ivan lopez, and 16 injured, leaving only questions for investigators for the families, and for the united states military. namely, how did a man with a seemingly clear record turn violent? in a news conference just a short time ago, doctors at one hospital said three of the nine victims taken there remain in critical condition. after the 34-year-old lopez allegedly shot into two buildings before taking his own life after being confronted by a military police officer. military officials say specialist lopez enlisted in the u.s. army almost six years ago after nine years in the reserves. he had served two deployments, including one four-month deployment to iraq. but while officials say he was being evaluated for possible post-traumatic stress disorder, there had been no actual diagnosis. >> his records show no wounds, no involvement, direct involvement in combat. no record of purple heart or any

injury that might lead us to further investigate a battle-related tbi or such. >> in other words, no apparent battlefield injuries resulting in a traumatic brain injury. as for his mental state, army officials say lopez was undergoing a variety of treatments and diagnoses from depression, to anxiety to sleep disturbance and that he had been prescribed drugs including ambien. but once again, officials say his record was clean in terms of behavior. >> he was seen just last month by a psychiatrist. he was fully examined and as of this morning, we had no indication on the record of that examination that there was any sign of likely violence, either to himself or to others. >> the tragedy comes less than five years after ft. hood was shaken by another shooting rampage, this time by nidal hasan, who killed 13 people. lopez shows no links to

terrorism, but they're still struggling for a motive between yesterday's attack. charles hadlock has been reporting. what can you tell us about ivan lopez and actually how he got that gun on to the base? >> reporter: well, he bought the gun several weeks ago. lopez had only been living in the killeen area the last three months after he was transferred here. he bought a gun recently. we confirmed that with the gun store owner today, that he purchased the gun, which is not illegal. he passed all the background checks. and guns are not illegal to take on to ft. hood. however, the owners must register them with the post and that did not happen in this case nor in the case of nidal hasan, who also bought his gun from the same store here in killeen back in 2009 before that rampage. the family lives in an apartment complex not far from the post here. we sent a crew over there today. they found what we believe to believe the spouse of the

soldier at that apartment. she said that she was tired, she was not feeling well and had been up all night talking to police. shortly after that, family members came and took her away. we don't know much about the family. neighbors said that there's a 3-year-old girl who lives there. and that they thought the soldier, lopez, was a friendly man. he would wave to them as he came and went throughout the day. so they're baffled as to why he would pick up a gun and come on base and kill some of the soldiers here at ft. hood. joy? >> and so you've mentioned -- you tried to speak with family members, but has there been any official statement thus far out of the families or relatives of mr. lopez? >> reporter: none whatsoever. the military has not even confirmed -- at least here in ft. hood, they have not confirmed who the soldier was who committed this act. pentagon officials have identified the soldier as ivan lopez. he's 34 years old.

he grew up in puerto rico and was in the national guard there for a number of years before joining the army in 2010. >> all right, nbc's charles hadlock, thank you very much. let's bring in retired general. we've been talking a little bit off camera about this young man, mr. lopez, the alleged shooter in this case. you were making a very interesting point about his rank versus the time he's spent in the military. >> somebody who's spent nine years in uniform and who's 34 years old has the rank of somebody who's about 19 or maybe 20 years old. very, very unusual. i mean, you would expect somebody with his experience and his age to be at least a sergeant or maybe even a staff sergeant, two grades above the grade he was. so although there's no reason to disbelieve what the secretary of the army is saying, that he's got no blemish on his record,

i'm curious about why somebody has spent so much time in a very low grade -- hasn't been prom e promoted. it's very unusual indeed. >> let's talk just a little bit about the mental health aspect of it. if you could tell us what is the procedure when somebody is seeking help? how does that impact potentially their ability to move up in rank in the military? >> well, it is not supposed to have any impediment to their moving up in rank. from what i understand, from the information that's been divulged so far, his personal assessment that he was suffering from some traumatic brain injury is relatively recent, so i would expected him to be promoted long before this ever happened. and if he were a higher rank, for him to say i've got problems, would not result in his being reduced in rank at all. so i'd expect him to be at least one and probably two grades higher than he is now in any case. >> right. well, let's talk a little bit

