congress are already on record rate the united states senate will soon hold a historic vote on senator tom udall's constitutional event -- amendment bill whittle and big money in politics and restore the basic vision of our republic. govern of, by, and for the people. i will addresss, four a central points as to why the supreme court's ruling are wrong and why we must fight to overturn them in the name of the first amendment and our democracy. money does not-- equal speech. in his 1976 and buckley the , the supreme court equated money with speech and struck down campaign spending in the wake of watergate. us on our course of unlimited campaign spending, where our elections are sold to the highest bidders. as former justice john paul stevens has said, money is property. it is not speech. speech, and for the very wealthy in our society, money enables them to be heard at the loudest decibels at the expense of the rest of us. the campaigns meaning -- campaign spending issues were regulations on the manner of speech, not on speech itself. by equating money with speech, the buckley court sanctioned a sy

the united states senate will soon hold a historic vote on senator tom udall's constitutional amendment bill that will end big money in politics and restore the basic vision of our republic. governed of, by, and for the people. in these remarks, i will address four a central points as to why the supreme court's ruling are wrong and why we must fight to overturn them in the name of the first amendment and our democracy. point number 1 -- money does not equal speech. in his 1976 and buckley the vallejo, the supreme court equated money with speech and struck down campaign spending in the wake of watergate. the ruling set us on our course of unlimited campaign spending, where our elections are sold to the highest bidders. as former justice john paul stevens has said, money is property. it is not speech. money amplifies speech, and for the very wealthy in our society, money enables them to be heard at the loudest decibels at the expense of the rest of us. the campaign spending issues were regulations on the manner of speech, not on speech itself. by equating money with speech, the buckley co

the united states senate will soon hold a historic vote on senator tom udall's constitutional amendmentbill which would end the big money thomas kuhn our politics and restore that basic vision of our republic. government of, by, and for the people. in these opening remarks i will address for central points as to why the supreme court's ruling in buckley versus blue, citizens united, and mccutchen versus fec are wrong and why we must fight to overturn them in the name of the first commitment and our democracy. point number one. money does not equal speech. in its 1976 ruling in buckley v. valeo, the supreme court equated money with speech and struck down campaign limits passed in the wake of the watergate scandal. the ruling set us on our current course today of unlimited campaign spending where our elections are sold to the highest bidders. but as former supreme court justice john paul stevens has said, money is property. it is not speech. money in fact amplifies speech. and for the very wealthy in our society, money enables them to be heard at the loudest decibels at the expense of the

lee and senator durbin, senator heller, senator franken, senator cruz, senator blumenthal, senator tom udall, senator coons and heinrich, markey, klobuchar and whitehouse who have joined on this. this is not a partisan bill. this is not a democratic republican bill. this is a good bill that protects america. i want to note in particular the contributions over many years of senators wyden and mark udall. they worked tirelessly. we cannot let this opportunity go by. this is a debate about americans' fundamental relationship with their government, about whether our government should have the power to create massive databases of information about its citizens or whether we are in control of our own government, not the other way around. i think we have to, i believe we have to impose stronger limits on government surveillance powers. i'm confident that most americans agree with me. i will just close with one quick story that i have used before. about the only thing i have actually saved from a newspaper written about me, i liked it so much i framed it. it's -- as the distinguished presiding offic

udall opposes keystone. in michigan liberal billionaire tom styer super p.a.c. is making the environment an issue. the democrats senate candidate is congressman gary peters. >> this is about our nation's independence. >> reporter: michigan republican secretary of state argues democratic opposition possible energy development makes u.s. independence from foreign oil more difficult and undercuts the economy. in maine green politics by the opposition could help re-elect republican incumbent governor. his democratic rival backs climate change legislation and so does a third candidate an independent who helped draft the clean air and water acts back in the 1970s. he could take democrat and green votes. democrats are trying to energize liberal voters but opposing energy development under cuts democrats in energy producing states and could end up helping republicans. >> we'll have to see, carl. thank you. >>> tea party republican who lost last week's senate primary in mississippi will challenge the results. chris mcdaniel says in an interview his campaign found at least 5,000 voting irregul irregularitie

udall leads cory gardner by a point. north carolina the incumbent democrat kay hagan leads tom tillis by two and a half points but close toining us from austin, texas, republican karl rove. also montana and alaska situation in the senate, correct? >> well, in south dakota, west virginia, and then there are are five other races where the republicans are competitive oregon, michigan, minnesota, new hampshire and virginia. but, yeah, look, this is going to be a wild year. the "new york times" came out yesterday and moved their rating on the senate from a 56% chance that republicans took it to a 60% chance. and the "the washington post" recently issued its model and said it felt there was an 86% chance for republicans would take control of the senate. i'm not as optimistic as the "the washington post." but i think the "new york times" has it about right. >> 60% chance that the republicans will gain enough seats to control that body. and that means harry reid is out of there. >> >> right. >> you know, he isn't going to wield the power. interestingly enough, most americans don't know this because why would they, you and i do th