devices that are laptops in the future. >> thank you for being here. . .

>> this is c-span's "america and the courts." n/a 524 decision, the supreme court struck down limits on contributing to political campaigns from corporations. anthony kennedy delivered the opinion. in it, he broke the government

may not suppress political speech. a sufficient interest justifies political speech by nonprofit or for-profit opinions. shortly after the court announced its decision, floyd abrams, the attorney who argued on behalf of mitch mcconnell and citizens united president david bossie sport with reporters. >> i represented mitch mcconnell in the case and was one of the lawyers who argued it in the supreme court. this is an extraordinarily triumphant day.

the court has ruled that corporations, unions, and all the rest of us may participate freely and openly and spend money on the electoral and political matters. this decision is a long time coming, and as the opinion of justice kennedy makes clear, it involves the reversal of two prior opinions, one involving senator mcconnell, one two years before. the core of it all is that the right to participate in, participate about and be heard about matters political, social, and the like is one which the public at large has an interest in. there is a listener, a viewer, a

reader in trust and political views, orientation and a light -- the like which the first amendment protects, and a pledge to corporations as well as individuals. as justice kennedy pointed out in his statement in court today and his opinion points out, this is a significant protection for media corporations as well as all other corporations. there is no way the court is going to treat a media entity any different than anyone else. corporations either have rights or do not have rights, whoever happens to own them. and the decision today says firmly and unequivocally that corporations, and i am sure unions, as well, have the right to participate in the political process. so this is a triumphant day in

terms of the first amendment, and we're very, very pleased. we really have no idea of a ground level how big a change this will be. 26 states now allow unlimited corporate expenditures, and there is no broad sweeping change in the politics as a result. so it is possible that this may be more of an ideologically significant day than a practical one, but maybe not. we may have significantly more corporate involvement and the union involvement in the political process. either way, at least from my perspective and senator mcconnell's perspective, that is a good thing.

if you really believe that the public ought to have a chance to hear all views and make up their own minds, there is no reason to limit class or category of people or institutions. >> my name is david bossie, president of citizens united. i am grateful and humbled by today's ruling that the supreme court. this has been a long, long road for us, and long time coming. this is a monumental day for citizens united, for our board of directors that had the courage to support me, and for our members who supported us

through the years. we have been working on the theory of this case since 2004, and i know it has been the last year at the supreme court here, but it took a lot to get to this point. it is a monumental day -- a monumental victory for citizens united, and more importantly for citizens of the country, for people to coatless of the to participate in the political process and the market of ideas. whether you're a corporation or a union, it does not matter. you can participate fully and freely in the election process, and that is an important thing. we worked really hard of the years to talk directly to the american people. i think the american people are smarter than politicians give them credit for, so when politicians and the incumbent

class try to protect themselves by passing laws that make it more difficult for people and organizations to participate in the process, and for folks around the country to stand up and speak, it is an amazing thing. so i think the election on tuesday shows that the voters are smarter than politicians give them credit for. so i am excited today, and i want to give you an opportunity to thank these people. kate olsen, that mcgill, and get some crutcher are not here today. they are at a trial right now and could not make it here, and i am heartbroken they are not here.

they mean more to me than they know, and for them to have put this case at the forefront of everything they're doing and for their hearts and souls into this case is incredibly humbling for me. ted olson has been a dear friend. "hillary" was dedicated to barb olson, and we have known each other a long time. for ted to argue this case not once, but twice, means a lot. michael rose, who is our vice- president and general counsel, who hold this case in hand for the last many years, all the way up through its inception when we walked to his office one day and give him this idea and concept of the case and believed in it and believed in what we were trying to do, and now todayçó is

the culmination of that. floyd abrams and mitch mcconnell, sometimes we do not know what is good for us, and having floyd be part of the team and arguing the case at oral arguments last time was a tremendous honor for us and brought a lot to the table, and i think having senator mcconnell be part of this case was part of a terrific asset to us, and we're grateful to both of them. my co-producer, co executive producer, lawrence, he and his wife are tremendous supporters of citizens united over the many years have we have been friends, and i just cannot thank him enough for standing by me through this case, through this film. jim, our first lawyer who hoped us get to the supreme court, i

