hi, everyone, i'm tamron hall, and this is "news nation." we are following breaking news within the past hour. the supreme court issued a major ruling on campaign finance. the ruling has the potential to reshape campaign contribution rules again. nbc news justice correspondent pete williams joins us live from the supreme court with the details. pete, lay it on the line for us. >> by a 5-4 vote, the supreme court struck down the limits on how much any individual person can give to all federal candidates put together and all political parties and pacs put together. these are what are called the aggregate limits. the court left intact how much a person can give to any specific candidate, still $2,600 per campaign, per election, but you can now give to as many candidates as you want. there is no limit on how much total money any individual person can spend. the court's majority opinion, written by the chief justice john roberts said, quoting

decades-old supreme court opinion that money is speech and you can't limit how much an individual person can spend. he said if the first amendment can abide by flag burning nazi parades and protests at military funerals, it can abide by people spending as much money as they want to support the candidates of their choices. there's a real division here in the supreme court over what is the kind of corruption that these limits were intended to avoid. the court's majority said that there's no indication that spending as much as you want on all candidates put together would increase the chances of corrupting an individual candidate, the so-called quid pro quo corruption, i give you something, you give me something back. the minority said that misreads what the law's intended to avoid. the minority here is saying that the law is really trying to get at is a different kind of corruption of the wealthy voices drowning out the others. justice steven briere writing said, the court substitutes for

the overall campaign contribution sealing, the number infinity. if the court in citizens united opened a door, today's decision will open a flood gate. it's already being criticized by groups who were opposed to this outcome, the campaign legal center, for example, said today's decision replaces the phrase "we the people," with the phrase "we the money." tamron? >> to that point, pete, you know, as well, during the general election when mitt romney said corporations are people, that ignited a firestorm of back and forth, and now you have the topic of money being free speech and already speaker boehner, john boehner, responded saying this decision proves that freedom of speech is being upheld in the form, that's where he ends, upheld, but to your.this is equating speech with money. >> that is decided a long time ago, in the 1970s, after watergate when the supreme court initially upheld the laws congress put in place after the

watergate scandals. the supreme court's decision today doesn't undercut that central holding that says speech is money. the question is, the court has always been willing to uphold limits on how much a person can spend in the name of resisting corruption, and that's why the individual limits are still in place, but what the court said, in essence, doesn't make constitutional sense to give $49,000 to, say, 17 candidates for congress, but the constitution prevents you from giving to 18 or more. that's what the supreme court said the constitution couldn't permit. >> fascinating decision. thank you very much, pete. greatly appreciate you joining us with the details. also developing in chile, authorities are just beginning to assess the magnitude of the damage, even as dozens of aftershocks continue to hit the region. at least six people were killed by the powerful 8.2-magnitude earthquake, which triggered the evacuation of more than 900,000 people up and down the pacific

coast of chile. loud sirens blared throughout the night, warning people of the possible coming up tsunamis. joining me now from los angeles is nbc's mark potter. mark, what are the latest details that we're getting in, regarding the assessment of damage and, of course, the fatalities? >> that assessment is under way now, and one thing i want to tell you, tamron, based on our time in chile four years ago when the big earthquake and tsunami hit, i can tell you nothing terrifies the chileans more than an offshore earthquake and tsunami warning. when they are told to evacuate now, they do not need to be told twice, and that's what happened last night. hundreds of thousands took to the hills to get out of the low country. fortunately this time the tsunami was not nearly as big as it was in 2010. the waves, six to seven feet high, and fortuitously, they hit in the northern part of the country in relatively remote areas in a copper mining country, so that kept the death toll down.

as you said, six people reported killed so far, most from falling walls or heart attacks. we don't know if any are attributed to the waters coming ashore. the chilean government evacuated that entire northern coast, hundreds of thousands of people, but now that the tsunami warning is over, people are starting to filter back to their homes. one interesting story is that among the people affected were some 300 female inmates at a penitentiary, who escaped during the quake. they are rounding them up now. the big question in chile right now, is this it, was this the earthquake we're going to have this year, or is it soon to be followed by another big one? that has happened in the past, where a big earthquake has followed by an even bigger one. of course, that still has the country on edge. >> thank you very much, mark, for the latest information out of chile. right now, mary barra is facing tough questions from congress for a second straight day regarding gm's handling of

