and why do they even get a voice vote, labor unions or corporations? they are not in -- i don't get it. could you explain some of that to me? >> guest: well, you have got exactly the right issue. e question is is a corporation like an individual. that was basically the argument. r 100 years, bk to teddy roosevelt's times the laws said corporations can be barred from putting money, giving money to candidates and since 1947 unions, corporations may not spend money directly to the election or defeat candidates. they've got to stay -- you can't have corporate money in politics. the arguments being made now, it goes back to the 1890's corporations are like persons in so they have free speech rights and the corporation wants to say defeat nancy pelosi or whenever she says she's for theublic auction in the industry or not hypothetical example it could actually happen next year.

the court were to rule corporations have a free-speech right to get involved in politics you can imagine a lot of corpotions in 2010 would choose to spend millions of dollars to run ads for or against members congress. and what the supreme court is reallyeing asked to decide and what they're closely divided on is wheer we are going to say corporations, like individuals, have these full free-speech rights. if i had $10 million to spend as an individual, i have a free-speech right to run ads and put billboards and whatever, and that's the issue here. two corporations have a similar first amendment right. >> host: so ts case is guaranteed to be a landmark case if it is called based on that interpretation? some suggested justices will decide theule very narrowly. guest could answer to your question is no. it could end up being a vy

minor case. that is what we are watching for. it's hard to gauge. >> hos which way it will go. >> guest: that's right citins are concerned but conservatives are going to win the case. by some decision that says you're really not a corporation, a dissident the subject. that's a narrow -- >> host: but it leaves the corporate intact. >> guest: or a broad opinion says rect citizs united wins is because the first amement doesn't allow the government to regulate corporations, in a corporation when the spending money on a campaign speech. >> host: iowa city iowa, republic line. >> caller: good morning. this really tyson to my concern also. and really i would like to make a comment and then ask a question, and it deals with the issue of there is an individual and the corporation to relationship how we define corporation. of course know how to dene and vegetable, hopefully. how does that relate to what

exists now has lobbied the constitution? and is this even a issue? and then even further have we revisited this in the mccain- feingold passage as far as what can be said at a certain time prior to what the federal election. so i guess my very specific question is ths: where what the judge's stand on this? would they ignore the political situation and go to the constitution and really dig out wherthe freedom of speech stands? what individuals, and then what relationship does this -- goes beyond the individual freedom of speech? >> guest: while, the supreme court justices are very divided. they don't even agree with their own history is on this point.

scalia and stevens are sort of going back and forth on what we've said in the past. it is true in the 1890's the court said railrds and whatever can challenge things because they had right under the 14th amendment, so they were persons. justice stevens said that we've never said that in the campaign eckert. we've never said corporations have the se rights. justice scalia says is we have, cause there are cases -- famous cases involving "the new york times" for example. well, they are a corporation. scalia says we have acknowledged corporations have free-speech rights so the justices don't agree on this point. i don't think they are going to agree in this case. but as i say, the fundamental issue is do th want to treat corporations, and i presume than unions, as having free-speech rights? and if they do,hen they are going to say this whole fabric -- theccain-feingold law was a lobby that plugged a loophole.

taught loopholes as mccain said there was soft money was a term tt can and to vote because it was a way to get around the limits on spending. you could give it to a party. the congress is always trying to comeack and plug the loopholes, but it'slways been with the understanding that some types of money can be restricted, and one of the types of money was corporate money. that congress has understood that it can limit or restrict rporate money in politics and as i say that is at least what is potentially at issue in this case. >> host: of ur city was just on the air. >> caller: i have a follow-up question. would you agree the issue here for the court would be number one, would define a corporation? >> host: define a corporation. >> guest: corporation is integration of state law elena

