that would have given the police the authority to arrest someone without a warrant if they suspected they had violated immigration laws. a couple things about this. first of all, the court said today that there's no reason now to think that the provision they upheld saying that the police should check the status of anyone they arrest, no reason now to think that presents constitutional challenges but it does leave the door open for someone to come along later and once the law goes into effect and mount a challenge. the second thing that has to be said about it, there are other lawsuits pending now in arizona that have yet to get their way here that raise the question this court didn't address. that is does the law force the police to engage in racial profiling. the supreme court stayed away from that question and said it was not before it but that has yet to come here. >> i want to ask you in terms of the breakdown of justices and the way they went on this, can we infer anything by the fact that roberts was in line with gisnburg, breyer and sotomayor?

could this be seen as a bid to steel himself from criticism that he is too partisan and has been making not just political decisions as a chief justice? >> i wouldn't read anything into it whatsoever about what the court might do on health care. here is a guess and it's only a guess because we haven't the slightest idea why they do these things. but it is possible that the chief tried to avoid a tie. if this had ended up in a 4-4 tie, because justice kagan wasn't involved. it would have left the lower court ruling in place that left all four of the challenged provisions invalid so perhaps the chief was trying to make sure there wasn't a tie, there was a holding. it may also be that he honestly believes the provision that was upheld today was constitutional or at least now doesn't present a constitutional problem. >> pete williams, thank you. we will certainly be talking to you later in the week. >> you bet. >> our favorite legal eagle,

savannah guthrie. obviously this is -- three out of four ain't bad, as they say in baseball or i don't know where they say it. how does the white house look upon this decision? >> we have not yet received a statement from the white house. >> look, the part that was most controversial was upheld. three other portions of the law were struck down so the federal government as you said won three out of four but i think the biggest thing to take away from this is really, i think the litigation that will be most impactful is yet to come. the biggest controversy that was caused by this law was the notion that it would lead to racial profiling. well, the justices allowed that provision of the law to stand and that only invites more lawsuits. once itoes into effect, one imagines there will be plaintiffs who say my equal protection rights were violated here and they will file constitutional lawsuits which actually brings me to my second point. what the justices decided today was that the federal government preempts the field in the area of immigration regulation. in other words, because the federal government has regulated

here so comprehensively the states basically have no business doing so. that preemption doctrine is not a constitutional issue so therefore, congress could go back and change the laws to enable a state like arizona to pass this exact same law so we may see action in congress as well. >> what do you think the implications are? we know the justice department has taken action on similar laws in south carolina, utah and alabama, i believe. how do other states read this decision? is it not worth it to get into the heated immigration debate if you're looking at legislation like this? >> they'll be looking at it very r , very carefully, looking to see if their state laws are capable of being interpreted that they also conflict with the federal law because that's what led to three of the four provisions being struck down. it opens the door to provisions like the most controversial one that allows state officers to conduct immigration status checks on those they lawfully stopped so they know those provisions are right. i actually think maybe it means that states who want to have laws like this then go to congress and say hey, congress, it's up to you, you could

actually loosen up the regulations, make clear that the federal government doesn't mind if states regulate the way arizona did and therefore, then try to pass the laws. >> john and mark, i want to talk to you guys about the political implications of this, specifically, vis a vis the 2012 races. we have a romney statement that just came out. president obama has failed to provide any leadership on immigration. this represents yet another broken promise by this president. i believe that each state has the duty and the right to secure our borders and preserve the rule of law particularly when the federal government has failed to meet its responsibilities. as candidate obama he promised to present an immigration plan during his first year in office but four years later, we're still waiting. we're also still waiting, mark halpern, for mitt romney's ideas on immigration policy. how wrong -- well, what is this moment for mitt romney? is it a good moment, a bad moment, is it a wash? >> it's mostly a wash. i think the shelf life of this in the context of politics is relatively short. the immigration system's broken. it's one of the many issues where i don't think we're going to get a real debate between

these candidates. in terms of the politics of it, romney's statement is trying to do clever things. somebody put on twitter a few minutes ago, that would be me, the rhetoric in this statement is themes romney wants to go to whenever he can. the statement doesn't address the specific provisions and what he liked about the ruling or not. he says obama is weak, partisan, breaks his promises, and obama doesn't respect state rights. i think that's the best he can do is try to talk about those themes rather than address the provisions because the provision that was upheld is a huge hot button issue in the hispanic community as we have been talking about for a week. he needs to find a way to make progress with hispanic voters, engaging on the specifics doesn't help him. i think he will try to get away with this. >> certainly the president has kept immigration alive with his deportation policy. this certainly is fodder for the news cycle. the fact that there could be further lawsuits, this is going to stay in the ether. john, are you of the opinion he can sort of dance around this