the safety defect blamed for at least 13 deaths and 32 crashes. minutes ago in her opening statement before a senate transportation subcommittee, barra again apologized for gm, taking more than a decade to fix the ignition switch problem that caused engines to suddenly shut off and airbags to fail to deploy. >> sitting here today, i cannot tell you why it took years for a safety defect to be announced in that program, but i can tell you we will find out. when we have answers, we will be fully transparent with you, with our regulators, and with our customers. while i can't turn back the clock, as soon as i learned about the problem, we acted without hesitation. we told the world we had a problem that needed to be fixed. we did so because whatever mistakes were made in the past, we will not shirk from our responsibilities now and in the future. today's gm will do the right thing. this begins with my sincere

apoapo apologies to everyone affected by the recall, especially to the families and friends of those who lost lives or were injured. i am deeply sorry, and the men and women of general motors are deeply sorry. >> barra testified more than two hours at a house hearing yesterday, but there were more questions than answers. >> is there a culture in gm at that time that they would have put cost over safety? >> why did the company not announce its sub par switches may have been installed in those vehicles in the first place? >> do you think there was a coverup, or it was sloppy work? >> i need to get the results of the study to make all determinations. i want to know the answers to the questions you're asking. congressman, those are the questions i want to answer. >> is the company responsible? >> the -- >> the new gm, is it responsible? >> we will make the best decisions for our customers, recognizing that we have legal obligations and responsibilities, as well as moral obligations. >> 19-year-old sarah trautwein

is among those killed in an accident blamed on the faulty ignition switch problem. this morning on the "today" show, her mother said she got no satisfaction from barra's testimony yesterday. >> she was scripted. no answers. no answers were given. it's a coverup, total coverup, it's obvious. the fact that everyone from gm is still there, to me, is amazing. >> those sentiments were echoed by the father of 18-year-old natasha weigle, who was killed in a crash in 2006. >> very scripted. i don't think she answered any of the questions that the senators had for her or the house of representatives. i don't. either she doesn't understand a lot of their questions, but it was very, very scripted. >> now we do want to note that gm will be conducting an internal investigation and will open with its findings, go public with the findings, as soon as they are available. joining me now live, greg gardner, automotive reporter for the detroit free press.

thank you so much for joining us again. i want to play for our audience an exchange that happened only a few minutes ago between committee chair claire mccaskill and mary barra just a short time ago. i think we have it, let's play it for our audience. >> what i want to know is, what investigation began after that deposition? >> that is part of the investigation -- >> so you don't know whether or not anything happened after that investigation? >> i don't have the complete facts to share with you today. >> okay. well, that is incredibly frustrating to me that you wouldn't have a simple timeline of what happened once you got that knowledge. >> greg, your reaction to this, not only senator mccaskill's heated words there, but when you hear the family members say she was scripted, that they didn't get any answers, and now we're on day two of mary barra having an opportunity to share more details, even with their internal investigation going on right now. >> well, they are right, she was scripted, but the lawyers have instructed her on what she can

say, what she can't say. there are lawsuits pending, so, you know, in fairness, yeah, there's not much she can say. i don't think she discussed everything she knew. >> can she not give a better timeline, for example? listen, gm -- she's apologized, she's admitted the issues there. why then would the timeline be locked up in a legal battle? >> well, i think the staff and the committee has the timeline, and gm has the timeline. again, the devil is in the legal risk that you take by acknowledging certain facts along that sequence. >> yesterday mary barra kept referring to the old and new gm here. obviously, having her as the face of the company, many believed, especially those family members of people who died in crashes, believed that she might be able to provide them, at least with these hearings, a bit more detail. i get what you're saying, this is all under investigation. you have lawyers involved, but

the bottom line is, these clips of mary barra, the new face of gm, are being played nationally right now, but does not settle well with the victims' families, doesn't settle well, obviously, with some members of the senate and, most importantly, with those family members. >> yeah. bar barra's toughest task is to credibly distinguish the new gm from the old gm. bankruptcy saved the company, wiped out billions in debt, got concessions from the uaw. it did not eliminate all the vehicles built before 2009, and the company has to step up to the responsibility and liability for that. >> what do you believe that she needs to say at this point with this ongoing hearing, greg, and you've covered this industry and gm extensively here, what is the critical information that the public should know at this point for mary barra? >> well, i don't know if they are going to get it from her today, but we do want to find out what changes were made and

