citizens united isn't just dangerous because the corporations will do under citizens united. it is dangerous because of what they will threaten to do. the most dangerous thing under citizens united is the lobbyist going into the congress and i want to recognize congressman tom allen who did a wonderful job representing. [applause] they will come and visit, or they will come and visit me and they will say step into my office come here i would like to show you something. look at this ad and it blows me to bits. and they say we are going to put three or $4 million behind that had come in and we are going to do it through a company that we will make up a name no one will be able to trace it to us and you will have a problem on your hands unless you vote right. you vote with us on this and nobody sees that. you vote against us and its $4 million behind that ad starting next august or whatever the date is. that meeting nobody ever sees. there is no accountability but when you open the floodgates you open them also to the threat. so we have to be talking about how long the factual fi

the u.s. supreme court's citizens united decision. well first it's a little overstatement to say they rejected it outright i mean the they meet made some very clear distinctions between what was at stake in the montana supremes court case and what was decided in citizens united in a couple of the key distinctions were in montana the law the corrupt practices act the law under under challenge actually protected nonpartisan and judicial election something that wasn't addressed at all in the citizens united ruling also in citizens united one of the arguments by the majority the five person majority on the supreme court was that there was not a real documented record of the corruption that was being alleged as a threat in montana the state attorney general presented an extensive record of. corporate corruption throughout our history right down to the buying of u.s. senate seats so there are a couple of key distinctions but i think part of the motivation of the montana justices also is the fact that this was a citizen vote back in one thous

the vetting in elections. you are wasting your time, citizens united will be side -- the court can't go against citizen united but the court did. as senator whitehouse said showing of factual record, is corruption due to corporate money but the two dissenters who said we have to follow citizens united and went on at length to say how bad and wrong citizens united was ending with the irony that unlike people corporations can't go to hell. the straight talking montana push back. >> are there states honoring laws still in effect? >> you can't get -- >> it has been used. >> any corporation -- many of them come out of delaware. they get a corporate charter. you mean charter replication laws? the last time was in the tobacco litigation. didn't revoke the charter. the new york attorney general revoked the charter in non-profit corporations that were used in the tobacco -- the tobacco research institutes. those charters were revoked. in the end was litigated with regard to part of the settlement of the state. in the progressive era which i would cite as our example of robust democracy and people doing our job as citiz

citizens united isn't just dangerous because what the corporations will do under citizens united. it is dangers because of what they will threaten to do. the most dangerous thing under citizens united is the lobbyists going into the congressman, and by the web or director congress and tom allen who did such a wonderful job representing maine in a year. [applause] come and visit him or they will come and visit me and they will say step in the office. your, i would like to show you something. look at this ad. and the ad blows me to bits. and they say, we are going to put three or $4 million behind that had. and were going to do it through a company that will cover will make up the name, no one will trace it to us, and you'll have a real problem on your hands. unless you vote right. you vote with us on this, and nobody sees that add. you vote against us on this and it is $4 million behind that ad starting next, you know, august or whatever the date is. that meeting nobody ever sees. there's really no account before the. but when you open the floodgates this way, you open the floodgate

i was fascinated by this book, professor, because it's broader than the citizens united case, but youposing solutions on how to stop it. but before i get to the solutions, the real problem is the linkage between those who contribute and what they want; is that right? >> yeah, that's right. what we have is kind of corruption not like doing anything criminal. because members of congress spend between 30 and 70% of their time raising money to get back to congress or get their party back into power, and as they do that, they begin to shape shift in the form necessary to raise the most money they need. and that very dependency they develop is a kind of corruption at the core of the corruption of our government today. >> in your book you really document a lot of that. can you give for the viewers an example of, you know, a law that was bought essentially. we have a tax code that's 72,000 pages, perhaps -- each one is owned by a lobbyist and maybe that's an example of how the influence of money has shaped our body of law to be able to benefit those who have. but are there other examples that

the ongoing fight to reverse the citizen's united decision is takes place on several months. ana's supreme court recently upheld a century-old state law, elections, and there are several movements calling for a constitutional amendment that would overrule the citizen's united decision. >> our next guest knows more than almost anyone about how money influences our political system. the author of the new book "republic lost." i'm so glad to join him. he's joining us from boston. i'm glad you are joining us. thank you for being in the war room. i was fascinated by this book, professor, because it's broader than the citizens united case, but you are proposing solutions on how to stop it. but before i get to the solutions, the real problem is the linkage between those who contribute and what they want; is that right? >> yeah, that's right. what we have is kind of corruption nike not like doing anything criminal. because members of congress spend between 30 and 70% of their time raising money to get back to congress or get their party back into power, and as they do that, they begin

