so craig for all the fuming, it sounds from all three of you, like it is really citizens united that changed the game, and this is a tweak maybe in your view, in the wrong direction, but that is that case that did it. >> well, the citizens united case was devastating. and it was more sweeping than the mccutchen case. but it just opened up that window of being able to literally bribe an office holder into getting what you want. you know granted super packs -- new mexico no defender of super packs especially with their unlimited contributions. but there are a difference when a lawmaker gets that two or $3 million check, verses it going to someone else who is going to spends the money. the lawmaker, the candidaten't ways direct control over their campaign. they want to produce the ads. lawmakers want that in their own pocket, much more than they want somebody else take thing check. i think the problem i have with this case is not that we will have outright bribery. it could be. but i don't think with that's where we are headed. the standard is no longer undue influence. it is no longer t

other eight justices, in citizens united, rejected that argument. and that the supreme court has already developed mechanisms to address cases of extreme and demonstrable oppression. the supreme court in cases ranging from buckley very chalet hoe, to citizens united to the recent mcchurch con case, have reheat -- repeatedly argued disclosure advances public interest and the court rejected the arguments put forward by senator mcconnell and justice thomas. the courts have put forward three main arguments in favor of disclosure. one, the public interest in knowing who is spending money to try to influence their votes. two, that transparency serves an important anticorruption interest, and, three, that disclosure helps to enforce other campaign finance laws like the prohibition on foreigners or foreign owned corporations spending money in u.s. elections. here's what the sprem court said in buckley with respect to disclosure of both direct contributions to campaigns and independent expenditures. i quote: disclosure requirements deter actual corruption and avoid the a

the first point we have to move our direction we have to move in is to overturn citizens united. that requires the constitutional amendment. there are many hundreds of cities and towns throughout the country who have gone on record in supporting overturning citizens united. i think there are 16 or 17 states that have done that. this is an interesting point. i do not believe this is simply a progressive versus conservative issue. there are many who say, you know what? forid not fight and die handful of billionaires to control the political process. i think we can put together a strong coalition. we have to focus on that. the second thing we have to do, we need to move the public comeng of elections exactly the opposite of what boehner was talking about. he talks about freedom of billionaires to buy elections. our job is to say to the billionaires, sorry, you're not going to buy elections. everyone should have the opportunity to run for office whether you have a lot of money or not. >> what about your plans and 2016, senator sanders? are you considering running for president of the

enator schumer and cochran continued it in the 109th congress and that was before the citizens united and mccutcheon decisions. before things went from bad to worse. the out-of-control spending before citizens united has further poisoned our elections, but it has also ignited a broad movement to amend the constitution. mckochon is the latest mis-- mccutcheon is the latest misguided decision. it won't be the last. it's time for congress to take back control and pass a constitutional amendment. and, again, chairman king and chairman schumer, thank you for holding this hearing. it's very, very timely on the heels of mccutcheon. i appreciate it. >> thank you, senator. if our next panel will take your seats i'll introduce you. this going to hear from panel in alphabetical order. mcgann, r. donald f. a lawyer, previously commissioner of the f.e.c. he served as general counsel for the national republican congressional committee for 10 years. second is normal ornstein, resident scholar at the american enterprise institute, well-known column on campaign finance issues. third is mr. trevor pott

of course, that's not the opinion the court wrote in citizens united. the court's opinion was a lot longer and a lot worse. here is the one phrase that sums up the citizens united decision -- quote -- "we now conclude that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption." end quote. the majority of the court told us that there is no reason at all to be worried about unlimited corporate money in politics anymore, that it does not give rise even to the appearance of corruption, and the logic goes since there is no reason to be concerned about it, there is no constitutional basis to regulate it. that's what the court tells us. but we know better. the court's analysis not only is disconnected from precedent, it's disconnected from reality. the minnesota league of women voters recently issued a report in which it concluded that -- quote -- "the influence of money in politics represents a dangerous threat to the health of our democracy in minnesota and nationally." end quote. the mi

nobody really paid much attention to this discrepancy between the written law and the irs guidelines until after citizens united because until then even under the primary purpose past no corporation could spend money for the express purpose of electing or defeating candidates. citizens united change that and now as more and more 501(c)4's get into the business of spending secret money to elect or defeat candidates they discrepancy has become blaring. so blaring that in april of last year i sued the irs to enforce the plain meaning of the written statute. i would also point out that the inspector general of the irs who issued a report entitled inappropriate criteria were used to identify tax-exempt applications to review also recommended that the iras look into the measure of primary activity. since then, the irs has begun to review this discrepancy and as a result our lawsuit has been withdrawn, at least for now but please do not fall for the partisans right that this iras review is some kind of political conspiracy to silence conservative groups. the reality is that these groups are now being used on the right

