well, if you're not mad as hell, look no further than the markets. not because they're up or down, but because they're finally revealing how messed up our banking and credit system is through their wild with volatility. the markets reacting with a rational, i emphasize, rational observation of the fact that the unreformed credit and banking system revealed in 2008 was never repaired, it was never restructured, it was never fixed, it was merely covered up by an american president, international allies, and central bankers. and the only way we can begin to fix the foundational flaws in our banking and credit systems is to get the money out of politics. because they're the ones buying our politicians the most. today, we kick off our mad as hell series, get money out, done with our friends at "the huffington post."

today it is all about the underlying problem, money and politics. we know americans are fed up with their politicians and the special interests that fund them to avoid reforming everything from health care to education to the banking system and energy. but how did we get where we are today? with washington separated from voters by a wall of cold, hard special interest cash. take a look. >> reporter: in 1976, presidential candidate spending totaled $67 million, and winning house candidates spent $87,000 on average. in 2008, presidential candidates spent a total of $1.3 billion and it cost more than $1.5 million to win a house seat. more than a billion versus $67 million for president. $1.5 million versus $87,000 for

congress. and by twelve, spending on all the elections is projected to reach over $6 billion. prior to the 2010 elections, key energy sectors such as finance gave more to republicans than democrats. in 2008, it flipped giving more to victorious democrats. back before the money switch was turned democratic in 2004, wall street preferred bush to kerry. there was so much money, the president joked about it openly. >> some people call you the elite. i call you my base. >> reporter: all this money had a serious impact during the financial crisis, when politicians had to vote on a $700 billion bailout to wall street, both parties picked donors over voters. >> i shall resign the presidency effective at noon tomorrow. >> reporter: it all started back in the 1970s, when new television and new direct mail techniques were driving up the cost of congressional campaigns. meanwhile, congress was trying to control money in politics and clamp down on nixon-era abuses,

to put limits on what candidates could raise and spend. but the supreme court in a 1976 decision, buckley versus vallejo, ruled that congress could only limit contributions, not spending. money, said the court, is speech. the court would continue kidnapping away at campaign finance regulations for years to come. pretty soon, the first wave of television-friendly republicans swept into office in 1978. a young newt gingrich saw how the fund-raising vehicles called political action committees could be used to build their own power. congressional leadership had been based on seniority, but it soon became based on fund-raising prowess, and eventually these republicans took the majority. >> we will keep our commitment to keep our half of the contract with the help of the american people. the money wave was bipartisan. in 1982, it was a congressman named tony quailo who brought the new business pac money into the democratic party.

by 2002, the situation was so outrageous that senator john mccain and senator russ feingold were able to pass a bill to restrict contributions to the political parties. but this opened up a loophole for, quote, soft money to go directly to outside groups. by '04, there was so much money in politics that massive donations from individual billionaires, t. boone pickens on the right, george soros on the left, had turned politics into a sport for billionaires. and in 2010, the supreme court, in a controversial decision called citizens united gutted most remaining campaign finance restrictions, saying that corporations and unions could put unlimited sums of money directly into elections. >> the supreme court reversed a century of law that i believe will open the floodgates for special interests. including foreign corporations to spend without limit in our elections. >> and today, a new era of

unlimited billions spent in secret to advocate and destroy for politicians around specific policies, to the point where each and every piece of legislation virtually has its own price tag on it, each chairmanship, each congressional seat. think of it like a big box store. this is not a democracy, this is an auction for power. the debate is shaped and controlled by well-moneyed forces that are never on the ballot. and here with us, washington insider and lobbyist turned money in politics with whistle-blower, the very courageous and very impassioned jimmy williams. also with us, paul joggerenson, one of the foremost political scientists in the area of money and politics. he currently is serving as a fellow at the edmond j. saffir center for ethics at harvard. it is a pleasure to welcome both of you to the conversation. professor jorgenson, why is is

this not an issue, why is this, capital "t," the issue? >> simply because every form of corruption in our society must come to politics and to voice grievances. so if your measure of accountability is in itself somewhat corrupt or has an improper dependency on cash, then the voice of the people is not going to be heard in congress. >> hasn't money always been a part of politics? >> of course, of course. but we need to remind the people that campaign finance regulation, in fact, is relatively new. and we've actually made some strides. so buckley v. valeo, it upheld a lot of limits and disclosure laws and regulatory enforcement of campaign donations. so we need to protect what we've already accomplished, and then continue to fight further. >> jimmy, you and i have spoken at length about the first amendment's protection of lobbying the right to address

