the mccain-feingold deprived them of soft money. what mccain-feingold did is it shifted the weight of our campaign finance system away from the national political parties and towards outside groups. this was widely predicted by the critics of the mccain- feingold law. hat we are see is tjha reaping the world with set in motion by mccain-feingold. it is true that the parties are now doing a better job in raising money and there has been an uptick since the last presidential election cycle in absolute terms. in relative terms, the parties are being left in the dust by the outside groups. that has had a dramatic affect on our political system in good ways in bad ways. the positive the effect has been that this is the most competitive, turbulent, vibrant election we have had in this country since thisthe federal like jim -- since before the federal election and the early years of the 20th century. tremendous increase in the competitiveness of this election both in the primaries and now even in the general election. a much greater plural

the mccain-feingold deprived them of soft money. what mccain-feingold did is it shifted the weight of our campaign finance system away from the national political parties and towards outside groups. this was widely predicted by the critics of the mccain- feingold law. wahthat we see is tjhathat we are reaping the world with set in motion by mccain-feingold. it is true that the parties are now doing a better job in raising money and there has been an uptick since the last presidential election cycle in absolute terms. in relative terms, the parties are being left in the dust by the outside groups. that has had a dramatic affect on our political system in good ways in bad ways. the positive the effect has been that this is the most competitive, turbulent vibrant election we have had in this country since thisthe federal like jim -- since before the federal election and the early years of the 20th century. tremendous increase in the competitiveness of this election both in the primaries and now even in the general election. a much grea

did mccain-feingold drive this to the officious complex i don't see. it was long disclosed, you can't do all trend lines will take the argument both phase but was there before the keen feingold. when you do see when you look at the party charts, 2008 was the historical high point the parties then 2008 people raised a lot because they were anticipating mccain-feingold but the parties came right back in 2006. i agree with bob kelner that it's important to be concerned about parties. i agree we ought to think about ways of getting the parties to do more and coordinated spending but that should be done how can that be done in a matter that is consistent with contributions to control the other demonstrated fact of this clause i extortion that did exist in the system. >> somebody on to weigh in on the quid pro quo question. >> it's not just quid pro quo. >> a risk adverse attitude nobody wants to do anything for fear of a super pacs convention down the road. >> i'm sure i'm not the only one that read mcconnell fcc but that's great reading. there are a lot of

just to go back to the notion of mccain-feingold and citizens united it's true that outside spending was happening in 2003 and in 2008 and 2010. but in 2003 when the money was before us and mccann feingold and was flowing through the party it was disclosed then when we saw in 2000 for the 527 group was opposed to the irs so i see it as the dramatic change for the citizens united i did this to interesting questions raised the price simply relax the parties. one is this statement that you make the supreme court said that we are permitted to regulate the nation's on the basis they might invite corruption or the appearance of corruption. i'm not sure that this conservative supreme court would go so far as to say we should end the contribution limit. they might. but maybe not. the second is that disclosure leads to intimidation and harassment, then why aren't parties and candidates being intimidated? if you buy that argument and to get to its logical conclusion then you wouldn't have disclosure candidates and parties either and i think what some people are saying and these out beside group

cit mccain-feingold drive this money to the other system? i don't see it. i think there was not disclosed -- can't draw a trend lines or take it both ways but if you are there before mccain-feingold, what you see when you look at the party bar charts is that 2000 was the historic high point and 2002 was a blitz of people -- anticipating mccain-feingold and parties came back to the 2000 level. came back in 2006. it is important to be concerned -- we ought to think about letting parties do more but i would argue that should be done -- how can that be done with limited contributions to control the other demonstrated fact of this quasi extortion. >> somebody want to weigh in on the quid pro quo questions? >> not just quid pro quo but create a risk averse attitude where nobody wants to do anything and super pac contributions down the road. >> i am not the only one on this panel -- that is great reading. there are a lot of testimonials from former members of congress and politicians, we really think it's thanks. maybe it didn't meet some obvious definition of cor