about ft. hood. this being the second mass shooting that we've seen take place at ft. hood. talk about ft. hood itself, about the facility, about the security at the facility. is there something about ft. hood that made it more vulnerable to a mass shooting like this? >> in short, no. i'll tell you this. ft. hood is the largest u.s. army installation in the united states and it's got lots of competition. ft. bragg, north carolina, where i served, home of the 82nd airborne division, that's huge. ft. lewis, washington, also huge. there are lots of very big installations. so it is the biggest. it's not alone. being big, of course, has its own physical security restrictions and problems. it means that you have a very close relationship, a symbiotic relationship with the community outside, in this case, killeen, texas. indeed, you could consider killeen, texas, part of the ft. hood community, period. there are tens of thousands of

vehicles that go in and out of the post every day through check points. if somebody were to suggest that what you really need to do is clamp down on security, you need to be able to physically inspect every vehicle that comes in, that's a physical impossibility without shutting the entire place down. a huge physical security challenge, very difficult to make it completely secure. having said all that, you and i were talking about this before we came on air. a place like ft. hood, texas, like all the other military installations, is almost infinitely more secure than every place outside. i know we focus a lot of attention on this incident. but military posts are by and large very, very safe places to be. when i lived on a military post, nobody locked his door. >> yeah. two things that happened there horrible does not make a trend. i want to play you an exchange between chuck todd and a congressman named roger williams. he's a texas congressman. he had this to say. and this was a response that a

lot of people were expecting at some point someone to say about this event. but i want to play it for you and get your response. >> there's a side that says if they'd have been able to have their guns at the time, this tragedy might not have happened. >> there's another argument that could say, though, that it would have increased the amount of gunfire back and forth. >> well, i mean, probably that's true, but also it would not have been one-sided. and that's the debate we need to have and that's always the debate you have when you talk about something like this. but if you're going to be in a fight, i think you want it to be an even fight. >> so, jack, is that the problem, that there were not enough guns out? >> well, the problem may be there may be too many congressmen like mr. williams. i'm an equal opportunity, but that's among the dumbest things i've said in a long, long time. i'm not even certain that mr. williams ever served in uniform either. but i'm trying to roll the tape forward. arm everybody with a weapon and

have them go at each other in or out of the military installation and anybody could see that that's an extremely irresponsible and foolish thing to say. i hope nobody in any position of authority agrees with him. that's very silly thing to say and do. >> i think it's been made very definitively clear tla t lly cl folks running ft. hood say the concealed weapon policy will remain as it is. >> people in the military chain of command who have seen combat, who have trained soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines for their entire careers, for 30 and 40 years know what's right for their troops and know how to take care of it. i don't think you'll get a single one of them to go anywhere and agree with mr. williams. very silly. >> colonel jack jacobs, thanks as always. >> thanks for having me on. coming up next, we'll delve deeper into the mental health issue and what's being done to help veterans adjust to life on the home front. [ 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.

as the army continues to investigate, and ft. hood continues to recover in the aftermath of a mass shooting yesterday, the focus for many is on the suspected shooter. army specialist ivan lopez. today, army chief of staff raymond odierno had this to say. >> this was an experienced soldier. he spent actually nine years in the puerto rico national guard before coming on active duty, so he's a very experienced soldier. had a one-year deployment to the sinai with the national guard, and had a four-month deployment in iraq. it was the last four months at the end of 2011. >> officials say army specialist

lopez had a clean record behavior-wise, but we have to re-examine how it may affect one's mental health and whether we're doing enough to address it. joying me now, goldie taylor. john salt, chairman of votevets.org. and david wood, "huffington post" senior military correspondent. i want to start with you, john. i think this elephant in the room when we're talking about veterans nowadays is the experience of so many iraq and afghanistan. we have a situation where among military personnel with at least one mental health condition, that is up 62% from 2001 to 2011. talk about the experience that so many young vets coming back from afghanistan and iraq are dealing with in re-adjusting to civilian life. >> well, first, it's hard because your experience is so different than to what anything your peers have experienced here in the united states. so we have the smallest percentage ever in the history of our country serving in a protracted war. it's about 1% of the population.

