at least and so the question is now that this issue has been teed up the montana court has done what it's done what can the supreme court do and the answer i think is very simple they should realize they made an error. you mentioned how the montana court made all these firings about well yeah you know like as it turns out these expenditures are really corrupting and the interesting things the thing about citizens united is we've seen that the federal level as well you know you have one casino billionaire whose family has given a web in million dollars to newt gingrich's campaign that he made a lot of his money in macau and hong kong and china and. yeah i mean he's you know he's an international billionaire who's you know he is a u.s. citizen but he's made of money around the world he's given a ton of money to one can and he's met personally with that candidate. and game which isn't the only person and you know that now you have santorum and foster friess is a wall street billionaire and then you've got john paulson and. we should i think we should be honest with ourselves eventually someone's going to come along a

we did a brief in the montana supreme court case and if you haven't read the supreme court case in montana, it's wonderful. the 5-2 decision upholding the practices act which bans corporate spending and elections and so when we did a brief people said you are wasting your time and the citizens united the court can't possibly go against citizens united the court did and the interesting thing is as senator whitehouse is showing the record it is corruption due to the corporate money but the interesting thing is the dissenters said we have to follow citizens united and then went on at length to see how bad and how long citizens united was ending with the irony is unlike people, corporations can't go to hell. so it is a street talking pushback. >> the state laws are still in effect. >> it's been used. >> any corporation, if you look many of them come out of delaware digit got a corporate charter. the charter revocation. >> over the last time it was in the tobacco litigation which is where i first talked. unfortunately they didn't revoke the charter of the new york attorney general revoked the c

we did a brief in the montana supreme court case, and if you haven't read the supreme court case in montana, it's wonderful. it's a 5-2 decision upholding the montana practices act which bans corporate spending on elections. and so, you know, when we did the brief people said, oh, you're wasting your time, citizens decided is going to decide that, the court can't possibly go against citizens united. the court did. and senator whitehouse showing the factual record is corruption due to money. but the interesting thing is the two dissenters who said we have to follow citizens united and then went on to say at length to say how bad and wrong citizens united was. [laughter] ending with the irony is unlike people, corporations can't go to hell. [laughter] so it's sort of the straight-talking, big sky montana pushback. yes, right here. >> all those state chartering laws still in effect at the -- >> yeah, yeah. you can't -- >> when's the last time it's been used? >> no, corporate charter, any corporation, if you look -- many of them come out of delaware. matthew's in delaware. they've got a corpora

we agreed with the montana supreme court case. if you haven't read the supreme court case in montana it is wonderful. of 5-2 decision upholding the corrupt practice act which bans corporate the vetting in elections. you are wasting your time, citizens united will be side -- the court can't go against citizen united but the court did. as senator whitehouse said showing of factual record, is corruption due to corporate money but the two dissenters who said we have to follow citizens united and went on at length to say how bad and wrong citizens united was ending with the irony that unlike people corporations can't go to hell. the straight talking montana push back. >> are there states honoring laws still in effect? >> you can't get -- >> it has been used. >> any corporation -- many of them come out of delaware. they get a corporate charter. you mean charter replication laws? the last time was in the tobacco litigation. didn't revoke the charter. the new york attorney general revoked the charter in non-profit corporations that were us

supreme court to do two things. one is to pushback on the citizens united decision, but also to thank two justices who last week when the supreme court stayed the montanart's decision montana said we want to keep the rules in place that prohibit corporations from getting involved in politics. the supreme court said no because of citizens united that very narrow decision, 5-4 that passed two years ago, the decision that came down from the courts they had to stop the montana decision but two justices said maybe as a result of what we have seen with all of these super pacs and the fact that this is going to be the most moneyed election in the history of the united states maybe we should relook at the citizens united decision. so a group of us gathered by the steps of the supreme court. we basically pointed out that corporations are not people. money is not speech. money can stifle speech. and legislative bodies whether it is in the state of michigan or in a local city council, and ought to be able to regulate money in politics. and we hope that maybe there's a little open window for the supreme court to go back and reconsider the decision particularly bas

the anger over citizen's united was visible as citizens marched at the supreme court to stay a ruling by montana's supreme court which upheld montana's ban on spending in election eggs. justice ginsburg saw this as an opportunity to review the high ruling writing: >> joining me now former senator feingold and obama national co chair and author. senator, good to see you sir. >> good to see you. >> keith, good to see you. >> is there any other way to beat citizens united besides utilizing the super money you can raise by citizen's united in order to elect people who can overturn it. >> you don't need to raise super pack money. i made it very clear that the president is in great position and because it looks like he's a little more on the side of the average person. this only undercuts that. i made it clear to the obama people that i would publicly criticize this decision. what it comes down to, i've got two choice, sit in the back yard and have a nice cigar and have somebody tell me who won the election because it doesn't matter. the other choice is to actually fight for the guy who will appoint sup

