put them in our worst jails. -- in our worst jails. they won't put them in jail because especially among afghans. the waris 13th year, has been frequent. there has not been much accomplished. natural, aressed is common thing. he should not be punished for it here it -- it. point on final obamacare -- thank you for sharing a diversity of opinions on a number of topics on this tuesday morning. you can check out all of our scheduling information. thank you for joining us. .e are back tomorrow morning enjoy the rest of your day.

♪ >> president obama is in poland at the start of a three country european trip. announced this morning the u.s. is getting ready to increase its military presence in europe at the cost of up to $1 billion. the u.s. plans to spend -- send more american -- more military equipment and he is calling on congress to provide funding to sustain the effort. president obama made that comment. brussels.he goes to in the united states, it is rimary day in eight states. they all have senate and house

primaries. california voters are voting in house and governor primaries and we will watch the race tonight and bring you any reaction. theady a preview in register on that race. they write that they have hammered each other for months now. the final hours of gop senate dirtyy discussed over politics, regionalism, and rain. they're trying to get their voters out. polls indicate it is a dead heat and has been one of the most under negative races in recent memory. about a half-hour, we will bring you live coverage as the senate judiciary committee looks at limiting campaign contributions. harry reid and mitch mcconnell will testify about a proposed constitutional men meant to limit contributions in response to the supreme court tosses court's -- supreme

decision. the brookings institution is includingdiscussion, the british ambassadors to the u.s.. that is this afternoon. >> we wanted a building very accessible to the community. it needed to be able to incorporate a future -- you cannot protect the future. part of the problem with the library is we were kept out on as many computers and wiring we could into the structure. the new building needed to have a lot of flexibility and movement into the future. one thing we like about the

design, if you combine different geometric features, the triangular main part of the building, a round auditorium that it's on the side of the building, a rectangular structure on the west side, and then the crescent wall on the library and north and east side. all of these different geometric futures are bridged together with skylights. light flows through the building at all levels. degree a total 360 surrounding. >> it is vital for a community that has a library that brings able together. in bringing the community together. it is an opportunity for people that holdr the things things together, the public safety officers, the mayor, they

all worked together to build the city. i like we have physically done that with our architecture. >> learn about the rich history and literary life at all and city, you hot. 5:00are day and sunday at p.m. on c-span3's american history tv. >> next, how the relationship between north and south korea impacts american security. a discussion of the ballistic koreae threat from north and the military partnership hosted by the institute for korean-americans eddies. this is a half-hour. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> thank you for this opportunity. gentlemen, i have the

honor of introducing to you lieutenant general wallace gregson. a graduated in 1968 and began -- a distinguished military career that would stretch over the course of 36 years. after his graduation, he would go on to serve in a variety of locations, ranging from vietnam during vietnam war, somalia, and japan. 2005, he last served as the commander of the u.s. marine corps sir -- forces. and commander of the u.s. marine force bases pacific. headquartered in hawaii. services, ther of

general served as a marine component commander for central command, responsible for training and equipping military forces for combat in operation enduring freedom in afghanistan and operation iraq you even in iraq. , andwing his retirement may of 2009 up until april 2011, he served in the pentagon as the assistant secretary of defense for asia pacific security affairs, where he developed u.s. defense policy across the asia-pacific region. he served as director for asian pacific affairs at the office of secretary defense for policy and as executive military assistant to the director of dental intelligence. at present, he is in business as president of his company. fellow.senior he served as senior director at

the center for natural interest here it he is a member of the american board of directors, and he travels frequently to asia ,or business discussions response, security policy, and military strategy. he holds masters degrees in strategic planning and international relations, and has been awarded an honorary doctorate in public service the university of maryland. he is a member of the marine corps's association, the u.s. institute, and the council of foreign relations. a trustee of the marine corps university foundation, a board member for the naval institute, and director and treasurer of the green fund. tos a past honorary advisor the development international council. he is here to address us on the securitywashington

partnerships, which he is well versed in. we look forward to hearing your remarks. please join me in welcoming him. [applause] >> thank you. this microphone is dangerous area thank you, david, for a wonderful introduction. studying at the university of pittsburgh. that is my hometown. you are in good shape. thank you for raising the level of our educations and it's by your attendance. institute for giving me the opportunity to speak today. before i start, let me offer my this for the sinking disaster. it touched just about everybody in america. the sad circumstances there.

discuss security, specifically a seoul tokyo washington security partnership. partnership word has interesting implications. one dictionary has is to say about the meaning of the word. a partnership is an arrangement in which parties agree to cooperate to advance their mutual interest. it is not a marriage. it is not an oath of lord -- loyalty. it is not even a profession of friendship. it is not meant to be forever. it means agreement between -- among the parties of what our mutual interests are. course, a tokyo washington partnership on security matters would be helpful. we know there are a number of matters that get in the way of

that partnership. we cannot agree to sign the same document on information's dirty. as a former official and career marine corps officer, i can talk in some length about military factors. we could get to that but i think it is important to discuss the regional and a half and global reports. then we can decide if these rise to the level of mutual interest. asia continues its exceptional economic rise. korea's rise is a major driver of the asian rust verity that raised hundreds of millions from oferty to higher standards living. korea is the world's 13th largest economy in the u.s. is seven largest trading partner. the economic miracle travels by

the sea. , wealth,f this prosperity, and power in east asia will increasingly be determined at sea. at the same time, and those guys to this audience, korea's history has always been driven, not always favorably, by its location. korea has a long seacoast that faces west myself, at least in many capable ports. it is surrounded by bigger powers and profits greatly from economic connections, greater asia and the world here at by contrast, mongolia might be the example of the disadvantages of being landlocked. but the weight behind the success, the inter-korean demarcation line at the dmz is one but not the only

geopolitical fault line in the region. because korea's growth and prosperity is inextricably length -- linked to the environment, korea's security concerns will increasingly be down in the maritime environment, not only in the immediate reach, but also in the greater asia pacific region and the world. korea seeks to make his decision among the bigger powers to become an indispensable hub for commerce, and politics. the foundations of korea's power , economic and political military, will increasingly be beyond the sea. the realization of his economic, political, and militaries that requires an international system that is orderly and operates for the good of all. name applied for this --

unfettered access for all to the global commons of the sea, the air, and. notions of absolute sovereignty of the strong over the global commons, requiring tribute from all others, has no place here. complicating an expanded view of a maritime future, korea remains divided in the vicinity of the 30th parallel remains the most fortified demarcation line in the world. the threat of a north korean -- the threat of a second declinedean land has due to the state of the north korean economy. arene example, the soldiers

smaller now than they were years ago. likely due to malnutrition. at the same time, the threat has become much more dangerous in terms of weapons of mass destruction, particularly nuclear weapons. and north korea's deadly provocations. despite a number of different efforts over the years, the u.s., korea, japan, china, and six of thee of the six parties, as well as the rest of the international unity, had been singularly unable to prevent the democratic people's republic of north brea from marching toward nuclear weapons give ability. we have not seen the capability demonstrated yet, but that is very cold comfort. as is well known, the alliance group from the events of june

