, citizens united allowed on president levels of expenditures. the other thing it encouraged is the formation of brand new groups that could appear and then disappear as opposed to moveon or sciu that are groups that will be around before and after the election. some of their groups that will feed into the citizens united world will come up and into the background from a strictly for electoral purposes. republican coordination, i will of the guys on the other side talk about this. it was widely reported the reason that i think it is interesting that people noted the difference of coordination on the republican side, the democratic side on message, is what facilitates that level of coordination is a very small number of decision makers that come from a more concentrated number of donors to the ads if that makes sense. we have got 5 million members who are funding our ads. lieber is very beholden to their constituency, their members. but when you have individual donors who can deduct your campaign strategy, it is facilitated much tighter coordinati

, citizens united allowed on president levels of expenditures.he other thing it encouraged is the formation of brand new groups that could appear and then disappear as opposed to moveon or sciu that are groups that will be around before and after the election. some of their groups that will feed into the citizens united world will come up and into the background from a strictly for electoral purposes. republican coordination, i will of the guys on the other side talk about this. it was widely reported the reason that i think it is interesting that people noted the difference of coordination on the republican side, the democratic side on message, is what facilitates that level of coordination is a very small number of decision makers that come from a more concentrated number of donors to the ads if that makes sense. we have got 5 million members who are funding our ads. lieber is very beholden to their constituency, their members. but when you have individual donors who can deduct your campaign strategy, it is facilitated much tighter coordination

well time for tonight's tool time award citizens united the group that helped dismantle campaign finance rules earlier this year with the help of the supreme court is back with a new cause the conservative group has decided to scare everybody over congress and obama's decision to repeal don't ask don't tell take a look at this new ad. can you believe that the draft is coming back because gays will be allowed to serve openly in the military now did you notice of the guy who handed the member of the crowd listening to lady gaga on the draft notice had gloves on will be afraid it would catch hey here's a tip citizens united a you can't catch it and sorry guys but your little ad is too late because don't ask don't tell will become law tomorrow so maybe you should release the sat a few weeks ago when congress returns to leave that session to debate the issue now they seem to be insinuating here that ones don't ask don't tell is repealed thousands upon thousands of military personnel will flee the ranks and the u.s. will need a draft this ridiculous assertion flies right in the face of pentago

i but to talk about citizens united.ie-hard republicans know nothing about citizens united, and nothing about reconciliation. from i understand it, we had a contract where we had george bush not veto anything for six years. the first thing he vetoed was a health care for children. now we have republican house, a republican senate, republican committees, a republican president and now have a republican supreme court. as they were leaving, they do citizens united which is unlimited campaign contributions for companies. you, as a citizen, economic and $2,400 but they can give $24 million and not show. i have watched these letters of disclosure on c-span and i can- someone as long as i say not to vote for them. i can hide behind any kind of name i take. something is wrong here. they elected that supreme court for christian ethics and morals and what do they do? they do the citizens united case. people need to look at what is important. the rich protect the rich and are putting in the laws that the american people have no ide

we will work to overturn citizens united. in the next election, we will see that if we do not get together to make these connections for voters, we will see a disenfranchised electorate and a democracy that is increasingly for sale to the highest bidder. >> if there are any questions from the floor of ilyse hogue for, i will welcome them now while khalid pitts gets set up. >> what do you see for the 2012 elections? what amount of money do you see being spent on these advertisements? >> i think that is anyone's guests. some threatened to send for $1 million. they did not. e support keeping up's ,-- keeping up, which requires them to spend everything in their arsenal. campaigning starts now. advertisements will start now. what i perceive is that we will see on the democratic side were up a push toward big money fund raising. there has been one independent expenditure announced this is divergence from what we did in 2006 and 2008. president obama asked that no outside groups donate. some think that a unilateral decision might ha

