supreme court over citizens united. emember, citizens allowed outside groups to spend unlimited amounts of money independent of candidates. the court said outside spending does not corrupt. bullock disagreed. >> independent expenditures would corrupt, and we certainly have a history... i mean the whole reason why the corrupt practices act was passed by citizens initiative in 1912 was because of corporate corruption. >> ryssdal: some of the montana justices were skeptical. >> on what legal basis can we simply ignore citizens united on the premise that montana got it right and the supreme court got it wrong? thank you. we'll take this matter under advisement. >> this is the ten o'clock news on q2. >> ryssdal: what happened next was kind of a surprise. >> the montana supreme court is upholding a 1912 law stating corporations cannot spend money to influence elections. >> ryssdal: bullock had beaten back wtp. he won the case. which wasn't supposed to happen. states aren't supposed to contradict the u.s. supreme court. >> the

indirect, if not direct threats, to democracy itself in the form of things such as a supreme court united, citizens united decision. >> the citizen's united supreme court case aowed unrestricted campaign spending by corporations and unions. the recent presidential race is the first to have political action committees with unlimited funds attempting to influence voters with ads. williamson is one of the many who say this is the wrong direction. >> because as long as you have a politics that has basically been almost taken over by monied interests, particularly making our elections more like auctions, then those who have no financial leverage will have no financial influence. excuse me, will have no political influence. and of course children represent no financial leverage. so where is the voice going to come from? >> williamson hopes, through change, that voice will come from the american people, not large corporations. >> i believe that there are many people who wish to recreate the political field, a new conversation. and whether it finds a place now within politics as we know it, is almost irrel

been following and is just now tuning in on election night what does citizens united really do while the citizens united supreme court decision was handed down in january of two thousand and ten this decision basically overturned one hundred years of campaign finance law going back to ninety seven with the tillman act which prohibited corporations from spending directly to support candidates so by. over writing that law mccain feingold decades of precedent and the supreme court basically gave the green light for corporations and unions to spend directly in the election and while many have focused on how corporations can now give unlimited sums to super pacs and other campaign committees. the law is actually much more pervasive for instance we've seen a growing trend where now corporations can communicate with their employees and their vendors and in a new way basically if a corporation says. to a one of its workers i want you to vote for mitt romney because they're good for business and if you don't likely you'll lose your job well the corporation doesn't know exactly how that voter works how that voter of voted in t

the now- famous supreme court citizens united decision played a big role in the big money boom, allowing deep-pocketed political players to donate unlimited amounts to outside groups, or so-called super pacs, who spent nearly $1 billion on all races this campaign cycle, with a majority going to the presidential contest but more than $400 million funding congressional races. 'fundamentally, our constitution gives us the right of free speech, and it's my belief that super pacs are just exercising that right. 'yes, there is a first amendment right to free speech, and individuals ought to have free speech, but i'm not convinced money is the same thing as speech.' regadless of where one stands on the legal basis of super pacs, their growing influence measured in the dollars they spend cannot be doubted. just 20 years ago, outside groups spent just $18 million on campaigns. in 2000, that number grew to $41 million, and in 2008, it boomed to $286 million. still, those figures fall far short of the nearly $1 billion spent this time around. 'it's going to be very difficult to reign in the super p

why do they want ratings because they want money advertising money that is thanks to the supreme court citizens united decision campaigns are spending more money than ever on this election particularly on campaign ads and that money flow doesn't stop there it goes into the pockets of media moguls that's why they oftentimes resort to fluff rather than substance because they don't want to offend the candidate supporters who are handing over big advertising dollars to pay for their own so we're experiencing the death of the fourth estate and if so where were the public turn for their daily dose of news joining us now to discuss the role of media in elections is laurie harshness video journalist and on the street a border for archie in new york city lori welcome thanks for having me hey laurie let's start out you know of course of the residents you're famous for going on the streets of new york city and talking to people and kind of getting the political pulse of the nation so first off i want to ask you given all the negative campaign ads given all of the way the way that the media has covered this what

