citizens united involve independent speech, not contributions. they are also subject to a lower standard under the law as far as allowing contribution limits to be had. abysmally they are low. i am involved in the republican party and i say to republican groups, and i will chance it here, you can't even buy a democrat congressman for $2600. the anecdotal evidence is that it takes six figures. congressman william jefferson of new orleans, yet 99,000 in cold, hard cash in his freezer. he went to jail. to be bipartisan, duke cunningham, e-commerce and from san diego, he came in for an earmarked weapon system. he would literally pull out a schedule and the lowest schedule based on the value of your your mark was $140,000 and a yacht. i don't know where he got the odd thing, but in any event. to buy these people, it takes much more than $2600 and the effect on our system has been a tremendous distortion, driving money away from the most transparent sources. i think it is great that we have super pac's. i won the first case in the court of appeals sayi

so citizens united is not a problem. it is the law. and so no, i am not aware of any effort or part of any effort to fix a problem from citizen's united, i am aware that it changed the law, though, and that law enforcement and reaction to such changes must be vigilant about the opportunities they present for law breaking. so my question for you, deputy attorney general cole, are you aware of any attempt by the justice department to fix a problem posed by citizens united? >> i'm aware of no such effort. there was no problem. particularly, that was the law. >> now that statements from doj witnesses and deputy attorney general himself have directly refuted the chairman's allegation that doj contributed to the political pressure on the irs to fix the problem posed by citizens, by the citizens united decision, i want to say, i hope this claim is put to rest once and for all. it's time to stop creating fake scandals and start focusing on conducting real oversight which is the charge of this committee. and i yield back. >> i would just ask to

citizens united involve independent speech, not contributions. they are also subject to a lower standard under the law as far as allowing contribution limits to be had. i do think they are abysmally low. i am involved in the republican party and i say to republican groups, and i will chance it here, you can't even buy a democrat congressman for $2600. the anecdotal evidence is that it takes six figures. congressman william jefferson of new orleans, he had 99,000 in cold, hard cash in his freezer. he went to jail. to be bipartisan, duke cunningham, a republican from san diego, he came in for an earmarked weapon system. he would literally pull out a schedule and the lowest schedule based on the value of your your earmark was $140,000 and a yacht. i don't know where he got the yacht thing, but in any event. to buy these people, it takes much more than $2600 and the effect on our system has been a tremendous distortion, driving money away from the most transparent sources. i think it is great that we have super pac's. i won the first case in the cour

"in your opinion, does the citizens united decision pose a problem?" the answer was -- "my job is to enforce the law. citizens united is the law of the land. that was the answer that was given. do you agree that citizens united is the law of the land and that it is doj's role and responsibility to enforce that law? >> yes, it is, and to enforce all the other laws that are involved in that area. >> all right. the director of the election crimes branch of the doj's public integrity section was asked about citizens united during his interview. in response, he said the following -- "citizens united is not a problem. it is the law, so no, i am not aware of any efforts or part of any effort to fix a problem from citizens united. i am aware that it changed the law, though, and that law enforcement reaction to such changes must be vigilant about the opportunities they present for lawbreaking." my question for you, deputy attorney general cole -- are you aware by any attempt of the justice department to "fix" a problem posed by citizens united? >> i'm not aware

citizens united involved independent speech, not contributions.contributions are also subject to a lower standard under the law as far as allowing contribution limits to be had. i do think that they're abysmally low. you know, i'm very involved in the republican party, and i say to republican groups -- and i'll chance it here -- you can't even buy a democrat congressman for $2600. [laughter] so, and the anecdotal evidence is it takes six figures. you know, congressman williamjefferson of new orleans, he had 99,000 this cold, hard cash in his freezer. and he went to jail. to be bipartisan, duke cunningham, republican from sand yea owe -- san diego, he came this for an earmark of a weapons system, he was chairman of the house armed services committee. he would literally pull out a schedule, and the lowest schedule based on the value of your earmark was $140,000 ask a yacht. -- and a yacht. i don't know where he got the yacht thing, but in any event, you know, so to buy these people, you know, it takes much more than $2600. and the effect on our syst