act because if you are not happy about citizens united you need to get rid of. one shackles the other one and if you are upset with the wake of the change campaigns, the only answer is to bring and how were candidates in the committees but i will get off my soap box and go back to an office before i get to engage. i'm going to focus on the house side of this year independent spending was a very big factor both on the party committee and third party groups to read part tested with the fact the campaigns typically aren't large enough to make their own weather wear as many senate campaigns are. the house campaign's budget or to the smaller and some outside groups tend to play a bigger role. real quickly leading the jogging changing jobs or the party committee especially is to drag out the spotlight. show both the donors and other third party groups. this is where the races are and where it matters. this is the agenda in the race we can win. and keeping with that, we ought to take a minute and look at the scoreboard what happened in money to i would like to puncture

this is about citizens united. the amount of money going in from the oil companies benefited the oil companies, but gasoline is half the cost in the united states that it is anywhere else. the unions came in and give a lot of money. what happened to their money? they have exemptions under obamacare that no one else has. it really does not matter how wealthy the congressman are if what the particular party -- it is what the party does with the influence. if it makes gasoline less in the united states, it is good. that is my comment. people need to look at this a little closer. thank you. guest: that is why we do what we do on opensecrets.org. you can look at every member of congress and find out which industries, which special interests are backing them and have backed them with hard cash both in the corporate or union political action committees. we can take a step further and identified specific donors and who they work with, whether they are executives for companies, powerful people within the union, whether they

we will overturn citizens united. in the election, if we do not get together and make these connections for voters, we will see a disenfranchised electorate. and a democracy that is increasingly for sale to the highest bidder and that is not american. >> thank you. i would hold questions until the end. our second panelist has arrived. we will put his presentation in. if there are questions from the floor, i will welcome them now. >> what amount of money do you perceive being spent on these ads? >> i think that is anyone's guess. they're not keeping up. what i perceive this starting now, no break from elections. what i perceive this we're seeing on the democratic side more of a push towards big money fundraising. there is one independent expenditure announced. this is a divergence. president obama asked no outside groups run ads. the donors on our side have started to feel like unilateral disarmament may have been a mistake. we will see a lot more of everything. we will see are -- our side fighting for disclosure. figh

as they were leaving, they do citizens united which is unlimited campaign contributions for companies. you, as a citizen, economic and $2,400 but they can give $24 million and not show. i have watched these letters of disclosure on c-span and i can- someone as long as i say not to vote for them. i can hide behind any kind of name i take. something is wrong here. they elected that supreme court for christian ethics and morals and what do they do? they do the citizens united case. people need to look at what is important. the rich protect the rich and are putting in the laws that the american people have no idea what citizens united is. they have no idea what reconciliation is. they are ignorant. i cannot believe it. i have friends that cannot stand obama. they blame everything on obama. the democrats for the richest nation in two years. i just sit there in awe. thank you for c-span. i will listen to your comments. guest: it is important to note what citizens united actually did. first, what it did not do. corporations, trade unions, trade associations still cannot write a check and sim

what difference did citizens united make?f all the money you spend and the things you did, what could you not have done had it not been for citizens united? >> >> it did very little to impact wet you were able to, -- accomplish. it was a committed group of donors that wanted to get back in the game. there were deflated in 2008. he did not want his donors to participate in outside groups. those donors rolled back this time. i think it helped some of them but a lot of money raised. that money was coming anyway. >> were the messages that you ran that you could not have run without citizenship? >> had it not passed, we could have done issue eds which we did in august. we did adapt to the law but that would not have prevented us from doing advertising. >> you would have spent money with the same amount of a fact? >> i think you're right. he law changed but i can't remember a conversation where a voter cared. >> they did nothing because of citizens united. it would have done the same thing. one of the reasons was to talk about the

