to stop the allied advance. the rangers looked up and saw the enemy soldiers shooting down at them with machine guns and throwing grenades. and the american rangers began to climb. watch this year's commemoration for the world war ii memorial in washington. that is followed by greg simons who will discuss his new book, "neptune." he will take your questions and comments live. at 1:30 p.m., and look back to presidential speeches commemorating the day. all on saturday on c-span3. republicans introduced legislation to try to address long wait lists. at be a medical centers the legislation is sponsored by senators john mccain, jeff flake, and tom coburn.

was richard burr. >> good afternoon. i am joined by senator burr of north carolina, senator coburn of oklahoma and my colleague from arizona, senator flake. we are all very aware of the ongoing scandal that has presets our treatment of men and women who served in the military. this scandal has reached proportions where the american people are deeply angered and are demanding we make changes to fix this problem. there are even charges that in our home state of arizona 40 people died while awaiting care. i don't know of an issue more serious than this as to how we treat those who have been willing to go out and serve and

sacrifice on behalf of their nation. i especially want to thank my colleagues on the veterans affairs committee. i would like to thank dr. coburn, who understands and has been involved in this issue of veterans administration for many many years. and my colleague, who has taken a lead role in trying to address this terrible and almost tragedy that has inflicted. a bill will give eligible veterans greater flexibility with choosing their medical care and increased accountability and transparency within the v.a.. the bill would accomplish these goals by the following, it would

empower veterans who cannot schedule an appointment within a reasonable time or live too far away from the v.a. medical facility, to exercise the choice, i emphasize the choice of getting medical care from any doctor or tri-care program. i always believed veterans could and should choose. that's where i first proposed in 2008 when i ran for president. give these veterans a choice card so they can take it and present it to the health care provider. prohibit scheduling or goals that can be used as factors in determining performance awards or bonuses. require the secretary of the veterans administration to establish policies that outlines penalties and employee would be subjected to if he or she falsifies data, including civil

penalties, suspension, or termination. empower the secretary of the veterans administration to remove any top executive if the secretary of defense determines that his or her performance warrants removal. the secretary will certify and notify congress so the removal and reason of the removal. this will sunset after two years and require the inspector general to audit it every two years. this legislation addresses root causes of current scandal and empowers veterans with greater flexibility to get the quality medical care that he or she deserves. the inspector general reported 1700 veterans who were awaiting primary care appointments in the va hospital in phoenix arizona

were not placed on the electronic waiting list. as the ig report stated, "most importantly, these veterans continue to be at risk of being forgotten or lost in phoenix's convoluted scheduling process. as i mentioned earlier from the inspector general is now investigating 42 v.a. facilities across the united states and the inspector general has identified instances of manipulation of the data that distorts the legitimacy of reported waiting times. this legislation squarely address the root causes of the tragic circumstances that bring us here today. >> a few things to add to it. john mentioned phoenix. when the phoenix investigation began we had already had 12 reports from either the ig, the office of special counsel or

medical investigations, pointed to exactly the same things that came out in the interim reports. since 2010 senior leadership ignored any attempts to make any changes or address any of the problems that all of these investigations raise. that is why we are here. this bill is very targeted, is focused specifically on fixing a short-term problem, which is how we get veterans the care they deserve. and how do we allow the v.a. leadership to make the systemic changes they need to make address by the inspector general. some on capitol hill claim this is all about money. let me remind you that since 2010 in the health care account alone the v.a. has carried over $4.6 billion and has estimated to carry over another $450

million. these are appropriated dollars that are not needed for the delivery of health care to our nation's veterans. it has been no investigation saying there was a shortage of the investigations pointed to things like double scheduling, veterans who left off the role or request things that were changed. they leave us in an unknown situation. what does this bill to echo it is choice, transparency, and change. it is not encompassing everything congress would like to pass as it relates to v.a. legislation but it addresses the urgent things needed right now. i am proud to announce that as

of this press that as of this conference concerned veterans of america have publicly supported this bill. we hope there will be more organizations before we mark this bill up. >> i never served in the military. like many of you i have the benefits of living in a great country because people put on that uniform and served for me. to me it would seem that if you are a combat veteran of this country you ought to be first in line, not last in line. your access ought to be cared -- ought to be guaranteed, not for nominal care but for the best care. to equal the commitments. this bill is a focused bill. it is about maintaining the v.a. and making it better.

