citizen speaks volumes. at this time my baby is a vulnerable united states citizen being denied his constitutional rights undertunisian law from international law, and us law and despite the extensive efforts of the various representative state my united states senators and representatives of the fbi, and legal counsel the government continues its opening pockets to the ever-increasing financial allotments the state provides the republic annually. clearly every american child illegally retained abroad state must redouble its efforts to account for every abducted child in its report and apply every actionable remedy provided for to ensure the return. as you well know there is so much more that can be said about this very important topic. i thank you. >> thank you. they will try to have an additional hearing in july. as a window. hopefully they will be significant. it's the hope they will revisit japan. japan absolutely has to be on the list. i would like to yield to the ranking member of the full committee. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to make a brief statement and then i think we are being called for vot

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

from citizens united.ere's very little separation, right? i mean legally between what the super pac does and what the candidate does. >> well, i disagree with that. there are rules on the books that talk about coordination, talk. independence action and the supreme court was very clear that the entire premise of super pacs, the reason they can raise unlimited amounts of money is because they have to be independent of the candidates. i don't think this is a technicality. i think it would be better if we had rules that were specific to super pacs. i've been trying to get those rules on the books. and, in fact, my colleague and i have petitioned the agency to put some new rules on the books including rules on coordination with super pacs. but in the meantime, there still are general rules on coordination even if they don't mention super pacs and the rules apply. i think the real problem is that the fec has not been doing an effective job of enforcing the rules that are already on the books and therefore, ther

his 2010 state of the union address over their decision in the campaign finance case known as citizens united with all due deference to separation of powers last week the supreme court reversed a century of law that i believe will open the floodgates for special interests. including foreign corporations. to spend without limit in our elections. >> we're back with dan and colin levy and best of the web columnist james toronto also join the panel. colin, with all due deference to the separation of powers as the president said how unusual is it for a president to criticize the supreme court as it's considering a case? and even say, look you shouldn't have even taken the case. >> right. this is extremely unusual, paul. look presidents have opined on supreme court cases before to be sure but they don't typically disparage the justices. with what he said he was basically saying that their judgment already in taking the case was flawed. now, you have to remember here paul that, you know no other president has probably had his legacy so bound up with the courts and i think he's incredibly aware that

and that is as a result of the disastrous supreme court decision in a citizens united case -- [booingmake that loud so that supreme court hears you. [booing] by 5-4 decision the supreme court rented one of the worst decisions in the history of our country. what they said that the wealthiest people in this country, okay, guys you already own much of america. we will now give you the opportunity to own the united states government. and people like the koch brothers, sheldon adelson -- [booing] they said hey that's great. that's a great. what we always wanted to do, to own our government. and what citizens united allowed is these people who spend billions of dollars to buy candidates who will make the rich richer and everybody else poorer. and this issue of campaign finance reform is so important, it is important because it impacts every other issue of concern. if we have a congress or governor or state legislatures that are owned by the billionaire class, we are not going to address the problems facing working families. i have so far made one promise in his campaign one clear promise, a

i introduced legislation to overturn citizens united. i don't talk about vague or general ideas. we have been very specific on many of the central issues. >> you have huge crowds. poll numbers look promising. does it surprise you? sen. sanders: i thought from day one that the inside the beltway mentality that you see so much in media here and in congress is way removed from the reality of people out there. people out there don't understand why 99% of all income are going to the top 1%. that is what i knew from day one. when i did not know was that the campaign would be catching on as fast as it has. >> if you are going for a running mate or cabinet, what types of people would you surround yourself with? sen. sanders: let me say this. with all due respect to recent presidents, from president obama , president bush, president clinton i would not surround myself with people that come from wall street. there are a million people out there in all walks of life who have spent a lot of their life fighting for the needs of working families, fighting for minority rights, and those are the

which hasn't made its way back up to the court as the level of citizens united. there's still a lot of questions that you cover every day. that is part of what is weird about the current system, right? wouldn't you agree? >> absolutely. >> it's really unclear what the rules of the road are. you've got to -- you've got an sec that essentially is defunct. it's in this dead lock. it can do very little. you've got some lower court rulings and then you've got this crazy -- that everyone is operating in. >> basically, it's a regulatory failure. it still comes from the fact that there's a central holding and citizens united. and there is just no way, shape or form in which the reality matches the rhetoric in that decision and it's creating a whole new form of politics in this country and the country hates it. >> the country does hate it. but here is the problem. friends with larry lustig, he's worked with him before. he's been working a lot on money, corruption and politics. the problem is the polling can be a mild wide. when you ask americans what are the most importan

