>> there's no doubt that this -- the president has grave concerns about citizens united -- the citizens united ruling, and the implications of it, and we see it in practice now, and those concerns extend beyond his own election, but what are the implications for the future? he is the president of the united states, and he is going to be out spent dramatically in this race, but what is going to happen in the future if you don't have an incumbent president, you don't have the ability to raise that money, and you are up against -- >> do you think he will lead a constitutional amendment? >> he has said jennifer and i am -- i know how determined he is, that he will pursue every avenue including a constitutional amendment if that's the best path to try to do something about this. this is not just a threat to a candidate or a party. this is a threat to a democracy. if he don't take this on, our country will be effected in a really profound and negative way. >> a threat to democracy. and now to my point as we just heard, republicans super pacs are going to be spending a billion dollars this ele

. >> citizens united. >> citizens united will only make it worse but it had already been bad, particularly to courts in a variety of states. the reality is, as much as i laud justice o'connor's efforts, she's had a conversion. she was part of the problem in republican party versus white, she has fond let'scy tsai the lord -- >> she's admitted that. >> she's found jesus and she's come back. there are ways to conduct elections that can deal with some of the problems you've talked about, nonpartisan elections, public funding in north carolina. there are ways to deal with it show that the process, the reform that the jacksonians wanted to happen was you wanted to have justices who had to present themselves to the people, who were not simply appointed by people from the wealthy classes. i can understand the impulse. the problem is we have allowed a free for all and now citizens united will ratchet it further up. the case out of west virginia that the supreme court said the judge had to recuse himself, his election had been supported by $3 million who had a case that appeared on the west virgini

. >> citizens united. >> it will only make it worse but it had already been bad before citizens united, particularly in elections of the highest courts in a variety of states. the reality is that as much as i laud justice o'connor's efforts, she has had a conversion -- she was actually part of the problem in a case called republican party of minnesota versus white. >> she admitted that she was. >> yes. she has found jesus and come back in. it is wonderful. >> jesus is an intimidating judge. >> indeed. it's not just the elections themselves. there are ways to conduct elections that can deal with some of the problems that you talk about. nonpartisan elections, public funding in north carolina for judicial elections. there are ways to deal with it so that the process, the reform that the jacksonians wanted to happen, you had to have judges present themselves to people, not just appointed from the wealthy classes. i can understand the impulse. the problem is that we've allowed a free for all in the election of judges. now citizens united will ratchet that up. the case in virginia, where th

i just think that by focusing on citizens united. you miss the real underlying tendencies of how money operates in politics. it tends to be much more subtle. it tends to happen much more often in congress than the presidential level. particularly in the house of representatives. >> let's hear from don, who's a democrat in detroit. good morning, don. >> i'm calling to protest washington journal having columnists to provide observation on a democratic party, when he's here to settle his partisan book. the way you are presenting it, this guy is to present the facts and nothing but the facts. that's what i wanted. >> what do you think about the democratic party? >> i'm a democrat. >> and how do you feel the party has evolved? it sounds like you take issue with what jay costa is saying, give us a counterpoint. your io

citizen's united has opened the flood gate in a way that is horrific. let's heavy that we can put --let's hope that we can put a dam-- >> what people don't appreciate, what citizen's united means, when members of the senate and house go to vote on an issue they're going to be thinking want to stand up to wall street or the coal companies or the oil companies. because when they go home on the weekend there could be a flood of 30-second tv ads without disclosure. it's a huge issue and it has to be dealt with. >> eliot: talk about reform efforts and one that passed and seems to be working, the vote that came in that says to citibank you're paying your ceo too much, something that dodd frank put in place. dodd frank seems to be working a little bit. >> in this instance it does. eliot, what this is about, everybody knows that the middle class is shrinking, property is increasing, and the people on top are doing phenomly well. and their effective tax rates have gone down which is one of the reasons why we have a deficit crisis . but what people are saying loo

