the supreme court in citizens united changed the standard. so it used to be in fact that what justice kennedy called ingratiation and access, that was corruption. and that was corruption under supreme court precedent. in the early 1990s, in the early 2000s that's exactly the definition because the rest of the supreme court, the majority that once held understands that politics is more complicated than, you give me money, i give you a vote. they understand that corruption can run through a system in a way that's far more pernicious and deeper but subtle. justice kennedy has a much narrower view of what constitutes corruption. and that has been the source of deregulation in citizens united. >> yes, if we saw a baseball player before he bats hand a wad of cash to the umpire, we'd know that that's corruption. but we don't see the donor handing, the politician, the incumbent senator or congressman handing a decision to the donor, we never see that. >> we never see it, but we see it in the aggregate. just take a look at what happened when we had th

fec, let's call the case "citizens united: the sequel."re to talk with me about this is heather gerken, described by "the boston globe" as "one of the most closely watched young stars in the legal academy." that's because of her provocative and innovative thinking about election and constitutional law. she's a board member of the campaign legal center, a non-partisan, non-profit organization founded by someone familiar to viewers of this broadcast, the republican reformer trevor potter. heather gerken clerked with supreme court justice david souter, practiced law, then taught at harvard before joining the faculty of yale. she is the brains behind the "democracy index," a new plan for fair elections. heather gerken, it's good to meet you. >> thank you so much for having me. >> what's at issue in this case? >> as you know when you give in a campaign, you can only give a certain amount of money to a candidate. but there's also a limit that most people never notice because most people don't have nearly enough money to reach it, but there are l

know that 16 states have formally petitioned congress to amend the constitution to overturn citizens uniting -- united and get big money out of politics. montanar, in november, voted on whether to overturn citizens united with a constitutional amendment. colorado was an obama state and montana was a romney state. over 70% voted for this. people want this change. i know it's going to be hard, but my job is not to come here and tell people what they can't do. believe me, if that is what people who cover politics right about democracy, if we cannot fix this thing, we never will. i don't think it will be possible to overcome slavery. i don't think it was possible to get women the vote. there are a lot of things that weren't possible, and it was never the big guys, it was the little guys. tavis: because if you rely on the media -- first of all, god help you. let me just take that as an example. if you are relying on the media, what we hope our colleagues would do more of, you would not rely on the media to cover politics and not politicians. everybody is struggling with poverty, but we still won'

in effect reversing citizens united. and solicitor general don vereli who succeeded her was at the lecturn saying far be from me to go backward which was a nice moment in the courtroom. >> joan, what was the atmosphere like in the courtroom and did you get a sense that any particular justice dominated the questions or really aroused people's interests with this? >> justice elena kagan, flashback to september of 2009, when the court heard citizens united, she was actually at the lecturn. arguing on behalf of the obama administration to reject -- gwen: was very active in these arguments. >> completely active. and up on the bench having been appointed by president obama in 2010. and she was there right out of the box. trying to defend the obama -- the government's regulation here. so she was quite active. the person who i was looking for was chief justice john roberts. as we know he has taken so much criticism for the citizens united ruling. which just a reminder everyone, 5-4 along ideological lines. allowed more corporate

but the interesting thing here is now that citizens united it struck down the limits on you can't directly money took a hit but you can spend unlimited amount of money campaigning on behalf of the candidate with t.v. and radio ads and so forth so why would it matter much at this point if you go in shrink down the end of it. that you can directly hand money to a candidate it absolutely would and this is a question that was debated in the court this morning but justice kagan made a very strong point saying if the court is now thinking that suddenly independent spend a tour is actually can be corrupting then they should recognize that the that the government ought to have power to put in place commonsense rules to protect our politics and our government from being captured by private economic power i mean that's really what we're talking about here and that's what the court has always recognized even when they cut back on our ability to have these particular rules they've understood that regulating in this sphere is important because otherwise what you see is a throwback to the robber baron e

they got citizens united.nk, did play a big role in defeating democrats in 2010. but they couldn't win the presidential election in 2012. so now they just want to bust the limits on the candidate and the committee side. and it will just ruin the opportunity of ordinary americans to have their voice heard. >> not only did the president talk about this today about what's in front of the supreme court right now, he connected citizens united to the government shutdown. take a listen to this. i think this is important. >> i continue to believe that citizens united contributed to some of the problems we're having in washington right now. you have some ideological extremist who have a big bank roll and they can entirely skew our politics. and there are a whole bunch of members of congress right now who will private tell you i know our positions are unreasonable, but we're scared that if we don't go along with the tea party agenda or the -- some particularly extremist agenda, we'll be challenged from the right. and th

