we're a movement that thrives under direct action and frankly, this issue is one of the main reasons why we even exist. parks were just the beginning, guys. we had a lot of support and changed the conversation in this country, but that's not enough. so the question is, what now? on january 3, 2012, the new york city general assembly formally approved this resolution. the new york city general assembly of occupy wall street joins the millions of local governments across the country in calling for an amendment to the constitution to firmly establish that money is not speech. that human beings not corporations are people and entitled to constitution rights and this the rights of human beings will never be granted to fictitiousenties or property.

we obviously need to change l s lalaws but in the meantime we're not going to sit idle and let our elections be sold to the highest bidder. we're not here to blow the whistle. we're here to respond to it. if you secretly contribute and scheme to buy our elections we're going to come knocking on your door. and it's not just going to be a couple of us. it will be thousands of us. everywhere you turn your head, we're like a hornet's nest that got whacked. scattered everywhere. and ready to swarm on a particular target. >> so you have heard for yourself there is a lot of firepower here and there's a lot of will. there's a lot of will, a lot of

unity of purpose. this coalition has the ability to reach every part of our country to the grass roots, to the shareholders, to local and state governments. we will do all of the above. to make sure we stop the dominance of money in politics. we are resolute. this is a strong beginning to the effort you'll see play out in every part of the country in the weeks and months. we welcome your questions. >> well, is anyone here from seiu? i'm sure you can -- yes? >> they're in the building. >> we know that. >> yes, behind you. >> you cited individual donors and corporations and you talk about shareholder resolutions. how are you going to try to pressure the big individual donors who are funding these super pacs? >> i'll start and then others will jump in. look, i think all these pieces go together.

and i think we have seen with sheldon adelson, for example, that it's very easy to trace which company connects with which donor. and so we're going to make it clear to corporate america that the public won't accept this and there's many different forms of response. i think they all connect, whether it's a shareholder resolution, whether it is a pension fund making clear that they are uncomfortable with the choices made by corporation. whether it's a kind of direct action you have heard laid out here. it all goes together. so whether -- if it's directed at a wealthy individual who is entirely associated with the publicly traded company or directed at the company itself, it's all for the same purpose. >> may i say a word? >> please. >> 2012 is going to be the most monied election in the history of the united states. we're not go only going to see the president raise $1 billion and the republicans raise $1 billion, but in the super pacs we're fearful that many

more billions of dollars will be spent this year on political campaigns for and against candidates. citizens united for the first time in many years lifted the lid off of corporations being able to dip into their corporate treasury and spend those on elections. that's simply outrageous. what were the five justices thinking who voted in the majority? did they think the day before citizens united came down that corporations and labor unions and wealthy people weren't already involved in politics? citizens united had just made it much, much worse. today's effort is to focus on those rogue corporations that may find a way to spin their money so that they can corporatize our election process. i was quoted today in the "wall street journal" by an off hand

comment that i made which i think is probably a good one. i basically said i'm a peace-nik. i believe in peace. but this is a shot across the corporate bow. simply saying to them we're watching. >> i guess i'm wondering how you plan on finding out who's donating to c-4s and c-6s considering they don't have to disclose. there's not much information since they don't have to disclose. >> again, i'll start, and others will join in. first of all, this is a multiheaded beast. i think the central theme running through this is we're going to show corporate america there are serious consequences. whatever form their donations take, how ever they attempt to launder them or obfuscate we're going to show there's consequences. in the end, we believe that many people who look at corporate america and have an involvement,

consumers, shareholders, et cetera, will be fully shocked when they see this. that's the connective tissue for the efforts. corporations are giving to super pacs. that's been publicly acknowledged and they're going to be addressed. we know that information is coming out even though there's been an attempt to hide the donation, information still has come out. in other cases where the information is hidden you've heard there will be aggressive efforts to draw it out. i think it's fair to say that a lot less stays secret than in say the days of watergate. we'll find a lot of allies all over the country including people inside corporations who will want to help us get this information. >> yes, i mean, that's a few things. first is the $25,000 reward. all right. that will clearly bring out information about corporate donations to c-4s.

