. >> all right, that was shaun mccutchen, the plaintiff in the case. kimberly on a legal issue before we get to politics, the supreme court was looking at a first amendment claim. why do you think he won? >> the first amendment claim, i think, is very interesting. what i would look at, the language of the justices because it's telling. you can also see future decisions, things by the language they're employing now. what struck me was when i hear these justices talk about the collective, talk about the greater good, the greater group like that, to me, then i start to worry if they're making decisions based on the right reasons versus on behalf of a collective. right? so you have both sides kind of shaping this argument, each way. one saying first amendment issue. and in particular, you have the liberals feeling this is going to open the floodgates of corruption, whereas the conservatives think it's a protection of political speech, specifically under the guise of the first amendment. >> so bob, in this decision, what the justices were saying is it's not

. ♪ >>> meet shaun mccutchen.trical engineer who started a business in birmingham, alabama. what he like to do with his money is to donate a lot of the to political campaigns, so much that he felt the rerestrictions imposed by the federal government on how much money an individual is allowed to give. so as a result, he sued the federal government, the federal election commission for what he believed was the constitutional right to give money to lots more candidates that currently rules allow. the supreme court weighed in and ruled in his favor. on wednesday, a jart of the justices ruled to strike down some of the limits on campaign contribution caps. abc established what are called base limits. mccutchen didn't dispute that in his lawsuit. the caps, the basic contribution caps stay in place. there are still bay limits that you can give to one party or group. but they also set a ceiling on how much an individual could give during a particular campaign cycle. now almost $49,000 to candidates combin combined. those a

surprised by the outcry by some individuals saying "i'm not rich, i can't give as much money as a shaun mccutchen can. what is your response? >> this is about free ideas in the marketplace. they can vote. everywhere has equal freedom of speech. it so happens that most of this is for media, radio, mail. these are the ways that inside are pout out there. it costs money to do that. you have to spend money to emphasise free speech. it's about ideas that everywhere can hear and it's transparent donations to campaigns, knacks and political parts. it's an important part of the process. rich americans are entitled to free peach. it's very important. >> let's talk about fre speech. justice brier had this in his writing, he said: >> what do you thing is this. >> this was a case about aggregate limits or the over all limits amounting to the number of candidates, packs and commit ooes. it's about your right to support as mean candidates and parties and committees as you choose. base element are in place, and the amount of money donated to a candidate is limited. it's about the numbers and, again, it's about

court -- in response to a challenge brought by the republican party, an alabama businessman, shaun mccutchen, republican national committee chair praised today's ruling as, quote, an important first step toward when free speech is allowed to flourish, our democracy is stronger. house speaker john boehner had a similar reaction. >> what i think this means is freedom of speech is being upheld. you all have the freedom to write what you want to write. donors have the freedom to give what they want to give. i'm all for freedom. congratulations. >> the ncaa responded with a statement that reads in part, this ruling givings millionaires and billionaires a tighter grip on our elections. this fight is not over. and joining me now to explain the details of today's ruling, nbc's new justice correspondent pete williams. pete, explain what in really means today. >> reporter: what it means is that you're right, you said it earlier, a specific individual can now give as much money as that individual wants to all candidates for federal office put together. the limit that was there of about 49 million is go

. >> the original plaintiff in this case, shaun mccutchen, from alabama, was celebrating by saying in a free country, he believes citizens should be able to freely give with their political speech, and it sounded like today he is planning on spending more in this political cycle than he would have been able to under those old caps. >> shan bream live at the court. thank you. >>> this is the fox news alert. we're just getting word tonight of a shooting at ft. hood in texas. the fbi tells fox news local police are traveling to the scene. burrow agents are headed there from waco as well. it's not clear whether there are still an active shooter situation, but the base may be, we're told, closed down at this time. locked down, if you will. this is the same base, you may remember, where 13 people were gunned down in 2009. an army psychiatrist was sentenced to death last year for those murders. he was also found guilty of 32 counts of attempted premeditated murder. hassan, an american-born muslim had exchanged e-mails with a leading al qaeda figure in which he asked whether those attacking f

america will want to do what the guy did here, who brought this lawsuit, a businessman named shaun mccutchenhad a lot of money and wanted to give to a lot of candidates, how many people are there like him, that's a fair question, but it's another erosion on the limits of money in politics, and the two warring factions here believe that that is a, you know, either a good thing and that will be more speech in politics, or bad thing that it's going to make more of the political discourse in america in the hands of fewer people with a lot of money. chris? >> pete, thanks so much. appreciate it. >>> come up, the house budget committee getting ready to take its first crack at the ryan budget. our next guest, our own budget battle next on "jansing and co." >>> it's time for the "your business" entrepreneur of the week. ray goodman is the owner of new york city's legendary pump clothing boutique, trash in vaudeville. jimmy web is key buyer and salesman. it's his relationship with customers, rock stars, and fans that gives the store its edge over the competition. for more, watch "your business" sunda

the plaintiff, shaun mccutchen was on abc's "meet the press" this morning and talked about the court's decision. >> i think this is an issue about independent, private people exercising free speech and regardless of economic status, all americans are entitled to free speech so this is a first amendment guaranteed right under the constitution. all americans are entitled to free speech. >> and the supreme court agreed with you in a 5-4 decision and upheld that but if you sit back as a citizen and say i want to be politically involved and if i'm a person of great means and have all these candidates coming and saying hey, i want an unlimited amount of money, do you not worry that lead to corruption at some point? >> i am a citizen and i'm interested in being involved in the process so i'm interested in change for the better. that's what motivated me to support candidates. and again, it's about your right to support as many candidates and pacs you choose. it's a political activity. like robert said, it's the most fundamental right in this country, as our right as the people to select our le