scalia is going the opposite way.u can say this is a republican/democratic split. >> you want to take a look at the supreme court. >> you have to pay more attention and do some research on that, toobin. >> he also says -- >> look at the voting rights act. >> but can i ask you a legal question. is al libi going to get successfully prosecuted when he is sent to new york. >> my prediction is he will not go to new york. for political reasons. >> he was indicted here. >> we are about to disagree again. >> where is he going? >> jeff, go ahead. >> i disagree with mark with that too. this is not khalid sheikh mohammed who has a separate space because he is a celebritied and notorious criminal. this guy is in the category of the shoe bomber and the times square bomber. >> no, no, no. >> the american league system has dealt with these people successfully. and i think there is no reason to think this guy won't be prosecuted here. >> there's no way you can compare him to richard reid, the shoe bomber. he is substantially higher u

do think this could turn on scalia? scilly' is an under 10 -- and understanding of the 14 amendment. thisn view is that since is focused directly on the consequences of interpreting the context, justice scalia will emerge. justice kennedy has been, in any area, often the voting rights context, he understands intuitively and is articulated -- and has articulated that the effects test and measures of discrimination are just mechanisms for redistricting and other context, he has not been very supportive. click say what you want about justice kenny on affirmative a sole voteas been with the conservative -- mike has promised you are going to take a different issue. >> the truth is i have not been on -- i am not all that familiar with the case. i guess i would react on an institutional level to a couple of things that mike is saying. in thenteresting that discussion he is focusing on agency regulations. this is title vii, a federal statute. from an institutional perspective it does seem to me a lot of these debates really do

we've come to expect it from justice scalia.voting a quote, racial entitlement in arguments on the voting rights act earlier this year. we'll keep watching him and this important case. and the court -- as the court's term continues. in the nation, sometimes bad things happen. add brand new belongings from nationwide insurance and we'll replace stolen or destroyed items with brand-new versions. we put members first. join the nation. ♪ nationwide is on your side ♪ he was a matted messiley in a small cage. ng day. so that was our first task, was getting him to wellness. without angie's list, i don't know if we could have found all the services we needed for our riley. from contractors and doctors to dog sitters and landscapers, you can find it all on angie's list. we found riley at the shelter, and found everything he needed at angie's list. join today at angieslist.com still running in the morning? yeah. getting your vegetables every day? when i can. [ bop ] [ male announcer ] could've had a v8. two full servings of vegetables for

see it is unclear when it will be now eugene scalia son of supreme court justice antonin scalia he is known for being a quote absolute bulldog on frank and wall street secret weapon question is how much power does he really have he has a lobbyist and he's a powerful one an. attorney as well but how much power does he really have and how much damage has he done enormous damage in bringing cases based on any little nit he can find his biggest success is to point out deficiencies in what's called cost benefit analysis now agencies don't really have to do a cost benefit analysis but they do and he ran into a judge a guy named ginsberg who famously failed to make this. court because because he was partaking of some controlled substances but he he wrote an opinion that's called business roundtable for short which said that the cost benefit analysis of an f.c.c. rule we can go into some detail was deficient and threw it out that not only freaked out the securities and exchange commission which stifled all rulemaking you can you can watch the curve of progress and it just hits a wall after th

because the decision and justice scalia, you know, no screaming liberal, justice scalia made it very clear in section three of the opinion that this right, the second amendment right, like other rights is not unlimited. and he said that you could have restrictions on who gets a gun, on how the gun's sold, how the gun is stored, how the gun is caroled and even what kind -- caroled and even what kind of -- carried and even what kind of gun it is. you can argue where you can draw the line, but basically justice scalia outlined some areas where i think we can start to have a discussion and where we need to have a discussion. and where it's crucial for the future of our country and the health of our communities to have this discussion. so i wanted to suggest a few things today where i think we can possibly find common ground. first one is still on background checks. i mean, this is the one that people should agree on. we all agree that people that we are pretty sure are going to be -- that are dangerous now and are likely to be dangerous shouldn't easily be able to get a gun. and, you kno

