so the citizen united ruling are all ways for the well-funded to get what they want from politicians.institutionalized bribery just part of american policies? > i don't agree with that it? citizen united allows americans to contribute to the candidates and the politicians they support, and the electorate out there, they are smart and savvy, as long as they know where contributions are coming from, they can make their own minds up on who they want to support. in the mcdonald case a sitting governor was illegal -- >> soliciting. >> yes, exactly. allegedly illegally policies sitting gifts, he and his wife, and the system caught up with him, and we'll see what happens. but again, i'll emphasize voters are smart and can make up their own mind. and i think artificial limits on who they can give money to and how much they can give money to only will push people underground and push for more corruption. so you want full disclosure, and the abilitity to support home with ever they want to support. >> i think about something like who most of the ambassadors are and how they get appointed. and t

citizens united case. >> very much so in the sense that this conservative court under chief justice roberts and his republican appointee colleagues have been very skeptical of limits on campaign speech. they dismantled the citizens united case rules that restricted what corporations and labor unions could get. this was, all the different roles were at stake, very much in keeping with the theme of what can be limited and wants to of what must be allowed. >> let's hear it. oral arguments in the case of mccutcheon v. fec. >> we will hear arguments first this morning in case 12536 mccutcheon v. federal election commission. ms. murphy. >> mr. chief justice, and may it please the court, aggregate contribution limits as an impermissible attempt to it limit the individual's participation. they prohibit contributions that are within the base on which congress has already imposed to combat the reality or appearance of corruption is simply preventing individuals from engaging in too much first amendment activity. these cannot be justified. they are addressed. a multitude of more direct anti circumvention measures. because they imposed numerous measures. we have coordination restrictions on expenditures with the candidate. proliferation rest

they have dismantled under citizens united case rules that restricted what corporations and labor unions can give. this was although different rules were at stake, very much keeping with the theme what can we limit and what must be allowed under campaign spending. >> let's hear it, oral argument in the case mccutcheon mccutcheon v. fec. >> case 1256, mcsuch shown versus the federal election commission. miss fur my. >> may it please the court, they are imperfect missable attempt to individuals to participate in the political process by prohibiting contributions within the modest base limits congress already imposed to combat the reality or appearance of corruption, these limits seek to prevent individuals from engaging in too much first amendment activity. these limits can not be justified on circumvention grounds because the concerns the government hypothesizes are addressed by more anti-sir couple ven shun measures. >> how is that. >> becker imposes measures. we have earmarking provisions on earmarking contributions for candidates. we have coordination conditions on coordinated expendit

those rules right now are against working people. citizens united and the flood of cash makes it more difficult to change those rules, because they have more and more clout with democrats and republicans. look at the last presidential election. those candidates spent over $1 billion. $1 billion! i mean -- where i came from, that is a lot of cash. is going to get worse, unless we change the rules. you have got a supreme court that is really undermining democracy in a lot of ways. not just with citizens united, by giving corporations more rights than they give people. by insulating governments from any kind of prosecution. a police officer -- i don't want to use ferguson as an example, but a similar situation. the way the supreme court directed the rules, you can't see the police officer. he's not prosecuted. almost. that undermines democracy. there are cases on the books where the court has said, you have violated this person's constitutional rights, but you can't sue. you can't collect against the person or the municipality. even though your rights

could be the vehicle to go to court on the issue of whether citizens united overturning the ban on corporate spending applies to tax exempt rules. counsel and judy kindell need to be on this one please. crinecy should probably not -- cincy should probably not -- all have these cases. what did you mean by cincy shouldn't have these cases? >> on the advice of counsel i respectfully exercise my fifth amendment right and decline to answer the question. >> ms. lerner, why would you say tea party cases were dangerous. >> on the advice of counsel i respectfully invoke my fifth amendment right and decline to answer that question. >> ms. lerner, you emailed your subordinates about initiating a, parenthesis c-4 project and wrote, we need to be cautious so that it isn't a per se political project. why were you worried about this being perceived as a political project? >> on the advice of my counsel i respectfully inters my fifth amendment right and decline to answer that question. >> ms. lerner, mike ceto, manager of e.o. technical in washington testified that you ordered tea party cases to undergo a multitier review. he testified, and i

