perhaps most egregious of all, the 5-4 decision, citizens united, another 5-4 decision that paved the way for individuals and outside groups to spend unlimited sums of money in our elections. in our elections. in each one of these 5-4 decisions, justice scalia sided with the majority. so now this body considers replacing him with judge gorsuch, and i think it's important to understand the extent to which he shares justice scalia's views. and judge gorsuch's record demonstrates that he is, in president trump's words, a judge, quote, very much in the mold of justice scalia. during his time on the tenth circuit, judge gorsuch has consistently ruled in favor of powerful interests. he's sided with corporations over workers, corporations over consumers, and corporations over women's health. a study published in the minnesota law review found that the roberts court, the most procorporate supreme court since world war ii and if the senate confirms him, judge gorsuch guarantees more of the same from the roberts court. and i don't believe that's a court that our country can continue to afford.

we have wines have sponsored climate bills before citizens united. we have wines who have run for president on good climate platforms, but nobody will budge your gun at the the fence that getaway car, if you will, what we could do about climate change is a carbon fee. we just had three republican former secretaries of the treasury endorsed a carbon fee. and the former chairman of walmart and george bush is economic advisor chairman, so there's a distinguished group of republicans who have come up with a climate solution and they are not the only ones. there's a broad array of people who support a revenue neutral they call it border adjusted carbon fee. so between an actual solution that republican support and a bunch of republican senators who have a record of supporting action on climate, what's the problem? the problem is that kill zone that the citizens united decision has allowed the fossil fuel industry to set up where they say look, with unlimited funds and where going to crush anybody that crosses us. they have been clever about just trying to

anything goes, basically, is what citizens united said. what we talk about in your report is why the supreme court got behind that ruling. they then ruled that way because it was their sense, their statement, part of their ruling, that we could have money come in at all levels because there was robust reporting on where that money was coming from. i will let you explain that more. as crazy as the ruling was, there was at least an argument to me. >> what the court said was that because the money was being given that they spoke about, which is independent expenditures that are independent of the candidates allegedly not only is the protection that it is independent, because it cannot cause corruption, said the court, but also there is immediate, on the internet, disclosure. so the american public knows who is behind the campaigns, they can eliminate corruption if there is any, and there will be an ability to vote according to their view. >> we know that is not true. in the last few years since citizens united, there has been more than $800 m

seven years ago in 5-4 decision, the supreme court ruled in a case called citizens united. and in that case by a 5-4 decision the court said that billionaires and corporations could spend as much money as they wanted on the political process. corp know, opens the floodgates of corporate money, of money from the billionaire class, such that the wealthiest people in our country today cannot elect candidates who represent their interests and not the interests of ordinary americans. that decision, citizens united, is undermining american democracy, and in my view is moving us toward an oligarchic form of society, in which a a handful of the wealthiest people in this country, the koch brothers, and others, now have the power not only to control our economy, but our political life as well. in my view, citizens united must be overturned, and we must move back to a nation where ours political system is based on one person one vote. not on the ability of billionaires to buy elections. based on my conversation withiew the judge gorsuch and a review of his record, do i believe that he

the new things i think i've beem as citizens united and the entry of corporate power and the groups that exert corporate power into the elections in a dominant way. when you have one group spending $700 million plus in the last election and threatening to spend $400 million more in the midterm, that is a huge footprint, and there's a lot more going on behind it. the second piece has been kind of bringing home the long-term effort of the republican party to put the so-called business friendly judges in the courts so that the courts have become increasingly hostile to regular folks and increasingly interested in protecting the corporations to the point where there was a poll not too long ago that a human being could get a fair shot at the corporation and i think 9% of the people that answered said it could. i take it back, 6% of the people said we think an individual can get a fair shot and 54% said no, the corporation is going to have the advantage. so when you have a spread like that, about whether a human being can get a fair shot against the corporation in the united states supreme cou

no one knew how merrick garland would vote on citizens united. on the democratic side we were worried that he might sustain it. on the republican side they worried that he might strike it down and be a we the people justice. but instead of engaging in responsible senate action required by our oath of office, for the first time in u.s. history, the majority, driven by a powerful special interest, the koch brothers, decided to steal the seat. that's the setting in which next week's debate will occur over merrick garland. we've heard some very self-righteous words coming from the majority side saying -- look how qualified he is. how could you possibly say there is anything wrong with this nomination. i ask my fellow colleagues to realize the reality of what they are engaged in. that they have a responsibility and that every senate majority in u.s. history exercised that responsibility until last year, and it corresponds to this enormous growth of dark, secret money under citizens united entering our campaigns. it corresponds to the threat that the k