did justice scalia really think we'd ignore his lifetime of ugly civil rights call? you because we got you. always be g. [ tires screech ] ♪ [ beeping ] ♪ may you never be stuck behind a stinky truck. [ beeping ] ♪ may things always go your way. but it's good to be prepared... just in case they don't. toyota. let's go places, safely. but it's good to be prepared... just in case they don't. [ mthat if you wear a partial,w you're almost twice as likely to lose your supporting teeth? try poligrip for partials. poligrip helps minimize stress which may damage supporting teeth by stabilizing your partial. care for your partial. help protect your natural teeth. >>> finally tonight, we are in serious need of gop leadership. and as i talked about tonight, speaker boehner could end this shutdown right now with a vote. in my new book "the rejected stone," i write about leading with direction and knowing your final destination. >> if you want to lead, you must decide where you're going. in that chapter i talked about how to decide earlier and firmly what it is you are trying to

and so -- >> scalia and the majority on the court? >> scalia and the majority on the court. so for them to say, well, we've got a giant problem on one side, so the solution is to create a giant problem on the other side, well, they are the reason for the giant problem that they were describing -- >> citizens united? >> citizens united. >> in response to scalia, solicitor general verrilli said, "i don't think that's the right way to look at it, your honor. if you think that a party's got to get $1.5 billion together -- that's about 450 people you need to round up, less than 500 people," the solicitor general said, "can fund the whole shooting match." >> it's a remarkable statement. although i'll just tell you my worry is bigger than general verrilli's worry. so he worries that 400 people will fund the whole shooting match. my worry is that once 400 people realize they can put funding in like that, there'll be 800 of them or maybe 1,200 of them, that more money will move into the system because people will realize just how far their money's going to go, just how much influence

justice scalia is the most outspoken. he says if it was allowed, most people would never watch the entire one-our argument and would instead rely on snippets on the evening news. -meister myself, i can tell you that that is undoubtedly true. but it is hard to see how that is a reason to keep cameras out of the court. after all, reports on oral arguments that appear next , theyg in the newspapers are just going to have snippets, two. quotations -- that is the print equivalent of a snippet. they are newspapers, and the ap seldom runs the entire transcript of an oral argument. thank you very much. [laughter] that would bes broadcast on the news programs would actually be more vivid, that is to say, more faithful to the ritual of what was said in the court. perhaps that is why justice scalia objects, but it seems to me an odd argument against cameras to say that the snippets be more truly representatives of what happened during the oral arguments and that is why we should not allow them. we have long grown accustomed to what

justice scalia in his dissent also sort of said this as he predicted in lawrence v. texas that this would lead to gay marriage. this ruling this past term he said you're providing states with a blueprint for making gay marriage constitutional. so i guess i'm not certain what the cases are. i better start watching the freight train. >> one more question and then i will open it up to the audience. so you all touched in your remarks in this concept of the shifting dynamics of the court and sor sort of losing a middleground with justice o'connor and probably send justice kennedy. and i would love to hear if you have any thoughts on how those dynamics are shifting among the justices. are there any new leaders emerging? both chief justice roberts and justice taken in their confirmation hearings there was a lot of talk about them being consensusbuilding and being able to reach across and bring people together. are the shifting more in a polarized way? are we losing the middle to have an even more polarized court and we had before, which is hard to imagine? but are we going