kagen tried to make that point. you don't walk on the street and on into a corporation or talk to a corporation on the street. it is a legal entity whose jo is to make money. she was singing they are not voters. a voter has interes. a corporation is a job is to make money. justice scalia's view is a corporation as a group of people, association of people, plushere's a lot of small corporations. scalia kept singing three or four times well, the local hair dresser could be incorporated or some local car dealer. do we rely want to keep those people out of politics? the answer well, no, but they can giveoney as individuals. siskel i don't know whether they are going to try to define a corporation. but they are gng to define t first amendment rights of the corporation. fit amendment says coress shall make no law restricting this freedom of speech. ted olson basically said noval

means no longer. this is restricng freedom of speech of corporations. q. should strike it down. >> host: alabama, jerry. you are up next. >> caller: how are you doing. i was calling to ask i believe in freedom of speec myself. with a lot of corporations, now i have a hard time dealing with that. i look with the pharmaceutical companies have done to us and the government -- i have a hard problem supporting corporations like that, you know. they may go like to set to make money but look where they make the expense of the bac of american taxpayers. >> guest: you don't sound like a vote for the corporations in this case. it is the case that corporations right now have a fair amount of influence in politics. there are corporate tax if you

are a corporate executive you can give money to corporate fund, and of course corporate lobbyists. it's not like corporations have no voice, but this potentially could raise that up quite a bit because what did they have been barred from doing as i say corporations can fund a she adds and if pharma or one of the companies could run an ad that says health care is good for americans law is running an ad that says don't vote for nan pelosi or don't vote for republicans so and so because they have got the wrong position. that's what they can't do d that is at least what it could win in this case. >> host: bricker asks hess the supreme court ruled in favor of corporate interest, that question one. question number twis who has the most tlose from this ce? >> guest: there are a series of questions involving

corporations throughout that come up in dozens of different contexts. and when it discrimination, all sorts of business ces. so i don't think the corporations usually win or usually lose and lesas i was saying to susan are earlier there's a variety of corporations. scalia said there are fams cases involving the naacp in the civil-rights area and they are technically a corporation so i don't think there is a particular pattern. >> host: hers another corporate question. >> guest: i should ask -- who wins or loses. this actually has a partisan guest to. in putting the national committee they have been very strong supporters of this notion of free speech rights for corporations. and democrats, the overall admistration, the clinton administration have been very strongly opposed to the notion of more corporate money in politics. so, for whatever it is worth, this would be i think more

applauded by the republicans, conservatives, libertarians, and opposed by democrats and liberals if the court were to go down this road. >> host: in fact this question is related. few were asks is the corporation any different than other groups such as teen stars, religious groups, common ideas, not individual voices? >> guest: well, let me see. there's some similarities. i think the difrence between a religious group or some other social group as elena kagen tried to explain most people don't know when they have a mutual fund. they are buying stocks. the own money in mutual stocks or pensions. you don't buy the stocks and you really don't do it because you're interested and the company's political view. you are doing it because you

think they will, you know, stock will go out and he will make money. so i think there is a difference between and interest group that comes together that supports a particular idea or cause or issue and a corporation that comes together has a particular legal form, and itonly real goal speaking of supreme court, octobe4th c-span will debut its new features series on the supreme court. it is a whole week of programming but there's a documentary about 80 minutes long on the night of october 4th which will ll more about the building and the justices who work tre and following week and we wilhave in the entirety each of the one-on-one interviews that c-span conducted with theitting justices and justice o'connor where they talk to you about their role, the view of the court's role in society and how they do their job. it's very rare these justices sit in front of television

cameras, and if you are interested in court we invite you to watch and you can find on the web site. baltimore is next, democrats. >> caller: yes, how are you doing? when it comes down to campaign contributions through fees governments when they are running for services all of these industries, corrations, kim companieshat give contributions to the government running in office, then it ader of one win the big scandals come out and the corporations have fraud issues and it seems to me that they get better protection in court through the system to help them once they've bn allocated as fraud or something like that and it seems to me most of these insurance compaes are getting away with fraud and there's

nothing in the court system that's actually, you know, safeguarding the citizens just because of the altar the campaign contributions to these governments running an office. and it seems to me that the average citizen is losing out to these big corporations and insurance companies when the battle fraud and schemes and stuff like that to the industries and come to the court that the average citizens who cannot defend themselves against and we wanted to know where can we take these complaints to a higher force or insurance company or organization campan contributions to the govenment? >> host: david, thank you. i don't think we cannswer the second question but we're in yesterday's argument what david's point have resided? >> guest: the fact corporations already he a lot of influence on power?