judge gorsuch has ruled in favor of citizens united. i think we're going to get to the point where there is going that thereority of is going to be a minority who rules a majority -- there is going to be a minority that is going to pass rules for the majority, and most people are not going to be comfortable with that arrangement. if we take these things backward, i think the majority of americans are not going to be comfortable with it. so, i do not understand this progressive view. they have very little power right now in this country. i have independent, and both conservative and progressive views. to take this country so far to the right, i do not think that is where the american people are at. host: the usa today wrap up of what is happening in the senate with judge neil gorsuch predicting that the showdown over the filibuster will, on thursday. they then walked through the legislativelyt would have to happen before the nuclear option could be employed. if you want to check out that story, it is on the front page of usa today. calls

to exert control over the regulatory agency so some of this is a constant theme but with the citizens united and the entry of of corporate power inserted into reelection this in a dominant way. . .

>> i won't support any judge who doesn't understand that citizens united has created a problem. justice kennedy has said it didn't turn out the way we expected, and even justice scalia said don't blame us. well, i'm blaming the court, but clearly he knows something is wrong, when he says the court shouldn't be blamed for it. there's absolutely no history with the founding fathers of how unlimited secret money should be allowed to influence our elections and that should be an easy thing for a candidate to acknowledge. >> but there's a lot of, and again i want to move on from this but there are a lot of judges who may think that decision was correct. there are people in the league who equate free speech with political equations. that's a whole lot of judges who might be on the other side of this. >> actually i doubt it, if the judges track it all where the american public is on this, it's more like 85% think the decision is no good, think it has ruined our politics, that big money is corrupting our elections and government. this decision has run smack into enormous public oppositi

let me move on to citizens united. we've talked about this probablu more than any other court on the senate. we know it is a fight & co. for supreme court decision and it opened up the floodgates for dark money allowing the corporations to have constitutional rights that we thought -- judge gorsuch announced a scrutiny standard united make the citizens united case i th campaign finance law limit. i think each of us should be concerned about that limit. let me move on to the transamerica in case. was i here, he was in the minority that he basically said that if a truck driver had to sacrifice his life in order to protect his job otherwise he could be fired and what i mean by that is i think many of my colleagues know but for those that do may not be totally familiar come a truck driver found himself abandoned because the brakes on his trailer were frozen in subzero temperature. he contacted the dispatcher for help and after several hours recognized his wife was in danger because of hypothermia. he didn't have adequate h

so i wonder how you reconcile your sense that citizens united brought this upon with with us with these counterrealities. how do you reconcile those things? >> well i don't think they need all that much reconciling it's a longer conversation than we should probably have here today. but jeff nesbitt once a republican communication person in the white house and then went to fda as a republican official there has written a book called poison tea about the extent to which the tea party was actually closely connected with the fossil fuel crowd and the tobacco industry and how that all developed very much in sync with propolluter agenda of those two forces so i don't think that is quite as out of sync as you might think. and i put the question about drumpt other way. i think one of the reasons the people were attracted to somebody with his -- brag and with his -- sort of general disruptiveness was because they were etd fed up. an one of the reasons they were so fed up is they saw a government that has started to bog down and bog down and bog down into -- unable to cross any corporate interest

that citizens united decision was a 5-4 decision. four justices laid out the case that this unlimited funds and often secret funds are corrupting our american political system, and if one wants an example of that corruption, simply look at the vast change within a short period of years of the position of our colleagues on the right side of the aisle in regard to the environment. we had many colleagues who were very concerned about carbon pollution coming from the extraction and burning of fossil fuels. they wanted to make sure that we had a sustainable planet to pass on to our children, our children's children. it was following a republican tradition and being involved in things like the environmental protection agency creation with president motorcycles and the clean water act and clean air act, and in a short period of time, like a shallow pool beneath a hot sun, it just evaporated, that concern for the environment just disappeared, did dissipated. -- it dissipated. and the result is today that we have virtually no support to take

