is protect the guys who are doing fraud. you're supposed to represent us, your audience. not those guys. unfortunately, they totally misunderstand that. funny enough, "viewpoint" with eliot spitzer is next. >> eliot: good evening i'm eliot spitzer and this is "viewpoint." the latest attempt by democrats to stem the flood of secret donations, polluting our political campaigns has gone down to defeat in the senate. twice. once monday and once this afternoon. the disclose act they championed would have simply required nonprofit groups to disclose the names of donors contributing $10,000 or more. business lobbies including the u.s. chamber of commerce fought back claiming disclosing their contributions could expose them to and i quote retaliation against unpopular or unfavorable

political views which also infringes constitutional rights. in other words the rights of corporations to make secret donations to secure influence ranks above the rights of citizens in our democracy to know who's influencing the people they put in office. or in the words of majority leader harry reid before monday's vote -- >> if this flood of outside money continues, the day after the election, 17 angry old white men will wake up and realize they just bought the country. >> eliot: among the 17 senator reed had in mind, all g.o.p. supporters. casino owner sheldon adelson foster frees bob perry and buyout investor harold simmons. their legislative ally mitch mcconnell insisted the act was intended. >> to create the impression of mischief where there is none. and to send a signal to unions that democrats are just as eager to do their legislative bidding

as ever. >> eliot: and yesterday with republicans voting in lock step with the disclose act failed 51-44. senator reid voted no as well to reoffer the bill today. when debate began arizona senator john mccain joined mcconnell and claimed the bill was a gift to the unions but new york senator charles schumer insisted republican objections had been accounted for. >> we tried to make it as narrow as possible. we tried to deal with all of the objections we heard about labor unions and other things. >> eliot: good try chuck but no sale and vermont senator bernie sanders, my guest in a few moments had it right when he described what the act's defeat would mean. >> billionaires say look, it is great that i own an oil company. great that i own a coal company. great that i own gambling casinos. but gee, i could have even more fun by owning the united states government.

>> eliot: gotta love bernie. 53-45 without a single republican vote. barbara boxer to ask the republicans opposition to this common-sense measure begs the question what are they trying to hide? >> for more on the disclose act's defeat, let's go to senator bernie send aers, independent of vermont. senator, thank you for joining us. >> my pleasure. >> eliot: a sad day down in the capitol when an issue the disclose act that goes to the heart of the integrity of our democratic process can't get 60 votes in the senate. what happened? >> well, essentially what happens is republicans know they got a good deal going. they have billionaires who are pouring millions and millions of dollars into candidates for the republican party. it is working for them and they don't want to change it. the truth of the matter is, eliot, the bill before us today the disclose act, was a very, very modest bill. very modest. all that it is said is if you're going to be spending $10,000 or more, you have to have immediate

disclosure. people have got to know who is paying for those ads. i don't think that's too much to ask for and it is a sad day for american democracy not one republican supported that approach. >> eliot: it is hard to see anything other than rank hypocrisy. they pretend, they say over and over we believe in transparency, we want disclosure then as you say, a simple bill that simply says if you spend this much money, tell us who you are and lock, stock and barrel, every one of them votes against it, even john mccain. how can john mccain vote against this? he had been iconic about -- >> he was going on, this is really not fair. it is pro-union and so forth and so on. you're right in saying that throughout the years when we have fought for real campaign finance reform and i believe by the way in public funds of elections. that's where we've got to go in terms of citizens united, no question in my mind we need a

constitutional amendment to overturn citizens united. this is very, very far from that. the point you just made a moment ago is true. over the years, what the republicans have said, we don't want real campaign finance reform. all we need is sunshine. all we need is transparency. all we need is let the people know who are making the contributions. well that's what we did today. we didn't get one republican vote. >> eliot: that's right. this does not repeal citizens united. this does not save people, corporations cannot speak or create a super pac. it merely says let us know who is funding it. a very simple proposition which is unambiguous proper, legal constitutional, yet not a single republican vote. i'm hoping you and others will take to the flohr and say over and over again hypocrites. >> they don't want real campaign finance reform. all they have ever wanted was disclosure and transparency. that's what we gave them today and they said no. look eliot what this is about and what really frightens me is not just a disastrous nature of citizens united. but the whole trend that we are