choosing the side of three montana corporations the high court suspend a recent montana supreme court decision that up the one hundred year old montana corrupt practices act which banned corporate spending in state elections now corporations have free rein to spend unlimited amounts of money in montana elections just like they can in the rest of america there is a small sill sliver of silver lining here though. since the high court merely suspended the ruling and has not yet overturned it the door is open for a possible second hearing on citizens united this year or next and now that we know just how damaging that citizens united ruling is to our democracy all the super pacs hanging around maybe the court will reconsider. but i'm not holding my breath not until the makeup of the supreme court changes at the very least in the meantime a growing number of americans think the solution to our post citizens united broken political system is a new political party a third party from the tea party to occupy wall street the failures of the two party system in america is a favorite talking poin

on congress to send the people's rights amendment to the states for ratification we've got montana supreme court pushing back saying well in montana anyway we're going to regulate corporate money in our elections and that will probably make its way to the supreme court so we just have all of these different places where americans are coming together to say enough we are this is breaking our country it's breaking our democracy we the people means we the people and we need to get back to that article three of the constitution defines the court the judiciary and section two of article three as the the supreme court itself that specific court the high court will operate within. the use of the word regulation of congress or within basically within rules defined by congress for it the exact wording wouldn't be possible and the last president to really seriously take this seriously was franklin roosevelt. would have been possible instead for congress to pass a law saying that the supreme court does not have the power to say that corporations are persons well you know or is that even more politically im

supreme court by up holding the ban on corporate money in state politics regardlist of the citizens united ruling. this past friday the supreme court stopped montanaorcing the limits they want to put on corporation donations in politics at the state level, until the supreme court can decide on the montana case. now we don't know if the supreme court will hear that case or when it will decide whether to hear it but until then, post citizens unite and pre-whatever they decide about montana we are all still living in a billionaire's world. today is the day we got the bit of disclosure we get from the super pacs that have overtaken the elections, why you might think as a mu man before writing a $5 check or $15 or $50 check to a candidate these guys write $500,000 checks for their given candidates, because who knows. the only thing we know for sure they have that kind of change sitting in their checking accounts. money being given in chunks that big means individual decisions by individual named billionaires can make all the difference in the world to a presidential campaign. the whole reason we think of newt gingrich campaign as alive is because of th

return to the citizens united front as we've been keeping tabs on last week the supreme court suspended the decision by the montana state supreme court regarding citizens united basically montana ruled that the citizens united decision did not apply to that state because there was a one hundred year old law on the books that prevented corporate spending in state elections but the u.s. supreme court said sorry montana you have to let the corporations spend unlimited amounts of money in your life just like we've dumped on the rest of the country however the montana case highlight an important issue that may lead to citizens united being revisited by the high court and that issue is whether or not corporate spending in elections gives rise to corruption a charge that justice kennedy in the four other justices on the supreme court ruled in favor of citizens united disagree with that route justice ruth bader ginsburg is now weighing in to challenge the high court's decision she recently wrote montana's experience of experience elsewhere since this court's decision in citizens united versus f.e.c. make it exceedingly di

. >> in campaign finance news, the supreme court has blocked a ban on spending. the montana supreme court ruled the case in citizens united did not apply to the state. in related news, sheldon adelson is reportedly ready to donate an additional $10 million to a super pac supporting newt gingrich the family has already given the superpac $11 million. the center for political integrity said that it is the largest reported donation in campaign history. the coalition of environmental and watchdog groups have filed a lawsuit to block the license that regulators issued for the country's first new nuclear reactors in years. southern co. is attempting to build two reactors at the vogtle plant near the south carolina border. a moroccan-born man was born on friday -- arrested on friday for allegedly attempting to carry out a suicide bombing. the man was arrested. at the time, he was carrying what was believed to be an explosive oregon. prison officials have confirmed a 27-year-old prisoner died while on a honegger strike. christian gomez died when he and 31 prisoners began refusing fo

supreme court decision, hundreds of people around the country converged on state courthouses to protest the supreme court decision. the ongoing fight to reverse the citizen's united decision is takes place on several months. montana's court recently upheld a century-old state law, banning corporate spending in elections, and there are several movements calling for a constitutional amendment that would overrule the citizen's united decision. >> our next guest knows more than almost anyone about how money influences our political system. the author of the new book "republic lost." i'm so glad to join him. he's joining us from boston. i'm glad you are joining us. thank you for being in the war room. i was fascinated by this book, professor, because it's broader than the citizens united case, but you are proposing solutions on how to stop it. but before i get to the solutions, the real problem is the linkage between those who contribute and what they want; is that right? >> yeah, that's right. what we have is kind of corruption not like doing anything criminal. because members of congress spend between 30 and 70% of their time raising money to get back to congress or get their party back into power, and as they do that

