he said, "i do think it is a jolt to the legal system when you overruling precedent. precedent plays an important role in promoting stability and evenhandedness. it is not enough, and the court emphasized this on several occasions, not enough that you may think the prior decision was wrongly decided." . . >> bob, you have been on the

front lines and seen how this has played out in practice. i wonder if the court rules in this case in an adverse way to your position, if you could talk about what the implications would be for the president and his reelection campaign. would he be put it a disadvantage? >> as i've mentioned, i am very disinclined because of the history, the completely mistaken assumptions about what the effects of the decision would be. the court could decide this case and a number of ways. the court could also decide the case in a way that has never occurred to anybody in this room before. for that reason, for me to say what the effect would be would be beyond speculation. i would be engaged in a

hallucinatory exercise that would add to review of limited interest outside the beltway. >> i agree with bob on that. we have seen that historically. the republicans, after the 2004 election, thought they wanted to prohibit by 27's -- 527's. i would argue that the swift boats had more effect. it is difficult to predict. incumbent politicians do act on what they think to be their partisan interests. the dnc likes the status quo. the rnc does not. they want to change it. i think that is consistent with the rnc's positions in the past. it is in form to a certain extent by the perception of whether the current situation

benefits us or not. congressman tillman of the tillman act that reformers like to lionize, he was a notorious segregationist to have a problem. his problem was that corporations in his district were lining up in favor of the republicans to throw him out. he wanted to do something about it. as incumbent politicians will inevitably do, they used their political power to pass laws to disable their opponents. we have seen this historically. mccain fine gold, there is not one word or paragraph, not even one sentence that adversely affects incumbent politicians. that is why the very sophisticated politicians that wrote the bill of rights to our constitution wanted congress not to be able -- incumbent

politicians not to be able to rewrite the rules for their own election. we have seen over and over again that they would write them to benefit themselves. >> fred, you said the argument about the results to power to regulate books was a red herring. what you say that? the think it influences the justices' decision to widen the case, and how you think the solicitor general will adapt the argument? >> i will not predict that. i do not know the answer to that. predicting the supreme court is something that i leave to other people to do. why do i think it is a red herring? in the 62 year history of this provision, i know of no example where it has been enforced against a book.

leaving out the fact that books are not involved in this case. the campaign finance rules have a broad exemption for commercial and activities, which means the whole book publishing world is exempt from the campaign finance laws if they are involved in campaign practices, in commercial practices. i do not believe that a 500 page book with a single sentence of expressed advocacy in it is covered by this provision or would be treated as covered by this provision. i know that the assistant review what the assistant solicitor general said, but i do not agree with that position. i think it is unrelated to the specifics of this case.

>> larry, you do not think it is a red herring, do you? >> none of the solicitor general says explicitly that a book could be banned under the circumstances that i described in my opening remarks, a position that has not been repudiated in the to briefs that do solicitor general said. i would be surprised if knowno e asked if the government still adheres to that position and how it applies to this case. >> would you be surprised if that is not the first question? [laughter] >> one of the things that has been raised is the fact that some of the states already allow corporate union direct contributions and whether there is a difference between those

states that do and do not allow it. as experts in the field, what do you see as the differences in areas where the contributions are allowed as opposed to other areas? >> i do not know the answer to that question, but i do know there is no record and there was no opportunity in the record to examine what the record is in states with the band and without the ban. it is also true that this is a federalism system, and of some states think they do not need the ban, they are free to do it. that should not prevent other states who feel the need for it to be able to have the ban, but i do not think there is any really strong documentation one where the other about the impact in states that do not have it.

>> we have over 20 states that have no corporate bands. --. bans for more than 200 years. you would expect them to say look how horrible it is. look how corrupt the public officials are. look at all the massive spending trying to influence the governor and the state legislature and the city council. isn't that telling? that means they have no case. that means this has all been theoretical, in the abstract, that they have no empirical justification for all of their scare tactics and alarmist rhetoric. they have nothing. >> let's let larry go next. >> i think fred's point is right.

there has not been developed a substantial record on some of these things. everybody was surprised with the argument, and it was just a 30 day period for all these briefs to come in. this is an expenditures case, and the supreme court still does not adhere to what i think is an appropriate, fundamental difference between contributions and expenditures. just looking at the union experience, most states impose no restrictions on the ability of the union using its regular treasury money to say anything it wants publicly about candidates and elections. the reality of that is that some unions do and some do not. there are all sorts of considerations that go into that, but there is hardly any record there, any claim out

there, any proof that somehow this has been a corrupting influence at the state level. >> there is no track record at the federal level, because fort 62 or 102 years, depending on how you want to count it, these expenditures have been prohibited. >> one thing about the contribution expenditure distinction. there are circumstances across the body of campaign finance law with there is no question that has been very significant. very recently in the massey case that the supreme court decided, which was about campaign finance, justice kennedy right past the distinction, completely ignored it. it was not stated explicitly that in the circumstances of the case, huge expenditures with the potential, and it was alleged

the effect of dominating a particular race, such that the contributor could literally claim to have been the author of the victory, that in those circumstances under that kind of spending, the contribution expenditure distinction result in significance. with source restrictions, specifically about corporations , a very similar question is raised about whether you can really distinguish contributions from expenditures where vast sums of money, the use of immense wealth, has the effect of achieving a dominant hold on the political process. in those cases, the contribution expenditure distinction does not have the same magic that it might in other, more routine

cases of campaign finance. >> in kennedy's dissent in holliston, he regards nonprofit organizations differently. how do defend the fact that the government should have at least accounted for the distinction between profit and non-profit corporations, and if we are talking about the corruptive power of them, explain why there was no reason to have that distinction, in your mind? >> one of the panelists and pointed out a few minutes ago, there is built into the long some distinction already between corporations and that are

profit-making and non profit making. one of the possibilities of the case is that the court may decide that that particular exception for a certain class of nonprofits is too narrowly drawn. it is too restrictive and that more nonprofits should be able to make a broad constitutional claim a speech that other corporations would be denied. that is certainly a possibility. a lot in this area, and it is hard for me to speculate on what was in the mind of congressional sponsors or hell congress looked at the statute when it was passed. i do not know the answer specifically -- how congress looked at the statute when it was passed. it is clear that the claims of non-profit corporations have occupied more space in this debate. though congress may not have anticipated this debate, the court is now confronted with it and will have to address it.

>> this is a question for fred. gm previously characterized the position espoused by the opponents of the citizens united reeve as concerned with quid pro quo corruption as compared to the undue influence. i would like to reorient the discussion to the undue influence aspect of this case. larry gold also mentioned that this is not a contributions case. as law students are aware, the corporate free-speech adoption originally emerged and corporations are not awarded the same free-speech rights as individuals. i also want to mention something that has not been addressed. james identify the fact that the bill gateses of the world would

be negatively affected by it reform, and that makes a strong case for this zero sum game that we have with campaign finance reform. if this is not a contributions case, could you please explain the potential distorting effect of unbridled expenditures being released into the market? could you elaborate on the undue influence argument, which i think has received not as much of an explication in this discussion as the judicial principles which are also being threatened by citizens united? >> there seem to be many questions there. i will try to grab a couple of them. first of all, let's look at belotti. here is what it says.

our consideration of a corporation's right to speak on issues of general public interest implies no comparable right in the quite different context of participation in the lit -- political campaign for election to public office. that decision takes itself out of the game of whether there is any precedent there for corporate centers. the record in the mcconnell case shows that expenditures can be used for the purpose of obtaining undue influence, improper influence, over elected officials, and that elected officials in fact did feel that an obligation for those expenditures that were made. i would submit to you that if

you look at a situation where you have a house member who is going to spend $2 million in a campaign and is facing -- faced with a corporation or series of corporations who are prepared to spend $20 million to defeat that member if he does not vote the way they would like to see it, that that has the capacity to influence the member of congress. and to have undue influence over the member of congress. >> i think the problem with this undue influence argument is that is applied to independence speech. there really is no limit in principle. and what is happening with the health-care debate right now. tens of millions of dollars are being spent in order to influence their conduct, and

will have some collateral effect on the election next year, intended or not. that is what speech is. it is unpredictable in its impact. the problem, if you take undue influence itself, the notion that officeholders are candidates will react in some way to a speaker and use that as a justification to prohibit an even criminalize that speech, it is very difficult to draw lines of where that stops. right now, well the individuals do not have any of these constraints and can spend as much as they want to do so. unions cannot, non-profit corporations cannot, a small nonprofit groups cannot. why did congress do some of the things it did? let's not forget that when congress enacted this restriction of these broadcasts, it did so very explicitly. there are many statements by members in the debates about how much they hated the fact that

unions and organizations were referring to them, talking about them, putting public pressure on the legislatively. they call that nightmares, they call it trash. these were their words. the prohibited -- a prohibited -- they prohibited it. they almost eviscerated in the wisconsin plot -- right to life case two years ago. i am hoping this case will end of that. >> i was interested in hearing from you whether you think that the courts have already significantly chipped away at mccain-feingold and could ruling in this case be used to further

challenge the law? >> there are two parts to mccain-feingold. the first part is a ban on soft money going to political parties. that is not been touched. jim is presently in court trying to touch it. [laughter] i think wisconsin right to life substantially cut back on the communication provisions but did not eliminate them. i think they still have force. i think they still will be treated seriously by corporations and labour unions. i think one has to keep in mind here in terms of what larry just said that when you switch from

issues to direct campaign activity, corporations and labour unions are being asked to speak through their tax. they are not being told not to speak -- to speak through their pacs. they are being told that you need to use money voluntarily given by individuals for this purpose in order to speak directly in campaigns. i continue to believe that there is going to be a major difference if all of a sudden a constitutional right is the established -- is established to make expenditures to directly elect or defeat candidates, in terms of what the potential impact of that money is on government decision making. >> one important irony in all