union address, president obama, in front of a number of the supreme court justices, decried the citizens united case and said what an awful decision it was. from that point on, there was a steady drumbeat from the white from in radio addresses various people like david axelrod decrying the citizens united case, calling for investigations, calling for the disclose act that would require donor lists be publicly available for 501(c)4 organization's. by october of that year, lois lerner gave a speech at duke law "hool in which she said everybody is screaming at us right now. fix it now before the election. can't you see how much these people are spending." that steady drumbeat continued and what happened happened. left-leaning 501(c)4 applications were pushed through while those of conservative organizations were denied and harassed. host: doug is on the line for democrats. caller: good morning. to your responses and lot of these questions you like to tend to agree to disagree. and i pull that card, too. i disagree with you. the american heritage foundation , that is pretty well -- anyway, i don't

the supreme court. i see this as a sequel to citizens united. it removes those caps on aggregate amounts that individuals can give to federal campaigns. and certainly my concern here, most overriding concern is, are we going to displace government of the many by a government of the money? >> and the chief justice cited freedom of speech. and in his decision in the majority he wrote, if the first amendment protects flag burning funeral protests and nazi parades despite the profowns offense such spectacles cause, popular opposition. >> i hear that but an abuse of rights can be just as dangerous as a disallowance of rights. and what you have here is an attempt or should have been an attempt to make certain that there are limits by which the influence can be felt. otherwise, you're selling seats in the house rather than campaigning for seats. and you won't have republicans and democrats assuming seats. you'll have paid for by deep pockets, assuming those seats. to have that influence of money in the system in such a profound way for a few, in the bul

the heart of everything. campaign finance. [applause] a few years ago, the united states supreme court made a decision that had people scratching their heads. they said in the citizens united , that they said that corporations are people. individualsrtant, could now spend as much money as they wanted in the political process because they have the first amendment right of the freedom of speech. ok. that casee impact of and what is the impact of the recent days the heard a couple of weeks ago. here is the impact. i want you to think seriously about this. , we all have different opinions. that is called democracy. i would hope and respect those who fought and died to defend our way of life that there's not a difference of opinion. america,s. of billionaires should not be able to buy elections. [applause] let me give you a concrete example. a few weeks ago we saw the remarkable spectacle in las vegas, nevada. the have a lot of spectacles. this one was quite remarkable. that is a man worth any billions republicancalled candidates for president to come to las vegas to tell him what they would do for him and how they would support his agenda. i understand i am stepping on

united states constitution. the basis for all of american freedom. to protect the citizensf the united states, the fourth amendment protects all u.s. citizens from a reasonable search and seizure. for this reason, congress should have policies that limit -- surveillance to suspected terrorist and require nsa to obtain individual search warrants for those people of interest. microsoft's executive vice president of legal affairs said -- "people will not use technology they do not trust. governments have put in this trust at risk and governments need to help restore it." >> to watch all the winning videos and learn more about our competition, go to c-span.org and click on the studentcam and tells what you think about the issues. pose your comment on studentcam's facebook page or tweet us. >> the house oversight committee voted to hold lois lerner in contempt of congress. we talked about why the committee took this action with heritaget from the foundation. this is 40 minutes. segment ister the john malcolm. he is a senior legal fellow at the heritage foundation. inky for being

repeatedly on whether to issue a notice of proposed rule making to deal with the question of disclosure after citizens united. that is correct, the commission appears to still be deadlocked on this issue. however, i would like to note for the record that the commission in late 2011 managed to issue a citizens united rule making notice that did not mention disclosure. the commission even had a hearing, but that is the end of the story. no new regulation, no action on disclosure. mr. ornstein's written testimony demonstrates how dramatically disclosure of the sources of funding of public advertising has fallen. in 2004, the first election under mccain-feingold, 98% of outside groups running campaign ads disclosed their donors. a few years later that number was down to 34%. in absolute dollars, the amount spent on advertising only 40% was disclosed as the course in 2012 by these outside groups. why is this a problem? let me turn to justice kennedy's explanation in citizens united. he said, with the advent of the internet, prompt disclosure of expenditures can provide shareholders and citizens with the informati