through november, that he, being governor romney? >> no. well, he can, obviously, dance around it for as long as he wants, but to mark's point, the political imperative for romney is to fix his problem to the extent he can with the hispanic vote. he's in an untenable place to win a national election for where he is with hispanics. the reason i think i take a dimmer view of the politics of this are a wash for romney is if that's his paramount political problem with the hispanic community, nothing he said today or nothing that i can think of that he could say addressing the specific issues here which is what the hispanic community wants to hear from him, will help him solve that problem. to me, every time that immigration is in the news and every time he's forced to say things that are primarily defensive and not things that are about solving the problem, helping his vote share with hispanic voters, is a bad day for mitt romney. you look at that statement, if i'm hispanic in new mexico, colorado, nevada or florida and i see that, i see he didn't say

anything. he doesn't say anything about this law which i care about which has effect maybe on my family, people i know. he's dodging the issue. i don't think that helps him because he has an affirmative responsibility or imperative to fix that problem. >> mitt romney is landing in phoenix, arizona today which is i think of all the curious decisions this campaign has made, it's got to be one of the more curiouser. that's not really a word. heather, when we talk about the white house and sort of i don't think it's a victory lap that they're doing right now, but certainly, if you have to look at the implications vis a vis the president and the base going into november, what do you make of this in terms of helping the president, drumming up enthusiasm. does it have a tangible effect? >> coming on top of obviously his historic decision to say we are not going to deport children who have been standing up in our classrooms all their lives giving the pledge of allegiance, i think this is sort of a -- two sort of victories in a row because what he's saying is we are not the kind of country that says to our black and brown

youth, stop and show your papers. that's not the kind of country we are. we are browning as a country, we are becoming a much more diverse nation, so all of these issues that are really about sort of an underlying racial anxiety about who is american, are ones he has to lead on, ones that propel not just african-americans and latinos to vote for him but also white americans and young people to say we want to be more optimistic about the future of racial discourse in this country, the future of racial relations. >> savannah, the point was made the folks most affected by sb-1070 are not actually illegal immigrants but legal immigrants who are here and the idea that they would have to sort of carry their papers around is contrary to what this country was founded upon. >> this whole discussion has kind of revolved around these values, judgments and what kind of community are we. that is not in this supreme court decision. at the end of the day, this is about an arcane aspect of federal law, the preemption doctrine, not about racial profiling, not about equal

protection under the laws in our constitution. maybe one day it will be. that lawsuit might get filed but that's not what it's about today. it's actually about that age-old question of the federal government's power versus the state's power and i was just saying that as a preview to thursday when we will get the health care decision, where that issue will be teed up in a huge way. again, what are the limits of the federal government's power, something our framers grappled with. >> it's a constitutional bonanza. >> wrapping it up in a bow. >> we cannot wait for you to fly back in here. savannah guthrie, thank you for your time. coming up, we speak to the president of the brennan center for justice, next. yep. the longer you stay with us, the more you save. and when you switch from another company to us, we even reward you for the time you spent there. genius. yeah, genius. you guys must have your own loyalty program, right? well, we have something.

show her, tom. huh? you should see november! oh, yeah? giving you more. now that's progressive. call or click today.

governor romney is in arizona today for a fund-raiser in scottsdale later this afternoon. today's decision by the supreme court on arizona's immigration law could have a major impact on the presidential election, especially among latino voters. joining the panel now is michael waldman, president of the brennan center for justice, nyu school of law and msnbc contributor, steve kornacki of salon.com. he is also co-host of msnbc's "the cycle" which premieres today at 3:00 p.m. eastern. and from mexico city, telemundo's jose diaz-balart. let me ask you first, my friend, how does this decision play out with latino voters? >> good afternoon. let's talk about the 360,000 undocumented that live in the state of arizona. this essentially tells them that any time they are stopped for any kind of infraction, whatever the police officer believes is

