citizens united isn't just dangerous because the corporations will do under citizens united. it is dangerous because of what they will threaten to do. the most dangerous thing under citizens united is the lobbyist going into the congress and i want to recognize congressman tom allen who did a wonderful job representing. [applause] they will come and visit, or they will come and visit me and they will say step into my office come here i would like to show you something. look at this ad and it blows me to bits. and they say we are going to put three or $4 million behind that had come in and we are going to do it through a company that we will make up a name no one will be able to trace it to us and you will have a problem on your hands unless you vote right. you vote with us on this and nobody sees that. you vote against us and its $4 million behind that ad starting next august or whatever the date is. that meeting nobody ever sees. there is no accountability but when you open the floodgates you open them also to the threat. so we have to be talking about how long the factual f

supreme court's citizens united decision. well first it's a little overstatement to say they rejected it outright i mean the they meet made some very clear distinctions between what was at stake in the montana supremes court case and what was decided in citizens united in a couple of the key distinctions were in montana the law the corrupt practices act the law under under challenge actually protected nonpartisan and judicial election something that wasn't addressed at all in the citizens united ruling also in citizens united one of the arguments by the majority the five person majority on the supreme court was that there was not a real documented record of the corruption that was being alleged as a threat in montana the state attorney general presented an extensive record of. corporate corruption throughout our history right down to the buying of u.s. senate seats so there are a couple of key distinctions but i think part of the motivation of the montana justices also is the fact that this was a citizen vote back in one thou

the citizens united decision. it is interesting when you have basically the supreme court fighting back. i am going to take the liberty of having you here as an audience because you are interested to make one final point and that is unrelated -- juries are an incredible important part of the constitutional structure. they are in the constitution and bill of rights not once, not twice but three times. is one of the core constitutional elements that protects us from tyranny as a central part of the american system of government. in the other attacks on the system and other decisions that supported corporations very often the jury has been the target. very few people think of the jury as an important part of our constellation of rights and government structure. i urge you as you think as an organization how many organizations are represented here-forget the jury. every time they make a decision that diminishes an american right to a jury their diminishing one of the core elements of our constitutional structure of go

citizens united isn't just dangerous because what the corporations will do under citizens united. it is dangers because of what they will threaten to do. the most dangerous thing under citizens united is the lobbyists going into the congressman, and by the web or director congress and tom allen who did such a wonderful job representing maine in a year. [applause] come and visit him or they will come and visit me and they will say step in the office. your, i would like to show you something. look at this ad. and the ad blows me to bits. and they say, we are going to put three or $4 million behind that had. and were going to do it through a company that will cover will make up the name, no one will trace it to us, and you'll have a real problem on your hands. unless you vote right. you vote with us on this, and nobody sees that add. you vote against us on this and it is $4 million behind that ad starting next, you know, august or whatever the date is. that meeting nobody ever sees. there's really no account before the. but when you open the floodgates this way, you open the floodgat

basically montana ruled that the citizens united decision did not apply to that state because there was a one hundred year old law on the books that prevented corporate spending in state elections but the u.s. supreme court said sorry montana you have to let the corporations spend unlimited amounts of money in your life just like we've dumped on the rest of the country however the montana case highlight an important issue that may lead to citizens united being revisited by the high court and that issue is whether or not corporate spending in elections gives rise to corruption a charge that justice kennedy in the four other justices on the supreme court ruled in favor of citizens united disagree with that route justice ruth bader ginsburg is now weighing in to challenge the high court's decision she recently wrote montana's experience of experience elsewhere since this court's decision in citizens united versus f.e.c. make it exceedingly difficult to maintain. independent expenditures by corporations do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption that's because