your government. we've also spoken at length about the bastardization of that profession into the so-called lobbyist fund-raiser, where your ability to influence is no longer based on your ability to advocate policy, but on your ability to either raise money for or against a given politician. how does this actually work and how does it play out in the conversion of our democracy from a democracy to an auction for power? >> well, let me go back, when you introed me, you called me a whistle-blower. that's very kind of you, except i don't think i've blown the whistle. i think that most people in america, and especially people in washington, d.c., have noun that this is the sick game we've been playing for decades. so i'm not really a whistle-blower, i'm just kind of fed up. to answer your question, however. listen, it's simple. politicians, by nature, are not corrupt. lobbyists, by nature, are not corrupt. there are always going to be low-hanging fruit. you're going to have the mark

foleys of the world or the jack abramoffs of the world. but by and large, most politicians, per se, federal politicians, are not corrupted individuals. they are, however, operating in a corrupt system. a system where under no circumstances should anybody in america think that a single piece of legislation that takes place in the build behind me, and that's a live shot of our capital right now, by the way, with nobody in it, but not a single piece of legislation is not affected by how much you get as a congressman or a senator from the very interests that are affected by that legislation, and by how much they give you. so it's not a new system. it is not a system that is serving the american people. most members of congress, i would probably suspect, spend at least half of their day either at a breakfast, a lunch, or a dinner fund-raiser, or if they don't have a committee hearing, they'll go across the street to their party committees, they'll

get on the phone and they'll dial for dollars. wouldn't it be nice if a majority or all of our members of congress and senators, instead of spending 50% of their time dialing for dollars, instead, spent the other 50% on the floor of the senate or the house, actually legislating, making deals with the other side of the aisle? listening to each other, talking to each other, and affecting policy instead of having fund-raisers do it for them? >> if you were to look at how determinative this is, professor jorgensen, if an individual raises more money, what are the odds that the person who has the most money will actually achieve the desired outcome, whether it's electoral victory or legislative? >> oh, it's -- i mean, pretty well, it's hard to tease out the causal arrows. that's always been the problem in political science, but those who have had, you know, good research designs and have had teased owl these causal arrows

control for the methodology, we do find that what money can do is buy lots of time, effort in committee meetings, and also, over time, if you look at incumbents, they do switch their votes, as sometimes correlated with the cash. >> if you look at the data in '08, it says 93% of the winners in '08 raised more money than their opponent. it says obama out-raised mccain by two to one. obama raised $39 million in '08 alone from finance and wall street. a 94% sounds pretty determinative to me, jimmy. how much is there a quid pro quo between money and legislative outcomes? >> well, let's be clear, a quid pro quo is illegal under federal law. however, an implicit or implied quid pro quo is not. and i don't -- again, i want to be clear. i'm not suggesting that all 535 members of the house and the senate are crooks. they're not, despite what many of the american people think.

they are not. they're honorable people. however, when you sit around and spend after half of your day asking people for money and their opinions while they're asking them for money about legislation, there's absolutely no way you can separate those two issues. you cannot separate the money from politics. and why in god's name would they? the supreme court has made it remarkly clear, in decision after decision after decision, that money is speech under the first amendment. and the only way -- i don't care -- it doesn't matter what the legislation is, the court -- the supreme court is never going to allow a ban, an outright ban on money and politics, unless the american people demand it by a constitutional amendment. so it's just that simple. >> and i'm going to leave it there. and that is exactly what we are working on, a constitutional amendment and a petition to go with it, to escalate the loudness of the volume of this conversation, using every

possible resource, not the least of which, collaboration with every one of our viewers and readers. jimmy, thank you so much for your time today. professor jorgensen, we thank you. and we have initiated the first in a three-part series, our special, mad as hell coverage continues into next week with the big reveal and the petition on tuesday of next week, where we can begin debate on the amendment. but it continues as well online tonight and through the weekend. head to dylanratigan.com to hear more about how washington really works from insider jimmy williams, a newly published podcast out this morning with him. also, we are delighted to be working with the "huffington post" editorial team in this endeavor. go there to check out our new blog posts, get money out, we the people, not politicians. "the huffington post" also dedicating their reporting resources to this mission. and on monday, we look forward to seeing the results in part two of our series, rise of the super pac on "the huffington post" and right here at 4:00 monday afternoon on msnbc. and speaking of things that

make us has as hell, coming up, dems and republicans latest standoff over short-term funding. yes, those dreaded two words are back. the idiocy remains. government shutdown, really? plus, shores the bills and the risk. is owning a home today totally overrated? we'll talk it over with our specialist. and then, forcing the white house to weigh in on weed. will the administration make good on an online promise? we'll explain. i habe a cohd. yeah, i toog nyguil bud i'm stild stubbed up. [ male announcer ] truth is, nyquil doesn't un-stuff your nose. really? [ male announcer ] alka-seltzer plus liquid gels fights your worst cold symptoms, plus it relieves your stuffy nose. [ deep breath ] thank you! that's the cold truth! while i took refuge from the pollen that made me sneeze. but with 24-hour zyrtec®, i get prescription strength relief

from my worst allergy symptoms. so lily and i are back on the road again. with zyrtec®, i can love the air®. ♪ [ country ] [ man ] so lily and i ♪ gone, like my last paycheck ♪ gone, gone away ♪ gone, like my landlord's smile ♪ ♪ gone, gone away ♪ my baby's gone away with dedicated claims specialists... and around-the-clock service, travelers can help make things better quicker.

