a statement that citizens united posts a serious threat to democracy by allowing unlimited corporatepending to influence elections, candidates election, and policy decisions. a stiffer san francisco voters to affirm that corporate -- corporations should not receive the same constitutional rights as natural persons and that corporate money is not a form of constitutionally protected free speech. also a statement for san francisco voters to affirm that they support efforts of congress to pass a constitutional amendment to end corporate personhood, reversing the decision of citizens united case and calling on to other jurisdictions that passed similar measures and resolutions. i would like to thank common cause for their support, public citizen, my friend, a san francisco citizen and resident, linda, an intern in my office, raquel from my office for her work in crafting this resolution in mobilizing support. i would like to thank my colleagues, supervisor campos for his co-sponsor ship, and it sounds like supervisor wiener is a co-sponsor as well. and i feel like at this time when we're

thanks to another supreme court decision, citizens united, we have unlimited funding, undisclosed funding, who have already reaped on this issue. americans for prosperity started a $9 million campaign. another organization is called a national campaign as well and they're making the same point. what this law is about is taxing you and undermining your possibility of getting a job. >> if you're joining us on c-span radio, heard coast to coast on x.m. channel 119 our guests here at the table, gail russell chadduck, political editor of the christian science monitor and edward-isaac dovere from "politico." let's go to the democrats line. good morning. >> good morning, how are you doing? >> fine, thank you. caller: good. i realize just one thing. as far as the -- as this election coming up goes, i am hopefully and cautiously optimistic that obama will be -- will be elected for four more years. that's my opinion. and i think that this landmark decision on health care is a feather in his cap and will be his legacy for years to come. and each thing that he has done from his -- you know, with this

since the supreme court ruling in 2010, since the ruling in the citizens united case, most of the new unlimited, unprecedented money spent in our political system has been spent for the benefit of republican candidates. by an almost 2 to 1. and a 2 to 1 last time, and again by a big margin this year. look. the system now favors conservatives, decidingly and decisively. today in the senate, republicans filibustered an attempt by democrats to pass new rules for the unlimited giving. the disclose act would have required corporations and labor unions to disclose publicly any political spending of more than $10,000 right away. republicans filibustered it and a block. it was a party line vote, and even though republicans used to support disclosure rules like this, republicans now say they like the new way that we do things. since they cannot pass their bill, democrats are making a big deal out of trying tonight. even after today's filibuster, the democrats are reportedly planning to hold a midnight vigil with hours of further debate followed by another vote around 1:00 a.m. they're not expected to wi

unlimited and secret special interest money. inexplicably, a one-justice majority of the court decided in the citizens united case that such unlimited, anonymous donations -- quote -- "do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption." now, many of us believed from the moment that decision was handed down that the court's majority was badly mistaken, but events since that day have left little doubt. we have in recent months seen the dangerous consequences of the court's ruling, a deluge of unregulated funds that has threatened to upend the election campaign for our nation's highest office, a flood whose organizers vow will upend congressional campaigns across the nation this summer and fall. through super pac's and through supposedly regulated but in fact actually unregulated nonprofit organizations, the conduits through which this flood of secret money flows, millionaires and billionaires already have made massive donations to fund a barrage of attack ads, drenching, smothering the voices of those who are to make the decisions in our democracy, the people. according to the center for responsive politics, an independen

supreme court citizens united opened the flood gates to unlimited campaign spending by outside groups the deluge has arrived. $164 million have been spent on ads in the election. the percentage is our number of the day. 87% spent by super pacs. some say this is the only reason mitt is staying afloat. the ad funds by american cross roads and others highlight mitt's background, and recent polls have shown his business background is a powerful selling point. we have only just begun to see the fund-raising and spending power of super pacs. few others are going. >>it doesn't get anymore real than this. >>occupy! >>we will have class warfare. >>i'm being violated by the health-care system. >>we're patrolling the area looking for guns, drugs, bodies. >>we go in and spend a considerable amount of time getting to know the people and the characters that are actually living these stories. >>the award winning series "vanguard" only on current tv. cu if you have an opinion, you better back it up. >>eliot spitzer takes on politics. >>science and republicans do not mix. >>now it's your turn at the o