1950, invaded with soviet support, and the u.s., hearing extension of the expansion effort to other parts of the world, felt obliged to counter the invasion. it became our first hot campaign of the cold war. over the decades, the u.s. alliance has in excess full, today, in entering a repeat of the north korean invasion. the alliance has grown, matured, and adapted to become an extraordinary model of military cooperation. the combined forces man is an eloquent expression of the intimate, integrated nature of our forces, with u.s. and korean military personnel working side-by-side on a daily basis. adapt as thenue to threat continues to change.

the conventional threat to clients, but north korea poses a growing threat to south korea's maritime environment. shellingng and the reminded the alliance of the seaborne threat. hiding behind its missile and potential nuclear threat, north to theose a challenge safety and security of maritime trade and commerce. think of a submarine attacks on attack ondship, or an infrastructure. north korea shares a border with china. history drives china's policy toward north brea and causes china to value stability above all else. the peninsula has an avenue for progression in both directions. you know the ground combat of the japanese war of 1890 or 95

was fought in the peninsula. then game colonization, followed china invasion, and then and ding in 1945. china became heavily engaged in with u.s. forces during the korean war, losing, by some estimates, over ¥1 million. on the outbreak, -- this effectively prevented china from completing unification. china does not want another era of change on the peninsula. the u.s. maintains a significant residence in korea. over the years since 1950, the presence has changed as the capability of korean forces has grown. our presence now is much more

focused on providing unique , rapid if abilities reinforcement, and providing were strategic offensive options, should they be mandated by the national leadership of the u.s. and rea. most of these capabilities are offshore. we provide extended deterrence to korea to prevent the use of the world's most dangerous and bases.s. forces in japan are the foundation of u.s. military presence in the region. they are essential to the u.s. role in any the on the peninsula. given the range of weapons in the north arena arsenal, it is hard to imagine how any general conflict on the peninsula could remained confined to the peninsula. we are all thoroughly tied together by security issues, like it or not.

korean political, economic, or security grows, so will importance of other nations who support the rule of law and the his is. settlement of there are more partnership opportunities readily available on matters of mutual concern, the other issues that might exist between such potential partners. thatistory also shows resource issues can be a cause of conflict. we face many disturbing global trend that, if unresolved, can destroy peace and stability. these make all phi as matters of mutual interest and civil security partnerships area some of the more dominant and powerful trends include demographics, energy, food and agriculture, and freshwater. all

are interrelated as numbers of evil and their movement affect food security, water available, and energy production and use. often, the goals -- the goals conflict. the use of hydropower to produce energy often reduces the availability of aggregate old troll land and freshwater. nearly 60will add million people per year, reaching over 8 billion by the two -- by the 2030's. developinge in companies. the united states alone, among developed countries, is expected to add 50 million people. those counting on american retreat will be disappointed very europe, japan, russia, and korea, will join those countries . china will add 170 million but

the ovulation will be aging and are dominantly male. india, in contrast am a little as 320 million people, becoming the world's most popular nation before 2030. welfare systems in developed countries are based on assumptions of moderate economic and population growth. aging and declining populations will stress support systems. remittance flows are an essential part of the economies of many states. in 2007, the top three recipients of immigrant remittances were india, china, and mexico. two in asia and one in north america during destruction or alteration of these due to , naturalovernments disaster, or other phenomenon, can affect peace and stability. when economic conditions

collapse in a region or flows are altered, uncontrolled population movements result. grow,will continue to risking tension between the wrist -- rich and poor, as well as among hindus, muslims, and buddhist. india's most important security challenge, according to many indians. rapid development in china, india, and other countries creates a relentless drive to secure adequate and secure supplies of fuel to sustain growth, maintain satisfaction, and prevent internal strife and chaos. access toisputes over resources in the south china's the regularly older news. massive additional reduction and refining capability is needed to avert resource shortages as

world population grows. japan is currently coping with energy shortage caused by a natural disaster, illustrating the fragility of much of our energy infrastructure. every freshwater system on the east, southeast, and asian littoral is under heavy pressure from pollution. the search for affordable energy invites upstream countries to build hydroelectric dams on rivers coming out of the mountains. ungoverned, this could cause devastation to downstream nations and cultures that depend on nutrients in the rivers to sustain their dependent lifestyles. needless to say, asia has a poor record of collegial dispute settlement. ocean stocks are already under pressure from over and -- overfishing and illegal fishing. onhout some code of conduct

fishing and effective enforcement means, many species and nations are in danger. recently, such disputes caused the death of a korean coast guardsmen at the hands of a chinese fishermen. the rate against these trends are the optimistic views of globalization, contributing to interdependence. conflict, in the view of many, is not old because it would be so logical. -- illogical. this year is the beginning of the first world war. analogies like this can be overdone, but we should at least consider that the prevailing theory in 1914, before an unemployed tuberculosis ridden -- was that war was illogical, bad for business, and therefore impossible.

power -- g this part of world history is interesting enough that china 12 part a very popular tv series on the rise of great powers. australian and u.s. statesmen, including kevin rudd, henry kissinger, and kurt campbell among others, commented recently on the dangers similarities between that day and hours. china. rising power is it is the fastest rising power in world history. the same history shows the world fails more often than not to maintain the peace while integrating or re-integrating in china's case, a rising power into the existing internationals as him. athens is the classic example of this, so named for the historian

andirst document this era early 20th century japan, another example. china's history exerts a powerful influence on current events. china well remembers the century of humiliation came to china from the sea in the form of western traders. territorial concessions, opium, civil war, the collapse of the ching dynasty, and invasion followed. china's leadership class makes frequent mention of their little role in the reversal of this humiliation and in the creation of china's economic resurgence. today, the vast majority of china's wealth, roaster master rodda, and business, are along the coasts of the east and south china seas. 50% of the world's

seaborne commercial tonnage and one third of the world have use value and trade traverses the seat. if the world has a commercial intersection, this is it. international law, as favored by the united states, calls for the freedom of navigation and the peaceful settlement of disputes. this is being increasingly thelenged by china's claim historical right to the entire south and east china seas. they are pressing long dormant withs, generating coercion maritime auxiliary assets and come in the case of vietnam, navy vessels, fostering an asian arms race. this is an unprecedented chinese move. china has never placed one of its oil drilling rigs in the exclusive economic zone of another's aid without prior permission. the oil rig was accompanied by

as many as 80 ships, including seven army navy warships, not something usually done in undisputed waters. three countries were cited in the title of the session. let me say a you brief words about the u.s. perspective and you can determine whether we have actual interest. degrees of competition and cooperation are inherent and -- in everything from human interaction to business and international relations. a relationship with china has elements of both. the u.s. welcomes china's rise and reintegration into the internationals as him. china's recession to the wto wto in the 1990's. we have a strong economic relationship with china.