match that up with citizens united and what do you got? we'll have a round up of political reaction to friday's same-sex marriage. and coming up we'll analyze if you're taking multiple medications does your mouth often feel dry? a dry mouth can be a side effect of many medications. but it can also lead to tooth decay and bad breath. that's why there's biotene available as an oral rinse toothpaste, spray or gel. biotene can provide soothing relief and it helps keep your mouth healthy too. remember, while your medication is doing you good a dry mouth isn't. biotene, for people who suffer from a dry mouth. leave early go roam sleep in sleep out star gaze dream big wander more care less beat sunrise chase sunset do it all. on us. get your first month's payment plus five years wear and tear coverage. make the most of summer... with volvo. >>> here is where we stand on tonight's bing pulse poll. the question do you think donald trump's statements on illegal immigration are inaccurate? 34% say yes, 66%. keep voting throughout the hour. when you t

host: remind us what citizens united that. guest: it was a legal decision in 2010, the supreme court ruled 5-4 that corporations could directly find election-related advocacy so rations including nonprofit operations like the 501(c)(4) organizations, they are able to produce ads that say vote for or against a candidate. previously you could not use direct corporate funds or direct labor union funds to produce those types of very direct political ads. and some people do say that this ruling has helped increase competition, that a lot of the campaign-finance rules helped protect incumbents. it is easier for incumbents to raise money that it is for challengers to raise money, so the proliferation of outside groups can potentially help a challenger who will not have the resources otherwise. at the same time it is the wealthiest donors, both on the left and the right, who are able to use these vehicles to fund their ads. host: we should also mention of the attack ads have also spurred hillary clinton's campaign to establish a websi

citizens united is another perfect example. i understand you regret that power, but it is a powerful institution. the question is what that power will be used for. ms. greenhouse: you mentioned when you were talking about the self-starter the courts not acting as a court. is it acting is this a play on what just continue was saying? is -- what is the court if had you to identify? mr. lund: a kind of monster. it really is two courts. what justice kagen said at the law school talk is a sign of that. there are two courts. there is the political court and then the legal court. for a variety of reasons the legal court is smaller than i think it should be. and the political court is much bigger than i think it should be. maybe if they had different justices up there more in accord with my views how to interpret the constitution, i would feel differently. and it would be fine to have a political court. i don't think so. mr. chermerinsky: i the assumption of that state is value neutral assumption. that's impossible. when you're dealing

what citizens united allowed is that these people spent billions of dollars to buy candidates who will make the rich richer and everyone else for -- poorer. this issue of campaign finance reform is so important, it is important because it impacts every other issue of concern. if we have a congress or governors or state legislatures that are owned by the billionaire class, we are not going to address the problems facing working families. i have so far made one promise in this campaign. i will have a litmus test for my nominees to the supreme court. [applause] that litmus test is that anyone i nominate will make it clear to this country that they are going to rehear citizens united and vote to overturn that disastrous decision. [applause] i want to see a vibrant american democracy where we are not looking at 63% of the people not voting. we are looking at 90% of the people voting. i want to see a democracy. i want to see a democracy where everyone, regardless of his or her views, who wants to run for office can run for office without eating the holden to big -- without being beholden to

citizens united is another example of this institution. i understand that it is a powerful institution and the question is what that will be used for. >> you mentioned when you were talking about this problem. but they are not acting as a court. and so is it just a playoff of what was said? what is the court? >> i guess they kind of monster. [laughter] and it really is two of them. i think what the justice said is a sign of that. there's the political and then there is illegal. and so for a variety of reasons the legal court is smaller than i think it should be and the political order is much bigger than i think it should be. maybe if they had different justices in accord with how to interpret the constitution i would feel differently. but i don't think so. >> i strongly disagree. i think the assumption is the value neutral judging, that there can be the ability to assist. what is cruel and unusual punishment. >> no rights are absolute. and inevitably there is balancing. so whether it's a fundamental right or racial minority, is it diversi