commission and numerous other agencies, all coordinated in response to the supreme court's decision in citizens united. they claim that the justice department is a key player in the conspiracy. the they've accused the department in engaging in criminal -- they accused the justice department of the united states of america of engaging in criminal activity by obstructing the committee. they claim the department is delaying or even closing down its own investigation for political reasons. and they claim that the appointment of a special counsel is needed. mr. chairman, i stand prepared to submit the accusations against the department of justice. as well as specific responses showing why each one is unsubstantiated. and i ask unanimous consent this memo be entered into the official record. >> without objection. >> let me address one of these allegations. last month chairman issa and chairman jordan sent a letter that the department conspired with taxpayer information in order to criminally prosecute conservative groups for their political speech. here is what that letter said. quote, the irs transmitted 2

now, a debate on the merits of the supreme court's 2010 citizens united ruling. it gives corporations and labor unions the ability to spend unlimited amounts of money in political campaigns. speakers include the cofounder and executive director of free speech for people, which is committed to overturning citizens united, and the legal adviser for citizens united, and the general counsel for the national right to life committee. it is just under an hour. [applause] thank you, nelson. it was a privilege to serve with you and serve as your executive director for 13 years. i'm here as a moderator. is pretty -- role limited. i would like to have the two debaters come up. this is different than the previous session. this will be a modified debate, if you will. we will be debating the topic of campaign-finance and the citizens united decision. the backdrop for all this is in 2010, the supreme court issued the landmark citizens united decision and more recently in april of this year, talk about timeliness, but we were planning the conference we had no idea that we would

commission, and numerous other agencies all coordinated in response to this recent court decision in citizens united they claim the justice department is a key player in the conspiracy. justicehey accuse the department of the united states of the united states of america engaging in criminal activity by obstruct the committee. even closing down its own investigation for political reasons, and they claim the deployment of a special counsel is needed. mr. chairman, i have prepared a detailed memo that sets forth the top 10 most egregious accusations against the department of justice. as well as specific responses showing why each one is unsubstantiated. i asked him his consent this memo be entered into the official record. at me address one of these allegations. westmont, chairman i said chairman jordan said the department conspired with the irs to comply -- to compile an illicit registry with confidential taxpayer information to criminally prosecutors conservative groups for their clinical speech. here's what the letter said -- the irs had 27 discs with 1.1 million paces -- pages with non- -- includi

citizens united involve independent speech, not contributions.they are also subject to a lower standard under the law as far as allowing contribution limits to be had. i do think they are abysmally low. i am involved in the republican party and i say to republican groups, and i will chance it here, you can't even buy a democrat congressman for $2600. the anecdotal evidence is that it takes six figures. congressman william jefferson of new orleans, yet 99,000 in cold, hard cash in his freezer. he went to jail. to be bipartisan, duke cunningham, e-commerce and from -- republican from san diego, he came in for an earmarked weapon system. he would literally pull out a schedule and the lowest schedule based on the value of your your mark was $140,000 and a yacht. i don't know where he got the yacht thing, but in any event. to buy these people, it takes much more than $2600 and the effect on our system has been a tremendous distortion, driving money away from the most transparent sources. i think it is great that we have super pac's. i won the first ca

all that bipartisan activity i talked about preceded citizens united.after that, polluter attacks funded by citizens united money and the threat of those polluter attacks, perhaps promises not to make those attacks if you behave, cast a dark shadow over republicans who might work with democrats on curbing carbon pollution. tens, perhaps even hundreds of millions of dark money dollars are being spent by polluters and their front organizations, and god only knows what private threats and promises have been made. the timing is telling. before citizens united, there was an active heart beat of republican activity on climate change. since then, the evidence has only become stronger but after citizens united uncorked all that big dark money and allowed it to cast its bullying shadow of intimidation over our democracy, republicans other than those few who parrot the polluter party line that climate change is just a big old hoax, they have all walked back from any major climate legislation. we have senators here who represent historic native villages now washin