an infraction, their legal status can be questioned. this is huge. earlier you were talking about the impact on non-latinos and the documented. let's talk about 360,000 people that are living in that state, contributing to that state's economy, and many have roots in that state, and that right now are being told that the constitutionality of that section is not to be questioned. what's fascinating to me, this was unanimously decided by the supreme court. >> you seem to have -- we have been talking about the political analysis here and a lot of folks say because three of the four provisions were struck down it is in some ways a win for the white house but certainly, your point about how this affects the undocumented population of the united states and specifically in arizona is not to be lost. do you think this increases enthusiasm across the country among hispanic community, understanding of course that hispanics are not a monolithic

voting bloc? >> yeah. that's a tough question to answer. all the questions you ask are always so pinpoint accurate on what you want to know. i'll tell you, first and foremost, we have to think about i think how it affects the state of arizona, and how it affects both those who support this law and those who are opposed to it, because you know, there's a whole issue of people that may look brown and can be asked about their papers and if they're citizens but don't have some passport, because what do we as american citizens carry with us on a daily basis to prove we were born in the united states of america? what document? there is no national i.d. so the question is how do we prove to a police officer that we are indeed legal if we're stopped in arizona and your name is jose diaz-balart or, you know, not john smith.

how do you prove these issues? so you know, there are a lot of political implications to this, but really, it boils down to the state of arizona saying that barring immigration reform in washington, which is something that the federal government has a responsibility to deal with and neither republicans nor democrats have been really successful in dealing with this issue, barring that, every state has the possibility of, according to the supreme court, unanimously to ask people that are stopped whether they're citizens or not. >> michael, i want to turn to you for a sort of deeper dive on the provision that was upheld as jose speaks about it. it would seem to be a setback but your analysis said you thought it was rather weakly worded in terms of the support for it. >> yes, that's right. it's certainly in human terms, he's right. in human terms, this is going to be something that will affect hundreds of thousands of people, potentially, in arizona. but what the court said was in effect not yet, the fight goes

on. the court said they weren't ready to rule on it but that there could be a state constitutional challenge and they wanted to see how it was put into effect. people who have racial profiling, people who have unfair stops will be able to challenge it, so in a way, coupled with the very strong striking down of the rest of the law on the grounds of federal power over immigration, i think this offers some hope for a different approach on immigration. in a way, this was even pretty clearly talking in part about what president obama did recently on immigration, making it clear it's up to the federal government to decide who gets removed. >> that's the question, steve kornacki, is where the fate of immigration reform lies and sort of how this pushes the movement forward or not at all, especially if we talk about second terms and so forth. >> right. the onus will be on congress to come up with something. the problem that i still don't see a way around, let's say there's an obama second term.

i think it's still likely at that point there will be a republican house. the problem that you have to get around is the republican primary problem. any republican member of the house, any republican senator who decides they want to sign on with barack obama's comprehensive immigration reform plan, even if you've got a guy like marco rubio on the republican side who supports it, there is suddenly a huge amount of real estate to the right of that candidate for a republican prime arkansas challenge, especially living in the super pac area now where all it takes is one angry billionaire who doesn't like federal immigration overhaul, that billionaire can get behind any challenger, fund that guy, rile up the conservative base because the republican party base, you know, we're talking about the problems the republican party has with latino voters. there aren't that many latino voters in the republican party base. there's really not a constituency for the average republican member of congress to appeal to in saying i'm for comprehensive immigration reform. the only case they can make is guys, this is in the long term, 10, 20, 30 years interest of or pay. >> even marco rubio on "meet the press" said as much. a lot of hispanics in this country are liberal democrats. they're not going to change

parties just because of immigration reform. john, are you surprised we haven't gotten a statement from the white house yet? >> no. the white house never surprises me. to steve's point, i think the question is what happens in november because it's true that, i mean, the republican party, if the republican party loses this election and there's a widespread sense that part of the reason they lost the election was because of its problems with hispanic voters, there will be a faction of the party that will make an argument it's imperative for the party if it wants to be a national governing party to fix this problem and there will still of course be part of the problem that is restrictionist, but that battle could play out in a lot of different ways. there will be a big part of the republican party that will say as there is now, in fact, not the majority part but there are leaders in the republican party who see this as a political imperative. so -- >> marco rubio. >> it's possible in the face of a romney defeat that's interpreted as being importantly

