into so-called shadow money organizations that don't have to report their figures to the federal election commission it could even be foreign governments could have been osama bin laden throughout american history big businesses use its economic might to manipulate the political process to its advantage but with the supreme court's two thousand and ten decision in citizens united versus federal election commission the corporatocracy won its greatest victory the supreme court struck down centuries of legislation and ushered in a new era of unfettered corporate interference in our democratic commons when you take money out of politics and restore integrity to the election process what's the best way to do that joining me now is austin peterson director of production of freedom works and editor of the libertarian republic dot com hey austin top bottom line our democracy has been hijacked by billionaires and transnationals this is a dead. areas issue this is we are looking at something like a like a monarchy rather than a democracy not good right so we're talking about the specific issue is this petitio

winter from yale law school to the federal election campaign act cent contribution and expenditure limits for federal offices and also made the federal elections commission independent of the president. according to the press so as to take politics out of politics but more plausibly to lift the balance of political control towards congress and incumbents and away from the president and challengers. the solicitor general bob assembled his swat team for the cases and ray randolph and me went to work on a brief that must stand as one of history's curiosities. the brief filed, and i quote, for the attorney general and for the united states as the amicus curiae, goes to great lengths house speech and money are interchangeable and it surely would violate the first amendment to set a limit on how much "the new york times" could charge for paper and why there for there were serious problems of the contribution and expenditure limits in the statute. next time somebody tells you that a contribution or expenditure limits for an election is just about money and that money is not speak you should reply that "new york times" against sullivan was just a case for tort d

it is perfectly appropriate according to the federal elections commission to hire a spouse, a daughter law, to work on your campaign, as long as they are doing bona fide work, and they are earning fair market value. the federal election commission affirmed this more than one decade ago at the request of jesse jackson junior. so, we have seen examples over the years, during an election, of relatives doing work. accounting, recordkeeping filing paperwork with the federal election commission. host: with the numbers you have been able to track, our legislators getting a deal? do they pay them fair market rate, on the cheap, fair market amount? guest: it is hard to tell because there is not an independent body determining this. --bers of congress designed decide for themselves. we found wide varieties. we found six people that were toing more than six figures relatives over the course of the two year election cycle. wasof the biggest spenders illinois representative bobby rush whose wife earned $147,000 during the 2012 election cycle, about one quarter of the money that he brought in over t

coordinator for the republican's 2012 presidential campaign filed a complaint with the federal election commission alleging that political action committee funds were improperly used to pay staffers and others. the office of congressional ethics is conducting a preliminary investigation and could dismiss the case or refer it to the house ethics committee. >>> a new jersey man stepping forward yesterday to claim the $338 million powerball jackpot. talking about 44-year-old bodega owner pedro cassada telling reporters he was tired and nervous after turning in the winning ticket. we can bet that. the dominican-born father of five says he is very happy and intends to help his family with the winnings. his wife says she never expected to win and still can't believe it. 13 other tickets worth $1 million each fell just one number short of that jackpot. one happy guy. >>> a criminal indictment claims punxsutawney phil falsely predicted this year's early spring. but the famous groundhog's handler decided to take the blame. groundhog club inner circle president bill dealy told reporters while phil called fo

the federal election campaign act set contribution and expenditure limits for federal offices and i'll submit the federal election commissionndependent of the president. according to the press to take politics out of politics but for possibly shift the balance of political control as congress in the coming end away from the president challenges. solicitor general bork some of his s.w.a.t team for cases. reran dolphin went to work on a brief in my stand is one of history's curiosities. the brief filed, and i quote, for the attorney general and the united state goes to great lengths to explain why speech and money are interchangeable come away surely would the first amendment is to set a limit on how much "the new york times" could charge him either further serious problems for the contribution and expenditure limit statute. next time somebody tells you a contribution or expenditure limit for an election is just about money and that money is speech, you should reply that "new york times" to consolidate its just a case about money for tort damages at the naacp against claiborne hardware was money for economic injury businesses

