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

mean it literally was a one sentence order and there were you know if you take the reasoning of citizens united seriously there were decent arguments to be made that it flowed from citizens united that yes foreign nationals should also be allowed to spend their money to elect the people they want. so the supreme court didn't explain why didn't give a reason but they thought for whatever reason that they weren't ready to go so far as to say that non us citizens andrew jackson famously said to the supreme court you know you guys have made your decision trying to force this was in the church key and you answer this back in the eighteenth thirty's could montana just say you know we're standing by this dam you know i'm a rule of law kind of guy i mean what the supreme court did was despicable but i'm asking what's right or was legal i'm asking you know can montana actually continue to defy the u.s. supreme court the supreme court has no enforcement mechanism the supreme court doesn't have an unforced mechanism but i don't want to live in a world where states are deciding on their own what the wall i

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

the montana supreme court upheld this law ignoring the supreme court's decision from the unit from the. citizens united decision and continuing that state's ban on corporate political expenditures but this week three montana corporations took their case to the supreme court petitioning justice anthony kennedy to overturn the montana supreme court's decision and open the floodgates to corporate money in that state the lead lawyer representing these corporations james bopp jr who also happened to its assist with the citizens united legal arguments argued to justice kennedy that immediate relief is needed to prevent irreparable harm to the corporations first amendment free speech right. so how might this shake out first to get the perspective from montana i'm joined by jeff jeff milchan the co-founder of the american independent business alliance jeff welcome back thanks for having me tom let's get to how we got here in the first place what motivated the montana supreme court to reject the u.s. supreme court's citizens united decision. well first it's a little overstatement to say they rejected it

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

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

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

we really needed publicly financed elections before citizens united we had corporate lobbyists of which there are twenty four for every member of congress running washington before citizens united but citizens united was like a wake up call to people it really showed and crystallize for the american people what was wrong with their government it wasn't that it was too big it was who was paying for it and that it was just a very narrow slice of our elite so we have an opportunity in this country to actually create a movement that is going to galvanize progressive tea party members independents and it's about taking back our democracy so there are a number of things we can do the disclose act is just a basic sort of sunshine transparency if you're going to be buying a bunch of political ads if you're going to be spending in our elections you've got to say who you are as filibuster by the republicans in the senate exactly but it's back in this year and it's incredibly incredibly popular with the american people so that's one thing quick that we could do this year and then we got o

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 the justices granted a stay on a montana state court ruling which challenged the citizens united d that sets the stage for our u.s. supreme court to actually potentially review it's a own case. very interesting. there's another way to undue the impact of citizens united in addition to going back to the supreme court and that is through a constitutional amendment. last week new mexico legislation passed a resolution demanding congress to act. and hawaii passed a similar act. i am so pleased to be joined by bob edgar, the president and ceo of common a cause, which is the group that helped organize the protest today outside of the supreme court. bob comes to us from washington as you can see. welcome inside "the war room." >> governor it's great to be with you, and best wishes to your show. you are doing a great job. >> i appreciate it. thank you. we're right at ground zero and one of the issues we're following is this citizens united issue. but let's take a look at what it was like on the ground today in terms of the protests at the supreme court. >> today we gathered in front of th

they are resulting from a supreme court case known as citizen's united. >> ruthless vindictive. nt. >> liar is a good one. >> scares the hell out of me. >> the movie features a who's who cast of right 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 thi

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

tuning fork or so that was after citizens united was passed i think that people are blowing this out of proportion i say don't hate the player he game on not really sure i don't know i kind of agree with you in that sense for one thing the president not only said that a state of the union address a couple years ago just the other week he was also talking bad about super pacs and saying that you know he thinks they have a negative influence on the economy suddenly we see republicans all singing the same tune here and so it's just i mean come on that was kind of a very quick capitulation that you had there because suddenly they released the figures you realize that republicans are far and away outspending the democrats and it scared them but exactly why he wants to win more than he wants to stay on that message come on he was getting completely thumped out when i got here bill you know what do you have a you know in order and it's a game but i you know let's fix it there are people out there that are trying to fix it and get to the united overturn and get down with that but i don't thi