right so why is it now when they have figures and stats to talk about the impact of citizens united do they only talk about the president's capitulation and act like that's just the way that it had to be there is a movement out there public opinion is not in support of the influence of money in our political system we see giving one person insane amounts of power we see transparency completely flying out the window so the people have realized that something is wrong and the mainstream media continues to live in an isolated bubble the only monitor is what's happening at the top echelons they've decided that these are the rules of the game and so those pretend from now on that it's just natural to play that way but so many people want which are amendment city council resolutions you name it that entire movement they've chosen a miss. all right so let's continue on with our discussion of outside movements wanting to change the landscape take the influence of money out of politics wake america up to the rampant inequality and corruption overturning citizens united is just one step but for

the ongoing fight to reverse the citizen's united decision is takes place on several months.'s supreme court recently upheld a century-old state law, banning corporate spending in elections, and there are several movements calling for a constitutional amendment that would overrule the citizen's united decision. >> our next guest knows more than almost anyone about how money influences our political system. the author of the new book "republic lost." i'm so glad to join him. he's joining us from boston. i'm glad you are joining us. thank you for being in the war room. i was fascinated by this book, professor, because it's broader than the citizens united case, but you are proposing solutions on how to stop it. but before i get to the solutions, the real problem is the linkage between those who contribute and what they want; is that right? >> yeah, that's right. what we have is kind of corruption not like doing anything criminal. because members of congress spend between 30 and 70% of their time raising money to get back to congress or get their party back into power, and as th

but we still have the unlimited spending that citizens united has unleashed.e -- i don't think congress should be able to stop anybody from speaking, including the plaintiffs in the case citizens united. i think that nonprofit documentary film company should have been able to show their film. but there is all of the different between this non-profit group showing their film, and exxon dropping millions to drive their results. one way is congress proposes it and the other is that states call on congress to propose a convention and then those amendments have to be passed like any other amendment would. because of the corruption of congress itself, i don't think we can count on them on their own to bring about the change that we need and so we have been part of a process to get many people in many states to push the legislatures to call for a convention. >> it has never been done before to have a constitutional convention do amendments. there have obviously been 26 amendments that have been ratified by legislatures but a constitutional convention has never been d

tuning fork or so that was after citizens united was passed i think that people are blowing this out of proportion i say don't hate the player he game on not really sure i don't know i kind of agree with you in that sense for one thing the president not only said that a state of the union address a couple years ago just the other week he was also talking bad about super pacs and saying that you know he thinks they have a negative influence on the economy suddenly we see republicans all singing the same tune here and so it's just i mean come on that was kind of a very quick capitulation that you had there because suddenly they released the figures you realize that republicans are far and away outspending the democrats and it scared them but exactly why he wants to win more than he wants to stay on that message come on he was getting completely thumped out when i got here bill you know what do you have a you know in order and it's a game but i you know let's fix it there are people out there that are trying to fix it and get to the united overturn and get down with that but i don't thi

we're right at ground zero and one of the issues we're following is this citizens united issue.ake a look at what it was like on the ground today in terms of the protests at the supreme court. >> today we gathered in front of the supreme court to do two things. one is to pushback on the citizens united decision, but also to thank two justices who last week when the supreme court stayed the montana supreme court's decision montana said we want to keep the rules in place that prohibit corporations from getting involved in politics. the supreme court said no because of citizens united that very narrow decision, 5-4 that passed two years ago, the decision that came down from the courts they had to stop the montana decision but two justices said maybe as a result of what we have seen with all of these super pacs and the fact that this is going to be the most moneyed election in the history of the united states maybe we should relook at the citizens united decision. so a group of us gathered by the steps of the supreme court. we basically pointed out that corporations are not people.