so does every one of our allies and friends. is ourtrong relationship? u.s. exports to china is up 542% -- since 2000, compared with the rise of 80% in exports to the rest of the world in the same time. states each exported one billion or more in goods to china and another 10 states exported over 500 million. city are 122 sister partnerships between the united states and china which leverage economic ties to expand people to people contact, and then use these contacts to create more business. provide strongs basis for cooperative relations --part i creating power all powerful constituencies in each nation, favoring engagement and future policies should seek to

increase the number of stakeholders in each country. at the same time, we have serious security concerns involving china and other nations. say we have three policies managed by different parts of our government. vigorous promotion of china's economic growth is the most familiar policy and it is the responsibility of u.s. treasury. u.n.onting china in the and the asian international forums and i'll -- elsewhere is the province of the state department, at least under-secretary clinton. defensertment of creates and maintains counterbalancing alliances and partnerships. our strategy requires a mix of ,nsurance and dissuasion combined with quiet deterrence and an ability to prevail. as an important component of our renewed emphasis on asia

described by secretary clinton. she said we have to be smart and systematic about where we invest our time and energy and that one of the most important tasks of american statecraft over the next decade will be to lock in a substantially increased diplomatic, economic, strategic, and otherwise. so manyelighted to see members of the public who are interested and here. as is the practice, that began with the judiciary committee, we strained -- stream to these hearings live. i expect all members of the understand this is a serious matter and to act accordingly. the rules of the senate prohibit outbursts, clapping, of any kind, including those for or against the issues i might take

or any other senator might take, or members might take, including the democratic and republican leader. also, you are prohibited from blocking the view of people around you, which means if you hold up signs to block people's views, i will have to ask the capital to please remove you. favorable to our position, not a lot of people stood in line along . to demonstrate with signs and hope they get in either for or , or do whatever they want. i do not want to stop them from doing that.

there will be a press outside and we find those who can be the most imaginative, whether it they are in the minority or majority, they usually end up adding in the paper and god bless them. this morning, the senate judiciary committee begins its incineration of a constitutional ,mendment to repair the damage and overturn long-standing precedents of campaign finance laws. left unanswered, i believe these rulings will -- years ago, congress passed campaign finance laws to preserve the integrity of the electoral process to prevent and

deter corruption, and to limit the undoing -- the influence in these were passed , republicanrities and democrat, in the senate and five justices now repeatedly overturning these time-honored protections. the citizen united cases. in doing so, the supreme court opened a floodgate to billionaires pouring in vast amounts of undisclosed dollars across the country. thus his john paul stevens had it right when he wrote in the court decision in citizens united threatens the integrity of institutions across the nation. heard about how this

threatens the constitutional rights of americans wanting voices heard. i would also like to know who is actually behind as were or against a particular person. the american people continue to voice from other avenues there more than 2 million individuals signed petitions call for a digital amendment to fight back against the corrosive effects of the supreme court decisions regarding money and politics. those petitions have been brought to our hearing room today. back.boxes in the tangible reminder that americans are calling on congress to act.

the ability of all americans and not just wealthy ones to his press their views and have voices heard in the political .rocess is vital to government the common sense of the american people tell us corporations are not people. this report says corporations are people. we're probably not going to like the general electric resident. those who claim to adhere to the original texts of the constitution cannot reasonably argue the framers view of the rights of reparations as central to our electoral process. i served in the senate for nearly 40 years and the chairman of the judiciary committee for nearly 10. i have long been weary of attempts to change the constitution as i have seen so many hundreds of the polls i have proposed, use like him per stickers merely to score lyrical points. our fundamental chart is sacred

and only as a last resort. i strongly believe we must address the divisive and corrosive decisions by the dismantle a to reasonable protection against corruption in the political process. we've have tried for years to pass a law that were wired for nancy. and disclosure of political spending. let people know where the money is coming from and from whom and which special interest it might be. senate republicans repeatedly filibustered that legislation known as the disclose act. it would have at least allowed people to know who is putting the money into the process. i hope to be able to convince my friends on the other side of the aisle to overcome the filibuster in this transparency matter.

does the supreme court based its rulings on flawed interpretations of the earth amendment, this will not suffice. to senator, first and then we want to hear from senator reed and editor mcconnell. i want to thank my friends, harry reid and richard -- mitch mcconnell, for being here. a first in this committee's history, as near as we can tell. it underscores the importance of the public discussion we're having today. we may disagree on some issues, they're both good friends of mine and i am glad to have them here. >> mr. chairman, our leaders and ,y colleagues on this committee what is more important than protecting our rights? this hearing also shows, as

clearly as possible, the differences between conservatism and progressivism. start with first principles. a declaration of independence states that everyone is endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights that governments are created to protect. those pre-existing rights include the right to liberty, and the constitution was adopted secure the blessings of liberty to all americans. view thatrejected the the structural limits of government power contained in the original constitution would adequately protect the liberties they fought a revolution to preserve. time onisted at that the adoption of the bill of individualprotects rights, regardless whether the government or the majority approves of their use. the first amendment of their

rights protects the freedom of speech and that is basic to self-government. other parts of the constitution falls to or equality or justice and our representatives in government. the bill of rights is only about one thing. individual freedom. free speech creates a marketplace of ideas in which is debate, andn, persuade fellow citizens. it enables citizenry to be educated, to cast votes to elect their leaders. today, freedom of speech is threatened, as it has not been in many decades. too many people are impatient and will not listen and debate and persuade. instead, they want to punish and intimidate and silence those with whom they disagree. a corporate executive who opposes same-sex marriage, the same physician president obama held at that time, is to be fired. are supposed to

be fostering academic freedom, cancel graduation speeches by speakers that some students find offensive. government officials order other government officials not to deviate from the party line concerning proposed legislation. and, cut fromick the same cloth, wood amend the constitution or the first time, to diminish an important right americans have that is contained in the bill of rights. it would cut tax on the most important of these rights, cord free speech about who should be reelected to govern ourselves. the proposed constitutional men would enable government to live in funds contributed to by orates and funds spent in support of candidates. i would give the government the ability to limit speech. the memo would even allow the government to set the limit at zero. there could be no contributions, no election spending. no public

debate on who should be elected. as you can conclude, incumbents like us here the table, but find that outcome to be acceptable. they would know that no challenger could run an effective campaign against them. speech at low limits would produce similar results. what president with this amendment create? suppose congress passed limits on what people could spend on abortions or what. there's or hospitals could spend to inform them. what if congress limited the amount of money people could spend on guns or a limit on how much money they can spend on their -- of their own money. on their own health care. muchngress limit how people can give to charity or how much charity tends end? under this amendment, congress could do what citizens united rightfully said it could not. , it could not make