this is that the predictions of some cascade of money being applied to this kind of express speech that is not the functional equivalent, whatever that means, is that the whole rationale for imposing these greater restrictions on broadcasts is that the -- it was socially meaningless. it did not matter, so it had to be extended much more broadly. now it seems that this line, whoever is going to be able to do it, has some kind of important point of no return. with respect to the pac point, i do not see why unions and other organizations ought to be restricted when they are democratically controlled, democratically a rise -- why

they should be restricted in using their own treasuries in speaking out on issues and candidates. >> a guess we have time for one quick question. >> of raised the possibility that the court might get out of this by somehow -- bob raised the possibility that they might get out by allowing a broader class of corporations. i wonder if the panel could try to illuminate us what types of non-profit corporations or other divisions among the corporate world might be appropriate for the court to go to to get out of this case without sweeping aside austin entirely. >> to say that they might look at the question of whether or not an organization that is clearly organized for ecological

or political purposes that is not engaged in commercial like to be, and that is receiving only the minimus amounts of funds, ought not to have the same right to participate. it might loosen up some of the rigorous restrictions that the court imposed in the ncfl case. that is only one possibility. >> the federal election commission has maintained since 1986 that you can have no corporate contributions in order to qualify for the not-for- profit exemption from being prohibited from doing independent expenditures. they have even done a regulation that says that, but now we have the solicitor's supplemental reply saying that citizens united has argued that the vast majority of their spending for

the movie is not corporate, so maybe we could open that up a little bit and allow groups that just have a little bit of corporate funding to run things like "hillary, the movie." if the court does not spend the -- expand the exemption, they will have to address austin. i am not in favor of that approach. one reason is that still, an organization is going to be subject to a very intrusive investigation by the federal election commission to see whether or not you really are getting a the minimus amount of corporate contributions -- 8 de minimis amount of corporate

contributions. they see that as inhibiting their activity, and it will not be practical or useful expansion. >> thank you very much to our panelists. thank you all for attending. >> i just wanted to thank you once again for attending this very, very lively panel. you can see there is a wide range of opinions on this case and what the court may or may not do. i just want to mention a couple of upcoming acs events. on the 24th we will do our 2009- 2010 supreme court review. it will be here from 12:00 to 2:00. the moderator will become a gold steen, who is the founder of a

blood. on september 16 would be nationwide simulcast that will feature speakers debating constitutional interpretation -- i welcome you to tune in for that event. it will be available on our website if you want to watch it. we have another event coming up on the 29th which will also be here on "do not ask, do not tell." that should also be a very stimulating debate with a wide range of viewpoints expressed. thank you again. i look forward to seeing you again at our next event. thank you to a very fine panel." >> the supreme court will hear

oral argument in this case this coming wednesday. you can watch this program again or other reason programs at our website, c-span.org. join us for america and the courts on c-span. >> the supreme court holds a rare september session to hear oral arguments in this case on campaign finance. court will decide the constitutionality of campaign financing under the first amendment and will decide the government can ban corporations from spending money to support political candidates. the court is rehearing the case at 10:00 eastern this coming wednesday. our same day airing of the argument will begin at about 11:30 a.m..

>> september 1 mark the 70th anniversary of the start of world war ii. sunday, a commemoration from poland, including german chancellor angela merkle, russian prime minister vladimir putin, and the polish president, at 9:00 eastern and pacific on c-span. >> coming up tonight on c-span, colin powell, jesse jackson, and others discussed the past and future of civil rights. that will be followed by oral argument on the constitutionality of campaign finance. after midnight eastern, a panel discusses the growing practice of private genetic testing. >> at the naacp's 100 annual convention, speakers included colin powell, the rev. jesse jackson, and former un ambassador andrew young.

members of the little rock nine who tried to integrate central high school in little rock also join the discussion. from new york city, this is just over two hours. [applause] >> next to bring greetings is a man who needs no introduction. he is the president and ceo of our sister organization, the national urban league. >> good morning. that reversed a all say to all naacpers, a warm congratulations on 100 years of making a difference. [applause] i want to say that on behalf of all urban leagueers everywhere, all across this nation, who have worked with you, stood side by side with you, and pushed

through out the 20th century to make this nation a better nation. i am also humbled to share this stage with the giants, to share the stage with men and women who we celebrate, but men and women who exhibited courage and conviction, men and women who defied the docks and the odds -- defied the dogs and the odd, who stood up against tyrants, southern dictators, who stood up in an effort to make this nation a better nation. [applause]

i salute each of them for the inspiration they have provided to us and for the changes they have brought. i stand here as a crowd child of the naacp. i stand here is a life member and as someone who, at four years old, carried an naacp membership card. i carry it because my late father, ernest moriel, served as president of the new orleans branch of the naacp from 1962 to 1965. he had a chance to serve on the board of the naacp under dr. hooks. what i remember in those days

and in those times was attendance at rallies and marches and attendance at meetings as a young boy. what i remember, and what i can say today, is that that exposure in still been me a fundamental understanding that a life with service is a life well lived. [applause] so today, i salute the naacp, and i also want to say that for this generation of civil rights leaders, your new president, with whom i have had an opportunity to work, and so many others, we believe that we stand today on the shoulders of these

giants. we stand today to say that the work of civil rights is a long way from finished, that the work of civil rights is a long way from irrelevance, that the work of civil rights is in the white house. he is in the congress, it is in city halls, it is in the board rooms, it is in the town halls, it is in the churches, it is on the streets. the work of civil rights, the pursuit of freedom, economic equality, and justice, must continue in this, the 21st century, so we will not rest until every child in this nation has an opportunity to sit in a clean comedies and classroom with a quality teacher and a

graduate on time. we will not rest until everybody who works is paid a decent wage with benefits for all. we will not rest until the work is done. congratulations, naacp. i salute these giants, and i say our work goes on. god bless. [applause] >> this centennial convention has been full of surprises, and we would not disappoint you this morning. we certainly thank my share brock and the centennial committee and the hosts of this -- vice chair brought and the hosts of this meeting. i would like to have you join me in welcoming three legendary artists who will be bringing us

greetings this morning. first, we will have missis dionne warwick -- mrs. dionne warwick. [applause] >> good morning. we can do better than that. good morning. all right, and it is a good morning. i would like to take this opportunity to say i will try to do two minutes. first of all, congratulations. 100 years of doing anything is worth being congratulated for. [applause] i am here as a recording artist to speak on an issue that we are

very happy to say thank you for review passing the resolution, and that bill i am speaking of is being championed by a man that i have an ultimate amount of respect for and gratitude to. that is our chairman, john conyers. [applause] the issue of the recording industry or artists in the recording industry is an issue with fairness. it has been perpetuated that we are trying to put black radio out of business, which is such a silly thing to think. it is silly to think, because a few take a look at me, why would i want to do that to me?

at any rate, all the misnomers that have been perpetuated by radio, specifically to a m/fm radio, and unfortunately, to black radio. these are untruths, and until you have had an opportunity to either read the bill and understand our side of the story, which we have not been given an opportunity to issue the radio, we have been barred from doing so, the only way we can get our word out is through these kinds of gatherings. 48 years ago are recorded a song called "don't make me over." that was followed by two or three other songs, one that comes to my mind is the "walk on by." when these particular recordings

were sent to radio stations, they were sent with almost a prerequisite that they were promotional issues. we thought that was wonderful. we were thrilled that we were being played at all on any radio station. it has subsequently come to for that radius stations since i have been recording and even prior have been issuing wonderful, sizable checks to publishers and writers, forgetting that there was an artist singing the lead, there were permit -- musicians playing for us, and there were those known as background singers also on those recordings. those last three entities i mentioned, the recording artist, the musician, and a background singer, have yet to see 1 cent in the way of royalty.

i know most of you thought that every time you heard "walk on by," dionne warwick got money put into her pocket. if i could make it retroactive -- nothing would please me more. however, there is the issue, all we are asking is that we are fairly treated. that is to receive that one, too, or 3 cents that is to us. so keep us in mind and know that we are depending on you to make this issue happen. thank you very much. [applause] ♪ >> the next person has been with us all week. she has been so active, and we

so appreciate her. please welcome thelma houston. [applause] >> thank you very much. i would like to say what an honor for me to be able to say congratulations to you on your centennial year, and also to be able to be in front of people that i so admire, and to have an opportunity to say that to you. i want to say also that i was so a roused and motivated to do something other than what i have been doing, that as a result of listening to the wonderful taught by rev. dr. benjamin hooks -- sir, i want you to know that i immediately went up to

membership and i have been reinstated as a result of that. it is my commitment to go out and continue to work in my industry to bring forth more of us in here. however, i would like to say thank you again for passing this resolution. it is a very important one. everybody that sings and makes records is not riding around in cadillacs and bentleys and living in beverly hills. there are many of us who have made great contributions in many recordings who are walking around practically homeless, and this would be very, very helpful to them in perhaps putting some food on their table. so please consider this, and thank you so much for allowing me this opportunity. god bless. >> thank you, miss houston.

the next surprise is someone who i know as part of my generation. i will just say, how you like me now? let's bring on kool mo dee. >> thank you, thank you. i am extremely honored to be here. this is a stage full icons -- full of icons. jesse, we have spoken in many events in the past. i come from the first hip-hop generation. one of the few people, not at the same level as dionne, but i have always respected those icons. mr. conyers, thank you for everything you have done. when i see the civil rights act and the things that have been going on since the 1960's, i

have seen all the work that these brothers and sisters have done to get us in the positions we are in now. as an artist, i am extremely proud of being here to honor that. on the other side of that equation, i would never do anything that has to do with hurting black radio. it was the voice of the people for that time period. from the hip-hop generation, i come from that era where we were being outcast, and people were telling us that it was not real music. compared to what is going on in hip-hop now, what we were doing back then was so benign and so much fun, i want to say again, let's not make the same mistake. we need to listen to each other and hear each other out. we need to see both sides of every equation. this is the other side of the story. i would never do anything that had to do with getting rid of

black radio. without black radio, you would never hear my songs. i would love to hear it the people on the other side of the equation come in and sit down and let the people actually hear the information. when people tell us to vote, i did not say just vote. learn, get in form, and then vote. so that is my position here today. -- get informed the, and then vote. congratulations on 100 years. without you guys, i would not be in this position to speak to you and do the music, and thank you once again for coming out. [applause] >> so we have our indication and we have heard from our sponsors and our special guests. -- are invocation. now on to the icons that we have before us.