that will bring out corporate donations into our politipoliti. people are going to volunteer that information and we suspect we'll get more than one taker. that's one thing. the second thing is that along with lots of organizations, h-can is launching shareholder spring. we're going to shareholder meeting all across the country with resolutions to expose and reveal and disclose the political spending of corporations. there were 30 such resolutions in 2009. 41 in 2010. and -- '10 and '11 and we'll see a phenomenal amount in coming season. then thirdly, all of the organizations are going to ferret out this information. and we know how that works in the digital age. we know how it works with wikipedia and all sort of other things on the internet. in this digital age, the ability

of a corporation to make a secret corporate donation is simply not going to happen. those days are over. if they think they can make those contributions without the public finding out, they're wrong. >> yes? >> so some of these corporations are giving money to chamber of commerce, for example. but they're going to say a they're giving it to the chamber of commerce and that money is hidden, but they may not say it's for the purpose of giving. are you targeting them also or just the political giving? >> your question is a good one. you're right. they can put it through the chamber of commerce. but we're go to be watching that as well. there are many members of the chamber who are angry with the chamber spending as much money as they spend on political

campaigns. and on who they spend that money on. so we'll be watching that as well as watching shareholder meetings, other kinds of opportunities to sift through how corporations are placing their money and where they're placing their money and if they do it through the chambers of commerce, we'll also be sharing those out. i want to just say that when we sent out 700 letters this fall, we're getting letters in all the time where lots and lots of good corporations are saying they're not going to use any of their corporate treasury. we know of groups like ben & jerry's ice cream that has a campaign trying to get the dough out of politics and they have got hundreds of corporations signing pledges not to give any money through this new process. so we're going to watch in all of those areas including the chamber of commerce. >> do you anticipate there'll be

boycotts and what do you, the corporations involved, are not the public traded household names but ones that would be necessarily affect by public pressure, how do you get at them? >> on the question of boycotts, what happened reaching the level of a boycott. a lot of people -- a lot of organizations participated. move on did an extraordinary job in particular. the online petition gathered hundreds of thousands of signatures. that alone, the media coverage, the protests turned target away from participating and spending that it could through citizens united. to bob's point, target quietly changed the policies so it would no longer allow itself that kind of spending. so there are good corporations that have chosen a path of restraint and disclosure. there are learned the hard way like target and have backed away.

there are many others that we're going to address. boycotts by the way, are an extraordinarily -- extraordinary tool. we have a lot of ability to use that tool if it comes to that. that's very much on the table. and i even without it, there's been a huge impact in target's case. imagine what happens if we employ that tool directed at a few corporations. the second point, i think what we find is even companies that on the surface do not appear to have a high profile or allowed direct engagement with consumers aren't household names. there's still a lot of pressure points, they still often to deal with state and local governments. they often have investments from pension funds. members of their boards. something we have all learned over the years, the board of directors including often prominent people who are concerned about the reputations might think differently about attention being directed to

them. there's a lot of pressure points in less well known corporations. go ahead, please. >> as an answer to that, as in the previous one. i think the first one, look, citizens united is a disaster and it's making a mockery of our democracy. we believe as many of the groups that we need a constitutional amendment to overturn the decision, that indeed -- if short of a constitutional amendment we need robust disclosure systems. not the ad hoc thing. but a national law that requires disclosure. rules from the s.e.c., state-based rules. i think we all agree on that. what this effort is -- and we're all working for that. what this effort is about is in the absence of that, what are we going to do? the calculation for corporations is they're going to get away with it. and what we know and the donations to the super pac so far, relatively small number of corporations. closely held, closely related to individuals. the big corporations, the brand

name corporations are not spending money in the super pacs and they don't plan to. they plan to run their money through trade associations and other independent organizations. they say so. look at what the trade association for wall street says. they won't run money through super pacs. look another why the chamber of commerce so vociferously opposed equiring companies to disclose the political contributions. they said we think companies won't give us money to run political ads if they're going to be held accountable for it. if the public knows what is going to happen. so disclosure i think your point is right, that some companies have more reputational interest than others, but if you look at mass is a energy, it doesn't have any direct consumer outlet. but when they got embroiled in to sustain themselves. a ceo wasn't able to hold on to his job. even the mining companies

ultimately care and are not in a considerable way about their reputations. the calculation today is now changed for all of these corporations. if you put money into the electoral process, you better expect it's going to be found out and you will pay. >> i'm with the hispanic link news service here, and -- well, first of all, i'm fascinated by the green tie and the green lapel pin. common practice in east l.a. on st. patrick's day is to wear a green chile. >> that's crossover. >> that leads to the question, the folks standing behind you, are we going to hear who they represent and seeing what kind of racial and ethnic diversity you have in this organization. >> the people behind represent all the organizations that i listed in the beginning. in the interest of keeping