so if you're a 25-year-old or a 26-year-old and you come back to go to school, you have a very different relationship. so you have a huge adjustment issue. then you throw on top of that the combat issues, what it was like to be shot at. perhaps you saw someone get killed. perhaps you may unfortunately have hurt somebody else. that's obviously difficult in itself. then you come home and there could be family issues with divorces or separation. there's just a lot going on there. and the diagnosis for ptsd is very complicated. there is no blood test, so it's always an interpretation. i think that's one of the things that will play out in this specific case, someone who sought some type of help. but there's a very long process of being able to diagnose somebody with something like ptsd or getting them the long-term type care that they would need because these issues develop over time. they don't always manifest immediately when someone returns. >> that is a very good point. to jon's point, when you look at actually who has ptsd, the statistics say it's 11% to 20% of those who served in iraq and afghanistan. up to 10% who served in the

first gulf war. up to 30% of vietnam war veterans. so we're talking about a very broad percentage of the population, who to the point that jon just made, dealing with somebody who is very difficult to diagnose and pin down, let alone to predict what might happen. >> ptsd is often confused with other pathologies. you don't actually have to serve on the front line or see a hot war in order to be impacted by ptsd or to come home with this diagnosis. but the difficulty really comes down to being diagnosed and receiving the treatment that you need. having served in the military, i know that our health services are some of the best in the world. that isn't always true for returning soldiers and certainly isn't always true for our veterans. so i think that that's really where the issue here lies. i'm going to be interested to know, however, as colonel jack jacobs said, this young man served some nine years in the national guard and four more as an enlisted active duty serviceman. he only ranked to an e4. that's a corporal in the army. that's a relatively low rank.

he didn't even make sergeant in all of those years. i've got to wonder when they say there are no behavioral issues on his record, i've got to know what was holding him back from the natural career progression. were there issues that his commanding officer saw beforehand that maybe they did not document. i've got to believe that someone somewhere saw some issue with this young man before this took place. so we've got to look at ourselves and see how we manage our men and women who are serving in harm's way or even on our military installations to understand what's going on with them, to prevent actions just like this. >> you know, to that point, you wrote a piece for the huffington piece about something called moral injuries. in being able to evaluate the people under someone's command. can you talk a little bit about that? >> this is a real wake-up call, this shootliing at ft. hood because it opens us up to acknowledging there's a whole lot we don't know about the

mental condition of troops and what war trauma can cause. moral injury i think is a term that covers a variety of mental issues that are much broader than ptsd. so i think it affects almost everybody who goes to war. moral injury is for example, medics who feel guilty that they couldn't save a mortally injured soldier. i know marines who feel ashamed because they were wounded and medevaced when their buddies weren't. it's things like that. people grieving over the sudden loss of a comrade in battle. so there's a whole variety of things we don't know. in this case, though, i want to point out that as much as we're concerned with the mental condition of our troops, we have to acknowledge that there's no link that we know of between mental issues such as specialist lopez said he was experiencing,

and homicide. people with ptsd are not mass killers. we've got to acknowledge that. researchers are beginning to look at that very question. does ptsd cause violent aggression, and if so, how can we stop that, and that's the thing. not only don't we know that, but we don't have enough therapists to help people with ptsd even at this point. >> that's an excellent point because what we do see is the suicide rate, actually, the thing that has become the focus for a lot of people who are looking at vets from all of these contemporary wars. the suicide rate for vets under 40 is up 44% for men, up 11% for women. that's really where the danger lies, isn't it? >> we have a crisis in the military. i feel it still as an army reservist. and everything that we do is about suicide prevention. i could go this weekend and that's what we're going to talk about. it's shut down all the time.