citizens united, they can't stop him. i think they have to show they tried as hard as they could. filibuster and it will be good for democrats in the long term. >> why would it be good for democrats? >> it's an arcane certainty rule, used in instances, legislation it wasn't meant to over the years. it prevents accountability, a pretty good case for getting rid of it. if you're in the majority you get your chance to do something. if voters like it, you stay in the majority and if not, it's their turn. >> a simple majority, 51 votes. >> the fear this is a become the house then and you don't have legislation that requires true bipartisan support. a 51-49 is not really necessary. that's where you really see strong support. just kind of -- exactly. >> we're already there. we're already there. >> i know we are. >> they have the majority. >> i respect your point of view on that. i think it's a mistake for the democrats to force this issue especially now. i understand what you're saying about the left. at the same time, this is early. this is early 2017. you can come back from a vote and

citizens united is the opposite. it says those who sit on the board of bazillion dra corporations get a voice a ba zillion times large than the ordinary citizen. it is damaging our nation. that is the 5-4 citizens united case. or the american tradition partnership in bullock versus bullock case in 2012, banned corporations from spending money on political candidates and campaigns. found that political speech protected even when it comes from a corporation. in other words, citizens united was applied here. the four dis consenting judges did not believe the court was ready to review the same issues as discussed in citizens united in spite of the fact that montana's supreme court noted extreme power of corporations in politics. what's the story behind this? montana was controlled by the copper kings. and back about 100 years ago, the people said enough. we want montana to be controlled by the people of montana, not by this vast concentration of special interest money that's making all the decisions. so they passed a law

let me move on to citizens united. we have talked about citizens united probably more than any case of the supreme court on the floor of the united states senate. we all know it's a 5-4 supreme court decision. we know it opened up the floodgates for dark money, allowing corporations to have constitutional rights which we thought were only individual. in the case, judge gorsuch announced a strict standard to political contributions. that would make the citizens united case even worse and would gut campaign finance law limits. i think each of us should be concerned about that decision. let me move on to the transamerican trucking case. here judge gorsuch was in dissent. he was in the minority. what he basically said is that a truck driver had to sacrifice his life in order to protect his job, otherwise he could be fired. and what i mean by that, as i think many of our colleagues know, but let me say for those who may not be totally familiar, a truck driver found himself abandoned because the brakes of his trailer were fr

let me turn to citizens united, which we have talked about more than any case in the supreme court on the floor of the united states senate. we know the 5-numfour supreme court decision, the floodgates for dark money allowing corporations to have constitutional rights. in the little case, judge gorsuch announced strict scrutiny standard to political contribution limits. that, quite frankly, would make the citizens united case even worse and would got campaign finance law limits. let me move to the trans-american trucking case. here judge gorsuch was in dissent, in the minority, what he basically said, the truck driver had to sacrifice his life in order to protect his job, otherwise he could be fired. what i mean by that, those who might not be totally familiar, truck driver found himself abandoned because the brakes of his trailer were frozen in subzero temperature, and he did not have adequate heat in his cab. he had one of the three choices. he could try to maneuver the cab and the trailer with frozen breaks costing himself his life or other people on the road. he could remain as in

well, citizens united was based on a constitutional provision on free speech, the right to spend and raise money in the political arena, and the only way you can change that to prevent these outside groups they don't ha have to report their money, from doing that, would be to amend the constitution. now, congress could in theory require these outside groups to report contributors but congress is unlikely to do that. whoever is in charge of congress aft any moment like this system they were elected under so it's very unlikely congress will pass legislation requiring that c4s report to the fec who their contributors are but that's an enormous problem and only going to get greater as the groups getmer power and make maybes of congress tim schmidt fearful they'll lose and i have to think that democrats and republicans run for office for the right reason to make this a better country. i may disagree with the things that see as making it's better country but they run for the right lions. once they get here and see what could be money to them in a party primary with secret money, they becom

wade and citizens united, gorsuch not only refused to answer but went on to say that if his feelings if i had any were of no consequence. it's not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing, he said. it's a matter of it being the law. and my job is to apply and enforce the law. gorsuch portrayed himself as a kind of judicial atomaton obligated to pay mindless abay sans -- abees sans to the court's prior rulings. this interpretation of the role of supreme court justices is to put it charitably incorrect. they can and do overturn their earlier holdings and trump didn't nominate gorsuch simply because he knows how to follow precedent. he nominated gorsuch because his career resembles a lab experiment sin sizing -- synthesizing every trend in modern conservative thought. a ruggedly handsome coloradan, this president cares a great deal about appearances. gorsuch has an appealing manner and an impressive resume. he did well in good schools, held prestigious clerkships, worked at a fine law firm, took a senior post in the department of justice, and for the past decade has served on the tenth circu

