he argued the challenge to the mccain-feingold law. he also argued on behalf of senate minority leader mitch mcconnell in a successful challenge to aggregate contribution limits in mccutcheon that was decided in april. bobby has argued cases, appearing in courts across the country. he is a graduate of wake forest university and the george washington university law school. where he was editor-in-chief of the law review. he clerked for a judge on the third circuit. next we will hear from donald -- the former chairman of the federal election commission. he led what has been called a revolution in campaign finance, rewriting virtually all of the procedures for audit and advisory opinions. he has worked in private practice, and today he is in a government regulation practice. he also served as general counsel of the national republican congressional committee for nearly 10 years. he has been featured in major papers and has appeared in national publications, including politico, roll call, the hill, and the washington examiner. he has addres

challenge to the mccain-feingold law. the half ofed on mitch mcconnell in a successful challenge to aggregate contribution limits in a case that was decided in april. cases,as argued appearing in courts across the country. he is a graduate of wake forest university and the george washington university law sc hool. from theill hear former chairman of the federal election commission. ec, he time at the ftc has been called a -- he has worked in private joins a, and today he regulation practice. he also served as general counsel of the national republican congressional committee. he has been featured in papers and has appeared in national publications, including politico. members ofessed congress at house retreats regarding congressional ethics and appears on television. don is a graduate of notre dame. last but not least we will hear from the senior legal fellow at heritage. writes on a wide range of issues. within heritage as the unofficial inspector general of the department of justice, having written articles about eric h

mccain-feingold pushed the money out of the party.soros'of theeorge world to the left and others to the right, and made it taped this because they do the advertising. they do not pick the candidates, but they pushed the message and the ideas. what happens, the center has gone out of the congress, and the people have to come together and rationalize and make things work, but they cannot do it. >> i'm sensing the frustration of those of you who care about this institution that clearly, mr. speaker you love, that is now such ill repute in the country and we are getting into the processes of campaign finance and other things, is this polarization having a real impact on the way in which this country conducts foreign policy? we look at the whole business about this prisoner exchange involving sergeant bergdahl, we look at benghazi, everything seems to be falling back into this political prism. is that a consequence of what you just talked about, the fact that the center has eroded? >> every time you turn over a rock, you find a snake. i th

we had the mccain-feingold law that came into effect and took corporate money out of politics. so when i ran in 2004, it was like i had taken a bath and felt so clean. because an election that everyone who was involved in a federal election had to list where they got the money. there was a limit how much you could ask and get from someone else. you listed their occupation and so on. that was wonderful. then comes 2010. back into the sewer. that was the race that citizens united in january had ruled no holds barred. any money could come from any source with rare exception. that race, as far as i was conce concerned, not a lot of fun. 1998. i talked to you about that. 2010 made 1998 seem like a picnic in the park. money coming from every place. and mr. president, not a suggestion where the money came from. citizens for good government, good guys sponsored this one. now, from 1998 to 2010, i have no idea. i have an idea, but in that race in nevada, probably $120 million was spent in that race. can you imagine that? no one knew where the money came from and the people in nevada wer

mccain/feingold says you cannot on pay-per-view cable. that was the facts. that went to the supreme court. so this is not a situation where we're talking about, well, we're just going to ban campaign stuff. we're talking banning movies here. and then what about books and movies generally? what if a book is a 500-word book that talks about public policy but gets into election speech and says, therefore, you shouldn't elect so-and-so to be president? does this empower the government to ban that book? i'm afraid that does and this is why it needs to die a very sudden death so that we can continue to criticize our elected officials as we must in a representative democracy. thank you. [ applause ] >> maybe i should sit down because they have said everything about this. i'll add a few words. the slide we put up is basically the constitutional amendment, the important parts of it and you'll notice that as don said, it not only would limit -- give congress the power to limit the contributions that can be give ton a candidate directly, and also the expenditures that

we don't think that comes within the prohibition of of mccain-feingold. they could have one and they should have one oney that point. they could win because even if r you counterintuitively viewed iy as a tv ad, 50,000 people with the fantasy.n it. they would've been lucky to have 500 people watch their movie. so there were lots of statutory ways to solve this case.rts, chief justice roberts who said he was committed to judicial mim minimalism and the candidate of constitutional avoidance, a central principle of constitutional adjudication, iich is you don't reach aconstl constitutional issue if there'su a better statutory way coming out in the same way.onal they destroyed the canon of constitutional avoidance for the purpose of citizens united in that case. they rushed over five giveaways they could've found for the not-for-profit groups in order to give the parties the commanda to go back and read argueckd the case based on all corporationsti everywhere at all times. so when the supreme court came back and said all corporations t have a first amendment

