the ammo scary i defending their rights of corporations to speak publicly about politics and citizens united versus fec united versus fec. it's quite about the mcgraw-hill companies stanford -- standard & poor's and various pentagon papers and networks the nation "reader's digest" hurston mini-mart dated november 2011 yale law school announced the formation of the floyd abrams institute for freedom of expression. his mission is to promote free speech scholarship and lopper farm on emerging questions concerning traditional and new media. for 15 years it's been a william j. brennan visiting professor for cement like columbia graduate school in journalism or he is also benefiting lecture at the yale law school and columbia law school. our moderator covers the supreme court for "the new york times." liptak's columns on legal affairs sidebar appears every other tuesday critic richard of yale law school and yelled college practice law at a large new york law firm. and who was a finalist for the pulitzer prize explanatory reporting in 2004 american exception a series of articles examining ways in w

this resulted of course in the super pacs as well, post citizens united. and the problem does predate citizens united and the case of buckley and it is why we must engage in overturning the rulings, because unlimited expenditures, undermine any purpose of having direct contribution limits. the unlimited expenditures allow these big money forces and corporate forces and union forces to dominate our elections and our politics. and you know, just other point on this which is public funding elections, i totally support public funding elections. i've been in court defending public funding elections. but in post zints united and most fec era, public funding elections will be very much vulnerable to this idea that wealthy individuals and big money interest and forces can make unlimited expenditures making such a system ineffective. i think we need all these reforms moving forward. >> just a couple of points. first, is many of the things, and john and i have known each other for years and we have debated many times. i know what he supports and he knows what i supp

just like the citizens united decision.o the idea is we'll make the electorate older, whiter, more conservative, as opposed to younger, more diverse, and more progressive. that way the corporations who are so powerful, they can increase their power over the political process. the more people that vote, the more democratic the political system is, the less power special interests have. the fewer people that participate, the easier it is for special interests to rig the game. >> is there a connection between the citizens united decision, which opened the floodgates, as everyone says, to campaign contributions from wealthy people into politics and people into politics and shelby and these continuing efforts to suppress voting? >> well, i think the connection is in a way in which the political process is currently being viewed within the courts. and it's actually quite dangerous. and i think we saw this last year in a supreme court case called mccutcheon. and the first line of the case chief justice roberts says, there are many

citizens united involves independent speech, not contributions. contributions are also subject to a lawyer -- a lower standard under the laws as far as allowing contribution limits to be had. i do think that they are abysmally low. i'm very involved in the republican party. say to republican groups, you can't buy a democrat congressman for $2,600. the anecdotal evidence it is takes six figures. william jefferson of new orleans, had $99,000 in cold, hard cash in his freezer. he went to jail to be bipartisan. duke cunningham, from san diego, if you came in for an earmark of a weapons stem -- he was chairman of the armed services committee. he would pull out a schedule. the lowest schedule, based on the value of your earmark was $140,000 and a yacht. i don't know where he got the yacht thing. in any event -- to buy these people -- it takes much more than $2,600. the effect on our system has been a tremendous distortion driving money away from the most accountable and transparent sources. it's fine -- great that we have super pacs. i won the first cas

citizens united ruling was key. what do you think?ryor: i'm turn not on the negative don't as well. i wish that these outside groups that set the tone, super pac and citizens united set the tone about 20 months ago, they spend $20 million on television trying to get me out of the senate, to get my opponent into the senate seat and you have to ask why and the answer is very clear, that is what you see in this campaign playing out on your tv screens in mailboxes is a business transaction. you have congressman tom cotton who goes out here to hang out with his friends, his billionaire supporters in the california resort. there is more on that audio tape by mentioned a few moments ago. there is the defense in there where he is in a room and face a you are in a room full of investors. why should we invest in you. that sums up the race for a well. i never heard it stated so clearly. they are investing in tom cotton like they would invest in the company. they want to get a payback on disinvestment and they will. if he's elected to the senate