and that is as a result of the disastrous supreme court decision in the citizens united case make that loud so that supreme court hears you. all right. by a 5-4 decision, the supreme court rendered one of the worst decisions in the history of our country. and what they said to the wealthiest people in this country -- they said ok, guys. you already own much of america. we are now going to give you the opportunity to own the united states government. and people like the koch brothers and she woulden addleson they said hey that's great. that's great. it's what we've always wanted to do is to own our government. and what citizens united allowed is these people to spend billions of dollars to buy candidates who will make the rich richer and everybody else poorer. and this issue of campaign finance reform is so important. it is important because it impacts every other issue of concern. if we have a congress or governors or state legislatures that are owned by the billionaire class, we are not going to address the problems facing working families. i have so far made one promise in this campa

she says "i would want a constitutional amendment to overturn citizens united", taking an issue away from the liberal wing of her party saying i want that myself that's what the party wants. >> she moves to iowa and gets the campaign in a full swing. how much of a challenge will she face from democratic contenders. >> she'll face a bigger challenge from bernie sanders, people will know these people in iowa. dick didn't do well there, howard dean people with big factions - whether it was union, liberal or young or yoifrty voters. that will happen in iowa. but, when they want to send somebody, the democrats in iowa like to send someone to the rahs who could win the race. they have done it before. in that regard and with the organization still in place, it will be difficult to defeat her if the playing field stays as it is. >> it's early, the caucuses are many months ago. thank you so much for your time. >> thank you so much. tomorrow we look at political dynasties in america, would sa bush or clinton in the white house hep or hinder. join us for "the week ahead". >>> the u.s. is planni

citizens united fundraising.f that message resonates and he can be a strong messenger in a general election they will start to come to him, and if we can begin to beat her in the early contests we have a real shot. mark: would you expect forces supporting hillary clinton will come after senator sanders in a negative way? guest: i do expect that. she is going to have the super pacs on her side. mark: what issues? guest: i think certainly issues. he has taken positions on issues, they will try to take up everything that he wrote and put in front of people. they will look at his record. in the senate race in 2006 his opponent ran a series of vicious negative attacks. they isolated votes he made in the congress. mark: you think of hillary clinton's forces attack came it will make them weaker or stronger? guest: it depends on how we handle it. he has never run a negative ad. he was convinced voters are sick of that. we will respond not by counterattacking but by pointing out to voters he is not going to engage in that

the question is, given the citizens united supreme court decision, can any candidate or -- representing working-class, the middle class who is prepared to take on billionaires, can you win elections? or is this country's legal system so corrupt that it is only people holding big money that can win? al: the only way to change that is a constitutional amendment. it's been 25 years since we amended the constitution. bernie: this is a very difficult issue. what we could do, certainly, i cosponsored legislation for a constitutional amendment. i believe i know what we can do is have disclosure legislation. if the koch brothers or any other billionaire wants to -- al: no more dirt money. bernie: and their faces will have to be on that ad. in my view, if you want a dynamic democracy, you have to move the funding of elections. this is a huge issue. al: what is the sanders doctrine on when to commit american military force? bernie: obviously, there are times when you go to war. al: is there criteria? bernie: it has to be based on everything, depends on what is happening. al: president obama just

first, do you believe that you must be an american citizen united states citizen to vote in this countrynumber two, do you believe in amnesty for illegals, complete amnesty for illegals? and number three do you now or have you ever had any affiliation with laraza or any other political organization like that? i'll take my answers off the air, please. guest: what was your last point? caller: laraza. guest: i think to the first question i think citizenship is a prerequisite for voting in the united states. we're not calling for any change to that. what we want is for voting to be accessible to every eligible citizen. the brennan center does not have a position on either of those issues. i work for the brennan center. i've worked other places. but certainly here we're talking about voting rights and we talk about voting rights talking about american citizens and making sure that as many as possible have the ability to exercise their right to vote. host: our guest is part of the democracy program at the brennan center. you can get more information by logging on to brennan center.org. thank y

citizens united is a perfect example as a powerful institution. i understand you regret that power, but it is a powerful institution. the question is, what that power is going to be used for. >> you mentioned when you were talking about the problem that the courts not acting as a court. >> more so than it used to right. >> is it acting -- just to play off what justin was -- is it -- what is the court? if you had to identify. >> i guess a kind of monster. it really is two courts. i think the -- what justice kagen said there are two courts. there's the political court and the legal court. and for a variety of reasons, the legal court is smaller than i think it should be. and the political court is much bigger than i think it should be. maybe if they had different justices up there more in accord with my views on how to interpret the constitution i'd feel differently and it will be fine to have a political court. i don't think no. >> i strongly disagree. i think the assumption of that statement is there's such a thing as value neutral judging. there