will your auto and home insurer... be there when you need them most? for an agent or quote, call 800-my-coverage... or visit travelers.com. her morning begins with arthritis pain. that's a coffee and two pills. the afternoon tour begins with more pain and more pills. the evening guests arrive. back to sore knees. back to more pills. the day is done but hang on... her doctor recommended aleve. just 2 pills can keep arthritis pain away all day with fewer pills than tylenol. this is lara who chose 2 aleve and fewer pills for a day free of pain. and get the all day pain relief of aleve in liquid gels.

orlando, the home of disney world, well, that's the perfect fit for these candidates. i mean, mitt romney's prince charming, ron paul is grumpy, rick perry is dopey, and michele bachmann think she's snow white. so it's fantastic. >> well, no mickey mouse, but nine gop presidential hopefuls did square off last night in florida for yet another debate. mitt romney is being hailed the winner, emerging virtually unscathed. meantime, rick perry, by the end is being characterized as perhaps not ready for prime-time, especially on foreign affairs. he started strong, but his answers grew more and more unpolished as the debate progressed. gary johnson finally wins a spot on the stage. he delivered this zinger -- >> my next-door neighbor's two dogs have created more shovel-ready jobs than this current administration.

>> definitely some good theater. unfortunately, some are pointing out that rush limbaugh said that first. meanwhile, what about michele bachmann and all the rest? snow white, as jay leno calls her. our friday megapanel is in instantaneous. ari melber from "the nation." krystal ball, and reuters editor at large krista -- >> are you coming over for sunday? >> i was. i was trying to provoke the credentials to access food. your thoughts on what you're witnessing in the political primary process? >> i think that you said it right, dylan. you know, i think that romney is definitely emerging as the strongest guy. now, people say, how you do in detectives doesn't really matter. that's not what determines people's votes. but what i think it is shaping is the view of the republican establishment. >> which is what? or being shaped how? >> i think the republican establishment is really feeling

that perry is too shaky, really not a totally credible guy, and i think you are seeing people coalescing around romney, which is interesting, because a lot of big republican donors don't actually like him that much. but i think they're looking at the field, and they're saying -- >> don't like romney that much. >> don't like romney that much as a guy. but i think they're saying -- >> if you give me a platter of stinky cheese, this one doesn't smell that bad. go ahead, ari. >> i agree with chrystia 100%. in fact, i think there's a dynamic here that's somewhat reminisce of the democratic battle in 2003 and 2004. i, of course, at the time worked for senator john kerry. >> and you have no bias, obviously, in that -- >> well, i say that so people can factor that in. but i was on the ground in iowa knocking on doors, putting together phone banks. there was an enthusiasm and excitement around the base of howard dean, and i think he was right about a lot of things. but john kerry ultimately needed howard dean, because he needed to say to the rest of the country, whatever your misgivings about me, i'm actually going to be -- >> look at this fruitcake.

>> -- the more serious candidate. and you say rick perry plays that role for romney? >> that's a great line, rick perry, the howard dean of the republican party. they'll hate you for that. >> the question for perry, he hasn't done anything that irreparably damage his presidential campaign. but the question for him is, can he improve? he's gotten off to a very slow start. he's shown little signs of improving. some of his answers were more polished, but they still were in the wrong direction. so can he get better and sort of save this sinking ship? and away from president the politics for a second, we're back to a congress that is apparently now -- fema is the latest hostage that's been wheeled out of the crazy den for the pro-wrestling events. obviously, we have launched this series on money in politics. obviously, the level of frustration, the disapproval ratings, i could pick any category of any person, they're like, i hate those guys, they're unreliable, they're corrupt, day don't want to solve the problem, et cetera, et cetera.