>> host: right, at the expense of t individual. >> guest: elena kan representing the obama administration, her job is to defend the law and also the reason why congress passed the law and since waxman was representing mccain and feingold both of them made the same point that go back 100 years. it's one of the consistent themes in american hisry. not everybody agrees but the corporations have the enormous power because of their money and wealth. they have some role and influence on politics. we don't want them to have too much role. if you allow corporations to be funding candidates directly through campaign ads and what not, the danger is you get lawmakers w basically right all of the laws to protect corporations and insance compans d make the problem worse rather than better. >> host: we have a clip of elena kagen. let's listen to that and then i would like to talk about her

debut yesterday. >> we are suspicious of congressional action in the first amendment area precisely because, at least i am, i doubt that one can expect a body of incumbents to draw elecon restriions dead to do not favor incumbents. is that cynical of me? i don't think so. [laughter] >> i think justice scalia is wrong. there for corporate and union money go overwhelmingly to incumbents. this may be the symbols of the ninth thing congress has ever done. if you look -- if you look at the last election cycle and corporate tax money and ask where it est goes ten times more to implement than challengers and in the prior to election cycle even more than that and for an obvious reason because when corporations pl in the political process they

want winners and people who will produce outcomes and they know the way to get those outcomes and those winners is to invest in incumbents so that is what they do. as i said in double digitfor the indi dustin challengers, so i think that rationale which is undoubtedly true in many contexts simply is not the case -- >> host: what was it like in the room watching her and her argument and approach the bench and the justices interaction with her? >> guest: she was very impressive, very good for any argument particularly first argument in a complicatedase. the trick with supreme court is to have conversatiol te to be able to talk back and forth with them. and what i was most impressed with and the clip highlights it nicely she wasn't s at all about taking on scalia and roberts and saying the premise of your question is wrong. scalia said severimes we

can't trust congress to do this because they're still interested and she made the point if they really were self interested they would lift the ban on corporate and union spending because the corporations would give the money to them since she was basically saying several times john roberts said what are we suppos to do it a case like this wn there is a first amendment issue at stake andhe said you ought to do what you normally do, decide the case narrowly, focus on the facts and don't issue a ruling. roberts himself said several times in the past and i thought she was very quick, very well-prepared for the case and i thought she handled it exceedingly well. you know when a situation like that you are going up against five justices who probably disagree from the start no matter how well you do you will probably not convince them but she was very good at responding to each of their questions and sort of turning them around making a very strong point of her own. >> host: the cool sounds like

not to win but scared of the note of the loss. and just what -- >> guest: per goal was to close narrowly. >> host: dorcy what i tried to say. >> guest: exactly. she was asked a .1 time was roberts saying are you getting up the argument previously made? she said know if we have to lose we would rather lose on this ground than large ground. it's okato narrow law and say an ideological nonprofit group that is incorporated maybe shouldn't be coved by law but don't go the next step and say all corporations including profit-making have the same free-speech rights. >> host: you are listening to david from the los angeles times. next call is from michigan. dave, republican line. >> caller: yes, i would like to ask the man of is question. if you don't want these

corporations to have -- we want to restrict their freedom of speech. but why are we doing that when the left, the demrats are continually and publicly assaulting them? don't they have a right to defend themselves and suggest we vote for somebody that wl solve them publicly? an it doesn't say your comment about john mccain, that is one of the reasons he lost support for republicans is his opinion about campaign finance reform. it was very much to the left of politics so that logic doesn't pertain with us conservatives. but i would like to know why you restrict the cporations speech so much when the left is continually assaulting them like they are the devils of society. i think they should have a right to defend themselves and make a statement of who they would like to see an office and who they

