things were bad before 2010 in the citizens united decision but not as bad as now.can go back to that. the change is in culture. the surge in outside spending not just from the koch brothers. but from them. it's coming from foreign country. the spending is by people in the united states. it's outside. >> outside. >> respond to that. we know where the money is coming from and we know where it's going. why not. >> why not? >> i don't understand. >> why not do it the way... >> i don't see a problem. if congress wants to pass subsidies to candidates so be it. the last body we want is the people in government writing rules, limiting the speech of citizens. that's what a lot of people are talking about. if they want to subsidise candidates go ahead. we shouldn't write rules saying people can't speak, where do you draw the line? >>> they wrote recalls saying 3700 limit, 2400 in the primary, 2700 in the general. that's all you can give to a candidate. they untethered super pacts from candidates. now there are no limits of any kind except for the winking between super pacts

brad, you are an expert on citizens united. you have heard some of the debate today about corporate speech and religion rights being extended. did citizens united go too far? mr. smith: i do not think it went too far. let's take it on its own terms. the position of the u.s. government was that it could ban a documentary about a major political candidate during an election year simply because like every movie you have seen it had corporate involvement in its production and distribution. that idea strikes me as absurd. if you want to talk about the radicalism of the supreme court they said, a government kanban a documentary about a political candidate. if you take it in a broader sense, i think it is right. the court does not believe corporations are people in the natural sense. but it is recognize that corporations have rights because the people that form them have right. thinking about the fourth through sixth amendment, the government cannot seize corporate assets and leave shareholders with certificates of stock and say, it i

that's my good friend, served as president of citizens united and citizens united foundation since 2001he former chief investigator for the united states house of representatives committee on government reform and oversight. ironically, that's a committee that your own congressman in the fourth district is on, tray goudy. heard of him? [ cheers and applause ] he can't be here today because of a family commitment. i honor and appreciate that of him, but he does a great job. during bill clinton's two terms as president, dave led investigations ranging from white water to the transfer of dual use technology to china to foreign fund raising in the 1996 clinton re-election campaign. why does that sound so familiar? seems like hillary clinton's involved in that now, right? well, he's authored four books including best selling "intelligence failure: how clinton's policy failures set the stage for 9/11." they won a landmark decision at the united states supreme court in citizens united versus the federal election commission, the case that saw the government assert in oral arguments it had the c

brad, you are an expert on citizens united.ou have heard some of the debate today about corporate speech and religion rights being extended. did citizens united go too far? mr. smith: i do not think it went too far. let's take it on its own terms. it is a narrow decision on a typical set of facts. the position of the u.s. government was that it could ban a documentary about a major political candidate during an election year simply because like every movie you have seen rented from amazon or anyplace else, it had corporate involvement in its production and distribution. that idea strikes me as absurd. if you want to talk about the radicalism of the supreme court, they said, a government can ban a documentary about a political candidate. if you take it in a broader sense, i think it is right. corporations -- the court does not believe corporations are people in the natural sense. but it is recognized that corporations have rights because the people that form them have rights. thinking about the fourth, fifth, and sixth amendment

> hillary clinton has also said that she would only nominate justices who support overturning citizens unitede united states said he will have a major impact on american lives for the next number of decades. let me bring in doris kearns goodwin, presidential historian. it's so nice to have you with us tonight. i appreciate your time. is the next president going to shape this country for the next 50 years? >> well it's very possibly so. even if you assume that four of these people on the sitting supreme court will be in their 80s by the time that the president's next term is over, two of them will be in their 70s and the fact is that some of the others, something could happen to. you're possibly seeing six appointments and just one term. most of the judges retire. this is a major change in the numbers that this new president is going to have to deal with. >> and is this unprecedented? has any president had this much at stake, or any presidential election? >> well the interesting thing is that of course accepting f inging inging inging inging -- excepting fdr, the only other two presidents in t