the majority opinion in citizens united dismissed concerns about unlimited political spending by claiming that prompt disclosure would make these entities and individuals accountable to shareholders, voters, consumers, the public at large and yet elections have been inundated with secret money. citizens united had consequences, unintended and unanticipated by the supreme court. people may say, well, the justices were naive. but the fact of the matter is, this body, the congress, must compensate to ameliorate and remedy the unintended consequences of that decision. the american people have shown in polls as well as those letters that i mentioned earlier that they expect us to do so. 7 in 10 americans believe that super pacs should be illegal, including majorities of democrats, republicans and independent. this issue is not partisan. it should be bipartisan. it has been bipartisan. it has been bipartisan in the past and must be again. more than 7 in 10 americans feel there is too much money in politics, including, again, the majority of democrats, republicans and independents. seven in ten

now, i'm deeply disturbed that our supreme court made a finding effect in citizens united that unlimited, secret money, not just dark pools of unregulated cash but oceans, vast oceans of unregulated, undisclosed, secret money being utilized in the electoral process, without the people having any right to know, that's -- that's what the supreme court said is just fine, and that's what attacks "we the people" in favor of "we the powerful." now, not a single member of the supreme court has run for office, to my knowledge. not a single member of the supreme court has served in elected office to my knowledge. i'm happy to stand corrected, if any of my colleagues no otherwise. so perhaps they didn't have the personal experience to understand the types of things that my colleague from rhode island was speaking about; that folks who can wield huge sums in elections not only have influence in elections, but they can use it as a lever to corrupt the very process we're in tonight, the debate and voting on bills. so you would think that at a minimum the nine justices, knowing they may not have the p

citizens united we have corporations that can spend unlimited amounts of money so the right has boosted their fund raising while unions have declined so union dues are dropped so unions are operating with much smaller budgets is this a wise sort of investment to be reaching out to p.r. firms rather than i mean what else could they be doing with that money well i think certainly put it on the story you know there are p.r. firms that only represent the union side and do good work although overall you know a lot of unions like abyssinian the steelworkers have moved a lot of their operations and house a lot of these p.r. firms you know the kind of rip offs keeps you know or we're going to give you all this great advice and you know they're giving twenty people great advice of the same time so they're not paying much attention and you know the unions aren't getting much bang for their buck in these kind of situation so a lot of this winds up happening. when you did this reporting when you went and talked to these p.r. firms and you asked them about this conflict of interest they seem to push

i want ask about the 2010 citizens united ruling that allows corporations to spend unlimited amounts ey in federal elections. let's turn to a clip of harvard law professor lawrence lessig commenting on citizens united. >> it is not as if on generate 2010 the day before citizens united was decided, democracy was coming along well and broken by the supreme court. democracy was already broken in the united states in 2010. it is broken because the tiniest slice of americans, point to 6%, give or than $200 and a congressional campaign. 0.05% max out. the tiniest slice of the top 1% of america funds elections in america. that reality will always be, whether corporations or persons or not, corrupt the system in washington. the only solution to that problem is not just limiting the ability of corporations or private individuals, but to talk openly and honestly about the need to funds publicly fund elections. >> that was lawrence lessig. what are you going to do about citizens united? it is a supreme court decision. >> absolutely i agree with the professor that it is not that citizens united m

thank you, citizens united for opening the door on unlimited donations which is funding ads like these on the air right now. >> america's jobless rate is still too high. barack obama's got lots of excuses for the bad economy. >> head winds coming from europe. >> he have would' had a string of bad luck. >> an earthquake. >> an a.t.m., you don't go to a bank teller. >> things we couldn't control. >> we've been a little bit lazy over the last couple of days. >> but obama never complains washington's wild spending. tell obama, for real job growth cut the debt. support the new majority agenda. >>> i'm barack obama and i approve this message. >> president romney's first 100 days creating thousands of new jobs for virginians. >> but would it. the washington post has just agreed that they're not going to shipovers over seas. they want to move facilities in low wage countries like china and india. does virginia really want an outsourcer? chief in the white house. >>> wanda summers is a political reporter. which one do you think will be more effective? don't you think the anti-romney ad has had