and the citizen's united ruling is a departure from that law. >> one quick question, obviously there'snterest on the part of groups like the occupy movement as well as the tea partiers, sort of strange bed fellows in talking about getting money out of politics. is this an opportunity to link a really diverse group of people to join together for the purpose of taking our country back? >> i think you are right. this is a very unique moment in our nation's history, come together around the vision of what we are about. we have done research showing across the political spectrum people are opposed to the citizen's united ruling. >> director and cofounder of free speech for people. thank you so much for withing with us in the war room, and being a warrior for taking our country back. it is a super bad, super pacs wednesday here in "the war room," and we'll dig deeper into what has become one of the major issues. we're all about the big bad this is countdown south carolina. forgot the name of the show p.m. good job. we'll explain what that means when we come back. sam adams at the peak of its

citizen's united. >> ruthless vindictive. intolerant. >> liar is a good one. >> scares the hell out of me. >> the movie features a who's who castt wringers slamming hilary clinton. but citizens united was prevented from airing the documentary on tv by the federal election commission. that's because it violated the act which was bipartisan election designed to reform campaign financing. the suit claimed the law violated their first amendment free speech rights, and the case made it all the way to the united states supreme court. in a 5-4 decision, the court struck down those provisions of the act that banned corporations from broadcasting messages about candidates close to election day. in the majority opinion. the justice wrote that money does not, quote give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption end quote. this opened the flood get as for corporation spending. and the result $2.8 billion was spent on broadcast campaign ads in 2010. super pacs spending this year is exploding. >> money is not speech! >> earlier this month, on the two-year anniversary of the supreme court decision, hundreds of people around the count

but we still have the unlimited spending that citizens united has unleashed. -- i don't think congress should be able to stop anybody from speaking, including the plaintiffs in the case citizens united. i think that nonprofit documentary film company should have been able to show their film. but there is all of the different between this non-profit group showing their film, and exxon dropping millions to drive their results. one way is congress proposes it and the other is that states call on congress to propose a convention and then those amendments have to be passed like any other amendment would. because of the corruption of congress itself, i don't think we can count on them on their own to bring about the change that we need and so we have been part of a process to get many people in many states to push the legislatures to call for a convention. >> it has never been done before to have a constitutional convention do amendments. there have obviously been 26 amendments that have been ratified by legislatures but a constitutional convention has never been do

and about the rest of the news we return to the citizens united front as we've been keeping tabs on last week the supreme court suspended the decision by the montana state supreme court regarding citizens united basically montana ruled that the citizens united decision did not apply to that state because there was a one hundred year old law on the books that prevented corporate spending in state elections but the u.s. supreme court said sorry montana you have to let the corporations spend unlimited amounts of money in your life just like we've dumped on the rest of the country however the montana case highlight an important issue that may lead to citizens united being revisited by the high court and that issue is whether or not corporate spending in elections gives rise to corruption a charge that justice kennedy in the four other justices on the supreme court ruled in favor of citizens united disagree with that route justice ruth bader ginsburg is now weighing in to challenge the high court's decision she recently wrote montana's experience of experience elsewhere since this court's dec

and the fact that this is going to be the most moneyed election in the history of the united states maybe we should relook at the citizenssion. so a group of us gathered by the steps of the supreme court. we basically pointed out that corporations are not people. money is not speech. money can stifle speech. and legislative bodies whether it is in the state of michigan or in a local city council, and ought to be able to regulate money in politics. and we hope that maybe there's a little open window for the supreme court to go back and reconsider the decision particularly based on what we have seen in the romney and gingrich campaign. >> sure. so as you said she wrote last week, and i'm going to read the quote. they want to review whether the montana case will give the court: there has been some changes on the court, you have justice kay gan who has been appointed. and i'm curious as to whether you think that will change the dynamic. because i'm not sure her replacing justice stevens will get us that vote today. >> a report today asked me a question, and i told him i believe in miracles i'm a preacher and a politician. an

. >> i still think the citizens united decision that was made by the supreme court was the wrong decision. what i've said consistently is we're not going to just unilaterally disarm. >> in light of mr. small donor's reversal on super pacs, i just have one thing to say. ahhhh. welcome, young pac worker. feel the power of the green side. embrace your destiny. join me and together we will rule the galaxy! the galaxy! you are now darthboma. >> i love colbert.