it a criminal offense for sierra --urge recover -- the public that favors logging international or is there they could not stop the national rifle association board could stop them from publishing a book seeking published -- public support to a senator who favors a handgun ban, or for the aclu to post on his website before boulders to support a presidential candidate because of his stance on free speech. that should be frightening prospects to all of us. under this amendment, congress and the states can limit campaign contributions and expenditures without limit. and without complying to existing concert -- constitutional provisions. congress could pass a law limiting expenditures by democrats but not by republicans by opponents of obama care but not by supporters. what does the amendment mean when it says congress can limit

funds spent in opposition to candidates? congress under this amendment could criminalize that as spending in opposition to a candidate. a senator on the senate floor appearing free of charge could the same a private citizen. a member could say the citizen was eyeing elections. if the citizen spent any money to rebut the charge, he could end up being charged. be back to the days when criticism of elected officials was a criminal offense. you remember the history of the acts. supporters say the amendment is nessus very word democracy. it is outrageous to say that limiting each is necessary for democracy. theonly existing right that

amendment says it will not harm his freedom of the past. so congress and the states could limit the speech of anyone except those reparations that control the media. that would produce an orwellian world in which every speaker is equal, but some speakers are more equal than others. freedom of press has never been understood to give the media national constitutional rights denied to others. after years of denying it, supporters of political spending limits now admit that enacting their agenda of restricting beach may require an amendment to our fundamental charter of liberty. in light of recent supreme court decisions him an amendment may soon not be needed at all. there were four justices right now that would allow for political speech to be rejected. be no need to amend the constitution cut act on freedom. dissent foror's

these four justices in the decision does not view his freedom of beach as an end in and of itself there at our founding others did view it as an end in the health area justice rye or thinks free is about theech public's interest in preserving a democratic order in which collective speech matters. rightsure, individual often advanced socially desirable goals. our us to show rights do not depend on whether unelected judges believe they advanced to moxie as vacant -- conceive it. our constitutional rights are individual. they are not collected. never in 225 years have any supreme word decision described our rights as collective here as the declaration of independence come from godghts

and not from the government and the public. an sitter the history of the last 100 years. freedom has flourished where rights belong to individuals were governments were bound to respect, where rights work elected and existing only at the whim of a government that determines when they serve .ocially desirable purposes the results have been horrific. we should not move even one inch in the direction of little justices where this amendment would take us there it is takes could not be higher for all americans who value their rights and freedoms. beach concerning who the people selected representatives should be, speech setting the agenda in public discourse, speech designed to open and change the minds of our fellows and since,'s each criticizing politicians, and speech challenging government policies are all in this nation vital rights. the amendment puts all

upon then jeopardy penalty of prosecution feared it would make america no longer america, and though i intend to do what i can to stop it and i urge others to do the same. thank you. >> thank you. i appreciate what you said about the supreme court. we may have supreme court justices who actually follow -- i want to hear from senator reed and senator mcconnell and then, because they are chair and rank members of the subcommittee, will be handling this, very brief remarks from senator cruz. senator reed. class for convening this hearing, you remind me all the time about the work done in this committee, having served in they

legislature in a judiciary committee, i understand much of the work is funded through this committee. even on a state or federal level. senator, thank you also for your statement. withvery impressed attendance for the day. it is really heartwarming to the everyone caring so much about this issue. committee, i am here because a flood of our money in the political system post the greatest threat to our democracy that i have witnessed during my tenure in public service. supreme orn of the left the american people with a status quo where one side's leaners are pitted against the other side's billionaires. with a simple choice. keep the that is: argue all day and are up -- and all night,

forever about who's billionaires are right and who's billionaires are wrong, or we can work together to change the system and get shady money out of our democracy and restore the basic vegetables of one american and one vote. mr. president, a little bit of history from my first active. perspective. i ran for the senate in 1980 or. i had to be educated as to what federal laws work. were. we had an entirely dissonant -- different system. the federal system, that is not the case. that was not the case.

very close advisers, wayne pearson, who was supporting me, said, understand, under the federal rules, be very careful. you cannot take cash from anybody. thereles are very strict. is a limit to how much money they can give you. their address, occupation, and be very careful of any money you take. chairman,ent, -- mr. i have been asking nevadans to vote for me for decades. i have seen firsthand how the dark money is reverting our political system. ago, it wasyears pretty easy to do. follow the rules. i have seen it change. 1998, i had a close election

john and we each spent about $10 and we were allowed to do that because the supreme word again had left an opening that said you could divert money into the state party and that more -- that money could be corporate money, and used for denigrating the other person, building the other person who had the money up. i felt so, unclean for lack of a a person could give a lot of money. ae person gave a quarter of million dollars to the state party and he wanted me to know he had done it there it i hope he did not corrupt me, but he is

correcting. after 1998, two good senators got together and work very hard to change that. we had the law that came into a act and took her but money out 2004,itics. when iran in it was like i had taken a bath and i felt so clean. it was an election that everyone involved in a federal election had to list where they got the money and there was a limit to how much you could ask or get someone else. you were listed -- their occupation and so on. it was wonderful. then comes 2010. back into the sewer.

that was the race citizens united and january had ruled no holds are. any money could come from any source, with rare exception. as far as i was not a lot of fun. 1998. to you about that in 2010, 1998, he may 1998 seem like a picture in the park. money coming from every place. not a suggestion of where the money came from. citizens for good government, good guys, sponsored this one.

from 1998, to 2010, i have no idea. i have an idea, but that race in oblique $120 million were spent in that race. can you imagine that? no one knows where the money came from. the people in nevada were subjected to false and misleading ad. about theseanything shadow groups fear that was 2010. in 2012, it got worse. here we are, mr. president.