and yet the only thing -- it's almost like reflexive, like if i hit your knee at the doctor's office, your knee goes up. it's almost like the brain of our congress is gone and it's a reflexive nervous system that fights each other over nothing while the world burns. is that fair? >> no, i don't think that's fair. over the past week, i've been in europe and i've been in canada and this morning i interviewed a really fascinating brazilian industrialist. and the thing that really struck me is how terrified they are of the united states. what i heard in all of those places was senior politicians and businesspeople saying, where is the adult supervision? how can the americans even think about playing with the debt ceiling. how can they do this? and they're saying, america is, it's a rich country, it's a fantastic country, it's the most important country in the world. and we want america to be the adult in the room. but we look at washington, and we're terrified. >> yeah. >> and well, dylan, the sad thing is, this is the new reality. because republicans got basically everything they wanted

out of the debt ceiling debate. and also, their world view is, government's ineffective, government didn't work. so even though they're driving the government not working, they still get points for their philosophy. >> but aren't you letting the democrat -- i'm not here to defend the republicans, and i don't disagree with your assessment of how damaging their idiocy is to the process. but in that statement, i feel like it opens a room to let the democrats off the hook, which is -- i'm not -- is that what -- was that intentional or not? >> it's not to let the democrats off the hook, but i will say the parties are not equivalent. the republicans the ones who said, we will not raise the debt ceiling without taking it to the wire. they're the ones -- john boehner, who had a chance to move to the center on this, and instead moved further to the right. >> but i'll tell you why i think the democrats are worse. the republicans are incredibly transparent about their agenda. the republicans basically are saying, we want a small government, we will not raise taxes, we don't care about anything, we don't want to talk

about anything, we're -- they're the 4 yer-year-old in the room saying, until you give me a grilled cheese sandwich, i'm not eating. it's the dumbest thing any of us have ever seen. it's self-destructive, it's dumb. the democrats sit around, and ari, i'm not going to make you the democratic party in this conversation, per se, but for the democrats to debate these trade agreements, and instead of saying, this the trade agreement with panama does nothing to create jobs, it's just for bank secrecy. instead of saying, this the trade agreement with colombia does nothing to create jobs, it's basically advancing abusive union practices, the democratic party comes out and says, we will not pass these trade agreements unless there is approval for money to pay for people who have lost their jobs, because of these agreements. and there is this false sense of i will help thee in the democratic party with the state's largeess as an

alternative to having the resolve to actually engage in solving the problems, in the banking system, in the educational system, in the health care system. and the democrats are disingenuous in my view, unlike the republicans, because they offer up these nonsensical ideas, like, oh, well, we'll just print some more money and pay off the people that we're screwing over, which at least makes us better than the republicans. >> right. i think you're talking about principle. and principle is different than a negotiating posture. i'm reminded of the tom tomorrow cartoon. he does those great political cartoons that shows the republicans saying, my plan is mandatory organ extraction from poor people, so that rich people can have a better -- who doesn't want a healthy organ? and the democrat response, he gets up and says, i have concerns about this proposal, but i promise you, if it passes, i demand a tax credit for every poor person who has an organ extraction. >> that's exactly my problem! >> you have to have principles. and you're arguing that a trade deal is not right for the american worker, it's no more

right because of some little window -- >> i would say it's even more of a concession of how not right it is if you say, hey, listen, we agree with these trade deals, we're still going to do it because it's good for the banks and good for the industrial manufacturers and china. we're just going to have to pay off some of the labor. anyway win thank you for that. everybody stays. and richard florida -- do you know richard -- i love him. >> creative. >> everybody thinks -- >> you're on a roll today. >> we won't get into richard florida now, we'll talk to him after this commercial break. straight ahead, revenge of the renters, our specialist, richard florida, with a wake-up dream on the american dream of home ownershipship. we're centurylink ... a new kind of broadband company committed to providing honest, personal service from real people ... 5-year price-lock guarantees ... consistently fast speeds ... and more ways to customize your technology.

we got our best guy on it. ♪ [ computer voice ] invalid entry... invalid...invalid... invalid entry. ♪ [ shoes squeaking ] ♪ [ all ] whoa.

behold. [ shaq ] the new triple double oreo. who's gonna race with that? ♪

ana and walter are young, single, and in love. they've got good jobs, fabulous futures, a magnificent new home that they bought for a song. who says they can't have it all. >> all right.

