. >> moyers: well, elena kagan, the solicitor general of the united states, filed a brief on the other side of this issue. she'll argue that when a corporate executive decides to spend corporate money on a campaign or an ad, that, in fact, he's violating the rights of the shareholders and the employees because he doesn't know that they support that particular position. >> well, look, if a corporation goes off half-cocked and starts endorsing candidates and it doesn't really have anything to do with the good of the corporation, believe me, we'll have lawyers in there. we'll have lawsuits. there are all sorts of ways to protect shareholders without limiting speech. and what we usually do, and what i think we should always do, is to try to find ways to avoid these problems without cutting out speech. so if corporations are too big or too powerful, deal with that. don't deal with their speech. and that is the general way we've developed first amendment law in this country is not to go after speech, but to go after the underlying problems when we choose to do so. >> moyers: but even if ther

chief justice john roberts suggestefrom the bench, are how solid are ome precedents when gener alaina kagan in representing the govnment in defending these regulations, said, ese go backfor 100 years. for 100 years, congressas been ncerned about corporatewealth in t elections and the corruptive ffect. we haven'tanctioned those for 100 years. and thisplay not be vald. >> isjustice kennedy goi to the swing judge? >> thas a good qustion. in almost every cas, it is kennedy, the swinvote. not here, just as he has consistentlyeen against vernment regulation in this areahe's very much in favo of broad politicalree speech rights. in fact, in a key 199 case that is probly going toe undercut if not complete overturned, he disented. the majority. arguments was at they are looking for way to roll some of it back in. >>nd youknow hat we're often surprised when wfinally get a ruling >> thats why we' there. and we're waiting it. ank you, joan. >> today iof course the eighth anniversary the 9/11 attacks. anniversy of the events tha sparked wars i afghanistannd iraq iraq. eight years of heigened secuty at h

what chf justice joh roberts uggested from the bench, are how lid are somepreceden when genral alaina kagan n representing the goverent in defending these egulations, said, the go back for 100 ears. for 100 yers, congress h been coerned about corporate alth in thelections and te corruptive efect. we haven't sctioned those or 100years. and this lay not be valid. >> is ustice knnedy going to behe swing judge? >> that'a good quetion. in almos every case, it is kennedy, the swing ote. t here, just as he has consistently bn against gornment regulation in this area, 's very much in favor of broad political fe speech rights. fact, in a ke 1990case that is probab going to b undercut if not completely oveturned, he disnted. the majority. arguments was th they are looking for ways to rollsome of it back in. >> a you know that we're often surprised when we nally get a ruling. >> that's why we'rethere. and we're waiting ont. thk you, joan. >> today is course the ighth anniversary ofhe 9/11 ttacks. anniversarof the events that sparked wars in afghanistan and iraq iraq. ght years of heighted securi at ho

thetwo reons offered by solicitor neral kagan-- and chief justice rorts got her to cncede this-- haveever been accepted by the courtf justifition forestricting rporate spending. >> ill: by conceding that, es she also concede e's in kind of a poorposition? >> no, s doesn't, becau she comes back and ss the situation today is not what was in 1990, and the terests that the government is offerinow were shown to be justified by congress whenit enacted the mccain-feingold actn 2002. the congre found, and justice breyer pointedhis ou that people believe that their representates cobought. an as justice breyer said isn't that a sufficient government intert to justify thisan? >> lehrer: o course we're al watching-- in our case stening to orlistening for-- justice somayor, the muest mber of the court, whoumps right into t argume today, and is-- soundea lot like on defining whether thiwas a constitutial issue or something congress cou hand. let's take a listen to jud sotomayor. >> mr. olson, are u givi up on your earlier argumes that there are ways to avoid the constitional queson to resolvthis ca

justice john roberts suggested from the bench, are how solid are some precedents when general alaina kagan in representing the government in defending these regulations, said, these go back for 100 years. for 100 years, congress has been concerned about corporate wealth in the elections and the corruptive effect. we haven't sanctioned those for 100 years. and this play not be valid. >> is justice kennedy going to be the swing judge? >> that's a good question. in almost every case, it is kennedy, the swing vote. not here, just as he has consistently been against government regulation in this area, he's very much in favor of broad political free speech rights. in fact, in a key 1990 case that is probably going to be undercut if not completely overturned, he dissented. the majority. arguments was that they are looking for ways to roll some of it back in. >> and you know that we're often surprised when we finally get a ruling. >> that's why we're there. and we're waiting on it. thank you, joan. >> today is of course the eighth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. anniversary of the events that spa

and there was elena kagan.a little bit about -- insofar as you can without disclosing confidence -- about the influence justice marshall has had on you, your career, and your life. he was a man who almost terrorist the notion -- he almost a cherished the notion, the oh, shucks, and then he would come out of left field with something incredibly incisive. >> i will tell you something about what justice marshall means to me by telling you this story. there's a tradition at the justice department -- i am looking at ray fisher and he knows this story very well. when you come into the office, you are given a list of portraits of former attorneys general. you can't pick which portraits you want on your ball. there's a hierarchy. -- you can take which portraits you want on your wall. the attorney general goes first. then the deputy attorney general goes next. i'm not even third. i'm for three of the associate attorney general, and then the solicitor general. by the time the attorney general and the deputy and the assoc