. >> one of the of the big changes this last year, citizens united, did that ruling and these outside interest groups really not to devalue the role of the rnc in midterm presidential elections? >> not at all. those outside groups can raise and spend a different kinds of money. they are largely unlimited. the rnc is very limited. it results in not as much competition as some have suggested. federal law provides very specifically that the rnc and the dnc on the democrat side can do things that these other entities can do and that other committee parties cannot do. the court needed funds that can be spent on behalf of the presidential campaign, that is up to $50 million. at the national convention, it can only be organized as a coordinated turnout program, the party organization, and the party campaign. none of those things can be done by third-party groups or even by other party committees. in a presidential cycle, the role of the national party has not been diminished. but you talked a lot about raising money and how important it is. some suggested that the next cycle will be a $300 m

that was the citizens united case that opened the doors to secret money financing campaigns. what do you think they're going to do? maybe they'll buy a mercedes or maybe they'll use these tax cuts to come back to further undermine the working men and women of this nation with the kind of propose am you just heard on the health care, repealing the health care reforms. enough for me, right now, we'll come back at this issue. i'm joined today by two of my colleagues, congressman paul tonko from the great state of new york and mr. mcdermott from the equally great state of washington. mr. tonko, would you please join us? >> mr. tonko: thank you for bring -- mr. tonko: thank you for bringing us together this evening. we need to stay well-focused, extremely well-focused, on what's affordable, what return we get for spending that's called for in the tax cuts. i know, as you pointed out, that when we saw the bush tax cuts for which we borrowed from china to pay for, we saw that it was very little return. coming from that investment. theage cease that have followed those tax -- the ana

. >> one of the other big changes is citizens unite that led to crossroads in american across croods, didn't that ruling and outside interest groups really devalue the role of the rnc and the dnc in mid term and presidential elections? >> certainly not at all in presidential elections. those outside groups, as you know, can raise and spend different kinds of money. they're largely unlimited. the rnc is very limited and as a result not inas much competition as some have suggested with these third party groups. but as i mentioned at the outset, federal law provides very specifically that the r.n.c. and the d.n.c. on the democrat side can do thing that is these other entities cannot do and other party committee cls not do. i think, for example, of the coordinated funds that can be spent on behalf of the presidential campaign, that's up to $50 million. i think, for example, of the national convention which can only be organized by the rnc, the presidential trust, a coordinated turnout program between the party organization and the federal campaigns. none of those thing ks be done by outsi

so, yeah, that particular citizens united versus fec decision really undermined 75 years of law with respect to campaign finance and makes it easier for certain interests to have an influence. and that's your thesis, right? >> it is. just like obama said maybe messing with the pluralistic views which is kind of interesting because then be you look at the supreme court, in this theory, they're also blocking out maybe messages of the minority because, again in theory, a huge organization with lots of money can technically buy up all the commercial space. and those smaller maybe grassroots projects will not be heard. >> so the, you've heard this before, the criticism of our pluralism is the pluralist choir sings with an upper class accent. that people have more resources or more money. resources mean people, but more money have more influence than people who don't. is that right? do you agree with that, joe? >> that seems more true now, yeah. >> seems reasonable. >> >> yeah. >> right. and sometimes there's no equal competition on either side of an issue, it's all dominated by one partic

i don't go anywhere we start a lot more to come on tonight's show the conservative group citizens united has come out with a new ad about don't ask don't tell and it is so outrageous that it won our to full time work for tonight we'll have details on that in a moment and there's a warning today that as many as one hundred u.s. cities could default on the simple bonds so what does that mean for the economy i'll speak with anthony randolph after the break. culture is the shame of you are going to build already most of us want to settle something again on the brink after less than successful election and allegations organize current utility organ trafficking and. again this is see it would trickle the headlines at home. ston debate me is the end of the u.s. senate expected to vote on the ratification of the stalled nuclear arms const treaty in the next forty eight hours it ends months of delays and efforts to amend the parts without sound the deal to reduce the russian and american nuclear arms by a third signed by both presidents in april. russia and india secure a multi-billion dollar dea