owning a home, feels a lot less like the american dream these days and a bit more like the american nightmare. so much so, folks simply, if they can avoid it, aren't buying. data out today showing the number of new mortgages issued in 2010 was down 12% from the previous year. the only year that number was lower than the one i just quoted was in '08 during the financial crisis. not only are we seeing a decline in buying, but also we're seeing an increase in homeowner stress. 38% of households with a mortgage are now spending a whopping one third of their income on home-related costs, all of which may suggest that the president was right. >> we've got to strike a balance. frankly, there's some folks who are probably better off renting. >> well, our next guest agrees, saying renting could be the answer for millions of americans and that home ownership, unless you have a very specific set of expectations and demands, is overrated. joining us now, our specialist,

richard florida. he is senior editor at "the atlantic" and professor at the university of toronto and has a fan base around the megapanel today, richard, so be warned there. they're coming for you. so, people always say, should i rent or buy, and the answer always is, well, some people should rent and some people should buy. and you get these vagaries. are there any rule -- what is the argument for why anybody should buy anything or rent anything? what's the foundation of the very argument that you're making? >> well, i think it's all changed. you know, people used to say, if you buy a house, you can save money, it's going to go up, and you know, it will be sort of for savings, you'll have a place to live, and you'll put money in the bank, which is your house. but as we've seen, that isn't true. and i think what's happening is more and more people who can buy a house are choosing to rent, especially if they think they might have to change their job. and two, and i think quite tragically, many people who might like to buy can't rent, because you guys were just talking about it, the banks are not lending. and i think one of the reason

those mortgage figures are down is because most people, even with good credit, can't get a loan. >> so, richard, one of the things that people have always said is a strength of the u.s. economy was the flexibility and the mobility of american workers. americans have always been more willing than europeans to move wherever the job is. is the housing market changing that now? >> well, i think it has. and, you know, there's some debate on this amongst economists trying to figure it out, but, you know, i think more, you can divide americans by income, you can divide them by education, but you can also divide them by the mobile and the stuck. and people who are stuck with an underwater house, whether it's in detroit or phoenix or las vegas or whatever, and they can't move to where the new jobs are, they are really, badly behind the eight ball. and i think that's why so many people now are saying, i'd rather rent. until this economy gets sorted out, i may have to move and uproot my family to get work, and i can't be tied to a house if i can't sell it.

everything's great in the boom, but when things go bust, boy, it gets complicated. >> go ahead, ari. >> this is ari melber with "the nation." i feel stuck and mobile at the same time, it's a real mess. so i don't even want to start with you on that. i don't want to go there. but in the book, you talk a lot about how the first wave of people who move into certain neighborhoods can change the whole neighborhood. you talk about it in a lot of other demographic groups. with what you're arguing today, does any of that change? does it matter whether, you talk about creative communities and certain times artists and the gay community and different racially mixed communities coming together and changing a neighborhood. does that matter whether those people are renting or buying? >> no, and i think the real interesting thing going back to your guy's previous conversation is, the united states is becoming more unequal by income and education. but it's also, tragically,

becoming more unequal by where you live. and, of course, people will make that migration into the east village or the west village or over to brooklyn or my brother lives in hoboken. and they'll rent or do whatever they have to do. but people who live on the east coast and in big cities, new york, boston, washington, chicago, san francisco, they have advantages and opportunities that others do not. so i think one of the things -- and the other thing that chrystia has written about so eloquently is the movement of global migrants into big cities in the united states and across the world changing the economy and demography so radically, you know, and partly, that was behind the london riots. so i think part of the economic divide we see in america is renter, owner, and where you live. and that's overlaid ton great divide. >> which becomes basically the amplification of america as a class split society. we're talking about class divisions, ultimately here, crystal.

>> right, right. and richard, i had a question related to that. we have an idea in the country that america sort of leads the world in terms of home ownership, but if you actually look at rates of international home ownership, we're kind of in the middle of the pack. so i'm wondering, despite all of our federal government support for home ownership, how much has that actually changed the percentage of people who own homes? >> not much. i think at our high, we never quite hit 70. and in a bunch of countries, including canada, which we're deeply familiar, it's 70 plus. i think in the united states now, what's really interesting, and i think this bodes well for the united states, although it's quite troubled in the short run, the united states is now sorting this out in a way that's very interesting. and my hunch, the urban land institute, who tracks this, believes that if you really look at the real rate of home ownership today, like people who own their homes, those who are under water, it's less than 60%, and they believe it could fall to about 55%. and in my work, i find that when you get home ownership rates in

regions of about 50 to 55%, you get a lot of dynamism and flexibility. so we're not talking about home ownership going to zero, i think we're talking about it going from about 65 down to 55%. and that seems to create enough balance between homeowners and renters to make your economy more flexible, chrystia, as you were saying, more mobile and more resilient. >> we'll with leave on that optimistic note from mr. florida. thank you, sir, and thanks to our megapanel as well. it was great to see you guys and great to have a richard florida fan club at the table, and i consider myself a member of that club. i'll see you for dinner. >> apple pie. >> good. next, an online appeal to the highest position in the land, could the white house actually move to decriminalize marijuana? [ agent ] so your policy looks good, is there anything else?