[applause] i would like to introduce dr. william harvey, vice president and chief officer for diversity and equity at the university of virginia. he will serve as our facilitator for this morning's plenary session, which will feature eight medalist and talk about the accomplishments of the naacp as we move into our second century. dr. harvey. [applause] >> the morning. thank you so much for attending this very special session of the naacp conference. we are very pleased to have you here. as you know, we have a group of people here who are luminaries in a variety of fields. mr. morial identify them as a community of giants. we want to hear about them about

some of their own observations and their involvement with the naacp over this last 100 years. these are all winners of the highest award that is given by the naacp. it is a gold medal that is awarded annually for the highest or noblest achievement by an african-american during the preceding year or years, not just its civil rights, but in a whole range of human endeavors. apart from the distinguished individuals on the stage, other previous prize winners include carter g. woodson, jackie robinson, marian anderson, paul robeson, rosa parks, thurgood marshall, ralph bunche, dr. benjamin ways, over winfrey, and dr. martin luther king jr.. so clearly this award has been given to luminaries from a variety of appeals who have made

very significant accomplishments of to society and the world. we have a collection of previous recipients of the war. i would like to give a very brief introduction to them -- recipients of the award. the introductions work -- are not in order. as i call them out, i would like for them to identify themselves. that means the to five representatives of the little rock nine. -- let me introduce by representatives of the little rock nine. [applause] a name that is often associated is miss daisy bates. some of us may not realize she was not a student who for dissipated in the desegregation of the little rock schools. she was the president of the naacp branch in little rock at the time this activity occurred. we have with us today five of

the original nine participants who were identified as the little rock nine. they are mr. ernest green, ms. carlotta lanier, mr. terrence roberts, mr. jefferson thomas, and ms. minnie jean brown. these individuals are recipients of the 43rd award from 1958. they desegregated little rock high school in 1957, which had been previously an all white high school. there was a little resistance when they tried to do that. [laughter]

in fact, a model of our great white citizens formed, and governor orville faubus called out the arkansas national guard in order to prevent them from desegregating the high school. fortunately, president dwight eisenhower overruled him and called out an airborne division who went to little rock, escorted these young people into school, and the rest, as they say, is history. [applause] the 63rd recipient of the war in 1979 is a gentleman by the name of andrew jackson young. [applause] mr. young has worn many hats in his career. he is known in many respects, most originally as his ministerial capacity.

he has also served as mayor of atlanta, a member of the u.s. congress, ambassador to the united nations, and he is the 63rd recipient of our award. [applause] the 71st recipient is dr. benjamin hooks, who received the award in 1986. [applause] dr. hooks has special claim to the naacp, as one of its own, in addition to being a judge and baptist minister, he served as executive director from 1977 to 1992. among his many distinguished honors, he was appointed to serve as commissioner of the federal communications commission by president richard nixon. he was the first african- american to ever hold that post. [applause]

the 74th recipient in 1989 is the rev. jesse jackson. [applause] reverend jackson also has one -- more many hats during his long and distinguished career. he is a clergyman and civil rights activist. he is the founder of operation rainbow push. lest we forget, he was a candidate for the democratic nominee for president in 1984 and 1988. [applause] the 75th recipient in 1990 is gentleman named florence wilder, known to many of us as doug wilder. [applause] he was the first african- american state center tour --

state center to be elected to statewide office when he assumed the position of lieutenant governor, and the first african- american to be elected as governor of a southern state 1990 to 1994. [applause] the 76th recipient in 1991 is general colin powell. [applause] general powell first received public acclamation in his role in the military when he was elevated to four-star general status. he later became the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, and more recently has served as secretary of state from 2001 to 2005. [applause]

in 1993, the 78 recipients was dr. dorothy height. she served as the president of the national congress of negro women from 1957 to 1997. [applause] she has prided counsel to numerous policymakers, including eleanor roosevelt, dwight eisenhower, and lyndon baines johnson. in 2004 she was awarded a congressional gold medal.

in 2001, the recipient was mr. vernon jordan. [applause] mr. jordan also has close ties to the naacp. he served as a film director in the state of georgia prior to moving to serve as director of the united negro college fund. [applause] last but not least, a gentleman who has already been recognized this morning with some of the previous comments that has been made, congressman john conyers. [applause] the 92nd recipient, he received the award in 2007. he has represented detroit in congress for more than 40 years. [applause]

he is a well-known and well- respected champion and is the first african-american chair of the house judiciary committee. [applause] so there is our distinguished line up. these are the giants that have been previously referred to. even before we move into the conversation stage, i think that, given their summary of extraordinary accomplishments and contributions to america and the world, they deserve a standing ovation right now. [applause] ♪

>> what we would like to find out from our panelists today is their sense and feeling about the major accomplishments of the naacp over these past 100 years, their own personal connections and feelings for the naacp, and their sense of where we might be going in the future and what role the naacp plays in plotting that future. let's go all the way back, if we can, to start with the individuals who collectively received the 43rd medal. these are the individuals who were part of the little rock nine. can we ask any of you, can you give us a sense of the role that the naacp played in little rock, and your efforts to desegregate central high school? specifically, its sense of how the naacp served not only in that particular situation, but in others since then, to improve

the situation for african- americans in the united states? >> i think we can say without doubt that the nine must owe a huge debt of gratitude to the naacp. they were there pushing, nurturing, providing sustenance for us as a group, in the presence of our attorneys, who did tremendous work. [applause] i think one of the things i would also like to say is to thank you for the members who offer a prayer for us during that time in 1957. some of you are here, and without those prayer, we would not have made it, i assure you. the work of the end of this -- naacp has been tenacious, and continues to be so because of

need. we continue to face a tremendous need. i was asked by a young high school student, since 1957, have you been involved in the civil rights movement? i think his understanding of that was somewhat truncated. i told him it began in 1619 and continues unabated. so far, all of us, as we consider the future, we have to understand that we must be supporters of the naacp because we cannot do it alone. we have an organization who is dedicated to improving the lives, not only for black people, but for all americans, because we have that kind of vision. [applause] >> i would simply like to add that my first remembers in little rock was of river crenshaw, who was president of the little rock branch -- rev. crenshaw. he was always collecting memberships.

i think they were $1 or $5 at that time. our parents were members of the naacp in 1957, 1956, 1955, when they instituted the court challenge, so that the 1954 decision of all deliberate speed would have some meaning. for all of us, it was those giants, those people who do not get recognized, our parents, rev. crenshaw and others who made up the arkansas branch, who had the courage to step forward in had a vision of what this country could be and were willing to fight for it. we owe them a great debt of gratitude. [applause] . .

>> and if had it not been for him and wally branten, i question if we would have gotten in school, in fact i know we wouldn't have got in school any sooner. being out of school for three weeks. but with that work of thurgood marshal that pushed our

situation to the point that the president of the united states had to make a statement. and that statement was the 101st air bourne. and i would like to thank dr. hurst to be a part of that group, for the naacp to meet in little rock in 1987. that was our first time for the nine of us to get back together again. we had no seen each other in 30 years as a group. and the naacp held their fall meeting in little rock, arkansas. and i would like to thank him for that effort. [applause] >> i think my colleagues have said pretty much everything, but i would like to just remember when we received the

medal, and i think it was w9kon of the amazing experiences i had ever had. but now i am sitting with this group, and i am saying wow, we were really important when we were 15 and 16 years old. [applause] and it's a wonderful thought, but i am hoping, and i think that if i were to talk about what we as a little rock nine represent, and what we would hope to impart to all audiences, is that teenagers think deeply, have great ideas, want change. [applause] and we have to support them. so i am really honored to be on this stage. because i really know how important i am now.

but -- [applause] but i do hope that we can continue, the naacp continue to help young people to develop their potential and capacity. [applause] thank you. >> thank you, i would like to just briefly tell you something about the naacp in my life. as a young kid, i always wanted to be actively involved in the civil rights movement. i am the youngest of eight children, and my older brothers and sisters were out there doing things. but my mother and father wouldn't permit me because i was too little. and they were afraid we might go to jail. my mother told me, if i do

anything to end up in jail, don't call her. so i steered away from anything that just might be a cause to get arrested. when wiley and thurgood marshal went to court for the naacp defense fund and they fought and made integrated schools in little rock legal. i jumped and that was a blessing to a prayer. now i can legally go to central high school and not be arrested. and naacp has been doing legal things for me ever since. [applause] >> i was passed a note that suggest there may be a little difficulty hearing, particularly in the back, and that may be because of the ampication or because of not quiet conversations going on.