you know, it's interesting, in 2008, the only person, because of the ruse, because of mccain-feingold, the only person who was really adversely affected by those rules was john mccain. barack obama chose to not participate in the process and therefore, he was able to raise and spend a lot more money than john mccain. if i remember correctly, john mccain was outspent almost 2-1 combined, meaning john mccain, the rnc and prorepublican groups as opposed to barack obama, the dnc, the unions and obviously the democrat groups. so john mccain was the only one who was adversely affected by it. in 2010, you had the reverse. conservatives came forward and really outspent the liberals. you know, it was definitely a -- we beat them. i just don't remember by how much. but this year, i think you're going to have a very close race, and it's going to be close from a monetary standpoint as well. host: let's look at the numbers, campaign 2012, the types of spending that are happening, superpacs, nearly $200 million. the parties, democratic and republican parties, about $32 million. and then other inclu

this basically said you know let's let's reduce the way with the law all of the last vestiges of mccain feingold let's absolutely create a country where. there was tell me forty five they've identified forty five people who account for forty seven percent of all the money that has been spent so far in this election cycle so you get this is this is this is the definition of a banana republic and this is how oligarchy spending doesn't like you've got thirty six families in mexico who basically control eighty percent of the lad house it was there were six major primary realities that i have with the republican party embrace turning america into an oligarchy it's not just the republican party that would embrace turning america into a free republic where you can actually spend your money as you see fit i think an oligarchy is that a republican we have an all gorky as a resort as a result of bipartisanship in the fascism that come from both parties not because of the ideas of liberty we have an oligarchy in this country that we are going to be is where a small number of very wealthy oligarchs basicall

he couldn't say unintended consequences of mccain feingold. >> we shouldn't be subsidizing ethanol. >e are trying to change the pattern. >> governor wesley clark fights for ethanol. >> in 2008 we paid $50 billion to the saudi government for imported oil. >> john: we're still doing it but we're paying you guys a ton. >> the point is the money paid on ethanol stays in the american economy. >> john: it does but at what cost. congress realized that ethanol tax credits were a bad idea but they kept in place rules mandated oil companies use ethanol in gasoline. at least our money stays in the country. >> it makes me feel good. i'm keeping the money in america. >> all these programs are designed to make people feel good. we're going to help the farmers and going to hurt the oil producers with ethanol. we don't look at rising price of milk and excessive fertilizer that were used to produce corn. >> john: food prices are higher because so much goes to ethanol and we consume a lot of corn. corn syrup helps create the meat we eat. steve who raises cat sl mad the feed costs more because ethanol h

events with john mccain where he was on a battle discussion on campaign finance reform, discussing mccain-feingold then when he took off his microphone and left he was going to a $2,500 a plate fundraiser. he said it's not a level playing feel. i have to go dial for dollars. that's exactly what obama has to do if he wants to compete on a level playing field. >> how big a deal is it for obam that that unemployment is over 8%. it's higher than when he took office. >> it's higher than when he took office? >> it's 7.8. >> no president has ever been elected with this high of unemployment rate. i i think he will get elected. i think it goes to show the kind of support he has. i have mixed reviews for the president, but he does have a lot of support. it goes to show you the weak field that the republican party put force. when he was vulnerable with 8% unemployment, no one ever being re-elected with that level of unemployment, to put mitt romney up and to not have a double digit lead at this point is a huge mistake by the republicans. >> what do you think? unemployment still remains a huge mill stone for

first-amendment rights to make films and advertise them, which was a criminal act -- a criminal act under mccain/feingold. this is our first film since the veekt-- >>> that's a great point. it really is. when you are going through the old footage, though. you see the crowds and the select moments that we all remember -- >> it was unbelievable. >> we looked at the crowds. and you look at the catharsis -- crying-- >>> by the way i. the celebrities. >> one reason i got the idea and we heard the focus groups and interviewed people. i asked them to go back to the summer of 2008 and asked them go back to election day and the emotion, the investment peoplev had in president obam a. it was unbelievable. when you put it together with the footage and hear them talk about it, you could see this country, president obama for a moment in time had something that i think was unique in american history. you see-- >>> maybe this is the wrong question. was it all an illusion? in other words, was he almost like -- a product of slick marketing? >> kijust say i don't think the people who are in this film and a lot more people

