he's right, the mccain-feingold law did require disclosure that we're not getting. he talked a lot about the internet and the fact that it would give us instant disclosure. but as you and i know, you know, garbage in, garbage out. if the -- >> and i thought -- >> -- information isn't there, it won't turn up. >> i thought that's where we were seeing the naÏvetÉ of a supreme court justice really out of touch with reality. when he said, "okay, we're going to give them the right to spend all this money, but shareholders in particular and citizens can go to the internet, get the information they want, and then hold them accountable if they're not spending money for the company's profit," right? >> right. and of course, that's interesting in itself, because it reveals the bias of that decision. he assumed the test was, are they spending the money in the way that mostprofits the company? and that's very interesting if you think about it, because -- >> how so? >> well, i mean, you go back to the founding of our country. and the founders' view was that we would be citizens,

and i wish governor bush would join me this evening in endorsing the mccain-feingold campaign finance reform bill. >> you know, this man has no credibility on the issue. as a matter of fact, i read in the "new york times" where he said he co-sponsored the mccain-feingold campaign fundraising bill. but he wasn't in the senate with senator feingold. and so, look, i'm going to -- what you need to know about me is i will uphold the law, i'm going to have an attorney general that enforces the law. the time for campaign funding reform is after the election. this man has outspent me and the special interests are outspending me. and i am not going to lay down my arms in the middle of the campaign for somebody who has got no credibility on the issue. >> senator mccain -- hold on one second. senator mccain said in august, "it doesn't matter which one of you is president of the united states in january, there is going to be blood on the floor of the united states senate," and he'll tie up the senate until campaign finance reform is passed that includes a ban on soft money. first of all, would yo

argued it and tried to save it but by that point the conservatives were really out to get the mccain feingold law and they wound up killing it, most of it. >> rose: but the point here is that it became an argument for being able to spend a whole lot of money on political campaigns. >> right. at the heart of citizens united is a metaphor, which is, spending money is equivalent to speech, spending money is like carrying a sign or giving a speech, that if you interfere with spending an individual or even a corporation spending money, it is like telling them that you can't speak. now, that is contrary to decades of supreme court precedent. it is true that there is -- are elements of speech to spending money but th the court has said, you know, the i it can be relatd the way speech can sometimes be regulated, and what justice kennedy's opinion in citizens united did is say essentially no, it can't be regulated, so, you know, a lot of people ask well citizens united is it going to be reined in, no, it won't be reined in, it is going to be expanded it is the beginning of the deregular regulation of

i say to you, the world body, if mccain-feingold was not so toothless, the prevalence of super pacs-- isn't anybody going to give us the red meat rhetoric and innovative prop comedy we have come to expect from the united nations? >> this is a bomb-- (laughter) >> jon: that's what i'm talking about. >> this is a fuse. in the case of iran's nuclear plans to build a bomb, a red line should be drawn right here. (laughter) >> jon: okay, first of all, i just got to say, bebe, bubbi, what's with the wiley coyote nuclear bomb? are you really going to pretend, are you going to pretend that you don't know what a nuclear bomb looks like? you're israel. run downstairs and look in the batesment. although if that is the sort of bomb we're dealing with i think i've got a pretty easy solution to this entire iran problem. we'll be right back >> jon: welcome back, my guest tonight plays basketball with the new york knicker bockers and the author of a book series for children, number one home court, number two next week double team. please welcome to the program amare stoudemire. >> how are you doing (c

after mccain/feingold, the bans on soft money.cently limitations on what used to be ads and restricts on ads up in the sort of the homestretch of campaign season. >> yeah. >> in that long history, part of your argument that maybe reformers and progressives have made a mistake, sort of a category error in thinking about the last few years as only the recent explosion of money and corruption? >> yeah. i mean, ari, you're right, it's an old story, money and politics. we walk around thinking there's too much money in campaigns, always will be. as nick can tell you, among others on the panel today, what we're experiencing this time of around is a step change. and i think in a lot of ways it's taking us back to where we were 100 years ago in the gilded age. the amount of money flowing into the campaign, the amount of undisclosed money, money from sources that aren't ever publicly identified is something really new. something we haven't seen in decades. >> yeah, justice scalia, not necessarily known as the large es progressive on the cou

need more of this basically said you know let's let's do away with 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 is this is how oligarchy swimming does and so you've got thirty six families in mexico who basically control eighty percent of the us it was there were six and. primary realities that i have with the republican party in. 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 like an oligarchy as if the republican we have an all gorky as a resort as a result of bipartisanship in the fascism that comes from both parties not because of the ideas of liberty we have an oligarchy in this country about because there he is where a small number of very wealthy oligarchs basically run not only th

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

the ruling overrides a lower court decision that said the 2002 mccain-feingold act on campaign finance reform likely intended to require such disclosures. it marks a major victory for republican-length groups including u.s. chamber of commerce, americans for prosperity, and crossroads gps, which had altered their ads after being compelled to disclose who funded them. in a statement, democratic congressmember christopher had hollen of maryland, who brought the initial case that won the disclosure rule, said -- the magazine mother jones has released the full version of the secret mitt romney campaign speech that has sparked a national controversy. in one excerpt from the tape, recorded at a romney fundraiser in florida earlier this year, mitt romney says palestinians don't want peace with israel and suggests his middle east policy would be to do nothing and hope for the best. >> the obama campaign has pounced on romney's widely reported statement on the video that nearly half the country is dependent on government aid and sees themselves as victims. in washington, white house press secre