>> it is all fall out from citizens united. but you've got groups such as cross roads gps and then american cross roads. now these are sister groups. they've said they're going to spend up to $300 million. it's got a lot of gop hea heavyweights behind it. you've got cross roads gps had actually raised more money. and that's the dark money, 501 c 4 social welfare nonprofit group. >> social welfare. >> exactly. that is their primary purpose. and then they will give you a lot of evidence as that is exactly what they're doing. and then you've got the super pack that has to disclose their donors. 501 (c-4 does do not have to diz close their donors. >> but you're not seeing that nearly as much as people had predicted. you -- >> that's interesting. one of the things i thought was interesting here is that when citizens united got -- the thing that we all seized particularly liberals and corporate spending. kp it was exxon mobile, for instance and we'll get to that in a second. one of the things we've seen is there hasn't been as much s

citizen's united has opened the flood gate in a way that is horrific. let's heavy that we can put--let's hope that we can put a dam-- >> what people don't appreciate what citizen's united means when members of the senate and house go to vote on an issue they're going to be thinking twice about whether or not they want to stand up to wall street or the coal companies or the oil companies. because when they go home on the weekend there could be a flood of 30-second tv ads without disclosure. it's a huge issue and it has to be dealt with. >> eliot: talk about reform efforts and one that passed and seems to be working, the vote that came in that says to citibank you're paying your ceo too much, something that dodd frank put in place. dodd frank seems to be working a little bit. >> in this instance it does. eliot, what this is about everybody knows that the middle class is shrinking, property is increasing, and the people on top are doing phenomly well. and their effective tax rates have gone down which is one of the reasons why we have a deficit crisis. but

citizens united has really meant citizens denied. our nation cannot afford a system that says come on in to the rich and powerful and says don't bore -- bother to everyone else. the faith of the american people and their electoral system is shaken by big money. it is time to restore that faith. it's time for congress to take back control. and, mr. president, just let me say i know the senator from rhode island, senator whitehouse, has worked very hard on this issue, has pulled us together. we're going to have others, i believe, join us in this power. the crucial thing we're trying to say is we need reform, we need disclose, we need to get to the bottom of what's happening in this broken system and get our democracy back for the american people. so with that, i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: mr. whitehouse: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island is recognized. mr. whitehouse: mr. president, may i ask that the quorum call be lifted? the

>> there's no doubt that this -- the president has grave concerns about citizens united -- the citizens united ruling, and the implications of it, and we see it in practice now, and those concerns extend beyond his own election, but what are the implications for the future? he is the president of the united states and he is going to be out spent dramatically in this race, but what is going to happen in the future, if you don't have an incumbent president, you don't have the ability to raise that money, and you are up against -- >> do you think he will lead a constitutional amendment? >> he has said jennifer, and i am -- i know how determined he is that he will pursue every avenue including a constitutional amendment if that's the best path to try to do something about this. this is not just a threat to a candidate or a party. this is a threat to a democracy. if he don't take this on our country will be effected in a really profound and negative way. >> a threat to democracy. and now to my point as we just heard, republicans super pacs are going to be spending a billion dollars this elec

that was pretty citizens united yeah i know that was just so rich isn't to point to two thousand and ten at the point of citizens united two and say oh no on this is that i did not tell my senate i'm sorry but the entire thing i mean i think not only should be struck down but mccain feingold should be brought back which would have said to that corporate lobbyist you can spend two thousand dollars you can spend half a million. setting the setting the price at two thousand dollars so i'm doing a fine here it's a job yeah well it's a very unpopular case i think it's somewhat mischaracterized but in my view citizens united is about more speech is about more speech being out there i think that the idea that the americans need to be somehow sheltered from critical thinking is wrong and i understand there's some things that i understand there can be abuses but there can always be abuses with speech and when you have that you need more speech not less i mean what you're talking about is restricting speech i believe that it's it's a rightly decided case to mischaracterize what in the press an

citizens united is not a popular decision. in this most recent election, there's been in the primaries a lot of spending but not a lot of corporate spending. not an outside amount of corporate spending by comparison to previous years. more spending by individuals, by rich people and citizens united actually did nothing to change that kind of spending. rich people were always allowed to spend before and after citizens you united. host: and the court is taking up the case on electronic surveillance. what's this about? guest: well, it's been almost -- almost -- about a decade since the bush administration started a warrantless wiretapping program in the wake of the september 11th attacks and that program allowed the monitoring of international calls which is to say one end of the call was outside of the united states and the other end was inside the u.s. and when it was revealed by "the new york times" in 2005, it caused a big controversy in 2008, congress legalized it. and after that, 2008 amendment, some human rights lawyers, s