the house. then comes citizens united. name one who will come to the floor right now and admit that climate change is a real problem and that harbin pollution is anything worth doing about. that is a real problem. that is hitting our farms, our families, our forests, our shorelines, our fishermen. the fact that we have a party that is in complete denial of that subject and that it comes complete in the wake of citizens united. if you can't put those dots together, then you really can't although a story very well and that is really what is going on. >> we don't mean any of you here. [laughter] >> thank you. morning, shawhis mccutcheon spoke about the supreme court's decision in his favor. issuehink this is an about independent, private people exercising free speech. all americans are entitled to free speech. this is a first amendment guaranteed under the constitution. >> the supreme court agreed with the. if you sit back and say i want to be politically involved as if i am a person of great means and i have all these candida

want to give to republicans, democrats, nments, or any other candidates and say together with the citizens united decision, it will provide more opportunity across the board. >> enable more citizens to be involved, more citizens to contribute to the candidates and causes they believe in. that's good for america. this is a great decision. >> 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

it is the same breakdown we had in the citizens united ruling a few years ago. >> justice breyer, correct me if took the not so much unusual step of reading part of his dissent from the bench. he was not too thrilled with today's ruling. >> he was not. he went after it in very strong terms. he said this court had left all efforts to control the influence of money in politics as a mere remnant of what had been intended to be. he said the court created a big loophole that will let people give a whole -- give money to a whole lot of different places knowing that it will be funneled to a particular candidate. termsressed in as strong as he could have that the court stepped in something that it had no right to be in. >> what is the impact of today's ruling likely to be? cycle,he last election there was something like 1200 people who bumped up against the limit that was in place. it was $117,000 in the last cycle. it is not a huge number of people. it does impact other avenues there has been a lot of coverage on. the koch brothers had been sending money to super political action committees and

the role of political parties? >> reporter: one thing, susie, that political parties have been concerned about is at citizens united the growth of those superpacs moved a lot of money away from campaigns to independent sources which could help a candidate but hurt if they were out of step with the candidate's message. if this makes it easier for some of that money to go into parties, it may strengthen them and strengthen candidates and allow them to have a more coordinated mainstream message to voters. >> john harwood, thank you very much. john in washington tonight. >>> day two of mary barra's testimony to lawmakers on capitol hill. tuesday it was the house, today a senate panel grilling the general motors chief executive on how the automaker bungled a recall of 2.5 million faulty cars that have been linked to at least 13 crash-related deaths. but it wasn't easy today. eamon javers was there, has the story for us. >> why not just come clean and say, we're going to do justice here? >> that is incredibly frustrating to me. oh, you can't even talk to that. you don't know anything about anything. >> reporter: it was a

the problem. it is partisan. it's because citizen unitedi think that we're not going to get a disclosure bill until there's enough demeanor money that it comes more into balance and the republicans are no longer seeing the kind of political advantage that induces them to walk away from positions that they had publicly held for years. as to the second question, if you've got a billionaire who wants to give $500 million out, the problem is that there are a lot of other people in this democracy too. if you end up in a democracy in which the billionaires own all of the air waves, all of the messages and all of the candidates, then everybody else is frozen out of it. so yeah, the billionaire has a first amendment right but the person who doesn't have a billion dollars has a first amendment right too. and to have their voice so drown out is something that's bad for our democracy and wrong and constitutionally something that congress is capable of regulating and should regulate. indeed, that was the constitutional law of the land until the activis

we sell what happened in the wake of citizens united. we saw the flood of special-interest money. we saw lawyers poring over the decision and its implications to figure out ways around the law. and we will see much more of that again much of the money that is donated is anonymous. we don't know who is donating it. most of the commercials run have nothing to do with the actual interests of who is donating the money. today's ruling decided once again by the mere slimmest of majorities and is yet another nail in the coffin of our free and fair election system. by eliminating aggregate contribution limits, there is nothing to allow -- to keep a millionaire giving one check to one member of a party in congress. you might remember tom perkins who said wealthier people ought to get more votes in the american elections. i would ask chief justice roberts to -- because that is where the outcome is headed. so it is a sad day. again, implications of this particular decision are significant but not huge. but the direction the court is headed in is dramatic and just dark. i just want to mention

