that in america created not by the people but by money in his dissent against majority ruling in citizens united justice stevens predicted exactly what we see unfolding today he wrote corporate domination of electioneering can generate the impression that corporations dominate our democracy citizens may lose faith in their capacity to influence public policy or government captured by corporate interests they may come to believe will be neither responsive to their needs or willing to give their views a fair hearing. this week the switchboards on capitol hill went down after the president encouraged americans to call their members of congress and push for a demo debt limit deal and yet the corporate tea party didn't listen they pushed ahead with their agenda to crash the economy slash government spending and lay off people bring it all down it's not a coincidence that the most dysfunctional destructive an unresponsive congress in the history of this nation is this congress the first congress elected after the supreme court's citizens united decision even if this third party of destruction does not

one thing david said one thing the citizens united did enacted a shift not among the corporate class but the deep pocket and the old rules of restraint and as bad as things were there were self-imposed restraints and deep pockets those self-imposed rules of restraint no longer applied and we see them fritter away more and more. there's a culture move going along on the corporate class. i don't think the public sentiment needs to be shifted. the public actually gets this pretty well. you guys all get this. you get 90% of people who think that big business has too much power in washington, d.c., in polls. 90% is an awesome number. 80% of the population thinks the earth revolves around the sun. think about it, right? okay. 90% is amazing. 70% of tea party self-five-day forecast tea party people think the united decision was wrong. so what we don't have is the way david people we don't have people against it and they are not mobilized. all we have against all this money is all of our collective people power. if you're passionate about climate change or you want safe water, you want safe

and you were discussing citizens united case before.in business school we were taught that corporations were creations of the state. and in return for their privileges they had certain responsibilities and they had responsibilities to all their stakeholders, shareholders, employees and customers and communities of which they were a part. for 30 years of no incidents, the government is a problem pherae we have been told corporations's only responsibilities are to their shareholders. those two ideas together have produced a combustible and unsustainable amount of inequality in america and if you want to live in a country where people like emily, middle-class kids and people like you have a fair shot at the american dream we have to reexamine them both. professor michael porter at harvard business school, latest in which republican i have known for many years has done great work developing the inner cities and has of cover story you can pull up on the internet and two additions back of the harvard business journal saying we have to change

the most important thing is to fix the citizens united case.ost democracy in this country in the 1880s and 1890s. people don't remember this, but we really had, during what we called the gilded age, you know, giant corporations take over our country and we really lost almost all the vestiges of democracy at that point. you had a few courageous people. journalists like ida tarbell and sinclair lewis and a number of others who came along at the turn of the century, and great politicians like the republican like teddy roosevelt who said, "you know we are going to put the bit into the mouths of corporate power and make corporations and economic powers serve the publican the other way around". and they created the sherman anti-trust act. they created an income tax for the first time. they created -- they made it easier for unions to organize so that we would begin creating a middle class in this country. they made food and drug reforms so that people couldn't sell bad products on the market and one of the most important things they did was pass a la

the supreme court said in citizens united that money is speech.ing $100 are you saying to your followers, shhh i don't want to hear what you have to say. okay, daddy's busy. stop talking. >> money is speech. i have no problem with that. the constitution protects it. but i have the god given and constitutional right as to who i listen to. i will not listen to the special interests with the big checks. i will listen-- (applause) i will listen to americans with $100, $5 or zero dollars who have an idea about how to build a better country. i will not put up with the special interests. i call them hogs in the trov and we're going to kick them out. (cheers and applause) >> stephen: all right. hogs in the trough. i happen to love the taste of bacon and they're welcome to my tr rock ugh any time. okay what would a president buddy, and i have to say, that's got a ring to it what does a president buddy do about the debt ceiling? do you let it laps? >> no, you meet your obligations. i mean the president ought to tell the world that we're going to meet our ob

a majority was identical to the majority in the shameful citizens united decision which more or lessned congress from placing limits on what private kopgss can spend. the same majority is back saying even if you don't impose limits but subsidize candidates so as to level of playing field you are violating the constitution. chief just when is roberts wrote in the court's opinion, we hold that arizona's matching funds substantially burdens protected political speech without serving a compelling state interest and, therefore, violates the first amendment. obama appointee elena kagan wrote a dissenting opinion arguing the arizona law if anything promotes free speech enticing more candidates to ent are the race and kips money interests out of the election. she added, they're making a novel argument that arizona violated their first amendment rights by disbursing funds to other speakers even though they could have received but chose to spurn the same financial assistance. some people might call that chutzpah. joining me now, senior editor and supreme court correspondent, thank you for join