about this issue, that the debate, the terms of the debate would very well shift in congress and you could see an opening for immigration reform getting done. >> there's another big constituency, the republican party that would like comprehensive immigration reform, which is business. >> which is all mitt romney, when he has talked about immigration, it has been in the lens of sort of immigration reform that business likes which is visas for laborers, green cards, et scetera. >> they would also like a work force. he hasn't addressed that. you need a strong president who has the trust of the other party to get immigration reform at any time, particularly now, because things are so polarized. again, what both candidates have to do not just on immigration but on a range of issues, but immigration is one of the toughest along with tax reform, is to convince the country i can get elected regardless of the makeup of congress, when i get elected, i can do this. that is where governor romney has at least a small advantage because the president's had four years and hasn't been able to do it. there's reason to be skeptical

that governor romney can do it. he hasn't put forward a specific set of ideas. but he does not have the record the president does of not getting it done. >> indeed. jose diaz-balart, hang with us. we will go to break. michael, sit in your seat, please. much more to discuss on immigration and also the week ahead in washington. stay in the moment sanya focus lolo, focus let's do this i am from baltimore south carolina... bloomington, california... austin, texas... we are all here to represent the country we love this is for everyone back home it's go time. across america, we're all committed to team usa.

you want to save money on car insurance?

no problem. you want to save money on rv insurance? no problem. you want to save money on motorcycle insurance? no problem. you want to find a place to park all these things? fuggedaboud it. this is new york. hey little guy, wake up! aw, come off it mate! geico. saving people money on more than just car insurance. we are talking about the latest on the supreme court's ruling on the arizona immigration law with jose diaz-balart from telemundo live in mexico city. jose, i want to ask you, in terms of this ruling and how it's being spun in various corners, democrats and republicans in congress are saying very, very different things. harry reid saying the ruling shows that the obama administration was right to challenge this law, it was not just ill-advised but also unconstitutional. chuck schumer calls it a strong repudiation.

meanwhile, on the other side of the aisle, john mccain says the arizona law was born out of the state's frustration and it was -- the administration has chosen to set enforcement policies based on a political agenda. david vitter sort of defending the law saying all the law tried to do was fill the void that the federal government has created. how do you think, when we talk about this in the political lens, but from the congressional perspective, how do republicans in congress win support from hispanic and latino constituencies given their sort of talking points on the heels of the supreme court's decision? >> yeah. this is a very difficult issue for republicans in the house and in the senate. the fact of the matter is that many of the republicans supported sb-1070 and they have supported other similar legislation in alabama, georgia, versions of it in utah, throughout the country, especially after the signing of 1070 in april of 2010.

a lot of other states kind of piggy-backed some of the issues that sb-1070 discussed and inserted it into their states. some of the results have been disastrous for agriculture in georgia, in alabama, they've seen agriculture be affected because quite frankly, it's very difficult to find a work force in some aspects of agriculture if normally you use the undocumented to work your fields. so back to mark's point, i think it's important that the 1070s of the world only exist because there is no immigration reform. there is no real movement of immigration reform. i expect months in arizona in 1070, those months, i got to tell you people are saying where is the federal government's leadership on immigration reform, where is the jobs bill on immigration reform. and then, you know, when you look at what the republicans as a political party have stood for on 1070, it's very difficult to

kind of backtrack now and say well, you know, we're going to find a middle ground on this. >> michael, i want to ask you in terms of the next step in arizona, governor jan brewer is doubling down on the decision, saying today's decision by the supreme court is a victory for the rule of law. she's clearly going to go forward with her agenda. she will be speaking at 1:00 p.m. eastern, i believe. we know there are similar laws, utah, indiana, alabama, georgia and south carolina. what can we expect in terms of, you know, either blow-back or furtherance of these kinds of policies across the country? >> well, it's right, you could see a profusion of laws that are similar to the narrow provision that was not struck down. but the other parts of the law really were pretty clearly deemed federal power and it does put more and more pressure on congress and on the federal government to do something about comprehensive immigration reform. i think even more important than whether people trust the president or not is whether both

parties see it as in their self-interest to do it. they may be paralyzed right now by super pacs and even more so because the supreme court upheld citizens united again today, but sooner or later, there will be an electoral calculation saying hey, you know what, we've got to do something and that's when we'll break the dam. >> the math is certainly on the side of immigration reform. >> long term. >> michael waldman from the brennan center for justice, thank you so much. jose diaz-balart, thank you. we'll be back with more now that the arizona ruling is in the books, attention turns to the court's decision on health care and the rest of washington's big week. ovider is different but centurylink is committed to being a different kind of communications company by continuing to help you do more and focus on the things that matter to you.