seeing lately economically, et cetera of moving this country toward a form of government. what you have right now is incredibly unequal distribution of wealth. i just saw a figure. this will amaze people. just came into my office today. the walton family of walmart itself owns more wealth, one family, than the bottom 40% of the american people. >> eliot: that is shocking. >> it is unbelievable. you've got that reality out there. then what's happening now with citizens united is about is these guys are not content to own the economy. to own the wealth of america. they now want to own lock, stock and barrel, the political process as well. they want to be able to make huge campaign contributions without any disclosure. it is a very frightening day for american democracy. >> eliot: i agree. a stake through the heart of the reform movement. what do you do now? obviously you said you

compromise this down to the -- in the hope you can get republican support. that didn't work. what is the next step? >> i think the next step, eliot and i think it is happening is to put these guys on the defensive politically. there have been editorials all over the country attacking republicans for their hypocrisy. there have been, i believe six states now that have gone on record calling for constitutional amendment to overturn citizens united there. have been cities and towns all over america including many in vermont, i believe new york city that has said we need a constitutional america. you go out to anybody of any political persuasion and you say to them, you think american democracy is about one family, ie the koch brothers spending at least $400 million in a campaign to elect their friends and defeat their opponents. vast majority of the american people say no, that's not what american democracy is about. i think we need to wage a strong grassroots movement on this issue. >> eliot: the other angle on this, you are so right on the

substantive effort. i hope you'll lead that crusade. within the senate rules itself, all reform efforts are being killed by the filibuster. is there going to be some renewed effort hopefully when the next senate term begins, to change the filibuster rule so that the majority is not defeated by the nisty of getting to -- the necessity of getting to 60 on every one of these votes. >> i hope so. we have seen a record number of filibusters since obama has been president. virtually every piece of legislation of any significance has been filibustered and clearly that is not what democracy is about. minority rights have got to be protected. you can't trample on the minority in the senate. but on the other hand, minority is not supposed to rule. majority rules. that's what elections are about. >> eliot: that's exactly right. let's hope both on the substantive issue you have been leading the charge on which is disclosure which is so necessary and also filibuster rules. let's hope both can be dealt

with if not before november certainly after january and the some new senate term. senator bernie sanders independent of vermont many thanks for your time. >> thank you. >> eliot: for more on the politics of today's vote and who benefits from the disclose acts defeat, let's go to ken vogel. thanks for joining us. >> great to be with you eliot. >> eliot: simple question, who wins, who loses by this outcome. give us your take on how this plays out in the public arena not just amidst talking heads and those who follow it the way do. how does this play out in public over the next few months? >> certainly, there are polls that show that requiring disclosure of campaign contributions is popular and the amount of money coming into the political process from rich donors, special interests corporations, is unpopular. and so that was the real purpose of this vote was to get republicans on the record opposing additional disclosure and additional steps to regulate the flow of money into politics. and so to that end, it was

successful. however, that's really all it could have accomplished because even if this legislation was passed then passed by the house which would be even more unlikely considering it is controlled by republicans then signed by the president there's no way it would be implemented in time to have any real impact on the amount of money or the types of money or disclosure of the types of money flowing into thes were before 2012. nonetheless, i think there will be an effort by democrats to hang this around republicans' necks headed into the fall election and suggest republicans are the party of this big unlimited special interest and secret money. they rye try that in 2010. if obviously wasn't successful. republicans retook the house. it will be interesting to see whether public distaste has grown to the point where it will be a message that will resonate at the end of vote -- in the voting booth in a way it didn't in 2010. >> eliot: you're framing the issue perfectly. for all of the excitement, the fervor you hear on the democratic side of the aisle in