seven years ago, in a 5-4 decision, the supreme court ruled in a case called citizens united, and in that case by a 5- 4 decision, the court said that billionaires and corporations could spend as much money as they wanted on the political process. this decision, as all americans know, opened the floodgates of corporate money, of money from the billionaire class, such that the wealthiest people in our country today can now elect candidates who represent their interests and not the interests of ordinary americans. that decision, citizens united, is undermining american democracy and in my view is moving us toward an oligarchic form of society in which a handful of the wealthiest people in this country, the koch brothers and others, now have the power not only to control our economy but our political life as well. in my view, citizens united must be overturned, and we must move back to a nation where our political system is based on one person, one vote, not on the ability of billionaires who buy elections. based on my conversation with judge gorsuch and a review of his record, do i bel

guess he won the presidential election just like citizens united, donald trump. >> kennedy: she benefited more from the citizens united which he railed against. >> dagen: the point is this is critically important. >> juan: does this undermine the credibility of support in the mind of the american people? >> sandra: fox news alert. it was swept and it wasn't decisive. president trump ordering an air strike on a syrian airfield used in the horrific chemical attacks that killed civilians, including many children. hours after he had said something should happen following the horrific chemical attack carried out by syria's brutal regime, president trump spoke the nation last night after giving the go-ahead for the missiles to launch. >> it is an the national scaredy interest of the united states to prevent and deter the spread and use of deadly chemical weapons. there can be no dispute that syria used band chemical weapons, violated its obligations under the chemical weapons convention and ignored the urging of the u.n. security camps. tonight i call on all civilized nations to join us and see

my question is, what is the significance of the citizens united supreme court decision? what are the most important supreme court decisions to know on the exam? guest: great question. citizens united are one of those campaign-finance cases we have mentioned before that gives special interest groups, specifically corporations, the power to give unlimited amounts of money to independent groups, political groups. corporations can give unlimited through those independent groups. the other case you should know fromly versus the layout the 1970's. that is the first time sprinkler makes a precedent, saying the federal government can limit campaign spending through hard money limits. the right to free speech and free petition allows citizens to give political money. that is the first supreme court case that equates money with political speech. guest: supreme court cases are always intimidating. you have a reason to be nervous because there are so many. be with you.h in each and every classroom, the jedi masters have been preparing it. i want to shout out to all of the great teac

the campaign finance reform oblique last year's prop c x one and the state initiate to overturn citizens united'm here to support the commissioner keane ethic you can see proposal this corruption is at a heart of politics in the america and whatever the interpretation citizens u 234i9d allows the groups to used money to influence candidates in policy decision cool and in particular san francisco is a leader in campaign finance reform thank you for that a concurrent influence of money in politics is equivalent we live in the richest and yet have the inequality gap in america we're in a full-blown housing crisis and can guarantee you some of the policy decisions and contracts we've grand that led to the crisis were by campaign contributions and promises in mind rather than the merit and what is most beneficial to the people in public common good so i'm here to urge you to pass commissioner keanes proposal in its entirety thank you. >> thank you good evening, commissioners mark solomon i wanted to go ahead and comment on larry bushes comments we have a major policy decision that will affect the ea

a 5-4 united citizens decision that merrick garland might have found 5 - 4 the other direction. we don't know where he stood on this. he was so square down the middle, so complimented by people on the right as well as the left, we don't know how he would have voted on that. but in order to ensure that that dark money -- that in order to ensure that decisions would be made by and for the powerful, to ensure that the fossil fuel companies could be swept clear of regulations that would diminish them out of fossil fuels they could extract out of the ground and sell for combustion, in order to ensure the profits of the koch brothers, that drove this unique case of the theft of the supreme court seat last year. and that effort to pack the court by sending that seat to the next president in hopes that it would be a conservative president and then to have that nominee say i will only nominate somebody who comes off the list from two conservative groups on the far right, boy, that was exactly the vision. it has unfolded exactly as i guess you could say those in that powerful group wanted