it is also about honoring the sacrifice of the veterans who served this country. when they have the need to get it addressed, not to be a manipulated number, but to have access to the care that not only they need but they deserve more than any of us. i am proud of the work we have done. a little tidbit of information, the average practitioner sees half the number of patients that the average practitioner outside the hospital sees. that was in family medicine published two years ago. it is not about the number of doctors. it is about actually working and getting the job done.

we have some great physicians in the v.a. system. this bill is about addressing those problems. >> i will be very brief. if you can imagine being a veteran in arizona and waiting an average of 115 days for an appointment, you can imagine living in a hometown and having to get into a van and travel three hours just for a routine craft. if this legislation passes it will no longer be the case. veterans will be guaranteed. wait time is longer than it should be. you will be a will to see someone else. that is what we have to do to fix the system. >> thank you. i'm told that if you read the v.a. regulation right now, veterans waiting longer than 30

days can already access a private document. can you describe some of the mechanics of how your choice would differ from existing methods in place now. you are on veteran affairs, can you address what senator mccain -- can you address what happens to the funding of the 27 community clinics? >> first of all, that is up to the discretion of the v.a., this ability to get care or not. most times they do not get that. second of all we want to make this mandatory and we also want to make it with a certain geographic situation. they may be eligible in some instances but it is not happening. this legislation would make it happen. >> it empowers the veteran to

make the decision reliant on it -- reliant on a bureaucrat to determine they want to outline the v.a. facility. that is the way they are structured within the v.a. i take it you are talking about the veteran initiative pre-and we are very supportive of that. i won't tell you in an amendment process they wouldn't be part of this bill. it is very pertinent. they keep this bill focused on issues they thought addressed days biggest challenge. as a committee and republicans, we are very supportive of the expansion. >> in terms of funding, how would you go about paying for them? >> there are $4 billion that haven't been spent in the last five years.

there is $480 million that isn't going to be spent this year. money is not the problem of the veterans administration. it is management and accountability. and honesty in treating veterans and giving them what we need. i don't expect it to be a significant problem. it is a two-year bill. the sunsets after two years. there is plenty of money in the v.a. organization today to handle this. >> other any efforts to pay for this? >> it's paid for already. we have a problem in the v.a. system. they are not spending the money. that is management competency level issue. where is the competency? i remind you we have for v.a.

hospitals under construction that are $1 trillion over budget. $500 million over budget in denver alone. it is called competency. we have to demand accountability. >> you can see why i recommend strongly that dr. coburn be the next secretary of veterans affairs. >> and were lobbying for john mccain to be jay carney's replacement. the administration has testified every year in front of the committee. what i don't want people to walk away from and think the v.a. is all about health care. 50% is about benefits. the vba side is as broken as the a side. the health care pieces about 43% of the v.a. budget. the other 7% is scattered

through education and job training and other programs. health care is exactly what it sounds like. it is also the homelessness programs that are run through the v.a.. >> what is your plan for trying to get action on this in a senate that has a majority of democrats? what democrats are you talking to? is there a standard? >> we have all spoken to a number of democrats. they are very interested in joining with us in an effort to get legislation accomplished. i can't specifically state their positions. i know this. we are eager to sit down with our democratic colleagues and get this bill to the floor. i believe through the amendment process and through debate is vital. there are a lot of good ideas

out there. this is our blueprint and we are proud of it. we are listening to debate and amendments. if harry reid will agree to that i believe we could get a veterans choice act through this congress in a week. >> senator rubio has 10 democratic sponsors to the accountability act. that may be a tougher swallow for some of the democrats than the choice act. >> why would that be tougher? >> simply because it changes employment rules. i think democrats have always been suspect of it. i think what we see is broad-based support, not just outside of congress but inside congress to empower our veterans, to make choices as it relates to their health care. >> just one thing on this, is there an issue morally more important than meeting the needs of our veterans in this country?