citizens united. i think it's one of the worst supreme court rulings in history, to me. kids? don't they have, like, you know, parts of their organization that are looking into the future and how much oil is left, how much, you know, how much aluminum is left? don't they know what's going on? don't they know what they're doing? it's very -- it's very interesting. how do they sleep at night? >> you brought up environment. and you were involved along with david and steven and neil and lots of your friends, the no nukes movement in the late '70s which really had a profound effect in changing young people -- not so much changing but at least enlightening as to what that could entail. and you continue, over the years, we were talking before about, you know, your interest in the environment and climate. and you live in a great part of america in hawaii where you see the absolute beauty, natural beauty of this country, particularly that state. and you've done things. and you continue to do things. where does that urgency come from, and how do you put it into the music? it's been

aree rules right now against working people. citizens united and the flood of cash makes it more difficult to change those rules, because they have more and more clout with democrats and republicans. look at the last presidential election. over $1ndidates spent billion. $1 billion! where i came from, that is a lot of cash. is going to get worse, unless we change the rules. you have got a supreme court that is really undermining democracy in a lot of ways. united, with citizens by giving corporations more rights than they give people. governments from any kind of prosecution. want don'tficer to use ferguson as an example, but a similar situation. the way the supreme court directed the rules, you can't see the police officer. he's not prosecuted. almost. that undermines democracy. booksare cases on the where the court has said, you have violated this person's constitutional rights, but you can't sue. you can't collect against the person or the municipality. even though your rights were clearly violated. unless the policy of the municipality viola

the court ruled african-americans were not citizens of the united states and therefore had no rightssue in federal court. being'sere described as of an inferior order and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect. it is considered the worst decision in the history of the supreme court. the 7-2 decision. the chief justice was a slave owner. a number of them more. we are joined by kimberly crenshaw. thank you for joining us. talk about the significance of dred scott's body lying down the road, the road we have heard so much about as the protest continued to escalate. when the supreme court was trying to decide whether african-americans could be citizens, what they consider was the way african-americans were treated. they were not looking at formal .aw the override deal -- the overall idea is they were not seen as having the same social worth as white americans. they could be enslaved for their own good. the possibility of their enslaved ability meant that, as far as the founders were concerned, they were going to be a stateless people. ,hat would

the aren' rt courte rules as itt does in citizens united, is not a belief that corporate power and wealth should dominate our society. but tya belief that government cannot be trusted to decide whose voices should carry weight. it'sy an anti-government i-goven decision, much more than a pro corporation or a plutocratic bee decision. it'sn somewhere between anarchyt and -- daze a mistrust of rt's government. many of the courts decisions e making it easier for businesses to prevail over individuals, ini reflect as ivi try to show in th book, not so much a bias in i favor of bign business as a mistrust of litigation and of the trial process as a way of solving problems. when you focus on what it is wy that drives the justices, ves motivates them, that may give us a better idea of what kinds of o questions to ask, and what kinds of things to look for in the backgrounds of the next set of justices who will come along when some of those who are agin out, as it were leave the court. >> so it is opposed -- mistrust of the government to the trust on the but the court has said you can fully disclos

rule one in citizenship, i am right now citizen of two countries. the united states and iraq. ule one in citizenship, never subordinate your country to a pocket book. once you do that you violate rule one. and, when i came to speak here, ms. straus told me i'm not supposed to carry those documents in my hands. i'm going to give those documents to those gentlemen. they will see the horrible things going on. >> i want to be very respectful. this is a q&a session. would you put the question to our panel? >> i'd be glad to. if somebody told you that some of the major media in this nation kept the american people in the dark about major events, and this question is addressed to all three, if somebody told you that, intentionally cap the american people and the world in the dark, if somebody told you that, what would you tell him? >> that we have failed if we have cap american people in the dark about any significant event. i have served in several positions, chairman of cnn. if we have kept the american people in the dark on any major significant event and we have failed our jobs. i

the reason the court rules, as it does with citizens united, is not a belief that corporate power and wealth should dominate our society but a belief that government cannot be trusted to decide whose voices should carry weight. it's an antigovernment decision much more than a pro-corporation or a good practice session. somewhere between anarchy and libertarianism. similarly, many of the court's decision making it easy for businesses to prevail reflect, as i try to show in the book, not so much a bias in favor of big business as a mistrust of litigation and end of the trial process as a way of solving problems. so when you focus on what it is that drives the justices, that may give us a better idea of what kinds of questions to ask and things to look for for those who come around when some of those who are aging out leave the court. >> is a more than mistrust of the corporations? democratic it's much more than mistrust of the corporate power. you can make corporations disclose fully all of their contributions online and instantaneously and you can reform the structure of corporations t