favor of the disclose act clearly the republicans who voted against it aren't shaking in their boots saying i'm going to be voted out of office because of this. they must have polled and looked at the landscape, shrug of the shoulders, the public will care more about other issues. all of this is inside the beltway chatter. are they wrong in that calulous? is this going to be a repeat of 2010 where the public says a pox on all of you all politics is dirty. we don't like any of you. >> i don't think republicans are wrong if that was their calculation. even if it was their calculation, the extent this could hurt them being seen as voting against additional disclosure or voting against regulation of outside money would be offset by the amount that they could benefit from that outside money flowing into the process helping them by attacking their opponents or boosting them in election ads of the sort we're seeing. potentially record numbers here. >> eliot: one of the arguments against the bill, you heard mitch mcconnell say it over and over, this was a pass for unions. is there any truth to that at

all? were unions in any way carved out? was there any way to interpret this bill was somehow giving them less -- requiring less disclosure of them than of anybody else? >> potentially less real time disclosure because the threshold for mandatory disclosure of a contribution to one of these groups would have been $10,000 in unions, primarily take the money they use for political activity from dues which are substantially less than that but the dues are reported to the department of labor in which -- which makes the report available in public form. however they are less frequent than the reports to the federal election commission which would be required by this. but that kind of obfuscates the real point here which is the money that unions use for their political activity is from the workers who support the unions and that's -- these are smaller donations that are not the sort that were from democrat's perspective, real time disclosure because they run the risk again from democrats

perspective of potentially corrupting influence over the politicians that these contributions seek to benefit. >> eliot: those are union dues that are reported through a multitude of different reports over time and due course whereas i think if this number is correct, half of the contributions to the top nine super pacs were in excess of $1 million. we're talking about truly gargantuan contributions here of a scale that had been unimaginable until a couple of years ago. and none of those currently mandated to be disclosed. so we're talking about a black hole in terms of disclosure for the american public right now. >> yeah and the super pac actually, we should be clear. they are required to disclose reports with the federal election commission on a regular basis. it is the partner groups that they had. the nonprofit groups that are registered under section 501c4 so-called social welfare groups that do not report a dime of their political -- of the money that they take in and only

report vague explanations for how they spent the money and then only years at least months after the spending actually occurs. so that's the real issue here. when senator reid talks about the 17 old angry white men who will buy the election, if he's referring to sheldon adelson and foster friess, their donations are disclosed. we don't know how much they're giving through the 501-c4 groups which will be on course to spend more than super pacs in 2012. >> eliot: the 501c4s are adjuncts to the super pacs. correct in that distinction. they go hand in glove for purposes of how they run their communication strategy. real quick because unfortunately time runs short. the filibuster is at the foundation of the democratic party's inability to get any of this change. the democratic party had a chance to change the filibuster rules back last january when in the first 48 hours or two weeks of the senate session. will they come to rue the day

they didn't do that? >> sure but they will also -- they would eventually come to rue the day they did do that if they lost the majority here upcoming in 2012. basically, no one wants to go there. once these members get into office they want to be able to have the ability to -- if they're no the minority, have some sway over the process and eliminating the filibuster would eliminate their ability to have any control of the minority party. >> eliot: can you point out exactly the calculus people make even though we convey against the filibuster and at the end of the day everybody is protecting against the downside risk of being in the minority and wants to have that to hang over the side. ken vogel, politico's chief executive reporter. many thanks for your time tonight. >> thank you eliot. >> eliot: republicans are desperate to redefine the president. they're back to saying he's not really american. you've got to be kidding! more "viewpoint" coming up next.

