shaun mccutcheon is challenging the limits on campaign contributions which are currently $2,600 to aingle candidate and an overall limit of $123,000 per election cycle. folks, i do not believe that the government should tell us how much money there can be in politics any more than they should tell us how much rat feces dmb a hot dog! it's fine as long as the rats kept kosher. (audience reacts) here to tell us how much rat feces there's going to be in our politics is "slate" legal expert and senior research fellow at yale law school emily bazelon. emily, thanks so much for coming back. good to see you. (cheers and applause) all right. all right, em. first of all, is the supreme court -- are they going to have a session? are they essential personnel or are they furloughed. >> they say they're essential. they put out a press release, they're hearing arguments all week just the way they're scheduled. >> so they took three months off and they show up and go "wait, you need to pay us." >> i think they want to be an essential service. they've decided that they are. >> stephen: now, the mccu

. >> shaun mccutcheon is an ar an ardent republican. i sat down with shaun mccutcheon. he shared what it was like to be in the presence of the highest court in the land. >> it was very exciting. i enjoyed it. >> what was the most interesting thing for you? >> just hearing the judges put all the ideas out there on the table and go back and forth. it was like a big understanding. >> what question did the justices ask that were of particular interest to you? >> i thought all of it to be particularly interesting, but it was along the lines that i had been hearing for weeks and the moot courts and panels. >> what is politics, an investment? a hobby. >> yes, it's a hobby. it's turned into a big hobby and its taking a lot of time nowish but it is a hobby and something that i wanted to do part time. that's part of the reason why i enjoy it so much. >> it also is an expensive hobby. >> it's become that way, yes. >> what would you like to spend your money and where would you like to spend your money if the court find your favor. >> i've been spending money on candidates, committe

the original plaintiff - shaun mccutcheon - is an alabama businessman who says he's baffled that he can donate to candidates across the country - but once his donations hit a specific dollar limit, he can't spend another dime - meaning he can't give to all the candidates he'd like to support. chief justice john roberts questioned how that logic squares with the first amendment saying quote... "you could not have a rule that says the -- th post or the new york times can only endorse nine candidates." others - including justice ruth bader ginsburg - noted the anti- corruption argument behind the current law quote " ... that by having these limits you are promoting democratic participation ... and you won't have the super- affluent as the speakers that will ntrol the elections." opponents of the caps argue - however - they serve to limit who gets to speak - and how. murphy says: "by getting rid of these limits, we can ensure not only that people can do that but that they're doing so inhe most transparent way possible." harkening back to that 2010 decision today - the president saide believ

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 control -- we'll control american democracy. and that is the risk. >> burt neuborne, we will certainly continue to follow this case. that does it for our show. democracy now! is looking for feedback from people who appreciate the closed captioning. e-mail your comments to outreach@democracynow.org or mail them to democracy now! p.o. box 693 new york, new york 10013. [captioning made possible by democracy now!] what are we doing today? today we are looking for roger ridley. he's a street musician that plays down here in santa monica. i was walking by the promenade the other day and i heard him singing the song "stand by me". such an amazing version, such an

and justices will hear the case of shaun mccutcheon, an alambama businessman who gave to 16-federal candidates, wanted to give to 12-more and give 25- thousand dollars to three different political committees--exceeding federal limits in a two-year period. mccutcheon argues the limits go against his freedom of speech and his case is supported by senate minority leader mitch mcconnell, who is scheduled to address the court, this morning. "they could go as far as throwing out all contribution limits as unconstitutional." and in an extension of 20-10's citizens united ruling which granted corporations free speech rights as individuals, the justices will soon decide whether to hear a challenge to obamacare's requirement that employers provide insurance coverage for contraception. corporations object saying the requirment violates their right to religious freedom. chaos and confusion--that's the way the first mate describes the night the costa concordia cruise ship ran aground in january 20-12. yesterday in court-- the ship's first mate said the captain confused and seemed "completely lost". captain

the case was brought by alabama businessman shaun mccutcheon, who argues he should be able to support as many candidates as he wants in an election cycle. under the law, he will hit the contribution cap after donating the maximum $2600 to 18 candidates. >> i think this is a fundamental free speech issue about your right to spend your money on as many candidates as you choose. it doesn't make and sense that if, say, my 18th race was alabama house race, and then i also wanted to donate to a florida senate race i couldn't do that. >> reporter: but veteran campaign finance report advocate fred wertheiner said there is more at stake and the individual contributions would add up to millions. >> this case is not just about whether mr. macompanyin can give a few extra contributions. it's whether he can give $2.5 million to support congressional candidates. that's where the danger comes. >> reporter: the sharp division shows just how contentious this issue has become for the justices, but, scott, on one thing they did seem to agree-- there was no interest in using this case to make a more swee

republican leaders and wealthy gop donor shaun mccutcheon want the supreme court to throw out aggregate limits on individual contributions in a single two- year cycle, saying they violate free speech. on tuesday, the likely swing vote, chief justice john roberts, indicated he is prepared to strike down caps on donations to individual candidates, but perhaps not on donations to political committees. at a rally, senator bernie sanders said unlimited private spending is undermining u.s. democracy. >> the bottom line here is that if we do not want to move it to an oligarch form of society, where a handful of billionaires can determine the outcome of these elections, then it is imperative not only that we overturned citizens united, but that we put a lid on how much people can contribute in elections. [applause] freedom of speech, in my view, buy not mean the freedom to the united states government. >> the mccutcheon case marks the first major challenge to campaign finance rules since the 2010 citizens united decision, which opened the floodgates for unlimited corporate spending on elections