the foundation of having other people serve depends on how well we take care of those that have. is if we can't get the leadership to come together and fix what is really want -- really wrong, not a christmas tree bill but a problem-solving bill, then shame on the u.s. congress. thank you. >> are you saying because there is all this money in the house unspent that some of that money could be used? >> it could. i would first ask you to go and look at how many patients at procedures -- the average operating room at the va hospital does 60% of what the

average operating room is doing around the country. they work at half the rate. do we need more working at half the rate or do we need the ones that are there working at the rate the rest of the countries working at? i don't think there's a problem. >> one of the things he do under transparency is we require the v.a. to supply to health and human services the same data set that non-v.a. hospitals report to patient quality and institutional quality. it will begin to give us the data we need to make assessments as to whether understaffing is a problem. is important that as we talk about other additions to the v.a. that whether it is in personnel or in other changes that we actually wait for the inspector general to come out with a full report. i believe if you are going to address changes in a -- in 150 institutions, we're probably

going to need an independent audit for those facilities. i think with the ig is finding is there so systemic things. there is a process of the v.a. facility. it is vital that we figure out how to get a handle on differences. >> let me give you a vignette. they got put on administrative leave for using residents to clean and operating room. is that where we want to send them?

should they get the greatest care? i think they should be in front of me and every member of my family when it comes to care. >> somewhere in the back of this old mind of mine -- [inaudible] because there were problems with the v.a. health care system back then, talk of closing them the v.a. hospitals and letting veterans go to the private sector where they would presumably get better treatment. why not just scratch the whole system? >> several reasons, but one reason of great importance is there are certain areas which only the v.a. has the talent and expertise.

traumatic brain injury, spinal cord problems, ptsd, prostheses. there are a number of areas that really the v.a. is the place. i am afraid if you did away with a lot of that, then, obviously, we would lose that ability to treat our veterans, particularly the war-wounded. though with this proposal, the veteran wants to go to a health care provider and he has medicare or a tri-care, that veteran can choose that. i would argue that there are many health care providers that are as good or better in other areas. in other words, the veterans should have the choice of where he or she can get the best treatment. that is what this is all about. this is limited. limited geographically. we are not trying to undermine the v.a. we're trying to improve the v.a., but we're also trying to

improve access at the same time. >> i want to ask about the extra hiring of doctors and nurses -- [inaudible] >> we are here to talk about what we think is a very targeted solution to a real problem that the ig and a bunch of other investigations have shown. >> there is a shortage of positions in this country, and it is going to get worse. we are releasing a report on physician training and supplementation by the federal government and what is going to happen. the v.a. is going to have to compete, whether there is more money or not. the problem right now is not physicians. the problem is the work rate on average in the v.a. in the case of --

>> in the case of sergeant bergdahl, this agreement in my view puts future men and women who are serving in the military at great risk. these individuals were judged in guantánamo frequently that if they were released, it would cause a great risk to the men and women who are serving in the battlefield. these individuals, as senator graham calls them the fab five, i believe, these individuals will be able to move around qatar, and after one year, according to the qatar spokesman, they will be able to go back to afghanistan. 30% of those who have left guantánamo have already reentered the fight. this is the hardest and toughest of all, wanted war criminals. one of them supposedly guilty of

murdering thousands of shiite muslims while he was in charge outside of kandahar, i believe. so this decision to bring sergeant bergdahl home, and we applaud that he is home, is ill founded. it is a mistake. and it is putting the lives of american servicemen and women at risk, and that, to me, is unacceptable to the american people. >> these were taliban leaders -- >> no, they were al qaeda. remember, there is al qaeda, too. >> [inaudible] >> they were associated with an part of the taliban. i am sure you are aware that in 2001, the taliban and al qaeda were working together, which is the reason why we went there. these individuals were working with al qaeda.

>> [inaudible] they were held in guantánamo. >> these people dedicated their lives to destroying us. they have dedicated their very existence -- why do you think when a judgment is made that if they release them, they would pose great risk to the united states of america? they are taliban and al qaeda. don't you understand that? you are an old man, like you said, so you might remember that in 2001, al qaeda -- al qaeda found a haven with the taliban. that is why we initially invaded afghanistan. to somehow separate these people from al qaeda is just damn foolishness. >> i understand your problem with giving up the five taliban members. that is very clear. i still cannot get my head

around applauding -- [inaudible] >> i think the deal should not have been made, as i have said many times. but i would make every effort to continue to make every effort to bring him home. thank you. >> first lady michelle obama will talk about new efforts to reduce veteran homelessness. she will be joined by housing secretary shaun donovan and sloan gibson. live coverage of our afternoon at 1:30 p.m. eastern. the mississippi race for the gop nomination for u.s. senate is a nailbiter. right now, t parker challenger

chris mcdaniel is leading the thad cochran by only about 1500 votes. with 96.9% of the precincts reporting, the leading candidate has reached 50% of the vote which could require a do over. mississippi state ball requires the primary leader to gain at least 50% of the vote to win the nomination outright. book includesw financial journalist michael lewis. >> we are living through a very dramatic period. real structural problems. yes, we are going to be living -- i am not an economic forecaster. everything i read suggests we will be leaving in an unusual high level of unemployment, a lot of pain from over indebtedne ss.

