and then to mccutcheon. now, i want to make a couple of broad points particularly about mccutcheon. despite some of the other focal points, what has alarmed me the most about the mccutcheon decision was justice roberts basically now taking corruption out of the equation and the appearance of corruption entirely out of the equation and defining corruption in the narrowest way as a quid pro quo that would only be applicable in a case like abskam or its more popularized american hustle where you have videotape in exchange for money in return of a favor. that is so far away from the real world. and in particular now with mccutcheon where officials, elected officials can solicit large contributions, something that we try to restrain deeply in mccain-feingold bill, it takes me back to an era i remember well where we had presidents clubs and speakers clubs and leaders clubs with access. give $10,000 and you get to meet with all of the committee chairs. give $25,000, you could have a one-on-one with the speaker. this is a trade of access for money and it leads down a dangerous path and a pa

it's called mccutcheon v.he federal election commission because a conservative activist shaun mccutcheon sued the commission arguing those donation limits violated his right to free speech. now, under this new ruling, mr. mccutcheon and other high-dollar donors can donate to as many federal candidates and political committees as they want. the case did not, did not alter the donation limits on the total amount people can give to each candidate. now, instead of being limited to about $123,000 spread across candidates and groups, there is no limit under the new ruling on those total contributions in a campaign cycle. senator chuck schumer who was actually a pretty excellent fund-raiser when he chaired the senate democrats re-election effort said in response to the ruling "this decision will take the country back toward the day of the robber barons." justice robert's rules drew a strong dissent from stephen breyer, "if the court and citizens united open a door, today's decision may well open a flood gate." rober

mccutcheon says is so important? >> well, first of all, he says he wants to support a lot of candidates, he is free to do that and he was free to do that before the decision. he's not talking about support. he's not talking about handing out leaflets or a sign in his yard. he's talking about the ability to the give money to candidates. that's not the same thing. it doesn't deserve the same kinds of first amendment protection. the people who do have the wherewithal to give multimillion dollar checks to party leaders will have a lot of influence but it's going to be at the expense of the rest of us. >> do you worry there's a quid pro quo? the watergate era brought on the idea of more of these regulations. is that what you see here? >> that's for sure going to happen. the chief justice said that's the only thing we should think about whether there's quid pro quo meaning bribery. that's going to be a problem with this much money sloshing around. the bigger problem is brought influence and a tilted playing field. the chie

the case, mccutcheon versus federal election commission challenged a limit on how much an individual to contribute to a multitude of political candidates. that agregate limit was capped at $48,600 over a two-year period. the plaintiff, sean mccutcheon, had reached that limit after contributing to 16 different congressional candidates. mccutcheon wanted to contribute to more congressional candidates, but the laws limit prohibited him from doing so. until now. that limit, $48,600, was struck down this week by the high court declaring it to be unconstitutional. in the words of chief justice, john g. roberts, jr., there is no right in our democracy more basic than the right to participate in electing our political leaders, unquote. the law does nothing, however, to eliminate the $2,600 per candidate maximum for federal campaigns. individuals are still limited to $2,600 maximum each for the primary campaign and general campaign of any given candidate. it is the agrigate that has been removed. meaning wealthy donors, like the libertarian leaning coch brothers or billionaire and environment

why don't you first tell us who shaun mccutcheon is. what is this case based on?> shaun mccutcheon is a wealthy businessman from alabama who during the 2012 elections decided that he wanted to cut a bunch of checks to right-leaning candidates he supported and he actually made them out and then may day now. he found he could write several dozen checks, 27 of them, but could not write the 28th. yet bumped up against the aggregate limit. this overall limit that was at issue. with the urging of some conservative lawyers and have ultimately, the whole republican party, shaun mccutcheon took his case to court and said, i don't think you should be able to stop me from writing as many $1776 checks as i want. knowing what the roberts court the way it is, his challenge stood a good chance of succeeding and file the case well over a year ago and has taken it to the top. yesterday we saw the court agreed with him. >> the statement of shaun mccutcheon praising the decision, he said -- so can you respond to that? what exactly did the supreme court decision -- does it mean -- we

