good evening, everyone. i'm erin burnett. "outfront" tonight, big, big, big politics. according to the federal election commission. that would make it the most expensive election season in american history. but here's the dirty truth about american history. money always seeps into politics, and it has been going and going and going for a long time. take president mckinley's campaign at the turn of the century. even know that guy? railroad and steel barron's gave him kingly sums of $6 million for his 1896-1900 win. that would be a lot of money now. president nixon was given $2.5 million by one guy, an insurance executive when he ran for president in '68 and '72. just two examples of what happens every time. over the years laws on campaign financing has tightened. but yet this is the strange thing. maybe it harder, you can't give here, but then it goes here and more money gets spent every single time. even with the mccain bill that was passed in 2002 which required limits in two candidate, guess what, a lot of funds have found their way into campaign war chests and the numbers have gone up. in 2002 george soros gave an enormo enormous $23.7 million for liberal causes. some ended up helping fill john kerry's presidential campaign. on the other side, remember this? bob perry spent to attack on kerry. six years later we have super pacs. they accept unlimited donations from corporations, unions, and individuals to support their favorite candidate. an4í overwhelming majority of their money as we now are painfully aware has been spent on negative ads, and all the candidates claim to hate them. >> millions of americans are struggling to get by, and their voices should. be drowned out by millions of dollars in secret special interest advertising. >> campaign financed law has made a mockery of our -- of our political campaign season. we really ought to let campaigns raise the money they need and just get rid of these super pacs. >> well, the man at the center of it all is jim bopp. he's the one who first brought the now famous supreme court citizens united case which along with other court decisions laid the groundwork for super pacs. he's now romney's supporter, and he's out front tonight. he doesn't like you because he doesn't like super pacs, but let me ask you, sir. the big question. is this just something that you have to kind of innately accept as an american citizen, which is that every election season, more money is going to be spent on campaigns? >> i think so. the government has grown tremendously over the last few years such that they're spend 33 ing $3.5 trillion opz. of course this election is for the president and congress, and those people are going to decide how to spend $3.5 trillion. so i don't think spending a few% billion dollars on an election is really out of bounds in terms of the result. who gets control of that federal government? >> so you don't think that getting an unlimited amount of money to a campaign, whether you are an individual, a union, or a corporation is a bad thing. >> do i think giving an unlimited amount is a bad thing? >> yes. that's the question. >> well, sometimes i do, and sometimes i don't. right now the problem is not giving an unlimited amount to a candidate, but the fact that candidates are severely limited in what they can accept. i mean i agree with governor romney. why not give money to the candidate and the candidate spend the money. the candidate is the one that is accountable to the american people. rather than give it to super pacs or other entities like that. that would be preferable. that as long as we have a first amendment, which i support, groups are going to be able to come together and spend money on anne limited fashion to advocate the election or defeat of their candidate, and there's really nothing that can be done about that. >> what i'm trying to understand, though, is that -- you say, okay, they're going have responsibility over $3.5 trillion in budget, true. but the problem is, and this is the way i guess it's always worked in american history but a lot of people have a real problem with it, why should wealthy people and big companies be able to give those campaign dollars when we all know that they're doing it because they want rules that favor them in exchange? >> well, actually the vast majority of people support candidates that already agree with them on the issues. it's a really stupid strategy to try to buy a candidate. because if a candidate is up for sale, he will go to the highest bidder, and there's no way you can make sure that you're the one that actually gets the vote in the end. so people support people that already agree with them and then hope that they get into office through their support. look. rich people have money. they're going to be able to spend their money. there's nothing that's under the first amendment that will ever allow government to stop that from happening. so then the question is how about the rest of us? are