a quarter of the country is now on food stamps. it is not a great depression. we are not reprising exactly what happened in the 1930's but it is a version of that. >> read more in other featured interviews in sundays at eight. now available for father's day gift at your favorite bookseller. >> the senate judiciary committee is considering a constitutional amendment in response to the supreme court's recent campaign-finance decision. the court ruled that placing limits on individual contributions during election cycles is an unconstitutional violation of the first amendment free-speech rights. the committee hears from the senate majority leader harry reid and minority leader mitch mcconnell.

>> before i start, i am joined in this by senator grassley at tod. today's hearing deals with a serious issue and a mind to let -- i am delighted to see many members of the public who are interested who are here. that beganractice with the judiciary committee, we live. these hearings i expect all members of the public to understand this is a serious matter and to act accordingly. prohibit of the senate outbursts, clapping, demonstrations of any kind, including those for or against positions i might take or any other senator might take or , includinght take the democratic leader and republican leader.

you are prohibited from blocking the view of people around you which means if you hold up signs that block people's views, i will have to ask the capitol police to remove you. whether the signs are favorable or not. a lot of people stood in line a long time. everybody deserves the courtesy of being watched. i and her stand. -- understand. there we plenty of room outside eitherple to demonstrate for or against or to do whatever they want to get press. i don't want to stop them from doing that, but there will be a press corps outside.

i find those who can be the most imaginative whether they are in the minority or majority usually end up getting in the paper. god bless them. the senate judiciary committee begins its consideration with constitutional amendments to repair the damage done by a series of laws. supreme court decisions to overturn long-standing presidents of the court. an eviscerated campaign-finance laws. i believe these rulings will continue to roll fundamental aspects of art process. the congress and the american people have to act. years ago, congress passed conduct -- -- campaign finance laws to preserve the electoral process. and to limit the undoing of the realm the us persons in our election.

these were passed by large majorities in the senate. five justices have now repeatedly overturned of these commonsense and time-honored protections. the supreme court is open the floodgates of billionaires who citizens united threatened to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the nation. i've heard from countless promoters by by the supremes court decision threatened the rights of hard-working americans to one of the voices heard.

it would like to know who asked -- who is behind the ads for or thenst a particular person american people continue to voice their support. more than 2 million in signed for a constitutional amendment against thek supreme court's decision regarding money and politics. those petitions have been brought to our hearing room today. there are tangible reminders that americans are calling on congress to act. it is vital.

the supreme court says corporations are people but we're not going to predict any general election president. the parameters view the rights of corporations as central to .ur electoral process i've served in the senate for nearly 40 years. i have long been wary of the change of constitution is that seen so many hundreds of proposals that i have proposed. our fundamental charter only does the last resort. believe the decisions by the supreme court.

let people know where the money is coming from. arete republicans repeatedly filibustering that legislation known as the disclose act. it would've allowed people to know who was putting the money into the process. i hope we can convince enough of my friends on the other side of the aisle to overcome the filibuster. because the supreme court bases is applied, a statutory principle. i will turn first to senator

grassley. we will hear from both senator reed and senator mcconnell. i want to thank my friends for being here. i think their joint appearance as a first in this committee's history. i can only spoke -- speak for i underscorebut the importance of public discussion we are having today. we may disagree on some issues but they are both friends of mine. i'm glad to have them here. , i cannot think of a more important hearing that our committee can hold after all what is more important than protecting our fellow rights. however, this hearing also shows as clearly as possible the differences between conservatism and progressivism. let's start with first principles. the declaration of independence states that everyone is endowed

by their creator with certain unalienable rights of that governments are created to protect. those pre-existing rights include the right to liberty. the constitution was adopted to secure the blessings of liberty to all americans. 1787, americans rejected the view that the structural limits of government power contained in the original constitution would adequately protect the liberties that they have fought a revolution to preserve they insisted at that time on the adoption of the bill of rights the bill of rights protects individual rights regardless of whether the government or the majority of whose of their use. the first amendment and the bill of rights projects -- protect the freedom of speech. that freedom is basically self government. of the constitution foster equality or justice or representative government. the bill of rights is only about