if you think about what citizens united did, that cleared the way for unlimited corporate donations. that tilts the favor in terms of corporate interests. but in terms of people making a differen in politicsering that doesn't have to lean inherently right. in 2004, as a matter of fact, it leans left. the great conservative boogie man, george soros, he gave more than $23 million to democratic groups in 2004. peter lewis from progressive insurance gave about the same amount, film bruproducer stephe bing gave nearly $14 million in that same year, 2004. democrats in terms of rich democratic donors in 2004, way outpaced the republicans. this time around for whatever reason, those wealthy democratics donors are sitting on the sidelines. george soros has given about $2 million compared to $24 million. peter lewis, $200,000 this time around compared to $23 million. steve bing, $425,000 compared to $14 million before. so why aren't big dollar democratic campaign donors the people who can really make a difference in terms of their personal decisions of what to do on campaign spending as indivi

citizens united versus the federal elections commission ruled that corporations have the same rights as people and they allowed corporations to have the rights of free speech and declared that unlimited financing is a free-speech and ushered in what we are seeing now in terms of the deepest pockets and corporations in the united states are able to find the vast amounts of money for a super pacs that can put on the airwaves about candidates and issues and really determining that money can be the greatest influence over the outcome of elections. this is something that is putting our democratic institutions in great crisis. there have been statements from elected officials. we have done a resolution ourselves. it has been done in sacramento as well. we have not given the people a chance to respond and have their voices heard directly. this is what this policy measure would be on the ballot, giving the residents of san francisco a chance to say that we need to look at our constitution and have it amended to ensure that we're not counting corporations as living people, but a separate entity. we're looking at how we can make sure -- that we can find -- colleagues, i would like to ask for y

one of the reasons we're in this position is the government of the united states has been able to borrow almost unlimited amounts of money at interest rates lower than they've been in your lifetime or mine. this can go on for some time. the problem is it may end quicker than we anticipate. some day we will find we can't borrow as much money as cheaply today as forced to make choices and better if we make them in advance. >> you know that lunch we're eating? its not free. thank you. >>> one of the biggest blackouts in history. for the second day in a row, india's power grid has failed. about half of india's population are in the dark of $1.2 billion people. 1.2 billion people. and a smaller outage left people in the dark as well. this report was filed for us. >> reporter: over half of india was left powerless today as the northern and northeastern grids collapsed, on account of some of the india's northern states actually overdrawing beyond what is allocated to them, which led to the collapse of the northern grid for the second time in the last 24 hours. that caused a domino effect with northeastern and t

you think about what citizens united did, that cleared the way for corporate unlimited donations. that does tilt the playing field in terms of corporate interest and in favor of republican interests. in terms of individual rich people in america making a difference in politics, that does not necessarily have to lean inherently right. in 2004 as a matter of fact it leaned left. the great george soros gave more than $23 million to democratic groups in 2004. peter lewis gave about same amount, little less. steve bing gave nearly $14 million in 2004. democrats in terms of rich democratic donors in 2004, way outpace the republicans. but this time they are sitting on the sidelines, george soros has given $2 million. peter lewis, $200,000 and steve bing, $425,000 compared with $14 million before. why aren't big campaign donors who can make a difference in terms of personal decisions on what to do on campaign related spending as individuals, why are they sitting on their hands on the democratic side so far? are they waiting for something and they get in later? do they think it's hopeless

would essentially overturn the very bad and very radical decision of citizens united, which said corporations can spend unlimitedmounts of money just like people. a constitutional amendment will not happen tomorrow. that would require a process. the one thing where there is consensus among the public is the idea of disclosure. so it is unfortunate that in the congress you have a republican project-- our republican colleagues blocking that it. host: here is information from opensecrets.org -- if you would like to talk with congressman chris van hollen, here are the numbers to call -- let's go to fort bragg, north carolina, felix is on the. democratic the caller: good morning. how were you? i have a couple quick things. i have been a democrat since 1964, because when the republicans started dividing america with their southern strategy, i cannot put up with that. unemployment, if this sale, has the worst unemployment, but when you compare that with ronald reagan's first three years or the first time the budget came into effect until today, he beats him by 0.2%, which is a better average. ronald reagan had 10 month

prior to citizens united, 26 states allowed unlimited corporate spending in their collections for governor, secretary of state, state judges, legislature, and so one. and those included many of the states that governing magazine have consistently recognized as the best govern state in the country. it is not a radical break as some prevented. not to say it is not a tempore incision but it was not unheard of in politics. there will be continued efforts. it would suggest a constitutional amendment. i do not think many americans are in really eager when they are faced with it, to amend the constitution, amend the first amendment. if you ask people in polls do you favor citizens united, a huge majority say they oppose. but if the gas people, you think that group should have been able to show its documentary movie about hillary clinton, which is what the case was about, you get a huge majority saying of course they should be able to show their documentary movie about hillary clinton. that is not so clear the public will support any kind of constitutional amendment. congress can play with a discl