union address, president obama, in front of a number of the supreme court justices, decried the citizens unitedase and said what an awful decision it was. from that point on, there was a steady drumbeat from the white house in radio addresses from various people like david axelrod decrying the citizens united case, calling for investigations, calling for the disclose act that would require donor lists be publicly available for 501(c)4 organization's. by october of that year, lois lerner gave a speech at duke law school in which she said " everybody is screaming at us right now. fix it now before the election. can't you see how much these people are spending." that steady drumbeat continued and what happened happened. which is that left-leaning 501(c)4 applications were pushed through while those of conservative organizations were denied and harassed. host: doug is on the line for democrats. caller: good morning. i'm listening to your responses to a lot of these questions and you like to tend to agree to disagree. and i pull that card, too. i disagree with you. the american heritage foundation ,

united case -- and by the way, my understanding is citizens united is one of the hosts of the republican event over there. that they said that corporations are people. and equally important, that individuals could now spend as much money as they wanted in the political process because they had the first amendment rights of freedom of speech to do that. what is the impact on that -- of that case and what's the impact of the recent mccutchen case that we heard a few weeks ago? and here is the impact. and i want you to think very, very seriously about this. new body in vermont and in hampshire and -- we all have different opinions about this that and the other. that's called democracy. t i would hope and respect especially to those people who fought and died to defend democracy and our way of life that there is a not a difference of opinion, that in the united states of america billionaires should not be able o buy elections. now, let me give you very concrete examples of what i'm talking about and it is happening literally today on the other side of town. a few

overall limits on political contributions in it's biggest decision on campaign finance since the 2010 "citizens united case. good evening, i'm judy woodruff, gwen ifill is away. also ahead, our conversation with the head of the international monetary fund, christine lagarde. she weighs in on western sanctions against russia and says the ukrainian economy needs tough reforms. >> the economy of ukraine was heading for disaster. it's an economy that needed profound transformation of its

obviously if so monday's show will be a full apology. >> i can understand why the political left doesn't like decisions like citizens united and mccutchen because they expand the playing field. they allow more citizens to contribute to the candidates and causes they believe in. that's good for america. >> jon: (bleep). [cheers and applause] i can't even do the turtle voice. i won't even -- how the (bleep) does this decision enable more citizens to contribute? according to the ap in 2012646 individuals bumped up against the limit that this case struck down. it doesn't get more people involved. it lets those 646 individuals get themselves more vstled. how did the supreme court handle voter i.d. law? >> they said states can require a voter i.d. at the polls to prevent voter fraud. >> jon: the court conveniently ignores the real effects of donor lobbyist industrial complex in the guys of making it more inschiewsive yet they are perfectly okay with voter i.d. laws under the guys of protecting us mostly nonexistent voter identification fraud. corruption that actually happens, i don't see it. voter fraud that doesn't happen? hm?

the heart of everything. campaign finance. [applause] now, a few years ago, the united states supreme court made a decision that had people scratching their heads. they said in the citizens united case, my understanding is that citizens united is one of the hosts of the republican event, they said that corporations are people. equally important, that individuals could now spend as much money as they wanted in the political process because they have the first amendment right of political speech to do that. what is the impact of the recent case that we heard a couple of weeks ago. here is the impact. i want you to think very seriously about this. everybody in vermont, new hampshire, we all have different opinions. that is called democracy. i would hope and respect to those people that fought and died to defend democracy and our way of life, that there is not a difference of opinion. in the united states of america, billionaires should not be able to buy elections. [applause] let me give you ver concrete examples of what is happening today on the other side of town in new hampshire. a few weeks ago, we saw a remarkable spectacle in las vegas, nevada. they have a lot of spec

what we have seen since the citizens united decision, what we have seen from the dark many groups and the 501c 4, money has moved away from the political party campaign donations. parties -- part of the reason you have seen the rnc excited is that the money should start heading back towards them. maybe not an enormous amount that they should see an uptick. so the parties are winners. they select number to the aggregate line every single two years. those guys will have a -- those guys will now have a direct line to lawmakers. who loses? the small money donors. that is the only way you can look at this. their donations will no longer mean as much to lawmakers because they are getting macs at donations from other people. the limits on individual contributions, those remain. is there a chances will be struck down next? >> you heard from democrats on capitol hill yesterday and you heard from justice stephen breyer's dissent. court, anytimes a campaign-finance decision is coming in front of them, there is a decent chance that they will roll rule in a way that democrats are not happy with. i