want to thank him. he is one of the foremost first amendment lawyers in the country. then again, and most importantly, the members of our organization, the members of citizens united, the over half a million members we have to support best day in, day out. it is incredible to have their support. and of course my family, my wife, susan, my dad is here today. it is a great victory for us. it has been agonizing for the last few days or months waiting for this decision, waiting, waiting, waiting, but it is an amazingçó thing to live throught for years and be told by the bureaucrats at federal election commission that you cannot do that, you have no first amendment rights. and i think today is wonderful

to tell folks at the federal election commission to work for the people, and that people do not work for them. so i am honored with this outcome, it is a tremendous victory for the first amendment and our organization, and thank you very much. i am happy to take any questions. >> [inaudible] first amendment rights for corporations and organizations, they have the same rights as people. >> we are going to have a chance to read the opinion. i do not know exactly what the opinion says just yet, but it is a great day for every person in america, whether you own stock in the company, whether you run a mom-and-pop grocers store. and when we took in those, only several thousand dollars in contributions this case ended up

hinging on, they were just like that. they were from individual small restaurant liquor stores, dry cleaners, people who incorporate for protections because of the litigious nature of this country. so what we tried to do was speak for them, as well, and they have no actual voice as an individual because a lot of corporations in this country are individuals. and the others? thank you very much. >> next, democratic campaign committee chairs react to the supreme court campaign finance decision.

>> good morning, everybody. i am proud to be joined by my colleague and friend, senator chris van hollen. we are each taking the lead in our respective bodies on this case. this morning, the supreme court announced its opinion on citizens united. while my staff and i are still reviewing the opinion, this much is clear -- the roberts court has turned back the clock on democracy by over a century. this disastrous decision paves the way for free and unlimited interest spending in our elections. but the stroke of the plan, the court decided to overrule the hundred year ban on corporate expenditures and override the will of millions of americans who want their voices heard in

our democracy. now, robert barons can act like parasites, striking at the very roots of our democracy. at a time when americans are worried about too much influence, this opens the floodgates and allows special- interest money to overflow our elections and undermine our democracy. the bottom line is this. the supreme court has predetermined the winners of next november's elections. it will not be democrats. it will be corporate america. our system of government is the best in the world. there are corrupting influences at play, but this opinion gone

unchallenged would permit the taint future elections. allowing corporations to spend that will on elections, which is what the court has just allowed, would have undue influence on elected officials. the money spent by deep-pocketed interest will work to dwarf the resources of ever to americans. i have not seen a decision that more undermines campaign funding, and it is one of three or four decisions in the history of the supreme court that most undermines democracy. we will regret the day that this decision has been issued. and at a time when americans are so worried about having a say in washington, this just brushes those worries, saying leave it to big money, they will take care of you. source stand here today with congressman van hollen to say

that we will not let this decision go unchallenged. every voter, every future candidate for office will be an underdog against big business interests powered by this decision, and the committee with jurisdiction over this issue, i'm announcing we will hold hearings on the impact of this decision over the coming worked. we will explore what potential legislation could mitigate the damage this decision could have on our democracy. we are committed to pursuing legislation but can we implement the ban on corporate spending or at the very least modify it in a significant way. we cannot and will not allow for corporations to unduly influence elections and cast a shadow of corruption on our system of government. it is imperative if you believe in this democracy to act and act now, and we will.