an intense burning sensation i woke up with this horrible rash on my right side. like somebody had set it on fire. and the doctor said, cindie, you have shingles. he said, you had chickenpox when you were a little girl... i said, yes, i did. i don't think anybody ever thinks they're going to get shingles. but it happened to me. for more of the inside story, visit shinglesinfo.com

there's been this commitment to low prices. ♪ we might have had new ways to say it. but the commitment has never wavered. i should know. my name is valeda and i've worked for walmart for 50 years. ♪ ♪ this is shaping up to be a pivotal week for president obama and his re-election campaign.

on thursday, the supreme court will rule on the constitutionality of the president's signature health care law. but first, an addendum from the decision on the arizona immigration law, the white house has released a statement. the president writes i am pleased that the supreme court has struck down key provisions of arizona's immigration law. what this decision makes unmistakably clear is that congress must act on comprehensive immigration reform. a patchwork of state laws is not a solution to our broken immigration system. it's part of the problem. he goes on to say he remains concerned about the practical impact of the remaining provision of the arizona law which is the stop and check your papers, give me your papers law provision. it goes on to say he will work with anyone in congress who is willing to make progress on comprehensive immigration reform that addresses our economic needs and security needs. he also makes a point in the middle of the statement of trumpeting his recent decision to amend our deportation laws. in terms of this statement and the white house and also comprehensive immigration reform we were discussing in the last

block that that sort of is not the elephant in the room because i think everybody widely acknowledges that's what needs to be done but in terms of moving the ball forward on that, the jury is very much still out. >> i think it's a problem because too many politicians are saying that you can't touch this at a time of a soft economy. you can't do something that creates a path to citizenship for undocumented workers when there are people here in this country who are here legally who don't have jobs. the problem with that argument and that sort of reluctance is the fact that actually passing a path to citizenship would be not just the moral thing to do, not just the american thing to do to create a pathway for new americans, but actually, would be a boon to our economy, creating millions of jobs, bringing people who are looking for work in this country in out of the economic shadows, lifting their wages, allowing them to be able to negotiate contracts legally and all of that. i think it's really sort of short-sighted not to move forward even in this economy. >> john, now that we do have the

white house statement, we know what's going on inside 1600 pennsylvania avenue, let's talk about the week broadly. there is a law on the president's docket or a lot they will be paying attention to as far as the contours possibly affecting the contours of the 2012 race. the health care ruling is of course the biggest on thursday. student loans, the lower rate is expected to expire on july 1st. there's a transportation bill in congress which expires on june 30th and imperils nearly three million construction jobs, and of course, the vote on whether to hold attorney general eric holder in contempt of congress. do you think whatever sort of incremental progress or sort of support has been voiced for the president's policies today is wiped away by a potential striking down of the affordable care act? >> the health care ruling, you look at those three other things, all three of those things on your list all would be big events that would drive news in any other week. the health care law is rightly

seen as the huge deal and it's a huge deal on constitutional terms, in terms of the president's political standing, in terms of what we make of the president's first term in office given the centrality of it, everything he tried to do over the course of the first two years he's been here. i think it's enormous and it's like the others are tremors compared to what would be an earthquake. either way, whether in fact the health care ruling will have a huge impact at the polls in november is far less clear. but as an event that's going to drive an enormous amount of news in terms of analysis, in terms of spinning on both sides, it's going to blow everything else off the map. >> we will be talking about it. >> even on this show. >> even on this show. mark, you know, sam stein from the huffington post did interesting reporting on the white house making contingency plans if the affordable care act or individual mandate is struck down. what's your assessment if it is struck down, how the white house plays it? >> they will attack a politicized supreme court and say health care rights and benefits are being taken away

from the court -- by the court from tens of millions of americans. i think that will be somewhat effective. but it won't be totally effective. i think the prism that the romney campaign is using now, and there's some justification to it, is is the president a strong leader. is the president someone who can deal with problems the country faces now and the challenges he faces politically and get things done this year and in a second term. if the law is struck down i think he'll need to be strong about it. all the other issues, can he get transportation bill through, can he get the student loan issue dealt with, how does he deal with the confrontation with congress over eric holder, i think people want him to be strong and on most of those issues, he has been, but he's going to need to push this week to show as a package like he did on immigration for younger people, that he is a strong leader. >> i would say some of the argument against the court being sort of activist or beholden to conservative sway is somewhat undermined by the decision today which of course is a mixed bag, steve kornacki, is it not? >> yeah, but again, all of that

