the case was reargued and wasn't on the list of major cases. so what happened there? >> the concenus was the deputy being questioned by the chief justice and presing him on how far the argument would go in terms of regulation of corporate spending. and he made a concession that the government could ban books. he meant you could regulate the money that was used to publish the books. but it was an ah-ha moment where they thought it was astounding. and then after that we get the announcement that the court is going to rehear citizens united and it is going to consider it. it said specifically and this was the court's own question on whether it should overrule the 1992 ruling that did ban the use of corporate funds in the federal elections. ... of going to write a fairly narrow decision. this case involved a movie. a movie that have highly critical of hillary clinton, and one of the questions before the court was, you know, whether the law even applied to the movie. and the chief -- we've come to unction, was going write a narrow opinion saying that it didn't. and that wo

the case was reargued and wasn't on the list of major cases. so what happened there?s was the deputy being questioned by the chief justice and presing him on how far the argument would go in terms of regulation of corporate spending. and he made a concession that the government could ban books. he meant you could regulate the money that was used to publish the books. but it was an ah-ha moment where they thought it was astounding. and then after that we get the announcement that the court is going to rehear citizens united and it is going to consider it. it said specifically and this was the court's own question on whether it should overrule the 1992 ruling that did ban the use of corporate funds in the federal elections. ... of going to write a fairly narrow decision. this case involved a movie. a movie that have highly critical of hillary clinton, and one of the questions before the court was, you know, whether the law even applied to the movie. and the chief -- we've come to unction, was going write a narrow opinion saying that it didn't. and that would have been t

rearguely, i think as commissioner dwight alluded to, we just don't have the information that we need. it could be the planning department would come in here and convince us, oh, this is absolutely fair fee because it's so small. and, yeah, we should go forward for it. we don't know enough to make a decision on it. that's my personal opinion. i can agree with commissioner dooley on that point we should not say a prohibition. i think if i understand what you're saying is we're approving the ordinance and just putting an asterisk beside the fee and say please investigate this fee further, in so many words. i think that's what i understood you to say. >> great. so, that would be a friendly amendment to commissioner irene yee riley to say put in the ordinance not to do it, but, so -- >> i just don't agree we should say it should definitely not be in there and i don't think we should say it should definitely be in there. i think we should kind of make some point as a small business commission we're antiany unnecessary fees. if it is deemed it is appropriate or whatever, ~ leave it in there

reargued for a while and finally we propose to our masters that we were going to do this oral history. i think they thought we were all crazy. but we had googled the topic and we found that there were 77,000 articles that have been written on the subject and we used that to say we don't need to write 77,001st articles. so we decided to target the key institutions in the key decision-makers going back 35 years in our original idea was 10 key moments, 20 key people. we will be in and out of here in a heartbeat. we met a lot of skepticism, but we finally found the godfather in eco-malley, we went to when he said this is a great idea. he should've a template for it, which frankly we stole from "vanity fair." but we improved on it in terms of adding video. we got his endorsement and he also steered us to a graduate student here at the kennedy school named alex remington. this is the way these things work. alex now worked with the "washington post" i'm happy to say. people do still find jobs in the newspaper business from harvard. he let us and turned to josh benton, who has dirty been cite