this was not met with the blowback of citizens united. i think americans are either too cynical to care, or to board to be interested. the response has been pretty much quiet. lithwick, thank you for joining us. >> we will hear argument first in case 12536. ms. murphy? >> mr. chief justice, and may it please the court -- bicker's aggregate contribution limits are an impermissible attempt to equalize the relative ability of individuals to participate in the political process. by prohibiting contributions that are within the modest base limits congress has already imposed to combat the reality or appearance of corruption, these limits simply seek to prevent individuals from engaging in too much first amendment activity. these limits cannot be justified on circumvention grounds because the concerns the government hypothesizes are already addressed by bicker's multitude of more direct anti-circumvention measures. >> how is that? >> because bicker imposes numerous direct circumvention measures. for instance, we have earmarking provisions on ear

the heart of this opinion. corporations are people of citizens united. opinion is that giving money to a candidate is like speech. a lot of people disagree with it. that's the law of the land. >> jeffrey toobin, thanks so much. who drove to the control room [ woman ] driverless mode engaged. find parking space. [ woman ] parking space found. [ male announcer ] ...that secured the data that directed the turbines that powered the farm that made the milk that went to the store that reminded the man to buy the milk that was poured by the girl who loved the cat. [ meows ] the internet of everything is changing everything. cisco. tomorrow starts here. ttdd# 1-800-345-2550 can take you in many directions. tsearching for trade ideas that ispark your curiosityg. tdd# 1-800-345-2550 you read this. watch that. tdd# 1-800-345-2550 you look for what's next. tdd# 1-800-345-2550 at schwab, we can help turn inspiration into action tdd# 1-800-345-2550 boost your trading iq with the help of tdd# 1-800-345-2550 our live online workshops tdd# 1-800-345-2550 like identifying

you remember the president made a big deal on what we call the citizens united case that said you can't a limit on when and how much organizations can spend to say what they believe, that if you -- whether you're republican, democrat, libertarian, whatever, the government can't say when and how much. so, that changed things. president talked a lot about it. he upgraded the supreme court. it had an interesting effect. was that it took money away from candidates and political parties. and they call them shadowy outside groups. democrats and republicans have become equally good exploiting these outside groups. instead what happens now with the consequence of this decision, is that candidates and parties will be able to take lots more contributions from individuals. that means it's transparent, we'll be able to track it and see where it goes. that also means these outside groups will have somewhat less interest, than the individual candidates and parties themselves will get a shot in the arm. >> did they give it limits or just say limits that are now going to continue? >> they still have li

this furthers the citizens united ruling, the ruling does not increase the amount an individual can contribute to an individual candidate but what it does is gives the individual the chance to drobt as many candidates as they want -- to contribute to as many candidates as they want without limits. >> to eviscerate any restrictions on the ability of individuals to use the large amounts of influence to political process. in the name of freedom of speech i think what they're doing as justice breyer said in dissent, underlying the fundamental democracy that the freedom of speech is meant to preserve. >> the center for, series of candidates, so how big a deal is it if only that few people can really afford this level of contributions? >> it's a big deal. if everybody could afford it then much less of a problem. the fact that only a relate small number of americans, what it basically does is put political candidates in the pockets of these very billionaires and that's not exactly the way the democratic process should work and that's a serious threat to democracy in the united states. these are bad d

>> the president has not made a decision. >> jonathan pollard, a u.s. citizen has been in prison in the united states for nearly 30 years. his crime, espionage. pollard was an intelligence analyst with the u.s. navy when he was arrested in 1985. he had been passing thousands of classified documents to israel. a charge for which he pled guilty. the documents reportedly included top u.s. secrets about soviet and arab states, military capabilities. for his crime, pollard was sentenced to life in prison. he is now nearly 60 years old and in poor health. his ex-wife says he suffers from diabetes and digestive and urilogical issues. he is eligible for patrol next year, 19 months from now. wherein he will have served 30 years in prison. half his life. but there's one way mr. pollard could leave jail immediately. if president obama pardons him. why would the president consider such an act? answer. as a way to salvage the peace talks between the isrealis and the palestinians. over the decades, jonathan pollard has become something of a pay tri patriarch to many in israel. his punishment is thought to b