i worry that they will resurface after the mccutcheon decision through the device of contributions to party committees participating in joined fundraising committees. i also worry that the supreme court's majority in citizens united and mccutcheon does not share the same concern about a corruption inherent in congress or the executive branch selling access that mr. mcgann, mr. reef, mr. ornstein and i do. my second point about party committees under mccain-feingold is that they have actually done quite well financially. look at the picture of two elections, 2000, the last presidential campaign before mccain-feingold, and 2012, our most recent. in 2000 the two political parties and their presidential candidates raised and spent a combined total of $1.1 billion in that election. a huge sum. today adjusted for inflation that would be $1.45 billion. compare that to the amount spent in the most recent election by the parties and their candidates, 2012, the total was $2.5 billion. double the actual amount, up 80% in inflation adjusted dollars. it is true that outside groups also spent signi

mccutcheon doesn't take place in a vacuum.t takes place at a time since the recovery began, 93% of the wealth generated by this society has gone to the top 1%. takes place within extreme income inequality not seen since the early part of the last century. not like we all have the same amount of money or there's rough equality in income. there's dramatic differences in income. what it means is the people who have the most income are going to have the most speech and that's why this is a sad day. i tell you, you know, some folks' idea of freedom is freedom to own everything, boss everybody around, turn elected public officials into employees. i mean, this is the kind of thing i think is extremely dangerous to democracy but i do believe that our superior numbers can overcome all this money. still takes a person to cast a ballot, and i'm not talking about a corporate person. i'm talking about a real living, breathing person. and so we do have hope to rescue our democracy, but we better wake up and start doing it. >> indeed. a hope

. >> reporter: alabama businessman shaun mccutcheon wasn't looking to contribute millions of dollarscandidate. he wanted to contribute a few thousand dollars to a lot of different candidates. >> it's a fundamental freedom of speech continue substitution al right to support as many candidates, parties, and, you know, committees as you choose. >> reporter: the supreme court gave donors like mccutcheon the permission to spread the wealth. federal law had prevented donors from contributing the maximum $5,200 to more than nine different candidates during an election. chief justice john roberts writing the main opinion said there was no evidence that contributing the maximum amount to additional candidates or political parties would lead to corruption. money and politics may at times seem repugnant to some, but so, too, does much of what the first amendment vigorously protects, said roberts. if the first amendment protects flag burning, funeral protests, and nazi parades, it surely protects political campaign speech. the court's four liberal justices issued a sharpe dissent written by just

morning, shawhis mccutcheon spoke about the supreme court's decision in his favor. issuehink this is an about independent, private people exercising free speech. all americans are entitled to free speech. this is a first amendment guaranteed under the constitution. >> the supreme court agreed with the. if you sit back and say i want to be politically involved as if i am a person of great means and i have all these candidate saying i want an unlimited amount of money, don't you worry that these two corruption? it is a political act devotee. it is the most fundamental rights in the country, our right as the people to select our leaders. whelen discusses his efforts to start a centrist hearty in american politics. then the health reporter talks about what the sign up figure 7.1 million enrollees in federal and state health insurance exchanges mean. and what is ahead for the health a lot. you can join the conversations on facebook and twitter. live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> both chambers of congress capital back into session monday. the houses in at noon easter

sunshine ordinance section 67.10(d) to discuss anticipated litigation as defendant in light of mccutcheon v. federal election commission, no. 12-536 >> public comment? >> we need a motion for go into closed session? >> the public comment on the motion? >> is there a motion to move into closed session? >> so moved. >> second. >> public comment on the closed session? >> i think that it absolutely makes sense for you to hold the close session, i just wanted to comment on what i understand as the implications of it and i hope that you will consider what legislation that you might bring before the board of supervisors to amend it in relation to the aggregate contribution limits that you might have options, and analyze what those options might be, and both in the near term and in the other implications. and long term and that you would not decide in closed session to pursue any of those tonight but that will bring those back to the commission before further discussion before doing anything, legislatively, and considering the timing and the implication on elections that are already in progress w