why did you buy my husband a falcon? thanks for the falcon. i didn't buy anyone a falcon. sure, you did. you saved us a lot of money on auto insurance. i used that money to buy a falcon. ergo, you bought me a falcon. i should've got a falcon. most people who switch to state farm save on average about $480. what they do with it, well, that's their business. oh, that explains a lot, actually. [ chuckles ] [ male announcer ] another reason people switch to state farm. aw, i could've gotten a falcon. [ male announcer ] get to a better state. [ falcon screeches ] ♪ hush, little baby ♪ don't you cry ♪ soon the sun ♪ is going to shine ♪

[ male announcer ] toyota presents the prius family. ♪ walk if i want, talk if i want ♪ [ male announcer ] there's the original one... the bigger one... the smaller one... and the one that plugs in. they're all a little different, just like us.

helps defends against occasional constipation, diarrhea, gas and bloating. with three strains of good bacteria to help balance your colon. you had me at "probiotic." [ female announcer ] phillips' colon health. well, it's high time the white house addresses marijuana legalization. that, according to the white

house's online petition site, which allows any citizen to put up his or her own proposal. all of this is part of the government's "we the people" project. it's designed to give americans a say in policy, what gets debated. according to the site, if any politician -- or if any petition, excuse me, gets more than 5,000 signatures, the white house will not only evaluate your proposal, they'll issue an official statement in response. the first idea to clear all the thresholds, legalizing cannabis. you probably won't be surprised to learn weed consumption is a more popular movement than investigating prosecutorial misconduct, granting clemency, and even online poker legalization. in fact, the legalize it proposal burned through the 5,000 signature barrier quickly and is currently sitting with nearly 18,000 john hancocks. the only thing left, whether the white house will officially weigh in as promised or will

they -- wait for it -- pass. we cop back, the oil kings. we go inside the hidden history of the u.s.' on again/off again relationship with saudi arabia relationship with saudi arabia anir ere's nurse who can access in an instant every patient's past. and because the whole hospital's working together, there's a family who can breathe easy, right now. somewhere in america, we've already answered some of the nation's toughest healthcare questions. and the over 60,000 people of siemens are ready to do it again. siemens. answers. ♪ [ dog barks ] [ birds chirping ] ♪ [ mechanical breathing ] [ engine turns over ] ♪

[ male announcer ] the all-new volkswagen passat. a new force in the midsize category. ♪ and i was a pack-a-day smoker for 25 years. i do remember sitting down with my boys, and i'm like, "oh, promise mommy you'll never ever pick up a cigarette." i had to quit. ♪ my doctor gave me a prescription for chantix, a medication i could take and still smoke, while it built up in my system. [ male announcer ] chantix is a non-nicotine pill proven to help people quit smoking. it reduces the urge to smoke. some people had changes in behavior, thinking or mood, hostility, agitation, depressed mood and suicidal thoughts or actions while taking or after stopping chantix. if you notice any of these, stop taking chantix and call your doctor right away. tell your doctor about any history of depression or other mental health problems, which could get worse while taking chantix. don't take chantix if you've had a serious allergic or skin reaction to it. if you develop these,

stop taking chantix and see your doctor right away as some of these can be life-threatening. if you have a history of heart or blood vessel problems, tell your doctor if you have new or worse symptoms. get medical help right away if you have symptoms of a heart attack. dosing may be different if you have kidney problems. until you know how chantix affects you, use caution when driving or operating machinery. common side effects include nausea, trouble sleeping and unusual dreams. ♪ my benjamin, he helped me with the countdown. "5 days, mom. 10 days, mom." i think after 30 days he got tired of counting! [ male announcer ] ask your doctor about chantix. over 7 million people have gotten a prescription. learn how you can save money and get terms and conditions at chantix.com. that is better than today. since 1894, ameriprise financial has been working hard for their clients' futures. never taking a bailout. helping generations achieve dreams. buy homes. put their kids through college. retire how they want to. ameriprise. the strength of america's largest financial planning company.

the heart of 10,000 advisors working with you, one-to-one. together, for your future. ♪ well, developing now, in a dramatic move and in defiance of u.s.-led efforts to stop him, palestinian president mahmoud abbas submits a bid for statehood at the united nations today. clashes and protests continue in

the region, especially across the west bank. this you've likely heard today. but an interesting twist to it all is saudi arabia's behind-the-scenes roles in these negotiations. the saudis announcing they will be donate -- that will be give, not lend, not invest, donate -- $200 million of their oil money to the palestinian authority in an effort to bolster the palestinian authority's financial stability. which means, once again, the saudis are stepping in as both broker and banker, as they seek to shape and control the power structure of the middle east, using frequently u.s.-purchased oil money. our next guest says it is a format we should be awfully familiar with, as we've been allowing oil-rich nations whose resources we purchase with our cash and whose cash we accept