this is not the outgrowth of citizens united. this line of reasoning ignores the fact that the supreme court upheld the sec disclosure rules and just and united. the heaviest part of that decision to uphold other disclosure requirements. it ignores the fact that in 2010 in a different case the supreme court upheld other disclosure requirement. so if you have issues with lack of disclosure is mandated by federal law, perhaps we should talk about that in connection with the legislative discussion. if you want to change the law, let's talk about changing the law. make sure you're not leaving something on the supreme court that the supreme court didn't do any shirt and they shouldn't think that a non-judge stubbs asked the judge gorsuch didn't do especially to the extent you're talking about federal policy, making federal law that after all his congresses job and the inadequacy of the law as the impact on us, not someone else. i also want to address the notion that somehow there is a good guy, but outside dichotomy that we need to be

citizen is united said it's not could i and now you have enormous amount of money, unreported money, throwing to the extremes and they didn't appreciate when the put this legislation together and you can't change that. get e-mails and you get e-mails from people saying, send us money and we'll do away with citizen united. well, citizens united was bait 0 a constitutional privileging, free speech, the right to spend and race money in the political arena, and the only way you can change that to prevent these outside groups that don't have to report their money from doing that would be to amend the constitution. now, congress could in theory require these outside groups to report all their contributors but congress is knowledge likely to do that. whoever is in charge likes the system they were elected under so it's unlikely congress will amend the constitution. that's an enormous problem and will only get greater as time guess on and the groups will make members of congress timid and fearful they're thing to lose their -- in next primary, and i happen to think that both democrats democr

did it, anyway, because this seat is so important to them to protect the dark money, to protect citizens united and the big donors. and to protect the corporations who fund them. >> so let's just talk about what effect this concept of going nuclear has for the future. number one, it takes away the concept that the senate is not like the house, it's not simply a partisan body. it's a chamber of sober second thought. and number two, it does give everyone this tool to use in the future including republicans when and if the democrats hold the balance of power in the senate. are you worried about unintended outcomes and future consequences of forcing this type of a vote >> there's nothing in the constitution that says advice and consent requires a supermajority, so, you know, i can live with it. i can live with it when we changed it before and can live with it now. where that really gets a little bit dangerous is if they start moving the nuclear option over into the legislative side, they take bills they want to pass where they can't create the f 0 votes they have so often said the senate needs to p

citizens united was one of the most disappointing decisions. it opened the floodgates for dark money in campaigns, which was terrible. when people come up to me, other country leaders on how to reform their free election systems, a say to not do them like we did this. it was a fundamental decision by the supreme court that we were going to protect a business right over the right of the individual. there are issues in all three branches of the government but we the people still control. as we have seen around the world, we the people will not tolerate corruption. they won't. there will be a time with a run -- there will be a time they will be on the streets, including in the united states. they will not tolerate corruption. it is in all of our interest to find out a way to make sure we put in place though systems that prevent that. it's very frustrating with president trump. i really did not think the people would allow him to win the presidency without releasing his tax returns and be president without divesting his personal wealth. i did not t

and i couldn't agree more, there's disappointing -- citize citize citizens united was one of the most disappointing decisions. other people come to me, other countries' leaders, on how to reform their free election systems, i said, don't pattern it on how we do our fundraising, there are much better ways than that. but it was a fundamental decision made by the supreme court that we're going to protect a business right over an individual right, which to me makes no sense. there's been some troubling trends in all three branches of government. but we the people still control. and as we've seen around the world, we the people won't tolerate corruption. they won't. there will come a point that they'll be on the streets, including in the united states. they will not tolerate corruption. so it's in all of our interests to figure out a way to make sure that we put in place those systems that will prevent that. and it's very frustrating with president trump, because i really didn't think the people would allow him to win the presidency without releasing his tax returns and be president withou

that do not agree with us over and over were saying that corporations are people and with the citizens united they want to voice in our elections and on every single thing we care about neil gorsuch cares for the wealthy in the powerful to give them more power and will make it harder for the voice is to matter elections and make it easier for the billionaires' to spend millions more. this is a direct affront to lower american values this means dirty energy companies can buy the policies they want to pollute our air endanger our climate to spend millions for those policies that crashed the economy. reno he will side with the corporate millionaire's not us is that what we want? unit that is why he cannot get a seat on the supreme court we here to oppose gorsuch. we deserve democracy that works for every single one of us not just the wealthy and powerful. keep up the pressure. this is the week. call your senators have your friends and family call we cannot leave any stone unturned. this is our fight it is a lifetime seat together ricans stop the corporate takeover of the supreme court with our d