i mean the owners of capital, who were emboldened even further this week by the supreme court's mccutcheonecision giving moneyed interests more opportunity to rig the political system against everyday americans. case in point -- you've heard about the wave of protests against fast food chains like mcdonald's and wendy's where employees are forced to live on next to nothing. workers in regular, sit-down restaurants are also penalized. because in the 1990's, the national restaurant association, often known as "the other nra", passed around enough campaign contributions to shall we say persuade congress to set the federal minimum wage for waiters, busboys, and bartenders at only $2.13 an hour. $2.13 an hour. the nra claims that tips are additional income that make up the difference. but tips are random and often meager, and restaurant workers struggling to earn a living are twice as likely to be on public assistance. in other words, the people who run the system expect taxpayers to subsidize profits with welfare for their poorly-paid employees. which could explain why this man is smiling. he'

. >> reporter: alabama businessman shaun mccutcheon wasn't looking to contribute millions of dollars to one candidate. he wanted to contribute a few thousands dollars to a lot of different candidates. >> it's a fundamental freedom of speech, constitutional first amendment issue about your right to support as many candidates, parties, and, you know, committees as you choose. >> reporter: today, the supreme court gave donors like mccutcheon the green light to spread the wealth, striking down limits on the total number of candidates and political parties a person can support. federal law had prevented donors from contributing the maximum $5,200 to more than nine different candidates during an election. chief justice john roberts writing the main opinion said there was no evidence that contributing the maximum amount to additional candidates or political parties would lead to corruption. "money in politics may at times seem repugnant to some, but so, too, does much of what the first amendment vigorously protects," says reports. "if the first amendment protects flag burning, funeral prote

political campaign speech was alive and well before the mccutcheon case.that is what is so naÏve about the majority's decision. sean mccutcheon and everyone else is able to give 100 $23,000, more than most people earn in a year. no political speech before yesterday. if mccutcheon wanted to give money to every single candidate, he could have given money to every single candidate in the republican party, just not the maximum amount. that is the only difference. -- what isng about being ignored by the majority is the political speech of the rest of us. 99.9% of us do not have the means or the ability to make these large contributions. what about our speech? that is what is ignored by the majority of the court. host: both parties know how to play the game, and play they do. obama has raised more money than anybody. there is always a way to get money. calvin, what do you think? caller: the subject is interesting. thank you for taking my call. i have two questions in a statement. can you translate in layman's terms? what does this mean for state, local elections

for years right what do you think he would how would he respond to the mccutcheon case. well i think he would have come back with that kind of speech again and he would have rallied americans for this congressional election year and said if we're going to confront these economic royalists we need you not only to vote we need you to turn out we need you to make history you know it's as if it's as if it had been two thousand and nine all over again he would have had them out before the tea party ever got into the public square. let's talk about your book the four freedoms you focus on one of f.d.r.'s big frames i mean is his second bill of rights was a big frame obviously the new deal the four freedoms is one of his big frames first of all where the four freedoms ok the four freedoms which were written were declared proclaimed in the state of the union address of january sixth one thousand nine hundred one were freedom of speech and expression. freedom to worship god in your own way freedom of religion. freedom from want and freedom from fear and in fact the the other addr

this week we did a program on the supreme court's mccutcheon decision. it reaffirmed that political donations are free speech. as ceo is it free speech to express a political opinion, and can it, should it cost you your job? for mozilla co-founder branden ike, the answer may be yes. joining us, ari, a law professor at new york law school. in our washington studio, jonathan, a senior fellow at brookings institution. and in ber inberg in berkeley, kerry . >> can hobby lobby protect out to its employees their political police, and papa john and mr. mackey from whole foods. phil robinson from duck dynasty, spunke suspended and off the air for expressing his views . should a thoughtful consumer be examining the beliefs the corporations. >> first directly to your question, absolutely. if you're going to be giving your money to someone, you better be sure that the organization or person you're giving your money to is worthy of your patronage. there is no reason t to patronie someone who is going to take your dollar and donate to an organization that will take a