things tight, we chose a representative sample. this is an effort representing all kind of organization including local and state governments, including grass roots organizations. i think what's so striking about the response is in a country so divided, this is actually something that unites us. it doesn't matter if you're democrat or republican, people don't want money in politic. >> there's 50 million hispanics in the united states and it would be helpful to me if we did is -- i'd like to know any hispanic folks representing any particular groups. and certainly any persons of any color. >> and let -- well, you'll have an opportunity to meet everyone right after. we want to make sure we get all the questions out and covered. any other questions that anyone -- yes? >> what about money from the -- like from the different groups,

they spend millions and millions of dollars and it's not always disclosed. some people point to that as just as bad as corporate money because it's used to influence who they're giving to. you're supported by seiu. >> i'll start and others i'm sure have important views. i think we all first and foremost want to make sure that the effects of citizens united are rolled back and i think that's for all organizations. a lot of us would say there's a profound difference between the firepower of corporate america, the sheer massive money they can bring to bear and obviously the self-interest involved versus any other element of the society. so i think we are deeply concerned. that of the flood gates of corporate money were opened, our democracy would just not survive it. that's what we're trying to address. >> i'll add to that. i mean, first, there's a world of different between --

difference between corps rainess and unions. the first is that corporations exist for the purpose of maximizing profits. unions are democratic organizations that exist for the purpose of helping workers express themselves in the workplace and in politics. the second issue is on the matter of disclosure. we're here because the corporations don't have to disclose their donations, the c-4 reese's and c-6s, for example. unions have to disclose all of their activity. every single donation to a c-4, for example, that is above $5,000, every single donation of any kind, any expenditure, has to be disclosed. they have enormous disclosure requirements that corporations are not subject to. and so that's why there is a world of difference between the two. and lastly unions were outspent in soft money in the last cycle because when it comes to

firepower corporations have it all. 6. >> to follow up on that, i mean, does this also lead to the president's super pac, priorities fund -- >> yes. i'll start and i'm sure bob has something to say on this as well. again, the work that my office did from the beginning, literally in the months after citizens united was directed at both sides of the spectrum, whether you're talking democrat or republican, whatever spectrum you want to look at, because the central point is to painstakingly roll back the results of citizens united in real terms. to try to preserve our democracy and make sure that all the different entities that might participate don't keep using the tools given to them by citizens united. from our efforts from day one,

we've reached across the spectrum. there's a difference between the kind of actors on the playing field. but that's been the approach we have taken. bob? >> yes. >> corporations donate to priorities usa and priorities -- >> exactly. >> which the super pack and the 501 c 4 which have to be disclose, they could be facing quote/unquote economic damage. >> let the chips fall where they may. >> this is one i have to be on the record for too. yes. but let me say couple of words about why. one is it's -- as a matter of principle, obviously. we take this issue seriously. we don't want corporate money in the election process, period. full stop. no corporate money in the election process. donate to republican-leaning, independent organization, trade association, we're coming after you. do it to the democratic leaning one, same deal.

there's a broader political point. citizens united is not a republican will continue to have severe impacts on both major political parties. it is changing what the political party is. it has to. because it changes what kind of funding they're going to get. and actually, amazingly, politicians are accountable to their funders. so, more corporate money comes into the democratic party, it's going to be more pro-corporate. as more of that money comes in, it will be a more pro-corporate republican party. so, the decision is a bipart san, trans-part san disaster. we're going to take it on as it relates to all the different parties. >> i'd like to follow up on her question. how do you pressure, not -- we've been talking about the corporations, how do you pressure people like the koch

brothers, this guy pleiss, the big individual givers who are accountable only to themselves? >> you know, i think even the koch brothers, they are probably the best example, because they have made their decisions and are very comfortable throwing their wealth around. but their companies do have direct consumer relationships, omni low itemhotels, for exampl. and it think in the end, even the super-rich and the motivated are affected when they see their companies get in trouble, because the public is unhappy with them. i think in the end, we're also trying to say, i think comes through a lot of what people have said here today, there's a lot of people sitting on the fence right now in corporate america. there's a lot of people trying to decide what to do. and i think every time they see one of these controversies,