justice scalia wrote an opinion saying, hey, although this stuff about waiver and self- incrimination rights is pretty much made up. it is all for policy reasons. he says maybe this policy reasons are good, but they are policy reasons nonetheless. and the structure of that argument is the same one that has been playing out in all of his opinions about the confrontation clause and about the sentencing guidelines which is how much in a constitutional -- how much in the guise of constitutional interpretation are we willing to take policy arguments and incorporate them? and this court has been pretty reluctant to do that, particularly in the criminal context. might be a rather surprising result in the case because of it. with respect to the business community cases, -- >> by the way, that was one of neil's cases. >> i'll talk about them, don't worry. >> is pretty remarkable to have that many. and they are old friend. -- and they are all different. >> yes. there is northwest versus ginsburg. i know people the snow room no of preemption is. but it is that federal law trumps state law. it co

on one other question raised by scalia. it was interesting. the supreme court declared limits on outside groups on constitutional because there is no risk of corruption. justice scalia seems to think that there is just as much risk of collection without said spending as are with contribution. that is not what the court said in citizens united. in citizens united, the supreme court said outside groups can make unlimited expenditures because they do not correct. they do not create opportunities for corruption. repeatedly court has said that contributions to createtes and parties do the opportunity for corruption and they can be limited. that is the issue facing the court today. this is a corruption case. the supreme court were to strike down the over all contribution limits. we are bound to see billion dollar contributions solicited are the most powerful officeholders in washington and given by donors and creating opportunities for the kind of corruption that the court has said for for decades can be limited. thank you. justice seem to say it wa

i don't agree with justice scalia that in difference to hundreds of deaths that might result from thecourt's embracing a broad interpretation of the second amendment is the sign of a good judge. the consequence of deciding a case, that's something for the judge to consider. >> is it that these guys don't get the full impact of their decision-making? >> i don't know the inner workings of the minds of other judges or most other people. i think most of the judges who call themselves originalists or textualists they honestly believe they have a technique for determining the real meaning of even very old constitutional or statutory text, for example, the second amendment, which is from, 1789. but i think it's -- i don't think it's realistic. if you think of guns in 1789, if you think of the culture of the united states, if you think of the role of the militia as the primary line of defense of the united states in that time, it's just a different world. you can't use what people thought back then. if we even knew what people thought, which we don't, to interpret this unchanged text today hu

scalia says, look, if you're rich, you're entitled to have as much influence as you can buy.t has now been the illusion and the scalia side has won 5-4 consistently in recent years. >> senator bernie sanders said unlimited private spending undermines u.s. democracy. >> the bottom line here is, if we do not want to move this nation to an oligarchic form of society where a handful of billionaires can determine the outcome of these elections, it is imperative not only that we overturn citizens united, but that we put a lid on how much people can contribute in elections. [applause] freedom of speech, in my view, does not mean the freedom tobuy .. the united states government >> any have shaun mccutcheon's lawyers comments saying -- burt neuborne? >> that is the collision. some like bernie sanders say it is too much first amendment activity when you can spend so much money that you have a hugely this proportion influence and they owe you favors later. what kind of a democracy is that? ruth ginsburg said it perfectly. she said if these aggregate limitations go down, 500 people who

i don't want to pick on justice scalia. that's a lie, i really do. he actually basically has said that in his opinion in his concurrence in citizens united. justice stevens writes a long descent and citizens united come using the mentors as he believe the framers of the constitution would not have wanted corporations to have the free speech rights that were given to them or found for them in that opinion. and justice scalia takes this on any says, well, you know, that may be true. the things you found maybe true but that's just because in 1787 people thought of corporations as involving monopoly. and our corporations don't. our framers, the framers, if they knew that, would really like them, which i translate as, ma i knew the framers, i worked with the framers, the framers were friends of mine. trust me, the framers would have thought this. at i think the answer, of course, would be -- first of all, if madison came back and said can we have an input to mandate for health insurance, his head would've been what is health insurance? he wouldn't have kn