so, yeah, that particular citizens united versus fec decision really undermined 75 years of law with respect to campaign finance and makes it easier for certain interests to have an influence. and that's your thesis, right? >> it is. just like obama said maybe messing with the pluralistic views which is kind of interesting because then be you look at the supreme court, in this theory, they're also blocking out maybe messages of the minority because, again in theory, a huge organization with lots of money can technically buy up all the commercial space. and those smaller maybe grassroots projects will not be heard. >> so the, you've heard this before, the criticism of our pluralism is the pluralist choir sings with an upper class accent. that people have more resources or more money. resources mean people, but more money have more influence than people who don't. is that right? do you agree with that, joe? >> that seems more true now, yeah. >> seems reasonable. >> >> yeah. >> right. and sometimes there's no equal competition on either side of an issue, it's all dominated by one partic

the argument of the citizens united supreme court case on campaign financing, that led to people saying that big corporations would be paying for all the campaigns and buying politicians. it turned out the unions spent more money than the corporations on the 2010 midterm elections. there is lots of criticism of what is going on with unions, what they represent in american life in the 21st century. host: allentown, pa., on the republican line. caller: thank you for taking my call. merry christmas. my question -- keep pushing the obama government and congress to get out of afghanistan. this war is no good. the media does not tell the truth about fraud in afghanistan. -- the war in afghanistan. the war is not between afghan, taliban, and america. the war is between the pakistan the taliban and america. the pakistani that were taliban were fighting america. the truth is not told to the public. the minute america gets out of pakistan, the taliban would take pakistan. guest: this is an interesting conversation. clearly, there was tremendous pressure put on the obama administration to put addi

case -- from al gore, the supports of the citizens united case. host: hypocritical -- can you respond? guest: the comprehensive immigration reform, which obama pushed, does nothing to prevent a recurrence of the same problems that got us into this situation. how is that reform? the so-called comprehensive immigration reform is nothing but a massive blanket amnesty bill that would destroy it immigration enforcement and policy for the nex50 years. that is n reform. secondly, it is abt partisan advantage. i d not want to sound like a partisan guy. i know i do sometimes. the republican party has some players who are helping create a problem. in the chamber of commerce, there are others who use immigration to control labor costs who have been involved in supporting predatory practices that use immigration to decimate the bargaining leverage of american workers. it is the left, the extreme left, the aclu and others who work in concert with the chamber of commerce on these issues that torch to the economic opportunity for the american people for the last

the campaign finance reform bill and the citizens united case, the money has moved away from politicalams. the money did not disappear. it has gone up. what you saw this year for the first time is more money spent by interest groups in a political campaign and the parties and candidates combined. this sent chills down the number of political leaders who are not afraid to but these interest -- buck these interests. for the last decade, we had no good news coming from the federal government. you had 9/11, two wars that have not gone as planned, you've had katrina, you of had the economic meltdown over the last couple years, the longest period of sustained unemployment since world war ii. real wages have not moved in 20 years. that is what this political system has delivered. and then you have to think -- take a look at the deficit and what this means for the future. we are borrowing this year in washington 41 cents for every dollar that we are spending. that is just unsustainable. it cannot last. but when you have one side lighting up, saying, we will never rain se revenue. and the other

closer look at whether congress has the power top act, whether it's in the first amendment and the citizens united case about corporate tidsing or in a case like this about whether the government can require health insurance. >> he says congress went way dwrond its power in stretching the commerce clause. >> article one of the constitution says congress has the right to regulate commerce among the several states. it's through that brief passage in the constitution that most of the modern federal government was invented. the courts said look, even if individual decisions have nothing to do with interstate commerce, if you add up all those small transactions together, they do have an affect, and that's enough to let congress regulate. what this decision says is, it pulled back from that. it basically said no, is this goes beyond congress's power on interstate commerce. >> you attract the high court, as well as anyone, jeff. the lower court decision, judges by democrats have said this law is okay, judges appointed by republicans have said this law is not okay. is this a where does anltny kennedy go o