this resulted of course in the super pacs as well, post citizens united. and the problem does predate citizens united and the case of buckley and it is why we must engage in overturning the rulings, because unlimited expenditures, undermine any purpose of having direct contribution limits. the unlimited expenditures allow these big money forces and corporate forces and union forces to dominate our elections and our politics. and you know, just other point on this which is public funding elections, i totally support public funding elections. i've been in court defending public funding elections. but in post zints united and most fec era, public funding elections will be very much vulnerable to this idea that wealthy individuals and big money interest and forces can make unlimited expenditures making such a system ineffective. i think we need all these reforms moving forward. >> just a couple of points. first, is many of the things, and john and i have known each other for years and we have debated many times. i know what he supports and he knows what i supp

citizens united involved ind pen dent speech, not contributions. contributions are also sublt to a lower standard under the laws for our allowing contribution limits to be had. e do think that they're abysmally low. i'm very involved in the republican party and you can't even buy a democratic congressman for $2600. and the anecdotal evidence is it takes six figures. he went to jail to be bipartisan. duke cunningham, republican from san diego, if you came in for an earmark of a weapons system, he would literally pull out a schedule and the lowest schedule bassed on the value of your earmark was 140 ,0,0 0140,00 0 yacht. so to buy these people, it takes much more than 26 $00. and the effect on our system has been a tremendous distortion driving money away from the most accountable and transparent sources. i think it's great that we have super pacs. i won the first case in the court of appeals saying the super pacs were legal. but i'm not in favor of driving money to them. and bipartisan having these low contribution lichlts, that's what we see. you c

that is what you have with citizens united. i think it is bad for the system and corrosive and money has a corrosive effect. this the first election cycle where it has been around for 2-4 ands, it is the first time a pretty ugly picture. i have voted to change the system and ability to work. i think the fact that the supreme court has said citizens united can allow sick or money and unlimited money, i think it is bad. it diminishes the voice of real people and real arkansans -- not good for the system. >> our next question. >> i feel sorry for people who do not have dvr's. every time i accidentally watch one of the political ads, i feel dirty. some have been called off for multiple pinnochios. some of these are not from outside groups. some are from the candidates on campaigns. so, along the same lines, what is the responsibility you as a candidate how for the tone of your ad and are you responsible for making sure your ads do not mislead the voters on your position of issues that are really of critical importance in their live

and here's exactly why the citizens united film "rocky mountain heist" is so important. we mention this in our film. we talk to state legislators who knew that this was happening, new who knew this was part of the plan, the model, the blueprint to put through these so-called reforms that are supposed to enlighten and inform everyone and improve the voter situation to be used and exploited specifically to affect elections particularly when they're close. what do you get when you combine the chicago way and the colorado model and the rocky mountain heist, this voter fraud frankenstein which is perfect for hollywood and what they want when elections are close and they're just coming up in a couple of weeks, aren't they? >> she's just as fiery as ever. the denver heir has not -- boulder, she's still going to bring it. david, good toy sue, michelle as well. "rocky mountain heist." check it out. >>> we mentioned at the top of the show how the colorado senate race is neck and neck right now. in most new numbers on critical races that will decide the balance of power in washingt

at think that citizens united certainly was bad enough. i think push the door was even worse. >> why was it so bad? >> well, it gave the public the incorrect impression that the courts our political institutions rather than doing their best shot to try to figure out what the lawyers. >> and even early in when you're on the seventh circuit you have this is that as evidence of a key position on the bush forces court. >> that's true. the case arose out of the senatorial election in indiana between two candid it's, and every count had been ordered. three judge court -- dissented from my two colleagues -- actually increased the risk of erroneous ballot i'm wondering if you could talk a little bit about if you think it is an effective means for change in the women's rights discoursed? >> you have to repeat it for me. >> the question is, you know, in your book you don't talk about the equal rights amendment. >> that's right. >> so would you -- shed the equal rights amendment have been adopted? what difference would it have made? >> well, i rememb

