technically that put this new professional football stadium in washington, d.c., under the purview of tom udall's dad because he was secretary of the interior. and in february, 1961, the month after the brand new president was sworn in, interior secretary stewart udall, new in the job, wrote president kennedy a memo about this big, new stadium in d.c. and a big problem related to that new stadium. this is amazing. thomas g. smith dug this up for a book called "showdown" which was about this big fight that they had related to the stadium in washington, d.c. in the kennedy administration. and this is just amazing. this is the memo that udall wrote to president kennedy. it says this. george marshall, the owner of the washington redskins, is the only segregationist holdout in professional football. he refuses to hire negro players, even though dallas and houston, texas, have already broken the color bar. the interior department owns the ground on which the new washington stadium is constructed, and we are investigating to ascertain whether a no discrimination provision could be inserted in mr. marsha

our colleague tom udall could not be with us. he has introduced a constitutional amendment that would allow the congress to impose limits that the supreme court seems to be part -- seems to deem part of free speech. the opponents of the -- the proponents of this decision talk about free speech. that is an absurdity. no amendment is absolute. you can't falsely scream fire in a crowded theater. you cannot distribute child pornography. you can't libel somebody. those are limitations on free speech. it seems illogical to americans that a limitation should be on the wealthiest of donors reading our political system. but somehow, the supreme court, five of them anyway, cling to this idea that putting the same dishonest commercial on television 44,111th time is a vital part of free speech. i don't think thomas jefferson, george washington, or any of the founding fathers would ever think that this was a mandate of free speech. >> i just want to add a few points. the first is that, once again, this was a 5-4 decision. once again, we see t

this is tom udall, a democratic united states senator from the great state of new mexico.s father was secretary of the interior under jfk. john f. kennedy won the presidency and the election in 1960. he went to washington and was sworn in as president in january, 1961.

the great conservation center tom udall thinks the president should sign that.t would be his biggest national monument to date. >> thank you, doug brinkley, appreciate your stand on this. there are regulations on what animals are counted after oil spills, which is highlighted in this whitehouse.gov petition, which asks all wildlife, not just oiled animals retrieved after a spill. we're asking you to sign that petition and tweet your support using #wildlife counts. make sure to let us know on twitter, facebook and e-mail. >>> up next, as the clock ticks down, and the numbers tick up, we look at what's behind the recent surge in executions with two lawyers who have been in the trenches on this debate. stay with us. [ aniston ] when people ask me what i'm wearing, i tell them aveeno®. [ female announcer ] aveeno® daily moisturizing lotion has active naturals® oat with five vital nutrients. [ aniston ] because beautiful skin goes with everything. aveeno®. naturally beautiful results™. [ female announcer ] f provokes lust. ♪ it elicits pride... incites envy... ♪ ...a

our colleague tom udall could not be with us. he has introduced a constitutional amendment that would allow the congress to impose limits that the supreme court seems to be part of free speech and a decision like this makes that amendment more and more likely and one other point. the opponents -- the proponents of this decision talk about free speech. that's an absurdity. no amendment is absolute. you can't falsely scream fire in a crowded theater. you can't distribute child pornography. you can't libel somebody. those are limitations on free speech. it seems so logical to every american that's a limitation should be on the wealthiest of donors rigging our political system but somehow the supreme court, five of them anyway cling to this idea that putting the same dishonest commercial on television for the 4111th time is a vital part of free speech. i don't think thomas jefferson, george washington or any of the founding fathers would ever think that this was a mandate for free speech. >> thank you chuck. i just want to make a few

sullivan of alaska, senator kay hagan, north carolina, senate candidate tom tillis, senator al franken of minnesota, and senator mark udallcolorado. so why might a candidate put up you raw, highly produced video on the internet for anyone to use? precisely so anyone can use it. like, say, groups who want to promote a candidate but due to campaign finance laws cannot work directly with them. >> american crossroads is responsible for the content of this advertising. >> except when they aren't responsible for the content of that advertising specifically the video in the advertising. for example, here is senator mitch mcconnell in his own video and here are the same shots in an ad from the kentucky opportunity coalition. here is senator kay hagan's footage and the same footage in an ad from the southern alliance for clean energy. here is footage from her challenger's youtube page. and some of the same video in a brand-new ad by american crossroads. senator mark begich's raw footage and the same video in put alaska first. here is b-roll from dan sullivan. and here's the same shot in an ad for sullivan by american crossroads. s