We will get your thoughts. Republicans, 202 5853881. Democrats, 202 5853880. Independents, 202 5853882. Join us on social media. Twitter, our handle is cspanwj. Facebook. Com cspan. You can also email us, journal cspan. Org. Joining us on the set is lisa rosenberg. Give us a little bit more information about the Supreme Court cost decision. Lets begin with the history of the finance laws. What did the court which lauded the court consider and what is its history . These laws have been in place since the watergate era. Watergate was a campaignfinance scandal and congress thought that three pullers were necessary to address corruption. Those pillars were spending limits, contribution limits, and disclosure. Spending limits have been chipped away at since the earliest days of the Campaign Finance reform laws since the 1970s and the final nail in the on spending limits happened when the Supreme Court decided a case a few years ago. That leaves us with contribution laws and disclosure. Yesterdays decision undid the contribution limit part of the Campaign Finance reform scheme by saying that the overall tax individual can give to candidates is unconstitutional. They said you can give millions of dollars during an election cycle during the campaigns. Host how did this come about . Guest the plaintiff had been giving to individual candidates and reached the cap. There are limits on what you can give to individual candidates. There are 2600 limits. Those are in place. Mccutchen had reached the cap of what he could give overall and he decided he wanted to give more and challenged the constitutionality of the case. Millionsody can give of dollars if they choose to. Host who backed his case . Guest primarily right versus left division, as we saw on the decision. A number of folks on the right to have been opponents of Campaign Finance reform tcheon in hisu efforts. The fcc is supposed to enforce the current laws. Were supposed to enforce finance caps on which he on what he could give. They could find him or do other thegs if he had gone over limits. Host lets talk about the limits the plaintiff. The is with the chairman of rnc had to say. He quoted campaignfinance laws as putting campaignfinance laws putting committees in a place where we have the most restrictions, the most disclosure, and that we can raise the least. What has happened is that the groups that can raise the most disclose the least. He went on to say that this allows Campaign Committees to raise more money and they will disclose who their donors are. Guest to a limited degree, that is true. The reason that the groups that can raise the most disclose the least is also due to the supreme decision saying that corporations can spend unlimited amounts of money in socalled independent campaign expenditures. That was the Supreme Court changing the law a few years ago. The Supreme Court started us on this path. That resulted in a lot of money c4 g funneled to these 501 nonprofit organizations that can spend unlimited amounts without disclosing it. The problem is, that does not change. Corporations can still spend secret money in unlimited amounts or individuals can remain anonymous and spend unlimited amounts if they choose to and go through the nonprofit regime, or they can go through the parties and the candidates where there is disclosure. I would argue not enough disclosure. Ge are are supportin legislation for more disclosure. We can talk about that later. Nothing is fixed. Nothing is changed. We will not see less money and we will not see much more disclosure unless the bill that we support is enacted. Do you believe that the socalled super packs will be less likely to raise as much money as they did in past elections . Guest they can take corporate money. This decision applies to what an individual can give out of their own pocket. It does not apply or change the prohibition against corporate moneys giving directly to candidates. If corporations want to influence elections, they will give through super pac or secret nonprofits. This is just about the individual donor. What did the loss restrict before and what this decision do to them . Cap forhere is a 2600 canada. That remains in place. There were also over all caps that individuals could give to candidates. It was roughly 120,000 cap that an individual could give overall to the parties and the candidates. That cap is now gone. S whoave to think of it a can really give 120,000 or more. We are talking about individuals having the freedom to give millions of dollars. They can give more than most people are in a year. Tot is what is disturbing many of us about this decision. What do you think this means for the november 2014 election cycle . Guest we will see a lot more money by a handful of individuals. They are the 1 of the 1 . They the very few wealthy individuals that may take advantage of this decision and right milliondollar checks and pen milliondollar checks. Hat in hand, write me a check for 3 million. Theyre going to know who is generous and who is going to give them those checks and they will know the interest of those individuals and what they want to have happen in congress. Do these candidates benefit on both sides . Guest they do. We have done some analysis that indicates slightly more of the people who have maxed out previously under the earlier limits that were struck down, they are slightly more republicans than democrats that max out. Both parties will ask for these large contributions. We will see whether they receive them. The only thing that can happen is if you are a donor and you want to hedge your bets, you can give millions of debts to both millions of dollars to both parties. This is what the majority for the court had to say. In right to participate democracy through political contributions is protected by the First Amendment, but that right is not absolute. Congress may regulate Campaign Contributions to protect against corruption or the appearance of corruption. It may not regulate contributions