the motion passes. >> item 30 is a resolution opposing the united states supreme court interpretation of the constitution in citizens united, supporting an amendment to the constitution to provide that corporations are not entitled to the integrity of protections of natural persons. president chiu: colleagues, i want to think supervisors -- thank supervisors cohen, weinr, and olague for co- sponsoring this resolution, supporting an amendment to the constitution to provide that corporations are not entitled to protection of natural persons. the u.s. supreme court in the citizens united case moved in favor of the unlimited corporate spending to influence elections and policy decisions, which in essence granted corporations the same free speech rights as human beings. two years later, this past week, there were demonstrations against this decision that took place in over 130 cities across the u.s., including san francisco. over 35 cities and municipalities have introduced similar measures as the one we are considering today, to call on congress to limit corporate reach. most recently, the city councils of los angeles a

case of the santa clara case finding that corporations are people and then the application in two thousand and ten was citizens united saying and they can contribute as much as they want to in politics using that logic we need to hold it treat them as citizens across the board although i would take a step back and say i have a problem with the fact that we can't hold corporations accountable and lest we consider them to be persons i want to hold them accountable regardless of whether or not we consider them to be natural citizens imagine the implications if we were to implement this law in the united states what corporations can't be held accountable for murder and rape and in this particular trial state sanctioned murder for environmental and human rights protesters in nigeria we would never allow this on american soil so why are we willing to allow this on nigerian soil that is certainly an interesting question and so it seems that corporations want to have the best of both worlds they want to be considered a person when it benefits that and not consider a person when it doesn't benefit. right liz you bring up a gr

candidate but i wanted to to note something that it's a big misconception these days after the citizens united supreme court decision that millionaires and billionaires have a larger influence now than they did before the supreme court decision and that's not just not true because he didn't actually apply to contributions to these third parties and groups from millionaires and billionaires it applied to contributions from corporations unions and nonprofit groups so millionaires and billionaires are free to give now just as they were free to give then their influence over the process hasn't increased in terms of their donations to these groups if they're only didn't specifically say we're here to help millionaires and billionaires but what it did was there was a limit of twenty five hundred dollars on what an individual can contribute to a campaign that has made this still exists exactly but now people can give way more than twenty five hundred dollars they can give a million dollars if they want through this third party super bowl action was created through citizens united people could still g

but the fact of the matter is, this president's views on citizens united have not been shrouded in secrecy. they were clearly expressed. >> waited till february 2012, what did you mean? >> i simply was asked why did he -- i can't remember the phrasing of the question. did he spend a lot of time thinking about this. i haven't asked him that question but i think you can understand from the views that he has expressed about the citizens united decision and the impact of that decision on the process, that he takes a dim view of it. the, but it is also the case, and again i point you to the campaign here. i think a lot of these questions are more aptly addressed to the campaign, that as the campaign has said, the rules are what they are. the president will continue to change the rules. but the fact of the matter is, not only is there not a constituency among republicans in congress to overturn or take action against citizens united. there is not even a constituency among republicans in congress to allow the american people to know who the donors are. they blocked the disclose act. so that is th

the fact of the matter is this president's views on citizen united have not been shrouded in secrecy. there were clearly expressed. hold on. >> what did you mean? >> i simply was asked. i can run but the phrasing of the question, what did he spend a lot of time thinking about this. i have not asked to that question, but i think you can understand from the views that he has expressed about citizens united and the impact of that decision on the process that he takes a dim view of it. but, it is also the case, and, again, plenty to the campaign era where a lot of these questions are more apt to be addressed. as the campaign has said, the rules are what they are and the president will continue to change the rules. effective the matter is not only is there not a constituency among republicans in congress to overturn or take action against citizens united, there is not even a constituency among republicans in congress to allow the american people to know who the donors are. they blocked the disclosing. that is the reality, and he will continue to press for change and he will continue to pre

royalists is generations one percenters in fact they're a bigger threat now because of the supreme court's citizens united decision because that decision has given the power to literally buy our elections to that one percent and that's where we have to start right as citizens united right at the idea that corporations are people and money is speech if we hope to turn the tide in this war the roosevelt started more than seventy years ago and the warren buffett warned recently is all about lost today federal courts across america were occupied by the ninety nine percent i showed up and helped occupy the supreme court here in d.c. an action organized nationwide by move to amend or to carry all of us forward in a struggle for democracy and an economy that benefits all americans. repeat the mantra money is not speech it's property and corporations are people and should be forbidden from meddling in our politics go to move to amend or for more information. and that's the big picture for more information on the stories we covered visit our website to tom harmon dot com free speech dot org an r t dot com also che

