mr. raskin? >> i'm taking it, since he thinks corporations have the same rights of people, that the corporation should also be able to give on an unlimited basis to members of congress. we have one philosophy that says money should be treated like speech, corporations like people, and that the free marketr rein. we have another that adheres to the american political tradition that within the electoral realm rough to maintain some approximation of political equality based on the core idea of one person, one vote. abrams' appreciate mr. candor, because that is where the litigators are going. at me just say there is one supreme court decision with chuck is me a little bit of hope. it came the year before citizens massey, aperton vs. case where the ceo of the massey coal mine corporation had a litigation against him and the company going, and they were losing all the way out. they decided to get involved in the election for the west virginia supreme court, and he threw everything he had enjoy candida

professor raskin, i have a limited amount of time left. mr. abrams referenced that the first amendment is an individual right that is protected. a right to free speech that's imbedded in our first amendment. is it true that money equals speech in the context of the current majority of the supreme court in recent decisions? and what grounding do you think there is in the text of the constitution for extending that right to corporations equal with individuals and what's the consequences? >> i think everybody would agree or should agree that money is not speech. money can be a courier of speech. it can amplify speech but because it's a first amendment right and not a collective right. that's why the supreme court had always said up until citizens united that corporations as artificial entities chattered by the state governments do not have the first amendment right of the people. corporations don't have conscious conscienc consciences, believes, or thoughts. one is so people can express themselves. two is for democratic self-government so the cit

mr. raskin, welcome. >> thank you very much.we built a wall brick by brick over a century to separate the craddick money from them credit politics. starting with the 1907 band on corporate contributions, which still stands, we have worked to --. four years ago, citizens united bulldozed a major block of the wall. the one that kept trillions of dollars in corporate wealth from flowing into our campaigns. five justices shut down the public financing programs that use matching funds to amplify the voices of poor candidates competing to be heard. the majority treated additional campaign speech as a first amendment industry. it provides more voices, wider discussion and greater competition. this year, the same five took a sledgehammer to aggregate --. -- to aggregate contribution limits. after five decisions, the wall between democracy and plutocracy is crumbling. if we keep waiting around, the last few bricks will be removed soon, including contribution limits, rules against corporate expenditures, and writing --paign checks during

mr. raskin, welcome. >> thank you very much.built a wall brick by brick over a century to separate the craddick money from them credit politics. starting with the 1907 band on corporate contributions, which still stands, we have worked to --. four years ago, citizens united bulldozed a major block of the wall. the one that kept trillions of dollars in corporate wealth from flowing into our campaigns. justices shut down the public financing programs that use matching funds to amplify the voices of poor candidates competing to be heard. the majority treated additional campaign speech as a first amendment industry. it provides more voices, wider discussion and greater competition. this year, the same five took a sledgehammer to aggregate --. five decisions, the wall between democracy and plutocracy is crumbling. they are at odds with the dogma of five justices. money is speech and corporations are people. , you havey corruption to find a bride. this will enable us to protect ic politics. we need to revive government where all voice

so professor raskin, welcome. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. delighted to be with you. we built two walls to protect american democracy. first is jefferson's wall of separation between church and state which protects the religious realm in a nation free from bureaucracy. the other is the while we built brick by brick in statute over a century to separate through credit money from democratic politics. starting with 1907 been on corporate contributions in federal races, which still stands, we worked to wall off the vast corporate wealth and personal fortune from campaigns, defying the electoral arena as a place of equality. at four years ago in citizens united bitterly divided court bulldozed a major block of the wall. the one they get trillions of dollars in corporate wealth from flowing into our campaign. three years ago in arizona free enterprise club the same five justices struck down public financing programs that use matching funds to amplify the voices of poorer candidates competing to be heard over the roar of big money. in a world gone topsy-turvy, justice kagan

mr. abrams. next one is jamey raskin. professor raskin teaches constitutional law at american universities, washington college of law here in washington, d.c. if that's not enough to keep him busy, he also serves as a senator in the maryland state legislature. so professor raskin, welcome. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. delighted to be with you. we've built two walls to protect democracy. first is the separation between church and state which protects a nation free no thee roxy. the other is to separate money from democratic politics. we've worked to wall off a vast corporate wealth and personal fortunes from campaigns defining the lecter rale arena as a place of equality. but four years ago a divided court bulldozed a major block of the wall, the one that kept trillions of dollars of corporate wealth from flowing into our campaigns. the same five justices struck down public finances programs that used matching funds to amplify the voices of poor candidates competing to be heard over the roar of bill money. in a wo