he's against citizens united.ell you exactly who he's going to appoint to the supreme court if he gets elected. and he wants to make sure that corporations and the wealthy in this country who have had advantages will pay their fair share. i'm sure we'll hear a lot of that. here comes the senator from vermont to the podium, bernie sanders. >> this is an emotional day for me. not just for what i'm beginning to be announcing. but to see so many people here. and to hear what's been said. thank you very much. [ cheers and applause ] let me thank all of you, not only for being here today, but for the support you have given me over the years as mayor of this beautiful city. as vermont's only congressman, and now as our united states senator. i also want to thank my longtime friends and fellow vermonters, bill brenda michael, and ben and jerry for all that they do and for their very generous remarks. and thanks also to jenny nelson for moderating this event. and for her incredible leadership in vermont agriculture. i also

brad you really are an expert on citizens united. you have seen how it's been extended in hobby lobby. just heard some of the debate today about how its corporate speech and religion rights are being extended further still. did citizens united go too far not far enough or just right? >> i don't think it went too far. let's take it on its own terms, and their decision on a particular set of facts. the position of u.s. government was a good many documentary movie about a major political candidate during an election year simply because like every movie you've ever seen in a theater, rented from amazon or anyplace else, it had corporate involvement in its production and its division that idea strikes me as just absurd to if you want to talk about the radicalism on the supreme court, the four member said that's okay the government can ban a movement to a movie like that. if you take it on a broader sense, i also think it's right. corporations do not have the court to simply corporations are people and the natural sense but it's long recog

what we need is a constitutional amendment overturning citizens united. that is contributing to the and norman's influx of money in our politics, and that drives the kinds of decisions that our government makes. absolutely, i think we have a problem with big money in politics, i think it is bigger than any individual, and it will take all of us to turn it around. moveon members have been fighting the rising tide of money and politics for a long time. we presented over 5 million signatures to congress to overturn citizens united. we have been proud to stand with elizabeth warren, bernie sanders, and others, saying that this is a mess. host: (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. we have a line for independents. you can send us a tweet at @cspanwj. you can join us on facebook at facebook.com/cspan. do you want elizabeth warned to run for president? guest: yes. our members voted overwhelmingly in december to encourage elizabeth warned to run for president. we think it is vital that we see between now and the deals and 60 elections, a v

a few years later, the supreme court adopted citizens united which put a nail in the coffin on it. >> we're conforming our campaign finance language with the courts told us we have to do? >> that is right. i think we have included this delusion delete and other ordinanced >> thank you. supervisor tang? >> you asked the questions i got it answer. thank you. >> thank you. so the second major group is reporting by the third party groups participating in elections any where from the small grass roots group, up to the larger pac. sort of the main gist of what we tried to do with this this has to do with candidate elections, what we're trying to do is consolidate, and streamline requirements, which i will show on the next slide. and really essentially, basically, adopt the state law requirement, which is very robust. and that requirement is 24-hour reporting, within 24 hours from anyone spending $1,000, for or against a candidate, before an election, and having copies of whatever is reported filed with the ethics commission so people can review that. just to tell you a little bit a lot of f

so we need to have robust parties and the truth is, post -citizens united, there is no logical sense after that decision for anyone to spend time really going to the party because the courts between that decision and another decision called speech now and essentially set up the super pac system, all the incentives now are to either go to the super pac's and can give unlimited money and they can spend unlimited money not just give -- just knock it directly to a candidate or you can give it to a money group. if you are a smart corporate executive it probably makes more sense because then you can give to the dark money group and nobody knows you have used your corporate funds to give to that group and you get no blowback from the public from the right nor the left. we have a system of unaccountable money. we have a system that is now giving the playing field over to the 1% of the 1% and i think a few weeks ago there was an article in "the washington post" in which a blender who had raised in the hundreds of dollars -- hundreds of thousands of dollars was lamenting that she was no longer

i think that's probably what she's trying to do is force things like citizens united.nts to put those issues into the primary process and bring her farther to the left than she'd like to be for a general election. >> i want to switch gears. the king of saudi arabia will not attend an event. is this another sign of a nuclear deal unraveling? >> it does look poor. one of the key allies is saying there's not enough progress being done on the issues for us to show up. the president touted having a meeting with the saudi leaders in. the white house is trying to down play this. but it really doesn't look like they're really in control here and the gop is going to jump harder than they have been before saying werkd not be at this table. >> very interesting. thanks thanks so much. a collapse sends 80 people crashing through a stage, coming up. ♪ ♪ ♪ it took tim morehouse years to master the perfect lunge. but only one attempt to master depositing checks at chase atms. technology designed for you. so you can easily master the way you bank. doers. they don't worry if something's

