citizens united open the floodgates for a deluge of dark system.to the political undisclosed, anonymous, unaccountable. the proposed rule would compel corporations to disclose if and when they are making political donations. ,t would introduce a small important degree of accountability into a system that is broken. position,ed about the they demure. to think about it and the answer was gobbledygook. i think that is false equivalency. shareholders have a right to know how corporations spend their money. it is simple. it may factor into the decision to invest. 1.2 million commenters urged the fcc to move forward with the role. i would rather get rid of citizens united. can indicate to me that they believe the fcc has to play a role in making corporate transparent,nding i cannot support their nominations. thank you. >> thank you. believe transparency and disclosure of the shareholders is of the utmost importance. of governance and investor protection. is material tong how shareholders decide where to invest their money and how to vote and corporate elections. within the past month, during

the citizens united open the floodgates for a deluge of dark money into the political system.ndisclosed, anonymous, unaccountable. the proposed rule would compel corporations to disclose if and when they are making political donations. it would introduce a small, important degree of accountability into a system that is broken. when i asked about the position, they demure. i asked them to think about it and the answer was gobbledygook. i think that is false equivalency. shareholders have a right to know how corporations spend their money. it is simple. it may factor into the decision to invest. 1.2 million commenters urged the fcc to move forward with the rule. i would rather get rid of citizens united. until they can indicate to me that they believe the fcc has to play a role in making corporate political spending transparent, i cannot support their nominations. thank you. >> thank you. i believe transparency and disclosure of the shareholders is of the utmost importance. as a matter of governance and investor protection. clinical spending is material to how shareholders decid

the citizens' united decision opened the floodgates for a deluge of dark money in the political systemdisclosed, anonymous, unaccountable. the proposed s.e.c. rule would at least compel corporations to disclose if and where they are making political donations. it would introduce a small but undeniably important degree of accountability and sunlight into a system that's broken. when i asked both s.e.c. nominees about their position, they demurred. i asked them to think about it and give me an answer in writing. the answer in writing was frankly gobbledygook. it was maybe yes, maybe no, i have to look at both sides. i think that's false equivalency. opponents of the rule argue that political spenting is not material to investors. i vehemently disagree. shareholders have a right to know how corporations spend their money, it's that simple. i may factor into their decision to invest 1.2 million public commenters urged the s.e.c. to move forward with the rule. i'd rather get rid of citizens united but until we do we have to do this and ms. fairfax and ms. purse, one a democrat, one a republ

the fcc. citizens united decision opened the floodgates for a deluge of dark money into the political system. undisclosed, anonymous, unaccountable. the proposed sec rule would at least compel corporations to disclose if and where they are making political donations. it would introduce a small but undeniably important degree of accountability and sunlight into the system that is broken. when i asked both sec nominees about their position they demurred. i asked them to think about it and get an answer in writing to the answer in writing frankly was gobbledygook. it was maybe yes, maybe no. i have to look at both sides. i think that's false equivalency. opponents of the rule argue that political spending is not material to investors. i vehemently disagree shareholders have a right to know how corporations spend their money. it's that simple. it may factor into their decision to invest 1.2 million in the commerce for the sec's to move forward. i'd like to get rid of citizens united and until we do, until they can indicate strongly to me that they believe the sec has to play a role in making corp

prevent another government from saying well, we think the united states should be held liable for those civilian deaths, opening up the floodgatese pilots, those preparing the war plans all the way up to the secretary of defense and the president himself. it's not likely, but it's possible that those are the kinds of things we'll have to deal with in the future. so i think the president is correct to say this is for the government to resolve. if there's any allegation that is supportable on the testified that the saudis were at the governmental level involved in 9/11, well, that would require the u.s. to take action against the saudis but it's not up to individuals to do that. and i think that's the way the law should remain. >> do you think there needs to be some clearing. air in what saudi arabia's role was in the 9/11 attacks? >> i do. but we have to remember the 9/11 commission was comprised of many individuals, all, or certainly most of them had deep backgrounds in intelligence. and they had access to all of the intelligence the united states had. they came to a conclusion there was no evidence that the saudi government or

state of states wouldother open the floodgates in which any administration or for that matter and act of congress would then create a flood of lawsuits that would come to the united states. and i thinkbelieve, the justices will come to the conclusion, that texas and the other states do not have standing on a question that is clearly immigration law and is the discretion of the years of whether or not to deport someone. and the second thing, congress has failed to act if in fact it wanted to limit this discretion, it could do so. but it has not and for various decades now it has not. i hope the justices will come to the conclusion the questions brought up in the first place, no standing. congress has decided. we cannot have a floodgate of lawsuits at the end of the day simply because her as a cost. if that is the case, it will become a pathway to give millions of people an opportunity to have some form of out inwhile we find congress what our national status should be. thank you. >> good morning. good afternoon. ok. >> ok. >> two steps back, ok. >> ok. >> come closer. >> i am ready. >> i will open it up and then pass it on. >> good afternoon. my name is maria and

states would , open the floodgates in which any action of an administration or for that matter and act of -- any act of congress would then create a flood of lawsuits that would come to the united states supreme court. so i do not believe, and i think the justices will come to the conclusion, that texas and the other states do not have standing, on a question that is clearly immigration law and is use ofcussion of the whether or not to deport someone. and the second thing, congress has failed to act if in fact it wanted to limit this discretion, it could do so. but it has not and for various decades now, that discussion has existed -- discretion, has existed. i hope the justices will come to the conclusion the questions brought up in the first place, no standing. congress has -- no standing. congress has been silent on the issue. we cannot have a floodgate of lawsuits at the end of the day simply because her as a cost. -- simply because there is a cost. if that is the case, it will become a pathway to give millions of people an opportunity to have some form of status while we find out in congress what our national law should be. thank you. >> ok. >> good morning. good afternoon