simply to reduce the amount of money in politics or to restrict the political partes in the local participation of some in order to enhance the relative influence of others. What do you make of that . Think it is naive. If contributions can be limited or restricted, i am not sure what appears more corrupt than a member of congress or a candidate asking for a 3 million check from one person. To me, that is the the pygmy of the appearance of corruption. John roberts does not see it that way. I think he is missing the point. In other parts of the decision, he said that the only corruption is what is called quid pro quo corruption. I give you a Million Dollars in exchange for your vote. That does not happen. That is not realistic. The accessruption as and influence. Say,n to what i have to take up my cause on the floor of. He senate or dont take it up it is very hard to prove theres a direct link between the contribution and what is happening. Is, at the very least, the appearance of corruption, but according to roberts, that is ok. Rosenberg is here to take your questions and comments about the courts decision yesterday. We begin with stanley in westborough, massachusetts. Independent color. Caller. Caller i dont vote anymore because there is double voting. They do not check id. 35,000 came across on the news this morning. I am putting all of my effort making money so that the irs does not get it. Whatever they do does not affect me. This on twitter from one of our viewers. Why congress is allowed to be bribed . Bribed judges, police, teachers now too . We are getting your thoughts and comments morning. Don, ohio. Caller it is terrible. It is leading to more corruption in this government than we already have and we have more than we can handle now. Tohink we need a third party stop all of this. Is are people of the United States and the Supreme Court. Udges are wrong obamacare tong on a certain extent. It is out of hand. That is why we need a third party called we the people of the United States. Thank you very much. Host carol, ohio. Democratic caller. Caller weekend vote against him. There are more than us than there are of them. We can vote against this because of the candidates doing this. Against these candidates. Especially the republicans. That is the only thing we have left is to go out and vote against them. Take carols points. Caller she is right. My concern is that voters we have low voter turnout in this ,ountry and that is in part due to cynicism. This will make more people cynical and less likely to vote. I hope that is not the case, but i am concerned that is the case. Donors that want to give support with a 25 contribution or 50 contribution are going to say, why bother . Dwarfed by these milliondollar contributions, why should i contribute at all. I think it will depress participation by people who cannot afford to write the large checks. We should vote. The caller is right about that. Corrupted bys been the money that will be flowing into these elections. Host what to make of these numbers . They report that in the 2012 election, an estimated 600 44 individuals donated the maximum amount allowed by law to candidates and Political Parties. About 60 of the money went to republican causes. The 93 point 4 million in contributions were a tiny fraction of the overall amount of money spent on elections. Roughly 1. 2 million americans made the nations of 200 or more in the 2012 election. Fore donations accounted 2. 8 billion dollars or 64 of the amount of money spent on the 2012 election. One of the key numbers in that story, 644 individuals who maxed out. Those of the people we were talking about earlier. Those of the folks that gave the 123,000 or so. They have every incentive to give more. They had the means to give more. I am concerned about a democracy the year people have of my members of congress. 640 four people can go to john boehner and say, i will write a Million Dollar or 2 million check to your party and to your members, but i really do not whatever tax issue, obamacare, what is whatever it is come to the floor of the house. That is a dangerous way to run our democracy. The First Amendment argument should cut both ways. Out myhecks are drowning voice as a small donor if i wanted to give 25 or 200. That is nothing. No one will Pay Attention to that. No one will notice that because thesebasically dwarfed by massive contributions. That is what concerns me about those numbers. Scalia wrote that if the First Amendment protects flagburning, funeral protest and not see parades, despite the offense, it protects Political Campaign speech despite popular opposition. Political Campaign Speech was alive and well before the mccutcheon case. That is what is so naive about the majoritys decision. Sean mccutcheon and everyone else is able to give 100 23,000, more than most people earn in a year. No political speech before yesterday. If mccutcheon wanted to give money to every single candidate, he could have given money to every single candidate in the Republican Party, just not the maximum amount. That is the only difference. What isng about being ignored by the majority is the political speech of the rest of us. 99. 