you know, i think that, you know, we've tried to get money out of politics through the whole mccain/feingold thing. to me, the big question is, how do you revive that? ultimately, the supreme court is the one that knocked that down, okay? and so, there's a comment that a judge made during the height of the subprime crisis that i really liked, he was talking about what happened to our financial industry. he said, we went from an industry that was really designed to finance creative destruction. new industries replacing old industries and it's ended up, basically, doing destructive creation. and that's really, i think, the change that people feel over the last few years.

and i think the quarters have, with vallejo and buckley and with mccain/feingold, had come to -- up until the recent supreme court decision -- had come to the point where a certain amount of distribution is fine. i'm just a realist. >> congressman, but when you talk about expenditures, i'm just curious, how do you rationalize what a congressman needs to spend to get elected in new york city, for example, and what they would have to spend if they wanted to get their message out versus, let's say, south dakota, where the media market is not nearly as competitive. how do you determine what's the proper amount? >> that's something that congress could easily do. we represent all 50 states in the territories. we would have to come to that balance. i have a little trouble understanding that $250,000 is middle income back east. from where we are, that's a very rich person. but we come to some kind of accommodation at the end of the day. and i also point out, in the urban areas, you don't need to reach as great a territory. i think it balances out over the long haul. i studied this in the state le

we've got mccain/feingold and all the constitutional questions that deal with that, but i think somethingst flat out says, look, you know, we want elected officials to fully represent the people so that the people who support them, not these special interests that get carved out with 527s and the like. i think it's a noble effort. it will be very interesting to see how people respond to that once this thing gets witled dhi down to one or two. i think it will be very interesting. >> it's interesting, because obviously the rate of growth right now is very high. i am personally curious if we get into the millions of signatures, which i do think is possible, not only the sitting president obama but any potential contender might respond. i think we'll probably all get to learn that together. >> if i could just make one point on that, and that's this. remember, then candidate obama was adamant about going on the public dole, if you will, with respect to campaign financing, until his advisers and his accountants came in and said, you know, you're raising about half a million a day here, so, you

the last primary i was weighing which was worse romney care or mccain-feingold. rged mccain fooil fine gold was the worse. mccain is not a factor this primary. but romney his record is what i have a problem with. he's not a conservative. he's not a conservative candidate. i really do appreciate the people who try to insist he is. look at his record governor of massachusetts, 47th out of 50 states with job creation. it's still a socialist health care plan at the state level. socialism at any level is socialism. he tries to use federalism. as a way to excuse it. >> let's stick up for him a little bit, bring in herman cain's nephew, will cain, that's my uncle and job, i didn't know that. >> will cain is not his nephew but he is a cnn contributor. herman cain is giving mitt romney a run for his money but mitt romney is still most republicans' choice for the most part. >> dana is not alone in her feelings about mitt romney, there's a complete lack of enthusiasm. you can see it in the polls. while rick perry and michele bachmann have rise and falls, 7% to 20% and back t

out leaflets and everything else for this guy -- >> chris, chris, john mccain, the author of mccain/feingoldon the nomination for the gop last time. a lot more doubts, especially among professional republicans, toward john mccain than there are towards mitt romney. >> a war hero. >> if they can come -- >> he was a war hero. he spent several years in hanoi hilton. he did something for his country. >> which helped with the grassroots, overcoming his sort of maverick tendencies. but among professional conservatives, i think there's a lot more doubt about mccain than there is romney. how did mccain fix his problem? he put somebody on the ticket who prompted a lot of enthusiasm from the grassroots. i think you'll see romney tend to make a similar move. >> just to move quickly, it's not my plan here, but do you think chris christie was auditioning for vp today? i think he was. >> i loved his line about how the presidential nominee would need a food tester if he were the vp. but he very plainly wasn't ruling it out. >> don't you agree? >> absolutely. >> you get it without campaigning, pick it up th

although i have to tell you, dylan, i was such a good fund-raiser in politics that when i endorsed mccain/feingold, the "philadelphia daily news" said, having ed rendell an endorse an end toll wild campaign spending is like having ali baba endorse an end to thievery. >> they tell me i'm the same thing as lightning hits and an asteroid hits. >> they should do this with and they should begin political organizing to take anyone who's voted to increase that income disparity, whose voted against shortening that income disparity, try to get them out of office in 2012, whether you're democrats or republicans. >> one other thing that i started a conversation with myself and the 205,000 partners that we now have on the petition and we know we need to make the wave massive, we know we have until next year and everyone gets that. you can see it's happening, 100, 200, 200 will go 400, 400, 800. and as long as we maintain our focus which we are doing and have all the necessary thresholds in place to maintain and develop, i believe that's achievable. but one other thing we talked about this morning was taking t