first of all, the debate should happen in congress, and, second of all, there's a federal election commission that's about revealing transparency in political donors and the whole political campaign finance realm. that's the better place for this. >> host: todd shields, time for one or two more questions. >> another authority question, a long ago battle, the net neutrality battle where there's rules claiming to ensure that big companies don't interfere with web content into my house. that's been challenged in court. what happens if the court overturns the fcc? what happens if the court supports the fcc? where do we go with the issue? >> guest: excellent question. i descended to that on december 21st, 2010, i believe, the shortest day of the year in 2010, and -- >> the darkest day. >> guest: yes, the darkest day for the fcc in 2010. so the idea that interpret service providers in an anticompetitive way would interfere with consumers' internet traffic was at the heart of this. i argued it first of all there was no market study, and there's no problem to be solved. second of all, the fcc didn't

now, the campaign has already been the subject of a lawsuit and an investigation by the federal election commission. >>> new twists this morning in the murder of colorado's prison system chief. he was gunned down on his front porch by a hit man, possibly as payback for trying to break up a white supremacist prison gang. here's abc's brandi hitt. ♪ >> reporter: in a somber moment at the funeral for tom clements, the wife of colorado's prison chief described the moment he was killed. >> last tuesday night tom and i were watching tv, and our doorbell rang, and my life was forever changed. >> reporter: clements was gunned down answering the door, and detectives now say ballistic evidence ties the murder to suspect evan ebel, who was killed in a shootout with texas police two days later. >> the casings that were found at the scene in texas, as well as the casings that were found at this scene, match. >> reporter: ebel was a member of the white supremacist prison gang, the 211 crew, and abc news has learned that before clements was killed, he thought the gang was getting too strong and tried to break it

first of all, that debate should happen in congress, and there is a federal election commission that's all about revealing transparency in political donors and the whole political finance realm, so i think that's the better place for this. >> host: todd shields, we have time for one or two more questions. >> another authority question which was a long-ago battle, the net neutrality issue in which the fcc has issued rules claiming to insure that big companies don't interfere with my web content on the way into my house. that's been challenged in court. what happens if the court overturns the fcc, what happens if the court agree withs with it? >> guest: excellent question. the shortest day of the year, 2010 -- >> the darkest day. >> guest: you remember my statement. yes. [laughter] the darkest day for the fcc in 2010. so the idea that internet service providers would in an anti-competitive way interfere with consumers' internet traffic was at the heart of this. i argue that, first of all, there was no market study, and there was no problem to be solved. second of all, the fcc did not hav

you have to balance that against what is the right forum -- the federal election commission or federal communications commission? * the and forces of komodo -- are broadcasters the enforcers of political campaigns? are a lot of her to get formed in contact of elections. newman to, and close to old media, a lot of different places. we need to be careful to balance. >> there is no balance here. it says, requires on air identification of the sponsors of advertisements. does that mean you are a no? >> there are fec rules and sec rules regarding these things. fast talking at the end of ads covers a lot of that. >> we just came through more than $1 billion, probably 2,000,000,000-3,000,000,000 of undisclosed sources. this is not a matter of, this is not an issue in front of the public. it is here, right now. what about you? >> i would look forward to working with you if there is anything that we have or have not done, or that you identify as deficient. we moved a long way in moving the information with stations that were previously keeping on premises to the airwaves. it made the opportunity

the federal election commission is accusing craig of misusing some $217,000 in campaign funds.he money on the legal defense after he was arrested during the 2007 airport bathroom sex sting. those are just a few of the things we thought you should know. ♪ you know my heart burns for you... ♪ i'm up next, but now i'm singing the heartburn blues. hold on, prilosec isn't for fast relief. cue up alka-seltzer. it stops heartburn fast. ♪ oh what a relief it is! a regular guy with an irregular heartbeat. the usual, bob? not today. [ male announcer ] bob has afib: atrial fibrillation not caused by a heart valve problem, a condition that puts him at greater risk for a stroke. [ gps ] turn left. i don't think so. [ male announcer ] for years, bob took warfarin, and made a monthly trip to the clinic to get his blood tested. but not anymore. bob's doctor recommended a different option: once-a-day xarelto®. xarelto® is the first and only once-a-day prescription blood thinner for patients with afib not caused by a heart valve problem, that doesn't require routine blood monitoring. like warfar