the other decisions the supreme court has made has only made it 2012 and during the presidential campaign, outside groups spent more than $1 billion and that is a conservative effort. -- estimate. that is about as much money as was bent in the previous 12 elections. this spike in the amount of shadowy money pumped into the elections is not surprising. recent decisions rendered by the united ace up in court, citizens united, mccutchen, our campaign finance laws were eviscerated and it opened up the floodgates. the cynics scoff at the idea of us working together on an issue

as critical as good government, but it was not all that long ago campaign against reform enjoyed support from both democrats and republicans. campaign finance from arm has proposed a number of times before. even by my friend, the republican leader, senator mcconnell. senator mcconnell's his own constitutional amendment, his own sponsor, empowered congress whichct laws any person -- from his legislation -- can be made to advocate the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate or office. navigating for the reform, senator mcconnell's head, and i have put together a responsible campaign reform agenda that would restrict the power of special interest backs, money, keepw of all

wealthy individuals from buying public office, close out -- office." that gives you the general idea. at one time, senator mcconnell question, with me and most of the people behind me. senator mcconnell had the right idea than. hopeful we can rekindle a way to bring worth the noble principles again. fathom whenard to my republican colleagues want to defend the that is both. is there any member of the committee who really believes the status quo is good? he opposed billionaires using their own money for office, senator mcconnell now funds the ability to fund campaigns and independent expenditures. ,n fact, he even declares today

in our society's spending is beach. -- speech. voices heard his money equals free speech? cannot competees with billionaires. theolleagues attempt to -- -- of noble principles. they defend the money pumped into our system by the koch brothers as free speech. anyonesident, i define to determine what the koch brothers are just -- are spending money on today. of these phantom organizations. they have one on veterans, one on senior citizens. they must have 15 different

phony organizations they use to pump money into the system to hide who they are, the two wealthiest men in america, interested in their bottom line. our involvement in government should not be dependent on bank account balances. in american people reject the notion money gives the koch brothers a greater voice in mechanic, ahan a lawyer, a doctor, a health-care believebecause they that elections should be decided by voters. those americans who have constitutional and fundamental right to elect their representatives. the constitution, that everyone most to talk about, does not give corporations a vote and it does not give dollar bills a right to vote. the undue influence that my

friend decried three decades ago has not transformed into sport -- free speech. david copperfield in las vegas, the great illusionist, could not come up with that one. it is still bad for america. it is bad for the politics. we must undo the damage done by the supreme court's recent campaign-finance decision and we need to do it now. i support this constitutional amendment. congratulatei senators udall and bennett for their offering this amendment, which grants congress the authority to limit the raising and spending of money for federal political campaigns. theamendment will rein in massive spending of super packs, ,hese secret organizations

much sincerown so the january 2010 decision of citizens united. amendment also gives the states the authority to institute campaign spending limits at state level. put, the constitutional amendment is what the nation needs to bring sanity back to political campaigns and restore confidence in elected leaders. people want change. they want their voice to be --tected area in free speech they want their voice to be protected. free speech should not cost a penny. i am happy if you have questions you want to ask me. otherwise, i would ask your i will leave.

tradition ofthe the committee, i will let you both speak and leave and we will have enough time for questions on the floor. i thank you very much, senator reid. sure that mymake leaving does not take away from my friendship with mr. mcconnell. we have heard each talk and criticized each other for years. he will not be upset that i am leaving. >> no, no problem. i appreciate -- i assume you as --ferring to my time pro tem.

senator grassley and i are friends of senator mcconnell and senator reid. we have been for years. bat in mybaseball office. >> you never know when you might need it. please, go ahead, senator mcconnell. bad thishow incredibly supposed amendment is, i cannot blame my friend from wanting to talk about things like the koch brothers or what i may have said over a quarter of a century ago. my remarksto confine to what is before us. i want to thank you for an outstanding observation about what the first amendment was supposed to be about. at the very core of it, political speech.

americans understand how ily special the first amendment is. the exchange of ideas and the ability to criticize their government is necessary for democracy to survive. ernjamin franklin noted "whoev would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by some doing ness of speech." the firsto weaken amendment, such as the proposal before this committee, should pass the highest scrutiny. resolution 19 falls short of that high bar. politicians inr

congress and state to write the rules on who gets to speak and who does not. the american people should be concerned. many are. those in power would use this to suppress speech that is critical of them, as senator grassley pointed out. no politician likes to be criticized. -- aree more critical criticized more often than the rest of us. the recourse to criticize is not to shut your fellow citizens up. that is what this amendment is about. the solution to this is to defend your ideas in the political marketplace. , oraraphrase justice holmes to come up with better ideas. the first amendment is neutral when it comes to speech.

it respects the right of every person to be heard without fair or favor. whether or not there views are popular with the government. the first amendment is unequivocal. it provides that congress shall make no law -- congress shall make no law -- abridging the freedom of speech. the first amendment is about empowering the people, not the government. the proposed amendment has it backwards. it says congress and the states can pass whatever laws they want , abridging political speech, the speech that is at the core of the first amendment. if politicians were in charge of political speech, a majority could design the rules to .enefit itself and a new majority would try to does disadvantagey to

the other part of the country. this is at odds with the first amendment. the last time a proposal like 01,s was considered, in 20 we had a vote on this. it was defeated on a bipartisan basis. i get the impression all the democrats have walked away from the first amendment. back then, senator kennedy and several other democratic colleague voted against it. similar proposal was disputed in 1997. our colleagues who voted against those proposals were right. they would be wrong to support the latest proposal to weaken the first amendment. this is clear when one compares the language of the amendments. 4, back in then

100 seventh congress, would empower the government to set reasonable limits, whatever that is, on political speech. the same was true of senate resolution 18 in the 105th congress. as bad as those proposals were, they at least limited the government's power to setting reasonable limits on speech. again, whatever that is. by contrast, the amendment we are discussing to guess -- discussing today would drop the pretense. it would give the government control over the little speech of its citizens. allowing it to set unreasonable limits on their political speech. including, banning it outright. --, thatnt of the senator grassley pointed out. it would favor certain speakers over others and guarantee preferential treatment. it contains a provision not

found in prior proposals, which provides congress cannot abridge the freedom of the press. this is great. if you are a corporation that owns a newspaper. this is terrific news for you. you get your speech, but nobody else does. the media wins and everybody else loses. everyone on this committee knows this proposal is never going to pass congress. and is a political exercise that is all it is. the goal is to stir up one party's political base so they will show up in november. that is to do it by complaining loudly about americans exercising free speech and association rights while being happy than other americans, those who agree with the sponsors of this amendment are doing the same thing. the political nature of this exercise should not fear how shockingly bad this proposal is.