why they were made or weren't made, and changing the design of the ignition switch. and we also want to know more about the responsibility and the scope of authority of kenneth feinberg, the man that they said is appointed to possibly set up a fund or some other option to compensate the victims. >> all right, greg, thank you very much for your time. we greatly appreciate it. we'll continue to keep an ear an bring you information as it comes in. moments from now, president obama is said to leave the white house and make his way to michigan, where he will continue to make his push for raising the minimum wage. the president delivering a speech at the university of michigan in ann arbor, using the state to frame his argument that auto pioneer henry ford once doubled his workers' wages, saying it would be good for business. democrats in washington are dialing up the pressure against their colleagues across the

aisle. harry reid yesterday signalled the senate likely won't vote on the measure until the next week after next. meanwhile, within the hour, several house democrats will be joined by members of the business community, along with social justice advocates who called for immediate action on the issue. congresswoman sheila jackson, one of the lawmakers leading the event, thank you so much for your time. >> it's a pleasure to be with you, tamron, and congratulations on the nbc spot. >> thank you, you're very sweet to say that. thank you very much. there's not much happiness, i think, for a lot of people who thought there would be some progress regarding the increased minimum wage. right now, you well know the hill is reporting that republican senator susan collins is reaching out to democrats on a compromise that could divide democrats. her idea is to lower the increase lower than the $10.10 the democrats and some democrats said they wanted. it says in part, susan collins

has been reaching out to agree on a compromise threatening to divide the president's party on this core component of its election year message. would you be open to a compromise that did not reach that $10.10 mark, but was an increase from the current minimum wage? >> well, tamron, let me say that i have great respect for senator collins, but the republicans don't get it. they are dead wrong on this issue, no matter what compromise they offer. they don't have the facts, and, as well, they are distorting the facts. first of all, just two weeks ago, seven to 14 days ago, i had 709 women in a room claiming and supporting the idea of increasing the minimum wage to $10.10. many women work in the hospitality industry, the restaurant industry, and they actually get a salary or a payment of $2.16 and have to be dependent upon tips. frankly, the idea of $10.10 that

senator reid is putting forward is not understood. it is not $10.10 immediately, and the ford company is right, it is $10.10 over a three-year period of time, which is reasonable and rational, and, obviously, if there was a crisis or emergency, i could make the argument that at the point of the three-year amount was supposed to be raised, then, of course, you could consider it, but i would absolutely not consider decreasing or not raising it to a $10.10 amount, because frankly, $7.25 is too low, but anything between that also offers too low a margin for individuals to lift themselves up out of poverty. what republicans don't understand, but americans understand, is if you raise the minu minimum wage, you have more money to spend and get off social assistance. and look at the absolute absurdity of what they are doing. right now, the budget committee, tamron, is voting to cut trillions of dollars out of medicaid and other social

service needs of americans. on one hand, the paul ryan budget republicans in the house are talking about cutting trillions of dollars in medicaid and food stamps, having already cut $8 billion out of food stamps, and now on the other side of the congress, they are talking about limiting $10.10. i've no businesses that said they are ready for that raise over a three-year period. it's absolutely absurd, and i'm tired of those who are the most vulnerable who cannot vote, when i say cannot vote, many of these are children who cannot survive or make it, but those who are the most vulnerable and may not be the big shots in the voting scheme, not the big money givers, that we use them to, in essence, prove our credentials, that we can be a compromise or we don't have to yield to the pressure. well, i want to not yield to the pressure of big money interests that are pushing this minimum

wage. they are dumbing it down. i don't want to be part of dumbing it down. $10.10 is over a three-year period. it is reasonable, it is rational, and many of my friends in businesses have said they are willing to work with us to give people a decent working, livable wage. >> congresswoman sheila jackson lee, thank you so much for your time. i greatly appreciate it. thank you. >> thank you for having me. msnbc will carry the president's remarks on the minimum wage live this afternoon at 3:00 eastern time. and yet another study is out questioning just how effective mammograms really are, saying the benefits are overhyped. what are women supposed to believe at this point? i'll talk with a doctor who specializes in mammogram and breast imaging. and new army guidelines over how soldiers can wear their hair are being called racist. i'll talk with a woman who started a petition to change the rules. she served for six years and

says rather than inform themselves on how african-americans wear their hair, the army is, quote, white washing it. it's our "news nation" gut check. and join our conversation on twitter, @tamronhall and my team is @newsnation. ahhh. beautiful day in baltimore where most people probably know that geico could save them money on car insurance, right? you see the thing is geico, well, could help them save on boat insurance too. hey! okay...i'm ready to come in now. hello? i'm trying my best. seriously, i'm...i'm serious. request to come ashore. geico. saving people money on more than just car insurance.