we do have a soldier here who was not promoting. i don't put a lot of weight into what the chief of staff said. also in the fact that maybe he wasn't in combat. when you're driving in iraq in 2011, it's very dangerous. the suicide epidemic is a problem. it's why the vice chairman of the army got into a large battle with the nra last year about our ability to go and collect weapons who are suicidal. so we've been in a long battle inside the military where there's just such pressure on us to sort of halt the suicide epidemic and it's very difficult. 90% of the time there's a handgun involved. so handgun, you have a military installations there for a reason because we're trying everything we can to stop this suicide epidemic. that's where we see perhaps people depressed, anxiety issues take their own life. >> does it frustrate you when you do hear politicians saying the answer is simply more guns on the bases? >> it's frustrating me who

people who may not have ever donned a uniform, who don't understand what it's like. so it bothers me. i heard the general from ft. hood say this morning that he was not in the least bit interested in changing the policy in terms of gun carrying for military service men and women at ft. hood, that that was an absolutely ridiculous idea. and i have to agree with him. the notion is, though, that in order for you to search, to be sure that there are no weapons that are not appropriately registered with the base, you would have to search every man, woman, and child coming on to the base, and ft. hood has about 50,000 people coming in and out every day. you'd have to lock down a small city for that to happen. we've got to begin to understand what other preventative measures we can take towards stopping gun violence. and that means getting in front of suicides. getting in front of people and seeing what their mental health picture truly is. you know, inside of a military installation, you've got more purview into someone's personal life than you do in civilian life, so we need to really take

advantage of it in terms of what's happening with them, mentally and internally. >> indeed. very important discussion. thank you to all of you for being here. >> thank you, joy. now a quick weather alert. we're following a massive weather system that could slam a huge chunk of the country. more than 50 million people are in its path, under the threat of tornados or large hail. at least one confirmed tornado has touched down in universal city, missouri. southern missouri and parts of arkansas and kansas remain under a tornado watch at this hour. we'll keep an eye on it and keep you posted. if i can impart one lesson to a

new business owner, it would be one thing i've learned is my philosophy is real simple american express open forum is an on-line community, that helps our members connect and share ideas to make smart business decisions. if you mess up, fess up. be your partners best partner. we built it for our members, but it's open for everyone. there's not one way to do something. no details too small. american express open forum. this is what membership is. this is what membership does.

coming up, we read between the lines on how the supreme court just obliterated post-watergate protections against big money buying american elections. but now, it's time for "we the tweeple." we're still collectively reeling from the shooting at ft. hood last night. social media was responsible for the first reportings of the shooting. this appears to capture ft. hood

residentins being ordered to shelter. >> take shelter immediately. >> and then there's this instagram video. it appears to show soldiers exchanging gunfire, capturing the fear of the man who recorded it as he ducked to avoid the bullets. in the neighborhood surrounding the base, people tweeted what appeared to be pictures of police blocking roads. many of you have offered empathy for the mental health issues faced by soldiers like the alleged shooter, which often go untreated for too long. hope all my veteran friends are doing okay today, tweeted one man. these things can stir up so much. remember, you always have someone to call, me included. i think we all share the sentiments of texas senator john cornyn, who tweeted "praying for ft. hood." social media has also been a social solution in chile, following a huge aftershock on wednesday, which came on the heels of tuesday's 8.2 magnitude

quake. using twitter and text messages, 900,000 people were safely evacuated by authorities. you've been sharing your support for the country over t the #chileearthquake, but it's great to not that not one person died yesterday as social media helped get the word out quickly. from chile to cuba now, where big social media news might have put the u.s. in some hot water. starting in 2009, new reports say the government agency u.s. aid reportedly secretly funded a twitter-like app in the communist country. hoping to cause a revolution like the twitter-fueled arab spring. the project reached 200,000 users without anyone ever sending a single fight the power tweet. it was shut down in 2012, but it may have violated u.s. laws about how the president and congress can engage in covert operations. for now, you can join the conversation with fellow reiders on twitter, facebook, instagram, and msnbc.com and keep telling us what's important to you. up next, hey, big spenders.