the campaign finance reform oblique last year's prop c x one and the state initiate to overturn citizens united'm here to support the commissioner keane ethic you can see proposal this corruption is at a heart of politics in the america and whatever the interpretation citizens u 234i9d allows the groups to used money to influence candidates in policy decision cool and in particular san francisco is a leader in campaign finance reform thank you for that a concurrent influence of money in politics is equivalent we live in the richest and yet have the inequality gap in america we're in a full-blown housing crisis and can guarantee you some of the policy decisions and contracts we've grand that led to the crisis were by campaign contributions and promises in mind rather than the merit and what is most beneficial to the people in public common good so i'm here to urge you to pass commissioner keanes proposal in its entirety thank you. >> thank you good evening, commissioners mark solomon i wanted to go ahead and comment on larry bushes comments we have a major policy decision that will affect the ea

and the criticism of citizens united may ultimately result in a change.riticism of many other decisions over the years has resulted in changes of judicial opinions. as one person once said, the supreme court follow the election return. so, the supremert isart of our system of checks and balances. >> but the checks and balances, like the judge said he called the so-called judge, unelected judge, trial judge, from there the court of appeals and supreme court. there is checks and balances. >> there is. remember justice ginsberg took some shots at candidate trump. probably shouldn't have done it, trump probably shouldn't have taken shots at judges. but the idea that the president is not entitled to criticize the judiciary is a very dangerous one. presidents and the executive branch ought to be permit today do that. we know that franklin delano roosevelt went too far. by the way, the 9th circuit is too large. it would be unseemly for the president to push for its dismantling because it would seem vengful. >> all right. the federal court judge, the unelected on

in my view, one of the most troubling court decisions in recent years is citizens united. since citizens united, dark money has been spent in extraordinary sums, adding up to an estimated $800 million in just the past six years. this continues to have an outside influence on our politics, distorting our representative democracy and hurting in my mind campaigns on both sides of the aisle. now, how did this apply to the judge? it applies to the judge because in an opinion that he wrote that is very relevant to this area of the law. in that case, which is called the riddle v. hickenlooper, a narrow case about how campaign finance law applied to certain kinds of contributions in colorado about a major party or not major party, the judge again decided that a narrow consensus decision was not enough. in part of that decision, but then he went out of his way to write a second concurring opinion to suggest that the court should in fact apply strict scrutiny to laws restricting campaign contributions. if the supreme court adopted the approach in the judge's opinion, it would compro

there's been some disappointing -- citizens united is one of the most decisions because it opened the flood gates of dark money in campaigns which was terrible and i can't -- when we people to me, other country leaders how to form their free election systems, i tell them don't pattern after how we do our fund raising. there are much better ways than that. there's a fundamental decision by the supreme court to protect a business right over an individual right. which to me is -- makes no sense so i -- there's been some troubling trends in all three branches of government. but we the people still control. and as we have seen around the world, we the people won't tolerate corruption. they won't. there will come a point to be on the streets including in the united states. they will not tolerate corruption. so it's in all of our interests to figure out a way to make sure that we put in place those systems that will prevent that. and it's very frustrating with president trump because i really didn't think the people would allow him to win the presidency without releasing the tax returns and

yes, we need to get rid of citizens united. you have to go above the supreme court. a constitutional amendment. wolf-pack.com. we fight for the urgency. through the convention the states call and they propose an amendment and then you ratify it with 38 states. people think an amendment is not doable, every generation of americans has done one. we have to get rid of the corruption. >> he is the host of the young turks and founder of the tyt network. thank you. >> thank you. >> we have in our left. coming next, something special for high school students. we will be taking calls from high school students across the country as teachers daniel larsen and andrew conneen discuss the advanced placement program. we will go through questions. be right back. ♪ >> tonight, on q&a, the house of truth, a washington political salon and the foundation of american liberalism. we talk with author brad snyder intellectuals.ut earlyet regularly in the 1900s to debate politics and the future of the country. >> i think everyone associated with this house, frankfurter, brandeis, race was n

