then there's school heir refusing to recuse himself from the citizens united case despite the koch brothers ties to republican political advocacy groups the benefit tremendously from schoolies decision in citizens united the citizens united case decided by the court's five hardcore right wing justices is the very heart of why americans have lost faith in our governmental institutions and why poll after poll shows america believing the rich have far too much influence in our government a citizens united case that was directly called out in a new report written by the international commission chaired by kofi anon that sends a warning to the world's democracies particularly the united states about the corrupting influence of corporations and money in the democratic process the report warns across the world uncontrolled political finance threatens to hollow out democracy and rob it of its unique strings it goes on to say the supreme court citizens united decision has quote shaken citizen confidence in america's political institutions and elections and we can thank justice scalia as the deciding

in many cases, they do not even pay their fair share of taxes. but under citizens unitednlimited corporate spending on elections is now treated as a free speech and is protected under the first amendment of deeper -- of the constitution to do with this decision, the supreme court and our national democracy is in crisis. the supreme court got it wrong when the world that unlimited spending on political campaigns is a form of free speech. by striking down sensible limits on campaign spending, the court has allowed the voices of a few wealthy interests to speak louder than the rest of us. is it any wonder that the people to like government does not listen to them anymore? since the ruling, corporations have been legally allowed to spend unlimited amounts of money in our elections on behalf of federal candidates. many of these contributions are made in secret. with no telling who is paying for the so-called social welfare organizations which front corporate political donors. the citizens united ruling has green lighted unprecedented campaign spending in the rise of super pacs

that made campaign spending by corporations subject to disclosure laws here remember the citizens united case right well it's the case that reaffirmed that corporations are people too and that money is speech well the u.s. court of appeals for the eighth circuit ruled on wednesday that minnesota law requiring companies to track and disclose the amount of money that's spent on political campaigns likely violates the u.s. constitution so not only can companies give as much money as their corporate hearts and souls desire but the rest of us a living breathing human beings will no longer have the right to know where all of the political money is coming from now i know it must have been really really difficult for all those dollar bills out there their feelings must be so hurt well they were burning up in the pockets of all the frustrated corporations who are finding it super hard to anonymously fun political campaigns with undisclosed massive amounts of cash so george turn that frown upside down this is a big win for you but i digress i should mention that five of the eleven judges dissented from

i think the big case about affirmative action and citizens united. your big case. >> stephen: my favorite case! established super pacs. >> but i think they are going to go farther. >> stephen: go farther?

i think the big case about affirmative action and citizens united. ur big case. >> stephen: my favorite case! established super pacs. >> but i think they are going to go farther. >> stephen: go farther? what is it i can't do legally now? i run a cock fighting ring out of an orphanage. (laughter) is that not legal yet because i should talk to a lawyer. >> they are going to, i think, eventually, maybe not this year, allow direct contributions to campaigns unlimited. you have to have your super pac, which is at least fictionally separate or notionally separate. >separate. >> stephen: it is absolutely separate from something. >> soon i think you'll be able to give money directly to candidates. the limits on how much you can give i think they may be in jeopardy and corporations may be able to give campaigns-- directly to campaigns again. >> stephen: what does another obama term look like for the supreme court? >> well, there are four justices in their 70s now. ruth ginsburg is 79. she's probably the most likely to leave if obama is reelected because, you k

rather than sell units at 90% ami, in some cases, it might make sense to sell units at 110% ami, a higher rate. because that higher income targeting will increase the sales price and reduced the gap between the sales price and production cost, this program will allow us to require a developer to provide more units, more than 12%. conversely, when it is appropriate to provide deeper availability -- let's say, 70% ami -- they would be required to provide fewer units. under future alternatives, and hire am -- at a higher ami level, we could provide or units or fewer units in the cases where we are looking at deeper affordability. this would be a modification of our program that would occur outside the charter. given that there is a lot going on here -- i have talked about a lot of stuff. quick summary -- on the revenue side, these are allegations based on -- allocations based on projecting new revenue sources. ongoing funding for our below- market rate housing production, affordable housing production, up to 120% ami. it authorizes the establishing of a complete neighborhoods program. it red

targeted anywhere in the world or if a person is targeted within the united states an individualized court order is required. in cases involving a foreign terrorist outside the united states, the foreign intelligence