but i really believe that this is a test case for citizens united. can money win over the people's choice? i mean, can money influence people to the point where a guy who is involved in a john doe investigation, a guy who has the worst job record in the country, a guy who has seen six of his associates be brought up on charges. he's got a legal defense fund. there are a lot of things swirling around this governor. if it were any governor, i mean just any governor, any state being involved in these circumstances, it would be politically an untenable situation to be in. but the fact is the money that is pouring into wisconsin is helping save this governor. he leads in the polls by five percentage points. i think it's going to be important for the democrats not to lose their faith and to do what they have to do, and just realize that sometimes when there is so much money floating around, anybody can buy a pole. the democrats are -- and the independents are going to have to belief that change is going to be good for them. look, i just think that this ele

has this been a citizen's united impact? >> it is. and we have seen this week most dramatically that this is a real to use the cliche double-edged sword for the campaigns. because on the one hand these are untold amounts of resources that can be thrown into the campaign. but the candidates don't get to control the message. so even as mitt romney keeps trying to talk about the economy which by the way is the issue that remains on the top of all the voters' concerns that day he was planning to talk about a big speech in florida and what did he talk about is an attack that never happened who was planned by people were not associated with his campaign. these outside sources are really sort of taking away from the candidates, the ability to control their own destiny in many ways. >> what's the difference though about the role of those outside forces in this campaign and what we saw say eight years ago when veterans for truth went after john kerry and independent of the bush campaign. >> people forget they did not actually spend a lot of mo

citizens united was about corporate money. so to take david fromme's analogy further, what if the next time there's some scandal like this, instead of wealthy friends, and i knew fred baron, and he was a dear friends of john edwards, instead of wealthy friends, what if it is corporations? and that need never be disclosed, because it could be done through various groups. a corporation could give money to some other group, the group could then support your mistress, in the case of mr. edwards, senator edwards, and you would not just even owe your friend, fred baron, you would owe x, y, z corporation. and that's the new wrinkle of really pernicious and -- >> paul -- >> -- corporate money. >> paul, let me interrupt you for a moment, if i might. we are just about to get a statement from john edwards. you see him there with his mother and his father and his daughter, cate. we're told he's not going to take questions, but will speak. >> well, we wanted to say first thank you for the jurors and their incredibly hard work and their dil

that was pretty citizens united yeah i know it was december two thousand to point to the two thousand turn and to point to citizens united to and say oh now all this is that i wasn't going to i was sentenced i'm sort of the entire thing i mean i think not only should be struck down but mccain feingold should be brought back which would have said to that corporate lobbyist you can spend two thousand dollars you can spend half a million. setting the setting the price at two thousand dollars so i'm doing a fine here it's a job yeah look it's a very unpopular case i think it's somewhat mischaracterized but in my view citizens united is about more speech is about more speech being out there i think that the idea that americans need to be somehow sheltered from critical thinking is wrong and i understand there's some things that i understand there can be abuses but there can always be abuses with speech and when you have that you need more speech not less what you're talking about is restricting speech i believe that it's it's a rightly decided case to mischaracterize when the press and dur

that was pretty citizens united yeah i know i was just so reticent to point to two thousand and ten and to point to citizens united to and say oh now is the reason i'm not home a sentence that i'm sorry but the entire thing i mean i think not only should soon be struck down but mccain feingold should be brought back which would have said to that corporate lobbyist you can spend two thousand dollars you can spend half a million. setting the setting the price at two thousand dollars doing a ten year it's. yeah well it's a very unpopular case i think it's somewhat mischaracterized but in my view citizens united is about more speech is about more speech being out there i think that the idea that the americans need to be somehow sheltered from critical thinking is wrong and i understand there's some things that i understand there can be abuses but there can always be abuses with speech and when you have that you need more speech not less what you're talking about is restricting speech i believe that it's it's a rightly decided case to mischaracterize when the press and during the president's