mexico now joins hawaii as the second state to officially condemn the supreme court the supreme court's citizens united decision in mexico clearly understands the damage citizens united has done to our political process and society and hopefully more states decide to get on board and shut it down the bad wall street fat cats but bonuses and profits are reportedly drew windley not on wall street and your report released by the center for responsive politics shows that the financial services industry is on track to shatter previous records for political spending the report also states that the industry's spending is in hopes of defeating president obama and putting into office a candidate who opposes the dodd frank but actual regulations and active in two thousand and eight mitt romney has already received twelve point four million dollars financial services companies and that number is expected to become much much larger. it's quite clear that wall street wants to go back to the bush days when it was an unregulated anything goes wild was industry. corporate greed it's rearing its ugly head again. and th

as a result as a result of corporate personhood and the supreme court decisions like citizens united our democracy frankly is in peril and jeff is someone who can help us is the author of the new book corporations are not people and he joins us now welcome thank you tom good to be here great to have you with us before we get into the end of the book what what got you into the law and into the massachusetts a.g.'s office well it's a long story i'll give you the short version and i was actually out of college a canvas there with greenpeace. and i was going door to door in places rural virginia to suburban washington d.c. and other places like that talking about environmental protection and the balance of people and and corporate power even then that's really what the environmental movement is about how we make it a more just better society for all of us and i went to law school because i saw that's where the battles were taken the we could talk about it but in the meantime the courts and the law were actually creating the results we all lived with and i wanted to have a more tools frank

it used to be morally wrong and now you're going to take the money. >> i still think the citizens united decision made by the supreme court was the wrong decision. what i've said consistently is we're not going to just unilaterally disarm. >> stephen: yes! no matter how morally wrong you believe a system is, you have to use it in order to defeat it! it's like how lincoln won the civil war by buying a bunch of slaves. (laughter) and, folks, obama is going to need that money in order to fight the $100 million the koch brothers and friends pledged to defeat obama. including $40 million from charles and $20 million from david. because everyone knows david's the cheap one. (laughter) when the check comes for overthrowing the government, he's always in the bathroom. (laughter) so in light of mr. small donor's reversal on super pacs, i have just one thing to say. (laughter) welcome, young pac-walker. feel the power of the green side. embrace your destiny. join me and together we will rule the galaxy! for four years, after that it will be somebody else, maybe hillary. but in the meantime, the ga

i have a question about the citizen united case. lieve it was kagan who argue for the government. she said the government could use the law to silence any corporation, including one that ran in newspapers. citizens united was a corporation formed for the sole purpose of making a negative fell about -- negative film about hillary clinton. did the supreme court overreact? did they go too far in the other direction? as i recall, they took a second cut at it. they reconsider their original decision. i was wondering if maybe the supreme court needs to fine- tune their decision on this. guest: in that case, you are right. citizens united was a nonprofit organization that was not formed for the specific purpose of this movie, but it did create a very negative will be about hillary clinton. the case was briefed and argued and then the supreme court decided to have it re-briefed. they ended up with a much more wide ranging opinion than was anticipated. they could have ruled simply on the issue of airing the movie about hillary clinton, but th

campaigns, finance decisions, sort of the twin of mccain feingold, the bipartisan format and the citizens united decision, what it's really done is eit's weakened parties. the size of the pie, in terms of the spot advertising on television has not grown tremendously. now there's obviously the internet and there's other ways of communicating, but the slices of the pie are different. where the slice that the party controls has gotten much smaller, and the slice that these groups control is much bigger. so the decision and the

right now that's critical of the citizens united ruling and the say. what is this going to mean on a global scale right now that we have a globalized economy and what does that mean is that do businesses just get free rein to do whatever they want work with every governments they want well hopefully not and what this case does leave open is the possibility for plaintiffs to sue corporate officers to get to individuals because individual liability is not in question are they only tort statute but there's a couple cases coming down the pike where the supreme court may actually even more narrow your jurisdiction to the point where there are people just be no possibility for plaintiffs to come in and sue even corporate officers for their foreign international human rights violations make sure you take a look at those mike thanks so much for joining us tonight everybody here. all right time for our last break the night we come back one columnist out there thinks i'm a spy so he wins tonight's all time award and on happy hour turns out the one percenters don