we ask you to refrain from dialogue this afternoon. the five of you and the nine that you represent ineffect became symbol. but you would agree ta -- that there was a tremendous amount of people oñbehind the scenes. and in the civil rights movements, there are countless men and women whose names we don't know, that were important in moving the civil rights movement forward. i would like to direct a question to dr. hype, and her observations that women have played in moving the naacp forward. >> thank you, when we were we asked to say something about some of the achievements of the naacp, --

>> she's wired. let me take this, i think that he can hear you. please go ahead and speak, they can hear you. go ahead. go ahead and speak. >> when we were asked to say something of the achievements of the naacp, and i thought back about my experience, i have to say i was not only honored but i was challenged. and today i would like to say something about an experience of the naacp that did not achieve it's ñ7?full goals bute a deep impression on the life of this country and on my life. and that was the anti-lynching campaign. i was sitting in high school,

and i one a contest on the constitution of the united states. and i went to new york university with a scholarship that i won in that contest. and when i got to new york, having been active in my church and in many of the women's circles and particularly the girls' club, i was thinking of something that connected me to not only my studies but something i was interested in. and i was fortunate with kenneth clark and jim robinson and those kinds of fellas, we harlem youth council. but we were lucky, because wanita jackson-mitchell, that was a youth director of the

naacp, introduced me and saw n(y what i was doing, and asked me to join her, and i do. and we organize the united campaign of anti-lynching, and that was the beginning of my understanding why it was i had to work hard to make the 14th amendment of the constitution, that i had done an ornation on and real significance. and although doing that in high school, here at 97, i am still working to make -- [applause]÷b -- still working to make the 14th amendment of the constitution fulfill that

objective in our country, of equal justice under law. and i really will never forget how it was, that i who had come from a small town in pennsylvania, found myself walking around times square in new york, chanting with the harlem youth group, and mrs. mitchell, and chanting, stop the lynching. we didn't stop the lynching, but it disturbed mrs. smith, who wrote strange fruit, and it exposed it. that was as powerful document as uncle tom's cabin was. and in the course of all of this, i think we learned that every day that the naacp set out a sign that said, a man was

lynched today. that was a signal, we went into action. and though i say now that we had women and girls and we were in /hgreat numbers. we all worked together. but though the naacp did not get the anti-lynching bill, what we learned and what we did with the coaching of thurgood marshal and charles huston and walter wright and others, that we learned the importance of working together. we didn't get the bill, but i have to say thanks to the naacp that we made some progress, and we stopped lynchings. and whether we -- when we look to the future, we need to say that we need the naacp for at least another 100 years, to help us move to the future. [applause]

>> let's drill down a little bit and do some reflection on the organization itself. and the best way to do that is by asking people who were directly involved to offer some of their observations. mr. jordan, you were field director and dr. hooks, you were an executive director, can you share the most significant involvement the organization has been conducted over the last 50 years? >> the job i had from 1961 to 1963 as the field secretary of the naacp, is one of the best jobs i have had in my life. and i have had lots of jobs. -- yeah, but, number one, i

was working for ruby hurley, and that was quite something. secondly, i was working for w.w.law who was president of the state conference, a great man from savannah. and then i was working with megger edwards in mississippi, and bob saunders in florida, and w.c.patton birmingham and john brooks in virginia. one of the best parts of my job, is that i would pick roy wilkins up at the atlanta airport and drive him to georgia for a mass meeting i had set up. and then i would drive clarence mitchell from atlanta airport to georgia. and then next week it was mr.

current to august, and i was a young boy out of law school, and driving these people, it was like a post-graduate course. and those conversations and working with ruby, he said, when you set up a mass meeting, never get the biggest church, get w÷a medium-sized church, so the press would 5nysay, there an overflowing crowd at the mass meeting. i want to tell you one story that taught me a lot. there was a problem at the savannah naacp between w.w.law, the president and jose that was a recruiter, and they were in some huge dispute.

and gosta and hurley sent me to savannah to resolve the dispute. and i get to the branch, and put w.w.on that side and jose on that side and let's work this out. and later on, they were whooping my fannie. local disputes, you let the local people work it out. [applause] >> good morning. can you hear me all right? it was a great joy serving for almost 16 years as c.e.o. of the naacp. we had some marvelous times,

some great time. and i am great to be with these great acorns -- i mean icons. they are boiled and parched and fired and roasted and celebrated. and now to have this brief opportunity to be with so many i have known for so long. and if i have any great memories, there is a marvelous staff that was assembled. when i went to the naacp we were some serious trouble, there was a suit for one million dollars, and couldn't raise enough wmoney to appeal i. and ben, said, why you are leaving to go to the naacp, and my answer then and now wo/is, thought then and now, that the naacp is the greatest organization that is known for the improvement of civil rights. "the new york times" may not

acknowledge it and "new york post" may not look at it, but we are here. america would be the laughing stock of the world, if not for the worth of naacp. lynching and unequal pay, you name it. and now my words to those coming on, it's a very busy day in jerusalem. ad 33, a young man by the name of simon has come to see what is happening. saw a man with a cross on his shoulders. and the soldier said, boy -- black man, you know, boy, come out of that crowd and help carry that cross. and let me tell you something, whether you are shooting marbles or playing domino or basketball, no matter how much hell you raise, one day it will

be your turn to do something about it. and let me say, it's your turn now. if you don't think i did a good job, it's your turn now. if you don't think we are a good general, it's your turn now. let me hear you say, it's my turn now. it's my turn now! [applause] >> secretary powell.

secretary powell, it's your turn now. [laughter] >> what did i do to you, man? >> one the areas that we have seen the greatest progress in, we believe is the united states military, and obviously you are a prime example of that. [applause] >> can you share with us your observations of how you believe that the naacp has had effect on producing positive changes in the military? >> you heard two references to the 101st air force division

and their role in little rock. and i was a brigade commander, and i would not be a brigade commander in the 101st division if not for the naacp and the work. now my story is a little different from the distinguished individuals on the stage. they were all warriors, front-line warriors in our second civil war, in the 50's and 60's. i was in the military in that period of time, and the war in vietnam and i served in korea. and my family stayed in birmingham in 1963, so i was well aware, my father-in-law was guarding my wife and infant son, and i was in vietnam fighting for country. and my father-in-law was

fighting for my rights and the rights of all african-americans. i am so honored to be among this group of distinguished people on the front lines of that war. it was the naacp and so many similar organizations that did in the course of our nation's history that allowed us to move forward. and it was the naacp in world war i that pushed for more black officers to serve with black troops under french officers. and when they came back, they were not celebrated. they were still coming back to a nation that was segregated. but it was a start in that century. it was a start of a change in attitudes towards black men and women serving. and then came to world war ii,

and the naacp and sleep inging cart porters and all the pressure put on roosevelt of opening up, and all americans that wanted to work for the war effort, to include african-americans. and after world war ii that we demonstrated in the sky with the muskogee air men and had shown as we had through the entire course of our history, that the only thing that counts is that you are as valorous as your fellow white soldier, and you received what that white soldier did. and it was in 1948 that president truman signed the executive order. and it took five more years

after that segbrated unit. and i came in four years later. when i came in 1958, the army has a way of ordering things to happen. and they said, we are now integrated, there will be no more segregation. lieutenant powell, listen, don't give us hard luck stories, all we care oqis about performance, and only measure you by performance. but to get to that point, they would be measured solely by performance, it took the work of the naacp to make that possible. people sometimes think, gee, you became the chairman of the joint chief of staffs. as if i dropped out of the sky and became the joint chief of staffs. and the black chairman of the

joint chief of staffs, there ain't no white chairman. and i am proud of what i was able to achieve. and i have never forgotten that i didn't just drop in, it was these men and women and thousands like them that did it for me. and we have to keep teaching our kids. let me say -- let me say maybe jumping ahead of the moderator a word about where we have to go. because we have got a remarkable record of 100 years of service, the naacp has. we have changed this country and changed for the better. where are we going? i will use two numbers, 50 and 70. 50% of the african-american kids are not finishing high school. 70% of our children are being born out of wedlock. they are connected. if our kids cannot read well by

the third grade, they will be in jail by the time they are 17 or 18. if our families do not come back together and teach children to mine, -- mind your manners and adults. if we don't teach respect -- [applause] for the naacp and all of us have to focus on, it's not just the past generations, it's the generations ahead and they are in trouble. we are in a situation, where if you looked at the inner city nine of today, you would find that six of those nine are not going to graduate from high school. is this what they sacrificed for? so that future generations are not finishing high school? there is nothing more important for us as a nation and as the african-american people of this

nation, to get back with our kids and give them the emphasis for education and start putting our families together. and restore a sense of pride and dignity. the kind of pride and dignity that we have tried to inspire in our lives. that's got to be the inspiration of future generations. [applause] >> let's turn now to one of our front-line soldiers in the civil rights movement. the naacp is and will continue to be the preeminent organization, and there are other groups. reverend jackson, can you tell us what the naacp has done to help you make rainbow push successful? >> thank you, all of us are members of the naacp.

whatever branch we are off of that tree, it's the same tree. i want to first express myself -- the chairman for his leadership in snik and an elected official chose principle politics and didn't get there is seat in the legislation, that was defiant. and we thank julian bond because he inspired the legislation. when there was georgia lead in that face of those acts of courage. this is a significant week for

me, several of us went to jail nine years ago, trying to use a public library. as naacp youth leaders, a.j. whittenberg had convened us to begin to defy the law. and our leader prepared us to go and go to the library and be prepared to go to jail. and we went after taking a test, if they put a cigarette on your back and circle it off. it was nonviolent develop. -- discipline. we went to the library, and if you don't, we rushed back to the church. and they said, why are you back so fast. we are back because they were going to arrest you. that's why i sent you, go back to jail.