>> i think the second question was if the citizens united case were overturned by some form of legislation how would that affect the lobbying. it wouldn't i don't think affect lobbying a great deal as we see it from some of those tech companies because a lot of their money is invested in direct lobbying and political donations, which strictly speaking i don't think were affected necessarily by the citizens united case, which dealt mostly in super pacs. i think we've seen a lot of that funding in the primary campaigns. we'll probably see a lot of that in the general election. and it's been, you know, largely electoral stuff. tech issues are not electoral yet. sopa, the online privacy bill we saw earlier this year, cyber security are crossing into that territory. but for the most part people don't know based on whether or not a lawmaker supports net neutrality or new cyber security regulations. perhaps they should. especially in places like silicon valley, where this is the local economy. but not yet. >> catfish kim tweets in, "i just dumped facebook for their founders outrageous display of

united decision the only way to end of this insanity is to get the money is to get on board with the movement to get the money out of politics go to move to amend dot org that's it for the big picture tonight for more information on the stories we covered visit our website to tom parton dot com free speech tonight or. also check out our two youtube channels there are links of tom harpur dot com

the people along with the appealing citizens united we need to restore transparency to our government and this move by the f.c.c. is a good start. the bad fox news thursday and friday fox so called news in early promoted a new attack ad calling president obama a celebrity president nothing new for fox news right well the ad was put out by american crossroads and super pac backed by karl rove who just so happens to be a political analyst who was paid by fox news now most networks would realise that this is a conflict of interest not fox news less than twenty four hours trucking heads raved about the brilliant and devastating at nearly a dozen times it was also promoted heavily on the fox nation website we've come to expect fox so-called news to cross the lines of media ethics this is really taking two. and a very very ugly e.j. dominic. last week dieter a popular d.j. and radio personality in cleveland suggested that rape was a good way to turn a lesbian straight in email a listener told dieter that he suspected his daughter was a lesbian after a disco discovered her kissing another gi

that's before the 14th amend am united states is a citizen. that in a sense said we're not abiding by the dred scott decision anymore. so it was recognized by the lincoln administration before the 14th amendment. so certainly in that era, the civil war itself as linda mentions creates this national n means there has to be one standard for the nation. >> is this sort of when we begin to recognize the nation for the immigrants? understanding it began to increase in the nations? >> i'm not sure. i think that comes later. and actually probably during and after world war ii even, when we start taking pride in the mixture of immigrants. let me add one more piece of why it will be very proud. if all persons born in the united states are citizens, then we don't have to -- then their citizenship is stable, and they are not exposed to statelessness. all over the world, one of the aftermaths of this ratcheting in of the rules of citizenship in europe and elsewhere has been the people with ambivalent histories. they're not a citizen because the parents ar

the people along with repealing citizens united we need to restore transparency to our government and this move by the f.c.c. is a good start. the bad fox news thursday and friday fox so-called news eerily promoted a new attack ad calling president obama a celebrity president and nothing new for fox news right now the ad was put out by american crossroads and super pac backed by karl rove who just so happens to be a political analyst who was paid by fox news now most networks would realise that this is a conflict of interest not fox news less than twenty four hours talking heads raved about the group and devastating ad nearly a dozen times it was also promoted heavily on the fox nation website we've come to expect fox so-called news to cross the lines of media ethics this is really taking two. and a very very ugly e.j. dominic dieter last week dieter a popular d.j. and radio personality cleveland suggested that rape was a good way to turn a lesbian straight in email a listener told dieter that he suspected his daughter was a lesbian after a disco to discover her kissing another girl o

we have to overturn citizens united. but what we can do tomorrow is legislation like the disclosure act. if i put an ad on television attacking my opponent i have got to be there on the scene saying i'm senator bernie sanders, i approve this ad. if banc of america, or the oil companies want to pay for candidates their ceo should be on there as well. and if you do that you will get a lot fewer adds than is currently the case. >> is there a desire on the part of the republicans to keep the status quo the way it is. >> think the republicans think citizens united is worker for them. on the other hand you have people like john mccain speaking out and saying citizens united in his view was a disastrous decision. can we get eight or nine republicans to speak up for american democracy? i don't know that we can, but i certainly would hope so. >> i have a different theory and that is we has shareholders getting our voices in that context, we own those corporations, i think shareholder activism we can get that stopped. and filibust