the supreme court's citizens united ruling paved the way for unlimited outside money in this presidential election. so this was election number one, right? nearly $1 billion was spent against democrats by people like casino magnet, sheldon adelson. along with the billionaire industrials, the koch brothers, we'll never forget them. and they'll probably be back again. they outspent the democrats 3-1 and had the opportunity to define the election on their terms. the american cross roads super pac spent $300 million on advertising in swing states. they did not influence a single election outcome. and of course, this was it's exactly what he wanted to destroy, labor unions, and he failed. we will go back, i believe this, that we will go back, you know, coming up in 2014 and 2016, and beyond, and we will point to this election. we now have the template, the first presidential election of citizens united in this new era of raising money and it's fallen from the sky, and we will tell ourselves as liberals and progressives, we can defeat this. this is not a center-right country. this country wants

that's the other reason to vote, supreme court, supreme court supreme court citizens united. >> who saiddy gaga, that is good. >> announcer: it's the "stephanie miller show." ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ the trucks are going farther. the new 2013 ram 1500. ♪ ♪ with the best-in-class fuel economy. engineered to move heaven and earth. ♪ ♪ guts. glory. ram. [ ♪ theme ♪ ] >> announcer: stephanie miller. ♪ ♪ >> stephanie: i'm sorry election stress is getting to me. did not mean snap at you laugh will have. >> oh, my god! [ laughter ] >> stephanie: it's one minute after the hour. >> stephanie: it's election day. i don't agree with that guy who called me the c. worth. >> which guy? >> stephanie: i don't know, the latest. >> me? >> stephanie: the boss says. >> president obama ran last time as the man of hope and change. you hear a lot of talk about how things are dirt now. things aren't different now. it's crunch time now. >> stephanie: yeah, baby, you were born to run to the polling booth, go. bruce springsteen says so. he made chris christie cry. that's the cutest story. he was talking to the penalty about storm s

the surge in spending of the supreme court's citizens united decision has been extraordinary.issue of "time" magazine, michael sherer writes explicit political ad spending by outside groups in 2012 is on track to double the combined total spent by outside groups in each of the four elections since 2012. jonathan capehart, that is a lot of money. thrown away? used for good? totally unclear. >> that's a lot of cheddar. >> it is a lot of cheddar. another official term. >> yes, exactly. people are marveling at the fact that president obama's campaign put out there a long time ago that we're going to raise a billion dollars. people thought wow, we've never seen that before. now we're looking at citizens united that a billion dollars now might be the floor from now on. >> right. >> and those poor people in ohio. you know, i was down in florida, and just commercial after commercial after commercial, you know, romney, then obama, then obama, then romney, nonstop hitting people in the face. i begin to wonder whether -- you know, it's great you can raise all this money and spend all thi

supreme court who in their citizens united decision twenty decided that those with the most money should have the most influence over our american democracy all ordinary citizens like you and me should have our voice is silenced this is the first presidential election in which millionaires and billionaires transnational corporations trade groups unions even foreign governments you name it it could be bach would. can spend unlimited amounts of money to put their guy in the white house. and on capitol hill citizens united has affected spending in every political race across the country overall the campaign spending mark in the twenty twelve election cycle is forecasted to surpass six billion dollars joining us now to discuss more of the effects on citizens united is jim hightower national radio commentator writer public speaker also author of the book swim against the current even a dead fish can go with the flow jim thanks so much for joining us tonight what do you think how do you think the political landscape this election season would have been different had the citizens united case be

the citizens united supreme court decision which can only be reversed oddly by the citizens, united has turned politics on its ear. it has opened the floodgates of money in our politics. and the solution is in the people and in the democratic form of government. but that would take consensus. andrea mitchell. covering senate and house races, brief leave side tracked by the minor matter of the re-election of the president of the united states. >> we haven't yet called the senate. but in my counting, it looks to me in talking to our experts it is now mathematically impossible. once the presidency is in the hand, left in the hand of president obama, you know they have possibility of the tie-breaking, president of the senate, vice president. the pickup would have to be for the republicans to take over the senate. they have two really possibilities left i can see. they have picked up one. which is nebraska. but, north dakota. the only ones. we'll wait the decision. decision desk. just a head up. i gather we have done it. there is no mathematical way that the republicans can regain the senate

this was the first presidential election that was shaped by the supreme court citizens-united decisionw big of a difference did that make in the election? guest: in made a big difference -- it made a big difference. this was spending that was facilitated by the supreme court decision. there were a series of rulings in 2010 and what i would call in decisions by the federal election commission which is deadlocked on a partisan basis. the door was open for outside groups to spend money in on limited amounts. we saw an enormous jump in this. it was exponential in 2010. nearly $1.4 billion in spending by outside groups. host: week will show you a chart about the campaign spending numbers this cycle. the parties themselves about $254 million. that is not including the candidates themselves. guest: it also doesn't include about three under million dollars for electioneering -- about $300 million for the engineering. host: how the citizens united changed the tone of this election? guest: it made it a much more negative campaign. we looked at how the groups characterized their ads. 75% the adve