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

. >> another view is mccain-feingold change the situation. you have democrats as republicans in the '70s posed the first wave having to rely more upper-middle-class dollars. so that shaped what is the issue mix that the campaigns pay most attention to. >> immigration is not an issue that is a core base republican conservative issue. there's a sizable but minority group within the party who cares very deeply about it, but why has it become the position of the party now? when, in fact, there is such a huge and growing voter block from it's an important issue. >> we might have different views about this. i imagine we do. i think that when it is retracted through the prism of immediate that is immigration, this stuff doesn't matter all that matters is are you going to build a fence but i think there are a lot of folks that believe gosh, we need more rigorous immigration enforcement. that's why the obama administration embraced the. it's about how all these things represent and what are you obligate to say when you're pinned down. do you believe i

you submitted an amicus brief on behalf of 26 states as part of the mccain-feingold campaign financecitizens united, involved in montana's case. celeb has to this coming from a small state. i wonder denyer asked variants of montana, the knowledge of other states including vermont, do you believe the limitation of direct corporate spending elections provided protection? do you agree with those who claim the corporations really want much influence over citizens united? >> chairman leahy, chairman leahy, i deferred to the judgment of the montana people who called this restriction on corporate spending a corrupt practices act. i think they knew what they were talking about. now the record that we developed, the record the supreme court never looked at in our case we have bipartisan secretaries of state legislators talking about exactly the problem in montana of large out-of-state corporations mainly that was the problem a century ago. often the problem today, overwhelming the people of montana in their discussion about campaign issues. and so it does corrupt. the people of montana though

and is identified to have a constitutional problem another case was the constitutional case to mccain-feingoldebate of the first amendment in the case probably a made its way to the supreme court of the united states. by contrast there was a healthy policy debate anyone remembers the procedural maneuvering and scott brown was elected seemingly the votes were not there. but the policy meritsthere was not a robust debate that began in the waning-- followed by mitigation. the reaction was not that it was a long shot but it was a frivolous. with a conspiracy among other places someone who looks at things objectively gave the challengers a chance of success. and others said it was generous. but with the opinion in richmond striking it down then the decision in florida that focuses on the individual mandate to and also through several ability struck down the balance of the statute. but in the popular press and narrative went from this is frivolous two o may a republican appointee could of. the there was only room for correspondence between the president appointing the district court should and how i

of another case i was involved in in my time in government the constitutional challenge of the mccain feingold act where the debate in congress was largely a constitutional debate about the first amendment and the opponents of the law of those it on first amendment grounds and probably made its way to the supreme court of the united states. icon trash the affordable care act there was certainly an incredibly healthy policy debate. anybody in washington remembers various procedural maneuvering in order to get the statute passed especially after scott brown was elected in massachusetts and seemingly the votes weren't there but they managed to find them. in a very rigorous debate about policy merits of the affordable care act there really was not a robust debate about its constitutionality. that is something that began in a waning days of the act and by litigation and when the litigation was first brought the reaction in many quarters was not just that the legislation was a long shot for the litigation was intriguing but that it was frivolous and had no chance of success, and a commentator -- cer

. >> another thing is mccain-feingold when you don't have soft dollars, you democrats as republicans in the 70s post the first wave having to rely more on upper-middle-class donors, so that actually also shapes what is the issue next that the campaigns pay most attention to. >> immigration is not an issue that is a core based republican conservative issue. there is a sizable but minority group within the party who cares very deeply about it. why has it become the position of the party now when in fact there is such a huge and growing voter bloc for whom it's an important issue? >> we might have different views about this. i imagine we do. i think when it is framed, when it is refractory to the present, scat immigration doesn't really matter. all that matters is are you going to build a fence and there are a lot of folks who believe that we need more rigorous immigration enforcement one reason the obama administration embraced it, but again it's all about how are these things are presented and what are you obligated to say when you're pinned down? do you believe in enforcing these law

as i said i was involved in the mcconnell -- mccain fine feingold in the case i remember in the governmentwe were discussing amongst ourselves what would be the maximum amount of time we can possibly ask the supreme court to dedicate to a single case and we came up with four hours as being the most that one could us plausibly act for. the supreme court on the own motion granted six hours of argument time to the case. a remarkable case. now my own involvement in the case is not run from the beginning. i was not present at the creation. i was brought in appellate level. and i'll say i think an interest ante-dote i'll pick up in a moment. i was actually asked about the case in a media interview before i had any involvement. i was on an npr and walter was advancing what was then the dominant view of certainly people in legal academia was the soup -- suit was frivolous. i had not studied parents, i -- papers i had some basis the challenge the government faced. in my own time i had the opportunity to defend acts of congress against the argue they expeed exceeded the enumerated powers. what i was

i was on the mccain-feingold litigation and i remember we decided what is the maximum amount of time to harass the supreme court to dictate to a case and we came up with four hours. with its own motion income up with six hours of time. . .