9 of us do not have the means or the ability to make these large contributions. What about our speech . That is what is ignored by the majority of the court. Host both parties know how to play the game, and play they do. Obama has raised more money than anybody. There is always a way to get money. Calvin, what do you think . Caller the subject is interesting. Thank you for taking my call. I have two questions in a statement. Can you translate in laymans terms . What does this mean for state, local elections . Does it just impact congressional and senate races. My second question is, does this change in capping campaign removing the cap have to do with an africanamerican man in the white house . Is it race and gender specific . Host what you mean by that . Caller in the state of oregon, we have a number of women in wonderful leadership positions. There is a Good Old Boy Club that exist. They create these systematic race systems to create manufactured allegations and andst assault against women people of color in positions. Worried that we are going to have a woman president after obama . I would just say that i think this Supreme Court would be hostile to any Campaign Finance restrictions, no matter who was in office. They truly believe more money in politics is better and i dont think it has to do with race or gender. In my have to do more with wealth. Mightre interested it have to do more with wealth. I do think this court would have been hostile to these reforms, no matter who was in office. Question, it does impact state and local elections as well. Any caps now are illegal. If a state wanted to cap Campaign Contributions, they cannot do that. Host republican caller. Richardyou mentioned nixon, but you failed to mention obama using the irs to go after his political opponents. Fair, yougoing to be are going to have to mention both. Obama has a way of getting around this because he can sick that donate aple lot of money. He did that before the last election. The irs was focusing on conservative as well as leftleaning donors in their investigation. Way they went about their investigation, and this was into these nonprofit organizations that were engaging , and ition activities should investigate nonprofits that are engaging in election activities because nonprofits, taxexempt organizations. They get a benefit from the government. They should not be engaging in electoral politics. That is written in the law. To investigateht it. They went after certain groups in a clumsy and inappropriate way. There is no question. There has been no evidence of conspiracies or proof that the Obama Administration directed this. I support efforts that would rein in these nonprofits. Impact. A dangerous money can go secretly through nonprofits to affect our elections. I disagree with the caller and i think that we need to address that issue as well. There are two issues that we need to focus on, the direct. Ontributions from individuals host what about this point. It is not bribery if you are fully disclosing your backers. One should focus on being an informed voter. A billwe are championing that was introduced by senator kaine from maine. It should be introduced later this week. A bill thationing would require disclosure of these donations. If theyre 1000 or more, within 48 hours. We do not have that system. Right now, we have a system where we have to wait as much as three months after a contribution is given to find out who is donating to a candidate. With these milliondollar contributions potentially coming in, we want to know right away. I agree with the comment that you need to be an informed voter. There is no question about that. We do not have the laws to inshore that voters insure that voters are informed. The media has failed to report that those justices that allow bigmoney donors to ruin democratic voters practice as are all republican appointments. Is there any wonder why the country is living in ignorance . We are getting your thoughts. Your take on the Supreme Court 54 vote in lifting caps on campaign donations. Caller thank you for taking my call. It was a terrible decision. I am tired of them buying their way in. You have guys like Sheldon Adelson who wants to put up billions of dollars because he has an agenda of taking online betting away. The second, i want to make, i am sick and tired of turning my tv on and hearing republicans come out and all they talk about is repealing obamacare. It is here to stay. Instead of coming up with a solution to fix problems, their whole goal is to reveal obamacare. Put intothe democrats the senate, they all want to go against it. Hats anything the democrats want, the republicans want to go against it. Host here is a reaction from capitol hill yesterday from a couple of lawmakers. The Senate Majority leader tweeted this Citizens United was one of the first worst decisions. Todays ruling further drowns the voices of working americans. The minority leader for republicans in the house say that the First Amendment rights for americans is being protected by the courts decision. Pelosi they have chosen to pour even more money into our process and politics. We must restore fairness and pass the by the people act. Senator cruz said our democracy works better when the free speech rights of the citizenry are unfettered. Those are some reactions from capitol hill. Mary, alabama, independent caller. What is your take . Oregon, i was a lifelong democrat until 2008 when i supported hillary clinton. I was called a racist and so were the clintons. Now, all of a sudden, the democrats love mrs. Clinton. Am and independent thank you for removing me from my party of longstanding. Mrs. Pelosi, i appreciate being on before her. , they love their union money. Our president in the midst of the shooting at fort hood, fundraising in chicago at a 30,000 dollar a plate dinner. The night of benghazi, he was in las vegas with harry reid raising money after an ambassador was shot. Money means as much to the democrats as it does to the republicans. Host we got your point. Carol on twitter says the same thing. It is a myth that republicans have more. The role of them, are they impacted by this decision . Much. Not as it comes down to how much you can give. , theverage union worker average member of the union is not going to be able to give 1 million. This decision does not impact workers, except to the is extent except to the extent that they will be drowned out by the Million Dollars. This is a problem because both parties will do whatever they can to take advantage of this decision. They will raise as much money as they can in the largest chunks that they can. It is a bipartisan problem. The difference is that the democrats understand that this is a problem and hopefully will try to keep finding ways to address it.