into the state what's the consequence of this kind of money in politics largely as a result of the citizens united decision i want to tie the answer right back into the struggle of the working families of the middle class are having right now their voices are being drowned out certainly on television by these unlimited amounts of money it seems and you know the sources of which we'll never know because it's really secret. this is drowning out the voice of the average voter the average working family and that's trouble troubling alone but also i want to say in the state of wisconsin. we've had additional assaults on voter rights in the form of a very cynical voter identification has to be government issued they can be issued for free but nobody tells you that we're going to literally see the disenfranchisement of working people and middle class folks across wisconsin because of a combination of unlimited spending brought on by the citizens united decision and and these restrictions that we're seeing across the country at the state level . requiring voter i.d.'s it's deeply troubling to me as i moun

we will taken -- a look at the issue of citizens united in just a couple of minutes. e president of citizens united will be joining us in a couple of minutes. first, a look at the guests and topics dominating this sunday morning, all of which can be heard this morning on c-span radio. >> we have rears of five network talk shows the begin of -- began at noon eastern. presidential politics, and the situation in syria. beginning at noon, here "meet the press." including rick santorum and jack lew, who is on all of the programs this morning. the senior strategist and co- founder of priorities usa is also a guest. on "this week," rick santorum, jack lew, and paul ryan. "fox news sunday," airing at 2:00 p.m. including former candidate, sam -- sara palin. on "state of the union, rick santorum, jetblue, and joseph lieberman. finally, at 4:00 p.m. eastern, "face the nation, with paul ryan, -- nation," with paul ryan and mitch mcconnell, with an appearance by jack lew. listen to them all on c-span radio, 90.1 fm in the washington d.c. radio -- area, xm satellite radio, downloada

right so why is it now when they have figures and stats to talk about the impact of citizens united do they only talk about the president's capitulation and act like that's just the way that it had to be there is a movement out there public opinion is not in support of the influence of money in our political system we see giving one person insane amounts of power we see transparency completely flying out the window so the people have realized that something is wrong and the mainstream media continues to live in an isolated bubble the only monitor is what's happening at the top echelons they've decided that these are the rules of the game and so those pretend from now on that it's just natural to play that way what so many people want which are amendment city council resolutions you name it that entire movement they've chosen to miss. all right so let's continue on with our discussion of outside movements wanting to change the landscape take the influence of money out of politics wake america up to the rampant inequality and corruption overturning citizens united is just one step for th

class folks across wisconsin because of the combination of unlimited spending brought on by the citizens united decision and and these restrictions that we're seeing across the country at the state level. requiring voter i.d.'s it's deeply troubling to me as i mount a statewide campaign for u.s. senate. because we are going to have to figure out how to get our message out in the context of this incredibly large spending. it's going to be a challenge for every candidate the country who doesn't have a billionaire behind them it's just the internet is still a democratizing influence so tammy baldwin dot com is how people can hear more about my campaign for senate right and we will have it on the screen what are the issues that you care most about and and that you're seeing belle you're in the house of representatives right now you're running for the senate if you get it was one of the issues that you think are most front and center right now two minutes or so we're right so we're talking about the struggle for working families and middle class families right now and there's a lot that can be done

get down to the law there is there is a distinction between this case the statute case and the citizens united in one corporate personhood for first amendment rights so if you're parsing the law then these things all have all have their reasons but when you zoom out and you look at it as an observer as you do and as i still try to do it despite being a reporter on the court for the court you do start seeing a gentleman of hypocrisy when he when you when you look at the court how it handles business interests so what do you think of the ratifications will be we see a lot of public anger here within the u.s. right now that's critical of the citizens united ruling and this. same time what is this going to mean on a global scale right now that we have a globalized economy and what does that mean is that do businesses just get free rein to do whatever they want work with every government they want well hopefully not and what this case does leave open is the possibility for plaintiffs to sue corporate officers to get to individuals because individual liability is not in question are they only a tort

one other thing i think the voting rights act may be the best, the greatest beneficiary of the citizens united decision. the blowback from citizens united may make the court a little bit more timid to come with a meat cleaver to the voting rights act. you'll get narrowing constructions i think for sure if this case out of the city goes to the supreme court they'll find a way to say that was the doj objection there was wrong. so should we move to section two? section two prevents against racial vote delusion everywhere in the country, not just in covered jurisdictions. there was action over the last decade in section two, two major cases, though, there's more than that, bartlett versus strickland and lulack versus perry. in general the standard under section two was that if you are a large and compact minority community and you are in an area of a history of discrimination and particularly present conditions of racially polarized voting that you were going to be entitled to a majority/minority district. bartlett versus strickland says yes, when we said majority we meant majority so it has to be