elena kagan try to make that point.corporations, youon't walk the street and bump into a corporation are talk to a corporation on the street. it is aegal entity and its job is to make mey. and ordinary variety has and friday of interest. justice scalia's view is a corporion is just a group of people, an association of people in plus there are a lot of small corporations. scalia kept saying three or four times e local hairdresser could be incorporated. do we really want to keep those people out of politic thenswer is no, but they can give money as individuals. i don't know whether they are going to try to define a corporation but they are gohng to define the first amendment rights of the corporation. the first of amendment says congress shall make no law restricting freedom of speech. ted tilson basicallyaid no law means no law. this lot is restricting freedom of speech of corporations and you should strike down. >> host: alabama you are up next. >> caller: how are you doing. i was calling to ask, i believe in freedom my

. >> -- kagan. >> i have three points to make up the government position. for over 100 years, congress has made the judgment that corporations must be subject to special rules when they participate in elections, and this court -- >> we never approved or rejected it. we gave interpretations to the act to avoid confronting the question. >> for 100 years, this court faced many opportunities to do so. left standing, the legislation is an issue in this case. first the contribution limits, then those that came by way of taft-hartley, and then in austin specifically approving these limits. >> i do not understand what you're saying. we're a solid starting institution come here. we only disapprove of something when somebody asks us to. there is no occasion for us to approve or disapprove. >> you are not assault started institution. but many cases are brought to you from 1907 onwards, and in each case, the cake -- the court declined the opportunity to invalidate or otherwise interfere with legislation. >> but that judgment was validated by buckley's contribution expe

that's because kagan, a medical doctor, turned down the health insurance options offered by congress.>> and refused coverage for himself. >> i tell you what. i respectfully decline. until you can make that same offer to everyone that i have the honor of representing, i don't think it's fair. >> reporter: while his surgery personally cost him thousands of dollars, kagen said he paid nothing for the extensive rehab he needed. that was provided by the u.s. government. in fact, kagen and his fellow members of congress, receive some of the best health care in the country, without even using insurance. all at a capitol, at a rare-known, clinic. >> they have a small pharmacy. they have physicians and nurses who will see you on the spot, at the beck and call. and they have physical therapy available, which i took advantage of when i had any knee surgery. >> reporter: and i assume the members of congress pays for this? >> it's a, quote, benefit of being a member of congress. >> reporter: how much of a benefit? for a $503 yearly fee, members of congress have access to almost all of the care the

>> i'm not going to predict solicitor general kagan. it may well have been influenced in.t know the answer to that, protecting the supreme court is something that i lead to other people to do or why do i think it is a red herring? in the 62 year history of is provision, i know of no example where it has been enforced against the book. leaving out the fact that books are not involved in this case. the campaign-finance rules have a broad exemption for commercial activities, which means the whole book publishing world is exempt from the campaign-finance laws if they are involved in campaign practices. , and commercial practices. i do not believe that a 500 page book wh a single stence of express advocacy is covered by this provision, or would be treated as covered by this provision. and i know the assistant solicitor general said, but i don't agree with that position and i just think it is unrelated to the specifics of this case. >> larry, you don't think it is a red herring, to use the? not in the repeated questioning an oral argument between the supreme court says explicitl

later, on at "america and the courts,"elena kagan and how she prepares on arguing cases in the supreme court. >> tomorrow on "washington journal," kevin baker and stephen moore on the obama presidency and the latest news of the week. then james lynch on a recent fbi report on crime and the u.s. after that, and author on his book, what americans really want, really, which examines public opinion and what people really want from their lives. also, e-mail and phone call. "washington journal," live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. earlier this week, a portrait of former -- a portrait of trent lott was unveiled at the u.s. capitol. he gave remarks and was joined by former president bill clinton, senate majority leader harry reid, and former speaker newt air bridge. -- newt gingrich. >> i welcome everyone to the u.s. senate. mr. clinton, it is good to see you again. gingrich, welcome senator lott and a lot family -- and the lott family. >> i really miss having trent in the senate. of course, i would miss him a lot more if he had stayed a democrat. when this son of a shipyard worker and a scho

host: we have a clip of elena kagan. let's listen to that. >> we are suspicious of congressional action in the first amendment area precisely because -- i felt that one can expect a body of doubt that we can expect a body of incumbents to draw election restrictions that do not favor incumbents. is that excessively cynical of me? i do not think so. >> i think justice scalia, it is wrong. in fact corporate money goes overwhelmingly to incumbents. if you look at the last election cycle and corporate back money, it goes 10 times more to incumbents than to challengers. in the prior cycle even more than that. for an obvious reason. when they play in the political process they want winners, people who will produce outcomes for them. they know the way to get those is to invest in incumbents. in double-digits more than they invest in challengers. the rationale which is undoubtedly true in many contexts is simply not the case -- host: 0 was a light in the room watching her with her first oral argument? guest: i thought she was ver