justice scalia sometimes justice thomas have come together with the most liberal justices. we can't have all these jury trials. we have to give powers to do judges and the edges of the court will say as a matter of runcible the sixth amendment will guarantee you a jury trial. that is the place the supreme court is the most likely to see strange bedfellows. in the business sense if you wanted to be long on the justice -- i really want to invest in this justice. right now the conventional wisdom would be justice kagan in chief justice roberts being relatively young and they clearly have a great strategic sense of how to align themselves , how to move the court around. they very rarely dissent. the justice who i would be long on would-be justice sotomayor. the reason for that is if you were to look at her separate writings her concurrences and dissents they are actually very deep and thoughtful and forward-looking. they are for the left with justice thomas is far on the right. he is out there by himself thinking what the law might be like 50 or 100 years where justice sotomayo

i mean, i can believe but i cannot believe justice scalia so flippant about the impact of $3.5 millionould make a difference. >> right. he basically said, hey, $3.5 million isn't any worse than all of this superpac money but it's like he created the problem in terms of citizens united which led to superpacs and now saying, oh, $3.5 million isn't any worse in terms of a contribution. a friend said it is kind of like the person who kills their parents and then says, have sympathy upon me because i'm an orphan. >> you know, before i let you go, i want to make sure we break it down for people. so, what we're talking about in the instance of this supreme court case would be more money flowing from not just the groups, lisa, you talk about, but also, as individuals, both to other groups that fund other groups and to individuals who -- in campaigns, right? just puts more money everywhere in the system. >> it definitely would lead to more money in the system and most americans know that the system is broken because there's so much money in the system. most people don't agree with senator mccon

. >> justice scalia, i am not here to debate whether the court is correct with respect to corruption from independents and turn independent expenditures. but we accept it and the line is that there is an unacceptable risk when contributions are too high. and if i may say the same conclusion -- >> your answer to the questions between me and justice scalia is that is the law. just to be fair. >> understanding that your answer is that buckley has settled that issue and no more discussion is necessary. >> that we but we think the risk of corruption is real. we think that it is profound and talking about the concert contribution that can be made. if you take the lid off aggregate contributions. are just scalia's particular situation proves to be correct and it is disabling to candidates and parties, congress can address that by changing that. >> and in general if the court is having second thoughts about its rulings at independent expenditures are not corrupt, we could change that part of the law as well. [laughter] >> far be it for me to suggest that you do not. >> but the record as far

>> i don't want to become justice scalia -- that's a lie. i really do. he basically has said that in his opinion in his concurrence and citizens united. justice stevens writes a long descent in citizens united using the original list materials to say he believed the framers of the constitution would not have wanted corporations to have a free-speech rights that were given to them or found for them in that opinion and justice scalia takes this on and he says that may be true, the things you found me the truth that's just because in 1787 people thought of corporations as involving monopoly. and our corporations don't. and our framers of the framers of the new that would really like them, which i translate as, you know, i knew the framers, i worked with the framers, the framers were friends of mine, trust me the framers would have thought this. and i think the answer of course would be -- first of all of madison did come back to life and you set and we have an individual mandate for health insurance, his answer would have been what is health insurance crack

now, justice scalia is the most outspoken about tv coverage. he says if it was allowed, most people would never watch the swire one-hour argument and would instead rely on what he calls snippets on the evening news. and as a snippet meister myself, i can tell you that's undoubtedly true. [laughter] but it's hard to see how that is a reason to keep cameras out of the court. after all, reports on oral argument that appear the next morning in the newspaper by robert barnes of "the washington post" or richard wolf from "usa today," they are just going to have snippets too, that is quotations of the -- that's the print equivalent of a snippet. their newspapers and the ap sell them the entire transcript of an oral argument. [laughter] thank you very much, thank you. [laughter] the video clips that would be broadcast on the news programs would actually be more vivid, it is a to say more faithful to the original of what was said in the court. so perhaps that's why justice scalia objects, but it does seem to me an odd argument against cameras to say tha

