nadler and those on the judiciary committee. and to mike castle and the other co-sponsors of this legislation. phich addresses the very serious threats to our democracy, created by the sreme court's decision in citizens united. which in very radical departure from precedent said that major corporations, including foreign-controlled corporations operating in the united states, will be treated like american citizens for the purposes of being able to spend unlimited millions amount of money in our elections. this bill addresses this issue in three ways. first we say if you are a foreign controlled corporation, if you are british petroleum, if you are a chinese wealth fund that controls a corporation her% in the united statesif you are citgo controlled by hugo chavez, you have no business spending money in u.s. elections, overtly or secretly. if we don't do something about that now, they'll be able to do either of those things. number t, we say if you are a federal contractor, if you are getting over $10 million from e american taxp

no disrespect to congressman nadler, but i do not think there is a chance that congress could take any action on the voting rights act or any other major piece of civil rights legislation in today's poisoned atmosphere. that is just not a possibility. to the extent that they thought that was a possibility, no one really credibly things that. we do not really know where that goes. i want to make one more point about the title vii cases. last year, we had a case -- the firefighters' case -- this was a disparate impact cases. the short version is that, if you have an employment practice that has a disparate impact on african americans, that is not job-related, then title vii says that is a violation of title vii. in this case, they used an employment practice -- a test -- that look like it had a clear disparate impact, whether it was -- a disparate impact. whether it was job-related was never litigated. the fact that they took action without litigating that caused extraordinary distrust to come out of the justices in their oral argument here there were openly distrustful of what motivated

nadler and those on the judiciary committee. and to mike castle and the other co-sponsors of this legislation. phich addresses the very serious threats to our democracy, created by the supreme court's decision in citizens united. which in a very radical departure from precedent said that major corporations, including foreign-controlled corporations operating in the united states, will be treated like american citizens for the purposes of being able to spend unlimited millions amount of money in our elections. this bill addresses this issue in three ways. first we say if you are a foreign controlled corporation, if you are british petroleum, if you are a chinese wealth fund that controls a corporation here in the united states, if you are citgo controlled by hugo chavez, you have no business spending money in u.s. elections, overtly or secretly. if we don't do something about that now, they'll be able to do either of those things. number two, we say if you are a federal contractor, if you are getting over $10 million from the ame

nadler: but israel want tones the occupation and be left in peace. israel offered in camp david in 2000 and in 2001 at another talk, they said we'll withdraw from the entire gaza strip, we'll withdraw from 97% of the west bank, we'll give land swaps to the palestinians to make it equivalent to 100% of the acreage and we'll share jerusalem but in return they've got to agree that the war is over. they wouldn't agree. and they start toad first intifada. the prime minister renewed the offer in 2008 but they will not agree to end of claims or demilitarization. that's the real issue. if they'd agree to that, if the palestinians would agree that the west bank cannot be used if they gave it back, that the west bank would not be used as a rocket launching pad that israel could live in peace if she withdrew that deal could be made and it could be made. it's been offered and until the palestinians are willing to live in peace and willing to talk about it, the pa stillians won't even talk to the israels now, only the americans. until they're willing to talk and

no disrespect to congressman nadler, but i do not think there is a chance that congress could take any action on the voting rights act or any other major piece of civil rights legislation in today's poisoned atmosphere. that is just not a possibility. to the extent that they thought that was a possibility, no one really credibly things that. we do not really know where that goes. i want to make one more point about the title vii cases. last year, we had a case -- the firefighters' case -- this was a disparate impact cases. the short version is that, if you have an employment practice that has a disparate impact on african americans, that is not job-related, then title vii says that is a violation of title vii. in this case, they used an employment practice -- a test -- that look like it had a clear disparate impact, whether it was -- a disparate impact. whether it was job-related was never litigated. the fact that they took action without litigating that caused extraordinary distrust to come out of the justices in their oral argument here there were openly distrustful of what motivated

nadler and those on the judiciary committee. and to mike castle and the other co-sponsors of this legislation. phich addresses the very serious threats to our democracy, created by the supreme court's decision in citizens united. which in a very radical departure from precedent said that major corporations, including foreign-controlled corporations operating in the united states, will be treated like american citizens for the purposes of being able to spend unlimited millions amount of money in our elections. this bill addresses this issue in three ways. first we say if you are a foreign controlled corporation, if you are british petroleum, if you are a chinese wealth fund that controls a corporation her% in the united states, if you are citgo controlled by hugo chavez, you have no business spending money in u.s. elections, overtly or secretly. if we don't do something about that now, they'll be able to do either of those things. number two, we say if you are a federal contractor, if you are getting over $10 million from the ame

nadler: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in support of the disclose act. earliethis year, the supreme court reversed decades of precedents and ruled that corporations are individuals like you and me and can put as much money into elections as they want. it distorts our political process. the very real danger now is that corporations will be able to use vast sums of concentrated money to further corrupt our political ppocess and drown out the voices of everyone else. without objection action as a result of this latest activist supreme court decision, our electoral system will be at the mercy of large meyed interests. this bill takes several critical steps to reclaim our elections. the most important one is that it would require disclosures of donors providing money for political purposes in certain circumstances and mandate that they appear in political ads to say they, quote, approve this meage, just as candidates do. it would set some limits on money in politic, not by limiting the money but by requiring disclosure of the source of the corporate money to

nadler: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in support of the disclose act. earlier this year, the supreme court reversed decades of precedents and ruled that corporations are individuals like you and me and can put as much money into elections as they want. it distorts our political process. the very real danger now is that corporations will be able to use vast sums of concentrated money to further corrupt our political process and drown out the voices of everyone else. without objection action as a result of this latest activist supreme court decision, our electoral system will be at the mercy of large moneyed interests. this bill takes several critical steps to reclaim our elections. the most important one is that it would require disclosures of donors providing money for political purposes in certain circumstances and mandate that they appear in political ads to say they, quote, approve this message, just as candidates do. it would set some limits on money in politic, not by limiting the money but by requiring disclosure of the source of the corporate mon

congressman gerald nadler who might have known for many years. he is currently chairman of the constitution subcommittee of the house judiciary committee and an active player in the constitutional issues. to my right, judge clemens, now retired chief judge of the u.s. district court in alabama. now practicing law in birmingham. john hyatt is executive director of the aflcio. no one is more on labor laws then john. the supreme court has had a lot to say for better or worse. pam who everyone in the acs nose and is indebted to. she is a professor at stanford where she hopes to direct the supreme court clinic. she is a very astute and wonderful observer of the u.s. supreme court. i thought we would start by talking about an iconic case. [unintelligible] concerning the disconnect between congressional intent and the way the statues are. as part of framing our discussion here, it is an excellent time for two things. one theme is to take the temperature of the roberts court, closing in on five years. it will have a long trajectory. it is undergoing chan

nadler and those on the judiciary committee. and to mike castle and the other co-sponsors of this legislation. phich addresses the very serious threats to our democracy, created by the supreme court's decision in citizens united. which in a very radical departure from precedent said that major corporations, including foreign-controlled corporations operating in the united states, will be treated like american citizens for the purposes of being able to spend unlimited millions amount of money in our elections. this bill addresses this issue in three ways. first we say if you are a foreign controlled corporation, if you are british petroleum, if you are a chinese wealth fund that controls a corporation her% in the united states, if you are citgo controlled by hugo chavez, you have no business spending money in u.s. elections, overtly or secretly. if we don't do something about that now, they'll be able to do either of those things.