what does the 1% want in exchange for their donations? we'll dig into the cause and effect for the supreme court's decision on campaign spending.  transferred money from his before larry instantly bank of america savings account to his merrill edge retirement account. before he opened his first hot chocolate stand calling winter an "underserved season". and before he quit his friend's leaf-raking business for "not offering a 401k." larry knew the importance of preparing for retirement. that's why when the time came he counted on merrill edge to streamline his investing

and help him plan for the road ahead. that's the power of streamlined connections. that's merrill edge and bank of america.

awesome, messy kids. they get stains like you wouldn't believe. this new tide ultra stain release and zap! cap helps me get out pretty much any stain. can i help? aww. just kidding. [ female announcer ] new tide ultra stain release helps remove 99% of everyday stains. [ female announcer ] new tide ultra stain release thoughtful combinations, artfully prepared. fancy feast elegant medleys. inspired dishes like primavera,

florentine and tuscany. fancy feast. a medley of love, served daily. big money donors are getting ready to open their wallets even wider today. john roberts says it's okay. the supreme court is doubling down on its decision, ruling in favor of sean mccutchen, an obama businessman w alabama businessman who argues he should be able to contribute as much campaign cash to whomever he wants. john roberts agrees. there is no right more basic in our democracy than the right to participate in electing our political leaders. remember this former president and the scandal that brought him down? beginning with the post-watergate era, all the way through mccain-feingold in the early 2000s, campaign finance

reforms were put in place to try and put checks on the influence of big money in politics. for a while, that might have worked but over the last 12 years, big money has gradually made a comeback. 2012 was the most expensive election season in u.s. history. the septembcenter for responsiv politics estimates $6 billion was spent in total, with outside groups contributing as much as a billion dollars, and according to the sun life foundation, just 1,200 individuals spent $155 million of that total. and now, we have last weekend's first ever adelson primary, where republican hopefuls brought big dreams of political superstardom to vegas in hopes of getting a big check in just one billionaire casino magnate. >> sheldon and i owned a restaurant together. >> so in ohio, we're no longer flyover, sheldon. listen, sheldon, thanks for inviting me. >> republicans are thrilled with

the ruling. the republican party even sided with mccutchen in the case. >> the reason we're excited is that it brings the political parties -- i think the most accountable groups in america a little bit closer to exercising our first amendment rights, just like everybody else. >> first amendment rights like everybody else. perhaps "the new york times" says it best. the mccutchen decision is less about free speech than about giving those few people with the most money the loudest voice in politics. with this ruling, the loudest voices are about to get even louder. joining me now, role call's eliza carney, and scott ross. thanks to both of you for being here. and i want to start with you, eliza. let's sort of talk about this elite that has benefited, surely will benefit from the supreme court ruling. in the last election cycle, you had 1,219 elite donor, $155.2

million. now, that's compared to four million small donors to president obama and to mitt romney who altogether gave 313 million. so you have basically 1,200 people gave about half of the total. but demos has projected without any limits, that same 1,219 elite donors would have given $459 billion, meaning that 1,200 people would have outspent four million people. is this just the future for our elections? are we really just going back to the mckinley era? >> i don't think we're going to go back to the mckinley era in the short-term. one thing to bear in mind is the direct or base contribution limits remain in place so someone like sean mccutchen cannot give more than $2,600 per election to a particular candidate but he can give to a larger number of candidates. the same goes for the political parties. the political parties are still capped from the amount they can receive from any one donor.