the past as a lawyer i did continue with the education this past week about the effects of the citizens united decisions the whole escape in the country was changed by the supreme court and people are rush limbaugh to death over the country evil to hide expenditures and able to hide lobbying as long as it is through not through a candidate to people in corporations address entities are having there will in the city in the united states right now they shouldn't have it in san francisco you have a responsibility and other local governments and california has a responsibility strong laws you are the people that have

we have to overturn citizens united supreme court decision in my view, john we've got to move public funding of elections. >> dickerson: you're not saying your colleagues are corrupt just final point on that? >> i'm saying that the system is corrupt. people who take this money they're not doing something illegal. >> dickerson: excellent. thank you very much. joining us now is south carolina senator lindsey graham who is in clemson this morning, i want to talk to you about report in the "washington post" that says some of the resistance to putting more u.s. troops in iraq which the president has done is actually coming from military leaders. you want to put even more troops into iraq than this president if the military is against it that doesn't seem to make sense. >> well, what i want to do destroy isil. the president has two good goals, destroy isil. i'm dying to hear from military leadership how we degrade and destroy isil with the current strategy. now would be the good time to call our military leaders to the capital hill say we got a problem. tell me how this is working because

of that list you mentioned, i don't agree with the constitutional amendment on citizens united.ather have a democratic president appointing to the supreme court to change that ruling rather than a constitutional amendment. so i disagree on that. but what i didn't hear in her speech is any mention of her secretary of state years. i didn't hear any mention of the fair-trade agreement that president obama's working on. it's more what i didn't hear in that speech. what i did hear i agreed with lot of it and my record will reflect that. >> do you support president obama on the pacific trade deal? >> yes, die. i believe trade is going to occur in the pacific rim. let's have some rules on labor, the environment, intellectual property, addressing currency manipulation. let's work together and have some good rules, because trade is going to occur anyway. i've been in favor of free trade in the past. i'm consistent on that. i'm not a flip-flopper. >> what are you going to say to bernie sanders when he says that this deal is bad for america and bad for american workers? >> trade is going t

as a lawyer i did continue with the education this past week about the effects of the citizens united decisions the whole escape in the country was changed by the supreme court and people are rush limbaugh to death over the country evil to hide expenditures and able to hide lobbying as long as it is through not through a candidate to people in corporations address entities are having there will in the city in the united states right now they shouldn't have it in san francisco you have a responsibility and other local governments and california has a responsibility strong laws you are the people that have to state that this kind of efforts needs to be disclosed you're not the supreme court but the local level the local level needs reporting i listened to xherldz on the radio all the time the past week you would think that pan i didn't see are growing and pick up i didn't see are being held by nonprofit non-disclosed interests oh, i get to stay in the city i can host people and it is at the same time i'm very well aware many of the hosting done in the city is not my neighbor down the bl

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

play not a question or outlawing they can do it unfortunately, because of the decisions like citizens united, anybody can pretty much government can be corrupted by money very easily and it is we live in a time of extremely corrupt governments in terms of people and high to pay to play characters spending money to determine basic policy within our system and people don't know that any of this is going on because there are no disclosures all this does that makes transparent to the public so a person can side who is behind and policy and what is glen eagle being done rather than clothed in a deceptive type of good citizens narrator of an pie and motherhood and behind the scenes we've got all sorts of things that are not only questionable they're corrupt and even dirty in regards to shining a light on those various things this going goes accountant way this is indeed a modest measure we're putting it on the ballot if mire colleagues agree i think it should go on the ballet i ask my colleagues to vote for that. >> any other commissioners. >> i have a question about the language under the section

and hasn't made its way back up to the level of the citizens united. there is a lot of questions as you cover every day. that's weird about the current system. wouldn't you agree? it's really unclear what the rules of the road are. you have an fec that is defunct. it's in the deadlock. it can do very little. you have lower court rulings and this crazy legal gray area. >> basically it's a regulatory failure and comes from the fact that there is a central holding about the idea of independence. there is just no way, shape, or form that the reality matches the rhetoric in that decision and it is creating a new form of politics in this country and the country hates it. >> the country does hate it, but here's the problem for folks that are organizing on the issue. friends with larry i worked with him before and a law professor they have been working with on politics. the problem is the polling can be a mile wide and an inch deep. when you ask americans, what are the important problems it's very, very low on the list. when you ask if that is an open ended qu