if you have copd like i do you know how hard it can be to breathe and what that feels like. copd includes chronic bronchitis and emphysema. spiriva helps control my copd symptoms by keeping my airways open a full 24 hours. plus, it reduces copd flare-ups. spiriva is the only once-daily inhaled copd maintenance treatment that does both. and it's steroid-free. spiriva does not replace fast-acting inhalers for sudden symptoms. tell your doctor if you have kidney problems glaucoma, trouble urinating, or an enlarged prostate. these may worsen with spiriva. discuss all medicines you take, even eye drops. stop taking spiriva and seek immediate medical help if your breathing suddenly worsens your throat or tongue swells you get hives, vision changes or eye pain, or problems passing urine. other side effects include dry mouth and constipation. nothing can reverse copd. spiriva helps me breathe better.

does breathing with copd weigh you down? ask your doctor if spiriva can help. >> eliot: our number of the day is 102. the number of countries visited by hillary clinton since she became secretary of state and it is a record. >> no other sitting secretary of state has visited that many countries or even close. last month she blasted past madeleine albright's total of 98 and sec clinton will still be racing around the world for at least a few more months no matter which way the vote goes in november. imagine the sheer number of booster shots and inoculations she needs to live and work in so many climates. that doesn't count the shots from foreign leaders when she defends democracy in china or speaks up for human rights in egypt even while someone throws

tomatoes at her. but hey this is hillary clinton we're talking about. she's had worse and nothing stops her. last we heard, she was taking a breather and then she'll be on her way to god only knows where. we must save the country. it starts with you. >>it's the place where democracy is supposed to be the great equalizer, where your vote is worth just as much as donald trump's.the documentary series that redefined tv journalism. >>we're going to places where few others are going. >>it doesn't get anymore real than this. >>occupy! >>we will have class warfare. >>i'm being violated by the health-care system. >>we're patrolling the area looking for guns, drugs, bodies. >>we go in and spend a considerable amount of time

getting to know the people and the characters that are actually living these stories. >>the award winning series "vanguard" only on current tv. >> eliot: over the last month, president obama's campaign has worked to define mitt romney by his time at bain and how he handles his personal finances. the romney campaign has done everything it could to change the subject. they thought floating vice presidential news would change the topic. it didn't. that means it is time for 2008 attempts to paint the president as not like us. >> he has no idea how the american system functions. and we shouldn't be surprised about that. because he spent his early years in hawaii smoking something spent the next seven years in indonesia and another set of years in indonesia, there has been no experience in his life in which he's earned a private sector paycheck that meant anything.

>> eliot: then in case you thought that was too subtle -- >> i wish this president would learn how to be an american. >> eliot: governor sununu has since apologized for that outrageous comment but that didn't stop mitt romney from getting in on all of the fun. >> romney: celebrating success instead of attacking and den gating makes america strong. this course is extraordinarily foreign. >> eliot: for more, let's bring in juana summers from politico. thank you for some of your time tonight. >> thanks for having me. >> eliot: has the etch-a-sketch run out of ink? has mitt romney's ability to define himself as a new person disappeared and he's being portrayed effectively by the obama white house as bain plus a swiss bank account? >> you know, what we have been seeing from the obama campaign and from the president himself is a very, very aggressive effort to take the focus off of the sluggish economy and instead put it on anything else, as you know, the economy is the central focus of mitt romney's campaign.

so instead they're talking about bain. they're talking about the swiss bank account show me your taxes. anything but this economy. i think you're seeing some of the aggressive push is working but mitt romney is constantly being confronted and having to kind of switch off of his message or at least his surrogates certainly as you saw today with john sununu's comments. >> eliot: john sununu's comments clearly beyond the pale sununu apologized later on. they realized you can't say that. way, way beyond what's acceptable political discourse. even people in the republican party now calling on mitt romney to release his tax returns. this is the drib, drib, drib, the death by a thousand cuts that prohibits it, doesn't permit it to get on message. >> that's absolutely the case. we saw earlier today the editorial board of review that endorsed romney during the 2008 primary now says it is time. you have to release these things. you've gotta release the tax