a type of political committee made possible by the citizen united supreme court ruling.sed to raise unlimited funds for federal elections, as long as the money isn't spent on specific candidates. the only restriction the fec imposed was he is only promote the superpac on his comedy central show. he responded to those who have questioned his sincerity. >> some people have cynically asked, is this some kind of joke? well, i for one don't think that participating in democracy is a joke. i don't think wanting to know what the rules are is a joke. but i do have one federal election law joke, if if you would like to hear it. knock knock. >> who's there! >> unlimited union and corporate campaign contributions. >> unlimited union and corporate campaign contributions who? >> that's the thing. i don't think i should have to tell you. >> for me, let me bring in ryan riley who has been reporting on this story for talking points memo. why is colbert doing this, ryan? >> evening it's part of an elaborate ruse on the commission to poke fun on some of the lack campaign finance regulatio

united states. if you want to become citizens in the united states, you should be paying taxes to the united states. and with that, why do they get seven-year cuts versus we as united states people that are born here and live here, why do they get to be able to have a tax break and we don't? >> you brought up taxes. taxes in your opinion should be part of discussions going on as far as debt? >> caller: yes, it should, especially if you are foreigners and you have big businesses, whether small businesses, but again there is always a tax break for them, but we don't get tax breaks. >> what about tax increases on everyone else, though? >> caller: i mean, the rich, it's time for the rich to realize that hey, you can only make so much money and you can only do so much with so much money. so the thing is, why is it they are not able to give to the situation of economic status, as well as the poor, middle class and everybody else? >> if you didn't know, our channel cspan 3 on the weekends turns into american history t.v. the title suggests it is completely devoted to events of american history, including t

don't have a legitimate claim to the first amendment essentially making muslim second class citizens in the united states once the second class citizens what's the big deal if you attack or even kill then there is strategy seven link anti muslim prejudice to anti obama rhetoric see if. obama into the most. well now we know where the whole muslim obama is a muslim idea came from or the whole obama has anti-american beliefs idea came from . it is totally absurd it's beyond belief that a christian into the united states would say that and it shows that obama might be might be the first anti-american president we've ever had i think i think the people that barack obama has been a throw thier thing with are anti-american by and large the people who are radical left that i'm focusing our morocco obama and the people that he's going to tell when you get out of people you fire when they're anti-american nature while he's the united states for the record obama is a christian muslim which brings us to the final strategy and it's weird that i even have to say that but you know about half of the republican pa

(applause) now the supreme court's decision in the citizens united case allows for unlimited donations. and as you can see, on the colbert superpac tote board we have so far raised somewhere between 100 and our goal of infinite dollars. (laughter) (cheers and applause) >> stephen: so somewhere in here. come on. guys, look at that. we're so close to infinite dollars. (laughter) >> stephen: so go to colbert superpac.com. become a member and donate because there are countless conservative issues and candidates deserve the kind of support that only we can provide. (cheers and applause) >> stephen: nation, i don't have to tell you we have an energy crisis on our hands. even our most volatile source of fuel lasts only five hours. that's why i am such a huge supporter of hydro fracking. the drilling process that blasts pressurized water, sand and chemicals below the earth's surface to break up rock and release natural gas. it's like giving the earth an alka sellinger if the alka sellinger shattered your internal organs so oil company kos harvest your juices. (laughter) >> stephen: now folks t

[laughter] and folks, it's all the more historic because of the supreme court's citizens united ruling, which allowed the creation of super pacs, political action committees that can take unlimited corporate and union cash to create political ads. months ago i announced my plans to set up colbert super pac. our motto: making a better tomorrow, tomorrow. [laughter] in fact, when you google the phrase super pac, i'm the first five results. [cheers and applause] that breaks my previous record of the first four results from googling the phrase "pear-shaped pundit." [laughter] since i brought them to the nation's attention in april, 17 new super pacs have been created, including "turn right usa." who have released some great ads. including one that makes some salient points about congressional candidate janice hahn. >> in an insane effort to reduce gang violence, janice hahn hired hardcore gang members with taxpayer money to be gang intervention specialists. she even helped them get out of jail so they could rape and kill again. ♪ >> give me your cash, bitch, so we can shoot up the street.