we're talking about citizens united on steroids after the break . we made it out of. the real funny game but. it's ok james it's all up to you melissa and you can expect some of the toughest writing. notes from the press conference at the fed on up to. the on the. morning on seem. wealthy british scientists on hold some time to see what's right in front of the. markets why not. come to. find out what's really happening to the global economy with mike stronger for a no holds barred look at the global financial headlines tune into kinds a report. on . morning news today violence is once again flared up the film these are the images the world has been seeing from the streets of canada. giant corporations are old today. in the best of the rest of the news in the wake of the supreme court's citizens united decision over seven billion dollars was spent by a combination of party's candidates and outside groups just during the two thousand and twelve election and depending on how the court rules in a new case mccutcheon v federal election commission that records spending numb

decision as a result the majority of americans have no clue what citizens united is let alone the damage it's done to our democracy and to our way of life basically citizens united lets a few dozen cranky right wing billionaires like charles david koch threaten every single republican member of congress with a tea party primary challenger that they will fund the result is that republicans instead of working with democrats to find a bipartisan middle road for the country as they traditionally did now have to compromise with and do the bidding of the right wing billionaires and their tea party mouthpieces in congress if they don't they risk losing their jobs to tea party challengers in the next primary this is not good for our country it's not good for our democracy it has fundamentally shifted both the nature of our government and the way that we govern. and even worse the billionaire stranglehold over our democracy has shifted the topics for discussion in washington d.c. . we no longer talk about the issues that matter to working class americans like taxing the rich rolling ba

we have citizens united, and now the possibilities in this mccutchen case. how do you explain this disconnect? >> well, i think they are logically responding to their masters. by they i mean particularly congress, the white house, and who makes the appointments to the supreme court. the supreme court responds to them and to public pressure. we have seen the supreme court turnaround. we saw it in brown versus order of education where the supreme court reversed itself after supporting segregation for decades. the supreme court suddenly began to support integration. i think what we're seeing in the supreme court and in our elected officials is basically a reflection of the power of intensely concentrated economic and political power in the hands of the one percent. which is why we have got to fight this every way possible. i think it is important for people to weigh in with the supreme court, their congressmen and women, and with the president. of that this is unacceptable. we cannot dismantle these protections. in the same way it is unacceptable to be holding

you've called citizens united devastating to the public interest. so i wonder if you could weigh in op this latest case. >> well, the latest case would go even further than citizens united. i mean, essentially it would say anything goes. there are no rules in terms of how to finance campaigns. there aren't a lot of functioning democracies around the world that work this way, where you can basically have millionaires and billionaires bankrolling whoever they want however they want, in some cases undisclosed, and what it means is ordinary americans are shut out of the process. and democrats aren't entirely innocent of this in the past. and i had to raise a lot of money for my campaign. there's nobody in operates in politics that has perfectly clean hands on this issue. but what is also true is that all of us should bind ourselves to some rules that say the people who vote for us should be more important than somebody who's spending a million dollars, $10 million, or $100 million to help us get elected because we don't know what their agendas are. we d

talk about citizens united on steroids after the break. i know c.n.n. m.s.n. b c news have taken some not slightly but the fact is i admire their commitment to cover all sides of the story just in case one of them happens to be accurate. that was funny but it's close enough for the truth and might think. it's because when full attention and the mainstream media works side by side the joke is actually on here. and our teen years we have a different approach. because the news of the world just is not this funny i'm not laughing dammit i'm not how. you guys talk to the jokes well handled it makes sense that. i would rather i asked questions to people in positions of power instead of speaking on their behalf and that's why you can find my show larry king now right here on r.t. question or. in the best of the rest of the news in the wake of the supreme court's citizens united decision over seven billion dollars was spent by a combination of party's candidates and outside groups just during the two thousand and twelve election and depending on how the court rules in