will be obviated by a ruling on thursday if it goes against the administration. i think the important thing to keep in mind, the conventional wisdom, if there was a morning line bet to be made about the ruling on thursday, it's the mandate gets struck down, the rest of the law remains intact. i think the thing to keep in mind if that is what happens is there is a school of thought that this law is still basically workable without the mandate because what you have here, you have the expansion of the medicaid at the state level, you have all the subsidies to help people buy private insurance. the idea that the mandate is so essential to this law is based on the notion there will be a -- >> also because the white house basically said it's mandate or bust. >> at the state level where this has been tried at the state level where you don't have the added, the growth in medicaid, the subsidies, if you're just relying on the mandate like massachusetts, that probably would happen but there is a possibility here that this death spiral doesn't kick off. the question then is does the white house and more importantly, do democrats broadly stick with this law going forward. is this still their platform on health care if there's no

mandate or do democrats start to panic and say we just want to run away from this thing now. >> we are showing you a live shot of the president exiting marine one in new hampshire. he did not take any questions shouted at him regarding the supreme court decision. he is headed to portsmouth, new hampshire. we will bring you the latest on the president's actions in the minutes to come. can marco rubio save the gop? we will ask the author of a new book about the senator when he joins us live next on "now." [ male announcer ] this is rudy.

his morning starts with arthritis pain. and two pills. afternoon's overhaul starts with more pain. more pills. triple checking hydraulics. the evening brings more pain. so, back to more pills. almost done, when... hang on. stan's doctor recommended aleve. it can keep pain away all day with fewer pills than tylenol. this is rudy. who switched to aleve. and two pills for a day free of pain. ♪ and get the all day pain relief of aleve in liquid gels. i don't want to be the vice president of the united states. i want to be a senator. i want to be senator from florida. >> under no circumstances would you serve on a ticket in 2012? >> no, i'm not going to be on the ticket in 2012. >> under no circumstances? >> under no circumstances. >> senator, do you stand by that answer? >> i thought you told me you would burn the tapes.

>> you stand by that? >> i'm not discussing the vice presidential process anymore. i made the decision two months ago not to discuss it any further. >> that was marco rubio on "meet the press" yesterday refusing to answer questions about whether he wants to be mitt romney's running mate. also worth noting, weighing in on east coast versus west coast rap. in just two years, rubio has become one of the gop's most prominent voices but does he have what it takes to make it to the white house? manuel roig-franzia is a staff writer at the "washington post" and author of "the rise of marco rubio." thanks for joining us. >> great to be here. >> certainly a big day as far as immigration and latin and hispanic issues. marco rubio has been in the news much lately. this morning he was on fox talking about the arizona law before the ruling. i wonder what you think as far as how this immigration debate plays out in the long term which is to say until november for marco rubio. >> it's a complicated situation for marco rubio, because he has

been very busy of late saying that the republican party needs to change its tone on immigration, has to talk differently about immigration, but during his campaign, voters will be reminded about this if he's on the ticket, he said that he would have voted for the arizona papers please law and that will be weighed against his current statements. >> i want to open this up to the panel in talking about veep-stakes which we will talk about ad nauseam until there actually is a veep. john heilemann, given the contours of this race, and the issues at hand, how likely do we think marco rubio is in terms of a potential nominee? >> i sound like a broken record when i'm on this show. >> you never sound like a broken record. >> like a scratchy broken record. >> scratchy, perhaps. >> look, i have never thought marco rubio would be on the ticket and i still don't think he will be on the target. it has absolutely nothing to do with immigration. the romney campaign has internalized the notion you need

to put someone on the ticket who immediately clears the bar of ready to be commander in chief on day one. marco rubio, who has an incredibly bright future in the republican party, does not pass that test. then if you think about all the additional elements of what romney is trying to make the election about is barack obama, his management of the economy, what you do not want as a running mate that will generate a lot of stories about various controversial aspects of their past, about their readiness, about the dueling biographies, all those things are just distractions from what they want the election to be about. i have always thought, i think the immigration thing has almost nothing to do with it. i don't think he was ever going to be on the ticket and i still don't. >> despite much pontification and analysis. >> not by me. >> not by john heilemann. manuel, i want to ask you in terms of liabilities, in the book you talk about stories during marco rubio's senate run that he charged thousands of dollars in personal items to party-issued credit cards, there is some questions about some home sales, you know, but you say his defenders promoted what would become a stock narrative