because the decision and justice scalia, justice clean it very clear and anything in section three of the opinion that this right, the. >> host: write is like other rights, is not unlimited. he said that you could have restrictions on who gets a gun, on how the gun is sold, how the gun is stored, how the can is carried and even what kind of gun it is. you can still argue within all those categories exactly where you can draw the line and if it steps over the line constitutional. but basically justice scalia outlines in areas where i think we can start to a discussion and where we need to have a discussion. and where it's crucial for the future of our country and the health of our communities to have this discussion. i wanted to suggest a few things today what i think we can possibly find common ground. first one is still background checks. this is one people should agree on. we all agreed that people that we are per share are going to be dangerous, better changes now and are likely to be dangerous shouldn't easily be able to get a gun. that's sort of the starting point. someone who's

one other question raised by justice scalia was quite interesting. the supreme court declared limits on outside groups and constitutional because there is no risk of corruption. justice scalia appears now to think there's just as much risk of corruption without side spending as there are with contributions but that is not what the court said in citizens united. in citizens united the supreme court said outside groups can make unlimited expenditures because they do not corrupt, they do not create opportunities for corruption. the supreme court has repeatedly said that contributions to candidates and parties to create the opportunity for corruption and they can begin. that is the issue facing the court today. this is a corruption case. if the supreme court were to strike down the overall contribution limits we are bound to see million dollar and $2 million contribution solicited by the most powerful office holders in washington given by donors and creating opportunities for the kinds of quid pro quo of corruption the court has said for four decades can

justice scalia called one of his ax minimalism. this dynamic of the right wanting someone whom they could consider their guy so that they could grow faster and bigger, you see over and over. host: what is before the court, what are their options? narrowlye way to rule in these cases, assuming the chief justices agree with the general direction of removing these kind of limits on political spending is to say the of 100 $30,000 or so is unconstitutional because it does not serve any purpose beyond the purpose served by one atom called the base level limits, limits to individual candidates. that would leave intact these individual amounts, saying the anti-corruption goal of then that would serve the purpose. the way to go more broadly, and already we have three justices that have indicated that as their preference, is to remove the limits on contributions altogether. the buckwheat case you referenced a moment ago. that case distinguished between campaign expenditures which the limitedid ship not be and can't paint contributions. sever

this is what you see over time between justice scalia and justice breyer. now, sometimes that will lead to the partisan result, sometimes it will not. >> guest: there are many cases at a broader level where justices who might not think would be terribly sympathetic to civil plaintiffs seeking damages that would be voting for those peoples. but because of their judicial philosophy, not making a constitutional right, vigorously enforcing this, you see justice scalia siding with this. >> host: going onto another topic, our cameras are recording this, opening day, we have a couple of people holding up a sign that the cameras in the court now. c-span has written numerous letters to the court asking for cameras to be put in there. if you are interested, if the viewers are interested, go to her website at c-span.org and you can follow the timeline of the courts and the different justices on her website. but what are your two thoughts? what are your thoughts on us this and what impact do you think that that will have a max. >> i am not sure it will have that big of

plus, justice scalia believes in the devil and thinks he's very busy these days. >>> but first, if you think devils, salmonella, brain-eating amebas are scary, wait till you see "dawn of the debt." >>> good morning, i'm melissa harris-perry. all right. so the thing about zombies, besides the rotting flesh and all that, they are really hard to stop. no matter what you do, they just keep on coming after you, hungry and ready to tear you apart. you can never just sit back and relax, because after these zombies, the ones right in front of you, there are thousands more right behind them and a thousand more behind them, and they'll all want a piece of you. maybe you have a plan for the zombie apocalypse. the cdc certainly does. no, really, that's a real post from the federal government's zombie preparedness campaign, but what about if the government defaults on its debts? the way some are talking about it, it sure sounds like an apocalyp apocalypse. >> in order to admit default would be, and i'm quoting here, insane, catastrophic, chaos, these are the more polite words. warren buffett likene