we going to be able to pool our resources in a group to spend money to participate in the election also? and that's what super pacs are for or advocacy groups or 527s. all these different political parties even. >> the problem is -- >> all these different entities. >> the problem is according to the study done on the super pacs so far, the money raised on super pacs, 93% of them came in as donations of $10,000 or more. $30 mi 30 million came in by people. this isn't all of us puooling or resources. this is really rich people pooling their resources. >> it is true in the case so far in the case of super pacs. it is major gifts fund-raising that is driving those contributions, but the problem has been is that the reformers want to attack groups. they want to limit super pacs, they want to limit political parties, they want to limit advocacy groups, they want to limit unions, and of course the groups are groups that people must join in order to pool their resources to be affected. look. it's great to be rich. you can't stop rich people from spending money. but what you can do is have a system that, number one, people with average means can contribute and be effective, and that requires groups. >> why sth they could give $250 to a campaign. a regular person isn't going to give any more. >> well, some will and some won't. i mean it depends on both their resources and their commitment. and if this money could go to the candidate, well, then we can decide whether we want to vote for candidate "x" or candidate "y." the problem with the system is distorted. candidates aren't able to raise the money so that they can compete, and people are giving money to these unaccountable groups and there's nothing you can do about it. so why don't we let the candidates raise the money. >> all right. jim bopp, thank you very much. we appreciate it. let's bring in john avlon and jim. there's one thing he said they think most reasonable people would agree with. maybe i'm wrong. if you're going to give money to daenlt and you like their cause, you should be able to give it to the candidate, not the roundabout groups. the reason they give it to the roundabout groups is because they can't give it all the to candidate. >> and he seemed to be sort of complaining about the system in part he's helped create. look. the image of the super pac sort of functioning as george bailey's building & loan where people are binding together to leverage their influence doesn't bear out with how the system is working right now. we've got 200 individuals who have paid half the money given to super pacs today. we know the last cycle there was around $5 billion. fcc is estimated $10 billion. it's going to fuel a lot of negative ads. >> ken, what's amazing to me is that when you look at this, all this is every time we try to do campaign finance reform, the money finds another way. 527s is what it was called when george soros was giving back in 2004. now here we are and it's called super pacs. same thing, different name. >> yeah, that's right, erin. first of all, interesting comparison to 2004. you cited george soros's $20 billion contribution and the insurance guy. those two guys are being relied on by democrats who come off the sidelines and give a lot to the super pacs. president obama, the house candidates, and they're not. . part of the reason is they were so disappointed by their investment in 2004, not bearing fruit. the donors gave over $200 million and john kerry still lost. so that's both evidence that maybe money does not always buy an election because that was a lot more spending, but it also democrats face as they try to reengage in the game. >> money may not always buy you what you want and jim had an interesting point there. but, you know, when you look at rich people, rich ceos, okay, look at a bank ceo, they tend to split their money between democrats and republicans because they don't want to p.o. anybody office. >> that's right. >> they want to get what they want. if you didn't give, they could hit you. >> right. and that indicates how much covering your bases like that becomes a form of collusion. >> exactly. >> our elections are not supposed to work this way. >> no, they are not. >> it's supposed to be one man, one vote. corporations are not supposed to be able to vote. even though they're being given muscle to act that way. some are voting with wallets. some are much more influential in elections than other individuals and that creates -- >> very quick final word to you, ken. why are we not seeing corporations giving to the super pacs since they're now people? >> i see a lot of llcs linked to rich individuals. i'm not seeing time western sneer that's right. it kind of goes back to bank ceos. those are people invested in the union. they that's smart money. they're trying to get access. allowing the money to come to super pacs is more ideological money. these are people that while they may think republicans or democrats might