that seems like a quaint period of time now. >> under citizens united, is there disclosure? how did we know that foreign entities are putting muffin into american politics? >> well, other citizens united is their disclosure. it allows -- the super pacs -- a lot of people are confused and think there's no disclosure as to who's giving to the super pacs. but there is disclosure. but there are other categories that are on the margins, the 501c3s and they're not supposed to be explicitly involved. the lines have gotten so muddy. citizen's united was seen as a green light that basically told people with a lot of money that don't want to give it secretly, don't worry, you're not going to be prosecuted. before it was kind of iffy and nobody wanted to take the risk. now no one's worried about taking the risk, they're just throwing the muffoney out there. at least that's how i read it. >> don weiss, now with senior create ty people. we were talking about the history of negative advertising and we see how far back it's gone and that it continues and that it's not in many ways very diff

well citizens united has completely changed the game i'm not only will the right from the big business alliance of the chamber of commerce to the koch brothers the folks you mentioned can they raise billions of dollars to defeat president obama they can spend that and adds they can use it and employee coercive situations with captive meetings that have big workplaces i mean there's a whole range of things. these interests can do but president obama by and bracing this citizens united for politics it's really dangerous because he's number one you can never really compete in terms of money with these guys and number two he's inviting a corruption scandal and you know i can predict here on air today that the super pacs will lead to massive scandals later this year and into the coming years now that president obama isn't bracing this type of secret money these multimillion dollar checks maybe even hundreds of million dollars checks we have no idea he's blurring the line between himself and mitt romney so when these scandals and negatively calm it will hurt both president obama and a possib

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 transparently completely flying out the window so the people have realized that something is wrong or 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

people could still give that same amount to choose third party political groups before citizens united big didn't lift any restrictions on us like you know they are. right third party citizens these third party followed a five to seven group could not endorse the candidate or they couldn't be supporting one candidate the super pac allows you to give to max out to a k. . like you know say willard mitt romney after you max out to him then you can go give another million dollars of the super pac that supports him and run attack ads against all of his competitors and. attack ads against president states and i think it's pretty clear that they've had a pretty large effect compared to two thousand and eight you know mitt romney ran something like thirteen thousand ads in florida mostly negative ads and they were most mostly funded by super pacs and already we've seen i think fifty percent of all the campaign spending this primary season done by these super pacs so you can say that they haven't had. before at forty six million i believe is how much all the third party groups in total have spe

these interests can do but president obama by and bracing this citizens united for politics it's really dangerous because he's number one he can never really compete in terms of money with these guys and number two he's inviting a corruption scandal you know i can predict here on air today that these super pacs will lead to massive scandals later this year and into the coming years now that president obama isn't bracing this type of secret money these multimillion dollar checks maybe even hundreds of million dollars actually we have no idea he's blurring the line between himself and mitt romney so when these scandals and negatively calm it will hurt both president obama and a possible possible president romney so in just a minute we have left is this going to take a constitutional mean you mentioned the stuff you can do as a present executive orders and when it comes to disclosure but that's kind of around the edges so is this ultimately going to take a constitutional amendment to get rid of this. well i believe some light is the best disinfectant you know obviously adelson doesn't mind

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 fran

now probably means that there's a pro corporatist agenda and it doesn't make sense given the citizens united case because you can't have it both ways right you can't say well you get to be a citizen you get to be considered a citizen if you're a corporation because it will give you power in politics but then we're not going to hold you accountable using that same logic it is illogical and there certainly seems to be a contradiction there mitt romney presidential candidate stands by the fact that corporations are people here's what he had to say about the issue in the past. my friend we can raise taxes and of course they are everything corporations are and also that it goes to people. what do you think. so corporations are people shouldn't they be punished for torture. well they should indeed right we have that eight hundred eighty six 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

the anger over citizen's united was visible as citizens marched at the supreme court to stay a rulingmontana's supreme court which upheld montana's ban on spending in election eggs. justice ginsburg saw this as an opportunity to review the high ruling writing: >> joining me now former senator feingold and obama national co chair and author. senator, good to see you sir. >> good to see you. >> keith, good to see you. >> is there any other way to beat citizens united besides utilizing the super money you can raise by citizen's united in order to elect people who can overturn it. >> you don't need to raise super pack money. i made it very clear that the president is in great position and because it looks like he's a little more on the side of the average person. this only undercuts that. i made it clear to the obama people that i would publicly criticize this decision. what it comes down to, i've got two choice, sit in the back yard and have a nice cigar and have somebody tell me who won the election because it doesn't matter. the other choice is to actually fight for the guy who will ap

