Expectations especially in the wake of the bumpy roll fall. F the website in the that doesnt mean the battle is over. Obama care is not a success for those families who want to see the doctors that they want o see, not that washington wants them to see. Another week at the fights. All, Pete Williams of nbc news. Matea gold of the washington post. John dickerson of slate magazine news. Bs and jeff zeleny of abc news. Award winning reporting and analysis. Covering history as it happens. Live from our nations capital. His is Washington Week with gwen ifill. Orporate funding for washington pos Washington Week is providing by a simple d people question. How old is the oldest person you have known . We gave them a stick are and had us. Show we learned a lot of us have known somebody well into their great thing. Is a even though aware living longer one thing that hasnt changed retirement age. The question is, how do you make sure you have the money you need enjoy all of these years . Funding onal corporate for Washington Week is provided by boeing. Bringigham and womens hospital. The ional funding by annenberg foundation, corporation for public by dcasting and contributions to public pwraud k from viewers like you. From washington moderator gwen ifill. Gwen the Supreme Court doubled int its re week on a poeupb 54 majority has made. Money equals speech. If that is so the court said government cannot impose limits use cash to express political beliefs. This was not only a big legal a huge political one. It out take two to sort starting with Pete Williams. Did we see this coming . Did. Ne is not challenged you give up to 5,200 to any single candidate primary plus general. Is about how much you can give to all candidates put together. 5,200 gave a maximum of you could only give to nine. What the justices said during does this gument how make constitutional sense that you can give to nine but not 10. Showing their ed concern it seemed clear it was doomed. Gwen is this a question about at what point money corrupts . Money and ally about what the the reason is as you said it is protected speech. The Supreme Court said you can limit it only if theres a good purpose and limiting that purpose. But this decision said corruption means giving money a candidate in return for getting something specific. T said as long as that individual contribution stands, then you are not bribing that you give congress if to 100 other members of congress. What the minorities say is no, cramped a reading of what corruption is and you have to look at not corrupt being the corrupting the system. Hen you flood money in you create cynicism. The court ve seen chip away at laws for years. Does it have the immediate campaigns and candidates . This specific decision in impacts yourms only if you have the desire and means o spend more than 123,000 every two years giving to candidates and parties. It creates sense other avenues for big money to come into a system that is is brimming with cash. We have seen since Citizens United anded a havent of super pacs and active organizations of the ngly the Center Political energy right now and more ives wealthy people ways to give money to candidates and campaigns. It remains to be seen how many advantage of the new mechanism but i think for the sense onor it creates a that their voice is being washed out. You te, i want to ask about, were there things embedded in this. Roberts lk about john playing the long game and picking out not just what you described which is the immediate here but things he might do in the future. What can you read in this ruling that . Ells us about this definition of corruption is the key thing. What the past the court said direct contribution like bribery to limit n contributions but so is undue influence or the appearance of influence. The court set that aside. That is gone as a justification. Might mple, the court revisit the limits on soft money because as long as the contribution stands if you give money to political arties that is not to directly support a candidate how is that a problem. It could be used to challenge, example, the limitation right now the ban on unions tions from labor or corporations. That could be next. A h this very limited test lot of people might pass it. Loses . Wins or is it too simplified to say epublican candidates are going to come out been and democrats field . R even playing the first winners are clearly the political parties. A y now can raise money from lot more people than they could before. R. N. C. Why we saw the brought this with Sean Mccutchen ho was an alabama businessman behind the original case. Epublicans are outwardly jubilant and democrats inwardly. They dont want to dance on the finance campaign restriction but some democrats. Like they have more donors and could help them. Republicans really have huge rather, relatively huge numbers of incredibly wealthy people giving money to vehicles so ey democrats may be able to even the Playing Field a little. 3. 6 million. That was the most fascinating number. How is it someone can give that . If somebody created a joint Fundraising Committee with president ial candidate and all and all of the congressional candidates you could have one donor and one swoop to write a check for 3. 6 million. Eople discover at that will happen and takes a lot of coordination but people have incredibly creative about finding ways it write money. Wasnt that part of the dissent . There was there argument between roberts who wrote the Stephen Breyer because the main concern the in a administration defending the aggregate limit and it applied not only to how all you could give total to candidates but to all political pacs. And the Obama Administration said you could use the other routes channel more money to a candidate who would pass on to the candidate and parties and pacs and the Supreme Court said that is sheer speculation. There are not that many people. By the way it is about 600 people who maxed out the last election. Gwen i have very specific impact questions for each. Was in pennsylvania this week where there are already no limits on the amount you can give to a state campaign. There . Give anything there are 38 states thats the case but this ruling is federal candidates. Whether we are now going to see based on f challenges whatever state laws are left that do limit total contributions, thats another possibility. Gwen my specific question for you, if im Sheldon Adelson or eorge soros do i immediately get a bigger, fatter checkbook o start writing bigger checks or does it have no effect . I think it hits the middle playing a those stratospheric level. To the party out committees the rank and file bundlers we see for president ial will be hit up the hardest. Many of them are not too happy about there ruling. They were thrilled