a catalyst for the campaign, if he's not dependent. >> if he is a nominee, i'm not excited to imagine, he'll be challenging democrats to show why the candidate is less dependent on money than he is. i think the only way the democrats respond is to make this a promise, that they will, if they do anything, they'll make this change happen first. the you gough -- u-gov poll, they want it fixed. if they promise the moon, it means nothing if the rocket can't get off the ground. that's the reality of the government. it does not and will not work until we get a democracy back.

>> thank you for you time. "third rail" is coming up next. . >> there's a bullying technique on the left. >> i'm having trouble with the idea that anyone is bullying exxonmobile. >> i fear climate change is a religion of progressive. this is a madderb day wich hunt. >> are you saying climate change is not real? >> they're firing canisters of gas at us. >> emmy award-winning, investigative series.

welcome back to third rail, we are going to shift the conversation to climate change are, and some new questions about whether an oil giant is the deliberately trying to mislead the public. >> the new york attorney-general is investigating whether exxonmobile deliberately misled the republic. >> we are interested to what they were using internally, and what they were telling the world. >> we endeavoured to understand the science of this discovery. how do you draw a line between exxon doing research and advocating for policies that they think will be better for the bottom line. >> lots to talk about. let's bring in the panel. a former congressman. now principal of a law firm. an executive director from the independent women's forum, and mr dickie, editor of "daily beast", dollauthor of a new boo

good to have you with us. let's start with you christopher, hillary clinton calling for an investigation into exion mobile. are they made a scapegoat? >> it smells of politics. what eric, the attorney general's case is interesting. he's saying the science that exxonmobile had for a long time told us that the world is warming up, and they acted as a corporation on that new, that information. when it comes to telling the world, especially in the last 20 years, do they think since is credible on global warm, they apparently think it's not. his argument is it's one thing for the public and another for the real science in business. >> i would say some of the other conclusions where overlooked, and one is that there needs to be more evidence and discussions. more importantly, freedom of speech. this is a private corporation

using its own dollars to do research. and do you expect philip morris to fund antitobacco conclusions. >> good analogy. >> or planned parenthood to have a study saying abortion has its own effect. they are using their own money to go research, it's right for their critics to say who is paying for the science. as it would be for exxon to say to the sierra club who is paying for your club. we say science can be bought. unfortunately. >> in 1977 xpon started to -- exxon started to look into this, and the conclusion was climate change was reality and could have impacts. >> that was two years after the coming ice age as i recall the "time" magazine coverage. i think it's good for them to do the research. it's absolutely okay to be

questioning that, but for hillary clinton to jump on board is following bernie sanders, in my opinion. i would never lot the republican credentials sleep into an argument. >> getting to hillary clinton. the larger issue is that science was open to a debate. there was conversation, and no one would criticize a company. they may find they are in agreement or opposition, climate change is a religion, oppressive, and this is a modern day witch-hunt. >> are you saying climate change is not real? >> it's a new science. even if we were to say yes, it's real, it's manmade, it doesn't - it leaves us with a disconnect. which is how do we solve it. >> that's bullying technique on the left. i don't want to discourage companies from doing research. >> i'm having trouble with that idea that anyone is bullying exxon. they have enough resources to

defend itself and does a good job. >> it's a $32 billion company. >> it will give them an edge, don't you think. >> when loretta lynch investigates private companies, it sends a warning to those that are downstream and can't afford it... >> to defend the little guys, we have to defend the big guys. >> i'm saying that's a disturbing precedent and a tactic on the left. >> i'm not too disturbed by it. i think exxon can defend themselves, i think they do it all the time. schneiderman is not accusing them of misleading the public on the question of global warming. he's saying that he's investigating them for fraud. >> these going after them with the idea that this is a continuation. the reality is everyone wants a clean environment.

everyone would like to use green energy when it's available. in the meantime oil and gas is not going away. the idea that we are going after them. >> that's the problem, oil and gas is not going away. >> there's something that is different. we are going after a company of the potential that they committed fraud, that they lied to people here, that exxonmobile lied. is this reminiscent of what we saw with the tobacco companies. is exon making a probably they know is harmful to people. >> you don't want to pick on the tobacco companies. i'm not sure that science was proven. a lot of people died. >> it is important for a company to freely study something. in the room they'll probably have different opinions. when they go out publicly, they may be one thing. if some show damage, it is concerning. >> i would like to find out who does the funding of the science,