>> well, we have the power, because we are citizens of the united states of america and we have the power, because in montana we have initiative 166 and stand with montanians and we are saying that corporations are not people, and they are not allowed to bribe their way into the state capital or i guess even in washington, d.c. there is something really perverse about this. in 1977 congress said that the corrupt foreign practices act made it unlawful to bribe politicians in other countries, but now they are saying that a they can bride them in the united states, so we have a monopoly on bribery here in the country, and what is that saying to the rest of the world? corporations spend money in elections to get something. they get something which is lower taxes or less regulation and you can't describe it any other way. me as a shareholder, i don't dislike corporations, but if i were to ask the corporate ceo why we gave money in the last election, he would say to you, we have oget something, because for every $5 we spent, we get something back, and that is bribery. >> and i thought about thi

just disassembling the supreme court citizens united decision and saying no the corporations are not persons and no money is not speech it's property. the next comment of the night comes from daryl who post on the tom hartman facebook page had this question on the credibility of the media love the show i'm a daily listener question and being interviewed by reporters political figures make wellknown statements which are not true why doesn't anyone follow up with something like justify your statement with facts or just ask about opposing views why let him get away with these statements we all would like for them to explain their statements in detail never never does this happen if not challenge what they say remains factual errors the really simple answer i'm assuming that what you're talking about is not this show where i actually do challenge people but things like you know the sunday morning talk shows the network shows the evening news shows what you will see is first of all those shows if high profile politicians would not go on those shows those shows wouldn't exist because of bu

united no i did that after citizens you know that i can go out and i can people i'm going to because i have grassroots and i have a real message it does help more rubble coming up after the break. there hasn't been anything yet on t.v. . it is to get the maximum political impact. before source material is what helps keep journalism on we. we want to present. something else. well the fact is that i had lone liberal randall joining me tonight dustin stockman a stockton chief strategist with the tea party dot net and libertarian commentator marc harrold let's get back to it house speaker that was john boehner and his band of hostage takers have announced another os does take eat some time toward the end of this year and now the secretary of the treasury says tim geithner says not to worry we've got enough money to last until twenty thirteen but i don't say that again till after the election yet till after the election of course and you know that. but says now we're going to have a discussion about this in october whether you like it or not and so today they had a beating in the white ho

governor romney may think that corporations are people for the purposes of the citizens united decision but they can't they have no shame like people they can't be shamed into doing the right thing corporations are quite monolithic if they want to hide behind what they're doing and not change one iota. so what do you think of the correct path is mean you know the same time there's also a lot of pressure being put on the f.c.c. right now i think there's something more than two hundred sixty people actually have submitted comments to the s.e.c. demanding that they actually force corporations to at least be transparent about where it is that their money is going to and who exactly they're donating to you know are regulators a better option or you know what comes next. you know this this is so tough i mean you know the the the longstanding internet scene relationships between washington and wall street and corporate america i mean this goes back centuries in this country some people would even say this is the bedrock principle upon which this nation was founded you know unfortunately you kn

governor romney may think that corporations are people for the purposes of the citizens united decision but they can't they have no shame like people they can't be shamed into doing the right thing corporations are quite monolithic if they want to hide behind what they're doing and not change one iota. so what do you think of the correct path is mean you know at the same time there's also a lot of pressure being put on the f.c.c. right now i think there's something more than two hundred sixty people actually had submitted comments to the s.e.c. demanding that they actually force corporations to at least be transparent about where it is that their money is going to and who exactly they're donating are regulators a better option or you know what comes next. you know this this is so tough i mean you know the the the longstanding internet scene relationships between washington and wall street and corporate america i mean this goes back centuries in this country some people would even say this is the bedrock principle upon which this nation was founded you know unfortunately you know i'm win