will you overturn citizens united. they're saying yes to that.uess the difference is when you talk about coordinating superpacs and giving them the go ahead to work on your behalf. bernie saunders is saying now, hillary clinton is saying yes. >> at least on the issues we've looked at they're the closest here than they have been on minimum wage or the trail dealde deal. there is where the democratic party is on citizens united. i think you're right. this is an amazing litmus test when you're talking about supreme court -- we're not talking about abortion the healthcare law. people are saying where do you stand on citizens united. this is a fundamental change from 2012. president obama in his state of the union dress after citizens united said he disagreed with us. now we're heading to 2015 and 2016 and this is the issue when it comes to the supreme court that has energized the democratic party. >> this is about social security. do we want to cut it to save the program or keep it where it is. let's listen to what bernie saunders is saying. >> inste

that seems to literally be the case here as citizens united citizens united's political gridlock epees us for now heeding laws of nature. when the polluters' grip slips i'll be ready with legislation that many republicans can support, a fee on carbon emissions. pricing carbon corrects the market failure that lets polluters push the cost of their pollution onto everybody else. a carbon fee is a market-based tool aligned with conservative free market values. many republicans -- at least those beyond the swing of the citizens united fossil fuel cuttingcuvment dgile -- have wanted debate on t i will be announcing my proposal during an event at the american enterprise institute on june 10. mr. president, climate change tests us. first it is an environmental test a grave one. we will be graded had that test against the implacable laws of sipes and nature. pope francis has described a conversation he had with a humble gardener who said to him "god always forgives." men, women we forgive sometimes. "but father, creation never forgives." no do-overs no mullly gains not when you mess with god's

as a result of a disastrous supreme court decision on citizens united, the american supreme court decision has been totally corrupted as a foundation of american democracy are being undermined. the supreme court said it was not good enough for the billionaires to own much of the economy, they can now own the united states government as well, and that is precisely what they are trying to do. what i learned in school, and i think the men and women look -- who put their lives on the line to defend our country have long known, it is not about billionaires being able to buy elections. it is not about the koch brothers and other incredibly wealthy individuals spending billions of dollars to elect candidates who will make the rich richer and everyone else poorer. according to media reports, if you can believe it, the koch brothers in this election cycle are prepared to spend more money than either the democratic or republican parties. that is not democracy, that is oligarchy. [cheers and applause] in vermont, at our town meetings, we know what democracy is about. one person, one vote. and that is

scott: hughes said the alarm shouldn't be over his pop but over citizen united that allow corporation and groups to bank role political campaigns. >> it's bribery. it's legal. some of the recipient of the letter say they agree in part. >> he has a point. i have seen it get worse and worse. >> either way he raised concerns over safety. >> the gyrocopter man showed a hole in security we need to be concerned about. maureen: hughes tell me he is not done. the sole mission change election laws but tougher if behind bars. >> the judge has to hand the decision to 12 peers. i can live with that. scott: he still has his job with the u.s. postal service but he has been suspended with pay. tomorrow afternoon he will head down the street to the capital where he will face a judge and determine if it will be resolved from a plea deal or if it will heat to -- head to trial. scott thuman abc7 news. maureen: happening now republican senator and presidential candidate rand paul is trying to spur debate over the collection of american phone records. maureen: he plans to speak for hours in a filibuster s

as a result of a disastrous supreme court decision on citizens united, the american supreme court decision has been totally corrupted as a foundation of american democracy are being undermined. the supreme court said it was not good enough for the billionaires to own much of the economy, they can now own the united states government as well, and that is precisely what they are trying to do. what i learned in school, and i think that the men and women who put their lives on the line to defend our country have long known, it is not about billionaires being able to buy elections. it is not about the koch brothers and sheldon adelson and other incredibly wealthy individuals spending billions of dollars to elect candidates who will make the rich richer and everyone else poorer. according to media reports, if you can believe it, the koch brothers in this election cycle are prepared to spend more money than either the democratic or republican parties. that is not democracy, that is oligarchy. [cheers and applause] sen. sanders: in vermont, at our town meetings, we know what democracy is about. th