 serta perfect sleeper, through sunday, get $300 off and sealy posturepedic. plus, free delivery! save more green during mattress discounters red tag sale, through sunday. ♪ mattress discounters

a new study released in just the last 24 hours is already refuelling debate over mammograms. harvard researchers looked at 50 years of data and poked some major holes in the medical tests that's long been the gold standard in breast cancer detection. the study includes, "existing data suggests we have been overestimating the benefits of

mammography and underestimating the harms." the question now is, should this new study change anything about how or when women are tested? joining me now is dr. donna plaja, director of breast imaging and mammography. doctor, thank you so much for joining us. >> thank you for having me. >> i said earlier, i'm 43, had three doctors tell me three different ages of when i should be tested. you talk to a number of women and they all, at least those i've spoken with professionally and personally have the same uneasiness or uncertainty and a new study comes out and seems the information is almost an overload. what do we need to know here? >> well, i think it is very confusing. i think what we need to know is this new study has no new data in it. what they did was reviewed old data and some of the studies they reviewed, unfortunately, the ones that showed mammography didn't have as much as a

positive efblfect or decrease i mortality had flaws in them and the world health organization and american cancer society actually agree that, for instance, the canadian study had a lot of flaws, they used very old equipment, they had technologists and radiologists that weren't qualified or trained well, and when that study was done in the '80s, they just weren't using state of art mammography at the time. >> so the study brings into, obviously, these major questions. we know that mammograms save lives. you cannot say that enough. we know that at this point, but these researchers say the harm of mammograms in that these false positives is a real concern. is that not valid? >> no, i think that is valid. there are some false positives. approximately one in ten women who come in for a screening exam may be called back, and that's called a false positive, to get further imaging to see if what

we're seeing on the exam is actually a real cancer or not. there's actually a study that just came out recently in the past month in the radiology journal that compared the old film screen mammograms, which is all of the randomized controlled trials to date are the old film screen mammograms and the new digital mammograms that are the standard of care today showed we have less false positives with this newer technology and we have better, when we recommend a biopsy, more of our biopsies come back at cancers, so we're doing less unnecessary biopsies and have less false positives with our newer technology. >> so the official recommendation was changed from age 40 to 50 in 2009. the take away, though, for individuals who are watching at this point is what? >> well, that's the guideline from the u.s. task force. the guideline still from the american cancer society, the american college of surgery, the

american college of obgyn is still to start at the age of 40. if you look at a study that came out of cancer in september showed 70% of the women they followed for over ten years diagnosed with breast cancer, 70% of the women who died, did not have screening mammograms, and the majority of the women who died were diagnosed in their 40s. and to tell a woman that she shouldn't get screened during her 40s if she doesn't have any risk factors is misleading, because 70% of the patients diagnosed with breast cancer have no family history of breast cancer. so i'm afraid we're going to lose those lives of those women who feel like they are safe and they don't need to get a mammogram. mammography does save lives, and it does save lives of women in their 40s. >> thank you so much for joining us. we appreciate it. coming up, it's already legal in colorado and washington, now a third state could legalize marijuana for recreational use and it's getting support from an unlikely

source. i'll talk with the new jersey lawmaker about his proposal. and here's a look at what's happening today. it's world autism awareness day, building across the globe, including the empire state building will light up blue tonight to raise awareness. that's why i'm wearing my blue, today, as well. and the 16-year-old boy who snuck into the world trade center and snuck to the top is due in juvenile court today. this evening, michelle obama and students will plant the white house kitchen garden for the sixth year in a row. but have you been on an airplane lately? oh. [ man ] man, this thing's got a lot of onions. it's good, though. i really wouldn't survive it without this scarf. it's like a little bit of home i can stuff in my bag. mmm. and i have tide plus febreze, which now gets it fresher for longer, so i can stay happy even when -- do you need a napkin? yeah. napkin! okay. oh! oh, my gosh. getting ripe in here, huh? whew! [ ding ] [ female announcer ] tide plus febreze. that's my tide plus.

