Citizen Koch

And speaking of President Obama,

I think we ought to pay tribute to him today

on this Tax, Day Tea Party

because really he's the inspiration

for why we're here today.

That's right. The Tea Party Movement

wouldn't exist without Barack Obama.

Madison,

when the history of this Tea Party Movement is written,

what you accomplished here will not be forgotten.

God has shed His grace on thee, America.

We will not squander what we have.

We will fight for America!

And it starts here in Madison, Wisconsin!

It starts here!

It starts now!

Mr. President, game on!

Yes we can! Yes we can!

-Congratulations, Mr. President. -Thank you, sir.

Mr. President, I want to believe,

I want to trust.

I want to hope for change,

but I am really failing to see how this is any different.

He's not going to succeed.

We have to bend over, grab the angles,

bend over forward, backward, whichever

because his father was black

because this is the first black president.

Not a single Republican joined the majority Democrats tonight.

-Honeymoon is over. -Is it done?

There's a lot of wife beating going on.

Is President Obama's handling of the troubled economy

a signal that we are creeping towards socialism?

They got czars in the White House.

Joseph Stalin without the bloodshed.

Communist, the Marxist, they're taking over.

U.S.A.! U.S.A.! U.S.A.!

Today is the beginning of the grassroots movements

to take back this country.

My brother, Charles and I

provided the funds to start the Americans for Prosperity.

And it's beyond my wildest dreams how AFP has grown.

The largest tax day tea party in the nation.

You can join the tea party action

Kill the bill! Kill the bill! Kill the bill!

The Democrats call those folks a mob,

crazy, even worse, I call them patriots.

I agree.

It's about patriotism.

He's not a natural born citizen.

He's surrounding himself with people of his own kind.

This president, I think, has a deep-seated hatred

for white people.

Thanks to millions of Americans who stepped up in town halls

and tea parties across this country.

He is not going to get his way.

He brought a gun to a meeting

the president held today on healthcare.

Was your gun loaded today?

Ah, wow,

who would be silly enough to carry an unloaded firearm?

This is the beginning of taking our nation back.

We're going to take back our government,

we can do it in Wisconsin and by God

we are going to do it all across America.

Oye Oye Oye.

All persons having business before the honorable,

the Supreme Court of the United States

are admonished to draw near and give their attention

for the court is now sitting.

God saves United States and this honorable court.

You'll hear re-argument this morning in Citizens United

versus the Federal Election Commission.

General Kagan.

Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the court.

For over a hundred years, Congress has made a judgment

that corporations must be subject to special rules

when they participate in elections

and this court has never questioned that judgment.

Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait.

We never questioned it, but we never approved it either.

The Citizens United case arose

out of a movie made a right wing group

Citizens United partially funded by corporate donations

denouncing Hillary Clinton.

It was made at a time when she was viewed

as the leading Democratic candidate for president.

Ruthless, vindictive.

Venal, sneaky.

Ideological, intolerant.

Liar is a good one.

Scares the hell out of me.

I think anybody watching that movie would walk away

with the clear impression

that the moviemakers were trying to urge you

not to vote for her.

If you thought you knew everything

about Hillary Clinton,

wait until you see the movie.

They called it Hillary The Movie

to ensure that their advertisements

would have to name a federal candidate.

Congress said, if you are running an ad about a candidate

and you're close to the election,

you can't have corporate funding,

you can't have union funding

and you have to list the donors behind those ads.

This provides the voters with important information

that they are entitled to know about before the election.

Would it expedite the visibility of this movie

if you were to simply comply with the disclosure

and disclaimer law?

Well, we would suffer damage if we did that.

We would not get contributors

who want to contribute to the film,

to contribute to the advertising of the film.

If we agree to disclosing our donors.

Have you actually gotten an expressed concern from donors

or it's just kind of a theoretical principal

that you're standing on?

No, we have expressed concerns.

Jim Bopp has been bringing test cases

of trying to push the law back

and have less regulation.

You can even buy a Democrat congressman for $2500.

The anecdotal evidence is that it takes $99,000

in cold hard cash.

He decided that there was an opportunity with Citizens United

to challenge the requirement

that the sources of funding of a film like that

that advocated the election or defeat

of a federal candidate

had to be reported to the Federal Election Commission.

The case went to the Supreme Court

and there were five justices ready to say,

this isn't the disclosure case,

this is really about whether corporate money can be spent,

we think that there is nothing wrong

with spending corporate money

to advocate the elect defeat of a candidate.

And the four justices in the minority said,

"Wait a minute, that hasn't even been briefed in this case."

The court said, we want you to re-argue this case

and argue it bigger.

So that was a bit surprising...

It was very surprising.

It's a very unusual thing for the court to do

and it's very activist.

Hillary The Movie never made it to theaters,

but it's getting a showing this week

in front of the United States Supreme Court.

Here is the issue.

Is it legal to restrict corporate spending

on political campaigns?

Mr. Olson.

Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the court.

Robust debate about candidates for elective office

is the most fundamental value

protected by the First Amendment's guarantee

of free speech.

Yet that is precisely the dialogue

that the government has prohibited

if practiced by unions or corporations.

Mr. Olson, are you taking the position

that there is no difference in the First Amendment Rights

of an individual?

A corporation after all is not endowed by its creator

with an inalienable rights.

I had attended the oral argument with Senator McCain,

we sat together and watched it,

and we were very concerned.

There are certain judges who are alleging that somehow

corporations have the same rights as citizens.

I don't accept that premise.

In Citizens United versus the FEC,

Justice Kennedy has the opinion of the court.

First Amendment protection extends to corporations.

Political speech is indispensable to decision making

in a democracy and this is no less true

because the speech comes from a corporation

rather than an individual.

Senator McConnell leaned over to me once or twice

and said that, is this...is this a very broad opinion,

and I said it's about as broad as it could be.

The Supreme Court is supposed to give

the narrowest possible ruling to resolve the question.

Instead, the court just went off the charts.

I was standing outside the court,

I was really shocked.

I was shocked at the arrogance of the court,

I was shocked at the fact that they thought

corporations were people.

The court said that as long as it's independent spending,

it can't be corrupting.

Give the money directly to the candidate,

you can't give more than $2500 per election.

Give the money to this super pack out there

that is advancing the goals of the same candidate

and you can give an unlimited amount of money

and some folks are giving millions.