the citizens of the united states. like dr. king, like abraham lincoln, like countless citizens who have driven this country forward, president johnson knew that ours in the end is a story of optimism, a story of achievement, and constant striving that is unique upon this earth. he knew because he had lived that story. the believed that together we can build an america that is more fair, more equal, and more free than the one we inherited. he believed we make our own destiny. and in part because of him, we must believe it as well. thank you. god bless you. god bless the united states of america. [ applause ] >> you have been listening to the president of the united states, president obama. he is speak about the lbj library in austin, texas. he is joined by many of the titansover the civil rights movement, that is john lewis shaking his hand right now. he also referenced andy young, and also julian bond who was one of the younger students during the civil rights movement, but is now teaching at the university of virginia in charl

it is the companion, if you will, to citizens united. take it from there, pete. >> right. this is the limit that was struck down today. not on how much a person can give to an individual candidate, but how much you can give to all candidates put together. it's called the aggregate or total limit and it limited any individual from giving no more than a total of $48,600 and there was a companion part of this that limited how much money you could give to all political parties and packs put together. the supreme court struck them all down. the individual limit still stands. you can only give $2,600 to any candidate in any collection. but the supreme court said when you give money, that pays for a speech, and went back to basically 40 years of supreme court decisions that have equated contributions and speech, and said that congress can no more limit how many candidates an individual can contribute to than it could tell a newspaper how many candidates it could endorse. it's all a matter of the first amendment. now the dissenters felt very strongly about this. it was a 5-4 ruling

one thing both sides agrees on is this furthers the citizen united ruling striking down limits on campaign spending. it does not increase the amount an individual can contribute to a candidate. it gives individuals a chance to contribute to as many candidates as they want. >> correct. it continues the process that the current 5-member majority has been moving towards. eviserating restrictions on the ability of individuals to use larges payments of money. in the name of freedom of speech, what they are doing is basically undermining the fundamental democracy that the freedom of speech reserves. >> the center from responsive politics found 6 million people reached the maximum that you could contribute to a series of candidates. how big a deal is it if that few people can afford the level of contributions. >> it's a big deal. if everyone could afford it, it's less of a problem. only a small number of americans have the capacity to impact this process. it puts political candidates in the pockets of these wealthy billion airs and that's not the way the democratic process should work. it's a ser

we saw what happened in the wake of citizens united. we sought the flood of special-interest money. we saw lawyers poring over it, the decision and its implications to figure out ways around the law and we are going to see much more of that again. much of the money that is donated is anonymous. we don't know who is donating it. most of the commercials run have nothing to do with the actual interests of who is donating the money and today's ruling decided once again by the mere slimmest of majorities is yet another nail in the coffin for our free and fair election system. now for instance by eliminating aggregate contribution limits nothing can stop a single millionaire from lining the pockets of an entire state's congressional delegation or giving one check to every member of a party in congress. you might remember tom perkins you said wealthier people ought to get more votes in american elections. i would ask chief justice roberts did tom perkins argued this case because that is where the outcome is headed. so it's a sad day. the implications of this particular decision are signifi

it was unveiled in the all-important presidential primary state of new hampshire at this weekend's freedom summit sponsored by citizens united and the koch brothers, americans for prosperity. rand paul used his speech to put republicans on the couch, to point out their failures, and to outline a new republican agenda based on bold action and the bill of rights. but no, really, there was actually a lot about gop failures on taxes, on the debt, and on defending amendments other than the second one. >> you go to washington and what passes for bold is, oh, we're for revenue neutral tax reform. i, frankly, don't care. if that's what you're for, i'll go back to bowling green, kentucky, and be an eye surgeon but i want nothing to do with the tax reform. some say, well, we can defend the second amendment but let's just ignore the fourth amendment. or let's ignore the first amendment but not the second amendment. that's not for conservatives. hogwash. some would say that you can have freedom and yet have indefinite detention of american citizens. that you can have freedom and not have the right to the trial by jury by everyone. i had

that the politically active nonprofits that have great latitude now following the citizens united and the decision. allows them to perform many of the same kinds of activities but under avail of secrecy we can't track the flow of money easily. jared david keating, what do we know how these outside groups spend their money versus how the candidates political action committees which are pretty much public because they have to report more regularly. >> we have to keep in mind first of all whenever a group advocates the election or defeat they have to report within hours. if it's over $10,000. >> woodruff: name the candidate. >> how much they have spent. even if they don't endorse the candidate if it's within a certain amount of time before an election, 60 days before a general more 30 days before a primary, they have to report how much they spent. we always know how much is spent in that context. but we also have to keep in mind this is a year when congress is in session,er this both before congress, a lot of these calculations are counting bills that are advocating strictly on issues. s