this is embarrassingly bad. to be advocating, for the first time in history, that we amended the first amendment to restrict the right of citizens to the. free speech, we should not substitute the protection desires of all --tions or the protection desires of politicians or the protection of all americans. ira member a time when most of us agreed to it. it is too bad we cannot agree on it now. i appreciate the opportunity to be here. i would love to stay for the rest of your hearing, but i will talk to you later. >> i have a feeling you will be able to overcome your sorrow of not being able to be here. mostote the statement often heard, of course i will

read your statement for the record afterwards. thank you. senator durbin. >> as chairman of the subcommittee of the senate judiciary on constitutional amendments, i have had a personal point of view on this for a long time when it comes to the nature of amendments being altered. i think the constitution is written with the amendments that have been adopted, it constitutes a sacred document that has guided this country well for decades and centuries. too often i have seen proposals for constitutional amendments which take a roller to a rembrandt. intoe resisted efforts cosponsoring amendments. this is an exception. i am cosponsoring this amendment . the time has come for us to do democracyto save this

and the political process that supports it. secondly, there is hardly a politician elected official changed his not over position on an issue. that happens. can recall when abraham lincoln was criticized for changing his position on an issue and he's it i would rather said i wouldnd he rather be right some of the time than wrong all of the time. taking, the change that has taken laced with the republican party in the united states senate on this issue. leader, the senate later, -- senate

this would give congress an opportunity to level the playing field, to eliminate the millionaire's loophole, put everyone in the same footing so that anyone in american society who can get support could still money, use the television, get into the race and build the contest. the fellow who inherited it or could go out and get it could not use his personal money to buy political office. he would have to get the same broad-based support the rest of us must do. that is a problem we can cure immediately. that is what senator mcconnell said about his constitutional amendment offered in 1987, which parallels the amendment before the committee today. time passed. by 2002, the story was different. we were debating mccain-feingold. the elimination of soft money in

the campaign process. taken by position was the senator from kentucky and many on his side, we want full disclosure. we want to know who is contributing the money. the american people have a right to know. that was the mantra for a long time. i just asked whether any republicans supported our effort when we introduced the disclosed bill. our best memory is no. they do not support disclosure. here we are today. many of us had hoped that fair financing a public bill, which i introduced seven years ago and keep reintroducing, might have a chance. with the citizens united decision, that is not likely. when you look at the reality of what we are facing, spending by outside groups and campaigns has tripled. in 2010.ion

97.7 million so far this year. spent $3.5ese groups million. in 2012, superpacs spent more than 100 $30 million on federal elections. 60% of all superpac donations came from an elite class of 159 americans. 60%americans accounted for going money for superpacs into these campaigns. in north carolina, a group had one member. 72% of all outside spending in 2010 came from a millionaire named are. -- art pope. governor'sed the campaign and supported the super majority that recently enacted voterst strict

suppression law in america. we need to do this to say the political process in america. what is at stake is going to discourage mere mortals from engaging in this process. when you are up against multimillionaires from the start with unlimited contributions through citizens united, you will lose the appetite for the contest. we cannot let that happen. >> senator durbin, i thank you. i know at some point you are going to take over the gavel for senator cruz. we have a statement for the record. it will be made art of the record. senator cruz. -- it will be made part of the record. senator cruz. founded,ur country was we crafted a constitution that would serve as chains to bind

the mischief of government. there has never been more mischief then there is right now. the bill of rights, the first 10 amendments to the constitution are precious to every american. the bill of rights begins with the first amendment. congress has not dared to mess with the bill of rights for two centuries. today, ifment here , would repeal the free speech protections of the first amendment. hearcitizens here that -- that, they gasp. from the as we are abuse of power from government, citizens are astonished congress would support repealing the first amendment.

let's be clear. this amendment does not just do it for corporation or billionaires. nothing in this amendment is limited to corporations or billionaires. absolutegive congress authority to regulate the political speech of every single american. no limitations, whatsoever. this amendment is about power and it is about politicians silencing the citizens. chairman, when did elected democrats abandon the bill of rights? where did the liberals go? in 1997, when a similar amendment was introduced, here is what ted entity said. in the entire history of the constitution, we have never

amended the bill of rights. it would be wrong to carve an exception to the first amendment. finance reform is a serious problem, but it does not require we twist the meaning of the const touché. here is what russ feingold said. this countryion of was not a rough draft. we must stop treating it as such. -- itthe that rock up the is the bed rock of the bill of rights. if this amendment passes, congress can say you, the citizen, are no longer citizens. you are subjects. the firstpealed amendment and taken away your ability to speak. senator feingold said the following about a similar amendment. this constitutional amendment would change the scope of the first amendment. i find nothing more sacred and

treasured than the first amendment. it is the bedrock of the bill of rights. every the notion that citizen has a fundamental right to disagree with his or her government. i want to leave the first amendment undisturbed. i agree with ted kennedy and russ feingold. where are the liberals today? why is there not a liberal standing here at the ending -- standing here defending the bill of rights and the first amendment. democrats have signed their name to a constitutional amendment that would give congress the power to muzzle planned parenthood and the national right to life. 42 democrats have signed to right to muzzle the national rifle association. moore.le michael to muzzle the national education

association, to muzzle the and the lace he -- to muzzle the naacp. to muzzle priests and rabbis. i am introducing two bills to further protect the free speech rights of individuals. i will be discussing those later in this hearing. adopted,dment, if would give congress the power to ban books and to ban movies. citizens united was about finding a moviemaker who made a movie critical of hillary clinton. would be astonished because we are seeing fahrenheit 451 democrats today. the american people should be angry about this. the senators who put their name to the should be embarrassed

that they have signed up for repealing the free speech amendment, the first amendment. thank you. have beenatements completed. i wonder if senator mckissick and mr. abrams could join us at the appropriate places on the table. please remove the man holding up a sign contrary to the rulings of the chair.

as the committee knows, i do not take a petition one way or another. we are having a hearing. i want people who are for or against it to be here. i do not want people blocking the views of others. do have plenty of time to that outside. .et's hear from the witnesses the first witness is floyd mckissick. he served in the north carolina state senate since 2007. he is the deputy minority leader as well as -- four mckissick and mckissick.

mckissick and mckissick. i apologize for the voice. it is allergies. i also note that your son is in the audience. i note that for when someone is searching through the mckissick archives, they see that. >> thank you. it is a privilege to be here. i want to thank you for the opportunity to testify. i am a longtime resident of north carolina. serving inhonor of north carolina where i represent their own and granville county. durhamere i represent and granville counties. i entered politics for the same reason many of you did. sought ways that north carolina's government could work

more effectively. in 2010, americans for prosperity, a group funded by spent moneythers, in north carolina. a new organization sprang up called real jobs north carolina spent almost $4.5 million. overall, three quarters of all of the outside money in state races that money were tied to one man, art pope. they poured money into 22 targeted races. backed onetes they in 18 of those races. in 2012, 8.1 million dollars flooded into the governor's race. a large portion of that money was tied into pope.

surprise, surprise art pope is our state budget director. kennedy wrote in citizens united, he said limit us outside spending does not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption. try telling that to anyone who saw how the -- in north carolina. there are winners and losers in every budget. in the budget he produced, it is undeniable mr. pope one digg. -- won big. tens of thousands of people lost unemployment benefits. public education funding was cut back. low income people were refused access to medicaid we had already paid for. while millionaires got a tax break, some families got a tax hike.

money flooded into our election, we saw those comorbid twoges that could -- we saw more big changes. a month after the supreme court gutted the voters rights act, the past one of the most restrictive voter laws in the country. the ability of teenagers to preregister to vote before their 18th birthday and illuminated same-day voter registration. eliminated same-day voter registration. brothersand hthe koch paid to roll back civil rights advances. a got easier for rich people to pour money into elections.