if you look at the recent mccutcheon case the court again ran for and accordance of disclosure citing their early precedent. now in the decision this court has addressed the specific concerns raised by justice thomas. justice thomas observed in 1958 case the court declared that alabama's low requiring individuals to disclose their contributions to the naacp infringed on the right of free association because it exposed those individuals to physical severe threats and retribution. the court in the naacp case put for district test for groups seeking to avoid disclosure. and in the later 1976 buckley decision the court rejected a challenge to disclosure requirements based on the earlier naacp case. the buckley court found that the strict tests for avoiding disclosure in naacp did not void the campaign finance disclosure requirements that they upheld in buckley and the buckley court did say that a group could seek an exemption from the disclosure requirements if it they could demonstrate as the naacp did in the alabama case that would be subject to an actual not speculative verdon on the f

. >> we'll hear argument first this morning in case 12-536, mccutcheon v. the federal election commission. ms. murphy? >> mr. chief justice, and may it please the court, bicker's aggregate contribution limits are an impermissible attempt to equalize the relative ability of individuals to participate in the political process. by prohibiting contributions that are within the modest base limits congress has already imposed to combat the reality or appearance of corruption, these limits simply seek to prevent individuals from engaging in too much first amendment activity. these limits cannot be justified on circumvention grounds because the concerns the government hypothesizes are already addressed by bicker's multitude of more direct anti-circumvention measures. >> how is that? >> because bicker imposes numerous direct circumvention measures. for instance, we have earmarking provisions on earmarking contributions for candidate. we have coordination restrictions on coordinated expenditures with a candidate. there are proliferation restrictions on creating multi

host: we talked about the mccutcheon case. money equals free speech fair to average americans? i'm a reader of supreme court decisions just like the reviewers are. ruled6, the supreme court process,a democratic in order to rent a broadcast that should big media owns the printing presses and distribution capabilities newspapers -- for anybody else to use those facilities to communicate to the public, they have to rent space. rent space in the newspaper. rent time on the broadcast nation. because your ability to speak necessarily incurs a cost, the ability to spend in politics is a first amendment right. holding of that case still holds true today. it is the core of all the other decisions that have come since that time. individual people can participate in politics bite cooling their resources -- by pooling their resources with others that they may be aligned with. you may want to donate to the sierra club if you're an environmentalist. you may be a person who likes to own guns and takes the second amendment quite seriously and

political campaign speech was alive and well before the mccutcheon case.that is what is so naÏve about the majority's decision. sean mccutcheon and everyone else is able to give 100 $23,000, more than most people earn in a year. no political speech before yesterday. if mccutcheon wanted to give money to every single candidate, he could have given money to every single candidate in the republican party, just not the maximum amount. that is the only difference. -- what isng about being ignored by the majority is the political speech of the rest of us. 99.9% of us do not have the means or the ability to make these large contributions. what about our speech? that is what is ignored by the majority of the court. host: both parties know how to play the game, and play they do. obama has raised more money than anybody. there is always a way to get money. calvin, what do you think? caller: the subject is interesting. thank you for taking my call. i have two questions in a statement. can you translate in layman's terms? what does this mean for state, local elections

it's basically allowing large billionaires and millionaires -- mccutcheon is a coal baron -- to buy theent. >> reporter: bay area opponents of the supreme court's decision fearful of what this could mean for the upcoming political landscape. protests were held in san francisco, oakland, berkeley and walnut creek. wednesday, the supreme court gave donors the green light to spread the wealth striking down limits on the total number of candidates and political parties a person can support. federal law had prevented donors from contributing the maximum $5,200 to more than 9 different candidates during an election. chief justice john roberts writing the main opinion says there is no evidence that contributing the maximum amount to additional candidates or political parties would lead to corruption. the court's four liberal justices issued a sharp dissent written by justice steven breyer saying the ruling, quote, eviscerates our nation's campaign finance laws. campaign finance reformer fred worthhe im -- worthheimer says the court was opening the floodgates for big money much like its 2010 ci