but now justice scalia appears to think there is just as much risk without side spending as commissionnvisions it. but that is out with the court has said. , roofs and can make unlimited expenditures but since then the reprieving put -- supreme court have repeatedly said contributions to candidates and parties to create the opportunity for corruption and can be limited. that is the issue facing the court today. this is a corruption case. if the supreme court were to strike down the overall contribution limits, we are bound to use the 1 million and $2 billion contributions solicited by the most powerful office holders in washington given by doctors to create opportunities for the quick that they have said over four decades hevea limited but is there any way but if they want to give a few more contributions? a couple of visitors. he just cannot give it to hunter dollars to eastern them from a each as distinguished between the first amendment rights of a donor that is in direct and the first amendment rights of the splendor that is direct expression. this is a line drawn by congress that

i remember when justice scalia was sworn in.he said, my question is can i go to the home depot, to buy some tools without everybody knowing who i am? well, of course he goes on television and all sorts of public appearances. justice breyer goes on television. and so the notion that most of the justices are in anyway not known to the public, if the public is paying any attention, is really not the case anymore. and besides, that's the problem, they can focus the cameras as they do in some state courts on the advocate and not show anything but the back of the heads of the justices. i remember the first time our argued a case that have cameras, i couldn't even find the camera. it was someplace off to the side. if i was going to grandstand, that would've been a bad time to do it. >> oath legally and practically i think the idea of congress mandating cameras or something like that is a nonstarter but it's not going to happen, and it would never be enforced. so the real question is what can we do short of that and i think two things c

raised by r question justice scalia, it was quite interesting -- the supreme court limits on outsideonal because risk of corruption. appears to scalia think well, there's just as much isk of corruption with outside spending as there are with contributions. hat's not what the court said in citizens united. united, outside groups can make unlimited notnditures because they do corrupt -- they don't create opportunities for corruption. repeatedly court has said that contributions to candidates and parties do create for corruption and they can be limited. facing the issue court today. this is a corruption case. -- if the supreme court were to strike down the limits, we ribution are bound to see million-dollar $2 million contributions solicited by the most powerful holders in washington creating onors and opportunities for the kind of quid pro quo corruption that the four decades for can be limited. thank you. mr. wirtheimer, the chief justice, what seemed to be the tick is the individual limits, the number that they can give to a number of candidates. to disallow the ggregate limits for j

even with that sort of an opening from scalia and alito we haven't been willing to do any regulation you. other countries have figured out some ways to do it. sometimes it's been basically buy back weapons they consider too dangerous to be in civilian hands. sometimes it's just having restrictions on those weapons. sometimes it's encouraging gun ownership like in switzerland, but having tight regulations that are tied in effect to switzerland to volusia. even regulating in effect the number of bullets somebody has. i'm not seeing any of those are the solution for this country. it's a bigger country, a lot more guns, a history that's different than some but i do think we can learn from other countries. to our ways you protect yourself. there are ways we can live with guns without making it as dangerous as we make for ourselves. >> i want to ask about some of the miss that are circulating among the public and among officials in washington that keep us in be able to make progress on gun violence prevention. >> i've talked before that i think there are myths that keep some of our elected

justice scalia is the most outspoken about tv coverage. if it was allowed most people would never watch the entire one-hour argument and instead rely on what is called snippets on the evening news. and as a snippet i can tell you that's undoubtly true. it's hard to so how t a reason to keep them out of the court. after all, report on oral argument that appear the next morning in the newspaper, they are just going have snippets too. that is quotations of the print equivalent of a snippet. their newspaper and the ap seldom run the entire transcript of an oral argument. thank you very much. [laughter] the video clips that would be broadcast on the news programs would be more vivid that is to say, more faithful to the original of what was said in the court. so perhaps that why he objects. it seem to be an odd argument to say they would be more vept of the -- representativive of what happened. we have long grown accustom to what he calls snippets. the video vocabulary, if you will. they standarded appearing a century ago in the movie knees reel

