mr. olson, five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chief justice. the words i would leave with this court are the solicitor general's. the government's position has changed. the government's position has changed as to what media might be covered by congressional power to sensor and ban speech by corporations. now we learn contrary to what we heard in march, that books couldn't be prohibited but pamphlets could be prohibited. we also learned -- >> that's not the -- the statute we're involved in in this case does not cover those. >> unless they are engaged in, quote, expressed abvocacy. the government says now, that the fec is now willing to recede from its regulations whi explicitly covered this corporation and i don't know, as i stand here today, what kind of corporations the government would choose to prosecute. remember, the federal election commission, which didn't even have a quorum and couldn't function at all for six months during the important election year of 2008 -- >> what you have to do is prosecute only those that do not -- who do not re

. >> mr. olson position that there is no difference in the first amendment rights of an individual, a corporation after law is not endowed by its creator with inalienable rights. so is there any distinction that congress could draw between corporations and natural human beings for purposes of campaign finance? >> what the court has said in the first amendment context, "new york times" versus sullivan, grosjean versus associated press and over and over again is that corporations or persons entitled to protection under the first amendment. >> would that include today's megacorporations where many of the investors may be foreign individuals or entities? >> the court in the past has made no distinction based upon the nature of the entity that might own a share of a corporation. >> own any shares? >> pardon? >> nowadays, there are foreign interests, even foreign governments, that own not one share but a goodly number of shares. >> i submit that the court's decisions in connection with the first amendment

mr. olsonas a fundament rst amendment argument here, and th is the first amenent protects corpations d inviduals. the supre court has said . if the government wants to regulate each particularly political speech which lies, he says, at the co of the first amenent, it has to have compelling reason. thetwo reons offered by solicitor neral kagan-- and chief justice rorts got her to cncede this-- have never been accepted by the courtf justifition forestricting rporate spending. >> ill: by conceding that, es she also concede e's in kind of a poorposition? >> no, s doesn't, becau she comes back and ss the situation today is not what was in 1990, and the terests that the government is offerinow were shown to be justified by congress whenit enacted the mccain-feingold actn 2002. the congre found, and justice breyer pointedhis ou that people believe that their representates cobought. an as justice breyer said isn't that a sufficient government intert to justify thisan? >> lehrer: o course we're al watch

>> the first case cited to you by mr. olson was in new york times against sullivan. i would like to begin are raising two propositions on you from that case. three arguments were made to the court. to win, they said, you either have to revise libel law to a considerable degree, which they did, or, they said, you only sold 390 copies in alabama, so you can rule in their favor saying there was no distinction, or, they said, we did not even mentioned tariffs sullivan's name, so you could rule in our favor on the ground that they have not proved the libel case. the court did research. they did the broad, rather than the narrow way to address the question, and i suggest they did it because they had come to the conclusion this out the degree of first amendment did danger of a sort of lawsuits occurring in alabama and elsewhere was something that had to be faced up to by the court now. >> the case did not involve overruling precedents of this court that had been followed by this court and others, so i think the situation -- >> it did involve overruling a and 50 years of ame

if he were guing mr. olson there is no distinction between individuals and corporations, what do do with the mega national corporations, some of them -- there are a lot of companies that operate that are foreign owned companies. can they put money in campaign ads and there was no answer to that question but it is one of the big problems as they go down this road the you could have international corporations tting money -- >> host: here is a c-span watcher who listened to the argunt asking what mr. savage explain the difference between contributions and expenditures by corporations as discussed during the proceedings yesterday? >> guest: yes, another goo question. the bulkeley base out of the 70's, the court at that time, right after watergate created a division that is with us ever since and messed up the law. they basically said the government can restrict contributions, if i've got millions of dollars the government can restrict how much money i get to a candidate. i can only give $2,500. but they said if i w

. >> mr. olson are you taking the position that there is no difference in the first amendment rights of an individual? a corporation after all is not endowed by its creator with inalienable rights. so is there any distinction that congress could draw between corporations and natural human beings for purposes of campaign finance? >> what the court has said in the first amendment context, "new york times" versus sullivan, and over and over again is that corporations are persons entitled to protection under the first amendment. >> would that include today's megacorporations where many of the investors may be foreign individuals or entities? >> the court in the past has made no distinction based upon the nature of the entity that might own a share of a corporation. >> how many shares? >> pardon? >> nowadays, there are foreign interests, even foreign governments, that own not one share but a goodly number of shares. >> it just seems to me that what olson is arguing is that a corporation, even if it's 95%

mr. olson, five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chief justice. the words i would leave with this court are the solicitor general's. the government's position has changed. the government's position has changed as to what media might be covered by congressional power to sensor and ban speech by corporations. now we learn contrary to what we heard in march, that books couldn't be prohibited but pamphlets could be prohibited. we also learned -- >> that's not the -- the statute we're involved in in this case does not cover those. >> unless they are engaged in, quote, expressed abvocacy. the government says now, that the fec is now willing to recede from its regulations which explicitly covered this corporation and i don't know, as i stand here today, what kind of corporations the government would choose to prosecute. remember, the federal election commission, which didn't even have a quorum and couldn't function at all for six months during the important election year of 2008 -- >> what you have to do is prosecute only those that do not -- who do not

mr. olson: mr. speaker, this past tuesday the review of u.s. human space flight plans committee released the options they have provided the obama administration regarding the future of our nation's human space flight program. their opening sentence says it all. the u.s. human space flight program appears to be on an unsustainable trajectory. two prior congresses and two presidential administrations have endorsed the course nasa's on, but without providing the necessary funding. this congress, this congress needs to meet the commitment to our nation's space agency. the work being done benefits science, education, and our economy. we have stood on this floor and spent money bailing out the past. it's time we reinvest in our future. the achievement of the men and women of america's space program cannot continue to be received with empty promises and constant second-guessing. we have been the world's leader in human space flight for nearly 50 years. we must always be so. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the b

mr. olson: madam speaker, yesterday we heard from norm augustine, the chairman of the refew of the u.s. human space flight plans committee on the recently released options they have provided the obama administration regarding the future of our nation's human space flight program. but as we debate the future of human space flight, we must not overlook the present. last week was a wildly successful one in america's space agency. on friday, the space shuttle discovery and the crew of sts-128 returned home after successful, a very successful mission to the international space station. last week nasa released new and frankly stunning images from the recently serviced hubble telescope. and finally, nasa completed a successful test of the first stage rocket motor. this is another milestone in the constellation program. our next generation vehicle to take us back to the moon. all of these were amazing accomplishments, but it was just another week at nasa. the american people have invested in space expl

you are arguing mr. olsonthat the is no distinction between individuals and corporations what do we do with the meghan national corporations there are a lot of companies that operate in this country that are forgn owned companies. can they put money into camp inmates-maggette? it is one of e big problems as they go do this road that you uld have intertion corporations. >> host: here is a c-span watcher that listen to the argument asking what he explained what happens between-- the difference between contributionand expenditus by corporations as discussed during the proceeding? >> guest: this goes back to the valeo casin the mid-70s. the court at that time, this was right after watergate, created a division that is sort of what the seversents and it sort of messed up the laupecode basically said the government can restrict contributions and if i have got millions of dollars the government can restrict it. how uch money i give to a candidate. i can only give $2,500 but they said if i want to spend money on my o