of one that has really destroyed our democracy in elections if you look at this decision to the mccutcheon decision, it blew the doors off. the fact is when you have only a handful of people out of millions of people in this country whoever even get to that limit, they've got all of the power and all of the control. and it is true. he who pays the piper plays the tune. in this case, 646 people are going to be playing the tune, and the rest of russ just there for the ride. >> chuck schumer, a top democrat launched the party's counterattack against yesterday's court ruling in the supreme court. let's listen. >> they wish to dismantle all limits on giving piece by piece until we are back to the days of the robber barons when anyone or anything could give unlimited money, undisclosed and make our political system seem so rigged that everyone will lose interest in our democracy. it seems to logical to every american that a limitation should be on the wealthiest of donors rigging our political system. but somehow the supreme court, five of them, anyway, cling to this idea that putting the same d

unlimited campaign contributions are just as good as nazis. ( laughter ) now, the case in question is "mccutcheonf.e.c.," and in a 5-4 decision, the courts eliminated the $123,200 cap on the total amount you can donate, which is great for all of us, if by "us" you mean the 591 people who gave the maximum allowable donation in 2012. and if you're not one of us, you really should be. ( laughter ) we have great parties, two of them. folks, this is all about the freedom of speech. aggregate caps unfairly limit how loud my cash could talk inspector the antiquated assumption giving politicians greasy paper bags full of money is somehow a corrupting influence. but justice roberts teaches us government regulation may not target the general gratitude a candidate may feel towards those who support him or the political access such support may afford. ingratiation and access are not corruption. in fact, those things don't even have the appearance of corruption. did you get that? ingratiation and access are not corruption. so if you think legislators lining up to listen to megadonors like the koch brothers or

the high court's ruling on mccutcheon versus the f.e.c.ntial campaign and could mean millions of americans could lose their voice. i want to bring in the "brain trust." angela rye, david weigel, peter suterman. thanks for being with me. angela, 5-4 decision, mccutcheon ruling handed down wednesday removing limits by individuals on aggregate campaign contributions. what's this going to mean for democrats? what's it going to mean for elections? >> well, when you talk about the big ten party, i don't know what exactly it will mean for them. only 700 people gave at this level for the 2012 election. so we know whether it's 2014 or going into 2016, this doesn't impact most of the 312 million people that reside in this country. it really doesn't. this was a decision for a few. sean mccutcheon is a ceo in alabama who was worried about maxing out to his local party or state-based party in alabama. this really doesn't impact a number of people. he wants to protect free speech, he said. unfortunately this is not free speech. this is the speech that y

this morning as you well know the supreme court announced a decision in mccutcheon versus fec. while we are still pouring through the text a few things are clear. the roberts court is yet again turning back the clock on our democracy by limine being the cap on overall donations to federal candidates, political parties and pacs. this in itself is a small step but it's another step on the road to a nation of our political system that the supreme court is clearly headed down. they wish to dismantle all limits on giving piece by piece until we are back to the days of the robber barons when anyone or anything could give unlimited money, undisclosed and make our political system seems so rigged that everyone will lose interest in our congress. the implications of this decision are huge even though the individual question before the court was small. the koch brothers and other wealthy donors have already wreaked havoc on our political system. this decision and those that will follow it seems by the narrowest of margins 5-4 will make the koch brothers lives easier and americans lives h

the oou citizens united case opened up a fire hose of money into the process, the most rekrunt mccutcheonat came out of the supreme court is more like a garden hose. i've been talking to a lot of folks in this world of chain finance. they tell you it is going to add more money to the system, the fact that donors can write checks to more candidates. but they still expect that the parties and candidates are going to get outspent by these big outside super pac sip type of groups. >> remember when alex sink lost a close house election? that night she was prepared to say she would not run again. but i'm told the house democratic leadership convinced her to leave the door open. now they are lobbying her publicly and privately very aggressively to get her in the race. they still think she is the strongest candidate in november. with charlie crist being a democrat now, they think she would win in november by about a point and a half. we'll see if they can talk her into taking that risk. thanks again for sharing your sunday morning with us. "state of the union" with candy crowley starts right now.