one thing. individual freedom. free-speech creates a marketplace of ideals in which citizens can learn, debate, and persuade fellow citizens on the issues of the day. it enables the 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 inpatient and will not listen and debate and persuade. instead, they want to punish, intimidate, and silence of those with those they disagree. an executive that opposes same-sex marriage the same position that president obama held at that time is to be fired universities are so supposed to be fostering freedom. government officials or other government officials not to

deviate from the party lines concerning proposed legislation it is cut from the same cloth which a demand the constitution for the first time to diminish an important right that americans have that is contained in the bill of rights it would cut back on the most important of these rights, core free-speech about who should be itcted to govern ourselves would fund is by or in support of candidates. the that would give the government the ability to limit speech the amendment will out the limit at zero there can be no contributions. they could be no election spending. they can be no public debate on who should -- on who should be us wouldncumbents like find that out come to be very acceptable.

they would know that no challenger could run an effective campaign against them racing of speech at low limits would put those similar results. what president with this amendment create. suppose congress passed limits on what amount of money people could 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. if congress limit how much 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. for instance, it could not make it a criminal offense for sierra to 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. we would 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 necessary for democracy. it is outrageous to say that limiting each is necessary for democracy. the only existing right that the 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. there would be no need to amend the constitution cut act on freedom. just as rye or's dissent for 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

political speech is about the public's interest in preserving a democratic order in which collective speech matters. to be sure, individual rights 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 states, our rights come from god and not from the government and the public. consider 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 socially 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 of them in jeopardy upon the 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. i am very impressed with attendance for the day. it is really heartwarming to the everyone caring so much about this issue. members of the 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. the decision of the supreme or left the american people with a status quo where one side's leaners are pitted against the other side's billionaires. we are with a simple choice. keep the status quo and argue all day and are up -- and all night, weekends, 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. -- my perspective. i ran for the senate in 1974. 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. the rules are very strict. there is a limit to how much money they can give you. their address, occupation, and be very careful of any money you take. the president, -- mr. chairman, i have been asking nevadans to vote for me for decades. i have seen firsthand how the dark money is reverting our political system. way back 40 years ago, it was pretty easy to do. follow the rules. i have seen it change. in 1998, i had a close election john and we each spent about $10 million 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 better word. a person could give a lot of money. one person gave a quarter of a 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 and took cooperate money out of politics. when i ran in 2004, 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 from 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 in january had ruled no holds barred. any money could come from any source, with rare exception. that race was, as far as i was concerned, not a lot of fun. 1998. i talk to you about that in 2010, it made 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. now, from 1998 to 2010, i have no idea.

i have an idea, but that race in nevada, probably $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 ads. not knowing anything about these 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

worse and during the 2012 presidential campaign, outside groups spent more than $1 billion and that is a conservative effort. -- estimate. that is about as much money as was spent 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 may 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 to enact laws any person which -- 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 quote, "we have put together a responsible campaign reform agenda that would restrict the power of special interest backs, stop the flow of all money, keep wealthy individuals from buying public office, close out -- office."

that gives you the general idea. at one time, senator mcconnell agreed, without question, with me and most of the people behind me. senator mcconnell had the right idea then. i am hopeful we can rekindle a way to bring forth the noble principles again. i found it hard to fathom when my republican colleagues want to defend the status quo. 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. in fact, he even declares today, in our society's spending is speech.

money equals free speech. american families. they cannot compete with billionaires if free speech is based on how much money you have. my republican colleague's attempt they defend the money pumped into our system by the koch brothers as free speech. mr. president, i define anyone to determine what the koch brothers are spending money on today. they have all 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. the american people reject the notion money gives the koch brothers a greater voice in government than a mechanic, a lawyer, a doctor, a health-care worker, because they believe 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 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. i admire and i congratulate 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. the amendment will rein in the massive spending of super pacs, these secret organizations, which has grown so much since the january 2010 decision of citizens united.

the amendment also gives the states the authority to institute campaign spending limits at state level. simply put, the constitutional amendment is what the nation needs to bring sanity back to political campaigns and restore confidence in elected leaders. the american people want change. they want their voice to be protected. free speech should not cost of the american people a penny, a dying. certainly not a dollar. memos of the committee, i'm happy if you have questions that you want to ask me. i'm happy to do that. otherwise, i would ask your leave and i will leave.