[ female announcer ] tide plus febreze. olet's say you pay your tguy around 2 percent to manage your money. that's not much, you think except it's 2 percent every year. does that make a difference? search "cost of financial advisors" ouch! over time it really adds up. then go to e*trade and find out how much our advice costs. spoiler alert. it's low. really? yes, really. e*trade offers investment advice and guidance from dedicated professional financial consultants. it's guidance on your terms not ours that's how our system works. e*trade. less for us, more for you. could new jersey be the next state to legalize pot? well, joining colorado and perhaps washington, if it will happen, or it will happen if our next guest has his way, nicolas kutarri has introduced a bill he says would generate millions in tax revenue, save millions more by not putting pot users in jail. governor chris christie repeatedly says he will oppose

any bill that legalizes marijuana, but the legislation has a backing of a key group, and joining us to talk about it is state senator nicolas cutarri. we know the argument about the tax revenue, we know the number of people, for example, prosecuted for pot possession, often minorities as opposed to white, but with your legislation and your bill, you have new momentum in that a major group is supporting you, prosecutors are behind you. that's a first. >> it's a first of its kind, certainly in new jersey. the new jersey state municipal prosecutors association voted in favor of the bill and i think they've taken a reasoned approach as to why it should be legalized. >> and you're a member of the municipal prosecutors association, but that doesn't mean they had to side with you. to the point that some did not and a couple of members abstained from voting, others were unhappy, but the majority went your way here. >> that's correct, and i think it's a major step in the right

direction and will give this bill momentum as to where we should legalize marijuana in new jersey. >> and again, we can't emphasize enough when you have lawmakers taking a different look, a different view at this issue, and combined with prosecutors who are in courts every day, who see these cases go before judges, that perhaps will give new jersey, despite the governor's objection and the objections of others, more momentum, those who support the idea of passing recreational pot. >> well, that's i said. i said when the governor sees the facts, he's going to have to take a very careful look at it rather than a knee-jerk reaction, no, i'll never sign it, never under my watch. when these continued organizations come onboard and you look at the facts, look at the humongous waste of money and desperate effect on citizens, you're going to have to look at it. >> assemblywoman linda stender

says she would introduce a matching compendium in the assembly, but the use you see for this tax revenue, you say it could go for transportation, drug prevention, women's health issues. >> women's health issues have been under attack and underfunded for years. i'd like to be able to set a straight forward revenue stream to fund the important programs. >> what's the next step here? >> it's been introduced, it will be referred to committee and once referred to committee, that committee chair, could be mine, will be able to call a hearing on it. >> what do you believe are the odds here? will new jersey follow colorado and washington? >> i think the odds are good in favor of passage at some point in time. i mean, this is an educational process, as we get the facts in front of the legislators, as we get the facts in front of the citizens. people are going to not be able to stick their head in the sand and look at the reality when we

add prohibition of alcohol, all it did was create crime. when we made it legalized, we made tax revenue and i can see the mirror image of marijuana in the future. >> state senator nicolas scutari, thank you for coming on. right now, the house budget committee is marking up paul ryan's new budget just released, and it is not just democrats, though, who are blasting the proposal. sarah palin is not happy with paul ryan. it's today's first read. plus, move over, ellen, there's a new selfie, the president and big papi. it is one of the things we just thought you should know. we'll tell you how many times this has been retweeted now. i got this.

[thinking] is it that time? the son picks up the check? [thinking] i'm still working. he's retired. i hope he's saving. i hope he saved enough. who matters most to you says the most about you. at massmutual we're owned by our policyowners, and they matter most to us. whether you're just starting your 401(k) or you are ready for retirement, we'll help you get there. i will light up every room i walk into. olay presents the new regenerist luminous collection. renews surface cells to even skin tone. in just two weeks, see pearlescent, luminous skin. new regenerist luminous. from olay. your best beautiful.