>> well, other citizens united is their disclosure. it allows -- the super pacs -- a lot of people are confused and think there's no disclosure as to who's giving to the super pacs. but there is disclosure. but there are other categories that are on the margins, the 501c3s and they're not supposed to be explicitly involved. the lines have gotten so muddy. citizen's united was seen as a green light that basically told people with a lot of money that don't want to give it secretly, don't worry, you're not going to be prosecuted. before it was kind of iffy and nobody wanted to take the risk. now no one's worried about taking the risk, they're just throwing the muffoney out there. at least that's how i read it. >> don weiss, now with senior create ty people. we were talking about the history of negative advertising and we see how far back it's gone and that it continues and that it's not in many ways very different. however, due to citizens united, isn't there more of it, along with the internet and everything else, isn't there a much grea

well citizens united has completely changed the game i'm not only will the right from the big business alliance of the chamber of commerce to the koch brothers the folks you mentioned can they raise billions of dollars to defeat president obama they can spend that and adds they can use it and employ coercive situations with captive meetings at big workplaces there's a whole range of things. these interests can do but president obama by and bracing this citizens united for politics it's really dangerous because he's number one he can never really compete in terms of money with these guys and number two he's inviting a corruption scandal you know i can predict here on air today that these super pacs will lead to massive scandals later this year and into the coming years now that president obama isn't bracing this type of secret money these multimillion dollar checks maybe even hundreds of million dollars checks we have no idea he's blurring the line between himself and mitt romney so when these scandals and negatively calm it will hurt both president obama and a possible possible preside

we really needed publicly financed elections before citizens united we had corporate lobbyists of which there are twenty four for every member of congress running washington before citizens united but citizens united was like a wake up call to people it really showed and crystallize for the american people what was wrong with their government it wasn't that it was too big it was who was paying for it and that it was just a very narrow slice of our elite so we have an opportunity in this country to actually create a movement that is going to galvanize progressive tea party members independents and it's about taking back our democracy so there are a number of things we can do the disclose act is just a basic sort of sunshine transparency if you're going to be buying a bunch of political ads if you're going to be spending in our elections you've got to say who you are as filibuster by the republicans in the senate exactly but it's back in this year and it's incredibly incredibly popular with the american people so that's one thing quick that we could do this year and then we got o

as a result as a result of corporate personhood and the supreme court decisions like citizens united our democracy frankly is in peril and jeff is someone who can help us is the author of the new book corporations are not people and he joins us now welcome thank you tom good to be here great to have you with us before we get into the end of the book what what got you into the law and into the massachusetts a.g.'s office well it's a long story i'll give you the short version and i was actually out of college a canvas there with greenpeace. and i was going door to door in places rural virginia to suburban washington d.c. and other places like that talking about environmental protection and the balance of people and and corporate power even then that's really what the environmental movement is about how we make it a more just better society for all of us and i went to law school because i saw that's where the battles were taken the we could talk about it but in the meantime the courts and the law were actually creating the results we all lived with and i wanted to have a more tools fran

these interests can do but president obama by and bracing this citizens united for politics it's really dangerous because he's number one he can never really compete in terms of money with these guys and number two he's inviting a corruption scandal you know i can predict here on air today that these super pacs will lead to massive scandals later this year and into the coming years now that president obama isn't bracing this type of secret money these multimillion dollar checks maybe even hundreds of million dollars actually we have no idea he's blurring the line between himself and mitt romney so when these scandals and negatively calm it will hurt both president obama and a possible possible president romney so in just a minute we have left is this going to take a constitutional mean you mentioned the stuff you can do as a present executive orders and when it comes to disclosure but that's kind of around the edges so is this ultimately going to take a constitutional amendment to get rid of this. well i believe some light is the best disinfectant you know obviously adelson doesn't mind

a lot to his benefit we don't necessarily agree with us it is the citizens united law but we know that in order for us to beat the republicans and possibly change the law or change a majorities in the house in the senate we have to use this law to our benefit. for their truth we can change how the supreme court first we can guarantee with the next term president obama will see another supreme court justice retirement and on top of that i think you know congress can pass laws a lot sort of change how this record interprets citizens united which is of the matter is though is it the president can show up to a gun fight with cancer the guy with the knife and if he does not endorse their design embrace super pacs that's he's going to put them so the situation to himself and to you know bracing super pacs though is the just the latest example in a long line of the president on his promises so whether it was a promise to accept public financing in the two thousand and eight campaign which he then went back on when he realized he could raise so much more money without it and ended up