and between july 16, 1960, and in 1984, the same week 24 years later, all driven by the same naacp drive for freedom. just one slight evasion and it's difficult to disagree with chairman powell, he was not in the civil rights movement. i think we define the movement as too narrow. the struggle was against race supremacy, we had to de metholize it, when a soldier did well, that was the movement. when jack did well, and when sammy davis, jr. did well and when harry belafonte did well, that was the same movement but different roles in the same

movement. and so -- [applause], secretary powell doing well, has made all of us better off. we thank you for that general powell. [applause] my concern today is that we are speaking too much in the past tense. we assume until w+recently it an inequality that drove our predictament. and it was the lack of effort that drove our predictament. effort must be there to achieve progress. we are in a struggle in new york it was reported that blacks are four times less likely to get a jobs than a white. we have the joy of an african-american president of

our choosing. and the william sisters and tiger woods, and these very successful athletes. why are they so successful against the greatest of the odds? when the playing field is even, and the rules are public, and the goals are clear, and they are fair referees, we can make it. so while we play on the an evening playing field, the masses of our people are number one in infant mortality, and we want to make racial inequality legal, and the inner city kids are asking to swim without the pool. and so there are americans in prison today, one million are black, 500,000 are latino. and if you are targeted and

don't have the best of lawyers, you faced odds of prosperity. the leading in baltimore is wells fargo, the case of countrywide, that we are targeted for home foreclosures, targeted and cleared and clustered. we are now free. but not equal. that's the fundamental issue today. we are free, and that's why the president said, you are free from slavery, and free without reconstruction, you are free to starve. so unless we target the stimulus where the needs are greatest, we are free to celebrate but also free to be less employed. free to be more jailed. so today we charge our

government to infact don't just stimulate the banks top down, stimulate the neediest people bottom up. thank you very much. [applause] >> reverend jackson, you make reference to the political changes that have taken place. and tomorrow evening we will have the opportunity to see the most significant result of those changes. and it's for us to get a chance to see the past and state levels. and we let me turn to former congressman and governor wilder, in that order, i would like to see what the naacp has been able to do to affect the national agenda, and what the change is at the state level. >> can i pick up on jesse right

quick, when he talked about the stimulus at the top and not the bottom. one of things we have been talking to the fdic and fcc, is why not have a bank account for everyone american citizen. and we know that if we are in democracy without the right to vote, we are slave. but we are in a system of capitalism without access to capital. and there could be very easily with all of this stimulus, it would be good for the banks. and the banks have not expressed any difficulty if there was a direct deposit of all of the possible benefits. half of our people are entitled to an earned income tax credit and don't get it. but if it were automatically

going into an account, then we would solve a lot of problems. let he go back, i want to go back, colin, one of my heroes in the naacp was ralph bunch. because ralph bunch was doing studies on -- he did all the intelligence studies on africa as an oss assignee from howard university. almost everything you see at the united nations, ralph bunch wrote. i contend, i can't document it, but i contend that ralph bunch did the intelligence in north africa that helps the tuskogee

air men to be successful. we don't know the history, but ralph bunch said to martin luther king and me, the problem is too much you do is public. if you will succeed in this business, you have to keep most of it under the water. and ralph bunch never -- in fact he tried to turn down the noble prize, when he came to atlanta in 1964, we couldn't give him a hotel room. here is a race man that i think had more impact on this nation than anyone knows. and we don't know enough about him. i was fortunate enough in fifth grade to go and see thurgood marshal and alexander tuoru plea the case for teacher's salarys in louisiana 778÷in 194.

there was a series of victories, and there wasn't a separation of legal defense fund, it was all naacp back then. and there was a systematic break-down of all the laws that affected us in the south. from 1941 right up to 1954. and i think it would be good for us to see -- it was 60 kids in my fourth grade class. and my teacher was getting paid 35% of what the white teachers were getting. no way -- that was the structural inequality of the south that the naacp broke down before we got started. now when we got started, harris warford was here. and harris was a student at howard university that wrote

about civil disobedience. he happens to be a white former senator from pennsylvania. but he read about gandhi, and we got us in trouble with thurgood marshal. here for 40 years he had breaking down of the legal barriers, and in 1960 a group of up-starts want to take it on our own and decide to be civil disobedience. i mean my parents almost put me out over that. but it took us just about a year before constant motley and all the same lawyers across the south, wiley branton, arthur shores, all of them. when you see a picture of

martin luther king doing anything, you see a picture of a naacp lawyer. and so we have not had a segregated, divided movement. we have had a united front even when we disagreed. look now where we go from here, the two things i want to focus on is getting everyone a bank account, and voting on the weekend. on the almost 200 nations that vote, we are down in the lower third. but all of those where people vote, 70-90%, they vote on weekends. they don't vote on workdays. now we in georgia can vote for 30 days, but it's 30 work days. so weekend voting. and the only reason we put voting on a tuesday is because that was a good day for farmers.

and now the only 1.7% of people in america are farming. and everyone else is living in the city. and we ought to be able to vote saturday and sunday and all the time leading up to that. and that's where i think we should push this movement. >> that's a great segway into my presentation. you know andy, there ought to be a law. [applause] great idea. ladies and gentlemen, i am the final, i am so honored to be on this stage. i am the most recent springer and maybe presumably the youngest. no, i wanted to try that on for size. but i close this discussion on

this note, the two people that inspired me in addition to this great history that's been recited up here. is martin luther king, jr. and nelson mandela. and barack obama. here is three. why? because in each case they were told that they couldn't do it. every time, nelson mandela sentenced to life in prison became the first democratic-elected president of south africa. they told him, he was lucky to be alive. much less and have his senses, and to get out of prison and to become its leader. and then there was martin luther king, who was advised against starting this movement

in the south. and then vote nonviolence after having been to study nonviolent theory.ñbb they said no, this will never, never work. and then more recently tomorrow's special guest. you know the 44th president of the united states, jump started and stands on the shoulders of everything that has been done by this organization for 100 years. that's why he's coming tomorrow. [applause] i close on this observation. certainly there has got to be

more responsibility, and a lot of the folks don't have any parents. and i think there may be a governmental responsibility to create a full-employment society instead of giving the trillions of dollars to the people that brought on the depression. let's put everybody to work. and then they can create their bank account. let's put everybody to work and create jobs. well, that makes me recall even in my moderate youth the humphrey ww1çhawkins full employment and balance growth act by senator hubert humphrey and the late gus hopkins, that's the dean çpxof the congressional black caucus before me. and there is very little talk about putting everybody to work. it's trillions to this and

trillions to that. and help the auto industry, and don't let the banks. how can a.i.g. be too big to fail? and we are giving them billions. and what they are doing? they are going to have vacation retreats with our bailout money and then giving rewards to their top executives in the millions of dollars. president obama tell -- i want some of you to tell him, i have to go back to vote. but you tell him let's start having more accountability for all of this money they are getting. and let's do more to stimulate people as reverend jackson said, from the bottom up. and not the top down. thank you naacp. [applause]

>> well, i think that my colleagues have said it all. i am obviously humbled not only by receiving the award. but by likewise being here. it's historical. when you consider 100 years. but ben hooks, colin powell and jesse and others have pretty much put their hands right on it. the naacp in $ñits infancy was thinking about not themselves, but those who followed them. they knew that their lot was almost foresaken. look at the song that was written by james weldon johnson, at v'eña time when hop unborn was dead. so what he is saying, even in spite of that absence of hope,

there is something for our children. my grandparents were slaves. my mother's people were not. i had aunts and uncles that were slaves. and yet they knew somewhere, somehow, there might be an opportunity for this little boy in virginia. and yet when i look back and recognize some of the things that the naacp has done for me. i listen to gernen, i was a couple of years ahead of him in law school. i recall after graduating from howard law school, i was asked by mr. robinson, did i want to help him. can you believe, did i want to help him? when and how and when.

i broke my neck. and he said, doug i want you to go with me, we are going to law school, and have the moot court of the defense of the naacp lawyers they are trying to put out and disbar. sam tucker and auto tucker, we need to go, and would you go with me. will i go? let me drive. i drove up there. sitting there i had the chance to meet these giants, bob ming from chicago, bob carter from new jersey. truedo from new orleans, and marc morial's dad, dutch. and i am watching these guys, jim neighbor and george hayes being there, and what were they doing? getting the forces to tell the virginia state bar, you are not going to drive these people out of business.

and that was the whole effort. if they could stop the naacp, they could stop progress. before the case was tried, once they found out who was coming, with that army. case dismissed. [applause] case dismissed. that put something into me when spike robinson said to me, would you have any objection if i would ask thurgood to appoint you to take my place. i am going to be the dean at the law school. but i want you to be the registered agent for the naacp fund. would i take it? in a heart beat. so i had the occasion to meet those people and to participate in the cases. and i had occasion to recognize

what could be done. i recall earlier this year, i was in a church, and a lady brought up her two sons and one looked at me, and said, i am going to be the president of the united states. and the other said, i am going to be the governor of virginia. i said in their minds they see it. about 15 years ago i was in a church and a boy came up to me and said, are you doug wilder? and i said yeah. and the father said, mr. wilder. >> are you doug wilder, and i said yeah. governor, of something. yeah, he said, haven't you been dead? what he meant was for wchim to

read about an accomplishments means that these people were not there. so when these two young boys came to me this year, u]1and wi resolution in their eyes, and spirit in their voice, saying, i am going to be the president of the united states. i said you can be anything you want to be in this country, and we are going to help you get there. [applause] >> i think when we look ahead and obviously some of the sessions that are going to be occurring in the near future, looking at internationalism. looking at globalism. looking at the ways that the united states empploys the world. and the president is coming from ghana, and i want to start

with you secretary powell, and anyone who has thoughts, how can we train a set of relationships and other countries, and particularly with africa, and how can naacp help, so as our young people begin to become citizen of the world and take their natural place. >> we are all citizen of a world, the information of the resolution and the way that the children are ?3ñcommunicating, the fact that all of us folks up here are analogue, trying to be digital. but our children are born hard-wired digital. and my children and one of my daughters is here and my

grandchildren try to keep me up-to-date. i am pretty good. but i am peddling as fast as ]6. they wanted me to go to facebook, and i said no. and the next day, one of my assistants said you are already on facebook. and i said they can't put me on facebook, i am going to call a lawyer and sue them. but you already have 10,000 friends. ok. that's funny, but it reflects the nature of the changing world. the world is interconnected, tom freedman says that the world is flat and globalizing. think of the world where we live is one of the developing country in the world is financing one of the richest in the world.