know, she's not only in potential violations of the ethics rules of the house but also of federal election commissionif she has done any of what they've alleged, she's in a lot of trouble. the irony of this, rev, is that one of her spokesman has said that she is the subject of, you know, a democratic attack. by the dccc and democratic packs. that's not the case. the whistle blower here is one of her former staffers. >> besides the politics of this, she flunked real bad at cpac. let me put it this way. the daily beast reports, carolyn, that it's been time for bachmann since she quit her presidential campaign. they list the tea party caucus she's helped found is now dormant. she's seen a 46% annual staff turnover rate. and politofact has called her statements out right lies and pants on fire than any other politicians. it seems like despite whatever these allegations are, whether they be true or not, politically it's like turned upsidedown for her. >> i would very much agree with you. i think an fac information, congressional ethics investigation and lawsuit from a former staffer are really hurting her

her national field coordinator for the 2012 campaign filed a complaint with the federal election commissionat a consultant on her presidential campaign was paid with money from her independent pac, a violation. bachmann's lawyers responded today with a lawyerly statement. there are no allegations that the congresswoman engaged in any wrongdoing. oh, yes, there are. we are constitutionally engaged with the office of congressional ethics and confident that at the end of their review the oce board will conclude that congresswoman bachmann did not do anything inappropriate. joining me now, ann a marie cox and sam stein. you join us from minnesota. how has this rocked the state that michele bachmann may have dipped into the wrong fund to pay for someone in her presidential campaign? >> well, it made her -- it gave her a head line, which she hadn't had since earlier in the month when she made announcement about funding for roads in her district, which is really what she would rather talk about right now. you know, she actually is in more trouble in her district than she has been before. almost lo

same time we need a balance that against what is the right forum it should that be the federal election commission or the federal communications commission? should broadcasters and having the enforcers of political campaigns and these other groups that are formed quickly put the burden only on them. i think there are a lot of equities here as well. there's a lot of groups that get informed in this context of elections and public issues and. so where did all the burden go? the money flows to new media, close to old media, to a lot of different places in old media not just broadcast licensees. so need to be careful to balance. >> there's no balance here. it says requires on air identification of the sponsors of advertisement. so does that mean you are a no? >> there are already both fcc rules and fcc rules regarding these sorts of things. so all the mouse print and the quick fast talk at the end of ads cover all of that. >> we just came to more than a billion dollars, probably two to $3 billion of outside ads from these undisclosed sources. so this is not a matter of, it's not an issue in front of t

it is perfectly appropriate according to the federal elections commission to hire a spouse, a daughterand in law, to work on your campaign, as long as they are doing bona fide work, and they are earning fair market value. the federal election commission affirmed this more than one decade ago at the request of jesse jackson junior. so, we have seen examples over the years, during an election, of relatives doing work. accounting, recordkeeping filing paperwork with the federal election commission. ost: with the numbers you have been able to track, our legislators getting a deal? do they pay them fair market rate, on the cheap, fair market amount? guest: it is hard to tell because there is not an independent body determining this. numbers of congress designed -- decide for themselves. we found wide varieties. we found six people that were paying more than six figures to relatives over the course of the two year election cycle. one of the biggest spenders was illinois representative bobby ush whose wife earned $147,000 during the 2012 election cycle, about one quarter of the money that he

i am really concerned about a post-citizens united system with the a federal election commission that's completely out of control and with other agencies unable to do anything about it. and a lot of money coming in in ways that intimidate political actors and tilt the policy process in a very bad way n a way that will only enhance inequality. and if you look at this one example from north carolina where you had a group of agricultural interests who wanted to influence the legislature on an ag bill, and they compared a bunch of model commercials that would destroy members of the legislature. put them on the ipad, wenten in to see them, and it had nothing to do with agriculture. it basically defined them as, you know, child-molesting aliens out to destroy the fabric of america and showed them the commercials and said, you know, if we don't get what we want, millions of dollars could be spent on commercials just like this. and they got what they wanted and didn't have to spend any money. and the idea this is not corrupting, anthony kennedy lives on a different planet in a different univers