and thanks to citizens united, public financing is no longer a viable option to compete against unlimitedcial interest dollars. my legislation would strengthen the public financing system, incentivize candidates to obtain support from actual citizens, not special interest super pacs or secret financiers. it would ensure that our proven public financing system would be available for future elections and that corporate and special interest money don't drown out genuine ideas and debates in our presidential elections. so for those of us who are committed to fixing our campaign finance system in the wake of citizens united, there is a lot of challenging work ahead. but i know that coloradoans agree with me that reform could be the single-most important issue to fix the way our democracy functions. as i've suggested and as we know, mr. president, unfortunately, federal elections are increasingly about who can secretly appeal more to wealthy and special interests instead of working to improve the lives of average and hardworking americans. this sows corruption, dysfunction and a government that

simple common-sense evaluation that now individual sov rent iny in the united states of america because the federal government has a unlimited taxing authority to be able to mandate to people certain actions or behaviors, and th the consequence thereof a financial consequence, a tax, monitored and ruled by the irs, the internal revenue service. >> greta: now, it's interesting, though, all the republicans i've heard in the last two or three days have agreed with you, with the exception of one, that's it's a tax. the one who disagrees is through a representative is governor romney, saying it's not a tax, it's a unconstitutionality penalty, but not a tax. can you give governor romney some advice? he'll have to navigate perilous waters if his own party disagrees with him. >> governor romney needs to understand that this is not a constitutional penalty maybe in the case ruled as far as the commerce clause, but when you start to understand the ruling that came down from the supreme court -- actually the precedent that it now establishes whereby the federal government can, as i said, mandate a certain type of behavior or mandate a

now, when the supreme court decided on a case called citizens united, it opened the floodgates to unlimited -- unlimited secret money. well, we knew there would be risk and it took no time for it to take root. in the 2010 midterm elections, we saw a fourfold increase in this type of super pac spending. three-quarters of that spending came from groups that were previously prohibited. and the worst of it -- it's all being kept from the american people. who are these organizations and what do they stand for? now, at a time when the american public needs a government on their side, they need to know who is working behind the scenes to get people elected. now, the disclose act is simple. it requires a covered organization to follow disclosure with the federal election commission within 24 hours after they spend $10,000 or more on a campaign. now, who is a covered organization? corporations, labor unions, pacs, and super pacs. this isn't a new concept for here in congress. we have regulations. when you are a candidate, like a candidate mikulski, you face limits on donors. during a campaign i have

expanded their roll in financing the 2012 campaign due in large part to the citizens united decision that allowed unlimited contributions to the political advocacy decisions. i stood to gain from that however, it is only appropriate that alaskans and americans know where the money comes from." my friend, senator jeff sessions, the ranking member on the judiciary committee at one point, has said, "i don't like it when a large source of money is out there funding ad ads adss unaccountable. to the extent we can, i tend to favor disclosure." senator cornyn has said, "i think the system needs more transparency so people can easily reach their own conclusions." senator collins has been quoted, "it is important that any future campaign finance laws include strong transparency i guess provisions so the american people knows who is contributing to a candidate's campaign as well as who is funding communications in support of or in opposition to a political candidate or issue." that's from "the hill." senator scott brown has said, "a genuine campaign finance reform effort would include increased transparency, account

leave it up or down when you're in the united states senate and the ability of the united states senate is to have unlimited. i would like to have my voice. it was my provision struck down by the supreme court in citizens united. that was a fundamental issue as part of mccain-feingold. i would want to see more campaign finance reform and i'm sorry what happened in terms of what came out of the supreme court. nevertheless you have to have it fair on both sides. in that case it was a $10,000 threshold disclosure that will require private sector to make those disclosures because they're more in that category, but not those who contribute to unions. so we have to make it balanced. that's what i propose to do in my decision, which was struck down by the court because i think it drew a bright line in fairness, in making showure we have transparency. >> they aren't the only obstacle to progress. you had the congressional, democrat democratic majorities and big things were passed. there was big stuff that was done and procedural measures didn't really hold those things up. >> it's an interesting point on the health