you know, we need united citizens, not citizens united. then, of course, a good friend of mine, awesome guy, james clyburn. this is his biography, and jim is a wonderful man and his book is called "blessed experiences." he has faced a lot of things a lot of things in his time. user the third most powerful democrat in the house and he's a friend of mine and i want to learn more of his life. i think this will probably take me at least until july. >> what are you reading this summer? tell us what's on your summer reading list, tweet us at booktv, hosted -- posted our facebook page or send us an enough, booktv@c-span.org. >> here's a look at some books that are being published this week. look for these titles and book stores this coming week and watch for the authors in the near future on booktv and on booktv.org. >> lissa warren is now joining us on booktv here at book expo america. its publishers annual trade show. what d do you do and who do you work for? >> i'm the vice president, senior director of publicity and the requiring editor at th

and i think a lot of the debate in the citizens united case, and in other cases, has been whether or not corporations should be allowed to spend their general funds or even a special organizations that their shareholders support should spend as much money as they do. but actually as i've reflected on it i don't think it's just a corporate problem. although that's gotten most of the attention. i think that individuals also get involved in election contests in jurisdictions where they do not have the right to vote. and it does seem to me that one of the key cases that the court overruled in citizens united was michigan against the chamber of commerce, or austin against the chamber of commerce, in which michigan voted prohibition against corporate contribution. but actually it seems to me that what they were really concerned about is money coming from non-michigan sources. and, of course, corporations generally represent interests, out of state interest frequently. and it does seem to me that there is an important difference between the right to participate and support candidates that s

and i think a lot of the debate in this citizenned united case and in other cases -- citizens united case has been whether or not corporations should be allowed to spend their general funds or even the special organizations that they, their shareholders support should spend as much money as they do. but actually, as i've reflected on it, i don't think it's just a corporate problem. although that's gotten most of the attention. i think that individuals also get involved in election contests in jurisdictions where they do not have the right to vote. and it does seem to me that one of the key cases that the court overruled in citizens united was michigan against chamber of commerce, or austin against the chamber of commerce in which michigan voted prohibition against corporate contributions. but actually, it seems to me that what they were really concerned about is money coming from non-michigan sources. and, of course, corporations generally represent interests, out-of-state interests frequently. and it does seem to me that there is an important difference between the right to particip

having to do with citizens united and the way that the i.r.s. folks were targeting certain 501 c-4 groups. i want to mention here that the inspector general's report, mr. george, found that lois lerner, the former director of exempt organizations at the i.r.s., did not discover the use of these inappropriate criteria that we are all talking about until a year later, in june 2011, after which she immediately ordered the practice to stop. this is something found by -- >> will the gentleman yield for just one point of clarification? >> certainly. >> we have been going back to this tgda report that says that she didn't know until june of 2011 when the majority of the tgda were based on emails. now that we know that emails are missing to make that conclusion is hard and i wanted to point that out. yield back. > that's a fair point. i want to go on. i also want to point on it that the inspector general's report found that employees subsequently began using different inappropriate criteria without management knowledge. the inspector general's report, m

the obvious, citizens united so that the supreme court basically says corporations are people. then you have this mccutchen case which basically says you can give the maximum contribution to as many individuals, as many parties, as many pacs as you want, so there is no limit on how many people or entities you can give to. so the lid is basically off. the money is getting darker. it's coming from all around the world. there's nobody to track where it's coming from. what do you make of the changes, vis-a-vis, campaign finance, that are basically now being written into code of law which makes this ship of state even harder to turn, it seems? >> i have a couple of observations on that. first of all, i've been involved in politics since the '70s. i don't ever remember an election when big money wanted to get in, that they couldn't get in. there were always loopholes, different kinds of organizations, supreme court cases or congressional bills, so i don't ever remember in my entire existence having an example of a corporation or an individual that wanted to put a lot of money who cou

part of it was seeing what the left had done and what democrats had done prior to citizens united backn 2004 when these liberal billionaires and multimillionaires spent upwards of $200 million trying to defeat george w. bush. obviously that was unsuccessful, but what that showed is that you could build something outside the party structure that would enable very wealthy people to spend a lot of money and have a big impact, at least on the debate, if not on the election results themselves. karl rove set out to do that and it was very fortuitous timing because the citizens united decision happened and he created something well beyond anything that democrats had done and had a big impact in 2010 helping republicans retake the house. obviously you alluded to less successful 2012. that's what he's struggling to sort of come to grips with and convince donors he can still be successful. >> "big money" is a fascinating book. a must-read for anyone who wants to understand what's going on with the finances both on the left and right. you talk about rove in that he's able to raise so much money t