themselves were not too far to the right or left, whether they were republican or democrat. , with mccain-feingoldis it the money out of the party and you pushed it out. world ofurces of the the left, and the coax on the , they do the advertising. they post a message and the ideas. so, what happens, the center has gone on of the congress and the people have to come together and rationalize and make things work , cannot do it. >> i'm sensing the frustration of those of you who care about this institution that clearly, mr. speaker you love, that is now such ill repute in the country and we are getting into the process of campaign finance is thisr things, polarization having a real impact on the way in which this country conducts foreign policy? we look at the whole business about this prisoner exchange involving sergeant bergdahl, we , everythinghazi seems to be falling back into .his political prism is that a consequence of what you just talked about, the fact that the center has eroded? >> everything is a political governmentd not a dialogue. >> is that impacting america's ability to do what it ne

we were debating mccain-feingold. the elimination of soft money in the campaign process. then, the position was taken by the senator from kentucky and many on his side, we want full disclosure. we want to know who is contributing the money. the american people have a right to know. that was the mantra for a long time. i just asked whether any republicans supported our effort when we introduced the disclosed bill. our best memory is no. they do not support disclosure. here we are today. many of us had hoped that fair elections, a public financing bill, which i introduced seven years ago and keep reintroducing, might have a chance. with the citizens united decision, that is not likely. when you look at the reality of what we are facing, spending by outside groups and campaigns has tripled. 27.6 million in 2010. 97.7 million so far this year. in 2006, these groups spent $3.5 million. in 2012, superpacs spent more than 100 $30 million on federal elections. 60% of all superpac donations came from an elite class of 159 americans. 159 americans accounted for 60% of the money for

we were debating mccain-feingold. the elimination of soft money in the campaign process.en, the position was taken by the senator from kentucky and many on his side, we want full disclosure. we want to know who is contributing the money. the american people have a right to know. that was the mantra for a long time. i just asked whether any republicans supported our effort when we introduced the disclosed bill. our best memory is no. they do not support disclosure. here we are today. many of us had hoped that fair elections, a public financing bill, which i introduced seven years ago and keep reintroducing, might have a chance. with the citizens united decision, that is not likely. when you look at the reality of what we are facing, spending by outside groups and campaigns has tripled. 27.6 million in 2010. 97.7 million so far this year. in 2006, these groups spent $3.5 million. in 2012, superpacs spent more than 100 $30 million on federal elections. 60% of all superpac donations came from an elite class of 159 americans. 159 americans accounted for 60% of the money for su

we do not think that comes within the prohibition of mccain-feingold. they could have won and they should have won on that point. they also should've one because even if you counter intuitively view a tv ad, 50,000 people would have seen it. they would be lucky to have 500 people watch it. there were lots of statutory ways to solve this case. roberts, who said he was committed to judicial minimalism and the candidate of constitutional avoidance, a central principle of constitutional adjudication, which is you do not reach a constitutional issue if there's a better statutory way coming out in the same way, they destroyed the canon of constitutional av oidance. the gave the parties command to go back and reargue the case based on all corporations, everywhere, at all times. so when the supreme court came back and said all corporations have a first amendment right to spend money in politics, that was way beyond what they were being asked to do originally, and it depended on reargument. a series of questions have been posted the other side about today have a

the clinton fund-raising scandal and the contributions led to mccain-feingold and the 2002, there was the jack abram off scandal and how the wallabies could give money into politics. since then we've seen the supreme court dial back some of those as unconstitutional on free-speech. and i just don't see the type of scandal out there right now that would generate the public will to put pressure on congress and create the political will in the certificate campaign finance reform. we are in a situation now where you have the folks that want to get money out of politics because they see it as corrupt and as a scandal in and of itself this much money is allowed to flow into our process. they are secretly praying for a big explosive scandal, a quid pro quo so they can then put pressure on congress to pass the campaign-finance reform. i don't see that pressure right now. >> postcoital 15 or 20 minutes left with the author of big money to $.51 billion suspicious vehicle and a pimp on the trail of the ultra rich hijacking of american politics. you want to explain part of the title? >> guest: lo

to pacifying mccain feingold which is was struck down by the supreme court because i mean i know republicans and democrats politicians in this town i've met with them i've talked to them who have said to me off the record usually with republicans democrats will say it on the record i hate the fact that i have to spend six hours a day walking three blocks away from my office to a private office in fact where i do my radio show from is a building that's three blocks of senate office building and there's probably twenty senators and forty members of the house of representatives every office is in there and they sit there and they dial for dollars all day long these guys hate it the democrats hate it the republicans hate it probably the only person in congress who doesn't hate his dear allies or because he's got seven hundred million dollars they can write his own checks to himself. so he doesn't have to hate it and in fact this is one of the reasons why here again and it probably is you're absolutely right and he shouldn't be able to write checks for his campaign either and t