why isn't the president talking about fixing the federal election commission, which is broken and doesn't politics. and how about the federal communications commission. much of the 6 or 7 billion dollars that was spent in the last presidential campaign was spent on television and radio ads. why not open up those airways and give free time to those candidates who are seeking the presidency, so that the amount of money is decreased. we think organizing for action simply is moving in the wrong direction. we called on the president to replace it, to end it, and if he goes back to rethinking its structure, base it on average, ordinary voters and citizens. he has enough, many millions of followers and donors. >> yeah. >> and use those small donors, not the wealthy. >> it's interesting, bob, some of the things you're suggesting there sound like some of the things that candidate obama himself believed in and touted back in 2008 when he was running for president. one of the things he talked about was that he would not allow white house access to lobbyists, that the white house was not going to be

the campaign has been the subject of a lawsuit and an investigation by the federal election commissiontion reform passed. an agreement is within sight. a group of eight bipartisan senators, closing in on finishing a draft agreement which could put about 11 million illegal immigrants on the path to citizenship. the president applauded the congressional effort so far but pressed those lawmakers to get a move on. >> immigration makes us stronger. it keeps us vibrant. it keeps us hungry, it keeps us prosperous. it is part of what makes this such a dynamic country. after avoiding the problem for years, the time has come to fix it once and for all. the time has come for a comprehensive, sensible immigration reform. >> president obama apparently isn't the only high-powered leader pushing for change. facebook founder mark zuckerberg is forming a new issues advocacy group to promote immigration reform and education. >>> spring has clearly not sprung in much of the country thanks to chilly temperatures and records of unseasonable snowfall. a foot or more of snow buried a huge chunk of the northe

also says that there can be state-specific requirements that are approved by the federal election assistance commission. arizona's special requirement here was not approved by the commission, and a federal appellate court agreed with the commission that it conflicted with federal law. that's what we call running afoul... the result of that is that federal law rules and state law is preempted. >> ifill: the last time you were here talking about the voting rights act section 5 challenge, one of the things that seemed to come up in court that day was a dispute between justices scalia and sotomayer. did we see any of that play out again today? >> there is... justice scalia has a long-running disdain for legislative history. at one poin argument during the argument, justice sotomayer said he would refer to the legislative history of the federal law which indicates that congress considered a proof of citizenship requirement and rejected it. she said they pre-faced her question by saying that there are those who do not agree or believe in legislative history. at that point justice scalia raised his hand. that

comes to the campaigns and nepotism, puerto rico rules of the federal election commission.t can only be paid a certain amount. pay somebody 10 times the going rate. we have seen cases of that. we get on land project -- online memberswhere spouses of receive contributions because they were working on the reelection of the member. is the sharing of information with the department of justice? death-bang there is sharing of information. there is sharing of information. they can hire their own expert, their own counsel. they do not work that closely with justice. it is a co-equal branch of government. the house and senate make up their own rules for the conduct of members. there is sometimes a separation of powers question. for the founders, the steer was you have a tyrannical executive using the police -- the fear was you would have a tyrannical executive using the police power against the other branches. the phone and our discussion with bill allison from the sunlight foundation. nextrom texas and our caller. caller: what are their rules of evidence for the committees? do they

the federal election commission filed a brief, the justice department, the government on why the justicedepartment filed a brief, and there was a solicitor general's brief. and i always thought as solicitor general that was a crazy thing to do. and i promised the justice in the supreme court as long as i'm solicitor general you're only going get one brief on behalf of the government. it gets in to that sort of thing when there's a dispute within the government whether or not some laws is constitutional or not. and i guess we're spending at love time on standing. it's for geeks like us, you know, it's fascinating stuff. it will be fascinating to the justices. it will be very interesting. >> let me add one point to justify the amount of time we spend on it. i think it's critical to the role of courts. in my view berry v. madisonen stands for proposition the court has the authority out of all the institution, the state within the president, the congress. the court have a authority to make a definitive resolution. for one reason only. they have a job do. it's resolving disputes between litig

a former stamp peter waldren, has come forward and filed a complaint with the federal election commissionomething with the office of congressional ethics. it's clear there is wrongdoing involved. the only question and i think what the oce is looking at is what did michelle bachman know? the thing about michelle bachman, if her lips are moving she is lying. so it's so it's really hard to judge her it credibility. so i think there is more that remains to be seen. >> this is the investigation t she is also involved in some lawsuit out in iowa and staffers didn't get. >> there is a lot of stuff that went on, financial proprieties alleged, a bunch of staffers who say they were supposed to be volunteered not being paid and somebody else was being paid and there were a lot of payments made scrawled through some kind of shell corporation there are lots of questions about the finances. >> if the office of congressional ethics finds that they believe that she -- she or someone in the campaign -- broke the law then what happens? >> the office of congressional ethics will only be concerned whether mi