i want to devil into the montana supreme court decision. able to say that citizens united, the corporate limits on corporate money were unconstitutional. but we're going o to basically that same bill in montana and uphold it. it was because the supreme court said that on this question of fact, is it actually true that unlimited corporate money would corrupt our politics. they said, looking at the evidence, no. >> right. >> montana said actually we remember before we had this law in our state and standard oil ran this state. so we're going to look at that same question of fact, look at all the evidence and say, yes, it is true that corporate money corrupts politics. so we'll be able to show what's happened in the past two years with super pacs and everything will be able to make an evidentiary case in front of the supreme court and say yeah, it corrupts politics. >> montana politics were famously among the most -- fuel extraction happening in the state, mining interests and they've run the state, they had senators who are essentially their sp

montana, that's 1889. and the state gets title to the riverbed if the river is nafiggable. the supreme courtay-- it was a unanimous opinion by justice kennedy, said the montana supreme court used the wrong test. justice kennedy said you've got to look at the river segment by segment. these rivers had segments that were notinarigable. >> warner: that's when they became a state. >> and probably still are not, great falls on th falls on the i river. because they were not navigagl navigagle,. they were paying rent to the united states. >> warner: something like 29 other states waelged in on the state on montana's side. what are they worried about? >> they're very concerned about a test like this that looks at a river segment by segment. they have, literally, thousands of leases out for public uses of their rivers. and the concern now is if you can take a segment away from state control, it can go to private control. they lose the lease money, and they're put in the awkward position of maybe having to negotiate with private owners. >> warner: why doesn't it just go to the federal government? >> i

until the supreme court can decide on the montana case. we don't know if the supreme court will hear the case or when it will decide whether to hear it but until then, post citizens united and pre whatever they will decide about montana we are all still living in a billionaire's world. today is the day we got the bit of disclosure we greet from the super pacs that have overtaken our elections. why you might think as a human before writing a $5 check or $15 or $15 check to a candidate, these guys funding the pacs run $500,000 checks. for their given candidates because who knows. the only thing we know for sure they have that kind of change sitting in their checking accounts. money being given in chunks that big means individual decisions by individual named billionaires can make all the difference in the world to a presidential campaign. the whole reason we still think of newt gingrich campaign as alive is because of the news one guy, his casino billionaire guy, is reportedly thinking about pumping another $10 million in the gingrich side ov

there is room for the supreme court to reconsider it. the montanareme court recently issued a very lengthy opinion talking about how the influence of copper mine corporations had really corrupted the political system in montana. they said citizens united was flat wrong. the united states supreme court may have the opportunity to rule on that montana decision. they could fine-tune it. justice antonin scalia has said he feels strongly there should not be regulations on campaign finances. host: mike on twitter writes -- we've got about 10 minutes left with melanie sloan, executive director of citizens for responsibility and ethics in washington. we will go back to mickey on the line for democrats from connecticut. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i have been a 40-year registered democrat. right now, i'm supporting republicans. i really want them to win for 2012. my big thing working in the polls as a moderator, i really do think that we need to have voter i.d. -- proof, you know, that you can vote. we used to do a lot o

we saw gerrymandering action in california and also in eye ichlt we have the montana state supreme court around the country which is overwhelming, the rooms are selling out. obviously there is an enthusiastic response for the book and enthusiastic response for the show and that's what our narrative is. whether that converts into political action, john, you may be better to guess than i. but i'm encouraged by what we're seeing on a state by state level to deal with electoral reform beyond money and politics just a sense we have a corrupt electoral functionality between the issues of closed primaries, jerry mandzerring and money and politics. i would say at least on a state level, we're moving in that direction. >> all right. "greedy bastards" is now in the third week of "the new york times" best seller list. >> thank you, dylan. >> let's applaud him. >> thank you. thank you. thank you. >> by the way, your father , hi book is going to crash the top ten. >> yes! >> it's as exciting as "greedy bastards." father, really? do you even want to go there? >> let's applaud john. >> yes. >> strategi

there's a chance that the supreme court will use this montana law to re-establish the basic parameters protecting the political process from the corruption of that unregulated corporate money. but in the meantime, it's important that we advance a constitutional amendment that would eliminate the notion of corporate personalhood, explicitly stating that the rights of natural persons may only be afforded to real people, not corporations. and as we work to overturn citizens united and ban corporate personhood, people should not have to wait to judge whether a candidate is representing the public or representing their ben factors. we should pass -- benefactors. we should pass the disclose act to require political spending by corporations and individuals to be fully transparent. we should be be a stinsing in other efforts in the regulatory process to make sure that shareholders of corporations have the opportunity to at least know and maybe have a say on what the corporations that they are supposed to own are doing on their behalf. we should support h.r. 1404, the fair elections now act, to