it's just that donors who so-called max out can give to more political party committees at once. and that will probably help, especially the republican national committee in the short-term, because they historically have been perceived to have a lot of large donors in their side and they're very motivated this year. but in the long-term, you will see more money flowing to the parties, and the parties, even the democratic party officials are happy about that, even though they may not be saying that out loud. so i don't think you're going to see a really immediate dramatic change, but we are moving more and more toward a total deregulation of the campaign finance system in the long-term. >> yeah, because you had one of the justices, clarence thomas, who would like to blow that cap, too, the $2,600 cap. scott, talk about the kind of donors, the kind of individual donors who could likely take advantage of something like this. the sun life foundation has identified some of them. they've identified some people they think are most likely big

spenders. who are these big spenders and what in your view are they looking for for their money? >> well, i think what they're looking for, joy, is they're looking to have more influence in the political process than normal people like you and i have. there has been an orgy of spending, and consequently, with that has come a -- we are at a juncture where confidence in our elected officials is at an all-time low. this ruling is not going to do anything to help that. you know, this -- aggregate limits were put in place to stop essentially money laundering. and now with those aggregate limits thrown out, there's going to be much more opportunity for big donors, big influence pedalers to enact more of what they want on the public policy debate and get elected officials to do exactly what they want, despite what the needs of the people are. >> you talked about the fact that you still do have the individual contribution limits. so explain to us how does this actually play out? let's say sean mccutchen now

wants to operate in this world, what can he do differently now that he couldn't do before? >> well, before, he could only give to about nine candidates and now he can give to as many as he wants. and before, in a given cycle, because of the aggregate limit, the overall total limit that you could give in one election cycle, he might have to choose, well, i'm going to give to the republican national committee and the senatorial committee. now i can give to the house committee, the senatorial committee, and the republican national committee all at once. but in a practical way, what's going to happen is that the committees are going to sort of ban together, and they already do have something called joint fundraising committees. and the danger here from the perspective of those who endorse political money limits is that john boehner or a nancy pelosi can have one of those joint fundraising committees and be the one in the room to solicit and receive a very large check from a sheldon adelson or progressive environmentalist spending millions on elections as well. and that that effectively takes

us back to the days when we didn't have a soft money ban. the mccain feingold law in 2000 banned the unrestricted donations to the political parties, and the fear is that this will become a way to sidestep that ban, and effectively bring it back. >> so essentially we will shift money away from perhaps the dark money and give directly to the parties and buy them outright. i think that's not that good news, but i guess in a sense it is good news. i don't know if it is or not. >> there is a silver lining here. >> okay, we'll call it a silver lining and that's a good idea. thank you both for being here. >> thanks for having us. julia roberts took home the oscar for playing consumer advocate erin brockovich. >> these people don't dream about being rich. they dream about being able to watch their kids swim in a pool without worrying that they'll have to have a hysterectomy at the age of 20, like rosa diaz, a client of ours. or have their spine deteriorate like stan bloom, another client of ours.

>> the real life erin brockovich is here to talk about how corporate money in politics can lead to disastrous consequences well beyond the ballot box. that's next. ups is a global company, but most of our employees 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.

♪

so we've talked about what the supreme court mccutchen decision means for campaigns and elections. now let's take it a step further. under this new/old way of doing business in which elections can be bought by the people with the most money, the corporations that people run are also by elections. and that, my friends, means corporations will have the freedom to run the country the way they please. and so the logical question to ask is this -- what is it that they want? well, they want what they always wanted. big unions busted. tax hikes. no minimum wage hike. deregulation. now think about what companies are already getting away with. general motors, for instance, spent a decade selling fatally flawed vehicles instead of

implementing a fix that cost less than a dollar per car. and while the company is conducting an internal investigation and says it will be open with its findings with the public, at least a dozen people are still dead. according to the center for responsive politics, gm, which it classifies as a heavy hitter, made $354,000 in 2014 campaign contributions and spent nearly $9 million lobbying washington. how about pacific gas and electric. this week charged with 12 felony criminal counts in 2010's fatal pipeline blast. pg&e gave us a statement that read in part, "an independent review panel's report found no evidence of any intent to compromise public safety." pg&e's contributions for this election cycle, more than 3 million in lob big. duke energy publicly vowing to clean up a coal ash spill that contaminated 70 miles of north carolina's dan river, but privately filed a legal document