that was wholly accepted by rubio friendly reporters and publications. rubio was simply sloppy but not corrupt. tell us more about that. >> what you're referring to is a credit card that marco rubio was given by the republican party of florida and he used that credit card for a lot of personal things, and some of them were just plain silly, like movie tickets and wine at a wine shop near his house, and expensive salon bill of $130 or so. now, he went back and repaid those and said it was just a mixup, but it got to this question of what he is saying about fiscal responsibility, he really preaches fiscal responsibility for the government, and the way that he's living it in his own life. i'll tell you, there's another one and it will also be discussed if he was ever to be put on the ticket or in the final vetting stages, and that is that he owns a house in

tallahassee with david rivera, a congressman from florida. that house was about to be put into foreclosure by a bank until they were able to scramble and pay the bill. so all of these things fit into the opposite narrative that he's trying to talk about that he's a person who is all about small government and fiscal responsibility. >> veep-stakes or no, it is certainly not the last we will hear of marco rubio. the book is "the rise of marco rubio." manuel roig-franzia, thanks for joining the program. coming up, that other ruling. what the supreme court's decision today on corporate campaign spending means for the future of high stakes political races, next. hi, i'm phil mickelson. i've been fortunate to win on golf's biggest stages. but when joint pain and stiffness from psoriatic arthritis hit, even the smallest things became difficult.

i finally understood what serious joint pain is like. i talked to my rheumatologist and he prescribed enbrel. enbrel can help relieve pain, stiffness, and stop joint damage. because enbrel, etanercept, suppresses your immune system, it may lower your ability to fight infections. serious, sometimes fatal events including infections, tuberculosis, lymphoma, other cancers, and nervous system and blood disorders have occurred. before starting enbrel, your doctor should test you for tuberculosis and discuss whether you've been to a region where certain fungal infections are common. don't start enbrel if you have an infection like the flu. tell your doctor if you're prone to infections, have cuts or sores, have had hepatitis b, have been treated for heart failure, or if, while on enbrel, you experience persistent fever, bruising, bleeding, or paleness. [ phil ] get back to the things that matter most. ask your rheumatologist if enbrel is right for you. [ doctor ] enbrel, the number one biolog medicine prescribed by rheumatologists.

today, the supreme court

also issued a major decision on campaign finance, striking down a montana law that prevents corporations from spending unlimited money on state elections. in a 5-4 ruling, the high court majority wrote there can be no serious doubt that the 2010 citizens united decision applies. democratic leader nancy pelosi called the ruling quote, disappointing and wrote, today, the supreme court kept open the flood gates to uninhibited special interest spending in our campaigns and in our politics. heather, we have been talking a lot about the influence of money in this year's race and the fact that it is changing dramatically the lines of the race. what was your reaction when this decision was handed down? >> it was really disappointing. it's disappointing actually institutionally for the supreme court, frankly. the majority of americans now according to a new poll believe that the court is catering too much to corporate interests over the freedoms and rights of ordinary americans and they're right. the chamber of commerce is about to have a perfect season at the

supreme court. did it again today, where they basically were pushing for the montana law to be summarily reversed and it was. my organization demos had an amicus brief where we argued that it is really important for the court to look at the facts again. in montana, this was the important thing. montana said you know what, the supreme court said the law says that maybe corporate expenditures wouldn't be corrupting but we've got evidence that in montana, they are. so let us go ahead and rule on the facts. supreme court today said you know what, the facts don't matter, their ideology does. it's terrible. >> also in the "new york times" today an editorial on sheldon addelson's money. they write one man cannot spend enough to ensure the election of an unpopular candidate but he can buy enough ads to push a candidate over the top in a close race like this year's. for such a man where there are no legal or moral limits to the purchase of influence, spending tens of millions is a pittance to elect republicans who promise