>> following the tradition of 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. >> i want to make sure that my 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 are referring to my time as -- pro tem. senator grassley and i are friends of senator mcconnell and senator reid. we have been for years. i keep my baseball bat in my office. >> you never know when you might need it.

>> please, go ahead, senator mcconnell. >> given how incredibly bad this 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. i am going to confine my remarks 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 extraordinarily special the first amendment is.

the exchange of ideas and the ability to criticize their government is necessary for democracy to survive. benjamin franklin noted "whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by some doing be freeness of speech." attempts to weaken the first amendment, such as the proposal before this committee, should pass the highest scrutiny. resolution 19 falls short of that high bar. it would empower politicians in 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. some are 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. defend your ideas. to paraphrase justice holmes, or 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 benefit itself. a new majority would try to disadvantage the other part of the country. this is at odds with the first amendment.

the last time a proposal like this was considered, in 2001, 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. a similar proposal was disputed in 1997. our colleagues who voted against those proposals were right. i submit that 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. joint resolution 4, back in the 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 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. 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. this is a political exercise and 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. when it comes to free speech, we should not substitute the protection desires of politicians or the protection of all americans. i remember 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. to quote the statement most 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. i have resisted efforts into cosponsoring amendments. this is an exception. i am cosponsoring this amendment. the time has come for us to do something to save this democracy and the political process that supports it. secondly, there is hardly a politician elected official alive who is not changed his over position on an issue. that happens.

i can recall when abraham lincoln was criticized for changing his position on an issue and he said i would rather be right some of the time than wrong all of the time. it is breathtaking, the change that has taken laced with the republican party in the united states senate on this issue. in 1987, the senate leader, the republican senate later, -- 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 raise the 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. then, the position was taken by 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 elections, a public financing 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. 27.6 million in 2010. 97.7 million so far this year. in 2006, these groups spent $3.5 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. 159 americans accounted for 60% of the money for superpacs going into these campaigns. in north carolina, a group had one member. 72% of all outside spending in 2010 came from a millionaire named art pope. he bankrolled the governor's campaign and supported the super majority that recently enacted the most strict voter 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 part of the record. senator cruz. >> when our country was founded, 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. this amendment here today, if adopted, would repeal the free speech protections of the first amendment. when citizens hear that, they gasp. as immune as we are from the 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. it would give congress absolute 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. mr. 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 constitution. here is what russ feingold said. the constitution of this country was not a rough draft. we must stop treating it as such. it 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. we have repealed the first 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. it has the notion that every 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 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 giving the right to muzzle the national rifle association. to muzzle michael moore. to muzzle the national education association, 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. this amendment, if adopted, 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. ray bradbury 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. >> the statements have been 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. 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. you have plenty of time to do that outside. let'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 -- for 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. i have the honor of serving in north carolina where i represent durham and granville counties. i entered politics for the same reason many of you did. i sought ways that north carolina's government could work more effectively. in 2010, americans for prosperity, a group funded by the koch brothers, spent money 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. the candidates they backed one 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. when justice 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 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. after the money flooded into our election, we saw those two 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.

it eliminated the ability of teenagers to preregister to vote before their 18th birthday and illuminated same-day voter registration. -- and eliminated same-day voter registration. art pope and the koch brothers paid to roll back civil rights advances. a got easier for rich people to pour money into elections. donors got new opportunities to write bigger checks to candidates and they got more ways to avoid any kind of disclosures in any public financing system. including one that provided for 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. citizens united in the supreme 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 flagburning and 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. it does not deal with money that is spent for any other purpose other than persuading people who

to vote for or against. as such, it would limit speech at the heart of the first amendment. the fact that the investment is proposed in the name of equality makes it no less running. the supreme court observed, with particular -- in the buckley case, stalwart defenders of the first amendment, that the concept that government may restrict some elements -- may restrict the speech of some elements of our society in order to enhance the voice of others 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 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 silence, 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 undemocratic 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. it is not a: students that no

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. he also serves as a senator in 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 -- from campaigns to finding the arena is a place of equality. 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. five 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 --. after 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. to identify corruption, you have to find a bride.

this will enable us to protect democratic 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 on those who seek subsidies later. 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 monticello never equated operations with citizens.