. >> we're seeing the future here, which is you got citizens united and then you have the super pac era, the era of the unlimited donations from folks that were making super pacs and you had the big billionaires like sheldon edelson. now in the next chapter, why do a super pac where you have to disclose your donations when you can create these sort of shell entities the and move the money through there and it's all dark money? >> it is, for those of us who believe in democracy, and in my state we have town meetings, believe it or not, one person, one vote, no advertising, hard to believe. these are very frightening times. and everything being equal unless we overturn through a constitutional amendment citizens united, unless we move to public funding of elections, the billionaire class in a very significant way is going to control american democracy. >> let me play devil's advocate. i saw an ad that the old era of regulations that was an incumbency protection racket because if you're on the probst committee or a senator like yourself, you can say give me money because i control regulati

citizens united was bad enough. but the judgment was bad enough. >> and why was bush vs. gore think it gave the public the incorrect impression that the courts are political institutions rather than doing their best job at trying to figure out what the law is. >> and you've written that early in your career while on the 7th circuit you had a decision very much like your decision in bush vs. gore. >> that's true. a case arose out of the senatorial election in indiana between two candidates, and recount had been ordered in the three-judge court. i dissented from my two colleagues who thought the recount actually increased the risk anner own youse count of ballots which i thought was quite wrong. that case was reversed by the was on the court of appeals. >> if the recount had continued to probably wouldn't have altered the election. >> there have been some studies that indicate that's the case but the thing that may have roduced the result was the ballots they had in palm beach county if i remember correctly some of the details that patrick buchanan was on the seed a large n

citizens united is the real corporation. they do not make anything. the idea that a partnership can put that out without restrictions and a corporation cannot is crazy. real corporations have views. the first thing they do when they see citizens united is that they say that they are taking a vow of silence. they do not want to speak out, they are trying to sell beer. the guy who runs a whole foods is a libertarian who found himself with a massive boycott because of obamacare within 48 hours. people who have to sell to consumer markets are the most peaceful people when it comes to making political statements. and so it is a nonproblem that you are worrying about. bribery is already regulated by existing laws. i think that this is just wildly overstated in terms of a serious issue. and i have to say that the justice stevens opinion, i admire his dissent, great dissent. i thought his dissent in this case was dreadful beyond words. >> a response on citizens united. >> if we have more questions -- >> one more question and then we will close. the question a

. >> citizens united was greeted with enthusiasm that is in some circles. is there any hope for government and big business without overturning citizens united? >> item think corporations should have constitutional rights. i think their ability to achieve community and impunity make sure their supreme over ordinary people. when it comes to citizens united, it is a bad decision it enhances secret money and influence over elections procedurally bad. but basically allows corporations to independently spend as much money as they want. and there is no contest. and the congressional campaign was under $8 billion. debt is the profit from exxonmobil. and then to spend time with each other to get it done. >> but let's get the republican party is has been a second power center against k street. now you see the action that is funded by rich conservatives that is different from big business. and some primaries and just didn't -- justin is attacked with there outside groups and with the import/export think and the government involved to is allowed to participate in with

first of all, look at the republican party of what happens in citizens united. one of the indirect effects has been a second power center against k street. the business lobbies to be the only way for republicans to get money can buy you have groups like the club for growth, heritage action, outside groups funded by basically which conservatives, which is different than big events and they go ahead and win one of these contests on primaries. we have come you know, just in a mosh is getting attacked by the business lobby, but other groups are able to back him. thad cochran almost got driven out of part because they're outside groups. the same groups opposing export import bank and not sort of thing. the second thing is regulation in general puts the ball in the court when you get government involved in his life to participate in political debate and how much come you are going to skew things. we see the individual campaign where you can only get $2500 to a politician. first of all, why you get $2500 is beyond me. we are supposed to be libertarians here. to each hi

first of all, look at the republican party of what happens in citizens united. of the indirect effects has been a second power center against k street. the business lobbies to be the only way for republicans to get money can buy you have groups like the club for growth, heritage action, outside groups funded by basically which conservatives, which is different than big events and they go ahead and win one of these contests on primaries. we have come you know, just in a mosh is getting attacked by the business lobby, but other groups are able to back him. thad cochran almost got driven out of part because they're outside groups. the same groups opposing export import bank and not sort of thing. the second thing is regulation in general puts the ball in the court when you get government involved in his life to participate in political debate and how much come you are going to skew things. we see the individual campaign where you can only get $2500 to a politician. first of all, why you get $2500 is beyond me. we are supposed to be libertarians here. to each his ow