live in the same communities that we serve. people here know that our operations have an impact locally. we're using more natural gas vehicles than ever before. the trucks are reliable, that's good for business. but they also reduce emissions, and that's good for everyone. it makes me feel very good about the future of our company. ♪ sarah palin is blasting fellow republican paul ryan's new 2015 budget plan calling it a, quote, joke. palin wrote on her facebook page, the latest ryan budget is

not an april fool's joke, but it is a joke, because it's still not seeing the problem. it still is not proposing reining in wasteful government spending. tea party also criticizing the plan as a, quote, work of april fool's day fiction. they too doubt future spending cuts will ever really materialize. ryan's budget plan will cut spending by $5.1 trillion over ten years and balance the budget by then. it also overhauls medicare and medicaid and reforms social security. it will repeal the president's health care law. a new york times editorial asks does the republican party really want to coalesce around a budget this destructive to the country's future? mark, as you know, in its reaction to it, the white house said this essentially stacks the decks against the middle class and threatens the economy and recovery here. so, paul ryan managed to make everyone unhappy. >> i think the proof's going to be in the pudding when house

republicans vote on this, and, of course, passage in the house needs 217 house republicans. i think that's actually going to be done. tamron, what i'm most interested in are house republicans running in the most competitive senate contests in the country, cotton in arkansas, danes in montana, a handful of house republicans in georgia running for the united states senate, and do they actually vote yes on this? because democrats are ready to pounce when it comes to the medicare changes, as we've seen in paul ryan's budgets over the last few years. democrats see this as voucherizing medicare or privatizing medicare. it's more complicated than that, but democrats are hoping to be able to use those attacks on republicans if they vote for it next week. >> that brings me back to what i said, who is happy? everyone seems to be unhappy, you said, well, as if there are someone outside of paul ryan, who is backing at least this initial proposal or some of these ideas that we're discussing. >> well, you mentioned some

elements of the tea party opposed to it, but overwhelmingly house republicans and house conservatives do like this. it gets them to a balanced budget within ten years, although one big caveat, assumes huge dynamic scoring from some of the tax cuts. it also just has an unprecedented cut when it comes to discretionary spending for nondefense measures. and so republicans really like that a lot, they love the reforms to medicaid, love the reforms to medicare, dismantling a lot of the social safety net. the senate is not going to take this up, but the best way to look at this is the party's political platform and also their platform the next time they'd control the white house and congress. i think that's the biggest kind of takeaway from what paul ryan wants to do. >> brings us back to one of the things he mentioned, repealing health care law, which we heard from the president again, regarding those republicans who still see that as a blueprint to your point of what they would like to see happen.

>> but tamron, they also want to assume all the cuts that were in the health care law to actually help paul ryan balance his budget, he assumes those, even though he wants to repeal the law. >> mark, thank you very much. such an interesting place. thank you very much. >> thanks, tamron. all right, it's a situation that could have ended badly, two baseball fans grabbing a bat that flew into the stands at a tampa bay/toronto game, but they turned to one of the oldest ways to solve the dispute. rock, paper, scissors. it's one of the stories around the "news nation." we'll show you who won. way to get your fiber. try phillips fiber good gummies. they're delicious, and a good source of fiber to help support regularity. wife: mmmm husband: these are good! marge: the tasty side of fiber. from phillips. if your denture moves, it can irritate your gums. try fixodent plus gum care. it helps stop denture movement and prevents gum irritation.

fixodent. and forget it.

and prevents gum irritation. so when my moderate to severe chronic plaque psoriasis them. was also on display, i'd had it. i finally had a serious talk with my dermatologist. this time, he prescribed humira-adalimumab. humira helps to clear the surface of my skin by actually working inside my body. in clinical trials, most adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis saw 75% skin clearance. and the majority of people were clear or almost clear in just 4 months. humira can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal events, such as infections, lymphoma, or other types of cancer have happened.

blood, liver and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure have occurred. before starting humira, your doctor should test you for tb. ask your doctor if you live in or have been to a region where certain fungal infections are common. tell your doctor if you have had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have symptoms such as fever, fatigue, cough, or sores. you should not start humira if you have any kind of infection. make the most of every moment. ask your dermatologist about humira, today. clearer skin is possible. a prediction no one in the midwest wants to hear tops our look at stories around the "news nation" today. conditions are ideal for hailstorms and tornados today, as storms move through the area, facing the greatest risk of severe weather.