china is financing us, where do they get the money, selling at walmart. we are not facing two empires that meant our destruction, and still have problems in iraq and afghanistan. but for the most part many barriers are gone. and the naacp can educate our youngsters in a manner that prepares them for this information, driven globalized economic system we are all living in now. our children have to learn languages, and learn more about geography and other culture and religions. they have to be citizen of a global environment and not just of america. and i think that the naacp can help in this regard. >> by the way one word of

personal footage, is francis here, my wife, is she here? all right, i thought she would be here, because she wanted to hear me sfeek. :-speak. francis, give her a hand, and thank you for all of have done, the river is wide and i can't step it, love you baby, and i can't help it. [applause] >> reverend jackson. you mentioned the global connection. we live in our faith, whatever it may be. we look under the law. the naacp's most significant contribution was affording us equal protection on the law.

the decision changed the law, and testing the law. the 57 little rock decision was challenging the law. and in 64 +1ñand 65 was challenging the law. now we have some global laws that are giving us an uneven playing field. the last year we have 750,000 in korea, and they got 5,000 from us. because we globalize capital driven by the banks, but not globalized rights, women rights and children rights and environment. then we can not compete on an even playing field.

so restructuring the trade agreements is a big deal. just restructuring, we don't have an effort deficit. i am convinced of that. in the inner cities where the plants have closed and the jobs have left, and you die no matter how much effort you put forward. when schools are funded by the tax base and there is no tax base, our schools are legally inferior. and we cannot compete. in chicago we are trying to get the olympic games, but not olympic education. our kids don't have the charter schools that don't have track and field. we cannot compete because of the playing field is not even. and i would think now as we look at the impact, as you say china.

and not long ago it was g.m. and chrysler and ford, another big three in detroit. are the gambling casinos, because of uneven playing field. and that's the ultimate. because of the historic stimulus put forward by the president, we are still losing 600,000 jobs a month. and we have homes in foreclosure, and student loan debt. competing with credit card debt. and you raise to me a trigger question, if we are in the globalization. it must be globalization of effort. the globalization of rules. and i went to malaysia about two months ago, and why are you going to malaysia. if you push a button and it

comes on, that's malaysia, that big screen tv, malaysia. but the record of plants in malaysia are making max of $500 an' 400,000 a year. and detroit cannot compete with malaysia, and requires a reorder of our global playing field. thank you. [applause] >> ambassador young, you have been an elected official at the local level and national level, and have served as ambassador of the u.n., what do you think? >> what i learned a few years ago from shamberg in harlem, we

had 4.5 million slaves that came in the slave trade. but there are over 5 million africans that have come voluntarily since 1970. and they are the second most educated group of immigrants coming into the united states. what we are working on in atlanta is trying to make it possible for them to get back home. not putting them out. but what you saw in india, and i was with mrs. king in india in 1970, and she said, and gandhi said i tell to go and learn as much as you can, and hurry back to mother india. and they are doing that. there are seven flights a day between here and africa.

and they are flying full. now that is money. and nigerians send back $9 billion a year to nigeria to help develop it. gandhiians send back 3-4 billion a year. we are a part of an international network. and i am just trying to figure out how to make it work and understand it. it's not easy, and i have not been able to be successful doing a lot of business in africa. even though i have been trying. i have helped american businesses when they get in trouble for doing all the &óvwr things. but it's a funny relationship between us and the rest of the world. but one that we got to figure out. i would like to say one more thing about nelson mandela.

and not in any way negative. but nelson mandela did not get out of jail just because white people got sympathetic at his 27 years of suffering. he got out of jail because nigeria caught england sending oil to nigeria, they canceled 2.1 billion dollars worth of british contracts to nigeria and kicked conoco oil out. and then margaret thatcher and worked out an imminent's person group, to say to south africa, you have to get nelson mandela out of jail. not because they liked him but

the business of nigeria. now that's a power factor that we are just beginning to understand. and i was saying to general powell that i look to the military to help us with this. because africa is too big and too complex for us to figure out. but if we train african military, the african military, most of the people, rwanda is working now, because paul mageni was studying in kansas and when the genocide broke out and he went back and created a government where no one can win. .

northeast africa, sudan, it is impossible. i get upset with my wife's friends who want to put people in jail and this that and the other. but if you put sudan in the united states, it goes from maine to key west, fla. and all the way out to cincinnati. they do not have any roads. they do not have any railroads. we are trying to expect them to act the way we acted. they are acting in the way we

acted with the indians two hundred years ago. you do not condemn people for war crimes until you set them down and try to work it all out. we cannot do all of that. but if we train africans, themselves, to understand how to resolve that, we will have an ally. i am convinced that the african global place is the missing piece of a puzzle in the global economy. this economy is not plan to make sense globally as long as we are competing with europe and china. if we put africa in the equation, they have enough needs and resources. they have all of the things that the rest of the world needs to survive. but we have not plug them in appeared that is what i hope -- but we have not pulled the man.

that is what i hope we will be doing in future generations. [applause] >> clearly, we need to reorient our thinking to have a more global perspective. but the point that to make about the participation of women also needs some domestic considerations as well. i want to turn back to dr. height and get her perspectives on where we stand in terms of engaging women much more in the political and the process of social change and how the naacp can be more effective. >> one of the things that i am concerned about is that, as we look to the future, we need to be conscious of where we are as a family in the united states

and we need to look at where the unitewomen are in the united states. i'll say that we are special because we seldom do what we want to do and always do what we have to do. [applause] women played a tremendous role in the civil rights movement and helped us to get where we are. but i think we have to be equally aware that some of the legislation that is now being challenged and threatened and some of it is really beginning to be weakened affects women. we need to make sure that we realize that there is no way, when so many of our children are

reared with homes with women alone, we need to improve the quality of life for -- we cannot improve the quality of life for our families without improving the quality of life for women. [applause] i believe the strength of the naacp against the tides that we are facing could make a difference. we really need it now, not only against the hate groups, but in the diminishing of some of the gains we thought we had won. they seem to be diminishing and that is a task for us all. [applause] >> dr. hooks, can you pick up on that finger? -- on that thing?

what are your thoughts? what are your observations about the kinds of things that need to be done? >> before i can tell them what needs to be done, i have to find my microphone. [laughter] but i think i said, in my little address the other night, first of all, too many black athletes and to many people making black business dollars are not giving back to the black community. let it be known, i will never forget in kansas city, we have michael jackson out. wherever he had a concert, we could do voter registration. people have forgotten that about michael jackson. in kansas city, 25 years ago, that was so.

we also have to do something about this right-wing hate radio. i do not know what can be done. these guys say day after day that they hope that obama will fail. how stupid can you get. when obama fails, the nation fails. did i make that clear? if obama fails, the nation fails. let's give a big hand for obama. [applause] finally, i understand that this is the digital age and all of that, but that is no excuse for print papers to have ignored the 100th anniversary of the best organization for human and civil rights that this nation has known. i do not know what it would have looked like without it appeared

as we look forward to the future -- without it. as we look for it to the future with our new ceo, let's look to each other and help to build. it had not been for the naacp, we would have been the laughingstock of the world if we were talking about human rights and still segregated in alabama. [applause] to you, from fallen has, we hold the torch. if you let go of the flame we give you, the justice will not rain in americreign in america. [applause] >> let's turn things back to where we started. i am sorry.

>> one time, not long ago, the cleveland browns were playing the new york jets, a football game, and i think the jets had something like fourth and fourth to go. and they miss. they only got 3 yards. cleveland won with only 10 seconds to go. one player, in his excitement, through his helmet off. he was penalized. so the other team through the goal and won the game. we won the freedom struggle. we are forgetting the equality struggle.

we are free, absolutely free. [unintelligible] we do not own a downtown building nowhere in america. free, but not equal. how many of you have a student loan? raise your hand. raise your hand really high. we are paying $100,000 to $120,000 in student loans. [unintelligible] these are unforgivable loans.

they cannot afford to attend school and the others cannot afford to stay in school. in africa, of their governments are finding them and our government is fleecing yes. [applause] -- our government is fleecing us. [applause] the government can borrow money at 5.4% and they charge students 8%. the government makes enough money out of stallone defaults to fund the program. -- to find the pell grant. northern trust and banking data to billion dollars of money it did not ask for. they send the money back. they could have modified home foreclosures.

they could have invested in community businesses. so we are free, but not equal. we cannot think that we're going to close the structural funding gap just by the joy of -- last year's victory was the climax of 100 years of fighting for freedom. [unintelligible] fighting for inheritance and access and quality is the next that in our struggle. [applause] -- fighting for inheritance and access and equality is the next step in our struggle.