it's what they continue to the use to strike down mccain/feingold.nder your amendment, here's my question for you, would a self-funder be able to give money to his or her own campaign? here's an example of a self-funder. david koch. >> yes, the answer is yes. but to follow-up on that, i mean, i agree with you completely that money should not equal speech. in fact, the buckley vallejo decision that opened the floodgates for that is wrong as well. and the focus needs to be on all of these concerns. the fact is that the central issue facing america today is whether the promise of we the people will be upheld or whether we will allow corporations, artificial entities that we create, to effectively dominate our government and our politics. and big money needs to come out of politics too, absolutely. at the same time, we've got to take on this whole false notion, this fabricated doctrine of corporate rights and restore the constitution to the people. >> what is your assessment of the intention of jimmy's language, which i consider ncaa rules, that says i'm

you know, i think that, you know, we've tried to get money out of politics through the whole mccain/feingold thing. to me, the big question is, how do you revive that? ultimately, the supreme court is the one that knocked that down, okay? and so, there's a comment that a judge made during the height of the subprime crisis that i really liked, he was talking about what happened to our financial industry. he said, we went from an industry that was really designed to finance creative destruction. new industries replacing old industries and it's ended up, basically, doing destructive creation. and that's really, i think, the change that people feel over the last few years. >> but isn't that indicative of a larger trend that's going on? we have corporations where ceos essentially have a cottage industry, where their interests are not necessarily aligned with the long-term health of the corporations. >> or the country. >> down to the workers and the rest -- isn't this problem broader than just the financial industry? isn't that simply sort of the canary -- >> i think one of the things that happene

i thought we passed mccain/feingold, and that was going to make things cleaner in washington. >> it'st to dampen down the sources, which makes it more and more ferocious to try to figure ways around the problem. so so long as you're trying to restrict the money that goes in in a world where people are more and more competitive and need to raise more money and spend more money, you're not going to solve the problem. >> what's the answer? >> you've got to find a way to fund the elections that don't make the funders a tiny selection that decide how the system works. so you've got to have small-dollar contributions get amplified in a way that make it possible for candidates to run successful campaigns. >> i'm glad you brought up arizona. arizona has some of the toughest campaign finance laws. i had a friend matt salomon who ran for governor in 2002, and he was raising it $500 at a time, it was very tough. and the last week of the campaign, a multimillionaire came in and put up $3 million, $4 million in independent expenditures and washed matt away like janet napolitano. >> as long as they

>> well, there is a reason we have them, and that is because of mccain-feingold and every previous attempt to change the campaign laws, because what we ought to do is have unlimited contributions to both parties and let them report them on that day. haley barbour gave the so much money, and i do not like him, so i am going to vote against whoever he gave money to, well, you know it. but what we have done, what congress has done, they have pushed the party is away from the campaigns and candidates, so in some, outside groups spend more money than the campaign spent, and there are literally campaigns where outside groups spend more money campaigning because the campaign in some states is allowed to take contributions of no more than $500. i mean, what we ought to do is have unlimited contributions to the party is and then let the parties do this, and there is a far, far smaller chance of something being up and some group that comes and goes, but it also gives the public what the public wants and needs, disclosure. thoreau, immediate disclosure, and let the public decide. george sorus give so

when the mccain-feingold law passed, all the sudden new group a political action campaign -- committees sprung up. he gave in and banished to democrats. republicans wanted to reform 527 democrats said, not so fast. now after citizens united, democrats say that this is terrible and republicans say, not so fast. they will act in their own behalf to advance their own caucuses. and you see this across the country, whether voter idea laws, absentee ballot laws, where you stand is where you sit and see your partisan advantage. if you pull the mascot a lone ranger here, parties tend to favor policies that work to their own bandages. host: another tweet. redistricting is giving more votes with less population. guest: registered voters are not always voting with the population. host: what about proportional electoral votes? guest: the difficulty in the constitution is for the house of representatives. it gives them the ability to deal. you put a proportional voting in and it will be the end of that two-party system. once the election is held, you do not have the vote until december, they can dea

my home state of ohio, we're third in the country in mccain-feingold output behind only texas, twiceour size, and california, three times our size. so we know how to make things in this country. we just want a fair playing field. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota is recognized. we are in a quorum call. mr. thune: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with and that i be able to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. so ordered. mr. thune: madam president, i come to the floor today to talk about one of the dirty little secrets around here, and that is the ticking time bomb that is right under our noses and that until recently had been virtually ignored until some recent activity in congress and at the department of health and human sstleses brought the program into the spotlight. that time bomb is the class act. it is a program that was created, a long-term entitlement