and one of the biggest lottery winners in powerball history has come forward. raymond buxton kept his face covered by a check. that's the best way to cover your face, and says he's hoping to keep his privacy after claiming february's $455 million jackpot. he said he's going to enjoy his new job, setting up a charity focused on pediatric health, child hunger, education. fantastic. and proof that everything you need to know you learned in kindergarten when a bat went flying into the bleachers at a tampa bay game, two men caught opposite ends of the bat, so who takes it home? they settled it rock, paper, scissors style. paper covers rock and paper wins the bat. i never played this in my life, but now i need it when i'm in the battle for a bat, okay. he won. i got it. got to practice. it's no secret women are under a lot of pressure under -- in the

technology industry, and when you look at the entrepreneurs and executives, the numbers get lower, and when you break the numbers down by race, the disparity is even more stunning. according to the most recent census data, about 1 in 14 people working in the technology sector are black or latino. the issue even prompted civil rights activist jesse jackson to lead a delegation of insiders late last month to bring attention to the racial disparity in silicon valley. joining me now, angela vinton, founder of new me company, that helps minority and women-owned tech businesses accelerate their growth. thank you so much for joining us. >> thanks for having me, tamron. >> absolutely. angela, we've talked a lot lately about women being underrepresented in the technology world, and now we're breaking it down to where people who are black and brown are not represented, particularly women in the industry. tell me a little bit of what

you're doing to face this issue. we know the score. we just said the numbers, but what are you and others doing to get women of color at the table? >> sure, well, there are a lot of different organizations tackling this problem in a lot of different ways. how we're tackling the problem is, we're identifying entrepreneurs that are of color, specifically african-american, latino, and women, and we're especiallily training them to become more successful entrepreneurs and connecting them with investors. >> are you seeing companies support your organization and paying for this training? how is this training provided to the women? >> sure, so we do have companies, google supports us, they are one of our very, very first supporters, but what's interesting is a lot of the entrepreneurs are paying for the training themselves, as well, and so it's not something that people are shying away from. it's not something that people can't do. people want to build successful companies, they just need to know how.

>> i know this is personal for you, your background, as i understand it, you're a young single mother who made your way into the world of design and coding in digital media. i can imagine a lot of young women come to you and say, how did you do? >> yes, absolutely. i had my oldest daughter, she's about to be 17, when i was 16, so being pregnant at 15, a lot of people tend to kind of count you out, and so a lot of women, whether they are teenaged mothers or whether they are mothers that are stay at home moms trying to bring more money to the table, contribute to their household, or are running their households, they are interested in what they can do to kind of transform their lives. >> and so it sounds to me the takeaway with your initiative and other organizations like yours were really trying to broaden this conversation, is that there are resources available and that there are some companies, obviously, we need more, who are willing to look at these numbers and put the properly trained people who

perhaps had doors closed on them in the past due to gender, due to race, have those doors opened. >> absolutely. the key issue is to get the training and then to be plugged into the networks, whether it's investors, whether it's companies that are hiring in the technology industry, so that you're competing with other applicants, other startups, or other businesses. >> well, congratulations on the success you've had. i know you're going to continue to spread the word and we will do the same. again, you're the founder and ceo of new me, and if people want more information, they can go online and get those details. thank you so much for your time. up next, it's today's "news nation" gut check. new rules concerning our soldiers and their appearance. some are calling a regulation regarding hair racist. look at this. i'll talk with a female soldier who started a white house petition to have some changes made. [ man #1 ] we're now in the approach phase, everything looking good. ♪

velocity 1,200 feet per second. [ man #2 ] you're looking great to us, eagle. ♪ 2,000 feet. ♪ still looking very good. 1,400 feet. [ male announcer ] a funny thing happens when you shoot for the moon. ahh, that's affirmative. [ male announcer ] you get there. you're a go for landing, over. [ male announcer ] the all new cadillac cts, the 2014 motor trend car of the year.

this is mike. his long race day starts with back pain... ...and a choice. take 4 advil in a day which is 2 aleve... ...for all day relief. "start your engines"

there's a lot going on today. here's something we thought you should know. this morning, david ortiz's selfie with president obama has gone viral. the boston slugger's picture has been now retweeted 38,000 times in the last 24 hours. big papi snapped a pic yesterday during the world champion white house visit. it's drawing sharp criticism for rules many say unfairly target african-american women's hair. now, the regulations include rules on tattoos, hair styles, grooming and uniforms. however, one of the rules which only applies to women is a ban on twists, dread locks, and multiple braids or corn rows that are bigger than a quarter of an inch. an army spokesperson told the army times newspaper the air styles have been barred since 2005, but the new regulations