he warned future generations not to embrace aristocracy. this nightmare vision sounds like a citizens united aero. -- united. -- era. the majority of americans are appalled. 74% of voters in colorado and montana voted to call for this amendment. 79% of the people favor limits 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 same polity as nurses, businesses, and small people. it is one thing to tell middle-class citizens that the 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. citizens united does not increase the rights of citizens to express views. all it did was confirm our on ceos to write 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. our founding fathers believed only white land owners should be allowed to participate in elections. each generation of americans has expanded the promise of our founding -- a 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 americans a right to elect senators of their choosing. there was a concern that corporations were corrupting state legislature. they would elect senators to be home to those corporations. we continue with the 19th amendment. the civil rights act. the 26th amendment extension of the vote to young people. i mentioned those because they mark progress on the path of 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. in 2008, we had over 700,000 people vote that first week. people 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 you ask the majority if they like the early vote period and the right to exercise their constitutional privilege in a more expansive way, the answer would 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. the citizens united case did not endow a single individual with any right to speak that he or she did not already have. employees of the corporation, 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 -- corporate checkbook and write checks to put into politics. that ceo could have spent his own money. we have converted every corporate treasury in the country to a potential slush fund. in a deeper 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. the preschool could not me, the yoga class could not meet, other people could not do exercises. they were told they had to turn it down. the supreme court said that is right because you do not have the right to drown out everyone else's speech. if you understand that, you would understand north carolina.

i encourage everyone to read the 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. >> i have further questions, but i want to keep the time limits. my time is up. i yield to senator grassley. >> before i ask my first question, i want to correct something that often shows up in the press. one of my colleagues has said the same thing today. citizens united said -- the comment was made that citizens

united opened the door to millions of dollars in contributions. what they dealt with, and only, 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. am i right in 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 playing a greater role. the underlying thesis of critics of this is that -- you have heard it a lot today -- outside money is bad 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 publicly 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. when people complain that there 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. that is, at its core, inconsistent with the first amendment. the first amendment 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. amid all of that -- that all comes with the first amendment. a denunciation of money in politics 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. i ask it only to give you an 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 less, it is the functional equivalent of telling a newspaper, you ought to have 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 democrats 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. he said money is used to finance speech, money is not speech. speech is 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. in 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 the word reasonable when we are talking about limitations on campaign spending. " i think it wise to include the 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." do you think reasonable would be --. >> 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.

money not equaling speech is a critical point for people to understand. there are forms of purchase and exchange that we criminalized. buying 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. >> incumbents 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 consistently -- we have been chided, saying we are not being good liberals by not expanding this. when it comes to north carolina,

it appears that mr. pope was responsible for 72% of all outside spending in your state in the year 2010. instead of being an open process in north carolina, it turned out to be an elite situation where 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? >> i think as a result of his capacity to give millions and millions of dollars, he basically tainted the whole election process. he had influence 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.

they have gone 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. 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 classroom, we are 46 in teacher pay in the country.

things that are putting north carolina we are now giving people 26 weeks. we are the only state in america that restricts 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 ability to influence the outcome of 18 critical races. >> senator hatch? >> thank you, mr. chairman.

mr. abrams, i am not the only one to believe you are the leading first amendment lawyer in the country. you're not a member of -- >> that is true, not yet. >> i like the thought. we are very privileged to have you here today and grateful to have the other witnesses as well. mr. abrams, this is not the first amendment that proposes frustrations on speech. this one goes beyond what we have seen in the past. as far as i can tell senate joint resolution 19 is the first one for the purpose of achieving what it calls political equality. under this amendment the constitution could redefine equality and decide whose speech should be suppressed or allowed. isn't this at odds with america's entire history of controlling speech? >> it is.

it gives enormous power to the legislatures, congress, and states to enforce the law. i would assume that the courts would be very deferential to anything that those legislatures did. that being said, while there might be an equal protection or other arguments made, i really believe that an amendment of this breadth would change substantially and in an irrevocable way, except another constitutional amendment, the whole nature of american society as a speech-protecting society. >> another difference is this amendment will give government to control not only money, but also it would cause in-kind equivalents, like the notion of political equality.

this is something completely new. it appears the government will be able -- if this amendment passes -- will be able to define this category, however it wants, and therefore control -- they would be able to control whatever government wants. how far do you think this new dimension of regulation extends, and do you expect -- it would have to be litigation to figure out how it applies? >> no doubt. there would have to be enormous litigation. the reality is -- how shall i say this to members of congress here? -- if you provide a congress or state legislatures with power, they are likely to use it. and they are likely to use it in this area, in a speech-destructive way. that is what this whole thing is about. i understand t a