for our guns to dictate politics since the 1960s. and joining us now is andrew scott cooper, who has worked for the united nations as well as human rights watch, and is the author of "the oil kings: how the u.s., iran, and saudi arabia changed the balance of power in the middle east." and before we get into this book, your thoughts on the news of the day? >> i'm not surprised the saudis are putting the oil money into the palestinian authority. i mean, they are, as you say, the power brokers, and i suspect there have been a number of deals behind the scenes that have been going on for quite a few weeks. >> the subtitle of your book is "how the u.s., iran, and the saudi arabia changed the balance of power in the middle east." >> yes, this goes back to the mid-1970s and the first oil shock. at that time, the u.s. was closely affiliated with iran. t the shah was the dominant power broker and he refused to cooperate on oil prices.

he wanted higher oil prices and it got to a point that there was fear if oil prices went up at the end of 1976, there would be a series of financial failures, including bank collapses on wall street. >> but you're suggesting that the power that the oil cartels' influence wields, goes beyond energy resources, goes to their capacity to directly threaten global financial stability? >> absolutely. and my work is really focused on that earlier period, but there are parallels now with high oil prices and financial stability, and that also plays into what's happening in southern europe at the moment. in this earlier period, you saw the same southern tier european countries destabilized by high fuel costs. and there was an urgent need for the u.s. to then intervene and break opec. >> here's what fascinates me the most about u.s. and saudi arabia, maybe you can offer me

some insight. the majority of the hijackers work for saudi arabia. the money that was in the hijacking operation, at least in part, if not entirely, saudi arabian. the intelligence activities immediately following 9/11 and the 9/11 commission goes out of its way to withhold a 28-page section from the 9/11 commission that was -- is still being withheld by president obama. we can't get the 28 pages on saudi arabia. and yet, the source of the terrorists, the source of the funding, the source of the hostility towards my friends and neighbors in lower manhattan and our nation as a whole is the one that is sold to me as an american as my ally in the middle east. >> that's right. and the obama administration last year sealed a $60 billion arms deal with the saudis. >> so we buy their oil, they get the money, then we want the money back, so we manufacture a bunch of with weapons so they can take the money, buy the guns, and point them at their own people, who have no freedoms. >> that's right. and in effect, in that arms deal

last year, one of the biggest in the world, in history, it was sold to the american people as a jobs program, not for making -- creating more jobs, but for actually holding jobs in the country. so this is a huge arms deal. now, the saudis have to find the money to pay for the arms. they have to find the money to pay for king abdullah's $150 billion subsidy program this year, $100 billion -- >> which is his bribes to the his people who he's screwing over. >> that's right. so that money has to come out of oil revenues, which means that oil prices will have to be high. they have to stay at a -- in order for the saudis to balance their budget. >> how much do the american people and the american politicians do a disservice to our foreign policy in the middle east by focusing our attention away from the elephant in the room that is saudi arabia? >> well, it's a complete disservice, but it's been going on for quite a while, since the mid-70s. and trying to delink it is very difficult, because the first president and the last president to really try and do something

about it was jimmy carter. and jimmy carter was destroyed by the press when he talked about energy conservation, when he talked about trying to reduce dependency on foreign oil. >> if you were to look, though, at the leverage, what is it that saudi arabia has? is it purely the oil, or is it also our concern about the cold war with iran, and we want to have a power to balance iran and our concern about our interests, obviously, with israel and the middle east, and for that matter, cairo. it's as if saudi arabia kind of has us by -- really, in a corner. >> that's true. they have to swing power with the oil. the dominant voice within opec, and then, yes, they are the balance against the iranians, and more so, since saddam hussein was knocked out because he was the balance in the middle east. he was providing the -- >> opposition to iran.

>> yeah. and when you remove him, you create a power vacuum in the region. so in some ways, the u.s. is even more obliged to defend and support the saudis. >> at the same time, iran seems to be in the cat bird seat these days. iraq is a power vacuum. there's very little of capacity for the united states, obviously, to engage militarily, much beyond where we currently are, both for political and for that matter, economic reasons. how much of an advantage does iran have right now? >> well, they do have an advantage in terms of politically within the region, but the saudis have made it very clear that they are coming after iran's economy. they did it in this earlier period, and they can do that by flooding the market. if they flood the market with cheap oil, then they are going to either hold prices in place or drive them down a little bit. that's going to deprive the iranian economy of oil revenues and a senior member of the saudi royal family a couple months ago said, that's one area where we can squeeze the iranians.