now mccutcheon is law of the land, how does this change how democrats approach elections? mean, how -- you said it opens up the spigot even more. how do you combat that? how do you still get your message out? succeeds, america succeeds, our agenda for women in the workplace, raise the minimum wage, pass the pay equity act, equal pay for equal work, paid sick leave, issues that relate to child -- early childhood education, quality, affordable childcare, we don't want them to be political issues. we want them to be issues discussed if the campaign and that we will convince enough people that whoever wins the election, these will be on the agenda. combains as a debate arena as well as a political fight, and part of the success that i always told in my years as chair of the party, you can win the election but you have to win the campaign on the issues that you are presenting. they must be advanced. so that's where we are. we are into mobilization at the grassroots level. we're doing that with a message of fairness and opportunity and freedom for the american people. job creati

by the way, full disclosure, i am in the mccutcheon case. i am very pleased with the result. >> let me give you a stab at that question one more time, i want to give you one more, according to the center for responsive politics, in the 429 house races ended up winning 95% of the time. in fact in 406 of those races the candidate actually won decisively, the one with the most cash. do you feel this is ethical the candidate with the most money seems to be winning most of the time. was this what the founding fathers had in mind? >> what the founding fathers had in mind was no limits on speech that's why they adopted the first amendment. they think finance restrictions will tend to drive the citizens out of politics and that we need freedom, freedom to be involved. and campaign finance laws are the opposite of that. now, founding fathers aside, of course, the amount that somebody receives in terms of contributions is a reflection of support. so it's not unusual that those with the most support are actually the people that win most of the election

we're talking about mccutcheon but we's also talking about citizen's united, what we're really talkingflux of massive money that's come into the system and is only going to be accelerate in the next couple of years. given the reality on capitol hill right now, is there any kind of consensus that could potentially exist between the parties on the interest of disclosure? >> i don't know if you've been paying attention to capitol hill. >> nothing changed this week. >> no, nothing changed this week. sure, there are the people -- assuming that's the case and there's going to be no legislative remedy to any of this, just what the supreme court says goes and the system is going to develop around that, i assume that means one party thinks it has an advantage mplg i don't think one side thinks it has the advantage or the other. i do see them hopping immediately into the cash race, right now people heading into the mid terms are going to be calling their big donors. the committees are going to be getting on the phone with all of the people who maxed out. he's see how much we can get now and then

well, the case that we're about, mccutcheon versus f.e.c. was brought by a wealthy businessman, sean mccutcheon, who wanted to be able to contribute more to candidates, parties and committees than the current limits allow. limits, herevious was able to contribute up to all federal candidates, parties and committees. and in the 5-4 decision that the declared thatthey limit to be unconstitutional amendment and said that he was entitled to the effect ofe so that decision takes us from a total contribution for any one individual of $123,000 all the way up to about $3.5 million if you look at the amounts an individual can contribute to and party,didates committees, combined. a major influx of big money into the political process. our organization has estimated about $1 billion to political spending in the next election. >> and is that a good thing, a bad thing, a neutral thing? think it's -- i think it's disaster for our democracy. >> why? we already had a system in which the wealthiest few are able to exert so much more elected systemr and our e

well, the case that we're about, mccutcheon versus f.e.c.was brought by a wealthy businessman, sean mccutcheon, who wanted to be able to contribute more to candidates, parties and committees than the current limits allow. limits, herevious was able to contribute up to all federal candidates, parties and committees. and in the 5-4 decision that the declared thatthey limit to be unconstitutional amendment and said that he was entitled to the effect ofe so that decision takes us from a