>> thank you. i am pleased to be shared with my friend and colleague, chuck schumer, and i look forward to working with him to make sure we do everything possible to make sure this decision does not stand. this is a very, very sad day for american democracy, and this is a radical decision that came out of the supreme court. it throws out decades of precedent, and it will open the floodgates if left unchecked and unchallenged to more and more special-interest money, big corporation money, and this takes us in the exact opposite

direction from where america wants to go. it will allow the biggest corporations of the united states to engage in buying and selling of elections. if you look at the staggering figures in the four to 100 companies and the revenues they have with profits, they can now unleashed directly in these elections, and that has potential to totally up and our system and corrupt the process in a way that i think should alarm every american citizen. just think of some hypothetical. as my colleague said, we're still going through the court decision. but imagine aig, just received millions of dollars of taxpayer money, being able to turn around spending money to advertise against people who disagreed with the agenda. think about the biggest firms on wall street at a time when

you're trying to hold them accountable, to take money and defeat those who call for greater transparency and accountability on wall street. think about corporations, u.s. corporations, whose main financial interest and a majority profits come from investments in china and other places around the world,. their profit margins are not taught to attach to how american citizens are doing but to help others in other countries are doing, and having them spend money on our elections here to influence and benefit profits on the interest of american citizens. this is a scandalous decision. this is a decisionñi equating fr purposes of expanding money in elections, saying but corporations people individuals. i think it is an american

decision, and the american people need to understand what this decision has spent, and they will be even more furious about politics than they are today. ñiwe need to make sure we do not turn back the clock on decades of precedent meant to prevent special-interest from corrupting the process. >> this is one of the most vital parts of our democracy. >> next, analysis on what the

decision means for the future of campaign finance. ñi>> we have the constitutional law professor at washington law school joining us this morning. we showed you the headline, this opinion piece by ross find gold. high court opens the floodgates is the headline. it says that congress should repair the financials and create another one for elections to help ordinary americans. it should also enact a law requiring publicly traded corporations to get the approval of shareholders before spending on political campaigns. your reaction?

>> if you were to check the editorial, you would see that this is a victory for free speech and the first amendment. diving into the corporate governance issue, it is true that if congress and states and municipalities want to change the way corporations are governedñi by state law, that is possible, and they can certainly provide more remedies or rights for minority shareholders who think that this candidate should not be supported, or maybe this candidate should not be supported. at the end of the day, the supreme court rejected that rationale for banning speech, which is really the issue we have here. >> i am pleased to hear you say that the state should go ahead and legislate in such a way as to require corporations before they engage in expenditures to get the approval of shareholders. that would be on his way to repair the damage of this

decision, and we have had some bad decisions in beginning in public life, saddling an election by the counting of ñrballotsñi. but this takes the cake, because the supreme court has couple decades of precedent to say a corporation is a person and a citizen armed with rights. that does open the floodgates, senator feingold said, to hundreds of millions of billions of dollars spent by corporations by candidates that conflict with or support the corporate agenda. in fact, that is the only way corporations can spend money, because they are legally bound to spend money in a way to advance shareholder value, the profits. host: you referred to the "wall street journal" editorial. let me show it to viewers.

let me also show you opposing views this morning written by your colleague, who says that this argument is pure science fiction. he says this, that first of the case, contributing allowing expenditures in state races, but none of these states want the corporate opinion in spending. >> this is decent for those who do not think there is enough spending in our politics. but take exxonmobil. in 2008, it had profits of $85 billion. now, if it decided to spend 10% of that money, $8.5 billion, to get the energy policies it wants

of government, that woe moreñi than the obama campaign, the mccain campaign, and every candidate throughout the senate in 2008. that is one company. nothing about the fortune 500, or the fortune 100, with 6 billion in profits that year. we're talking about the ñ+?l democracy. we clearly need a constitutional amendment to declare that a corporation is what the supreme court always said it wasn't until yesterday, a creature of the state legislatorçó -- what e supreme court said it was until yesterday, a creature of the legislature, to create wealth. but there are special dangers attendant to allowing a creature of the state turned around and get into politics. >> i could not disagree more. this is a tremendous opinion. the supreme court essentially said no matter what your organizational form, you as an

organization, you are a person, you have the ability to participate independently in political campaigns, and you do not have to buy a newspaper like the "new york times," and you do not need to on a broadcast station. this opinion restores first amendment footing, even for organizations like c-span, because very few people understand the government position in this case was that it could ban corporate-funded speech, and the only thing preventing that from reaching media corporations was one exemption by congress at a critical moment at time. with this opinion, corporations had restored the rights to stop, andçó the court said if a media corp. could do so, all others may do so. >> the constitution guarantees freedom of the press.