he is referring to the decision called citizens united, that found that laws prohibiting corporationsons from spending money, not giving money to candidates, but spending to candidates, but spending money directly on ads, get out the vote efforts, other election related activities that are expressly intended to support the election or defeat of a candidate, that it is unconstitutional for that type of spending to be barred. what has resulted from this decision is not corporations giving a ton of money to candidates, but instead spending money on these outside groups, and some of the most well known are karl rove's group crossroads, and these groups spent in the neighborhood of $70 million in the 2010 midterm elections. they are spending more than $120 million and more in the run-up. democrats are largely on the sideline in this newly legalized spending, and most are gearing up to try to compete if not dollar for dollar then let -- not let republicans have the space to themselves. we're going to see a ton of money raised by these outside groups' combined. in some ways, it marginalizes

what the constitution says in plain black and white if congress disagrees with for example the citizens united decision or the bush v gore decision they can simply pass a law that says that the supreme court has overstepped its authority and that's the end of a why do you ask to the founders write it this way. the answer is really very simple they wanted the greatest power to be closest to the people. and congress is up for reelection every two years it's the body of our in our representative democratic republic that is closest to the people that's where the founders wanted most of the power which is why it's defined in article one of the constitution the first among equals the judicial the dishes article three as thomas jefferson wrote in an eight hundred twenty letter to mr jarvis who thought supreme court justices should have the power to strike down laws jefferson wrote you seem to consider the judges the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions of very dangerous doctrine indeed and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy the constitution has erected no such s

favorite thing about america is our newest citizens. >> i pledge of allegiance to the flag. >> immigrants just like my husband who are enrich this country. >> the united. >> one nation, under god, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. [ applause ] >> the american dream is alive and well. and if we want to keep that dream alive and keep this country colorful, we just need to make sure that we continue to be welcoming. >> thank you very much. >> you forgot to have your hand over your heart. >> oh! ♪ ♪ if tomorrow all the things were gone i worked for all my life ♪ >> i need to hear you now. there you go. ♪ just my children and my wife, i thank my lucky stars to be living here today ♪ ♪ because the flag still stands for freedom and they can't take that away ♪ ♪ and i'm proud to be an american where at least i know i'm free, and i won't forget the man who died who gave that life to me ♪ ♪ and i gladly stand up next to you, because there ain't no doubt i love this land, god bless the usa ♪ >> you're 87 years old, and you just became an american citizen. >> yes. >> what are you going to do with your new citizenship? >> pretty much the same as what i

caller: if they would repeal citizens united. they said justice thomas and justice scalia should have recused themselves from that vote. you are darned right. people inifficult for the executive and legislative branches to repeal an act of the supreme court. it's impossible. we can amend the constitutioor pass laws that effectively nullify supreme court decisions, but it's difficult. i think the caller is definitely pointing to one of the biggest changes that will affect the 2012 campaign as opposed to what happens four years ago. that is the citizens united ruling which opens the door for unlimited union and corporate contributions. in ways, what really makes this different is the proliferation of organizations which we cannot see into. we cannot see their books. these are the so-called are title one 2-4's. we just at the close of the second quarter a all the figures are not in from some candidates. some are waiting until their paperwork is due in two weeks by the federal elections commission. the third quarter closed or rather

what they can become with markets united again the citizens united and sensual but now i'm getting back as issue that before. now i have what. song integration we're going to continue with my life. but as the finished my did you study it for another year then maybe i can get a job and maybe i can get working visas and then me being the next ten years i will be able to see you know one of the the things that is kind of the the promise of this that people apply for this lottery is that there is opportunity for them in the united states and you just mentioned you thought you would have these opportunities to start is missed if you came here but unemployment in the u.s. has been more than nine percent for a while now and it's been on the up and up and a lot of them a lot of people that is affected are recent college graduates and younger adults so my question is why do you see the united states as still being a land of opportunity for me as a computer scientist. and that is a is the land of opportunity because it is the first country will always great opportunities for researchers to develo

legal doctrines like separate but equal in policy versus ferguson or corporations or people the citizens united if you want to see the whole thing the complete. complete take from last night with the quotes from hamilton and jefferson is the july twelfth two thousand and eleven daily take on our you tube page you can easily find it. so in responses to yesterday's daily take about this number of people opposed messages over its sound harben dot com and on you tube and other places asking if you questions about what i had to say the first is if the supreme court can't decide what is and isn't constitutional then what is its purpose what's a really supposed to be doing the answer to that is actually laid out in the constitution plain black and white and supreme court is the first court in the nation goes for cases involving disputes about treaties embassadors it quoting the constitution now controversies between two or more states and when a state and citizen of another state and when citizens of different states and foreign states end of quote read article three section two of the constitution it