toors got new opportunities write bigger checks to candidates and they got more ways to avoid any kind of disclosures in any public financing system. foruding one that provided clean judicial races. that was painful to me because i watched one of our supreme court justices, robin hudson, attacked in the most despicable way. more than $650,000 came from a washington-based organization trying to protect the anti-voter laws that were pushed through to legislature. i cannot think of a more vicious cycle than taking a little more power from the voters and handing it to the big spenders. once big money got into our elections, that is what happened. public service is a calling. we are called to use our gifts to create laws and to administer our cities, states, and nations. the supremeted in

court decision that have occurred have made this a mockery. it does not look like democracy. a mocker see is when the government represents the people. it seems that money and big donors pull the strings. i urge you support senate joint resolution 19. >> thank you. the next one is mr. floyd abrams. not a stranger to this committee over the years. please go ahead. i appreciate your invitation to be here today. the description of the constitutional amendment that is before you today states it

relates to the contributions and expenditures intended to affect elections. that is one way to say it. i think it would have been more revealing to say it actually relates to speech intended to affect elections. i think it would be more accurate to say that it relates to limiting speech intended to affect elections. that is the core problem with it. it is intended to limit speech about elections and it will do just that. to start at the beginning, this has been said before. it is worth repeating. no ruling providing first amendment protection has ever been reversed by a constitutional amendment. no ruling by the supreme court. no speech that the supreme court has concluded.

think of what we protected under the first amendment. chief justice roberts observes that money and politics may be repugnant to some, but so too does most of what the first amendment vigorously protects. if the first amendment protects not see parades, despite the profound offense that such spectacles cause, it surely protects political campaign speech, despite popular opposition. the proposed amendment before you deals with nothing except political campaign speech. with money that is spent for any other purpose other than persuading people who to vote for or against. speech, it would limit at the heart of the first

amendment. the fact that the investment is proposed in the name of equality makes it no less running. withupreme court observed, particular -- in the buckley , stalwart defenders of the first amendment, that the concept that government may -- mayt some elements restrict the speech of some elements of our society in order of others the voice is wholly foreign to the first amendment. it is that view which is at the core of this amendment. that would reverse the buckley case as well as citizens united. this amendment is not a citizens united admin and -- amendment.

it goes back to the 1970's and would reverse buckley's ruling. the title of the proposed amendment goes even farther. it says it would restore democracy to the american people. i am willing to pass over in , rhetorical overkill about what democracy means, but the notion that democracy would be restored, saved by limiting speech is a perversion of the english language. it is inconsistent with any notion of democracy to say the way to accomplish it is to limit speech. let me say in the most direct manner that it is equally, profoundly, obviously, --emocratic to a limit -- lm to limit speech.

those who hold office in federal and state legislatures, armed with all of the advantages of incumbency may prevent their opponents from becoming known as a result of spending money to put ads on, describing who they are. i conclude with this thought. it is not a coincidence that until today, the first amendment has never been amended. that not a: students decision of the supreme court confirming first amendment rights has never been overruled. emotions have run high before about decisions of the courts, which provided higher levels of liberty than members of this body thought were appropriate. self-restraint won the day. i urge that self-restraint windy day today. >> the next witness is jamie raskin. he teaches constitutional law

and legislation at washington college of law in washington, d.c. senator inves as a the maryland state legislature. mr. raskin, welcome. >> thank you very much. we built a wall brick by brick over a century to separate the craddick money from them credit politics. starting with the 1907 band on corporate contributions, which still stands, we have worked to --. four years ago, citizens united

bulldozed a major block of the wall. the one that kept trillions of dollars in corporate wealth from flowing into our campaigns. justices shut down the public financing programs that use matching funds to amplify the voices of poor candidates competing to be heard. the majority treated additional campaign speech as a first amendment industry. it provides more voices, wider discussion and greater competition. this year, the same five took a sledgehammer to aggregate --. five decisions, the wall between democracy and plutocracy is crumbling.

they are at odds with the dogma of five justices. money is speech and corporations are people. , you havey corruption to find a bride. this will enable us to protect ic politics. we need to revive government where all voices can be heard. in economics, we need to strengthen his misses that practice free-market competition and pull the plug on rent --.ing adam smith would tell us that

laissez isn't fair. i think thomas jefferson would have said the more speech, the better. the sage of omaha cello never equated operations with citizens. he warned future generations not to him play -- embrace aristocracy. this nightmare vision sounds like a citizens united aero. the majority of americans are appalled. voters in colorado and montana voted to call for this amendment. favor limitsople on campaign money. this amendment protects our power to set such limits. billionaires will always have

greater resources, but it is shores the rich will inhabit the nurses,ity as businesses, and small people. it is one thing to tell that theass citizens scale is 50-1. a regime like that fits plutocracy, not democracy. i think the amendment should empower the people to wall off campaigns from corporate treasury wealth area and -- corporate treasury wealth. citizens united does not increase the rights of citizens to express views. all it did was confirm our on writeo write tracks -- to checks without a vote of the shareholders and without notice to the shareholders. it has nothing to do with free speech of the people. it has everything to do with increasing the power of the ceos

over the people. pretty soon, people will no longer govern corporations. at times like this, when the court has undermined democracy, we have amended the constitution. we did it with the disenfranchisement of women. the bill of rights has strengthened the self-government. it has expanded the political rights of the people. do not be intimidated. the people are with you. >> thank you. let me begin and then i will turn the gavel over to senator durbin. senator mckissick, the story of our constitution has been one of progressive inclusion. fathers believed

only white land owners should be allowed to participate in elections. each generation of americans has expanded the promise of our more perfect union. we have amended the constitution many times. the 14th and 15th amendments, for example. they transform the constitution, guaranteed equal protection of law. they prohibited the right to vote on the basis of race. the 17th amendment gave right to elect senators of their choosing. --re was a concern that core corporations were corrupting state legislature. they would elect senators to be home to those corporations. we continue with the 19th amendment. .he civil rights act the 26th amendment extension of

the vote to young people. i mentioned those because they path ofgress on the inclusion. they make our country more representative. i have heard the supreme court decisions reverse that course. do you believe the money put into the state races in the wake of citizens united has led to a more representative state government in north carolina? it has not led to more representative governor in north carolina at all. the will of the people is not being heard. i think that is represented by the moral monday demonstrations.