denying liability. duke told us those are two separate issues. duke also spent almost $500,000 in campaign contributions and nearly 6 million in 2013 lobbying. the list goes on and on. with freedom industries, massive chemical spill into west virginia's elk river among the most memorable. the point is, if these companies were already spending millions to protect themselves, just think what can happen now that the sky is the limit and in a world where corporations are also considered people. the question is, is there any hope for greater justice when corporations/people are in charge of themselves? here to discuss that question with me, a woman whose name is synonymous with fearlessly taking on big business, consumer advocate and environmental activist erin brockovich. thank you so much for being here. >> hi, joy, thanks for having me. >> so i want to show a video of you actually visiting, investigating the site of that west virginia spill, and salon.com, they put this point

from a recent new yorker article. it said how the coal industry took over, by harnessing political influence, campaign finance, public relations, politicized research. west virginia's coal industry has recast an economic debate as a cultural debate. a yes or no question. all or nothing. viewed in that light, a vote for the industry is a vote for yourself, your identity, your survival. the coal industry has created the illusion of vitality. how do we reach the point, erin, where corporations have sort of seamlessly merged the idea of corporate governance, p.r., lobbying and actual government? >> well, yes, and no. i mean, this is something that i've been watching and working on in my career for the past 20 years. i think that in some ways, the fox has always been there guarding the hen house, and maybe we haven't noticed or we've become complacent, and we're in a place now where we're becoming much more aware of what's going on around us.

it reminds me of my work way back in the day with pacific gas and electric and a situation out in hinckley, california. and while it may feel that the scales have clearly tipped in that corporate favor, they're going to get away with a lot, it really boils down to something that oftentimes i think we miss that i want to keep bringing back to the table. that doesn't mean that we have to dismiss our own individual citizen accountability. and when communities come together and they don't let the influence of someone else's money sway their opinion, their vote, or their decision, they have a good fighting chance to overcome those obstacles. and i see it happening everywhere today with everything that you just spoke about, whether it be duke energy or what's happening with pg&e. there's a lot of things that have to happen.

division is something that works for them, that we need to stay very collectively aware and conscientious, that we as an individual, as a citizen in a community can make our choices, our voices individually are more important than ever, and when we unite through education, awareness, information, and using those voices, we have a chance to fight back. >> how do you make that case to people, when they see something like the supreme court decision, when they see corporations essentially unprosecuted despite the fact of loss of life. when you see the disparity in power between individuals and corporations, which seems to be getting wider. i'm wondering how you even convince people that it's worth trying to fight back? >> because i think they see for themselves. when the situation -- you know, it's one thing when we watch a

movie, and it hasn't really affected us. that they don't always find their voice. but when it happens in their backyard, when it becomes that individual's health and welfare, their own drinking water, their own rights, they tend to get back into their individuality and make it a point to become aware. because it's now in their backyard. so i think that process is happening. it's not just to hinckley, california. it's everyone's backyard. it's becoming very broad. and so i oftentimes think coming in i'm going to have the biggest challenge yet, and i'm oftentimes very surprised because now it's in their backyard. now it does affect them. now they're going to make it their business to use their voice and change their circumstance. >> indeed. i think a lot of corporations will find out that actual people have more fight in them than they thought. >> they do.

>> consumer advocate erin brockovich, thank you so much. >> you're welcome. thank you, joy. next, reading between the lines on the roberts court. why the decision on campaign finance has taken us back to a time many would rather forget. (dad) well, we've been thinking about it and we're just not sure. (agent) i understand. (dad) we've never sold a house before. (agent) i'll walk you guys through every step. (dad) so if we sell, do you think we can swing it? (agent) i have the numbers right here and based on the comps that i've found, the timing is perfect.