>> we have the power because we're citizens of the united states of america. because in montana we have initiative 166, stand with montanaens. we're simply saying corpses are not people. corpse corporations shouldn't be allowed to bribe their way into our state capital or washington, d.c. there's something perverse about this. in 17977, he said the corrupt foreign americans act -- we have a m a monopoly on bribery? corporations spend money in elections to get something. they get something which means lower taxes or less regulation. you can't describe it any other way. me as a shareholder, i don't dislike corporations but if i were to ask my corporate ceo why were we giving money in that last election? he'd have to say because we want to get something. >> by the way, i thought this through this afternoon with our producers. if this is really to make more money for people, in other words, get the right politicians in, you might as well get a tax deduction for it. if it's in your business interest to buy a politician, that's just the cost the doing business. perh

governor romney may think that corporations are people for the purposes of the citizens united decision but they can't they have no shame like people they can't be shamed into doing the right thing corporations are quite monolithic if they want to hide behind what they're doing and not change one iota. so what do you think of the correct path is mean you know at the same time there's also a lot of pressure being put on the f.c.c. right now i think there's something more than two hundred sixty people actually had submitted comments to the s.e.c. demanding that they actually force corporations to at least be transparent about where it is that their money is going to and who exactly they're donating to are regulators a better option or what comes next. you know this this is so tough i mean you know the the the longstanding internet scene relationships between washington and wall street and corporate america i mean this goes back centuries in this country some people would even say this is the bedrock principle upon which this nation was founded you know unfortunately you know i'm winding t

governor romney may think that corporations are people for the purposes of the citizens united decision but they can't they have no shame like people they can't be shamed into doing the right thing corporations are quite monolithic if they want to hide behind what they're doing and not change one iota. so what do you think of the correct path is mean you know the same time there's also a lot of pressure being put on the f.c.c. right now i think there's something more than two hundred sixty people actually have submitted comments to the f.c.c. demanding that they actually force corporations to at least be transparent about where it is that their money is going to and who exactly they're donating to are regulators a better option or what comes next. you know this this is so tough i mean you know the the the long standing internet scene relationships between washington and wall street and corporate america i mean this goes back centuries in this country some people would even say this is the bedrock principle upon which this nation was founded you know unfortunately you know i'm winding th

own sovereignties, but any person born in the united states is a citizen. and as i said, this was not necessarily the case before the civil war. the most dramatic example of course was the dred scott decision of 1857 in which the supreme court stated explicitly that no black person could be a citizen. free or slave. born here or not. it didn't matter. citizenship was just for white people. but the birthright citizenship principle eliminates that and says there are no other boundaries to citizen right other than birth in the united states. >> and this law and the 14th amendment written specifically for african-americans, the freed slaves? >> well, yes and no in a sense. it was written -- those laws were written as part of the effort of the country to come to terms with the abolition of slavery and to deal with the question of what would the status of these 4 million freed people be. and yet there the 14th amendment does not say anything about race, it does not say anything about black people. it establishes a principle and universal standard of citizenship w

tavis: we agree that citizens united was a decision that opened up the floodgates. i think we concur on that point. in your book, we can all do better, you go a step further and you are honest about your assessment that the president squandered an opportunity to do something significant and reeled about campaign finance reform. it is not just -- significant and real about campaign finance reform. you are arguing that he could have done better. >> i argue that in president obama, i hope he will get reelected. i will support his reelection. the question i raised was when he came to office, he had so much good well. the country was with him, 70% approval rating. if he had moved for public financing of elections in his first two months in office, he could've gotten that. it did not happen, i am told, because it did not rank in the top five of issues important to people. of course, it did not. bieber in the middle of a recession. -- we were in the middle of a recession. they were interested in their jobs, their house, the basics. they did not think of this as one of the

they upheld a 1912 law out there in direct defiance of the supreme court citizens united decision. they bar corporate spending in elections. yesterday, the governor and his lieutenant governor through their support behind an initiative that would make it state policy to bar corporate money into politics. thank you for joining us. tell us how you as a governor and your republican lieutenant governor have the power to challenge this awful new supreme court ruling that has really dirtied up politics. >> we have power because we're we're citizens of the united states of america. we have stand with montanaians. politicians cannot bribe their way into the state capital or washington dc. there is something perverse about this. in 1977, congress said the corrupt foreign practices act made it against the law for bribe lg politicians in other countries. now they're saying they can bribe them in other states. there's a monopoly on bribes in this country? what's this say to the rest of the world. they spend money so they can get somebody. that means lower taxes and less regulation. i don't dis