citizens united. they have a lot to do with this. you have the koch brothers.the green energy side you have people like tom, fighting fire with fire, throwing money at money. i wear that as a badge of honor because i don't care what the conservatives think because they're wrong on this issue, got it? >> bottom line is this, if the radicals and that's exactly what they are, if you're a climate defire, you're a radical. if the radicals take control of the united states senate you can kiss talk or action on climate change in this country good-bye for at least a couple of years, who knows what will happen in '16, but a lot of science and the science is pushing us to the conclusion that we have to do something now. we have to change our economy now. we have proven in iowa that there are job opportunities to clean energy technology, but for some reason, because of the special interests of coal and oil and the the subsidies that we throw out there, we just can't seem to make the turn. this is the time to turn in america and sense i'm such a trusted voice for the liber

i think the fact that the supreme court has said citizens united can allow secret money and unlimited money, i think that's bad. what it does, it diminishes the voices of real citizens in arkansas, and that's not good or the system. >> our first question goes to mr. lafrance. >> i feel badly for people that don't have dvr's because of these multiple ads. some of these are not from outside groups. some of these are from the candidates own campaign. so along the same lines, what is the responsibility that you as a candidate have for the tone of your ads, and are you responsible for making sure that your ads don't lead the voters misled about your position on issues that are really of critical importance in our lives. >> thank you. the citizens united decision was definitely a tumultuous one where we have all these situations in state after state where they don't know who the money is coming from. they can air attack ads on whoever they want. personally, i think that the ads that we air, television, radio, should inform the voters of arkansas about what we would do while in office. the n

that's what you have with citizens united. i think money has a corosive event. this is the first election cycle we've seen in the state. it's been around three or four years. it is the first time, and it is a pretty ugly picture. i have already voted to change this system. i will continue to work to change this system. i think the fact that the supreme court has said citizens united can allow secret money and unlimited money, i think that's bad. what it does, it diminishes the voices of real people and real arkansans, and that's not good for the system. >> our first question goes to mr. lafrance. >> i feel badly for people that don't have dvr's because of when i watch these political ads, i feel dirty. some have called for multiple pinocchio's and pants on fire, and yet, they keep going forward. some of these are not from outside groups. some of these are from the candidates' own campaign. so along the same lines, what is the responsibility that you as a candidate have for the tone of your ads, and are you responsible for making sure that your ads don't lead the

happen is we continue to build citizen's united in 2010. more than 550 cities and towns. and the u.s. senate actually brought the amend. to the floor of the united states senate this past september and 55 democrats all said they were ready to support a constitutional amendment to overturn citizens united.ca but the thing that's going to happen is we continue to build the grassroots movement. >> it won't happen if the republicans continue to control the senate in the next couple days. >> no. we're going to have to do more organizing and build a stronger movement. so we've really got momentum on our side. it's not that far off. >> what are the american people coming to understand in the value? >> i think people overwhelmingly think that the system is rigged. they think that because it is rigged. that's directly connected to all of the big money that goes in. 70% of the public wants to increase minimum wage. can't get it. people want to deal with catastrophic climate change. we can't. they want to have investment in our schools, roads, infrastructures and create jobs. but we

we touched on the rise of dark money after citizens united. there has been $141 million spend in the midterms, the most history. there are estimates that there may be $100 million in dark money spending. what is that about? >> citizens united decision in 2010 led to super pacts that everyone has probably heard a little about. giving rise to them. it had another affect, allowing nonprofit organizations, particularly social welfare non-profits. the chamber of commerce, advocating for and against at elections, at the senate. house level. >> if you and i have the right, why is that bad. you and i have the right to speak at the top of our lungs about how to spend the money to do it. why is it wrong that the chamber of commerce can. >> what is different is the groups don't have to disclose who the doppors are. you have a lot of people, but some folks on the right. you have the groups that are spending millions. tens of millions in individuals races, and even though this is the most public of events that we have in this country, a political election,

justice kennedy in citizen united made an important point of that being a felony >> that is what you rely on? >> i didn't say that. i would say the appearance of giving money to the federal candidates or the persons before whom you may appear is -- >> there is no corruption issue because there is no chance anyone we give money to is going to help with the corruption because we have lifetime appointments. so this is the importance of the judiciary and the civil service to appear non-partisan and not be appearing to be contributing to campaigns. isn't that on -- in addition to the things judge cato said, this is also different from usual questions about rather bans on contributions are first amendment problems and in that they apply to government employees. so we have the concern about quid pro quo question and the appearance therefore but also the concern of the neutrality of the civil service >> i agree the neutrality of the civil service is important. congress made a decision with respect to that that banning contributions is not an essential element. >> it has done other things whi