returns. i think what you're seeing now is with the more time that elapses, something is not released, i think there's become a fear or concern among some folks there might be something particularly lethal in these documents that aren't being released as opposed to just a general standing on principal and saying this isn't something i need to do. i think there is a concern among some in the republican party of what's in the documents that aren't being released. >> eliot: even republicans are saying release them because everybody believes you're hiding something. that's death to his argument based on principle, he had released a year, enough is enough. if he had been forthright way up-front in release hing two years and said that's enough. because everything has been dragged out of him over such protest, now he's in an impossible position where my guess is that at the end of the day, he's got to release them or deal with this continuum badgering even from folks within his own party. is that the sense out there? >> you make a great point. it still remains to be seen what

exactly he'll release. let the romney campaign and some romney backers tell us though that they want to focus on jobs and the economy and that most americans don't care about issues like these tax returns. you talk to an average guy on the street, he's gonna want to know how he's going to get a job. not what mitt romney's tax paperwork says. they argue obviously he's a high profile guy. he had been doing anything illegal, it would have come out by now. something would have happened with the taxes. they would argue this is an essential part of the campaign and president obama and his surrogates and his campaign are just working to distract and bring in irrelevant issues from an economy that hasn't favored them and from three and a half years of a presidency that hasn't lived up to the hope and change promises he made during the 2008 campaign. >> eliot: all of that is correct and it could well be coming middle of october we'll look back and say remember the hot summer days when people were discussing tax returns. none of it matters. the unemployment rate is going up and all of this seemed somewhat distant and irrelevant.

on the other hand, the backdrop against which mitt romney will make his argument is one in which the very notion that we have of him the image we have of him is no longer that of the various effective ceo corporate who did well, lived the american dream. he is surrounded by a sha roved ambiguity. that doesn't help come october. >> that's the tough part is because mitt romney's argument is i'm a guy who can get america working again. i'm the ceo. i'm successful businessman. as bobby jindal said, you don't want to have an unsuccessful businessman in the white house. there is that cloud over that. i think that mitt romney will be forced if this line of questioning continues, if there is not some other large event that comes along to move this to the wayside. he will be forced to answer questions of his tenure at bain and his backing in a new light so he's able to get back to substance because the obama campaign does not seem to want to let this one go.

>> eliot: look, all that's being said, the campaign is still within the margin of error of most of the polls out there. david brooks had a fascinating column in today's new york times in which he said if in fact mitt romney can create an imagery of an economy of capitalism, of how capitalism should work, that stands in juxtaposition to the imagery that president obama has created then mitt romney will finally have a platform upon which to run but notably, mitt romney has not laid out his understanding and consequently, our understanding of what makes capitalism work. i'm waiting for him to deliver that magnum opus, that big speech. when is he going to do it? >> that's a great point. it seems like mitt romney's attention over the next few weeks, he's about to embark on a foreign trip, isn't focused on telling the story and creating the narrative that might draw people in. as we end up in the runup to the convention, it seems like there will have to be some new telling of how he feels capitalism works and how he feels he's the best person to restore the american economy. i would expect that you would

see that soon. look, the guy's over on the romney camp, they're very smart. they've been through this before. they know what sticks. i would suspect they would start to preview the message as we look toward the convention in tampa in august. >> eliot: i think everyone should have a swiss bank account and own a nascar team. that will be his play to the populous. juana summers of pretty -- politico, thank you for joining us tonight. >> thank you. >> eliot: everybody is talking about bain. the viewfinder is next.

hey joe? yeah? is this a bad time? no, i can talk. great -- it's the 9th inning and your hair still looks amazing. well, it starts with a healthy scalp. that's why i use head and shoulders for men. they're four shampoos for game-winning scalp protection and great looking hair... go on, please. with seven benefits in every bottle, head and shoulders for men washes out flakes,

itch and dryness. and washes in... confidence. yeah it does. [ male announcer ] up to 100% flake free scalp and hair with head & shoulders for men. enttv