nothing inñi mccain-find gold attempted to restrict what media could do. fox news has a right to engage in the political propaganda on the air? fine, we agree. canada also take money out of profit and put it into particular campaigns? with corporations, blackwater, and ron, goldman sachs, bank of america? one thing congress has to do is say that if you get federal bailout money, federal contract money for corporations, you are not permitted to engage in expenditures. essentially what that is doing is taking the money from taxpayers, giving it to corporations, and letting them turn around and tell us how to vote. >> so you have moved to a ban on federal contractors. of course there is a right of the press to engage on the first

amendment. in politics, in speech of any kind. but the press is an activity. it is not a class of individuals or actors or participants in society. it is an activity. if the first amendment was written today, it would have freedom of the internet. but there are no people saying that. the press is an activity, and it applies to all people. these days, it applies to persons under our laws. let me get to person's virtue as individuals. i know you like to talk about that. but the press is, as i mentioned -- here is -- actually, i hope for problem the point i want to make because you keep asking me all of these -- i keep forgetting the point i want to make because you keep asking me all of these questions. >> let's go to phone calls, and

circled back. new jersey, bonnie, democrats line. good morning. caller: i think the supreme court find it was the most obscene soon spread scott. -- most obscene since dred scott. we are a facist state. corp. scan by our president, our legislatures, our mayors, all the way down to dogcatchers. we have laws in this country. corporations have been given the same rights, the same civil rights as citizenry -- this is not what the founding fathers had in mind, clearly. >> i would respectfully disagree. participation is what the court recognizes in its united opinion. the idea participation by

organizations who are associations of people -- that is what a corporation is. c-span is a corporation. ñihandgun control inc. is a corporation. but at the end of the day, these are associations of people participating in politics. if i may, the idea that allowing organizations regulated by our government, for them to participate is somehow out a brand of fascism, some form of fascism, it is completely misinformed and invalid commentary on the supreme court's opinion yesterday. >> stevens echos roberts opinion in saying a corporation is a group of people. this is a fundamental fallacy that has been rejected by chief

justice marshall, all to chief justice rehnquist. the court has always said a corporation is not an association of people, not a membership organization. a corporation is an artificial entities chartered by the state legislature. there are executives, but the money comes in to the mcdonald's corporation or the enron corporation or goldman sachs, that -- wait a second. the money that comes in is not coming for political purposes. in other words, you do not go to mcdonald's to contribute to the mcdonald's corporation political office. all the more so with money for a utility, for example. but you can now take money out of the corporate treasury and put it into politics to get

someone elected or kick somebody out of office. they do not need to spend hundreds of billions. they just need to spend a few billion to terrify people on capitol hill. this is a change in policy. host: i will let you respond, but let me show you a headline from this morning. before i read that, i want to show the new york times headline on disparate it's says lobbies, our cash will bury you. it is right below the fold. let me read a little bit from the financial times. it said before this ruling, a company could dip into regulated pool raised from individual contributions and donate 5000 to lawmakers. now they can run and $5 million in television advertising attacking the member in his district. this is from the former general

counsel to john mccain's 2008 presidential campaign. >> the idea that lobbyist power will increase with this provision is fundamentally flawed. here is why. right now, you have large corporations that have opened. it is the mid-list corporations that have been left out in the cold. here's why. everyone talks about bailouts for aig or bank of america, were these other financial firms. but the treasury department is not hundred what aig thinks. bankamerica is speaking with the lobby on capitol hill daly, if not hourly. they will always have a connection. it is theçóñiñjr mid-list corporations, smaller nonprofit corporations.