should that be the federal election commission or the federal communications commission? should broadcasters end up being the enforcers of political campaigns and these other groups that are formed? should we put the burden only on them? i think there are a lot of equities to balance here as well. there are a lot of groups that get formed in this context of elections and public issues ads. so where should all the burden go? the money flows to new media, old media, a lot of different places. old media, not just broadcast licenses. so we need to be careful to balance. >> there's no balance here. it says requires on-air identification of the sponsors of advertisements. so does that mean you're a no? >> there are already both f.c.c. rules and f.e.c. rules regarding these sorts of things. so all the mouse print and the quick fast talking at the end of ads covers a lot of them. >> we just came through more than $1 billion, probably $2 billion to $3 billion of outside ads from these undisclosed sources. so this is not a matter of -- it's not an issue in front of the public, it's

the federal election commission filed a brief, the justice, the government by the justice department filed a brief, and it was a solicitor general's brief. and i always thought as solicitor general that was a pretty crazy thing to do, and i promised the justices of the supreme court as long as i am solicitor general you are only going to get one brief on behalf of the government. but this gets into that sort of thing when there's dispute within the government whether or not some law is constitutional or not. i guess we're spending an awful lot of time understanding but it's for geeks like us, it's really fascinating stuff. and it will be fascinating to the justices. >> let me add one point, just to justify the amount of time we spend on a. i think is critical to the role of the court, because in my view, marbury v. madison stands for the proposition that the court has the authority out of all the institutions to say, the president, the congress, the courts have the authority to make a definitive resolution of a lot of the constitution. for one reason only. they have a job to do. that

they are always fund raising and reporting to the federal election commission. the family members tend to work on the campaigns and work year- round on the campaigns. , i haveedreka schouten seen members have spouses in the office helping with clerical work. is that allowed? how careful do they have to be to keep things separate? guest: that is an interesting question. a lot of spouses volunteer. some are paid because they are grandfathered in. they used to say this or relatives on the official payroll. but if you already had a relative who was working for you, they could continue to do so. so you do see some examples on the hill. while there was a long description in the rules that relatives can it work for you and it lists sisters, it did not list grandchildren. we had a case of maxine waters, who is the democrat from california, longtime chief of staff, her grandson. host: we're talking with , relativeshouten kept on campaign payrolls. republican, you are up next. inler: i just wanted to say my opinion, i don't think that there ought to be a law banning relat

constitutional responsibility in terms of making sure that federal elections are conducted inappropriate way. there is a new bipartisan commission on voting led by top lawyers that are looking at this. in my view, access is not a partisan issue, it is the foundation of our republic, and i would urge support for this modest, deficit neutral effort to ensure there are resources to take a serious look at incentivizing states voluntarily to deal with are voting issues in the last election. >> center stagliano has been asked to be added as a co- sponsor. is there further debate echo >> i have a question for the author of the amendment. it the way this is -- i see talking points but my question is -- the use of the neutral reserve fund creates certainly the possibility that there could be a new and additional tax increase to pay for some spending that would arise from the gold. is that your understanding echo but my intention was that this would be offset not for revenue increase. >> but it does not require that. tax increase would be one way to make revenue neutral. >> that would not be something i would do but it would be technicall

constitutional responsibility in terms of making sure that federal elections are conducted inappropriate way. there is a new bipartisan commission on voting led by top lawyers that are looking at this. in my view, access is not a partisan issue, it is the foundation of our republic, and i would urge support for this modest, deficit neutral effort to ensure there are resources to take a serious look at incentivizing states voluntarily to deal with are voting issues in the last election. >> center stagliano has been asked to be added as a co- sponsor. is there further debate echo >> i have a question for the author of the amendment. it the way this is -- i see some talking points but my question is -- the use of the deficit neutral reserve fund creates certainly the possibility that there could be a new and additional tax increase to pay for some spending that would arise from the gold. is that your understanding echo but my intention was that this would be offset not for revenue increase. >> but it does not require that. tax increase would be one way to make revenue neutral. >> that would not be something i would do but it would