. >> we've now got the citizens' united case. we can, where we so choose, within the parameters of whatever regulations the federal elections commission ultimately promulgates, engage in express advocacy, that is advocating the election or defeat of candidates, same as the corporations or labor unions. >> so that's just what he's doing, as he told the faithful gathered in tampa. >> we've identified 17 million faith-based voters in 15 states, living in 11 million households. every one of those households is going to be contacted by this organization, 7 to 12 times. we're going to mail them, we're going to text them, we're going to email them, we're going to phone them, and if they haven't voted by november 6 we're going to get in a car and we're going to drive to their house and we're going to get them to the polls. >> reed claims credit for a string of victories leading up to the big showdown with obama this november. when republican bob mcdonnell won the race for governor of virginia in 2009, reed's brand new faith and freedom c

and so to me, the citizens united case is the emblem for the whole era we're in. we're living in the "citizens united era," i think. >> but before citizens united, wealthy people were funneling money into politics, corporations were forming political action committees. and ceos of those corporations were lavishing money on selected favored political candidates. >> absolutely right, the corporate voice was never missing. and that's something, y know, justice stevens has pointed out. he said, "there were many faults to american politics. but nobody thought that a lack or a dearth of corporate voices was among the vices." but there was still a radical change effectuated by the majority -- >> how so? radical? >> in citizens united. >> what do you mean? >> because before corporations could have issue ads. they could take out an ad in the "new york times" on something. before the ceos and executives, as you say, could put their own money into campaigns. they could spend to the heavens of their own money. and they could contribute directly to candidates. but the one thin

cases. the first was bush v gore in 2000, then citizens united in 2010, then healthcare. cases where it looked like five republican justices were going to savage a dream of democrats in a way regardinged by many as highly partisan. coming out of the oral argument it hooked like that was going to happen again, that here was this law, congress had had free rein to regulate in the economic sphere for decades. >> rose: under the commerce clause. >> under the commerce clause but again a very concerted effort by conservatives using very much to their credit the power of ideas, started making the argument that this was too much under the commerce clause, but it was really a novel argument, and this court has not invalidated an economic regulation since the 30s. and roberts almost went over to the other side. in part, i think he was -- the other conservatives, scalia, thomas, kennedy and alito, they over played their hand because they said we are not going to strike down the individual mandate, we are going to throw the whole law out. >> rose: and the debate going into this, wheth

the president making his case to the united nations. romney still making his case to you and me. >> president obama is urging fellow leaders to take a stand against violence in the muslim world. >> i do believe that it is the obligation of all leaders, in all countries, to speak out forcefully against violence and extremism. >> speaking to the united nations general assembly, president obama condemned the antiislam film sparking protests overseas, but said nothing justifies mindless violence. the president also had a message for iran and its developing nuclear program. >> make no mistake, a nuclear armed iran is not a challenge that can be detained. it will threaten the security of gulf nations and the stability of the global economy. >> after the president's address, he headed across town to speak to former president, bill clinton's gathering of global leader. that's where gop presidential challenger, mitt romney, began his day. joking about the perks of an introduction from the former president. >> if there's one thing we learned in th

one trillion two and a half trillion dollars the largest expense in the united states persons on the rail i didn't hear the whole case in social security i said social security medicare and medicaid i thought al gore sixty percent of the budget in the united states all right gentlemen where you are george i want you i mean what i do what is yours you are what he has been mentioned here and i want to get to it and i want it i want to get to it before the end of the program is empire good business. you know i really don't think it's good business i think that the united states has been. an empire i think clearly the inequalities of wealth that we're seeing in the united states is tied to an empire i mean this is clearly part of a kind of the domestic a military general and you see here that how when he when he comes to anything that's important domestically in the united states such as health care reform it's almost impossible to get any serious health care reform done but when it comes to military intervention i mean he's just done overnight i mean obama just says we're going to do this we're going to bomb libya there

and louisville, the segregation cases, he overturned those and he said, it is not often in law that so few have done and undone so much. that was even before citizens united which i think is the defining case so far of the roberts court. remember, the conservatives of the 60s and 70s. the moderate republicans in the report, the core idea of conservatism at the supreme court was judicial restraint. the idea that courts should, if at all possible, that they should defer to the elected branch of government. they should not overturn laws lightly. it was the liberals who are always trying to overturn laws. it was potter stewart and lewis powell and sandra day o'connor who are preaching judicial restraint. but citizens united was the case where just a few years earlier, george w. bush had signed a law. two years earlier, -- i'm sorry, four years earlier, the supreme court had affirmed the constitutionality of it. but in a story that i tell at greater length, the conservative majority converted a relatively minor dispute over an obscure film put out by a nonprofit corporation into a complete rewriting of our campaign finance laws, based on the dual metaphors tha

difference between the judicial system in the united states and the uk, there was a jury participating in the court. however, in japan, in this type of case, there's no jury attending. you know? in the united states there's the concept of trade address, in japan we don't. that makes the situation differently in countries that it's been held with the court. >> i see. so where we stand with things now, we've got a lot of crossover technologies, seeing a lot of similar products. what do these companies need to do to step up their game and grab market share? >> they have to come up with a revolutionary idea, just as iphone did. you can walk outside anywhere in the country, i guess, for example, tokyo, you look at the people wearing smartphones. from far sight, i can't really tell which one is which brand anymore. i went to mobile world congress in barcelona in february and there was new product. there's dual core, also single core still but more faster, there's quad core even. you could add cpus, technology to it. people would do that, other company would do that. the difference they must make is really revolutionize design. what stands out i