caller: if they would repeal citizens united.hey said justice thomas and justice scalia should have recused themselves from that vote. you are darned right. people inifficult for the executive and legislative branches to repeal an act of the supreme court. it's impossible. we can amend the constitution or pass laws that effectively nullify supreme court decisions, but it's difficult. i think the caller is definitely pointing to one of the biggest changes that will affect the 2012 campaign as opposed to what happens four years ago. that is the citizens united ruling which opens the door for unlimited union and corporate contributions. in ways, what really makes this different is the proliferation of organizations which we cannot see into. we cannot see their books. these are the so-called are title one 2-4's. we just at the close of the second quarter and all the figures are not in from some candidates. some are waiting until their paperwork is due in two weeks by the federal elections commission. the third quarter closed or rathe

recall well this is of course there have been executions of foreign nationals in the united states before foreign citizens and the united states. i mean george bush still holds that george w. bush still holds the record on executions when he was governor perry is close behind but the idea is perry knew that there was a five to four decision in the u.s. supreme court to refuse to stay the execution while the senate considers legislation to bring the u.s. including all the states and territories in line with this the end of convention on consular relations and by basically snubbing this international treaty that the u.s. has signed up to texas is putting every american traveling abroad who gets arrested for just the filed for or i'm just to file the reasons they're put in jeopardy because what this individual said is he wasn't afforded quick. consular services from the mexican consulate without the les that's what the treaty says that was what he used as a basis to have the execution stayed you mentioned the role that it has played internationally and i read that this by least in the one nine hundred sixty

until you can translate into numbers that can actually reverse the supreme court decision on citizens united, you really cannot affect the system. it has to start somewhere, and that leads into the penultimate chapter of this book which is called "the just did not get the word." there are two schools in the country. those that are exceptional -- the president does not put the right emphasis on the first syllable, so we are going to crucify him. americanhink exceptional isn't is an entitlement of social security, that we just did to keep saying we are exceptional. we are optimists, but we are frustrated optimists. i am a huge optimist about america. the reason i am an optimist is that this country is still full of people who just did not get the word. they did not get the memo that we are down and out, that we are in a decline, so they go out and invent stuff and create stuff, and is what truly saves us. one of my favorite quotes in journalism, a soldier said they were just too dumb to quit. this country is full of people that are too dumb to quit. if we don't enable and empower those people,

when the case was granted people said it was the next citizens united. it involved the privacy rights of corporations. and, you know, the statute, the freedom of information act grants rights for personal privacy and what the corporation, at&t, said we have rights of privacy here because person is defined to mean corporation under the federal code. that argument didn't work too well because as the chief justice pointed out in oral argument the word is personnel privacy and there is a situation in which words mean different definitions from the root. craft and craftee, squirrel and squirrely and pastor and pastoral. and the chief justice writing for oral argument said at&t didn't have the right to personal privacy. and he said, we trust that at&t will not take it personally. [laughter] there was a high rate of so-called ideological division for the term in the case of 5-4 or 5-3 decisions which had a, "liberal" result. my time is up. i would like to talk about the global warming case in the question and answer period. thank you. [applause] >> thank you, n

i think citizens united, i mean, there are a lot of candidates for the worst supreme court decision intory, i'm not a fan of bush v. gore, but this was a terrible decision. it said, corporations can spend money directly. we have been against that as a country all the way back to 1907. teddy roosevelt, the republican, warned against the danger of corporate money in politics. but at least most of the time we knew where the money came from. so you had some sense of who was influencing someone. with what's going on now, you don't even know who owns somebody, if somebody is owned. and, also, the kind of -- i worry about the threats against -- a good member of congress takes on an interest group, and somebody walks in there and says, you like this job. wouldn't it be nice if there were a lot of negative ads anun mousily funded by us in your next campaign. would it? it creates a whole slew of problems. a very impractical decision as well as the decision on the side of the very rich and powerful. >> one other issue of financing came up in way i did not expect. jon huntsman said in may he would