overseas in the united states of america when they adopt a child comes to the united states of america and becomes a citizen of the united states of america this child is continuing to be a citizen of the russian federation until eighteen years old and we have a right to support his chat like a citizen of the russian federation and would have. a right to sure all the situation with this adopted child in the new family and the second thing is. recognition of. russia for durations court decisions is united states of america because during this new agreement it wouldn't be necessary to. have a decision in the united states of america court just enough to have a decision of the russian federation court and business will be recognized in that is this of america it's very important what's the position of our states in general on adoption of russian nationals by foreign parents i mean position is we. have to be patient we have to. recognize our obligations. which our state law. gives to us i mean we have a special. article in the family court which. gives a right for any overseas adoptive families to adopt the rus

and the citizens united decision in the supreme court saying you can make essentially unlimited political contributions from the corporations, that stranglehold you have been talking on politics in both parties is becoming ever tighter around our next. >> one of the real problems is that in order go-to-get the money to run for office there three places you can get it, it banking, hollywood and the silicon valley and the campaign contributions that come out of those places are enormous. those folks don't make stuff in america what they are interested in is intellectual property protection, banking protection in china, they keep this government from doing the right thing. >> one of our leading exports is hollywood. >> that's true. >>> it is like real estate, three critical places you can get it, it is wall street, wall street, wall street, just like it's location, location, location. >> i look at the response to this tv show since we have launched it i look at the response to statements that you make or you make, that so many others, increasingly growing group of people aware of the trade p

we've seen it most recently and most acutely on the citizens united campaign decision where again theoking this idea that the government regulation was impinging upon a constitutional freedom, in this case, in that case the first amendment ruled in a way that the obama administration very publicly disagreed with. >> that was a terrible decision. ken, wasn't that a terrible decision? >> in fact on the 2010 midterms. >> international corporate money, everything thrown into our politics. we have enough problems with corruption without bringing all of those interest group money, all of that money, pouring into campaigns on behalf of international trade that benefits other countries. the potential here is horrible. anyway, that's my view. chris cillizza, thanks for sticking with us. ken vogel, thanks for your insights. >>> up next with both republicans and democrats moving further to the extremes, is there room in the political center for a new centrist political movement? we have two republicans who lost out to the right, charlie crist and bob inglis. let's see whether or not they are to

case -- from al gore, the supports of the citizens united case.ypocritical -- can you respond? guest: the comprehensive immigration reform, which obama pushed, does nothing to prevent a recurrence of the same problems that got us into this situation. how is that reform? the so-called comprehensive immigration reform is nothing but a massive blanket amnesty bill that would destroy it immigration enforcement and policy for the next 50 years. that is not reform. secondly, it is about partisan advantage. i did not want to sound like a partisan guy. i know i do sometimes. the republican party has some players who are helping create a problem. in the chamber of commerce, there are others who use immigration to control labor costs who have been involved in supporting predatory practices that use immigration to decimate the bargaining leverage of american workers. it is the left, the extreme left, the aclu and others who work in concert with the chamber of commerce on these issues that torch to the economic opportunity for the american people for the last

citizens to transmit citizenship. one case involves getting aliens into the united states. there is no tradition that dates back to 1350 where citizens enjoy rights to bring some aliens into the united states, but it does bring back the ability to confer citizenship on your foreign-born children. so it is different is situated. it is different is situated in the very structure of the statute we are talking about today. congress specifically eliminated the ability of the courts to change the rules of naturalization of the aliens, basically used language very similar to the court's decision in ginsberg, and said you could be naturalized under this decision and no other way. citizens as a birth are treated differently. there is a clause in the statute that would apply to them, and it brings into play all the various remedies the court has granted with respect to extension over the years. >> you refer to the tradition of passing? you agree that there is no such right? >> i agree that the constitution does not guarantee that right. we believe congress has always provided for it,