country to take this threat very seriously well and at least two of these supreme court justices scalia and thomas. and salaries and things from the right from the very right wing billionaires who are making these arguments or yet were alive and justice thomas for thirteen years lied on his federal disclosure forms refusing to disclose the income that his wife jenny was getting from these very interests that they have unleashed with the spending in our political sense mind boggling thanks so much for being with us all right thank you john it's a pleasure to have you. in screwed news america's number one but not in the way you might think the united states incarcerates more of its citizens than any country in the world according to most recent statistics one million five hundred seventy one thousand and thirteen americans are in prison right now which amounts to about one point seven percent of the entire population for a country that likes to think of itself as a symbol of freedom and justice these are startling numbers for soem america's most powerful corporations they actually look li

where we can find common ground and figure out what we can do here because the decision by justice scalia who made it clear in the opinion that this right the second amendment right is like other rights not unlimited. he said you could have restrictions on who gets the gun , on how the gun is sold and how the gun is stored and how the gun is carried. you can still argue with the novel's categories where you can draw the line constitutionally but basically justice scalia outlined areas where i think we can start to have a discussion and where we need to have a discussion and words crucial for the future of our country and the health of our communities to have this discussion. i wanted to suggest a few things today where i think we could possibly find common ground. the first one is -- this is the one that people should agree on. we all agreed that people that we are we are pretty sure are going to be dangerous are dangerous now under likely to be dangerous shouldn't be able to buy a gun. that is sort of starting point. someone who has been a danger or someone who is dangerously mentally il

just scalia weighed in saying, "big money can be in politics. the thing is you can't give it to the republican party or the democratic party, but you can start your own pac. i'm not sure that's a benefit to our political system." looks like chief justice roberts is expected to be the key vote here. he indicated he was open to a compromise on the law that would leave some restrictions on contributions intact. >>> let's go to new jersey politics now where governor chris christie looks pretty much like a shoo-in as a second-term governor in the garden state. last night christie met his challenger, state senator barbara buono. the two candidates spoke on a lot of issues including christie's presidential aspirations. >> people have been talking about me running for president in this state since 2010. they all said i was going to do it in 2010. i said i wouldn't and i didn't. the fact is after 2017, i'm going to be looking for a new job anyway. so as we go forward, i'm going to continue to do my job the best way i possibly can. and i am not going to d

first of all, justice scalia ask the question about how much money went to candidates and parties and how much went outside groups. candidates and parties with these overall limits spent over $5 billion in the 2012 elections. outside groups spent a billion. candid it's spent 83 percent of the money spent in that 2012 elections. parties spent more than twice as much as the outside groups. the candidates and parties were dealing with billions of dollars secondly, this case is about million dollar and $2 million contributions, not about whether a few more contributions can be made by mr. mccutcheon to a few more candidates. it is about whether the speaker can set up a joint fund-raising committee and solicit and mr. mccutcheon give him over $2 million. it is about whether president obama in 2012 to raise $70,000 in contributions for joint fund-raising committees could have raised one. 2 million. this case is about precisely the kind of contributions that the supreme court has ruled for 40 years create opportunities for corruption and can be limited. now, facing the cou unconstitutional b

>> that's a good point, justice scalia. take the 2010 elections, not presidential year. parties and candidates together on each side spend approximately $1.5 billion. >> and what about pacs? >> that i don't have the specifics. >> here's the problem. >> what about newspapers that spend a lot of money endorsing candidates in promoting their candidacy? you have to put in that money, too. that is money directed to political speech. when you add all that up, i don't think 3.5 million is a heck of a lot of money. >> i don't think that's the right way to look at it, your honor. if you think the party has got to get $1.5 billion together to run a congressional campaign, parties and candidates together and you've got a maximum of $3.6 million, that is about 450 people you need to round up. less than 500 people can find the whole match and that i think is part of the problem here that you are going to a situation if you take off the aggregate limits in which there is a very real risk that the government will be run by and for those 500 people and that the public will perceive that