because the reason the court rules, as it does, in citizens united, is not a belief that corporate powerd wealth should dominate our society, but a belief that government cannot be trusted to decide whose voices should carry weight. it's an anti-government decision much more than a pro corporation or plutcratic decision. it's in that way, some way between anarchy and libertarianism. it's a mistrust of government. similarly, many of the court's decisions, making it easier for businesses to prevail over individuals reflect as i try to show in the book not so much a bias in favor of big business as a mistrust of litigation and of the trial process as a way of solving problems. what it is that drives the justices, motivates them, that may give us a better idea of what kind of questions to ask and what kinds of things to look for in the backgrounds of the next set of justices who will come along when some of those who are aging out, as it were, leave the court. >> i think it is much more than mistrust of government than trust of corporate power. in fact, the court has said, can you make corpo

citizens united. i think it's one of the worst supreme court rulings in history to me. t they have kids? don't they have like parts of their organization that are looking into the future, how much oil is left, how much, you know, aluminum is left? don't they know what's going on? don't they know what they're doing? it's very interesting. how do they sleep at night? >> you brought up environment, and you were involved along with david and steven and neil and lots of your friends in the nukes movement in the 1970s, which really had a profound effect on changing young people, or maybe not changing but at least enlightening what that would entail. and we talked about your interests in the environment and climate. you live in a great part of america in hawaii where you see the absolute beauty, natural beauty of this country, particularly that state, and you've done things and you continue to do things. where does that urgency come from, and how do you put it into the music? it's been a long time since you started this. nearly 50 years ago. >> i often wonder where i get the en

citizens united. i think it's one of the worst supreme court rulings in history, to me. y know what's going on? don't they know what they're doing? it's very -- it's very interesting. how do they sleep at night? >> you brought up environment. and you were involved along with david and steven and neil and lots of your friends, the no nukes movement in the late '70s which really had a profound effect in changing young people -- not so much changing but at least enlightening as to what that could entail. and you continue, over the years, we were talking before about, you know, your interest in the environment and climate. and you live in a great part of america in hawaii where you see the absolute beauty, natural beauty of this country, particularly that state. and you've done things. and you continue to do things. where does that urgency come from, and how do you put it into the music? it's been a long time since you started this nearly 50 years ago. >> i know. i often wonder where i get the energy from to do all this. and the only thing that i can really say is i look at t

of the united states ever since the founding fathers that each generation of citizens and their officials have been, within tolerable limits, faithful custodians of the constitution and of the rule of law. for almost 200 years, every generation of americans has taken care to preserve our system and the integrity of our institutions against the particular pressures and emergencies to which every time is subject. this committee must now decide a question of the highest constitutional importance. for more than two years there have been serious allegations by people of good faith and sound intelligence that the president, richard m. nixon, has committed grave and systematic violations of the constitution. last october, in the belief that such violations had in fact occurred, a number of impeachment resolutions were introduced by members of the house and referred to our committee by the speaker. on february 6th, the house of representatives by a vote of 410-4 authorized and directed the committee on the judiciary to investigate whether sufficient grounds exist to impeach richard m. nixon, president of the united states. the constitution specifies that the grounds for impeachment shal

the reason that the court rules as it does in citizens united is not a belief in that corporate power and wealth should dominate our society but a belief that government cannot be trusted to decide whose voices should carry weight. it is an anti-government decision much more than a pro-corporation or plutocratic decision. it is in that way somewhere between anarchy and libertarianism. it is and mistrust of government. similarly, many of the court's decisions making it easier for businesses to prevail over individuals reflexed, as i try to show and the book, not so much a bias in favor of big business as a mistrust of litigation and of the trial process as a way of solving problems. when you focus on what it is that drives the justices, motivates them, that may give us a better idea of what kinds of questions to ask and what kind of things to look for in the background of the next set of justices who will come along when some of those who are aging and, as it were, leave the court. [inaudible question] >> the mistrust of the government. >> i think it is much more than mistrust of gover

citizen of two countries. the united states and iraq. neverne in citizenship, subordinate your country to a pocket book. once you do that you violate rulee. here,hen i came to speak me i'm nottold supposed to carry those documents in my hands. i'm going to give those documents to those gentlemen. they will see the horrible things going on. respectful. be very could you -- this is a q&a session. would you put the question to our panel? >> i'd be glad to. if somebody told you that some of the major media in this nation kept the american people in the dark about major events, and this question is addressed to all three, if somebody told you that, intentionally cap the american people and the world in the dark, if somebody told you that, what would you tell him? >> that we have failed if we have cap american people in the dark about any significant event. i have served in several cnn.ions, chairman of if we have kept the american people in the dark on any major significant event and we have failed our jobs. i hope that we have not. i would be pleased to answer specifically what topic we may have kept from the american people. i'm not going