be better for them for the long term if they're elected into office, they're investing because they happen to agree with jim bopp said, because they already agree with these folks. it's not like they're trying to win something from them. >> thanks very much. as always, everyone let us know what you think. money, it will always find a leak, a hole, a way where it wants to find to get. syria under siege. in the past year, 6,000 have died. in the graphic testimony in the case of the uva lacrosse play jeer and man who compares killing people to crack cocaine. . ♪ that right now, you want to know where you are, and where you'd like to be. we know you'd like to see the same information your advisor does so you can get a deeper understanding of what's going on with your portfolio. we know all this because we asked you, and what we heard helped us create pnc wealth insight, a smarter way to work with your pnc advisor, so you can make better decisions and live achievement. the world needs more energy. where's it going to come from? ♪ that's why right here, in australia, chevron is building one of the biggest natural gas projects in the world. enough power for a city the size of singapore for 50 years. what's it going to do to the planet? natural gas is the cleanest conventional fuel there is. we've got to be smart about this. it's a smart way to go. ♪ in what passes for common sense. used to be we socked money away and expected it to grow. then the world changed... and the common sense of retirement planning became anything but common. fortunately, td ameritrade's investment consultants can help you build a plan that fits your life. take control by opening a new account or rolling over an old 401(k) today, and we'll throw in up to $600. how's that for common sense? yoyou u wawalklk i intna coconvnvenentitiononalal ms ststorore,e, i it't's s ry nonot t ababouout t yoy. ththeyey s sayay, , "w"weleu wawantnt a a f firirm m bebn lilie e onon o onene o of ff yoyou u wawantnt a a s sofou cacan n lilie e onon o onene o " wewe p prorovividede t thet inindidivividudualalizizatat yoyourur b bodody y neneede. wewelclcomome e toto t thehe slsleeeep p nunumbmberer . nonot t jujustst o ordrdininaran sasalele, , bubut t ththe e bn chchanangege y youour r lilifef. ththe e slsleeeep p nunumb. ththisis i is s yoyourur b bodo. yoyou u cacan n sesee e a a lile prpresessusurere i in n ththe es anand d inin t thehe h hipi. nonow w yoyou u cacan n fet hahappppenens s asas w we e rarr slsleeeep p nunumbmberer s seted alallolow w ththe e bebed d totr toto y youour r inindidivividud. wowow!w! ththatat f feeeelsls r reae. itit's's h huguggigingng m. itit's's n notot a abobt sosoftft o or r fifirm. itit's's a aboboutut s supuppope yoyou u fifindnd i it t momost. ririghght t nonow,w, q queun mamattttreresssseses s statartr. anand d sasaveve a an n asag 5050% % onon t thehe f fininalat ofof o ourur i innnnovovatae lilimimiteted d ededititio. yoyou u cacan n adadjujustst i r yoyou u wawantnt s so o yoyoue toto w wororryry a aboboutg ththe e wrwronong g mamat. huhurrrry y ththisis w weeee ulultitimamatete s sleleepep n. ononlyly a at t onone e ofo0 slsleeeep p nunumbmberer s. [oinking] [hissing] [ding] announcer: cook foods to the right temperature using a food thermometer. 3,000 americans will die from food poisoning this year. check your steps at foodsafety.gov. "outfront" tonight, slaughter in syria. today alone at least 137 have died, including 11 children, with 110 of those killed in homs, the city under siege. this, of course, comes from reports from human rights groups in the region. homs is surrounded by tanks and troops. the uprising began last march but now in less than a year, more than 6,000 lives have been lost, according to those human rights groups. it's a stunning number. president bashir assad has the right to stop it. there are those fighter jets as we reported last night. at least 555 russian migs. aft the 4,000-plus surface-to-air missiles, syria is the largest in the region and would have the ability to fight back. what happens if assad is forced out? power volume, instability, civil war, coming "outfront" david ignatius. david, great to see you. >> great to be here, erin. thank you. >> there is obviously a lot of fear about the void that might be created if president bashir assad is forced out. what would happen in that scenario? >> well, if he was eased out with a transition that specified that there was some interim government, one thing that's been proposed is that the vice president of this syrian government would act as an interim, then you'd have elections and a peaceful transfer. if he's forced out with nothing, with no clear process of transition, you're going have a free-for-all. syria is one of the most divided an volatile countries i know in the middle east, and people shouldn't underestimate the degree of bloodshed you could see there. >> what about a disorderly transition, a replacement? obviously what