people could still give that same amount to choose third party political groups before citizens united big didn't lift any restrictions on us like you know they are. right third party citizens these third party followed a five to seven group could not endorse the candidate or they couldn't be supporting one candidate the super pac allows you to give to max out to a k. . like you know say willard mitt romney after you max out to him then you can go give another million dollars of the super pac that supports him and run attack ads against all of his competitors and. attack ads against president states and i think it's pretty clear that they've had a pretty large effect compared to two thousand and eight you know mitt romney ran something like thirteen thousand ads in florida mostly negative ads and they were most mostly funded by super pacs and already we've seen i think fifty percent of all the campaign spending this primary season done by these super pacs so you can say that they haven't had. before at forty six million i believe is how much all the third party groups in total have spe

now probably means that there's a pro corporatist agenda and it doesn't make sense given the citizens united case because you can't have it both ways right you can't say well you get to be a citizen you get to be considered a citizen if you're a corporation because it will give you power in politics but then we're not going to hold you accountable using that same logic it is illogical and there certainly seems to be a contradiction there mitt romney presidential candidate stands by the fact that corporations are people here's what he had to say about the issue in the past. corporations are people my friend we can raise taxes of course every their corporations and also but it goes to people. do you think it goes. corporations are people sort of they be punished for torture. well they should indeed right we have that eight hundred eighty six case of the santa clara case finding that corporations are people and then the application in two thousand and ten was citizens united saying and they can contribute as much as they want to in politics using that logic we need to hold it treat them as citi

besides utilizing the super money you can raise by citizen's united in order to elect people can overturn it. >> you don't need to raise super pack money. i made it very clear that the president is in great position and because it looks like he's a little more on the side of the average person. this only undercuts that. i made it clear to the obama people that i would publicly criticize this decision. what it comes down to, i've got two choice, sit in the back yard and have a nice cigar and have somebody tell me who won the election because it doesn't matter. the other choice is to actually fight for the guy who will appoint supreme court justice who at least possibly overturn this thing. i have a sneaking suspicion that the people that the republicans would appoint wouldn't even consider overturning it. that's the whole ballgame. that's it. we've got to overturn this thing. it requires one justice to have a different attitude. >> if that's the hole ballgame, aren't all the resources necessary to you to win that ballgame, if suddenly one team in baseball were permitted four s

supervisor kim: i want to request to be added as a co- sponsor for the citizens united resolution. supervisor mar: please add me as well. supervisor campos: colleagues, any other comments? do we need a roll call? supervisor avalos: i would also like to be added and i think we could have had is about a while back. supervisor campos: anyone else? can we take this same house, same call? this resolution is adopted. can we call item 31? >> resolution urging the restatement of the 31 categories of music that were eliminated by the national academy of arts and sciences for grim consideration on april 6, 2011. -- for grammy consideration on april 6, 2011. president chiu: i feel in many ways the same way as supervisor weiner, except for the people in our city who are directly impacted. it feels strong, the impact on them. i will repeat what i mentioned. at the request of local musicians, respected, grammy- nominated musicians, i move to table item 31. it is at their urging, because we can focus on other ways to create more diversity in the music industry, and respect for cultural forms, whe

this coming as a result of that historic 2010 supreme court decision known as citizens united. the president was critical of that decision saying that it is destroying our democracy but again the headline from cbs news among other web sites saying the president is reversing course. some sharp questions today from cbs news white house correspondent norah o'donnell to the press secretary. >> i mean, the president spent much of 2010 on the road ridiculing these groups. i mean, he joked about the name. they can call anything like moms for motherhood. he really decried their influence in elections. and now he has signaled to his campaign that he would like his donors to contribute, as well. you indicated when asked about when the president made this decision. you made you could divine -- you could divine that and that clearly since he's made this in february of 2012. so has the president been putting off this decision? were you indicating he's left it to so late in the game because he didn't want to have to do this but he's finally relented and said right, the republicans have so mu

