what we've learned in the last four years first billion is the new million before citizens united outside election spending was always in the millions take a look and two thousand we saw more than fifty million dollars an outside spending by the next presidential election in two thousand and four that increased to nearly two hundred million in two thousand and eight was almost three hundred forty million dollars now it's spending and then citizens united happened in two thousand and twelve that was a game changer and in the very next election year in two thousand and twelve that is when we passed the billion mark so clearly you have to pay to play the data also shows disproportionate spending among political parties take a look at the numbers compiled by open secrets dot com as you can see in two thousand and four two thousand and six and two thousand a liberal groups outspent conservative groups in national elections but posted this in the united states which is up and now conservative groups are spending huge amounts more on our election than liberal groups in two thousand and twelve conservativ

before citizens united outside election spending was always in the millions take a lot. in two thousand nissan more than fifty million dollars in outside standing by the next presidential election in two thousand ford that increase to nearly two hundred million in two thousand it was almost three hundred forty million dollars now cite spending and that citizens united happened in two thousand. well that was a game changer. and in the very next election year two thousand to twelve. that is a land we passed the billion mark so clearly you have to pay to play. the data also shows the disproportionate standing among political parties take a look at the numbers compiled by open secrets dot com. as you can see in two thousand fourteen thousand six and two thousand and liberal groups outs and conservative groups and national elections. but co citizens united states which is not enough conservative groups are spending huge amounts more on our elections liberal groups in two thousand twelve conservative group spends nearly seven hundred twenty million dollars. liberal groups on t

. >> also, that election was right citizens united supreme court decision, which opened the door to the outsideney. the handiwork of the conservative majority on the supreme court enabled individuals and corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money, but is now called dark money. he provided a perfect landscape of how things would be after the supreme court ruling. he saw the opportunities and he had the cash, because of his family fortune. manpope is a very small that thinks about the world as an engineer. as if somebody had looked at the map in every district and figure it out what it would take to get republican control. so he, along with some of the people he was working with, targeted legislative races to pour money into. >> one of their vessels was a nc,p called real jobs bankrolled by pope. in 2010, it went on the attack. their high taxes and wasteful spending cost us jobs. year, he and his family, and outside spending groups he is associated with, spent $2.2 million on state legislative races. >> in the national scheme of things is not a tremendous amount of money, but in the context

outside of new york? >> yes, it does, judy. first of all, franklin roosevelt was a governor of new york when he was elected president of the united states in 1932. >> not new york city though. >> oh, new york city, okay, i'm sorry. the yes, it does, judy, and i say this. lost in the results in 2012 because of the presidential race was the fact that we saw a you populist revolt in california. put to the ballot test, proposition 30 jerry brown, the governor pushed it. the state was in dire financial straits and funding for education was way down. proposition 30 raised taxes on couples earning over $500,000 a year. millions spent against t-1 1 million by one secret group alone spent against it and it prevailed. it won, 89% of us going to college-- community colleges in k through 12. bill de blasio ran on this issue. he didn't just pull it out of his hat. he didn't discover it between -- running and his inaugural. and david's right, does it have its most intense support on the coast, yes. probably in several academic areas. but the reality is this is a reality-based movement. it's every where. inequal sit across-the-board. just one f

united, the last two election cycles that have set records for money spent, including hundreds of millions of dollars from undisclosed sources, the bulk of this so-called dark money spend iingy outside groups that hide their donors go toward negative tv ads. we all know that. would you recommend changes to the communications act to ensure that voters are informed about who exactly is behind these anonymous tv ads? and is there anything in your view that the fcc can do on its own without congressional intervention? >> i would recommend them enforcing the statute that we already have. if you take a close look at section 317, which has to do with sponsorship identification and which goes back even before the telecommunications act of 1934 was written, goes back to 1927, ensuring that listeners and viewers more recently know by whom they are trying to be persuaded whether it's a commercial product or political product. those rules were last revisited in a meaningful way by the fcc in the 1960s, which repeated that people have a right to know by whom they are being persuaded. since then we have all these new avenues of dark money and super pacs and all of the rest. we also have the autho

united, the last two election cycles that have set records for money spent, including hundreds of millions of dollars from undisclosed sources, the bulk of this so-called dark money spend iingy outside groups that hide their donors go toward negative tv ads. we all know that. would you recommend changes to the communications act to ensure that voters are informed about who exactly is behind these anonymous tv ads? and is there anything in your view that the fcc can do on its own without congressional intervention? >> i would recommend them enforcing the statute that we already have. if you take a close look at section 317, which has to do with sponsorship identification and which goes back even before the telecommunications act of 1934 was written, goes back to 1927, ensuring that listeners and viewers more recently know by whom they are trying to be persuaded whether it's a commercial product or political product. those rules were last revisited in a meaningful way by the fcc in the 1960s, which repeated that people have a right to know by whom they are being persuaded. since then we have all these new avenues of dark money and super pacs and all of the rest. we also have the autho