citizens united is by far the biggest there.he upcoming case will be another one, the listing rules for aris. and potentially some court watchers believe, he could not down the benefits given to candidates and parties themselves. so, the citizens united is the most high-profile decision on this issue, but very much in a string of cases and we do not know how this is going to and yet either. marianne from tennessee on our line for independents. good morning. caller: good morning. i have a question about dark money. when the representatives who are supposed to be representing us shut down the government over obamacare, the stock market went down. resumed, iternment went up the same day. since these representatives get a heads up on the market movements, how many of them made money, who were they, and how much? host: andy kroll. guest: that is a good question. that gives back to what the previous color said about the stock act. there is absolutely the for them to act on information they have acquired about the stock market and the

it is important to understand what citizens united did to make that possible.althy person could give $3 million to an outside group like a superpac or corporation and then spend an unlimited sum on races. right in what's different in this case is if the court strikes down these limits, and individual will be able to give $3 million, a politician can ask for that $3 million and then the politicians can divy this up between their party committee, the state committees, federal committees and all of the candidates across the country who are running for u.s. house and u.s. senate. so, it's a real problem and there's an opportunity for cash for favors and asking for that $3 million contribution. >> right. you were in the courtroom this week for the arguments. i mean, i can believe but i cannot believe justice scalia so flippant about the impact of $3.5 million. we know that could make a difference. >> right. he basically said, hey, $3.5 million isn't any worse than all of this superpac money but it's like he created the problem in terms of citizens united which led t

is really the sequel the citizens united citizens united unleash the floodgates to what unlimited corporate spending you know a seven billion dollar election a billion dollars to super pacs three hundred million dollars going to work came from this case is about blowing the lid off contribution limits the overall contribution limit that's been in place for forty years one hundred twenty three thousand two hundred dollars goes back to the nixon corruption and then right after watergate right and mr mccutcheon who is a wealthy conservative alabama businessman has teamed up with the republican national committee because he wants to spend more than one hundred twenty three thousand two hundred dollars in donations directly to political parties to candidates and for over forty years since buckley vallejo the supreme court has upheld contribution limits because that's kind of the last wall between our democracy and a representative democracy and legalized bribery really that that's it and we're setting up a system where one donor if mr mccutcheon mr mccutcheon wins will be able to write a check f

until, well, then came citizens united. that provided a blueprint of how to raise money outside the political party structure. so big money was back, just not inside the two-party system, only on the outside. and today we have yet another supreme court case with the potential of removing another barrier to campaign donations. the case is called mccutchen versus the ftc and it's a direct challenge to donation limits put in place nearly 40 years ago. let me explain the limits they're talking about. federal law limits the total amount you can contribute in a two-year election cycle. so no one individual can contribute more than $123,200 total to all candidates running for federal office 2013 and 2014. there's also a base limit of course in place which says an individual can't donate more than $2,600 directly to any one federal candidate during their campaign cycle primary in general. an important distinction. mccutchen isn't challenging the base limit. he's challenging the aggregate limit. he told pete williams he simply wants

i think it's a terrible decision, the citizens united decision.hat the cure to that is to open up a whole new category of superdonors i think is likely to compound the problem. it would even further dilute the voice of small donors and of small contributors and also it would override that distinction that the court has maintained for a long, long time. that the danger of corruption and the appearance of corruption is much greater when we're talking about contributions. of course, i agree contributions are going to add up to huge amounts of money and compound that perception of corruption. >> woodruff: reince priebus, why isn't itÑi a concern that allowg these large contributions than you would be as congressman price said potentially overriding the voice of small donors, people who cannot afford to give very much to a politician? >> no, i don't think that's the case at all because each individual candidate is still going to have a limit as to how many -- what the individual limit of the contribution is. so if today under the law i can give to 18 p

the president doesn't like citizen united. lois learner doesn't like citizen united. my colleague on the other side of the i'm don't like citizen united. they can advocate for the repeal and legislative remedy, and not following it. they're not called arsonist or terrorist or anything else. those of who may think the affordable care act is costing people job or may be oarchedded that the hhs would -- people violate the religious view. somehow the analysis is different when we ask it all be changed or repealed or not enforced. so duplicity of that citizens united versus the affordable care act, i think, is what is fueling some of the frustration. with that, i would yield back. >> i thank the gentleman. we go to the gentle lady from illinois. >> i think your mic, please. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for being here today. i would like to ask you about the allegations that have been lodged against you. republican congressman tom price accused you of systemic harassment of conservative and religious organizations. he also argued that your employment at the irs sho