host: we have a clip of kagan. >> this has a self interest. we are suspicious of congressional action in the first amendment area precisely because -- at least in as i doubt that we can expect a body of incumbents to draw election restrictions that do not favor incumbents. is that excessively cynical of me? i do not think so. >> i think justice scalia, it is wrong. in fact corporate money goes overwhelmingly to incumbents. if you look at the last election cycle and corporate back money, it goes 10 times more to incumbents than to challengers. in the prior cycle even more than that. for an obvious reason. when they play in the political process they want winners, people who will produce outcomes for them. they know the way to get those is to invest in incumbents. in double-digits more than they invest in challengers. the rationale which is undoubtedly true in many contexts is simply not the case -- host: 0 was a light in the room watching her with her first oral argument? guest: i thought she was very impressive, very good for any argument, par

saturday, elena kagan on her work as u.s. solicitor general. she spoke about how she prepares for arguing cases before the supreme court. and her thoughts on whether or not cameras should be allowed in the courtroom. that is tomorrow at 7:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> in 1971, as a "new york times" reporter, he intended top-secret pentagon papers. 18 years later, still writing about the vietnam war, he won the pulitzer prize for his book. this weekend, he will discuss his latest book, "a fiery peace in a cold war" on the nuclear arms race. that is sunday night on c-span. >> next month, take a rare visit and said the supreme court as we talk to the justices about the role, traditions, and a history of the court. >> he said he would not come in here. the reason justice brandeis when not come is he said this building is so elaborate it would go to their heads. maybe he was right. but it has become, over time, a symbol of the court system, the third branch of government, and the need for stability, rule of law, which is what america stands for. >>

solicitor general kagan talks about her work, her preparation for cases and her thoughts on cameras inst lady michelle obama joins the health care debate, calling for the passage of a bill this year. we will also hear from health secretary kathleen sebelius and the event includes three william -- women talking about their health care experiences. it's about 50 minutes. >> good morning. all right, you guys are in the right mood. that's the mood we want today. all right. please be seated. good morning from the white house to all of you who are here and all of you who are watching us live streamed on white house.gov slash live. so any of who are twittering, please do. we are web streaming this live. my name is tina chen. in addition to being the director of the office of public engagement i am very proud fob the executive director of the white house council on women and girls and on behalf of the council i really want to welcome you and thank you for coming to this event about heal reform and women. we're here to talk about the importance of health reform to women and their families becau

ose words of alena kagan, then de of harvard law, now solicitor general of the united states, really by the extraordinary record of he has taught and written about many subjects including particularly regulation, the management of risk and, in fact, oira, itself. mr. president, our committee conducted a thorough review of pressor sunein's writings and his background. he's met individually with me, with senator collins, our ranking member and most mther members of the committee. we held a confirmation hearing on this nomination on may 12th of this year, at which the members of our committee thoroughly questioned professor sunstein aboutis views on several important matters, and i believe he responded directly, sincerely, and addressed each of the members' concerns. for example, i wanted to be sure for a rigorous implementation of a cost-benefit analysis to regulations did not mean that oira under his leadership would interfere with t agencies issuing regulations necessary to protect public health and safety. and professor sunstein convinced me in his answer that he would diligently su

. >> stephanie kagan, wmau. i just want to understand the independence of the report since many of these things have to do with detection a treatment and advamed is a diagnostics and the statistics that you put out. >> yeah, let them put that out. we pride ourselves on conducting our studies according to peer-reviewed standards and we do intend to submit the report for publication. i think our methodology is well documented in the report itself. and certainly any aspect of healthcare reform and health policy, you can pic out a portion of it and say this is particular interest of treatment and advamed is people who invest in medical technology and so we certainly do address the benefits of treatmejt. we also speak very much to prevention, which in the case of obesity, for example, i behavioral and does not involve devices. we pointed out that substance abuse is one of the most devastating issues, substance abuse and mental health in terms of productivity. and he the treatment i primarily pharmaceutical rather tha

senators pursued five filibusters involving executive branch nominations including the nomination of lena kagan, harold kohl, and cass sunstein. it was a bad sign in march that every republican senator signed a letter to president obama threatening filibusters of his judicial nominees before any were even nominated. now, come on, we're supposed to be the conscience of the nation. we're supposed to be the conscience of the nation in the senate. we don't like a particular nominee, vote against him or her. but these are nominees that are probably going to pass unanimously. it's a good sign already this year republican senators threatened to filibuster the deputy attorney general, pursued five filibusters for hagan, kohl and cass sunstein. you know, this is the kind of thing that brought about public criticisms of their actions during -- by a republican chief justice, william rehnquist, when they did that back when they pocket filibustered some 60 of president clinton's nominees. so let's get together, let's work. we have people who are going, if they're allowed to come to a vote, will get nearly a