what the citizens united overruled was the departure from precedent, and citizens united did not give rise to unfettered campaign spending. the supreme court case in 1976 in buckley versus vallejo ruled that independent expenditures could not be limited. that decision was the work of a supposeed conservative judicial activist. wealthy individuals have been able to spend unlimited amounts since then, and corporations and others have been able to make unlimited donations to 501-c-4 corporations since then as well. as mr. abrams wrote to the judiciary in questions for the record, -- quote -- "what citizens united did do, however, is permit corporations to contribute to pac's that are required to disclose all donors and engage only in independent expenditures. if anything, citizens united is pro-disclosure ruling, which brought corporate money further into the light" -- end of quote. and it is this amendment, not citizens united, that fails to respect precedent. it does not simply overturn one case, as mr. abrams responded, it overturns 12 cases, some of which date back almost 40 years. a

according to the republicans it's vast conspiracy originated at the supreme court 2010 citizens united decision. chairman issa in my opinion issued a partisan staff report concluding that the justice department and the irs had, quote, internalized the president's political rhetoric lambasting citizens united and nonprofit political speech. deputy attorney general cole, to the best of your knowledge, did the president's political rhetoric about citizens united cause the department to conspire against nonprofit political speech? >> it did not. >> wait. the gentle lady, are you asking about the irs or the justice department? >> i haven't yielded. >> the question was did the irs conspire? of course they did. >> i haven't yielded but do you have any reason to believe that citizens united prompted the unwarranted prosecution of political organizations? >> no. >> your answer does not surprise me because despite ten hearings, hundreds of thousands of pages of documents and conducting over 40 transcribed interviews, the committee has been unable to gather any actual evidence of this vast conspi

overturn we can't pass laws at the six levels to the citizens united ruling so the only authority above two thirds of congress to vote to propose an amendment or you can get two thirds of the states to call a collection of five con convention and i and it was just at that just passed to the california. the same objective at the end of the day in a minute to the constitution to fix these problems you know the idea that one speech not to address the electoral problems and it but they're going to congress are saying. coming up. about how we can continue to fight for equality have such but there. i would rather ask questions positions of power instead of speaking on their behalf and find my show larry king now right here on our take. on america in the final. act it's. only taken from the demand for credit. but it's my life there are. two of the two or three coasts on the are to. us it's going to give you a different perspective getting one never i'll give you the information you make the decision. breaking the said were there others in the mind it's rather. consciousness and frustrate

local democracies since the supreme court opened the floodgates with its two thousand and ten citizens united decision outside groups like the koch backed americans for prosperity have emerged as big time players in american politics now they don't have to worry about spending limits these outside groups are throwing corporate and billionaire money at elections all across the country for the most part the media has focused on how the rise of outside money is affected national elections and for good reason to thanks in large part to outside spending on the presidential race the two thousand and twelve election campaign was the single most expensive election campaign in the history of the united states but believe it or not it might be at the local level in the heart of our democracies that citizens united will have the biggest long term impact that's because as public citizen has shown a new report billionaires like the koch brothers have used the opportunities open up to them by the citizens united decision and mccutcheon to throw money at small and often obscure races all across the united s

so the citizen united ruling are all ways for the well-funded to get what they want from politicians.stitutionalized 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 the

making me a citizen of the united states some 87 or shortly 88 years. and the opportunity to be an american having more real good things and more money but more freedom in indedispense and opportunity than any person in the world before. so, thank you. and god bless us all. but more importantly, god bless the united states of america. thank you. [ applause ] >>> thank you again congressman dingell for being with us today. for delivering your speech and for following the question and answer session. and the first question is, what has changed in congress the most since you first visited capitol hill while your father was a member of the house from 1933 to 1955? >> well, obviously the quote reforms which have opened the place up and then point of fact which have denied us the ability to really talk about the concerns which we have. second of all, the size of the committee. third of all, the unworkability. fourth of all, the lack of capacity of the members to carry out their function because of the size of the committees, the size of the subcommittees and