. >> 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

suspended the ruling and has not yet overturned it the door is open for a possible second hearing on citizens united this year or next and now that we know just how damaging that citizens united ruling is to our democracy all the super pacs hanging around maybe the court will reconsider. but i'm not holding my breath not until the makeup of the supreme court changes at the very least in the meantime a growing number of americans think the solution to our post citizens united broken political system is a new political party a third party from the tea party to occupy wall street the failures of the two party system in america is a favorite talking point it's a talking point that's made its way on to the page of the new york times on sunday in a in the form of an op ed by multimillionaire and corporate shill thomas friedman friedman wrote eventually the circular circular firing squad that is the republican primary will be over and the last man standing will be the party's nominee for president if that candidate is rick santorum i think there's a good chance a third party will try to fill the space betw

this coming as a result of that historic 2010 supreme court decision known as citizens united. the president was critical of that decision saying that it is destroying our democracy but again the headline from cbs news among other web sites saying the president is reversing course. some sharp questions today from cbs news white house correspondent norah o'donnell to the press secretary. >> i mean, the president spent much of 2010 on the road ridiculing these groups. i mean, he joked about the name. they can call anything like moms for motherhood. he really decried their influence in elections. and now he has signaled to his campaign that he would like his donors to contribute, as well. you indicated when asked about when the president made this decision. you made you could divine -- you could divine that and that clearly since he's made this in february of 2012. so has the president been putting off this decision? were you indicating he's left it to so late in the game because he didn't want to have to do this but he's finally relented and said right, the republicans have so mu

when you are on camera, it is easy to say -- citizens united open the floodgates. ich is not true. i find it funny, but it has brought citizens united into the political lexicon as never before. we appreciate the shout out by the president this week. i am sending him a membership card. obviously, for two years -- and if i could, two years ago, january 21, we had our supreme court victory. eight days later the president of the united states held the state of the union. he attacked, for the first time in american history, attacked the supreme court over the ruling. the justice was mouthing the words not true, over and over. he was correct. what the president was saying was not accurate. foreign contributions, unlimited contributions, all of those things. he did not let the facts get in a way of a good narrative. but it has never been done before. the democratic leadership, jeering the supreme court. unprecedented, demeaning the court in my opinion. host: ronald reagan also singled out the court on past decisions. guest: never in that way. the president has talked abou

election for about one point one million dollars chump change nothing but this year thanks to citizens united those special interest groups have aired thirty thousand four hundred forty two ads that's a sixteen hundred percent increase sixteen hundred twenty six percent to be exact and they've spent fifteen point two million dollars doing it that's almost a twelve hundred eighty one percent increase so really what's going on here is the candidates are running anymore special interest groups the super pacs they're the ones actually running for president american crossroads or americans for prosperity just these two come. super pacs have spent eight point eight million dollars on ads around the country and where they're getting their money from american crossroads top fund funders seven million bucks from texas homebuilder bob perry big real estate two million bucks in the c.e.o. of chief oil and gas trevor reese jones big oil a million dollars to the dixie rice agriculture big agribusiness and americans for prosperity according to media matters they've received over five million dollars in the

thengineered a decision like citizens united. they said we would never be able to deal with that because we cannot get the decision overturned, so let's get rid of that. it's the most defeatist approach i could think of. host: tweeting this question -- of that's what i do every day. it is what progressives united is all about. i pounded it with some people i have worked with in the past ride around the anniversary of the citizens united decision. you can go to citizensunited.org and be part of a group that is working to make people aware of citizens united and also to support legislation, such as the disclosure act to make sure people know where contributions are coming from, get rid of the federal elections commission which is a joke, but also to call up the candidates, democratic republican or anyone else, if they want to get involved in corporate money in this game to the unlimited contributions. this is a system that, i believe, is devastating for those who are progressives. we believe money should not control policy, that pe

>> the first, not the second, no chance that the supreme court will overturn citizens united. hear the part that bans corporate donations. they may out right dismiss it. it's more likely in november they will hear argument on whether citizens united should be narrowed or overruled. i do not think they will, but they will hear it. and as the president made clear, he thinks he can run against the extreme court when it comes to citizens united. >> the prop eight stuff is interesting, because the folks against prop eight said it's better left at the local level in the hands of the voters, fit goes to the supreme court it could be bad for the cause of gay rights, which is an interesting turn of events, is it not? >> it seems that the prop eight case is the risk of energizing the people against it is bad. the health care case is one where if the president wins that, it will be hard to make the argument to anyone outside the base that that is a really bad thing. like the base will believe it bought i'm not sure anyone else will. if this become as national conversation, people are so u