they don't pay taxes and when you invite ludicrous, grotesque supreme court decisions like citizens united against the federal election commission that treats corporations like they're people with first amendment rights. you don't want to go down that road. no, i was saying something quite different. the reason that corporations are sitting on $1.8 trillion is because they are not consumers out there to buy in the united states. their goods. the reason they are not consumers is because consumers are very much afraid right now. the stimulus package was not big enough. in order to get people back to work. consumers given the underlying mall distribution of income and the failure and exhaustion of the coping mechanisms that i talked about before just simply don't have the money. and so their problem is not their corporations are doing anything nefarious or malicious by not investing or creating jobs or expanding capacity, no, they are being rational. they are just not consumers out there -- what we got to do is focus on reble the middle class, the working class, creating the capacity among ou

justices with you sitting right beneath his podium for the ruling that they had made in the case of citizens united, which was basically the private corporations can contribute money in candidate elections. watch that. >> last week the supreme court reversed a century of law that i believe will open the floodgates for special interest, including foreign corporations. [ applause to spend without limit in our election. >> chris: now, you were on mr. obama's side in that case but do you esee anything wrong with the president calling out the justices and having members of his party stand up, surrounding them and cheering them? >> my job, chris, is to write opinions. the job of 307 million americans is to criticize those opinions. what they say is up to them. the words i write are carrying out my job under the law as best i can. that's true of my colleagues. >> chris: but do you have any problems participating in an event like that? >> going to the "state of the union" -- >> chris: yeah. >> i'll go next year. i've gone every year. i think it's very, very, very important, very important for us to show up

as individuals it is a lot harder for them to stand up and say what i wish the it said in the citizens unitedases with a net you missed the point of having the constitutional rights. a corporation is not of the nra or the naacp. exists one reason and that is to make money and i think that is the corporations. i love corporations. i think they are great at making money. that is what they're for and the mistake is to think an organization designed is the most advanced in to be in the history of mankind, the business corporation, would have any interest in speaking publicly about ideas that would serve the interest. they have an interest in speaking politically to make more money and they have their shareholders' money that way and i would say the liberals are out of practice thinking in these terms. roosevelt justices were not out of practice. these are the issues that really brought them to public life and have no trouble for saying for civil hugo black's explicitly, he never convinced the whole core of this, that corporations have no constitutional rights at all. he said they are not persons

obviously you feel a mistake was made in citizens united, what's that feel like?ou say if only i'd been at the conference table, maybe i could have made a difference? it must be a strange feeling to be on the outside looking in after all those years? >> yeah, but you have to expect the fact that people are going to be serving there for different periods of time. you're not going to be there forever. and other people may disagree with some of the things that you have believed. so you just can't approach it from the standpoint that you will never be disappointed or concerned. it's very possible you will. but that's life. [laughter] >> there's one possibly radical answer to your question and comes from the old psychiatrist joke about the young and old psychiatrist talking at the end of the day and the young psychiatrist, he looks exhausted and harried and the older guy looks as fresh as he did at 9:00. and the young doctor says, you they, how can you seem so fresh, how can you stand it listening to these patients all day long? everything is wrong. you sit there liste

caller: the election in november and the citizens united supreme court decision. a gentleman from this area was saying that he disagreed with that decision because, in his mind, that money that was allowed to flow into campaigns was a negative thing. however, the race he mentioned, a candidate was outspent by over four times, and he had more outside money, and he still lost. the significance of that decision is not that the unlimited money is corrupting, it is that the people, no matter what, will have their say. host: new jersey, roland. caller: good morning. it is obvious that it top of 2010 for political moments was the omnibus bill, before any of the senate was able to look at it. $1.10 trillion to be looked at in just days before anybody has an opportunity to vote on it, having a session on at the weekend. it is ridiculous, pathetic, and the united states government, in one short amount of time, has to go everything > -- has to go through everything to keep everything running. that is a disgrace. host: the one for a continuing resolution -- caller: only senat