...there's a lot of buyers for a house like yours. (dad) that's good to know. (mom) i'm so excited. every mattress at mattress discounters is so comfy! how could they get any better? well, there's one way... brilliant! mattress discounters red tag sale! through sunday, get $300 off serta perfect sleeper, and sealy posturepedic.

plus, free delivery. don't wait! mattress discounters red tag sale ends sunday. now that's a beautiful sight. ♪ mattress discounters

some braking news. senator dianne feinstein has just announced her committee has voted to release a report on cia methods used on terror suspects. the vote was 11-3. we'll have more for you on that tomorrow. now, back to that supreme court decision, where money calls the tune. the voices of the people will not be heard. that's a quote from steven briar, who took the unusual step of reading his dissent from the bench in mccutchen versus the federal election commission. a ruling about which briar and the three other dissenting justices saiding taken together with citizens united eviscerates

our nation's campaign finance laws, leaving a remnant incapable of dealing with the grave problems of democratic legitimacy that those laws were intended to resolve. i mean, what would be the odds that the same supreme court that found no compelling reason to maintain the voting rights act's protections against stayed wide schemes that reduce voters' access to the polls would also deliver vast rewards to a small, superrich elite who may have it in mind to buy elections. the roberts court over the last four years, in rather convenient symmetry with one political party, has put in place the potential for a nearly perfect storm of political oligarchy. a handful of superdonors can enlist in parties, political packs, superpacks knowing their winning bets are gerrymandered in place, which now have the green light from the supreme court to enact laws that could prevent voters from punishing

the elected officials at the polls for doing the billionaires' bidding. the idea of wealthy people buying control of our political system dates back to forever. during the gilden age, they had more money than the federal government, enough that morgan even intervened more than once to bail the government out during financial crises, while also colluding to control the american financial system and investing in the 1896 presidential candidacy of william mckinley. as "the washington post" editorial board noted back in 2012, before the watergate scandals, money ran wild in american politics. one man, clement w. stone, gave more than $2 million to president richard nixon's 1972 re-election campaign. the waterga corporations for special treatment. the scandal led to landmark campaign finance reforms enacted

in 1974. now, those '70s era reforms are as dead as disco, and high rollers can invest in politics secretly through 501c-4 charities, or in the open, buying up as many campaigns as they see fit. in that kind of system, to quote justice briar, a cynical public can lose interest in political participation altogether. and that too would be a victory for the robber barons and their loyal majority on the supreme court. that wraps things up for "the reid report." i'll see you back here tonight at 8:00 eastern when i sit in for chris hayes. join us back here tomorrow at 2:00 p.m. eastern. "the cycle" is up next. >> joy, we cannot wait to see you at 8:00 tonight. we've got a busy news day today. we'll give you all the latest on that tragic shooting in ft. hood. steve kornacki joins the table to talk about money in politics, how it keeps getting worse and worse. and i will rant about where you live and what that might say about your politics.

>> that sounds fascinating. i cannot wait. "the cycle" comes up next. ♪ no two people have the same financial goals. pnc investments works with you to understand yours and helps plan for your retirement. talk to a pnc investments financial advisor today. ♪

but with so much health care noise, i didn't always watch out for myself. with unitedhealthcare, i get personalized information and rewards for addressing my health risks. but she's still gonna give me a heart attack.

that's health in numbers. unitedhealthcare. straight ahead on a thursday afternoon in "the cycle," nothing ruled out. army investigators right now are trying to make sense of a senseless shooting at the nation's largest military base. i'm abby huntsman. we here at "the cycle" are trying to do the same, with reports from ft. hood, the justice department and the battlefield. from the place for politics today, money matters. how did the supreme court's ruling on campaign donations change the game. i'm luke russert in for ari. here's maybe the biggest question. why have any rules on money hif the most powerful people can power their way around them? >> we're watching extreme weather, as much of a sixth of the country facing tornados. they were held off by that cold winter and now we're back and we'll show you what you need to

look for. and the news cycle still dominated by the mystery of a lifetime. where is that missing jumbo jet? i'm krystal ball. the malaysians don't know. the australians don't know. but could a seasoned american investigator have answers? we'll ask him. in today's trip down abby's road, my passenger is kenneth depage, so fasten your seat belts. good afternoon. as we all try to find our way through another american tragedy, the shooting at ft. hood, texas. we are waiting for another update in about an hour. this is the man army investigators say is behind it. 34-year-old ivan antonio lopez. a man with symptoms of depression and anxiety evaluated for post-traumatic stress disorder, but never officially diagnosed with it. also not considered violent