[applause] >> i would like to ask the five of you here -- you have talked about your personal concern and you have expressed your gratitude for the naacp in helping you. what would you tell the representatives of the naacp york are durations of what the organization should be doing as we move into the next two hundred years? >> this organization has been dedicated to supporting education in all of its years of existence. certainly, that is a key point to think about as we move forward. but i am not talking about progress through formal institutions. i am talking about developing personal awareness of who you are and who you are in relation to others in the universe.

in 1954, the legal landscape was changed dramatically, but it came after 135 years of legalized discrimination. if you discriminate for the 135 years, you do not stop on a dime because three judges said to cease and desist. a lot of people think that slavery was abolished by the 13th amendment. think again. slavery was abolished as late as 1945 in this country. think about it. in your education, you will find that out. education, to me, is so essential. and much of it, i heard from everybody to get my education. it was even from those who did not have an education because the interest of how important that was. what we need people who demand of themselves personal

education. thank you. [applause] >> i want to add my voice to this distinguished group. it is an honor to be here. i think the youngest recipients of the metal and the only group -- we occupied the unique distinction. but education was the cornerstone of what we thought we were pursuing. it was the guiding light. it was the words we heard from our parents and our neighbors and our supporters and ministers and others, that we should pursue the best we could. i think the discussion today on the economy, economic interests, the globalization that we are dealing with, we are still down to fundamentals, trying to understand the best of where you are at this moment, set high

goals for yourself, go beyond the reading list that the school gives you, go beyond the questions that the teacher poses for you, learn to speak chinese and russian and french and whenever the languages of commerce are going to be. i understand that you have a special opportunity to make a change. as michael jackson's song says, "you can make a change in this world." if you believe that, you have thousands and millions of people behind you in this organization, naacp, with people like daisy bates and river and crenshaw -- and rev. crenshaw's. in my view, that represents that history. but we need to move on to the next century. i think the education is the blackening and tackling that

gets you there. [applause] >> i think all of these things have been very well said. i, too, am very glad to be here to share this stage with all the icons. really, the bottom line is that education is the road to success. that is what i learned as a small child. i heard it all my life. that was the impetus for me to want to go to little rock central high school in 1957. we need to continue to do that and speak those types of truths to our children. so many of us have attained so much that we have forgotten to teach our young children why

they are or where they are today. we need to do more of that. [applause] i think that grandparents and aunts and uncles need to take the time to spend with these young children to help them understand why we have these freedoms, as reverend jackson has mentioned. and we are free. we are free to do whatever we would like to do. we just need to work hard toward that. i know the naacp will continue to do that and build on the the youth to make this a better world to live in and be a part of this global community. as stated before, we do need to not only learn english. we have not learned its very well. [applause] we need to continue to do that.

but we have to have that second or third language. a second language would be great. that is what i would like to see the naacp continue to do. it is wonderful to be able to celebrate 100 years. we celebrated our 50th two years ago. i know how that felt. so this celebration is something to really check off and enjoy and feel good about. [applause] >> absolutely agree with my colleagues. however, i would like to say that the children are not in charge. they do not set the curriculum. they do not make the policy. they do not determine whether or not they get the education. i think we used -- i think we

need some more universal in this capitalistic economy. universal education for all their children. we need universal health care for all of their children if we do not, we continue to maintain a really damaging, unequal system. so i propose, of course, and everyone knows this, i agree with terence about education being the bottom line. but we have fallen short as a society in educating our children. it seems to me that we would continue to demand education in the interest of all. and i am talking about universals.

maybe not capitalistic or capitalism, but we need to make that kind of demand. it is kind of like the guaranteed income that was a talked about, universal rights and responsibilities. thank you. [applause] >> briefly, i would like to say that education is the underlying saying that we need for success. i would like to add a different perspective. we keep saying that children need to be educated. many thought -- as she said, the children are not in charge. we need to instill within the children the importance for the needed education and children still learn by example. we have too many parents

boasting about being a single parent. i do not see you why they use that as an excuse for failing to do the things they need to do. many of the folks in my neighborhood in little rock were single parents. until you went to their house, you did not know that there was no man present. everyone in the neighborhood raised each of the children. they said that it takes a village to raise a child. maybe we need to incorporate more villages in this country. [applause] in my pre-teen days, it was like we were home school before we were sent to school. [applause] in my naive way, i thought all

families work that way in the world, the way my family did. it was embarrassing when i got to my college economics 101 class a and found the economic structure that my family was among the poor class of people in the country. i did not know that until i got to college. so it did not affect my education and my desire for things. i had a child then i had a family to support me. maybe we could try that with some of the kids. [applause] >> we have followed comments from ambassador young. >> i just wanted to -- go ahead. >> this is a very historic moment. and this has been a great morning. but i would like for all of you

to go and get pat sullivan's book and read the very first chapter where wb do boys has left his professorship at havana university to it -- at atlanta university to come to new york to do publications for the naacp. when he gets here and goes to the office of the evening post, mr. millard says to him, "i have no money with which to pay you." the point that i am making is that we have done so much with so little. we have never made the budget in the urban league and the naacp. we have never been over budget, but the historical lesson is that we have accomplished so much with so little.

which suggests that now we got things that we never had, a black president, black sea 0's -- black ceo's, people sitting in places that we have never sat, having money and influence that we never had in. now that we have so much more, therthe responsibility on us for achievement is greater than it was for dubois when he went to new york. >> i wanted to point that vernon is the way to go. we sit on a couple of committees together. i don't know anything about money. i have more schools -- i have about 75 honorary degrees. nobody ever taught me about money paired so i have to lean over and say, vernon -- nobody

ever taught me about money. so i have to leonora and said, running. -- i have to lean over and say, vernon. the fellow who got put out of georgia tech went across the street and opened something called the varsity. it is a hot dog stand. he is the largest contributor to georgia tech. you do not have to be a physicist if you know how to save money, invest money, and you do not mind working in. you can talk about capitalism all you want, but that is what we have. i hate to criticize john after he is gone, but all of us were thinking, in the 1960's, about a world that was stable.

it had been organized by franklin roosevelt. they sat down in new hampshire and britain woods and there were all kinds of agreements. the dollar was the king and it was tied to gold. nixon broke that up in 1973. and now it is every man for himself. and people do more things. they used to call them a robber barons. they put in a legislation called the glass-steagall act. they got rid of that. there was something that separated the savings and loans from the commercial banks, regulation q. they got rid of that. now the savings and loans got into gambling casinos and went broke and the banks cut in the housing and did not know what they were doing.

they dismantled all of the stability that this economy had in a kind of freewheeling capitalism that is not fair to anybody that was not born rich. now, obama is good to have to sit down and all that he is doing is wonderful, but that i think that is the reason god put him on north. you have to have somebody who can get the saudis and the nigerians and the indonesians to balance out some of the ignorance and dominance that has come out of europe. and it is a global struggle right now for a globally just economy. poor nations will always be poor unless our president can get them to sit down and realize that either we are all going to go forward -- as dr. king used

to say, we're only -- we're either going to learn to live together as brothers and sisters are we're going to perish together as fools. [applause] >> where i thought vernon was going with that story was another angle. our best minds chose to invest in the struggle for the next generation. [unintelligible] if thurgood marshall had become a great downtown corporate lawyer, our best minds reinvested in the freedom struggle. we had our best minds against their best minds and one against the arts -- and won against the

odds. [unintelligible] there is a sacrifice deficit among those who have benefited. the reason why the spanish thing is important, the majority is black and brown. that is the politics of our future. two-thirds of our hemisphere speaks spanish. before we jump hemispheres, two- thirds of our neighbors speak spanish. whether you're in l.a., new york, or miami, their population is going to be black and brown and the hispanic coalition. [unintelligible] he finished high school at 15

years old. he finished college at 19 years old. seminary at 22 years old and a ph.d. at 26 years old. those are the leaders that invested heavily into the intellectual development to lead the fight for the long haul. we focused on beverly hills and hollywood and all that, but there were 11 people living in a four-room house on jackson street. it was a two-career household. there was a crane operator. he did not make -- it was a two- parent household. joe was a crane operator. he did not make much money at that. there were six boys in one room

with a double bunk beds and four girls. there was a mother who made all of their clothes. they and eight in rotation because there were 11 people living in four rooms. -- 8they ate in a rotation because there were 11 people living in forums. -- in four rooms. this was a two-parent household . there was a disciplinarian, working-class, i'm two-parent household. michael jackson said, the

churches where we learned in the rhythm, the music, and the drums. our mama made our uniforms. there was something to be said about the jackson family structure that produced the world's greatest family entertainment against the odds. thank you very much. [applause] >> tonight, oral arguments on the constitutionality of campaign finance. just after midnight, a panel discusses the growing practice of private genetic testing. that is followed by obama's weekly address and the republican addressed by john klein of minnesota.

>> and jonathan kozol will take your questions on sunday. >> sunday, there will be a commemoration of the 70th anniversary of world war ii. that is at 9:00 p.m. eastern and pacific on c-span.