the current situation with citizens united is out of control. right and left, massive amounts of money coming in. i don't think it's a good thing. i am for full disclosure. >> you say citizens should be able to fully expose opinions on different issues, and my understanding is that a majority of the funds may be -- must be used for issues as opposed to individual candidates. the problem is when you have career politicians like senator durbin, in washington for 32 years, i have just been in the illinois senate for two years. what a phenomenal advantage i have. i get credit for what my staff does. my staff solves problems for people -- guess who gets credit? it should be the staff, but i get credit. in the news because i'm invited to events that happen in my district, same thing happens in the senate and congress. incumbents have an incredible advantage. 94% of incumbents who run for reelection get reelected, and it is not always because they did a great job. it's because people recognize the name. if you stop the free will, the ability for people

and certainly against citizens united. with the anti-corruption act but he likes to criticize me for taking money and other groups from the insurance companies in the congressman denham takes money from wall street bankers or with social security benefits in then facilitated of real-estate sale. and then to indict the child molester then they returned the check there is so much money in politics thiamine known candidate in this race to improve campaign finance reform. and then without looking at the mountains of money. to improve the visions this to rick rejecting $1 million of nancy pelosi? he rejected that? >>. >> you were so interested in ties to nancy pelosi. >> that is all i hear. >> but the money flows into your district. i was spending the money that i raised. but i will tell you to tie me to nancy pelosi i hear it in your advertisements of the time. you have run for office but then to be busy but the economy was so bad. but then i will give you two minutes for your final statement. >> the with the second endorsemen

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, independence 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. >> thank you, again, congressman dingell, for being with us today, for delivering your speech, and for following through the tradition of a 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 in 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 subc

comes because of a state before the supreme court that was decided before the supreme court on citizens united how would this race be different if the supreme court had ruled differently? interwell, we would. >> well, we would still see outside spending. the parties are spending on independent expenditures for and against the states, and super-pacs, there would be spending by nonprofits, based on previous court decisions. however they would not be spending dark money, secretive funds for and against the candidates, expressly for and against the candidates, without the citizens united ruling. and the dark money means that we do not know what is motivating these donors to spend the money. and so we are kept in the dark. and we are seeing money spent by groups which have anadyne, sounding, positive sounding names. that makes people lean in and listen more to those groups. >> that's what i was going to ask you, a lot of sometimes we hear, this spot was paid for such and such a group. that doesn't necessarily tell us anything about who is spending the money does it? >> it doesn't. unfortunately if

what you say about citizens united -- it is not clear. one thing i think we don't really know -- i don't get the idea that corporations would have rights of freedom of speech and freedom of religion. that is problematic to me. but you could spend lots and lots of money on advertising, unlimited amounts, and not get what you want. the koch brothers have wasted tens of millions of dollars so far. that was one of the main outcomes. the lifespan of most dads is very short. they don't have much at all. you can have that kind of open-ended market of free speech in advertising and not affect very much. the decision may be bad, but it is not wholly clear how much damage it is doing. >> you are arguing against factions as an evil in itself, and then you are saying we should acknowledge a majority vote of the side. the electoral college assures the president is president of the whole country, and not just a region of the country. this does not look like a problem right now, since we have two strong parties. it is conceivable we could have four or f

we need to overturn citizens united because corporations are not people. susan was wrong when she voted against because additional amendment to overturn citizens united. we needed a public financing system, just like we have here in maine. so working people can run for office and lead in washington. we need stronger disclosure laws. right now, a lot of the television ads, nobody knows who is paying for them because of the flood of dark money. susan voted against the disclose act twice. those are three things we can do to reform the system. i will fight to reform the system. it is broken. in my campaign, i am proud that we have not taken any corporate tax money. susan has taken over $1.9 million. the majority of our contributions are from small dollar donors. collins, what is your opinion? >> there is too much money spent on campaigns. shenna, contrast to every single adult i have run has been positive. i think that is what the state deserves. not negative ads that disport -- distort my record. she brought up the constitutional amendment i opposed. it is op