wouldn't. >> host: thank you. you've made your point. we will get a response. >> guest: let me split down the middle. they certainly hav a right to defend themselves. ford example if the insurance companies, having heard barack obama speak last night saying we are being unfairly bashed on this and they wanto run some public campaign to say we're the insurance comnyit's not our fault costs are going up and they are free to defend themselves and spend a lot of money to put out the message and they do that. grantedhough there is this one restriion that has stayed in law which is they can't give money directly to a candidate to congress or the president and they can't run ads that say a defeat smith or a liked gerald. a serious there's a restriction, but corporatio to have a fair amount of freed t get up a message and defend themselves. >> host: next call is propes field wisconsin, you are on th air.

>> caller: good morning. anks for c-span. the reason i'm calling is ring the last presidential election i was listening to a couple of cable channels and they were talking abo all the money being donated to the candidates from foreign countries and they said what the foreign countries to as a lot of peopleupposedly gave 20-dollar donations and before and countries would do is a bqndle of these donations they got a send one of large and check to whatever candidate they wanted to. i thought that was against the law. why isn't anybody iestigating this? i remember when al gore was running for office the big scandal there was because i think there were some nuns with an asian group and he wasn't supposed to accept that money. so why they are a lot in foreign

cotrie people in foreign countries to donate money so that they can skew r elections and get a what he liked it. i would like -- >> host: oy, caller, appreciate that. >> gue: you are right on the law, that is it is illegal for foreigners or foreign companies to put moneynto election campaigns. i don't know the facts that you are referring to that supposedly happened in the 2008 election. it should be investigated and stopped in the federal election commission should look into it but i'm not aware of that. >> host: this related ta few or by e-il, cpotions are related to the first amendment, how do corporations like toyota, honda, etc. which are not american corporations fit into the schemef things? >> guest: that's a terrific question. ruth ginsburg basically asked the same question yesterday. if he were guing mr. olson there is no distinction between individuals and corporations, what do do with the mega

national corporations, some of them -- there are a lot of companies that operate that are foreign owned companies. can they put money in campaign ads and there was no answer to that question but it is one of the big problems as they go down this road the you could have international corporations tting money -- >> host: here is a c-span watcher who listened to the argunt asking what mr. savage explain the difference between contributions and expenditures by corporations as discussed during the proceedings yesterday? >> guest: yes, another goo question. the bulkeley base out of the 70's, the court at that time, right after watergate created a division that is with us ever since and messed up the law. they basically said the government can restrict contributions, if i've got millions of dollars the government can restrict how much

money i get to a candidate. i can only give $2,500. but they said if i want to spend money on my own i have a free-speech right to do that. that is what created the era of this also financed candidates, ross perot, steve forbes, mayor bloomberg in new york, the court said there ia free right to spend as much as you want. that's still an issue in this case. even the conservative justices agreed the government can't let or forbid corporations from giving moneyirectly to congressional candidates but they say the government cannot forbid corporations from running campaign ads that say elect or at, chris ann jones and so that divion between expenditures and contributions is still a ground and it's one of the many complexities of the election. >> host: ste. >> calr: yes, dave i've got

a question. i was born in 1943 so there's a lot of people my age that don't know what was passed but i understand back in 1945 the massey ferguson act w enacted and that was meant to permit the insurance companies from antitrust laws which means if i am not wrong or if i'm right they are exempt from paying taxes. whato you think tha is true? that is the reason we have the mess in the health care and other things? >> host: thank you. >> guest: i am not familiar with that law. i do kw insurance a state regulated entity. it is another erie of the law that isn'tn issue in this case by sorry i am not familiar with that partilar law and but the consequences it would have. >> host: last question from

louisiana. not much time. james, go ahead. >> caller: real quick. if the white house can call the pharmaceutical cporations to capitol hill or the white house and shake him down for $80 billion i wouldhink that, you know,