they do not have enough people in their organizations to fund the pact and make it viable. the chamber of commerce, 96% of the united states chamber of commerce are entities that have 100 employees or fewer. that is not an organization that has existing opinion. if they could ever get money together to speak directly about who should be elected and who should not. host: that rouge, louisiana, republican line. chris, a good morning. caller: this is very complicated from first amendment standpoint, because they are giving corporations the right to do with they do, and the second

thing is the ability to spend money, free speech. how can you, both of you, i guess, as individuals, give us your opinion on that point. and the second thing is, if you compare the ability of corporations, especially large ones, to spend, versus the individual, how do you see the judge's? guest: this decision is far more devastating to the notion[ñ of one-person, one-vote. you and i, we can spend money,

çóbut corporations can spend billions of dollars. they should be able to give directly to campaigns. i am going to see what the decision is on that, because if they are treated like citizens and move from we the people to we the corporations, why shouldn't they be allowed to give money directly to politicians? so your point is right. at the equations, we're fundamentally changing the character of our democracy. >> we have got to get going on phone calls coming here. go ahead. guest: i would like to speak to the caller. this idea that jamie keeps bringing up of one-person, one- vote, was never the idea of one piece of speech for me, one for you, and the government can limit that. that is foreign to the first

amendment. that the government could say when c-span, or you, or fox news, or an s nbc has spoken enough, that is foreign to the first amendment. second, corporations are not persons. they are suspicious of people. they put that information out. corporations are not citizens. there are suspicions of people. -- association of people. a candidate ran on allowing handguns. is it the case that handgun control inc. is not allowed to say we think it is a bad candidate for us, that the

employee has to walk out of the building and say it is a legal? i happen to work there, let me tell you what i think. that makes no sense, and the speech is enormously valuable in determining things. host: we will come back to it. fairfield, new jersey. good morning. caller: i have a problem with this gentleman. i think he is being disingenuous, because under no circumstance is a corporation a person. it never was, it never will be. to claim otherwise, look at the mirror. this is simply another step towards the right, and you have people to sensitized by big

money, big oil, and look at the results. look at where we are right now. the middle class is being destroyed. this will exacerbate this issue, and to claim otherwise defies logic, insulting our intelligence. host: you were shaking your head. why? >> in a 5-4 decision, the supreme court reached out, and it had never even been raised by citizens united. they had to go back and read and reargued the case because the court itself of its own volition decided to raise a question of rather or not -- whether or not there was a landmark decision. but your point is absolutely right on, and things can be done.

in the past, when corporations got out of control, we have amended the constitution. if the 17th amendment in 1913 gives us a direct election of senators, because we were getting corp. sent actors. -- senators. we need the constitution to state political free-speech is for people, not corporations. you can go to freespeechforpeople.org if you are interested in that. congress should say now that if you get federal bailout money, you cannot put any of that money into federal elections. finally, people should start a mass movement to demand that corporations adopt policies that i did they do not get involved in political races, or if they do they get the full vote of shareholders first. if you are opposed to that, you are not standing up for the rights of corporations, you are

standing up fort ceos. are we going to end up with democratic corporations, you eat there, i eat here, based on where they put their money? this is a dangerous, polarizing decision in that way. >> there is a lot of hyperbole and what james is saying, and i cannot believe that his solution is to amend the first amendment. that has been a bedrockçó another interesting thing jamie keeps bringing up, the contract, let's examine that. the idea you will put the money back into campaigns is preposterous. but let's look beyond what your assumptions are. you are not saying that corporations are the problem, but some private entity is the problem. you are saying that the problem is that you do not want tax money taken by force to be

determining who wins and who loses at the ballot box. the very laws you advocate are the result of congress putting its, on. the amendment was clearly passed to protect incumbent politicians against financiers who can give them a run for their money. congressman raised their own contribution limits, they left outside limits flat, raised limits for their own party committees, and then they beg the sec to clamp down on independent groups in the last few cycles. so what i find here is your distaste for the federal contract has to be based on government putting its fund their -- some on the scale, and yet that is exactly what you are advocating. >> democratic line, lakehurst, new jersey. caller: i have a question, were