to get to this point because most in maxed could say im sorry. Now their phones are ringing off the hook. That has been a real, i think, interesting reaction. Caller i. D. Of money on of amount and transparency, is there a win for transparency here in this law maybe . There potentially is. Hat is why the momentum could shift from outside groups to inside the system where there is disclosure. Ment of if those folks give to the super sized committees they have to them which means we could see a little more about how big money impacts the system. Gwen and let me ask the sage question to you. Work . Ould that what is the courts intent . The saving that is grace. Thats what makes all of this ok ecause there will be this transparency. By the way, the majority opinion suggestions on how congress could make it better. For example, it said, members of ongress could make it illegal for a candidate to give money to other candidates campaigns so the transferring. They had a lot of helpful suggestions for congress. That any will be enacted is remote. One thing i heard somebody worked at a high level on the 2012 campaign they can give directly now. Sit around andto wondering if there is going to be a sugar daddy to save you. In the next president ial campaign is that the place we are really going to see the effects of this or will it play out in the mid sizing . F the super i think in the president ial e saw obama and romney create joint Fundraising Committees that took advantage of partnerships with states. There is a real divider for hard the campaigns can get a lower unit rate on buying television ads. Money can go further than a pac. R there is a lot of pessimism from people who look at this i wonder if the Supreme Court is eventually going it strike down all contribution limits. Thomas is the only member who right now is for that. Any other get takers. But a lot of folks say maybe that is where john roberts wants go. Gwen we will watch where john roberts goes becausening that is part to keep an eye on. Spring finally arrived for the white house this week. Probably hear them exhaling at 1600 pennsylvania numbers rolled in, 7. 1 million enrolled in the exchanges lth care and 3 million more qualified for medicaid. That y of the tall tales have been told by there law have been debunked. There are still no death panels. Hasnt arrived. Nstead, this law is helping millions of americans. And in the coming years it will more. Millions gwen it should be said the republicans are not buying there ust yet and it is possible it may be too soon. With your is a run me metaph metaphor. A lot more of this game it play. Gwen that is why they usually metaphors. Ts see me run it into the ground. 7. 1 million is big. That was the number they wanted from the get go before there troubles. One question at the heart of there before the web site failure was are people going to buy it. Will be put out there and will people sign up. The president was ratified in that. We have to remember how this game started. Here was a kickoff and the president s team ran into their own end zone and fumbled going to have to stop. In that regard this is a because of evement the two months the web site that was central to pushing this the fact he got 7. 1 million is a big deal. But there are a lot of questioning it. What is that 7. 1 million meaning . Who are they . What are they . Epublicans seem to say it is not necessarily a hard number. That is why this was a despite celebration everything i just said. For a number of reasons. Enrolling doesnt necessarily paid and some reporting suggests insurance ompanies say 15 to 20 who enrolled are not writing the check. The Insurance Companies care about who writes the check. The people healthy . Where do they live in the country . Ecause of the Way Insurance is spread around and the costs are figured. So, you have to answer those questions. Be other will questions like with the new people in the system will there e enough doctors and nurses to handle them. Gwen did they come out with a umber how many were newly insured . The goal is to insure a lot insurede not previously and not wreck the system. The roberted with johnson had a study 5. 6 million new people are ensured deal for one big of the original goals of the program. That is a good number for the president. We have to watch in may or spring and summer when the Nsurance Companies put out premiums and they will have done the math and seen the they live and where and how much it effects it. If you have a telethon and everybody calls in at the end, the last it hours. It would seem though with this people who really want insurance or want to avoid the penalties would get in early. Is this it . Will it be declining now . No, u would think so but people were running in at the last minute and there was a lot suggest many of them didnt know that this deadline was coming and when they did know they didnt want sign up, they were unsure about it. What is to come is there will be reasons. Bers for two if you sign up for medicaid and a lot of the signups are people for medicaid but they are woodwork people because they learned they were eligible for medicaid. Can sign up even though the federal exchanges are closed. Be some uninsured that will come from that. The administration has names and hone numbers and emails of people who tried to sign up but didnt. That gets them in under the wire tweaked theway they rules you can still sign up. So there might be additional numbers. Of people a number who signed up in the first burst will degree. Jurisdicti this was to be the landmark achievement of the Obama Administration what. And the way they h us. Led it tell they had three carries to figure it out and they had a traffic failure. The Obama Administration came in nd they said when there were various scandals we are focused on bigger things like implementing healthcare. Of obstacles, republicans were trying to stop them at every turn. A was not like they had placid three years of installing this. But there was a big management two months. Then with panic replacing the no put theeling them, they right people in place and cut to he quick and got through the bureaucratic fog and achieved million. What is at stake is whether the things. Nt can do big they did it but they did it under severe panic conditions. Gwen does that mean they are willing to kick the smaller mandateike the employer that they said for a long time was central and essential and tweaking it been around the edges. Will that eventually go away . Panic out the focusing you would not have necessarily maybe seen the white house throw of dead lanes or rules and they were doing it get to this number. Employer plan date for companies with more than 15 more than 100, that was delayed a year and a lot of people, one robert gibbs, thinks