this year or next and now that we know just how damaging that citizens united ruling is to our democracy all the super pacs hanging around maybe the court will reconsider. but i'm not holding my breath not until the makeup of the supreme court changes at the very least in the meantime a growing number of americans think the solution to our post citizens united broken political system is a new political party a third party from the tea party to occupy wall street the failures of the two party system in america is a favorite talking point it's a talking point that's made its way on to the page of the new york times on sunday in a in the form of an op ed by multimillionaire and corporate shill thomas friedman friedman wrote eventually the circular circular firing squad that is the republican primary will be over and the last man standing will be the party's nominee for president if that candidate is rick santorum i think there's a good chance a third party will try to fill the space between the really severely conservative santorum or even mitt romney and the left of center barack

the anger over citizen's united was visible as citizens marched at the supreme court to stay a ruling by montana's supreme court which upheld montana's ban on spending in election eggs. justice ginsburg saw this as an opportunity to review the high ruling writing: >> joining me now former senator feingold and obama national co chair and author. senator, good to see you sir. >> good to see you. >> keith, good to see you. >> is there any other way to beat citizens united besides utilizing the super money you can raise by citizen's united in order to elect people who can overturn it. >> you don't need to raise super pack money. i made it very clear that the president is in great position and because it looks like he's a little more on the side of the average person. this only undercuts that. i made it clear to the obama people that i would publicly criticize this decision. what it comes down to, i've got two choice, sit in the back yard and have a nice cigar and have somebody tell me who won the election because it doesn't matter. the other choice is to actually fight for the guy who wil

election for about one point one million dollars chump change nothing but this year thanks to citizens united those special interest groups have aired thirty thousand four hundred forty two ads that's a sixteen hundred percent increase sixteen hundred twenty six percent to be exact and they've spent fifteen point two million dollars doing it that's almost a twelve hundred eighty one percent increase so really what's going on here is the candidates are running anymore special interest groups the super pacs they're the ones actually running for president american crossroads or americans for prosperity just these two come. super pacs have spent eight point eight million dollars on ads around the country and where they're getting their money from american crossroads top fund funders seven million bucks from texas homebuilder bob perry big real estate two million bucks in the c.e.o. of chief oil and gas trevor reese jones big oil a million dollars to the dixie rice agriculture big agribusiness and americans for prosperity according to media matters they've received over five million dollars in the

>> the first, not the second, no chance that the supreme court will overturn citizens united. hear the part that bans corporate donations. they may out right dismiss it. it's more likely in november they will hear argument on whether citizens united should be narrowed or overruled. i do not think they will, but they will hear it. and as the president made clear, he thinks he can run against the extreme court when it comes to citizens united. >> the prop eight stuff is interesting, because the folks against prop eight said it's better left at the local level in the hands of the voters, fit goes to the supreme court it could be bad for the cause of gay rights, which is an interesting turn of events, is it not? >> it seems that the prop eight case is the risk of energizing the people against it is bad. the health care case is one where if the president wins that, it will be hard to make the argument to anyone outside the base that that is a really bad thing. like the base will believe it bought i'm not sure anyone else will. if this become as national conversation, people are so

host: citizens united is what?uest: we are a conservative organization dedicated to our founding fathers principles, smaller government, elected government, restoring power back to the people. it is much more on the state and local level. it is much more of a reaganesque and national security, peace through strength. and leaving -- a leading up to september 11, we were living with our head in the sand. the weather that is the clinton's fault -- whether that is bill clinton's fault that robert.com with our head in the sand, or whether it is -- that we were caught with our head in the sand, or whether it is continuing through today. our guys ordaz -- are doing an incredible job, our guys and -- are men and women in the military. it is something we need to focus strongly on huizar -- strongly on. we are a conservative organization host: if ron paul winsleigh, what happens in november? -- if ron paul wins, what happens in november? guest: i just do not see that. he will do a tremendous job in a gathering of the economi