to keep his billions intact. a strongly worded statement from the "times" not surprising given their position on super pacs. steve, there is always the question if mitt romney loses this election depending on if there are more sort of ad campaigns not sanctioned by the romney campaign that put the candidate in a difficult position, perhaps there will be a kumbaya come to jesus moment with bipartisan support around the idea that super pacs need some kind of reform. maybe? >> there might be but i think the other end to keep in mind is not just the presidential race, it's the congressional races. my theory, this is the first time for everybody we have had a super pac presidential election but even if romney wins the super pac game big and can outspend obama because of that, obama can still win this election because there is so much saturation-free media coverage at the presidential level, so much about partisan cues, about the state of the economy, i think you can overcome it. when you get to races that do not have much media coverage, your average house race, especially your average house

primary, you pour super pac money into there, it has a huge distorting effect. i can see obama overcoming romney's spending and winning. statement, 25 seats for democrats to take over, no. if you have a huge super pac advantage, that saves the house for republicans. that would kill momentum to change this. >> if you're charles and david koch, better bang for your buck to invest in a congressional race, is it not? >> yes and no. they want the white house pretty badly but have enough money it's no choice for them. they can spend it anywhere. campaign finance reform is like immigration. it takes two things to even have a chance to do. a really strong president with sway over the country and popular, and bipartisan partners. john mccain once upon a time was a bipartisan partner on immigration. he's not now. on campaign finance reform, he could still be, yet there's no mccain-obama talks as far as i know to say let's try to move some legislation to try to address this issue. i'd like to think that after the election whether there's

scandals or not that it could be revisited legislatively but it's difficult to do without a powerful president, again, with partners on the other side. >> and without popular, without a real popular traction. that's always been the problem for campaign finance reform, it's the thing everybody likes to complain about but doesn't have much significance for voters. that will get tested in addition to the things steve was talking about in this election. will there be so much revulession on the part of the public with the saturation coverage, how negative it is and how out of control things are, that people not rise up from their chairs but at least say we actually demand action because if that's not there it's never going to change. >> thanks to john, heather, mark and steve. be sure to catch steve and his cohost today on the debut of "the cycle" at 3:00 p.m. eastern right here on msnbc. that's all for now. see you back here tomorrow at noon eastern, 9:00 a.m. pacific when i am joined by michael steele without a mustache, curt

anderson, karen finney and ken fineberg. "andrea mitchell reports" is next. good afternoon to you, andrea. a big day. a big day indeed. thanks, alex. up next, the supreme court decision on arizona's immigration law. what will the ripple effect be for states pursuing similar laws? we'll have all the reaction plus political fallout next. pete williams, savannah guthrie, chris cillizzi. plus we hit the road to find out what people are saying about the campaign in the heartland. card from capital one, olaf's pizza palace gets the most rewards of any small business credit card! pizza!!!!! [ garth ] olaf's small business earns 2% cash back on every purchase, every day! put it on my spark card! [ high-pitched ] nice doin' business with you! [ garth ] why settle for less? great businesses deserve the most rewards! awesome!!! [ male announcer ] the spark business card from capital one. choose unlimited rewards with 2% cash back

or double miles on every purchase, every day! what's in your wallet? are so amazingly good,s on every purchase, every day! you'll get lost in an all-beef hot dog world. what was i supposed to wish for? why am i wearing a bow-tie? where did i leave my bicycle? after all, when you're enjoying the beefiest, juciest bite of pure kosher beef, nothing else matters. goodness gracious, that's kosher. with no fillers, by-products, artificial flavors or colors. hebrew national. the better-than-a-hot dog- hot dog.

right now on "andrea mitchell reports" one down, one to go. the high court strikes down most of arizona's immigration law, but upholds one big provision and doesn't rule on racial profiling. what is the fallout for mitt romney and president obama? still ahead, health care coming and fast and furious, plus student loans. what a week. will this be the week that was

for the obama re-election campaign. plus, romney's weekend getaway. the inside scoop on a who's who of republican big donors and vice presidential contenders. and historic change. the muslim brotherhood's candidate takes charge but can he rule? and photo finish. an unprecedented tie in the women's 100 meter. they'll now decide who makes the olympic team by a coin toss or run-off. i'm andrea mitchell live in washington. in our daily fix today, the supreme court ruled, they voted 5-3, striking down key parts of arizona's immigration law but upholding a key provision requiring police to check the immigration status of anyone they detain. chris cillizza is an msnbc contributor and managing editor of postpolitics.com. nbc news justice correspondent pete williams is live at the supreme court and savannah guthrie is nbc's chief legal correspondent, an expanded daily fix because it is such a big deal.