i defend a bunch of his decisions including citizens united. the chapter is called anthony kennedy and the ideal of equality. the 1st part of the chapter is based on lecture i gave in sacramento. here is what he have done cents. who knows what he will do this season, but stay tuned. >> i want to ask you you would say to justice kennedy about his decision on the mccutchen case is so much to get through two superb chapters on the 4th amendment. one of my favorites is about how massachusetts state view of the 4th amendment a recent decision about cell phones he quoted james otis his famous speech on the writs of assistance. at that moment the child independence was born. adams was wrong and then enclosed by the fact that he was in massachusetts. it happened just a bit later. the books case in london. the central concern. >> 1761 an episode that unfolds the great colonial your argues the patriot cause. that's when the independence was born. no one at the time noticed any of this. adams is not right this until 50 years later. the declaration of inde

so the supreme court even sought out, they even asked for the infamous citizens united case to be brought forward to them and then ultimately they ruled that corporations have the same rights of free speech as individual citizens do, as individual people do and the meaning of that decision is that corporations can use their treasuries, they can use their treasuries to campaign, to finance campaigns. i can't think of anything more corrosive or disruptive to our democracy than that. the system was already bad before the citizens united degrees, but this thing made it much -- united decision, but this thing made it much worse. unfortunately, the citizens united decision is one of a series of decisions that allow more and more money into politics. i truly believe that this is a threat to our cherished democratic and republican institutions. but this trend is not confined to the supreme court. earlier this year, the republican controlled senate, in concurrence with the republican controlled house of representatives, passed legislation that increased the total individuals contributing to politi

when she ended that speaks, she actually talked about citizens united. that it's the company versus the average working family. >> a lot of those -- >> she did talk about citizens united in the second outing into iowa. >> it's not a consistent thread through her entire message which is what i think elizabeth warren is doing when she talks about investing in ourselves and infrastructure. it's a broad based thing -- >> and i think it's -- of these two extraordinary women. that is elizabeth warren is that person who has a really strong point of view and a class analysis and so forth and so on. i think hillary actually is interested in running the country. i think elizabeth warren is terrific. but i think hillary clinton is equipped to be the president for everybody. i think she has an aversion to beating the hell out of the other side the way i like to. >> the key phrasing in john burton's beautiful -- >> dropping the f bomb. >> it was right for the f'ing part of it. not one of the champions of the american people along with hillary clinton. she's got that

look, as a result of this disastrous supreme court decide on citizens united, the koch brothers and other wealthy families are buying elections. i'm not going to have a superpac. billionaires are not going to support me, but what we have raised are tens of thousands of people, i think we're over 50,000 who have contributed an average, christian, of $43 to berniesanders.com, our website. we're in the going to outspend our opponents, but can we raise the kinds of money we need to run a strong campaign based on strong small donations? i think we can. >> let me ask you about -- i don't know about your ideology and it may be developing, mine does. is there a connection between this wealth and the hawkishness of the foreign policy, certainly in the republican party, and i wonder if it will creep into the democratic party whereby historically people with big money, lots to protect, if you will, including nelson rockefeller who was a moderate on other issues are very hawkish, very hawkish. i'm not just talking about the koch brothers, adelson and the rest of them, donald trump. they are such hawk

toxicity in this country so hideous to me that we have backslid and we don't have -- ever since citizens united and ever since before that we don't have a government that is truly by the people, for the people of the people. >> this is not anticorporate. it's anticorporate control of the public sector, public decision-making, public power that absolutely i believe in market economies in which they play a role but it's the public will to make public decisions. that's the distinction. >> if folks wouldn't mind identifying who you are, you have an advantage over us. >> my name is lisa and i run an organization called let's talk about food. you have both been icons of blind as long as i've known both of your names. in the current situation in america being poor is kind of demonized at the central level. i'm very pessimistic when i look at the farm bill. how concretely do you maintain your optimism and what can a group of incredible young energy like all of these people do to take specific steps to start moving from sort of a charity-based approach to food and security to the rights-based approach?