the campaign finance reform oblique last year's prop c x one and the state initiate to overturn citizens united here to support the commissioner keane ethic you can see proposal this corruption is at a heart of politics in the america and whatever the interpretation citizens u 234i9d allows the groups to used money to influence candidates in policy decision cool and in particular san francisco is a leader in campaign finance reform thank you for that a concurrent influence of money in politics is equivalent we live in the richest and yet have the inequality gap in america we're in a full-blown housing crisis and can guarantee you some of the policy decisions and contracts we've grand that led to the crisis were by campaign contributions and promises in mind rather than the merit and what is most beneficial to the people in public common good so i'm here to urge you to pass commissioner keanes proposal in its entirety thank you. >> thank you good evening, commissioners mark solomon i wanted to go ahead and comment on larry bushes comments we have a major policy decision that will affect the east

and in citizens units, as we all too well know, the court broke with decades of precedent, the facts of the case, and common sense to create a constitutional right for corporations to spend unlimited money on our elections. indeed, our political system is still reeling from billions of dollars in anonymous corporate political expenditures, and we are only now being able to recognize the national security concerns that have resulted with hostile powers such as russia seeking to influence our democracy. in order to satisfy partisan ideological ends, the court has left us powerless to limit the purchase of political influence or even to know who is spending all this money on our politics. judge gorsuch's record strongly i.g.s that he would contribute -- suggests that he would contribute to the pro--corporate yearnsation of the court. the very same business groups who spent $7 million in dark money, anonymous money, to block chief judge garland's nomination to this seat also spent $10 million on ads and lobbying efforts to support judge gorsuch's nomination. it stands to reason these gro

then came citizens united. january of 2010. there has not then a piece of republican sponsored serious climate legislation since. the power of the fossil fuel industry made the republican party in congress in affect a banana republic party. we call a banana republic a banana republic because of the power of the international fruit companies who pulled the strings behind the preposterous uniforms and antics of propped up administrations in those banana republic countries. so it's sad to have the republican party in congress become a banana republic party to the fossil fuel industry. with this executive order the executive branch of government becomes a banana republic executive branch prancing and capering for their friends in the fossil fuel industry. it is ultimately probably not going to make much difference. there are lawyers and there are lawsuits. there is an administrative procedures act that means administrative procedures have to be on the up and up. there's a supreme court decision , massachusetts versus epa that is th

and in citizens united, as we all too well know, the court broke with decades of precedent. the facts of the case and common sense to create a constitutional right for corporations to spend unlimited money on our elections. indeed, our political system is still reeling from billions of dollars in anonymous corporate political expenditures. we are only now beginning to recognize the national security concerns that have resulted. with hostile power such as russia seeking to influence our democracy. in order to set aside partisan ideological ends, the court is left as powerless to limit the purchase of political influence. we want to do who's spending all this money on our politics. judge gorsuch's record strongly suggest he would contribute to the roberts courts partisan pro-corporate orientation. indeed the ver person business groups who spent $7 million in dark money, anonymous money, to block the chief justice judge garland nomination to the seat also spent $10 million on ads and lobbying efforts to support judge gorsuch's nomination. it stands to reason these groups believ

the disclosure rule in citizens united that ignores the use that part of the decision to uphold the disclosure requirements that in a different case to a poll the other disclosure requirements. and as mandated by a federal law that without legislative discussion so let's talk about changing the law but make sure it is not something the supreme court did not do. do especially to extend the sitting federal policy. that is congress's job and the inadequacy of the law. but opposed to the little guy but with chairman grassley alluded to with those statements professor of law the harvard to be self-described liberal law professor laurie furred to the attempt to smear judge gorsuch as a terrible idea but after explaining the terrible idea include a the fact signing with of workers is a stance they should not decide those cases based on the belief of how the law should be interpreted. so professor feldman a self-described liberal is right as a bedrock principle in the rule of law based on the identity of the individual party. with this is one of the reasons why is judge gorsuch explained an