that is another thraeupg will get cast aside. The reason for having that was force companies to sign people up, give people insurance. If they dont, they pay a penalty. If that goes away that could pass by the way. Gwen i was wondering also in will on to that what happen next . When you stop and think about april 15 is ve got the next hard deadline, right . And we still dont know how many these Insurance Companies are going to be there for the long haul. And republicans have not given pushing back. We havent even gotten to the politics. Are thequestion is what premiums going to look like because they next not only the oliceman in the program but people in the program but the people not in the exchange and hey are the volatile group because they are the ones republicans have been talking to this is going to affect the healthcare i have and that is what scares them. Is there any way this is not toxic to the democrats now since able to mobile claim a victory . The best they can hope for is they are allowed to change the subject to talk about something else. The white house enjoyed a good week. We will give guy them this but the 2014is bracing for midterm. As lawmaker after lawmaker and committee ly major chairman opted to escape capitol hill. Two of the most significant are from michigan ways and means chairman and the Committee Chairman mike rogers but there are more both sides. Are they leaving because they can or have to . Yes to both. The reelections are in question because the house is drawn so safely. Is a rule that was 1995 right after the republican revolution that says chairman can only serve for six years. What we are seeing now these find en of the committees themselves not wanting to go back and lose their chairmanship and comes with staff bigger offices and more power so they decide they would rather and not or reelection be in the house at all. A former s, he was f. B. Gent and was on the Intel Committee on sun talk shows and he will have his own Radio Program talking about national issues. He has bigger ambitions so he is visible. But staying visible. But so many big names are and it isn the senate changing the complexion of capitol hill. Reason for the limiting chairmanships and are republicans pretty happy about it it . It was an example of saying were going to sweep out the change how washington works, we are not going to stay around a long time. Has only come up a couple idea of to revisit the getting rid of it but the rank and file wont visit that ecause it gives them a chance to be chairman but it has centralized power in the house particularly among the leaders. Speaker boehner has much more power under this but speaking of etirement that is the one person we are still sort of thinking about wondering what he is going to do. A lot of his friends are among these retiring. E said he is not going to but some people are not quite sure if that is a final decision. That condo in florida. He likes to golf. But that is one thing. And there is no sixyear limit for a speaker. Theres not. The house and senate have lots of younger members they by the old rules. Er . L it get mean e the guys been around now gone so many new use senators, more than half of the elected in the last four years, really, four to five years. Incredible gwen that is supposed to be good when they talk about term this and that is what limit on chairman came the idea as fresh blood, people get stuck and calcified and lose contact with constituents. Maybe there is something good about this turnover. I think there is a lot to be the argument that new fresh voices come in. Ut theres an institutional memory that has slipped away and institutional feeling there and f you talk to members on both sides they miss toes days. Everyone misses the old days but coming of these members in want to govern. Hey want to stop things from happening. It is a very interesting system. Does this mean that congress is no longer looked at as a place where people want to go to run . Ve things for the long is it just a stopping point along the way to another career . Talk show career. Unbelievable. The senate is a club of 100, exclusive club. Mike rogers and dave camp cover senate for michigan levin is at senator retiring but the senate still is not viewed as one of the top places to be. It is not much that happens there. You see several people retiring one term. The senator from nebraska. The other day if it is so much more fun being a as much as not happening. Gwen things end at your desk. Is trueonder whether it that we will be focusing on the talking about camp and rogers but democrats are fleeing as well. John dingell. Gwen the question is whether in 2014 anyone is worried about the majority. A certain crats of age who have been there quite a while are retiring knowing that will not be around long enough for democrats to reclaim the house majority. All of this lk in Midterm Election fuss of the house having any credible chance going back into democratic hands. Leaving. Hy so many are is there any open seats from any of the retirements or does change the midterm picture . It is not changing the middle term picture. Are key open races. Open arken from iowa, his seat is interesting. Gwen i have a soft spot for iowa. Jeff always mentions iowa. The ve to stop for now but conversation will continue on line on the Washington Week web consist where among other we will talk about the senate c. I. A. Torture report. At 8 30 ams live long. Rn or all welcome also on line my trip outside the eltway that moves why so many pundits are wrong with you. Keep up with daily victims with the pbs dy woodruff on news hour. E will see you next week here on Washington Week. Ga good night. Funding for ent Washington Week is provided by amazing one of the most things we build and it doesnt even fly. In classrooms and exhibit halls mentoring innovate doctors, aising roofs, preserving habitats an serving american veterans. Every day thousands of phone help make their communities the best they can be building Something Better for all of us. Funding for Washington Week is provided by prudential prudential, brigham and womens hospital, additional funding is annenberg y the foundation, the corporation for public broadcasting, and by to pbs stations from viewers like you. Thank you. Next on kqed newsroom, new developments in the leland yee saga and reaction from the chineseamerican community. The highs and lows of the cannabis industry, documented in the new book, weed land. Its going to be a long while before marijuana is going to be a reward issue for politicians. Plus, poking fun at the culture of silicon valley. If you want to live here, youve got to deliver. Like steve. Jobs or wozniak . Steve jobs or steve no, i heard you. Which one . Jobs. Jobs was a poser. He didnt even write code