i defense budget is decisions including citizens united. the chapter is called anthony cupid and the ideal of equality and the first part of the chapter was actually based on a lecture i gave in sacramento in kennedy's on her 20 years ago and i tried to updated and say here's what he has done since. i think it's the same person. and who knows what he will do this season but stay tuned. >> i want to ask you you would say justice communities decision on the mccutcheon's case we are kind of disagree. with so much else to get through. there are two superb chaps on the fourth amendment and the first which is one of my favorites is about massachusetts massachusetts, to making chief justice roberts and recent unanimous decision of cell phones. he quoted james otis famous speech in massachusetts on the risk of assistance and john adams said did at that moment the child's independence was born. but you say adams was wrong and he was influenced by the fact he was in massachusetts but, in fact, it was another series of cases that happened just a bit l

we have a citizens united america. we need to raise a lot of money.here is so many characteristics where he does not stand a chance. mark: do you think about bernie sanders? >> i don't know much about him. mark: martin o'malley? >> governor of maryland? mark: former governor of maryland. what do you think about him? >> i don't know much about him. he sounds like a good guy. i just have not really read too much of his stances lately so i can't say. mark: charlie? >> i know he is a bit opposed with hillary on some issues. i land somewhere in between bernie sanders and hillary. so it aligns a little better thanwith me. mark: anybody have thoughts on jim webb? >> i have seen them in interviews. he is direct. i don't know -- i have not seen them too much recently in the news. in htthe past, anytime i come across them, i have always liked what he had to say. mark: raise your hand if you think elizabeth warren could win the caucus. >> i don't think she could beat hillary. mark: ok. is there anybody you think that could beat hillary or she unbeatable? >> at t

. >> today carson will be joibing his fellow contenders at citizenings united south carolina's freedom summit. among the possible candidates, governor bobby jindal, rick perry, rick santorum donald trump and scott walker. joining me from the summit in south carolina is benji sarlan. before we get to the summit this is hardly ben carson's first comments to raise eyebrows. how is it playing with voters? >> reporter: if you are a supporter of ben carson you are pretty familiar with this. what you see is what you get with him. a lot of his appeal es peshlsly to more religious voters, is he's able to aggressively talk about social issues. some like mike huckabee and rick santorum put a lot of emphasis on social conservatives and made similar comments about gay marriage. >> let's talk about the agenda for the event. what's on the docket? >> reporter: so the way the freedom summit works, they have it had it in other states already, you just have this relentless drum beat of speech after speech after speech from the presidential contenders. there's no other purpose except to line them up and g

this is one of the areas happily that the supreme court has left alone the most part in terms of citizens united which drew from the ability of government to regulate expenditures and saying no. you can't make those expenditures this didn't do that this goes with the question only of the disclosure which the supreme court said that's all in you'll right if they're indeed acting as a lobbyist for influencing people in power in the interest of transparent and good government the citizens within the jurisdiction should know that person is doing i'm not saying you can't spend but the fact you're doing it should be known and that is all that this measure will do in terms of creating a category of expenditure lobbyists so it is something that has been drafted i've had the good fortune of having people looking at this thing loopy and friends of ethic and the members of the civil grand jury helped me in the drafting of the particular lobbyist revision and super competed it on the exist legislation that related to lobbyist it's been priority good input in regard to thing that he sees as suggestions for t

psh psh >>> the citizens united decision from the supreme court opened a new era in campaign financingnning for president costs hundreds of millions, and money that can't be traced to pouring in, along with the backing of a small group of billionaires. they are ready to spend untold millions to pick the n

that's based on sun diamond, citizens united and comes out of the construction that a judge gave in the case. or this one. near the the district court even refused to give a standard good will gift instruction. we propose, quote, a gift or payment given with the hope of a future benefit is not a bribe. word for word out of jennings. here one of our principle arguments was that the governor believed johnny williams was giving good will gifts, in the expectation he would get the access and credibility that comes with hobnobbing around with important government officials. >> your defense here was good faith. that was your defense. >> that was one of our defenses, your honor. >> that's what you said to the judge. you said our crucial defense, you called it, is good faith. and you got a good faith instruction. >> we did, your honor. >> it said if the the governor acted in good faith there would be no crime. i don't know how it would be any better for you. >> because, your honor if the jury doesn't understand the true scope of official acts and the jury doesn't understand the difference -- >>