i'm a citizen of the united states of america. i'm not a citizen of canada or south america, but of the united states. hesident barack obama, always said god bless these united states of america. that's just a part of my teaching. i am a citizen of these united states of america. have a great day. i continued to listen to c-span as long as i live. host: thank you for your call, robert. is generaloss powell's wife. he turned 80. he's from birmingham, alabama. it is great to hear your voice and hear your comments. i think the disparities that continue to exist in the world of education among lower income kids and young people of color are really troubling. it's where a lot of our focus is. and i would also say getting better. there was a hopeful note in there. one of the things i think people have realized over the past 20 years, one of the things that is different than 20 years ago is there have been so much brain science research on how people learn and grow. thatn't just the fact economic hardship gets in the way of kids. that has

he things corporations are people and he would go farther than citizens united and end all contribution limits in our elections. [booing] every single thing we care about, gorsuch will get the wealthy and powerful even more power. .razy he will make it harder for our voices to matter in our elections and he will make it easier for billionaires to spend millions more to influence our election. this is a direct affront to our american values. this means dirty energy companies can buy the policies they want to pollute our hair and endanger our climate. it means wall street can send millions to go back to the reckless policies that crashed this economy. if he is confirmed to the supreme court, he will side from corporations and billionaires, not us. is that what we want? >> no. that is why we cannot let him get a seat on the supreme court. we deserve a democracy that works for every single one of us, not just the wealthy and powerful. the pressure up. this week is the week. call your senators. have your friend and family call their senators. we can't lead -- leave any stone unturned. if we

he things corporations are people and would go further than citizens united and he supports ending all contribution limits and our elections. [booing] >> that's me. on every single thing we care about, gorsuch will give the wealthy and powerful even more power. [booing] >> crazy. for ourmake it harder voices to matter in our elections and make it easier for billionaires to spend more to influence our elections. this is a direct affront to our american values. this means dirty energy companies can buy the policies they want to pollute our air come in danger our climate. it means wall street can spend millions to go back to the reckless policies that crash this economy. [booing] >> yeah. to the supreme court, we know he will side with corporations and billionaires, not us. is that what we want? that is why we cannot let him get a lifetime seat on the supreme court and are here today to tell senators to oppose gorsuch. we want a democracy that works for every single one of us, not just the wealthy and powerful. let's keep the pressure up. this week is the week. call your senator. have you

we are aware of reports the united states citizens detained in north korea over the weekend, the protection of the united states citizens is one of our government's highest priorities. i will direct any further inquiries on this matter to the state department. and the white house will play host to everything of 100 u.s. senators on the subject. the briefers will be secretary tillerson and mattis. this is a breaking convened by the majority leader, not a white house briefing. we just serving as the location. for further questions i would direct you to the majority leader's office. with that, i will take your questions. >> how committed is the president to having the border wall funded, and if it is not in there, will he sign it? mr. spicer: those negotiations continue with the house and senate leadership. the money for military and border security, part of that request, the president's's priority with respect to keep in the government open, we feel confident where we are headed. director mulvaney has been very deep in those discussions, but i expect there to be an announcement thing. i will

and his testimony before the judiciary committee regarding citizens united in which he incorrectly stated the court left congress the ability to enact commonsense campaign spending limits strengthens my decision to vote no. so if you believe in transparency in our elections and upholding the integrity of our democracy or you believe that we need a justice that will protect the rights of all americans and stand with them and not with president trump and the millionaires and billionaires, this choice is clear. as i've urged my colleagues for weeks, with so much chaos in the administration and so many questioning surrounding this president's commitment to the rule of law, slow down, stop playing political games, respect the families we respect, respect the separation of power and stop trying to jam this nominee through and do not blow up the rules for supreme court nominees. invoking the nuclear option is a dangerous path to go down. mr. president, i've been in the majority, i've been in the minority, and either way, i believe when it comes to a lifetime appointment to the supreme court, the

selecting a new president, the citizens united decision. decision after decision, 5 to 4. this one person, this ninth vote, is so important to the history of the country, and in our opinion, it's worth the fight. it is worth standing up to make sure that we make the point that the problem is not with the process. not with the 60 vote margin, it is with this nominee who is a radical right-wing member of the judiciary right now with a record that made it clear that he would not be able to represent the main stream of the american public. >> now just to push back for a moment, he is filling the scalia seat, he is not changing the ballots. he is filling a seat that is a -- >> and as well it is the votes for objective criteria, and it will not change the composition of the court that will tilt against women's health, against consumers, against environmental protections. he himself, on his own record, has produced a voting record in the judiciary which is so clearly even thclea clearly empthetical. i want to ask you about syria because of the horror of this apparent chemical att