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

given citizens united supreme court decision, can any candidate representing the working class the middle class who is prepared to take on billionaires, can you win elections? can you win elections or is this country's political system so corrupt that it is only people holding the big money that can win? >> hunt: the only way to change that would appear to be a constitutional amendment and gosh, it's been, what, 25 years since we amended the constitution. >> this is a very difficult issue. what we could do certainly ifco sponsored legislation for a constitutional amendment. i believe right now what we can do is pass disclosure legislation which means if the koch brothers or any other billionaire wants to put. >> hunt: no mar dart money. yes and their faces will have to be on those ads. thirdly, if you want a dynamic democracy, you have to move to public funding of elections. this is a hugely important issue impacting every other issue in america. >> hunt: what's the sanders doctrine on when to commit american military force? >> on this one i'm pretty conservative, i'll tell you that. a fe

citizens united is the standard.rn what the barriers to change are and how to you get past those. the complications of it usually wind up not being discussed in the election. but it was a great interview, alyson. a good look at that group of voters. >> reporter: yeah thanks so much. and they did talk or touch on citizens united and how disappointed they were about that. so yes, there's still idealism and practicality there, but thanks guys. talk to you in a minute. we'll see have more on the voter panel tomorrow. we'll talk to andcandidates themselves and who the panel is intrigued by. >>> we have more on what is going on in south carolina and the church massacre and the flag and how it's reflected in the election. but there's a lot more news this morning so let's get right to it. >>> every sighting or lead will be investigated until exhausted. >> gene palmer is now the focus of a lot of questions. >> he neglected to put the meat through the metal detector. >>> the boston bomber speaks. he said, i'm sorry for the liv

if necessary i will support a constitutional amendment to undo the supreme court's decision in citizens united. i want to make it easier for every citizen to vote. that's why i propose universal automatic registration, and expanded early votes. i'll fight back against republican efforts to disempower and disenfranchise young people, poor people, people with disabilities, and people of color. what part of democracy are they afraid of? but no matter how easy we make it to vote, we still have to give americans something worth voting for. government is never going to have all the answers but it has to be smarter, simpler ks more efficient, and a better partner. that means access to advanced technology so government agencies can more effectively serve their customers, the american people. we need expertise and innovation from the private sector to help cut waste and streamline services. there is so much that works in america. for every problem we face, someone, somewhere in america, is solving it. silicon valley cracked the code on sharing and scaling a while ago. many states are pioneering new way

that particular provision, we lost that case in the trial court and ultimately, as a result of citizens united settled that case, and agreed not to enforce, that is a situation where a court told us you cannot do this, you cannot enforce this provision. the second piece mrs. johnson may have been referring to is the cumulative contribution that mr. minority described earlier, the rule that no individual can con tribe ut more than $500, for the seats in that election for all combined for all seats in a year. >> that is mccuchin >> yeches it doesn't address the san francisco, it addressed an analogous law. to the ethics and commission, and the board, to enforce that law and the ethicics, commission concludes, on that and the mckuchun decision, is not to enforce that provision, and they haven't in years, since mckucha n this would remove that provision -- if the board decided not to remove, they will continue to not enforce it, unless there is a change at the supreme court level. >> thank you. so i actually -- if we were making the amendments to this legislation they're approved approved. we have

supreme court, particularly with the negative impact of its decision in citizens united v. the federal election commission, which has wide implications in terms of... i see it as undermining democracy and promoting plutocracy, where wealth ultimately determines political outcomes. >> hinojosa: well, you know, i think that one of the things that you've done in this extraordinary curriculum of your life, which is really quite amazing, but again, i was really fascinated with you serving as an assistant special prosecutor for the watergate special prosecution force. i mean, you were, at that point, living in a moment in our country's history when... talk about corruption, it could not have been clearer, and at the highest level. and i guess, you know, having served there, having been through that, and then where we are now in these modern united states of america. so, progress? or entrenched divisions that are so deep and so profound and so entrenched in terms of money and elites and all that, that we're all, you know, we're all kind of victims here? >> well, we're only victims if we allow