we've seen even in places like egypt, getting a replacement has been difficult, replacements that the rest of the world finds palatable, impossible, violence rises, unemployment rises, it's worse than it was before, it seems. >> well, the arab world is having a difficult time managing this revolution. we're seeing the toppling of an old order that was characterized by an order order of government in syria and across the region. it's not surprising that after a year what you see mostly is chaos. i don't think that's a reason to give up on the process. what's scary about syria, erin, is that there are so many people dying every day. if you look at the -- at the videos that are being shot by people on the ground -- >> horrific. >> -- it is horrific. and so i think there's a fear that as this escalates and bashir assad and his regime try to hold onto power, the number getting killed could grow, the reprisal killings by resistance fighters against assad's minority sect could grow. you could have a real ekts nick slaughter back and forth. people have been afraid of this for as long as i've been covering the middle east. that's 30 years. people have been worried about this kind of wholesale civil war in syria. now we seem to be slipping toward it and it scares people. >> and it's important that you're using that word slaughter. file like sometimes in these situations we tend to engage in hyperbole, the media sometimes not always knowing and you covering it for 30 years, it's significant for everybody watching. >> i want to get your reaction on what john mccain sachltd here he is. >> i thinking we should have a contact group, a joint coalition and also we should consider all options including arming the opposition. it's got stop. >> if the united states got involved -- we were just going through the syrian military. it's a serious military, a well armed military. would we have to accept that we would have to have troops on the ground and american lives at stake? >> this risks being a big war. this is not the ragtag libyan army of moammar gadhafi. as you say, this is big. in addition, they have chemical weapons, it has big-time missiles. this is an army that's prepared to fight israel, so it could certainly fight a nato-type coalition. i understand john mccain saying the bloodshed has got to stop, and this issue of arming the opposition is out there and senator mccain is expressing a view that you hear more and more. >> yep. >> my own feeling, for what it's worth, is this is a situation which calls for arming the opposition, for taking the next step down this slope, this very dangerous slope, need to come from the region. that the saudi government, king abdullah in saudi arabia says it is essential that we support the syrian opposition and begin arming them. that's powerful. if turkey, syria's northern neighbor, says this situation on our border is intolerable, turkey cannot live with it and we're going to take steps, those are the people that are going to act first. then the united states naturally and properly follows along. i don't think there's anything to be embarrassed about when you say following along. this is a time when the region has to make decisions and take the lead. >> david ignatius, thanks to come. still to come, the attorney general jim hood. he's out front. and boats and beaut ka. [ woman ] my boyfriend and i were going on vacation, so i used my citi thank you card to pick up some accessories. a new belt. some nylons. and what girl wouldn't need new shoes? we talked about getting a diamond. but with all the thank you points i've been earning... ♪ ...i flew us to the rock i really had in mind. ♪ [ male announcer ] the citi thank you card. earn points you can use for travel on any airline, with no blackout dates. e e e e e what it's like e for travel on any airline, when my tempurpedic moves? [ male announcer ] why not talk to someone who owns an adjustable version of the most highly recommended bed in america? ask me about my tempur advanced ergo. goes up. ask me what it's like to get a massage anytime you want. goes down. [ male announcer ] tempurpedic brand owners are more satisfied than owners of any traditional mattress brand. ergonomics. [ male announcer ] tempurpedic. the most highly recommended bed in america. it's the perfect time to save up to $200 on your own ergo. find out more at tempurpedic.com. it's easing restrictions on women serving in combat, which will open 14,000 new jobs to women. the changes list a ban on women serving as medics, tank mechanics and radar operators in combat areas. they will still not be able to fight in battle. now, congress can review the decision and critics still question whether women have the necessary strength and whether this could hurt unit cohesion. they clearly have never heard of "boudicca." she brings us to tonight's number. $4.7 million. that's the number britain is spending. they say, hey, female navy is going to be allowed to serve. anoth