psh psh >>> the citizens united decision from the supreme court opened a new era in campaign financing. running for president costs hundreds of millions and money that can't be traced to pouring in along with the backing of a small group of billionaires. they are ready to spend untold millions to pick the next president. what do they want in return. buying the white

this decision is known as citizens united.'t so interested in campaign financing until citizens united. ray: yeah, the corporations now can contribute unlimited amounts, and they were very successful, by the way, in contributing before this. can you imagine how successful they're going to be to contribute unlimited amounts? lillian: corporations all of a sudden are human beings, individuals, and can spend without limitation to support their candidates and their programs. this is very scary. narrator: since the privatizing of prisons began in 1980, prison population has increased more than 500%. and incarcerated drug offenders have increased more than 1,200%. russell: most of my friends, uh, went to jail at some point, over drugs. just as these people who are locked up, the prison- industrial complex pays the bills of the politicians, so much so that they either turn their head or they frame it that we're soft on crime if we don't lock these people up. we got to get the money out of politics. the prison-industrial complex, the

in terms of the politics of america, as a result of this disastrous citizens united states supreme court decision clearly the billionaires koch brothers are in the political process they will determine who the candidates are. when. if elected president, i will have a litmus test in terms of my nominee to be a supreme court justice. and that no, ma'am fee will say that we are all going to overturn this disastrous supreme court decision on citizens united because that decision is underfinding american democracy, i do not believe that billionaires should be able to buy politicians. >> schieffer: hillary clinton says she is going to have a super pac, says she has to do it, she didn't like it but she has to do it to compete. what about that? >> i understand where she is coming from. i will not have a super pac. look we announced a week and a half ago bob and since that time we have had 200,000 people go to bernie sanders.com to sign up for the campaign. we have had close to 90,000 contributions, you know what the average contribution was? it is about $43. 43 bucks. for, from middle class work

we felt from the beginning that citizens united was a mistake, that the way money is used in american campaigns isn't good for democracy. it's just a situation where we felt as if there's an immense amount of money on the other side, and as long as this is the system which the supreme court has put in place, there's got to be somebody on our side. and when you look at the relative dollars, it really is a david and goliath situation, and we're very definitely the small shepard boy with five rocks and a sling. >> ifill: the small shepard boy, really? >> absolutely. >> sreenivasan: you're david? >> i don't think there's any question about it. >> ifill: let's talk about some of your david issues. the keystone pipeline, something you say should not be built. hillary clinton hasn't exactly said, since she's been a candidate what, she has been what some people think is suspiciously quiet, some people on your side of the argument. what would you do if she decide, as she seemed she was heading in the direction when secretary of state, that she was inclined to support its construction. >> we se

. >> reporter: at the citizens united freedom summit in something, is gop candidates championed loweres and smaller government while talking tough on terrorism. >> you have a president who drew a line dash in the sand and loy -- who drew a line in the sand and allowed people to cross it. >> reporter: jeb bush said he would have made the same decision as his brother, president bush, about iraq. >> i would have. so would have hillary clinton just to remind everybody and so would have everybody confronted with the intelligence they got. >> reporter: clinton who volted in favor of authority -- who voted in favor of authorizing use of force -- >> hillary clinton has taken seven on the record questions since april 12th. i have actually answered over 200 on the record questions since monday of this week. >> reporter: clinton has been mired in controversy over allegations her family and its foundation accepted money in exchange for favors. she's agreed to testify before the house to answer questions about benghazi and the use of a private e-mail and server all while secretary of state. hillar

the first real campaign in which we have citizens united. we have unrestricted fundraising., bike money. it's what is going on, because what is happening is that those big money donors essentially took the power away from the party establishment. they are controlling. if you are a scott walker and the koch brother say "if you run, we'll support you", that's a big incentive to run in this time in american history. i think the big question mark will be how does that unrestricted money play, and will the parties be frustrated by the fact that they are losing control of the product. i think that that is probably a - what is happening here. the party establishment is giving power over to the big money, and, of course, you can say there are arguments to be made for that, but i have to say i think it's a bad sign for american politics when the parties lose control. >>> a teacher of campaign management at n.y.u. and political science. thank you for being with us. >> i'll have final thoughts about g.o.p. ♪ >>> is demography destiny? a new study from the pew research center finds chri