did i the court go too far in citizens united and should it not have gone this far with hobby lobby apoplexy i think -- with hobby lobby? >> i think it did. the united states doesn't always protect unpopular people or weak groups. it can be -- once it is in play, it can be used by anyone am including our full corporations and powerful groups. from the 1970's to the 1980's, first amendment absolutism went from a liberal position to a conservative decision and it is now applied to property rights and the rights of corporations. hobby lobby, really, instead of a religious freedom case, it is in the same ballpark. my view is to let the political process work out these compromises. and another thing from what jonathan said earlier, which i think is intentional first amendment absolutism. if you think people can look at these things as religious conscience or rights of women or other beliefs and concerns, then you don't want the supreme court and the other courts applying this doctrine in order to defeat these compromises. >> i want a libertarian response to this. do you think it shouldn't enforce

in january 2010, the supreme court on citizens united allowed for non-profit groups to raise unlimited funds and register for tax-exempt status under the 501c-4. while these are not barred from participating in campaigns, it is stated that political participation must be an insubstantial amount of the group's overall activity, accounting for less than 50% of expenditures. the irs's job was to peak sure these groups were following the rules so they weren't taking the tax breaks intend for the community. not highlighting what a select few have on other politics. this is about groups doing everything they can do to hide where they get their money. obscure their true intentions and have undue influence on the political system tax free. this is something we don't need in this country. something that disrupts the democratic process and something that has to be changed. i commend chairman leahy of the senate judicial air eye committee for the joint rez lugs proposing an amendment to the constitution which would limit these damaging effects of citizens united. with that, i'll conclude my comme

i mean that wasn't simply corporate personhood from citizens united tweaked a little bit. that was saying that for purposes of religious freedom, corporations pull into the parking lot next to you at church and put on a hat and pray. and that they can exhibit religious conscious in a way that defies, i think, the metaphor, defies most of us, most of us cannot say that hobby lobby prays or exercises religion. >> or has a sole. most religious people believe co comes with the turf. >> it's a part of the case that a little bit disappeared in the conversation around birth control. but really the part that was breathtaking pr those of us watching the court was the ease they transported this idea that corporations are people too for speech purposes under a statute that was supposed to protect persons. >> there's nothing in the opinion that you can say here's the stopping point. instead you read it and say, whoa, this just goes on and on. it stops at hobby lobby today because hobby lobby brought the case, but there's no reason why it wouldn't apply to some other more conventionall

who it get money and does it extend citizens united. >> i think in logic but not in law.he court was very careful not to cite citizens united here and not put this in the context of political speech. we as reporters definitely can understand the fact that sometimes this sort of fiction of corporatehood makes sense. first aemmendment rights. this corporate fiction has been around a while. what is new as you're e leading to is the idea beyond that mechanism where humans speak through corporations we are saying the corporation itself has a religious identity. that is a shock to a lot of people because it's weird and how to understand how -- >> to mike's point which is a great one is the same inane arguments that corporations are people like you and i which is absurd. basically, a corporation lives within the laws and rights and the tax protections of being a every day business of making money and now get to turn and say we act like a person and allowed to have beliefs and allowed to live by those beliefs and you can't have it both ways. this is a very disturbing, although th

the reason this context of citizens united matters is because if you are not a supreme court lawyer or a lawyer of any time as i understand it the reason these cases have been successfully sort of brought forward by the ideological camps that supports the capping campaign contributions, tearing off the limits reside in an argument that has become jurisprudence in this country which has to do with the relationship between money and corruption. so the original counts on campaign contributions were rationalized in the belief that if you were a private corporation and you gave an elected official great deal of money to help them run their campaign, you didn't have to have a quid pro quo -- criminal favors to be corrupt. you would be influencing them. you would be buying access, creating an environment of assets and the exclusion of others, is in and of itself corrupting. citizens and mceachern created a new law of the land that says there's nothing corrupting about the correlation between large-scale political donations and political decisionmaking. you have to prove the quid pro quo. that

constitutional amendment that would overturn a notorious two thousand and ten supreme court's citizens united decision of course this rolling solidify the notion of corporate personhood and equated money with free speech by allowing companies to give unlimited amounts of cash to political action committees or super pacs which then lobby on behalf of individual candidates now realistically this move is purely symbolic considering that a constitutional amendment requires a two thirds majority vote in both the house and the senate but the fact that ten of the most powerful members of the senate willing to vote against their own interests for once as encouraging chairman of the senate judiciary committee patrick leahy even went as far as saying quote i've always believe that amending our constitution must be subject to the highest measure of scrutiny and is something that should only be done as a last resort when the voices of hardworking americans continue to be drowned out by the money and few more serious action must be. again now i'm hardly suggesting that we should rely on the very people wh