obviously, you could have the supreme court review citizens united, but citizens united is on the part of the issue. you could have more instantaneous disclosure, you did have a constitutional amendment process. none of them are easy. what you have seen is both republican and democratic members of congress in the wake of all the super pac -- republicans in particular favorite on the assets are having second thoughts. it is this uncontrollable beast out there going across the political landscape. it is because they have an agenda. steve is right. the people most, but the people who are most harmed by that are the people who do not stick to the party line. think about what that means to people -- the only way to make progress on issues, whether it is immigration, fiscal issues, taxes, is people on both parties have been willing to step back a little bit and take heed. if you have the super pac's coming in ending your political career -- some will still take that step but it will give people pause. there is legislative, there is legal, constitutional amendment, but it is a big concern. fo

has been an unmitigated disaster for the american people and then the recent does supreme court ruling about citizens united were corporations are now considered to be persons and ergo have the freedom of speech that an individual enjoys and that is just a travesty that's wrong so if those parties don't have the financial backing they've got no hope in a bearing in mind of course what we see in a record breaking election campaign in terms of money what a billion dollars each for the two main parties and bearing in mind of course the parties are anti corporate said they're never going to win out on the financial basis will be or they're not but what we can do as a people is we can deprive the two major parties. voter turnout is very low in the us it may not even get fifty percent of the people voting that's how disgusted that's how sick the people are of this corruption in washington d.c. so if there's less than fifty percent turnout and let's say that the you can siphon enough votes away to a third party candidate so that neither major party candidate romney or obama does even have a majority of the turnout

spending on politics and the question is whether that is still constitutional under citizens united. the supreme court it didn't even bother to take the case. just said no, citizens united governs here and even though you are coming to us it's no longer hypothetical but you have historical proof. that's not enough and goodbye. so i think that tells us that there is no appetite for the court to get back into this. >> hi linda. what do you see is the biggest change in the supreme court since you started writing about it until the present? >> the change in the court? well, you know when i started covering the court in 1978, it was still sort of within the long shadow of the word court. it still wasn't clear. the worker court, the still early burger courts court still had to tell us what the legacy it of the 50s and 60's on the cord was actually going to be. for instance that was before the time that the court made a big turn on affirmative action issues and so on. so i think the biggest change is how conservative the court has become and how far to the right the spectrum has shifted. it if you take justi

things that's happened not because of president obama he was against it but the supreme court ruled on the citizens united case case that's of course put very simply money corporations are people too kind of thing so i want to just play something joel stein said about this and about how citizens united has affected our system. we are calling for getting money out of politics through public financing we're calling for opening up the airwaves. also qualify candidates we are told. only for. money is not and that corporations are not able to take back. live you and i have been all over this on certainly you know anchoring the news here at r t this has been one of our biggest focal points in this campaign season because first of all it's a very important issue but second of all because the mainstream media has largely ignored it the day that the case was ruled on i think back in two thousand and ten it was discussed but really the impact there are so many different directions that you could go with the impact of this case and how even be impacted today i mean a record spending on campaigning i think they're bo

this was the first presidential election that was shaped by the supreme court citizens-united decision. how big of a difference did that make in the election? guest: it made a big difference. this was spending that was facilitated by the supreme court decision. there were a series of rulings in 2010 and what i would call in decisions by the federal election commission which is deadlocked on a partisan basis. the door was open for outside groups to spend money in on limited amounts. we saw an enormous jump in this. it was exponential in 2010. nearly $1.4 billion in spending by outside groups. host: week will show you a chart about the campaign spending numbers this cycle. the parties themselves about $254 million. that is not including the candidates themselves. guest: it also doesn't include about $300 million for electioneering. host: how the citizens united changed the tone of this election? guest: it made it a much more negative campaign. we looked at how the groups characterized their ads. 75% the advertising put on by super pacs was negative. the non-committees, those not super pa