>> this is c-span's "america and the courts." on september 9, there will be the federal election commission. next, a discussion about the case and the future of campaign finance reform. the american constitution society posted this on friday. the national press club. washington. >> thank you for your patience, and welcome to this event, sponsored by the american constitution society. as carolyn said in her introduction, the board will here, these unusual arguments one end week from today. the justices themselves team up in important cases when in june they announced it would broaden to look seriously at corporate

expenditures are around the board. central to the real arguments is a 1990 case of austin versus michigan chamber of commerce, which you will be hearing a lot about today from our panel. that is the 6-3 case in which the supreme court, in the boys of thurgood marshall writing for the majority, said if they could restrict corporations from using their general treasury funds, spending them on individual candidates in connection with state elections. dissenting were o'connor, kennedy, and scalia, two of who have continued to play roles of campaign finance. i am sure we will sure but justice kennedy today, and teamwork critical votes -- the more critical vote coming up, john roberts. i think that the fate of government corporate regulation

is evident and the number of briefs that have come in. three times as many have come in for these arguments that are much more important for constitutional free speech. after initial opening remarks, we're going to do some question and answer up here and take questions from you all. so please be ready with any kind of query's that you might have for our group. immediately to my left is a jim, crews general counsel -- who is general counsel for free speech. to his left is larry, associate general counsel for the afl-cio, and next to him is the president and ceo of "democracy 21." turning us leader will be bob bauer, the general counsel for

the democratic national committee. all four of these gentlemen have been crucial players on campaign finance law for decades, literally. we will have each of them start with opening remarks, about seven minutes to play at where they stand on the case, and then we will have some questions and then go to the audience. we will talk a little bit about the history of the provision in the history of the case, which he started in his challenge to be able to sell -- to offer hillary the movie on video on demand. >> thank you. my job is to tell you how we got here from there. many of the things that i will discuss, i have been involved in. i was one of all lawyers challenging mccain find gold and mcconnell versus fcc, represented 26 clients in that. i was lead counsel for i took a

big whack at the electioneering communication corporate provision the supreme court had upheld in mcconnell. that i was counsel for citizens united in the lower court, and in the pleadings that got the case accepted by the united states supreme court. if you want to start from the beginning, start with the first amendment. the first amendment says that congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or the press or the right of the people to peacefully assemble and provision -- petition the government. i am aware that the supreme court just had trouble with the word no, similar to my daughters as they were growing up. and that is that they often meant to them at least for this time. and at least up holding limits,

you certainly viewed the first amendment's provision against laws abridging the freedom of speech. the result of these decisions has been an incredibly complex set of statutes and regulations. if the campaign itself is to under 44 pages in the statutes, there are 568 pages of regulations that the fcc has promulgated. of course, the courts have been active in determining of those laws and what the words mean, and there have been 13 major court decisions, 366 other cases during the same thing, and 17 cases currently pending.

if you needed more information, you can consult the 100728 pages in the register providing explanation and justification of these regulations, were you could look at the 10 policy stations or the 107,771 advisory opinions that the fcc has issued since 1970 for -- 1974. i would submit that this body of complex and difficult regulation is the antithesis of the notion that congress shall make no law. the next principal case beyond this, in striking down advocacy, in campaign spending by candidates and parties,

established two principles. these principles were explained by the u.s. -- to the supreme court by john mccain and russ feingold in their brief offered by the luminaries in the campaign reform movements, including fred wertheimer, a whiz on the panel today. and that is that barkley stood for two propositions. it must be directed at precisely toward spending that is unambiguously related to the campaign of a particular photo. the result was the adoption of a series of test but the supreme series of test but the supreme court, campaign finance laws and to positively affect issue

advocacy. it went way beyond both express advocacy and many of us would argue the proper limits of the authority that congress has on regulating campaign finance. the plants -- the principal one was the election and campaign prohibition which established a blackout. during -- a blackout period before a general election where you do not mention the name of a candidate. you could hear the proponents of the zero electioneering communication did not try to overton -- did not try to overturn but the, but tried to under-turn buckley.

to campaigns for federal office because studies indicated that the ads of rendering these periods where the functional equivalent of express advocacy. mcconnell upheld the corporate prohibition on his pace, and challenged the provision as applied. as we know, a statute can be constitutional on its face but have a certain unconstitutional applications that the court will prevent the government from applying in those particular circumstances. and here is what right to life argued. the corporate prohibition could not be applied to, even though its application generally was up help.

the result of that case was a decision carving back the lectionary communication black out with application to broadcast ads to only those advertisements that had a deal to vote. that is, for the only reasonable operation instead it urged people to vote for or against a particular candidate. the problem faced after that case was that while the movie is a 90 minute documentary that wanted to run on tv, it mentioned the name of a federal candidate during that, they also had 10-second and 30-second ads to do that. disclosure requirements were not challenged in wisconsin right to

life, and a disclaimer can eat up a 22nd advertisement. and as to the movie and the advertisement, there would have to report contributors. those of us represents advocacy groups understand that disclosing your contributors to federal office holders in the wake of nixon's enemies list and clinton having 1000 illegal fbi files, or obama asking you to out your friends and neighbors who are criticizing his health care reform -- understand that revealing the identity of people criticized federal officeholders and candidates are setting themselves up for retribution. and as a result, disclosing contributors is as chilling as a

prohibition. so the challenge -- when we put this case together, our main focus was on a disclaimer and disclosure requirements are rain after wisconsin right to life, and we believe that, consistent with the campaign-related principle, if a particular communication does not meet wisconsin's appeal to vote test and cannot be prohibited, it cannot be regulated at all. of course, we also challenged the prohibition where they said it could be prohibited, because it did not have an appeal to vote, there was no call for action in the ad. we also argued that this has been so complicated and so difficult to apply the appeal to both tests, the fcc has been so recalcitrant in adoption of its

regulations and applying the appeal to vote test, it has now become unworkable and the supreme court's kodak to first principles and overturn the upholding of the law. now, once we got to the supreme court, olson took to representation, and he took a different approach. he basically did not pursue the unambiguously campaign-related argument but did pursuit to the of argument. one is more broadly, he specifically raised the constitutionality of both austin and mcconnell, which were not raised in district court. he also made in our arguments, saying, well, this is a video on demand, and after all, video on demand, somebody has to go pay for it and maybe they ought to get this exception for that circumstance.

furthermore, citizens united is like the corporation that cannot be prohibited from engaging in this kind of activity. this resulted in a stunning revelation that corporations could be prohibited from doing books, which has been the longstanding commission. it could be set in front of everybody, the supreme court saying it is time to take another look at the changes in austin and mcconnell, and that takes us here.

>> we want to make sure we get some of the others quickly for this opening round. the point was made in oral arguments that this could go to book, and we will have to see what the solicitor genuine -- general says next week. coming from opposite side, we will talk a little bit about the provision itself and history. >> thank you. i think the book's argument is a red herring. will get to that later. iowa talk -- i want to focus my opening remarks on a ban on corporate kaine -- campaign expenditures in the austin decision, although a good deal of remarks also apply to mccain-

feingold. what we're dealing with is a federal policy that needs backing for more than a century. all line of cases that have upheld constitutionality of that policy. longstanding core principles mean that we give respectful appearance to past decisions unless there are exceptional circumstances. the doctrine of constitutional avoidance says we do not destroy it -- decide cases on broad grounds when they can do narrow grounds, and the case with the issue of whether upholding the ban on corporate campaign expenditures was never raised below, therefore, there was no

record of what has been very important in campaign finance cases. we have now have the court on their own and else they want to examine the question of whether this constitutional doctrine and longstanding policy is constitutional. whether in 2009 we're going to discover last corporations have a constitutional right to spend their and dance -- immense an aggregate wealth in campaigns, and in doing so, to create a system of potential influence doyle likes of which we have never seen before. the first ban on corporate campaign expenditures goes back to 1891, when kentucky enacted a ban, four states or five states enacted in 1890.

in 1987, congress enacted a ban on corporate contributions, in the year when senators were not known by their states. they were known as the senator from standard oil, the senator from u.s. steel, and that was certainly in the forefront of the minds of congress and president roosevelt when the ban was enacted. 1947, the taft-hartley act, the ban on corporate contributions was expanded to expenditures. at the time, senator taft says all we're doing shear is affirming what we have always understand -- understood the ban to mean, that it covers indirect contributions or expenditures as well as contributions. that act also extended the ban on corporate contributions and

expenditures to labor unions. so we also had a ban on unions using the treasury funds for contributions and expenditures. in the mcconnell decision commager's what the court said. since our decision in buckley, congress's power to prohibit corporations and unions from using treasury funds to finance advertisements expressly advocating the election of candidates in federal elections has been firmly embedded in our law. so the supreme court in 2003 says this power has been upheld and is firmly embedded. the mcconnell cases followed by

the wisconsin right-to-life case that jim was talking about, in which the court narrows the application of restrictions on corporate and labor union expenditures and reaffirms the mcgann, and that was just two years ago. we look a consequence is that we face here. if the ban on expenditures is overturned, let's start out may be with the universe of corporate wealth. in 2005, the irs estimated corp. said total net worth of 23.5 trillion dollars. no one is arguing at 23.5 trillion dollars is going to be ended up spent in campaigns, but that is the universe we are dealing with here. if you leave that, you provide corporations with the capacity

to use untold wealth, to spend directly to campaigns, and in doing so, too clearly creates the opportunity to buy influence with elected officials or to create the appearance of influence buying. and if you just look at the health-care fight going on right now, you can get a sense of this. the economic stakes in government decisions are ignoring -- enormous. if, in the middle of this battle, drug companies, for example, were free to make these kinds of expenditures, and you have a member of congress sitting there, trying to decide what to do on health care and facing five or 10 or $20 million in direct expenditures to defeat that member of congress, depending on how the member votes, you are facing a clear

situation of potential influence buying, and you multiplied out across the board on issues across the board. we will see an electoral system, a government decision making system, the likes of which we have never seen before in terms of the capacity of corporations to dominate that. i would submit that if you look at this policy's history, the history of court decisions, the doctrines of starry doctrines of starry constitutional avoidance if the supreme court chooses this case to overturn austin and declare that corporations are free to unleash their immense wealth on campaigns and