united no i did that after citizens you know get it i can go out and i can people i'm going to because i have grassroots and i have a real message it does help more rubble coming up after the break. wealthy british style. markets why not. come to. find out what's really happening to the global economy with mikes concert for a no holds barred look at the global financial headlines tune in to kaiser report on r g. well the fact is that i'd flown liberal randall joining me tonight dustin stockman stockton chief strategist with the tea party dot net and libertarian commentator marc harrold let's get back to it house speaker that was john boehner and his band of hostage takers have announced another ice-t. is taking some time toward the end of this year and now the secretary of the treasury says tim geithner says not to worry we've got enough money to last until twenty thirteen but i don't say that you can tell after the election yet till after the election of course i mean you know. but boehner says now we're going to have a discussion about this in october whether you like it or not and s

it's the citizens united ruling versus the will of the people. i'll break it down. stay with us. >>> i asked is it fair to ask if mitt romney's experience as a vulture capitalist makes him fit. 82% said yes. 18% said no. >>> you won't believe the latest attack conservatives are launching on teachers in the state. into the big finish, i'm taking one of the biggest myths republicans are pushing when it comes to the economy. stay with us.udy glas s. you didn't have to come over! easy. hi. cascade kitchen counselor. look! over time, the other premium pac can leave cloudy, hard water deposits, but cascade complete pacs help leave glasses sparkling. cascade. love it or your money back. it's time to get going. to have the energy to keep up with your kids. to step up to a new challenge. it's time to start gellin' with dr. scholl's and feel the energy from your feet up. thanks to the energizing support and cushioning of dr. scholl's massaging gel insoles, your feet will feel so good you'll want to get up and go. >>> two weeks from tonight, only the third gubernatorial recall

of their own sovereignties, but any person born in the united states is a citizen. and as i said, this was not necessarily the case before the civil war. the most dramatic example of course was the dred scott decision of 1857 in which the supreme court stated explicitly that no black person could be a citizen. free or slave. born here or not. it didn't matter. but the birthright citizenship principle eliminates that and says there are no other boundaries to citizen right other than birth in the united states. >> and this law and the 14th amendment written specifically for african-americans, the freed slaves? >> well, yes and no. it was written -- those laws were written as part of the effort of the country to come to terms with the abolition of slavery and to deal with the question of what would the status of these 4 million freed people be. and yet there the 14th amendment does not say anything about race, it does not say anything about black people. it establishes a principle and universal standard of citizenship which is to it apply to everybody. it applies to ch

own sovereignties, but any person born in the united states is a citizen. and as i said, this was not necessarily the case before the civil war. the most dramatic example of course was the dred scott decision of 1857 in which the supreme court stated explicitly that no black person could be a citizen. free or slave. born here or not. it didn't matter. but the birthright citizenship principle eliminates that and says there are no other boundaries to citizen right other than birth in the united states. >> and this law and the 14th amendment written specifically for african-americans, the freed slaves? >> well, yes and no. it was written -- those laws were written as part of the effort of the country to come to terms with the abolition of slavery and to deal with the question of what would the status of these 4 million freed people be. and yet there the 14th amendment does not say anything about race, it does not say anything about black people. it establishes a principle and universal standard of citizenship which is to it apply to everybody. it applies to ch

citizens united gave rise to super p.a.c.s. of course you know they are groups that can raise and spend unlimited sums of money in election. super p.a.c.s in turn were fueled by the billionaire boys club a group of uber wealthy, uber right conservatives intendt on defeating president obama. tonight, we will introduce you to some of the bill yon air boys club club's most note tourous. foster friess the born again christian who almost single-handedly funded rick santorum's campaign. he claimed liberals caused the columbine massacre. earlier, he suggested women should put an aspirin between their knees for birth control. next up harold simmons. harold simmons once said that president obama is the most dangerous american alive. so far he's donated more than $16 million to conservative super p.a.c.s. you probably never heard of our next member. >> that's harlan crow. >> that's how he likes it. the texas real estate magnet is friends with supreme court justice clarence thomas and used money to attack democrats for a long time. then t