could be the vehicle to go to court on the issue of whether citizens united overturning the ban on corporate spending applies to tax-exempt rules. counsel and judy kindell need to be on this one, please. cincy should probably not -- all in caps -- have these cases. what did you mean by cincy shouldn't have these cases? >> on the advice of counsel i respectfully exercise my fifth amendment right and decline to answer the question. >> ms. lerner, why would you say tea party cases were dangerous. >> on the advice of counsel i respectfully exercise my fifth amendment right and decline to answer that question. >> ms. lerner, you emailed your subordinates about initiating a, parenthesis c-4 project and wrote, we need to be cautious so that it isn't a per se political project. why were you worried about this being perceived as a political project? >> on the advice of my counsel i respectfully exercise my fifth amendment right and decline to answer that question. >> ms. lerner, mike ceto, manager of e.o. technical in washington, testified that you ordered tea party cases to undergo a multi-tier review. he testified, and i quote, she se

. >>> it's the first rule of third party groups in politics, no coordination with candidates. when citizens unitede spending on politics with no restrictions, the only restriction was these groups have to act on their own, they cannot coordinate or strategize with the campaigns they give money to. that's the law, or the spirit of the law anyway. as the nation first reported when it happened back in june, freedom partners, the koch's finance arm bought out the entire st. regis resort in dana point, california, for three straight days for a private enclosed conference. tom cotton now running against democratic senator mark pryor and cory gardner trying to unseat mark udall woth attended. sam stein of the "huffington post" reported this week that iowa republican senate candidate joni ernst was also there. the event didn't get much press conference because there weren't reporters on site. sam stein obtained recordings that showed the power and financial reach of the koch political network. >> as tom mentioned earlier, the first time i was introduced to this group a year ago, august, in new mexico and

citizens of this country and little gain globally? >> sir, what i know about this rule is it will leave the united states in 2030 with a more efficient and cleaner energy supply system and more jobs and cleaner energy which are the jobs of the future. no matter what happens internationally, this is of significant benefit to the united states in terms of those kids in the audience who want to breathe healthy air and don't want their kids to get sick. >> so you admit that it has no impact on global climate? >> no, it will have significant impact in the tone and tenor of the discussion. >> no impact on global climate. you do. you never said how this would impact global climate. >> don't put -- >> just a moment. could you freeze for a minute -- freeze the clock. i don't think we should be putting words in anybody's mouth because she never said what you said she said. could you just refine what you said? you take from her response something. she didn't say what you said, it's just not right. >> i take from your response and from the secretary of state's comments that then no matter that these proposals that you're putting forth will have

of the united states ever since the founding fathers that each generation of citizens and their officials have been, within tolerable limits, faithful custodians of the constitution and of the rule of law. for almost 200 years, every generation of americans has taken care to preserve our system and the integrity of our institutions against the particular pressures and emergencies to which every time is subject. this committee must now decide a question of the highest constitutional importance. for more than two years there have been serious allegations by people of good faith and sound intelligence that the president, richard m. nixon, has committed grave and systematic violations of the constitution. last october, in the belief that such violations had in fact occurred, a number of impeachment resolutions were introduced by members of the house and referred to our committee by the speaker. on february 6th, the house of representatives by a vote of 410-4 authorized and directed the committee on the judiciary to investigate whether sufficient grounds exist to impeach richard m. nixon, president of the united states. the constitution specifies that the grounds for impeachment shal

citizen united. >> guest: this is where we part ways. i think they get turn back by a court which has ruleder again this is speech. this happened on the left and hasn't happened on the right as much. if you look back to 2002 things were worse today than they were then. and so actually my solution to this is actually have no limits to donations to national or state parties and have them disclosed. the money would go to a central location and people would be held accountable. >> host: eddy from massachusetts. republican line. welcome to the conversation. >> caller: in response to the lady who said the republicans haven't done anything and everything they pass is to help corporations. doesn't she realize burger king is leaving the country? all three of the major beer companies all left the country already? corporations are people. people make things. people make cars. please, give the corporations a break. >> host: more of a comment than a question. celinda? >> guest: i came from the state montana that says corporations are not people and i will quote by governor corporations will be people wh