on the rest of us who are really citizens to really be united and fight it because politicians still need votes to get elected and if the people demand more out of their politicians and less kowtow into corporations it's really up to us to do that i think we'll get some results there with you richard and to our viewers be sure to check out our future dot org and this event coming up here in d.c. in november it's going to be a who was with warren scobee there i will i believe i will tell you i've already bought tickets so i intend to be measured as scout thanks so much for being with us thank you tom. coming up back in the nineteen fifties and sixties mainstream republicans worked feverish way to keep far right crazies out of the party and to maintain the party's legitimacy this is still a chance of the mainstream republicans of today can do the same thing with ted cruz of his tea party out of. i would rather as questions to people in positions of power instead of speaking on their behalf. and that's why you can find my show larry king now right here on our question for. may disagree.

and it is devastating to the public interest. >> in this case going even further than citizens united. essentially they would say that anything goes and there are no rules in terms of how to finance the campaign. there are democracies that function this way were you can basically have millionaires and billionaires bankrolling however they want in some places undisclosed and what means is that ordinary americans are shut out of the process and democrats are not entirely innocent of this. i had to raise a lot of money for my campaign. and there is nobody who operates in politics is perfectly clean hands on this issue, but what is clear is that all it should bind ourselves to some rules that say that the people who vote for should be real and more so than someone who is spending $10 million of his collected. because we do not know what their interests are. i continue to believe that citizens united contributed to some of the problems we are having in washington right now. and there's a big bankroll and they have a whole bunch of members of congressman congressmen who will privately tell

in citizens united the supreme court said outside groups can make unlimited expenditures because they do not corrupt, they do not create opportunities for corruption. the supreme court has repeatedly said that contributions to candidates and parties to create the opportunity for corruption and they can begin. that is the issue facing the court today. this is a corruption case. if the supreme court were to strike down the overall contribution limits we are bound to see million dollar and $2 million contribution solicited by the most powerful office holders in washington given by donors and creating opportunities for the kinds of quid pro quo of corruption the court has said for four decades can be limited. >> the chief justice was actually just speaking to individual limits, limits that an individual can give to a number of candidates. is there any way to disallow the aggregates for just that category or is it like taking a break out of a house and the whole thing falls in? >> the chief justice's point was if you want more than the number of candidates, you can give $5,200 to, why shou

coverage, insurance there are lower courts to have split on the question in a way that is equal to citizens unitedecause the question is whether secular for-profit corporations have free exercise of those rights as we learned they have free speech rights. in that case the solicitor general of the united states said they have a 99% chance to 100% chance in this term. it has religion, sex, it is a journalistic dream. [laughter] host: laura, next caller. i wanted to ask, because it really baffles my mind, everyone fighting over the affordable care act, when we have the coke brothers and all of these special interest groups dollars toions of senators and all to go fight why for the pharmaceuticals can they not put a cap on that gecko if i had $1 billion to donate and wanted to open gecko guest: -- something? guest: when we talked about political campaign engineering, they first said that congress shall not abridge the freedom of speech. that is supposed to be the core part of the first amendment. some members of the court in the minority and test the minority say that money is property, not speech. ot

you call citizens united devastating to the public interest.onder if you could comment on the latest case. >> the latest case goes beyond citizens united. there are kno no rules on how to finance cam pances. cam -- campains. there are not a lot of functioning democracies that can function this way. where you have millio millionaid billionaires bank rolling whoever they want and in some cases undisclosed. and what it means is ordinary americans are shut ous shutout e process. i had to raise a lot of money for my campaign. so i there is nobody that operates in pol politics that hs clean hands in this issue. all of us should bind ourselves to rules that say, the people that vote for us should be more important than somebody that is spending a million dollars or ten million dollars to help us get elected. we don't know what their again s are and i believe that citizens united contributed to some of the problems we are having in washington right now. you have an extremist who has a big bank roll think can entirely skew our politics. i know our posit

i think we saw that with citizens united. just the elite financial elite so to speak, but people able to work together and pull their resources together, 1 you get government out of the way that will protect more speech. >> and don, the president today already talking about this case, saying he believes citizens united contributed to many of the problem. this case could -- well-bein wet could take it to exponential levels, i am sure the president's views. how do you think that the justices will vote. >> key justices chief justice roberts, i think there are 4, that have all but said they don't like there sort of limit, several of those justices have written they don't like limits. but the chief is the key vote, i think questioning today showed high an the issue, and he was looking for aiwa to reach the result in a way that was consistent with court precedent. i think he pointed out there is other ways of achieving the goal of government that are not as draconian as banning people to give to candidates of choice. >> he said it