not actually the creation of a suprell, superpacs were not actually the creation of a supreme court and citizens unitedhich is to say the court said that all the spending was going to be fully disclosed and was going to be totally independent of campaigns and parties. that's not what we have. so, i think the courts would allow regulations that would ensure full disclosure in quoting from the nonprofits they assumed that there were going to be much more independent of candidates than they are and that they wouldn't be fund-raising for them or having the former top aides create them so i think those are things that can be done within our existing legal system with citizens united still in place. i also think there are a lot of people in this election who experienced superpacs firsthand. a number of them are now members of congress. and i suspect they are not happy with the way that this developed. partly for selfish reasons, which is they felt they lost control of their message and the superpacs end up spending more than they did in some of these races, but also it puts them in a situation now that they

the suit came of what the supreme court that in effect made citizens united apply to all 50 states.s last june. it is been a group that is not really big but has pledged about its way in terms of impact the a-punched its way in terms of impact nationally. we look at documents available in montana, including documents found in a mess house -- a meth house in colorado. >> a -- >> a meth house in colorado. they were found nearby a man who was a convicted felon. he stumbled across these boxes in this meth house. one name kept popping up in these boxes, which was western tradition partnership. >> how did they end up in a meth house? all we could find out before the story came out was that he said a friend of his had gotten him out of a stolen car and that somehow they ended up in this methhouse. he was curious. he went through them. the group had been in the public domain. there have been stories about them attacking candidates in colorado, so he reached out to some candidates and their spouses. one of them, a lawyer, actually come into that to pick up -- going to pick up the boxes. boxe

so, a little group name citizens united, shorten the story and you'll have more in the book. a little group name citizens united came to the supreme court and they could actually conceal -- i could use corporate money for political campaigns. so who was united behind the citizen's? most importantly citizens united, how did they get the most expensive lawyer in america to argue their case? well he was not volunteering. here was taking a break from his job and counsel to koch industry. industries. citizens united decision didn't just make corporate donations, corporate money in campaigns legal. it decriminalized the activities of the koch brothers that they were all ready in the midst of. basically they decriminalized the crime they were committing. that is how the game is played and by the way, i have something called ballot incorporated in here. it's not just the coke back -- koch brothers. i know who they are and i know what they want. all of it. the other question is, when they say what do they want, who are these guys? i know that paul the vulture singer and the auto bailout buddies put in a million each and the iceman has put in 20

expenditures and outside groups should take a look at the supreme court who awarded the affordable care act. the same supreme court that gave citizens unitedd free speech a chance. at the end of the day, republicans got beaten handily, no matter how much we spent. i've been with karl before when we got all wins and it was brilliant. the fact is that the republicans got it handed to them this cycle. we'll regroup. we've got 2014 suspect will be a lot like 2010. but let's compliment the president's ground game. at the end of the day, i saw it i felt it. the success was there because they understand how to organize, canvass for the vote and they won. >> four years from now, are we still talking about crossroads and crossroads gps as well? or do you think we have seen the end of money like we just saw? do you think we've seen the end of it in contemporary politics? >> it's a good question. look, donald trump has made fun of karl rove for squandering $400 million when donald trump in political circles is making fun of you, you've got trouble. i think karl rove is the butt of a joke, but i do think, and let me just quote for you what they asked

to be -- shouldn't there be a provision for shareholder democracy, and what the supreme court talked about in citizens united sec or congress or the states that actually charter corporations, shouldn't they have provisions saying that before a corporation uses shareholder money, it needs their approval and republicans are going say if that's the case, shouldn't we have that for labor unions? why not? if you're going have someone in charge of a group spenting spendsing other people's money and it is other people's money shouldn't they get approval to do that? >> the supreme court said this isn't a problem if it doesn't corrupt. the perception of corruption is also a danger so it seems to me you can't avoid the appearance of corruption in the use of secret money that was given for campaigns. it's one of the real problems with the citizens united case and what they effectively said is that we on high have decided that independent spending in electi elections cannot corrupt as a matter of fact and theory, we don't want to hear otherwise, we can't do it and therefore we can have this unlimited spending. the court