if they have possible grounds for ruling out to then it won't be attacked and thursday and in citizens united we have a strong minded bunch of justices, replaced them with ones that don't have to be at opposite points but just ones who are a little more susceptible to the editorial opinion and you release those decisions. >> and we missed another question. yes? >> george mason? >> you pointed out that all schools have become -- some are the reverse is in the last 15 years or so since i've been teaching but that happened from history, political science, sociology, anthropology and so forth, and my fury is this is in part because we have a supreme court in the judges to this by the republican they take seriously faculty's can't just write to rauf but if you have -- if you have i would be interested in why they've had a shift at least with other disciplines being immune to any kind of ideological diversity it's an interesting question and the law school's to not be as ideological extremist the anthropology of sociology is pretty well for out. disciplines and others are even more lopsided than wh

i saw you were discussing the citizens united case before. when i was in law school, and if i had been in business school, we were taught that corporations were creations of the state. and that they had certain responsibilities to all their stake holders, their shareholders, their employees, their customers and the communities of which they were a part. if for about 30 years, we've been told that corporations' only responsibilities are to their shareholders. those ideas together have produced a combustible and unsustainable amount of inequality in america. if you want to live in a country where people like emily, middle class kids and people like you have a fair shot at the american dream, we have to re-examine them both. professor michael porter at harvard business school, the distinguished republican, and i've known him for many years. he's done great work from royal development and the inner cities. has a cover story. you can pull it up on the internet in two additions back i think of the harvard business journal, saying we have to change

that is very dangerous and the corporate money in our system, unprecedented amount, post citizens united will continue to dome in this case our society. i think one of the central mistakes president obama made was demobilizing those who supported him, and it's not just progressives or the left, but a fairly broad based coalition of people, african-american women, and others with a conscious because to have -- and this is if he's truly a pragmatic president, you want that women -- whim that you're back, and that has been the history of our country's truly transformational change when you have the ability of movement from below to push and pressure presidents whether it is abraham lincoln as our board member erick writes so beautifully in the book, those abolitionists of that time pushed president lincoln beyond the limits of his own politics, but that is not what we're seeing now because of the demobilization of the base. too small, not small, but team of rivals. you know, president obama spoke about in the spirit of the team of rivals, but he didn't bring in a team of rivals. you didn't

and it works its way up in citizens united. at the moment we have this really strong minded supreme court justices, replace them with one's -- have to be opposite point of views the ones who are a little more susceptible to academic and editorial opinion, and you lose this submission. >> yes. >> david bernstein, george mason law school. one thing, you pointed out that law schools have become at least somewhat ideologically prefers which i agree with for the last 15 years or so. when that happens, history, clinical science, sociology, anthropology, and so forth, and my theory is this is in part because we have a supreme court and judges who were appointed by republicans and they're taking this use is the faculties can't just write you off in an that but if you have some other, i'd be interested why lott has had a bit of a shift what other disciplines seem immune to any kind of ideological diversity. >> that's an interesting question, and on the tendency of law schools do not be as ideologically extreme as anthropology or sociolo

. >> and you can raise from corporations, unlimited now after citizens united. >> ifill: and these other outside groups, i'm very curious about whether they are now splitting their support among all these republicans who are running now, there's so many in the race or is all the outside democratic groups going to one guy? >> that's a great question because that's part of his advantage. the president doesn't have a primary so all this money he has raised and put out there, this is all to build an infrastructure and organization and prepare to defend against attacks in this next year before he's in a one-on-one race with somebody. on the republican side right now those outside groups are spending their money attacking the president. right? they will get behind the republican nominee, which is why no matter how much big fund-raising win this corporate quarter is for the president the republican nominee, nor president obama, is not going to win or lose this election based on how much money they have. >> ifill: david chalian, as always, thank you. >> sure. >> woodruff: now, as the unemploymen

attacked in 30 law review articles over the next -- you know, it works this way on things like citizens united. at the moment we have this really strong-minded bunch of supreme court justices, replacing them with ones, they don't have top of opposite points of views, but just ones who are a little more susceptible to academic and editorial opinion, and you lose those decisions. another question. yes. >> david bernstein, george mason law school. one thing, i mean, you pointed out that law schools have become at least somewhat more ideologically diverse which i agree with in the last 15 years or so that i've been teaching. that has not happened, from what i can tell, in history, political science, sociology, anthropology and so forth. and, um, my tentative theory is that this is, in part, because we have a supreme court and judges who are appointed by republicans, and they're taking these ideas seriously, then faculties can't just write you off as a nut. but if you have some other -- i'd be interested why law has actually had a little bit of the shift whereas at least other disciplines seem immu