but what we see and this is across the country the citizens united ruling in the court allows outside groups to spend unlimited quantities of money, anything they want and not being held accountable. i really do believe it is having a negative effect on our electoral process. you can have the groups say anything they want about either of us or any other issue or any other candidate. you don't know who they are but you have individuals like john john bernard spinelli and dollars into this campaign for mr. dold. guests -- yesterday we saw another one. you you have this happening all over the country where individuals, wealthy individuals can put money on a candidate and what happens down the road when the candidate is talking to this individual and they know that just as easy as someone can support a candidate they can oppose. we need to fix the decision and help support legislation that will do just that and we need a constitutional amendment that will take the elections and put them into the hands of the people and voices of the candidates. >> moderator: you have a question. i want to

citizens united took out more than a century of precedent and has opened a floodgate to literally hundredsns of dollars of secret campaign contributions from corporations, labor unions and very wealthy individuals. to suggest that i'm an extremist trying to restore some balance and to get back to the place where the flood of campaign cash shouldn't be allowed to influence elections i don't think it's extreme. coons: >> moderator: you have raised $9 million in the past four or five years and i would like to ask the audience to raise their hand -- >> moderator: we are accusing the audience. wade: i will use the tv audience raise your hand if you are $9 million better off and i think it is interesting that he brings up the cash and politics. coons: you exaggerate my status quite a bit. that is an inaccurate sizing of the public record. all of my decisions are available when and where they are unemployed and with citizens united made possible his millions of dollars of secret contributions where the public has no idea. >> moderator: okay we are going to move on to student questions at this poi

they seem to be so focused on getting money they don't have money to get it out of politics. citizens unitedcs. there is a big debate about how much do you rely on super packs. do you take unlimited contributions or not. you're right. it's a competition of large super packs. >> jon: how much in your day is spent on the pursuit of cash on atypical day. >> it depends if it's a competitive district. my district is democratic so -- so i, but if they're in competitive districts. some friends in competitive districts they're on the phone it seems like all day. if we're not on core voting or committee they're on the phone. >> jon: has campaigning over taking governance as our congressional -- is the generalr taking governance as our congressional -- is the general expertise of conference or any branch moved away from governance and a reelection machine. >> it seems this year, jon, we're in session about 98 day this is year. this will be, if not. >> jon: 98 days. >> you of 365. very small. >> jon: i see why people want the job. >> right now congress is on a 7 week recess. >> jon: listen the presiden

the first amendment thing that senator roberts is referring to is overturning citizens united. he doesn't want to overturn citizens united because his buddies from washington have flown in and are spending millions of dollars in campaign a desperateg me in attempt to allow him to stand office. i am a gun owner. i have two guns. when i bought those guns i had to go through a background check. i don't believe it was intrusive, i don't believe it intruded on my second amendment rights. i support the second amendment. i would point out that what i talked about in terms of ending the gun show loophole is the same long that senator roberts in the past has said he supported. when he found himself in the middle of a difficult primary and realized that direction his party was heading you change and flip-flopped on the issue. in andn owner i believe support the second amendment. >> from bottle? 64 on right toof life. the nra, i can't tell you where i am. -- the way you describe that situation i don't think that is accurate. i've always supported the second amendment and i will continue t

thanks to karl rove and citizens united, judicial elections have been overtaken by secretive interestps, nasty ads, and the constant hustle for campaign cash." we're joined now by its author, andy kroll, senior reporter for mother jones magazine. welcome back to democracy now! you only have a few minutes. lay out what you found. >> what we have seen is judicial anothers have become playground for the same kind of business interests in huge spenders and anonymous donors that we are seeing and presidential races and congressional races up and down the ticket. our judicial elections used to be a more sleepy corner of american politics. obviously, the dynamic is different if we are electing the arbiters of the law, but times have changed and citizens united has really begun to change the landscape in this place. theseld you explain why judicial races -- races are so important? >> there's a lot at stake. the supreme court justices and other state-level justices decide judgments against business interests. they have a role in social issues like marriage equality. and as large forces from co