constitution and overturn citizens united and while the election may be over and resentment toward citizens united is that all time high that is that is aster a supreme court ruling is still rearing its ugly head this time in the form of driving citations in california following the logic in citizens united california vehicle code says that the definition of a person includes a human being and a corporation therefore if you're driving in the car pool lane in california and have incorporation papers with you in that vehicle and technically you have two persons in the car should you be able to drive in the carpool only lane the two person only lane. not so fast joining me now is jonathan freeman attorney nonprofit consultant co-founder of the center for corporate policy jonathan welcome and a thank you very much tom how you doing i am great thanks for joining us jonathan so what exactly happened to you driving in the carpool lane with your corporation tells the story. well. the the carpool and for those who don't know it's restricted during rush hour two vehicles that are carrying two or more persons as you say and there are road signs which explicitly say t

the citizens united case from the supreme court. decades of decisions in our courts saying that when it comes to workers organizing, anything employers do is free speech. that in citizens united money is free speech. and many of us believe corporations are not people, money is not speech, and we're going to build a movement to take back our democracy and fight these kinds of outrageous behaviors. >> what kind of movement are you talking about? what can happen? >> i'm talking about a broad-based movement that says what we said earlier. that we need to reform, if necessary, the constitution, itself, that the founders did not mean that money was speech. they meant that all of us should have an equal right to participate in our society. not that there were super rights for the super rich. we see that in the president's announcement today that, for example, he's not going to stand by and see tax giveaways to the 2%. that he is going to defend social security, medicare and medicaid. it's all about what kind of democracy are we going to hav

of the supreme court beginning with bush v gore which was a masterpiece of judicial activism a supreme court intervening in a democratic process to stop the vote take that out to citizens united decision you have written and talked a lot about which unleashed corporate treasury money into our politics you would see those policies those issues ramped up exponentially in a mitt romney supreme court would you expect to hear challenges to roe v wade as well yes i think you'd hear challenges to roe v wade i think you'd see an attempt to gut the voting rights act i think you'd see the real culmination of the forty plus year campaign to take over the courts. first outlined in the lewis powell memo a memo written for the chamber of commerce a force which has grown too strong and ugly in our politics today are you few months before nixon appointed paul to the supreme court but that memo is the blueprint for the right wing seizure of the courts and other institutions in our society and i think mitt romney and robert bork at his side would use that blueprint very assiduously and carefully to undertake an even larger expansion of the courts and other institutions katrina some are concern

super pac were not actually the creation of the supreme court it's citizens united.t said the spending was going to be fully disclosed and totally independent of campaign and parties. that's not what we have. so i think the courts would allow regulations that would ensure full disclosure including from the non-profit. they siewm the packs will be more independent of candidates than they are. candidates wouldn't be fundraising for them. or having former top aids create them. so i think those are things that can be done within our existing legal system with citizens united still in place. and i also think there are a lot of people in the election who experience super pacs firsthand. a number of them are members of congress, and i suspect they are not happy with the way this developed. partly for sell fish reasons which is they felt they lost control of their message, and the super pac ended up spending more than they did in some of the races, but also, it puts nefm in a situation now they're incum bept. they have to raise more money than before. which was bad. they dmo

gotten much by are going to mop now fast forward to two thousand and ten with its citizens united decision the us supreme court overturned that wall separating corporations and state that wall known as the tillman act for the first time in over a century corporations could spend unlimited money influencing our elections and our government the robber barons this time under names like coke and abel soon returned with their corporate war chests overflowing with political blood money americans that are well aware of corporate monies corrosive impact on our government there's the lobbying the revolving door the crony capitalism the super pacs the dark money groups the undeniable slant of all legislation favoring the billionaire class over the working class but fewer americans are aware of the similar corrupting influence back on business itself if there's one thing the corporate elite who gave hundreds of millions of dollars to karl rove to buy the election should learn from last tuesday it's that they would be better off just focusing on their own damn business called air and robert murray recently announced he's

the citizens united case from the supreme court. ns in our courts saying that when it comes to workers organizing, anything employers do is free speech. that in citizens united money is free speech. and many of us believe corporations are not people, money is not speech, and we're going to build a movement to take back our democracy and fight these kinds of outrageous behaviors. >> what kind of movement are you talking about? what can happen? >> i'm talking about a broad-based movement that says what we said earlier. that we need to reform, if necessary, the constitution, itself, that the founders did not mean that money was speech. they meant that all of us should have an equal right to participate in our society. not that there were super rights for the super rich. we see that in the president's announcement today that, for example, he's not going to stand by and see tax giveaways to the 2%. that he is going to defend social security, medicare and medicaid. it's all about what kind of democracy are we going to have. are we going it