several questions, if i may. when a corporation exercises its free-speech rights, does it take into account all of the individuals, the voices and views that constitute its corporation for individual stockholders? do they take a poll to determine a unified position? or do just a few people determine what that viewpoint is? guest: corporations have policies on whether they engage in anything. if it is permissible, it gets done. but there are always shareholders that object to many things. corporations give money to our project. remember robert mapplethorpe's exhibit years ago, that was a consternation of many people, but corporations funded that. there are university grants for

research that some shareholders may or may not agree with. there are college professors to get stipends and and out chairs, and i'm sure some shareholders would not agree with that. here are the remedies. if a shareholder does not agree, he can petition. there can be state laws passed, or that person may sell his or her share. those are the options. ibut the idea te government, because a fewidea te shareholders may have a problem with something, can ban the corporation from speaking entirely, is misplaced. and let me say, the supreme court actually dealt with this issue. they said listen, if congress is concerned with minority shareholders, they would not have stopped the prohibition from a general election. it would have made it a full- time, full-on. it allies the idea that they protect minority shareholders

when the corporation may do whatever bonds -- whatever it wants. host: good morning. what are your thoughts. caller: i have a comment. i just want to say that all americans should take the time to read this decision, and they will see how it benefits all americans, it is pure, and it should be understood. this will benefit the united states. these people, corporate america needs of voice. if you read the decision, justice kennedy is not for corporations. he has a background about. ñii believe if it readout, you'l see that this is good for

america. bank of so much. -- thank you so much. guest: every citizen had the right to spend money. all this institution does is say that ceos can dip into the treasury, take money out, and put it into political campaigns to tell us who we should elect for office. i think it is outside the mainstream of political democratic values. labor unions are membership organizations. people put their money in. the supreme court has said people haveñi to join the union, they get a rebate and get the money back. so i think that is the right decision if you do not agree on what they're doing.

it was sufficient. we did not need to go ahead and say they can take money directly out of the treasury fund. host: taylor, mich.. you are next. caller: i wanted to comment on steve. he seems to be evading direct questions from the callers in regards to people's rights. a corporation is not an individual. if i work for corporations and they take funds that come from the corporate money and sway public opinion on añi senator oa mayor or whoever, they are not representing me, and i'm part of the corporation.+ stop invading the questions. get to what the people are afraid of. they have every right, it is justified. you're just giving more power to corporations, and as far as the

caller who said to read it, people have read it. i've read it myself. it is a horrible decision which threatens all of our individual rights as voters. guest: i agree with the earlier caller. it is a fantastic decision, recognizing the right for full participation in democracy. the facts of this case were a nonprofit corporation named citizens united wanted to run a movie, documentary film called a " hillary -- the movie." they put it on that movie theaters, and then they decided to put it on the table for video on demand. and this is where they ran headlong into mccain-find gold,

because that says that any communications mentioning a candidate of the broadcast, satellite, or cable within 30 days of a primary election can be banned if run by a corporation or union. this documentary by citizens united was not permitted. the supreme court asked the government, so we understand you mend and movies. is it also yourçó position you can ban books? and the federal government answered, he said yes. if a book says to vote for or against a candidate and is paid for by corp.,çó which all of thm ñiare, the government claims the right to ban that book. i think it is fair to say that that answer shocked the supreme court, and they asked for additional briefs from all parties and the second round of

oral argument, which is very rare. çó>> there is an easy way to soe this case, which is to say correctly that if pay-per-view tv movies, i have to pay, it is not covered by the election during campaigns decision, it is covered under tv commercials. that is all they were asking for. however, this is almost five conservatives in the court striking down decades of xó&ossing that the corporation s a person for the purpose of political expression. i think is a matter of basic self-respect at this point that we start a movement to say corporations are not persons.