you know, who are believers in climate change. >> you say government-funded studies commissioned by groups like n.a.s.a. are tainted? >> all the time. >> food, energy... >> you regulate them and grow government keeping them in business. >> absolutely. >> let's move on to a serious subject that a lot of persons are talking about. teens and sexting. it's a parenting nightmare. should sexting be illegal for minors. >> reporter: a massive sexting ring busted at one colorado high school. >> over 100 high school students be registered as sex offenders. >> it may not be harmful, but adults panic if they see teenagers do it. >> it's become a norm through society. >> it is happening everywhere. >> and the laws need to be

changed. >> let me start with you. you are a mother, you have young kids, eventually they'll have phones, what do you think about this. should sexting between consenting minors be illegal? >> yes, you know, i was torn over the issue. on one hand i hate to criminalalize more things, and kids do stupid things, i'm more concerned about the larger problem, that girls are comfortable feeling new pictures at a young age. i suspect this is a sign they'll dabble in troublesome behaviour. at the same time you have to say to yourself it's one thing if they are sharing this between one or two people. but what happens if they disseminate this. i'm little reluctant to criminalize something. >> for instance, in colorado, a lot has been written about the laws, 100 kids s each other, and

the law says you can be prosecuted for felony for having the photograph on your phone. if your parents look at the phone and know the photograph is there, and it stays in your phone, they cab be prosecuted -- can be prosecuted for felony. >> i think one of the things we need to do is step back and say is this a stupidity question or technology, or a parenting question and not a school question. i think we are going too far. in sul fobbing count -- suffolk country, there's an area that they cannot open and they are accused. >> back in the days of the pony express, when snail-mail was prevalent, and i was a young man, my mother reminded me when i went to the camp, be careful what you put in writing, you'll send a love letter to a girl you'll probably break up with by

september, as you pour your heart out. that ink will stay on the paper. i think parents have to have some responsibility here, if you engage in stupid behaviour, there'll be consequences to it. >> this is it more than stupid. it's the sexualisation of young women, starting at a young age. what we've been teaching girls, that how despite the modern feminist movement, that your body is the most important thing, you can be fully educated, that somehow a young man will only appreciate you if you do something like this. that is concerning. >> coercion is a big issue. putting aside the question of felonies and all the law, the problem is coercion. if, under peer pressure you are a young woman or boy for that matter, and someone is saying, you know, you got to do it. you've got to share this. the next thing you know is that person is sending it to the school. that happens all the type of.

-- all the time. >> dis 'em nating pictures -- disseminating pictures that you intend to go privately, it's only 20 states that have laws where minors are not criminalize said. in one area two 16-year-olds faced criminal charges. is that wrong? >> i'd hate to nationalize there. you need discretion. if you had 50 state incubators to figure out what works and doesn't. i might be the only one of four of us doing stupid things. >> you definitely were. >> i thought you were going to confess to sexting. >> i had to draw a picture. >> the reality is kids will do stupid things, it may be better to let them work it out with their parents. i can't stand the fact - i have

two daughters, someone sending out a picture of one of them, buts on the other hand, why pose for it. >> it's like in the old days, they are kissing in the car. it's on the same spectrum. i don't think it is, there's something disturbing about how removed people are from one another, and it's not an intimate relationship. >> what is not said is this is deeply embedded in the culture of pornography going down to very young kids, where they tune in to the most extraordinary kind of pornography, and they see it as a norm. >> former congressman jack kingston, sabrina shave tonne and mr dickey, thank you for joining us melissa was a lightening rod for controversy after asking for a journalist to be ejected from a protest at a zoo. could it be correct. my final thought is next.

time for our final thought. before thursday professor click had a few fans, in an instant she had a household name, video tape calling for muscle o eject a photo journalist. click apologised to the campus community and journalist in the eyes of the media i would say professor clique has the title of the most hated communications professor in america. now, this is not the first time professor clique shared dis dane for the media posting "i hate u.s. television news", after watching coverage of the quake in haiti, and there's a poster outside her office. here is where click, as ridiculous as her behaviour was, is on to something. yes, it is true that a handful of companies dominate big media, yes, big media companies spend

hundreds of million on lobbyist to get ownership rules, and, yes, the money rich campaign finance system that i talked about may hurt our democracy. it pads the pockets of those big media companies. professor clique's distrust of big media is widely shared. a gallop poll showed 40% of americans trust the media, down from 55% in 1999. so this may be a teachable moment for everyone involved - for professor click, you can have disdain for big media, but infringing on the rights of journalists is not the way to reflect change and is a message for big media, which skips important complicated stories like racism to sensationalize a youtube video or outrageous post on social media. a big media keeping citizens informed and educated will

regain the trust of americans. that's really "third rail". announcer: this is al jazeera. hello, welcome to the al jazeera newsho newshour, live from doha. french police launch a manhunt for one of three brothers believed to be involved in the paris attacks. panic as a false alarm sends a stampede at the place de la republique france launches air strikes