constitutional amendment that would overturn a notorious two thousand and ten supreme court's citizens united decision of course this ruling solidified the notion of corporate personhood and equated money with free speech by allowing companies to give unlimited amounts of cash to political action committees or super pacs which then lobby on behalf of individual candidates now realistically this move is purely symbolic considering that a constitutional amendment requires a two thirds majority vote in both the house and the senate but the fact that ten of the most powerful members of the senate will be willing to vote against their own interests for once as encouraging chairman of the senate judiciary committee patrick leahy even went as far as saying quote i've always believe that amending our constitution must be subject to the highest measure of scrutiny it is something that should only be done as a last resort when the voices of hardworking americans continue to be drowned out by the money and few more serious action must be taken and i'm hardly suggesting that we should rely on the very pe

this was brought on years before the citizens united ruling as well you know well the citizens united ruling has has basically legalized you know bribery of politicians not only by billionaires but also by corporations and you know it follows on the foot on the back of him back in one thousand nine hundred six the thing that provoked grover cleveland was the santa clara county versus sort of pacific railroad decision which sort of actually a decision didn't sit with the clerk of the courts and yet corporations are people fast forward one nine hundred seventy six in the buckley vs fellatio case was when the supreme court finally ordered finally. discovered in the first amendment that spend morning yeah spending money is somehow protected by the first of many you know never before decided so here we have legalized bribery in the united states and and you know it's time for us to have another revolution like teddy roosevelt did in the tillman act and take because it's going to get ugly if they don't matter and really we have to get out of this this this age that we're in and it is differ

constitution which would negate these damaging effects of citizens united. i have co-sponsored the house companion to that bill presented by ted deutch, and with that, i'll conclude my comments and yield back to you. >> i thank the gentleman. members have seven days to submit seven written statements to the committee. mr. koskinen, you know how this works. please stand, raise your right hand, do you solemnly swear and affirm the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help you god. you're now recognized for your opening statement. your statement, and then we'll ask questions. >> chairman jordan, ranking member cartwright, members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. with your permission, i'll provide a brief introductory statement and submit a complete copy of my testimony for the record. before beginning my statement, i want to thank the subcommittee for its willingness to work around my travel schedule. in attempting to set the original date, my understanding was y

you pass citizens, you have a supreme court ruling on citizens united.t leads us directly to a situation where billionaires own and control the candidates they support. >> thank you, senator sanders. this is an incredibly troubling story and seems at this point the irs might be broken beyond repair. for everyone at home equally troubled by this, stay with us. we have some original reporting on this issue. a deep dive into the firsthand human effects of this kind of slackening of campaign finance regulations in a key battleground state. >>> first, immediately up ahead, something lighter. senator cory booker on a new mission to help ease partisan tensions. is it a little self indulgent? the nation's crisis of selfie just ahead. (birds chirping softly in background.) (loud engine sounds!) what! how's it going? heard you need a ride to school. oh, that's pretty cool! big day at school? i know just the thing to help you get going. power up with new cheerios protein. [guyi know what you're excited. you're thinking beneful. [announcer]and why wouldn't he be? be

yeah after absolutely right and so citizens united doesn't help but the truth is most of the what youuld consider abuse in in campaign financing doesn't come from corporations they're actually credibly ineffective except when it comes to their own narrow interests becomes the arms these big pacs the comes from billionaires and other people like that so so that's i think more the more the problem and it's also true there are a lot of special interests the don't have a lot of money but they're fanatics so they won't cross them either so it's not just a money problem it's an overall electoral problem it's a gerrymandering problem and frankly i think it's a problem of vision who in either party as a coherent vision of how we could actually let people take responsibility to rebuild their infrastructure or make workplaces safer or masculine either already i would say on the air and brown and a live one in the democratic party. well you know i suppose i party always do yeah i you know i think both parties are the pro or problem now i think they're all pursuing narrow interests of their own s