host: back to phone calls. steve in louisiana. go ahead. caller: what a great, great day for america. steve, i want you to answer this for me. he keep bringing up c-span. i want you to touch on that. then, george soros is a communist, and he filtered money to acorn, right? my last point is, there is something going on in this country, and you people that do not see what is taking place in new jersey, virginia, and now in massachusetts, i feel sorry for you. >> you mentioned the c-span an example. c-span is not a citizen, it is true.

c-span does not vote in our elections, that is absolutely true. but c-span is a person under the laws of the united states. here is why. the fcc and the fbi were to blow through these doors, turn off the cameras, and supino your files, it would be c-span. it cannot vote, it is not a citizen, and yet everybody would recognize that is a fundamental violation of rights of c-span. why? because at the end of the day, c-span, like any other association of individuals, is an association of the people who make up the entity. this is important. we cannot skip past the idea that the suspicions of individuals are having their rights given short shrift. it has to be respected in a democratic republic. with regard to george soros, campaign finance law permits him to spend independently all that

he wants. i find it interesting that the fcc investigated him for two years about a book he wrote. in america, if we are deciding whether books should be banned or illegal or books are not part of our debate, whether by mr. soros or any individual, i think that we have a real problem. guest: let me correct the caller. george soros is not a communist. he stands up for freedom and an open society. the second thing is, we needñi o distinguish these different types of organizations, and your conflated them. use a handgun control inc., should they have the right to be involved in policy -- politics. massachusetts citizens for life. corporations there are set up

for political and ideological purposes have the right to be involved in politics. so for-profit corporations have never been treated the same way. and there is an unbroken line of precedent going up until yesterday saying for-profit corporations, look, they are setup for economic purposes. they have been a vehicle for wealth accumulation. but there are extraordinary dangers when you cross over from allowing it to be an economic entity engaged in commerce and competition to a political entity that tries to find its way through the state. free-market liberals and conservatives understand, we want corporations to be out there and unfair competition. you just have to read adam smith to know that there is nothing dangerous when corp. say they will not engage in competition.

corp. said, you know what, we can make more money spending on campaigns that we can make producing something or being involved in an honest market competition. caller: you briefly touched on what i would consider conservative judicial activism as far as overturning the laws congress has made. but my main question has to do with what about multinational corporations and how would this in fact affect for our company is incorporated. halliburton. guest: fantasticñi question. if you want to see democratic populism, you will want to see

that unleashed by this decision. the supreme court just determined that corporations, whether they are domestically or foreign owned, controlled by foreign or domestic entities, have a constitutional right to spend money. and it absolutely is true. you read the decision, the supreme court makes no decision at all. they ask somebody to come later and use the law to target foreign corporations. when you breached the line between real life situations and corporations, you are getting money from around the world when we already have a band. now have created a huge loophole. >> yes, we have a ban at all levels. and any spending of money at any time, at any level, from dogcatcher to president, is prohibited. and the other thing about foreign nationals is the supreme court is reserving for

another day with this opinion could apply to foreign nationals. nothing in this opinion applies to about participation. what it does apply to is a nonprofit organizations, labor organizations, and corporations that are regulated and taxed as persons within the united states. they get to participate in our democracy, and that is the essential part of this ruling, and why it is so fundamentally important for our democracy. speak about ranch seeking entrust. jamie keeps talking about the idea that you have large corporations, and they will not speak in opposition to each other, they will all collude and get together. here's the thing. this opinion allows entities to speak to the citizens about who should and who should not be elected. there is an intervening factors there, the voters. you can send to train loads of money promoting a candidate, and

at the end of today, people have to decide whether they will vote for them or not. take corzine. he spent $24 million on his gubernatorial role, largely his own cash. is opponent spent $8 million. corzine lost that race decidedly. so this idea that money spent determines who wins is wrong because of intervening action, and that is voters, who decide to i agree with that speech i heard, or do i disagree? host: let's try to get to up least one more phone call here. marietta, republican line. caller: justice kennedy emphasized laws designed to control money in politics