so the u.s. is really still caught in this strategic trap of its own making. the saudis and the iranians will go after each other, whoever -- it doesn't matter whether the shah's in power or ahmadinejad's in power. it doesn't matter who's in power in saudi arabia. >> again, it's a north versus the south, so to speak. >> yes, sunni versus shia. >> yep. >> absolutely. >> all right, listen, congrats on the book. thanks on the conversation. andrew scott cooper, ladies and gentlemen. the book is "the oil king there's the cover. coming up on "hardball," chris matthews with all of the post-gop debate analysis from last night. but first, our friend toure's book is so big, ladies and gentlemen, my man has gone hollywood! and showing what a good guy he is, he's still going to take a little bit of time for a daily rant. he's up after the break. [ woman ] jogging stroller, you've been stuck in the garage, while i took refuge from the pollen that made me sneeze. but with 24-hour zyrtec®, i get prescription strength relief from my worst allergy symptoms.

so lily and i are back on the road again. with zyrtec®, i can love the air®. ♪ so lily and i are back on the road again. like so many great pioneers before me, guided only by a dream. i'm embarking on a journey of epic proportion. i will travel, from sea to shining sea, through amber waves of grain, and i won't stop until i've helped every driver in america save hundreds on car insurance. well i'm out of the parking lot. that's a good start. geico, fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent, or more on car insurance.

whose non-stop day starts with back pain... and a choice. take advil now and maybe up to four in a day. or choose aleve and two pills for a day free of pain. way to go, coach. ♪

now with our friday daily rant, toure from l.a. he is the author of "who's afraid of post-blackness?" which i might add, has just received, no exaggerations, no hyperbole, a rave review from "the new york times" on the cover of the book review for this weekend. but before we get to the celebration, toure has a few more candid and truly heart wrenching comments about the week's events. hi, toure. >> dylan, how are you? most of the time, i'm really proud to be an american. this is not one of those times. when we speak of america as the greatest nation on earth, we speak of the opportunity offered

by democracy and freedom of speech and capitalism and we speak of the strong resilient spirit of this place and we speak of the progress we've made on racial and gender and sexuality issues. we feel we are the world's moral leader. well, this week, we were the world's moral laggard. two states murdered people. one of those cases was morally easy. we should not have executed troy davis. he was convicted of murdering a police officer on scant physical evidence in a case built on eyewitness testimony, and most of those eyewitnesss have recanted. this is to say nothing of the difficulty of relying on eyewitnesss to begin with, because we know memory is infallible and manipulatable. to be human is to be fallible, and to have humans running a system with such cruel finality when that system is racked with bias and error is inhumane. in a time when hundreds of convicted people have been exonerated, we must admit that the justice system is too human to have murder as an option.

the troy davis case is filled with reasonable doubt and the possibility of putting a man to g death for a crime he did not commit should scare us to the bone. the other state-sanctioned murder of the week, concluded just hours before troy davis', and it took place in texas, which one could call the murder capital. this situation is more morally loaded. a white supremacist chained a black man to the back of his pickup truck by his ankles and dragged him for miles. he was decapitated. this killer said he had no regrets and would do it again. if any situation calls for the death penalty, it's this one. a vicious, hateful, dangerous, unrepentant man who cruelly and torturously murdered. this is the time to exact revenge, right? no. i don't want him executed either. the state should be in the business of justice, not vengeance. the death penalty is like a wild west revenge concept that has no place in modern society. the way a nation treats its

prisoners says much about who it is. america is among the last nations in the world to fill employ the death penalty, even though it cripples our status as a world moral leader and is barbaric and is not uniformly applied and is subject to bias and rife with error and sometimes leads to the execution of people we're not completely certain actually committed the crime. how could that happen?! we're just human, and we need to end the death penalty and get out of the business of playing god. >> i pause, toure, i agree with you. i wrestle with the political pandering that is the gratification of the bloodlust that comes from violent crime, and what you're talking about, which i could not agree more with, and it's easy to convince a certain percentage of the

population, listen, the death penalty is crazy, you shouldn't -- they're like, yeah, i know, i know. the issue is that bloodlust crowd. that bloodlust politics, basically. and really, what you're calling for, and i think it really goes to the praise, not to go back to the book, but the nature of the way you present the framing of a conversation demands a level of engagement that requires a higher level of awareness of your role in society. and i think that what your rant just offered says that and i believe that the reason your book is off to such a wonderful early start and is getting such positiveeception is because of that awareness. and so i thank you for joining us today with that perspective and congratulate you and i'm proud to call you a friend. >> thank you. >> all right. have a good weekend, toure. that will do it for us. i am dylan ratigan. and "hardball's" up right now. no country for rick perry. let's play "hardball."