it started out with 500 people coming out every monday when we can our session, protesting these policies that have been implemented. they grew to masses of 7500 people. there were close to a thousand people arrested. they were absolutely opposed to the policies and legislation's coming out of raleigh. these were actions that not only impacted voter rights for individuals. if you would have pulled people about the voter suppression laws and asked if they like the early vote period, we have eliminated one week of that. we had over 700,000 people vote that first week. had same-day voter registration. there were people getting able to preregister when they were 17 so they could vote at 18 years old. if theysk the majority

like the early vote period and the right to exercise their constitutional privilege in a more expansive way, the answer .ould be, resoundingly, yes i hear in paid ads and others , and i guess some of the billionaires are going to profit by this paid for that. you are a scholar. if this amendment were to be ratified, would it repeal the first amendment? >> of course not. united case did not endow a single individual with any right to speak that he or

she did not already have. corporation,the the members of the board, they could spend what they wanted of their own money. citizens united said the ceo could take the court her checkbook and write checks to put into politics. could have spent his own money. we have converted every corporate treasury in the country to a potential slush fund. sense, mr. abrams raises the question about buckley versus valeo. there is a very important supreme court decision called ward versus rock against racism. rock against racism would put on concerts in central park, but they wanted to crank it all the way up. thepreschool could not me,

yoga class could not meet, other exercises.d not do they were told they had to turn it down. that iseme court said right because you do not have the right to drown out everyone else's speech. if you understand that, you would understand north carolina. thecourage everyone to read filings and montana. they describe a history of massive corporate corruption outside the state to take over their democracy. the ban on corporate spending was an attempt of the people of montana to govern themselves. this is about self-government. questions, buter i want to keep the time limits. my time is up. i yield to senator grassley. >> before i ask my first to correct want

something that often shows up in the press. one of my colleagues has said the same thing today. said -- theted comment was made that citizens united opened the door to millions of dollars in contributions. only,hey dealt with, and with expenditures and has no effect on campaign contributions. a front-page article of "the washington post" says political nonprofit groups have become major players in elections since the 2010 citizens united decision paved the way for unlimited political spending by corporations and unions. political nonprofit groups have been active in campaigns for at least 10 years, long before

citizens united was decided. thinking this point made in "the washington post" article is incorrect? >> i would say that i do not think it is correct to say that these groups are playing an enormously greater role than they used to. they have been around for a while. there is nothing wrong with them laying a greater role -- playing a greater role. the underlying thesis of critics of this is that -- you have heard it a lot today -- outside money is that money. it is money that should not be around, should not be allowed and i reject that and the supreme court has rejected that. on the specific issue of nonprofits. nonprofits do not have to

,ublicly report their spending except in certain areas. it is hard to know exactly how much more involvement that they have had. only a small percentage, this we do know, the $7 billion spent in the 2012 election came from nonprofit groups or other resources. there are organizations -- again, there are organizations in washington that want to limit the role or influence the money in politics. is that goal consistent with the first amendment? >> i think what they are saying is they want to limit the speech that money allows. that there complain is going to be more of this and more is that, or that the speech will contain falsehoods or that politicians or others will be accused in ways that they find

uncongenial, what they are really saying is that the money is doing bad things. core,s, at its inconsistent with the first amendment. the first amendment a verse speech -- favors speech. it favors speech from diverse sources. it rejects the notion that speech can be constrained or limited because one person has more than another person. that -- that all comes with the first amendment. a denunciation of money in is a denunciation of politics itself and of the public debate that we have in politics. >> my next question deals with a point you made in your opening remarks. you ant only to give

opportunity to emphasize what i think is an important point. supporters of the proposed amendment think it is needed to prevent wealthy donors from drowning out ordinary citizens and to restore democracy. can you elaborate how this is at odds with the protection of free speech? >> when somebody says that my speech will drown out someone else's speech and i should say it is the functional equivalent of telling a to haver, you ought fewer editorials, you should not spend your space denouncing one candidate for office. it is not fair. you have too much power. i grew up in a time where were running against a one-party press. every newspaper was republican. just about everyone, in those days. no one would have thought that the answer to the so-called

one-party press was saying the press cannot print something or that they are printing too much or they are drowning out the opposition. that comes on the menu of the first amendment. that menu includes as much speech as one wants. >> i would like to address my first comment and question to professor raskin. we invited john paul stevens to testify before the senate rules committee, which was an exceptional opportunity to hear his thinking. he raised interesting questions about this issue. money is used to finance speech, money is not speech. only one activity financed by campaign contributions and expenditures.

those activities should not receive the same protections as speech itself. campaign funds were used to fund the watergate burglaries. closing, he proffered a sample of a constitutional amendment. he made an observation we ought to consider, even those of us who support senate joint resolution 19. he suggested we should include we ared reasonable when talking about limitations on campaign spending. to include these word reasonable to ensure legislatures do not prescribe limits so low that incumbents do not have an unfair advantage or interfere with the freedom of the press." beyou think reasonable would

--. reasonableness applies to all of the constitutional amendments. you can find dozens of courses -- i would take care of the problem by inserting the word. speech is aualing critical point for people to understand. there are forms of purchase and exchange that we criminalized. sex, we don't say if someone wants to buy the surfaces of a prostitute it is a violation of their freedom of speech. even mr. abrams and the people on the other side take the position that laws against bribery are. it is not clear why. i feel strongly about an issue and i want to give you money to go my way, why should you not be

able to accept it? it is because we believe within the governmental process and electoral process, there are right reasons to make decisions and there are wrong reasons. a wrong reason is the money that you're going to put in your pocket or huge amounts of money you will put into your campaign, or lots of spending to take place. why can't we take into account the social context of money? money is not speech. it is property. speech has verbs and adjectives and nouns. it is what the philosophers call a category error to mix them up. are trying to protect themselves by arguing against citizens united. we offer a greater opportunity for challengers than experience suggests that they currently experience -- that they currently have under the law.

senator mckissick, one thing that has been raised -- we have been chided, saying we are not being good liberals by not expanding this area -- by not expanding this. to north carolina, it appears that mr. pope was responsible for 72% of all outside spending in your state in the year 2010. an open process in north carolina, it turned out wherean elite situation his wealth gave him more power than the average person living in north carolina to express his political will. could you comment on what has happened to the north carolina political process because of this favoritism towards the elite? his think as a result of

capacity to give millions and millions of dollars, he basically tainted the whole election process. disproportional to the number of people who share his beliefs. when it comes to the political process, as we have seen it today, there are many people who feel as if they have been disenfranchised. and as a result of legislation, there will be new ambulatory standards applied to abortion clinics. 16 abortion clinics, all were closed except for one. they have purged people from boards and commissions that have been previously appointed by prior governors and members of --. all of their terms were shortened. public education, there was legislation that was passed that eliminated teacher tenure. it was challenging the court and

found unconstitutional. no limitation to the number of kids in the things that are putting north carolina behind. unemployment compensation. we are now giving people 26 weeks. -- we are the only state in america that restrict long-term benefits to people who were eligible for it. a lot of things that happen in our state that the vast majority have told would not agree, but they have been implemented as a result of the amazing level and financial capacity of our