insurance coverage, there are lower courts to have split on the question in a way that is equal to citizens united because the question is whether secular for-profit corporations have free exercise of those rights as we learned they have free speech rights. in that case the solicitor general of the united states said they have a 99% chance to 100% chance in this term. it has religion, sex, it is a journalistic dream. [laughter] host: laura, next caller. caller: i wanted to ask, because it really baffles my mind, everyone fighting over the affordable care act, when we brothers and the special interest groups giving billions of dollars to senators and all to go fight like for the pharmaceuticals why can they not put a cap on that gecko if i had $1 billion to donate and wanted to open something gecko guest: something? you know what i mean? wouldn't do it, but i couldn't do it. guest: when we talked about political campaign engineering, they first said that congress shall not abridge the freedom of speech. that is supposed to be the core part of the first amendment. some members of the court in the mi

at the end of the day, these guys have gotten citizens united, and that means that the koch brothersheldon althsson and all of these guys can spend hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars on political campaigns without any disclosure. they want to go further. what they want to do is to make sure that individuals will be able to spend as much money as they want on campaigns, giving money to individuals, without any disclosure whatsoever. so ultimately, what they are about is creating a campaign finance system where billionaires can spend unlimited sums of money on campaigns and candidates electing the people they want. that is not, in my view, a democracy. that is called oligarchy where a nation is run by a handful of billionair billionaires. now what senator cruz is here talking about, he is really outraged by the fact that the fcc is supporting a rule where it says that if you are putting ads on television in the 50 largest media markets in this country, that they're going to put that information on their website, so that the american people will know who is, in fa

you saw that with citizen united. it's not just the financial elite. it's peopleble to work gether and pool resources together. once you get government out of the way, that opens up and protects more speech. the way to combat speech you don't like i with more speech. >> the president today already talking about this case, saying he believes citizens united contribute today many of the problems this case could -- well, could take that toxponential levels, i'm sure in the president's view. how do you think the justs will vote -- justice will vote? who will lead the way? >> key justice is chief justice roberts. there are four justices, scalia, thomas, kennedy and ali toehat have all but said they don't like this sort of limit. several of owes justices have written they don't like limits but the chief is t the key vote. his questioning today showed he understood the issue and was looking for a way to reach the sult in a w that was consiste with core precedent and had done before. he pointed out there's other ways of achieving the goal of the government tha

it is in a way is equal to citizens united because the question is whether secular for-profit organizations have free exercise of religion rights as people have free-speech rights. in that case of former solicitor general of the united states said the other day, 99- 99-100 percent chance of arriving. that case has elements of all kinds of great things. the affordable care act, citizens united, religion, sex, a journalist would dream. >> host: florida, democratic call. >> caller: hello. i just wanted to ask because it really baffles my mind that everyone is fighting over this affordable care act. we have the coke brothers and all these special interest groups giving billions of dollars to senators and all to go fight for the pharmaceutical and -- you know, why can't they put a cap on that? i mean, if i had a billion dollars to donate and wanted to open something, i would. you know what i mean? i wouldn't, but i could. >> host: all right. >> guest: when we talk about spending for political campaigns , the first amendment says congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. indeed

can determine the outcome of these elections, then it is imperative not only that we overturned citizens united, but that we put a lid on how much people can contribute in elections. [applause] freedom of speech, in my view, buy not mean the freedom to the united states government. >> the mccutcheon case marks the first major challenge to campaign finance rules since the 2010 citizens united decision, which opened the floodgates for unlimited corporate spending on elections. 200 people were arrested in washington, d.c. on tuesday in a massive rally for immigration reform. eight house democrats, including civil rights icon commerce member john lewis, were among those to taint, joining with immigration activists for sit in on a street of one of the capital. the lawmakers were arrested after addressing a crowd of thousands of people. immigration reform has stalled in the house after the senate approved a landmark measure in june. libya's general national congress has called on the u.s. to return a top al qaeda suspects seized this week from the streets of tripoli. theanas al-liby, wanted for 1998