we got mccain feingold, which really lowered the amount people could give and then you have citizenspen and it's not just that people can give, that those donations can be anonymous. that has really overhauled the system and they announced last week they've sent more on the campaign advertising already than in the entire election last time. >> i think money an politics is sort of krubting even if you are a good person, an idealistic person that gets into this. this is a big question, can you be an effective politician and still be really ethical? >> i believe you can. i really do. i've had a lot of candidates who have stuck to their ethics, but i think if this stands and if these million dollar contin contributions continue, it will be harder to do that. >> thanks for your insight and now, toure, we turn the table over to you for your final thoughts on what everyone is talking about today. >> dirty harry, 40 long years before he embarrassed himself at the rnc. >> i can't tell they do that. can't do that to himself. you're absolutely crazy. >> that was the weirdest thing i've ever see

that law got whacked with the campaign -- with a mccain- feingold law. super pacs are a result of this, various nonprofit group, some may become the new weapon of choice. democrats and republicans -- in 2004, democrats dominated the outside money game. this time around it is republicans. so it is the cutting the -- how do you properly regulate the system in a way that it will not devise to another uncontrollable entity. this is the tension for the last four years if not longer. host: should there be any regulation, if there is not full disclosure? what is the consensus? guest: there is no consensus. if only there was pre one side says full disclosure, no limits, people can see this coming in. the other side says when you have unlimited money, you give rise to corruption. as far back as teddy roosevelt, when the money in politics system in america was essentially the wild west, when you have unlimited money, the ability to influence a lawmaker, a candidate, to influence legislation is shaped is so much greater because there is no limit on one side saying

the first amendment's freedom of speech and call for the repeal of the remaining provisions of mccain-feingold and for razeeing or repealing contribution limits to campaigns and political parties. we advocate further protection of that right. we urge measures to be taken to protect the fourth amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures and the fifth amendment's protection of private property from being taken by the government. we urge a respect for the ninth and tenth amendments which protect the rights of the people and the states against encroachment by the federal government. we support the protection of the flag and the recitation of the pledge of allegiance, and we oppose the use of foreign laws in interpreting u.s. statutes and our u.s. constitution. i'd like to congratulate our subcommittee for their fine work, and we are pleased to present our subcommittee report and draft to the full committee for its consideration. >> jim, very well done. apologize for understating the number of amendments that you took up. [laughter] over 100. but that says that many of these issues were we

we'd be much better off to replace all of the mccain-feingold campaign bureaucracy with a very simpleu can give unlimited personal income to any candidate you want to, as long as it's reported every night on the internet and then the candidate would have to stand behind the ads. if barack obama had to stand behind this ad, they would never have run it. it wouldn't have been possible. and i think that it's -- we would have a much cleaner and much healthier system if the money was in a situation where the candidate was held accountable and wasn't just being done by political consultants who have nothing to lose. >> political consultants also who are so attached to the candidate, you, of course, bill burton is attached to robert gibbs is attached to barack obama. but i remember the romney team -- >> sure. >> saying they had nothing to do with the attack ads against you, which you were going ahead in iowa. >> sure. >> and you pointed out, all of the people on mitt romney's super pac board were all his associates. >> well, i think at the time i described it as pius bologna and would say th

the first amendment's freedom of speech and call for the repeal of the remaining provisions of mccain-feingold, and for raising or repealing contribution limits to candidates and political parties. we support the second amendment's right to keep and bear arms and advocate further protection of that right. we urge measures to be taken to protect the fourth amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures and the fifth amendment's protection of private property from being taken by the government. we urge respect for the ninth and tenth amendments which protect the rights of the people and the states against enroachment by the federal government. we support the protection of the flag and the recitation of the pledge of allegiance and oppose the use of foreign laws in interpreting the u.s. statutes and our u.s. constitution. i'd like to congratulate our subcommittee for their fine work and we are pleased to present our subcommittee report and draft to the full committee for its consideration. >> jim, very well done. i apologize for understating the number of amendments you took up. over 100. b