every time they see how complicated this gets and how many unintended consequences are there to undertaking this kind of spending, i think it's causing more of them to wonder if it's not time to step back. maybe that doesn't reach all the way to the koch brothers, but if they are getting roughed up, it says to others that maybe it's not the right thing to do. please? >> are you recommending people don't stay at omni hotels? >> i'll answer this and then -- i think the point we've said is that every tool is on the table today. and we, as a coalition, are going to pursue a range of options. we've talked about shareholder actions, consumer actions, what state and local pension funds can do. legal action, et cetera. at some point, we may decide, as a coalition, that there is a company worthy of a consumer boycott. we haven't made that decision yet. but it's the kind of tool we could use. please? >> we're going to pay the koch

brothers a visit this spring, i promise. >> we -- i appreciated that answer, because common cause september of201 i had never heard of the koch brothers. we paid them a visit last january in california, where we had a rally and where we had a . and this was before they were fully exposed in the wisconsin issue and became houseld words. and the one thing i learned about charles and david is,h pu. they, for ten years, have had secret sessions in june and january to try to corporatize our democracy. of these groups have not only shown a light on the brother, but on other individual wealthy persons who want to move our democracy more towards a plutocacy.

it was bill moilers who said, this is the most dangerous mom in american history. we're either going to be a nation that's of aby and for the people or of and by and for the large corporations. this is an effort to simply take back democracy. >> time for one more question. i saw a hand in the back. yes? >> there's a lot of groups here. i'm wondering if you have a central website that you'll be communicating for the different actions going on? >> that level of sophistication we have not yet reached. but we have a strong coalition. you are going to see a lot of combined action. thank you very much, everyone. >> thank you. coming up on c-span 3, more

about this year's campaign about a discussion on negativity in political ads. then, arne duncan on how students punish misbehaving students. that's followed by john pistole taking questions. and then, an etffort at looking to promote job creation. our ancestors came across the ocean in sailing ships you wouldn't go across a lake in. when they arrived, there was nothing here. they built their tiny little cabins. and they did it with neighbors helping one although, not federal grants. >> as candidates campaign for president this year, we look back at 14 men who ran for the office and lost. do to our website, c-span.org/the con tenders, to see video of those who had a lasting impajt on american politics. >> this is also the time to turn

away from excessive preoccupation overseas, to the rebuilding of our own nation. america must be restored to her proper role in the world. but we can that only through the recovery of confidence in ourselves. is c-span 3, with ontenders. politics and public affairs programming throughout the week and every weekend, 48 hours of people and events telling the american story on american history tv. get our schedules and see past prachl programs at ourer withsi er wiw. the military's northern and southern commands oversea u.s. military operations in the western hemisphere. tuesday morning at 9:309 eastern, the senate armed services committee looks at the 2013 budget and what it means for the northern and southern commands. that hearing will be live here on c-span 3.

washington postanalysis found that more than half of this year's political ads have been negative. recently looked at the impact of negative advertising. two speakers at the event talked about the role of opposition research in negative campaigning. this is half an hour. >> we're going to go to michael and alan, who are the archaeologists, if you will, in terms of coming up with some of the raw data, the dirt that gets dug up that goes into these commercials. and one of the things that i learned in reading their fantastic book, which is entitled, "we're with nobody: two insiders reveal the dark side of american politics." one of the things that i learned in reading the book is that often times a lot of the due diligence and research that they do is for their own candidates. sort of a presemiive scrubbing, i suppose.

michael and alan just published this book and they are -- they have been the beneficiaries of the highest, the most agust stamp of approval in washington these days, which is to have been on john stewart's "daily show" this week. congratulations. they've both spent 20 years working at oppo-men for democratic candidates running state and national campaigns. they are partners in a research firm. michael has worked as a journalist in texas and mississippi. a director of communications and political adviser for the office of mayor of the city of jackson. and he's been a political adviser to the attorney general of mississippi. alan has worked as a farmer, in the bio here, and that often comes up at washington think tank events. people are often -- that's interesting. a farmer, a newspaper reporter and aitd to mississippi attorney general and a mississippi governor. we're really mreelsed to have you both. going to

give a short presentation and then we're going to continue the conversation. thanks a lot. >> well, first, thanks for having us today. we are those guys that are out there, i guess, for lack of a better phrase, deking e i diggi dirt on these candidates. years just in a nutshell, to tell you what we do, when you start a campaign, we're the games that you hire to go out and tell you everything you need to know about the person you're running against, but equally as important, to tell you everything you need to know about you. and so, we don't win a lot of popularity contests, as you can imagine. sometimes the things we find on our candidate are, is damaging or worst than the guy we're running against. so, we're going to show a try tn those, h