are now more specific. he argues they are "necessary to maintain uniformity within a military population." but it's not sitting well with more than 7,000 soldiers who have now signed a white house petition calling on the president to order the army to reconsider the regulations. joining me now, a soldier who started the petition, sergeant jasmine jacobs of the georgia national guard. sergeant, thank you so much for your time today. >> thank you. thank you for having me. >> so 7,000 voices have joined you here. at the heart of this, you feel is discrimination. explain to me why you believe that this alienates african-american women specifically? >> many of the changes in the new regulations which determine our uniform policy, they outlaw things that are frequented in the black female hair community, especially with females of natural hair, and that would be two-spring twists, which is the hair style that my hair is in currently, as well as dre

dreadlocks, flat twists, and things mostly worn by females of color. >> obviously your hair looks nice, it's neat. quite lovely, by the way. >> thank you. >> you wrote womens' hair does not grow straight down, it goes out. i am glad to see the army, rather than see them inform themselves, they've whitewashed it all. what was the reaction to that piece you wrote and how you articulated it. you feel it's being whitewashed rather than an issue of education. >> i used the phrase "whitewash" to describe the fact that many of the hair styles that are now authorized are hair striyles frequented by people with naturally straight hair, women not of color. our hair does not normally grow straight down like most people's hair might grow. it actually grows out or curly or grows kinky or coily naturally. so by telling us that many of the hair styles that are allowed now, i feel like it was a racial

bias. >> in this quote from the army spokesperson, they say many hair styles are acceptable, as long as they are neat and conservative. in addition, headgear is expected to fit snugly and comfortably without bulging or distortion from the intended shape of the headgear and without excessive gaps. unfortunately, some hair styles do not meet this standard, or others listed. what are some of the things that you heard from the 7,000 voices who joined you on this petition? >> well, a great majority of the people that i've spoken with kind of had the same sentiments that i've had when i created the petition, that's we're at a loss what to do with our hair now that this regulation has been passed. as of right now, the way my hair is, in five days it will be out of regulationing because there are seven days we have to comply with the regulations. and i can wear my headgear properly. you can have neat dreadlocks that would allow you to wear your headgear properly. you have flat twists that would allow you to wear your hair properly. there are several hair styles that are proper and now

unauthorized. >> sergeant, i want to check back in with you in five days to see the latest on this. but we appreciate you joining, and we'll see what happens here. thank you. and thank you for your service to this country. >> thank you. >> so what does your gut tell you? do you think the army's new hair regulations are racially biased? go to newsnation.msnbc.com to cast your vote. that does it for this edition of "news nation." i'm tamron hall. up next on "andrea mitchell reports", the supreme court's decision on the campaign finance reform. keep in mind "unbiased". some brokerage firms are but way too many aren't. why? because selling their funds makes them more money. which makes you wonder. isn't that a conflict? search "proprietary mutual funds". yikes!! then go to e*trade. we've got over 8,000 mutual funds and not one of them has our name on it. we're in the business of finding the right investments for you. e*trade. less for us, more for you. the fund's prospectus contains its investment objectives, risks, charges, expenses and other important information and should be read and considered carefully before investing. for a current prospectus visit www.etrade.com/mutualfunds.

(music) defiance is in our bones. defiance never grows old. citracal maximum. calcium citrate plus d. highly soluble, easily absorbed.

hi dad. she's a dietitian. and back when i wasn't eating right, she got me drinking boost. it's got a great taste, and it helps give me the nutrition i was missing. helping me stay more like me. [ female announcer ] boost complete nutritional drink has 26 essential vitamins and minerals, including calcium and vitamin d to support strong bones and 10 grams of protein to help maintain muscle. all with a delicious taste. grandpa! [ female announcer ] look for valuable savings on boost in your sunday paper.

right now on "andrea mitchell reports," firing line. general motors ceo mary barra facing tough questions again today. this time from senators frustrated with answers about what gm's lawyers did when they first learned about fatal car defects. >> those lawyers work for the executive level. they don't work for the engineers. they're hired by your senior

counsel. that's who hires those lawyers, his office, correct? >> yes. >> so what i want to know is what investigation began after that deposition. >> that is part of the investigation, there would be -- >> so you don't know whether or not anything happened after that investigation. >> i don't have the complete facts to share with you today. >> okay, well that is incredibly frustrating to me. >> and it only increases the pain for families not happy with mary barra's answers about gm's responsibility for those faulty ignition switches. >> do you give her credit for holding that meeting, or do you find her to be sincere? >> no. not enough answers. again, it was scripted. there was no dry eye in the room except mary barra. money talks. the supreme court today opening the floodgates on campaign contributions. removing one of the last barriers. we'll get the latest on today's decisiro